Emu 404 usb vs Keces 151 usb

[Enthusia]

I haven't really found any threads comparing these dacs, but can anybody with experience explain which is the better buy and why?

 

[CSMR]

They are not DACs. They are both soundcards, which is more than a DAC. In the case of the E-MU, a lot more.
What you should get depends on what you need.

 

[TheMarchingMule]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are not DACs. They are both soundcards, which is more than a DAC. In the case of the E-MU, a lot more. What you should get depends on what you need.

Uh...what? They're DACs.

Back to the OP: the KECES-151 is said to be a significant difference than the E-MU, and many more other DACs (including the Pico). Do read this huge thread (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f46/re...s-burn-297021/) because there are comparisons aplenty in that thread.

 

[Dutchess of York]

maybe a semi-dumb question but:

a CD is burned lossless into your computer, you hook up your USB DAC to bypass the sound card in your computer so you lossless files files go directly to your amp (semi) unmolested for near direct CD quality?

I just started doing some DAC research and seems like most of them come with alot of unnecessary (for me) crap, or am i misunderstanding the DACs?

 

[tjumper78]

emu0404 works as a usb dac and it has many other features (including a built-in amp) which may or may not be useful for you.
da151 has only one function which is being a usb dac, and it's a great one at that.
i had both, and da151's sound was better in every aspect if you ask me. emu0404's sound didnt please me, it was ugly, and had too many unnecessary functions (for me).

 

[CSMR]

A DAC converts a digital audio stream to analog. For example a standalone DAC which converts spdif to analog out, or an internal dac chip of a sound card which converts maybe i2s to analog.

A sound card uses a computer interface (USB, PCI, etc.) to communicate (not via a digital audio stream) with a computer and inputs and outputs various digital and analog signals.

It is disappointing that experienced members here do not know this.

Now some marketing departments have produced products that they call usb dacs. They do this because "usb dac" suggests to buyers something like a standalone dac with connotations of high premiums and high-end setups.
(Some diyers do this too but they are just having fun and being creative with language.)

However if it interfaces with a PC then it is a sound card (yes, even if it is not shaped like a card).

This is standard usage of terms which we should stick to so that new people are not confused by the terms dac and sound card. You can see this confusion in recent posts in this forum.

If you want a computer to produce analog out and do not want integrated audio you should use a sound card of some sort.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR /img/forum/go_quote.gif However if it interfaces with a PC then it is a sound card (yes, even if it is not shaped like a card).

I wouldn't say that at all...


Sound cards are geared towards multimedia applications, or at the very least have an ADC stage of some sort.

 

[glitch39]

yes, they are absolutely both DACs, although in XP or Vista they both show up as usb soundcards

 

[CSMR]

It is no more a USB DAC than a CD player is a CD DAC or a digital piano is a keyboard DAC.

 

[hdkhang]

By that logic...

All sound cards with Analog ouputs are DACs...

All Receivers are DACs

In fact, any device which converts digital to analog is by that logic... a DAC!

I would have hoped that people on a specialised forum would be able to understand the differences.

The way I understand it (correct me if I am wrong). a device which interfaces with a PC for the purposes of using the computer as a transport (whether feeding the device LPCM or bitstream or even MIDI) is a sound card by definition. For instance, the Benchmark DAC1 USB would be considered a sound card (despite not really looking like a card at all). That it can process a digital signal directly via SPDIF also makes it a DAC (in the sense that many of you are calling devices DACs).

Not having recording facilities does not disqualify a product as being a sound card, early sound cards were missing these features.

Pro sound cards are commonly referred to as "audio interfaces", but despite this they still fit under the broad umbrella term "sound card" or as some prefer to call it "audio card".

Sound card is an outdated term since PC audio devices (which is what I would rather call them - and yes MACs are PCs) include internal interfaces, onbard audio, USB, firewire, PCMCIA etc.

The point is, to say the devices mentioned in this thread are "not" sound cards is incorrect IMO.

 

[CSMR]

Exactly

 

[Redo]

A sound card (also known as an audio card) is a computer expansion card that facilitates the input and output of audio signals to/from a computer under control of computer programs.

(wiki definition)

In the simplest sense, a DAC is a digital to audio converting microchip. Alternatively, an ADC is an analogue to digital converting microchip.

There are terms around Head-Fi and the audio world abroad to classify different things in different categories. It does no good to argue a USB DAC is actually a sound card and a professional recording audio interface is a sound card, all one and the same broad general term. There are different classifications based on different implementations based on the goals of the different units.

Now let us stop debating semantics, it achieves absolutely nothing.

 

[Enthusia]

Thanks for hijacking the thread CSMR and I bet you don't even have any clue which "Dac" is better.

 

[CSMR]

Hello this is the second line in my first reply to the thread: "What you should get depends on what you need."
You have not specified that (ease of use, how many output channels, how many inputs, of what sort, software features) and so there is no answer to your question at this point.

 

[montell]

Got my answer. Thanks