explain a dac to me
Mar 20, 2006 at 6:49 AM Post #16 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Svperstar
That may not be the case. I know the highest end Audigy 4 has a nice CS DAC on it. The same DAC is sold by Headroom for like $299.


can anyone confirm/refute this?
 
Mar 20, 2006 at 6:49 PM Post #18 of 28
tongue.gif
DAC MATH
tongue.gif


DIGITAL SOURCE + DAC + AMP + PHONES =
eggosmile.gif
580smile.gif
etysmile.gif
orphsmile.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif


tongue.gif
HEAD-FI MATH
tongue.gif


HEAD-FI - $$$$$ =
very_evil_smiley.gif
very_evil_smiley.gif
very_evil_smiley.gif
very_evil_smiley.gif
icon10.gif
icon10.gif
tongue.gif
 
Mar 20, 2006 at 7:33 PM Post #19 of 28
I can't say "dramatic" difference, although, "different" is probably a better word to use than "better". I would feel myself to be an inadequate audiophile to tell you the difference though.

If your gonna take the time to read this board a lot, but have a sensitive wallet. I would take the conservative approach and spend the time redoing your music files (at least those that you own or have access to the CDs for) to a lossless format.

I find my Spitfire to be only nominally better than the 1212m output. If you have a sound card you can live with for now, save your money for a more expensive DAC if you are looking for a dramatic improvement. DACs keep getting better and less expensive.
 
Mar 20, 2006 at 9:22 PM Post #20 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by yellafella321
can anyone confirm/refute this?


Remember - implementation is key. You could put the worlds best DAC chip in a unit that has a very poor power and analog section and it will sound like total crap.
 
Mar 21, 2006 at 9:15 PM Post #22 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by twc5964
ok...I'm currently encoding certain music folders to wma lossless(quality 100,96khz,2ch,24 bit vbr..as high as my sound card allows) and comparing the same to wma pro 440.....man,I'm so far behind the times....I never paid attention to lossless encoding until now.

So,your impressed with the Dac-ah ? You have some Klaus components..lucky you ! I've got so much more research to do on Dacs etc.....thank god for this site .



Don't encode to 96kHz - encode to 44.1kHz for cd audio. CD Audio is 44.1kHz, encoding at 96kHz won't improve the sound - it will degrade it.
 
Mar 22, 2006 at 7:57 AM Post #24 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Svperstar
That may not be the case. I know the highest end Audigy 4 has a nice CS DAC on it. The same DAC is sold by Headroom for like $299.


Actually 4 of them.

jiitee
 
Mar 22, 2006 at 8:05 AM Post #25 of 28
What DAC chip is used has little to do with sound quality.
Power supply and jitter rejection are extremely important, and so all other factors in analog circuit design.
People can take dinosaur-age 16-bit DAC chips from the 1980's and design a super hi-end DAC, and it's called Zanden and jaw-dropping expensive.
 
Mar 22, 2006 at 8:14 AM Post #26 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose
What DAC chip is used has little to do with sound quality.
Power supply and jitter rejection are extremely important, and so all other factors in analog circuit design.
People can take dinosaur-age 16-bit DAC chips from the 1980's and design a super hi-end DAC, and it's called Zanden and jaw-dropping expensive.



Yeah, and that would be just for audiophiles, to the same ones, who're willing to pay 3000$ for wooden knobs for their amplifier to "get better" sound out from their 100000$ system
580smile.gif
<-- (wondering, if the piece on top of the head is a bass reflex speaker?)

But as for an example, Audigy 4 Pro and X-Fi Elite Pro are equipped with quite good quality compnents, but the utilization is poor (maybe on purpose).

jiitee
 
Mar 22, 2006 at 9:49 AM Post #27 of 28
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferbose
What DAC chip is used has little to do with sound quality.
Power supply and jitter rejection are extremely important, and so all other factors in analog circuit design.
People can take dinosaur-age 16-bit DAC chips from the 1980's and design a super hi-end DAC, and it's called Zanden and jaw-dropping expensive.



Yup, I agree.
tongue.gif
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top