How is a second DAC in the chain contributing to better sound quality.
In a chain where a PC or phone is the source, how is an additional DAC bettering the quality when the source is already converting the signal from digital to analog?
I just don't get it........
Well for starters the Bifrost isn't a "second" nor "additional" DAC because once you hook that up it becomes the first and only DAC in the audio chain, bypassing the PC or phone DAC. DAC means
digital to analogue converter. The PC or phone DAC doesn't
convert
digital to
analogue at all because you can't DAC an already DACed signal, primarly because you already C'd the D into an A so how do you C from D to A an already A signal.
Think of it this way. When you hook up a BluRay or gaming console with BluRay to an HDTV via HDMI your HDTV's video DAC is handling the conversion and the HDTV's processor is handling upscaling if needed, not the player's, regardless of whether you're using one that has analogue component video out or not because...well...
you're using HDMI, which only outputs video.
Same thing with USB and SPDIF (
Sony-
Philips
Digital Inter
face). That only handles analogue audio (unless you just used the connectors and wired it up to an analogue circuit on both ends; or you use a dongle with DAC chip inside). You can't even DAC on the motherboard then send it out via USB or SPDIF, because the latter is literally a digital interface not analogue, so how do you even C from D to A then hand over the A signal to get C'd to A when it's not even a D.
DACs don't work like Adobe where you not only use the RTX x0x0 chip on the PCI-E slot but you can use both the UHD620 on the CPU to make the video render faster. The closest thing to multiple DACs is multiple DAC chips on the same DAC device, like DAC units that use two DACs in parallel so that the digital processor hands off L and R signals to each DAC and have the signals separate at the digital stage and old DACs that use four or eight in series not to process faster as Adobe does with Intel integrated graphics and NVidia/Radeon GPUs, but more like ECC memory (ex high end NOS DACs). Both were useful back when channel separation and computing on old DAC chips could be improved by such circuits. Modern DACs don't really need either. Kind of like how we both used to have SLI and Crossfire or Crossfire with two GPU chips on the same card (7990X if I remember correctly) for gaming but now a single RTX 3070 can handily beat older SLI and Crossfire set ups (assuming your game's developers even bothered to support SLI or Crossfire) on 1% lows if not total average (because you only have one chip with 8gb memory instead of two chips running slower 4gb...no, even with two graphics cards, you're only accessing the memory on the card closer to the CPU, which is also the one jammed up against the other card making it problematic for thermals as well).
This maybe a bit late, since I already own a Schiit Bifrost 2. But still, I don't understand how a high end digital to analog converter is required to maximize the listening experience since my PC or phone already have a built in DAC.
Doesn't need to be high end like Audionote or Wadia or whatever.
For the most part you get the DAC to get a better analogue output stage (not even the DAC itself) with better circuitry (regardless of whether it uses discrete, op amps, or even tubes) that isn't also designed to try to run headphones instead of just a plain 2V (4V on balanced drive) line output.
Once you get past a decent, basic DAC you hit diminishing returns and for the most part the upgrades can have less to do with better sound than
1. More digital inputs
2. Additional analogue output (Meier has the preamp output on the DAC so you don't have to switch the headphone amp on to control speakers; some AudioGD DACs also have a preamp so you have the same option, including for speaker set ups where there is no auxiliary headphone to begin with)
3. Balanced output if you have a balanced amp, so you get it the full 4V signal that these circuits can handle (SE can be pushed much higher but at that point it's like a single setting active preamp and adds noise; case in point my SuperPro 707, or some Pioneer and Eclipse receivers that you don't crank up at the front anyway other than if you compete in bass competitions because noise)
I mean, I've used my Meier Cantate.2's PCM2702 DAC for years with my Android and the top end is still smoother with that compared to hooking up an IEM direct to the phone (lots of other variables though) despite the newer 24/96 audio chip (I try to not call it a DAC because it has a headphone driver circuit integrated; so basically it's like an APU and IEMs are kind of like playing emulator or low spec games) on the smartphone for a decade. It wasn't until some schizz on Android that again ended up with not recognizing a USB DAC (plus my phones already screwing up and newer phones tend to not have 3.5mm audio jacks) that I got a Hidizs AP80. That uses an integrated audio chip too and line out setting on it is just cranking it up (but to 2V; manually cranking it up exceeds either 2V or the audible noise limit) but the sound is practically the same as the PCM2702 on my Cantate.2 (and whatever 24/96 DAC is in my back up amp, the Pangea HP101).
