[zantetsuken]

Yeah, isnt a source component where your music comes from? so like a computer or a cd player etc?.

just curious.

 

[PhilS]

Well, a computer or a CD player has both a transport and a DAC, and the DAC influences the sound the most, so it's not surprising that people consider a stand alone DAC as a source component. Does that make sense? Or did I miss the import of your question?

 

[zantetsuken]

a transport is just something that moves digital sound from one place to another right?. then yes that makes sense =D

thanks for that.

 

[selkin]

okay, it's not the main source, but from the receiver's point of view, it is a source (a secondary though but still)

 

[lamikeith]

A computer or CD player contain two basic components:

1. The source of the digital data
2. The Digital to Analog Converter (DAC)

The source can simply be thought of as that device which converts digital to audio. For many of us, the "source" is the DAC, be it a stand alone component, or simply part of the digital source device. A simple example would be a CD player or iPod; both source digital data and output an analog signal. A more complex example is a stand-alone DAC (e.g. Benchmark DAC1 or Cambridge DAC Magic) which accepts digital input (from an external CD transport, HD radio, computer, etc.) and converts to analog output.

 

[gregorio]

This is quite strange to me. Professionally, the term "source" means the originally recorded tracks. Even a CD itself is not the source of the digital data, it is mearly the distribution media, someone had to record the digital data in the first place, mix it and put it on to the CD.

G

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Source would be, in this context, source of analog signal? This would work for DACs and TTs.

 

[lamikeith]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is quite strange to me. Professionally, the term "source" means the originally recorded tracks. Even a CD itself is not the source of the digital data, it is mearly the distribution media, someone had to record the digital data in the first place, mix it and put it on to the CD.

Perspective is important, so please allow me to clarify. The "source" can be which ever part of the recording/playback chain we wish to call the source: musicians, microphones, mixing board, master tape, digital distribution media (CD, SACD, streaming digital audio, etc.), DAC, amplifier, or speakers/headphones. We end listeners likely have no control over the recording side of the chain, therefore, we can only control from the point after the "digital distribution media", which is the DAC.

 

[zantetsuken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamikeith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perspective is important, so please allow me to clarify. The "source" can be which ever part of the recording/playback chain we wish to call the source: musicians, microphones, mixing board, master tape, digital distribution media (CD, SACD, streaming digital audio, etc.), DAC, amplifier, or speakers/headphones. We end listeners likely have no control over the recording side of the chain, therefore, we can only control from the point after the "digital distribution media", which is the DAC.

yeah exactly. ive made another thread about this but got no reply, but what are the differences in the electronics between cheaper and expensive dacs?. i.e a $100, $1000 and $2000+. if i were to open it up what would i find that would be different? im talking about typical dacs.

im no electronics wizz so keep it as layman as possible.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamikeith /img/forum/go_quote.gif Perspective is important, so please allow me to clarify. The "source" can be which ever part of the recording/playback chain we wish to call the source: musicians, microphones, mixing board, master tape, digital distribution media (CD, SACD, streaming digital audio, etc.), DAC, amplifier, or speakers/headphones. We end listeners likely have no control over the recording side of the chain, therefore, we can only control from the point after the "digital distribution media", which is the DAC.

I understand the perspective but I question the wisdom of it's use, here's my reasoning:

1. The term "source" is already used in the world of audio. "Go back to the source" is a phrase used in recording studios and more commonly in audio post (film & TV sound) and means go back to the original recording, IE. Before any processing or editing.

2. Surely, by definition, a Digital to Analogue Converter cannot be a "source". Doesn't it seem illogical to use the word "source"? Doesn't the very existance of a converter implicitely imply that it needs some sort of source material to convert and therefore can't be the source itself?

3. Why choose to use a term which is already used in the audio world (with a different meaning) which is likely, at some point, to cause confusion?

4. Am I managing to write this post while keeping a perfectly straight face? Nearly

Seriously though, from my perspective, it does seem a bit silly

G

 

[zantetsuken]

@gregorio, thats what i thought, that its a mere converter the original source file comes from elsewhere.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by zantetsuken /img/forum/go_quote.gif yeah exactly. ive made another thread about this but got no reply, but what are the differences in the electronics between cheaper and expensive dacs?. i.e a $100, $1000 and $2000+. if i were to open it up what would i find that would be different? im talking about typical dacs. im no electronics wizz so keep it as layman as possible.

I'm not surprised no one has answered you, because I don't think many could, in layman's terms. The short answer is better quality components and better quality craftsmanship in a more expensive DAC. But I take this answer as a given, and that you were probably looking for something more specific. The problem is that much of what goes on in a DAC is on motherboards and computer chips. So the differences between DACs is, to a fair degree, about the computer chips and the many different processes they perform. It takes specialist knowledge to understand that stuff and some of the processes are trade secrets anyway!

G

 

[zantetsuken]

hahaz thanks for trying tho, i suppose i wudnt understand it anyway even if someone bothered.

time to go do electical engineering.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregorio /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why choose to use a term which is already used in the audio world (with a different meaning) which is likely, at some point, to cause confusion?

It seem that certain terms come to have a different meaning, or a broader meaning, in day-to-day usage, even though they may not be completely accurate or technically precise. People commonly use the term "source" on Head-Fi to refer to DAC's without much confusion, I think. I'm sure there are many other examples one could think of in this field and others if we gave it enough thought.

P.S. I'm flying to Pittsburgh next week. Although, actually, it's not me that will be "flying";but the plane, and I'll just be riding in it.

 

[gregorio]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif It seem that certain terms come to have a different meaning, or a broader meaning, in day-to-day usage, even though they may not be completely accurate or technically precise. People commonly use the term "source" on Head-Fi to refer to DAC's without much confusion, I think. I'm sure there are many other examples one could think of in this field and others if we gave it enough thought. P.S. I'm flying to Pittsburgh next week. Although, actually, it's not me that will be "flying";but the plane, and I'll just be riding in it.

Well if it this use of "source" doesn't cause confusion; why have six differnt people come up with six different explanations and why does this thread even exist??

G