[elgoog]

Why do people insist on using $500 precious metal cables that transmit using analog rather than use $20 Toslink cables that use digital signals? The digital signal will not degradate over the cable length, and all you would need at the other end is a A/D convertor, which would probably cost less than $500.

 

[JahJahBinks]

I think you made a self-contradiction. You said we should transmit digital instead of analog, then you said something about A/D, do you mean D/A?

 

[Tim D]

Because "For Digital" headphones or speakers really do not include built in D/A convertors as advertised?

Or because proper implementation of a D/A convertor crammed with the amplifier, and crammed with the headphone/speaker is either not mature enough to be cheap or good? Or if these all-in-one devices are good they are usually insanely expensive?

 

[JahJahBinks]

Amplifers are designed to amplify analog signal. If you want a CD player to output digital signal to an amp, that means the amp must have a build in DAC, then I guess you wouldn't call it just an amp anymore. I think for high-end audio, there are dedicated DAC machines, so eventually you still end up sending analog signal.

Also you don't want to have DAC inside a speaker do you?

 

[Tim D]

Well, digital-amplifier technology is emerging...so one answer as to why we aren't just using digital would be that we have the terrible misfortune of living in the present, as opposed to 5 years from now. But if you want that technology now it will cost only about $10k+...which is a little more than $500.

 

[JahJahBinks]

Hehe, but it's a good way to stimulate the US economy.

 

[Gergor]

Quote:

Originally posted by elgoog The digital signal will not degradate over the cable length

The issue of D/A down the chain aside. The argument of digital signal does not degradate is in itself a wrong statement. In fact, the bandwidth requirment for a digital cable is much higher than analog in order to preserve the sharp rise and fall time of the digital pulse as much as possible.

 

[JahJahBinks]

How good are CAT-6 cables?

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

if you want that technology now it will cost only about $10k+...which is a little more than $500.

Products that are less expensive are here and now, but still admittedly rare. At the high end, the Grace 901 amp has a pretty nice DAC. My new (1 day old) Benchmark DAC1 has a decent amp built in, which I am enjoying so far. And there is a portable amp/DAC device on the near horizon, or so I read anyway. There range from ~$1300, to $795, to <$500(?) respectively - the first two of which are available now. Others have been announced to come out in the coming months. Mostly pro-audio market stuff though.

And if you want SACD compatibility, you will have to wait longer.

 

[elgoog]

Why not build an amp with a D/A chip?
And besides, why are all the D/A convertors all of you mentioned so expensive? PCDPs have D/A chips, yet even a moderately good one costs well under $500. A lot of MD players have optical connects too, and the ones I've looked at cost $300 max.

 

[elgoog]

Quote:

...bandwidth requirment for a digital cable is much higher than analog in order to preserve the sharp rise and fall time of the digital pulse as much as possible.

True, but it should be manageable even with today's average-joe technology. Take some Cat5 cable, and you can get a 100Mbps (megabits per sec) connection over it fairly cheaply, which is equivalent to 12.5 MBps (megaBytes per sec). A far shot from CD quality, which is 160kbps, IIRC. DVD-Audio is definitely within its limits too.

And then, of course, there are those gigabit connections possible over fiber.

 

[mlchang]

Quote:

Originally posted by jpelg Products that are less expensive are here and now, but still admittedly rare. At the high end, the Grace 901 amp has a pretty nice DAC. My new (1 day old) Benchmark DAC1 has a decent amp built in, which I am enjoying so far. And there is a portable amp/DAC device on the near horizon, or so I read anyway. There range from ~$1300, to $795, to <$500(?) respectively - the first two of which are available now. Others have been announced to come out in the coming months. Mostly pro-audio market stuff though.

I think he meant digital amplification not amplifier/DAC combos.
Things like the TacT Millenium

 

[jpelg]

Oh...I get it now...uh...never mind

!

TimD understood it correctly from the beginning (sorry).

 

[andrzejpw]

Quote:

Originally posted by elgoog Why not build an amp with a D/A chip? And besides, why are all the D/A convertors all of you mentioned so expensive? PCDPs have D/A chips, yet even a moderately good one costs well under $500. A lot of MD players have optical connects too, and the ones I've looked at cost $300 max.

Amps that integrate the dac exist: check out aos's PDAC. Its added complexity may not be for some though. . .

Have you ever considered the fact that all D/A convertors are not created equal? I'm not sure, but perhaps

the more expensive chips do a better job?

I have to say elgoog: posting with such an attitude in this forum is not the best way to make new friends. . .

note: I apoligize if I'm reading you wrong.

 

[Tim D]

Not all amps are equal either...which is why a $99 dollar receiver with digital inputs isn't going to show you much advantage of having shorter analog paths. And there is still an analog section in these PCDP's and receivers that get amplified in analog domain. It is only the digital amplifiers that are digital all the way through til the fully amplified analog output.

It's like asking why not just plug your headphones into the PCDP headphone jack since you don't need any analog interconnects IMO.