In Reply to: Nice post... posted by rick_m on January 9, 2011 at 14:47:49:
Howdy
Thanks.
It would be nice if some of the "standard" audio interfaces were replaced with sane/well-engineered interfaces. But downward (or backward) compatibility also has many benefits - it's another of those compromises.
I originally didn't have any PCM interfaces on my DAC but one day I woke up and realized that I had plenty of extra pins on the FPGA so I "graphed" on DSD ST glass, TOSLink, S/PDIF and AES/EBU inputs. Then dealing with these signals was a software problem and I can deal with those :)
Even if I were designing a DAC from scratch and intending to market it I'd probably still meet essentially the same interfaces: for a while it'll still be more useful to most people to have TOSLink, S/PDIF, AES/EBU, USB Audio 1.0 and other "legacy" interfaces than a random custom "perfect" interface. If I can get my jitter susceptibility to near that of which a "perfect" interface could provide, so much the better.
I also suspect that even if I were to decide to allow myself to use some custom software on the PC and a custom "perfect" hardware interface I'd still have essentially the same results by using some software to carefully downsample any 24/196 to 24/96 (or 176.4 to 88.2) and use a standard hardware interface and apply my creative energy elsewhere. Beyond a certain point, if time or money matter, there are more important things that absolute sample rates. (I know that marketing concerns would tend to a different direction.)
One thing I do know for certain is that every time I listen to music it's so relaxing and involving that I don't get much work done :)
-Ted
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Thanks - Ted Smith 16:06:33 01/09/11 (3)
- RE: Thanks - rick_m 17:36:11 01/09/11 (2)
- RE: Thanks - Ted Smith 19:41:51 01/09/11 (1)
- RE: Thanks - rick_m 09:42:09 01/10/11 (0)