|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.148.228.66
In Reply to: Re: USB DACs --- yeah or neah? posted by pepe on January 21, 2007 at 13:53:49:
Pepe:There are many many folks who are very adverse to using SPDIF - especially with an asynchronous sample rate conversion (ASRC) chip in the signal path to deal with two different clocks - one in the receiver/DAC and the other one that was used to clock the data in the tranmitter.
If you ask me, the "bullshit" is when 2-wire SPDIF became a consumer standard. It was originally designed as a "test point" or some darned thing - not as a digital transmission method. Even in Europe they use the AES/EBU which is much more of a studio oriented solution than consumer spdif. Just look at the higher tranmission voltages alone...
Why do *most* professional audio solutions (DACs, soundcards, etc) all have wordclock I/O and master/slave selectivity? It's to permit syncing to ONE GOOD CLOCK which has tremendous advantages over "slightly different clocks all over the place" and all kinds of compensation and compromise circuits to make up for it. The whole consumer audio realm has it backwards - they put the master clock in the CD transport and slave the DAC instead of the other way around.
Now your point about 'sonics is what matters at the end' is valid. That IS what matters around here. >>>How does it sound versus how much does it cost and is it good value or plain expensive?<<< I get that. But there is good science behind all of the digital transmission stuff. And some of it is good science trying to make up for bad design decisions made back when digital was in its infancy. Some of it, however, is "Hey - there is a right way to do this..."
I don't know. Maybe I'm buying into some engineering bullshit. But I work in engineering - so it's okay...
I guess I am just used to it! :P
Follow Ups:
when you appreciate a coffe , the most important is the taste of it , not the engeniering
behind it, nespresso or socks filter ,
same for audio , some 80' old dacs sounds better than brand new call "jitter free" ones
why ? i don't care..
i only want the best sound in my house...
Pepe:How do you think good audio products are built? Musicians randomly popping semiconductors into circuit boards until it "just sounds good"?
Some of us happen to believe that good digital circuit design, good amplifier design, good crossover and speaker design, and even good PC audio server design all require a certain amount of "art" to get mixed in with the science for them to result in truly beautiful musical reproduction.
Saying "Blah blah blah... I just want audio equipment that gives me good sound" is just like saying:
"Blah blah blah - all I want is a rocketship to take me to the moon."
I'll take the properly engineered rocket ship thank you. And the properly engineered audio equipment too...
Now go and have a nice cold beer. You've been drinking way too much of that delicious coffee...
Did you ever think your coffee was delicious because the temperature of the water and the rate at which the water was passed through the filter was DECIDED UPON and not just allowed to occur randomly?
Even a cup of coffee is a result of engineering. The vacuum seal on the coffee can. Engineering. The coffee maker. Engineering. The cup you are drinking from - even if made by hand was fired in an electric kiln... ENGINEERING.
You can run. But you can't hide...
from ENGINEERING.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.... I MEAN....
BWAH HAAAH HAAAH HAAAAAAAAAA!!!
try to buid a Stradivarius with math and enginiering without a touch of "arts"
and good ears...
i know a good engineered and "savoir faire" are always necessary but i disagree to
follow the marketing "hype" that claims that the last technology is the better .
it's not always the case. ( musical instruments, hifi source, media format,television, ....wine.. i don't drink beers.. )and stay cool , presto it's just hifi....
Cheers..
...is that is does not always sound better!Look at MP3 players.
Small, convenient, fast, cheap, music to go! Better!
Microscopic amplifier. Lossy compressed music. Shitty ear-buds. Not better?
Here we agree.
But the work the fine men of science are doing to reduce jitter is to attack bad digital sound at the very source.
My point was that the efforts of these men should be applauded and not viewed with contempt or disdain. The fact someone will undoubtedly take their accomplishments and PUT them into cheap, dirty and crappy sounding circuits is not their fault or responsibility, and does not devalue their work.
And yes, many engineers will say "Well, it meets the specs, but it sounds dry and I liked our last design better".
And now Pepe, in lieu of the standard beer, may I recommend to you the winner of 4th Annual Wines of Chile Awards:
Best Cabernet Sauvignon: Hacienda Araucano Reserva 2005 (Lolol, Colchagua Valley)Please try this for me and tell me if it's as good as it sounds.
I quit drinking alcohol in 1995 due to medical reasons, and don't miss beer or hard liquor, but do miss the wonderful bouquet and flavour of wines - especially the flavour and aroma enhancement that the suitable wine can offer various culinary creations.
Damn, now I am hungry.
Big J.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: