I won't claim anything about audibility, but there are a couple of technical imperfections that theoretically have a bigger impact at low than at high sample rates:
1. Hard clipping on peak-sample-normalized recordings when the DAC has no headroom for intersample overshoots
2. Linear-phase filters with a nonzero passband ripple have a pre- and a post-echo (I don't mean the ultrasonic pre-ringing, but a pre-echo in the normal audio band). The lower the sample rate, the closer the passband peaks are in frequency, the longer the distance in time between the pre-echo and the main signal and the less it gets masked.
So if I were to design a DAC specifically for CD playback, I'd make sure it had some headroom and only very small passband ripples. Support for sample rates other than 44.1 kHz or having an exceedingly large dynamic range would be useless, of course.
1. Hard clipping on peak-sample-normalized recordings when the DAC has no headroom for intersample overshoots
2. Linear-phase filters with a nonzero passband ripple have a pre- and a post-echo (I don't mean the ultrasonic pre-ringing, but a pre-echo in the normal audio band). The lower the sample rate, the closer the passband peaks are in frequency, the longer the distance in time between the pre-echo and the main signal and the less it gets masked.
So if I were to design a DAC specifically for CD playback, I'd make sure it had some headroom and only very small passband ripples. Support for sample rates other than 44.1 kHz or having an exceedingly large dynamic range would be useless, of course.
No, I can't help you there... I know that the Benchmark Media DACs have plenty of headroom, but those are rather expensive professional DACs. I also know of a dirt-cheap embedded audio DAC IP that has some headroom, but it is meant specifically for car radio applications, and I don't know anything about its passband ripple. If you were to DIY your own DAC, I could point you to some interesting threads here.
Last edited:
Bragging rights / status symbol, that's all. Ask anyone who claims about better sound quality from exotic and expensive DAC for supporting evidence. They will start twisting words and try to discredit double blind test. Also, most of them are affiliated with DAC business.
DAC is a matured audio technology and has been for at least 20 years. No need to spend more than built-in DAC of your disc / file player.
In my view the vast majority of listeners don't need better than 16bit DACs to replay 16bit source material and have an engaging listening experience. I have a 16bit/44k1 DAC which will very shortly be available as a kit : lingDAC - cost effective RBCD multibit DAC design
Practically, having a DAC that can play higher resolution source material -- that is, beyond redbook CD (16-bit, 44,100 Hz) -- gives you the option of playing those higher-res files. That's why many newer DACs support those options.
So if you only play CDs, you surely don't 'need' a DAC that plays high-res files.
So if you only play CDs, you surely don't 'need' a DAC that plays high-res files.
IME, CD audio often sounds best (if played using some popular delta-sigma dacs), if upsampled and converted to DSD256 or DSD512. Several different softwares are popular for doing the necessary DSP: HQ Player, and Roon are a couple of examples. The DSP can also be done partially or fully in hardware, such as by using AK4137.
Last edited:
Benchmark DAC-3 has intersample over protection, upsamples everything to 211kHz, and has a custom PCM interpolation filter in FPGA before the dac chip. I'd say it probably meets the stated criteria. That said, maybe 10 years ago it was an exceptional dac. Now its possible to do better and do it for much lower cost. Topping D90 sounds better than DAC-3 to my ears, including for CD playback (looks like it may have intersample over protection too, maybe 3dB worth which seems a reasonably practical amount).
Last edited:
Most likely due to level mismatch and bias uncontrolled, not because of some fancy parts used.
What are you basing that on?
I'm basing my claim on the results from double blind listening tests.
Perhaps you owe to yourself to do a level matched double blind listening of your favorite music collections through your latest and greatest DAC vs 20 y.o. cheap DAC. Let your ears be the judge, no?
Before the usual suspects send this thread to the Lounge, could I ask you to spell this out for us less digital savvy folks? You are speaking of headroom in the analog circuit? And the headroom is required because the digital-filter-caused artifacts may exceed whatever the nominal maximum range is? I ask out of interest because it would be so easy to mod the typical 12VDC Chinese DAC for more headroom in the analog output section.
The idea is that because you have recorded peaks at 0dBFs any process that increases the gain afterwards will exceed 0dBFs leading to a hard digital clip. MvdG feels this is a problem that should be accommodated by dac designers. I think otherwise.
Regarding your 'usual suspects' remark, I'm not the one who specializes in constant harassment.
Regarding your technical question, maybe try reading: Intersample Overs in CD Recordings - Benchmark Media Systems
Lets not forget that you posted, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False ....(especially when conducted by engineers)."
For people who may not understand the last comment, John Ioannidis studies causes and incidence of erroneous medical research, not engineering measurements. Measuring limits of human hearing amounts to medical research. Measuring intersample overs is an engineering subject. IMO, the comment was intended as harassment, nothing more.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.