okapi writes:
"Hi Fast Eddy,
... i am setting up a data acquisition system using a sound card on my computer. the software i am using for this system currently only supports 16- and 32-bit files preventing from obtaining the better S/N ratios available at 24 bit resolution.
in short, are 32 bit sound cards in development or is it seen as an unnecessary step? if they are in development i will wait, if not i may need to look into alternative methods of controlling whatever sound card i use. i am reluctant to make the latter choice because i have years of well developed code.
thanks ..."
=====
okapi: ...
In My Opinion:
"Sound cards" are best of the external variety ... so they can be tweaked to remove the host system power supply noise, etc. Examples from M-Audio, Roland Edirol, EchoAudio.com and many others, connected by FireWire or USB cables. It is extremely difficult to "mod" a PCI connected sound card, but it can be quite easy to tweak and "mod" external peripheral "sound cards" or external DAC devices. Mods: adding Ferrite lugs to the shielded digital cables is an example ... adding plastic capacitors to external power supplies is another ... all in the name of removing the noise of the host computers' switching power supplies.
The music professionals in the studio use FireWire connected DAC / ADC devices almost exclusively, because of the greater bandwidth and dramatically reduced "jitter" and other questions. FireWire can handle Dolby 7.1 (6 or 7 channels or eight stereo feeds or more) easily, USB can not handle better than Dolby 5.1 (4 or 5 channels X one feed only) in one direction only. FireWire is completely bi-directional and can record and playback, rip and roar, input and output, capture and feedback, USB = not without complications and degradation of quality. The reasons are quite technical, suffice to say that USB has handshaking problems that are all but negligible with FireWire. ("Jitter" is but one question.)
Bit rates in audio are somewhat confusing, CD "quality" is 16 bits / 44.1K and the best is the Red Book standard. DVD-Audio quality can be as high as 24 bit / 192K (stereo only), but generally is 24 bit / 98K (Dolby 5.1). DVD-Video (DV movies) sound tracks are generally 24 bit / 48K, but may be an "up 'verted" conversions of CD "quality" 16 bit. A trip through Wikipedia.org tells most of the story. (Note the bit rate chart.)
As for 32 bits? The digital bus rates of virtually all computer host connected devices, audio or whatever, are already 32 bit data bus streams. Whether PCI, USB, FireWire, SATA / eSATA, iSCSI, FiberChannel, modern EtherNet ... all share a similar data transfer scenario that is 32 bits. The digital audio and video information (8 bit, 12 bit, 16 bit, 20 bit or 24 bit) is "encapsulated" within the 32 bit digital data bit frame (or 32 bit data packet) and is done by the DAC / ADC converter chips, which are already 32 bit processors.
Why not make 32 bit audio data converters? This is possible, but not very cost effective. A better understanding of why this is not necessary is to understand decibel headroom, sound pressure levels and bandwidth. CD "quality" is at best 80 db in bandwidth, some would argue 85 db. DVD-A can be as high as 120 db but in practical application seldom exceeds 105 db.
Approximate sound pressure level references: The hush of a pine forest = +10 db to +25 db, your quiet living room might be +30 db to +55 db, the loudest live rock concert with crowd noise can exceed +100 db in the middle of the crowd [+115 db next to the PA speakers], a jet engine from 100 meters can exceed +120 db ... so unless you are planning to reproduce jet engine noise in your living room, dynamic range need not exceed 105 db, the practical bandwidth of FireWire and a few other esoteric digital scenarios. (Theoretically, + 0 db might be reproducible in outer space [no air], but not on Earth, because of Earth tremors and Brownian Motion of air molecules.) ... SO, there is no practical need to digital convert analog music to digital using 32 bit ADC converters, if they even exist.
It would be nice if someone else corrected my errors above ... I'm certainly not the absolute source for this ...
Mercenary announcement: I work for an online parts catalog company. We were first with USB online (1996) and first with FireWire online (1997). Imagine my amazement and joy when the first USB audio DACs appeared ! Imagine my disappointment to discover that my Canon DV camera audio ADC was only 12 bit ...
Is anyone making SATA connected 24 bit DACs ? They could easily fit into those cute little hard drive containers ...
"Hi Fast Eddy,
... i am setting up a data acquisition system using a sound card on my computer. the software i am using for this system currently only supports 16- and 32-bit files preventing from obtaining the better S/N ratios available at 24 bit resolution.
in short, are 32 bit sound cards in development or is it seen as an unnecessary step? if they are in development i will wait, if not i may need to look into alternative methods of controlling whatever sound card i use. i am reluctant to make the latter choice because i have years of well developed code.
thanks ..."
=====
okapi: ...
In My Opinion:
"Sound cards" are best of the external variety ... so they can be tweaked to remove the host system power supply noise, etc. Examples from M-Audio, Roland Edirol, EchoAudio.com and many others, connected by FireWire or USB cables. It is extremely difficult to "mod" a PCI connected sound card, but it can be quite easy to tweak and "mod" external peripheral "sound cards" or external DAC devices. Mods: adding Ferrite lugs to the shielded digital cables is an example ... adding plastic capacitors to external power supplies is another ... all in the name of removing the noise of the host computers' switching power supplies.
The music professionals in the studio use FireWire connected DAC / ADC devices almost exclusively, because of the greater bandwidth and dramatically reduced "jitter" and other questions. FireWire can handle Dolby 7.1 (6 or 7 channels or eight stereo feeds or more) easily, USB can not handle better than Dolby 5.1 (4 or 5 channels X one feed only) in one direction only. FireWire is completely bi-directional and can record and playback, rip and roar, input and output, capture and feedback, USB = not without complications and degradation of quality. The reasons are quite technical, suffice to say that USB has handshaking problems that are all but negligible with FireWire. ("Jitter" is but one question.)
Bit rates in audio are somewhat confusing, CD "quality" is 16 bits / 44.1K and the best is the Red Book standard. DVD-Audio quality can be as high as 24 bit / 192K (stereo only), but generally is 24 bit / 98K (Dolby 5.1). DVD-Video (DV movies) sound tracks are generally 24 bit / 48K, but may be an "up 'verted" conversions of CD "quality" 16 bit. A trip through Wikipedia.org tells most of the story. (Note the bit rate chart.)
As for 32 bits? The digital bus rates of virtually all computer host connected devices, audio or whatever, are already 32 bit data bus streams. Whether PCI, USB, FireWire, SATA / eSATA, iSCSI, FiberChannel, modern EtherNet ... all share a similar data transfer scenario that is 32 bits. The digital audio and video information (8 bit, 12 bit, 16 bit, 20 bit or 24 bit) is "encapsulated" within the 32 bit digital data bit frame (or 32 bit data packet) and is done by the DAC / ADC converter chips, which are already 32 bit processors.
Why not make 32 bit audio data converters? This is possible, but not very cost effective. A better understanding of why this is not necessary is to understand decibel headroom, sound pressure levels and bandwidth. CD "quality" is at best 80 db in bandwidth, some would argue 85 db. DVD-A can be as high as 120 db but in practical application seldom exceeds 105 db.
Approximate sound pressure level references: The hush of a pine forest = +10 db to +25 db, your quiet living room might be +30 db to +55 db, the loudest live rock concert with crowd noise can exceed +100 db in the middle of the crowd [+115 db next to the PA speakers], a jet engine from 100 meters can exceed +120 db ... so unless you are planning to reproduce jet engine noise in your living room, dynamic range need not exceed 105 db, the practical bandwidth of FireWire and a few other esoteric digital scenarios. (Theoretically, + 0 db might be reproducible in outer space [no air], but not on Earth, because of Earth tremors and Brownian Motion of air molecules.) ... SO, there is no practical need to digital convert analog music to digital using 32 bit ADC converters, if they even exist.
It would be nice if someone else corrected my errors above ... I'm certainly not the absolute source for this ...
Mercenary announcement: I work for an online parts catalog company. We were first with USB online (1996) and first with FireWire online (1997). Imagine my amazement and joy when the first USB audio DACs appeared ! Imagine my disappointment to discover that my Canon DV camera audio ADC was only 12 bit ...
Is anyone making SATA connected 24 bit DACs ? They could easily fit into those cute little hard drive containers ...
" AK4397 is a 32bit DAC: HERE ..."
" ... The AK4397 is a high performance premium 32bit DAC for the 192kHz sampling mode of DVD-Audio including a 32bit digital filter. ... Sampling Rate: 30kHz ~ 216kHz ... DR, S/N: 120dB ... Applications: DVD/DVD-Audio/SACD Player, Digital Mixer, Pro Audio and AV Receiver ... "
Glory-Asaki ... how do you do!
Nice catch, SunRa. Wanna help me put one on a board? I still thing that the hard drive enclosures should be put to good audio use ...
Also, I believe these are the guys that astonished the world with those "blue white" LEDs ... impossible, some said ...
" ... The AK4397 is a high performance premium 32bit DAC for the 192kHz sampling mode of DVD-Audio including a 32bit digital filter. ... Sampling Rate: 30kHz ~ 216kHz ... DR, S/N: 120dB ... Applications: DVD/DVD-Audio/SACD Player, Digital Mixer, Pro Audio and AV Receiver ... "
Glory-Asaki ... how do you do!
Nice catch, SunRa. Wanna help me put one on a board? I still thing that the hard drive enclosures should be put to good audio use ...
Also, I believe these are the guys that astonished the world with those "blue white" LEDs ... impossible, some said ...
That part might be 32bit internally, but in terms of S/N, it's the same as a 24-bit DAC. The state of the art in the consumer space is approaching 130dB, e.g. PCM1794, AD1955.
24-bit DAC theoretical S/N: 20log(2^24) = 144.5 dB
32-bit DAC theoretical S/N: 20log(2^32) = 192.7 dB
So these days, even in a 24-bit DAC, they're fudging a couple of bits.
24-bit DAC theoretical S/N: 20log(2^24) = 144.5 dB
32-bit DAC theoretical S/N: 20log(2^32) = 192.7 dB
So these days, even in a 24-bit DAC, they're fudging a couple of bits.
" ... So these days, even in a 24-bit DAC, they're fudging a couple of bits. ..."
Still, that AK 4397 is a fascinating new chip ... I'm glad to see there is still an ongoing upgrade / innovative program in DAC chips ... New blood, new blood, I feel the need for new blood ...
... And you can always count on Analog Devices to be in the forefront of audio ... http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD1955.pdf
... distortion = -110 db ... Whenever I see any s/n or distortion number > 105 db, I'm impressed. AND power supply voltage, digital and analog, is a piece of cake to make clean = 0 / + 5.0 VDC =
Still, that AK 4397 is a fascinating new chip ... I'm glad to see there is still an ongoing upgrade / innovative program in DAC chips ... New blood, new blood, I feel the need for new blood ...
... And you can always count on Analog Devices to be in the forefront of audio ... http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/AD1955.pdf
... distortion = -110 db ... Whenever I see any s/n or distortion number > 105 db, I'm impressed. AND power supply voltage, digital and analog, is a piece of cake to make clean = 0 / + 5.0 VDC = 
" ... Achieving >100dB 'A' weighting (or equivalent bandwidth measurement) with normal power rails requires significant attention to detail. ..."
Ditto that !! ... Checkout TI's use of very close coupled plastic caps, right across the chip power & ground pins ... the only way to design for maximum clean power rails to op-amps ...
Ditto that !! ... Checkout TI's use of very close coupled plastic caps, right across the chip power & ground pins ... the only way to design for maximum clean power rails to op-amps ...
FastEddie's nick initiated this reply:
Let's try a slightly different wiev of DAC's. The problem with DACs today is not the technology itself, it what we feed them. Everybody have heared of the "loudness war" but no-one seem to take action.
CD's that are mastered "to hot" distort on you at three different levels.
1. The audio is clipped. The sound is crap. Sadly, nothing can be done by that. Send the mastering engineer som hate mail.
2. The PCM audio on the CD are valid samples but when you apply oversampling or sample rate conversion or any other kind of DSP, your DSP creates clipping conditions. Why? I'ts because, in oversampling, the new samples you create between the nyquist samples are "over the top". It's the same for all other DSP.
3. If you (heaven forbid!) apply lossy compression, it's getting even worse. If you look at the waveform, the shape of your audio is totally different after lossy compression. The peak value of your audio may be 3 to 5 dB above what's on your CD. And -- of course -- it clips and sound nasty.
I believe there's a simple solution to this. Since audio in CD's is 16 bits and SPDIF and moderns DACs support "24" bit, theres a lot of "spare" bits. If all CD samples are shifted right one bit, i.e. attenuated 6.02 dBs, the clipping in DSP and lossy compression will disappear. In offset binary terms this would give 17 bit samples with a leading zero.
Of course you're still left with the clipping in the CD, but you might get far better sound from CD's this way.
To date, I still have not seen any CD/DVD-player or DAC manufaturer adress this problem. Maybe we DIY'ers should take the lead here?
More info on "hot CD's" etc. can be found on the excellent tech library at TC Electronic:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/TechLibrary.asp
cheers,
The Bear
Let's try a slightly different wiev of DAC's. The problem with DACs today is not the technology itself, it what we feed them. Everybody have heared of the "loudness war" but no-one seem to take action.
CD's that are mastered "to hot" distort on you at three different levels.
1. The audio is clipped. The sound is crap. Sadly, nothing can be done by that. Send the mastering engineer som hate mail.
2. The PCM audio on the CD are valid samples but when you apply oversampling or sample rate conversion or any other kind of DSP, your DSP creates clipping conditions. Why? I'ts because, in oversampling, the new samples you create between the nyquist samples are "over the top". It's the same for all other DSP.
3. If you (heaven forbid!) apply lossy compression, it's getting even worse. If you look at the waveform, the shape of your audio is totally different after lossy compression. The peak value of your audio may be 3 to 5 dB above what's on your CD. And -- of course -- it clips and sound nasty.
I believe there's a simple solution to this. Since audio in CD's is 16 bits and SPDIF and moderns DACs support "24" bit, theres a lot of "spare" bits. If all CD samples are shifted right one bit, i.e. attenuated 6.02 dBs, the clipping in DSP and lossy compression will disappear. In offset binary terms this would give 17 bit samples with a leading zero.
Of course you're still left with the clipping in the CD, but you might get far better sound from CD's this way.
To date, I still have not seen any CD/DVD-player or DAC manufaturer adress this problem. Maybe we DIY'ers should take the lead here?
More info on "hot CD's" etc. can be found on the excellent tech library at TC Electronic:
http://www.tcelectronic.com/TechLibrary.asp
cheers,
The Bear
2quad said:
I fear not. All you've done is turned the digital volume down which will most likely be compensated by the user turning the analog volume up, which by the way, raises the noise floor by an equal amount.
You say no one takes action. Well, I for one will not purchase a compressed CD. I recently bought a 25year anniversary gold digital remaster of Dark Side of the Moon. It was clipped in many places. The remastering engineer didn't even bother to check the statistics on his conversion. I sent it back for a $25 refund. It's passive action I know but as pee-on consumers it's all we can do,
" ... You say no one takes action. Well, I for one will not purchase a compressed CD. I recently bought a 25year anniversary gold digital remaster of Dark Side of the Moon. ..."
Ditto and ditto, although I obtained a copy of "Dark Side ..." as SACD ... mmmmmm good. And how about "Supernatural", Carlos remixed this for 24 bit DVD-A and what a difference! You can actually hear the individual instruments, so's now you can tell Carlos and Eric apart and the rest of the sidemen come across as individuals too.
For a pleasant surprise and an eye opening about 16 bit vs. 24 bit, check out George Martin's double disc "Love" ... Play each disc, the CD and the DVD-A, on the same player and you definitely can hear the difference 'tween 24 and 16 bits. Plus it is the most fantastic redux, redo, retro update of Beatles music ... highly recommended. (Stick the CD in your car and keep the DVD-A for home stereo play ...
As for CD "quality", I don't buy it anymore. Nothing but SACD, DVD-A and DVD-Videos ... check out the two "Crossroads" DVD albums ... 24 bit / 48 K and "CR 2007" has the most amazing Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton duets ... much better than the original Blind Faith stuff from the studio (!), CD or vinyl .....
Ditto and ditto, although I obtained a copy of "Dark Side ..." as SACD ... mmmmmm good. And how about "Supernatural", Carlos remixed this for 24 bit DVD-A and what a difference! You can actually hear the individual instruments, so's now you can tell Carlos and Eric apart and the rest of the sidemen come across as individuals too.
For a pleasant surprise and an eye opening about 16 bit vs. 24 bit, check out George Martin's double disc "Love" ... Play each disc, the CD and the DVD-A, on the same player and you definitely can hear the difference 'tween 24 and 16 bits. Plus it is the most fantastic redux, redo, retro update of Beatles music ... highly recommended. (Stick the CD in your car and keep the DVD-A for home stereo play ...
As for CD "quality", I don't buy it anymore. Nothing but SACD, DVD-A and DVD-Videos ... check out the two "Crossroads" DVD albums ... 24 bit / 48 K and "CR 2007" has the most amazing Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton duets ... much better than the original Blind Faith stuff from the studio (!), CD or vinyl .....
This was true during the long gone days of USB1, but it not the case with USB 2.0. FW does still have some advantages which are used by professionals, but USB is used today in all pro-audio purposes. USB 2.0 can of course handle multichannel in/out.
The pro's choices (in that order):
1. dedicated audio connections/cards (like RME, with ADAT optical multicannel or propriate connections - and systems linked with highspeed LAN connections)
2. Firewire (mainly because the earlier MACs could not handle USB2 well - and they still have problems with that. And MACs were the first choice in pro-audio, although even this fact is now changing, because PCs can be much faster and are much cheaper)
3. USB2 (lots of good quality interfaces which also work on laptops etc.)
M-audio Fast Track Ultra 8R
M-audio Fast Track Ultra
Tascam US-1641
Tascam US-144
Alesis IO-2
ALESIS MULTIMIX 16 USB 2.0
DIGIDESIGN MBOX 2
MOTU 828 MK II USB 2.0
EMU 0202
EMU 0404
LINE6 TONEPORT UX8
INFRASONIC AMON
ESI ESU 1808
EDIROL UA-101
MARIAN UCON CX
Just to name a few - the list is much longer!
M-audio Fast Track Ultra
Tascam US-1641
Tascam US-144
Alesis IO-2
ALESIS MULTIMIX 16 USB 2.0
DIGIDESIGN MBOX 2
MOTU 828 MK II USB 2.0
EMU 0202
EMU 0404
LINE6 TONEPORT UX8
INFRASONIC AMON
ESI ESU 1808
EDIROL UA-101
MARIAN UCON CX
Just to name a few - the list is much longer!
iohk: " ... This was true during the long gone days of USB1, but it not the case with USB 2.0 ... USB2 (lots of good quality interfaces which also work on laptops etc.) ..."
Well, I've only seen USB 2.0 DACs capable of 24 bit / 96K stereo only, although most can handle the 24 bit / 48K from DVD-Video in Dolby 5.1 (multichannel). Maybe you know of some that are more robust, but ...
There is of course no real problems with USB2.0 DAC sound quality from some of the better makers. IMOP the problems are with the practical bandwidth of USB2.0 protocol and handshaking questions (jitter, etc.).
(My company is a dealer for M-Audio and Tascan, and their FireWire connected devices DO have significantly greater bandwidth.)
Well, I've only seen USB 2.0 DACs capable of 24 bit / 96K stereo only, although most can handle the 24 bit / 48K from DVD-Video in Dolby 5.1 (multichannel). Maybe you know of some that are more robust, but ...
There is of course no real problems with USB2.0 DAC sound quality from some of the better makers. IMOP the problems are with the practical bandwidth of USB2.0 protocol and handshaking questions (jitter, etc.).
(My company is a dealer for M-Audio and Tascan, and their FireWire connected devices DO have significantly greater bandwidth.)
2quad said:
On further thought, you're right. This would mitigate clipping in oversampling DACs (I thought you were talking about CD distortions which are effectively "baked in")
I've noticed that using high rms level signals such as MLS causes clipping in the DAC filters and dropping the digital level by 6dB fixes this. In fact, the distortion on narrow band signals also rises as you get into the MSB's.
Of course, any DSP worth it's salt will ensure that full scale input *doesn't* clip anywhere in the algorithm by appropriate scaling.
FYI you'll find the AK4397 delta-sigma converters are 24 bit maximum resolution if you read the data sheet carefully. 32 bit dsp is pretty common with 24 bit converters, but most vendors don't make light of that fact. Higher bit depth dsp exist as well. (For example some chips in the Via Envy family support at least 36 bit dsp.)
Other than the 32/24 bit input data path I am not sure that there is anything particularly special about this d/a chip, although it is reputed to sound good.
Other than the 32/24 bit input data path I am not sure that there is anything particularly special about this d/a chip, although it is reputed to sound good.
" ... you'll find the AK4397 delta-sigma converters are 24 bit maximum resolution... 32 bit dsp is pretty common with 24 bit converters, but most vendors don't make light of that fact. Higher bit depth dsp exist as well. ..."
Simple reason: 32 bit processors are common and inexpensive ... 20 bit, (pure) 24 bit & up to 64 bit or more and any oddball bit rate in between are rare and cost big buck$$. ... And getting a 32 bit processor to process 24 bit data is "easy". (As above, all USB and FireWire processors are 32 bit internally
Simple reason: 32 bit processors are common and inexpensive ... 20 bit, (pure) 24 bit & up to 64 bit or more and any oddball bit rate in between are rare and cost big buck$$. ... And getting a 32 bit processor to process 24 bit data is "easy". (As above, all USB and FireWire processors are 32 bit internally
The music only sounds as good as the weakest component
I dont know about all of the fancy sound cards and DACs. I just use a 24/96 Sound Blaster Audigy, it works for me. (Not ideally however, more on that soon enough).
Before everyone calls me a heretic and assumes that means that I am tone deaf, please understand that if money were no object I certainly would prefer a higher end sound card.
I can agree that vinyl LPs sound better the first few times that the LPs are played. But it degrades over time and use unlike digital which always sounds the same. LPs pick up pops and clicks as wear degrades the pits in the "wax".
Seriously, if you are worried about anything beyond 24 bit/96khz, will you actually be able to HEAR the difference with your sound system?
Music reinforcement is only as good as it's weakest link, and what is the point of going to great lengths to ensure high quality source audio if we were going to connect it to some plastic Chinese made JBL EON speakers?
We are fortunate enough to have a pile of high fidelity Class AB rack amps and some of the very finest pro audio speakers ever made and unless we play the two media side by side I cannot determine which media is playing in a blind taste test. Side by side with a crash switch? Absolutely anyone can differentiate an MP3 to an LP on a decent system.
Yes, side by side there is a very noticeable difference. But only audible if the person has a decent system to hear it on.
I DJ and what is more important? Absolute clarity bringing a van load of records? Or portability of having all of the music that i need on an external hard drive?
Isnt it enough for the "audio purists" that we haul 70lb AB class amplifiers to every gig instead of equally powerful 23 lb Rane Class Ds? Or should we all shackle ourselves to the absolute best fidelity while damning the common sense of what is practical?
We were some of the last holdouts to switch to MP3s. But we are on board with it now. After a few years of gigging with Soundblaster Audigy soundcards, going to a higher end DAC and sound cards is not nearly as high of a priority as getting newer and better MP3 controllers is.
So if your system is truly able to differentiate, it might be worth trying a higher end DAC. I was listening as some of you described the tweaks to eliminate the awful sounds of the PC power supply. I have experienced those problems and would love to be free of them. So there is definitely something to be said for spending more money on a better sound card. We get what we pay for after all. There is a reason why M-Audio costs more than Sound Blaster. What I would love to do is have a blind taste test on those to see if the cost merits the difference. So if anyone wants to do a blind taste test, I have some spare Audigy sound cards. (There has to be at least a few of us here in Los Angeles).
I dont know about all of the fancy sound cards and DACs. I just use a 24/96 Sound Blaster Audigy, it works for me. (Not ideally however, more on that soon enough).
Before everyone calls me a heretic and assumes that means that I am tone deaf, please understand that if money were no object I certainly would prefer a higher end sound card.
I can agree that vinyl LPs sound better the first few times that the LPs are played. But it degrades over time and use unlike digital which always sounds the same. LPs pick up pops and clicks as wear degrades the pits in the "wax".
Seriously, if you are worried about anything beyond 24 bit/96khz, will you actually be able to HEAR the difference with your sound system?
Music reinforcement is only as good as it's weakest link, and what is the point of going to great lengths to ensure high quality source audio if we were going to connect it to some plastic Chinese made JBL EON speakers?
We are fortunate enough to have a pile of high fidelity Class AB rack amps and some of the very finest pro audio speakers ever made and unless we play the two media side by side I cannot determine which media is playing in a blind taste test. Side by side with a crash switch? Absolutely anyone can differentiate an MP3 to an LP on a decent system.
Yes, side by side there is a very noticeable difference. But only audible if the person has a decent system to hear it on.
I DJ and what is more important? Absolute clarity bringing a van load of records? Or portability of having all of the music that i need on an external hard drive?
Isnt it enough for the "audio purists" that we haul 70lb AB class amplifiers to every gig instead of equally powerful 23 lb Rane Class Ds? Or should we all shackle ourselves to the absolute best fidelity while damning the common sense of what is practical?
We were some of the last holdouts to switch to MP3s. But we are on board with it now. After a few years of gigging with Soundblaster Audigy soundcards, going to a higher end DAC and sound cards is not nearly as high of a priority as getting newer and better MP3 controllers is.
So if your system is truly able to differentiate, it might be worth trying a higher end DAC. I was listening as some of you described the tweaks to eliminate the awful sounds of the PC power supply. I have experienced those problems and would love to be free of them. So there is definitely something to be said for spending more money on a better sound card. We get what we pay for after all. There is a reason why M-Audio costs more than Sound Blaster. What I would love to do is have a blind taste test on those to see if the cost merits the difference. So if anyone wants to do a blind taste test, I have some spare Audigy sound cards. (There has to be at least a few of us here in Los Angeles).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.