Dacs?

[Wolf_Lbh]

Okay so I'm getting into the dac game and I was wondering why some cost $100 and some cost hundreds of dollars and... this one costs $6.

This is the dac I'm looking at getting:
www.amazon.com/dp/B00EJ9N8U2

I'm confused though why some cost so much when all they do is read 0s and 1s and turn that into analog audio. Is this maybe a snake oil thing?

Also why is it called an odac or objective dac?

[Guest]

Because some people think that more expensive DACs sound better.

 

If you must have a DAC, get a Modi 2, save $50 minus the cost of a USB A-B cable.

[Wolf_Lbh]

4 minutes ago, SSL said:

Because some people think that more expensive DACs sound better.

 

If you must have a DAC, get a Modi 2, save $50 minus the cost of a USB A-B cable.

I'm willing to spend $50 more to get one in black if the only difference is an included cable.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

I'm willing to spend $50 more to get one in black if the only difference is an included cable.

 

You could also get a Fiio E10K and use the line out. Black, and half the price of the ODAC.

[Cikada]

I also wanted to add: d to a, and a to d converters are not snake oil, they can both help sound, but they can be quite expensive. They don't have to be expensive, just see what fits you.

http://courses.me.berkeley.edu/ME102B/Past_Proj/f03/Proj6/TMS320LF2407A_Documents/Intro-ADC.pdf

this explains some  of the reasons they can be so expensive.

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, Cikada said:

this explains some  of the reasons they can be so expensive

 

Mind summarizing for us?

[Wolf_Lbh]

But what about:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRVQ0F8
and
www.amazon.com/dp/B00IM3OZ1C

Both go from digital to analog so doesn't that make them dacs? And yet one is only $6. I assume it must be of lesser quality than the others if the whole "high end" dac game is not just bs.

[Cikada]

The reason why  conversion of a to d( or  analog-to-digital converter ) and d to a is expensive and difficult, is very simply is that for it to be accurate and evolve as little error in conversion as possible, the converter has to be designed very thoroughly , and this mixed with it's markup makes them very expensive.( not to mention other factors.)

tried to make it as simple as possible, more info is available. 

[Cikada]

2 minutes ago, Wolf_Lbh said:

But what about:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IRVQ0F8
and
www.amazon.com/dp/B00IM3OZ1C

Both go from digital to analog so doesn't that make them dacs? And yet one is only $6. I assume it must be of lesser quality than the others if the whole "high end" dac game is not just bs.

Their sound  accuracy, and pure driving power doesn't work well with a lot of devices. 

And they usually sound very bad.(It can be debated though).

[BoredErica]

7 minutes ago, Cikada said:

The reason why  conversion of a to d( or  analog-to-digital converter ) and d to a is expensive and difficult, is very simply is that for it to be accurate and evolve as little error in conversion as possible, the converter has to be designed very thoroughly , and this mixed with it's markup makes them very expensive.( not to mention other factors.)

tried to make it as simple as possible, more info is available. 

All you've said is that it's hard and markup. You've said nothing.

[Cikada]

@Dark_wizzie Then could you please explain it? it would be much appreciated.

[BoredErica]

3 minutes ago, Cikada said:

@Dark_wizzie Then could you please explain it? it would be much appreciated.

You want me to explain your argument for you? 

[Cikada]

@Dark_wizzie I don't see why not, since I'd like to read your expertise, or greater knowledge!

[BoredErica]

11 minutes ago, Cikada said:

@Dark_wizzie I don't see why not, since I'd like to read your expertise, or greater knowledge!

If you want to read about sampling rate and bit depth:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/415361/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded

https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

For example, your article says:

"Sampling Theorem: A signal must be sampled at a rate at least two times the maximum frequency component occurring in the signal."

That's already widely known. Humans can't hear much above 20khz, so it's not hard.

 

On bit depth:

16bit is already more than enough. Dithering turns quantization errors (from not having over 9000 bit depth) into white noise, and more advanced dithering shifts the noise to frequencies outside of the hearing range, and could increase perceived dynamic range above 96dB. 16bit performance means a minimum of 96dB of dynamic range, 24bit meaning 144dB. Modern compressed pop music (compressed not as in Mp3, but as in the mastering) has squished dynamic range, so you could listen at far below 16bit performance and still hear it just fine. But even if you were to listen to some well mastered orchestra or something, 96dB of dynamic range from a 30dB background, room ambient noise would damage your ears. Dynamic range being the loudest vs quietest sound.

 

If humans needed 24bit performance for example, then yeah, good DACs would be hard to come by and very expensive. Luckily, we don't. Talking about a DAC that performs at 4bit or 10bit is fine as a course to learn what's going on, but that doesn't mean 4bit or 10bit performance is hard to achieve. The rest of your link goes into detail about how it all works, but I only really care about the bottom line. When you explain in detail how electronics work and maybe you draw a nice little schematic, you can make everything look extremely complicated.

[Cikada]

@Dark_wizzie  thanks for the good explanation and point. 

[Pomfinator]

5 minutes ago, Cikada said:

@Dark_wizzie I don't see why not, since I'd like to read your expertise, or greater knowledge!

That article is completely obsolete. It talked about binary-weighted DACs and how to solve it's problems with R/2R.  Except that binary-weighted DACs barely exist anymore, single-bit delta-sigma took over their job long ago.  R/2R was the "solution" to inaccuracy, but they too have largely been phased out in favor of multi-bit delta sigma DACs, because they are way easier to produce and are accurate enough.  R/2R is great when it comes to things that aren't audio, but when it comes to audio we have limitations.

 

That's not to say you can't go out of your way to dump $2300 on a Yggdrasil...that's your prerogative.  But if the Bifrost Multibit is pretty much indistinguishable from the Modi let alone a regular Bifrost...we can safely say that R/2R really is unnecessary for audio.