Burr-Brown vs Cirrus Logic vs Analog Devices: What are the differences between these three DACs - Page 3 - Home Theater Forum and Systems - HomeTheaterShack.com

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 22 Old 02-23-14, 01:08 AM
Shackster
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: manitoba
Posts: 5
Re: Burr-Brown vs Cirrus Logic vs Analog Devices: What are the differences between these three DACs

From what I have read jitter is mainly a problem when sampling at higher rates than the recording was made with, Or upsampling and playing back at higher rates than the recording was made with. If you are playing back at the exact same bit rate and sampling specs, there is no jitter. Hence why some DAC separates have auto sensing that automatically play back at the same rates the recording was made..... to eliminate possible jitter.

As far as DAC S/n it looks like around 120 db is the average expected standard these days. Will we see 150 in the future LOL. My Asus Xonar STX uses the 1792 and this card is awesome.
johnplayerson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 22 Old 02-25-14, 11:59 PM
wd3
Shackster
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 35
My System
Re: Burr-Brown vs Cirrus Logic vs Analog Devices: What are the differences between these three DACs

As far as DACs are concerned, I believe that most DACs if they are doing their job should sound very close to no difference at all. I'm not sure you will notice too much difference between Burr-Brown, Analog Devices, ESS, Wolfson, and etc. But I do believe the whole circuit design especially with op amp selection can allow manufactures to develop a "house sound." Someone mentioned jitter in this thread. As far as the DACs themselves I don't believe they play a part in jitter, but they need a constant stream of bits clocked in at a particular rate. If they don't get that stream at the correct rate, then you will get bit errors. A lot of times, Asynchronous Sample Rate Conversion (ASRC) is put in front of the DAC. This accomplishes two goals. It helps mitigate jitter problems, and it takes the typical 44.1khz/48khz sample rate to a new higher sample rate to fill in the gaps before it goes through the DAC and ultimately the opamps. Someone also mentioned clocking. Unfortunately, most of our digital transports were not designed too great. Both SPDIF and HDMI don't have audio clocking signals. Clocking in both cases are derived from the signal. In fact, SPDIF long time ago use to have jitter problems, but these days that is very uncommon with the speed of current chipsets and improvements in PLL circuits. Although, COAX would probably have better jitter properties than optical. Most people might point to high bandwidth optical data networks as an example of fast optical communications. Since I use to design data communication networks before I retired, I'm well aware of their capabilities. But it is not the same Gigabit high end optical gear and lasers used in consumer based technologies. You can get a lot more smear of the LEDs turning on and off leading to potential misreads on the receiving end. In addition, HDMI is based solely on DVI technology (video only transport), and audio unfortunately was an afterthought with the audio embedded in between video data. In fact, when using an HDMI transport it is best to use the highest video resolution because it reduces jitter and latency (read: this is because now the audio data arrives faster because the HDMI timing is based on video not audio and the audio is embedded in between the video data). The audio engineering society had a meeting to discuss some of the deficiencies of HDMI audio and jitter in particular. Here is a link to their presentation: http://www.aes-media.org/sections/uk...AES%202011.pdf For critical listening, I typically use SPDIF as my transport, but I have to admit at least on my gear I have not been able to tell much difference between HDMI and SPDIF in audio fidelity. I might just be lucky with my gear selection, but it is something to be aware of. In short, my recommendation would be to not look at DACs exclusively. For higher quality audio, just make sure they are using a high quality layout with high quality components. I have had great success with equipment that uses an ASRC, DAC, OPAMP chain to deliver the digital to analog conversion. I know the DACs get most of the attention, but you really need to evaluate the whole conversion process.

Last edited by wd3; 02-26-14 at 10:21 AM.
wd3 is offline  
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
dacs , differences

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now




PLEASE COMPLETE ALL REQUIRED FIELDS BELOW... THANKS!

REQUIRED FIELDS ON THIS PAGE
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL OF THESE

Username
Password
Confirm Password
Email Address
Confirm Email Address
Random Question
Random Question #2




User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
PLEASE READ BELOW PRIOR TO ENTERING AN EMAIL ADDRESS!

ATTENTION!

YOU MUST ACTIVATE YOUR ACCOUNT!

Activation requires you reply to an email we will send you after you register... if you do not reply to this email, you will not be able to view certain areas of the forum or certain images... nor will you be able download software.

AN INVALID EMAIL ADDRESS WILL CAUSE YOUR ACCOUNT TO BE DELETED!

See our banned email list here: Banned Email List

We DO NOT respond to spamcop, boxtrapper and spamblocker emails... please add @hometheatershack DOT com to your whitelist prior to registering or you will get nowhere on your registration.


Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML is not allowed!
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

 


For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome