ARCHIVED FORUM -- March 2012 to February 2022READ ONLY FORUM
This is the second Archived Forum which was active between 1st March 2012 and 23rd February 2022
Over the years I seen much written in hi-fi magazines about the huge improvements that can be obtained by investing in hugely expensive speaker cables or using filters on power supplies. Most of these gains seem to be unsupported by any hard measurements and even where it is possible to measure a difference it is questionable - I would argue - whether it is significant when set against the huge variations in sound quality due to factors such as poor original recordings or room characteristics.
So, is the DAC the new speaker cable? It appears to be a widely held belief, for instance, that the quality of Apple's DAC is poor and can be hugely improved upon be using one of many alternatives - some of which carry price tags that make even B&O customers wince. I use an Airport Express with BL8000s running 320k AAC files and it seems pretty decent. I've seen measurements that show a big difference between the Apple DAC and state-of-the-art alternatives but I can't say I notice any big problems in reality. Maybe my hearing is just not sufficiently honed to determine the difference - but if that's the case I don't think I'd be on my own.
I ask this question because I see a number of Beoworld contributors saying that the Playmaker DAC is much better than Apple's. I've seen no data to justify this claim and was not aware the product had even been released long enough for a serious comparison to be made. Just makes me wonder whether the DAC is set to become the latest hi-fi "snake oil" product!
DAC's have been considered important since the first CD players. You often pay for a "better" DAC if you buy/bought an expensive model.
I believe that there is a difference between DAC's, but that only lies in the analog IC's that is placed after the converter; a lot of inexpensive outboard units are much better than original PC soundcards as an example.
Vinyl records, cassettes, open reel, valve amplifiers and film photography.
Info:
the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit.
Carolpa: the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit.
So, "limited" to CD quality. Since when did CD quality audio become not good enough to cope with modern music produced for the headphone generation? Maybe if you want to listen to Pink Floyd or classical music, it but for 99% of most music, I'm sure CD quality audio is more than sufficient for most ears.
As I've said before, the quality of the speakers makes more of a different. I can listen to tracks through my Beosound 8. They sound good. Move up to my BL3/BL11 combo and they sound much better again. This isn't a DAC issue (indeed, the BS3/BL11 is via the Airport Express), but a speaker quality issue.
Hardwriter:Just makes me wonder whether the DAC is set to become the latest hi-fi "snake oil" product!
A reasonable point I think 'Hardwriter'. Like you I've seen much comment regarding how sound can be hugely improved by the addition of DACs, particularly that from the AE. Claims of improvement are backed up by quoting various technical specifications and figures. They may be all true of course and indeed probably are, but does the resultant audio produced actually sound markedly better to the ears?
Perhaps it does, I don't really know.
In the days when these things mattered more to me and before B&O style and quality became of equal importance to the sound, I used to read reviews (Hi-Fi News for example) where CD players costing thousands of Pounds were tested and the sound they produced praised for their clear superiority. But would the same disc played on a 100 Pounds player passing through the same top-end amplifier and speakers, really be that audibly inferior?
I've been considering the purchase of a DAC to connect between my AE & B&O system. Would I really notice that much improvement? Or is it more a case of convincing ones self that it must sound better as a justification for the cash outlay!
moxxey: Carolpa: the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit. So, "limited" to CD quality. Since when did CD quality audio become not good enough to cope with modern music produced for the headphone generation? Maybe if you want to listen to Pink Floyd or classical music, it but for 99% of most music, I'm sure CD quality audio is more than sufficient for most ears. As I've said before, the quality of the speakers makes more of a different. I can listen to tracks through my Beosound 8. They sound good. Move up to my BL3/BL11 combo and they sound much better again. This isn't a DAC issue (indeed, the BS3/BL11 is via the Airport Express), but a speaker quality issue.
Wow. Did I sting an Apple addict? I just gave the limits of the specs.
And yes for me it would not be sufficient. I already have a collection of aprox 2000 24bit music files.
Carolpa:And yes for me it would not be sufficient. I already have a collection of aprox 2000 24bit music files
Yes, but why do you feel the need to quote the bit-rate of the music files? Do you have this collection because they sound better than 16 bit? Or do many of the artists & their recordings you favour just happen to be recorded this way? I hope so.
And what about the actual music itself? Isn't that the important element here, not just a particular bit rate?
BTW, does anyone recall when CDs were designated DDD, ADD & AAD? At one time I often used to look for & select DDD discs because they must sound better, mustn't they? They certainly sounded different, but better & importantly, more enjoyable than ADD & AAD? No.
After a while I'd choose a particular artist & performance first rather than how the disc itself was sonically and technically produced.
Also touchy about Apple?
kokomo: but why did you feel the to quote the bit-rate of the music files? Do you have this collection because they sound better than 16 bit? Or do many of the artists & their recordings you favour just happen to be recorded this way?
but why did you feel the to quote the bit-rate of the music files? Do you have this collection because they sound better than 16 bit? Or do many of the artists & their recordings you favour just happen to be recorded this way?
First: the music; the artist; etc; but at the same time the best possible quality.
Ever heart the differens between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 192kHz?
do you know the meaning about the difference between128kbit/s or lossless files of 12Mbit/s?
kokomo:BTW, does anyone recall when CDs were designated DDD, ADD & AAD? At one time I often used to look for & select DDD discs because they must sound better, mustn't they? They certainly sounded different, but better & importantly, more enjoyable than ADD & AAD? No
Me too - focused on the DDD but then I found some of my favourites were ADD ... the difference between an outstanding performance and a technically accurate recording.
BeoNut since '75
Carolpa: First: the music; the artist; etc; but at the same time the best possible quality.
100% agreed!
I OWN some AEs, they are cheap, easy to use and the (mediocre) analogue output is exactly what you can expect forthat money - fair enough - even Apple can't turn water into wine
moxxey: So, "limited" to CD quality. Since when did CD quality audio become not good enough to cope with modern music produced for the headphone generation? Maybe if you want to listen to Pink Floyd or classical music, it but for 99% of most music, I'm sure CD quality audio is more than sufficient for most ears. As I've said before, the quality of the speakers makes more of a different. I can listen to tracks through my Beosound 8. They sound good. Move up to my BL3/BL11 combo and they sound much better again. This isn't a DAC issue (indeed, the BS3/BL11 is via the Airport Express), but a speaker quality issue.
Hi Moxxey,
First, you say that today's music is "produced for the headphone generation", then you say that one should invest in BL3's... Isn't hat's a bit of a nonsense?
I have a set of BL3's, and I clearly like to use them "fully" with 24-bit tracks. It's mainly for jazz, but "today's generation music" can also be different in 24-bit. Listen to the bass of Masomenos or M83 in 16 or 24 bits (not via an Airport Express), and you will discover something new, going deeper... I'm 30, I went from CD to iTunes (not much, because I thought it was too expensive for what it is) to Qobuz. I just listen to music, and enjoy it, I don't only look at spec sheets. But when I like a song, I want to have it in the best possible quality.
I can't understand why people finding the sound of Airport Express good enough for their ears always want to avoid people buying other stuff than Apple.
My personnal evolution in digital music : I started to listen to digital music via Airplay with an Airport Express. I realised that it was not as good as when listening to the same CD with my Beosound 2300, so I tried Sonos, which is a nice multiroom with a DAC which gives a sound more natural, closer to what I like. Then I tried the BS5 Encore to listen to 24-bit tracks, and found that it really makes a difference on my bl3's. Now I'm hesitating between Sonos and Playmaker for "link rooms" (currently fed with Airport Express), and there is still a device that brings Airplay to my main system, but connected in HDMI to a Beovision, so that the DAC is good ;-)
diisign.com
Carolpa:Ever heart the differens between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 192kHz?
Yes, sometimes when using my Sennheiser HD650s or my friend's Adam A7s.
Would I be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 (using the same DAC) when using my Pentas or a par of BL8000s? No. To me, those speakers lack the definition needed for me to be able to hear those differences. That's how subtle those differences are to me, I need really good speakers/phones to hear them.
Would I be able to hear differences between different DACs when using these speakers? Yes, sometimes, and in those cases probably more due to the analogue circuits than the DACs themselves but those circuits are part of the package...
I've compared my Airport Express to my RME Fireface 800 (multichannel AD/DA for music production) and although I can hear differences when using the Pentas, the differences is much more easy to hear when using the HD650s or my studio monitors. Conclusion: it would be wiser of me to first invest in better speakers than in better DACs :)
What I'm trying to say is that I would worry more about my choice of speakers than my choice of DAC. If you have BL3/9s or better, then invest in a nice DAC, in other cases spend that money on better speakers instead. :)
This is of course my personal opinion, other members may have different experiences and opinions.
henrik: What I'm trying to say is that I would worry more about my choice of speakers than my choice of DAC. If you have BL3/9s or better, then invest in a nice DAC, in other cases spend that money on better speakers instead. :)
So true! The whole chain, from music to speakers should in balance.
But there are a lot of people out there with excellent speakers, DAC, etc. who tend to listen to poor quality audio formats. And often for the sole reason because it has a certain "label".
Carolpa: Wow. Did I sting an Apple addict? I just gave the limits of the specs. And yes for me it would not be sufficient. I already have a collection of aprox 2000 24bit music files.
No not at all, but then a lot of people here take things way too personally!
I'm just pointing out that it copes with CD quality and we're arguing CD quality audio tracks aren't good enough for the average human ear. The quality of the speaker makes far more difference than the DAC itself.
mbee: First, you say that today's music is "produced for the headphone generation", then you say that one should invest in BL3's... Isn't hat's a bit of a nonsense?
If you want to think of it that way, fair enough. However, *any* track sounds more open on the alt-based speakers than they do on "lesser" speakers, such as those on a Beosound 8 or worse. They just make poorly produced tracks even worse.
If you believe that you must have 24-bit music to fully appreciate your BL3s, fair enough. No-one is going to stop you. But there are a hell of a lot of people on here who are - don't take this the wrong way - a bit an*l about getting the best possible audio source/DAC etc for their music. As I said, the human ear struggles to differentiate the difference between a 16-bit CD quality compressed audio track and the 24-bit equivalent. Maybe for some classical music, but for most modern music, it won't make much different. It will be negligible.
There's much more of a difference between speakers, so saying it's "nonsense" is non-sensical. If you went along to Argos and picked up a pair of £100 Phillips speakers and played the same track on them, compared to, say, the BL3s, of course there will be a huge difference. However, the same modern track at 24-bit (and where on earth do you get these tracks at 24-bit?!) will make less of a difference between those £100 speakers and your BL3s.
If you were so obsessed about your audio experience, you won't be buying BL3s anyhow, btw. I can tell you a lot of audiophiles would prefer Spendor and other speakers for 24-bit audio.
Hardwriter:Over the years I seen much written in hi-fi magazines about the huge improvements that can be obtained by investing in hugely expensive speaker cables or using filters on power supplies. Most of these gains seem to be unsupported by any hard measurements and even where it is possible to measure a difference it is questionable - I would argue - whether it is significant when set against the huge variations in sound quality due to factors such as poor original recordings or room characteristics.
Very true. The very same fanatics usually cannot accept at all a BeoLab 5 as a serious audiophile speaker as it also includes an aesthetic approach. Apparently an audiophile system needs to be as well ugly as esoteric.
I only use lossless files btw. (disk capacity is inexpensive those days, so there’s really no need to discuss this) as my personal hearing tests left me no choice.
I never opened the AirPort Express Base to analyse its ingredients as I connect my BeoLab 5 directly with a SPDIF cable to my Mac Pro, using the best possible resolution of the computer (24 bit at 96000 Hertz).
But other people did open the AirPort Express, the result is here:
http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Dissection-Express/
The model in question is the first generation of an AirPort Express base, so its contents might have changed since. But in this generation a Burr-Brown PCM2705 DAC has been used, a component you find in many other products as indicated here:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/325941/all-the-dacs-money-can-buy-pt-2
It might be quite funny if you replace the internal DAC of an AirPort Express base by an external DAC with the same components …
It for sure is part of it!
Carolpa: Ever heart the differens between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 192kHz? do you know the meaning about the difference between128kbit/s or lossless files of 12Mbit/s?
16 bit at 44.1 kHz is 1411 kbit/s.
By the way: Many studios master in 24 bit at 48/96 kHz - sometimes lower as most of the sales will be CD's and downloads anyway. I prefer to mix in 24 bit at 48 kHz and master in 16 bit at 44.1 kHz.
maclife: I never opened the AirPort Express Base to analyse its ingredients as I connect my BeoLab 5 directly with a SPDIF cable to my Mac Pro, using the best possible resolution of the computer (24 bit at 96000 Hertz).
What sampling rate is used in your audio files? Unless it's 96 kHz, your settings will lead to unneccesary sample-rate conversion.
moxxey:No not at all, but then a lot of people here take things way too personally! I'm just pointing out that it copes with CD quality and we're arguing CD quality audio tracks aren't good enough for the average human ear. The quality of the speaker makes far more difference than the DAC itself.
henrik: What sampling rate is used in your audio files? Unless it's 96 kHz, your settings will lead to unneccesary sample-rate conversion.
I have some music DVD’s with audio material which is playable at a higher quality than my lossless files. Changing the settings each time to be adapted at the exact resolution would be uncomfortable.
maclife: I have some music DVD’s with audio material which is playable at a higher quality than my lossless files. Changing the settings each time to be adapted at the exact resolution would be uncomfortable.
I agree :) I just wanted to point out that the highest settings not necessarily is the best setting. You obviously know that, but maybe there are others who don't.
moxxey:There's much more of a difference between speakers, so saying it's "nonsense" is non-sensical. If you went along to Argos and picked up a pair of £100 Phillips speakers and played the same track on them, compared to, say, the BL3s, of course there will be a huge difference. However, the same modern track at 24-bit (and where on earth do you get these tracks at 24-bit?!) will make less of a difference between those £100 speakers and your BL3s.
Why do you always make strange comparisons? Of course we all agree that BL3 sound better than £100 Philips speakers, come on! We're on a B&O forum!!! Everyone here agree that there is a "minimum" speaker to start hearing difference between 16 and 24bit. I don't hear a difference with Bl4000, but it is noticeable on BL3. When people invest there hard earned money on BL3/9/5, why not trying them with high quality music?
moxxey:If you were so obsessed about your audio experience, you won't be buying BL3s anyhow, btw. I can tell you a lot of audiophiles would prefer Spendor and other speakers for 24-bit audio.
Ok, so you're here on Beoworld just to say that BL3's are not good quality speakers? What is this trend nowadays to bash B&O on Beoworld? BL3's are a pure perfect value for money (remember that the speakers have built-in amps), and I think that 99% of Beoworld agree with that, including you, because you have a pair! They made me discover new things in my music, and now that I'm buying 24bit files, I'm slowly looking more and more to a speaker upgrade, but that's not the priority.
moxxey:(and where on earth do you get these tracks at 24-bit?!)
I've bought everything there : qobuz.com : you get CD-quality files or 24-bit files, the format you want, you can re-download infinitely, and it's cloud-based : with an app you can stream or download all your purchases if you forgot to synchronise at home... And I usually pay less than just the same album in m4a with iTunes (there are frequently promotions, gift codes, etc). There is not only Apple in life! Why don't you just try instead of repeating that the human hear is not made for those files?There are free sample albums to try 24bits, so try them, it's free!
To conclude : we all agree that one should first spend money on speakers, then adjust the audio chain to match those speakers.But it's not because one says that everything other than Airport Express is complete waste of money that everybody should listen to him. Listen to your speakers, try what you want to try, don't speak of theory!
maclife: But other people did open the AirPort Express, the result is here: http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Dissection-Express/ The model in question is the first generation of an AirPort Express base, so its contents might have changed since. But in this generation a Burr-Brown PCM2705 DAC has been used, a component you find in many other products as indicated here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/325941/all-the-dacs-money-can-buy-pt-2 It might be quite funny if you replace the internal DAC of an AirPort Express base by an external DAC with the same components …
All true, but the DAC chip is just the DAC chip, it doesn't make up the entire device. There are plenty of opportunities to ruin the sound with circuitry around it, be it a badly/cheaply designed audio buffer stage, a badly/cheaply designed designed power supply, or inadequate PCB layout for whatever reason.
As the (somehow) inferior audio quality of the AE has been reported and confirmed by a number of sources - including many Apple advocates - I have no reason to believe it wasn't like that, although I have never heard one. The majority of the intended audience would never know or care.
As stated, look at the price. Even if the price included the usual Apple markup, it would still be a very cheap device. Whoever designed it will have had to consider every single $0.01 resistor, whether to include it or not.
--mika
Raeuber:Does anybody know yet if the new Airport Express has the same inferior DAC?
See
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/465-new-apple-airport-express-bit-perfect-still-limited/
Carolpa: See http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/465-new-apple-airport-express-bit-perfect-still-limited/
Carolpa, this link doesn't tell anything about the DAC, it just says that the DIGITAL out is bit perfect at 16/44,1...
I noted that the DAC of the 2nd gen (802.11n AE was (marginally) better than the first gen, and the same goes for the iPods. So maybe the new AE has a DAC that could be sufficient for "non active listening" use without having to deal with an external DAC.
mbee: Carolpa: See http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/465-new-apple-airport-express-bit-perfect-still-limited/ Carolpa, this link doesn't tell anything about the DAC, it just says that the DIGITAL out is bit perfect at 16/44,1... I noted that the DAC of the 2nd gen (802.11n AE was (marginally) better than the first gen, and the same goes for the iPods. So maybe the new AE has a DAC that could be sufficient for "non active listening" use without having to deal with an external DAC.
Your right! In theory the DAC could be "perfect" but the rest is crap.
I meant this link and not the other though: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/466-measurements-first-and-second-generation-apple-airport-express/
mbee: Ok, so you're here on Beoworld just to say that BL3's are not good quality speakers? What is this trend nowadays to bash B&O on Beoworld?
Ok, so you're here on Beoworld just to say that BL3's are not good quality speakers? What is this trend nowadays to bash B&O on Beoworld?
Who is "bashing" the kit? There's a difference between fanaticism and realism. Sometimes you can be the former. I'm the latter. I've owned just about every B&O speaker combo possible, including the BL5s. I'm in a very good position to comment on my personal opinion on how these speakers perform.
Sometimes the sad thing about B&O users is that I believe a lot of them justify their expensive purchases by only wanting to hear positive things about their products/brand/setup. Anything vaguely negative leaves them reeling with a sense of injustice, to the point where they attack other users thinking that, somehow, you aren't sitting there listening to same speakers they accuse you of bashing. Oh, the irony!
You've taken the time (and money) to try a lot of B&O speakers...
Why don't you just listen to some (cheap) 24-bit files, just to know if you actually can hear a difference, instead of saying that in theory, it don't make any sense... I repeat that with the help of some gift codes and promotion, 24bit files are cheaper for me than iTunes compressed music. I can't understand why you are so negative about 24bit. I tried the test with some qobuz 16/44 flac and the same tracks in 24/96, and all my (B&O bashing+Linn+B&W fans) friends did tell the difference without any clue from myself, on my "non audiophile" setup. I'm not talking about theory, I'm talking about what I, and blind testers, can hear.
Some very interesting comments here - its clear I'm not the only one doubting some of the DAC claims thrown about in audio circles.
To be truthful, I've not been using the Airport long enough to really make a detailed judgement on the quality with my BL8000 speakers (which I think most would accept are inevitably compromised acoustically by their aesthetics). I went down the AE route more for convenience than anything else but it certainly sounds better than I expected from audio reviews and I do not seem to have had any wifi issues in the first couple of weeks either.
I had read the computeraudiophile article mentioned by Carolpa comparing DAC performance between the AE gen 1 and 2 but felt it was a little esoteric - a measurable difference is very different from a perceivable difference, in my opinion, especially in an area such as audio where there are so many other influencing factors (speakers, source, room characteristics, etc).
Would be interesting to see some controlled blind listening tests on different DACs used with mid range B&O speakers - maybe even comparing against CD playback. But I imagine even that could be more a measure of personal preference than acoustic accuracy.
I see that Computeraudiophile is mentioned here. They have a very interesting thread, where they reveal how a majority of 24/beyond 44.1 music files are nothing of the sort. It's probably wise to check whether one actually has 24/96 and higher before lauding the file for being high-resolution.
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/
There's been ample helpings of egg on face in that respect, viz Linn which sold an entire music library as high-res when it was actually 16/44.1, and no one noticed, before a file was run through an analyzer.
DACs matter, but not to the hundreds of thousands of Euros being paid for some of the "high-high-high-end kind." The DAC itself is just a little chip - in the large high-end boxes its signal is configured with a house sound in many instances. Manufacturers even brag of it.
In a survey of nine leading DAC manufacturers it turned out that none of them managed to agree on what was important in a DAC. They were all pushing "proprietary" solutions in signal processing and connectivity.
Jitter anomalies are now being sought defeated beyond the picosecond level - a very amusing thread over at Whatsbestforum re. that, with stalwarth defenders of the "it can't ever get good enough in audio."
Bedholm did a study of how one could create jitter-induced echo-location errors by bats. Humans literally have to have more acute and sensitive hearing than bats for modern DAC claims in the high-end to be relevant.
All that said - I would still place a sensible DAC between my digital sources and good speakers. And as B&O speakers have built-in amplifiers, that decision is a no-brainer.
Bedholm's abstract. Note that he is working in the nanosecond range, far from the picosecond ranges of which today's "inferior" DACs are capable of:
The transfer function of a target limits the jitter detection threshold with signals of echolocating FM-bats Received: 25 October 2004 / Revised: 20 November 2005 / Accepted: 3 December 2005 Ó Springer-Verlag 2005 Abstract The delay jitter discrimination threshold in bats is a disputed subject. Some investigators have obtained results indicating that bats are able to discriminate alternations in delay down to 10 ns, which appears incredible for purely physical reasons. Using actual bat echolocation sequences recorded during an easy detec- tion task to measure simulated delay jitter, it is shown here that jitter detection thresholds in the order of some tens of nanoseconds are actually physically realizable. However, if the transfer function of the target simulating apparatus is not perfect, the lowest thresholds are in the order of hundreds of nanoseconds and variable between individual bats. This phenomenon is shown to arise as a consequence of the variation in signal parameters from call to call. When the transfer function from a real jitter experiment was artificially applied to the echoes, the jitter detection thresholds again were several hundred nanoseconds. This is the first study to point out a lim- iting role of the transfer function of a system faced with variations in echolocation signal parameters, something that should be considered in evaluating all sonar systems with variable signal structure.
soundproof: All that said - I would still place a sensible DAC between my digital sources and good speakers.
Agreed!
soundproof: And as B&O speakers have built-in amplifiers, that decision is a no-brainer.
Yes and No!
For sure there are differences between the DAC chips - but the largest differences in sound still happen in analogue output stageof the converters where "old fashioned virtues" like stable & clean powersupply count ...
tournedos: maclife: But other people did open the AirPort Express, the result is here: http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Dissection-Express/ The model in question is the first generation of an AirPort Express base, so its contents might have changed since. But in this generation a Burr-Brown PCM2705 DAC has been used, a component you find in many other products as indicated here: http://www.head-fi.org/t/325941/all-the-dacs-money-can-buy-pt-2 It might be quite funny if you replace the internal DAC of an AirPort Express base by an external DAC with the same components … All true, but the DAC chip is just the DAC chip, it doesn't make up the entire device. There are plenty of opportunities to ruin the sound with circuitry around it, be it a badly/cheaply designed audio buffer stage, a badly/cheaply designed designed power supply, or inadequate PCB layout for whatever reason.
For being able to discuss this in a serious form we unfortunately would need to really compare such devices in detail on a piece by piece level.
I’m honestly not aware of such sources but would be very interested in getting more details as it always helps having an information advantage.
This could be true – or not. As Apple has the tendency of incredibly long product cycles for its accessories and are selling huge quantities in the same time, they easily could dictate prices for every part in a much more comfortable way small high fidelity companies would be able.
as linn says source first ,if you loose the information at the start of the chain,you cant gain it back,24bit studio masters from linn records 100% sound better than the cd version.Just heard lab 5s with a linn klimax ds playing 24bit file and it was awesome, compared to the same cd from a beosound 9000 cd player.
This does not mean much to me but there is a teardown of the latest AE here .
The author says of the DAC: "The audio digital to analog converter is an all-new 24-bit/192khz Asahi Kasei AKM4430. This chip is similar to the Cirrus Logic CS4344 used in the previous model, but should be an improvement over the Burr-Brown PCM2705 used in the original 802.11g Airport Expresses."
A quick web search revealed that particular product is used in a number of current mid-range BD players from Philips and Pioneer.
Before the anti-Mac brigade kick off I should also point out the teardown was carried out by a company that plays in the OSX market, which may introduce a little bias into its judgement of the overall quality of the AE device.
Hardwriter: Before the anti-Mac brigade kick off I should also point out the teardown was carried out by a company that plays in the OSX market, which may introduce a little bias into its judgement of the overall quality of the AE device.
Having said that, after Rogue Amoeba's recent run-ins with Apple, I don't know how much in favour they are, these days. Sounds like they've upgraded the DAC though, which is good - 24-bit.
Now I just need to go and re-rip all my Spice Girls CDs in to lossless 24-bit, 'eh? :) Oh the immense joy I'll have picking out the nuances in the audio I didn't previously hear in CD quality 16-bit.
moxxey: Now I just need to go and re-rip all my Spice Girls CDs in to lossless 24-bit, 'eh? :) Oh the immense joy I'll have picking out the nuances in the audio I didn't previously hear in CD quality 16-bit.
On the subject of nuances in the audio, I occasionally listen to music via a pair of quality earphones and am always amazed by what I am now able hear compared to 'normal' loudspeaker listening.
In the case of tracks/albums I have purchased and listened to quite a bit, when I then listen to the same ones with the earphones, often it's almost like I'm listening to a different recording as the differences are so marked.
I think a lot of people who obsess about the technology of the recording and reproductive process would be better off saving their money and just listening via headphones occasionally and enjoying the enormous improvement in the listening experience.
kokomo: On the subject of nuances in the audio, I occasionally listen to music via a pair of quality earphones and am always amazed by what I am now able hear compared to 'normal' loudspeaker listening. In the case of tracks/albums I have purchased and listened to quite a bit, when I then listen to the same ones with the earphones, often it's almost like I'm listening to a different recording as the differences are so marked. I think a lot of people who obsess about the technology of the recording and reproductive process would be better off saving their money and just listening via headphones occasionally and enjoying the enormous improvement in the listening experience.
I can see what you're saying but then listening on headphones does not give you the true stereo experience, instead you get the "through-head" experience. You would need either binaural recordings (uncommon) or an external binaural processor to simulate the sound bleed/reflection around the head normally experienced in stereo listening.
I do like listening on headphones and you are correct, they do enable you to hear detail more clearly - this is ideal for spotting problems when mixing or producing music.
Ban boring signatures!
Carolpa its what we call irony.
Beosound Stage, Beovision 8-40, Beolit 20, Beosound Explore.