For digital transmission especially, and given the signal/source chain most viewers of this are likely going to settle on, fancy cables won’t do anything but burn a whole in their pocket and look marginally ‘prettier’ in their setup. I’d skip any talk about latency (it’s confusing to us very familiar with the space) and seriously either rephrase or wholesale omit the section regarding cable selection/quality. I think many of the items you’re pointing out to a newcomer to the space are important. Such methods can typically result in a smoother presentation (when reviewing spectral graphs and can be discerned audibly by those with picky ears). DACs, however, that include input protocols like I2S or AES/EBU can inherit clock data from it’s source (presuming it’s superior to the clock used within the DAC) and effectively use this timing data for the analog conversion. The clock, on the other hand, can be very important and is a feature of every Digital to Analog signal path.Īgain, I’m yet to come across a DAC that allows a user to define it’s clock accuracy. Latency is not a measure of quality of a DAC. “This is often taken for granted by most people, but it is impossible to get quality sound on digital sound players with generic cables.”Ĭan you elaborate on this specific item? Are you referring to galvanic isolation? EMI/RFI interference? Specific transmission protocols (USB, Optical, Digital Coax, ANALOG, etc.)?īecause the blanket statement above it misleading at best, flat-out innacurrate at it’s worst.Īlso, please elaborate on DAC latency? Are you referring to filters? (Fast, Slow, Rolloff, Apodization, etc?) I’m yet to come across a DAC in my lifetime that measures in millisecond latency or provides for such adjustment (say for the Chord M Scaler) that includes a direct path mode largely only beneficial for audio/visual sync. In the above article, you state the following:
0 kommentar(er)
