Is chaining two DACs a bad idea?

[listening-in97]

Hi everyone, A dumb question perhaps but here it is: Is it bad for the signal to pass through two DACs? It can't be good to add a step in the chain, but is it especially harmful here?

I have been using an Asus Xonar Essence ST soundcard, which uses a Burr-Brown PCM 1792A DAC to convert signals(127dB SNR, Max. 192kHz/24bit). Retails for about US$200. Am wondering how pricey a DAC separate I would need to hear an improvement in the sound. If I upgraded to say a Rega DAC or Arcam rDAC, would I need to remove the soundcard, and run the signal off the motherboard's audio outputs? I have about US$1,000 (800 pounds) available for an upgrade and wonder where it should go, as currently the sound is alright but want punchier, tighter. Maybe its the speaker-amp.

Incidentally, from the soundcard, the signal goes out RCA jacks through Chord Crimson interconnects to a Rega Brio-R then through Chord Carnival Silverscreen speaker wire to Monitor Audio Silver RX1. Thanks!

On a side note, what do people think of the claims made in this science-based article, which holds "there is no point to distributing music in 24-bit/192kHz format. Its playback fidelity is slightly inferior to 16/44.1 or 16/48" http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[shafesk]

Hi there, in this case you are not using two dacs but bypassing the one in your soundcard via the optical output. Same as when you connect a cdplayer to a dac, you are no longer using the cdplayer's dac but the dac's dac. I think your setup is good enough to get a better dac and you will hear an improvement.

If I were you, I would just listen to a 24/192 recording...they usually blow cd out of the water through a good system (like yours). There are people who believe that we never landed on the moon, so there will always be cynics.

 

[SteveR750]

With a PC there are only two ways you can connect to an external DAC - via USB or optical s/pdif. Most laptops don't have the optical out, only expensive PCs and Macs. A number of desktops have them, but you'll need to check them in store first, and most retailers have no idea of the significance of this port.

USB is fast becoming the standard - in the process of auditioning several DACs recently, almost all of them were configured to give optimum results over USB using their own proprietry driver that has to be donwloaded and installed off the DAC manufactureres website (Cambridge Audio, NAD, Chord all do this for example).

It's impossible to connect your audio output of your PC soundcard to an external DAC, unless you deliberately feed the analogue audio (headphone) signal into the DAC, but that of course makes no sense!

 

[Overdose]

Firstly, it is not possible for a signal to pass through two DACs unless there is an ADC in between, you will simply be bypassing one of the DACs.

If I were you, I'd save your money until you can afford a proper upgrade rather than a subjective one, ie the speakers and amp. Until then, enjoy your music, as adding an external DAC is no guarantee of improvement.

As for high res files, install Audacity (if you don't already have it), download a high res track and compress it to 16/44 for CD quality. You can then compare back to back, a high res track to a CD quality track of the exact same recording, as opposed to a CD and quite possibly a different master/re-mix of the same track. It is known that many high resolution tracks are remastered versions of the originals, therefore are different and this accounts for any sound differences.

Your own results of comparing like recordings of various resolutions (even compressed to some lossy formats) will tell you all you need to know about high res music and whether or not you should invest in it.

 

[Overdose]

It's impossible to connect your audio output of your PC soundcard to an external DAC, unless you deliberately feed the analogue audio (headphone) signal into the DAC, but that of course makes no sense!

It also wouldn't work.

 

[fr0g]

Hi there, in this case you are not using two dacs but bypassing the one in your soundcard via the optical output. Same as when you connect a cdplayer to a dac, you are no longer using the cdplayer's dac but the dac's dac. I think your setup is good enough to get a better dac and you will hear an improvement.

If I were you, I would just listen to a 24/192 recording...they usually blow cd out of the water through a good system (like yours). There are people who believe that we never landed on the moon, so there will always be cynics.

Man definitely landed on the moon. Man also can't hear frequencies at 96KHz and the best recording in the world uses a fraction of the dynamic range of a 16bit CD.

 

[steve_1979]

If I were you, I'd save your money until you can afford a proper upgrade, ie the speakers and amp. Until then, enjoy your music, as adding an external DAC is no guarantee of improvement.

+1

Good quality modern soundcards really are very good and have a level of sound quality that matches hifi DACs. I doubt that you'd be able to hear any difference by using an expensive hifi DAC instead.

The biggest problem that you get with PC soundcards is that the inside of a computer case tends to be very 'electromagnetically noisy' which can effect the analoge output section of the sound card. However this shouldn't be an issue for you as the Xonar Essence ST soundcard that you're using has an EMI shield over the analoge output section.

 

[SteveR750]

Hi there, in this case you are not using two dacs but bypassing the one in your soundcard via the optical output. Same as when you connect a cdplayer to a dac, you are no longer using the cdplayer's dac but the dac's dac. I think your setup is good enough to get a better dac and you will hear an improvement.

If I were you, I would just listen to a 24/192 recording...they usually blow cd out of the water through a good system (like yours). There are people who believe that we never landed on the moon, so there will always be cynics.

Man definitely landed on the moon. Man also can't hear frequencies at 96KHz and the best recording in the world uses a fraction of the dynamic range of a 16bit CD.

Without wishing to start a cable debate, really; but anti aliasing filters drive the need to sample greater than Nyquist. It's not as simple as we can't hear above 22.1Khz. BTW I'm not arguing that 192k tracks sound better (I'm not) but neither am I arguing that they don't (because there are too many other mitigating factors in what is a relatively new and BS riddled product, as in resampled CD, lack of product availability etc etc etc to be able to conduct a proper comparison over many albums).

FWIW to my ears sample depth is more important than sample rate, though to be fair I've not heard a 16/96 track

 

[listening-in97]

Thanks for in the input people,

I wonder if a better investment than buying a Rega DAC or the Peachtree DAC iT is to upgrade my MA Silvers to something like the new KEF anniversary edition or hold off and go for a Paradigm Reference Signature s2 or something from ProAc - wonder though if the Rega is then outclassed.

I have done the ABX Comparator with the foobar plug-in. I can score about 80% between 24/96 and 16/44.1 - NOT encouraging.

Though I read that 30 tests are needed to ensure a reliable result, with lots of ear rest in between.

I hear the difference between the two examples most easily when listening for singers' inhaling and exhaling at the end of notes and also through brush snares/high hats/ cymbals.

I need a top-produced album like "The Imagine Project" (vinyl ripped) by Herbie Hancock to hear the difference. I then convert a track down to 16/44.1 and test it against the original in 24/96.

I also took a hearing test at Upper Frequency Range (High Pitch) Hearing Test, online
and found I could only hear tones starting at 17kHz - can anyone hear the 18-20kHz tones?

 

[Overdose]

Being on the wrong side of forty now, my hearing tops out at just over 16KHz. I would say that if you cannot 100% reliably pick out high res tracks from CD quality, the benefits diminish somewhat. Certainly I haven't heard any differences and consider the point moot, so I settle with CD as good enough. I suppose that if you can hear any differences, then to buy high res or not, would depend on personal preference and whether or not you could justify the extra expense for whatever benefit may exist.

Regarding the sampling frequency, this has nothing to do with the audible frequency or recorded dynamic range of a track, it is simply the rate of sampling the track to ensure an audibly perfect reproduction of the sound (see Nyquist theorum), hence, with the human hearing topping out at 20KHz, CD frequency of 44.1KHz, should be plenty enough to accurately capture all the needed dynamic range of music audible to humans.