Another DAC bits and Hz question

"Is my hypothesis reasonable? Or do the newer DACs extract the musical data better today regardless of the bits and Hz perhaps due to better re-clocking or algorithms?

I posted this question over on computeraudiophile, but I think it was the wrong location since I don't stream music or use a computer as the source."

I think you'll be able to work the digital aspect out, whatever you decide to do. In my opinion, I think the biggest mistake people are making today when buying digital products is overlooking the analog section. Just as an example, a brand that I like very much overall is Ayre. A lot of the Ayre house sound that their amps and preamps share carry over to their DAC's and CD players because of how the analog section is designed. If you took just the digital portion of one of their sources and gave it to another company to design the analog section, you would most likely have a very different sounding product.

I think your instincts are right on CA. I have no idea what those people over there are trying to do. Its just one big never ending argument.

ZD542, yes that is more along the lines of what I was thinking...older DACS with better build quality, power supplies, and components...

One of the replies to my post on CA used the whole precision/accuracy illustration to explain the importance of the number of DACs per channel. Seemed to make sense to me, and my guess is that the audiophile quality DACs of yesterday probably had at least one DAC chip per channel, even if they were only 18/44.1.

Ok ... so here's my conundrum. The BB DAC used in my redbook CDP is not cutting edge anymore -- per Steve (Audioengr). That may be true, but I cannot validate that view unless I do some serious auditioning.

Notably, the ARC Ref CD-9, which replaces my CD-8 redbook CDP, uses quad DACs in mono configuration, whatever that means. But ... the CD-9, also supports a wide array of other digital media and formats. So I do not know how much of this additional quad/mono DAC firepower is dedicated to just the redbook CD format.

Maybe my point is this. I've been consciously looking to improve the digital side of my rig. A more modern CDP may be the way to go. Dunno??

But here's "non-tweak" that took my current CDP setup to another level. The "non-tweak" is hi-def/hi-rez CDs. I picked up a couple of MoFi "gold" quality CDs to see if the quality of recording and mastering redbook CDs make a difference. IMO and IME, the answer is a unqualified ... yes!!

Out of curiosity, I may check out ARC's latest digital products to see if they can "suck more juice" out of my redbook CDs. I surmise that the answer is a little, but not a lot. Afterall, a garbage CD is still garbage by any other name. Sounds like something Shakespeare might say.

If Steve or our other digital techies can explain in plain English what the quad/mono DAC topology is all about, I'd appreciate the education. Please be kind ... I'm a tech boob. :)

Thanks

Quad/mono DACs just means that they are using stereo D/A chips, but only one per channel so it used in a "mono" mode, not stereo.

One way to make your existing CD transport sound even better than a new transport is to add the Synchro-Mesh in-between:

http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/synchro-mesh

This is the best reclocker on the market.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio

Steve you should put your synchro-mesh converter in the Offramp 5 as well. People could then use it with their cd transports for reclocking and also use it for higher bit downloads. They wouldn't have to buy both boxes.