The title is:"There's No Such Thing As Digital..."


Subtitled: "A Conversation With Charles Hansen, Gordon Rankin and Steve Silberman". It's an interesting read if you're not yet familiar with this particular topic...or have only considered it briefly. I wouldn't call myself a digital expert, but I can see no reason to quibble with it one bit:

www.audiostream.com/content/draft

Enjoy.
ivan_nosnibor
"Steve, you're missing all network DACs including Ethernet, Firewire, Wireless etc."

These are usually not called DACs, but music processors or servers etc., but you are correct.

"You also forgot about asynchronous reclocking DACs.

Typical DACs contain Phase Locked Loop (PLL) that contains adjustable oscillator and phase detector."

These may be typical, but I didn't forget about these, I totally ignored them. I don't even consider resampling DACs because the effect of resampling is so damaging to audio quality, even using a high-quality clock, which most don't have. I would never design such a DAC. Once you have this, no matter how good the input source is, the internal clock and resampling wrecks it IME. I have modded more than a dozen such DACs in the past 12 years, so I know how this sounds.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
You probably think about oversampling and that is different. Pretty much every CDP contains PLL. It can be used straight just to suppress jitter providing stable clock (by means of averaging) or can be used to create oversampling. Such oversampling is done by comparing in phase detector incoming stream to divided down frequency of higher frequency internal clock. Because this division is integer these oversampling DACs always operate on multiples of incoming frequency while upsampling DACs can work on pretty much any non-integer ratio. Usually PLL is inserted somewhere. Even asynchronous rate converter based DACs (upsampling DACs) like my Benchmark have some form of PLL to make signal stable enough for upsampling. Such PLL is fast responding and single stage while most of CDPs have dual stage PLL that operates at different time constants.
So it seems there's more than enough room on the head of this pin for everyone to dance on.

One can go on for great lengths citing this and that but in the end, using my own ears, I've yet to hear a PC system easily trounce a really good CDP. The caveat in my belief is that I've only heard these PC setups at audio shows and later on read how great they were but they didn't sound any better than a great CDP setup.

Yes, it was fun to observe and oh my, look at the convenience and look, there's my entire library on a screen for me to have access to, .....

All the best,
Nonoise
"I've yet to hear a PC system easily trounce a really good CDP."

Really good is really good no matter how you get there.

I've heard lots of really good players for reference and think my current PC music server based system is really good in comparison as well.

It's hard to say that any really good digital setup would trounce another one I think if both are played in the same system. Where significant differences are heard, I suspect personal preferences would be the main determining factor.
"You probably think about oversampling and that is different. Pretty much every CDP contains PLL."

This is why I don't use or recommend CD players anymore. There are a few that are computer-based that might be okay, depending on the clock quality etc.

"Even asynchronous rate converter based DACs (upsampling DACs) like my Benchmark have some form of PLL to make signal stable enough for upsampling."

I probably have 100 modded DAC1's out in the field. I know it well.

"Usually PLL is inserted somewhere."

Not in the best DACs. The jitter of a free-running clock will always beat a PLL.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio