New D/D Converters from Denafrips

[57gold]

Why isn't the stuff in the D to D converter engineered into a DAC? 

 

Using Berkeley as an example, seems to me that a $5K+ DAC should handle in incoming signal without needing conversion with a $2K box and additional cables.  Why does the clocking mechanism in the DAC not do the job the an external reclocker does?  Do the designers of DACs "forget" as step and need a fix for their products?  

 

Understood the utility of a D to D converter when I hooked a computer to a Wadia 861, it had no USB in and the Mac had no SPDIF out.  Wavelength and then an Audiophilleo2 did that job nicely.

 

[57gold]

11 hours ago, barrows said:

There are actually plenty of DACs which will not benefit from a converter like this, unless one prefers the sound of higher jitter.  Just use a good USB source direct into the DAC's USB input, and just do not purchase a DAC which does not have a well implemented USB input, there really is no excuse these days for a DAC to have a poor USB input, the details of getting it "right" are now pretty well understood by most sharp digital engineers.

Now, if one has a "legacy" DAC which they love, the might benefit form  converter like this.

 

With respect to DAC design, I was hoping that this was the case, that some folks figured it out and particularly those producing $2K+ DACs.  

 

But you post above also suggests that one needs to use a good USB source...which for this piker, who doesn't understand what most of the people posting on this forum about things like convolution, end points, boxes called Pis, USB reclockers for $3K...a Mac Mini USB out, is that a USB source?  Or is this where some of the gadget boxes come in?

[57gold]

Getting back to my observation.  The Terminator DAC is $4,300 and if it needs another $2k box to "fix" its USB input, it's mis-engineered/broken from the outset.  

 

Have learned a bunch of great and useful stuff from this community, like  how to get a MAC to play music on a great vintage CD player with SPDIF input.  Posted the first observation that a studio equipment company was launching a home audio DAC, the Mytek DSD192, which I enjoyed for years. Also learned about and employed software players like PM, A+ and HQP to great and positive effect, which I leaned about here and am grateful.  And as Barrows and Jussi point out, a dedicated music server with no "distractions" and enough computational power is an optimal path to significantly better music.  Perhaps this is my next music listening mission, to the extent somebody comes up with something that can quietly handle HQP at a high level without costing as much as an SUV.

 

All that said, the "gizmo centric", D to D boxes, re-clockers, USB filter/cleaners, cable paranoia, Pis (though I still do not know what they do even after reading a two part review)...BS that has taken over CA/AS is pretty silly for a serious music lover.  It seems to be the stuff of the "audiophile" guy in my office who spent huge $s on his system (Spectral, MIT...) and stumbled when asked, "what's you new favorite album?" He couldn't talk about the musical performances, the song writing, why it moved him, only the recording quality of some audiophile samplers of third rate music.  He said, "he liked to listen to the equipment."

 

Different strokes.  

 

[57gold]

Yes, a little strong perhaps on the word or abbreviation choice, perhaps. Apologies to those whom I may have offended.

 

The guy in the office thing is an observation related to the irony of investing in great music reproduction tools and not actually being a music enthusiast.  Music reproduction gear without the music brings....pride of ownership?  Seems odd, but different strokes.

 

Have a second hobby, playing guitar, and see the same equipment fixation with folks obsessing over vintage guitars/amps, NOS tubes, scores of effects pedals, boutique builders of the above...and then many demo their stuff with a video and they can't play nor know how to use the tools they acquired because what little they can play sounds off.  Seems unbalanced or misguided; perhaps the obsessive energy ought to be spent on learning how to play? Yes, but different strokes.