New D/D Converters from Denafrips

[barrows]

On 6/9/2020 at 6:57 AM, 57gold said:

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.

 

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.

[barrows]

16 minutes ago, 57gold said:

 

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?

I am not in favor of add on gadgets personally.  i prefer a good, designed for high end audio, USB source.  One can hardly expect a consumer grade commercial computer designed for general computer purposes (master of none) to be a good high end  audio source.  One is better off with something designed for the task at hand (delivering perfect USB audio signal integrity, with ultra low noise), not something designed for general computing purposes.

[barrows]

@Blake, Far from everything is figured out by anyone, and certainly not me.  But just because everything is not figured out, does not mean we should dismiss the things which are figured out.  
Please do not put words in my mouth though... it appears to me that you are reading an awful lot between the lines of what I have said: "Berkeley must be incompetent engineers", umm, not sure how/where you could infer this from my words, for example?

 

On the "Perfect USB DAC" question, I never said anything about any "Perfect DAC" of any type?  BTW, for the sake of discussion, does it really make sense that a really good USB interface could made in a separate chassis, but such could not be achieved inside the DAC itself?

 

On the uDigital, it gets a "free pass" to where exactly?  I do not actually have anything to do with the uDigital product, but the way I look at it, Sonore offers this product because the Rendu Series Renderers have only USB output, and some customers have SPDIF only input DACs, or they might just want to use SPDIF, or I2S for that matter, I do not see anything wrong with offering options for customers?

 

And, please keep in mind that my post was direct response to a question from 57Gold which i feel was a very legitimate question.  No one is under any obligation to agree with me if they choose not to.

 

@Summit, simply, no, sorry for any misunderstanding.

[barrows]

@Blake, As this is your thread, I will decline further comment.