DAC's have been considered important since the first CD players. You often pay for a "better" DAC if you buy/bought an expensive model. 

I believe that there is a difference between DAC's, but that only lies in the analog IC's that is placed after the converter; a lot of inexpensive outboard units are much better than original PC soundcards as an example.

Info:

the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit.

Carolpa wrote:

the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit.

So, "limited" to CD quality. Since when did CD quality audio become not good enough to cope with modern music produced for the headphone generation? Maybe if you want to listen to Pink Floyd or classical music, it but for 99% of most music, I'm sure CD quality audio is more than sufficient for most ears.

As I've said before, the quality of the speakers makes more of a different. I can listen to tracks through my Beosound 8. They sound good. Move up to my BL3/BL11 combo and they sound much better again. This isn't a DAC issue (indeed, the BS3/BL11 is via the Airport Express), but a speaker quality issue.

Hardwriter wrote:

Just makes me wonder whether the DAC is set to become the latest hi-fi "snake oil" product!

A reasonable point I think 'Hardwriter'. Like you I've seen much comment regarding how sound can be hugely improved by the addition of DACs, particularly that from the AE. Claims of improvement are backed up by quoting various technical specifications and figures. They may be all true of course and indeed probably are, but does the resultant audio produced actually sound markedly better to the ears?

Perhaps it does, I don't really know.  

In the days when these things mattered more to me and before B&O style and quality became of equal importance to the sound, I used to read reviews (Hi-Fi News for example) where CD players costing thousands of Pounds were tested and the sound they produced praised for their clear superiority. But would the same disc played on a 100 Pounds player passing through the same top-end amplifier and speakers, really be that audibly inferior?

I've been considering the purchase of a DAC to connect between my AE & B&O system. Would I really notice that much improvement? Or is it more a case of convincing ones self  that it must sound better as a justification for the cash outlay!

moxxey wrote:

Carolpa wrote:

the Apple DAC is limited to 44,1kHz 16bit.

So, "limited" to CD quality. Since when did CD quality audio become not good enough to cope with modern music produced for the headphone generation? Maybe if you want to listen to Pink Floyd or classical music, it but for 99% of most music, I'm sure CD quality audio is more than sufficient for most ears.

As I've said before, the quality of the speakers makes more of a different. I can listen to tracks through my Beosound 8. They sound good. Move up to my BL3/BL11 combo and they sound much better again. This isn't a DAC issue (indeed, the BS3/BL11 is via the Airport Express), but a speaker quality issue.

Wow. Did I sting an Apple addict? I just gave the limits of the specs. 

And yes for me it would not be sufficient. I already have a collection of aprox 2000 24bit music files.

Carolpa wrote:

And yes for me it would not be sufficient. I already have a collection of aprox 2000 24bit music files

Yes, but why do you feel the need to quote the bit-rate of the music files? Do you have this collection because they sound better than 16 bit? Or do many  of the artists & their recordings you favour just happen to be recorded this way? I hope so.

And what about the actual music itself? Isn't that the important element here, not just a particular bit rate? 

BTW, does anyone recall when CDs were designated DDD, ADD & AAD? At one time I often used to look for & select DDD discs because they must sound better, mustn't they? They certainly sounded different, but better & importantly, more enjoyable than ADD & AAD? No.

After a while I'd choose a particular artist & performance first rather than how the disc itself  was sonically and technically produced.     

Also touchy about Apple?

kokomo wrote:

but why did you feel the to quote the bit-rate of the music files? Do you have this collection because they sound better than 16 bit? Or do many  of the artists & their recordings you favour just happen to be recorded this way? 

First: the music; the artist; etc; but at the same time the best possible quality.

Ever heart the differens between 16bit 44.1kHz and 24bit 192kHz?

do you know the meaning about the difference between128kbit/s or lossless files of 12Mbit/s?

kokomo wrote:

BTW, does anyone recall when CDs were designated DDD, ADD & AAD? At one time I often used to look for & select DDD discs because they must sound better, mustn't they? They certainly sounded different, but better & importantly, more enjoyable than ADD & AAD? No

Me too - focused on the DDD but then I found some of my favourites were ADD ... the difference between an outstanding performance and a technically accurate recording.

Carolpa wrote:

First: the music; the artist; etc; but at the same time the best possible quality.

100% agreed!

I OWN some AEs, they are cheap, easy to use and the (mediocre) analogue output is exactly what you can expect for
that money - fair enough - even Apple can't turn water into wine 😁