moxxey wrote:

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.

Hi Moxxey,

First, you say that today's music is "produced for the headphone generation", then you say that one should invest in BL3's... Isn't hat's a bit of a nonsense?

I have a set of BL3's, and I clearly like to use them "fully" with 24-bit tracks. It's mainly for jazz, but "today's generation music" can also be different in 24-bit. Listen to the bass of Masomenos or M83 in 16 or 24 bits (not via an Airport Express), and you will discover something new, going deeper... I'm 30, I went from CD to iTunes (not much, because I thought it was too expensive for what it is) to Qobuz. I just listen to music, and enjoy it, I don't only look at spec sheets. But when I like a song, I want to have it in the best possible quality.

I can't understand why people finding the sound of Airport Express good enough for their ears always want to avoid people buying other stuff than Apple.

My personnal evolution in digital music : I started to listen to digital music via Airplay with an Airport Express. I realised that it was not as good as when listening to the same CD with my Beosound 2300, so I tried Sonos, which is a nice multiroom with a DAC which gives a sound more natural, closer to what I like. Then I tried the BS5 Encore to listen to 24-bit tracks, and found that it really makes a difference on my bl3's. Now I'm hesitating between Sonos and Playmaker for "link rooms" (currently fed with Airport Express), and there is still a device that brings Airplay to my main system, but connected in HDMI to a Beovision, so that the DAC is good ;-)

Carolpa wrote:

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

Yes, sometimes when using my Sennheiser HD650s or my friend's Adam A7s.

Would I be able to hear the difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 (using the same DAC) when using my Pentas or a par of BL8000s? No. To me, those speakers lack the definition needed for me to be able to hear those differences. That's how subtle those differences are to me, I need really good speakers/phones to hear them.

Would I be able to hear differences between different DACs when using these speakers? Yes, sometimes, and in those cases probably more due to the analogue circuits than the DACs themselves but those circuits are part of the package...

I've compared my Airport Express to my RME Fireface 800 (multichannel AD/DA for music production) and although I can hear differences when using the Pentas, the differences is much more easy to hear when using the HD650s or my studio monitors. Conclusion: it would be wiser of me to first invest in better speakers than in better DACs :)

What I'm trying to say is that I would worry more about my choice of speakers than my choice of DAC. If you have BL3/9s or better, then invest in a nice DAC, in other cases spend that money on better speakers instead. :)

This is of course my personal opinion, other members may have different experiences and opinions.

henrik wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that I would worry more about my choice of speakers than my choice of DAC. If you have BL3/9s or better, then invest in a nice DAC, in other cases spend that money on better speakers instead. :)

So true! The whole chain, from music to speakers should in balance.

But there are a lot of people out there with excellent speakers, DAC, etc. who tend to listen to poor quality audio formats. And often for the sole reason because it has a certain "label".

Carolpa wrote:

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.

No not at all, but then a lot of people here take things way too personally!

I'm just pointing out that it copes with CD quality and we're arguing CD quality audio tracks aren't good enough for the average human ear. The quality of the speaker makes far more difference than the DAC itself.

Hardwriter wrote:

Over the years I seen much written in hi-fi magazines about the huge improvements that can be obtained by investing in hugely expensive speaker cables or using filters on power supplies. Most of these gains seem to be unsupported by any hard measurements and even where it is possible to measure a difference it is questionable - I would argue - whether it is significant when set against the huge variations in sound quality due to factors such as poor original recordings or room characteristics.

Very true. The very same fanatics usually cannot accept at all a BeoLab 5 as a serious audiophile speaker as it also includes an aesthetic approach. Apparently an audiophile system needs to be as well ugly as esoteric.

I only use lossless files btw. (disk capacity is inexpensive those days, so there’s really no need to discuss this) as my personal hearing tests left me no choice.

So, is the DAC the new speaker cable? It appears to be a widely held belief, for instance, that the quality of Apple's DAC is poor and can be hugely improved upon be using one of many alternatives - some of which carry price tags that make even B&O customers wince. I use an Airport Express with BL8000s running 320k AAC files and it seems pretty decent. I've seen measurements that show a big difference between the Apple DAC and state-of-the-art alternatives but I can't say I notice any big problems in reality. Maybe my hearing is just not sufficiently honed to determine the difference - but if that's the case I don't think I'd be on my own.

I never opened the AirPort Express Base to analyse its ingredients as I connect my BeoLab 5 directly with a SPDIF cable to my Mac Pro, using the best possible resolution of the computer (24 bit at 96000 Hertz).

But other people did open the AirPort Express, the result is here:

http://www.vonwentzel.net/ABS/Dissection-Express/

The model in question is the first generation of an AirPort Express base, so its contents might have changed since. But in this generation a Burr-Brown PCM2705 DAC has been used, a component you find in many other products as indicated here:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/325941/all-the-dacs-money-can-buy-pt-2

It might be quite funny if you replace the internal DAC of an AirPort Express base by an external DAC with the same components …

I ask this question because I see a number of Beoworld contributors saying that the Playmaker DAC is much better than Apple's. I've seen no data to justify this claim and was not aware the product had even been released long enough for a serious comparison to be made. Just makes me wonder whether the DAC is set to become the latest hi-fi "snake oil" product!

It for sure is part of it!

Carolpa wrote:

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?

16 bit at 44.1 kHz is 1411 kbit/s.

By the way: Many studios master in 24 bit at 48/96 kHz - sometimes lower as most of the sales will be CD's and downloads anyway. I prefer to mix in 24 bit at 48 kHz and master in 16 bit at 44.1 kHz.

maclife wrote:

I never opened the AirPort Express Base to analyse its ingredients as I connect my BeoLab 5 directly with a SPDIF cable to my Mac Pro, using the best possible resolution of the computer (24 bit at 96000 Hertz).

What sampling rate is used in your audio files? Unless it's 96 kHz, your settings will lead to unneccesary sample-rate conversion.

moxxey wrote:

No not at all, but then a lot of people here take things way too personally!

I'm just pointing out that it copes with CD quality and we're arguing CD quality audio tracks aren't good enough for the average human ear. The quality of the speaker makes far more difference than the DAC itself.

henrik wrote:

What sampling rate is used in your audio files? Unless it's 96 kHz, your settings will lead to unneccesary sample-rate conversion.

I have some music DVD’s with audio material which is playable at a higher quality than my lossless files. Changing the settings each time to be adapted at the exact resolution would be uncomfortable.

maclife wrote:

I have some music DVD’s with audio material which is playable at a higher quality than my lossless files. Changing the settings each time to be adapted at the exact resolution would be uncomfortable.

I agree :) I just wanted to point out that the highest settings not necessarily is the best setting. You obviously know that, but maybe there are others who don't.