In Reply to: RE: Then you didn't understand what you read... posted by Sprezza Tura on September 17, 2015 at 08:25:36:
My only disagreement with you would be on words like "broken" and "correctly". I would keep these words for gross failures, such as no music, skips, clicks and noise bursts. I don't consider small degradation of sound quality in this category, especially degradation that is not easily measured and not heard consistently by all audiophiles or DAC designers.
I believe it's in the DAC designer's interest to make his DAC as tolerant as possible of marginal sources if his target market is customers who want state of the art sound, but who aren't willing to pay huge premiums for status or glitz. If the improvement in signal quality is done in the DAC and enables the DAC to sound good with inexpensive commodity computers then there will be the possibility of capturing a larger fraction of customer budgets. This comment does not apply to DAC manufacturers who are also selling audiophile grade digital sources, because it potentially cannibalizes a different segment of their business. This comment also does not apply to DAC manufacturers who are selling Veblen goods, where status and glitz are included in the product image, nut just sound quality.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Then you didn't understand what you read... - Tony Lauck 09/17/1509:07:03 09/17/15 (0)