Originally Posted by xianthax
It would be awesome to have a reading comprehension test be a prerequisite for posting here because clearing you completely failed to understand my original post.
The issues have been addressed with you dozens of times in dozens of threads, you have chosen to glaze over or ignore them every time and go back to flogging the same dead argument. You can not produce a single study supporting your position, therefore all you have to fall back on is restating the same tired story time and time again. I for one, and i'm sure many others are simply tired of reading it.
Hmm...sounds like an answer to my question alright. Not to mention no one ever answered the amp
question either. But I digress.
For the record, I completely agree with you that what we call "DACs"...are more than just the chip. And according to you, the Berkeley DAC, for example, is full of filters and DSPs, etc. I mean...let me make sure not to misquote you...However half the "high end DACs" people are yapping around aren't DACs, they are signal processors.
They take in a digital signal, feed it through a DSP doing who knows what with 15 different "digital filter options" and only then hand to the real DAC IC to be converted to analog.
Reference the Berkeley Thread awhile back. Internal pictures were posted of it and its got a Analog Devices SHARC DSP on board, i mean that series is used in full surround sound decoding in home theater receivers, 8 in 8 out pro level signal processors, pro mixing consoles, etc and its sitting in a 2 channel "DAC" doing god knows what to the signal. If it were just a matter of passing the audio through you can do that with a $2 micro-controller, they clearly put that DSP in there to do something.
So, you did
say this, right? Now you guys are always accusing me of being pretty stupid (and before geek goes SHOW ME A SINGLE POST WHERE SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE STUPID...let me just drop this post in "It would be awesome to have a reading comprehension test be a prerequisite for posting here because clearing you completely failed to understand my original post." Where I come from, that's stupid); but unless I'm also being dense about this, it sounds to me like you are saying these filters and DSPs alter sound? I mean, you say "doing who knows what" and "god knows what" twice.
Now, I wouldn't know a filter or DSP if it leaped out of the BAD, and bit me on the leg (maybe that's what people mean by killer
)...so I'll take an "expert" such as yourself on your word. Here's what I don't understand; how can you say in one breath say "that thing's full of filters and DSPs, that do who
knows what...and god
knows what...to the sound"...and in the other breath say "all DACs sound alike"?
In fact, I think you've just made the best argument I've heard so far...as to why it's likely DACs do
, in fact, sound different. Not DACs, as in chips...of course; no one ever made that argument. But DACs, as in components. You know...because of all the filters and DSPs.