Originally Posted by scientest
Yup. I build data collection systems for Medical Research; we get to play with AD/DA conversion interfaces for nMRI, gene sequencers (the signal is analog strangely enough), mass spectrometers, and just about every audio and image collection device you can imagine. Majored in Math at University. But there are others here on AVS who build the actual audio hardware we're discussing, they're the ones you'll really have to convince...
Fair enough, however, I'll also not that having worked with codecs for 19 years doesn't necessarily mean you know anything about how how auditory perception of music works either....
What kind of codecs used for what purpose?
The actual architecture and use of PCM analogue encoding in modems/tdm mulitplexors/routers and also video/conferencing network solutions comprising of distributed PCs combined with routers/switches.
So basically the actual use of voice and video processing
Anyway back on course at a higher level the question is this; Why are Wolfson/Burr-Brown - TI/Cyrrus continue investing time and money into developing new DACs and architectures?
I can tell you it is not for marketing purposes as these products are not sold to the public but used within specific product boards.
Now companies are interested in using DACs that are cost competitive while offering performance for that value.
As I say it is not just about converting the 1s and 0s, it is not just about quantization/sampling but also the architecture of the processors and the board/product they are implemented within.
If we had reached and concluded the basic level that Scientist and Pulliam argue, we would not require any new DAC architectures or high performance chips that are still being manufactured and designed.
Sadly MY literature cannot be posted as it is proprietary training/product information but going along with what I mention above here are some links.
Now some may think it is pure marketing (and a way it is marketing) but these products as I mentioned are purchased by companies that do not buy into marketing practices used on the public.
Wolfson High Performance Audio background:http://www.epn-online.com/page/20104...solutions.html
Wolfson announcing their best sounding DAC:http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/whatsnew/press/PI269/
Check the architecture changes and information between Wolfson WM8741 and previous 8740:http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/WM8741/http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/WM8740
I appreciate this is all subjective and when people disagree they will find the smallest technical argument to prove their point and the discussion goes a different tangent.
In reality there is probably a balanced between both sides of our arguments.
Still, this does not answer why some companies pay a premium to use the so-called highest performance DACs provided by Wolfson/TI/Cyrrus/etc, and in their cheaper products buy the cheaper DAC-architectures.