Audiophilesophical Question - What about the MP3 DAC??

[audiodynamite]

I recently spent several hundred dollars upgrading my 90's NAD CDP. Not because CD formats had changed from WAV, but because of the advancement in DAC's (ie. 24 bit Burr Brown).
So, now I am looking at an MP3 source for my NAD/PSB home stereo kitchen system. What confuses me is that everything I read and all the research regarding MP3 for home stero just keeps talking about the differenent lossy formats. I think most of us get it!! Compressed CODEC formats MP3 256k or LAME, or FLAC etc are not CD but are close enough to CD quality for many of us in a casual listening setting. Audiophiles seem to be obsessed with pointing out the lossy formats .

Let's forget about the CODEC format and talk about improving the analog signal that reaches our amplifer. Or are we ok with with whatever DAC's Apple or our PC soundards have?

So, putting aside the CODEC format as a given, then what about rest of the chain?
-What MP3 player has the best DAC?
-What PC sound card has the best DAC?
-What MP3 player has a digital output so that an external DAC may be used?
-What is the best external DAC for an MP3 source?
-Why does Burr Brown not make DAC's for mp3 players?
-Why do manufacturers like NAD not make devices for other CODEC formats (ie. MP3, etc.)?

Or are Audiophile's such snobs that we are snubbing any other format that does not improve on WAV, and therefore not even trying to get a better sound out them?

[paul_pci]

Some good questions here I won't pretend to know the answers to. You know, the snubbing thing wouldn't surprise me at all. I can just envision the line of up-turned noses at the question. Anyway, don't know how much you're looking to spend, but have you looked into any digital music servers that might list specs on their DACs or have a digital out. Just a thought.

[noddin0ff]

Let's forget about the CODEC format and talk about improving the analog signal that reaches our amplifer. Or are we ok with with whatever DAC's Apple or our PC soundards have?

So, putting aside the CODEC format as a given, then what about rest of the chain?
-What MP3 player has the best DAC?
-What PC sound card has the best DAC?
-What MP3 player has a digital output so that an external DAC may be used?
-What is the best external DAC for an MP3 source?
-Why does Burr Brown not make DAC's for mp3 players?
-Why do manufacturers like NAD not make devices for other CODEC formats (ie. MP3, etc.)?

Or are Audiophile's such snobs that we are snubbing any other format that does not improve on WAV, and therefore not even trying to get a better sound out them?

I don't think I'm an audio snob. I truely believe quality is dependant on the listening situation. You don't need high end electronics in a Ford Escort because you'll never hear the benefits... A compressed audio format by definition can not improve on a lossless format like WAV so to claim snobbery implies a degree of ignorance.

Decoding an MP3 is not a digital to analog conversion. It's a digital to digital conversion and as such, a DAC cannot improve an MP3. What you want is a good decoder, which is a different thing.

The MP3 is decoded to a digital PCM-like signal that is inferior to the the lossless or original PCM signal the MP3 was compressed from. The DAC then smooths out the digital signal into an analog form. A good DAC will do this better than a cheap one regardless of whether a perfect or imperfect digital signal is given to it. It makes no difference to the DAC whether the source is an MP3 player or a CD player.

Personally, I still think it's kind of pointless to worry about the downstream "rest of the chain" quality when you are starting with a lossy compression format to begin with. I think the improvements to be had by going from lossy to lossless will far surpass those you'd gain from bettering downstream DACs. But that is an opinion.

MP3 players are designed for portability at a reasonable cost. You don't find specs on the DAC's inside likely because DAC vendors may be changed (to keep costs down) and because they are rather generic (to keep costs down) and they're not engineered for high-performance listening so there's nothing to be gained by advertising the DAC inside.

[audiodynamite]

Thanks for the responses. I can see your point about garbage in garbage re: lossy source. What about the fast becoming practicallity with lossless codec. Now that disk space is so cheap, you can store approx. 3000+ uncompressed/lossless/WAV (bit-by-bit equivalent to CD) songs on a standard 160GB hard drive. Given the trend it won't be long when ipod's will reach that level.
Cambridge has the AZUR 640H Music Server with a 160GB drive that utilizes the exact same Wolfson DAC as their popular 640C CDP. Also, did some research on iPod and their 3rd and 4th generation iPod's use the following 'fixed' technology.
Battery - Sony
Codec - Wolfson
DAC - Wolfson
Disk Drive - Toshiba
Firewire - Texas Instruments
Power Management - Linear Technology

Supposedly for portable players, iPod is the best available for sound quality. Also found some quotes from Hayes from Wolfson Electronics claiming their support for the best sound quality with iPod.

Think the best option (for now) may be to go with a 60GB ipod (1200+ uncompressed songs). I recall that Dell DJ tried to compete on features, however, lost when it was rated lower on sound quality due to cheaper DAC's. I can only assume that it won't be long when the portable disk space will be able to store even more uncompressed audio and improved DAC's to follow. Utlimately SACD, HDCD, BlueRay are any other digital format can reside on disk drives (bit-by-bit) as well as any other material. Gotta beleive that as digital moves forward, more advanced high-definition digital source on Music Servers are the future in acheiving the ultimate Audiophile source. Of course there will alway be the audiophiles that resist (same ones that insist that their $500/meter cable is better than my cheap 12-guage copper strand).

[Mike Anderson]

I think most of us get it!! Compressed CODEC formats MP3 256k or LAME, or FLAC etc are not CD but are close enough to CD quality for many of us in a casual listening setting. Audiophiles seem to be obsessed with pointing out the lossy formats .

No, FLAC is lossless compression; quality is identical to CD.

But iPods and iTunes won't play FLAC (hence Apple Lossless).

[noddin0ff]

Utlimately SACD, HDCD, BlueRay are any other digital format can reside on disk drives (bit-by-bit) as well as any other material. Gotta beleive that as digital moves forward, more advanced high-definition digital source on Music Servers are the future in acheiving the ultimate Audiophile source.

I wouldn't get too excited about future formats being ripped to a hard drive. Part of the format for SACD and BlueRay undoubtably includes copy protection that will not allow you to make perfect and unfettered duplicates to your hard drive or your iPod. (HDCD is just a modified CD format and copies fine.) I haven't been keeping up, maybe somebody will come up with a way to defeat the copy protection...but then you run afowl of the music police.

[Florian]

I do not understand what this has to do with "snobery". MP3 and other digital compression technologys have a great purpose. They allow you to save space on your hardrive or portable devices. They sound great and are easy to use. Thats what it is made for, and it does a good job at it. But it was not designed as a high resolution format for your main stereo system.

-Flo