Conventional DAC

WOOPS that's s/b MSB Link DAC

I do find that a bit hard to swallow Avguygeorge. You wouldn't be suggesting that any Pioneer DVD player plays CDs better than any conventional player just because it has a 24/96 DAC? Or have I misunderstood you?

Hi James; I agree with your premise. Cds are going to be THE dominent format for some years to come. And I put my money where my mouth is and last summer purchased a HQ 16/44.1 transport, but I got a DAC that will decode 24/96. and is upgradeable, and now, several months later I certainly don't regret it. A DAC with 24 bit capability will come closer to actually decoding a true 16 bit word length than a DAC with only 16 bit decoding capability, which actually only decodes typically about 14 bits. Cheers. Craig.

The higher bit-rate DACs have the advantage of allowing better noise-shaping or dither, without losing resolution ie. not robbing the 16 bits too much. Whether or not a 24 bit DAC does this or does it well is another matter altogether. But I agree Garfish that more bits in the DAC is good. Using 20 bits well seems adequate to me. As to 96k sampling though, there is not a lot to be gained in theory with redbook CDs just because your DAC is capable of 96k. You just get to use some of the later DAC chips, but there is more to a good DAC than the DAC chip - otherwise there would be little to justify the difference in price between many DACs.

Quite right, Redkiwi. James001- Be careful no to get caught up in the "numbers" game too much. I'd take sound quality over a 24/96K logo anyday. Just my .02.