# Differances in 24 bit processors that are Burr Brown and non Burr Brown



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

What would the differances be in a 24 bit processor that is Burr Brown and non Burr Brown?

I have a Alpine 7886 that I like the sound of the CDs, but don't care for how the IPOD sounds like. I have a Alpine iDX-100 that has a Burr Brown 24 bit processor. I'm wondering if that would help the IPOD to sound more "airy." 
When I play a song on the CD, I enjoy the great sound, but when I play the same song on the IPOD it sounds slightly muffled and overbassed. 

Thanks,

Ed


----------



## Oliver (Jun 25, 2007)

an excellenty recorded CD or album will sound great !

Try to find a lossless format to record on your ipod


----------



## kyheng (Jan 31, 2007)

As far as I know(hope I'm not wrong), the DAC is mainly cater for CDs only, not other formats. 
Anyway I feel that my P2350(old school HU) 1-bit DAC sounds better than P9650's 24-bit burr brown DAC.


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

a$$hole said:


> an excellenty recorded CD or album will sound great !
> 
> Try to find a lossless format to record on your ipod


I'm soo behind on this stuff. I never expected to get back into Car Stereo. I'm an old school guy. Few Punch 45s and I was rocking. This has gotten outta hand QUICK. 

G-Friend bought me a deck to go into a car audio system with 10 yr old quarts, sub and PPI amp. Now some 3 weeks later, I have bought a Kicker amp, Polk Seperates, and I think I need a better deck than my new Alpine 9886. OCD, it is a problem. Ohh did I mention I'm going to deaden my doors?! I still remember using Dynamat years ago. Car smelled sooo bad.

Okay, so I'm importing using 128K, but now changed to 256k with the ACC Encoder. Should I be using a different one?

Thanks,

Ed


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

kyheng said:


> As far as I know(hope I'm not wrong), the DAC is mainly cater for CDs only, not other formats.
> Anyway I feel that my P2350(old school HU) 1-bit DAC sounds better than P9650's 24-bit burr brown DAC.


I'm not sure either, but I think you may be incorrect. The Burr Brown is on an Alpine IPOD only player that lacks a CD player. This is the iDX-100.

I think I'll do some critical listening, take notes and go with what sounds best. 

E


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

Don't forget the sound does not go from binary digits on the music file, to the DAC, to your ears. There are a lot of other things in the signal chain that are of much much less fidelity then a modern DAC chip (amps, speakers,....). 

Plus, the DAC chip is part of a complete circuit who's overall performance will be determined by the sum of all its parts and how they are implemented.


----------



## dvflyer (May 11, 2007)

a$$hole said:


> Try to find a lossless format to record on your ipod


+1. How are you importing the songs into your iPod?


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

dvflyer said:


> +1. How are you importing the songs into your iPod?


Here is what I have been doing. Only open Itunes, and imported using the 128k with ACC, but seeing that there was a 256k, I upped it to that with a High Buffer Stream.

Should I adjust that setting?

E


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Don't forget the sound does not go from binary digits on the music file, to the DAC, to your ears. There are a lot of other things in the signal chain that are of much much less fidelity then a modern DAC chip (amps, speakers,....).
> 
> Plus, the DAC chip is part of a complete circuit who's overall performance will be determined by the sum of all its parts and how they are implemented.


I completely agree, and my old equipment is showing it's age. However, when I play a CD, I'm okay with the sound, when I go to the IPOD, not so much. The very same music sounds worse. Mind you, not terribly worse, but worse all the same.

E


----------



## DS-21 (Apr 16, 2005)

The only practical difference will likely be that if you ever have to open the thing up you will see a different name silk-screened onto the DAC chip.


----------



## dvflyer (May 11, 2007)

emrliquidlife said:


> Here is what I have been doing. Only open Itunes, and imported using the 128k with ACC, but seeing that there was a 256k, I upped it to that with a High Buffer Stream.
> 
> Should I adjust that setting?
> 
> E


Try using the Apple Lossless Encoder. This is the highest quality. Take a CD you like the sound of and import it into iTunes using Lossless, then listen to them both on your system.

Also, how is your iPod hooked up to your deck?


----------



## John Swanberg (Mar 17, 2008)

apple lossless +1


----------



## 86mr2 (Apr 29, 2005)

I use lossless, differences in DAC's are completely swamped by any lossy compression scheme. I am using a 9887 with a 30 GB ipod I bought off eBay, loaded with over 900 lossless songs. Pretty good performance/ convenience tradeoff I find.

128 kbit rips sound pretty crummy.


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

dvflyer said:


> Try using the Apple Lossless Encoder. This is the highest quality. Take a CD you like the sound of and import it into iTunes using Lossless, then listen to them both on your system.
> 
> Also, how is your iPod hooked up to your deck?


Ipod goes into the Alpine provided high speed cable direct into the 9886 deck I have.

I had been using AAC, but just switched to the Apple Lossless encoder. Hope that helps. Eff, I have about 16 gigs of music I now don't like. Funny thing is that with my old 9847 deck, I didn't notice this.

E


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

Doesn't the full speed Ipod connection operate digitally, and therefore, utilize the DACs in the deck. I don't know the OP's model but if it is full-speed and the signal transfer is digital then it would have to use the DAC's and, therefore, it would almost definitly be a bitrate issue. I could be wrong, is this how the full-speed connection works or not? If so, is there a tutorial on MP3 ripping in the tutorials section? I don't know as I've kept the same setting since NAPSTER


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

AWC said:


> Doesn't the full speed Ipod connection operate digitally, and therefore, utilize the DACs in the deck. I don't know the OP's model but if it is full-speed and the signal transfer is digital then it would have to use the DAC's and, therefore, it would almost definitly be a bitrate issue. I could be wrong, is this how the full-speed connection works or not? If so, is there a tutorial on MP3 ripping in the tutorials section? I don't know as I've kept the same setting since NAPSTER


This could be. My old deck had the slow speed connection via the KAC 420i (me thinks).

This new connection has exposed serious flaws in the music. I have a Brand new iDX-100 that I'm going to install. I still have about 2 weeks to return the new 9886 Alpine should I hear a positive change with the iDX's Burr Brown DAC.

E


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

AWC said:


> Doesn't the full speed Ipod connection operate digitally, and therefore, utilize the DACs in the deck. I don't know the OP's model but if it is full-speed and the signal transfer is digital then it would have to use the DAC's and, therefore, it would almost definitly be a bitrate issue. I could be wrong, is this how the full-speed connection works or not? If so, is there a tutorial on MP3 ripping in the tutorials section? I don't know as I've kept the same setting since NAPSTER


"Fullspeed" is digitally controlled but analog fed. Only digital audio interface is one with a USB connector on it.


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> "Fullspeed" is digitally controlled but analog fed. Only digital audio interface is one with a USB connector on it.



Ohhhh, so only if I had a USB device would I get to use the Burr Brown. Should I known the IPOD was coming in analog. So this thread is now more about the differance between my old 9847 and the 9886. Because now having listened to quite of bit of music from CD player to IPOD, I'm convinced that either the CD Player is much better, or worse, the IPOD unit is that bad.

E


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

if the bitrate is good I'd stay with your current theory until we figure it out. I'm sure the answer will present itself soon. If it is analog fed then it answers my possibility of a solution but another will come along.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

emrliquidlife said:


> Ohhhh, so only if I had a USB device would I get to use the Burr Brown. Should I known the IPOD was coming in analog. So this thread is now more about the differance between my old 9847 and the 9886. Because now having listened to quite of bit of music from CD player to IPOD, I'm convinced that either the CD Player is much better, or worse, the IPOD unit is that bad.
> 
> E


No, the Ipod feeds an analog signal to an A/D where it becomes another digital source (along with the CD transport, USB, and tuner after having the same done to it). This is how processing like Imprint or any other can be done in the digital domain to all sources not just USB or CD.


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> No, the Ipod feeds an analog signal to an A/D where it becomes another digital source (along with the CD transport, USB, and tuner after having the same done to it). This is how processing like Imprint or any other can be done in the digital domain to all sources not just USB or CD.


It is obvious, but I'm learning here....

I guess I'm just trying to find out, is the CD Player that much better in the upgrade I did. Or did the IPOD sound take a hit here. I'll theorize that the IPOD sounds the same, but CDs, now sound so much better to me. 

Other than upgrading the deck, and changing some crossover points, I'm quite a happy camper with CD sound, but now dislike the IPOD in the car.

Ed


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

t3sn4f2 said:


> No, the Ipod feeds an analog signal to an A/D where it becomes another digital source (along with the CD transport, USB, and tuner after having the same done to it). This is how processing like Imprint or any other can be done in the digital domain to all sources not just USB or CD.


On the off hand, do you think buying the Imprint kit would help out the IPOD sound or further exploit that differances of how different the sound quality is between the CD and IPOD playback?

So, I just compared the CD specs from the old 9847 to the 9886, no differance what so ever. The major thing sticking out is how the Pre outs are 4 volts on the newer Alpine. 

Err, this is frustrating to me.

E


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

wait...I thought the bitrate was good...am I to assume you had a low bitrate then upsampled from that bitrate?

Go re-rip all your cd's to lossless...problem solved.


----------



## dvflyer (May 11, 2007)

emrliquidlife said:


> Ipod goes into the Alpine provided high speed cable direct into the 9886 deck I have.
> 
> I had been using AAC, but just switched to the Apple Lossless encoder. Hope that helps. Eff, I have about 16 gigs of music I now don't like. Funny thing is that with my old 9847 deck, I didn't notice this.
> 
> E


FWIW- I had an Alpine W200 and my iPod- hooked via the high speed cable-sounded very similar (the same?) to the CD's as long as I was listening to the higher bit rate music. If I changed to lower quality, I could tell a difference.

Interesting that you didn't notice it with your older deck.


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

cajunner said:


> If you wouldn't have been able to tell the difference between 128k and the cd transport, I would have said you were blessed with easy to please ears-
> 
> 
> as it is, you're just like everyone else in this dang hobby...
> ...



Okay, so bitrate on IPOD is between 128 and 256K. Anything new on my IPOD will be 256k anyway.

So what is the bitrate on the CD player of the radio?


Just to share the info, I went here to learn about Bit Rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp3

Made a mild mistake and went here to learn the differances of a Burr Brown and non Burr Brown DAC
http://focus.ti.com/analog/docs/dataconvertershome.tsp?familyId=82&contentType=4

E


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

AWC said:


> wait...I thought the bitrate was good...am I to assume you had a low bitrate then upsampled from that bitrate?
> 
> Go re-rip all your cd's to lossless...problem solved.


Some of the CDs I have, it will be tough. I'm a music whore. I go to the Public Library and have ripped thousands of songs from the public collection. All at 128k with ACC. If I had only known.

Someone else mentioned how did I not notice the differance. 

I truly don't know. With the 9847 deck, ehhh, no huge differances. But with this 9886, It is VERY noticeable. I'm splitting hairs here I know, but I guess the inquisitive person in me wants an answer. I have a hard time believing the CD playback is so much better because of a high voltage output. 

E


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

emrliquidlife said:


> It is obvious, but I'm learning here....
> 
> I guess I'm just trying to find out, is the CD Player that much better in the upgrade I did. Or did the IPOD sound take a hit here. I'll theorize that the IPOD sounds the same, but CDs, now sound so much better to me.
> 
> ...





emrliquidlife said:


> On the off hand, do you think buying the Imprint kit would help out the IPOD sound or further exploit that differances of how different the sound quality is between the CD and IPOD playback?
> 
> So, I just compared the CD specs from the old 9847 to the 9886, no differance what so ever. The major thing sticking out is how the Pre outs are 4 volts on the newer Alpine.
> 
> ...





emrliquidlife said:


> Some of the CDs I have, it will be tough. I'm a music whore. I go to the Public Library and have ripped thousands of songs from the public collection. All at 128k with ACC. If I had only known.
> 
> Someone else mentioned how did I not notice the differance.
> 
> ...


It's probably cuz you have a fancy new non-burrbrown branded DAC that let's you hear all the goodness (read: musical faults in production or encoding or any otherwise heinous folly thrown upon your music) 

So congrats...sory about your music collection, I rmember seeing mine go too.
It's ok, in 20 years we'll all be reripping it to the new extra lossless format where it not only sounds better, but offers a foot massage at the same time


----------



## 86mr2 (Apr 29, 2005)

cajunner said:


> in other words, accept that your collection is made up of inferior samples, yet you get what you pay for. then buy a tube amp and turn up the distortion, to hide the artifacts...


128 kB AAC ==> Ipod DAC ==> Alpine DAC ==> Tube Amp ==> Sonic Nirvana!!

LOL


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

problem is, you wouldn't be here trying to fix it if you weren't already screwed with the upgrade-your-car-stereo-virus....so good luck with it. It's a real pain in the ass.


----------



## br85 (May 2, 2008)

In summary: Don't use lossy compression if you want sound quality. 

Chances are that you'll NEVER hear the difference in DAC's in a moving vehicle. There are just too many variables that make a massive difference with the slightest change. Speakers, eq and processing, crossovers, and amps will all change what you hear. Heck, even the speaker wires are probably going to make more of a difference than DAC's.

Also worth mentioning: CD's are encoded in 16 Bit. There is absolutely no need for a 24 bit converter. Upsampling? It's a joke. There's no way that it's going to resample the signal in real time and create new miniscule amplitude differences between each of the 44100 samples per second. It probably CAn be done, but not for the money we're paying for our stuff that we put in our cars.


----------



## Et Cetera (Jul 28, 2006)

I just rip to WAV through EAC and then drag add the folder to iTunes where I clean up the tag info. The only problem is cover art isn't supported, which isn't a big deal. WAV on iPod sounds quite decent.


----------



## ben805 (Aug 26, 2008)

so, back to the original topic....if you were playing the same mp3 file (let's say 320k) in alpine 9886 and 9887, can you hear any sound quality difference with(9887) and without(9886) burr brown DAC? lol


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

ben805 said:


> so, back to the original topic....if you were playing the same mp3 file (let's say 320k) in alpine 9886 and 9887, can you hear any sound quality difference with(9887) and without(9886) burr brown DAC? lol


Depends on you (even if there is none really )


----------



## ben805 (Aug 26, 2008)

So the Burr Brown DAC is pretty much just a gimmick for marketting purpose to sucker consumer into thinking it's superior?


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

ben805 said:


> So the Burr Brown DAC is pretty much just a gimmick for marketting purpose to sucker consumer into thinking it's superior?


It is _better_, but better beyond one that is already better then what a human can perceive as being inferior in any way (DAC chips that is).


----------



## emrliquidlife (Jan 19, 2008)

Good to see this still in play.

In comparing a Burr Brown and a non Burr Brown 24 bit processor, does anyone have any recommendations of source material to compare between the two?

I listen to Classic Rock, Americana, some current stuff.

I'm wondering if there are good recordings of Billy Joel, Fleetwood Mac, Yes, Bruce Springsteen, that type of genre.

Ed


----------



## AWC (Mar 31, 2008)

emrliquidlife said:


> Good to see this still in play.
> 
> In comparing a Burr Brown and a non Burr Brown 24 bit processor, does anyone have any recommendations of source material to compare between the two?
> 
> ...


I find that when it comes to an absolute SQ discerning session, its hard to go with music that was produced in an analog setting to begin with. Many remasters overcome the issue but with alot of classic rock, the detail seems lacking as opposed to newer productions or remasters.

I don't know if I could hear a difference between the two but you still have to give props. Even if the knock-off is this close to the burr-brown, you can't just deny the applicitation of either reverse-enginerring and/or trickle down technology that almost definitely encouraged the evolution of the current chip. 

So the small details where you'd be able to tell, if you could tell, are in a parked car listening to music that has very conservative production. Track 10 of of Some Devil by DMB allows you to hear almost as much non-sound as their is music. If you want accuracy, stick that in and see if you can picture him trun his head as he breathes. Since there is only a stand-up bass, some minor percussion, guitar and some vocals in an intimite setting, you can hear everything. Or you can't.


----------



## dark41 (Jan 30, 2010)

This is old, but I just had to bump it to add some information that seems to be missing:

I've been using a Creative Jukebox Zen Xtra (replaced hard drive with 120GB years ago) with .wav files (ripped from music CDs with EAC) on a couple different Alpine HUs (CDA-9827 and CDA-105Ei), along with 2 x 10" MTX subs (only the subs go through the MTX 750w amp). 

Recently my Creative Xtra died and I've been looking for a replacement to store 250GB of WAV files (my collection is almost 2TB, so the bigger the storage in the car the better). Since everything is iPod now adays, and the CDA-105Ei was made to work directly with the iPod, and there are very few alternatives for large capacity mp3 players, I tried 3 different iPods (Shuffle, Touch, Classic.. all with the same WAV files which are identical to any decent lossless format). I quickly came to the conclusion that iPod sound is terrible. No wonder iTunes sells M4A format at 192 bitrate, since nothing better would be noticed anyway. The bass is adequate once the subs kicks in, but the highs and midrange are pathetic. They are nowhere near the quality of the Creative with the same WAV files. I ripped a couple of my own CDs to Apple lossless just for a comparison, but it made no difference at all to the sound vs the WAV files, which is what I expected.

So in my opinion, these iPod users who insist that there is a big difference between lower bitrates and lossless on an iPod may be right. But... *there is an even bigger difference when using a decent MP3 player to start with*.
Both the Creative Zen Xtra and the Cowon x5 sound *much, much better *than any iPod.

For now, I'm relegated to going with the USB and removable hard drive to get high capacity storage back. Too bad these MP3 players have lost the plot when it comes to high capacity devices, and Alpine doesn't support wav nor any other form of lossless format.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

dark41 said:


> This is old, but I just had to bump it to add some information that seems to be missing:
> 
> I've been using a Creative Jukebox Zen Xtra (replaced hard drive with 120GB years ago) with .wav files (ripped from music CDs with EAC) on a couple different Alpine HUs (CDA-9827 and CDA-105Ei), along with 2 x 10" MTX subs (only the subs go through the MTX 750w amp).
> 
> ...


You need to turn off ALL the setting on the ipod. I have owned an x5, so I do have the experience to say this. The ipod isn't that bad, I wanted to think so at first but after doing a real side-by-side, I found that I couldn't tell the difference between CD and lossless, as long as my ipod's features were disabled. 

Now, the x5 was clearly a better sounding unit because of it's ability to support so many formats and the EQ. As a stand alone portable music player the x5 wins hands down, but the ipod has the convenience factor of the aftermarket support. If you are plugging it into a quality HU that has the EQ you need, the ipod will NOT sound any worse than the x5.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

dark41 said:


> This is old, but I just had to bump it to add some information that seems to be missing:
> 
> I've been using a Creative Jukebox Zen Xtra (replaced hard drive with 120GB years ago) with .wav files (ripped from music CDs with EAC) on a couple different Alpine HUs (CDA-9827 and CDA-105Ei), along with 2 x 10" MTX subs (only the subs go through the MTX 750w amp).
> 
> ...


Apple never sold 192K files, only 128K before they went to 256K DRM'less a while back.


----------



## dark41 (Jan 30, 2010)

t3sn4f2 said:


> Apple never sold 192K files, only 128K before they went to 256K DRM'less a while back.


Maybe its different in Australia, because my son has an entire collection of M4A's from iTunes. Everyone of them (from about 4 years ago until just last week) says 192 bitrate in the properties. None of them had DRM since May '07.


----------



## t3sn4f2 (Jan 3, 2007)

dark41 said:


> *Maybe its different in Australia*, because my son has an entire collection of M4A's from iTunes. Everyone of them (from about 4 years ago until just last week) says 192 bitrate in the properties. None of them had DRM since May '07.


Must be then.


----------



## dark41 (Jan 30, 2010)

gijoe said:


> If you are plugging it into a quality HU that has the EQ you need, the ipod will NOT sound any worse than the x5.


That's an interesting statement, and you're the 1st person that I've seen say such a thing. Most Cowon owners say there is much better sound from their devices, whether stand alone or through a HU. 

My HU (Alpine CDA-9827) doesn't have an EQ, just bass and treble settings, and Loudness and Media Expander (on/off). The Creative doesn't have an EQ either. There is a *huge* difference between iPods and the Creative Jukebox Zen Xtra when attached to it, with the same settings and the same files. The CD player sound is also comparable to the Creative, and much better than the iPod.

Not sure if we're going with a Cowon or Vosonic yet, but if it doesn't sound any better than an iPod I'll be seriously disappointed.


----------

