108 MHz DAC vs. 54 MHz DAC

stephen19

Standard Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Points
38
Hi, I was researching new players and some state they have a 108MHz, 12-bit DAC, and older models only have a 54MHz DAC. Can you dee the difference or are these figures purely for marketing purposes? Thanks.
 
John Dawson from Arcam discussed this before

Here is what he said

I lecture on this stuff to the trade from time to time and I have to say there is a lot of marketing-ese (aka bullsh-t) deployed in video specifications in the same way that it is nowadays de riguer to have 24 bit audio DACs in audio equipment, when they typically don't deliver more than about 17 bits of dynamic range and sometimes a lot less. I could go on (but won't).

DVD is an 8 bit video medium. In order to accomodate the sync pulses, colour bursts etc that also make up an analogue video signal derived from DVD it is easy to show that you need a "perfect" 9 bit video DAC to accomodate all this. In practice a well engineered 10 bit DAC will therefore do a more than satisfactory job. In terms of sampling frequency you need a minimum of 13.5 MHz for interlaced video and 27 MHz for progressive video. So for most purposes 54 MHz is sufficient, allowing gentler slopes on reconstruction filters etc.

Having said that all the digital processing that goes on before the DAC inside the MPEG decoder needs to be at a significantly higher precision, say 12 bits or more. A lot will depend on how well this is done, redithered etc and it is nigh on impossible to find such information in the public domain, or even under NDA. However it is certainly true to say that MPEG decoders (the heart of all consumer DVD players) vary quite a lot in terms of absolute performance.

I can tell you that the excellent Zoran Vaddis 5 MPEG decoder (the BGA version not the less expensive and less well specified 5E one) that Arcam uses in the DV78/88Plus/89 family has 6 x 10 bit 54 MHz DACs integrated into it and produces excellent video quality. I happen to know it uses 12 bit internal processing too. In further support of this argument the highly regarded and very expensive TAG DVD players also used the internal 10 bit DACs integrated into the Mediamatics MPEG decoder and were always praised for their excellent (interlaced only) video quality.

We use an external 12 bit 208 MHz sampling video DAC/encoder on the DV79, with suitably readjusted filtering and the picture is arguably better than the DV78 but IMO the differences are not huge by any means. Like all such external DACs it is coupled back to the MPEG decoder via an 8 bit digital video bus.

Of course the video quality also depends on having good properly buffered analogue reconstruction filters after the DACs and a set of proper 75 ohm buffers afterwards, plus noise free power supplies etc. IMO inexpensive and mid range DVD players rarely pay as much attention to these as is really required.

Incidentally the minimum number of video DACs you need on a DVD player is 4 to provide RGB plus sync on composite video (i.e. to a SCART equipped display). Having 6 allows you to support s-video simultaneously (all Arcam players do this with interlaced video) but it is not essential in most set ups.

In general you get what you pay for, but judging a player on the spec of its video DACs is like judging a car on the size of its engine - it affects the result but there are many other factors that determine how well the car actually performs and drives. There is no substitute for having a proper demonstration at a good knowledgeable dealer of either a car or a DVD player.

And we haven't even mentioned sound quality yet :)

HTH.

John Dawson (Arcam)
 
I asked the same question myself a while ago. I was split between getting a Pioneer DV470 or a Sony NS585. The Pioneer has a 108Mhz like the DV575 and the Sony has a 54Mhz.

I tried a DV575 and was very impressed. However I went for the Sony as I prefer the build quality of the Sony and it still creates a excellent picture on my projector. I didn't notice much difference using RGB scart on the TV between the two.

In theory the 108mhz should be sample the information twice as much and create a better picture. However, other factors can take affect the result.

If the Sony wasn't an option then I would still have been very happy with the Pioneer.
 
nwgarratt said:
In theory the 108mhz should be sample the information twice as much and create a better picture. However, other factors can take affect the result.

Thanks. The man from Arcam seems to suggest that you only need 27MHz, so 54 is already twice what you need, so presumably 108 makes no real difference. I was thinking twice as fast isn't necessarily twice as good; think of the controversy about 50hz vs. 100hz tvs!
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom