The 950's ADCs are 24/48.


We are still missing something. If you only needed a 16/44.1 DAC to properly decode a CD, then why did "quadruple oversampling" sound better and measure better when they hit the scene?

*I* don't know what it is, but there still must be some benefit to the 24/192's for the DACs on the Outlaw...

Well, for one, the 24/192 DACs have a lower noise and better dynamic range than the 24/96 DACs on the Rotel. If I remember correctly, the 950's DACs are THD+Noise spec'd at -100 versus -91 and the A Weighted Dynamic Range is spec'd at 120 for Outlaw and 101 for the Rotel.

------------------
Take Care,
merc

Check the latest Sound & Vision as to what they measured s/n in the Outlaw.

Steve: Do some research into HOW S&V tests and what their S/N figure really means. It is not the same as the standard A weighted S/N spec that manufacturer's use and should and can not be compared directly to each other. S&V's S/N test is top ended at the theoretical perfect(absolutely no noise at all, the component is totally invisible from input to output)and the spec'd S/N figure that is used by manufacturers has no top end, theoretically.

Finally, it can be argued that a S&V S/N rating of -72 cannot be audibly discerned from one of -76.

What most people don't understand is that the S&V tests show quite good noise levels for the Outlaw 950. Based on each manufacturers specs, I'd guess that the Rotel might S&V test at just under the Outlaw, yet, that difference would probably not be audibly discernable. Why not call Brian at S&V and ask him for yourself about their testing procedure and how the Outlaw 950 sounded?

------------------
Take Care,
merc

[This message has been edited by merc (edited June 13, 2002).]