Ok but is there any advantage using those analog ports?
targeted by Biostar at the Audiophile population.
Is a audiophile in need of analog output?
...through an analog connection to your home theater system, multi-channel speakers and high-end headphone. You can enjoy real Blu-ray grade high-definition sound that you’ve never experienced before.
That sounds like they want to say, no other connection can beat that analog.
Reading:
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/28
Ok so far i can tell, DAC signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio) is the digital to analog conversion, thats done by receiver so its of no importance in term the signal is transfered over by HDMI.
Ok done reading, as far as i am able to read the best way how its done is a digital takeover to a receiver, because a
digital receiver is indeed superior. Guess the question is answered. I just dunno why that system is called "audiophile HIFI", i guess its a
low cost HIFI, thats not the perfect audio, but the perfect "
low cost audio" it seems.That means, yes, if someone want to build the cheapest HTPC possible that solution is the way to go but its not the case in term the money is not limited. When some higher amount of money, a digital receiver is the best solution as far as i can tell. But a digital receiver will only be gotten 1 time in 10 years, its not that expensive at all. A HTPC board may be gotten several times because such a computer is outdated far quicker than a good receiver.
What i finally think simply is, yes its cheap, but its not that much cheaper in the long term because a digital receiver is simply worth it.
Now reading to uncover the truth:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-versus-analog.htm
Well i want to see a proof that a audiophile is able to hear a difference. Is it truth or just a mental hardliner condition?:
Today, technology in the audio recording industry is so advanced that many audio engineers will tell you there's no detectable difference between analog and digital recordings. Even if you were to use the best stereo equipment, you shouldn't be able to identify one medium versus the other just by listening to the sound. Many audiophiles disagree and claim that the analog format is still supreme
Even if there is really a difference, its impossible to hear the difference from a digital format because the digital music format is not continuous. So the stuff they want to achieve is trying to force the second instance into a analog but the first instane is stlll not analog:
First instance (purity is already dirty here):
BD/CD or other digital media:
Second Instance ("
audiophile boards are trying to be "faster" and handing out a analog to the third instance, which is as good as pointless in my mind because a DAC is used, under perfect conditions there is no DAC or ADC).
MB chip
Third Instance: (that one is finally creating a analog signal, the one audiophile love so much, even a digital receiver is doing it. In term there is already a analog signal, it will not make a own DAC, but a receiver is usualy superior doing so, that means we may lose quality).
Receiver + Amplifier
Fourth Instance: (Analog)
Speakers
As long as not every single instance is analog it wont be completly continous.
In my mind thats kinda foolish and trying to gain purity where simply no purity is possible as long as not the full chain is able to be analog.
Still, in my mind a very advanced digital source such as FLAC is very close to continuous frequency, in term there is a nanosecond break, the fourth instance, the amplifier/speaker will still continue to vibrate, because they got a certain inertia, means they will continue to deliver a sound, even if there is none. I dont think its audible. So it should be possible to be continuous in term the bitrate is able to surpass the inertia. So my first comment to watch at the bitrate is still valid to me.