Thread: This equipment good enough for SACD?

Posts: 128
Page: prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 next

Post by tonereef December 31, 2014 (51 of 128)
alexandru27 said:

DACs sell separately too and people use to add them to stereo amps and get a better SQ. Interestingly, every time I asked if I should add a (better) DAC to my AV receiver, I was answered it's not worth the bother (as AVRs already have internal DAC). Of course, some stereo amps also contain a DAC.

And still, theoretically, if I add a better DAC than the one there is inside my AVR, shouldn't I get better SQ? Or people say don't bother adding a DAC to an AVR because, generally, AVRs are not quite as reliable power-wise, as compared to stereo amps? But does this really have an impact on SQ, especially if I don't listen to loud levels (I live in a block apartment)?
This is something I cannot quite understand.

The playback level doesn't matter, in fact if anything you'll need a better DAC to get satisfaction at low-moderate levels because of the (subjective) lack of treble and bass compared to loud levels.

There's absolutely no doubt you can get better DA conversion with an outboard DAC than what's in your AVR, but whether it will make much difference (assuming the AVR's amplification would then be the weak link) only you can determine.

Post by alexandru27 January 1, 2015 (52 of 128)
tonereef said:



There's absolutely no doubt you can get better DA conversion with an outboard DAC than what's in your AVR, but whether it will make much difference (assuming the AVR's amplification would then be the weak link) only you can determine.

OK so, to make a difference, I will need better amplification, more watts. So it's important to have more watts at my disposal, even though I will not use most of them (in a block apartment), in order to get advantage of the better DA converter? Why is that so? I take it it's not like in automobiles - a more powerful car will offer you a smoother ride. Or is it, because of the more expensive components imbedded - and not necessarily of the more horse power?

Like between AVRs and stereo amps: my Denon AVR gives me 95 watts per channel(8 ohms) and still it's the weaker link in my system, because of the average quality DAC inside. But you just said even though I'll add a better, external DAC, the AVR will still be the weaker link, because of weaker amplification. 95 watts/channel is not good enough?

On the other hand, a 40/50 watts/channel(8 ohms) that a NAD/Arcam/Marantz power amp offer is more than enough for an excellent SQ in a block apartment. OK, but, most probably, that is because of the better DAC inside the amps (if they have it) - a stereo amp will have better components (so offer better SQ) than a similar priced AVR, because the AVR needs to make room for more components, so these will innevitably be cheaper. You can get good SQ in an AVR too, but its price will have to rise 2-3 fold.

In the end, is this correct: I need more power to take full advantage of a better DA converter, even if I listen at low/moderate volume levels, so I never use much power?

Post by AmonRa January 1, 2015 (53 of 128)
alexandru27 said:

In the end, is this correct: I need more power to take full advantage of a better DA converter, even if I listen at low/moderate volume levels, so I never use much power?

No. It is 100% certain that he biggest improvement in sound quality would come from improving the speakers (and maybe placement and room acoustics), even if the ones you use now are not bad at all.

Audiophiles like to compare DACs and argue about their relative merits, even though all reasonable ones are almost perfect. Then comes cables etc which are perfect. Huge amounts of time and money is spent on components with extremely little to improve upon. At the same time forgetting the most critical component, the loudspeaker (and room), where the differences between models is huge, and improvements can be achieved almost free by choosing the best at each price range, which for apartment listening (low levels) needn't be high.

So you might get a 1% improvement in sound quality from 98% to 99% by changing DAC, but what does it matter in the chain where amps are 96% and speakers 85% from the maximum?

Post by rammiepie January 1, 2015 (54 of 128)
AmonRa said:

No. It is 100% certain that he biggest improvement in sound quality would come from improving the speakers (and maybe placement and room acoustics), even if the ones you use now are not bad at all.

Audiophiles like to compare DACs and argue about their relative merits, even though all reasonable ones are almost perfect. Then comes cables etc which are perfect. Huge amounts of time and money is spent on components with extremely little to improve upon. At the same time forgetting the most critical component, the loudspeaker (and room), where the differences between models is huge, and improvements can be achieved almost free by choosing the best at each price range, which for apartment listening (low levels) needn't be high.

So you might get a 1% improvement in sound quality from 98% to 99% by changing DAC, but what does it matter in the chain where amps are 96% and speakers 85% from the maximum?

AmonRa....still sprouting nonsense in 2015 A.D.?

IMHO, the entire chain from the player, DAC, power cords, interconnects, speaker cables and ultimately the speakers will inform the final sonics....and not any old wires, DACs, interconnects, players (transports) will do the trick as you keep insisting.

It's really like a puzzle.........and if any pieces are missing or out of place, something will DEFINITELY be lost in translation to the loudspeakers.

Take my word for that.

Post by AmonRa January 1, 2015 (55 of 128)
Slight improvement in components wich already are nearly perfect (DACs, amps, cables etc) has a negligible effect on the audio quality. Large improvement in components which are nowhere near perfect (speakers, room) makes a hugely bigger difference.

Basic throughput optimization, with which all engineers should be familiar with. Spend the money, time and worry where the positive effect is the biggest.

This will remain the truth, ever year.

Post by Ad Rhenum January 1, 2015 (56 of 128)
AmonRa said:

So you might get a 1% improvement in sound quality from 98% to 99% by changing DAC, but what does it matter in the chain where amps are 96% and speakers 85% from the maximum?

Just recently I visited two classical concerts. Program and artists were the same, but the location on the two nights were different. The first was in a hall with poor accoustics, the second in a church.

The differences between the two nights were immense. The musical joy for me was much greater in the church. Although in the hall different instruments were more easy to distinguish. Also the hall was more relentless to imperfections of the playing.

Especially vocal music, both choir and indivdidual singing, benefitted enormously from the church accoustics. The Haydn symphony also benefitted, but in a lesser degree than the vocal works. The last piece was a clarinet concerto. Here the benefit was least, but I concentrated on the solo player mostly and was sitting both nights relatively close to the soloïst.

When I think about the difference in sound of these two nights, it resembles the difference I heard between poor and good da-converters. And also to some degree the difference between pcm (from cd's) and dsd (from sa-cd's).

So, when you listen allmost exclusivly to pop music and are not familiar with how classical music can sound, your statement might be justifiable. But not for most classical music.

Post by Yoropiko1 January 1, 2015 (57 of 128)
AmonRa said:

Slight improvement in components wich already are nearly perfect (DACs, amps, cables etc) has a negligible effect on the audio quality. Large improvement in components which are nowhere near perfect (speakers, room) makes a hugely bigger difference.

Basic throughput optimization, with which all engineers should be familiar with. Spend the money, time and worry where the positive effect is the biggest.

This will remain the truth, ever year.

I would certainly agree in the main with this suggestion. Yes, if every component in a system was the very best it can possibly be, then the sound quality it is capable of producing should also be the very best it can be. However room acoustics have a huge impact on the sound that is heard and the best system in the worst room will sound poorer than a less exotic system placed in an excellent room ( whatever that might actually be ).

Although I cannot test this with any certainty, I suspect that a budget CD player connected to $50,000 Amplifier and $100,000 speakers would sound better than connecting the very best CD transport and DAC to the same budget of $150,000 to a budget Amplifier and speakers, given both systems were in the same acoustical space.

Of course doing so would be ridiculous, and anybody spending such huge amounts on Amplifiers and speakers clearly is never going to have a budget CD player. The digital aspects of most systems are essentially near perfect even at the most budget end of the spectrum. Its clear that those elements that still remain " analog " have the most likely chance of showing sound improvement as a result of good engineering, which of course costs more money.

Putting together a well balanced system with components that compliment each other well within their given price range will yield the best results for the budget spent on the system overall. Unless you have an unlimited budget to spend then that should be the way most people should approach system building.

Post by windhoek January 1, 2015 (58 of 128)
I'm not implying anything, but one of my friends usually dresses shabby-chic, which I think means mixing good quality clothing with a dash of cheap stuff and almost always looks great! She's quite attractive, so that's always a plus I suppose.

Similarly, I recently bought a cheapish AVR, a Marantz NR1504 for £250 to use as processor, DAC and preamp in a 4.0 setup and considering the cost of the other components in my system, the results seem incredibly disproportionate for the better. So I guess my system is also, shabby-chic :)

Post by Ad Rhenum January 1, 2015 (59 of 128)
alexandru27 said:

But does this really have an impact on SQ, especially if I don't listen to loud levels (I live in a block apartment)?

From how understand things, some passages in music can be very demanding, sudden changes, loud or fast. More powerull ampflifiers should be more accurate in these situations. Less powerfull ampflifiers might sound somewhat muddy.

I took a quick glance at the specs of your system. I think your sa-cd player converts dsd to pcm, Then the pcm code is send to the receiver, which has the da-converter. This means the da-conversion is done from pcm to analogue and not from dsd to analogue.

The benefits from dsd to pcm conversion are that the receiver can digitally process the signal, such as bass management and acoustic corrections. This is not available for dsd. In the conversion from dsd to pcm some of the naturalness may be lost. Opinions of what is prefered (dsd>pcd>anlogue vs. dsd>analogue) are diverse on this forum. I have dsd to analogue without pcm processing on my system and I'm happy with it.

If you want a receiver that can do dsd to analogue without pcm (which is optional on most receivers, so you can switch between pcm processing or not), you must also make sure the sa-cd player can send out dsd. This is not always available on sa-cd players. Most sa-cd players send out dsd over hdmi-cable. Some brands offer a connection they say performs better for surround playback. Denon, for example, has the Denon Link HD. Zeus is enthusiastic about it ( /showthread/126266 ) So, you might want to check out these options if you decide to upgrade your receiver and/or sa-cd player.

Post by AmonRa January 1, 2015 (60 of 128)
To clarify my throughput example: we can consider each component a choke which passes through only a part of the pristine signal. A perfect component would have a value of 1 (100%) and a totally bad one 0 (0%). Throughput coefficient of the whole system is the product of the full component chain.

A typical digital audio system might look like this: transport - DAC - amplifiers - speakers - room acoustics.

Corresponding typical values might be: 1 x 0.99 x 0.98 x 0.85 x 0.80 = 0.66. This is far from perfect even if player and amplifiers are near perfect.

Thus spending a lot of money and time trying to improve the three first components is quite futile, compared to improving speakers and room, where large improvements are possible for the same amount of money or even free with right choices and changes in speaker placement and furnishing.

Page: prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 13 next

Closed