Noob DAC and preamp Questions

[klinemj]

I'll try to answer 1-by-1...

you suggest the umc-200 and the erc-2 because the umc would provide a quality multi-channel DAC while the erc would provide a quality 2 channel DAC?

Yes - that's right. And, you would have your BluRay running to the UMC-200 via HDMI, and the ERC-2 running to it via analog RCA's to one of the "unbalanced RCA inputs" By selecting the appropriate input on the UMC-200 remote, you would either be listening to a CD in the most direct stereo possible from the ERC-2 or listening to/watching a BluRay.

I'm understanding that all CD, Blu Ray, DVD, etc. players have some kind of DAC in them. What happens when I run an HDMI cable from my Blu Ray player to my receiver? Do both the blu ray DAC and the receiver DAC do something to the sound at that point? If not, which one does, and what decides which one does it?

What happens depends on how you set the BluRay player. Most BluRay players can either do the processing or send the signal to be processed by the UMC-200. It's just a setting you choose in the BluRay setup.

If I were to add a DAC like the xda-2 into my system and connect my blu ray player and computer to it to improve the sound quality of my CDs (blu ray player), and my iTunes music (computer), how would I connect the Blu Ray player through the DAC in such a way that it does its magic with a CD and yet can still send the uncompressed audio from Blu Ray movies to my receiver via HDMI? The xda-2 doesn't have an HDMI in, and the uncompressed soundtracks won't go out over anything other than HDMI unless I'm mistaken.

There are various options here...you could connect your BluRay to a UMC-200 or other multichannel pre/pro or AVR via HDMI AND also connect the BluRay to the DAC via another digital connection, like an Optical or Digital Coax. Then you could run the output of the DAC back into the analog inputs of a UMC-200/other multichannel pre-pro/AVR. This way, the BluRay would give you the desired multichannel off the HDMI and the DAC would feed a stereo analog in that you could output direct to your amps for 2-channel.

How would the DAC included in the XMC-1 compare to the one in the XDA-2? Or is that a dumb question at this point since the XMC isn't released and no one really knows?

You answered your own one there! Yeah - we won't really know until the XMC is out and official.

Also, regarding computer audio, don't computers have some sort of DAC built into the motherboards? On my computer, I have multi-channel audio outputs via 3.5mm jacks as well as optical and coaxial audio outputs. I could connect my computer via optical or coax, but has the information being sent to the XDA already been "tainted" by my computer? Or are computers able to put out a pure digital signal that hasn't been messed with?

Based on what you say, you likely can output a signal that has not been "messed with" via the optical or coax. Optical and coax are digital outputs, so I assume you can output the raw digital into something like the XDA-2.

I hope that helps!

Mark

[garbulky]

Yes usually you can output a signal that's "untainted". You would have to use a mode like WASAPI (bit perfect) mode on your software player to ensure that it is not mucked about with. Some hardware does mess around with the sound but usually it will output correctly.

[klinemj]

Well, one other thought...if your computer music audio is solely iTunes...it is already a bit tainted in that it's compressed. So, it's not the best starting quality. This is one reason why I steered to the umc200 and erc2. The erc would make your CD's sing, and the umc200 could take digital out from your iTunes library on your computer and do well with that.

Mark

[AudioHTIT]

Jan 8, 2013 21:04:49 GMT -5 klinemj said:

Well, one other thought...if your computer music audio is solely iTunes...it is already a bit tainted in that it's compressed. So, it's not the best starting quality. This is one reason why I steered to the umc200 and erc2. The erc would make your CD's sing, and the umc200 could take digital out from your iTunes library on your computer and do well with that.

Mark

iTunes can store and play uncompressed ALAC rips from CD, or high bitrate 'HD' quality FLAC to ALAC conversions from HDTracks and the like. How is this 'tainted'?

[sorbe]

Above about 200Kbits/sec very few can tell if audio was compressed. Above about 250Kbits/sec pretty much nobody can tell by listening to it, even on excellent DACs like the XDA-1/2.

[klinemj]

iTunes can store and play uncompressed ALAC rips from CD, or high bitrate 'HD' quality FLAC to ALAC conversions from HDTracks and the like. How is this 'tainted'?

I was making the assumption that the person has the standard iTunes fair which is compressed...my bad.

To the OP...what format are your iTunes stored in?

Mark

[savjac]

Jan 9, 2013 1:24:06 GMT -5 sorbe said:

Above about 200Kbits/sec very few can tell if audio was compressed. Above about 250Kbits/sec pretty much nobody can tell by listening to it, even on excellent DACs like the XDA-1/2.

I can tell the difference on my system and it is a difference that is clear and repeatable. 256K and 320K is the minimum for playback without wanting higher quality. FLAC or AIFF is the standard that can sound better than a CD.

[jackfish]

Jan 9, 2013 1:24:06 GMT -5 sorbe said:

Above about 200Kbits/sec very few can tell if audio was compressed. Above about 250Kbits/sec pretty much nobody can tell by listening to it, even on excellent DACs like the XDA-1/2.

I'm sorry, but I believe this is patently false. There have been listener tests where discernment was evident between 256kbps mp3s which have a 5.5:1 compression ratio and 1,411.2kbps CD quality streams. However, many younger listeners actually preferred the "sizzle" provided by mp3s. Playing even 256kbps mp3s on high resolving equipment is likely to be dissatisfying to most listeners who have spent the time, money and effort to acquire such equipment.

[maximumkahuna]

Let's not start a flame war here. A discussion of who can and cannot distinguish between 256 kbps mp3s and lossless files is better left to other threads. The OP can get files both ways and decide for himself.

[jcisbig]

My iTunes files that I do most of my listening to are either ripped from a CD into AAC 320kbps or into WAV. I thought about ripping into FLAC to maintain "lossless" at a reduced file size over WAV, but iTunes doesn't support FLAC. I thought about switching to another media player that can handle FLAC, but I'm so used to iTunes and all my songs are rated the way I like in iTunes as well. I'd have to re-learn a media player, and re-rate all of my songs (which is a lot) to generate the playlists that I like!

It seems to me that my best option for a sound quality improvement would be to eventually step up to an Emotiva pre/pro like the umc or xmc line. If I was putting together a 2ch only system, then I'd go the XDA or USP/XSP route.

However, all the responses have been very helpful for me to understand what the products mentioned in the first post of this thread are for and how they can be used. Thank you!

[garbulky]

Itunes has a losseless ripping format you can rip to.

[jcisbig]

Is it better than just ripping in WAV? I thought WAV was lossless? Also, are you referring to "Apple Lossless Encoder". I'm willing to try it, but I don't like being bound to "Apple's stuff" other than iTunes!

[garbulky]

I'm not sure what it's called. But I believe it is in itunes. Ripping in wav should give you the same result. However the wav files would be bigger but with today's big hard drive it usually matters very little. So sure, go ahead and rip in wav. It is losseless.

Wav is lossless and uncompressed. It can also be converted to most other file types and will not tie you down to itunes. It can be converted to flac, mp3's, CD's, etc.
Flac and apple's lossless ripping is also lossless but compressed. They contain the exact same information found in the wav file once decoded.
An mp3 or apples standard file types are lossy and compressed and do not contain the exact same information found in the wav file once decoded. It is an approximation.

[jackfish]

The Apple Lossless Audio Codec (ALAC) is a compressed lossless format which has been released to the public domain. There are utilities which will convert most of the audio formats available today and upon playback FLAC and ALAC should be indistiguishable from AIFF or WAV.

[GreenKiwi]

I'd rip to alac. You can always covert to anything else later, without loss.

[klinemj]

Caution on wav...it does not get all the metadata. For example, I ripped to WAV and it didn't bring along the track #. So, when I played back a CD via my Sonos, the songs all played in alphabetical order, not the order on the CD. And, for CD's in which one track blends to the next (as in, many Beatles and Pink Floyd CD's...and much more), this really ends up being noticable and a pain to deal with.

I ended up converting all my WAV to FLAC w/Jriver.

Mark