|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Nov 5, 2015 19:10:13 GMT -5
You might think this is a logical statement, but it really isn't. No matter what your preamp does to the signal, giving it the best possible input signal ensures the best possible output. So if the preamp (or AVR) uses an A/D/A process, the best sounding A at the input will be equally better at the output than if the original A is crappy. So using a better quality DAC on the front end will always result in a better signal output than if the DAC on the source sucks. And at the same time, theoretically it can be argued that a pure digital signal chain right up the final necessary DAC required to drive loudspeakers should result in the best possible sound when using digital sources. It all depends on the gear.  The worst converters in the signal chain limit the ultimate sound quality - period. Therefore, if you're running a Yggdrasil DAC and feeding its analog output into an AVR, you're going to hear no better than AVR sound. The AVR, in this example, is the limit on the ultimate sound quality. Or to reverse the chain - If I have a Wal-Mart DVD player as a source, it doesn't matter if the remainder of the system is world-class. The system will never sound better than the worst component in the system, in this case, the source. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 5, 2015 19:42:15 GMT -5
Except, in combination environment, like a processor or AVR, it is not uncommon to have a DAC implementation that is not as "good" as the preamp implementation. So using a "better" external DAC with that preamp may well result in a superior sound. "Better" may well mean a DAC that has a more appealing sound to the listener.
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Nov 5, 2015 19:45:35 GMT -5
All I know is I've now owned 5 Class D amps and each of them have sounded very good - one XLS-1500 which I sold after half a year - then I owned a Rotel RMB-1085 5 channel Class D with Bang & Olefsen modules with output of 100w into 8ohms and 180w into 4ohms all channels driven. I sold that after deciding to go back to pro amps. The sound was pretty much what I had expected from owning the XLS-1500. So I now have 3 XLS amps as you can see in my sig line.
I'm not going back to Class A/B - the class of amps I've owned the most over the years. These Crown amps are (IMO) very good amps for the price - I just wish they weren't so butt-fugly. And being light weight does help too. Pro audio guys buy them by the crate - I can't imagine they'd want anything that colored the sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 5, 2015 20:03:29 GMT -5
But if the DAC in the AVR is crappy does it matter how good the external DAC is if you are only going to send it through the crappy AVR DAC in the end? Of course it matters. Your signal can never sound better than that produced at the source. And if you're using a crappy AVR, Emotiva has preamps made just for you!  Well, maybe I can ask this differently. And this is what monkumonku was asking in the OP. Is it better, in your opinion, to take the digital output of a CD player and run it through an Yggdrasil to the analog input of the XMC-1 then internally convert that analog signal back to digital with the ADC in the XMC to run through the DSP in the XMC only to run it through the XMC's DAC before going out to the amp -or- just let the digital signal from the CD player feed the XMC directly for processing before being converted to analog with the XMC's DAC? |
|
|
|
Post by thompson12 on Nov 5, 2015 20:21:05 GMT -5
since you're limited by the sound quality of the AV processor, it is better (ALWAYS) to NOT use an analog input. The only exception, of course, is a phono front end, where you MUST use the analog input or in "Reference Mode" where the AV component's DACs are out of the system. Boomzilla Ok so I only listen to music in reference mode from the XMC-1 from my ERC-3 and Computer, would I benefit any from hooking up my XDA-2 to the XMC-1 for reference mode? Mitch |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 5, 2015 20:26:41 GMT -5
Of course it matters. Your signal can never sound better than that produced at the source. And if you're using a crappy AVR, Emotiva has preamps made just for you! Well, maybe I can ask this differently. And this is what monkumonku was asking in the OP. Is it better, in your opinion, to take the digital output of a CD player and run it through an Yggdrasil to the analog input of the XMC-1 then internally convert that analog signal back to digital with the ADC in the XMC to run through the DSP in the XMC only to run it through the XMC's DAC before going out to the amp -or- just let the digital signal from the CD player feed the XMC directly for processing before being converted to analog with the XMC's DAC? Id like to say, skip the XMC-1 all together, Purchase a XSP-1 and your done. Dont convert anything after the Yeggy, otherwise,,,,, why bother? |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 5, 2015 20:28:24 GMT -5
Well, maybe I can ask this differently. And this is what monkumonku was asking in the OP. Is it better, in your opinion, to take the digital output of a CD player and run it through an Yggdrasil to the analog input of the XMC-1 then internally convert that analog signal back to digital with the ADC in the XMC to run through the DSP in the XMC only to run it through the XMC's DAC before going out to the amp -or- just let the digital signal from the CD player feed the XMC directly for processing before being converted to analog with the XMC's DAC? Id like to say, skip the XMC-1 all together, Purchase a XSP-1 and your done. Dont convert anything after the Yeggy, otherwise,,,,, why bother? Well, say you want to use Dirac? |
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Nov 5, 2015 20:34:41 GMT -5
Id like to say, skip the XMC-1 all together, Purchase a XSP-1 and your done. Dont convert anything after the Yeggy, otherwise,,,,, why bother? Well, say you want to use Dirac? Buy it seperatly and a laptop. If your quest isfor the most unadulterated sound field in your room theres only so muchyou can do. Also, if your amp is changing the signal, buy a different amp type. Personally, if we're going to start spending serious money, lets get closer to the actual sound. Room, treatments, measurments and such is where id start. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 5, 2015 20:56:19 GMT -5
Monkumonku, correct me if I'm wrong but I think your question is this:
One has an XMC and likes to use Dirac with all sources. And he also has a high quality external DAC.
1. Use the external DAC to send analog to the XMC to convert to digital to run through Dirac then convert to analog. So, digital to analog to digital to analog.
2. Just send the digital signal to the XMC to process with Dirac then convert to analog. So, digital to analog.
In both cases, the XMC's DAC is the last one in the chain.
Which is better, 1 or 2.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,100
|
Post by klinemj on Nov 5, 2015 20:58:16 GMT -5
2
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 5, 2015 21:05:42 GMT -5
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,494
|
Post by DYohn on Nov 6, 2015 10:00:33 GMT -5
The best thing to do is what sounds best in your system.
In general, the A-D-A process used in processors to achieve everything from volume control to room EQ does not alter the sound unto itself. What happens during the processing stage will, of course, but unless the processor is truly crap, the conversion to digital and back is transparent and does not "degrade" the signal. Digital is digital and in 2015 even the cheapest most interpolation-prone DAC available does its job admirably. Do they sound different sometimes, yes, but they are not crap. Also in general, using an external DAC will create better sound quality than those built into a player, if only due to economics. And also in general, that "better" happens on the analog side of the signal chain. (Sometimes in the case of genuinely different DACs like those using multibit conversion, the difference is also apparent in the digital domain.)
So, in general, all else being equal, you want the best possible source signal. It can never get better than the source.
Now, if you take the DAC out of the equatiuon altogether, meaning using a digital signal from the source through all processing and only converting to analog to drive the amplifier, then you will theoretically attain the closest to the source sound as possible. But the result will be determined mostly by the analog side of the DAC that is eventually used.
Using a DAC with the best sounding analog output is what you want. And it really should be as close to the source as possible if there is downstream analog signal processing (the most common being volume control.)
But back to point one: do whatever sounds best in your system. Sometimes that requires experimentation to find.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Nov 6, 2015 13:33:32 GMT -5
I'm not going back to Class A/B - the class of amps I've owned the most over the years. These Crown amps are (IMO) very good amps for the price - I just wish they weren't so butt-fugly. And being light weight does help too. Pro audio guys buy them by the crate - I can't imagine they'd want anything that colored the sound. I'm a "pro audio guy", or more correctly I was, it was how I paid my way through university. I've done sound for literally hundreds of live performances, indoor, outdoor, in tin sheds and huge stadiums. I know lots of guys from back in the day who are still involved, as a result I have access to all types and brands of pro sound gear. There are many reasons why particular pieces of audio gear are chosen, weight, durability, power output, cost, ease of repair, accessibility, etc that rank higher than outright sound quality. There is no way, no matter how much better it sounded, that we would choose say an XPR-1, too heavy, too costly, not common enough to find an instant addition or replacement etc. Not for one second saying that pro guys would choose a bad sounding power amplifier, but that we don't chase that last, final, often tiny, bit of sound accuracy, through the entire audible spectrum. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Nov 6, 2015 14:52:12 GMT -5
since you're limited by the sound quality of the AV processor, it is better (ALWAYS) to NOT use an analog input. The only exception, of course, is a phono front end, where you MUST use the analog input or in "Reference Mode" where the AV component's DACs are out of the system. Boomzilla Ok so I only listen to music in reference mode from the XMC-1 from my ERC-3 and Computer, would I benefit any from hooking up my XDA-2 to the XMC-1 for reference mode? Mitch No. the XMC-1 sounds quite a bit better than the XDA-2. |
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 6, 2015 15:19:36 GMT -5
Ok so I only listen to music in reference mode from the XMC-1 from my ERC-3 and Computer, would I benefit any from hooking up my XDA-2 to the XMC-1 for reference mode? Mitch No. the XMC-1 sounds quite a bit better than the XDA-2. And the ERC-3 is probably just as good as the XDA-2 if say you're going balanced in to the XMC-1, this path probably takes best advantage of reference mode. Otherwise thompson12, you already have two DAC's to compare (ERC-3 & XMC-1), no need to get the XDA-2 involved. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Nov 6, 2015 15:46:46 GMT -5
No. the XMC-1 sounds quite a bit better than the XDA-2. And the ERC-3 is probably just as good as the XDA-2 if say you're going balanced in to the XMC-1, this path probably takes best advantage of reference mode. Otherwise thompson12, you already have two DAC's to compare (ERC-3 & XMC-1), no need to get the XDA-2 involved. +1. If anything just connect the analog out to the Analog 1 inputs of the XMC. Balanced or RCA. The ERC-3 uses the same DACs as the XDA-2 and DC-1. |
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Nov 6, 2015 16:03:18 GMT -5
This is from an article I read....
There are many advantages to storing all of your music on a streaming device. The main one is obviously convenience. Systems can be designed so that you never have to leave your chair to change music tracks that are all at your fingertips (via an iPad or similar device). But there are other advantages as well.
You can search your music collection by artist, album, song title, genre or simply browse your collection. Better yet, you can create multiple playlists, each reflecting a certain musical style or mood. And the ease with which you can change tracks will change the way you listen to music forever. Once you stream, there is no going back!But streaming is a conceptual departure from playing vinyl or CD’s and fear of the unknown can prevent a person from taking the plunge. Hopefully, the next couple of articles will shed some light and illuminate the dark unknown.
Streaming Components
There are four basic components of a music streaming system:
A music storage device;
A playback device;
A digital to analog converter (DAC) to convert the digital bit stream to analog sound; and,
A system that allows you to select tracks to send to the DAC.
If you think about it, these four components are included in your existing CD player. With a CD player, you basically have a storage device (the CD itself), a playback device (the player itself), a DAC (which is normally built into the CD player) and a remote to control the player. In a streaming system, you are simply substituting for these four components. So let’s take a look at each of the four to see what a new streaming system might look like.
Storage
A standard CD contains a collection of music tracks in the form of digital files. If you copied (a process called ripping that we will get to later) these files onto a hard drive on a computer, you would be able to play them back on your computer.
So in terms of a storage device, there are a number of possibilities. You can use your computer (as long as you have sufficient drive space available) or an old, unused computer you have lying around. A network storage device (NAS) connected to your network is another possibility. Or, for maximum flexibility, a dedicated streaming device with built-in storage. You are essentially storing the digital music files on a hard drive rather than on a physical optical CD.
MY SUGGESTION IS TO USE A EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE. 3TB IS ABOUT $100. GET A SPARE AND DUPLICATE THE COPY> IT WILL CRASH> YOU WILL HAVE AN EXTRA COPY
Playback
Regardless of where you store your music, you will need a device that can play the files by sending the bit stream to your DAC. If you are storing music on your computer (or an old computer you have lying around unused), you can use a program on that same machine to send the bit stream to your DAC. If you have your music stored on a NAS (network storage device), you can use another computer to access the music files and serve them to your DAC. Finally, you can have a dedicated music streaming device both store and play your music files.
DAC
As mentioned earlier, a CD player normally has a DAC built in. But unless you have a high-end player, these DACs are usually not all that sophisticated and the sound quality can be all over the board. A computer also has built-in DAC circuitry. It is often capable of playing music files of higher resolution than a CD player, but the sound quality is typically not all that high either.
An outboard DAC opens up greater possibilities since there are few limitations in terms of ultimate sound quality. The only practical limitation is your budget. These DACs can be had for as little as $100 or less up to $20,000 or more. But you don’t always necessarily get what you pay for. It takes a bit of investigation to determine what kind of price/performance a given DAC offers.
Control
Obviously, you will need some system to select and play your music. If you are using a computer, player applications will typically be used to select and play tracks. The upside of this approach is that you seldom have to invest in much of anything since you already own the computer. The down-side is that you will generally be tied to a monitor/keyboard/mouse combination which may be hard to set up for remote control access.
Generally, a dedicated player will come with remote control apps that can run wirelessly on an iPhone, an iPad, an Android phone, an Android tablet or some other device. All the rest of the system can be safely tucked away since you won’t need direct access to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vneal on Nov 6, 2015 16:09:39 GMT -5
AGAIN FROM AN ARTICLE...
With the advent of CD’s came a digital music standard called “Redbook.” Redbook is a PCM (pulse code modulation) standard that features a word length of 16 bits and a sampling rate of 44,100 samples per second. It was calculated that this combination could adequately reproduce frequencies up to 22,050 cycles per second with a dynamic range (the difference between the softest and loudest passages) of about 90db (which was better than either audio tape or vinyl at the time). Since humans can only hear to about 20,000 cycles per second and less as they age, this was felt to be plenty sufficient for the task at hand. For many years, Redbook remained the go-to standard for digital recordings.
Starting in the late 90’s, however, recording studios began recording at higher resolutions, primarily 24/96. These recordings would then be “down-sampled” to Redbook in order to master CDs. It was felt the the better the original recording, the better the final product, even though the resolution had to be decreased in the process. In fact, many commercial recording studios continue to produce 24/94 recordings today, since many recording engineers believe that anything above that is not all that audible. That said, the march to higher and higher resolutions continues unabated. Today, it is not at all uncommon to see PCM (pulse code modulation) file resolutions from 24/192 up to 48/384. Can you hear the difference? Probably up to a point, but where that point is, is the subject of some debate. I DISAGREE YOU CAN HERE THE DIFFERENCE OVER A CD. KEEP IN MIND WITH HD DOWNLOADS THESE TRACKS HAVE BEEN REMASTERED AND WILL SOUND DIFFERENT EVEN WITH THE SAME COMPRESSION
PCM files can be stored in a variety of formats, such as uncompressed .wav files, or compressed file formats with names like .flac, .aiff, .mp3, etc. Other than file resolution (which impacts sound quality), is makes relatively little difference which you use. Player software can generally deal with all of these file types and produce a PCM bit stream to send to the DAC. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION FLAC IS STATE OF THE ART AND OFFERS THE BEST PLAYBACK FOR HIGH END SOUND
Up until the last few years, most all consumer DACs were strictly PCM-based. But to complicate the situation, the consumer audio industry has lately been heavily promoting a completely different format – DSD.
DSD (Direct Stream Digital)
In 1999, Philips and Sony jointly introduced an entirely new digital concept for recording and reproducing sound. They called it SACD (Super Audio CD). While the format never really caught on with consumers, the file format, DSD (Direct Stream Digital), did take hold with some in the recording industry and is now being promoted by the consumer audio industry. Rather than using a multi-bit sample like PCM, DSD is a single bit format utilizing extremely high sampling rates. The dynamic range (the difference between the softest and loudest signals the format is capable of resolving) is much higher than that of a CD (PCM). DSD, in use, has a dynamic range of about 105db or greater from 20 – 20kHz compared to about 90db for CDs. Human hearing is capable of resolving about 120 db of dynamic range.
Can You Hear It?
When music is stored and played back on streaming devices, you are no longer limited to 16/44 file resolutions. As stated above, PCM files can have resolutions as high as 48/384. But can your hear the differences?
A report on double blind listening tests conducted in 2004 found that test subjects could not discern any difference in audio quality between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM music files. Even so, today the audio industry is aggressively promoting DSD.
I had a conversation with a DAC manufacturer a while back. He told me he had no interest in producing a DSD DAC because studies have shown that listeners cannot hear the differences DSD brings to the table. My point to him is that while he may indeed be correct, his position was missing the point. If the industry is promoting it, consumers will come to the conclusion that DSD is audibly superior to PCM and will eliminate non-DSD DACs from consideration. It matters little if your DAC is a superior product in every other respect. Due to the industry’s promotional efforts, if it does not include DSD, a significant number of consumers will pass it by.
If there is any negative influence on the adoption of DSD by consumers, it is that there is currently a limited supply of original program material recorded in that format. Many that are available tend to fall into the classical and folk genre since these can easily be recorded with a single stereo microphone. When you purchase these recordings, you are essentially purchasing a bit-for-bit copy of the studio master tape. No intermediate processing is required.
But what about the vast library of existing music that was not originally recorded in DSD? A case can be made that DSD files created from original analog master tapes can at least deliver the full audio quality of those recordings. And since mastering techniques have improved over the years, it can be argued these files can actually sound superior to the originals because they are not subject to the limitations involved in the transfer to vinyl or audio tape (primarily compression related to the dynamic range capabilities of those media).
But most commercial recordings released after the late 1980’s were recorded originally in a digital format and limited to 16/44 or, at best, 24/96. Even so, you often see high resolution up-sampled re-releases of this material on sites offering high resolution downloads. While mastering techniques have improved over the years and a re-mastering may indeed increase audio quality, one could legitimately argue that the higher resolutions offer little in the way of increased audio quality. After all, you can’t capture additional information from a music file that does not contain it. All you can do is use computer algorithms to “synthesize” additional information based on the content of the original file. That being the case, it would certainly be legitimate to ask yourself if these new high-resolution versions of older digital music are really worth the extra cost, or are they just a marketing gimmick used to sell older material at an inflated price? You be the judge.
Conclusion
Music that is well recorded and expertly mastered at Redbook (CD) resolutions can be thoroughly wonderful in every regard. If you have a large selection of CD’s and simply want a more convenient and versatile way of playing them, then your streaming system does not need to be able to handle file resolutions that are any higher. Just streaming them to a more capable and polished DAC will improve the sound quality of your library.
If you are interested in higher resolutions, there may be no reason to have to deal with formats higher than 24/96 or 24/176, since studies have seemed to indicate that nothing above these resolutions is significantly audible.
But if you like to be on the cutting edge and want to future-proof your system, DSD is probably something you should include in your system capabilities since it appears that the audio industry will continue to aggressively promote the format.
The nice thing is, no matter which path you decide to take, you will most likely experience an increase in audio quality on your journey.
|
|
|
|
Post by AudioHTIT on Nov 6, 2015 18:31:55 GMT -5
Just looking at all that I forgot what the question was.  |
|
|
|
Post by thompson12 on Nov 6, 2015 18:51:15 GMT -5
Ok thanks guys thanks, I have the ERC-3 hooked up analog XLR to the XMC-1
Mitch
|
|
