I'm going to throw something out here... in the form of an "editorial comment".
I would say that the RMC-1's two-channel performance will compare reasonably against that of ANY DAC... at ANY price.
Let me explain that in detail.
Here are some of the specs on the DAC chip we currently use in the RMC-1, RMC-1L, and XMC-2 (these are typical over several different individual options).
S/N: 120 dB (normal modes); 123 dB (mono mode)
Frequency Response: 0 - 80 kHz +0.1 / -2 dB
THD: 0.0003% (converted from specification which is stated in dB)
As you can see these numbers are ridiculously good...
Now, in a simple two-channel DAC, with no processing or extra features, it is quite possible to deliver performance similar to these numbers.
(We're talking about a product that could reasonably be sold for $300-$500.)
Now, once you start talking about a surround sound processor, there is a LOT more involved.
Among other things your DAC is now sharing its case with several high-performance computers.
This makes things like shielding and power supply isolation much more difficult.
And then there's channel switching and routing.
However, if you check the specifications on a processor like our RMC-1, you will see that the specs are still pretty close in practical terms.
For example, in practical terms, the difference between 0.01% THD and 0.001% THD is nonexistent... because both are FAR below the threshold of audibility.
And a S/N of 120 dB is the difference between the quietest sound a human can hear, in a dead quiet room, and the sound of a jet engine revving at twenty feet.
The thing you need to understand is the difference between a $300 DAC, and a $3,000 DAC, and a $30,000 DAC.
And, quite simply, as you can see from those numbers, the difference is NOT performance.
Some expensive DACs do in fact deliver even better performance... but the improvement is NOT going to be audible.
(And some expensive DACs deliver what can only be described fairly as pretty awful technical performance.)
Some expensive DACs offer more obscure differences, like different filter slopes, or different ringing responses.
And, while these don't actually show up in the "conventional" specifications, some of them MAY actually be audible.
However, at this point, you must make the distinction between "different" and "better"... and often the more expensive DAC is NOT better.
To be quite blunt, I've actually heard $30k DACs that sound AUDIBLY less accurate than some $500 DACs... and audibly worse than an RMC-1.
And I've heard more than a few that cost over $1000 that I literally wouldn't want to listen to...
(But I guess that someone "just likes the way they sound"... and is willing to pay for it.)
At that level the differences involved are more a matter of personal preference than of "improved performance" or "better accuracy".
Are you paying $2500 more for "better performance" or because the designer chose "filter 14" instead of "filter 17" because he or she preferred the sound?
Or, even worse, are you paying that $2500 for worse technical performance, and a deliberate choice to go with "a house sound" over "accuracy"?
Or are you paying for something like an R2R DAC, not because the DAC sounds better, but because the marketing literature sounds better?
Or are you actually paying $30,000 for that distinction"?
(Bear in mind that, along the way, there are many things in the production chain that have far more influence over what you hear than the DAC anyway.)
Now, to be fair, you might find a two channel DAC that can deliver more accurate sound than the RMC-1 (or the XMC-2).
But you're going to have to look pretty hard to find content where that difference would be audible.
And you can also find a $3k DAC, or a $30k DAC, that delivers LESS accurate sound.
And probably more than a few that you personally don't even like the sound of.
My point in this long and somewhat rambling rant is NOT that you cannot possibly find a DAC that you think sounds better than the RMC-1.
My point is that, if you do, price will have little or nothing to do with it.
Most of the audible differences between DACs are NOT due to fancy designs or expensive technology...
And, more importantly, fancy designs and expensive technology quite often do NOT result in audible benefits...
Magical super expensive cutting edge technology that actually makes a huge audible difference simply is not a real thing...
So, by all means, try a separate DAC, connected to an Analog input, in Reference Stereo mode...
But don't assume it's going to necessarily sound better...
Or that it will sound better to you.
And, incidentally, for two channel, I would go with the USB input over HDMI or even AES/EBU... because the jitter suppression is a tiny bit better...
(But, to be fair, I can't honestly say I can hear the difference.)
Have anyone compared RMC-1 DACs quality in stereo vs 1-2K stereo DACs?
And what connection type to win PC is better - over USB or HDMI or AES (can output AES from PC with Lynx AES16e)?
