Okay here is my understanding of the use of DAC between player and processor. I have a universal player and a multichannel receiver. I also have a redbook cd player. If I connect the universal or cd player to the receiver using a digital cable (coax or optical) I am sending a digital signal to the receiver and therefore using the internal DACs of the receiver for processing the signal. If I connect them with a standard analog interconnect then I am using the internal DACs of the source player to convert the signal to analog. My question is which is better? What are the deciding factors between using the source component DACs versus the receiver/processor DACs? Or, am I simply totally confused in my assumption of how this processing is handled? (By the way, I am aware that I must use the six-channel analog connection for my universal player for playback of high rez audio formats)
The best results that I have heard are achieved by using a separate DAC between the player and the preamp or amp. Audio by Van Alstine has some nice units, built right here in the USA. www.avahifi.com
To answer your original question, it depends on which unit has the better DAC, the player or the receiver. A/B them and see for yourself.
There is more to the sound than the quality of the DAC. For example, my Meridian CD player and Pioneer DVD player, used as digital transports only, sound quite different when decoded by the DAC inside my Denon AV receiver. This probably isn't the clearcut answer you wanted. Sorry, but hi-fi, like the rest of life, isn't always simple.
Actually you do have a real good understanding of the basic concepts involved. To reiterate, if you use a digital cable to connect a CD or DVD player to your receiver, then you are using the D/A converter in your receiver to convert the information. If you use analog cables to connect your CD or DVD player to your receiver, then you are using the D/A converter in your player. There are so many factors involved that what you might want to do is try both ways and decide for yourself which sounds better.
Also the cable you use to carry the digital signal will dramatically change the sound. I’ve used an inexpensive RatShack and Acoustic Research digital coaxial as well as inexpensive Polly opticals that don’t’ come close to the quality of an MIT digital coaxial. I’ve tried a few digital cables, the XLO Pro was really nice (currently uing in my HT system) too. Glass optical cables are also real nice sounding.
Coax cables also have a much wider band width providing for a faster and smoother transfer of digital information with a much more realistic sound stage. The down side is that coax cables are more suseptible to RF interferance.
Yeah, I also read that the bandwidth of a ‘glass’ optical is 5 or 6 times higher then a polly optical which is nearly as high as a coaxial, I believe. I compared a polly optical to a glass optical to a coaxial and found a BIG difference between the polly and the glass and little between the glass and the coaxial. This was done between a M-Audio Delta DIO 2496 and a California Audio Labs tube DAC.
This is my experience, too. Glass optical or coax is the way to go. I ultimately chose Stereovox HDVX coax.
In Digital wire shootouts using my Theta DAC I have found that 30M hz bandwidth Glass Toslink is a night and day improvement over 6M hz plastic conductor Toslink. I have also found that with my equipment the Glass Toslink was easily better than the XLO Digital Reference 4 and the MIT Digital Reference 1 Digital coax wires, but it was still unable to match the awe inspiring detail and elegance of the Kimber Illuminations D-60 Dataflex Studio. _Maxx
I was going to go the digital cable route myself many moons ago and was told directly by Steve that it is better to stick with RCA analog than to use a digital cable because they sound less musical than analog cables.
Are we talking apples and oranges? I was referring to the cable between transport and DAC -- a digital cable by definition. I don't see how the resulting signal could be "less musical" than that put out by a one-box player. On the contrary, many believe that the two-box solution -- separating the transport electronics from the DAC --results in a cleaner signal. Sounds better to me! Also, my DAC has a tube output stage where my stand-alone player (which I use as a transport and SACD player) has op-amps. Guess which is more musical?
Yeah, I agree. My tube California Audio Labs DAC with the right tube sounds more musical than my Denon 2900 which is also the transport. Although, SACD sounds very musical too. The Denon 2900 has more detail then the CAL and is surprisingly well controlled on both the top and bottom end. I’m torn between the two now and then. My CAL is a Sigma-II with factory upgrades and a BurrBrown DAC. It uses a single 12AX7 so is less linear then it could be but still very, very musical. I was also not blown away with the XLO Pro Digital, at $250 is didn’t sound nearly as good as the $150 MIT which quite frankly wasn’t much different then the $350 MIT reference. I ended up with the cheaper MIT on my DAC and the XLO on my AV Receiver in my HT system. The Glass Optical I use from my computer. My DAC has both inputs and a simple switch on the face to switch between them.
I hope this isn't a thread crap, but I do have what I think is a related question. I have been using a cheapo Technics CDP for a transport for my Denon DAC, which I believe sold for about $500USD a few years ago. The reason I bought the Technics was because of it's excellent tracking ability. Of the several CD players I've owned, this is without a doubt the best tracker I've had. What I'm wondering is, what would a dedicated transport player or a more expensive CDP do for my system that my Technics will not do? Would CDs actually sound better, if I had a higher end transport system?
Hi Mike, There's no fast and ready answer to your question. As others have told you it's a case of suck it and see. In your case there is an added complication, most AVR's convert their analog inputs (except the muilti-channel input) into digital for internal processing, therefore an analog CD input to the AVR is being converted twice and may suffer sonically unless your AVR has a direct input mode which avoids analog to digital conversion.
Directly This thread started because I was considering buying a new cd player. There is nothing wrong with my current Parasound CD1500 changer that 7 years worth of newer technology might cure. I am concerned with the age and types of the DACs I have, that they are not the newest 24bit/192khz or that I do not have upsampling. I currently use the analog connections from my cd to my avr which means I am using the older DACs for processing. The reason that I use the analog connections is that I have a second zone being used for my outdoor patio and my avr will not pass digital or high rez signals to the second zone. So in order to have cd playback outdoors I have to go with the analog connections. I suppose I could hook up a digital connection to another input which then would allow me to use the DAC processing of my newer (Denon AVR 3805) receiver for listening in the houseand basically makes my Parasound a transport. I do have my universal player (Denon 2900) which I can also use for cd listening, but I do like using the changer feature for more "background" listening. I am thinking about a low end Cambridge AZUR640, NAD or Rotel unit, or just let sleeping dogs lie and move on to other issues such as new speakers.
The quality of your Digital front end will have a profound effect upon he sound of your entire Audio system. Over 4 years ago I started to persue the Digital seperates route by buying a stand alone DAC which led to adding some jitter reduction equipment and other modifications and I still find myself upgrading the outboard Digital components and wiring to achieve better sound because according to the president of Ultra Analog S/PDIF signal transmission must have <100 picoseconds of signal jitter to have full 16 bit resolution, <20 picoseconds jitter for full 20 bit resolution and .5 picoseconds jitter for full 24 bit resolution. The difficulty in maintaning these stringent tollerences which can be affected by anything from power supplies, to interconnects and the build quality of the equipment itself makes a case for getting a good one box player and a good set of interconnects to go with it. _Maxx
Have you tried an ART-DIO. They're not expensive, upsample, and sound quite wonderful and you can even use it as an analog to digital convertor complete with an EL84 in the chain. The only caveats are you need odd cables (RCA to, I think, 1/4 inch) and the output can be a bit high for some preamps, or so I have heard. Also, with a universal player, it will try to play the DTS. Jeff
