In my living room, I have a ZP90 connected to an older Sony A/V receiver (STR-DE597) that I bought on Craigslist. Earlier this year I added a pair of Polk TSi400 with a Polk subwoofer that I use for Sonos and my television.
As I've been learning more about digital audio, I keep seeing references to dedicated DAC units as something that will really boost sound quality.
My question is: with the components that I already have, would a DAC like the Peachtree DAC-iT make a difference? My concern is that since my other components are not very high-end, the better sound quality of the DAC would not really come through.
Since this unit is about $500, would that be better spent on some other component, like a new A/V receiver?
And a related question: how would the DAC be wired? Does the output from the Sonos go to the DAC and then the output from the DAC go to the receiver?
Page 1 / 3
PenskeFile,
Unless you are on a complete system upgrade path, I don't think that investing in an external DAC would be good use of funds. If you are on the upgrade path, add the DAC last. And, listen before you buy.
Unless you are on a complete system upgrade path, I don't think that investing in an external DAC would be good use of funds. If you are on the upgrade path, add the DAC last. And, listen before you buy.
Hi - one point that didn't get any airtime in this thread is that the DAC will add additional delay to your playback, meaning if you use the DAC on your hifi (via Connect), your sound will no longer be synced in all rooms. This is fatal in my case, as I always hear an echo. (For this reason, I've connected the analog out to my A/V receiver, not the digital one.)
(Just wanted to throw that in there...)
(Just wanted to throw that in there...)
I do hope that these units have digital inputs that can accept an external USD 50k DAC that will then get them to kick bigger ass:-).
sorry, the Play units do not out perform many speakers I have come across. I once heard a Sonos Connect directly connected to Meridian DSP6000 speakers which have 4x75 watt amps built in each speaker and Wow it kicked ass and they also have a DAC built into them. The sound was way better than anything from a Sonos Play unit and I'd say from anything else I've heard a Sonos Connect connected to
So the Meridian is DAC,Amps and speakers which you say are not needed
So the Meridian is DAC,Amps and speakers which you say are not needed
Sonos has made things a lot simpler for everyone with their play units, and underlined that via the recently released 5. Now one needs to just spend on the speakers, first and last - there isn't anything else required for home audio! Separate systems and boxes is technology of the last century.
Unless the only thing you are playing is FLACs on your Sonos, then the compressed file formats 99.9% of users are listening to are the biggest source of rubbish in the entire system. An external DAC vs the one in the CONNECT/CONNECT:AMP is going to be inaudible for pretty much everyone, even the self-proclaimed audiophiles...
Some people really do talk about rubbish here regarding their systems. One person said you build from the speaker first. No you don't. There is an old saying in hifi, if you put rubbish in you get rubbish out so you start with the very best source you can. The Connect is not the best source of music, it's very good but not the best. However if you do use one like me then adding a decent DAC will improve the sound source going into the amplifier which in turn shows itself through your speakers. I am not quoting prices because it's all relative. I have owned budget systems right up to one's costing £20K new although I purchased second hand at 40% of that cost. Thats another tip, buy good second user kit if you can. With the Connect chances are it will be new but everything else buy 2nd hand and that way you will get a great system. If you look at reviews for a product make sure at least 3 different magazines give it a great review because 1 great review only usually means that mag is bias and you will probably see adverts in that magazine for the great product. However, music is like art, if it makes your emotions change as it changes that is good enough for you to like it. We are too keen for the approval of others that our system sounds great. Only you should decide that. So people on here like Kumar telling you to spend on speakers first is rubbish, spend it on what you hear is the best for you regardless of cost, if you can afford it and it makes you happy...do it. Once again I am not talking about how much you should spend, thats your decision
To reiterate for the benefit of users of all Sonos devices since all include a capable enough DAC - nothing that will be audible in a well controlled level matched blind ABX test will be audible in any external DAC, no matter how high it is priced. Or, rephrasing more accurately, nothing has been proven to be heard so far in such a test anywhere in the world. I too haven't found any difference in various DACs although I admit that the most expensive one I used was priced at only USD 1500.
DACs sometimes come with sound shaping filters - these are akin to tone controls - and DAC performance needs to be compared with this feature defeated to allow for apples to apples comparison across DACs.
DACs will sound different for psychological reasons though and anyone that believes that a modern day DAC needs to be run it before it delivers best performance is under the influence of these reasons.
Today a basic DAC is a cheap commodity.
DACs sometimes come with sound shaping filters - these are akin to tone controls - and DAC performance needs to be compared with this feature defeated to allow for apples to apples comparison across DACs.
DACs will sound different for psychological reasons though and anyone that believes that a modern day DAC needs to be run it before it delivers best performance is under the influence of these reasons.
Today a basic DAC is a cheap commodity.
However, the original poster was thinking about going with an external DAC along with what sounds like fairly commercial amp and speakers. Most posters said it can make a difference but speakers and amplifier would be the first to replace. You have higher end speakers and amp so naturally then the DAC becomes the weakest link and therefore the higher end DAC makes a noticeable difference. Would you notice that difference with some department store Polk speakers and home receiver? Maybe a little but not as much as replacing the speakers and amp.
Old thread, but 3 years later I have to disagree with most posts, at least for my Sonos setup. I purchased a Peachtree DAC ITx for my Sonos ZP80 and the change is dramatic. It's like a curtain in front of my speakers has been removed, much more detail and insight, stage is becoming deeper with more air around instruments and vocals. Of course the rest of the equipment must be of a certain quality to display such a change, in my setup this was a very good investment. I don't know if this will be the case for a new Sonos Connect, but I'm very happy with it.
My setup for now is:
Synology DS 211j (audiofiles: FLAC)
Sonos ZP80
Peachtree DAC ITx
Marantz PM KI Pearl Lite
Dynaudio Audience 8
alternative listen: Meier Audio Corda Rock headphone amplifier with AKG K701 headphones.
The DAC took quite some running-in time to get to its best results.
My setup for now is:
Synology DS 211j (audiofiles: FLAC)
Sonos ZP80
Peachtree DAC ITx
Marantz PM KI Pearl Lite
Dynaudio Audience 8
alternative listen: Meier Audio Corda Rock headphone amplifier with AKG K701 headphones.
The DAC took quite some running-in time to get to its best results.
(Just wanted to throw that in there...)
Not necessarily true, about the delay. I have mine connected to the DAC in my SACD player because it has been in my system from before Sonos came home, and it has to justify its existence, and I see no delay/echo. But my amp is a 2 channel one, the delay you see must be on account of signal processing taking place in your AV receiver.
A modern DAC like a Chord Hugo makes a huge difference. If you run a Sonos connect optical out into a Chord Hugo, 2 qute, or even a mojo, and RCA from the DAC into quality amplification, which is powering great speakers, the musical experience is dramatically different and better than RCA directly out from the sonos into the same downstream chain. Amplifiers, like speakers, have different sonic signatures. My Octave v80se compared to a Naim Supernait 2 is smooth sparkly punchy and warm, but lacks the soundstage differentiation (depth, width, and height) and urgency of the supernait 2 presentation. When you power something like a Dynaudio Contour or Focal Electra BE with aforementioned chain things are pretty stunning. Stock sonos class d amplification is woefully average by comparison.
Cables are rubbish.
Cables are rubbish.
At the end of the day it is each person's take on priorities isn't it, and I suspect it is also a time of life/age thing.
The point you make is very valid, and it applies to so many other things in life. I could make the same argument about cars, or many other so called bso - bright shiny objects. I always remember something I read in a Warren Buffett interview, the man refuses to buy fancy brand clothes. A shirt is a shirt he says, and refuses to pay more for the brand named ones. Maybe that is how he got to be so wealthy:).
In your face marketing that is the norm today also contributes and plays heavily to this syndrome, making suckers of us all.
People seem to like adding and tinkering with new toys, and then the music has to sound better to justify the activity. I was on that train once:).
A person needs to spend ever increasing amounts of money to gain ever decreasing improvements in sound quality. Where does it end? Bankruptcy? Divorce? (talk about expensive...)
It's not hard for someone to drop $50 grand on a sound system. I'd rather spend $3 grand on a really nice stereo that buys me 99% (or better) of the sonic performance of the $50 grand system, and invest the remaining $47,000 in an annuity that pays interest and allows me to attend well over 900 live performances at $50 each. An extreme example, for sure, but I think most people will get the point.
+1 to that.
People seem to like adding and tinkering with new toys, and then the music has to sound better to justify the activity. I was on that train once:).
Thanks Jonis. More music, less noise.
PJ48inMN,
Thanks so much for putting the effort into doing a listening test and also for providing your set-up. This is all good information for helping the rest of us make good, educated decisions about our equipment purchases. Great stuff!!
Thanks so much for putting the effort into doing a listening test and also for providing your set-up. This is all good information for helping the rest of us make good, educated decisions about our equipment purchases. Great stuff!!
I went through the same questioning of the need for an external DAC with the Sonos Connect (purchased in August 2012), and did buy an Emotiva XDA-1 DAC before my Sonos arrived.
My Opinion, Bottom Line: Unless each component of your system cost as much or more than my entire system, don't spend any money on a DAC, you won't improve on what the Sonos DAC does on its own.
I spent about 90 minutes listening critically, not extensive, but enough to say with confidence that my system does not benefit. I can hear absolutely no difference in sound between using the Sonos analog outputs to my preamp compared to using the Sonos digital out to the XDA-1 with the XDA-1 analog output to my preamp, regardless of music, from classical to jazz to rock.
I think that the XDA-1 is a great value as a DAC, but that the Sonos DAC is equal for my system and hearing ability.
So far have only tested this myself, no other listeners.
My System:
Rotel RC-1070 preamp (2005)
Rotel RB-1070 amp (2005)
Large Advent speakers (1973 vintage, refoamed surrounds)
Emotiva XDA-1 DAC/preamp (2012)
Denon DCM-360 CD changer (1997)
AKG-400 headphones (1997)
Sonos Connect (2012)
Western Digital MyBook Live network HD
Apple Airport Extreme router
All music files in Apple Lossless format
I did testing both with the headphones connected to the Rotel preamp headphone jack, and speakers. Sonos connect is connected to the XDA-1 by digital coax RCA (emotiva brand cable), and to the Rotel preamp with high quality Monster cable RCA coax. When switching between sources using the headphones, there is no interruption or gap in the sound.
It is slightly harder to tell if there is a difference when using the speakers, as the is a short interruption in the sound on switching, but I could could hear none.
Also tested the sound from the Sonos system in both configurations against the CD played in the Denon. The Denon may be the weakest part of my system (??) but again, I could hear little or no difference between the three sources, and even if there is a difference, it was so small and hard to pin down.
My Opinion, Bottom Line: Unless each component of your system cost as much or more than my entire system, don't spend any money on a DAC, you won't improve on what the Sonos DAC does on its own.
I spent about 90 minutes listening critically, not extensive, but enough to say with confidence that my system does not benefit. I can hear absolutely no difference in sound between using the Sonos analog outputs to my preamp compared to using the Sonos digital out to the XDA-1 with the XDA-1 analog output to my preamp, regardless of music, from classical to jazz to rock.
I think that the XDA-1 is a great value as a DAC, but that the Sonos DAC is equal for my system and hearing ability.
So far have only tested this myself, no other listeners.
My System:
Rotel RC-1070 preamp (2005)
Rotel RB-1070 amp (2005)
Large Advent speakers (1973 vintage, refoamed surrounds)
Emotiva XDA-1 DAC/preamp (2012)
Denon DCM-360 CD changer (1997)
AKG-400 headphones (1997)
Sonos Connect (2012)
Western Digital MyBook Live network HD
Apple Airport Extreme router
All music files in Apple Lossless format
I did testing both with the headphones connected to the Rotel preamp headphone jack, and speakers. Sonos connect is connected to the XDA-1 by digital coax RCA (emotiva brand cable), and to the Rotel preamp with high quality Monster cable RCA coax. When switching between sources using the headphones, there is no interruption or gap in the sound.
It is slightly harder to tell if there is a difference when using the speakers, as the is a short interruption in the sound on switching, but I could could hear none.
Also tested the sound from the Sonos system in both configurations against the CD played in the Denon. The Denon may be the weakest part of my system (??) but again, I could hear little or no difference between the three sources, and even if there is a difference, it was so small and hard to pin down.
"My question is: with the components that I already have, would a DAC like the Peachtree-Audio-Dac--Digital-Converter make a difference?"
YES, IMHO.
YES, IMHO.
An alternative is to look at the Connect amp. With easy to drive speakers, it is a good way to get digital/networked/internet music into a room. Later, you can decide to give in to the inevitable temptation of expanding to other rooms:)
Hmmm, I'm not sure the Connect Amp can equal a good stereo amp. Of course I'm not sure.
In that case I would probably prefer a solution like the Denon AVR-3312, which is a little bit more expensive, but can be upgraded to a 5.1 Home Cinema later. And the DLNA technology allows to use the TV directly for browsing and choosing music, whereas the sonos needs the remote or an Ipod / Ipad, which I don't have. Actually, I have an android phone, but my wife has nothing (a good old "normal" phone), so what is she going to do when I am not home ? 😃
It seems to me that you are mixing up two things here - there is no doubt that HiFi to the input signal - as in being straight wire with gain for an amp, or just a straight wire for a DAC, are widely desired attributes besides being HiFi by definition, so I don't know if you have a question about whether HiFi is a general preference.
If someone wants an amp with the kind of flavoured HiFi of the kind that a mildly clipping valve amp will provide, there are some that prefer that sound that, strictly speaking, is distorted sound. Akin to the vinyl distortion preference.
What is not usually preferred is a speaker with a flat frequency response when measured in the near field because by the time the room has done its thing to the sound from the speaker, what reaches the ear is sound with attenuated bass, something that is usually NOT preferred, as sounding too dry or thin.
So, what trait are you referring to when you talk flat and a preference for it in the quote above?
The bigger point I want to make to you is how convenient it must be to label me the creationist first. Haha.
Lol. It isn't convenient, it is just so easy, on seeing the usual fancy footwork in your arguments.
Haha. That's pretty funny. I draw the line at such foolery.
The bigger point I want to make to you is how convenient it must be to label me the creationist first. Haha. You are right, there is no convincing me, because the world I live in is analog, and has a volume knob.
Thus far, you admit:
1) It is not only possible, but probable, that a signal can be modified or colored to alter from the original, such that an audible difference exists (Sonos Room Correction, or even Chord equalization)
2) You admit that speakers, crossovers, and DB levels (aside from room acoustics) are key determinants in the perception of sound quality.
3) You site that short of clipping, all amplifiers tonally neutralized sound the same (no argument there).
4) You accuse me and others of erroneously hearing differences in equipment and systems.
The flaw in your religion is the constant reference to poorly designed experiments of yester year. “No AB proof in blind studies and nobody can tell a difference so you must be wrong.” I’m surprised that someone of your intellect hasn’t challenged the validity of the test or thought of a more valid test procedure. Perhaps a properly designed experiment would test the system at different points in the energy curve, would measure power and voltage at those points, and continue to measure those values in the system at the boundary conditions at the point things start to clip, all the while gathering end user feedback of the users perception of sound quality. I’m quite confident the world doesn’t behave quite so linearly as you expect, especially when you get into the boundary conditions of the amplification and speaker system. Given that DB levels are one of the key determinants in perceived sound quality, how can you ignore a test of such scope? The reason why there is no test of such scope is because the answer is intuitive and proved out every day. Think Grateful Dead Wall of Sound. Differences do exist in this highly analog world we live in with varying energy levels distributed throughout.
The reality, none of us live in such a tightly controlled and parameterized world you describe. I turn up the volume. You turn up the volume. Speakers are different, crossovers are different, they consume energy differently, and energy is served up differently. The EXPERIENCE is different. If you deny it at this point, then challenge yourself in terms of who is the creationist here. You were quick to label. What a convenient weapon it is. I’m sure you’ve used that argument before, if not regularly.
So when I go to my friends house and he’s throwing an outdoor party and his Def Tech speakers are powered by a Connect Amp, and its sounding like crap because its encroaching into the performance limits because the party is cooking, but not as much as it could, don’t insult people by telling them they are imagining the difference.
The bigger point I want to make to you is how convenient it must be to label me the creationist first. Haha. You are right, there is no convincing me, because the world I live in is analog, and has a volume knob.
Thus far, you admit:
1) It is not only possible, but probable, that a signal can be modified or colored to alter from the original, such that an audible difference exists (Sonos Room Correction, or even Chord equalization)
2) You admit that speakers, crossovers, and DB levels (aside from room acoustics) are key determinants in the perception of sound quality.
3) You site that short of clipping, all amplifiers tonally neutralized sound the same (no argument there).
4) You accuse me and others of erroneously hearing differences in equipment and systems.
The flaw in your religion is the constant reference to poorly designed experiments of yester year. “No AB proof in blind studies and nobody can tell a difference so you must be wrong.” I’m surprised that someone of your intellect hasn’t challenged the validity of the test or thought of a more valid test procedure. Perhaps a properly designed experiment would test the system at different points in the energy curve, would measure power and voltage at those points, and continue to measure those values in the system at the boundary conditions at the point things start to clip, all the while gathering end user feedback of the users perception of sound quality. I’m quite confident the world doesn’t behave quite so linearly as you expect, especially when you get into the boundary conditions of the amplification and speaker system. Given that DB levels are one of the key determinants in perceived sound quality, how can you ignore a test of such scope? The reason why there is no test of such scope is because the answer is intuitive and proved out every day. Think Grateful Dead Wall of Sound. Differences do exist in this highly analog world we live in with varying energy levels distributed throughout.
The reality, none of us live in such a tightly controlled and parameterized world you describe. I turn up the volume. You turn up the volume. Speakers are different, crossovers are different, they consume energy differently, and energy is served up differently. The EXPERIENCE is different. If you deny it at this point, then challenge yourself in terms of who is the creationist here. You were quick to label. What a convenient weapon it is. I’m sure you’ve used that argument before, if not regularly.
So when I go to my friends house and he’s throwing an outdoor party and his Def Tech speakers are powered by a Connect Amp, and its sounding like crap because its encroaching into the performance limits because the party is cooking, but not as much as it could, don’t insult people by telling them they are imagining the difference.
The internet is a marvellous place. Here is something interesting I found in about 5 minutes on how the Hugo DAC can be taken to the next level of audio nirvana:
"The HUGO still impresses after more than a year. But it can be bettered. Not by another DAC, but rather, the REGEN USB, a device that block the +/- 5 volts running up and down your USB cable and the noises with it that would otherwise enter your USB input. It replaces that dirty electricity and provides its own highly regulated and CLEAN voltage to the HUGO's input. Additionally, it reclocks the data stream to lower the jitter appreciably. Lastly, it provides a proper impedance by terminating itself right at the input of the HUGO. The improvement is astonishing and together it's almost better than sex. OK, not sex, but better than sushi.
Anyone who owns a HUGO will thank me forever and at least a day after that."
People with the Hugo will immediately realise that it will sound even better with clean electricity if they don't know how much they are losing out by not serving it the squeaky clean voltage it deserves. And of course, the jitter needs to be lowered, for it to fully bloom and flower, conferring music with both attack and decay. Not to mention pace and timing.
On the other hand, people with Connect are also advised to send it immediately for modifications - to its power supply, for reclocking and more. The certain loss of warranty and the probable loss of reliability is a small price to pay - in addition to the modification charges of course, that may exceed the price of the Connect. But if that is what it takes to fully serve those few gifted with golden ears....
"The HUGO still impresses after more than a year. But it can be bettered. Not by another DAC, but rather, the REGEN USB, a device that block the +/- 5 volts running up and down your USB cable and the noises with it that would otherwise enter your USB input. It replaces that dirty electricity and provides its own highly regulated and CLEAN voltage to the HUGO's input. Additionally, it reclocks the data stream to lower the jitter appreciably. Lastly, it provides a proper impedance by terminating itself right at the input of the HUGO. The improvement is astonishing and together it's almost better than sex. OK, not sex, but better than sushi.
Anyone who owns a HUGO will thank me forever and at least a day after that."
People with the Hugo will immediately realise that it will sound even better with clean electricity if they don't know how much they are losing out by not serving it the squeaky clean voltage it deserves. And of course, the jitter needs to be lowered, for it to fully bloom and flower, conferring music with both attack and decay. Not to mention pace and timing.
On the other hand, people with Connect are also advised to send it immediately for modifications - to its power supply, for reclocking and more. The certain loss of warranty and the probable loss of reliability is a small price to pay - in addition to the modification charges of course, that may exceed the price of the Connect. But if that is what it takes to fully serve those few gifted with golden ears....
By way of PS: as to which of the two is closer to straight wire becomes of interest only if audible differences survive ABX testing. If they do, it isn't a big deal to establish this little detail.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.