Avid Contributor II

External DAC with Connect

274 replies
50872 views

I am looking to add a DAC to my SONOS - Nak RE1 - KEF Q70 system, and am considering the Schiit Bifrost. My source is a wide range of ALAC, MP3 and AAC material. Any advice, is it worth it? Am I likely to hear the "wider, more detailed, deeper, etc." sound the reviewers write about.

This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

Show previous replies

I

IanW

Avid Contributor I

But if you don't require any proof, or at least any rational explanation, at what point do you call "bull***"? Who knows where the boundary is between complete snake-oil and a reasonable possibility?

That's a very fair question. Speaking for myself, it's not true to say that I don't require any proof or rational explanation. I generally won't consider making any change for which I can't understand some rational, coherently-explained, engineering-based mechanism by which it might work. Beyond that, I will make an informal trial in my own system for as long as I can - at least several days of listening.

I find the proof of the pudding is what happens when I switch back to the system as it was before trying the new component (or whatever). If the switch back results in lower subjective sound quality then I take that as a reasonable demonstration that whatever I was trialling has made an improvement. My personal experience is that for me this reduces the effect of confirmation bias.

I make no claim that this meets your standards of proof or is the "right" approach for anyone but myself.

Put another way, I think it's up to each individual to determine where to draw the line between complete snake oil and a reasonable possibility as you so nicely put it; there is no absolute pre-defined dividing line that exists independently and must be true for everyone.

K

Kumar

When 95% of claims are bogus, what criteria do you use to allow the 5% to be heard?

Good question - I look forward to reading answers!

I would only ask two questions - if they appear to audibly do so, will this difference always survive a controlled DBT? What would be your response if it doesn't so survive?

And the above question for cables can be extended to every part of the system. For DBTs using music played via speakers.

I

IanW

Avid Contributor I

Majik said it better than I did. And you know what this discussion is about. It is only you who chose to concentrate on a single post which was a mere generalization of comments that came before.

As I understand it, the discussion is about whether or not anyone who does not adopt a hard-line, objectivist approach must necessarily be flying in the face of science and logic. I believe your answer to that question is yes, mine is no. Your post about cables merely provided an interesting, concrete point to explore the way our beliefs and attitudes differ. I think it's done that job pretty well.

So I will end it here:

I'm not sure why you assume the privilege of being able to end the discussion. It ends when it ends. You can choose to take part or not.

Taken at face value, yes there can be differences between cables, that is, a cable can be defective and cause audible errors. This in no way justifies audiophile claims that audio is improved by buying ever more expensive cables, and a $10 cable can perform perfectly if it is made to spec (as 99.999% are). Also, if a cable is defective, the audio will degrade in an obvious manner, with none of the flowery esoteric descriptions put forth by audiophiles. In short, a faulty cable won't subtly "degrade the soundstage", sound "wooden", or "flat"; it will instead cause obvious droputs, clicks, etc.

You are arguing against a point that I have never made. I have not made any audiophile claims, have not referred to prices of cables (expect in response to your prior mention) and have never used any of the language you quote.

jgatie

As I understand it, the discussion is about whether or not anyone who does not adopt a hard-line, objectivist approach must necessarily be flying in the face of science and logic. I believe your answer to that question is yes, mine is no. Your post about cables merely provided an interesting, concrete point to explore the way our beliefs and attitudes differ. I think it's done that job pretty well.

I'm not sure why you assume the privilege of being able to end the discussion. It ends when it ends. You can choose to take part or not.

You are arguing against a point that I have never made. I have not made any audiophile claims, have not referred to prices of cables (expect in response to your prior mention) and have never used any of the language you quote.

I was ending my clarification of my point, which you continuously misconstrued. I think I am well within my rights to do that.

And before you changed the subject, this thread most certainly was about the esoteric claims of audiophiles which fly in the face of all scientific knowledge. Nicely played, though. :rolleyes:

E

ErikM

Avid Contributor I

Taken at face value, yes there can be differences between digital cables, that is, a cable can be defective and cause audible errors. This in no way justifies audiophile claims that audio is improved by buying ever more expensive cables, and a $10 cable can perform perfectly if it is made to spec (as 99.999% are).

Just to keep it real: Most any $10.00 SPDIF cable will not be made to spec. The spec for SPDIF coax is 75ohms the only way to get a true 75ohm coax cable is to terminate the cable with BNC connectors, coax digital cables that are terminated with RCA's will not meet the 75ohm standard because RCA's can't do it.. Oh and you mentioned Black Cat cables a while back.. they actually make a very nice, excellent performing TRUE 75ohm SPDIF coax digital cable that sells for about $100.00.

E

Evohass

Let's not forget what this is all about ... listening to and enjoying music. A film projected in a magnificent home theatre will very likely look spectacular, certainly more so than on an tiny phone, but a good film will draw you in and before long you will have forgotten what you are actually using to display it. The same holds true for music. A friend of mine who is also a very capable musician, at home never listens to anything but his old and trusted transistor radio. Cable discussions would not interest him, he would rather spent the time listening to some good music. In a sense you could argue that all this talk about equipment is not so much about good music, because that will always be good on whatever equipment it is played (witness old recordings from the 20s and 30s), but about attempts to make the less than brilliant stuff sound as if it were brilliant, an undertaking that is doomed to fail, although in the case of the home cinema it might occasionally give one the illusion that it does work, if only briefly.

Boys will be boys ... Have any women contributed to this thread? Surely their appreciation of music is on a par to that of men, so why aren't they contributing their worries about pure silver cables, gilded plugs, rubber stabilisers for your CDs and all the other snake oil products?

E

Evohass