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.
Page 3 / 11
If it sounds better to you, that's fine. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't to me - but that is hypothetical and irrelevant.
Consider this though - even a 0.2 db increase in the sound level, needing to be measured by instruments to be eliminated in a controlled blind test, can make the music sound better to any human ear. It is an old trick that every good stereo salesman knows.
I am not saying that this applies in your case, but it is possible that signal level voltage/input sensitivity differences could be causing these in your system with no change in the volume control knob setting.
And better DACs will make for better sound, provided that if you are using the word "better" with reference to instrument measured output parameters, these improvements are within the threshold of normal human hearing. My experiences lead me to think that good enough - in the sense I refer to - is reached quite low down the price point with the resolution of the issues that plagued early days DACs now widely known, and not expensive to eliminate using mass manufacturing state of the art tech.
In digital audio spending more money will get you lots of things - but not, beyond a point quickly reached - better sound quality that your ears will convey to your brain, if you deny your brain every input other than the one conveyed to it by them.
Given that your ears may be better than mine, in your case that point may be higher than mine, but not by a whole lot, I suggest.
Bottom line - if your system sounds great to you, wonderful. It doesn't however flow from this that those who can't hear the sound improvements from a better DAC are Luddites or worse.
A thought experiment for you - if you were to do the sound level matching to less than a 0.2 db difference, and the Connect was to sell for USD 2000, would you think different?
Hi Kumar - Good points. My ears tell me that the higher quality DAC sounds better. When comparing the Naim unit with my EMM Labs unit, there is a distinct improvement in the presentation of music - I guess you would call it the soundstage. Musical information just seems to open up. I could talk about air around instruments and blah, blah, blah, but that would just make me look like an audiophool, as one poster has put it, and I'd like to think that I'm not a fool. Would I think any different with regard to the Sonos Connect if it cost $2000? Well, if allowed to demo it in my system, comparing it to my other DACs, and if nothing else changed, I would still likely come to the conclusion that its DAC is not as good as the others, surprising given the price. I understand your point. Just because it's expensive doesn't necessarily make it a better product. I've been around a lot of high-end gear over the years and have reached that conclusion long ago. However, having said that, I still think that as a rule, you get what you pay for.
However, having said that, I still think that as a rule, you get what you pay for.
The things you describe is exactly what is universally heard when sound levels rise by as little as 0.2 db, unless they were at very loud levels to start with. And exactly the same things are heard to collapse when the sound level drops. It is universal and nothing to do with being a fool.
What comes in the way of getting what you pay for in terms of heard sound quality in this case are the two very different scales at which the speciality hifi audio companies operate compared to volume players like Sonos and many others. For the former all costs per unit are higher, as is the need for a higher per unit profit to sustain the business. That translates to a higher selling price for essentially the same product. For this they may throw in a better looking cabinet, more features, better hardware service years into the life of the equipment - but they can't extract better sound from the commonly used electronic designs and componentry, once some minimum standards are met in this area. This has been true of amplifiers for decades now, while the DAC side of things have evolved to a similar level much more recently.
Different rules apply for speakers, where the rule applies much more because getting/making better components such as cones, tweeters, enclosures, and the other mechanical things a speaker incorporates can be more expensive. Which isn't to say that there aren't any lousy expensive speakers. Or the vice versa. But this tends to be an exception.
I am with Kumar here. I have a Benchmark DAC (with pre-amp) between the Sonos and the McIntosh power amp and Thiel speakers. It sounds great but when I tried it without the DAC the difference was minimal and certainly not worse.
All amplifiers that have a instrument measured flat response and are working within their design limits, do not have a sonic signature under controlled testing, i.e.,they sound the same. For the flatness to be such this is true to the extent even the best of human hearing can notice that it is not, is a problem that has been solved decades ago. The sonic signature that is heard is because of sound level differences, or because speaker behaviour in terms of demand for power is driving the amplifier to beyond the design limits where the delivered response is flat.
My listening, some reading about digital audio and common sense tells me that the same stage has also been reached by now for thing such as CDPs, DACs and streaming boxes such as Sonos. I would however still not make as categorical a statement about these as I can about amps. Can anyone else here, based on more knowledge/experience? The parameters for the relevant flatness would be different than for an amp, but the concept should be similar. It should actually be easier, because the X factor of speaker power draw will not apply here.
This of course does not mean that USD 70k DACs won't be promoted.
And while a USD 100k speaker may well have the power needs that only a USD 50k amp can fulfil, there is nothing that I can understand will be different on the input side of that amp that will need a USD 70k DAC. I know I would still struggle to hear the difference between that one and a Connect wired to the analog inputs of the same amp. But it would be interesting to know what kind of measurements/thresholds one would look for in a CDP or a audiophile Connect, for it to be good enough in terms of not having an audible sonic signature to the most acute listening for such a system, provided of course that nothing but the ears are in play. And the sound levels are level matched by instruments.
And while a USD 100k speaker may well have the power needs that only a USD 50k amp can fulfil, there is nothing that I can understand will be different on the input side of that amp that will need a USD 70k DAC.
Thinking a little more on these lines - I don't know of any 2 channel speaker in the world that needs more than 1000 watts of clean power from the amplifier. But I do know of a few solid state amps that can deliver this, and they don't cost more than USD10k.
Imagine a system of USD 100k speakers, USD 10k amp of 1000wpc, and the Connect wired to its analog inputs, playing lossless files. Using commodity speaker cables of adequate gauge, and good enough interconnects from the Connect to the Amp - the entire cable part of the system available for USD 200.
A level matched AB test of this system with another costing USD 200k using the same speakers - the money being spent on amplification, DAC and fancy cables that don't have inbuilt sonic signatures - would be revealing were any one to carry it out. Saying anything more would be speculation.
When I compared the Sonos's own DAC with my Benchmark DAC1 HDR, all other things being equal I did hear a difference (or at least I thought I did). The Sonos sounded a bit "warmer". In view of all the other parameters that influence our perception of sound, like the recording quality, acoustics of the room etc. I would not lose any sleep over minute perceived differences.
As to amps, Kumar said it all, although I do wonder how loud he plays his music ... 1000 watt is a lot of "spare room" considering that the volume in a living room (at least our living room) rarely gets above 80 Db and a few watts.
I don't need or have a 1000w amp:), I only referred to it as an example of the most power that any home audio speaker in the world will need!
My music listening is also at moderate to low levels, no head banging stuff.
Where the very large majority of modern amps are concerned, all that is needed from a matching/SQ perspective is whether it has adequate power to drive the speaker in question with some power in reserve - if that is the case, it won't have a sonic signature so one can choose based on things like reliability, features and after sales support.
What will be very useful is to have a similar specification parameter for a modern day DAC, such that if that is met/bettered, the same will hold good for it. And use that parameter/s to assess the Connect.
Beyond that differences may exist, but if they can't be heard in a controlled test, they are irrelevant.
What will be very useful is to have a similar specification parameter for a modern day DAC, such that if that is met/bettered, the same will hold good for it. And use that parameter/s to assess the Connect.
Beyond that differences may exist, but if they can't be heard in a controlled test, they are irrelevant.
In the search for the ultimate quality of sound (?) surely the most significant factors in the quality are at the beginning and the end of the chain.
Microphones and their placement.
The handling/ amplification of low level signals from the microphone...
The transformation of electrical signals back into acoustic energy.
The listening area/ position etc.
My own experience has been that themove from Amplifiers via Crossovers, to active speakers where the drive units are closely coupled to the integral amps has made the greatest difference so far. Actually coupling a loudspeaker unit to generate air pressure changes is probably the hardest part, and probably the place where the amateur has most choice.
Changing my passive speakers to actives has made the most difference in my listening experience when listening to excellent minimally processed recordings. I have found it particularly revealing on Hyperion recordings for example, with acoustic instruments, human voice and also piano (quite often badly recorded). I know what these sounds should sound like from the concerts we attend.
I dont really know what non acoustic instruments are supposed to sound like so i cant really tell.
None of this is science, only true double blind testing can really determine if there is an actual difference that can be heard. If there is then do the science and determine what parameter or factor produces that change.
Too many of the current hifi mags just rather sloppily say X is better than Y but dont bother to measure why. I guess its hard for a magazine that relies on advertising to go that extra mile and prove the £5000 amplifier is no better than a £500 amplifier, its not in their commercial interest!
Its only an opinion of mine with little science and no measurements to back this up, but the electronics is probably now as good as it needs to be if competently designed. Try actives and get those pesky drive units doing what they should do!
Oh well off to buy a £500 mains lead and a mains conditioner for my £5 Tesco toaster so i get a much better uniform browning of my toast.....
Microphones and their placement.
The handling/ amplification of low level signals from the microphone...
The transformation of electrical signals back into acoustic energy.
The listening area/ position etc.
My own experience has been that themove from Amplifiers via Crossovers, to active speakers where the drive units are closely coupled to the integral amps has made the greatest difference so far. Actually coupling a loudspeaker unit to generate air pressure changes is probably the hardest part, and probably the place where the amateur has most choice.
Changing my passive speakers to actives has made the most difference in my listening experience when listening to excellent minimally processed recordings. I have found it particularly revealing on Hyperion recordings for example, with acoustic instruments, human voice and also piano (quite often badly recorded). I know what these sounds should sound like from the concerts we attend.
I dont really know what non acoustic instruments are supposed to sound like so i cant really tell.
None of this is science, only true double blind testing can really determine if there is an actual difference that can be heard. If there is then do the science and determine what parameter or factor produces that change.
Too many of the current hifi mags just rather sloppily say X is better than Y but dont bother to measure why. I guess its hard for a magazine that relies on advertising to go that extra mile and prove the £5000 amplifier is no better than a £500 amplifier, its not in their commercial interest!
Its only an opinion of mine with little science and no measurements to back this up, but the electronics is probably now as good as it needs to be if competently designed. Try actives and get those pesky drive units doing what they should do!
Oh well off to buy a £500 mains lead and a mains conditioner for my £5 Tesco toaster so i get a much better uniform browning of my toast.....
My own experience has been that themove from Amplifiers via Crossovers, to active speakers where the drive units are closely coupled to the integral amps has made the greatest difference so far.
You are spot on with the first part.
For the second, the problem is you are dealing with two variables at the same time, so it is not possible to isolate the reason. The first variable is the changed location of the amp and the second, the change in the speaker/speaker voicing itself. I suspect that the differences you are hearing are from the second variable and not on account of where the amplification resides.
Kumar
You maybe right.
As an electronics engineer, it has always concerned me putting a collection of capacitors and inductors in the ouput of an amplifier to create a set of low pass/high pass filters. As we know these filters have some unforeseen effects both on the damping factor, or control of the drive unit and also complex waveforms. While music is not a square wave (not what i listen to anyway....) if you attempt to pass a square wave through these networks you dont get a square wave out the other side.
One of the biggest changes i have noticed has been in the control of the bass unit. My active speakers do not exhibit the boom of previous speakers (ProAcs) and the drive units are of similar size. ProAcs are not bad speakers by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps you should try some actives. Mine are fed from a Sonos Connect via Toslink with the DAC incorporated in the speaker cab. Also with the rise of wiresless connectivity (like Dynaudio Xeo) it makes a lot of sense to concentrate the electronics in the speaker box.....hang on....thats a play 5 surely, but with a bit more headroom, i dont know what amp is in the Play 5, its not bad, but i suspect its not quite as powerful as the 75w/250w in the actives.
What is really needed is an OEM sonos module that can be incorporated in the active speaker, and then all you need is a mains lead!
With the decline in size of electronics it has become more practical to design like this.
Regards
You maybe right.
As an electronics engineer, it has always concerned me putting a collection of capacitors and inductors in the ouput of an amplifier to create a set of low pass/high pass filters. As we know these filters have some unforeseen effects both on the damping factor, or control of the drive unit and also complex waveforms. While music is not a square wave (not what i listen to anyway....) if you attempt to pass a square wave through these networks you dont get a square wave out the other side.
One of the biggest changes i have noticed has been in the control of the bass unit. My active speakers do not exhibit the boom of previous speakers (ProAcs) and the drive units are of similar size. ProAcs are not bad speakers by any stretch of the imagination.
Perhaps you should try some actives. Mine are fed from a Sonos Connect via Toslink with the DAC incorporated in the speaker cab. Also with the rise of wiresless connectivity (like Dynaudio Xeo) it makes a lot of sense to concentrate the electronics in the speaker box.....hang on....thats a play 5 surely, but with a bit more headroom, i dont know what amp is in the Play 5, its not bad, but i suspect its not quite as powerful as the 75w/250w in the actives.
What is really needed is an OEM sonos module that can be incorporated in the active speaker, and then all you need is a mains lead!
With the decline in size of electronics it has become more practical to design like this.
Regards
Kumar
Sorry just to be clear, you are right, its nothing to do with where the amp resides, its to do with what is between the amp output terminals and the drive unit input terminals.
Sorry just to be clear, you are right, its nothing to do with where the amp resides, its to do with what is between the amp output terminals and the drive unit input terminals.
Perhaps you should try some actives. Mine are fed from a Sonos Connect via Toslink with the DAC incorporated in the speaker cab. Also with the rise of wiresless connectivity (like Dynaudio Xeo) it makes a lot of sense to concentrate the electronics in the speaker box.....hang on....thats a play 5 surely, but with a bit more headroom, i dont know what amp is in the Play 5, its not bad, but i suspect its not quite as powerful as the 75w/250w in the actives.
What is really needed is an OEM sonos module that can be incorporated in the active speaker, and then all you need is a mains lead!
With the decline in size of electronics it has become more practical to design like this.
Regards
Martin,
As to the active v passive speaker thing, it all comes down to implementation quality - and since I have a very decent pair of Harbeths, I don't see any reason to move to actives.
My main system now has a Connect Amp driving a pair of Harbeth C7s, with the Sub doing LF support duty. Works brilliantly - very discreet, short speaker cable runs, and the Sub is placed in a way that it also replaces the wired Bridge, allowing for Sonosnet version 2.0 across the home.
Harbeths are easy to drive, so the Connect Amp suffices, but if it could be paired in stereo, and bridged to be wired to one speaker each, that would be a 110wpc system, with even shorter speaker cable runs if mains power sockets are available. It would then be suitable for many other high end passive speakers that need more power to perform than 55wpc of one Connect Amp.
I doubt that Sonos will do this - or the suggestion you have of a Sonos Connect module that can work in just the same way with active speakers - too small a market. Though I think there is a way to use a Connect with a pair of actives such that it is connected to only one of the pair.
Perhaps Sonos will come out with a larger scale version of the play 1, to provide the depth and scale that only a larger enclosure can provide, that also looks like a high end 2 channel system speaker. But this too may be too small a market for them to address.
Memory failing with age:) - here is an interesting thread on this subject I had started some time ago:
http://forums.sonos.com/showthread.php?t=31135&highlight=Mono+Connect
See the posts near the end of the thread.
Kumar
Thanks for the response.
Harbeth make good speakers. Prior to trying actives my main speakers were ProAc Studio 125 ( floorstanders), i also used ProAc Tablette 2000 and of course a pair of BBC LS 3/5a, and a home constructed LS 3/5a from Falcon Acoustics. In addition some Rogers Studio 1 speakers were in the mix.
All of them sounded good in their own particular way. They were fed by an ARCAM AVR 350 with the ProAcs bi-wired. However what became obvious from examining the crossover assembly in the ProAcs was that even if the bi-wiring option was used, elements of the crossover were present in the signal chain.
All of the above speakers were compared with the actives. Not in a particular scientific way, other than to try to determine which i enjoyed listening to most over a period of time.
The actives won hands down every time, not surprisingly against a mid 1970s design from the BBC (LS 3/5a) of bookshelf size which was good on speech admittedly, but more surprisingly against some less than 10 year old mid end speakers £1000 - £1500. The Rogers fared not too well on this sounding boxy.
I was surprised at the result, but most of the old equipment went on ebay, and now i have a speaker approx size 30cm high by 25cm deep by 20cm on 60cm stands that are unobtrusive and have excellent imaging.
If you can get hold of modern actives you may be surprised. Dont write them off until you have heard some.
Happy Listening
Thanks for the response.
Harbeth make good speakers. Prior to trying actives my main speakers were ProAc Studio 125 ( floorstanders), i also used ProAc Tablette 2000 and of course a pair of BBC LS 3/5a, and a home constructed LS 3/5a from Falcon Acoustics. In addition some Rogers Studio 1 speakers were in the mix.
All of them sounded good in their own particular way. They were fed by an ARCAM AVR 350 with the ProAcs bi-wired. However what became obvious from examining the crossover assembly in the ProAcs was that even if the bi-wiring option was used, elements of the crossover were present in the signal chain.
All of the above speakers were compared with the actives. Not in a particular scientific way, other than to try to determine which i enjoyed listening to most over a period of time.
The actives won hands down every time, not surprisingly against a mid 1970s design from the BBC (LS 3/5a) of bookshelf size which was good on speech admittedly, but more surprisingly against some less than 10 year old mid end speakers £1000 - £1500. The Rogers fared not too well on this sounding boxy.
I was surprised at the result, but most of the old equipment went on ebay, and now i have a speaker approx size 30cm high by 25cm deep by 20cm on 60cm stands that are unobtrusive and have excellent imaging.
If you can get hold of modern actives you may be surprised. Dont write them off until you have heard some.
Happy Listening
If you can get hold of modern actives you may be surprised. Dont write them off until you have heard some.
Which ones are you using now?
I am using AVI ADM9RSS, these are built by a small UK manufacturer called AVI and retail at £1300which seems good value to me as all you then need are some stands, maybe £70 a pair, a Sonos Connect and a few metres of Toslink depending on how far your Connect is away from the Speakers.
Using sensible mains cable and in my case laying the cable under the carpets the speakers sit on stands seemingly unconnected to anything! My wife is happy!
I also tried the Dynaudio Xeo 3 ( similar sound but a bit compressed at high volumes) and the Xeo 5 which had poorer imaging than the Xeo3 and the AVI.
The MD of AVI is someone who says what he thinks, but could not have been more hospitable, its not often you can have a whole morning Demo.
Regards
Using sensible mains cable and in my case laying the cable under the carpets the speakers sit on stands seemingly unconnected to anything! My wife is happy!
I also tried the Dynaudio Xeo 3 ( similar sound but a bit compressed at high volumes) and the Xeo 5 which had poorer imaging than the Xeo3 and the AVI.
The MD of AVI is someone who says what he thinks, but could not have been more hospitable, its not often you can have a whole morning Demo.
Regards
Using sensible mains cable and in my case laying the cable under the carpets the speakers sit on stands seemingly unconnected to anything! My wife is happy!
Very important, the last part. My move to a Connect Amp in my main system has released three boxes - a SACD player that was used to wire a Connect to, via coax digital, and Quad99/909 amplification, along with a component rack that is now used to house photos and other miscellany, with the same result on the domestic front.
I was looking at something like the AVI DM5 for my bedroom, where I just now have a Denon M38 box wired to a Connect, and to a ten year old pair of Quad 11L speakers. With the TV audio wired to the line in on the Connect in auto play mode. It works well enough and I may stick with it after some research. One concern in India is after sales - even if something goes wrong with the Denon, it is cheaper to solve than if something went wrong with an active speaker. The passive Quads are such that little can go wrong with them.
Kumar
Good point about after-sales, if the manufacturer has a local agent then your cost of repair must be much reduced. Returning an item to the UK for repair must be quite costly.
In my experience here the specialist smaller manufacturers (like ARCAM) provide excellent service, when my old CD player stopped working, i made an appointment with them, took it up there (30 miles away) and sat with the technician while he repaired and tested it all out.
I have heard the DM5s and they have similar characteristics to the ADM9RSS with excellent imaging. The downside is they dont have a sub output and the LF is slightly less, but half the price of the ADMs.
Good point about after-sales, if the manufacturer has a local agent then your cost of repair must be much reduced. Returning an item to the UK for repair must be quite costly.
In my experience here the specialist smaller manufacturers (like ARCAM) provide excellent service, when my old CD player stopped working, i made an appointment with them, took it up there (30 miles away) and sat with the technician while he repaired and tested it all out.
I have heard the DM5s and they have similar characteristics to the ADM9RSS with excellent imaging. The downside is they dont have a sub output and the LF is slightly less, but half the price of the ADMs.
Good point about after-sales, if the manufacturer has a local agent then your cost of repair must be much reduced. Returning an item to the UK for repair must be quite costly.
In my experience here the specialist smaller manufacturers (like ARCAM) provide excellent service, when my old CD player stopped working, i made an appointment with them, took it up there (30 miles away) and sat with the technician while he repaired and tested it all out.
I have heard the DM5s and they have similar characteristics to the ADM9RSS with excellent imaging. The downside is they dont have a sub output and the LF is slightly less, but half the price of the ADMs.
Yes, they do provide service - Quad UK did a great job for me with a CDP, including a free firmware upgrade - but it was quite expensive to ship it to and fro. Having a local agent for sales is one thing, their service capability is another.
The ADM 9s seem very well specified - 250wpc for the bass seems plenty!
And circling back to the thread subject, although it includes a DAC, their site also says that DACs are virtually impossible to be distinguished these days.
Empirical makes a living convincing gullible people like you to spend ridiculous amounts of money for nothing, so their opinion of anything is immediately suspect.
In this, we've asked users like you to provide independent, double-blind tests to confirm the superiority of these alleged high-end (or higher end, anyway) units. Nobody ever produces such evidence. I know why that is. Deep down inside, you do too.
You want to spend tons of cash on audio equipment? Go ahead. Some of us will continue to point out that the emperor has no clothes, no matter how questionable you think that may be.
NoBoB, a $350 piece of equipment is not going to contain much of a DAC. In a similar vein, nor is lamp cable going to provide much in the way of speaker cable. I think you belong to the silly fringe group that thinks otherwise. Deep down inside, you do too.
Really? Why not? Do you know how much a ""high quality" DAC chip costs? It isn't much...
Right. The best Wolfson DAC chips retail for about £15 for a single unit. Less than half that in volume.
So presumably a 'proper' DAC must have a massive mark-up before a certain type of customer feels comfortable....
Modern day electronics can be surprisingly cheap.
An extreme example - I bought a Chinese FM stereo radio last week to release a Denon RCDM38 box that was being used for that duty - it cost me all of USD 5! Poor fit and finish, but does the job, and even if it works for just a few months, who cares?!
And the Denon is now for about USD 200. It includes a CDP, AM/FM radio, 30wpc Amp, DAC, and a front panel socket for iPods. It is currently installed in my main system, serving a pair of Harbeth speakers, supplied by Connect, where the SQ is just as as good up to moderately loud levels as the Quad 909 it has replaced. Outstanding build quality too, nothing cheap or cheerful in that respect. Mini component sized footprint, runs cool in play, and takes 0.3 watts of power in standby. And it has a full featured remote too. A steal at the price.
And if a lamp cable can carry electricity, it is perfectly suitable for speaker cable use, as long as it is of adequate thickness for the length of the cable run.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.