External DAC with Connect

Most people can hear the difference between an Ipod plugged into a Jawbone and a decent audio system.

You claim there is no difference and it is all marketing.

Ahh, the ol' reductio ad absurdum chestnut.

Nobody is suggesting any such thing. You're extrapolating out to the ridiculous.

Nobody is suggesting any such thing. You're extrapolating out to the ridiculous.
Quite right. All we suggest is that people that want to be careful with their money do not get carried away by marketing or other claims and judge for themselves first, using their ears, doesn't matter what kind these are. And we offer guidance on how to do this such that nothing but what their ears convey is brought to bear on how good some piece of equipment sounds to them. If some one then hears a difference and thinks it is worth the money asked to obtain it, doing so is eminently sensible, even a no brainer.

Now why this approach is dogmatically opposed by some is a mystery to me.

As far as speakers go, the difference even to old Tin Ears like me, can be night and day. I have two pairs of decent speakers in an open plan area, and I can say which one is playing even from an adjacent bedroom.

Yep, put your money in the best speakers you can afford, that's where the real differences lie. Good British speakers like Harbeth. I'm running QUAD ESL-63s straight off a Connect:Amp. Couldn't be happier, and I've tried many other far more expensive amp / DAC combinations.

Good British speakers like Harbeth.
+1 to that. My C7s are driven by a ten year old Quad 99/909, with a Connect providing the music. Brit old school hifi with tone controls, married to American innovation, a brilliant combination providing high quality music from all over the world. A Connect amp drives a pair of Spendor S3/5 speakers, another nice sounding set up, although the speakers aren't of the same quality as the C7s.
The audio systems are from my audiophile days, bought for features, reliability and long life. All I added two years ago was the Sonos front end to bring them into the internet age. And Sonos does that better than any other solution at this point in time.

Some observations:

None of these "boxes" (speakers, amplifiers, players, DAC's, etc.) is perfect and each misbehaves in characteristic ways. In my experience, listeners tend to specialize in picking up the characteristic imperfections in one box while failing to comment on the imperfections in other boxes. And, there is a difference between noticing and caring about the imperfection.

I seems hard for most of us to accept, but there are quite a number of listeners who don't care much about speakers. When presented with speakers in the sub $1K class and compared to those in the several $K class, they'll just blink because there is no significant difference. Yet this same person might be very consistent at ranking and correctly identifying different pieces of electronics.

Young and old? To be sure, they are listening in different ways, but the listening experience is valid for both groups. I learned about this in my youth. My father's hearing was damaged in the military and the top few notes on a piano scale were simply mechanical thuds -- there was no pitch. As he and I shared an aural experience, we had very different opinions about what had happened. While I was distracted by all of the high frequency stuff, he zeroed in on the lows. As devices fail, particularly mechanical devices, they tend to emit low frequency distress signals. My father would quickly pick these up. I find that devices will emit higher frequency noises at the beginning of the failure signature. I could predict failure, he would more quickly identify failure -- this drove him crazy. A poorly lubricated bearing will squeak while a failed bearing will growl.

For some reason it is difficult for humans to accept that, when experiencing the same aural stimulus, there could be another conclusion that is just as valid as our own. The first reaction is that the other person is simply wrong, because the correct conclusion is so obvious. It can be a very emotional reaction. It took me many years to work this out, but it has been a very useful lesson for me as I came to understand the implications of my father's handicap. He never fully came to grips with this.

ABX? It's a great experimental design that is hard to fault, but I think that we need to step back a little and take a broad view. In other experimental settings we are careful to take into account the possibility that our measurement technique accidentally modifies the phenomenon that we are attempting to measure. For example, if we are measuring the temperature of a small sample of near room temperature liquid and we insert a relatively large, cold thermometer, the reading will be invalid. And, if we are measuring the result of a process, the result may never be valid because the thermometer might conduct room temperature into the process. My own experience with ABX has been that the presence of the box diminishes the audible differences that seemed to be more obvious before the box was inserted. Yes, level match is absolutely critical, but this is true with or without ABX.

Most audio showdowns are meaningless, with or without ABX, because they are so poorly controlled. A good experiment is hard to design and execute. Good experiments require lots of time to execute. We are usually too impatient for proper execution. If a few trials seem to verify our conclusion, we terminate the experiment and declare victory. I visualize the typical showdown "experiment" as a pack of male dogs circling a tree, vying for the right to "mark" the tree. I've done my share of "marking".

The jitter alone as measured by expert sites (Empirical Audio) makes it an average appliance for audiophiles.


Since you mention jitter, let's see what Stereophile had to say:

The calculated jitter level was 388 picoseconds peak–peak, which is low, especially considering how much processing is performed within the ZP80 and Sonosnet.

That was for the earlier ZP80. It's certainly possible the the current Connect is even better, but I've not found measurements. The Sonos system continues to be 'enthusiastically recommended' by Stereophile's John Atkinson, and has been on their recommended products list for a number of years.

For a much more objective look at jitter than the makers of dubious add-on products provide, here's a highly qualified engineer's view:

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2011/02/jitter-does-it-matter.html

Of note is that Stereophile's jitter test of the ZP80 shows it to be below this engineer's threshold of audibility. Are there DACs that measure better? Sure. Can you hear the difference in ABX tests? Maybe, but probably not.

My own experience with ABX has been that the presence of the box diminishes the audible differences that seemed to be more obvious before the box was inserted. Yes, level match is absolutely critical, but this is true with or without ABX.

Would that not depend on the quality of the box?

But regardless of the answer to that, the other thing is that level matching to the extent needed to achieve a correct comparison is hard to do at home, in practice. It isn't simply a matter of volume control settings since the same setting in an amp will produce different sound levels based on even tiny input signal voltage variations. Precise level matching is less important to establish that one can't hear a difference. But it is important for the vice versa, to be satisfied that any heard differences are "real" enough to decide spending decisions based on how valuable these differences are to the person doing the deciding.

What do you suggest a typical user do at home then, to see if the addition being evaluated is worth the expense? Assuming that the addition is being thought of for only SQ improvement, not for any feature.

Wow.
With all due respect- some pretty questionable audio advice in the thread.

Short answer- all elements in the chain have an impact. Your system is only as good as your weak link.

A better DAC than what is in the Sonos most certainly will make a significant difference if you have a moderately resolving system (Preamp/amp/speakers).

Even consumer oriented non-audiophile sites like CNET acknowledge the relative mediocrity of the Sonos DAC and recommend an external DAC for better systems.

You can only put so much technology into a $350 box.
The jitter alone as measured by expert sites (Empirical Audio) makes it an average appliance for audiophiles.

That said - it is great for casual listening for most all.

As for the comments that any amp will do and put your money into speakers is absurd.
If you have an average source, and an average preamp and an average amp- your speakers (no matter how good) will never get the music to begin with.

Use your head folks- you get what you pay for and it all matters.
+100!
Glad to see I'm not the only one in the world coming to these findings. However, few individuals here, love to come up with scientific theories and a couple of articles from the stoneage to prove it is all the same, no auditable difference. Although listening on itself has nothing to to with science, but is pure subjective...
One advice, don't try to convince them, but be proud you know better...

Would that not depend on the quality of the box?


Of course. We should be having parallel flaming discussions about the merits of ABX box 'A' and ABX box 'B', but the box is always above reproach -- without discussion. In other scientific inquiries we have these discussions. "How is my measurement technique influencing the quantity that I am measuring?" is a critical consideration. Level match is only one component of the technique.

For the purpose of level match it is not so hard to develop an adequate measurement technique for electronics. In this case repeatability is more important than absolute accuracy. Comparing output levels for electronics boxes is much easier than comparing acoustic output of speakers. The cheap voltmeters sold at the local electrical or electronics store are a poor choice in this context.

scientific theories and a couple of articles from the stoneage

Stoneage? Whatever - if you doubt the validity then offer any properly conducted study that supports your view. But then that's not as easy as just attacking is it?


listening on itself has nothing to to with science, but is pure subjective...

Congratulations. You appear to have completely missed that that is exactly the point being made. Subjectively one particular component may sound different to another to any individual listener, depending on many factors which I can't be bothered to list again. That doesn't mean that objectively there has therefore to be an actual difference which is measurable and repeatable.