External DAC with Connect
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.
Page 4 / 11
You think?:D. Have you seen the 24/96 thread?!
If you are adding the dac, I assume that you will continue to go to the onkyo?
If so, personally, I'd try the optical out on the connect, and see how it does on its own. If you like the sound coming out of that setup now... it's the best place to start. You know what it already sounds like, and will help you see....
If you have the ability to audition the dac later on, you'll know whether its something you need to get or not.
If so, personally, I'd try the optical out on the connect, and see how it does on its own. If you like the sound coming out of that setup now... it's the best place to start. You know what it already sounds like, and will help you see....
If you have the ability to audition the dac later on, you'll know whether its something you need to get or not.
Not according to this article in Stereophile, which quotes the challenge Mr Shaw laid down. His challenge includes the following (verbatim):
However, I don't have the time to play around. You have to conceive of the test, design the switch over system and bring it to us here and we'll cooperate fully.
Userlevel 2
Correct the Onkyo will still be the amp.
It was how I was thinking...so thanks for the reassurance 🙂
It was how I was thinking...so thanks for the reassurance 🙂
There also have been other such offers by other people, and no black swan has turned up.
You're still arguing that the fact that the test exists, irrespective of whether it's been carried out, has any relevance to the result.
Why not actually link to the results of properly-conducted DBTs that show no audible difference between amplifiers, cables, etc. rather than saying "if the tests were carried out they would show no difference"? That would be much more interesting.
Userlevel 2
Just hooked up my Connect last night and did some very casual A-B'ing with my Simaudio CDP (Simaudio front-end/amplification, Dynaudio speakers). Couldn't really hear a huge difference between the two. Then again, my ears have aged and my current room acoustics are not ideal. Great little product.
Why not actually link to the results of properly-conducted DBTs that show no audible difference between amplifiers, cables, etc. rather than saying "if the tests were carried out they would show no difference"? That would be much more interesting.
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_24_r.pdf
Userlevel 2
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.
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.
There are some that are older than the ones in the link, but I can't find it, sorry. I think it dates back to the late eighties.
The thing with amplifiers that muddies the waters is clipping. Clipping is distortion of the original signal - but not necessarily unpleasant and for some, a preference. Which is the reason for some people preferring the low powered amps which can clip in a way that is preferred up to the point it gets into the horrible sounding music stage.
But this preference for clipping coloured music is a personal preference for music based on a signal that has been distorted from the source. By definition, not hi fi.
For speakers of usual construction, of efficiencies of say 88dB and higher, and with modern amps of say 80-100 wpc, unless head banging sound levels are reached, clipping isn't an audible issue and the DBT conditions will be met. These aren't a narrow ideal range of conditions.
None of these issues are present for DACs, but I don't know of the same kind of tests done for DACs and my conclusions are based on personal testing of various DACs ranging from prices of GBP 1000 down to ones in iPods. On the other hand I haven't seen any test where a DAC difference has survived in a DBT. Strange, because it is a lot simpler to set up than one for amps. And strange, because it would be a great basis on which to market an audibly better DAC.
Enough said.
The thing with amplifiers that muddies the waters is clipping. Clipping is distortion of the original signal - but not necessarily unpleasant and for some, a preference. Which is the reason for some people preferring the low powered amps which can clip in a way that is preferred up to the point it gets into the horrible sounding music stage.
But this preference for clipping coloured music is a personal preference for music based on a signal that has been distorted from the source. By definition, not hi fi.
For speakers of usual construction, of efficiencies of say 88dB and higher, and with modern amps of say 80-100 wpc, unless head banging sound levels are reached, clipping isn't an audible issue and the DBT conditions will be met. These aren't a narrow ideal range of conditions.
None of these issues are present for DACs, but I don't know of the same kind of tests done for DACs and my conclusions are based on personal testing of various DACs ranging from prices of GBP 1000 down to ones in iPods. On the other hand I haven't seen any test where a DAC difference has survived in a DBT. Strange, because it is a lot simpler to set up than one for amps. And strange, because it would be a great basis on which to market an audibly better DAC.
Enough said.
Behold, the audio industry's target customer.
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.
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.
There is definitely a difference!
Why single out the audio industry?! Just about any canny marketer's target in any consumer market.
Been experimenting a bit tonight. Listening to the local jazz FM station, which cares about its signal quality, on a receiver.
I have the Sonos Connect hooked to the tape loop of the receiver. Set the Connect up to loop the signal through, involving ADC and DAC conversion.
I've been switching the receiver's input from its tuner to its tape monitor, which switches the Sonos ADC/DAC in and out of the circuit.
Guess what? Other than a slight delay, there's absolutely no discernible difference!
Now, maybe I have the opposite of 'expectation bias', since I really didn't expect to hear a difference. I suspect that I still wouldn't hear any difference in blind testing, but the delay would be a dead giveaway.
I have the Sonos Connect hooked to the tape loop of the receiver. Set the Connect up to loop the signal through, involving ADC and DAC conversion.
I've been switching the receiver's input from its tuner to its tape monitor, which switches the Sonos ADC/DAC in and out of the circuit.
Guess what? Other than a slight delay, there's absolutely no discernible difference!
Now, maybe I have the opposite of 'expectation bias', since I really didn't expect to hear a difference. I suspect that I still wouldn't hear any difference in blind testing, but the delay would be a dead giveaway.
Good point 🙂
Userlevel 2
Before using Sonos, I had an airport express on my main system. My wife had started ripping stuff lossy on the MAC. After reading a little more about digital format and wanting to get involved more using ITunes as a source. I did some listening test between lossy, lossless and uncompressed (I am not even trying to give you the right acronyms, I am talking Apple Codec).
At that time, I though uncompressed was better then lossless. I ripped about 10 songs from various CD's in the three format and listened carefully. There was a earable difference between lossy and lossless.
On one of the song, Take Five, I had the impression Joe's drums and Paul's sax had a little more of something. But it was so slight, and since I could not hear it on any other song, I decided to go lossless.
Later when I found out lossless should be as good as uncompressed:
-I was happy I ripped lossless
-I realize the bias and subjectivity of listening; I was expecting it to be better and was trying to find it while listening
At that time, I though uncompressed was better then lossless. I ripped about 10 songs from various CD's in the three format and listened carefully. There was a earable difference between lossy and lossless.
On one of the song, Take Five, I had the impression Joe's drums and Paul's sax had a little more of something. But it was so slight, and since I could not hear it on any other song, I decided to go lossless.
Later when I found out lossless should be as good as uncompressed:
-I was happy I ripped lossless
-I realize the bias and subjectivity of listening; I was expecting it to be better and was trying to find it while listening
Userlevel 2
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.
I do not own any Empirical Audio gear, but nice try.
I guess if one has a tin ear like you and Kumar it does not matter- you are correct.
Carry on. Glad you are happy, but stop spewing ignorant sanctimonious information.
Provide evidence that I'm wrong, and I will. In fact, I'll become the most obnoxious purveyor of that corrected information on the entire internet.
The fact remains you can't provide such evidence, because it doesn't exist, and there are more than enough double-blind tests on record showing why it doesn't exist.
You can pout and stomp your feet and rage that it isn't so, but that doesn't make it true.
Science. Try it sometime.
The marketers have been using science (psychology) for years. At one time, they had Americans convinced that smoking was actually healthy!
Userlevel 2
The fact remains you can't provide such evidence, because it doesn't exist, and there are more than enough double-blind tests on record showing why it doesn't exist.
You can pout and stomp your feet and rage that it isn't so, but that doesn't make it true.
Science. Try it sometime.
You seem to be the one having a little tantrum here. Sorry to rain on your dogmatic view of the world.
Like I said- if you are happy that is great.
Your argument (and Kumar's) is ludicrous to most people, but you have every right to it.
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.
Oh wait- Kumar at least qualifies his pontifications with - well...one must have good speakers.
Gee- what is a good speaker?
Thought it made no difference?
Can't have it both ways guys. If it is all marketing then you can't claim one component does actually make a difference.
Just do not claim you are are the final authority and promote misinformation here and other forums to people.
People will trust their ears and spend their money accordingly.
You have made your decisions- others will make their own.
Have a nice life TinEarMen.
Everyone: Keep this discussion civil.
Have a nice life TinEarMen.
Thank you, I do have one though!:)
And if having Tin ears over golden ones allows me to listen to more music instead of being equipment obsessed, I am comfortable with that compliment:D.
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.
+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.
Page 4 / 11
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.