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 7 / 11
Gentlemen, I think we can all agree to disagree on this matter, at least to some point. Sonos is okay. It is not the best thing to ever come along. There will be other developments, new designs and different units. Look at Denon and Naim, for example. I for one will keep an open mind.
Unless I'm going a considerable distance, lamp cord is exactly what I use.
Of course it is.
Since you have agreed to let me, I disagree:).
There will certainly be better units in the future, but I haven't come across any that tick all the boxes that Sonos does till now.
I am not a unreserved fan - for example, I don't think that my Sonos Sub is as great a product for music as many here seem to think, and it hasn't changed my feelings towards subs in general for high quality music at home. I also think that some useful features are missing - it would be very useful to have a minimal display on each unit that shows the information on the track playing and volume level.
But for the flexibility of the system, range of price points, and ability to simultaneously do cheap and cheerful all the way to high end audiophile quality audio, on something like Sonosnet, Sonos remains the gold standard. With the option to also use wired, and eliminate interference completely.
What is surprising is that it has held this position for almost a decade - a very long time in this kind of tech.
Have you signed up for James Randi's challenge yet? One shouldn't be so condesceding towards others when one cannot back up their words with proof. It is very easy to prove there are differences between lamp cord and multi-thousand dollar cables, and you can win $1 million doing it. Of course, you will be the first one in history to ever do it, but hey! Shoot for the skies!
Userlevel 1
No, we can't, DAC chips are cheap (maybe not cheap as chips but it's a nice image!), that isn't a matter of opinion, that's a fact.
IMO, it is the other way around in this instance for sure. One can only laugh at the credulity levels of people who buy high end, expensive speaker cables as misled snake oil customers.
But there isn't much point reasoning with them, all one can do is offer rational solutions to people that are new to the home audio subject and perhaps save them some money.
But there isn't much point reasoning with them, all one can do is offer rational solutions to people that are new to the home audio subject and perhaps save them some money.
Well, I did say "One shouldn't be so condesceding towards others when one cannot back up their words with proof." Condescension in response to extraordinary claims with absolutely no theoretical or experimental scientific basis is quite deserved, IMHO. 😉
If one does the calculation, there is a slight, barely measurable, difference in the conductivity of lamp cord and other simple speaker wires at 60Hz and 20KHz. This gives the fanatics some fuel for their unreasonable claims. I'd love to see some good data about what fraction of the population can detect a very, very small fraction of a dB difference between two 20kHz tones. It would also be very interesting if the age and noise exposure history of the tested individuals is logged. Even more interesting would be to follow these individuals over the decades.
In my opinion, most of the "magic" associated with changing to a super premium speaker cable is due to the accidental cleaning of the contacts while the cables are swapped. Of course the new cable sounds better and the user never swaps back. If the user does swap back, they will discover that the original cable sounds better too.
Dirty contacts cause significant sonic damage and the fix is free.
In my opinion, most of the "magic" associated with changing to a super premium speaker cable is due to the accidental cleaning of the contacts while the cables are swapped. Of course the new cable sounds better and the user never swaps back. If the user does swap back, they will discover that the original cable sounds better too.
Dirty contacts cause significant sonic damage and the fix is free.
+20
^^^
Deoxit D5 & Gold are my friends 😉
Deoxit D5 & Gold are my friends 😉
I dont think we should be so smug as to think audio reproduction cannot be improved, far from it, for me the listening experience has a long way to to reach that of the concert hall. Indeed that may be a false target, as its difficult to create something of that scale.
However, the non scientific claims of a bunch of well fed hifi mag so called gurus dont help when they are all so lazy, if they "think" that something is better then conduct scientific tests and publish the results for peer review. That is the way scientific advances have been made in the last several hundred years.
In the UK i think the industry is slowly dying. The number of "hifi" dealers is dropping dramatically, and maybe thats no surprise when you have to make a margin of 40% or more to survive in the high street now., and support stock levels for demo. So its not in their interest to push cheaper products where any difference is marginal.
Many manufacturers have outsourced assembly to china and low cost countries, with R&D maybe still done in the UK or other high wage economies, and the model that Sonos adopt of direct sales with returns is probably more where it will go. What exactly do you need a hifi dealer for now? To tell you where to put BluTak under your speakers? I think not!
However, the non scientific claims of a bunch of well fed hifi mag so called gurus dont help when they are all so lazy, if they "think" that something is better then conduct scientific tests and publish the results for peer review. That is the way scientific advances have been made in the last several hundred years.
In the UK i think the industry is slowly dying. The number of "hifi" dealers is dropping dramatically, and maybe thats no surprise when you have to make a margin of 40% or more to survive in the high street now., and support stock levels for demo. So its not in their interest to push cheaper products where any difference is marginal.
Many manufacturers have outsourced assembly to china and low cost countries, with R&D maybe still done in the UK or other high wage economies, and the model that Sonos adopt of direct sales with returns is probably more where it will go. What exactly do you need a hifi dealer for now? To tell you where to put BluTak under your speakers? I think not!
Maybe this link will be of interest for those who havent seen it.
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
I agree. But where improvement is required is in what is the weakest link today - the speaker/room response part of the chain. And building more and more strange looking cabinets with a plethora of drivers doesn't seem to be the way forward.
Perhaps a chip implant that takes the ears and the room out of the equation - with the risk of ending up hearing the microwave as well:).
Userlevel 2
Between a source and amplifier you have an output impedance, and input impedance and a component (the cable) which has capacitance, inductance and resistance which is a filter. That combination creates a tuned circuit which will change the audio performance.
The problem most people have with cabling is they expect to hear "more bass" or "more treble" but they don't understand the changes are much more subtle than that, and just putting an expensive cable in the system doesn't necessarily make it a "balanced" system. A cable is as an important component in the system as anything else as the system will not function without it.
Measuring 20hz-20khz sine wave sweeps just creates confirmation bias.
If one does the calculation, there is a slight, barely measurable, difference in the conductivity of lamp cord and other simple speaker wires at 60Hz and 20KHz. This gives the fanatics some fuel for their unreasonable claims. I'd love to see some good data about what fraction of the population can detect a very, very small fraction of a dB difference between two 20kHz tones. It would also be very interesting if the age and noise exposure history of the tested individuals is logged. Even more interesting would be to follow these individuals over the decades.
In my opinion, most of the "magic" associated with changing to a super premium speaker cable is due to the accidental cleaning of the contacts while the cables are swapped. Of course the new cable sounds better and the user never swaps back. If the user does swap back, they will discover that the original cable sounds better too.
Dirty contacts cause significant sonic damage and the fix is free.
The problem most people have with cabling is they expect to hear "more bass" or "more treble" but they don't understand the changes are much more subtle than that, and just putting an expensive cable in the system doesn't necessarily make it a "balanced" system. A cable is as an important component in the system as anything else as the system will not function without it.
Measuring 20hz-20khz sine wave sweeps just creates confirmation bias.
In my opinion, most of the "magic" associated with changing to a super premium speaker cable is due to the accidental cleaning of the contacts while the cables are swapped. Of course the new cable sounds better and the user never swaps back. If the user does swap back, they will discover that the original cable sounds better too.
Dirty contacts cause significant sonic damage and the fix is free.
Onlyclave
Absolutely right! The cable has all those characteristics, which are dwarfed by the similar characteristics in the crossover. Big L and Big C.....
So reduce them and use actives with v short leads, and digital filters at the input to the amplifiers.
How could this not be better?
Absolutely right! The cable has all those characteristics, which are dwarfed by the similar characteristics in the crossover. Big L and Big C.....
So reduce them and use actives with v short leads, and digital filters at the input to the amplifiers.
How could this not be better?
The problem most people have with cabling is they expect to hear "more bass" or "more treble" but they don't understand the changes are much more subtle than that, and just putting an expensive cable in the system doesn't necessarily make it a "balanced" system. A cable is as an important component in the system as anything else as the system will not function without it.
Measuring 20hz-20khz sine wave sweeps just creates confirmation bias.
If this is the case, then why can't trained listeners in ABX testing hear a difference between cables when everything else in the system remains constant? Meaning that your "tuned circuit which will change the audio performance" remains exactly the same, except for the cables. Surely, even with "subtle" differences, these so-called "golden eared" audiophiles should be able to discern the differences without knowing which cable they are listening to, right?
Exactly so.
The trouble is this part of the equation isn't "sexy" as it involves significant, disruptive physical work. It requires room layouts to be changed in ways which are not conducive to uses other than critical listening. It requires bulky and difficult to accommodate room treatments.
In fact it is the opposite of "sexy": it is inconvenient and often physically unattractive.
For the truth is most people who claim to be "audiophiles" don't care that much about audio. They do care about kit. They love shiny things and specifications (even if they don't really understand them). They love playing in the pseudo-scientific sandpit that is constructed from the myths they like to believe unconditionally. They revel in the superstitions and stories which have been passed on through word of mouth over the decades. Their heros are disgruntled ex recording-studio technicians and dinosaur musicians of the past. They search for the next obscure piece of data they can use as a yardstick to claim sonic superiority (at least for a while, until proper Scientists and Engineers test it and find it invalid).
They ignore the real low-hanging fruit because it's not sexy, instead preferring to chase potential silver-bullets.
And their mantra when it comes to specifications is "more must be better" even when it's shown that, in some cases, less is better. Someone who really cared about audio would welcome this, for "less" is easier to achieve, more accessible. A true audiophile would rejoice that "less" was better than "more".
But Less isn't sexy! Any pleb can do "less". Less is for the masses. How is an audiophile supposed to laud it over the "ordinary people". How is one to appear superior with "less"? The typical "audiophile" wants more, more, more, even if that could be detrimental to the sound, because it's not about the sound, it's about how you get there.
To use a car analogy, your restored 1968 Chevy Cheville might chew through fuel at 14 MPG and take 12 seconds to get to 60 mph but boy, ain't she a beauty! They don't make them like they used to!
Cheers,
Keith
But Less isn't sexy! Any pleb can do "less". Less is for the masses. How is an audiophile supposed to laud it over the "ordinary people".
Yes...and no.
I love the look on audiophile faces when they hear the sound out of my Harbeths with a just a Connect Amp tucked away almost out of sight:). One reaches a stage when less is sexy - it can be very Zen! I have now moved the Amp to the bedroom where I can better use its line in to improve the TV sound while doing music duty too, but even now the main system has just a Connect wired to analog inputs of a small Denon all in one box that delivers the same sound as before. And as it was when the main system had a SACD player, and Quad pre/power boxes in it, with the Connect wired to the digital input of the SACD player.
And the wife is thrilled to bits because she has the now redundant component rack entirely for her use. I have to admit it looks a lot better for that.
Userlevel 2
Because many times there's an X-Y Comparator (switch) that will impart it's own signature to the system.
Hey, you don't have to use good cables or even mediocre cables. This is the Sonos forum where a little box is playing back compressed music from compressed sources. When you get back to the analog world there's a bigger difference.
Hey, you don't have to use good cables or even mediocre cables. This is the Sonos forum where a little box is playing back compressed music from compressed sources. When you get back to the analog world there's a bigger difference.
Sonos need not play "compressed music from compressed sources", it can play FLAC, which is completely transparent to the source. It can also play WAV, which is the source, as proven by both the Nyquist/Shannon sampling theorem and physical experimentation. But thanks (again) for the condescension. :rolleyes:
As to your claims that the switch "that will impart it's own signature to the system", if a switch can impart that much of a "signature", why spend thousands on a cable? Certainly the temperature of the room, the carpets on the floor, the accoustical treatments on the walls, the postioning of your head, etc. etc. (all things which have been proven to actually affect sound) are far and away more important than spending thousands on an effect that is so easily masked by a little ol' switch, hmmm?
Also, does the fact that the effect is so easily masked not lay waste to the claims that the difference between lamp cord and $7000 cables is "night and day" as claimed by the flowery prose in the decidedly biased audiophile press? So which is it? Is it a "night and day" difference that one can justify spending thousands and thousands of dollars on, or is it so subtle as to be masked by any and all testing methodology, no matter how carefully constructed?
Or is it just the fact that some people have more money than brains, and like to flaunt it in the face of others when measuring the "size" of their system?
I assume that by analog you mean vinyl - if so, there isn't any argument to offer against a belief that this stone age tech provides for better SQ than digital once it is jazzed up with NASA engineering appearance.
I agree.
Or is it just the fact that some people have more money than brains, and like to flaunt it in the face of others when measuring the "size" of their system?
Yep, this one! 😃
Am quite happy to leave you with your Connect and lamp cable. I'm sure that you have just a beautiful system.
And we are quite happy to leave you paying extreme amounts of money for something which adds nothing to the sound you are able to hear. So I guess that leaves us with a bunch of happy people . . . and some of those people have a lot more money left in their pockets. 😃
Lots of happy people, Xmas is early this year:).
To be fair though, it is quite possible that listening pleasure is enhanced for some people when the kit looks good, and one knows that it is well built/ engineered even if one knows it may be over engineered - psychoacoustics is a well researched and acknowledged subject of study. And those of us with money in our pockets usually tend to spend it something else that may be non essential too - I know I am guilty of that often. Others reading such threads can decide the way they want to go based on what floats their individual boats.
Page 7 / 11
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.