DAC as an upgrade

Tpsonic,

Thanks.

Any DAC with a coaxial Digital input will work with any source with digital coax out then?

Any exceptions to look out for?

Cerrot,

Thanks for the explanation. Very helpful.

So my next question is what are some good upsampling DACs out there these days to consider as an upgrade to whats on-board the Denon and what do they sound like, if possible to explain?

No set budget at present. All options open.

2chnlben,i

The Denon CDR1500 is only 2-3 years old and is still sold new on Amazon and other locations.

I notice my Denon has both digital out and digital in connections (both coax and optical for each).

Rather than changing DACs, I could try hooking up a digital processor of some sort with these connections and run the built in DAC for now as a first step.

I have some CDs that sound flawless to me and others that I have some issues with. Are there digital processors out there that can be introduced to help with common problems associated with lesser CD recordings, like sibilance, excessive brightness, etc.?

Cerrot,

You're right, of course, but I find it hard to determine when a deficiency is in fact in the recording when the only way to tell is to listen on a player. Even very high end playback systems like DCS employ digital signal processing algorithms to some extent to produce those smooth results. If I don't hear it on a DCS, for example, I don't necessarily think that proves its not there.

I think its all in how smart any particular playback system is in handling the more common issues found in CD recordings to produce the sound they are shooting for.

With vinyl, in many cases, when something didn't sound right, I could visually inspect the grooves and detect damage like wear, scratches, dirt, etc. pretty accurately, actually.

No way to do that with digital. You hear whatever the system gives you after its done converting the bits to a waveform, and that's pretty much it.

I can't look at pits on the surface of a CD and tell whether they are right or not. Sounds like a useful talent, though, if someone out there can!

I read something very enlightening recently in a magazine. The guy who is the talent behind the rock group Boston was lamenting the shortcomings of digital technology in discussing recent remastering of his old material. HE pointed out that the world, sound and music is analog in nature, not digital, and that the whole concept of digital music is an artificial man-made approximation of reality and very hard to get right as a result. Interesting stuff.

Cerrot,

I'm with you regarding what makes for a good listening experience.

"RH said that with each component a window pane is added"

True, but with digital, it doesn't take a component to do this. A lot can happen within a tiny chip embedded within that component, similar to like a function within a larger computer program.

For example, what you hear when the digital signal is upsampled, interpolated and perhaps dithered is not what you would hear at the original sampling frequency. That is a type of signal processing enhancement designed explicitly to make the signal sound different in a better way.

If the detail is missing in those original bits recorded however, no processing after the fact can bring them back. All that can be done is either leave it as is or play signal processing tricks to make it sound more digestible before hitting the DAC.

Then of course, the DAC is the device that has to take the digital bits and accurately construct the waveform. There is a lot technically that can go right or wrong here that can also make a big difference in resulting sound, but the DAC as well cannot recover bits of information that were not there in the first place.

Meanwhile, right now I'm watching a Three Dog Night Live DVD playing on the Marantz DV-4200 DVD player in my separate 2 channel A/V system (vintage Yamaha receiver driving Triangle Titus 202 + M&K sub) and its sounding pretty sweet. Digital can be pretty darn good when done right.

Blu Ray is an interesting technology to keep an eye on.

Can it do for digital audio what it does for video? I would have to think so.

HD DVD isn't going anywhere at this point, is it?

I wonder if there is an audio only format in the works for Blu Ray? That could be something.

I'm getting some good tips here and on some other threads regarding various DACs to consider.

BEl CAnto and Musical Fidelity are some of the names I am familiar with that seem viable for me and worth considering. Some other lesser known specialized vendors like BEnchmark seem to have some very good feedback as well.

I've even seen a few older DCS units not too far beyond the price range I would consider. I've heard newer DCS gear recently and would probably have to consider that my reference at this point.

Need to do some more research, but I'm thinking an experiment with an outboard DAC could well be in my immediate future.

After doing some research on DACS and some more critical listening today and some needed fine tuning on speaker positions (they were inadvertently moved a tad recently), I've decided what I have sounds fine + will most likely stay put.

Most issues I hear appear to be unique to specific recordings.

If I were to invest more in my system at this point, I think it would be in a more powerful amp to flush out the low end even further with the Ohm 5's. Those babys love the juice man! They suck up the power and convert it into increased presence and dynamics without going the slightest bit harsh.

My only urge is to perhaps be able to add even more impact to the recordings that have good dynamic range, like the large scale symphonic works, to see how far things can go.

If I bumped up my amp, I'd probably stick with a larger Musical Fidelity in that things are sounding, dare I say, near perfect.

OR more reasonably, I should probabably say things are sounding near perfect TO MY EARS!

The more I listen,, the faster I always come back to the conclusion that in the end, other than having decent components that work well together as a system, all that really matters otherwise is what sounds good to each individual.

Istanbulu,

Interesting article. Lots of truths.

All the factors that go into good sound or perception of good sound, except $$$s, are very hard to quantify meaningfully and I believe no two people ever really hear exactly the same thing at the same time.

I also believe that no two systems sound the same yet most can be "tweaked" somehow to sound better or different.

You have to try to keep an open mind which can be hard sometimes and take all factors including those external to the raw technology, into consideration.

Istanbulu,

Shades of Machina Dynamica!

Remember that Twilight Zone episode with William Shatner and the little tabletop fortune teller device that freaked him out with its nebulous yet seemingly relevant predictions?

Well, I'm the opposite of Shatner in that episode (most of the time at least).

I believe in Karma and such when it comes to people but when it comes to audio, the engineer in me kicks in. If there is not a definable technical basis for asserting that something sounds "better" as opposed to just different, I am a skeptic.

For example I know that my Ohm 5'speaks are largely omni-directional (but attenuated somewhat by design in wall facing directions) and much, but not all, of the sound that reaches my ears arrives indirectly.

In order to sound "magical", they have to be a couple of feet away from a wall minimum and you sort of have to position the speakers in a location that supports the bass appropriately and "focuses" the reflected sound in a manner so most of it reaches your ears pretty much at the same time at your listening position or positions.

You can get the big soundstage omni's are known for without attention to this, but you cannot get the detail and imaging accuracy needed for "magic" without achieving this "sonic focus", as I'll refer to it.

That's what made the difference for me in this case.

There is a method behind the madness, but the process is still largely one of trial and error.

I also use a test recording that lends itself easily to hearing solid tight bass and positional accuracy within the soundstage.

Of late, I've been using a 1990 CD recording of "Donovan's Greatest Hits" for this. Several cuts on the disk feature a sparse variety of clearly identifiable acoustic instrumentation spread cleanly across the soundstage.

I've listened to several cuts many times on various properly set up systems that sound great. When the bass in the cut "Season of the Witch" is tight and punchy, and when the individual instruments in that tune and "Jennifer Juniper" and a couple others can be identified and located clearly. Then things are tuned in very well for pretty much any kind of music, equally simple or more complex, like symphonic, from there.

One other note about the Ohm Walsh speakers is that a single driver produces most of what you hear (save the very top end) and delivers the sound as a phase coherent line source (hence the name CLS).

However, just because sound is produced in a phase coherent manner doesn't mean it reaches your ears that way. That is where the sonic focusing exercise I described above comes in...to make sure that everyhting reaches your ears still in a phase coherent manner (like focusing a camera or projector).

Other more conventional, less omni-directional, speaker designs that also feature a good degree of phase coherency at the source in particular can benefit from a similar attention to these details, I believe.

The McCormack DAC 1 has caught my eye as a reasonable unit to try based on reviews and value.

Anybody know what the difference is between a "McCormack DAC 1" and "DAC 1 Deluxe"? How is the "DAC 1" deluxe better or different from a basic "DAC 1"?

Jeffkad,

Thanks for the additional info.

Ive researched both the Bel Canto and Benchmark DACs of late and both are leading contenders currently in my mind.

There is still not much I can truly fault with my stock Denon, though I'm sure I can do better or at least different in a constructive way.

I am still in the mindset that an outboard DAC could be a next logical step for me and a building block for the future. I'm also learning a lot in the process.