What the benifit of using a separate dac?


Hi, I have a Sim Audio Moon Exclipse Cd Player, my question is what's the benifit of using a separate DAC, when do you know that your player is out dated to the point that you need to upgrade or are you better to use a external dac.Using the digital out put of the cd player are you by passing all internal clock and dac's etc, then the player becomes just a transport? Is there is a benifit to be gained by doing this, what sort of dac would you look for, what the differance between the better brands? I currently have Pass labs X1 pre and x350.5 power, mit 3.1 speaker cables, 2.2 interconnects and Talon firebird speaker, Iam only interested in red book, would be great if any body could shed some light on this subject for me.
k_rose

Showing 9 responses by blindjim


having just one purpose, without spinning motors and the associated power supplies for it, I'd have to go with a stand alone DAC as being able to provide improved performance levels.

But like one box CDPs, they too have their own flavors, options, and uses. The USB option for example may or may not be the best path for improved PC integration into a stereo system for example. Albeit, it’s a quicker remedy. Plug and play. I’ve since found that a very good sound card outputting a PCM digital signal via Coax rivals that path pretty easily too.

It can sure benefit or even fill out one’s rig as adding one to my system did. Especially if the DAC does an exemplary job in the de-jittering area. Lavry and Apogee are on the warm side of neutral IMO if that is the need. The Benchmark statements are already posted here. The Bel Canto DAC3 offers a lot of options and very good performance too. I chose the DAC3 as it fit my needs best.
Why mod something you just got?

Beats me. I think all the talk about modding a this or that is due to desire and budget.

I've noticed modders offer upgrades on popularity as much as platform. eg. Oppo & Waddia, Dennon, and Sony. Two of those players have substantial OEM builds, two don't.

It's also a path which reportedly offers more performance with incremental outlays, rather than an initial hefty one.

The problem as I see it is modding a whatever is ambiguous. Definitely via mods there's gonna be a change... it'll sure be different. Likely better too... but better how, seems the pertinent question.... and there are others.

One persons ear isn't anothers.

I'd be quite selective of just who and just what mods were made, were I to go that route and I'm thinking quite hard on it for my BC DAC3.
Jax2

WEll, forgive me here, but just where does one go to hear that modded Waddia beforehand?

I think my take here is pretty simple. Although it’s perhaps not an easy thing to audition any number of CDPs, the possibility exists. Also there are reviews of these non modded items, threads, etc.

The modded units however, by and large, have little or no press… no place to find one for audition, and certainly there’ll be no in home trial…. Hence a decision to mod a particular unit to claimed ‘higher levels of performance’ are at best dark or ambiguous assertions as to the end product.

I’m not taking modders or those who have modded their items to task… it’s just that it’s a shot in the dark at best. IMHO.

Without any concrete evidence, or even subjective press available as to the results going in it does seem a dicey prospect to me and only the rep of the modding tech is accountable here… not the ACTUAL outcome OF YOUR UNIT.

Will the device once altered then be too much detail, of too high resolution, or too dark, or too warm, or too lush? ...AND THERE'S THIS... OR TOO UN-RESALEABLE?

At best some of the more prominent assertions are “following this modification it will compete on a par with units costing several times more Well… OK, THEN, How SO?

…and then there’s this… Well, I liked it better the other way or Can you make it a bit less ….. or a bit more …. ?

In all having something modded just it simply seems a big question mark to me. That’s all. In spite of my thoughts here I am pretty sure I’ll go that way next year with my DAC…

But it is scary.

Maybe a good idea would be for modders to have on hand a XYZ with their level one, level two, etc, mods and allow seriously interested folks to actually see up front what they are buying, instead of the other way around. I mean if it's a slam dunk, no brainer mod providing performance and value, then why not? Like they could have one or two already done for previewing?

hell, I'd even pay a resonable fee for that were I not to wind up buying it or having my own done that way!

Just think of all the guess work and speculation that would be taken out of the mix, not to mention the positive press that would follow.

That is the way other designers do it is it not?
Jax2

I can and do appreciate your exp and no doubt the modding path has been a beneficial one for yourself and I’m glad for you.

You and I aren't too different… nor for that matter are most of those who frequent the high end audio market. Very little of the abundance of gear is available for local preview. some of which that is available, I’ll just not go thear due to the way that dealership treats people routinely… and I’ve tried more than a couple times to do business with them in spite of their erudite and arrogant attitudes.

90% + of my rig has been purchased sight unseen/unheard. Nearly all were leaps of faith. Yet nearly all of these leaps of faith were fortified with plenty of press and other current & previous owners recommendations. In spite of some actually.

I do my due dilligence… as it is to me to do… and that’s exactly my point as you agreed by saying some of the modders will ‘sometimes’ show off their mods at some of the shows. I’d guess these show pieces are their full on mods as well.

Exactly. Some, sometimes, somewhere. Maybe.

Specific alterations for improvement aren’t for the greater part responsibly accounted for too often. Nor are those accounts ongoing in the more common areas one would look to for such reports… only short raves are posted from those who have subscribed to and paid for them.

As such, these reporters have a vested interest and can’t be considered objective descriptions IMHO.

Well, not 100% anyways. Neither do I discount them wholely.

On the other side of that coin of vaunted increase, is the reliability and contact issue. I tried a couple years ago to contact some of these after market aficinadoes and from some was not even given so much as a simple reply email. Only Steve of Imperical, Mr. Jesse out of Michigan and Richard Kern have spoken to me on some CDP improvements. One was far beyond my ability and the others were left unrealized given the results of the conversations.

A couple others I got to that have a reputation for upgrading components struck me as quite biased and arrogant outright talking down dissmissively of various manufacturers designs relative to their own efforts. Consequently I gave them no further thought.

People are people I suppose and I guess one can’t expect everyone to be polite and objective. I believe one can expect contact and communication to be part and parcel aspects of doing business with them however… and in my exp, this last facet has shown itself to be less than satisfactory. I’ll also add I’ve had even less satisfaction with standard ongoing prominent makers of high end gear too. Quite possibly this vein is simply put, what one has to deal with in upscale audio concerns… and that is indeed a shame.

Nevertheless, I understand the constraints of gear makers which follow a more wide spread concern dissallowing a no holds barred effort… and the after market adjusters which affford the end user an opportunity for greater gain.

Fine. Good.

I would merely prefer to see more objective accounts, such as those written on R. Kerns and D Wrights and others’ efforts. There are quite a few online outlets for such info too for this to not be done.

I see no reason to keep any viable measured performance enhancements as more the ‘well kept secrets’ variety, rather than the openly reported.

Hope you can see the sense in my opinion here… hopefully more modders do too. I’d dearly love to hear objective accounts from any of these hot rodders less than full on mod results in the same online publications we all enjoy and use routinely for help in making our buying decisions. Of course there are those rags which will not publish such matters yet there are those which would.

Naturally as I mentioned also having units on hand which possess such alterations for home trials would surely gain for them far greater appeal.

Shedding such a brighter light on things would benefit both modder and moddee.

I mean given the choice in our leaps of faith, would not all of us prefer to just jump a school bus or two, rather than the Grand Canyon?

We ain’t all Evil Knevils, ya know.

…and isn’t “BETTER” a pretty vague word after all.
Shadorne
Hmmm. I never even considered that part.

Your analogy is eirily on target for me though. I had several scooters and had two of them modified, one Honda and one Kawasaki. Both were done through primier after market companies that had gained their reps by virtue of consistent results at the race track. Both Yoshimura Racing and Russ Collins Engineering, (respectively) recieved a lot of press not only on their build alterations, but from actual trials from the two wheel mags.

These full on or partial refits, or even their kits for the DIY'ers, were not inexpensive. Neither were the results subjective. The ride and the feel indicated the improvement, but it was the clock that truly told the story in that arena.

cosmetic changes too were made but mostly they were an afterthought and not the main thrust. I've always been more about the dash than the splash.

Value of the end product was seldom ever a consideration then. It was strickly all about performance and reliability. Getting there first without blowing up.

I got there first a lot... and yeah... I blew up too... once or twice. The explosions though were my bad not the modders.

Mo press is needed. As subjective as it may wind up being spent, if it could gain some modicom of objectivity via folks who do not have some vested interest would go a long way to further fill the voids in the minds of the prospective buyers, and the pockets of the professionals doing the alterations. IMHO

Wave & Jacks

My point from the onset is or was to illuminate further the curious lack of objective press reviews on the outcomes of after market mods of audio gear.

To that end, both courses of action before the facts were for proposed advantages or increases to performance. One being a scooter, the latter our audio apparatus.

The bike upgrades had better representation via the industry press. The theme here is tantamount to the same province, "imcreasing performance or improvements" via the same sort of after market enhancements... albeit without the same publicized notoriety.

I subscribed to, bought, and utilized those speculative hot rod modifications costing me thousands then due primarily to the coverage the industry press printed about them, by and large.

My last statement pointed to just that item… mo’ press from non invested reviews would lessen the leap of faith required to pursue these measures.

Sorry if it wasn’t clearer.

I’m not haranguing audio modifiers here but merely pointing out a viably solid path to quell reticence, or eliminate it altogether from the minds of those seriously interested in attaining said levels of augmentation

As for myself, I’m thinking to ask for a couple grand or more with but a subjective promise up front could well be fortified still further by such credible monologues ….

Truth be told, I find it curious such accounts aren’t ongoing and at least the now and then sorts.
Kijanki

My modding plans surround my Bel Canto DAC3 initially, and following that operation, perhaps an Oppo refference DVD player I believe I'm going to get as I'm going to go largely with the PC as a source now.

But that's an interesting point too, as each time I
've replaced an item with some likewise yet different thing, there has always been the need to re-address some of the cabling... or footers... or tubes.

it's seldom been a plug and play event. I suspect once a thing is 'changed' it would be the same deal again.

BTW it was because of the press and my limited talks with the Benchmark makers that sent me away from previewing that piece altogether.

Jaxs2
“Where have yous seen "objective" press reviews on anything? How could there be such a thing, a review being written by a human being is bound to be subjective simply by definition. “

Not necessarily.

IF that truly is your take on info at large, I’ll not try to change your mind here and only offer that you may wish to reflect upon that perspective as it is a pretty dark one to have as a rule. IMHO.

We talk here about all sorts of components, matches and gains. Many are or should be stated in what they truly are… “degrees”… and pertinent to the application we have experienced them in for ourselves. Some don’t construct a rig via specs alone, some do. I have gone that way in the past and did’t care for the end results.

Objectivly speaking of course, subjectivity can not be measured by these same degrees. Noe can get a feel for it’s worth however.

Subjectivity isn’t a bad word. Nor does it undermine completely a persons remarks. It only says “IMHO” it is ‘one truth’ and not necessarily the truth or that it will be YOUR truth.

Therefore I tend to discount Raves a lot. Especially from those who have bought the ‘change’ or item. I feel those accounts although honestly intentiomned are perhaps prone to being tainted if only by their recent investment.. In them I look for comparative notes on likewise items from others of the same ilk or a contrasting one..

If the writer of the article has nothing to gain or lose by delivering an appraisal of a thing, then I have to feel it is more valid or dare I say it, objective, if for only that one aspect.

Idealistically speaking, and I am an idealist… objectivity is a key fundamental in professional journalism. A mainstay and a must or the whole of it should be discarded as it lacks the prerequisite catalyst of integrity ..

But it comes to this. Either we entirely dismiss reviews and/or the reviewer, or we take from them that which we deem true. As there has been much said about published articles and their ties to other than purely objective motivation. I’ve seen no real proof to support such notions, yet they continue to abound in the world of high end audio disscussions.

That dark belief structure will make for a lot less time perusing magazines and online articles regarding any item, let alone audio gear. Let’s simply ignore them all as they are all subjective, huh? Even though we only perceive them to be so.

Well, this might come as a shock but there is truth in reviews. Perhaps not the entire every word sort, but surely I’ve found via my own comparisons to having a reviewed item in house and looking back at the article., much of what was said I found to be valid.

…and just who’s truth are we talking about here… or is it ‘which’ truth?

Any differences I’ve noted were but minor ones, and I chalked that up to the application desparities.

Some of it if not all must however be taken in context. I’ve also found my ear connects more so with certain reviewers than with others. For instance, Much of Art Dudley’s accounts and muy own experiences with those items coincide. Also J Johnson seems more right than wrong to me in his accounts. On the other side I’m no where near John Atkinsons preffs for sound… or some others I don’t recall now.

We trust what we intuitively find agreeable. We discern the truth via experience if we are honest with ourselves about it..

Accounts from other’s of their exp does have some bearing on the things I will pursue. There are other factors, for sure. I’m not usually the trusting type at heart, though I’m getting to become more so that way as of late. Therefore I believe most people are honest. Given that I lend some credence to what they claim up front.

I give still more validity to something which has been supported by others experiences which further validate these initial claims of the mechanic, modifier, solderer, painter etc..

So should we ignore reviews wholely? Take them in part? Or trust them explicitly?

I’m somewhere in the middle ground there and that is why I’d seek colaberative or supportive assertions regarding performance enhancements or even the sort of performance being tendered…. Depending largely on the cost of said change too.

I think it is very uncomplicated …. For $200 sure I’ll take a shot…. For $2,000 I wanna know more.

I do not doubt one wit when the terms improved, increased performance, or just better are used. Not at all.

I just wanna know their percentages of…
.
It’s either use other’s info and experiences or adhere to strickly spec sheets, or remain glued to the “best guess” theory. During the seeking out or researching phase of advancing one’s stereo muscle.

Taking into account both the subjective and objective, has aidded me far more than it has denied me.

Or I’m the luckiest SOB on the planet as near 85% of my system was bought in the dark, sans audition.

Jax2
“Your clarification on your hot rod metaphor still doesn't connect with me. You're talking about mods that can be measured on a dyno (which really don't tell the whole story about how they translate real-world anyway”

Oil well.

BTW… I ran drags. Not road courses.

Jax2
“What would an "objective" review of a modification read like?”

That’s an easy one. “BLAH” “BLAH” “BLAH” “BLAH” “BLAH” OR IN OTHER WORDS,
Merely the facts. The differences from the base unit to those of the altered one via measurements.

Measurements however don’t always riddle out a puzzle.

Shadorne….
“Interesting comment based on our discussion about one of the primary drivers for purchase decisions is the desire for differentiated products. The comment says more about you than the sound quality of Benchmark DAC1. “

I never railed on the Benchmark. Infact if you go back and look through my posts you’ll find I added some info supportive of the Bench that was given me directly from the Bench folks about their technology which was unclear in that thread. This was a good while back too. Like 05 or 06.

I never said I bought into the notion of acquiring things merely due to their status or niche appeal. I simply can’t afford it. I am no longer trying to be unique in any respect.

Shadorne….
“If you mod your Bel Canto then you can feel even more secure that very few people have what you have!”

I pray I never get that vain and I can ill afford to allow my ego to make my decisions for me. IF I gave you that perspective somehow I regret it.

Shadorne….
“By offering so much detail and information one is exposing oneself to a potential huge embarassement (if anyon eproves you are full of it) and expensive product recall due to lack of performance/conformance should your products not live up to the published specifications (one year to the next). This is very unusual in audio. “

Well, who’s gonna go back and remeasure the specs anyways? Have you ever done that? Has anyone here ever taken the time and done a check of specs offered from any maker’s products? I seriously doubt it. If they did however, what would that one investigation change? Uh, I guess Stereophile will, gbut mostly when JA does that part much of it is beyond me anyhow. Those numbers too don’t always add up to the experience the product provides.

That last part gets me too…. As changes are implemented into a device by the designer (s) I’m guessing here, measurements are taken during those alterations…. Why should it then be so hard to provide them with each variation? I mean they got ‘em, they likely wrote ‘em down somewhere at some point… so it should be an easy task.

…but then the note “specifications subject to change without notice” will probably forgoe too much litigation.

In fact I’ll trust their numbers until I determine they are otherwise, suspect. I’ve found some that don’t add up in the brief time I’ve been back to this hobby via my own experiences…. Or at least seem not to..

I’m the champagne sort on a beer barrel budget. Add to that my visual prowess have and are waning significantly, the esthetic appeal most often is now a mere aside for me. I derive no such enjoyment from it. ‘Course I ain’t into owning banged up or shabby looking stuff too often either. Yet I’ll take a ding or dent if the job gets done in fine form.

What a thing does is of far more import to me than either it’s exclusivity or appearance. Price alone usually dictates the latter. For a premium dollar figure however, it needs be of supierior looks as well.

My ideas on erecting and affecting a system are fundamental enough I suspect. The result is the combination of the sum of it’s parts. All of it’s parts. Each item affording something more or something less, yet all of the facets being necessary though not as important at times, one to the other.

I tried 3 DACs in all. Apogee, Lavry, and my current BC D3. The Apogee was the briefest encounter, the dA 10 was lengthier and now the D3 being the longest.

My decision to keep the DAC3 came by what it served up to my systems needs and my concerns… and yes… my objectively subjective preffs. The DAC 3 is not the end all be all product. In fact I’m sure of that. For me to be truly satisfied some of the peripherals surrounding a device need to be in place and with the BC DAC3 I feel they weren’t. But I’ve kept it anyhow…. Soley on the basis of what it lends to my rigs and my own needs for audio satisfaction. It has what I deem to be obvious flaws but it’s shorcomings are outweighed by it’s attributes in my system. It was a disgruntled choice on a personal level, but a good one for my rig..

I said as much in my own personal account of it in the review I posted here on the ‘gone.

Jax2
“Somewhere in the archives from years ago you might find some comments I made in listening and comparing an ARC LS2B I had modded by GNSC. My friend had the sme modest preamp in stock form and we swapped out the tube when we compared. Same cables, same system. Bottom line in that case is that we both readily heard improvements in resolution and sounstage. I do not recall specifics. Is that "objective?".

Yep.

Jax2
“Someone else listening may have. Heard no difference at all. Which viewpoint would you invest in?”

2 for; 1 aginst. You win.

Objectivity is a significant principle of journalistic professionalism. Journalistic objectivity can refer to fairness, disinterestedness, factuality, and nonpartisanship, but most often encompasses all of these qualities.

Subjectivity refers to a subject's perspective, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unjustified personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and justified belief.

Your statement of two people determining some change has been made is objective as I believe the assertian and your own self to be true and honest..

The degree of that noted change if measureable would also be objective.

It becomes subjective when a said difference is derived from a perspective or singular view point than from actual measured indicators.

The context of the subjective information is then as important as is the application. Both terms can contain integrity, honesty, and truths. The subjective portion only needs contain the truths of the relayer of such perceived truths and has no need for actual measured indexes.

Consequently I would believe you were you to tell me a certain change had occurred given a certain practice had been employed. The extent of that difference would be what I would try best to apply to my own circumstance (s) given we spoke of it at any greater length thereafter. If no such a side bar was continued it would be lessend as to it’s import and likely forgotten as it could not be determined as pertinent to other applications. Yet to be realized.

I feel THE truth as important an ingredient as is YOUR truth or my own.

Neither is more or less valid… for it remains in the context and application what truth is found there…. That’s the REAL truth. As at that time it is applicable purely and solely in that milieu.

Ascertaining the increment of change beforehand is the ambiguity, interest and allure for the audio devotee. I just think that with greater acclaim, publicity, and press of these provided increments it would be an easier task to make a decision whether or not to ante up for them. In our own ways we make calls on the next step (s) we will take to improve or change our compliment of devices & accessories. This is how I do it that’s all.
Shadorne
well, OK, it is... it's just not the very first thing.

I just had to validate performance is the higher priority for me always.

With all my junk residing in an adjacent room, only the loudspeakers get much face time. They need to be unblemished of course... or have unobtrusive shortcomings.

The more I think about it I think I am more prone to pick of the same items being sold, the one with the less usage over the one with the better appearance though. Usually.

It would come down to just how much savings I could get off the normal sale price and just how big, or what type of a descrepency it was.

I believe that's a pretty natural way of making a buying decision. But trust me here on this, I really don't get a kick out of simply looking at any of my gear except for one thing.... that 120 DIY HT screen when watching TV or DVDs.

That sole item has been for me a real blessing... despite the crap I went through to get it all up and running... and it ain't even tweaked in yet.

I do get a little kick out of what others say when I let them see the Thor and the rest of the tube gear, sometimes though as predominately they all think it's antiques. The Thor gets the most acclaim as a rule... with the usual line of "What in the world is that thing?"

I just tell 'em it's a pretty nice used car, or a long weekend in Hawaii.