Greetings, kind of a newbie question if folks don't mind the indulgence.
tl,dr:
What is the benefit of a dedicated DAC vs. the one that's in my 20 y.o. Kenwood CD player?
Longer story:
I have an older Kenwood CD-404 5 disc CD changer/player. It has TOSLINK out as well as a variable line-out (2V max) and a headphone jack on front.
I don't think it was a particularly expensive machine back in the day. I bought it as a college student some 20 years ago, but I'd bet it was made in Japan when things were meant to last more than the next 4 year planned obsolescence cycle.
Anyway, I've gotten the itch to upgrade my system with a pair of self-powered monitors/speakers, dump my old integrated A/V receiver, and mostly use my iPod and laptop for music sources.
But I'm wondering a few things about this old CD player.
1) According to the manual, the analog line-out should be at max, unless one is using it with headphones (or I reckon self-powered monitors), in which case the gain can be turned down to a desirable sound level.
2) Since this has TOSLINK, what would I expect to benefit from running the digital out to a dedicated DAC or headphone amp, then to the self-powered speakers?
3) Can one really trust their line-out not to clip? If I were to ever use it with a dedicated pre-amp and amplifier or if I ever go back to a receiver of some kind, I'm wondering if it would be better to adjust the gain down 3 or 6 dB (the nominal range is from 0 to -49dB) and then simply turn up the volume a little more than I ordinarily would. I've already been doing this for a few years running my iPod and laptop into the "Video 2" of my A/V receiver.
Incidentally, for the first time in 20+ years I did some A/B comparisons with headphones connected directly to it vs. using the headphone jack on the receiver. Well, maybe no surprise, but the sound directly from the CD player was noticeably better than from connecting to the receiver, a Kenwood KR-V6030, fwiw.
Thanks much!
tl,dr:
What is the benefit of a dedicated DAC vs. the one that's in my 20 y.o. Kenwood CD player?
Longer story:
I have an older Kenwood CD-404 5 disc CD changer/player. It has TOSLINK out as well as a variable line-out (2V max) and a headphone jack on front.
I don't think it was a particularly expensive machine back in the day. I bought it as a college student some 20 years ago, but I'd bet it was made in Japan when things were meant to last more than the next 4 year planned obsolescence cycle.
Anyway, I've gotten the itch to upgrade my system with a pair of self-powered monitors/speakers, dump my old integrated A/V receiver, and mostly use my iPod and laptop for music sources.
But I'm wondering a few things about this old CD player.
1) According to the manual, the analog line-out should be at max, unless one is using it with headphones (or I reckon self-powered monitors), in which case the gain can be turned down to a desirable sound level.
2) Since this has TOSLINK, what would I expect to benefit from running the digital out to a dedicated DAC or headphone amp, then to the self-powered speakers?
3) Can one really trust their line-out not to clip? If I were to ever use it with a dedicated pre-amp and amplifier or if I ever go back to a receiver of some kind, I'm wondering if it would be better to adjust the gain down 3 or 6 dB (the nominal range is from 0 to -49dB) and then simply turn up the volume a little more than I ordinarily would. I've already been doing this for a few years running my iPod and laptop into the "Video 2" of my A/V receiver.
Incidentally, for the first time in 20+ years I did some A/B comparisons with headphones connected directly to it vs. using the headphone jack on the receiver. Well, maybe no surprise, but the sound directly from the CD player was noticeably better than from connecting to the receiver, a Kenwood KR-V6030, fwiw.
Thanks much!
An external DAC may be better designed, or it may be worse. All you can be reasonably certain of is that it will be different. Whether it sounds different is a separate issue, and whether it seems better or worse is partly a matter of personal taste.folzag said:
Thanks. That was the conclusion I was starting to wonder about. Essentially, it's listen to it and decide if you like it (like anything else in setting up a hifi system).
FWIW, in further digging trying to understand how to distinguish among the various DACs available in the market, something that really surprised me was the iPhone 6+ is as clean and transparent a DAC one will find.
Maybe it's just me, but it leaves me skeptical of a lot of expensive DACs that are out there if Apple can roll a perfect one into the cost of a cell phone. Or put another way, Apple sells a $500 DAC with integrated cell phone, wifi, and camera. Maybe this is too simplistic, but if I can rip a CD to a lossless file and play-back on the iPhone, what else is there?
FWIW, in further digging trying to understand how to distinguish among the various DACs available in the market, something that really surprised me was the iPhone 6+ is as clean and transparent a DAC one will find.
Maybe it's just me, but it leaves me skeptical of a lot of expensive DACs that are out there if Apple can roll a perfect one into the cost of a cell phone. Or put another way, Apple sells a $500 DAC with integrated cell phone, wifi, and camera. Maybe this is too simplistic, but if I can rip a CD to a lossless file and play-back on the iPhone, what else is there?
Confirmed by Archimago.
For a good reason.
You can get a perfectly good DAC for $30 (proven by a number of good USB DACs). Beyond that you pay for a fancy enclosure, "design" and deliberate non-transparent "voicing".
DACs are everywhere.
A reasonably respectable test found no difference between $2 and $2000 DACs.
Four Devices Tested: From $2000 Down To $2 - What Does It Take To Turn The PC Into A Hi-Fi Audio Platform?
DACs are in mobiles, tablets, computers, TVs, satellite receivers, Bluray players, DAPs... I have a USB DAC, an S/PDIF DAC.
As time goes by it's increasingly rare to find one that's no good.
By focussing too much on DAC quality you lose the advantages of modern connectivity. I keep my music on a standalone networked drive. I stream data to whatever device is nearest or most convenient. I can put TV sound or any one of a multiplicity of sources independently through any one of 3 main full-blown systems, all without using anything more than the standard remotes and a tablet or phone. It's all off-the-shelf, nothing custom.
A reasonably respectable test found no difference between $2 and $2000 DACs.
Four Devices Tested: From $2000 Down To $2 - What Does It Take To Turn The PC Into A Hi-Fi Audio Platform?
DACs are in mobiles, tablets, computers, TVs, satellite receivers, Bluray players, DAPs... I have a USB DAC, an S/PDIF DAC.
As time goes by it's increasingly rare to find one that's no good.
By focussing too much on DAC quality you lose the advantages of modern connectivity. I keep my music on a standalone networked drive. I stream data to whatever device is nearest or most convenient. I can put TV sound or any one of a multiplicity of sources independently through any one of 3 main full-blown systems, all without using anything more than the standard remotes and a tablet or phone. It's all off-the-shelf, nothing custom.
a dissident opinion
Hi guys,
sorry for crashing the party, but...
In my 20+ years of critical listening I have found that I can hear a distinct difference regarding DAC types, and implementations. I am not suggesting that I am "golden-eared", but I do have a significant listening experience.
I did look over the article comparing the 4 audio devices, as linked to a couple of posts ago. It was well written and pretty well thought out. And it was about as objective as one can be. However listening (particularly to any recorded media) is in its very nature subjective. This is the crux of almost all reviews and comparisons.
Because listening is so subjective, I might suggest that one must consider the listening "chain" in its totality. Even the reviewer indicated that he can not attest to the guidelines in regards to listening via a full audio system using amplification and loudspeakers (as well as any other electronics or equipment needed to listen to audio through loudspeakers).
Regarding the comments that all DACs sound alike (which is the end result of the review and the last posts here), I disagree. If implemented correctly, using appropriate power supplies and internal passive and active components, the goal for the audio designer should be the same (whether for computer audio or home-based listening. Pro audio sound reinforcement is something altogether different.) and the differences are often minimal. What one might choose to pay for these differences is another thing altogether.
If each of the 4 devices tested had been implemented on a manufacturer's reference board (often available direct from the manufacturer) and built using the same quality output stage(s) and power supplies, The differences heard would be based (mostly) on the performance of the DAC chips and support circuits themselves and not on the quality of the power supplies (which I believe to be of critical importance throughout the listening chain) and its components. Power supplies in the audio chain are paramount in all components. If each device used the same power supply then I could see a validity to the test. I might also suggest that if each DAC were implemented as per the manufacturer's reference boards or reference designs including each having a power supply optimized for it, the differences (if the designers' goals were the same) should be minimized. Unfortunately in my experience often improved circuits can help one to distinguish one DAC from the other.
Also to complete any authoritative comparison, one should have been able to configure all of the DACs for use within a hi-fi system of reasonable quality. I might suggest a system in the price range of listener "A" in the comparison test: a $3000 2-channel system with at least one good digital source; an integrated amplifier or amp/preamp; reasonable near full range quality loudspeakers and reasonable quality cabling. This might represent a system many users might be able to afford. In this way should a DAC sound superior to another it can be at least qualified based on the system and one's own listening preferences.
And as an aside: a friend has purchase separate sound cards and hot rodded them to allow implementation as stand-alone DAC within an audio system. As a complete ready to use piece he may have USD $250-USD$300 tied up into one in particular which compares verity favourable to a commercially available DAC that now sells for €750 (USD $840.49) without power supply, analog interconnect wires or a digital cable. These additions can easily add another USD $500 or more. That's without freight from Germany (where the DAC is made). So please don't think I'm trying to stir the pot or appear to be an "audiophile snob", which is a far from the truth as is possible.
Hi guys,
sorry for crashing the party, but...
In my 20+ years of critical listening I have found that I can hear a distinct difference regarding DAC types, and implementations. I am not suggesting that I am "golden-eared", but I do have a significant listening experience.
I did look over the article comparing the 4 audio devices, as linked to a couple of posts ago. It was well written and pretty well thought out. And it was about as objective as one can be. However listening (particularly to any recorded media) is in its very nature subjective. This is the crux of almost all reviews and comparisons.
Because listening is so subjective, I might suggest that one must consider the listening "chain" in its totality. Even the reviewer indicated that he can not attest to the guidelines in regards to listening via a full audio system using amplification and loudspeakers (as well as any other electronics or equipment needed to listen to audio through loudspeakers).
Regarding the comments that all DACs sound alike (which is the end result of the review and the last posts here), I disagree. If implemented correctly, using appropriate power supplies and internal passive and active components, the goal for the audio designer should be the same (whether for computer audio or home-based listening. Pro audio sound reinforcement is something altogether different.) and the differences are often minimal. What one might choose to pay for these differences is another thing altogether.
If each of the 4 devices tested had been implemented on a manufacturer's reference board (often available direct from the manufacturer) and built using the same quality output stage(s) and power supplies, The differences heard would be based (mostly) on the performance of the DAC chips and support circuits themselves and not on the quality of the power supplies (which I believe to be of critical importance throughout the listening chain) and its components. Power supplies in the audio chain are paramount in all components. If each device used the same power supply then I could see a validity to the test. I might also suggest that if each DAC were implemented as per the manufacturer's reference boards or reference designs including each having a power supply optimized for it, the differences (if the designers' goals were the same) should be minimized. Unfortunately in my experience often improved circuits can help one to distinguish one DAC from the other.
Also to complete any authoritative comparison, one should have been able to configure all of the DACs for use within a hi-fi system of reasonable quality. I might suggest a system in the price range of listener "A" in the comparison test: a $3000 2-channel system with at least one good digital source; an integrated amplifier or amp/preamp; reasonable near full range quality loudspeakers and reasonable quality cabling. This might represent a system many users might be able to afford. In this way should a DAC sound superior to another it can be at least qualified based on the system and one's own listening preferences.
And as an aside: a friend has purchase separate sound cards and hot rodded them to allow implementation as stand-alone DAC within an audio system. As a complete ready to use piece he may have USD $250-USD$300 tied up into one in particular which compares verity favourable to a commercially available DAC that now sells for €750 (USD $840.49) without power supply, analog interconnect wires or a digital cable. These additions can easily add another USD $500 or more. That's without freight from Germany (where the DAC is made). So please don't think I'm trying to stir the pot or appear to be an "audiophile snob", which is a far from the truth as is possible.
I frequently listen using IEMs and amplifiers widely regarded as transparent. I think they offer far greater insight into DAC performance than speakers.
I don't seek to argue the validity of the tests however. It's would be enough for me that these DACs were indistinguishable in average installations.
Life goes on. I'm talking about getting wired. 21st. Century. I just think you miss out on a lot more than the difference between one DAC and another if you can't pay attention without your security blanket.
I don't seek to argue the validity of the tests however. It's would be enough for me that these DACs were indistinguishable in average installations.
Life goes on. I'm talking about getting wired. 21st. Century. I just think you miss out on a lot more than the difference between one DAC and another if you can't pay attention without your security blanket.
Plenty of decent measurements there (especially for a compact portable DAC) but no evidence of it being transparent was presented.
Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by transparent. I assume it means the device is not biasing the signal. So if the iPhone has a perfectly flat frequency response, no harmonics, and no jitter, what, if not transparent, do you call that?
Transparent (to me at least, feel free to correct me) means it can be inserted in a signal chain without any audible degradation. Which in the case of a DAC would have to be with a partnering guaranteed transparent ADC. The measurements that have been done on it aren't any guarantee of that because 'transparent' is a subjective term.
Now if a null (subtraction of the input from the output) was demonstrated below (say) -100dB then I might buy that as evidence for objective transparency but I've never seen any such results presented.
Now if a null (subtraction of the input from the output) was demonstrated below (say) -100dB then I might buy that as evidence for objective transparency but I've never seen any such results presented.
listening experiences...
An example: Years ago the British loudspeaker manufacturer, KEF (IIRC), conducted some sighted listening tests. 2 identical loudspeaker pairs were demonstrated. They were identical in every way except one. One pair had a set of red grill cloths, the other blue. All else being exactly the same the participants described the red grilled speakers as "bright" zippy, and slightly "aggressive". The exact same subjects (all were tested individually) characterized the sound of the blue grilled loudspeakers as "boring", "laid back" and "smooth".
The same thing can be applied to any transducers, whether a microphone, a loudspeaker or headphones. The art of loudspeaker "voicing" is very relevant to the overall subjective perception of sound as well. If a loudspeaker designer was to build a speaker that truly measured "flat" in regards to frequency and power response, most folks would find it intolerable to listen to. On the other hand there are many fine loudspeakers that may have an uncanny balance that usually have a roll-off in response at both frequency extremes. For example the venerable LS3/5A or essentially every small monitor speaker ever produced. And when presented with something like (perhaps) B&W monitors (of various different models) where the goal had been a flat frequency and power response, many people might find them "too revealing" at the top end. This is only an example and is not intended to suggest that Kef or B&W are anything but top-notch manufacturers nor is it intended to suggest that one approach is superior to the other, just that there may be a different set of priorities or goal when an audio designer starts and completes a design project.
And please, this is not intended to inflame any. It is merely intended to point out that we all have different experiences and biases and musical tastes. This is what this hobby (hi-fi in general, but specifically here at diyAudio) is all about: listening and enjoying recorded or streaming or over the air broadcasts of music. That is the whole point: the enjoyment of music.
Sighted listening with a couple of decades as an enthusiast/audio reviewer/hobbyist. Even fairly casual listeners can hear a difference. I am not saying that one always can hear an improvement in sound (which is an absolutely personal or subjective value judgement), just that most people can hear differences if they sit and listen . Else why have PCM multi-bit/ ΔΣ/R² ladder/Ring/NOS/OS/solid state or tube DACs? We can't all be suckers can we?
I was suggesting that until you listen to any piece of equipment within the context of your system it can be a little tough, considering that the sound of IEMs and speakers are subjective in nature.
An example: Years ago the British loudspeaker manufacturer, KEF (IIRC), conducted some sighted listening tests. 2 identical loudspeaker pairs were demonstrated. They were identical in every way except one. One pair had a set of red grill cloths, the other blue. All else being exactly the same the participants described the red grilled speakers as "bright" zippy, and slightly "aggressive". The exact same subjects (all were tested individually) characterized the sound of the blue grilled loudspeakers as "boring", "laid back" and "smooth".
The same thing can be applied to any transducers, whether a microphone, a loudspeaker or headphones. The art of loudspeaker "voicing" is very relevant to the overall subjective perception of sound as well. If a loudspeaker designer was to build a speaker that truly measured "flat" in regards to frequency and power response, most folks would find it intolerable to listen to. On the other hand there are many fine loudspeakers that may have an uncanny balance that usually have a roll-off in response at both frequency extremes. For example the venerable LS3/5A or essentially every small monitor speaker ever produced. And when presented with something like (perhaps) B&W monitors (of various different models) where the goal had been a flat frequency and power response, many people might find them "too revealing" at the top end. This is only an example and is not intended to suggest that Kef or B&W are anything but top-notch manufacturers nor is it intended to suggest that one approach is superior to the other, just that there may be a different set of priorities or goal when an audio designer starts and completes a design project.
And this suggests that the single largest audio component other than one's own ears, the room, may have a more profound effect on the listening experience. Of course WRT headphones of any type, just replace the room's importance with the headphones and headphone amp (if applicable).
Which security blanket? I have only suggested that one ought to listen for one's self and note the design criterion the designers of audio equipment make, and how those criteria fit with one's own biases.
And please, this is not intended to inflame any. It is merely intended to point out that we all have different experiences and biases and musical tastes. This is what this hobby (hi-fi in general, but specifically here at diyAudio) is all about: listening and enjoying recorded or streaming or over the air broadcasts of music. That is the whole point: the enjoyment of music.
True. Different dacs often sound different - on purpose.
We can, but that's another story... 🙂
Doesn't have to be a transducer, could be an amp, a cable, a connector or even the front panel. "Everything matters" is true, but only in sighted listening. 🙂
Indeed. It is important to realize that our own personal preferences are just that - they are not universal truths.
I used to really strugggle to hear any difference between DACs, there are some but it only became noticable when my system improved in transparency. Not enough to justify high end prices in my opinion. A Musical Fidelity V-DAC i once tried hooked up to a Philips CD player sounded exactly the same as the inbuilt Philips one, that put me off further trials for years. Quite recently i bought a Music Streamer 3 and it does better the MF unit. Tighter bass and a bit more involving sound (MF are known for a laid back sound) but the differences are not huge, on some systems they would not be noticed. Improved isolation may well be responsable for most of the small improvement. If you want a really noticable difference, try one with a tube output stage. It may not be bettter but it will sound different.
We're not. I'm not you, however.
Suckers isn't a word I chose to use, but I can assure you it's the one chosen by very many people when they're made aware of the insanity going on in audio.
a dissident opinion, con't
CC: I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the insanity that is in much of audio, particularly the apparent pricing of some items. And of course the "perceived" quality of a product. A high-end custom enclosure does not a high-end product make😉. To be an ongoing profitable brick and mortar retail outlet, the actual cost of the consumer good is usually between 10%-15%. The rest of the mark-up is tied up in R&D, freight and marketing. Packaging is often the single largest line item when looking at the percentage of landed to the consumer costs. Using direct marketing to the end user, the manufacturer can cut out a significant costs associated with a sale. But along with the reduction in cost, there often exists a reduction in customer service.
As it probably should. They both could very well have the same DAC chip implemented correctly.
Again a reason to never make a purchased based on a review, but rather to try any component within the context of your system.
Or maybe some new loudspeakers, or headphones.... as they can represent the most significant changes possible within a system.
CC: I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding the insanity that is in much of audio, particularly the apparent pricing of some items. And of course the "perceived" quality of a product. A high-end custom enclosure does not a high-end product make😉. To be an ongoing profitable brick and mortar retail outlet, the actual cost of the consumer good is usually between 10%-15%. The rest of the mark-up is tied up in R&D, freight and marketing. Packaging is often the single largest line item when looking at the percentage of landed to the consumer costs. Using direct marketing to the end user, the manufacturer can cut out a significant costs associated with a sale. But along with the reduction in cost, there often exists a reduction in customer service.
And thus your choice can easily be made. I do the same thing. Just because an item is more expensive does not make it better.
As it probably should. They both could very well have the same DAC chip implemented correctly.
Again a reason to never make a purchased based on a review, but rather to try any component within the context of your system.
Or maybe some new loudspeakers, or headphones.... as they can represent the most significant changes possible within a system.
Yup speakers make the biggest difference, I say get a set you can enjoy AND live with long term. Then mess around with stuff like DAC's till you get the best from them. Good speakers will still sound good even when driven by a very cheap amp.
High end audio is for the type of person who would use a Ferrari for the school run.
High end audio is for the type of person who would use a Ferrari for the school run.
After decades of putting together systems from reel-to-reel to fully "digital audio processing" PC's running my own custom filtering (DSP) math in the C language on signed integer streams, the rule is "what do you like?"
Why is that? It is because I get as much of an enjoyable experience listening to my 7.5ips reel recording of Pink Floyd's DSOTM captured from a full-CD airing over the radio on an FM station (this was when CD's first came out - I'd say around 1986 that it aired? - it was a way to promote the clarity of CD's - play the whole disc uninterrupted) as from listening to my MFSL "gold" DSOTM CD. The FM static, memories of those days, etc are great. Even watching the two reels "rotate" is comforting in an odd way (better times I guess).
The only thing I really stress to people I know is: If you (my friend) are going to listen to that music at that super loud volume level, please do purchase some really high quality equipment to blow your ears out with. This I say because with each and every step "up" in quality, and I've pretty much reached the top level due to my age and hearing damage (doh), I have never wanted to go "back" to the lesser quality. Neil Young has the best "mainstream quality" ideas going so far as I know.
As a matter of fact, when hearing a song on a "lesser" system, my brain automatically plays it back (converts it) in real time to what it "should sound like" from previously learning how it sounded with my best system (kind of like a differential running in the background). It is kind of hard to explain but very true for me.
Things I have learned: I have never used the MP3 format because I can always tell the difference no matter what (full source uncompressed). I have never depended on a portable device's headphone amplifier to faithfully produce all of the lower end frequencies because the device just cannot do it from AA batteries, ya know? Since the days when 80GB HD units (yes gigabyte there) were the largest available (I "raided eight of them together"), I have scanned-in all of my "factory pressed CD's" using a program that can always ensure that each signed integer of the stream is correct and then I put those CD's away for protected storage (ie don't chance wrecking a source disc).
I am familiar with Cirrus and AKM chips and own a WaveTerminal 192X and an E-MU 1820m "card plus dock system" so I'm not an expert like many here but both of those two quite OLD cards/systems do a phenomenal job for me.
Hope that helps in some way, heh.
Why is that? It is because I get as much of an enjoyable experience listening to my 7.5ips reel recording of Pink Floyd's DSOTM captured from a full-CD airing over the radio on an FM station (this was when CD's first came out - I'd say around 1986 that it aired? - it was a way to promote the clarity of CD's - play the whole disc uninterrupted) as from listening to my MFSL "gold" DSOTM CD. The FM static, memories of those days, etc are great. Even watching the two reels "rotate" is comforting in an odd way (better times I guess).
The only thing I really stress to people I know is: If you (my friend) are going to listen to that music at that super loud volume level, please do purchase some really high quality equipment to blow your ears out with. This I say because with each and every step "up" in quality, and I've pretty much reached the top level due to my age and hearing damage (doh), I have never wanted to go "back" to the lesser quality. Neil Young has the best "mainstream quality" ideas going so far as I know.
As a matter of fact, when hearing a song on a "lesser" system, my brain automatically plays it back (converts it) in real time to what it "should sound like" from previously learning how it sounded with my best system (kind of like a differential running in the background). It is kind of hard to explain but very true for me.
Things I have learned: I have never used the MP3 format because I can always tell the difference no matter what (full source uncompressed). I have never depended on a portable device's headphone amplifier to faithfully produce all of the lower end frequencies because the device just cannot do it from AA batteries, ya know? Since the days when 80GB HD units (yes gigabyte there) were the largest available (I "raided eight of them together"), I have scanned-in all of my "factory pressed CD's" using a program that can always ensure that each signed integer of the stream is correct and then I put those CD's away for protected storage (ie don't chance wrecking a source disc).
I am familiar with Cirrus and AKM chips and own a WaveTerminal 192X and an E-MU 1820m "card plus dock system" so I'm not an expert like many here but both of those two quite OLD cards/systems do a phenomenal job for me.
Hope that helps in some way, heh.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.