Do i need an external dac with HK3490 + Vienna Bach Speakers - Page 2  

And once again...you guys attack me, instead of address the issues. I was the only one who asked a question: are DACs full of filters and DSPs that alter sound, or do they all sound the same?

Keep attacking me; I guess that's not Strawman...that's Ad Hominem. What will you guys do once I'm gone? If history is any indication, you just congratulate each other, and then things die down...until the next time someone dare ask for an opinion or advice.

CD

Ahh yes, those terrible pro science objectisits who actually care whether or not something sounds the same. The reason this site exists. These posters you bash certainly seem a lot more credible and helpful then the idiots who troll this site and say there is a difference because they heard it.

Where is the bias? Hmmm Lets see. The poster who has no skin in the game and has experience with these comparisons. Or the poster who owns said expensive DAC and at best, is sure they noticed a difference from thier old DAC and, at worst,just justifying thier purchase?

Also, isnt it the responsibility of the people making the claims (that DACs sound different, that cables sound different) to come up with proof? You seem to have it all backwards. I guess some people live in a world where the opinions of the J6P audiofool trump science, results, and common sense.

Personally, I'd be shocked at the honesty.

If exposing your hypocrisy on this forum is an "attack" to you, you are having delusions.

Don't worry.

I would think it would depend on how good the DAC Chip set was on the HK

It would be awesome to have a reading comprehension test be a prerequisite for posting here because clearing you completely failed to understand my original post.

The issues have been addressed with you dozens of times in dozens of threads, you have chosen to glaze over or ignore them every time and go back to flogging the same dead argument. You can not produce a single study supporting your position, therefore all you have to fall back on is restating the same tired story time and time again. I for one, and i'm sure many others are simply tired of reading it.

Hmm...sounds like an answer to my question alright. Not to mention no one ever answered the amp question either. But I digress.

For the record, I completely agree with you that what we call "DACs"...are more than just the chip. And according to you, the Berkeley DAC, for example, is full of filters and DSPs, etc. I mean...let me make sure not to misquote you...

However half the "high end DACs" people are yapping around aren't DACs, they are signal processors.

They take in a digital signal, feed it through a DSP doing who knows what with 15 different "digital filter options" and only then hand to the real DAC IC to be converted to analog.

Reference the Berkeley Thread awhile back. Internal pictures were posted of it and its got a Analog Devices SHARC DSP on board, i mean that series is used in full surround sound decoding in home theater receivers, 8 in 8 out pro level signal processors, pro mixing consoles, etc and its sitting in a 2 channel "DAC" doing god knows what to the signal. If it were just a matter of passing the audio through you can do that with a $2 micro-controller, they clearly put that DSP in there to do something.

So, you did say this, right? Now you guys are always accusing me of being pretty stupid (and before geek goes SHOW ME A SINGLE POST WHERE SOMEONE SAID YOU WERE STUPID...let me just drop this post in "It would be awesome to have a reading comprehension test be a prerequisite for posting here because clearing you completely failed to understand my original post." Where I come from, that's stupid); but unless I'm also being dense about this, it sounds to me like you are saying these filters and DSPs alter sound? I mean, you say "doing who knows what" and "god knows what" twice.

Now, I wouldn't know a filter or DSP if it leaped out of the BAD, and bit me on the leg (maybe that's what people mean by killer DAC? )...so I'll take an "expert" such as yourself on your word. Here's what I don't understand; how can you say in one breath say "that thing's full of filters and DSPs, that do who knows what...and god knows what...to the sound"...and in the other breath say "all DACs sound alike"?

In fact, I think you've just made the best argument I've heard so far...as to why it's likely DACs do, in fact, sound different. Not DACs, as in chips...of course; no one ever made that argument. But DACs, as in components. You know...because of all the filters and DSPs.

CD

Please, please, please, everybody just put CDLehner on ignore. He can't keep polluting this site if no one will respond to him.

Exactly the kind of thing I expected...you know, in lieu of a response. Honestly guys...in the words of the immortal JL "how do you sleep"?

I mean, I presume that you're smart to some measure. Why can no one see that the second someone asks a reasonable question, all that comes back is an attack...or a call to ignore...or whatever?

I'll just assume I've won this round, and let you guys go back to slapping backs. I'll answer any questioned posed to me; will you do the same?

CD

Lets explain again...

That Berkley device is not a DAC, they market it as a DAC, but its a device with a signal processor and a DAC inside of it. The reason they market it as a DAC is because their target audiophool market would never stoop to the level of putting a, gulp signal processor gulp, in their pristine signal chain.

So how do you convince such folks your device sounds sooo much better? You toss a signal processor in there and put a bunch of 'filter' options on the front of it. Want your customer to think your "DAC" makes their cymbals "really shimmer and sound airy" filter 12 is the way to go! Of course you would never tell the customer that filter 12 just boosts 14khz to 22khz by 2 db. Want your customers to think your "DAC" gives new life to vocals? or sounds warm? put a filter in there are boosts frequency X by a couple dB, etc etc. Realize that your target market would never stoop to proper acoustical room correction? Toss a filter in there with a gentle high frequency roll off.

I thought it was pretty abundantly clear from that post, since it was the entire point of it, that when I or most engineer type folks refer to a DAC i'm talking about an IC, I'm not talking about a Box with a signal processor AND a DAC in it as a complete unit. Again such a unit not a DAC, its a signal processor with an analog output.

Like I posted earlier.

Looking forward to hearing about your personal experienceses with different DAC's and amps under ABX conditions where you were able to pick one unit over the other

I don't know if the OP is still around, but I encourage him/her to carefully compare the HK receiver to an external DAC (or just a different receiver).
I don't know of any study that has compared your receiver to an external dac. And your receiver might be broken. Just make sure you buy one with a 30 free return if you do not like it. For the cost of return shipping you can sort this out for yourself. And who knows, you might be the first person to be able to tell the difference between modern DACS in a properly level matched test. Keep all the shipping material, you might need it.

Unless you always believe what you are told, you might harbor a shadow of doubt that you are not getting as good as sound as possible. A few $ for shipping, and several hours of your time, can resolve this for you.

Well...I figured this is what you were saying; and I wholeheartedly agree with your reasoning. But aren't we getting into semantics here? I mean, isn't this what most of the world calls a DAC? Not saying that makes it right...but when "you guys" claim "all DACs sound the same"...I've never heard anyone go "oh, we mean the chip inside the box".

Quite frankly...and I'm not saying this to you...but for the rest of your ilk, it's a cop-out. Everybody has accepted the fact that when we say "DAC", we mean "the box", and everything that comes with it. Hell...all those studies are certainly talking about everything in "the box".

See...I'm inclined to agree with you 100%! But as I said...it's almost the best argument I've heard to date...that the box we all colloquially refer to as the DAC...would almost certainly have to sound different from one another?

Let me double-check your post; 15 digital filter options, and a Analog Devices SHARC DSP. Now...you say those, pretty obviously...have an impact on sound, yes? Do all boxes, that we refer to as DACs, have these same 15 digital filters, and Analog Devices SHARC DSP on them? Then how can they sound the same as the Berkeley?

CD

No disrespect but you don't have the background to participate in, let alone understand the answers. They have been given. You just aren't aware of it due to you limited understanding.

I'm transparent, and on the record, as not having any personal experiences under ABX and/or DBT conditions. To you, that makes my opinion worthless; to others, not so much. Why do you want to discredit me my opinion? Should I call you Edison?

If the OP, or anyone else, thinks the way you do...I imagine our conversation might go something like this.

OP: I have been bitten by the audio bug over the past month. It got worse after I bought a pair of Vienna Acoustics Grand Bach Speakers at throwaway prices at BB. The speakers are currently powered by a HK3490.

The music comes either from my $50 Sony DVD player
or my squeezebox receiver (both using digital connections to the HK3490).

I am really enjoying listening to music with the speakers and the HK3490 but I was wondering if i am missing something "significant" by not having a dedicated DAC ($300-500)?

My other possibility
Buy a decent bluray player (eg NAD T557 going at $300 ) + a squeezebox touch (supposedly it has a decent dac too).

I mostly listen to music (as far as video goes in addition to the dvd player i am using a CRT tv...i am just waiting it for it die)

Thanks.

CD: OP, in your budget I might suggest x, y, and z...that I've tried, liked, and others have felt the same way. But try and decide for yourself.

OP: CD, have you ever ABX or DBT tested any of these units?

CD: No OP, I haven't.

OP: Oh, then jam your opinion out your bunghole; I'm interested in science, not your worthless opinions.

Ta-da. I have YET to see a post anything NEAR this. In fact...if the OP, or any OP, felt that way; why would he ask in the first place? He doesn't know how to Google the same stupid studies you guys do?

Face it; what you do is an exercise in selfishness. But let's not end the "fun"; Bruin, I'd love to hear about your varied and extensive experiences with ABX and/or DBT tests.

CD

All that comes back? I didn't know there was only 28 minute window of opportunity to respond to you.

Wow!

For the record...I am still waiting for my answer.

While I'm waiting, let me look-up which fallacy of logic the "I could answer that, but you're too stupid to understand" defense is. Oh yes, here it is; the Kinder-Garten fallacy.

CD

I'm sorry, but you lost any claim to respect in my book several threads ago. We've answered your questions over and over again. You've shown no capacity to understand what you've been told. Instead, you go for the snide and the snark, and seem to take pride in your lack of knowledge.

Someone has cited a single case of a "DAC" which includes filters designed to alter its sound. I'm sure there are a few others. The vast majority of DACs out there are not built that way, and no one has ever demonstrated the ability to distinguish among them by sound quality alone.

There are a few idiots in the world who think a DAC ought to mess with the frequency response. (But they'd never buy an equalizer in a million years!). And there are a few clever guys out there willing to produce (at an absurd price) just such a ridiculous and stupid product. That's the high-end, for you.

Geek, I'm still waiting. I asked about amps 28 days ago...and everyone just left the room. Maybe something more simple for you; what amp do you own? How long do you need to answer that?

CD

That would be a good advice when choosing speakers.

What on earth, READING COMPREHENSION....the entire point of that post was that most of the disconnect was the semantic issue. I even said that in the opening statement!


Honestly its not even a semantic issue, its simple fact that what they market as a DAC is not a DAC. Its like me saying that two receivers will sound identical without having any idea what the signal processing settings are.

That's still no answer...and you know it. What fallacy is it to say "I've answered that", when in fact you haven't? OK...indulge me; can you repeat the insight? I must have missed it.

So now what are you saying; that the Berkeley DAC does in fact likely sound different...but I should get off that one example, as proving some kind of rule? I'm just trying to clarify for you guys, because you seem to have real trouble answering simple, direct questions. How long do you think before geek can conjure up his brand of amp?

CD

I've asked you many questions, especially the ones pertinent to that particular thread before you asked me bunch of questions to deflect my inquires. I'm still waiting.

And this is why you don't deserve any respect. That question has been answered numberless times here. Searching the friggin' archive, if you really want to know.

And once again, geek loses us. And he finds the time to type this...but still no word on an amp? How does someone's quote go..."never trust an audiophile who's scared to put on a blindfold"? How about "never trust an objectivist who is ashamed to tell you what he listens to".

CD

CDLehner, you'll just have to accept that you do have a problem with reading comprehension. Either that or you are being willfully ignorant just to troll.

Ya think?

But that's shifting goal lines (sorry, that's another football term guys). OK...I like your argument that what most people call a DAC, maybe isn't really a DAC. But don't you think we're all referring to the same thing, when I say they can sound different...and some of these other guys say they all sound the same?

So, what; your point that most of these things aren't even DACs was a sidebar?

You notice that Penn isn't in these much more. I think I now know why.

CD

Yes I assumed we were all discussing the same things and bothered to post that i think half the disconnect is misunderstanding what we are discussing.

What's my problem with reading comprehension geek? And what kind of amp do you have!? Tell us about your experiences with ABX and DBT; you know, other than Google and cut-and-paste? Anyone tell me about your experiences with ABX and DBT?

Put up, or give it a rest already. Let me guess...you could tell me all about it, but it's beyond my reading comprehension. Dude...I'll compare brain-pans with any one of you guys. Just a lot of noise.

I've asked about 5 or 6 simple, simple questions. No answers; you guys are ALL talk. Bored, bored, bored.

CD