[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by clankyt

Read this with interest as im also a user of an AV2. But wanted to check that if you are using the analogue inputs from the B/R player to the AV2 then surely the processor becomes nothing more than an active volume control? I looked in the manual recently to figure how to do this and it seems that you lose all processing and have to rely on the player's option for any sort of control. Is this right?

Yes this is true, on first assessment it makes no sense. The reality is processing in the player evidently has advantages over HDMI transfer. I started with this route out of necessity then looked to upgrade my processor to HD, lots of demos later I ended up realising that using the player genuinely was an acceptable option.

Experimentation with old processors looking solely at using them as a 6 channel pre amp led me to the AV2. The denon 3800 is actually better than I expected for analogue processing the only top end players I have not backed to back at home being the marantz ud9004. Plus I do have interest in the CA 751 given how good the dacmagic is for the money.

I have no doubt things have moved on but HDMI for audio is not helping

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

You are correct, but I do know people who moved to AV888s at the time and have found the analogue in very interesting, some using this in preference to the AV888. I am not knocking the AV888, I thought the AV9 was a good unit and do rate a lot of Arcam equipment. However I was not drawn to a HD precessor as the best route after listening, it's worth noting I use the system for film via BR and CD only. No tv or any other requirements

I think one or two Senior ARCAM engineers might also disagree with you as the preamp section of the AV888 is stunning for the Analogue inputs, also a lot of time and effort went into making sure the digital side is of reference quality too.

I listen to a lot of music and take analogue straight in via my DAC and the quality is, well as good as some dedicated 2 channel systems I have owned in the past.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

I think one or two Senior ARCAM engineers might also disagree with you as the preamp section of the AV888 is stunning for the Analogue inputs, also a lot of time and effort went into making sure the digital side is of reference quality too.

I listen to a lot of music and take analogue straight in via my DAC and the quality is, well as good as some dedicated 2 channel systems I have owned in the past.

What D/A converter are you using with the AV888?

Originally Posted by gbaby

What D/A converter are you using with the AV888?

atm I am using a Cyrus DAC X+ but am wanting to change that out to the new ARCAM Super DAC.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

atm I am using a Cyrus DAC X+ but am wanting to change that out to the new ARCAM Super DAC.

Why would you use a D/A converter the caliber of the Cyrus with an Arcam AV888?

Originally Posted by gbaby

Why would you use a D/A converter the caliber of the Cyrus with an Arcam AV888?

Because I stream my music into the DAC and then use the AV888 as the preamp for 2 channel music, best of both worlds really.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

Because I stream my music into the DAC and then use the AV888 as the preamp for 2 channel music, best of both worlds really.

So one cannot stream music directly to the AV888?

[Ashmanuk]

Originally Posted by recruit

atm I am using a Cyrus DAC X+ but am wanting to change that out to the new ARCAM Super DAC.

The new D33 is rather special

Originally Posted by gbaby

So one cannot stream music directly to the AV888?

Yes, but it is like having a higher end CD spinner, but with more flexibility.

Originally Posted by Ashmanuk

The new D33 is rather special

I know, Mr Moore has been telling me and there is a glowing review of it in HiFi+.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

Yes, but it is like having a higher end CD spinner, but with more flexibility.

So basically, the D/A converter on the Cyrus is better than that of the Arcam AV888?

Originally Posted by gbaby

So basically, the D/A converter on the Cyrus is better than that of the Arcam AV888?

It's a little more complicated than just DAC's, if you think about HiFi you are isolating different sources and this is what I am doing, I am making the best out of what I have got for 2 channel audio, as I said earlier the preamp stage in the AV888 is stunning and by using an out board DAC I have more flexibility and isolation of electronics which do the jobs that they are specified to do.

The DAC's in the AV888 are superb and probably more than enough for most people, but I am trying to squeeze every last bit of performance I can out of my 2 channel listening experience, I have a Squeezebox Touch which feeds High Resolution Audio into the DAC and then I use my highly modified Oppo BDP93 also into my DAC for CD playback via COAX which I cannot do with just the AV888 alone as I would have to keep going into settings each time and changing them from analogue to digital.

If I get the new Super DAC from ARCAM then I should expect an even bigger jump in performance, the bottom line is that the AV888 can be treated as as high end HiFi preamp stage as well as processor for Multichannel audio too.

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by recruit

I think one or two Senior ARCAM engineers might also disagree with you as the preamp section of the AV888 is stunning for the Analogue inputs, also a lot of time and effort went into making sure the digital side is of reference quality too.

I listen to a lot of music and take analogue straight in via my DAC and the quality is, well as good as some dedicated 2 channel systems I have owned in the past.

I was referring to using analogue in to the AV888 vs HDMI in as an option.

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

I was referring to using analogue in to the AV888 vs HDMI in as an option.

I think until someone actually does some blind side by side testing the subject is actually moot.

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by recruit

It's a little more complicated than just DAC's, if you think about HiFi you are isolating different sources and this is what I am doing, I am making the best out of what I have got for 2 channel audio, as I said earlier the preamp stage in the AV888 is stunning and by using an out board DAC I have more flexibility and isolation of electronics which do the jobs that they are specified to do.

The DAC's in the AV888 are superb and probably more than enough for most people, but I am trying to squeeze every last bit of performance I can out of my 2 channel listening experience, I have a Squeezebox Touch which feeds High Resolution Audio into the DAC and then I use my highly modified Oppo BDP93 also into my DAC for CD playback via COAX which I cannot do with just the AV888 alone as I would have to keep going into settings each time and changing them from analogue to digital.

If I get the new Super DAC from ARCAM then I should expect an even bigger jump in performance, the bottom line is that the AV888 can be treated as as high end HiFi preamp stage as well as processor for Multichannel audio too.

I am glad you are using coax spdif digital out from a disc spinner. It seems to me that this is still a very good option for high end audio, if not the best today.

I have experimented as part of my AV system for 2 channel system with the following alternatives :

iMAC, Macpro on battery, with and without numerous programs the upload onto ram (Pure sound etc, etc), solid state hard drive, the Linn streamer, for me the old CD spinning is still better. I have used Lindeman, Marantz, Denon, Audio Note and niam transports, plus naim, Weiss, Tron, DacMagic, Rega, Bryston, Arcam dacs at home and four different power supplies for the DAC Magic.

The DAC plays only part in the DA process, the commonly quoted influence on the DAC sound is 1. Analogue output stage, 2. Powers supply, 3. DAC itself

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by recruit

I think until someone actually does some blind side by side testing the subject is actually moot.

Why don't you then? that will help others to compare analogue in from a certain player vs HMDI in on the AV888. I would but I can't

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

Why don't you then? that will help others to compare analogue in from a certain player vs HMDI in on the AV888. I would but I can't

True, I wish it was as easy as that, getting the time to do it is one thing, and I personally do not.

[IWC Dopplel]

I do know what you mean, I have a turntable ready for assembly and a valve based system sat silent with 3,000 LP's which has been the case since late 2010

[Avi]

Originally Posted by IWC Dopplel

iMAC, Macpro on battery, with and without numerous programs the upload onto ram (Pure sound etc, etc), solid state hard drive,

I've found achieving what I would consider great results using a computer as a source with audio rendering software isn't as easy as some would have you believe. I also found it interesting that "bit identical" output from different software rendering solutions could sound different (blind) so it appears this also has an influence.

I've also assessed a number of different solutions and to achieve the result I wanted required reasonably significant changes to hardware (more than just using an SSD etc) , operating system optimisation, minimizing processes and isolated async USB output. YMMV

Avi

[IWC Dopplel]

Originally Posted by Avi

I've found achieving what I would consider great results using a computer as a source with audio rendering software isn't as easy as some would have you believe. I also found it interesting that "bit identical" output from different software rendering solutions could sound different (blind) so it appears this also has an influence.

I've also assessed a number of different solutions and to achieve the result I wanted required reasonably significant changes to hardware (more than just using an SSD etc) , operating system optimisation, minimizing processes and isolated async USB output. YMMV

Avi

Interesting, I think some of digital differences are less about what one misses over the other but more about what they 'add' that influences the sound. Seems it's not as easy as people first thought to get great results from CA.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

It's a little more complicated than just DAC's, if you think about HiFi you are isolating different sources and this is what I am doing, I am making the best out of what I have got for 2 channel audio, as I said earlier the preamp stage in the AV888 is stunning and by using an out board DAC I have more flexibility and isolation of electronics which do the jobs that they are specified to do.

The DAC's in the AV888 are superb and probably more than enough for most people, but I am trying to squeeze every last bit of performance I can out of my 2 channel listening experience, I have a Squeezebox Touch which feeds High Resolution Audio into the DAC and then I use my highly modified Oppo BDP93 also into my DAC for CD playback via COAX which I cannot do with just the AV888 alone as I would have to keep going into settings each time and changing them from analogue to digital.

If I get the new Super DAC from ARCAM then I should expect an even bigger jump in performance, the bottom line is that the AV888 can be treated as as high end HiFi preamp stage as well as processor for Multichannel audio too.

I'll admit that I'm not only lost but confused regarding your configuration. To me, it simply does not make sense to pay so much for a processor, and have to add inexpensive peripherals to get a better sound. It seems to negate the purpose of having a so called high end processor.

Originally Posted by gbaby

I'll admit that I'm not only lost but confused regarding your configuration. To me, it simply does not make sense to pay so much for a processor, and have to add inexpensive peripherals to get a better sound. It seems to negate the purpose of having a so called high end processor.

Well, I think I'll be the best judge of how I use my system don't you.

[Ashmanuk]

It proberley is hard to grasp that a high-end processor needs more equipment to eek out more performance but no hi-Fi or AV system is perfect you can always add stuff to get more out.
Recruit has a great processor that's for sure but how ever good you can always get more out, and i would love the chance for a home demo with the D33

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

Well, I think I'll be the best judge of how I use my system don't you.

Yes I do, and no harm was meant by the inquiry. But, could you have accomplished the same result with a less expensive processor?

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by Ashmanuk

It proberley is hard to grasp that a high-end processor needs more equipment to eek out more performance but no hi-Fi or AV system is perfect you can always add stuff to get more out.

True.

Originally Posted by gbaby

Yes I do, and no harm was meant by the inquiry. But, could you have accomplished the same result with a less expensive processor?

No, I do not think as I have tried many high end processors and never got the same results as I have as using the ARCAM as the preamp, all my DAC is just like a higher end CD spinner that is all, but it is the purity of the preamp section in the ARCAM which allows the music to flow as good as it does, and believe me I have tried many.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by recruit

No, I do not think as I have tried many high end processors and never got the same results as I have as using the ARCAM as the preamp, all my DAC is just like a higher end CD spinner that is all, but it is the purity of the preamp section in the ARCAM which allows the music to flow as good as it does, and believe me I have tried many.

If one is using a D/A converter for a CD player or other playback device, aren't you using the analog section of the D/A converter rather than that of a processor?

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by gbaby

If one is using a D/A converter for a CD player or other playback device, aren't you using the analog section of the D/A converter rather than that of a processor?

I believe what he's saying is that the preamp section of the Arcam is the best he's encountered in any pre/pro. For a moment let's forget about the external DAC and the processing section of the Arcam pre/pro. Let's think of the Arcam purely as a preamp since it is a preamp/processor and in this case the processor is virtually irrelevant to music playback. If you connect a CD player to a poor preamp it will compromise the SQ of the player. A good preamp will let the player's SQ shine through. If you connect a CD player to a pre/pro the preamp section has a great bearing on the overall SQ of the system. That's at least why some pre/pros sound better than others.

AFA the DAC is concerned, think of adding an external DAC as the equivalent of modding the player by the means of a DAC upgrade. Better DACs will at least help the player sound better. The superior preamp of the Arcam let's the now superior DACs from the player to shine through providing better playback SQ.

[gbaby]

Originally Posted by mykyll2727

I believe what he's saying is that the preamp section of the Arcam is the best he's encountered in any pre/pro. For a moment let's forget about the external DAC and the processing section of the Arcam pre/pro. Let's think of the Arcam purely as a preamp since it is a preamp/processor and in this case the processor is virtually irrelevant to music playback. If you connect a CD player to a poor preamp it will compromise the SQ of the player. A good preamp will let the player's SQ shine through. If you connect a CD player to a pre/pro the preamp section has a great bearing on the overall SQ of the system. That's at least why some pre/pros sound better than others.

AFA the DAC is concerned, think of adding an external DAC as the equivalent of modding the player by the means of a DAC upgrade. Better DACs will at least help the player sound better. The superior preamp of the Arcam let's the now superior DACs from the player to shine through providing better playback SQ.

My comprehension is little fuzzy. I do know of some Oppo BDP-95 fanatics who use their unit as a gain and hook it up directly to an amp. While I do not like the sound of the Oppo, I would think that it sounded better going straigth to the amps rather than a processor and from the processor to the amp. Just my thinking.

[mykyll2727]

Originally Posted by gbaby

.While I do not like the sound of the Oppo, I would think that it sounded better going straigth to the amps rather than a processor and from the processor to the amp. Just my thinking.

While I can understand your thinking IMO that would be purely subjective, i.e. simply a matter of taste. I can also understand, for several reasons, not wanting to hook the Oppo directly to the power amp. Especially considering that the pre/pro is already connected to the power amp.

[AngelEyes]

It does raise an interesting point though. Any Processor with an analogue bypass is essentially a glorified volume control. The general preference being the Processor does the bare minimum to the signal before passing it to the amps.

I have always understood a good Processor's analogue bypass essentially does 'nothing' to the signal. If this is the case then you are really only using the Processor for the convenience of control and not in some way to 'improve' the sound from an external DAC.

I do appreciate that the doing 'nothing' part is probably harder than it sounds to get right but I also wonder why so many Pre-amps sound different if they have the same goal? (Obviously they don't.)

I can understand why someone might think it puzzling that a relatively cheap DAC with its relatively cheap analogue output stage can sound better going through an expensive analogue bypass than feeding digital into a High End processor and letting all the expensive gubbins do their work right through the chain.

With so many sources wearing many hats and including Preamp sections it does make choosing the 'right' path harder than ever these days.

Adam