Active Speakers - Analog vs Dig Inputs

[prestigetone]

No agument with that. But why have an external dac when it is not needed? If using Ronn via ethernet you can have a physical volume control.

Exactly

 

[sigbergaudio]

It is always needed if you use DSP as you can't feed a power amp a digital signal.

So is it needed or not? I was referring to your statement "Why wasting money on a unnecessary DAC"

 

[sigbergaudio]

Probably which is before a digital processing device, because such an equipment uses digital data and if it have analogue input, than an ADC will follow that. So in this case we have two unnecessary conversion (a DAC and an ADC) if we using digital source and analogue input on a DSP equipped unit.

They're not "unnecessary", they are needed for DSP and digital crossovers. I could say that we have "unnecessary loss" in an analog crossover, but it's a consequence of needing a crossover. The loss of the DSP is likely less than an analog crossover, but no one is complaining about that.

Try to stop thinking of it as a DAC, but rather as a digital crossover.

 

[sigbergaudio]

That extra conversion point kind of nullifies your choice of external DAC.

Not necessarily. Assuming there are some degradation at every point in the chain, a good DAC will be preferrable to a horrible one even though there's a second AD/DA later in the chain.

 

[Vincent Kars]

So is it needed or not? I was referring to your statement "Why wasting money on a unnecessary DAC"

I see what you mean.
If you go from a digital source to analog using a DAC only to have the analog signal converted back to digital (ADC) because the monitor does the crossover etc using DSP, this DA conversion can be skipped hence I do think this DAC unnecessary.
The output of the DSP (digital by design) has to be converted to analog by the DAC inside the monitor. These DAC's are needed of course.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I see what you mean.
If you go from a digital source to analog using a DAC only to have the analog signal converted back to digital (ADC) because the monitor does the crossover etc using DSP, this DA conversion can be skipped hence I do think this DAC unnecessary.
The output of the DSP (digital by design) has to be converted to analog by the DAC inside the monitor. These DAC's are needed of course.

In theory you are correct. In practice most consumers will already have a DAC and/or do not have variable digital output capabilities, so the DAC will in practice still need to be in place.

If you do have a setup with variable digital output capabilities, an additional DAC is of course not needed.

 

[YSDR]

They're not "unnecessary", they are needed for DSP and digital crossovers. I could say that we have "unnecessary loss" in an analog crossover, but it's a consequence of needing a crossover. The loss of the DSP is likely less than an analog crossover, but no one is complaining about that.

Try to stop thinking of it as a DAC, but rather as a digital crossover.

If you are using a digital source and a unit with DSP crossover, this DSP equipped unit expects digital data, so a DAC before this DSP equipped device is unnecessary. Unnecessary, because the DSP equipped unit still needs digital data and not analogue, but to fed analogue signal to the DSP equipped unit, it needs to have an ADC too. So after all, one DAC and one ADC is unnecessary in this chain if we can send digital data directly to the DSP equipped unit, which of course have it's own DAC before the amplification.

Not necessarily the audibility of the additional DAC-ADC cycle, but this concept doesn't make much sense, unless multi-channel audio, where dgital outputs per channels are very rare, but still...

 

[sigbergaudio]

If you are using a digital source and a unit with DSP crossover, this DSP equipped unit expects digital data, so a DAC before this DSP equipped device is unnecessary. Unnecessary, because the DSP equipped unit still needs digital data and not analogue., but to fed analogue signal to the DSP equipped unit, it needs to have an ADC too. So after all, one DAC and one ADC is unnecessary in this chain if we can send digital data directly to the DSP equipped unit, which of course have it's own DAC before the amplification.

Not necessarily the audibility of the additional DAC-ADC cycle, but this concept doesn't make much sense.

This is all great in theory, but in practice most will have a system setup where the most viable option is to send analog data to the speakers, which is perfectly fine.

At least for me as a manufacturer, it's important to convey the information that to use analog input does not meaningfully degrade the signal, and there is no need to do huge changes to your system to avoid this.

 

[YSDR]

This is all great in theory, but in practice most will have a system setup where the most viable option is to send analog data to the speakers, which is perfectly fine.

For some it's perfectly fine, for some others maybe not. The reasons may vary.

 

[MKR]

This has been an excellent discussion, thank you very much @sigbergaudio, @Purité Audio and others for your comments. Seems in conclusion if you are able to use dig inputs, do so. If you are not, there is no audible difference (though some have mentioned a subjective difference).

My thinking at this point to sooth my audiophile nervosa (it’s a real disease, look it up, kidding, but it should be ) would be to use the dig input for 2ch system, then for 5.1, 7.1, etc use the analog inputs. Unless there is a theater processor out there with multichannel dig outputs, certainly doesn’t exist (yet) as far as I know. But for 2ch, the miniDSP SHD Studio definitely seems to fit the use case for dig out. But definitely not cheap. Any other dig volume control devices out there? Also, can’t you just control the volume of the Hypex modules with the remote? So maybe all you need is dig bitstream to Hypex, then volume control with Hypex, and you are good to go, or have I misunderstood?

 

[YSDR]

Yes, you can use the remote control of the Hypex Fusionamp (FA). This way, all you need is to connect the sources to the Master FA and if the number and types of the inputs on the FA are enough for you, then you are good.

Another good digital output "preamp" is the miniDSP Flex digital out version, which is cheaper than the SHD or SHD Studio. But of course it have lesser functionality than the SHDs have.

 

[MKR]

Yes, you can use the remote control of the Hypex Fusionamp (FA). This way, all you need is to connect the sources to the Master FA and if the number and type of the inputs on the FA are enough for you then you are good.

Another good digital output "preamp" is the miniDSP Flex digital out version, which is cheaper than the SHD or SHD Studio.

Clear, thank you! Will also take a look at the miniDSP flex.

 

[Purité Audio]

,

This has been an excellent discussion, thank you very much @sigbergaudio, @Purité Audio and others for your comments. Seems in conclusion if you are able to use dig inputs, do so. If you are not, there is no audible difference (though some have mentioned a subjective difference).

My thinking at this point to sooth my audiophile nervosa (it’s a real disease, look it up, kidding, but it should be ) would be to use the dig input for 2ch system, then for 5.1, 7.1, etc use the analog inputs. Unless there is a theater processor out there with multichannel dig outputs, certainly doesn’t exist (yet) as far as I know. But for 2ch, the miniDSP SHD Studio definitely seems to fit the use case for dig out. But definitely not cheap. Any other dig volume control devices out there? Also, can’t you just control the volume of the Hypex modules with the remote? So maybe all you need is dig bitstream to Hypex, then volume control with Hypex, and you are good to go, or have I misunderstood?

Spot on, some users with multiple analogue sources find it more convenient to set the ( 8Cs ) XLR inputs to analogue, the important point is that there is no difference in sound quality despite the ‘extra’ conversion.
Keith

 

[Yorkshire Mouth]

Amir’s reviews of DACs here suggests that (a) many DACs are transparent to the source, to the threshold of human hearing, (b) some aren’t, and (c) among those that are, you can get one for $100, or even less.

For me, the logic of these three points is simple - if the DAC in your monitor has been tested by someone reputable, and found to be transparent, then use the digital input. If it hasn’t, so you’re unsure, and €100 isn’t going to break the bank, then buy a cheap DAC that Amir’s tested as transparent.

There may be a flaw in my logic…

 

[boxerfan88]

As more active speakers incorporate digital inputs, so do you all think AES67 will become more popular digital input option for active speakers in the near future?

 

[YSDR]

I don't think so, because the numbers of AES output capable hifi devices are very limited. But what came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[MKR]

Are there any audible sonic (bandwidth) differences between optical, dig coax, or AES? I researched a bit on the interweb and found contradictory statements, not sure what is accurate.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Are there any audible sonic (bandwidth) differences between optical, dig coax, or AES? I researched a bit on the interweb and found contradictory statements, not sure what is accurate.

No. Optical has lower bandwidth, but only the bats are worried.

 

[MKR]

No. Optical has lower bandwidth, but only the bats are worried.

LOL … I ain’t a bat, so should be good. Thanks!

@sigbergaudio Any signal integrity (ex noise immunity) benefit between AES and coax?

 

[ozzy9832001]

I think this might matter more if people hook them up directly to their PC. The onboard sound solutions are usually not very good and very noisy. Using a toslink connection uses the speakers DAC which is probably much, much better.