Balanced DAC if source is TV?

[TimW]

Happy to help

Definitely go with DSP in some form. Regardless of how well the speaker performs, the sound will be affected by the room. The affect is especially prominent in the bass region which is why multiple subwoofers and room correction are commonly used to get even bass in a room. This requires a device with DSP and a microphone. Also you will want a crossover between the subwoofer and main speakers to get proper summation between them. This crossover relieves the main monitors of playing deep bass so they distort less and can play a bit louder. The crossovers can be done in a powered subwoofer like the JBL LSR310S, Kali WS-12 or the Adam T10S. These subs are designed for use specifically with their corresponding studio monitors so they have inputs, outputs, and crossovers built in. If you look at higher end studio monitor options from the likes of Neumann or Genelec, they even have options for room correction using their own built in DSP.

Check out measurements of the Adam T5V done by Amir, he also measured the T8V but not the T7V. He specifically states that compared to the LP-6, Version 1 that is, the T5V can get louder with better bass. Also said the noise wasn't an issue for him. However the T5V does have a major flaw in frequency response in the high frequencies, so you would definitely want a DSP to correct the response there. Every speaker has its flaws.

If you really want to go loud but don't want to spend big money, take a look at the Behringer Truth B2031A. It has a 8.75" woofer, 265 watts of amplification built in and a claimed maximum SPL of 116 dB @ 1 Meter. Not as smooth in frequency response as the other options but maybe someday there will be PEQ filters available to smooth that out.

If you live near a Guitar Center they have most of these popular models on display and powered on for listening.

 

[chang]

Happy to help

Definitely go with DSP in some form. Regardless of how well the speaker performs, the sound will be affected by the room. The affect is especially prominent in the bass region which is why multiple subwoofers and room correction are commonly used to get even bass in a room. This requires a device with DSP and a microphone. Also you will want a crossover between the subwoofer and main speakers to get proper summation between them. This crossover relieves the main monitors of playing deep bass so they distort less and can play a bit louder. The crossovers can be done in a powered subwoofer like the JBL LSR310S, Kali WS-12 or the Adam T10S. These subs are designed for use specifically with their corresponding studio monitors so they have inputs, outputs, and crossovers built in. If you look at higher end studio monitor options from the likes of Neumann or Genelec, they even have options for room correction using their own built in DSP.

Check out measurements of the Adam T5V done by Amir, he also measured the T8V but not the T7V. He specifically states that compared to the LP-6, Version 1 that is, the T5V can get louder with better bass. Also said the noise wasn't an issue for him. However the T5V does have a major flaw in frequency response in the high frequencies, so you would definitely want a DSP to correct the response there. Every speaker has its flaws.

If you really want to go loud but don't want to spend big money, take a look at the Behringer Truth B2031A. It has a 8.75" woofer, 265 watts of amplification built in and a claimed maximum SPL of 116 dB @ 1 Meter. Not as smooth in frequency response as the other options but maybe someday there will be PEQ filters available to smooth that out.

If you live near a Guitar Center they have most of these popular models on display and powered on for listening.

Will do on the corresponding sub. That'll make things much easier in the future.

I'm torn on the T5V and have to rely on reviewers for the most part. I know it's impossible to judge the sound of a speaker through youtube, but the demo between the LP-6 and T5V wasn't even comparable (to my ear). The Kali's were full and not nearly as harsh compared to the Adam's. Again YT doesn't do them justice I'm sure and there could be multiple reasons why there was such a huge difference. The T7V's actually sounded very similar to the LP-6's, but I think my wife would appreciate the smaller cabinet of the T5V's.

The issue I'm running into is, I might be able to pick up a pair of T5V's for a good price, but the sound demo has me hesitant. Am I foolish to consider a purchase based off a youtube demo?

 

[TimW]

If you can listen to these in person it would be much better than the youtube demo. I suppose if the demo was well made you could have some comparability but I'm really not sure and I wouldn't make a purchase decision based on that alone. Amir's review shows the T5V is really a very competent speaker other than the high frequency boost. This boost is significant and could definitely make it sound harsh or bright. I would not consider the T5V unless you're going to correct the response with DSP.

The LP-6 comes in white if she finds that more tenable.

Then again the Kali subwoofer is pretty expensive compared to others.

 

[chang]

Theoretically it's indefinite. Practically it's when the caps dry out which shouldn't be for at least a decade with decent parts. A/B amps have the same issue along with something about torridal transformer delamination but I'm not sure what the circumstances that even cause that are, so I'll leave that to other people.

Since these amps are going supposed to last you a year or two anyways I think it's a worthwhile risk but it's easy to say that if I'm not getting personally burned.

But as TimW pointed out Active Speakers are very much the way forward for most people unless you need a lot of power, want a full multi-channel system, or just don't trust them (some people have issues with the idea that if the electronics in the speaker dies the whole speaker is dead vs passives where you just have to replace the amp/source/whatever). For small size limitations you can't do better than an active speaker practically speaking. If the limitation is cost, <$500 you might be able to better them with passives if you're willing to put in the time to really be tweaky about it (match the speaker to the room, apply in-situ room correction and DSP, etc) but actives still win for most people.

The tricky part is upgrading them because you have to do it all at once with active speakers. So you can take a $500 passive system and upgrade it with another $500 worth of parts and end up with something you'd need to spend $1500 on for an active equivalent. But once you get up to $2000 the pendulum swings back towards active speakers (again unless you have a large space to deal with/want multi-channel/don't mind physically larger speakers).

These were some of the issues I was running into... thanks for laying them out. After speaking with you and TimW, I actually made an impulse buy and picked up a pair of Adam T5V's. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.

Mind if I pick your brain about the RCA to XLR topic... Basically it's XLR all the way or nothing? Meaning I can't use RCA's anywhere in the connection chain if I want the benefits of XLR?

 

[TimW]

Mind if I pick your brain about the RCA to XLR topic... Basically it's XLR all the way or nothing? Meaning I can't use RCA's anywhere in the connection chain if I want the benefits of XLR?

No not necessarily, it depends on the design of the equipment in use. Usually an unbalanced output can be connected to a balanced input with a slight improvement over an unbalanced to unbalanced connection. However it is not recommended to connect an unbalanced output to the balanced input of the miniDSP Flex Balanced. I'm not sure why this is but must have something to do with the circuit design. The Flex balanced does support an unbalanced connection from its balanced outputs which is not common.

I'm not exactly sure how the Adam T10S subwoofer works but if it's like other pro subs the unbalanced and balanced outputs should be active at the same time. This is because it has some sort of signal processing inside, quite possibly digital, and the inputs are being converted from analog to digital and then back to analog. This means an unbalanced signal could be routed to it and then it could output a balanced signal giving you some benefit. However if the signal is being converted from digital at the source to analog into the sub, then from digital to analog out of the sub, then from analog to digital again inside the monitors there will be some signal degradation. Not ideal but good conversion can be done without audible consequences so it just depends on implementation.

The best route IMO would be to get the miniDSP Flex Balanced to act as a preamp with corrective EQ for the T5V's response anomaly and room correction. Connect the miniDSP to the T5V's via a balanced TRS to XLR connector. Then when the time comes get a subwoofer, connect it to one of the other Flex outputs, and setup crossovers in the Flex. This will avoid the extra conversions in the subwoofer and allow for use of any type of sub. There are home theater focused models with better performance than the Adam at the same price but lacking the pro audio features you don't need. If that sub doesn't have balanced inputs it will be fine because the Flex Balanced can do unbalanced output connections. The only issue will be if you need to connect an analog source in the future, it will have to have balanced outputs.

I should probably mention the Flex is out of stock.

 

[chang]

No not necessarily, it depends on the design of the equipment in use. Usually an unbalanced output can be connected to a balanced input with a slight improvement over an unbalanced to unbalanced connection. However it is not recommended to connect an unbalanced output to the balanced input of the miniDSP Flex Balanced. I'm not sure why this is but must have something to do with the circuit design. The Flex balanced does support an unbalanced connection from its balanced outputs which is not common.

I'm not exactly sure how the Adam T10S subwoofer works but if it's like other pro subs the unbalanced and balanced outputs should be active at the same time. This is because it has some sort of signal processing inside, quite possibly digital, and the inputs are being converted from analog to digital and then back to analog. This means an unbalanced signal could be routed to it and then it could output a balanced signal giving you some benefit. However if the signal is being converted from digital at the source to analog into the sub, then from digital to analog out of the sub, then from analog to digital again inside the monitors there will be some signal degradation. Not ideal but good conversion can be done without audible consequences so it just depends on implementation.

The best route IMO would be to get the miniDSP Flex Balanced to act as a preamp with corrective EQ for the T5V's response anomaly and room correction. Connect the miniDSP to the T5V's via a balanced TRS to XLR connector. Then when the time comes get a subwoofer, connect it to one of the other Flex outputs, and setup crossovers in the Flex. This will avoid the extra conversions in the subwoofer and allow for use of any type of sub. There are home theater focused models with better performance than the Adam at the same price but lacking the pro audio features you don't need. If that sub doesn't have balanced inputs it will be fine because the Flex Balanced can do unbalanced output connections. The only issue will be if you need to connect an analog source in the future, it will have to have balanced outputs.

I should probably mention the Flex is out of stock.

Yeah, I was getting a bit confused with all of the do's and dont's.

So if I was looking to get something now, what about the minidsp HD with a balanced dac (E50)? I know I'll be losing the balanced connections when it's time to to bring a sub in the fold, but might be worth it for now.

 

[TimW]

Yeah, I was getting a bit confused with all of the do's and dont's.

So if I was looking to get something now, what about the minidsp HD with a balanced dac (E50)? I know I'll be losing the balanced connections when it's time to to bring a sub in the fold, but might be worth it for now.

Well you can't really use the 2x4HD with the balanced E50 without major compromises. Are you planning to get a umik for room correction?

 

[chang]

Well you can't really use the 2x4HD with the balanced E50 without major compromises. Are you planning to get a umik for room correction?

Damn, I've looked at so many, my mind is scrambled. I could just use the HD as my dac, and run single ended or single ended to xlr (if that's even worth it).

Yeah, I was planning on getting the mic.

What setup would you recommend if I chose something now?

 

[Keened]

These were some of the issues I was running into... thanks for laying them out. After speaking with you and TimW, I actually made an impulse buy and picked up a pair of Adam T5V's. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.

Mind if I pick your brain about the RCA to XLR topic... Basically it's XLR all the way or nothing? Meaning I can't use RCA's anywhere in the connection chain if I want the benefits of XLR?

No problem.

In general it's because the majority of the benefit gained by using an XLR comes from being able to process differential signals AND the shared ground (and to a lesser extent the shielding). If you can't leverage the common mode rejection of differential signals on the receiving end all you're getting is two lines of power, which is a bigger voltage for sure but the noise and the signal are both getting twice the power. It will let you go further however because it is a higher voltage. A shared ground is also really useful for eliminating ground loops, but a single ended connection doesn't inherently connect the grounds together because it only uses a neutral and a powered line. That neutral's potential *could* be the same ground, but it doesn't have to be; and often unless the possibility of offloading the grounding is actively considered, it just isn't done. Because it will render the lifted ground device (potentially) unsafe unless additional steps are taken which means more cost, effort, and regulatory difficulty. Finally fully effective shielding requires a complete circuit and the shields on both sides being grounded to the same potential.

Roughly speaking you can't use RCA's anywhere in between what is supposed to be a balanced circuit and receive the benefits of balancing. Most of the time each device will convert the balanced signal internally and then regenerate the balanced signal externally so it doesn't really matter if 2 hops upstream or downstream have single ended connections in them so long as what they get is balanced.

But that's not always true and sometimes can lead to serious imbalances that could be dangerous or damaging.

No not necessarily, it depends on the design of the equipment in use. Usually an unbalanced output can be connected to a balanced input with a slight improvement over an unbalanced to unbalanced connection. However it is not recommended to connect an unbalanced output to the balanced input of the miniDSP Flex Balanced. I'm not sure why this is but must have something to do with the circuit design. The Flex balanced does support an unbalanced connection from its balanced outputs which is not common.

I asked them and the answer is it severely degrades performance, but it will not damage the device.

 

[chang]

Roughly speaking you can't use RCA's anywhere in between what is supposed to be a balanced circuit and receive the benefits of balancing. Most of the time each device will convert the balanced signal internally and then regenerate the balanced signal externally so it doesn't really matter if 2 hops upstream or downstream have single ended connections in them so long as what they get is balanced.

I'm not quite following here... mind giving me an example of both a right and wrong way?

 

[Keened]

I'm not quite following here... mind giving me an example of both a right and wrong way?

So I don't deal with low level electrical systems regularly so I would need someone else to affirm or correct.

That said:

Balanced signal: the same signal is sent on conductors out of phase with each other.

Unbalanced signal: the signal is sent on a single conductor with all phases.

Single end transmission: There is a single reference voltage

Differential transmission: There are multiple reference voltages

Common Mode Interference are unwanted signals that interfere with all of the voltage potentials at play in the same way. In a simple two wire system it means a signal that shows up on both the low reference voltage line and the high reference voltage line in phase. Because it shows up on both it raises the noise floor in general which makes it harder to detect the signal (effect being reduced bit depth I think), but it can be filtered if you know what you're looking for.

Ground Loops: Different lowest reference energies in a system. This can mean that current goes in the wrong direction in the worst case and can hurt or damage equipment or people, but most of the time it means that there will be extra energy fed back to one of the system with the worst case being at peak voltage. Since AC oscillates at a steady frequency you'll get an unwanted signal being constantly fed along that path.

Electro-Magentic Interference are unwanted 'signals' in general, but tend to be used to refer to 'random' induced signals that may or may not match the phase and apply unequally to different parts of the system. It can't be filtered because you (potentially) don't know what it was or even where it was. This seems to be a 'squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares' situation because it's useful to distinguish between the two.

Let's assume there is an E energy source off screen that is sending a balanced and differential signal (+V on red, -V on blue, and reference/neutral on black) from the right with the shield connected to ground. (E->D)

Component A can receive differential signals AND has a balanced connection. It does not have shield grounding.

Component B can transmit differential signals AND receive differential signals AND has a balanced connection. The shield is connected to neutral.

Component C can transmit differential signals and grounds the shield. It cannot receive differential signals.

Component D can receive differential signals and the shield is connected to neutral. It cannot transmit differential signals nor balanced signals.

E -> D will receive the full benefit of an XLR because D can transmit the ground current to E over the neutral line, and EMI will be transmitted back to E over the shield which is grounded to neutral in D, but neutral goes to ground in E so there is a path of (hopefully) less resistance for it to travel along.

D -> C will receive marginal benefit because there are two paths for the EMI to follow to ground (Shield -> C -> Ground, and Shield -> D -> Neutral -> Neutral -> Ground). It will not be able to reject common mode interference (unbalanced connection), and it cannot transmit long distances without increasing the voltage (single end transmission/non-differential receiver and transmitter) and there will be the potential for a ground loop between C and D (multiple lowest reference points, C -> Ground vs D -> Neutral -> Neutral -> E -> Ground).

C -> B will receive full benefit because it can reject common mode interference with a balanced connection, it can use differential transmission to transmit a 'stronger' signal, and it has the same ground since both C and B use the ground of C.

B -> A will receive partial benefit because it can reject common mode interference with a balanced connection and it shares the same ground on B and A so no ground loop. But the shield has no where to ground on A so depending on the EMI there is the possibility for currents to be induced between the two and inside of A.

It doesn't matter that the balanced connection is broken earlier in the chain because it is recreated later. Of course this is also very 'spherical cow' because for most people if you have EMI/CMI in one part of the signal chain then it's either going to affect other parts directly by just the strength of it or add noise into the signal that can't be (seamlessly) filtered out.

For line level components having grounding issues is annoying. For amplified or speaker level components having grounding issues can be damaging. And if you were to say, float the entire system by removing the grounding pin on the power cord E you could overload the ground of C leading to current going the wrong way and maybe even through you.

I *think* that's right, I'm sure I've made several mistakes here.

 

[chang]

So I don't deal with low level electrical systems regularly so I would need someone else to affirm or correct.

That said:

Balanced signal: the same signal is sent on conductors out of phase with each other.

Unbalanced signal: the signal is sent on a single conductor with all phases.

Single end transmission: There is a single reference voltage

Differential transmission: There are multiple reference voltages

Common Mode Interference are unwanted signals that interfere with all of the voltage potentials at play in the same way. In a simple two wire system it means a signal that shows up on both the low reference voltage line and the high reference voltage line in phase. Because it shows up on both it raises the noise floor in general which makes it harder to detect the signal (effect being reduced bit depth I think), but it can be filtered if you know what you're looking for.

Ground Loops: Different lowest reference energies in a system. This can mean that current goes in the wrong direction in the worst case and can hurt or damage equipment or people, but most of the time it means that there will be extra energy fed back to one of the system with the worst case being at peak voltage. Since AC oscillates at a steady frequency you'll get an unwanted signal being constantly fed along that path.

Electro-Magentic Interference are unwanted 'signals' in general, but tend to be used to refer to 'random' induced signals that may or may not match the phase and apply unequally to different parts of the system. It can't be filtered because you (potentially) don't know what it was or even where it was. This seems to be a 'squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't squares' situation because it's useful to distinguish between the two.

View attachment 200164


Let's assume there is an E energy source off screen that is sending a balanced and differential signal (+V on red, -V on blue, and reference/neutral on black) from the right with the shield connected to ground. (E->D)

Component A can receive differential signals AND has a balanced connection. It does not have shield grounding.

Component B can transmit differential signals AND receive differential signals AND has a balanced connection. The shield is connected to neutral.

Component C can transmit differential signals and grounds the shield. It cannot receive differential signals.

Component D can receive differential signals and the shield is connected to neutral. It cannot transmit differential signals nor balanced signals.

E -> D will receive the full benefit of an XLR because D can transmit the ground current to E over the neutral line, and EMI will be transmitted back to E over the shield which is grounded to neutral in D, but neutral goes to ground in E so there is a path of (hopefully) less resistance for it to travel along.

D -> C will receive marginal benefit because there are two paths for the EMI to follow to ground (Shield -> C -> Ground, and Shield -> D -> Neutral -> Neutral -> Ground). It will not be able to reject common mode interference (unbalanced connection), and it cannot transmit long distances without increasing the voltage (single end transmission/non-differential receiver and transmitter) and there will be the potential for a ground loop between C and D (multiple lowest reference points, C -> Ground vs D -> Neutral -> Neutral -> E -> Ground).

C -> B will receive full benefit because it can reject common mode interference with a balanced connection, it can use differential transmission to transmit a 'stronger' signal, and it has the same ground since both C and B use the ground of C.

B -> A will receive partial benefit because it can reject common mode interference with a balanced connection and it shares the same ground on B and A so no ground loop. But the shield has no where to ground on A so depending on the EMI there is the possibility for currents to be induced between the two and inside of A.

It doesn't matter that the balanced connection is broken earlier in the chain because it is recreated later. Of course this is also very 'spherical cow' because for most people if you have EMI/CMI in one part of the signal chain then it's either going to affect other parts directly by just the strength of it or add noise into the signal that can't be (seamlessly) filtered out.

For line level components having grounding issues is annoying. For amplified or speaker level components having grounding issues can be damaging. And if you were to say, float the entire system by removing the grounding pin on the power cord E you could overload the ground of C leading to current going the wrong way and maybe even through you.

I *think* that's right, I'm sure I've made several mistakes here.

Keened! You do too much. Really appreciate the detailed explanation. I'm sure this will take a few reads and I still won't understand half of it haha. Let's see what happens

 

[Keened]

Keened! You do too much. Really appreciate the detailed explanation. I'm sure this will take a few reads and I still won't understand half of it haha. Let's see what happens

I found what appears to be an authoritative source on this nonesense.

Edit: I am beginning to understand why people are insisting on SpeakOns. I hate proprietary stuff, but the overall concept of separating power levels by different standardized connectors isn't the worst idea.

 

[chang]

I found what appears to be an authoritative source on this nonesense.

Edit: I am beginning to understand why people are insisting on SpeakOns. I hate proprietary stuff, but the overall concept of separating power levels by different standardized connectors isn't the worst idea.

Great find. I wouldn't be able to run a fully balanced system if my source is a tv. So I wonder if running balanced from dac to speakers is worth it given the unbalanced to balance connection and the distance at which I'll be running cables?

 

[Keened]

Great find. I wouldn't be able to run a fully balanced system if my source is a tv. So I wonder if running balanced from dac to speakers is worth it given the unbalanced to balance connection and the distance at which I'll be running cables?

If it's like 10'+ and/or running next to power cables or poorly shielded RF equipment then it might be worth going balanced. You could use the TV as a source if you use an optical out from it to a balanced dac (or even a spdif over rca ??? I'm not sure if it's technically a different cable but they use the same plug if the dac grounds the incoming signal and the TV is a two prong).

But you can also get long optical cables and just run that all the way to the dac closer to the speakers. It's a glass cable so a little fragile but otherwise fine.

I will say that the Flex is back in stock now if you have the cash burning in your pocket

 

[TimW]

The only form of S/PDIF output typically found on modern TV's is optical. Optical cables for internet are indeed glass but optical cables for audio, utilizing the Toslink connection, are plastic. No need to worry about fragility. If the DAC is receiving an optical signal from the TV then there is no electrical connection. And of course if the DAC is outputting a balanced signal and the speaker is receiving that balanced signal isn't it a balanced connection? I'm not sure why the connection to the TV would have anything to do with the balanced audio connections from the DAC.

 

[chang]

If it's like 10'+ and/or running next to power cables or poorly shielded RF equipment then it might be worth going balanced. You could use the TV as a source if you use an optical out from it to a balanced dac (or even a spdif over rca ??? I'm not sure if it's technically a different cable but they use the same plug if the dac grounds the incoming signal and the TV is a two prong).

But you can also get long optical cables and just run that all the way to the dac closer to the speakers. It's a glass cable so a little fragile but otherwise fine.

I will say that the Flex is back in stock now if you have the cash burning in your pocket

Yeah, I have no idea without testing single ended first.

Haha, the Flex would be nice, but think I have to grab a cheaper option for the time being.

 

[chang]

The only form of S/PDIF output typically found on modern TV's is optical. Optical cables for internet are indeed glass but optical cables for audio, utilizing the Toslink connection, are plastic. No need to worry about fragility. If the DAC is receiving an optical signal from the TV then there is no electrical connection. And of course if the DAC is outputting a balanced signal and the speaker is receiving that balanced signal isn't it a balanced connection? I'm not sure why the connection to the TV would have anything to do with the balanced audio connections from the DAC.

I wasn't sure how to classify an optical cable. Would it be considered fully balanced with toslink to dac, and balanced to speakers.... or just semi balanced? When the signal is converted at the dac, I guess it really doesn't matter what comes before it, as long as the outputs are balanced to the speakers?

 

[TimW]

When the signal is converted at the dac, I guess it really doesn't matter what comes before it, as long as the outputs are balanced to the speakers?

That's how I understand it. I suppose Keened was hinting at the scenario where a digital connection that was electrically transmitted (like USB or Coaxial) with a ground connection could create a ground loop with the speakers and the source. Maybe this makes the connection not technically fully balanced? With an optical connection that ground loop is broken. With PC setups with USB connection to DAC and powered monitors like you have, sometimes people get a ground loop that causes audible buzzing and it is solved by a balanced connection between DAC and Speakers. Weather something is "fully balanced" or not seems like a matter of semantics. The reality is single ended connections work perfectly fine unless you need really long connections or have a ground loop issue. And in those scenarios a balanced connection between DAC and powered speakers is all you need to remedy the issue. I have run 15ft single ended connections before without any audible artifacts, sure the cable probably picked up more noise then a balanced cable would have but it was swamped by the ambient noise of the room so I didn't hear it.

If you want to spend less then the Flex but still want DSP then keep considering the miniDSP 2x4HD.

If you want to spend less then the Flex but still want a display and balanced connections there are plenty of good DACs to choose from:
TOPPING E50
SMSL M200
TOPPING EX5
SMSL SU-9n
TOPPING D30 Pro

 

[chang]

That's how I understand it. I suppose Keened was hinting at the scenario where a digital connection that was electrically transmitted (like USB or Coaxial) with a ground connection could create a ground loop with the speakers and the source. Maybe this makes the connection not technically fully balanced? With an optical connection that ground loop is broken. With PC setups with USB connection to DAC and powered monitors like you have, sometimes people get a ground loop that causes audible buzzing and it is solved by a balanced connection between DAC and Speakers. Weather something is "fully balanced" or not seems like a matter of semantics. The reality is single ended connections work perfectly fine unless you need really long connections or have a ground loop issue. And in those scenarios a balanced connection between DAC and powered speakers is all you need to remedy the issue. I have run 15ft single ended connections before without any audible artifacts, sure the cable probably picked up more noise then a balanced cable would have but it was swamped by the ambient noise of the room so I didn't hear it.

If you want to spend less then the Flex but still want DSP then keep considering the miniDSP 2x4HD.

If you want to spend less then the Flex but still want a display and balanced connections there are plenty of good DACs to choose from:
TOPPING E50
SMSL M200
TOPPING EX5
SMSL SU-9n
TOPPING D30 Pro

Hoping not to run into noise with the speakers only being about 3-4 ft away from the dac. Would just be inconvenient to run rca's only to find out there's noise.

Still torn on the dsp with this being my first system. I'm thinking about starting simple and exploring from there. Would like to enjoy the journey and notice the intricacies in upgrades when they happen.

I'm liking the e30 and e50 b/c they both come with remotes and no BT... as well as the sanskrit. With the T5V's, I'm wondering if I need a fuller sounding dac? From the reviews, they sound super detailed and in your face.