Using AV Receiver's DAC

[alfred]

I was researching for Blue-ray music playback capability and stumbled upon the CA website a week ago, and I have been reading pass mid-night since. Even as a total beginner, I'd like to start my journey into the CA world. Pease help me with the questions listed below.

 

1. There are many AV receivers have the capability of playing back high-rez music files via a home network. The Pioneer Elite VSX-53 (7.1, MSRP $1,100) is capable of pulling 24/192 WAV, FLAC files over a Window-based PC network. Will the VSX-53 or any other capable AV receivers be a good / acceptable start? I have not read any topic regarding AV receivers in a CA setup, are there any inherent shortcomings with AV receivers?

 

2. From the downloaded VSX-53 users manual (not purchased yet, just researching), the only connection needed between the receiver and the PC is the Ethernet port. There is no USB or S/PDIF connection needed. Does this sound correct?

 

3. What is (pure audio?) Blue-ray's potential in competition with the CA, especially considering Blue-ray's additional capability in multi-channels?

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

 

[bleedink]

I have a receiver that was in the same price range a year or so ago. There are a lot of variables to consider especially if using an AVR. They can be a jack of all trades master of none or be quite capable for multichannel enjoyment. The Integra line is well regarded, and despite what you will undoubtedly hear can sound absolutely stunning when paired with proper speakers and a good playback machine for audio like an Oppo if you are into surround music. In fact an AVR will in many cases be the easiest way to play multichannel music. Pioneer's Elite series is well regarded in some circumstances. I think when you are playing high resolution multichannel audio your experience is going to be more determined by how well the entire system as a whole is calibrated and set up, by using similar speakers, and by the source of your material for playback than the amp itself per se if it is anything relatively decent. YMMV of course and a lot of folks will tell you they are not the way to go. I prefer the DACs in mine to that of the oppo, which is not bad by any stretch. I also prefer the convenience. Before deciding if it suits your streaming needs make sure it suits your sonic ones first in pure direct mode. There are many ways to get music to it. Make sure you can really live with how it sounds and get well matched and great speakers and learn how to set them up. Do that and you can live with an AVR. Oh and make certain it sounds as good in stereo before the fancy stuff.

 

[wgscott]

I just bought a comparatively inexpensive AV Receiver (Marantz NR 1402, $400 list). It comes with a 24/192 5-channel DAC. Input is limited to HDMI or optical. I have tried both (with all DSP turned off). Although I can hear differences between it and my 2-channel system (using different DACs but the same pre-amp and Amp), those differences are quite small and subtle, enough to make me wonder if I was foolish not to just have the receiver.

 

The usual suggestion is that the receiver tries to do so many things, it can't possibly do any of them well. In my very short, limited experience, I have been pleasantly surprised by how good a job it does do.

 

[bleedink]

I was extremely impressed after a recent visit to a proper hi fi store. They had a computer based system using Amarra with an 11K Pre-Amp ect ect. The speakers they used were at least 4K more than mine. My kit is modest by comparison. However, I did not discern as much difference as I thought I would. Of course some parts of the system were extraordinary but my listening room isn't that big. So for a relative near field experience I can honestly say I get 95% of that experience for far less than that. My entire set up with the computer and the TV is around the price of the pre amp! Well, a bit more, but you get my drift. I also love surround music so it was not a difficult choice for me. I would add that I turn off all DSP and listen in Pure Mode. I would be careful what you buy. This isn't meant as a sweeping endorsement of all AVRs. I hated my Pioneer 1019. It couldn't drive my B&Ws very well and sounded terrible. These things do get a bad rep and there are many more lemons than gems out there. But if you do your research you'd be surprised what bang you can get for your buck.

 

[Paul R]

I'll put the little T747 I use here up against any similarly priced amp. The DACs in it have worn on me a little, especially against the little Proton. But then, I could almost buy two of the T747s for the price of the Wavelength Proton.

 

I don't know if that affects my judgement or not, but I sure love that little DAC.

 

Actually, I am listening to an Emotiva XDA-1 Dac right now, and it sounds astonishingly good. It lacks some refinement, but I apparently really like the AD1955 DAC in it. It also (apparently) has good power supplies. Whatever, it sounds pretty good. Embarrassing in a way. Through the T747 no less. Fed from a Logitech Touch via a $15 AudioQuest Coax cable. Wayyyy low end for around here

 

I get derided a bit for asserting that at least some AVRs are competitive with pretty much anything else out there in their price ranges, but I do believe it is true.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bikemig]

This thread is beginning to sound like true confessions of a computer audiophile. . . . I like the sound using the dac from my AV receiver (also a NAD T747) as well.

 

[bleedink]

Oh if this is true confessions time I can do a LOT better than AVRs! I use HDMI from time to time as well. And I confess to enjoying the experience. *goes back to audio cave with head hung down*

 

An AVR is worth the price of admission just to see Steve Wilson's Blu Ray FWIW.

 

[Paul R]

From the Oppo? I have a NAD T557 BRD player here that sounds great through the HDMI cable that connects it to the T747. Sounds way better than the optical or coax inputs on the T747.

 

Wonderful to watch and listen to operas on!

 

-Paul

 

 

[Mark Powell]

I was amazed a couple of years ago when I purchased my 800 dollar Yamaha AVR. The sound quality, on front loudspeakers costing several thousand dollars, was vastly superior to my ten year old 'audiophile' Musical Fidelity amp. Not stupid, these Japanese.

 

Don't watch multi channel films much, and the front amplifiers are now replaced with 'proper' power amp, but the improvement is not huge. The Yamaha, for music, has always been used in its 'Pure' mode which switches off all the AV bits.

 

I have never thought of using its internal DAC for two channel audio. May try it, out of curiousity. Disappointing if it sounds better than my 'proper' DAC!

 

[jacobacci]

I listen through a good stereo setup (Weiss DAC202 and Berkeley DACs, Neukomm preamp, Piega active speakers). My Neukomm preamp has a fixed volume input to connect an AVR. This way I can play the Onkyo PR-SC5507 through the high quality stereo preamp and speakers.

Does the Onkyo sound good in Stereo? YES

Is it close to the Weiss / Berkeley? NO

There is a big difference in soundstage, balance, sense of 'being there'. After listening through Weiss / Berkeley I feel very little incentive (besides curiosity) to listen through the Onkyo in stereo.

Is multichannel through the Onkyo as good as stereo through the Weiss / Berkeley: YES

Very different experience vs. stereo, but equally good and equally involving.

The combination of a good stereo setup with a surround setup has been the end of 'am I missing something in stereo' for me.

 

[alfred]

Thank you gentlemen for all of your help.

 

Even with the planned multi-channel/HT setup, I will still listen to music mostly in 2-channel mode. Well, hopefully in multi-channel mode when Blue-ray "hi-rez" materials are available. Albeit Blue-ray's capability, it is kind of a waste that most of the audio recordings so far are coded with 24/48.

 

Before I came across CA's website, I auditioned the new NAD T748 and Anthem RX300. I auditioned in stereo mode only. I like the NAD better. However, It is my understanding that the NAD T's do not have ethernet port. How do you configure / connect your NAD onto a computer-based network? or How do you playback stored 24/192 files thru NAD (or NAD's DAC) otherwise?

 

Thanks again.

 

PS:

Among Dennon (AVR-3312CI), Marantz (AV8005), Integra (DHC 80.2), Onkyo (NR709) networked receivers, even with the 24/192 DAC's, none claims the capability of 192 kHz playback. Pioneer Elite VSX-53 is the only one that I found so far claims this capability. I have not audition the Pioneer yet. Hopefully I do not have to raise my budget.

 

I auditioned the GoldenEar Triton Two speakers and like it very much.

 

 

[Mark Powell]

As you may have seen from my post, I replaced the front power amps with a new power amp, in fact a McIntosh 275 tube amp. My next step is to insert a preamp with an HT bypass, probably a Naim solid state. Thus when I am listening to two channel stereo the Yamaha will be totally out of the loop. Though it will still be a 'source' for FM radio, as I have no other tuner.

 

[alfred]

Hi Rudi,

 

Thanks for you input and uuuuuuuuum you get me thinking, opposite to my original direction.

 

With your 2-ch/multi-ch setup, do you "feel" like "wasting" your good stereo resources (spkrs, preamp)on movies or 24/48 multi-ch music?

 

[jacobacci]

Hi Alfred

I think that the same quality of surround could be achieved with a somewhat cheaper setup for the front channels. The Neukomm preamp definitely would not be necessary at all. I also doubt that the high resolution of the Piega speakers (www.piega.ch) is fully utilized using the surround setup.

On the other hand, using this setup allows me to use physically the same speakers which of course saves me buying cheaper speakers and have the potential to enjoy high quality stereo at the same time.

Basically the stereo setup will never limit the quality of the surround reproduction.

Re. Piega: only review I could find in the US is old http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/104piega/index.html

The Piega coax ribbon mid / tweeters are phenomenal.

 

[jacobacci]

Alfred

different angle if you are debating surround / stereo:

Unless you have NO audiophile itch whatsoever in my view it is better to start with a stereo system, basically to limit buyers remorse.

Then add a surround receiver and rear speakers.

In our second home, I watch movies through a Yamaha RX-V863, which is a fine unit but definitely not audiophile at a Weiss level. I have never found the surround experience lacking. In my view even mid cost surround gear tends to be good. An explanation could be that it is much easier to reproduce spatial information with surround sound and a picture to boot than with stereo alone. So the illusion of 'being there' is much harder to reproduce in stereo and requires much better gear.

 

 

[alfred]

Hi Rudi,

 

Your 2-ch/multi-ch setup makes sense and I understand the logic in properly allocating resources. Each piece of equipment has a fixed usable life, tube amplifier is a good example. The amount of time you use the setup for movies will then be subsequently deducted from the life span of the expensive stereo equipment. Thus giving me a sense of "wasting resources". A two separate system setups, one for movies and one for music, would be great if real estate permits.

 

 

[Mark Powell]

I am now using a tube amp driving the front speakers for all applications. Regular TV, computer audio, FM radio, playing DVDs, turntable, even the sound on the fkight simulator.

 

Solid state amps have an almost 'infinite' life. Barring a few capacitors, there is no inherent failure mechanism. And replacing these few capacitors once every 10-15 years is not expensive. It is also quite likely that you will have 'upgraded' by then in any case.

 

Tube amps are different, you have to replace the tubes now and again. Preferably before they fail as they can take other components with them. Audio Research say that leaving an amp on permanently results in replacing them every six months (very short) if you replace them at the recommended intervals. However, both A R and McIntosh provide sets of tubes that are not notably expensive. That said, I would not leave mine on 24/7.

 

Incidentally I have a 50 year old FM radio with about 8 tubes. I keep in mainly in memory of my father. It was used for several hours daily for about ten years and I use it for about an hour a week. Nothing, including the tubes (Mullard) has every failed, other than the volume pot has worn.

 

[realhifi]

Alfred,

Back to your original post...

 

1) Of course there are shortcomings when using a multi channel

piece of gear for only 2 channel listening. There is a lot of processing, switching and frankly some compromises with using something like a AV receiver instead of a dedicated 2 channel source and amplifier. That said, you certainly can get started by using a capable AV receiver such as the Pioneer Elite VSX-53 for your system. The ones from Pioneer, Marantz, etc. can sound very good and if you want multi channel sound at the prices you are talking about then it's a great option.

 

2) Here you are seeing first hand what is referred to as "networked music playback" which can be terrific when the receiver is capable of utilizing that technology which more and more are these days. It works well, sounds great, is flexible and yes, can send and playback 24/192 if you have the files and the receiver that is capable of that. It looks like the Pioneer has that capability.

 

3) Not sure what you are referring to with pure audio...the software? Blue Ray can sound terrific AND can also be ripped and stored and then streamed over Cat5 data lines also. There are some software Media Servers that now have the capability to rip and store Blue Rays onto a hard drive but really if you have a blue ray player it makes sense to simply use it for multi channel.

 

To me it sounds like you want the multi channel capabilities of an AV receiver and I think you are on the right track by looking at something from Pioneer, Marantz, etc. as a great starting point. If you already have a PC somewhere in the house hooked up to a network then this becomes real easy and you can enjoy the benefits of computer based music playback pretty much as soon as you bring that new AV receiver into your home. Your dealer that sells you whatever it is that finally decide on can help set you up and you will be off and running!

 

PS. Make sure that the one you choose has AirPlay built-in. Trust me, you will want that. It is an amazing feature and makes using iTunes, etc. on your computer to your hifi so easy

that it will make you smile.

 

[realhifi]

"Among Dennon (AVR-3312CI), Marantz (AV8005), Integra (DHC 80.2), Onkyo (NR709) networked receivers, even with the 24/192 DAC's, none claims the capability of 192 kHz playback. Pioneer Elite VSX-53 is the only one that I found so far claims this capability. I have not audition the Pioneer yet. Hopefully I do not have to raise my budget.

 

I auditioned the GoldenEar Triton Two speakers and like it very much."

 

You are on the right track. Audition the Pioneer (if possible with the GoldenEar speakers) and if you like what you hear you will definately be on your way. With those two components as a reasonably priced starting point you will be delighted at how far they will take you. If you get the urge as funds permit you can add their center channel and rears and know that your receiver can handle them just fine. Streaming music, streaming video, high resolution music playback, etc, etc. You can play with those two components to your hearts content and discover ways you never thought of yet to explore new music and movies.

 

It's a great new world out there...jump on and enjoy the ride!

 

[Mark Powell]

There need not be many shortcomings. My mid-price Yamaha actually powers everything unneeded off, not just disables it, when two channel is selected. That's tone controls, all digital inputs, remote screen display, its own front display, all the Dolby and DTS stuff, all power amps except the front two, everything you can think of. There is a block diagram in the instruction book.

 

So you end up with a regular two channel amp. It ain't no Audio Research, I accept, but the AV ability does not, as far as I can see, cause any inherent shortcomings.

 

I have found Pioneer stuff very good when I have used it, and these AV boxes have a lot of flexibility. Used it as a guitar amp sometimes.

 

[alfred]

Thank you all, and have a wonderful holiday.

 

[realhifi]

"There need not be many shortcomings. My mid-price Yamaha actually powers everything unneeded off, not just disables it, when two channel is selected. That's tone controls, all digital inputs, remote screen display, its own front display, all the Dolby and DTS stuff, all power amps except the front two, everything you can think of. There is a block diagram in the instruction book.

 

So you end up with a regular two channel amp. It ain't no Audio Research, I accept, but the AV ability does not, as far as I can see, cause any inherent shortcomings.

 

I have found Pioneer stuff very good when I have used it, and these AV boxes have a lot of flexibility. Used it as a guitar amp sometimes."

 

I knew I'd hear about that comment! I personally like AV recievers but am honest when someone asks point blank if there are compromises and shortcomings in the sound of them. I like Marantz AV receivers quite a bit but when you do not need a multi channel system and will only be listening to two channel music then their own dedicated two channel integrated amplifiers are better, even their little $449 one.

 

The shortcomings are simple and easily pointed out in the layout (as far as noise rejection), the power supplies, and the parts. When slicing and dicing things down to their essence (as you obviously are doing also, being a Naim user), there just is no getting around the fact that a simpler curcuit (if both are well executed) is better than one with even the complexity of having to turn things off and out of the signal path. All you need to do is listen to them. The simple $449 integrated amplifier sounds better than their similar priced AV receiver. BUT, it does not have the same kind of flexibilty. No digital inputs, no AirPlay, no multi channel DTS, etc. If you are in a locked budget you have to choose which is more important to you. You COULD for instance get the NA7004 network audio player and Dac ($799) and pair it with the PM5004 integrated amplifier ($449) and you will then have better sound in two channel listening than the SR6006 AV receiver ($1199). It's just better. Not that the AV receiver isn't good, it is. You just at some point have to choose.

 

I too think that the Pioneer AV receivers are good and would recommend them in heartbeat.

 

[Paul R]

To get to anything like the level of a $7K Weiss, you would need to be spending quite a bit more money than anything yet discussed here. Top end of the NAD Master's series, Meridian, high end Anthem, etc.

 

Possible perhaps, but pricey.

 

-Paul

 

 

[bleedink]

One thing I would add to any discussion about AVRs is the fact that they were designed to deal with lots of dynamic range. I can tell you that not all recordings come across great on an AVR. The better the recording, the better the performance of my AVR. It certainly doesn't take the edge off edgy recordings, or give an edge to more nuanced sounds. In fact when I hear about compromises I am wondering if they are indeed as important as some would make them out to be. Obviously very few musical recordings make use of the extreme dynamics of movies. But one would think that if a machine (even a mass commercially produced one) were in fact made to make use of those extremes that it would be in fact capable of handling the less extreme dynamics of music with aplomb. I have found this to be the case more often than not. I've never felt I had to forgo stereo listening on my system because it is designed to drive more speakers. In fact I often think I might have accidentally switched on DSP sometimes because the image is so centered I often think the center channel must be on! I have some recordings that literally make me turn around because the vocals sound so real I think there is someone in the room! My dog as well (not sure if she is the better arbiter of these kinda things) is very confused when the recording quality is very good. I hear the concerns about switching, power supplies, proper shielding, ect., I just don't find that many models have these problems or if they do they can be mitigated by using pure mode or the like. My humble opinion of course. I'm pretty happy to be 95% of the way there at the price point for admission. As I said it's not a blanket endorsement but I'm consistently surprised at just how much bang I got for my buck.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Just to agree with David that even in the best AVR amps (ones with Pure Dorect mode which powers everything down correctly) there is compromise compared with a stereo integrated (or Pre and power amp).

 

At a simple level using electronic switching ICs and volume ICs are inferior to relay switching and real potentiometers (or resistor networks) that even low end integrates amps use.

 

One possible compromise is to forgo the ability to decode HD audio formats in the amplifier and use an older Pre/processor (I.e. Arcam AV8; Naim AV2; NAD Master Series) and separate power amps. A bluray with internal decoding can then be used via analogue connections and in lieu of built in audio streaming get a Squeezebox Touch.

 

Of course it all depends on your expectations and reference point... A modern mid to high end AVR with mid price speakers (Bowers and Wilkins 600 series; KEF Q series; etc.) will be far superior to the audio 99% of the western world will have experienced.

 

Eloise