Have a laugh on/at me!

[Talk2me]

Originally Posted by joeinid

Hi Jeff,

Thank You! No phono. I don't really have plans for a TT (yet). Yes on the Ext. PS. I am thinking about adding the DAC for the heck of it but I'll be giving up my only RCA inputs. I do like my LIO-8 and Aqvox dacs so I'm still up in the air. I could always use the Cardas XLR to RCA adapter.

Awesome

Joe,
I forgot, I have a pair Cardas Clear XLR>RCA plugs I am not using.

[Talk2me]

Originally Posted by tonepub

Finishing up my review of the 088 preamp and noticed the USB port on the back...

To my knowledge this 088 did NOT have the DAC board built in, but I thought what the hell? Plugged my MacBook in and sure enough, there is a DAC board inside! Another point of interest, when selecting the output in the MacBooks preferences, the USB connection comes up as "077"

Hmmm....

Jeff, I have been reading about keeping 2 channel preamps "pure" for the best sound and avoid internal pollution. Case in point,

"Robert Harley -- Tue, 12/15/2009 - 21:14

Your question is certain to spark a debate, including a debate between TAS writers. Some feel that tone controls (and a balance control) give the user the ability to tailor the sound of a particular recording and enhance the listening experience. Others think that such signal processing is not only an adulteration of the signal, but also puts additional sonically degrading circuitry in the signal path.
There's no question that the addition of DSP room correction, A/D conversion, D/A conversion, and surround-sound decoding compromises sound quality (in my experience). I've reviewed a number of outstanding AV controllers and even the best don't approach the performance on stereo sources as a dedicated two-channel preamplifier. That's why I have both a controller and 2-channel preamp in my system; 2-channel signals never go through the controller.
As for balanced inputs, how the signal is handled inside the preamp is key. Some preamps with balanced inputs and outputs actually have unbalanced internal architecture. The balanced signal at the input is converted to unbalanced by a differential amplifier. The signal then goes through the preamp as unbalanced, and is converted to balanced by a phase splitter. When you use the preamp's unbalanced inputs and outputs, the differential amplifier and phase splitter are not in the signal path. This preamp thus adds two active and unnecessary stages to the signal path. Other preamps that are fully balanced, have four identical signal paths through the preamp (left +, left -, right +, right -) and a four-element volume control. This approach is obviously more expensive to implement, but is the right way to handle balanced signals.
The presence of digital clocks inside a preamp is bad news for analog signals. Digital circuits radiate noise that pollutes the analog signal.
I'll have to put myself in the minimalist camp.

Login or register to post comments"

Do you agree or disagree, or depends on manufacturer?

[Tonepub]

Well, I don't know, I suppose I could remove the DAC module from the 088 and see what happens, but it sounds better than my 011 in every way. I personally think it's a case by case situation.

I think the main reason I WOULDN'T want a DAC inside my preamp is because of future advances, and that digital related technology changes at a much more rapid rate than analog. If I had an 088 without DAC, I couldn't imagine the need to upgrade. Whereas with my dCS having all separate boxes, I know that as they make upgrades to the system, they are only a module or firmware upgrade away.

For that matter the Burmester 100 phono pre, handling the most delicate signals of all did not seem to be compromised by having an analog to digital converter in the same box.

Personally, I think many like to make sweeping generalizations.