[iriverdude]

Quote:

Well, seems you didn't find the correct method to do a comparison between two DACs

A AV pre-amp is far more than a DAC. I've said that already. I couldn't care less wasting time with blind tests, I know what I hear. Just like you don't need colourometer graphs to tell the picture from a Pioneer plasma is better than a Samsung LCD.

Quote:

Even so I don't think it is necessary to go for something so expensive.

Had lower end processors, didn't like them also Lexicons have Logic 7 which is fantastic. Bought it second hand, so identical in price to a new but lower end av processor. Had Rotel in the past, crap. For the price I paid for it, you really can't buy anything else. I could use a av amp as a processor but they have medicore sound quality.

I had a Yamaha DSP-E processor, it wasen't very good either.

Sounds like it you've got kit jeously.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sounds like it you've got kit jeously.

Haha, now that was lame and funny. Why would I be jealous about something that most likely sounds the same as my DAC, for a fraction of the price you payed? I forgot to mention that nowadays it is hard to find a DAC with a bad converter...

Then I have searched for that av preamp with multichannel DACs, and having the benefit of doubt I believe the difference between something like a DAC1 stereo DAC and that lexicon won't be far away. If you add all those effects you are talking about (and the effects I checked on the net), then I expect it to sound different.

However I am not talking about applying different effects, I am just talking about how the converters work.

The DEQ2496 that is compared via DBT to the DAC1 is not also a DAC, it is a EQ with loads of effects and functionality, but even being so the DAC works separately from all. As you have not made a DBT between a stereo DAC and a av Preamp with multiple DACs, the possibility of both sounds the same when doing a conversion still remains.

As for the people who are reading this thread I recommend you read the following:

http://www.analog.com/static/importe...C_Brochure.pdf

EDIT: Here is another interesting datasheet of a multiple channel DAC:

http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/data...07AD1833_0.pdf

I think it is more of the same story.

 

[iriverdude]

You're clueless pal. The Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 or a stereo DAC is useless in a home theater system. Logic 7 is not a crappy DSP which most other units have (church rock etc)

Find out what a av pre-amp does, until then you're just sounding foolish. Do you actually know what a home theater is?

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're clueless pal. The Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 or a stereo DAC is useless in a home theater system. Logic 7 is not a crappy DSP which most other units have (church rock etc) Find out what a av pre-amp does, until then you're just sounding foolish. Do you actually know what a home theater is?

I wonder why you go into a defensive position in a pimp-ish way instead of just trying to prove your opinion.

Do you believe in magic and fairy tales? (Cables?)

It is just nonsense to keep trying to speak with one guy who seems to be so proud of himself he doesn't bother with "mere mortals".

As you haven't given further explanation of your test, how it was made and you just keep being defensive about my questions I think your opinions remains as that, nothing to be taken into account unless proven different or explained in depth.

 

[KONAKONA]

Oh boy cool argument guys.

Somehow I interpreted the title as running faster processors in a DAC instead of slower ones, so I don't actually have much to say....

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullseye /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder why you go into a defensive position in a pimp-ish way instead of just trying to prove your opinion. Do you believe in magic and fairy tales? (Cables?) It is just nonsense to keep trying to speak with one guy who seems to be so proud of himself he doesn't bother with "mere mortals". As you haven't given further explanation of your test, how it was made and you just keep being defensive about my questions I think your opinions remains as that, nothing to be taken into account unless proven different or explained in depth.

yawn. Bored now.

Have you even understood that a stereo DAC is TOTALLY USELESS in a home theatre? I've got a multi channel sound system, so why on earth would I listen to 2 channel mode if the soundtrack is multi-channel? A Lexicon MC-12HD EQ can do full room EQ, on all channels. Can a Behringer stereo DAC do that? I know the BFD does parametric EQ, but you still need 4 of them, and even then talking hours and hours to setup. The MC-12 HD EQ does it within 10 minutes, automatically.

lol about Behringer. Thanks for the laugh needed it.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif yawn. Bored now. http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/i...5__buffy_l.jpg Have you even understood that a stereo DAC is TOTALLY USELESS in a home theatre? I've got a multi channel sound system, so why on earth would I listen to 2 channel mode if the soundtrack is multi-channel? A Lexicon MC-12HD EQ can do full room EQ, on all channels. Can a Behringer stereo DAC do that? I know the BFD does parametric EQ, but you still need 4 of them, and even then talking hours and hours to setup. The MC-12 HD EQ does it within 10 minutes, automatically. lol about Behringer. Thanks for the laugh needed it.

It is not about how useful it is to use on a multi channel system or not, it is about the process the chip makes (DAC = digital to analog) if it can be distinguished against a cheaper one or if by doing a DBT the SQ difference disappears.

For setting a multi channel system, one DEQ2496 cannot be used, but more than one can be used, so it is not useless. You should check what a DEQ2496 can do for EQng a room, for so little price.

You are getting away from the OPs question, you are talking about functionality, not about SQ differences. You are the one who seems to have spitted an opinion just because you are happy with your product.

What is funny to see is how easy it is to make someone jump and be on a defensive position.

 

[iriverdude]

Quote:

For setting a multi channel system, one DEQ2496 cannot be used, but more than one can be used,

And where exactly is the Pro-Logic, Dolby Digital & DTS decoding occuring? And your sources have digital out for discrete left & right, centre & subwoofer, rear right & rear left?

Quote:

What is funny to see is how easy it is to make someone jump and be on a defensive position.

And what is funny how stupid you are.

 

[Bullseye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude /img/forum/go_quote.gif And what is funny how stupid you are.

You just proved my point, thanks! Take some tea and give it a rest

Note: I expect you to try to have the last word, so go ahead!

BTW, if you haven't noticed you have mixed apples and oranges since the first point, then you keep your pimp-ish attitude towards me and in the end you don't have enough with that but you insult me. Well then go ahead, you are giving a great example of what a member should do. And in the end you ignore evey question I ask. So who is making a fool of himself?

 

[iriverdude]

Say hello to my ignore list.

 

[Nerull]

Bullseye, I'm not going to lie, you come off as very rude and condescending. You should drop the smarmy, know-it-all attitude. Especially considering you've done nothing but drop a few insults. Maybe it's a translation thing, I don't know.

The Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496 is nice and all, but it doesn't decode for Dolby, DTS, THX, or anything theater related. It's not meant to be a home theater product. Not even close. It's meant for the studio and for monitoring. It could be used as a high-end DAC, and that's okay, but it's not meant for multi-channel home theater reproduction. It's as simple as that.

And decoding and reproducing multi-channel sound is a lot more complicated than sticking a multi-channel DAC into a box. The processing implemented for decoding is software-based, and as such, must be done by a DSP or other processor. And multiple formats have to be supported, each with their own specific coding scheme. All of this is based on many years of psycho acoustic research and development.

Your posts aren't science at all. Much like the one's touting snake oil. You seem to know very little of the subject at hand, and contribute only by using the DBT as leverage for your lack of knowledge.

~Thomas

 

[moonboy403]

Bullseye, "in the end you ignore evey question I ask". That clearly goes for you. You failed to address any question that iriverdude brought up. Judging by what you said alone, "For setting a multi channel system, one DEQ2496 cannot be used, but more than one can be used, so it is not useless.", you clearly have no idea what you're talking about in regards to home theater related topics yet you bring up DBT in counter and try to divert to topic.

Also, X2 on "very rude and condescending". You say that people insult you but when you insult people which you often do and people call you out on it, you dare to say that you're only joking since you inserted a smiley there. It's time to grow up kiddo. Your ignorance and the pretentious know-it-all attitude is why you often attract insults.

 

[SB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iriverdude I went from low end Yamaha, Denon & Harmon Kardon processors to Lexicon. Quite a noticeable leap in sound quality. They do not sound the same.

This being a subjective opinion but if someone else said the opposite would you be ok with it?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB /img/forum/go_quote.gif This being a subjective opinion but if someone else said the opposite would you be ok with it?

What would be the opposite? That the lower end unit sounded better? Or that they all sound the same?

 

[PhilS]

Steve, I'm curious, are you the same SB from AVS Forum? I remember having a series of discussions on AVS Forum with you and others many years ago (around 2001 or so, I think) about cables and other things, and I seem to recall that at that time you were one of the strongest proponents for the subjectivist point of view. Am I remembering correctly? If so, you appear to have changed your views, although maybe I'm simplifying things too much. Anyway, I'm just curious.