Mike Hanson Wrote: > I think most would consider my office amplification and speakers (which > would have retailed for well over $5K when new) as an "audiophile > system".
I'm just saying that, *in general*, definitions may vary. This has nothing to do with your system and and nothing to do with cost. Mike Hanson Wrote: > I think you're being a bit pedantic. Even if it's not in a > single-purpose box, it's still a separate DAC, with its own performance > traits. For example, the DAC in my Roland VS-880 was far better than > the SB1's internal module, and I was happy to use it for a while. > Ignoring it just because it's not a single-purpose device doesn't make > much sense. Well, it makes sense to me and it's down to definitions. Maybe I AM being pedantic but to me, an audiophile system consists of: 2 front speakers, speaker cables, power amp + pre amp (or integrated), interconnects and a source. For our purposes, that source is PCM (from a CD player or via the SB2). So, if I were to consider whether or not to *add* an external DAC to my existing audiophile setup then it would naturally be a dedicated box. What other functionality would I need to add? To my understanding, that was the point of the original question. Obviously, if there are other components in the existing system that also have DACs (like a receiver or sound card) then a comparison can easily be made. One can then judge which of their components has the best internal DAC. That may very well be the SB2. Still, the SB2 won't beat a good external DAC (or should I say, dedicated DAC?) as you yourself have noticed with your Benchmark. Mike Hanson Wrote: > The point I was trying to make was that not everyone would determine > that an external DAC is a "MUST", and that you should begin with the > understanding that the internal DAC in the SB2 is really quite good. No arguments there. My point was just referring to the original question where I still feel that an external DAC is a must in a hi-end audiophile system. I don't think that necessarily conflicts with your statement above. Mike Hanson Wrote: > Ultimately, finding an external DAC with significantly better > performance was more of a challenge than I originally expected... By my definition of "external DAC" where I only consider dedicated boxes, it's not a challenge at all. Again, you may say I'm being pedantic but the definition matters to me. To name a few external DACs that I would consider: MSB LinkDACIII or higher (includes Nelson, Gold and Platinum) Bel Canto DAC California Labs Alpha or Sigme DAC Musical Fidelity A234 (and maybe even X-DAC) Audio Note DAC 1.1 or higher Ack DAC Perpetual Technologies P-3A EVS Millenium DAC plus, the Scott Nixon (with good power supply) and Benchmark DAC1 you've already mentioned. Obviously, receivers, pc sound cards and the like don't count. Why would I add one of those to a perfectly working audio system? I think we're arguing two different things. I don't disagree with any of your comments. I completely agree that the SB2's analog outputs are very good indeed. However, do you disagree that an external DAC (like the one's I've mentioned above) is a must for the SB2 to be in a *hi-end* audiophile system? Okay, if "must" is a bit strong, how about we say that an external DAC provides a considerable noticeable improvement? -- Aylwin _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
