Polk M70s + Parasound HCA 1500a impressions

heiney9

Once you realize the convenience of moving away from an 85 minute cd and into lossless wireless you will never, ever go back. But take things slow and do it right the first time. The SQT is awesome when set up correctly and with the proper lossless media. I use an external dac but you can always upgrade and add that later as the internal dac's in the SQT are passable.

H9

jinjuku

Congrats on the Amp. Wait till you get some higher end speakers. You have a solid setup that will drive anything out there now.

greyhnd

I'm not hoping to "polish a ****"....LOL. I'm going to use a DAC because my vintage amp does not have a digital input. I have and listen to cd's, vinyl, mp3's and flac files. It makes no sense to me to burn all my digital files to cd, because of cost, time involved in burning, storage and cataloging.

I've read good and bad things about using a DAC. It is true that a badly encoded mp3 at a low bitrate is crap. I've read good and bad things about using a DAC. In many cases there seem to be improvements in the sound quality of mp3's in particular. FWIW, the quality of the sound produced lies in the ears that hear it.

dorokusai

heiney9 wrote: »

Once you realize the convenience of moving away from an 85 minute cd and into lossless wireless you will never, ever go back. But take things slow and do it right the first time. The SQT is awesome when set up correctly and with the proper lossless media. I use an external dac but you can always upgrade and add that later as the internal dac's in the SQT are passable.

H9

I agree. It totally opens up so much music for you. Not only is your library at your fingertips, you can get anything at anytime on a whim. I also use a DAC interface for upsampling and will never go back. I haven't bought a physical CD in over 2 years.

heiney9

All MP3's regardless of bitrate sound like crap.

greyhnd

All MP3's regardless of bitrate sound like crap.

I guess that's kind of like all women are ****.

I'm new here and don't really want to make enemies, especially with a member that has 13K posts, but when someone makes a broad statement like that I tend to think they really are an expert and they have to be correct, no matter what. Of course I also have a bridge over the Ohio River that I'd sell cheap.

heiney9

It has nothing to do with my post count. I have yet to hear an MP3 that sounds as good as the original WAV or CDA file.

MP3's are a compromise and sound like crap. I don't compromise when it comes to my music being played on my carefully assembled main rig. MP3's are fine for portables and even in the car, although I'm not thrilled with them in the car either.

MP3's have no place in a serious audio system. It's fine of you don't take your audio seriously, but flippant remarks will not make friends.

Is that explanation more to your liking? As if I'm here to explain myself to everyone.

H9

falconcry72

greyhnd wrote: »

I've read good and bad things about using a DAC. In many cases there seem to be improvements in the sound quality of mp3's in particular. FWIW, the quality of the sound produced lies in the ears that hear it.

You cannot "improve" the sound quality of mp3's or any other digital format. A good DAC just lets the source material stay at the quality level it's at without degrading it. And you're using a DAC in every digital audio situation possible, whether you know it or not. Ipod, sony discman, computer: they all use DACs. You have to convert the digital signal to analog before it gets to the actual speakers. With that in mind, I don't understand how you could have heard good and bad things about using a DAC. If you're not using one, then you have to be running all analog, ie, vinyl, cassette, 8 track, reel to reel etc. If you mean that you've heard good and bad things about using an external DAC as opposed to the DACs within the CD player, computer, Ipod, or other digital device, then there's only one way about it: if the external DAC is better than the component's internal DAC, then the external DAC is a good thing, and if the external DAC is worse than the internal DAC, then it's a bad thing. Pretty straight-forward.

steveinaz

Lietuvis91 wrote: »

I am liking the idea of the FLAC format as a way to store music on my pc to be burned later...

"Burrrn" is an excellent freeware program that has a SIMPLE interface for burning *.flac (and practically anything else) to CD. You simply drag and drop the songs--it does all the conversion on the fly.

steveinaz

greyhnd wrote: »

I've read good and bad things about using a DAC. It is true that a badly encoded mp3 at a low bitrate is crap. I've read good and bad things about using a DAC. In many cases there seem to be improvements in the sound quality of mp3's in particular. FWIW, the quality of the sound produced lies in the ears that hear it.

A good DAC will likely be a double-edged sword with respect to mp3. While it may give the music a little more body, and bring out detail more---it will also exploit the flaws inherent with lossy compression codecs. It's like watching standard def TV on a HDTV---looks grainy huh? That HDTV is pulling every detail.....AND flaw.

greyhnd

H9 - I didn't expect you to explain yourself, there is no need. Your post count does matter. I feel like someone who has been here long enough to make that many contributions is someone I should listen to. My only disagreement with you was your blanket statement. I'm aware that mp3's are less than ideal, but in my case I've collected thousands of files in mp3 format. I wouldn't benefit by trying to re-encode them and in most cases I've been unable to find replacements in flac, which I prefer. As I said before I'm not interested in making enemies here, so you can take that however you wish.

To clarify another thing, I have heard both good and bad things about using an external DAC. In my particular situation the use of an external DAC is more for convenience than necessity. I'm going to try an external DAC because I have nothing to lose. If it makes some improvement in the sound quality then I'll be pleased, if it doesn't, then I'll chalk it up to a bad decision. At that point I suppose I resort to burning everything to cd.

I appreciate the comments, but I'll bow out gracefully before there are any other hard feelings. It was not my intent to hijack this thread.

dorokusai

H9 doesn't harbor hard feelings I'm positive...and no hijack happened. It's discussion, plain and simple. Just don't let him know who you are when you meet him in person, he's edgy and unpredictable.

steveinaz

It's all good greyhnd. No hard feelings, just good discussion. I'm not a big fan of blanket statements either, but I think Brock's call is a good one. There's too many other "good" options available to bother with MP3's.

heiney9

greyhnd, no hard feelings, just giving you my perspective on the subject. Perhaps sometime in the future you can replace some of your favorite mp3's with actual lossless files. That way you're not replacing an entire library, but your favorites. My anal-retentive self would replace them all .

We are all at different places in our own personal audio journey and we all have different expectations and area's of compromise. I don't choose to compromise at the very basic level of my source music.

Have fun, enjoy your music, stick around and interact. We all don't always see things the same but nothing wrong with a little healthly and vigorous debate sometimes.

H9

falconcry72

greyhnd wrote: »

I'm aware that mp3's are less than ideal, but in my case I've collected thousands of files in mp3 format. I wouldn't benefit by trying to re-encode them and in most cases I've been unable to find replacements in flac, which I prefer.....

At that point I suppose I resort to burning everything to cd.

I just want to make sure you know that re-encoding them to FLAC won't make them sound better- the information that was lost during their encoding to mp3 cannot to regained.

Along those same lines, burning them to CD will not make them sound better either, for the same reason; though if the DAC in your CD player is significantly better than your computer's onboard DAC, then you could hear an improvement in overall sound.

Knowing the flaws with mp3's, you still could benifit from an external DAC, especially if the mp3's are of a higher quality. I have heard it first hand. Using the onboard DAC and headphone out of a computer butchers the sound way worse then encoding to a high bitrate mp3 does. I'd break it down in a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being best) as follows:

10: Lossless file through good external DAC

7: High Bitrate mp3 through good external DAC

3: Lossless file through computer headphone out

1: high bitrate mp3 through computer headphone out.

-1: low bitrate mp3 through anything


If most of your mp3 collection is high quality, then you could benefit from an external DAC. If most of them are low quality, (<192kbps), then there's no point.

Start working on a lossless collection now, get yourself an external DAC and be done with it.

PrazVT

exactly. When you're using good equipment, it's easy to hear the degradation in sound quality from low bitrate mp3 files. My MP3 collection started in 1997, but all my favorite stuff is getting replaced w/ CDs converted to FLAC. It's hard to go back and listen to anything < 192kbps (turning on my receiver's sound restorer function helps a little), once you've heard lossless files.

steveinaz

Let me qualify my statement a bit in regards to external DAC's and questionable media:

A few years ago I owned a Polk XM Tuner. I tried running it thru my Benchmark DAC1, and while in some ways it helped---I found that the less resolute on-board DAC's of the tuner did a better job of hiding the flaws, at the expense of some detail. It's a trade-off, no doubt. Lower resolution equipment can sometimes have the effect of smoothing over the overall picture, "helping" poorly mastered music, that can be revealed (mercilessly) with high-end stuff.

"The better your equipment gets, the better it has to be."

greyhnd

Thanks folks, and I mean that sincerely. I know a few things about recorded music, but my knowledge needs improving. That's where all of you come into the picture. The more I learn the better my listening experience will be in the future.

One of my questions has been answered, that being about burning mp3's to cd. Now I understand that the flaws will be passed on from the mp3 to the cd. I should've figured that out on my own, but I couldn't "see the forrest for the trees". I'm fortunate that the majority of my collection is >192kbps and as I 've gone through my files I've found that over time the low bitrate files are falling by the wayside. I know anything that I rip I use flac and I'm happy with that.

Lietuvis91

steveinaz wrote: »

"Burrrn" is an excellent freeware program that has a SIMPLE interface for burning *.flac (and practically anything else) to CD. You simply drag and drop the songs--it does all the conversion on the fly.

Sweet, thanks for this suggestion, I will have to look this up. I was actually wondering about a good program for this, so your post is very timely

greyhnd wrote: »

Now I understand that the flaws will be passed on from the mp3 to the cd. I should've figured that out on my own, but I couldn't "see the forrest for the trees". I'm fortunate that the majority of my collection is >192kbps and as I 've gone through my files I've found that over time the low bitrate files are falling by the wayside. I know anything that I rip I use flac and I'm happy with that.

If you think about how an mp3 is created, it is easy to understand the statement that "all mp3s are crap", which i generally have to agree with. A normal audio file should be around 30-40mb, an mp3 can range from 3-10mb, and this is accomplished by taking out the "non-essential" data that shouldn't affect sound quality "much". So on a crappy stereo you probably can't hear some of those notes anyway, and therefore you don't care, but on a good quality unit, you soon realize that things are missing.

I listened to mp3s ranging from 128kb rate to 320 kb rate. While 320kb encodings do sound better, on my system, it is still too glaringly obvious that this is an mp3 file and is simply not pleasant to listen to. I am definitely starting my .FLAC collection!

steveinaz

Did you try running your bluray direct to the amp yet? There's nothing like getting 30lbs of electronics "out of the way" to approach musical nirvana.

Lietuvis91

no, not yet, between working late and the holidays i've been too tangled up to even think about it. I'm glad you reminded me thought, I need to try this, maybe tonight. I hope my cables reach, but then again, I can always temporarily move the blueray player. It'll be interesting, I'll report back!

cnh

As an addendum...currently I'm breaking in some LSI-7s. I listen to our college radio station quite a bit when I'm in my Home Office and I can immediately tell when one of our students has programmed their show from their ipod mp3 files...the flaws are transparent and disturbing, especially when following, let's say a Jazz program where all the content was in CD and LP form?

WAV Lossless is what I use to stream from my laptop to my PS3 using Google's PS3 Media Server.

A DAC unit from the PS3 to the Receiver is under consideration...pending monies?


cnh

Lietuvis91

oh man, you just made my day! I have a ps3! So stream stuff to the ps3 from my laptop, and then feed it to the receiver through hdmi! Problem solved! Awesome!

Now i'll just have to figure out how to do this correctly...:redface:

heiney9

cnh wrote: »

A DAC unit from the PS3 to the Receiver is under consideration...pending monies?


cnh

I might have something nice for you on the cheap. If interested shoot me a PM.

H9

Lietuvis91

steveinaz wrote: »

Did you try running your bluray direct to the amp yet? There's nothing like getting 30lbs of electronics "out of the way" to approach musical nirvana.

ok..... that was pretty freakin' cool!

I did what you said, direct from blue ray to the amp, and the music really came to life! I mean, this felt as close to a live concert as I have gotten from any system I have had. The music is a bit fuller, has more sparkle(not brightness), and more tone. It is really hard to describe the difference in words. It doesn't sound BAD through the receiver, it is still clean/clear, it just sounds fuller/more alive hooked up directly. It is definitely the next step to music nirvana, I agree.

Jeez... so I'm scared to ask. How do you achieve this kind of sound through a receiver or a pre...? I mean, I could just play everything through the BR all the time, but then adjusting the volume is a PITA, because I have to reach behind the amp.

Interesting experience, indeed.... having trouble getting use to it being setup regularly now...

steveinaz

Very neutral tonal character huh? Also gets rid of listener fatique. I don't think it's possible to get the same neutrality, even through most preamps--a passive linestage gets you 99.9% of the way there, but it isn't very practical in most systems doing double-duty. My "work-around" is to have all my sources connect to my DAC, then the DAC is connected to my passive linestage (I only have 1 input) which then connects to the amp.

Best you can do is find equipment with the shortest/cleanest signal path.

Lietuvis91

Here's a pic of this 2 ch rig. The pic is kind of crappy because I took it with my phone.

...and looking at this pic.... it seems there is room for a 2nd 1500a down there, right next to the first one... hmmm... 2x 1500As in mono mode would mean 635 watts per ch. :eek:


I might just do it, if I can score another 1500a for a decent price(~$400)...:rolleyes:

KrazyMofo24

When using my PC as a source I noticed an improvement in sound quality in everything overall when I connected my DAC. I think it had to do with my original setup which was using an Audigy 2 soundcard and connecting a cheap RCA to 3.5mm cable to the preamp. When using the Dacmagic I was able to use my Diamondbacks interconnects. There is still a huge difference between FLAC and MP3, but there was also an improvement in everything else when I made the switch.

Polkie2009

Don't give up, I bet someone here would sell their HCA 1500 in the flea market if they knew it would sell fast. By the way, nice setup!

falconcry72

Lietuvis91 wrote: »

... 2x 1500As in mono mode would mean 635 watts per ch. :eek: I might just do it, if I can score another 1500a for a decent price(~$400)...:rolleyes:

That much power would be wasted on those monitor 70's.

You'd find a much greater improvement in sound by using that $400 on an external DAC, or by selling the 70's and adding the $400 to whatever you get for them and buying new speakers.

Edit: To go one step further, I would say that right now your amp is the strongest link in your 2-channel chain, and that you'd be better off improving any of the other components before you thought about changing or adding to that amp.