Analog versus Digital Out

Printable View

  • 12-06-2005, 12:43 PM
    Curtis
    Analog versus Digital Out
    Generally, how big is the sound quality difference between using an analog or a digital out from my CD player to my receiver? I realize it varies and this is probably a really stupid question, I apologize in advance. I
  • 12-06-2005, 01:09 PM
    markw
    That would depend on the quality of the two DAC's.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curtis
    Generally, how big is the sound quality difference between using an analog or a digital out from my CD player to my receiver? I realize it varies and this is probably a really stupid question, I apologize in advance. I
    If the DAC in the CD player is "better", then the analog out from the CD should sound "better". And, the opposite is also a possibility. If the DAC in the receiver is "better" then that should provide the "better" sound when fed by a digital input.

    Please don't ask me what is "better". Only you can judge that.
  • 12-06-2005, 01:26 PM
    L.J.
    Yup, hook it up both ways, grab your favorite CD and give em both a listen.
  • 12-06-2005, 01:47 PM
    ericl
    LJ and Mark are right, but I'm going to complicate things a little ;)

    There is also the fact that your receiver probably converts analog inputs into digital for sound processing. The receiver then converts it back into analog and sends it to the amp. So, this is an unneccesary conversion, which can have a small effect on sound quality. A 'purist' approach would be to just use the digital cable connection to the receiver to keep it all in the digital domain until it is sent to the amp.
  • 12-07-2005, 07:10 AM
    noddin0ff
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ericl
    LJ and Mark are right, but I'm going to complicate things a little ;)

    There is also the fact that your receiver probably converts analog inputs into digital for sound processing. The receiver then converts it back into analog and sends it to the amp. So, this is an unneccesary conversion, which can have a small effect on sound quality. A 'purist' approach would be to just use the digital cable connection to the receiver to keep it all in the digital domain until it is sent to the amp.
    an extra wrinkle--receivers can have a 'bypass' mode which will pass an analog input through without the digital processing...
  • 12-07-2005, 07:29 AM
    markw
    Yeppers
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    an extra wrinkle--receivers can have a 'bypass' mode which will pass an analog input through without the digital processing...
    My Marantz 2270 has that. In fact, that's ALL it has. ;)
  • 12-07-2005, 09:33 AM
    noddin0ff
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by markw
    My Marantz 2270 has that. In fact, that's ALL it has. ;)
    ...time to update? (chuckle)
  • 12-07-2005, 10:28 AM
    Curtis
    Nah, he shouldn't update. The 2270 is an awesome receiver. And theft-proof, considering it weighs about 50 pounds. Try running away down the street with that.
  • 12-07-2005, 10:43 AM
    noddin0ff
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Curtis
    Nah, he shouldn't update. The 2270 is an awesome receiver. And theft-proof, considering it weighs about 50 pounds. Try running away down the street with that.
    iPods are for wusses.
  • 12-07-2005, 12:47 PM
    markw
    Yeah, but...
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by noddin0ff
    iPods are for wusses.
    I'm gettin' killed buying batteries for this mutha.

    Seriously, it's in my basement/study/gym/man cave and notw that I'm studying fora new career I spend a heckuva lot of time there and I've found it's the best "headphone amp" in the house. ...as well as the best FM tuner.
  • 12-07-2005, 06:24 PM
    kelsci
    The Marantz 2270 is from a time when Marantz made great receivers particulaly with the upper wattage numbers. They really did have good tuners in those units. The stereo amplfication was first rate.
  • 12-07-2005, 07:01 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kelsci
    The Marantz 2270 is from a time when Marantz made great receivers particulaly with the upper wattage numbers. They really did have good tuners in those units. The stereo amplfication was first rate.
    I grew up with a Marantz 2275 and concur. Very nice sounding receiver with an excellent tuner on board. One of these days, I'll get around to restoring it. The list price on that receiver was $600 in 1976, and if you inflation adjust that dollar value, it's the equivalent of about $2,000 today. Pretty easy for a manufacturer to build quality into their units with that generous a price point, and that amount will buy you a VERY nice set of two-channel separates today.

    The receivers from that era routinely exceeded the rated wattage because stereo and mono amps had to rate their output using the stringent FTC test. Multichannel amps have never had that kind of requirement, and that's why you see all of these "creative" spec sheets out there nowadays.
  • 12-07-2005, 11:52 PM
    kelsci
    Hi Woochifier; I remember the FTC crackdown in those days requiring a more stringent RMS watt per channel rating. I remember Dynaco reissuing their spec sheet on the SCA-80Q int. amp. which had been rated at 40 watts and then went down to 30 watts. At least Dynaco was honest about that. I remember that before the FTC crackdown went into place, there were all kinds of power claims under IHF, IPP,EIA, "EIEIO" and name not what. We had a 1962 Magnavox console with a total power of 15 watts EIA, which by RMS standards was about 2 watts per channel. There were only 2 6BQ5 tubes in the power amp section of that console. Kelsci.