2. digital
  3. 1232150186

digital eq/room correction trade-offs

I am very confused about digital room correction.

For many years, it seemed the common wisdom was to have as clean a signal path as possible, with as little processing and as few conversions as possible: use a high quality DAC to get the signal to analog and then a pure pre-amp/amp to speakers.

But it now seems that many would argue that the benefits of digital eq are such that even an extra analog-digital-analog step is worth it for the benefits of digital room eq.

So, for example, I enjoy listening to CDs and SACDs using my Bel Canto PL-1A. I go analog out to my pre-amp. Is it worth it to contemplate the extra step of analog to digital for room EQ and then back to analog to the pre? I find it hard to believe that any benefits of the room EQ won't be substantially offset by the additional conversions.

Your thoughts most appreciated. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that my room is imperfect but not horribly so (which I think is accurate).
dgaylin

Showing 2 responses by lewinskih01

lewinskih01
911 posts
 
I'm also interested in this.

Richards/Rodman: how do you have your TacTs connected? Are you taking a digital signal straight into the TacT and using its DAC (effectively using it as a preamp too), and from the TacT in analog to the amp? Or using an external DAC after the Tact?

I measured my room's response and seems to be rather good, and this has me wondering how big a gain I might get from RCS.

Thanks!
lewinskih01
911 posts
 
On the Tact, is the volume control analog or digital? Either way I guess it's good as your feedback from it as a preamp is very good.

If it's on the analog side (which is usually recommended) and I wanted to use an external DAC, then it would need to be one with volume control so to drive an amp directly. Correct?

Thank you!
More to discover