Looking for a DAC or upgrade CD player?

[E-Stat]

I So if you are eluding that all Masters are analog you would be wrong.

Surely you're not responding to my post:

How do you think any digital source originates?

Naturally, a digital source is...well a digital source. The question that PG has continued to evade is as to what platform digital masters operate. I remain curious as to what his impression is.

[Enochrome]

Not necessarily. I have virtually all my music ripped to computer file -- I use lossless formats, mostly FLAC -- I can then quite easily locate and play any performance of composition from my whole library from well over 1000 CDs with a few mouse clicks.


192kbps certainly will sound inferior in quality to a CD. On the other hand, a lossless file can sound as good as the CD. The most common lossless format is FLAC, but there are others such as Apple Lossless, a.k.a. ALAC. From lossless file you burn a CD-R with no loss of the original CD. The cost of computer hard disk capacity today is so low that it is literally a waste of time to rip to anything less than lossless

If you happen to to need a more compressed file, (say 192kbps), to load on a portable device, first rip the CD to lossless to store on your computer, then create a lower resolution copy for the portable. Ripping is slow but creating copies at any resolution is very quick.

Feanor is right on the money. The amount needed to get a decent computer based system is ridiculously cheap compared to what you needed to invest back in the day (or today) in seperate components. Now, you won't get the sound of mid-fi analog seperates but you'll get close for a lot less cash.

I think the options for decent dacs are getting cheaper and cheaper, the question you have to ask is how future proof are they and how your collection will look like in the future?

Right now the hot topic in dacs and computer based audio is dowloadable DSD, which is essentially SACD without the CD. That is where everything is going in the future for digital hi-fi.
Schiit Audio has even done a survey on Head-Fi for what people would pay for that option. I personally think this will be awesome, but I am apprehensive for part of the very reason that people did not gravitate to SACD: most of the music coming out on it I don't like. Most of the music that I thought interesting on SACD was jazz or classical, and 90% of those you can get on vinyl, which is superior.

I just picked up a PS Audio DLlll because I got a ridiculously good price and I like that it has a discrete output stage, large toroidal trans, BurrBrown DAC chip, balanced outs, and I can upsample to 96 or 192 depending on what type of music I am playing.

The best thing to do is buy for what constitutes the majority of your needs and in the future, unless you want to buy another DAC sooner than later. I would not invest in a CD player, it is becoming a niche. Why do you think Rega just consolidated all their player into one model, the new Apollo R.

I would go with a excellent transport and a future proof dac from Schiit or another quality company.

Any major improvements in digital audio will come when the DSD format gets the record companies backing and the price of solid state drives drops, then we will be swimming in good digital tunes.
Brick and mortar stores will only sell vinyl and high end SACD's, and probably books as well, since all those will be niche markets.

[Poultrygeist]

I'm finding that good vinyl costs more than SACD when I can find it.

I paid $40 recently for a 200 gram re-issued Billie Holiday. I've never paid more than $20 for any jazz SACD.

[E-Stat]

Right now the hot topic in dacs and computer based audio is dowloadable DSD, which is essentially SACD without the CD.

Most significantly, without Sony's copy protection layer. Which is the only reason why you can't use a computer based solution with the vast majority of DSD recordings - unless of course you have access to the masters.

[Enochrome]

I'm finding that good vinyl costs more than SACD when I can find it.

I paid $40 recently for a 200 gram re-issued Billie Holiday. I've never paid more than $20 for any jazz SACD.

Vinyl does not need to cost that much since the record companies made their money back on that recording 50 years ago. They know that people who buy vinyl or SACD are die hard music lovers so they can get away with it. But hey, you gotta pay to play, and that piece will last you for the rest of your life.

[audio2]

I guess I must repeat the question since it continues to elude you.

How do you think any digital source originates? Or, perhaps in simpler terms, what is the "master"?

Hi E-Stat and recoveryone sorry to break trough, I also find this topic very interesting and intriguing but it's not very clear to me what is your point of view or what you're trying to state.

In a previous post you wrote "How do you think any digital source originates? Hint: it's not a shiny disk."
Can you please be more explicit on this?
In my mind I thought that a CD disk is the original source (master), but according to the information posted on this thread I get the idea that the DAC is an important component of a CD player.
Is that for you the original source you mean?


PS - I have imported on the Mac some music using Apple Lossless setting and in the summary of the music track it says that the sample size is 16 bit.
So if a CD player has a 24 bit DAC would'n that then sound better than a PC playback importing music at 16 bit?

Look forward to read and understand more about it.
Cheers

[E-Stat]

In a previous post you wrote "How do you think any digital source originates? Hint: it's not a shiny disk."
Can you please be more explicit on this?

My question pertains to this comment:

I can't imagine the most sophisticated PC playback to come close to SACD.

Short answer: the master recording is first captured on a powerful PC workstation with a hard disk. SACD discs are copies of the computer based original. I remember hearing a very early (if not the first) commercially used digital recorder in 1978 when I played a minor role in the Telarc recording of the ASO performing The Firebird. Dr. Tom Stockham was there with his Soundstream recorder in the basement of the symphony. Since hard disk storage was impractical then, the storage medium for the 16/50 format was tape - as in a computer transport.

Dr. Stockham

In my mind I thought that a CD disk is the original source (master),

It is a copy of the original replicated in a removable format. Very much like backing up your data drive with a CD-R.

but according to the information posted on this thread I get the idea that the DAC is an important component of a CD player.

The DAC is always important - regardless of the storage medium for the digital content.

So if a CD player has a 24 bit DAC would'n that then sound better than a PC playback importing music at 16 bit?

Having 24 bit capability cannot create data bits that were never captured in 16 bits. The real value of having a 24 bit DAC is that you can play back true 24 bit content - 24/88, 26/96, 24/192, etc.

[audio2]

Thank you E-Stat, that brings some interesting insights.
Cheers

[LeRoy]

Anybody ever had an opportunity to listen to the Empirical Audio DAC?
Home : Empirical Audio

The reason for my inquiry on this is last week, while the Thunder was kicking Spur butt, I was at friends house listening to his new set up which consisted of the Altmann DAC and Altmann Amp running on car battery juice and the listening experience was a real ear opener for me. Speaker were La Scalla's and I never knew the Klipsch could sound organic with stand up bass notes until I heard them in this system. Anyway, just wondering if the Empirical DAC is anywhere close to the Altmann DAC in terms of tonality, resolution, and overall ebb/flow of musicality.

[Feanor]

Anybody ever had an opportunity to listen to the Empirical Audio DAC?
Home : Empirical Audio

The reason for my inquiry on this is last week, while the Thunder was kicking Spur butt, I was at friends house listening to his new set up which consisted of the Altmann DAC and Altmann Amp running on car battery juice and the listening experience was a real ear opener for me. Speaker were La Scalla's and I never knew the Klipsch could sound organic with stand up bass notes until I heard them in this system. Anyway, just wondering if the Empirical DAC is anywhere close to the Altmann DAC in terms of tonality, resolution, and overall ebb/flow of musicality.

I guess I haven't, Broh. -- $4000 plus $730 for a 6' USB cable: nope.

Any $4000 DAC ought to sound effing amazing. But know what? HERE's a $60 DAC that sounds pretty amazing; swap out the cheap opamps for another $20, and it's in the effing amazing catergory.

[LeRoy]

Thanks Feanor. I agree, $4K is a lotta moolah to shell out for audio anything. With regard to the SMSL DAC, I will have to check it out. Are you a transport with that or utilizing your PC as the source for output?

[Feanor]

Thanks Feanor. I agree, $4K is a lotta moolah to shell out for audio anything. With regard to the SMSL DAC, I will have to check it out. Are you a transport with that or utilizing your PC as the source for output?

I'm using a PC. It has an M-Audio Revolution 5.1 sound card with S/PDIF coax output, and its the coax I'm using rather than USB; (I haven't tried the USB). I could hook up my CD/SACD player at the same time using optical, but haven't done so yet.

For some more comments on this DAC, see my earlier posts HERE.