iFi Pro iDSD claims to do DSD1024 and costs $2.5k. Dave you sell that one too, right? |
Wow Dave is admitting something is better than LUMIN! This is a breakthrough! Just kidding (inside joke, he and I have squabbled about LUMIN). In all seriousness appreciate the insight.
Dave, how are the less expensive T+A streamer/dacs (if you’ve tested)?
Are they best in class for their price points? Or for now is it just the top of line one that you like best?
Also, (off topic for this thread, sorry) are T+A amps and speakers as good as their digital? |
My whole system is *only* a $20k system, but the Tidal difference between MQA and non-mqa in my system is very noticeable to me.
If OP has any plans to ever stream Tidal, I stick by my statement that not having a dac that supports MQA would be a dealbreaker, especially at these levels of cash outlay.
That is not to say that other things don’t sound good, but come on, if he/she talking about spending $20k plus on a digital unit, do you really want to miss out on Tidal’s top sound quality offerings?
|
OP has Mc amp and preamp. Given that, why would he/she even think about pairing it with a warm sounding dac?? I get it that also BW 800s, but I’d still think would want to swing for neutral or slightly analytical.
dcs or msb or esoteric sounds like a better synergistic compatible if OP intends to stick with Mc that he/she already has. Just my opinion based on reputations. I’ll be first to admit I have not heard (in my system) any of these $20k+ digital wonders being discussed.
This thread is really good btw. Nice job OP kicking it off and responding to all the suggestions and refining your search as more info presented. Can’t wait for the auditions and demos and head2heads if they happen.
Cables should not be the answer to mismatched components at this point in game (bc still free to purchase nicely compatible digital piece to go with what he/she already has). OP better off getting best synergistic match with the digital purchase with his existing kit and then using cables to tweak that last 1-2%.
Lack of MQA support on T+A would be dealbreaker for me. |
erik_squires,
I’m an oddball and really do not. I’m probably the only person on A’gon who went straight from CD’s in the 80’s, 90’s to Tidal streaming in 2019 without ever downloading a digital music file. Skipped the whole Napster/Apple Music/ everything else for last 20 years. Why? I don’t know, to be honest. Kids, work, family, life, who knows? Then I found streaming and game changer -- back in audio in last year in huge way like I hadn’t been since the 90’s.
So long story short, no, I only use Tidal and I’m like a kid in the candy store now with unlimited (to me anyway) access to everything music. I’m sure eventually I’ll add a second service to cover the things I can’t get on Tidal but I can’t see ever going vinyl or hi-res downloads just too big a rabbit hole cash wise for me today. Maybe in 10-20 years when my kids are grown and I’m retired and have unlimited time and more $$. |
Erik_squires,
Teac NT-505 dac/streamer. Dual mono AK4497’s, dual toroidal power supplies, fully balanced XLR, dual onboard clocks, full MQA support, great analog output section, upsample to DSD512, Lumin software, etc.... Amazing dac for $2k ("Esoteric-lite" I call it since Teac parent company of Esoteric - poor man’s Esoteric). I love it. Rest of system is Audio Research integrated amp and Spendor D7 and Rel S5 and MIT speaker/IC cables, Audio Art power and sub neutrik cables, Richard Gray power conditioner.
MQA a couple of steps higher than regular Tidal through my main system. I exclusively source Tidal. I have lesser systems (Bluesound, Integra) that fully decode MQA where I can’t really hear difference, but on *my* reference system I certainly can and I would never give that up.
[[granted, my system is different level than this thread deals with, but to me that’s all the more reason to demand MQA support if spending that kind of money as OP is considering -- if it makes huge difference with my $20k system and $2k DAC, why would you spend the $$ OP talking about without that feature, especially if concerned about future-proofness?? Nobody knows where MQA will be in 5 yrs, granted, but why take the chance? At a minimum is it not a feature to completely ignore, as some here seem to want to do. Relevant feature at a minimum, whether OP decides it is necessary or not. I’m just providing my personal experiences as an owner having 3 systems that fully decode MQA and being an exclusive Tidal user -- yes MQA makes huge difference if you have the system quality to resolve those differences -- if you don’t (and two of my three systems do not have that quality), then it doesn’t matter]]
Whether there’s something better than MQA I can’t say and don’t want to start an argument about that. I’m speaking from personal experience and to me it makes a noticeable difference on Tidal (when that is all I’m talking about) if your system is at a certain level of performance. As I said, only my reference system is. My second and third systems are not and I can’t hear MQA difference there, despite having full MQA decode there also (but those are $3k and $2k systems - quality not there to resolve the distinctions, IMO). |
OP,
You are asking a lot of excellent questions regarding component selection and integration into an already well conceived system.
Here’s an analogy to think about, and in advance I’ll state there are additional layers that could be developed but that would take more time than I have right now.
Think about it like a multilevel chess game (or that game they played on STTNG). To get the equation or formula just right, you need to win on all of the levels. All levels involve compatibility.
One important level, and the one I was referring to in my first post regarding your Macs and why I thought pairing them with a warm dac would be bad is what I call the sound temperature level. I wrote about this recently on another thread but think about a sound spectrum from zero to 100, where 0 is cold, dull, boring, 100 is hot, hurts your ears, and 50 is neutral. 25-40 might be what some call “warm,” and 60-85 might be what some call “bright” (and you could fill rest of that spectrum in with any number of other descriptors but you get the point).
This is a good time to say there in no one right answer, even though some will claim there is. You might be a “20 person” and for you 20 is perfect on the temp chart. Or a 68 person, or a straight up 50 person. Like a sleep number bed. No right answer.
That said, we can think of each component as falling somewhere along the temp spectrum (though everyone hears differently and since no independent ratings org, we have to estimate).
Let’s say for sake of argument your Macs are 20-30 range. Just a guess I haven’t heard your stuff. Just illustrating the concept. And similarly let’s say your 800s are in the 75-85 range.
If that’s correct maybe that explains why Mc/BW historically a popular pairing ( since many people on sleep number scale may like a “final combined sound number” within 40-60.
I’m not saying final number a simple average (before someone jumps on me for that). This is discussional not scientific.
So anyway now you probably see why I implied adding a warm (20-30ish) dac might not be good synergistic addition.
Level two: Resolvability level. Not to be confused with cost level but somewhat related. You could also call this quality level but I like resolvability better. I’ll use my systems as example, and since dacs are topical here we’ll use them.
I own the Teac and Bluesound dacs/streamers and use both daily for multiple hours. For argument sake I’d say both of them fit within the 40-60 window above on the sound temperature scale described above (both fairly neutral). But on the resolvability scale of this level of the chess board they differ substantially. The former punches way above its $2k cost weight class to point I can comfortably use with my ARC/Spendor D series reference system (again, my reference is not at level of your reference, (but someday I will be hopefully)), and the Teac is not out of its league with the ARC and Spendor resolvability wise even though cost wise it is much lower cost (to my ears anyway).
The Bluesound, by contrast, no, it works in my much lower resolving system but that’s it. It can’t resolve at level of Teac and is like a C youth hockey player trying to fit in on the A team (everyone in the stands is like, wth is that kid doing on the A team, that’s a C player -I’m a youth hockey coach last 12 yrs, another reason explaining my 20 yr absence). The Bluesound would be out of place in my reference system (recall my earlier statements about where I can hear dramatic MQA improvements and where I can’t) and it would drag my reference system down in an unacceptable manner (like the C player pushed up to the A team).
A third level is cost and fitting everything within you budget and still winning at each level.
so those are three levels and you could extend it many more but I’m out of time for now .....
As with any analogy there will be infinite ways to poke holes in it. Offered as food for thought not as a holy grail of audio wisdom
|
OP, right on Mc and BW based on general consensus but I am not familiar with the particular models. My comments are more illustrative on one simplified way of approaching options.
I’d defer on the dac recommendations because I haven’t experience with any of those hi end units.
Only actual listening sessions BY YOU matter at end of day.
Good luck
|
Yo, what we talkin’ ’bout ’gain? (sorry, stepped away for couple days, eeks)
Those DAC demos can't come soon enough!!! HURRY!! We're losin' her, Captain!! |
