Charles1dad, while I like avoiding Op amps and his other emphases, I need the Sabre chip for my music server and it double DSD.
Thanks for the information. |
Agear, I have continually wondered about the fundamental question in this thread, which frankly I think is absurd. Now with your new restatement, I can comment more.
Does computer audio that digital over the top relative to vinyl something for which I have an opinion. No! I still greatly prefer vinyl, except for its great inconvenience. I was moving to prepare to put many of my 45 rpm reissues on the hard drive in double DSD, but have stopped as I suspect that I may get them that way directly off master tapes, although SONY is using a device that has many opamps which really are terrible.
Presently, I'm using a Mac Mini running JRiver MC19 out via USB to my dac that can play double DSD. USB and Firewire are the only outputs I have. With JRiver MC19, I can play cds in 44.1/16 on up to double DSD and the differences are striking.
I am told by a friend that single native DSD sounds better than double DSD but I'm not at all convinced that this is true. But double DSD through USB asynchronous is the best digital I've ever heard. High resolution is the wave of the future and I suspect there is no way to get such high definition is other than through downloads off the internet. |
Mapman, that would hardly be "over the top" for me. I guess it is better than MP3. |
Foster_9, I was curious about that also, but I do think the BMC transport and the Oppo drives plus the Esoteric drives are also good; no where near the cds ripped to hard drives, however. |
Agear, several truths drive me to my basic indifference to this thread. One, using a music server is far more convenient than playing cds or sacds. Two data that is repeatedly read off the optical drive and then replayed off that drive is more accurate than those read by a universal player's optical drive. Three, high definition copies are superior to low definition drives. There is more information and the digital filters apply at much higher frequencies. Four true DSD information goes through a different portion of the Sabre chip and sounds superior to PCM. Five, I think the old adage that bits are bits is ridiculous. Cabling has a major impact on what bits are received as does the accuracy of the clocks involved.
Finally, this thread is not different from any others–there is never any consensus. Matt has satisfied his interests and had the good fortune to hear many units in his own room. Most of us don't even have a dealer where they might even hear one player. I was curious enough to see how this played out, but quickly lost interest as the logistics grew more complicated.
I will just go back to listening to well ripped cds played back in double DSD, as well as many sacds in DSD on my hard drive. I'm sure that you too were unaffected by this thread and will continue to enjoy your system. Good luck. |
Charles1dad, I just read the 6Moons review. Wow! I didn't have time to note what chip is in it, but I would love to hear it. |
My music server comes with a TEAC optical drive with Linux program for ripping with many checks for errors. I have found that ripping is much faster when the cds are treated with the Essence of Music cd treatment and clearly sound better also. |
Tortilladc, I agree with you that a $200 chromebook would sound as good as a $2000 game rig. Both would be little better than MP3.
I am not interested in such noise. |
Joecasey, I agree but it does suggest that the longer time means that errors are more common, that Essence of Music reduces them. It probably does not mean much in ripping, but the ripping with the treatment sounds noticeably better, and I suspect that on a universal player would be quite a good deal better. |
Joecasey
Joecasey, I agree but it does suggest that the longer time means that errors are more common, that Essence of Music reduces them. It probably does not mean much in ripping, but the ripping with the treatment sounds noticeably better, and I suspect that on a universal player would be quite a good deal better.
There are tons of benchmarks extracting data off different media. It's a known issue and impact greatly magnified in real time.
I don't understand what this has to do with the improvement in the quality of the rip or with the speed of ripping. |
Cerrot, I certainly shared your opinion of the USB connection earlier and even sold my USB Dac 1 Pre even after an improved USB input was installed. But BMC certainly improved the USB input in their new PureDac and with their Pure USB-1 cable.
Also I am playing music in double DSD and don't think SP Dif can do that. |
I find no worthy points being made on this thread. I see the computer as the wave of the future with data coming from internet downloads. |
Mapman, yes the difference is the latency of the computer unwrapping the Flacs. The sound is different than uncompressed Wav files. All of my newer files are stored in DSD and all are replayed in double DSD. I also have some music recorded in double DSD.
My best sounding digital is Essence of Music SACD done into DSD-big but beautiful. |
Mapman, so who or what does it right and why? All I know is that alway WAV files sound different and better than FLAC files.
I will soon have a dac with two computers. One will only do music and the other will do everything else. And there will be precision clocks for both and no opamps or switching power supplies. |
|
