2. digital
  3. 1185220644

Raysonic 168

Thanx for the responses on the 128. I see now the 168 has been released. I saw what Underwood Audio has done to the 128 as far as mods go, it looks like some things done in the mods have been incorporated in the 168.
Has anyone yet heard the 168? I am hedging my bet between the two for an upcoming purchase.
hockeydad

Showing 3 responses by newbee

newbee
4,811 posts
 
Undertow, FWIW, I have 4 very good Digital systems and only one of them 'up-samples', the Raysonic 128, and I don't like it in that (selectible) mode. Personally, I think the benefits of upsampling is a lot of sales hype - the real difference are in the output sections. IMHO of course.
newbee
4,811 posts
 
Rebl, Don't know about the 168, but I've done some tests with the tubes in my 128 and I've concluded that the 4 tubes act in concert to some degree, for example the tubes in the RCA output will affect the sounds from the XLR outputs. This in contrary to what I've been told and read (interestingly never by an authoritive source) but I became interested when I had a tube in the XLR output fail and it affected the RCA output which alone was connected. FWIW.
newbee
4,811 posts
 
Reb, Glad to hear it wasn't my imagination. It also explains why I wasn't able to get the sound of the sonic signature from the tubes I was using unless I used all four of the same brand. Interestingly it makes the permutations seem infinite - perhaps not so good for the anal folks. :-)

BTW, how do you like the 168? Anything to compare it against? Have you heard the 128?
More to discover