Raysonic 168

the 168 has the Volume as stated above, might be good, might not work with all systems... It also has a philips transport vs. the Sony unit used in the 128.. it has orange lights opossed to blue... It has what seems to be a different model DAC chip, but also loses the HDCD capability it seems... As for the price I believe the 128 is 1699 unless they upped it, and the 168 is like 2399... Worth 700 more? Well a real serious A-B test would need to be done, but unless you need the volume control, and don't want HDCD, it seems the 128 might still be the best value and probably sounds just as good.

Bondmanp, Well I will say this... The Dac Chip has very little to do with ultimate sound, some are a bit different but not better... Power supplies, Analog output stage, OPamps, Clocks, Transport, yes those are the key elements in todays digital, One dac chip vs another is pennys on the dollar, In other words that single silicone chip is not the greatest cost by far, one DAC chip can cost 18 dollars, and one that everybody thinks is suppose to be better is only about 3 dollars more.

I have heard far bigger differences in Analog stages that you actually hear, not the translator chip, all Dacs obviously have advanced quite a bit since the 1990 10,000 dollar machine right? So would you take a 1990 10,000 dollar machine and believe it sounds better than a 2000 dollar machine using a newer chip?

Possibly, possibly not... Not, as for being a more advanced DAC chip goes, do you really believe that BB has really advanced the chips that much that will now translate into better sound from the year 2000 till' now? Just illustrating a point here is all, not an argument, don't get hung up on the DAC chip, I have heard 3 dollar chips sound as good as 5000 dollar CD players. When you buy an outboard DAC for example, it has to do with the better designed power supplies, Analog output stage, better capacitors and parts, their are many cheap excellent DAC chips, some better than others, but normally these days don't equate to better sound in the end. A good design from somebody like Wadia for example could build a machine around a Really Cheap BB chip and still make it sound better than 99% of lesser machines with cheap transports, power supplies, Analog parts etc...

By the way I have had Several Hi res machines, With 24/96 top of the line Chips etc... SACD, DVD-A ... And I have heard 1996 well designed machines with 16 bit DAC chips run circles around them. So this is the least of our worries.

Newbee, not sure what you are refering too from my end on upsampling.. However I agree upsampling in most cases means nothing… And in the Raysonics case I don't use it, without sounds much more analog. As for price, I don't know that Raysonic uses that as a marketing scheme, and I never even mentioned it in my post as being so, so I again I agree.

Bondmanp, Don't get me wrong I totally see your point, honestly if we all thought a single advancement in digital part #'s equates to better sound we would all have to say the latest Greatest IPOD is better than somebodys 10 year old 20,000 dollar CD player with a far inferior DAC chip in todays terms right ? :-) Its still shocking to some people especially ones that I know stop by and hear a great analog (LP) system walking away saying dammit, now my Levinson system I got at a premium from the dealer for 5 K in my new Lexus will not impress me as much! (True story by the way)

Also, Rotel is using a chip I am sure is in many other Hi end players including ones 10 times the price as it is the same in the raysonic, but the architecture of the machine is not remotely close, as a matter of fact if the DAC Part #'s were not published by the manufactures we would never think of such things in the first place, cause a 50 dollar Sony DVD player can have the same DAC chip in something a 8,000 dollar Lexicon home theater receiver has in it, makes no real difference in the end 9 times out of 10, especially in the advanced redbook Dacs from within the last 10 years.

Fatcataudio
That does change things a bit... Might be why the 168 I believe shows a 2.3 volt output and the 128 a 2.2 volt out.. Also why it costs much more its got 4 Dac's to pay for opossed to a pair..

Reb1208, the center tubes have most effect on the RCA's outer tubes on the XLR... As for the 168 vs. the 128...

Fatcataudio, Since you are on here, please give an opinion on the 2 machines?

I honestly feel after seeing some of the pics on the internals side by side that the 168 has found a way to reduce build and parts costs with using no doubt some more current Dac's, but all the analog parts and layout seem "cheaper" for example only because its obvious the Auricaps are used in the new one vs. the Mundorfs in the 128, I know I have used both in other units in the past, not digital components, but none the less heard these caps head to head and always prefered the mundorfs, and they are a bit more money. There are several other things I note that have been done a bit more conventional in the 168 vs the 128, I am not saying this has anything to do with final sound, just an observation.

The 128 losses the HDCD but gets a slightly advanced redbook chip, however this really means nothing today.

And the main advantage for some users is the 168 adds the volume.

So not saying the build or parts in the 168 will make it sound better or worse, but would like your opinion on the actual differences or flavors of the units.

Thanks

Newbee, I will give all 4 tubes changed out to the same good ones a shot in the upcoming weeks to see If I can concur the inner and outer have effects on both outputs. I definitely can say just changing one pair at a time had large effect by itself, but if its even better with a Matched Quad than I will keep it that way, I just don't have access to my system right now to do any testing.