Based on the criteria you listed a MAC seems like the best candidate for you. I can say from experience they sound better than ANY pre-vista based machines, and it is heavenly not having to configure the ASIO driver. MACs also assert better control over the hardware because their drivers are written very well. Ultimately they sound better in my experiences, and I heard the Vista machines need a patch for the USB as well.
GO MAC, and you will never look back.
Best of luck! |
Like Jeffreybowman2k & Jax2, I also own a Wavelength DAC, which is non up/over sampling. Just don't lose sight of the fact that over/upsampling is not always synonymous with "better" like most people are led to believe. In fact in alot of implementations it is often quite the sonic opposite, and Gordon's DACs validate this as fact.
My Cosecant is the best and most musical digital I have ever heard and it doesn't over sample a thing. No harshness, no hollowness, not analytical. You will find alot of people that have heard these DACs or own them agree. The buck can stop with non oversampling as well, so just keep this in mind. |
Kana813- there you go running your squeezebox again..Is this what happens when you modify one of them?
"like to make generalizations about PC upsampling"
These aren't generalizations, these are facts. And quite honestly I would be more comfortable and enjoy even more just about any other over sampling design that was implemented from the ground-up, rather than a modification to someone else's commercial design, or adding a corrective device to it. |
Kana813-really? All music is recorded on SS huh? Tell me more please...This is becoming comical at this point and I am convinced you live on another planet. In fact, I think I might actually be dumber from having read all you have wrote here in this thread. Thanks alot.
This is a rhetorical question of course..But what would your(probably driveling) answer to guitar amps that are tubed-usually a preference of most musicians who are often recorded using them. What about microphones that are tubed used in recorded music. Lastly, just because a mixer may transistor based means nothing in regard to the characteristics of reproduced music through tubes. Although if a recording is mixed poorly, which is quite common these days, it will most certainly sound like sh*t through any system capable of revealing those differences.
To end this silly conflict and to spare everyone else your more of your nonsense in this forum, you might want to consider thinking before your speak But also let me leave you with some great advice I have decided to consider...Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. In this case you win..Good luck & Mahalo. |
Marco-thanks for the write up, good points you make here. I too owned a Brick first, then moved up the line to the Cosecant, and eventually plan to go to the Crimson. The difference between Brick and Cosecant was profound, and I agree with your observations of Brick. Except I would add it rolled the bass a little as well, which is why I moved from it. Cosecant does not do this, and does everything Brick does, but with more authority and depth, while still retaining that pretty sound synonymous with Gordon's equipment. I actually have trouble comprehending how Crimson can be as good as people say it is quite honestly. Not that I am doubting it is, just fascinating to me that it gets better.
Anyway, my point is basically that all too often people automatically assume that up sampling is just simply better than an equivalent 16 bit design, and this is NOT always the case. In my listening tests I compared Cosecant with a Meridian G08 (upsampling) and the Cosecant sounded overall more like music to me and quite a few others in the room. However, in the case of the DACs we are discussing here maybe this is not the case, they could be the best sounding up samplers in the world for all I know. But hopefully listening is the ultimate decision-maker, not just technical stats by themselves. Sounds like you have listened to alot yourself, which is ultimately how I ended up with the stuff I have today-exhaustive listening, and side by side comparisons. And I can say with certainty, that I don't consider not having the ability to listen to 24 bit a shortcoming by any means. Hopefully others do not either. |
Steve- to answer your question..No I do not think that at all, it's quite the opposite actually. My point was merely to state modified equipment is not for me. Not to say you don't do an excellent job of it, just doesn't appeal to me to have something that is second-rate, modified to be better. But thats me...I would much rather your spoiler DAC, which is yours from the ground-up, and probably quite nice. |
Actually correction on the Spoiler DAC, I don't believe Steve makes it from the ground up. Maybe I am wrong but this one looks alot like it.
http://www.pacificvalve.us/LTDAC602.html
Kana813- you are right, that is the DAC chip Gordon uses. Couple of facts regarding the points you raised. First off, out of about a billion of those chips that were produced Gordon got the N2, top 5% of them. Second, and I trust his ear based on the sound of his equipment, he has tried many many upsampling chips and none of the produce the sound he strives for, but he still tries them all the time. The TDA1543 is tried and true and sounds good and there are alot of reputable DACS out there that use them.
In regards to the 1.1 USB I need you to explain why in the heck that is important? 2.0 is only faster and the last time I checked passing music through 1.1 doesn't come even close to challenging it. And all 2.0 connections we have are backwards compatible, so moot point here. Unless you are the exception and you stream large data files along with your music over your USB connection.
And I never claimed to be an upsampling expert, but I do know more than you do. And to answer your question, I haven't listen to any Computer based upsampling devices. But I struggle with why a computer based is any different than a transport that upsamples?
Just remember, the more you increase the bandwidth beyond 16bit the more the errors increase, and the more equipment you need to deal with that. In the case of what Steve makes, and your DAC they are ultimately similar, both lense-like equipment that you add on to something-which seems silly and hodgepodge to me. I just have trouble understanding why go to all that trouble of adding equipment on to some second rate Squeezebox, or going to all the trouble of modifying someone elses equipment. But it serves to reason you agree with his philosophy. I say, if your smart to modify it, your smart enough to create your own, and most likely that will sound better than a modded piece. |
Conceptually, alot of what Steve makes is exactly like what you are doing. But keep telling yourself its different, and while your at it maybe throw a slice of bologna in the signal path too. Might sound better for you.
Listen I am not going to debate every techincal detail with you here. If Gordon says 24/96 needs 2.0, so be it, although I tend to disagree with him on that point. Can you actually believe that I disagree with him? But if your happy with what you have all the power to you. I personally would LOVE an opportunity to do a side by side with you DAC for DAC, but thats silly. If nothing else but to prove to you that $3500 for Cosecant is a relative bargain, and would make a $500 10 year old Genesis Lense sound completely inferior.
What you are failing to understand is that my purpose is not to compare products with you. There is no comparison here, Cosecant is in a completely different class than any source you own. What is important to impart to those reading this thread is oversampling is NOT always better, ironically it is often the opposite. You need to understand that Red Book was ratified as the standard for a reason. And if you increase the bandwidth over and above this standard the errors increase as well, and it is how these implementations deal with this fact that is a point to mention. Filters etc in the signal path. In the case of some equipment, Pops, clicks etc. Not for me, not for alot of people with true audiophile-grade equipment. Not to mentioned alot of the equipment being discussed here is solid-state based equipment, which of course is another discussion. But good luck with solid state and audio. Any SS I have owned or auditioned has NOTHING on tubes-case closed. But enjoy your transistors by all means, I spent 10 years with them and would never consider anything for audio that didn't have tubes in it.
So by all means keep looking for lightening in a bottle with modded equipment, flashing your CDs with magic lights, and seeking out upsampled recordings as the end all. Like I said if thats what blows your hair back go for it..For me, modified, second-rate commercial equipment is like putting lipstick on a pig. |
Jax2-one other comment I forgot to mention about "lacked was in rendering the detail and resolution in that imaging as compared to my SS DAC".
This is a great point and one I have thought about alot. Too often I have realized when I went for the inner detail you mentioned was lacking in the Brick I got a level of resolution that was just too digital (like you described) and harsh or hollow, not at all musically paced. After all the things I listened too (and I heard some damn good stuff SS and tubed) I just decided it was really a matter of what you are willing to give up, and that finding the perfect balance was damn near impossible. A game of compromises if you will....Cosecant is about the closest to that balance I have ever heard, and for that reason alone makes it a relative bargain in the hifi world.
But another excellent point here that should be considered ultimately through listening. |
