2. digital
  3. 1233444268

Hopelessly mid fi?

I recently hooked up an 80 gb ipod to my system through an Apple dock and did an A/B with my CD player. I am able to match the db level between the two via the volume control on the CDP, and switch between sources instantaneously for a meaningful comparison. Much to my chagrin, the difference was minimal at best. So I brought in a Squeezebox and hooked a digital IC into the CDP's DAC with similar results using both compressed (AAC 192) and Apple Lossless formats. From what I have read on this site, I assumed that it shouldn't be possible that compressed or streaming digital should rival the sound of, by all accounts, a reputable CDP (name intentionally withheld). But it does.

Is it possible to assemble a digital front-end, for say, less than $2K, that would produce a meaningful improvement over both the ipod and Squeezebox? An external DAC perhaps? Or is my system simply not capable of resolving the differences? I'd prefer not to overhaul the rest of my system if possible which includes an Odyssey Candella preamp and Extreme mono amps, Von Schwiekert VR-4jr speakers and Virtual Dynamic Nite II cables.

Thanks for your thoughts.
sydneysophia
lwood
61 posts
 
I don't have a super expensive setup (obviously relative), but the difference in 320k mp3's and flac are very obvious to me when played back on a Consonance 120L CDP...yet 5 years ago using a Yammie HT Receiver they sounded the same....so you're answer may lay in your pre/amp setup as opposed to the source. Just my two cents, YMMV

L'wood
cerrot's avatar
cerrot
1,700 posts
 
I also agree that the difference between compressed and uncompressed music is easily discernable. I have a few MP3 addicted friends who never heard a comparison between MP3 and wav or flac files and once I played both for them, they couldn't believe the difference. The Cary CD player is a decent rig. I am not familiar with the preamp & amp. That could be the reason why both sound the same but there may be more there. What it is, I'm not sure. Have you played a well recorded track both ways and compared? There realy should be a large difference between the two.
sdatch
204 posts
 
The wikipedia has links to some excellent references and historical perspectives on MP3 and compressed audio in general, as well as some references to results of listening tests. It seems that as you approach 320K, most people cannot discern between the compressed file and a lossless format, but most listeners could tell a difference at lower bit rates. There is also some mention of the possibility that music with a lot of sudden dynamic changes, like well recorded orchestral music, may be more difficult to compress without artifacts, at least in comparison to more dynamically squashed music, like most modern rock and pop. So perhaps the type of music has something to do with perceived differences as well.
sydneysophia OP
18 posts
 
Sdatch may be on to something. The music in question is/was, in fact, rock. Perhaps more experimentation with different forms of music is in order. And Lwood, the same thought occurred to me as well. Could be down stream.

Thanks to all for their input.
cwaigy
13 posts
 
It shouldn't matter what type of music it is, I can tell that right now and I am listening to lossless Audioslave, and I have probably one of the worst systems on this site. The difference in every instrument is instantly recognizable. Guitars are sharper and quicker, bass drums tight, cymbals crisp, vocals clearer. You have to have a problem upstream or with the room.
More to discover