High Quality Downloads

[reinerfan]

Although I have been collecting recorded sounds for nearly 60 years my ears are still in pretty good condition, and I can easily appreciate the improvements of SACD over CD. I have very good quality equipment and have been wondering whether to travel down the high quality downloads road. With this in mind I have acquired an allegedly excellent DAC, and so am prepared at the hi-fi end of the chain. As luck would have it, my desktop computer is reaching the end of its natural life and I intend to order a new one soon. If I intend to use it for the downloads it will have to be a laptop, as the desktop station is in another room from the hi-fi. I should appreciate any advice as to what the new computer should contain or a reference where I might obtain the information.

[HighlandDougie]

I've also acquired a couple of DACs recently (2 countries = 2 Macbooks): big improvement in sound quality of music replayed using i-Tunes (I'm sure that there is better library software somewhere but it's easy to use and compatible with the likes of Qobuz). I then acquired some software (in my case Audirvana Plus but there are others like Amarra): massive improvement in sound quality. The Audirvana can be used alone or it can be used in "i-Tunes Integrated Mode" where it effectively takes over the playback of music but where the front-end is still i-Tunes. I cannot recommend it highly enough and have now embarked on the acquisition of music in 24 bit form whenever possible (for instance the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich - see the other thread).

[Thropplenoggin]

I've also acquired a couple of DACs recently (2 countries = 2 Macbooks): big improvement in sound quality of music replayed using i-Tunes (I'm sure that there is better library software somewhere but it's easy to use and compatible with the likes of Qobuz). I then acquired some software (in my case Audirvana Plus but there are others like Amarra): massive improvement in sound quality. The Audirvana can be used alone or it can be used in "i-Tunes Integrated Mode" where it effectively takes over the playback of music but where the front-end is still i-Tunes. I cannot recommend it highly enough and have now embarked on the acquisition of music in 24 bit form whenever possible (for instance the Pacifica Quartet's Shostakovich - see the other thread).

Hello HD

A fascinating read. I was just curious - which DACs do you have? I have read good reports about the Audioquest Dragonfly and Meridian Explorer. Neither one is cheap but both are said to be exceptional, both as headphone amplifiers and DACs used in conjunction with hi-fi equipment. These two can cope with the largest file sizes now available from the likes of Linn, Qobuz et al.

[Dave2002]

Although I have been collecting recorded sounds for nearly 60 years my ears are still in pretty good condition, and I can easily appreciate the improvements of SACD over CD. I have very good quality equipment and have been wondering whether to travel down the high quality downloads road. With this in mind I have acquired an allegedly excellent DAC, and so am prepared at the hi-fi end of the chain. As luck would have it, my desktop computer is reaching the end of its natural life and I intend to order a new one soon. If I intend to use it for the downloads it will have to be a laptop, as the desktop station is in another room from the hi-fi. I should appreciate any advice as to what the new computer should contain or a reference where I might obtain the information.

There are a few routes here. Cost wise the Apple Macbook Pros are generally the most expensive, though they are easy to use. They come in different sizes and weights, and at present there is also the option of the Retina display - which offers very high resolution. Two processors are available, the i5 and the i7. The i5 is good enough for most purposes, though if you are feeling flush the i7 version should be better for computation. The Macbook Air is very good if you need to travel, though AFAIK one limitation is that it doesn't have the same digital output as other Macs, so if you want to send output to a DAC it'll probably have to be via the USB ports. Other Macs have an optical digital out/in through the headphone and microphone sockets. The newest laptops don't have a hard drive, but use SSD (Solid State Drives) instead. These have advantages in that the startup time is very short. In a few years probably all will be like that. The downside is that if you have a large library which you want to keep in electronic storage you'll need an external drive, or link to a network drive.

There are various PC type laptops, and I saw some recently in Sainsbury's at under £500 which had Windows 8, plus either an i3 or an i5 processor. These should be good enough.
It is indeed possible even to use some of the smaller netbooks, but I have one a few years old, and I'd suggest that these tend to be underpowered for serious computing. It is possible to run iTunes or Songbird on these.

Lastly, one can take a laptop and run a variant of Linux on it, and some people think this is the way to go for music. Arguably this could give the best results for music, because the OS probably won't interfere so much with the playback, but it may not provide what you feel you need as a computing environment. Some people like players such as Foobar rather than iTunes. This, and some others, should run on Linux variants.

Another factor to consider is whether you need a lot of main memory. A 4Gbyte machine will do, though there are quite likely to be advantages in having an 8 Gbyte memory. Some machines are not upgradeable (or not easily upgradeable), to you need to decide before you buy. However, if you don't normally run your computer with at least 20 windows open, or plan to use virtualisation, then 4Gbytes is perhaps enough, and cheaper. You might want to check whether any prospective purchase does have upgrade routes for memory. Backing storage can also be upgraded, though it's usually less of a problem because external drives can be used.

Backing storage is also a consideration, and if you intend to rip a lot of CDs or purchase a lot of high resolution downloads, then you'll need Terabytes rather than Gigabytes. Hardly any laptops come with enough backing storage to support that, so you might need the equivalent of a desk top machine somewhere linked to external drives simply to store your music files. If you have an internal network that can be made to work reasonably well. Have you already got an in-house LAN? It is possible to use wireless communication, but for various reasons it is often better to have wired communications, at least for any "heavy duty" computers and storage devices on your network. Wireless will probably, however, work fine with your laptop, and it would probably be inconvenient to have to connect wires to it - unless you are planning to leave it in one location permanently in which case I'd suggest wiring it in to your network.

You haven't mentioned what your computing needs are, and what interface is needed to drive your DAC. Those, and cost (your budget?) are likely to be significant, unless you are prepared to buy a machine solely for music playback.

[richardfinegold]

Other posters have pretty much covered the ground here, but I would get an Apple, not a PC. I read audiophile magazines and it seems as if every DAC will play natively on a Mac but needs some type of driver downloaded for a Windows computer. Many times the reviewers will comment on difficulties associated with downloading such drivers.
My experience with downloads is somewhat limited, but I have tried them on both Windows PCs (after loading the required drivers) and Macs. The Macs always sound better, although the differences are not huge.
I currently use a Mac Air, which does not have a hard drive. I had to purchase an external ripping device and external hard drives. I have older MacBooks, one that I use as a Music Server in a Second system, and I have an iMac at work. They all sound the same.

[HighlandDougie]

Hello HD

I have read good reports about the Audioquest Dragonfly and Meridian Explorer.

Thropps

I have a Musical Fidelity (V-Dac 2) - it was reduced so not cheap but not outrageous (c £150??), bought partly because I use an MF Kw250s single box in my work area, and, in France, a Meridian Explorer. It sounds absolutely fine to me. The big difference, though - the quantitative leap in sound quality - has come through using the Audirvana software. Not all that cheap (£60 or so) but worth every penny.

HD

[silvestrione]

Probably out of my depth here, but I'd really like to know why (or if) a DAC is necessary. I play downloads from laptop to Squeezebox, wirelessly, whence they sound pretty good e.g. Linn 24s. Are you saying they will sound better with one of these Meridian DACs in the system as well (or instead?), and where would it fit in?

As I say, I may just be out of my depth here, but I've always wondered what DACs were and why people used them!

[mikealdren]

Thropps

The big difference, though - the quantitative leap in sound quality - has come through using the Audirvana software. Not all that cheap (£60 or so) but worth every penny.

HD

Hi Dougie,
not being a Mac user, can you explain what Audirvna does to improve the sound quality?

As I understand it, on a PC, the digital signal goes straight to the digital output (SPDIF or USD) and then to my DAC so the PC software (Media player or whatever) selects tracks etc. but does not affect the sound quality.

I'm trying to set up a high quality replay system and I'm thinking of using Sonos or something similar to distribute tracks off my NAS storage but having a suitable system that will play Composer/Composition/Movement is proving a challenge. Musichi works well but needs a PC for playback.

Mike

[mikealdren]

As I say, I may just be out of my depth here, but I've always wondered what DACs were and why people used them!

Digital signals (CD or downloads) have to be converted back to analogue to listen to them. This is done by a Digital to Analogue converter (DAC) and they are to be found in computers, CD players and many other devices. The quality of Digital to Analogue conversion is a key factor in the overall sound quality and adding a separate, high quality, DAC is a way of improving sound quality in some circumstances. Your Squeezebox contains a DAC, I haven't heard it but I have read that it is a good performer for the price. However, you can pay several times the price just for a DAC! Is it worth it? Well it really depends on the rest of your system, your hearing and your pocket.

I think you can put the digital output from a Squeezebox through a separate DAC so you could try adding a DAC to see for yourself. Of course you also get to the stage of saying 'it sounds different but is it better' too.

Mike

[Beef Oven]

Anyone got a recommendation for a moderately priced, but high-quality DAC?

I'm planning to play music from my iPad through Genelec active speakers via a DAC.

[Stephen Smith]

I do wonder whether hi-res downloads are another way of getting us to pay, again, for material we have already acquired - or, obviously, at something of a premium over CD quality. I'm sceptical myself, and from my reading, the quality of the source recording is more likely to determine quality than the Hi-Res rates of the downloaded file .

This article points out that hi-res file sizes will be very much larger (up to 6 times), and cites a Boston Audio Society paper which used blind ABX testing to show that it is not possible to tell any better quality of Hi-res as opposed to CD quality:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

. There is a more journalistic article deriving from the paper here

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

I am adopting a cautious approach to hi-res. Lossless downloads (at CD quality) already seem expensive enough to me- especially as I don't get a physical disc or booklet.

[Stephen Smith]

As I understand it, there are just a few makers of DAC chips, and you can differentiate by mounting them in cheaper boxes, or more expensive ones, but a DAC costing 50 times more than the cheapest is unlikely to sound correspondingly, or very much, better.
On my radar - Behringer UCA-202 (about £30, available on Amazon and generally). I've also seen mention of Filo DACs, again small units. Alternatively, for a metal box a Beresford is reasonable value http://www.homehifi.co.uk/products/products.html.
Of course, the choice is yours - if tempted to go higher, the Benchmark is considered "top of the range" in the sense that beyond its spec, you are paying for no discernable improvement at all, in performance http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/dac/dac1-series-overview.
However, I have to say, I don't myself use a separate DAC, so I can't attest the relative merits of these - I use the DAC in AVI ADM speakers. They have dedicated ampifiers and DAC, in the speaker cabinet - so I only need a digital optical source. The optical source comes from the PC soundcard output, or from any Disc player that plays CD (so could be a suitable BlueRay player) and outputs in optical Toslink form) http://www.gramophone.co.uk/editoria...em-alternative
More explanation here: http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/. Incidentally the latest ADM9 RSS (red spot with Scanspeak premium opton) referred to sounds wonderful, and delivers more than adequate bass, certainly for classical music.

[silvestrione]

Digital signals (CD or downloads) have to be converted back to analogue to listen to them. This is done by a Digital to Analogue converter (DAC) and they are to be found in computers, CD players and many other devices. The quality of Digital to Analogue conversion is a key factor in the overall sound quality and adding a separate, high quality, DAC is a way of improving sound quality in some circumstances. Your Squeezebox contains a DAC, I haven't heard it but I have read that it is a good performer for the price. However, you can pay several times the price just for a DAC! Is it worth it? Well it really depends on the rest of your system, your hearing and your pocket.

I think you can put the digital output from a Squeezebox through a separate DAC so you could try adding a DAC to see for yourself. Of course you also get to the stage of saying 'it sounds different but is it better' too.

Mike

Thanks for your reply Mike. I understand better, now you say the Squeezebox already has one.

[HighlandDougie]

Hi Dougie,
not being a Mac user, can you explain what Audirvna does to improve the sound quality?

Mike

Someone far more qualified than I can no doubt explain how it works - it doesn't exactly replace the sound card but it intervenes in the processing of the sound to remove unwanted interference etc etc. The PC equivalent would be something like:

http://jplay.eu/

Translated so it reads a bit oddly. I researched the use of Audirvana fairly extensively before I shelled out my money but, as indicated, have been mightily pleased. I had been impressed with the clarity of the 24/96 EMI Sawallisch Schumann set pre-Audirvana but had found the upper string sound to be a bit hard and glassy. With Audirvana, no such issues - it sounds excellent. Bloom on the strings, depth to the sound, excellent instrumental placing etc. I've done straight comparisons with a number of recordings: without Audirvana, with Audirvana using the i-Tunes integrated mode and as neat FLAC files using Audirvana in stand-alone mode using its (rather basic) playlist function. The last is best but there is very little to choose between the two modes with both offering very audible improvements over i-Tunes. The Philippe Bianconi Debussy Preludes in 24/96 is another recording where all sorts of nuances and subtleties emerge using Audirvana.

HD

[jayne lee wilson]

RE. rfg's comments, the main reason for needing downloadable drivers (which are sometimes necessary for Macs as well) is the advent of Asynchronous usb processing, potentially the best for SQ (very low jitter) but needing the DAC and the computer to "speak" to each other (the DAC "demands" the data from the computer and becomes the master clock). Both the MF and Meridian designs Hd mentioned above have this feature. The later the Mac, the less likely it is to need the driver add-on.

Lots of good DACs about - the Audiolab M-Dac gets great reviews, around £700 new, but I haven't heard it. Cheaper still is the Cambridge DacMagic Plus (£350), which includes a preamp (most do these days), or its cutdown sibling the DacMagic 100. The Plus does the usb thing, not sure about the 100. I lived with the 2009 DacMagic until recently, it is a very good-sounding design with 3 filters (linear, minimum, steep - usefully different shades of SQ) and the two above are based on it. That fussiest&most knowledgable of writers
Martin Colloms gave the PLus the highest praise in the HiFiCritic recently - look for reviews on the Cambridge website.

I daren't name my stunning new DAC here - it was amazing luck to get it, 2ndhand, but not exactly cheap even so. Oh, a big stretch, but let's just say I don't ever expect to change it! (Clue: Vorsprung durch technik).