High Quality Downloads

[HighlandDougie]

The later the Mac, the less likely it is to need the driver add-on.

Certainly my Macbooks both immediately recognised the respective DACs - absolutely seamless

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).

You mean if I ask Audi they'll convert my beloved Audi Allroad into a DAC? Now very intrigued so do tell

[jayne lee wilson]

Just seen Stephen Smith's posts...

OK - it isn't just the make or quality of DAC chips that makes a difference, it's how you arrange them. My Cambridge has 2 Wolfsons, one per channel. The new one has 4 Burr-Browns per channel in a dual-mono design with galvanic isolation. As for filters, the most exciting recent developments have moved away from the flat-response Linear filters to "Minimum" or "Apodising" designs. Generally, these trade a better impulse response against some loss of linearity. In other words, better rhythm and dynamics with some reduction or lifting of highest frequencies. This has introduced more creativity in DAC designs and is the reason for having a choice of filters. Rather than one sound - take it or leave it - you can have 4, and choose the best for your ears, the source, the music, or the system. (If you think you'd go mad choosing between them - don't buy them!). Metrum have recently done a filterless design (filters are a necessary evil, really) with 8 Dac chips per channel - and it's getting excellent reviews!

Remember too that all Dacs need power supplies, output stages etc., and these will all sound different too - comes down to the talents of the designer.
So, what did I hear moving from the Cambridge to "the high-end"? Greater realism - above all, more tangibility, the feeling that you can "see" a 3-dimensional orchestra, instrument, singer etc, in a large, vividly audible acoustic. Harder to describe than to hear, but if you've been to concerts - you'll just know! The sound is always very "pure", hear-through, you could never say the DAC had a sonic character.

2 more things: your involvement in the music is effortless, and the differences between recordings - orchestras, halls, pianos etc. - is shockingly apparent, much more obvious than before. Anyone with experience of an active monitor like ATC will know what I mean.

As for downloads - as ever, eclassical give terrific value - I've just bought the lossless flac of the original Sibelius 5 (Vanska) for $5!

(**I'm not surprised HD finds musicplayers sound different; both my CD transports and the Macbook all sound different with the same recordings!)

[teamsaint]

Fascinating stuff.
I just wondered if this thread is a cunning attempt to create a massive diversion for all those US government "Prism " snoops, or tie them up in knots.

Worth a try anyway.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Take the SACD off the shelf. Pop it into the player. Press "play".

[Dave2002]

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.

You can indeed output from a Squeezebox to a DAC using either a coax link or an optical link. The DAC inside some of the Squeezeboxes may be pretty good, and will probably sound quite smooth. I think you need the Touch models to be able to use higher bit rate downloads, or to feed to a DAC which will cope with higher bit rate sources. If you can tell the difference, and if you prefer the results with the DAC, then it probably makes sense to try a direct USB link from your computer, as results may be better. However the Squeezebox can function quite nicely as either a wireless bridge or a wired one, and in some situations that can be useful. I don't think you can get up to 192kHz bit rate though.

[jayne lee wilson]

Take the SACD off the shelf. Pop it into the player. Press "play".

Exactly what I did with an Arcam CD37 a few years ago... only to be puzzled as to why I was getting better sound from my CD players/DACs or 24-bit downloads.
So I began to look "under the lid", find out what was happening inside the player, and in the DAC itself... things began to get a bit clearer even to my imperfect grasp.

There's something wonderful about Maths & Physics creating beautiful music!

Or look at Springwatch... Long-Tailed Tits are beautiful, but they're even more beautiful when you discover why a nest of chicks is being fed by 3 adults! Or why Water Rail chicks are jet black...

[richardfinegold]

With respect to the "which Dac " question one doesn't need a separate DAC if they have another digital player that will accept digital inputs. I have 3 systems in my home. In one of the I am using a firewire DAC, a slightly modified piece of Pro Audio equipment that is no longer manufactured, accepting the firewire output of a 10 year old MacBook and it sounds fantastic.
In My main two channel system, I am using the asynchronous usb input of the Oppo 105 Universal Player, which also does most of the disc spinning responsibilities. In my 3rd Home Theater System, I have a Marantz 7004, a digital streamer which has asynchronous usb inputs to use with it's DAC.
There are also gizmos that will convert a usb output from a computer into an asynchronous S/P DIF signal. I had a Musical
Fidelity V Link in my two channel system, but the Oppo has rendered it obsolete. It cost less than $200, and it was probably cheaper on your side of the pond, since it hails from a British manufacturer.

[richardfinegold]

. Long-Tailed Tits are beautiful, ...[/QUOTE]

Have truer words ever been written?

[johnb]

You can indeed output from a Squeezebox to a DAC using either a coax link or an optical link. The DAC inside some of the Squeezeboxes may be pretty good, and will probably sound quite smooth. I think you need the Touch models to be able to use higher bit rate downloads, or to feed to a DAC which will cope with higher bit rate sources. If you can tell the difference, and if you prefer the results with the DAC, then it probably makes sense to try a direct USB link from your computer, as results may be better. However the Squeezebox can function quite nicely as either a wireless bridge or a wired one, and in some situations that can be useful. I don't think you can get up to 192kHz bit rate though.

The Squeezebox Touch was extremely good and the searching facilities were excellant, especially with the third party iPad apps. One of the terrific things about it was the third party developers who provided addons ranging from Triode's iPlayer, Qobuz, Spotify, etc, etc. (I write in the past tense as the Touch is sadly now discontinued.)

The maximum sampling rate is 94/24 though Triode has written an addon which enables the Touch to support 192/24 via the USB connection.

(I intend to continue using my Touch for many years. In fact I bought a backup unit when I heard they were being discontinued.)

[johnb]

Talking of DACs - does anyone have experience of the Audiolab M-DAC? It seems to be highly praised by users.

A new DAC isn't exactly a priority for me, but I'm curious about the M-DAC.

[reinerfan]

I am grateful for the replies to my query, but most seem to be about the DAC which I already have and do not propose to change at this time. My main query was concerning the new computer which, I assume, will only be concerned with downloading and storage. Is there anything concerning the computer about which I should be aware? Unfortunately. many of the replies assume a knowledge of computers of which I am only marginally aware, which is why I asked for information which would increase my knowledge.
I have now decided that in view of the relatively slow download ability which is available to me in this part of Spain, and the cost involved (around 3 times what you pay in the UK for a much faster service), I shall stick to CDs and SACDs.
Incidentally. Jayne, I have the Arcam CD37 and, like you, find that my CD player usually provides better results, but it did cost between 3 and 4 times the cost of the Arcam. I think that I shall spend the relatively few years that I have remaining in listening and enjoying the music.

[Thropplenoggin]

I've weighed up my options. The Naim CD555 is still looking like the most reasonable purchase for now at £18.345.

'Oh, that's a comma between the 8 and the 3! Um, it seems I've left my wallet at home...'

[Dave2002]

Throps

You're being robbed. £13250 here - http://www.hifigear.co.uk/naim-cd555...FUfLtAodkAUAxQ.

[MrGongGong]

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.

Well most Electroacoustic folks who are Genelec boffins swear by these

http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products.php

though probably got more features than you need for simple playback

[Thropplenoggin]

Throps

You're being robbed. £13250 here - http://www.hifigear.co.uk/naim-cd555...FUfLtAodkAUAxQ.

£5,000 saved! Brilliant! Now I can buy a new pro-audio needle for my stylus.