Digital Front End: Critical Listening


I'm motivated to write this post after some initial comparisons I made between the DAC in my Marantz DVD player and my Levinson 360S. Using the Marantz as transport, these units fed into a Mccormack RLD1 pre, a Levinson 334 amp, and Celestion SL12si monitors. I realise this system is not your typical "high-end" system used for comparison.
The problem is that I couldn't hear much of a difference between the Marantz and the Levinson. Actually I felt a little foolish for having paid over $3000 for the Levinson when it doesn't seem to offer asignificant improvement. The Marantz is a mid-level DVD player with their "HDAM" technology which is said to replace op amps.
Can anyone offer an opinion as to why I'm not hearing not only a significant difference but drastic improvement with the Levinson. Could it be the Preamp not passing on the improved resolution offered by the 360S? Or maybe it's the speakers but I really don't think so.

Any thoughts?
sjh32
Artisen65,

You make some good points, looks like transport synergy might be the issue. My local stereo guy always refers to a CEC transport he once owned as his reference. I read somewhere that Parasound sold a similar design under their banner that was made by CEC. Both are belt driven. With my Sony I was trying to have digital separates and a good SACD player in one. Now I'm starting to think about mod's to the Sony, Richard Kern's in particular. Thanks for the good feedback.
Two things:
1) your Transport is the weakest link - get it modded

2) THe ML360S is very good, but also can be better once modded
What do you mean, or what are you looking for, when you say 'difference?' Maybe the music wasn't demanding enough, (no quality judgement here), to reveal differences. I've recently gone from a Rega Planet 2000 to the Musical Fidelity a308cr, and there was a huge difference in transparency *but* this was only noticeable when listening to large-scale classical music. The Rega and the MF players sounded just about the same with small-group ensembles, whether chamber group or jazz, but the MF would expand, (bloom), when orchestra and chorus get going full-tilt . I too tried the Tri-Vista DAC, both with my $2 DVD player and A308cr as transports. The sound was (surprise) gritty with the DVD player. When comparing the A308 alone and the A308 as a transport with the Tri-Vista DAC, the sound was only *slightly* more fleshed out with the later combo. Though not enough for me to go on a transport and cable hunt.

Sytem:

Musical Fidelity A308 Integrated
MF A308 CD player
Cardas Neutral Reference interconnects and bi-wired cable
Vandersteen 3A Signatures
(Two Vandersteen subs on way!)
First, jdaniel, you bring up a very good point that I had considered but sort of dismissed, thinking that any general improvement should be at least audible with any well recorded music, regardless of genre. But I guess complexity of the signal is your point, and the subtlies of largescale acoustic ensembles. I have only a handful of classical disks. I don't have a classical music education so I think a lot of that stuff is just lost on me. I am beginning to get into Jazz so maybe there's hope.
About the transport issue, the Levinson 360's has what they call intelligent FIFO. This technology, says the user manual, makes the quality of transport and digital cable less crucial. It's a kind of buffer or resevoir that reclocks the data in such a way as to render jitter practically non existent. The manual goes into more detail and basically says their FIFO is different from some other recent attempts in several important ways. Considering that Levinson sell transports, why would it be in their interest for marketing to lie or misrepresent this feature if it weren't true? Now I know much heated controvesy exists surrounding the claims made about digital technology, some saying digital is digital and expensive cables are theoretically a waste of money and all claims to the contrary are the result of self-fulfilling auditory anticipation, etc. I haven't made up my mind simply because I don't think I have enough experience, listening wise, to weigh in on either side. But judging solely from arguements I've read, I have to at least partially side with the aforementioned critics.
I find the differences in digital front-ends to be significant but subtle. I can't tell much of a difference with A/B comparisons between most "hi-fi" digital components. But in extended listening the differences are huge. Digital is fatiguing in general. But I listen to digital exclusively. And for that reason I spent more money on my source than any other component in my system, including the speakers!

I tend to listen to music for extended periods, upwards of 3 hours at a time. With a low quality digital front end I never listen for that long. When I turn off the music after an hour, I get a momentary feeling of relief. It's like stepping out of a loud party into the bathroom. You think to yourself "ahhh... silence for a moment."

The better the digital front end, the less significant I find the effect of "digital fatigue." My advice would be to try keeping each setup in your system continuously for a week or two. Monitor how much time you actually spend listening to music with each one.

A personal note, there is a possibility that I am unusually sensitive to this. But I've been listening exclusively to digital for over a decade, and I was never into vinyl before that.