suggest laptop for music storage

The oversampling thing is complicated for sure. There are good ones and bad ones. Generalizations cannot be made IMO.

However, there are a lot of NOS products out there that attack the harshness problem by rolling-off or compressing the highs in order to make CD's sound better. The result is improved imaging and smoothness at the expense of lost highs. This is not the optimum solution either IMO.

The optimum solution IMO, is to get to extremely low levels of jitter. I hear this everyday through a Squeezebox or Sonos driving a Pace-Car reclocker to a SS DAC-1. This is only 16/44.1, but there is no harshness, no hollowness and not analytical.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Manufacturer

Steve- thanks for your comments.

Some people who have purchased very expensive NOS USB DACs,which can only process 16/44.1 signals, like to make generalizations about PC upsampling. They can't enjoy hi rez 24/96 recordings either.

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.

Like Jeffreybowman2k & Jax2, I also own a Wavelength DAC, which is non up/over sampling.

In my case, the operative word is "owned" a Wavelength DAC (Brick). I sold mine a while back when I put my second system into storage. I enjoyed it very much - it had what I'd describe as a relaxed presentation which was very easy to listen to at length. It exhibited no digital harshness at all. It threw a huge soundstage, but I'd say where it lacked was in rendering the detail and resolution in that imaging as compared to my SS DAC (also NOS...an older technology Muse Model Two Plus). It gave the images a softer edge, for lack of a better description, and occurred to me a bit slower in pacing for some reason. It also did not have as solid a low-end as my SS DAC. Regardless of comparisons I found it a very enjoyable DAC. When pressed I gave it up mostly because of the limitation of having only the USB input, since I do also use a transport, but overall I do think I preferred the presentation of the NOS SS DAC which I still use, in spite of the dated technology. I also use a Modwright Sony 9000ES with all his SS mods (no tube output) and very much like that presentation as well. In contrast, to create some reference, I absolutely hated the Benchmark DAC, which I tried in several systems. I found it harsh, particularly in the highs, and with entirely too much emphasis on what occured to me as hyper-detailed rendering (as if the players were etched into an icy space). I really don't get why folks like that DAC so much. I found it fatiguing after only an hour of listening, and that was in three very different systems I listened to it in. I have not heard the Wavelength Cosecant which Jeffrey and JC own. Based on The Brick, I have no doubt it's an excellent DAC. I have listened at length to my good friend's Electrocompaniet EMC-1 24/192 and consistently find that a superb front end - it does upsample. This is all one person's opinions, but I certainly would echo that I'd make no generalizations based upon upsampling.

Marco

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.