suggest laptop for music storage

Steve- Jc51373's DAC uses a TDA1543 chip. It only has a USB 1.1 input.

Jc51373- Since you're an expert on upsampling, how many computer based upsamplers have you tried?

Steve- to answer your question..No I do not think that at all, it's quite the opposite actually. My point was merely to state modified equipment is not for me. Not to say you don't do an excellent job of it, just doesn't appeal to me to have something that is second-rate, modified to be better. But thats me...I would much rather your spoiler DAC, which is yours from the ground-up, and probably quite nice.

Actually correction on the Spoiler DAC, I don't believe Steve makes it from the ground up. Maybe I am wrong but this one looks alot like it.

http://www.pacificvalve.us/LTDAC602.html

Kana813- you are right, that is the DAC chip Gordon uses. Couple of facts regarding the points you raised. First off, out of about a billion of those chips that were produced Gordon got the N2, top 5% of them. Second, and I trust his ear based on the sound of his equipment, he has tried many many upsampling chips and none of the produce the sound he strives for, but he still tries them all the time. The TDA1543 is tried and true and sounds good and there are alot of reputable DACS out there that use them.

In regards to the 1.1 USB I need you to explain why in the heck that is important? 2.0 is only faster and the last time I checked passing music through 1.1 doesn't come even close to challenging it. And all 2.0 connections we have are backwards compatible, so moot point here. Unless you are the exception and you stream large data files along with your music over your USB connection.

And I never claimed to be an upsampling expert, but I do know more than you do. And to answer your question, I haven't listen to any Computer based upsampling devices. But I struggle with why a computer based is any different than a transport that upsamples?

Just remember, the more you increase the bandwidth beyond 16bit the more the errors increase, and the more equipment you need to deal with that. In the case of what Steve makes, and your DAC they are ultimately similar, both lense-like equipment that you add on to something-which seems silly and hodgepodge to me. I just have trouble understanding why go to all that trouble of adding equipment on to some second rate Squeezebox, or going to all the trouble of modifying someone elses equipment. But it serves to reason you agree with his philosophy. I say, if your smart to modify it, your smart enough to create your own, and most likely that will sound better than a modded piece.

Jc51373-

Per your man Gordon:
"USB is limited to 16 bit data and 32K, 44.1K and 48K data rates. Higher data and sample rates would require Firewire or USB 2.0, which there is no specification for either at this time. Custom products are capable of this, but really if the data is 44/16 who cares."

Some people have original 24/96 recordings stored on their PC and use external DACs for playback.

Nothing Steve makes is similar to the DAC I use. The DL and Steve's PaceCar are not DACs. You obviously don't understand how they work.

People with DIY skills modified equipment like the Squeezebox and Sonus or pay someone to do it for them, because they can put together an excellent sounding PC music system for a lot less than buying a $3500. USB DAC.

BTW- many audio equipment makers got their start modifying
equipment.

Conceptually, alot of what Steve makes is exactly like what you are doing. But keep telling yourself its different, and while your at it maybe throw a slice of bologna in the signal path too. Might sound better for you.

Listen I am not going to debate every techincal detail with you here. If Gordon says 24/96 needs 2.0, so be it, although I tend to disagree with him on that point. Can you actually believe that I disagree with him? But if your happy with what you have all the power to you. I personally would LOVE an opportunity to do a side by side with you DAC for DAC, but thats silly. If nothing else but to prove to you that $3500 for Cosecant is a relative bargain, and would make a $500 10 year old Genesis Lense sound completely inferior.

What you are failing to understand is that my purpose is not to compare products with you. There is no comparison here, Cosecant is in a completely different class than any source you own. What is important to impart to those reading this thread is oversampling is NOT always better, ironically it is often the opposite. You need to understand that Red Book was ratified as the standard for a reason. And if you increase the bandwidth over and above this standard the errors increase as well, and it is how these implementations deal with this fact that is a point to mention. Filters etc in the signal path. In the case of some equipment, Pops, clicks etc. Not for me, not for alot of people with true audiophile-grade equipment. Not to mentioned alot of the equipment being discussed here is solid-state based equipment, which of course is another discussion. But good luck with solid state and audio. Any SS I have owned or auditioned has NOTHING on tubes-case closed. But enjoy your transistors by all means, I spent 10 years with them and would never consider anything for audio that didn't have tubes in it.

So by all means keep looking for lightening in a bottle with modded equipment, flashing your CDs with magic lights, and seeking out upsampled recordings as the end all. Like I said if thats what blows your hair back go for it..For me, modified, second-rate commercial equipment is like putting lipstick on a pig.