Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Hi Matt, yes i'm aware of DXD's original purpose as editing software in the mastering process. Though FIM for one have taken that a lot further & record, edit & master their cd's in DXD onto extremely pure precision-cut silver discs. Of course that is down-converted to PCM & is playable on RBCD players. But my ears tell me the sound is stunning. Very undigital as I imagine DSD would sound. My Vitus gear obviously helps. XRCD24 discs are also amazing..even my parents who have no clue about audiophilia noticed the difference. Obviously native double or quad DSD should be superior given a great DSD dac like Mike's Lampi, but I definitely feel like I want for nothing with the vast number of audiophile RBCD formats including DXD, XRCD, K2HD, SHM & Mofi 24kt gold cd's. Plus I love handling the media, reading the liner notes & spinning the disc...something you can't do with downloads.

Charles1dad and Matt, I admit I have failed to read through this post but looks like there is a discussion going on active preamps... Over the years I have gone active to passive back to active and my 2 cents are... The less "circuitry" in(terfering) with the virgin signal is certainly a good thing when looking for the pure sound, however, having said that, source amplification is VERY minimal and unless one has extremely efficient speakers (i.e. horns) amplification (i.e. pre-amplification) is generally always required...

Unfortunately, in our 'sport' money reserves are expected to be deep (by the manufacturers) and it is no secret that once in the stratosphere, 99% of cost increase gets you 1% improvement. As such, what I have found is...

The more you can afford (all else being equal) upstream gets you the best purity. In other words, your creme de la creme should be (in decreasing order) source, pre, mains, speakers - of course you can add cables in-between each one and voltage-cleanup.

I might add, this idea does make physical sense, as as the signal strength is the smallest (upstream) improvements and/or pollution is only amplified downstream.

In my own system I found I did like passive preampfification best until I found what I have now (Atma-Sphere MP-3) and my only upgrade that I still want now is going to a MP-1 (top of the Atma-Sphere line).

A Top Tier pre will enhance dynamics in a PURE fashion - something a passive pre just cannot do.

Hope this may help

10-17-15: Grateful
As such, what I have found is...

The more you can afford (all else being equal) upstream gets you the best purity. In other words, your creme de la creme should be (in decreasing order) source, pre, mains, speakers - of course you can add cables in-between each one and voltage-cleanup.

I might add, this idea does make physical sense, as as the signal strength is the smallest (upstream) improvements and/or pollution is only amplified downstream.

Thanks for your input, Grateful. I certainly don't question your experience and your observations, but I would respectfully disagree with the last sentence in the quote. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of audiophiles believe similarly.

While it is true that "pollution" introduced upstream is in many cases amplified more than pollution introduced downstream (but not always; see the next paragraph), the same is true with respect to the signal. And what matters is the relation between the two, not their individual magnitudes.

Furthermore, while the signal level at the source may in many cases be smaller than further downstream, that will often not be true in the case of digital sources in particular, with the preamp's output signal in such cases often and probably usually being at a lower level than its input signal.

And even in the case of vinyl playback, where of course extremely low level signals are present at the output of the source, I would comment that from a technical standpoint amplification of very low level signals is not by any means necessarily more problematical than the task of a power amplifier, or the task of a speaker in converting the large amounts of power it receives into sound. The technical challenges in each case are certainly different, but I don't think any conclusions about which are likely to be more critical are supported by rationale that is based on the magnitudes of the signals that are involved. Contrary, as I say, to what a lot of audiophiles seem to believe.

Just my $.02. Regards,
-- Al

Grateful, I use no preamp at all, and am as happy as a clam *grins!*

Believe it or not, my speakers are not high efficiency horns by any stretch of the imagination.... Die muzik are multi-triver 91dB speakers with a wilding input impedance dipping into the nether regions. I use a Rowland Aeris DAC directly into 430W Rowland M925 monos... No, I am not suffering even a little bit from line stage withdrawl symptoms.

G.

Guido- having previously thought that even the mighty Aeris sounded best with a preamp, I can understand the thought of requiring gain from a preamp. But after hearing Jeff Rowland's voicing system sans preamp I have a different attitude.

I believe that there are certain products that are very specifically constructed and deigned to sound their absolute best with their own mating gear and can skip the added gain from a preamp when doing so. Rowland, Ayon and MSB come to mind. I believe that these products truly sound their best when mated with their purpose designed sister amplifiers. Impedance, gain, etc are all perfectly matched to eliminate the need for a preamp completely. If not mating them with like manufacturer, a preamp permits the user to integrate those wonderful components into a mixed system and maintain their magical performance.

I know you tried to tell me this 2 years ago. But I just wasn't ready to listen. Grins.