Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Good post acoustic, I would only add that the rest of one's system needs to be capable of resolution and detail, which no doubt someone said already in this very long thread( no way I"m going to read all 4000 posts!)

With my current system I can't hear much in the way of differences between two very different stand mount speakers, but I'm waiting for a better pre amp, for starters.  I've got the Bifrost Mulibit, btw, and yes one can save and go with the Modi.  The Modi doesn't have the latest Schiit USB standard, however, if that matters to anyone.

Interesting CT, except how was the T+A being fed? If you look at Computer Audiophile’s section on the Dac 8 you will find that there are many people who have findings about the Dac 8 that mirror our own.

The common thread is that the Dac 8 needs to be fed quad rate DSD to experirence the full magic that the Dac is capable of. Many computers will not do DSD 512 as they are not fast enough to do the processirng.and most stand alone servers like the Lumin and Aurrender  products don't do up or crossconversion at all.

 
The Dac 8 is acutally a far more advanced Dac then the Ayre which uses a single  ESS Dac chip to do the conversion for both DSD and PCM processing. then going to a Ayre FPGA filter.

The Dac 8 is one of the very few dacs that does not turn PCM into DSD or DSD into PCM. The Dac 8 actually has two completely seprate decoding engines, one for each format. The DSD engine is the more special of the two, as the DSD engine uses all proprietary T+A decoding technology vs the PCM engine which uses four Burr Brown Dac chips in a summed operaton.

Wiling to bet you didn’t hear the Dac 8 DSD being fed that kind of playback material.

Dave and Troy
Audio Doctor NJ

Audiotroy - that’s a unique requirement of a product. Many servers can’t selectively output all material at that rate. That basically leaves PC sources only, which is fine. So many great products. So many opinions. But let’s keep this at the forum discussion level, not pushy salesperson level (which your scratching the surface of).

There are are some great points made recently:

1) a well done $10k system can sound better then a poorly done $100k system.
2) gear is system dependent and matching is everything!
3) declare the signature of your system with a primary component like speakers, amp or pre-amp and then adjust flavor with all other components.
4) your gear may sound awesome in your system and not so great in someone else’s.
5) your audition of a piece of equipment may have been suboptimal due to poor implementation of the unit.

All great stuff!!!

DAve/Troy, I am not going into your sales pitch in this thread. I have way too much respect for Matt and everyone has learned over your posts in other threads, that you are always correct adn your gear is best regardless of cost, until some of us go and audition it in your home/store.  We will leave it at that out of respect for Matt.

by Matt:


There are are some great points made recently:

1) a well done $10k system can sound better then a poorly done $100k system. 
2) gear is system dependent and matching is everything!
3) declare the signature of your system with a primary component like speakers, amp or pre-amp and then adjust flavor with all other components. 
4) your gear may sound awesome in your system and not so great in someone else’s. 
5) your audition of a piece of equipment may have been suboptimal due to poor implementation of the unit. 

All great stuff!!!

Yes, this is a long thread and to me, the best I've personally read on the forums.  As has been discussed so many times on in this thread, it's totally about not just implementation , but all the other digital variables that everyone will have in their own room.  Some of the isolation devices/set ups work GREAT and help tremendously.  Only a few makers of gear have implemented any of these in their devices as most don't even offer ethernet connection for the source.  Ayre has an optical isolation device right in front of their ethernet input daughter board.  It's a very expensive say to implement ethernet, but it sounds great.

Steve, have you ever heard of this or tried this on your devices?  I ask you, only because I know you and how much R&D you personally do.  

This is ONLY for manufacturer's in this thread if I may ask.  For those of you who even have an ethernet connection, do you also do optical isolation?  I have a strong feeling that eventually we are going to see many DAC's use this connection option and many servers will eventually output this way.  Most folks will never want to set their own device up, and it seems to the lay person a great way to get rid of some of the nasties in this type of connection.  Thanks. so much.  Hope I haven't ruffled any feathers as that's the last thing I want to do. Thanks.

CT-

Been a while since I posted here.  My conclusion regarding Ethernet optical vs. RJ45 copper.  Optical causes magnitude more jitter but removes electrical noise in your network.  A quiet well implemented network with LPS, audiophile design network switch and clean AC power source, stick with RJ45 and excellent cable:  per Steve Nugent, Wire World Platinum silver at $$.  If you have my situation and a noisy, piss poor implemented network with horrid AC power.  Go Optical and address the jitter with a re-clocker or quality dac/ethernet input, audiophile Ethernet switch.  

I have seen these measurements and as Steve Nugent has said, devil is in the details.  New products are being developed out of Korea that address network issues and engineering with optical technology was a non-starter.  This leads me to conclude that similar issues associated with Toslink apply here.

To me, jitter by network does not make sense as data is sent in packets and there is a check sum for errors with Ethernet.

I can speak for Empirical, as most who have his products do. I wish his interchange was capable of RAAT protocol that ROON uses.