2. digital
  3. 1103154786

Old Digital vs New digital.

I'm younger, mid 20's. I have only really recently started to get interested in enhancing my music, to a truely high end level of sound. I purchased a NAD541i last year, which was connected to a SimAudio Intergrated. I was allowed to audition a Museatex Meilor Bitstream DAC. This DAC is based off a 1992 Meitner Design and was heavily modified by John Wright 6months ago. The core is still an 18 bit DAC. John recently wrote me an email with a bold statement that he'd put the DAC I currently have up against anything on the market for Redbook CD's.

I wondered though, how can a chipset that was orginally used in Meitner gear 10 years ago sound so good today? I realize that the NAD was a very entry level CDP, and I've only listened to single Box CDPS all under $3k in comparision, but this DAC along with a Moray James Cable still pulls ahead. How can this be? Are the majority of the redbook designers going down an ill path? Are they focusing on improving problems that no longer exist? Are they trying to fix something that isn't broken while forgetting to fix the real issues?

Since first coming to this site/forum I look at alot of systems. The ones that make me wanna hear them are all using older CDP's from Wadia, Sonic Frontiers and CAL audio. The people who seem to have come full circle, had the cash to play and learn and found that they can acheive superior digital playback by going back and finding that CDP that isn't the latest and greatest (Aside from the SACD/DVD audio superplayers like the Linn, EMM Labs, etc) To my amazements these systems also use an LP as a core playback source. I have a hard time understanding all of this, but it is interesting. I'm a firm believer in source first, that much I have learned, but I've also found that this quest might be misleading and you might be better going back to the future in your quest to solidify your digital frontend.
lush
hdm
1,062 posts
 
I only mention this because of the post directly above, but this (and other research on "Cyberhome" in the digital and general asylums at Audioasylum) makes for interesting reading:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/97404.html

The player referred to, which I am currently using and became interested in after reading a recommendation on it from Moray James at Audioasylum, is the Cyberhome DVD 300, which sells for a whopping $38 at Walmart. I've done some minor tweaking to mine (changed the male plug to a Marinco 5266, changed the stock glass fuse to a ceramic, damped the chassis and transport, supported it with Herbie's Tenderfeet and had the entire player cryoed) but have not changed out caps, etc.

I only mention it because Moray James' (who apparently voices his digital cable with Meitner gear) cable is mentioned in the initial post to start the thread and the poster above recommends a combination previously in use by the poster I've outlined above at Audioasylum.
lush OP
262 posts
 
I wasn't suggesting to change my Museatex, I'm quite happy with it, I wouldn't change it for anything now. The person I bought this thing off listened to it against a SimAudio Nova, he was leaning towards the Museatex. My point was, how can older digital technology be better then supposed newer technology? Are designers at a lost for ways to improve digital? Perhaps they are focusing on the wrong issues, and addressing those that don't need to be addressed.
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
It has to do with the analog section of the D/A, IMHO. Using Ljshape10's example of the Classe DAC-1, this was a $4K DAC, which can be had used for less than $1K. I don't think there is a new DAC that lists for under $1K that can touch the DAC-1 sonically. Because you still have a $4K analog output stage. I think the higher quality componants in the analog output stage outweighs the latest in digital chips improvement.

I also don't think people are investing as much in digital equipment today as they were 5-10 years ago. Today people are re-discovering vinyl, or simply waiting for the newer Hi-Res formats (SACD/DVD-A)to get their acts together. The economy might have also helped to slow the digital rage. I see more and more audiophiles back to single box units. 5-10 years ago, everyone had digital seperates (don't forget the extra jitterbox too).

Digital isn't alone in this regard. Many feel the golden age for tuners was the late 70's into the early 80's. I also beleive that solid state amplification peaked in the late 80's to early 90's. I like the sound of a Levinson 23 better than the 300 or 400 series. I think the KSA-250 was the best sounding amp Krell ever built, and who can forget the S and SA series from Threshold?

It could be romanticism, or it could be that they don't build them like they used to.

Cheers,
John
newbee
4,775 posts
 
Well, if I had to guess, i'd guess that it has a lot to do with the phase we are going thru of adding up-sampling. Its interesting to note that many who have go this path arn't as happy as they thought they would be, there has been a number of technical arguments against it, and interesting to note that some manufacturers make it defeatible. The only position I take is I haven't gone this path. My DAC's and CDP are all sans up-sampling.
sgr's avatar
sgr
689 posts
 
You might also consider older Levinson digital. A piece like the #39 or #37Transport/360sDAC can be had for less than half of retail. These combos will probably equal if not outperform any multi disc player including the latest and greatest. They are very well built and hold their value. Of course how they fit with your current system would be open to your personal tastes.
More to discover