Raysonic 168


Thanx for the responses on the 128. I see now the 168 has been released. I saw what Underwood Audio has done to the 128 as far as mods go, it looks like some things done in the mods have been incorporated in the 168.
Has anyone yet heard the 168? I am hedging my bet between the two for an upcoming purchase.
hockeydad
Bondmanp, Well I will say this... The Dac Chip has very little to do with ultimate sound, some are a bit different but not better... Power supplies, Analog output stage, OPamps, Clocks, Transport, yes those are the key elements in todays digital, One dac chip vs another is pennys on the dollar, In other words that single silicone chip is not the greatest cost by far, one DAC chip can cost 18 dollars, and one that everybody thinks is suppose to be better is only about 3 dollars more.

I have heard far bigger differences in Analog stages that you actually hear, not the translator chip, all Dacs obviously have advanced quite a bit since the 1990 10,000 dollar machine right? So would you take a 1990 10,000 dollar machine and believe it sounds better than a 2000 dollar machine using a newer chip?

Possibly, possibly not... Not, as for being a more advanced DAC chip goes, do you really believe that BB has really advanced the chips that much that will now translate into better sound from the year 2000 till' now? Just illustrating a point here is all, not an argument, don't get hung up on the DAC chip, I have heard 3 dollar chips sound as good as 5000 dollar CD players. When you buy an outboard DAC for example, it has to do with the better designed power supplies, Analog output stage, better capacitors and parts, their are many cheap excellent DAC chips, some better than others, but normally these days don't equate to better sound in the end. A good design from somebody like Wadia for example could build a machine around a Really Cheap BB chip and still make it sound better than 99% of lesser machines with cheap transports, power supplies, Analog parts etc...

By the way I have had Several Hi res machines, With 24/96 top of the line Chips etc... SACD, DVD-A ... And I have heard 1996 well designed machines with 16 bit DAC chips run circles around them. So this is the least of our worries.
Undertow, FWIW, I have 4 very good Digital systems and only one of them 'up-samples', the Raysonic 128, and I don't like it in that (selectible) mode. Personally, I think the benefits of upsampling is a lot of sales hype - the real difference are in the output sections. IMHO of course.
Newbee, not sure what you are refering too from my end on upsampling.. However I agree upsampling in most cases means nothing… And in the Raysonics case I don't use it, without sounds much more analog. As for price, I don't know that Raysonic uses that as a marketing scheme, and I never even mentioned it in my post as being so, so I again I agree.
Undertow: Your points are well-taken, and I agree completely. It's more of a psychological thing; when I spend big bucks on an upgrade, I want everything about the new kit to be better. Of course, one should judge with their ears and not based on a parts list.
The CD168 uses not one, but two BB DACs in balanced configuration. The DACs are also different than the CD128. The CD128 uses one 1738 DAC chip whereas the CD168 uses two 1792s.