2. digital
  3. 1186053836

PC-Audio vs. High-end CD Player-GAME OVER

Hi All,
I just auditioned the Wavelength Audio Cosecant DAC on a very nice system at the local dealer. It was run through a Hovland 200 preamp , a Plinius amp and Avalon Eidolon Diamond speakers. This is all in a very well treated, good-sounding room.
It was, in a word spectacular. Beautiful tone, excellent bass, imaging soundstaging, etc. What was really amazing was a sense of space, or ambience that was imparted. We then compared the same CD's (Diana Krall, Jennifer warnes, some jazz), on a Levinson CDP. I'm not saying that the levinson is the last word in players, but it was what he had on the shelf.While it sounded good, it was much more bright, and "constricted".
Control was through an Imac using I-tunes, and the CD's had been nurned using Apple Lossless.
I ordered my Crimson on the spot.

David
deshapiro
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
Kana813 - the SMPS that drives the SB3 definitely has an effect on its output jitter. This is independent of the PC power supply though. I suppose if you wired the SB3 to your network rather than using WiFi, this might add ground-loops that would introduce more noise?

I'm saying that PC-audio CAN be affected by PC power supply and ground noise, but it's not necessarily the case. Depends entirely on the USB converter design if it's USB. If it's networked, then the answer is no, it is not affected by the PC in any way.

I use the SB3 and Sonos wirelessly and feed them through a Pace-Car reclocker. This totally isolates everything: the clocks, the ground and the data signals. In this case the jitter is not a function of the PC, the SB3 or the Sonos, only the clock in the Pace-Car.

Steve N.
Empirical Audio
Manufacturer
jc51373
524 posts
 
"With all due respects,I can't understand why anyone would spend big bucks on a USB Tube DAC that can only do 16/48."

Single-handedly one of the dumbest most uninformed statements on this thread yet. I will tell you why people would pay this much, because A) it IS tubed and not SS B) because alot of upsampling implementations don't necessarily sound better and C) because a $3500 DAC built by Gordon, will most definatley sound better than ANY modded Squeezebox.

That is why people pay that much for them, plain and simple.
kana813
956 posts
 
Jc51373-

Once again you think I'm referring to upsampling.

Do you think 16/44.1 recordings sound better than 24/96 recordings?

Heres' some tracks you can try: http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/format.htm
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
I agree. Tube DAC's can be really wonderful, and 16-bit data is just fine. 24-bit can be a bit better, but I'm happy to listen to 16-bit all day long.

Using the DAC's in these inexpensive converters is like playing your Wilson speakers from a Bose lifestyle. Waste of time. The DAC's in these things are all compromises. These devices are only good for the digital outs IMO, and even they need a lot of work to reduce jitter. The Transporter analog output is a bit better, but I personally dont care for the D/A chip in it. Too sterile and electronic sounding for me. If is is the only decent DAC that you have heard, then you may think it's wonderful. There are many steps on the pathway to good sound quality.

Steve N.
jc51373
524 posts
 
" Do you think 16/44.1 recordings sound better than 24/96 recordings?"

this question can NOT be answered with one sweeping statement like you may want it to. But to answer your question in my opinion, it depends on the DAC and the implementation. I personally have listened to 24/96s that don't sound better than 16/24s, on my DAC in particular.

Believe it or not, 24/96 does not mean better sound, it is not that simple. And quite honestly, after listening to enough harsh and hollow sounding 24/96s I just assume not bother with them when I have a much better sounding option.
More to discover