2. digital
  3. 1271735409

I need help - Better DAC or NEW CD player?

I am in the middle of purchasing some components for my new system, unfortunately, reading posts on a rainy night on Audigon only makes my "upgradeatitis" syndrom more acute.

The problem is that some time ago, I bought a squeezebox Duet, to use as transport for lossless files. The idea obviously was to get a good DAC to go along with it.

The one I was almost set on was the Dacmagic, which gets very good reviews here and almost everywhere you look. But, on the other hand, I am willing to spend a little more......Now, the thing is my current CD player is a Rotel RCD 1072, and was wondering whether this Dacmagic would give me any improvements if I use the rotel as a transport for it.

Or, I could get for example a Wyred DAC or a Benchmark DAC1 and use the Rotel for transport, but I dont know the limits of the Rotel as transport alone, I dont want to spend 600 more bucks on a better DAC to be fed with 2 "not so good" transports (the Duet and the Rotel).

So I am kinda stuck!! On the other hand I am contemplating getting the Dacmagic to use only for the Duet, and getting a new better CD player altogether, which puts me into another doubt, I dont know if the little money I can for the rotel + lets say 1000 more will really give me any improvements in the system if I purchase a whole new CD player since the Rotel is said to be very capable.

FWIW my amp will be a W4S STI500 and speakers are B&W 803D.

Let me know what you think about this and your suggestions on what you would do.... thanks in advance for all your help!
demianm
Ag insider logo xs@2x
knownothing
1,579 posts
 
Regarding Sufentinal's comment:

"...unless you get one of those relatively rare CD players that does have digital inputs."

This is why I recommended the Cambridge 840. It has an excellent transport, power supply and chassis, better DAC's and electronics than the DacMagic, and the ability to play disks or serve as an upsampling DAC for external transports. In it's price range, it is a "relatively rare CD player" in terms of sound quality, versatility and value.

The company has been on a roll lately, and my guess is that they will be coming out with the successor to the 840 soon, probably called the "850". So the 840's may be available new at discounted prices soon, and a new and likely more capable player will also available to purchase at a price point near the previous model.

To provide one person's opinion on the DacMagic versus the DAC performance in the Rotel 1072 - there is no comparison. The DacMagic is much more musical, with better PRAT and overall resolution. Not a horizontal moove in my opinion.

That said, the Cambridge 840 is more natural and "analog" sounding than either.
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
4est is correct; the Benchmark DAC1 I reviewed was sensitive to cables and transports. I have never encountered a component which is immune to cable influences.
demianm OP
18 posts
 
The cambridge 840C is also one of the options I had considered, I have both a better CD player than the Rotel and a "seemingly very good" DAC looking at the specs, the chipset used and the fact that it also upsamples the signal. Considering the selling price of my almost new Rotel, it would be a very little amount of money to get an used 840C, maybe 500 bucks. To get a good DAC I am looking at 1000 bucks and still will have a "questionable" CD transport, so I am looking at 1000 bucks for the DAC and and possible CD transport change. Now it´s where the rule of diminishing returns hits me hard in the head and I question how much of a difference could I notice between the 840C and a transport with a DAC such as the benchmark or the wyred4sound one.....

Some people have pointed out that the 840C is a little thin sounding, but I also plan to experiment with a tube buffer, last week I ordered the Grant B283 MKII buffer just for kicks (to use it between the CD player or the DAC, whateven I should choose)

On the other hand, I am thinking that for only 500-600 bucks I could upgrade my Rotel in the meantime, use the 840C as standalone player and later get a better DAC and use the 840C 24bit upsampled output to the new DAC.....does this sound reasonable?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,182 posts
 
The Cambridge did not sound thin to me when I heard it. That might be partially due to the quality overall of the system I heard it on. It impressed me as much as any player I have heard.

It fruitless to assert that all source devices are created equal in any case. That's not what I'm saying.

Timing can be an issue with transports or optical drives reading optical media in real time fast enough to apply error correction and keep the bits flowing. Music servers that avoid real time reading of optical media to provide the audio datastream and devices like network music players that cache data locally before sending to the DAC help assure that all bits available from the source media get captured and sent in time.

In the case of the BEnchmark, I suspect that there are many source devices at all price points that sound essentially the same, more so than otherwise. Which ones specifically do and which ones do not? Try specific units and find out I suppose.

But I think I would apply the strategy that I would not assume I need to spend a lot or even more in order to find a suitable source with the Benchmark specifically as perhaps might be more the case with some other DACs.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
knownothing
1,579 posts
 
Are you in a position to go listen to the 840 and compare it to other CDPs or DACs? It didn't sound "thin" to me.
More to discover