2. digital
  3. 1323966858

Can best optical player rival best computer source

I know there are better and worse computer based music servers as well as universal players and transports feeding dacs. There are now many players with digital inputs. My question is best versus best. Optical readers have to read and move on. Ripping to a hard drive can use software that repeatedly tries to get a good read.

Can the best player rival the best computer source?
tbg
david12
1,454 posts
 
Tbg I agree with you, I am not advocating buying any of the expensive players, I can't afford them either. The point was that the consensus I have picked up, is that discless digital is'nt yet up to competing with the very best disc players. It is progressing so fast, it may reach that level in the next few years
tbg OP
5,263 posts
 
David12, I am on my third computer server. The first was a Window unit with Exact Copy and Foobar. It was a pain and so so relative to my Exemplar/Oppo BDP-83 not SE. Second I bought a Weiss Dac202 and an Apple PowerBook Pro with a SSD drive and played Amarra and then Pure Music. This was much better. Finally I got the modified Apple Mini tied with eSATA to a TuneBank raid hard drive and special software for ripping. It also has a TEAC optical drive for ripping. It is designed to work with the Weiss Dac202. This was much better and clearly better than any optical player I have heard. But I have yet to hear the Exemplar/Oppo BDP-95.
audiofreak32's avatar
audiofreak32
281 posts
 
David12:

"discless" as you call it has better sound than most CD players just due to the nature of CD's moving parts, spinning disc, etc. Any decent DAC fed with hi-res files will trash most any CD player out there. I have heard DAC setups playing 24/96k and 24/192k FLAC or WAV costing under $3k hammer CD players at $10k or more.

Digital is very much caught up to and exceeded CD playback already.
More to discover