What is my next step to a better sound ?

Useless to discuss changing anything until you say what you think the current deficiencies in the sound are and what you are wanting to hear that you do not currently.

I don't entirely agree with this statement. Sometimes, especially at the level of performance of the bulk of the gear the OP is using, you aren't aware of potential upgrades in SQ until you actually hear the difference it can make to swap out components for better ones (or ones with better synergy to the ones you have). I would also hazard to guess many folks here just upgrade to strive for something even better than they have, without even having a particular complaint about it. That said, certainly, if there is a specific complaint, it would help others speculate on what to change, and on that level I do agree with the statement.

Other than that, I'd agree with others who've pointed the finger to the front end components. Transports can make a difference. Going to well-implemented PC audio can open up a world of listening potential to you. Since I went to a computer storage library and software interface I listen to a greater variety of music and listen more often. So I'd also agree with MapMan's recommendation of ripping your library via a good ripping software (NOT iTunes) in a lossless format (AIFF, ALAC, FLAC) to your PC, and use an interface like the SB Touch (use an Ethernet cable to your computer for the best results) to a good DAC via SPDIF (I'm not familiar with your DAC to make any comment there - but DACs have come a long way in the past 10 years). This has the potential to sound as good as, or better than spinning physical discs on your transport. You will probably wonder why you didn't do this long ago.

The other huge potential for opening up another world is adding a vinyl front end, but that's a whole other ball of wax, and you may not want to deal with all the related expenses and hassles of vinyl playback. You also may simply not hear it as an improvement over digital for a number of reasons. I personally do hear it as superior in some ways, but don't want the hassle (proper setup and tweaking of rig, constant cleaning and care of LP's and stylus, much more delicate handling of all aspects of playback and related degree of patience which I don't have, storage of LP's). Though LP's sound better to me, it's not to a large enough degree that I'm willing to put up with the detractors, but you might feel different as many others do. If so, that can definitely offer some degree of improvement as well as offering up a library of inexpensive (assuming you enjoy garage sales and thrift shopping) and sometimes otherwise unavailable music.

Jax2, I totally agree with your take. Once you set up a server/DAC it makes it so much easier over loading CDs. I run a Squeezebox into my Bel Canto DAC3 via SPDIF and can't tell the difference over my BelCanto CD1 used as a transport via AES/EBU, doing a direct A/B comparison, switching between sources. I rip all my collection to FLAC files using dB Poweramp, which finds all the metadata online and also makes sure the rips are bit perfect. I also use a music server using SqueezeCenter (Squeezebox software) run off a Netgear ReadyNAS duo. Everything is wireless in my setup--have not run the hardwired connection as Jax suggests above, but so far my own ears cannot hear the difference using my own hardwired transport CD player. Data is data and if your DAC is good, it will decode the data and present it as intended, no matter the source.

Squeezebox is great for the online radio stations--thousands all across the globe, at various quality levels. But I can get my local adult alternative NPR station at broadcast quality and I listen to it all the time all through my house as well as on my main system.

Of course, once I got all this set up, I then went analog, but that's a whole other story. But now I have the best of both worlds, and it keeps it interesting and allows me to find all sorts of music to listen to, and that's really why we all do this.

One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned is that if your connection between the Blu-Ray player and the RDAC is via digital coax, the LENGTH of the cable can be a significant factor. It should either be very short, less than say 12 inches, or it should be 1.5 meters or a little longer. See this paper.

Use of intermediate cable lengths, such as 1 meter or 3 feet, can worsen jitter by causing waveform reflections resulting from impedance mismatches to arrive at the DAC input at critical points on the signal (i.e., near the mid-point of its 0 to 1 or 1 to 0 transitions).

Use of non-optimal cable lengths is most likely ONE reason for reports of sonic differences between transports. Different transports will have different degrees of impedance mismatch to the cable and connectors, and perhaps more significantly will have different transition times (risetimes and falltimes). If a non-optimal (intermediate) length is used, the effects of impedance inaccuracies will vary unpredictably depending on the relation between cable length and signal rise and fall times, and also on the jitter rejection capability of the particular DAC.

Regards,
-- Al

I've heard the rDAC. I heard it burned in and warmed up against the Rega DAC that I bought which was fresh out of the box and cold (my dealer and I unsealed it). The Rega DAC beat it hands down. There was nothing the rDAC did that the Rega DAC didn't do at a higher level. That wasn't the only DAC I heard during that audition, but I gave it a significant chance, as I wanted to save some cash.

The rDAC is excellent for the money. If that was all my budget would allow, I'd be very content with it. That being said, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and the rDAC just flat out isn't in the same league as the rest of his system.

I've heard the rDAC several times since. It mops the floor with anything at or under it's price that I've heard. But it can't hang with a Levinson system/Wilson system. It's like putting a VW GTI engine in a Porsche 911 Turbo.

Your preamp, amplifier cables and speakers are solid. These components are the bones of any system and tend to have much better longevity than digital because they do not evolve as quickly as digital.

The semiconductor industry responsible for all that digital stuff operates in a 12 month cycle known as "Moore's Law". Moore's law (google Gordon E. Moore) essentially states that transistor count doubles and price halves every 12 months. This has been the case since 1965 when Mr. Moore authored his law. While this may or may not be interesting, it means that semiconductor companies constantly churn new products to take advantage of manufacturing cost reductions and product performance improvements.

It takes much less time to fall behind the digital technology curve than in analog technology. The vacuum tube is Exhibit A as an example of analog staying power. These technology curves should be a consideration for all future system purchases. Think long term for amps, preamps and speakers but think Moore’s Law (short term) when it comes to digital and adjust your return on investment calculation accordingly.

All things can be improved, but in your system the digital provides the biggest opportunity for improvement. It could be as simple as upgrading the power supply to your rDAC but that’s pretty tweaky. There are a lot of really good DACs in the $1K to $2K price range that will noticeably improve your system and you can do it all over again in about 12 to 18 months.

But then you might start noticing a difference in transports... :)

Greg