What to do for a source

I have to say that i was as sceptical as everyone else but I just bit the bullet and got the equipment, before getting rid of the cd player (which is now going up for sale...and no thats not an advert!). As i have said I am predominantly vinyl first but I wanted an easier approach to digital and also to take advantage of the increasing amount of high quality downloads, of which there's still a dearth but its gettng better. If it wasn't that great then i would've sold the dac, kept the squeezebox and put round at the girlfriends so I could enjoy my music at her house if I felt like it.

I feel the main problem and scepticism is due to the lack of dealers willing to carry some of these products and demo them. If they were shown to give a quality sound, even if it is different to the naim sound then i think there would be a shift in thinking. I appreciate the dealers position as well though, as there are copious amounts of these products and where do they start? Not an easy one to solve.

Anyway this type of dogmatic denegration is no different to what cd encountered (and still does) when it arrived.

All in my opinion.

RYan

PC,I understand your position. All I'm saying is from my experience so far that I have not found anything yet that has provided ME with the playback quality of a good CDP. As I said it was my Sonos system; convenience, fun, access, that started me looking for better quality playback. I listen to it all the time and I love it. I use it exclusively through my secondary Naim system which also distributes to my entire home. However, when I really want to sit with a glass of wine and just listen to great music the Sonos even played through an SN DAC is very good but is still not in the ballpark IMO to what I can easily hear from the CDP.

The best solution that I have heard and was going to purchase as an intermediate step to a Naim solution (NS01,HDx, external dac(hopefully Naim)) has been the Konnekt 8 via firewire (about $450-500 USD for K8,software, firewire card, cable). You certainly can use your EAC ripped files as the source. I was amazed at how good this has sounded. The playback has been vinyl recorded A/D via professional software, the intro level software is not expensive ($60-90 same software as above), at 24 bit and ripped CD's 16 bit both via digital connections (SN) and analog connections (other Naim kit) and was amazed at the quality of the music. The only downside here and why I have hesitated is that I would need to re-rip my CD's using the recommended software which they feel provides the best quality playback at this point and then I'd have to possibly do it again with a Naim solution and I don't know if I could deal with ripping 3x. This easily outperformed the Bel Canto DAC 3 ($2500).

As an aside the guys in Chicago feel that the way in which the music is ripped has a great effect on the final playback and they have noticed a huge difference in what they got out of ripped files depending upon the software utilized and they have experimented with many different ones. Others in this forum including yourself, may and will differ in their opinion about the validity of this comment, however, I can only report what my ears have heard and there is a very considerable difference.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:

As an aside the guys in Chicago feel that the way in which the music is ripped has a great effect on the final playback and they have noticed a huge difference in what they got out of ripped files depending upon the software utilized and they have experimented with many different ones. Others in this forum including yourself, may and will differ in their opinion about the validity of this comment, however, I can only report what my ears have heard and there is a very considerable difference.

Gary,

Interesting post. I am not very technical but from a concept point of view there is only three possible outcomes from ripping a CD.

You either get:-

an exact copy,
a copy with information lost,
or a copy with information added. (The latter would have to be designed to do that, of course. I'm not aware of any devices that do that.)

Did they suggest which they thought was happening most with these variations?

Playing back a Mac ripped lossless CD I cannot hear any difference in the musical information. I can hear differences in the sound, which is obviously down to the difference between the DAC or CD player's conversion and output stages.

I cannot see how the rip itself can vary, so long as it is an exact copy. Even if, in the ripping process, it takes several "reads" to get that copy - a precise replica is what you get. I am expecting the HDX to take exact copies. There may then be sonic advantages in playing the hard disc copy, rather than the CD because the error correction will have happened during the rip, rather than as the CD plays.

I would love to know if the Chicago guys feel that some lossless rips are not lossless, or that some ripping processes add stuff. It ought to be measurable - don't you think?

Regards,

Steve

Steve, never posited that question. There must be differences since the Naim software on the HDD takes 8 minutes to rip as does EAC, vs. 2 1/2 -3 minutes for most of the other software I've tried. Of course the intermediary eg. Konnekt 8 will have an effect as well before it hits your actual system. That's without discussing, buffering and all the other aspects that go into producing the quality sound stream. I guess and I certainly am not a technical expert in this field, but as Dave Dever has posted many times it's quite a bit more complicated than it seems.

Hi Gary,

You may be right, but ultimately a lossless copy can be no more than it is (irrespective of how many reads - or how long they take).

Claims that washing powders wash even whiter get my b/s detector flapping.

Much Hi Fi snake oil gets shifted by claims of unmeasurable complexity.

If some ripped copies are better than others, differences should be measurable. What the replay equipment then does with that copy is, of course, a different matter.

Regards,

Steve

I can second Steve's observations regarding the Benchmark, Lavry and CD players. In my case, I have sold my CDX+ XPS, as it was completely outclassed by my current system: Apple Lossless or WAV files to Bolder-modded Squeezebox3 + linear suppy, DC-1 coax, Lavry DA-10, Chord cobra, 282 + Hicap, 200.

In casual comparisons between Apple Lossless vs WAV, I have not noticed an obvious difference. I currently use dbPoweramp to rip to WAV files.

I have made several previous posts regarding my saga. The PC + squeezebox provides a lot of potential, but still requires of the savy computer user a willingness to be "system administrator." If you can afford it, the HDX is a "tunkey" solution.

Charlie

What a nice thread ! As someone said before, how pleasant it is to be able to talk about HD based music without getting bashed in by the cd gang.

I've got a couple of points /questions having read through the thread:

Does anyone who uses itunes use the equaliser? (Mine is off always...)

The HDX seems to me to be making a subtle statement, ie, in order to get the information exactly from a spinning cd you need to read and verify the data, possibly more than once. Well if that's the case then how on earth can ANY cdp produce better quality music than a HD based system, given that the data is being read off the disc in real time ?

Thats probably why my mac based audio is sounding better than my cd player

It can give a really good sound, its just finding the dac with the presentation you like. My Perpetual Technologies dac is doing it for me!

Ryan

quote:

Originally posted by thesherrif:
What a nice thread ! As someone said before, how pleasant it is to be able to talk about HD based music without getting bashed in by the cd gang.

I've got a couple of points /questions having read through the thread:

Does anyone who uses itunes use the equaliser? (Mine is off always...)

The HDX seems to me to be making a subtle statement, ie, in order to get the information exactly from a spinning cd you need to read and verify the data, possibly more than once. Well if that's the case then how on earth can ANY cdp produce better quality music than a HD based system, given that the data is being read off the disc in real time ?

Hi there,

I wouldn't worry about the knockers, it happened before with CD, it will happen again. Meantime good sounds have never been cheaper.

I don't use any iTunes stuff. Make sure it's all flat or unticked and that the volume is set to max.

The answer to your last question is - it doesn't.

A CD transport is charged with getting info losslessly off the disc and you can cut that stage out with a lossless rip. Some CDPs will, however, have better DAC/output stages than the HDX. If you give the HDX the same quality of DAC and output stage - game over. That is obviously an uncomfortable thought for some.

Beware of future arguments about some people's lossless being more lossless than others. It's bound to happen.

Steve

To be honest I'm a bit confused by many of the posts regarding music quality playback and comparing SB/Sonos/itunes with AE with high-end CDPs. My system is a SN/FC2x/CD5x/SF Cremona Auditor M/REL 305 sub with FC2x powering both SN/CD5x. I also use Sonos/SN DAC as well (digital connection). Sonos on "fixed output" so SN pre-amp is volume control. While the presentation of the Sonos is surprisingly good it just doesn't compare to the same music played with the CDP and it's not a small difference and it is immediately noticeable. In fact the same holds true using the Konnekt 8 (which is better than SB/Sonos), even with K8 playing 24/96 A/D recordings. This combination was pretty impressive, however the same comments apply.

Gary,

Hard to say without knowing what is affecting what. I don't know how good the DAC is in the SN. I struggle to think it would be better than those used in the CDPs.

What other DACs have you tried?

Steve

Steve,I have looked at a few: PS Audio DAC III, and the Bel Canto DAC3. I though the PS Audio killed the music and while the BCD3 was better I still did not like the presentation and thought it was far inferior to the SN DAC. All systems tried with the following SB/Sonos-->DAC-->pre-amp etc...

In Summary, I think the SN DAC is very good and really improves upon the naked SB/Sonos esp. when used with the digital output. I have heard even better music as I mentioned above using Konnekt 8 (24/96 A/D recordings)-->SN DAC--> etc..

I hve not heard any computer generated music PC/MAC/NAS or internet streamed music SB/Sonos played through any DAC (SN or otherwise) that compared with the musical presentation that I get with my FC2x/CD5x. I guess what I'm trying to say is bottomline,IMO, no one is going to find computer generated music played through an inexpensive DAC that will compare to the music generated from a really good CDP. Others will differ in their opinion from mine, but I have listened quite a bit and the best I've heard has been bar none K8 (24/96 A/D recordings) via SN DAC and while this was really impressive it still wasn't up to par.

Hi Gary,

I have found the Mac streamed music to be much better than any server arrangement that I've heard. If you don't have one, it might be worth getting someone you know with one, to stream some lossless into your SN DAC and see what you think.

The Mac works better than I have been able to achieve with a PC. I now understand that this is because the PC needs additional drivers to get round the audio output of Windoze.

If you want any info on settings, my e-mail addy is in my profile.

The question of whether streamed music through your SN can ever be as good as your CDP, owes more to whether the DAC/analogue output stage of the SN is as good as the one in the CDP. Hard to say if you can't get at the CDP one to compare it.


Regards,

Steve

Wow, so much writing on this subject! Very interesting but dazzling too.

This week I had an interesting listening session at my dealer somewhat in this context. A very dedicated Naim dealer for many years as well as other high-quality brands. I was over for a cupa and a chat about the Naim, the HDX as I'm very interested if it will qualify to replace my olive CDX/Hi-Line/NBS as a source in the near future.

They were evaluating a 'HDX like' HD player from Boulder Audio (rip to memory or disk while playing at the same time). Pretty high-end stuff price wise costing 24K euro. Downstream the system was matching the front end; Boulder pre & power amp playing through Parcifal speakers from Verity Audio. A pretty impressive system and the sound quality was just as impressive. A huge soundstage, incredible scale and power reproduced without any effort it seemed. Great PRaT and it didn't matter a thing how loud we played. Rock solid and stable. Pfew... But listening longer it started to creep in. A feeling of 'cleanness' and 'silence' that didn't felt natural. You only became part of the performance by turning up the volume. High...

Then we switched to a little Nagra CDP costing half of the Boulder HD player (so still by no means cheap). Same system, same cables'n stuff, same recording. The music came alive immediately. Flesh & blood, soul, emotion, musicality, all of it. Not as stable and powerful as the Boulder. Not the pinpoint positioning if musicians either. But all the more convincing. Going back to the HD player made it sound a bit dead and processed.

There's no way of telling if this is down to the ripping-error correction-HD playback but an interesting comparison nonetheless.

I really hope the HDX will at least match the CDX(2) on sound quality. I'll be buying for sure.

Steve, it would be an interesting comparison. However, I have also played wav files ripped to my NAS and then played back through Sonos-->SN DAC. Same result. Music was good, but still missing what the FC2x/CD5x was capable of by a long shot.

From my experience, and I'm no tech person, there is more involved in generating the quality of the music playback from the ripped files than just playing through a DAC.

quote:

how pleasant it is to be able to talk about HD based music without getting bashed in by the cd gang

Yeah! The swines!

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:

From my experience, and I'm no tech person, there is more involved in generating the quality of the music playback from the ripped files than just playing through a DAC.

Hi Gary, it only really tells you that you prefer your CDP DAC/output against those you've heard, that's fine, we all like different things. But there is no difference (information wise) between music sitting on an optical disc or a hard drive. It's what happens downstream, that matters. As evidenced by the HDX - the rip sounds better than a CD through it.

All good fun. FWIW my Mac/Lavry sounded so close to my CDS3, I replaced it.

All the best,

Steve

Let me weigh in with some experiences here as I have and have extensively compared many of the options we are discussing here. I have:

- SN/HC2
- SB3
- Sonos
- Lavry DA10
- Resolution Audio opus 21 (which has digital in for use as separate DAC)

For people using the Sonos as the digital source the problem lies with the horrible jittery digital out of the Sonos. The humble SB3 is MUCH better in this regard.

One thing I have found is, despite the jitter reducing claims of both SN and Lavry, I get a much better result but putting a jitter reducing device between the source and DAC. In my case I use an (relatively vintage - mid 90s) Audio Alchemy DTI Pro 32, which reduces jitter and enhances resolution, and this enhances the sound of all the sources.

The two option I listen to most are:

SB3 --> DTI Pro 32 --> Opus 21 Dac
SB3 --> DTI Pro 32 --> Lavry

...both into the analog ins of the SN. I have finally concluded that the SN dac does not sound as good as either of these options (with or without the DTI pro 32 in line)

I switch between the Lavry and Opus 21 DACs depending on type of music I am listening to. My speakers are Verity Audio Rienzi's which throw a very wide and deep soundstage, which is a similar characteristic to the Lavry....and the combination tends to sound great with classical/acoustic/jazz, but loses a bit of punch with rock music. The Opus 21 Dac on the other hand throws a tighter (between the speakers) soundstage, which provides a punchier sound for rock. The SN DAC just loses depth and detail compared to the other two, although good at Prat, but not noticeably better than the other two DACs.

Comparing the Opus 21 as a CDP vs using it as a DAC for the SB3.....I do find the CDP has a bit more definition and punch, whereas the SB3- DTI Pro 32 - Opus 21 is slightly more rolled off, but the differences are very small, and sometimes I prefer the SB3 source as the Opus 21 can make voices slightly harsh on some recording through the (highly resolving Rienzis).

So there you have my 2 cents. I frankly find my SB3 - DTI - Opus/Lavry solutions to be VERY satisfactory, to the extent that I wonder how much more would be gained by going to something like a Modwright Transporter or HDX. Happy to answer any additional questions.

Nigel

PS all my files are FLAC, ripped via dBPoweramp, streamed wirelessly and hosted on my HP Home Server

Nigel,

Good post. Don't know about the jitter aspects. Using my Lavry DA10, both my Mac/AE streaming lossless and a CD transport sound excellent - can't split them. Music is full range, great soundstage and it boogies superbly.

Interesting that you were able to compare the Lavry with the SN's DAC. It would seem to explain the differences that Gary and I have experienced. I never felt the SN's DAC was going to be permitted to be of a standard that would give the CDPs a hard time, I understand the commercial implications of that.

I certainly agree that large sums spent will only produce tiny improvements at this level of performance. I have given up worrying about that - it sounds too good.

Regards,

Steve

Interesting posts as I completely disagree with just about everything that was said, no disrepect intended.

I have listened to the SB3/Sonos at my dealers hooked up to the SN DAC both digital/analog and to all present it wasn't even close as to the superiority of the Sonos over the SB3. Sonos was very musical and enjoyable while SB was stark, digital sounding. I've also had the same experience of listening to a friend's system using the SB/Sonos into Bel Canto DAC3. The superiority of the SN DAC was readily apparant in this sytem as well.

The superiority of the Konnekt 8 over both SB3/Sonos was evident as well.

I'm just amazed at the varied opinions wrt to digital playback, it seems even more opinions than on the analog side. But I guess c'est la vie.

quote:

it seems even more opinions than on the analog side.

Nah, just check out a cartridge thread. Same type of choice, similar information differently presented.

I don't think there's any doubt that the analog outs of the Sonos are better than the SB3(better on board DAC), but there has been a lot of discussion on various fora about the poor Sonos digital out, including a long thread on the Sonos forum. It seems that people who have extensive experience listening to both (ie. who OWN both) feel the Sonos is significantly lacking compared to the SB3 in terms of digital output.

I would have preferred the Sonos to sound better since it has a better interface, and I had bought the Sonos to replace the SB3, but after extensive listening on a number of different setups (including by high end headphone set up - Rudistor RP5.3 with AKG 701), the difference is not even close.

I have yet to hear from anyone who OWNS both to say that the Sonos sounds better than the SB3 when each is played into a high quality DAC. And yes....all settings on both units have been optimized (bypass eq, fixed volume etc) and both are playing FLAC files.

Nigel

By the way, regarding the Lavry/Opus 21 DACs versus the SN DAC, I woouldn't rule out the possibility that the AA DTI Pro 32 somehow has a more beneficial effect with the former two than with the SN DAC (not sure why this would be). I say this because until a few weeks ago I was not using the DTI Pro 32 (it was stored away in the basement), and was just listening to SB3 --> Lavry or Opus 21 or SN. In this case it was hard to separate the Lavry/SN DAC.....and I thought both slightly ahead of the Opus 21, but , as I said, this changed when inserting the DTI Pro 32........not a MASSIVE difference but enough that I now prefer the Opus 21 or Lavry.

BTW I also have a Monarchy DIP ant-jitter device which also has a beneficial effect when placed between the SB3 and DAC, but lacks the resolution enhancement/added refinement of the DTI Pro 32

Just as an aside my dealer happens to be the sound/recording engineer for the the Naim record label and you'll have a hard time convincing him of SB3 over Sonos as I brought in the SB3 to his store and he and I and his partners listened to the various combinations of SB3/Sonos through the SN DAC and it was not even a contest.

The Konnekt 8-->SN DAC with his 24/96 A/D recordings wins hands down in the digital arena so far.

quote:

Originally posted by gary1:
Just as an aside my dealer happens to be the sound/recording engineer for the the Naim record label and you'll have a hard time convincing him of SB3 over Sonos as I brought in the SB3 to his store and he and I and his partners listened to the various combinations of SB3/Sonos through the SN DAC and it was not even a contest.

The Konnekt 8-->SN DAC with his 24/96 A/D recordings wins hands down in the digital arena so far.

24/96? I should hope so. That would be the same for any DAC with 96/24 capability I would have thought.

Back with 44/16, I must get a SN and have a listen just to the DAC section, I'm interested to learn whether it's better than the HDX's DAC I heard on Wednesday. That one disappointed compared to what I've heard todate.

Steve