itunes Hardrive vs Cd?
Posted by: Mat Cork on 08 February 2009
My neighbour's Linn LK100 (I think) recently died on him. We've been discussing what to do...he knows I love Naim kit, but I've suggested he listen to lots of other stuff (his ears not mine that matter in his house etc).
He's been toying with buying a new cd player and amp to use with his LP12...and has spoken to a notable dealer near to where we live. He's leaning towards a system based on iTunes and the hardrive on his Mac and is asking what would the sound of this be like relative to a £100 - £1000 - £5k cd player etc when ripped at Lossless.
What are your thoughts on this? Does it sound comparable to a good cd player? If so, why spend money on an expensive cd player? I've experimented and to be honest not been too impressed.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
He's been toying with buying a new cd player and amp to use with his LP12...and has spoken to a notable dealer near to where we live. He's leaning towards a system based on iTunes and the hardrive on his Mac and is asking what would the sound of this be like relative to a £100 - £1000 - £5k cd player etc when ripped at Lossless.
What are your thoughts on this? Does it sound comparable to a good cd player? If so, why spend money on an expensive cd player? I've experimented and to be honest not been too impressed.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Posted on: 10 February 2009 by Obsessed1
I don't think one can say definitively that cd or computer is better than the other. Times are changing and bargains abound in both camps.
Right now I have both Sonos and and iPod (through the Wadia docking station) into a Lavry, and both sound very good on lossless rips - largely comparable to CD sound to my ears. And internet radio through the Sonos sounds way better than I thought it could.
On the other hand, with a well recorded cd (few and far between IMO), some newer cd players are pretty amazing sounding. For example, I recently compared a Bryston BCD1 to a Ayre C5xe and, despite the fact that the Bryston is roughly a third of the price of the Ayre, it sounded better on redbook discs. Of course, SACD still sounds better than all redbook, but then I only have a handful of SACDs. The Bryston was extremely impressive for not a lot of money.
I've not had the chance to hear the Naim 5i or 5x offerings, but they may be equally as good. But as much as I like the CDX2, IMO it and the players above are simply too expensive to justify based on the improved performance of the lesser-priced alternatives.
The great thing about both cd and computer is that it is now possible to get very good performance for very little outlay. Experimentation is highly recommended.
Right now I have both Sonos and and iPod (through the Wadia docking station) into a Lavry, and both sound very good on lossless rips - largely comparable to CD sound to my ears. And internet radio through the Sonos sounds way better than I thought it could.
On the other hand, with a well recorded cd (few and far between IMO), some newer cd players are pretty amazing sounding. For example, I recently compared a Bryston BCD1 to a Ayre C5xe and, despite the fact that the Bryston is roughly a third of the price of the Ayre, it sounded better on redbook discs. Of course, SACD still sounds better than all redbook, but then I only have a handful of SACDs. The Bryston was extremely impressive for not a lot of money.
I've not had the chance to hear the Naim 5i or 5x offerings, but they may be equally as good. But as much as I like the CDX2, IMO it and the players above are simply too expensive to justify based on the improved performance of the lesser-priced alternatives.
The great thing about both cd and computer is that it is now possible to get very good performance for very little outlay. Experimentation is highly recommended.
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Keith L
quote:Still perhaps, you're right I'll desist from posting here and listen to music instead and leave you in peace to listen to your DAC.
ATB Rotf
Thank you
ATB Keith
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Rockingdoc
quote:Originally posted by Obsessed1:
Right now I have an iPod (through the Wadia docking station) into a Lavry, and both sound very good on lossless rips - largely comparable to CD sound to my ears. .
How are you connecting my Wadia to the Lavry, as the Wadia only has a coax digital output?
I currently use iPod/Wadia 170iT into a Russ Andrews DAC-1, as this offers Coax, optical and USB inputs. I am planning to get a better DAC very soon, but may now wait for one with a USB option as I like the flexibility.
Posted on: 11 February 2009 by Former member
The Lavry takes a coax cable.
Posted on: 14 February 2009 by DeltaSigma
quote:Originally posted by paremus:
any comment on the relative performance w.r.t Flashback or Mark Grant varieties.
FWIW I have just started listening to the Mark Grant cable after having it lying around for 2-3 months - the Flashback was sounding great and I just didn't want to disturb anything, I guess. Anyway, my experience (after about half an hour with some music I know well) is that the Mark Grant cable offers a quite significant improvement in the presentation of the timbres of most instruments (for lack of more suitable words, the best way that I can describe it would be a richer and more detailed presentation of the tonal characteristics of the instruments), especially but not only drums and percussion. The Flashback is still a very good choice when considered in isolation but a little veiled by comparison. The Mark Grant cable also seems to surface additional low level details and I would say provides a more cohesive and enjoyable overall presentation of the music (IMV anyway). So it's definitely staying (until something better comes along).
It's actually further improved my understanding of just how good the L***y is.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Eric Barry
quote:Originally posted by avole:
JN, think this has been argued before, but there's no possibility for difference in sound quality between well set up wireless and well set up cables. If you hear a difference, it's the DAC.
Not true. An spdif connection is electrical, so it allows electrical interaction between components. TOS or wireless do not. For this reason, you might note, Stereophile uses TOS when measuring digital processors.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by Former member
There is no difference between sound quality between wireless and cabled ethernet. Full stop.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by spacey
quote:Originally posted by avole:
r-tee,
I'm not familiar with macs, but am I right in thinking the minimum configuration for something like a mac mini would be a DAC, connected via the optical out to the mac then by a standard RCA cable to the amp?
Also, did you get that dropout problem with the AE fixed?
hi avole, yes thats about right computer via optical (some have coax now)>dac via RCA> amp.
it can be that simple to get a proper taste but i would recommend trying a few ways of this as i find streaming exellent.
the little split second dropout still exists but it only there at the beggining of and album and is easly forgotten. i couldnt find the "wzc" driver in vista bussiness so im waiting for apple to sort this.. im keeping all firmwares up to date.
Posted on: 15 February 2009 by spacey
quote:Originally posted by Eric Barry:quote:Originally posted by avole:
JN, think this has been argued before, but there's no possibility for difference in sound quality between well set up wireless and well set up cables. If you hear a difference, it's the DAC.
Not true. An spdif connection is electrical, so it allows electrical interaction between components. TOS or wireless do not. For this reason, you might note, Stereophile uses TOS when measuring digital processors.
meaning optical is better as both componants ca do there jobs without interference and with less polution
Posted on: 16 February 2009 by Keith L
quote:The great thing about both cd and computer is that it is now possible to get very good performance for very little outlay. Experimentation is highly recommended.
This has been said many times recently and I wholeheartedly agree.
Posted on: 16 February 2009 by tonym
quote:Originally posted by paremus:
Tony you mentioned on a previous thread (now gone?) - the cable you were using between your DAC & Pre-amp. This wasn't the usual Flashback? Could you post the details again - and any comment on the relative performance w.r.t Flashback or Mark Grant varieties.
Many Thanks
Richard
Sorry Richard, I've only just spotted your question. Actually, I do use the Flashback cable. I paid a bit extra for a gold-plated DIN plug but folk whose opinions I trust tell me it makes no difference to sound quality.
It looks nice though & I can tell it apart from the other plugs...
Posted on: 16 February 2009 by DeltaSigma
After a couple of days' listening to the Mark Grant (Canare) cable I am left in no doubt that it moves the L***y up to another level altogether. Compared to the Flashback cable, it reveals a wealth of musically important information such as the interplay between instruments, subtle variations in emphasis in drums & percussion as well as a more much more tuneful bass. All these things make for a hugely more compelling musical result.
Six months after purchasing my DA10, I am once again blown away by what a great performer it really is - as good as I thought it was I had previously only heard a fraction of its true capabilities. I would strongly suggest an audition of the Canare to all those DA10 owners who have not heard it so far. Would also welcome any tips from those who have found even better alternatives than the Canare.
Six months after purchasing my DA10, I am once again blown away by what a great performer it really is - as good as I thought it was I had previously only heard a fraction of its true capabilities. I would strongly suggest an audition of the Canare to all those DA10 owners who have not heard it so far. Would also welcome any tips from those who have found even better alternatives than the Canare.