1. Home
  2. digital
  3. 1398132150

Absolute top tier DAC for standard res Redbook CD

Hi All.

Putting together a reference level system.
My Source is predominantly standard 16/44 played from a MacMini using iTunes and Amarra. Some of my music is purchased from iTunes and the rest is ripped from standard CD's.
For my tastes in music, my high def catalogues are still limited; so Redbook 16/44 will be my primary source for quite some time.

I'm not spending DCS or MSB money. But $15-20k retail is not out of the question.

Upsampling vs non-upsampling?
USB input vs SPDIF?

All opinions welcome.

And I know I need to hear them, but getting these ultra $$$ DAC's into your house for an audition ain't easy.

Looking for musical, emotional, engaging, accurate , with great dimension. Not looking for analytical and sterile.
mattnshilp
gdhal's avatar
gdhal
1,641 posts
 
What does that tell you?

That my Amy > Bob > Amy > Bob test is best.

fuzzbutt17's avatar
fuzzbutt17
43 posts
 
I believe the quality of a recording is something like over 80% the quality of the original master and less than 20% the specific digital format and resolution it is released in.
elizabeth
6,726 posts
 
Quality of a recording vs the digital decoding..
I recently had the pleasure of auditioning a Marantz SA-10 ($7000)
Which uses a version of DSD to decode everything. Turning the other formats into DSD then into music.
One of my complaints about SACD is they all seem to have no ’room’ played in. The music all seems to ’magically’ float out of a black hole.
Stripped of any ambience. Which I find really annoying. (so I don’t own very many SACD, but have owned a Sony SCD777ES since new)
The interesting thing using the Marantz SA-10 to play CDs from another machine (via Toslink) is the results still have all the room.
So the loss of space in SACD (IMO) has to be in the creation of the disc. and not the decoding!

And that music from the SA-10 sounds better (particularly the treble) than any other digital I have heard.(I do have to say it is subtle, and not some magical WOW. But enough to blow $7K to buy one for myself, since no other digital device has managed to do this before for my ears)
The Sony SCD777ES was my reference player. Soon as I get the Marantz I ordered, the Sony will be relegated to the dust bin of old stuff I used to use.

One of the interesting things about the Marantz playing CDs.. With it each CD really has it's own sound. Used to be CDs sort of all somehow sounded the same. With the Marantz they all sound different! And some are like 'Super CDs' with way more info in them, and some others are just like they were played by my old DAC. With most having something extra..
I never noted that before I heard the differences.. Now I am surprised I never noticed it.
audioengr
3,282 posts
 
One of my complaints about SACD is they all seem to have no ’room’ played in. The music all seems to ’magically’ float out of a black hole.
Stripped of any ambience. Which I find really annoying.

On double-layer SACD's, particularly live recordings and orchestral I found exactly the same thing to be true.  I'll take PCM every time.

Steve N.

Empirical Audio

mitch2
1,911 posts
 
One of my complaints about SACD is they all seem to have no ’room’ played in. The music all seems to ’magically’ float out of a black hole. Stripped of any ambience.
Interestingly, this is in the ballpark of describing my issue with the Class D amplification I have owned.   
More to discover