suggest laptop for music storage

Jax2 - you pose an excellent example of design experience. Gordon, of Wavelength had a long career in big-company electronics before doing his own audio business, as I did. The Benchmark folks are from the pro-audio arena. This kind of experience does not happen in small companies unless you are lucky enough to have an experienced mentor willing to spend a lot of time with you.

They still have not figured out what sounds good in most studios IMO. Still using 20 cents per foot wiring and they believe that measurements are the end-all...

The DAC-1 basic schematic is solid. It's the implementation (PC-board layout) and parts choices that could be improved IMO. To manufacture this and sell it for less than $1K, some tradeoffs had to be made. BTW, the newer DAC-1 USB is much better.

Also, I have modded a few EMC-1's as well. It has a LOT of design problems. It also uses a very old D/A chip and upsampler. If you thing this sounds good, this speaks volumes. A really good DAC will bury the EMC-1 or the ECD-1.

Steve N.

Also, I have modded a few EMC-1's as well. It has a LOT of design problems. It also uses a very old D/A chip and upsampler. If you thing this sounds good, this speaks volumes. A really good DAC will bury the EMC-1 or the ECD-1.

Steve - Thanks for the feedback. I've not had the opportunity to compare my friend's EMC-1 to "a really good DAC" in the same system, as the front-end has remained a constant for him throughout several changes of other components. I guess he likes it too. It's always sounded wonderful in his system, without harshness or long-term fatigue - very engaging overall. It is bested by the Teres table in that same system, but that seemed unsurprising to me. I've never done any comparisons to other digital front-ends in his room, but admit, I've consistently been impressed by the EMC-1 through several 'mutations' of the same system and room, for whatever volumes that speaks. I think he's pretty happy with it too, but then he was VERY impressed having heard your PaceCar demonstration in LV recently, so perhaps a 'really good DAC' may be in his future. I don't doubt your assessment of it and certainly defer to your experience.

I agree with your observations of Brick. Except I would add it rolled the bass a little as well, which is why I moved from it.

I agree, and you'll have to forgive my lack of audiophile vocabulary, but I think we're talking about the same thing when I mentioned the low-end:

It also did not have as solid a low-end as my SS DAC.

Marco

Steve- Jc51373's DAC uses a TDA1543 chip. It only has a USB 1.1 input.

Jc51373- Since you're an expert on upsampling, how many computer based upsamplers have you tried?

Steve- to answer your question..No I do not think that at all, it's quite the opposite actually. My point was merely to state modified equipment is not for me. Not to say you don't do an excellent job of it, just doesn't appeal to me to have something that is second-rate, modified to be better. But thats me...I would much rather your spoiler DAC, which is yours from the ground-up, and probably quite nice.

Actually correction on the Spoiler DAC, I don't believe Steve makes it from the ground up. Maybe I am wrong but this one looks alot like it.

http://www.pacificvalve.us/LTDAC602.html

Kana813- you are right, that is the DAC chip Gordon uses. Couple of facts regarding the points you raised. First off, out of about a billion of those chips that were produced Gordon got the N2, top 5% of them. Second, and I trust his ear based on the sound of his equipment, he has tried many many upsampling chips and none of the produce the sound he strives for, but he still tries them all the time. The TDA1543 is tried and true and sounds good and there are alot of reputable DACS out there that use them.

In regards to the 1.1 USB I need you to explain why in the heck that is important? 2.0 is only faster and the last time I checked passing music through 1.1 doesn't come even close to challenging it. And all 2.0 connections we have are backwards compatible, so moot point here. Unless you are the exception and you stream large data files along with your music over your USB connection.

And I never claimed to be an upsampling expert, but I do know more than you do. And to answer your question, I haven't listen to any Computer based upsampling devices. But I struggle with why a computer based is any different than a transport that upsamples?

Just remember, the more you increase the bandwidth beyond 16bit the more the errors increase, and the more equipment you need to deal with that. In the case of what Steve makes, and your DAC they are ultimately similar, both lense-like equipment that you add on to something-which seems silly and hodgepodge to me. I just have trouble understanding why go to all that trouble of adding equipment on to some second rate Squeezebox, or going to all the trouble of modifying someone elses equipment. But it serves to reason you agree with his philosophy. I say, if your smart to modify it, your smart enough to create your own, and most likely that will sound better than a modded piece.