mauidan Wrote:
I've never heard a $6K CDP in my system either.
Once again, I was only interested in what experience you'd had with the
best transport/DAC combos out there, to arrived at your guess.
Nothing more.
I did own a $6kish system to compare to: a Pioneer Elite PDS-95
transport
Just an update...Here's what JA has to say in the latest e-newsletter:
I have already written about the third-generation Squeezebox (SB3) WiFi
hub and D/A processor from Slim Devices in the March and April
Stereophile eNewsletters, and I promised that I would write about the
sound quality of
Seems to reasonably echo the experience of some of us. The SB3 sounds
excellent out of it's own DACs, and even better driving my Audio Note
and Ack!
It's just really cool that JA is paying attention to the convergence
market of digital music with high-end audio. The handwriting's on the
wall
Phil Leigh Wrote:
I agree it would be nice to know if the Consumer subcode is on the SB
stream from the SPDIF output...Seems odd to me that it would be there
since the SB is not playing a CD, but I guess only the designers
would know...
I don't think it is. Otherwise, FLACs or MP3s derived
crooner Wrote:
I don't think it is. Otherwise, FLACs or MP3s derived from early CDs
recorded with emphasis would include (they don't) the required flag
to activate the correction circuits in the DAC. The emphasis flag is
included in the subcode data of a regular CD player or transport's
AFAIK, when EAC rips a CD it only extracts the raw PCM data. The subcode
information which determines things such as Index points (if the CD has
them), emphasis, and track sequencing is omitted.
A CD copy using NERO, OTOH, would preserve all the above, of course
burned into a CD-R. A completely
I just couldn't leave well enough alone, so out of curiosity, I started
reading more about jitter. What I learned is that one way to reduce
jitter produced by CD transports is to bypass the SPDIF output
altogether, which sends PCM data serially, and instead, use an I2S
connection. Of course, one
ezkcdude Wrote:
Of course, one would need a DAC that can accept I2S, but those are
available apparently.
The PCM1748 :-) I believe the only external DAC's are Monarchy and
Perpetual Tech. There aren't a lot of cable choices either, as it's
intended to be used in one-box players.
ezkcdude
Skunk Wrote:
Judging from Seans post I linked on page 9, it's sent to the internal
dac as spdif. The conversion is obviously well implemented from the
jitter measurements, so doubtfully worth dorking with- especially if
your DAC doesn't have I2S input.
Yeah, you're probably right. Sean's
Skunk Wrote:
Judging from Seans post I linked on page 9, it's sent to the internal
dac as spdif. The conversion is obviously well implemented from the
jitter measurements, so doubtfully worth dorking with- especially if
your DAC doesn't have I2S input.
Actually the internal DAC does use
Quoting seanadams [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually the internal DAC does use I2S, and the s/pdif output is a
separate interface.
Brilliant! (unlike me). I heart my squeezebox.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
Sean,
Would SD consider providing an AES/EBU ouput, either as standard or as
an option?
--
highdudgeon
SB3, Sony DVP 555es, Bel Canto Pre2, Carver Sunfire, Rane DEQ60L,
Harbeth Monitor 40s, ACI Force subs
highdudgeon's
seanadams Wrote:
Actually the internal DAC does use I2S, and the s/pdif output is a
separate interface.
Cool! So, then it is theoretically possible to tap the I2S. I'm
surprised nobody has tried to do this already.
--
ezkcdude
SB3-Derek Shek TDA1543/CS8412 NOS DAC-MIT Terminator 2
All,
just been catching up on the discussions on CDP versus HDD in this
thread and thought that I would just post this snippet from the CD
Paranoia FAQ (http://www.xiph.org/paranoia/faq.html) which kind of
opened my eyes to what is actually involved in a Red Book Audio CD
playback system
I've got to say that I've found reading through this thread
fascinating.
I caught the 'audiophile' bug when I was about 13, when the best I
could do was purchase repaired bits of very non-high end hi-fi from a
shop near my home, purchased with paper-round money.
Over the years my 'upgrade
seanadams Wrote:
But I'm not comfortable ignoring other potentially audible effects of
ASRC to get the improved specs that it yields for such narrow tests as
THD+N, jitter immunity etc.
I agree 100%.
That many listeners appear to be able to hear differences between
different transports
davehg Wrote:
Hmmm. I had what was considered a very good transport (Pioneer Elite
PDS-95), using a good digital cable (Acoustic Zen MC2) into a Class A
DAC (MF Tri-Vista). The SB3 stock was not 95%, rather more like 60%,
rising to 85% when feeding the Tri-Vista. The Bolder digital only
Anyone deeply interested in spdif/jitter etc from an engineering
perspective may be interested in a couple of recent threads on
diyhifi:
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=432
http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=453
One of the thoughts coming out of this is that spdif
PhilNYC Wrote:
FWIW, the Acoustic Zen MC2 is a 110ohm cable that was designed to be
used with an AES/EBU interface, not a 75ohm SPDIF interface; so right
there your going to be introducing some reflection and jitter problems.
(fwiw, I am an AZ dealer and have experimented with the MC2 vs.
95bcwh Wrote:
Phil,
Just curious..Out of so many different SB2/3 mods out there, which
one have you listened to?
Do you think the modified Sony S7770 can match the sound of a $6000
CD player (Ayre)?
thx
barry
The only SB2/3 mods I'm familiar with are the ones from Boulder and Red
PhilNYC Wrote:
FWIW, the Acoustic Zen MC2 is a 110ohm cable that was designed to be
used with an AES/EBU interface, not a 75ohm SPDIF interface; so right
there your going to be introducing some reflection and jitter problems.
I had heard that from the dealer (I had the option at the time
Skunk Wrote:
Quoting P Floding P.Floding.2532ez1143051302 (AT) no-mx (DOT)
forums.slimdevices.com:
Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D
I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the
timing chain.
The spinning CD in a normal CD player is no more a
cliveb Wrote:
The spinning CD in a normal CD player is no more a part of the timing
chain than is the spinning hard disk in a Slimserver.
Well that's a pretty gross misunderstanding on my part then :-) I had
thought normal cd players were synchronous and dependent on the speed
of disc
Skunk Wrote:
Why is the technology, I wonder, so expensive or touted as unique in
the Benchmark and Lavry- if being common to normal CD players? I'm
afraid the more I read about digital audio, the more confused I get.
Perhaps I should stop now.
I thought every CD Walkman that had a 10
Skunk Wrote:
Well that's a pretty gross misunderstanding on my part then :-) I had
thought normal cd players were synchronous and dependent on the speed
of disc rotation, while reclocking DAC's and PC audio were
asynchronous. Sorry for the confusion.
Why is the technology, I wonder, so
CliveB - do you have an error counter on your CD player?
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301
cliveb Wrote:
The only difference between the two is that the TCP/IP protocol used in
a SB setup allows for the re-transmission of bad data, while in a CD
player the disc can't be re-read to account for errors. But since the
overwhelming majority of non-faulty CDs are read without error,
ezkcdude Wrote:
Skunk, I think cliveb may be referring to the very small buffers on cd
players (think discman) that are for reducing skipping. These buffers,
however, only hold a few seconds of data.
No, I'm not talking about anti-skip buffers. Every audio CD player has
a buffer into which
Phil Leigh Wrote:
CliveB - do you have an error counter on your CD player?
I don't even have a CD player any more! (Sold it when it became clear
that the SB2 was a superior means of music playback).
It didn't have an error counter on it, but I have performed various
tests involving playing
opaqueice Wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me - what's the point of the buffer if the CD
can't be re-read? In that case if the buffer held 10 seconds of music,
you'd simply hear the skip 10 seconds after your car went over a bump
rather than in real time.
The anti-skip buffers in CD
Yeah well my experience is very different in that case. I have (retail)
CD's that produce 1,000's of errors. I have CD's that are so sha*ged
that EAC won't rip them...and they sound like sh*t on ANY cdp...I mean
audible distortion of a foul nature - unlistenable.
Whilst I agree that it IS
cliveb Wrote:
In any case, I really shouldn't need to produce supporting evidence for
the error-free reading of CDs: that particular imaginary bogeyman was
put to bed a very long time ago. If you believe that CD players don't
routinely read CDs without error, then you're deluding yourself.
ezkcdude Wrote:
To my knowledge, the Crystal receivers (CS8412 or CS8414 to name two)
do not buffer, nor do the DACs themselves (e.g. TDA154X, PCM16XX, or
AD18XX), and those chips are pretty ubiquitous.
CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
on-chip PLL to
Skunk Wrote:
CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
on-chip PLL to recover sender clock data.
I seem to recall Sean saying the programmable PLL chip (not sure if
it's on the receiver chip or seperate) is part of the key to SB2/3's
low jitter, along with other
Skunk Wrote:
CS8412 doesn't, but CS8411 has a built in buffer. The CS8412 uses a
on-chip PLL to recover sender clock data.
I seem to recall Sean saying the programmable PLL chip (not sure if
it's on the receiver chip or seperate) is part of the key to SB2/3's
low jitter, along with other
I'm sorry to disagree, but you are missing the point if you think that
SPDIF is inherently bad - that's just religion. My ears are indifferent
to that argument. SPDIF is not perfect but it's NOT the prime culprit
here (IMHO).
--
Phil Leigh
I'm NOT saying that SPDIF is great...but it's good enough - provided you
re-clock(IMHO).
The main culprit in CDP's is the fact that you have one chance to read
the spinning thing...
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile:
ezkcdude Wrote:
I don't disagree with this point. Assuming, the CD, itself, is
error-free, I'm not concerned about errors in reading. The main point
of contention here is the buffering issue. I simply do not agree with
you. For example, my non-oversampling DAC certainly doesn't have a
...oh no it isn't
so Chord etc are selling snake oil are they?
--
Phil Leigh
Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301
Phil Leigh Wrote:
Yeah well my experience is very different in that case. I have (retail)
CD's that produce 1,000's of errors. I have CD's that are so sha*ged
that EAC won't rip them...and they sound like sh*t on ANY cdp...I mean
audible distortion of a foul nature - unlistenable.
The first
Well, that would be nice. I've actually got 8 retail CD's (out of 3000)
that have died... but this isn't a quantum process. In other words
they don't magically go from perfect to rubbish overnight...they
deteriorate slowly.
Please don't equate how CD-Rom drives work with how CDP's work. Unless
cliveb Wrote:
The buffer isn't in the DAC, it's in the transport. *All* CD players and
transports, since day one, have such a buffer. It's as essential to the
correct operation of a CD transport as the laser itself.
Agreed - the datasheet for the sony cxd2500 in my transport [very
common
Phil Leigh Wrote:
If this wasn't true, there would be no audible difference between any
CD transport. I don't believe that all transports are equal, and I also
believe that the EAC (or whatever)+hard disk+SB approach is empirically
better in this respect than any spinning disk transport
Triode Wrote:
Now SB2/3 is a one box system so it gets excellent quality for level of
the components used by using a low jitter crystal oscillator and
connecting this direct to the dac chip without the need for an spdif
link. When an external dac is used, as spdif has to be used the
mauidan Wrote:
HD+SB maybe empirically better, but on the issue of sound
quality, JA has already said the Ayre CDP sounds better than the SB
with both connected to the same ML DAC:
Perhaps there was an increased sense of authority to the sound of the
CD on the Ayre used as a transport, a
ezkcdude Wrote:
I think all that we can take from JA's opinion is that the SB3 and Ayre
are not significantly different, and considering the huge price
difference, that's saying something. Whether the Ayre actually sounds
better at all is clearly a matter of subjective opinion, and would
That's exactly right -- and notice his prominent use of the word
perhaps. Perhaps.
And...the Ayre costs $6k, or twenty Squeezeboxes. And, with all due
respect to the writer, JA specifically disavows blind and double-blind
testing. Forget about what kind of connection was used; the fact is,
mauidan Wrote:
Having read JA's reviews for many years, I can take it that
the Ayre C-5XE CDP, which has never been recommended as a transport,
performed better than the SB. If JA uses a hiend transport, IMO the
differences will be larger.
IMO, there are a number transports and CDPs
PhilNYC Wrote:
I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated acoustic
listening environmentTo my ears, there is no question that the
reference gear outperforms the SB2. I agree with John Atkinson that
for casual listening, my SB2 as a transport sounds more than good
highdudgeon Wrote:
Besides, there is this, which, again, is hardly worth discussing: a DAC
that fully buffers and re-clocks the incoming signal pretty much renders
the transport, cable, etc., a neutral factor.
On the contrary, i think this SHOULD be explored. I am surprised how
everyone
highdudgeon Wrote:
It would be really, really nice and interesting if one of the stereo
mags would routinely conduct and publish blind tests.
Double-blind preferably. Testers leak information and people are
amazingly clever at picking up slight hints and have a very deep need
to please
seanadams Wrote:
I'm not trying to bash the DAC-1 - as a matter of fact i have tested it
and found it well designed and exhibiting a very low noise floor and low
distortion throughout the analog section. But I'm not comfortable
ignoring other potentially audible effects of ASRC to get the
JJZolx Wrote:
Yes, I'm questioning the opinion. Are you serious? From some of your
other posts, you seem to have good ears. Is it your opinion that the
$8 chip in a DAC accounts for so much of its characteristic sound that
you may as well junk every DAC made more than a couple years ago?
JJZolx Wrote:
Big difference in the march of technology over two decades. I find it
preposterous that anyone would think the same of the progress made in
only a several year period.
Pardon the double post, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this computer
audio thing we're doing is aeons
Skunk Wrote:
Pardon the double post, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this computer
audio thing we're doing is aeons closer to perfect sound forever than a
spinning disc of plastic read by a moving laser mechanism, and it's
taking place practically overnight.
And what's the new technology
JJZolx Wrote:
There is none. Instead, it's an economic one...
Not for audiophiles.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2685
View this thread:
Well, yes and no. There is no fundamental difference in terms of 1's
and 0's. However, there is an enormous and fundamental difference in
terms of storage and usability. It's a shame that Redbook never moved
beyond twenty year+ old technology and that we have the same data format
now as 'back
JJZolx Wrote:
And what's the new technology that enabled this revolution?
There is none. Instead, it's an economic one... inexpensive storage
space has been the real reason that this is a feasible alternative
today.
Could be I'm missing something, but I don't think this is accurate.
It
mauidan Wrote:
Please tell us what best transport/DAC combos out there, you've heard
that you base this guess on? Please be sure and tell us if these
transport/DAC combos were link to a central clock, what type of digital
connection/cable was used, were any of the components modified and
Amen, brother.
--
highdudgeon
highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301
JJZolx Wrote:
Is it your opinion that the $8 chip in a DAC accounts for so much of
its characteristic sound that you may as well junk every DAC made more
than a couple years ago? I've never seen an even remotely similar
opinion statement from an audiophile, so it raises an eyebrow...That's
P Floding Wrote:
That is just an implementation detail.
We had 16/44 with CD, and we have 16/44 with CD ripped to HD. No
fundamental difference.
Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail.
In my very humble opinion the 'revolution' is getting an asynchronous
data receiver
Well said.
--
highdudgeon
highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301
___
joncourage Wrote:
Is it really necessary to be smarmy and condescending? If you don't
like the guy's post then reply to it in a professional and dignified
way; you'll be taken more seriously.
Sorry to be the freaking internet police but I find the tendency for
nastiness in anonymous
Group hug.
--
dwc
dwc's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1892
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=22301
___
audiophiles
Skunk Wrote:
Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail.
If you include moving my ass off the couch to change cds as a moving
part, I'll agree. :)
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile:
Skunk Wrote:
Lack of moving parts is a fairly big implementation detail.
In my very humble opinion the 'revolution' is getting an asynchronous
data receiver chip close to a DAC chip. Sure the convenience is great
for the masses, but I went to PC delivery to get the best sound
possible on
mauidan Wrote:
I simply asked ezkcdude to qualify his statement:
I'm guessing that even using just the stock SB3 analog outputs gets
you at least 95% of the way towards the best transport/DAC combo out
there.
I was interested in what experience he had with the best
transport/DAC combo
Quoting P Floding [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D
I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the
timing chain.
Of course, there is absolutely nothing that have stopped the industry
from doing this right all along, even with CD
For any of you in the NY/NJ area, I would be more than happy to have a
group of you visit me in Northern NJ for a listening/comparison
session. I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated
acoustic listening environment. Would be happy to do an A/B/C
comparison between my SB2
Phil,
Are you finding significant differences between different transports
when using the same DAC? Again, and at least technically, if a DAC is
properly buffering and re-clocking the signal, the output will always
be the same, regardless the input. Just curious.
That would be a fun
highdungeon, yes, I definitely hear differences between the
transports/SB2 using the same DAC. And here's another kicker...someone
came over last week with a $600 digital cable (Virtual Dynamics), and
using that on my SB2 closed the gap signicantly against my reference
DAC using a different
highdudgeon,
I agree with everything you said in the last two posts. It is all a
very individual and personal thing to decide how much some of these
differences are worth.
Someone once asked me how close to a live event my system (retail
price near $45K) was able to deliver. I told him about
Amen to all the above.
And, yeah, the 5% can be, well, just 5% or a 5% that really
counts...excellent point!
--
highdudgeon
highdudgeon's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2195
View this thread:
PhilNYC Wrote:
I also believe that small differences (say 5%) can be the difference
between something that is totally fatiguing and something that is
totally enjoyable
Phil, I agree about fatigue, but I think some of it is psychological,
and could be filed just as easily under the term
PhilNYC Wrote:
For any of you in the NY/NJ area, I would be more than happy to have a
group of you visit me in Northern NJ for a listening/comparison
session. I have a pretty high-end system and a pretty well-treated
acoustic listening environment. Would be happy to do an A/B/C
comparison
Jon,
I'm not an engineer, but in speaking with engineers it seems to always
come down to jitter (both data and timing jitter). And there are a lot
of things that can affect jitter...the actual transport mechanism, the
impedence matching between the output of the transport, the digital
cable,
Phil, thanks for your rather sane response. I just want to agree with
your point about appreciating the music more. I think this is true, and
a similar thing happened to me when I started becoming more serious
about (amateur) photography. I can't ever really go back to just taking
snapshots, even
PhilNYC Wrote:
FWIW, I mentioned in another thread that the difference between my SB2
and my reference transport was very minor in sound quality before I had
had a chance to really properly treat the acoustics in my room, and that
I only noticed a significant difference when I finally got
PhilNYC Wrote:
What remains a mystery to me is (as highdudgeon points out) that if a
DAC has a data buffer and a re-clocking mechanism, why would upstream
jitter have an effect? I still don't have an answer for that.
I don't know the answer either, but here's a shot at it.
Think for a
Actually, I imagine that an audiophile SB would be hugely profitable.
We shouldn't forget that profit margins in the high-end world are just
that -- high-end.
Imagine packaging the SB with a high-endish DAC, beefed up hardware,
metal case and remote, option of balanced outputs and AES/EBU for
I could buy a really large box and put my SB, my DAC, my Sonic Impact
Super-T, and a Bolder PS in it and VOILA! pretend it's an audiophile
SB! :-)
Total cost - about $1300 or so.
Seriously tho, my feeling is that a stand-alone audiophile grade
(whatever that may be) SB would be preferable to a
Skunk Wrote:
Quoting P Floding P.Floding.2532ez1143051302 (AT) no-mx (DOT)
forums.slimdevices.com:
Last time I checked hard disks had moving parts! ;-D
I'm guessing the wink means you realize the disk isn't part of the
timing chain.
I would have thought that in today's (one-box)
Skunk Wrote:
If asynchronous transmission eliminates the catch 22 of having to
seperate digital components for better isolation- while using less than
ideal connections; an external DAC hanging off the SB seems rather
Luddite in approach.
Rather luddite I must be then, as I still prefer
The audiophile market is tiny. We all know that. And, by defintion
almost, an audiophile is someone who continually tweaks his system
searching for, but never really finding, that magical something that
will make him content. For those audiophiles, the one-box solution to
anything is just not
I agree with the above, and I also think that a large aspect of
audiophilia has to do with status. Thus any enhanced product that
SlimDevices produces and labels audiophile is not going to be fancy
enough or expensive enough for some people. A lot of audiophiles are
just driven to spend more
dwc Wrote:
I agree with the above, and I also think that a large aspect of
audiophilia has to do with status. Thus any enhanced product that
SlimDevices produces and labels audiophile is not going to be fancy
enough or expensive enough for some people. A lot of audiophiles are
just driven
P Floding Wrote:
Since you post this in the Audiophile section, I'll just treat it as a
flame bait.
I think you misread. A true audiophile seeks good sound, not the most
exclusive kit.
--
dwc
dwc's Profile:
ezkcdude Wrote:
Mauidan, you caught me! I have never listened listened to a $6000 CD
player in my system. I haven't even listened to $1000 players or DAC's.
That's what you wanted to hear me say, right? I'm not sure why that
makes YOU feel better, but I certainly couldn't care any less.
P Floding Wrote:
Since you post this in the Audiophile section, I'll just treat it as a
flame bait.
I assume your joking, P?
I consider myself a budget audiophile, where the challenge and fun of
the hobby is getting the best value/sound for the buck. But there are
many diffrent flavors of
dwc Wrote:
I think you misread. A true audiophile seeks good sound, not the most
exclusive kit.
Yes, a real audiophile couldn't care less if the equipment is cheap.
What you described is not really a an audiophile. I don't have a word
for it... Poser? Flaunter?
--
P Floding
dwc Wrote:
While I see the possibility of potentially less jitter with the onboard
dac, I suggest to you that some folks may prefer the sound
charateristics of specific dac chip types, and more importantly they
may prefer the sound characteristics of their dac's analog section
(i.e. that
Very nice to wake up to, indeed! And, honestly and with all due
respect, I wonder if even the wee differences he heard between it and
the CDP, when listening very carefully, are more psychological in
nature than anything else. Expectations are powerful. In the end,
though, he rules them
Thanks, hd for sending me a copy! Gosh, how many times do we have to
hear the following:
Daddy's got a Squeezebox, Momma's not gonna get any sleep tonight!
Well, overall, a great review, or at least, preview. One thing I
thought was particularly interesting, and not related to the SqueezeBox
sleepysurf Wrote:
Nice writeup by JA in the current Stereophile eNewsletter.
Is this posted anywhere online?
Chris
--
benthos
benthos's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2556
View this thread:
Not yet, as far as I know, but I would think they'd post it in their
archives shortly...
http://www.stereophile.com/enewsletters/
--
sleepysurf
squeezebox2 (with elpac linear psu) to benchmark dac1, direct to sunfire
cinema grand 200 ~five (vertically bi-amped) driving ml aerius i's, blue
mauidan Wrote:
JA said he could still hear a difference comparing the SB and Ayre C-5xe
both used as a transports feeding a ML DAC.
Yeah, which goes for about $6000 on audiogon. I don't know, take your
pick: SB3-$300 or Ayre-$6,000. I don't know, man. That's a hard one.
--
ezkcdude
He also called the difference irrelevant for general listening. Now,
that's saying a lot.
Again, I don't really know much about the Levison DAC. However, with a
cutting-edge device, such as the Mytek or Lavry, devices that fully
buffer and re-clock the incoming signal, differences in transport
Ayre C-5xe is not a transport. I don't know anyone(other than a
reviewer) that buys a $6K CDP and uses it as a transport. There are
lots of good transports and DACs both new and used for a lot less.
Hopefully, JA will provide some more meaningful comparisons in his
review.
--
mauidan
highdudgeon Wrote:
In the end, I think the review more or less reads this way, to me: a
$13,000, give or take, digital front end is about on par with a SB+DAC
for around $1,300. One tenth the price.
I'm guessing that even using just the stock SB3 analog outputs gets you
at least 95% of the
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
