The best amp and speaker setup for digital playback

[PietPara]

Hi everyone, hi Peter,

I've come across this site through another website referring to the best PC audio players available (I believe it was computer audiophile) and have been eagerly readin a lot of stuff here.
I like to consider myself a reasonably experienced audiophile (25 years of hobbying and hearing a wide variety of equipment) but only on the listening front, not on the in depth technical front.
I have built a HTPC and recentlzy putchased a Xonar Essence ST card for it with the extension board H6 (for making it a 5.1 system in the near future). For now I have been enjoying very much the sound quality of this card over my Dynaudios using my Duson A10 and C100 amplifiers (Class A).
I too am succombing to the virtues of PC-audio and have been on a quest to confirm, explain or rearrange my thoughts about this theme, but I find I understand too little of the technical side to make convincing judgements for myself.
I hope to find some answers/opinions here, seeing that there is so much experience at hand (or brains to pick at . But before doing that, let me first find out if XX will be a a good player for me.

1) I read here that the Xonar Essence does not support some bitrate formats that XX supports. Does this mean that XX is not any better than e.g. foobar?
2) Is it really true that you can get bit-perfect rips using EAC? Does that not then mean, without dispute, that buying e.g. a €20.000 Wadia is absolutely pointless, unless you just like the sound that the DAC in a Wadia produces? Just don't buy it because a better drive system makes any difference. Or is there more to a drive system?
3) I read some motivations that a Squeezebox is must have. I still don't understand why one needs this is one has a good soundcard and e.g. foobar or this XX player? What does a squeezebox add to the equation?

Anyway, I could go on, but it's a start.

cheers to all
PietPara

[Per]

Hi PietPara,

First a big welcome to this forum

XXHE (XXHIGHEND) might not be the easiest music player to setup and use - but to  many - me included - it is definately the best. So don't give up - no matter what happen 

To your questions:

1) I read here that the Xonar Essence does not support some bitrate formats that XX supports. Does this mean that XX is not any better than e.g. foobar?

Even at 16 bit 44.1 khz standard CD resolution I think XXHE is worth the effort / registration fee. Others might chime in here. I use an Audiotrak HD2 PCI card at 24 bit but have yet to explore higher sample rates than 44.1 khz.

2) Is it really true that you can get bit-perfect rips using EAC? Does that not then mean, without dispute, that buying e.g. a €20.000 Wadia is absolutely pointless, unless you just like the sound that the DAC in a Wadia produces? Just don't buy it because a better drive system makes any difference. Or is there more to a drive system?

I use dbPowerAmp as I get Acourate rips faster and easier than with EAC. But a lot sees EAC as the defacto software for bit perfect ripping. To the Wadia comment: I would always prefer a PC to an (expensive) proprietary setup - but of course you have to invest some time to get things right.

3) I read some motivations that a Squeezebox is must have. I still don't understand why one needs this is one has a good soundcard and e.g. foobar or this XX player? What does a squeezebox add to the equation?

I have considered a Squeezebox myself -and still do for other rooms than the living room. Remember that a Squeezebox musicplayer is in fact a tiny PC with a networtwork adapter (and for Classic and Touch also with a built-in display) running embedded Linux and some proprietary software. It is fanless, small and easy to set up as the choices are made for you. What it looses is flexibility and upgradebility. Still cute, though 

Hope this has answered some of your questions.

Per

[PeterSt]

1) I read here that the Xonar Essence does not support some bitrate formats that XX supports. Does this mean that XX is not any better than e.g. foobar?

The response Per already gave is one angle (sound quality), and this would be another :
Suppose I "translate" your remark to the auto-switching to the various sample rates and bit depths XXHighEnd does, while your soundcard does not (just an example), indeed you wouldn't be able to exploit that virtue and players would become "equal" because of that. But the comparison is a strange one, because it would be equal to a Wadia doing 16/44.1 only and a Weiss capable of 24/192, you telling to play normal CDs only (16/44.1) and *thus* the Weiss is not better *for you*. Yeah, read this, and you clearly see the comparison is not right.

So, although my example is not the same as your real life question, it is about the remaining virtues for your circumstance, and the Wadia should win because it is about sound quality (I am not talking about your Wadia, but about my example above only). So, a Weiss just is not better, but it is able to play hires. So what ? better find a "Wadia doing hires" ...

In the end it comes down to what Per said; If you can't do (or auto switch to) all the sample rates etc. XXHighEnd can do and your material will have ... so what ? it is about the better sound, and the remainder is psychological. Or buy another soundcard. Haha.

2) Is it really true that you can get bit-perfect rips using EAC? Does that not then mean, without dispute, that buying e.g. a €20.000 Wadia is absolutely pointless, unless you just like the sound that the DAC in a Wadia produces?

My take ? yes. I would say this is a well thought and correct statement. Additionally (and this is the mistake 99% of today's people make) : it is NOT about the conveniency computer playback brings. Indeed, you did not bring this up as an argument, and for that reason your statement is so good.

Of course your "bit perfect" is to be translated to the, say, 20K which is needed to get a Wadia (etc.) as far as doing quite allright, and still we wouldn't know how ultimately good it is. And here is the advantage of the PC, which inherently is 100% (at no cost really) unless the CD is garbage.

We must be careful, because while it was my own idea back then that this would be all, as long as we would be able to have good external DACs (which is a 1000 times more difficult than having the lot internally - in one cabinet), this appeared not to be all at all. Or worse, the error free reading may even not be a real subject, compared to what, well, XXHighEnd shows you. So, this is about all being bit perfect to begin with, while each player sounds different, and with the fun of XXHighEnd making that an explicit virtue (like with the Q sliders, apart from the indirect stuff). Thus, if we only look at the difference this brings - and what evolution (of the player) brought us over the last couple of years, well, this CAN NOT be about error free reading or anything related to bit perfect; it was just that in the first place !

It is the above where all normal hardware will loose. Yes, *will* loose. Why ? because it isn't incorporated. There are just other parameters, and besides it is very hard to apply them in hardware, nobody knows what they are. Ok, but one small person maybe ...
And maybe this is one of the main reasons I work on a DAC myself, which (work) I ever back anounced as applying the from software learned parameters in hardware, because doing them in hardware has a far far more impact on the sound.

3) I read some motivations that a Squeezebox is must have. I still don't understand why one needs this is one has a good soundcard and e.g. foobar or this XX player? What does a squeezebox add to the equation?

Well, with your "background" of the Duson amps (which I have myself, so it's a nice reference for both of us), it is a matter of "seeing through the hurdles", or actually, what the hurdles are;
Before I started the development of XXHE, I theoretically choose a Squeezebox-like application, and with the same (Audio Note) DAC it immediately sounded way way better than my TEAC P1 drive. The theory is good, because in the end all is eliminated what is there to eliminate, and besides the (virtual) story about error free reading, it eliminates incoming jitter. So, here again, where a company like Wadia may come up with *another* 20K for a good external DAC connection (I think they are really famous for that), something like a stupid Squeezebox just doesn't need such a thing at all. And this is the same with my ever bought "network player", really based on the exact same principle, but 5 years ahead of something like the Squeezebox, which is the explicit (audio) means. Notice that these players always use Ethernet for the transport, and this is always normal computer (error-checked) data (careful with "always", because the first applications for transporting audio over Ethernet as audio already emerge).
All the currently available "media players" work like that, or by means of Ethernet connection, or by means of just sticking in an USB pen. The principle they use come down to the same : the data is far away, but the DAC is in the same cabinet as were the "clocking" is. And this latter is 100% jitter related, and in the very end all is about that, and that only.



The problem with the media players, is that they're always bound to a dedicated playback means. So, you can't use Foobar or anything, you must use the withgoing user interface. For the most media players this even means you have to have your TV switched on.
So, no free lunches.

Is a Squeezebox a must-have ? Well, if you only understand what is happening for the various elements involved ... of course not. The point is, such an application has the head started of theoretically being able not to have incoming jitter. And, contrary what people (including Wadia et al) always thought : no PLL is going to eliminate it. But again be careful, at the time PLLs could eliminate jitter, jitter levels were at the micro second level to begin with (ok, maybe nano). But today ? today "we" tend to use clocks that operate with a few ps in its base, *and* applications exist to also output that in net fassion. So, if that is preceeded with 800ns to be recoeverd by a PLL ... I don't know, but maybe it can be brought down to 10ns or so, but never a 1000 times less (up to that few ps). And on a side note, where I myself just implemented the 4ps net (!) in my own DAC, I'm ready this weekend to heat up the iron to make 17fs of that (which is again a 1000 times less !).

So ... things go fast, but the main message of the above is that a Squeezebox has the "opportunity" to work at jitter levels the clock (crystal) implies. Now, the bad thing is (for understandings), that you hear that. Less jitter is just audible, so a Squeezebox sound better. But is it good ? hahaha, it is a most poor noisy device with a most poor DAC design and ... it may sound better at aspects (jitter related).

Very similar is asynchronous USB. That too eliminates incoming jitter (although not all of it), but it doesn't tell a thing about the DAC itself. And again, the designer just has a better start, because he doesn't have to deal with the incoming jitter. The remainder ? well, no difference.

I can tell you that jitter does matter, but all of the other aspects within a DAC are far more important. Those who auditioned my DAC know how good it sounds, but it was all regardless of jitter elimination, because I just left that aside. So, it is only now, everything being actually ready, that *afterwards* I apply the best clock possible, and what comes from it is that it only gets better.
So you see, this approach is the exact other way around, and this is not to fool myself with good sound because of less jitter. A DAC should produce good sound because it is so good for its (ESR etc.) design, and when that happened, less jitter will make it all better.

Lastly, but this may be confusing, what XXHighEnd does is the first steps of letting a DAC itself sound better. Thus, it influences the DAC. This is where software is priceless (well, to me at least). And the fun is, this works so explicitly and good, that it works for everyone. Not if you have a Squeezebox (etc.), because then there's no software involved that *can* influence. So, you could say that software influence is a bad thing, but in the end it makes your DAC perform better. If that were not so, it would be the other way around, and XXHighEnd would sound the worst of them all. But I never heard someone say that ...


I hope this gave you some insight, or a good base to start thinking and workout things yourself further. It won't come easy and it won't come fast, but you - and we all will get there. I too keep on learning every day.

Peter

[PietPara]

Fantastic Per and Peter!
Thanks for your insights. It is still a lot to digest and for Peter's story I amnot sure I can follow it all, I think due to my lack of the technical knowledge about DACs, jitter and so on.

In any cae, I am happy to hear there is someone else with Duson!!! 
I recently switched to a pair of new Dynaudio Audience 122 speakers after 23 years (!) of listening to my KEF Reference 104/2, which I've always liked but also always lacked some stage and the crystal clarity of Dynaudio's. And now I am enjoying my own renaissance in musical fidelity after it had been dormant for a while. Whence my current enthusiasm to embark on a comparison and knowledge enhancement quest.

I'd like to come back to the topic of DAC versus all-in-one CDP. I know a few people with a lot of high-end experience and they all say that they "hate" pc-audio, because in their listening experiences they have always found it to be inferior and sounding more digital or cold and less intimate as, what they'd call, the real thing, a CDP. An example is that when listening to an Ayre setup where a comparison was made with the CDP and external DAC being the exact same as in the CDP, and playing the exact same CD (obviously one ripped to the PC) the sound was clearly still inferior. Just like a lot of people have a forced hesitation to believe in digital (some die hard phono lovers) there is also an army of people that just despise PC-audio. They would even say that it is even much less convenient (due to all the setup issues and what not). I personally believe that a lot of this is caused by suggestion, where the brain influences your perceptions and emotions due to your knowledge. Suggestion plays a strong and important role in experiencing high-end audio , which is why the term "sounds better" will never be an absolute statement.

Anyway, I'd still like to learn how to more or less discuss and maybe convince such people that are supposedly so against it. Knowing more about the techncial facts helps, although in the end it will indeed have to "sound ebtter" for that person.

I have experimented 1 demo time yesterday with the XXHE player. It was quite annoying that the player just suddenly stops, but anyway, I think I did hear a nicer, clearer sound. I want to test much more, but with the player quitting like that I cannot really get into a concentrated mode, that I need to make a good comparison. That's a real pity. Furthermore, I see a lot of parameters to play with (e.g. Q) and hope to find some explanations here.

I am lovin the talks.

all the best wishes for easter!
PietPara




 

[PeterSt]

I want to test much more, but with the player quitting like that I cannot really get into a concentrated mode, that I need to make a good comparison. That's a real pity.

Well, I hope it is not a stupid remark that this is because of using the demo version ?

I know a few people with a lot of high-end experience and they all say that they "hate" pc-audio, because in their listening experiences they have always found it to be inferior and sounding more digital or cold and less intimate as, what they'd call, the real thing, a CDP.

Very recognizeable, and in the end the exact reason why I started XXHighEnd. And I must say honestly, having a good player (for SQ) is not all there is to it. As a matter of fact there are many things which can be done wrong, and right now I don't even know them anymore. What I do know though, is that when you start this all, you don't have a reference other than your CDP, and however it is when the first sounds come from the PC, you really won't know what to tweak to go to what direction - and worse - you won't even know that there *are* things to tweak.

I won't be able to explain it (not by means of "just writing a short story"), but chances are very fair that if you remove your preamp it will sound horrible. What does that mean ? well, that something (or near all) in your system just *is* horrible. I mean, at removing the preamp (but take care of proper impedance matching in the first place !) you will be removing a huge filter. Thus, if it now sounds worse, something just *is* bad. This is a pretty simple test, although you won't be knowing what to change next. On the other hand, if it sounds better, you're on the good track, and have learned what something like a preamp does to you. And keep in mind : no matter how good or expensive the preamp is, it destroys. Always. But, this is with the exception of the preamp arranging that proper impedance match or acting as a good buffer.

So, let's stop here (already), because it is the best example or test you can start with. It will give you insight either way, and you will be on the track of learning what PC playback can bring. One thing is important of course : your virtual reference of some (like me) guaranteeing you it can be done. This starts with the playback software, and a decent volume control (and as far as I can tell XXHighEnd is still the only player doing that the 100% right way). So, don't have a decent digital attenuation, and you're lost forever. Why ? because you will need the preamp again.

The main motto is that PC playback teaches you what is good for your system for all elements. Thus, now *knowing* that the player can't be doing it to you (for now this may be just trust you must have), if you remove the preamp and things sound very thin or hars, well, things *are* very thin or harsh. Now it is a matter of finding out why;
You are going to think in directions of "what can't follow". Oh yes, it will be about this for a great deal. Thus, at leaving out this huge filter (the preamp) you will be pushing through more "digital". Higher transients of you want. If you now further think like me, it is fairly easy to think about measureable distortion. Or IOW, the less distortion an element shows, the better it will become. This is not stupid theory, but derived from my own work at improving, which includes measuring. And indeed it appears to be simple : if something measures bad, it will sound bad. Sadly it doesn't work the other way around, because todays OpAmps measure very good (like 0.0001 % THD+N), but still sound lousy. Oh, does the OpAmp sound good to you ? then you have another problem, which is the lacking reference. In that case you could say there is no problem because it sounds good to you, but since it just *is not* good (this is another guarentee of mine), you will be masking your sound forever.

Well, skipping most of the process, with some fairly good equipment elements at some stage you will be over a hurdle, and you will be able to judge instruments for their reality. Notice the huge difference with your ever attempts to let things sound less disturbing. It won't be all *that* easy to arrive there, noting that most probably 99.99% of people are still in this last leage. For me and a few others I personally know this is easy : go to the best high end shop you know, and listen to the horrible sound which the salesman shows you as their reference sound. When I say horrible, I mean that.
So, the real advise would be to get over the hurdle of judging instruments, and leave the "less disturbing" behind you. Easily said than done ? maybe, but the most important message is it *can* be done, just because I have that here. Once you're in the good leage it will go fast. Why ? because now you judge reality and you will be able to tweak towards something which is logic (meaning : letting a violin sound more real is a logic thing (and not subjective btw), while letting something sound less harsh is not logic at all, because a filter already would, but is a wrong solution).

(edit : scratched an unnecessary sentence here)

Peter

[PietPara]

Hi Peter,

thanks again for your sharing!

(The point was that I want to test XXHE before paying 72 euros for something that I don't know whether it is better than foobar for me, even though all of you say it is. Just as I wouldn't ever buy Bose even though there are millions saying it's great! ;-) )

But I'm not sure I understand your recommendations. You say "remove your preamp". Do you mean I should try connecting my sound card's (Xonar Essence ST) output directly to the end stage amp (Duson A10 in my case) and see what the sound is like (using XXHE)? I have done this before (with foobar) and thought it sounded purer but less warm (which matches your statements BTW), but it didn't sound horrible at all.

On a side note: I want to actually do this preamp bypass thing for my 5.1 HT that I am going to build (probably with a Rotel RMB 1565 5 channel Class-D poweramp), just to save me the money of buying a AV receiver.

But then, after removing the preamp and listening to the "purer" or more direct sound from the XXHE player, what am I supposed to do with what I learn from that exercise? Sorry, I don't think I got the point you were trying to make.
 

cheers
PietPara


 

[PeterSt]

Oh, I am sorry that I confused you. Ok, you may be reading this with the objective of deciding whether XXHE is "it" or not, while I wrote it in the context of all those audiophiles being stuck in their CDPs and turntables. So, the "you" in my writing was addressed to all those who don't believe in it yet, but who *will* have lousy sound in the mean time. So, my little story was merely meant to get them on a track towards computer playback, with the undertone of "and it will always be worse at first". This, because so many things will be wrong in the chain.

So PP, it was not meant to be performed by you, but merely meant to pass the word on how to go about with this. It is very general and in the end is not much related to computer playback, but *if* one takes this route, he will *have* to investigate what's going on in his chain, instead of taking it for granted (as good / the best, etc.).

Allow me to give a speaking example, certainly not meant to offend. Not anyone, and certainly not you (which will be logic if you read it ).

Suppose you were able to connect a most "fast" speaker to your set. Very generally, this most fast speaker (think in high resolution coming from it) will be high sensitive in the mean time (it just goes along with it). Now, the first thing you will notice is that noise blasts all over from your C100. Your high sensitive speaker made it worse ...
In the end, of course, it is the C100 doing wrong, so there you go, up to another one. Or hey, leave it out ...
Next thing you will notice is that the high resolution expected from the speaker, isn't all that high. Not that you will know it (without the reference), but try what happens when you replace the A10 with a fast amp ...

The fun is, the changes needed only make it cheaper. Generally this is so because less is more. Resistors make noice, supplying caps make noise, connections make noise. Leave everything out and besides there can't be coming noise from the stuff you leave out, it becomes way more fast of it. And this is key. Now, the more you allow "digital" to pass on to your speakers, the WARMER it will get. But not the warmth you are used to from a sloppy bass, but the warmth of harmonics and everything just fitting.

Those who are here from the start know that I strive for 1:1 as good as possible, BUT with digital as a base. Isn't that a strange thing to do. Still I do, and when I find something which again will be a better representative of the 1:1 thing, it sounds better again. Of course, in analogue this is logic all over, but in digital this seems not.

The foremost important is the source (and not the speakers, haha), because that is where digital is converted to analogue, and when that isn't done properly the whole mess is amplified. Of course, we all knew that, but did we know how bad the CDP is at that ? and did we know how hugely important the current draw is for this (D/A) operation ? No we did not. But if you see how stupid software can incur for totally different sound qualities (compare Engine#3 with Engine#4 to have a drastic one), you will know how fragile all is, and how important that is to good sound.

Ok, I'll quit the blahblah. It's not related to PCI soundcards anyway.
Peter

[Per]

Hi Peter,

"The best amp and speaker setup for digital playback" - that could be the name of a very interesting thread based on your latest post here that really started me thinking.... Hope we can discuss all the aspects in a separate thread as I have som questions for you - and they are not related to PCI Souncards 

Per

[PietPara]

Great stuff Peter!
I think I am getting your message. Actually, I know exactly what you mean now. In fact, the last few weeks I was having a very long email discussion about this topic (digital, pc audio, CDPs versus "the real sound") with two of my dearest "high-end friends". The discussion started because of my statements about PC-audio and in particular the versatility a PCI soundcard can bring to the equation.

[ back to the PCI soundcard topic ]

And believe me these friends are not faint hearted connaiseurs of what good sound should sound like. They will agree with what you say. One of them has a great Pass labs XA.5 amp, which is really a fantastic piece of equipment. The first experiences with that amplifier are like you described. It was like a background curtain falling away. The curtain normally would hold all the musical instruments and whatever sounds flying stereo through the room and give the listener the imprssion that there is a huge soundsstage with depth and all you think you like. But this Pass Labs brings one to reality and shows that the sound does not need to be held up by a curtain for it to be sounding real. With this amp you really hear the band playing in the middle of your room and you can walk in between the band's players. (As a matter of expression of course). For me it has been the first time I really hear an audio set sound completely and utterly natural. I must add, though, that this sound may not appeal to everyone because, as you say, the quality of the source may be worse than you thought and was always masked by the other components in the chain. Not sure if I could bring across what I mean. The next step this friend will have (DIY built) is a pair of Soup Ceramique speakers (also Dutch made!). With every step he is reaching what you are explaining. The only step still missing, due to his digital reluctance, is PC-audio. But he told me that I am there to convince him of it.  
I have to be quick because he would like a Wadia or a dCS Puccini.

BTW, when you speak of sensitive speakers, do you mean these Magico's at >110dB?  

OK, then, I am getting closer to the urge of trying out XXHE, even though it's just with my measily Soundcard and not some brilliant DAC. But I am convinced though that one does not need money to throw around at equipment to get high-end sound.
There are still other ways.

 

PS maybe we should move this thread.

[PeterSt]

Yes, everybody who thinks this is going way off topic right from the beginning, is absolutely right. So, I created a new topic for it with the suggested title from Per.

BTW, when you speak of sensitive speakers, do you mean these Magico's at >110dB?

Haha, almost. Mine are 115dB. You may choose something from here : http://www.bd-design.nl/index1.html

Peter

[Calibrator]

You may choose something from here : http://www.bd-design.nl/index1.html

.... or even from here :...... http://sgraudio.com.au/index.html

if you live on the other side of the world.

Couldn't resist getting a little plug in for aussie know-how and leading edge ingenuity 

Cheers,

Russ

[PietPara]

Looks like good stuff those horns. I still do prefer those Magico's, just for shear majesticness of them. What a construction. Anyway, just dreaming... probably will cost around half a million a pair or so.

Those BD-Designs, though, I see that they don't include any bass drivers, and go only down to around 200Hz. That means you need subwoofers. So far all my experiences with subwoofers is that it just doesn't make it. Especially people with just 1 subwoofer, that's got nothing to do with the origins of the recording. There are people argumenting that with such long wavelengths you won't hear stereo anyway, but that is just a bad excuse, since the uniformity of bass in your room increases with more bass units (standing waves and better room correction). Anyway, I'm really a sucker for good bass representation, and have not yet heard a qualifying setup with subwoofers. It always leaves a big gap of sound between what your speaker delivers and the sub. It's too difficult to match to each other, I think.

cheers
PietPara



 

[Jack]

Maybe look a little closer at the BD site.
He makes his own 15in bass driver which goes as low as I need!
No sub needed, but available for HT etc.
Jack

[Per]

Time to get some momemtum in this thread. Peters new dac is coming (soon) and we all need to know what to plan for dream about to keep up with the level of soundquality hopefully coming from the NOS1 DAC.

So, as I was the one asking for a new thread to discuss the ideal amp and speaker setup to release the full potential of digital playback. I still remember the excitement when I was going to listen to the first CD-player back in 1983 - just after the Danish release of the medium. I was invited to hear 2 (two!) players, the Philips CD100 and the Hitachi CD player, I don't remember the model. We were all kind of disappointed, but the CD100 did best and was the most natural of the two.

Well, is HAS improved since then, but I have a strange feeling that somehow we have not hit the potential on the digital side - that is why Peters talk about his dac and what (he thinks) matters in digital sound get me more and more convinced that he is right (the future might prove that I am wrong, but then Peter will be more wrong than me  What really made / makes me believe that we are NOT getting the full potential of digital playback is when a digital recording (maybe 10-15 years old) can be released on vinyl and then beat cd playback. The only reason for something like this happening is that we / the industry has truly missed something. I know, that some explains it by "the conversion to analog / vinyl adds a pleasant kind of distortion and ..." but  still we have to feel disappointed.

Maybe we - like Peter says - HAS to focus on parameters in the amp / speaker setup that is MORE critical for the release of the digital playback potential than it is for analog playback. In Peters book this is SPEED, SPEED, and SPEED. First I did not quite follow him, but maybe he is right. If SPEED has to work right we need PLENTY of power. CLEAN power that is, if I am not totally off track.

And now to my question to Peter and you guys / girls (?)

Would very fast amplifiers that can swing great voltage with ease (like huge Class A power amps) and planar speakers with super light mylar speaker membrane be the ideal setup? Or what about tubes and electrostatic speakers?

From your experiences: What amp and speaker setup favorizes digital playback? If we can answer this - we might be on track to find the best combination / setup for digital.

Just my babling away. Now I have pain all over  (due to my muscle disease) so I better stop and lie down. Best to you all. Hope here is fuel for a good discussion. I will join in when I feel the strength to read / write again...

Per

[AUDIODIDAKT]

Just reading this topic again,

I think we are on the brink of a new age into digital playback all together.
The word will spread like fire, I dare to claim publicly,
There is no better CDP on this globe that outperforms a the decent pc driven by xx-HighEnd.

I can only imagine that when NOS1 releases a new standard into getting digital into analog emerges
This will redefine standards (and possiblities) for amplifiers, speakers and the whole chain behind/between it

So I dont hope it will just end here.

If I am correct we a working a kind chain here:

1. The whole subject about how to get the music ON your PC (EAC, DBpoweramp, Cuetools, accurateRip, audiochecker etc etc.)
   Maintaing a music database - pretty well under control

2. How to get music OF your PC, using a well build and tweaked PC and ofcourse xxhighend software
   And get it into your DAC - pretty well under control

3. next point, DAC --->> Peter's NOS1, will get it into proper analog, all explained pretty well by Peter his nice posts.

yea, IMO lets go on to nr 4, please


What I dream about and foresee in the near future, is when the whole sytem works as one chain.
And can be controlled by PC and software (xxhighend)

See it like this
for eg. a cd-rom drive has an certain drive offset--->> you know this offset (by reference)-->> you correct it before procedure-->> output will be zero offset (thus original)

Now see *this* in your audio-sytem,
with PC-playback you will be able to correct all certain problems like input/output differences in amps/speakers/crossovers/room-correction etc.
By knowing (measuring) the difference between input and output you can theoraticly correct this by software means (thus PC) before procedure (or coverting)
And get "zero offset" (thus original) out of your speakers.
This is tweakers heaven, my man !
No CDP can do that, rest my case.

Peter,

Can you tell "us" maybe a little more about the future after NOS1.
What further plans do you have or not have, hope you keep the community alive.
I see this all just as a decent starting-point.

Do you think you came to the end of your project or will this open up more projects.
I can say you made your point against the "standarized thinking" of how things should be approached.

Will Phasure make more products and/or projects available ?

Or do you take a long vacation ?


I dont believe you just can stop being an AUDIOPHILE 

Roy