What do you think?
Im either gonna switch or add expensive different amps one more time or go the other simple way.
and buy a simple integrated transistor.
Ml 383,NAD, rotel, primare, one touch button listening no hassles.
Those who have gone all out with custom built rooms Will have another perspective i understand that but still
Andromeda, reducing noise floor via isolated feed to audio room, balanced transformer, dedicated lines, audiophile duplexes, my choice of cables, audiophile fuses, have all taken my digital to previously unheard heights.
I’d go so far as to say this has been more critical for my cdp than my tt (here, vibration isolation platform has been the deciding factor).
I’m of the opinion that the harder you try and the more you spend on computer audio the more resources you’ve wasted, there’s just no fixing that for now. The least expensive NAD, Denon, etc. integrated and a pair of decent high sensitivity vintage speakers with some body is more than adequate and the best it will ever sound. Redbook CD on the other hand has the potential to sound pretty good and is worth the extra effort to get it right. Of course quality analog tape or LP is still better but that doesn’t mean it’s plug & play.
What do you think?
Im either gonna switch or add expensive different amps one more time or go the other simple way.
and buy a simple integrated transistor.
Ml 383,NAD, rotel, primare, one touch button listening no hassles.
Those who have gone all out with custom built rooms Will have another perspective i understand that but still
if you are asking whether it's the total system context (amps/preamps/cables, etc.) that make digital listenable and not particularly the digital player, then I would answer it's not that simple. and it's also dependent on your expectations for digital.
a high tide raises all ships. so sure, a better system makes any digital better. but it's also garbage in, garbage out. a better more detailed system could (not would) also expose decent 'good enough' digital as less satisfying. 'good enough' digital is certainly more accessible today at modest prices than ever before. if that is your question then 'yes' is the answer. you can plug any number of decent digital players into a good system and enjoy it.
but...…...I see your question as basically unanswerable since there are so many shades of performance and expectations. but maybe talking it through might help your strategic system building decision making.
Since digital has no mechanical limitations, it has most to gain. Concentrate on isolating the current hash in the digital signal path. Develop a grounding system to eliminate hash in the audio signal. Start there and that should improve clarity and SQ. The amplifiers will also benefit greatly,one step at a time.
I can not understand your question. Surely most systems do not have quality enough to play adequately an excellent digital recording. If you someone is still trying to make digital "listenable" he has a long way to go ...
And yes, IMHO if you prefer the analog sound of vinyl or tapes you recorded, and build the whole system to enjoy it, it will be harder to perfect your digital.
If you feel your digital to be unlistenable, then making the rest of your system more transparent is not going to help. As RogerD has suggested, close attention to removing hash at source by upgrading router smps / better ethernet cabling / galvanic isolation / system grounding / dropping silver plated cables etc will all help.
I meant it in the sense of : is it pulling on a dead horse , i ve heard tons of so called top digital , i guess im not an audiophile afterall.
May be 1 more expensive amp to go then i might go for a simple solution, i ll buy a cheap nad integrated plus may be a Ballinger tapedeck.
And i ll call the audiophile thing a day