[Casper Budtz-Jørgensen]

Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).

Regs,

Casper

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 20:38:54 -0800, Casper Budtz-Jørgensen wrote
(in article ):

Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).

Regs,

Casper

Try this. It's an excellent performer and highly upgradable and extensible.

http://www.msbtech.com/products/dac3.php

$450.00

[Rob Tweed]

On 25 Nov 2007 04:38:54 GMT, Casper Budtz-Jørgensen
wrote:

Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).

Well the ultimate is probably the Benchmark DAC1 but it's pretty pricy
too. You can pick up non-USB versions on eBay for about half price
occasionally.

I'd personally recommend the EMU 404 USB 2.0
(http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=15185) which can be
used standalone, is ridiculously cheap and sounds great.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[Alan Jordan]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 04:38:54 +0000, Casper Budtz-Jørgensen wrote:

Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).

Regs,

Casper

I second the recommendation of the E-mu 0404 USB. It offers great sound
for the price, and will directly drive an amplifier via balanced
outputs. It has USB, toslink and coax digital inputs. It doesn't offer
the extreme low level detail retrieval of some DACs, but does offer a
very musical and dynamic sound.

[Codifus]

Rob Tweed wrote:
On 25 Nov 2007 04:38:54 GMT, Casper Budtz-Jørgensen
wrote:


Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).


Well the ultimate is probably the Benchmark DAC1 but it's pretty pricy
too. You can pick up non-USB versions on eBay for about half price
occasionally.

I'd personally recommend the EMU 404 USB 2.0
(http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=15185) which can be
used standalone, is ridiculously cheap and sounds great.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com
Oh my god, I have to 2nd that suggestion wholeheartedly. Thanks to you
Mr. Tweed I gave the EMU a shot with a 30 day refund policy. They're not
getting it back. I've had an 0404USB for just about a month now on my
music server and it is fantastic. For $160, you have to give it a try.
This little un-suspecting box is really that good. The 1st night I
hooked it up, No software installed, I listened to it for over 6 hours.

At some point I hope to detail about it in another thread about my music
server.

CD

[Tyr Ásmundr]

I would highly reccomend the mytek stereo 96 from www.mytekdigital.com
....I have used many many dacs, from entry level to 10-12-15,000 dollar
units, and the Mytek Stereo 96 is a real giant killer.

www.mytekdigital.com
you can also email

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

"Tyr Ásmundr" wrote in news:fki0970ot5
@news4.newsguy.com:

I would highly reccomend the mytek stereo 96 from www.mytekdigital.com
...I have used many many dacs, from entry level to 10-12-15,000 dollar
units, and the Mytek Stereo 96 is a real giant killer.

www.mytekdigital.com
you can also email


I also neglected to mention that the mytek can be had for well under 1000
USD. In my opinion, that unit is the very minimum requirement in order to
step up from consumer level equipment to "finished" or proffesional
sounding products.. What is so amazing is the fact that the piece has held
and continues to hold its own at my flat/studio against some very big names
(more people are discovering this i believe), and in the time I have owned
it, I have yet to hear a piece of gear that offers improvement. Maybe(or
maybe not!) it is worth nothing that David Chesky endorses, and uses them
in his audio pursuits. ( though I suppose for some, that may be a reason
NOT to look into mytek any further..har). I dont see myself getting rid of
mine for a long, long time...anyway, sorry for the long speech, but I want
to put as much information out as I can. Good luck with your search! I
think that David may let you listen to one for a while if you contact him.
-Tynan

[Vinyl Rules!]

I am a fan of HDCD-encoded CD's: IMHO, when you can find them, I think
they sound much better than standard Red Book CD's.

And some very good DAC's were manufactured that incorporated either
the Pacific Microsonics PMD-100 or the newer PMD-200 HDCD decoding
chip.

Adcom released a stand-alone DAC some years back called the GDA-700
that used 20/96 bit Burr-Brown DAC's and the PMD-100 HDCD chip. It
retailed for $1,000, had both balanced and unbalanced connectors,
multiple inputs, and a phase inversion switch on the front panel. It's
predecessor, the GDA-600 was similar, but did incorporate the PMD-100
HDCD chip. And FWIW, both garnered good reviews from the "audiophile"
press.

There are some very good sounding CD's available that have been made
using HDCD encoding, but no one (to my knowledge) has posted an on-
line list of all HDCD recordings, or consumer electronics software
incorporating HDCD decoding. Pacific Microsonics used to do this, but
they were acquired by Microsoft sometime in 2000 or 2001, and
Microsoft has almost no mention of HDCD hardware or software on their
site - Shame on them!

Anyway, if you can find an Adcom GDA-700 (they are now scarce and
pricey), I would heartily recommend it. I'm currently using one with a
Sony DVP-NS500V as a CD transport and I think this is an incredibly
good-sounding combination, but, as always, YMMV.

On Nov 24, 11:38 pm, Casper Budtz-Jørgensen
wrote:
Hi,

Time upgrade my hifi. I'm about to buy a Cambridge audio 840A v.2
amplifier. I've also had a serious look at the 840C CD player that can
also act as a DAC for other devices (it has two digital inputs). Its
pretty pricey though and I was wondering if anyone knows of a high
quality standalone DAC converter to use with my new amp (ie, just the
DAC - no CD). So a device that would have one (or more) digital inputs,
and an analog output (preferable XLR).

Regs,

Casper

[Steven Sullivan]

Vinyl Rules! wrote:
I am a fan of HDCD-encoded CD's: IMHO, when you can find them, I think
they sound much better than standard Red Book CD's.

A fair comparison has never been available to consumers, as far as I
know. That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the
same except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed
both to be played back with matched levels.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 08:49:17 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ) :

Vinyl Rules! wrote:
I am a fan of HDCD-encoded CD's: IMHO, when you can find them, I think
they sound much better than standard Red Book CD's.

A fair comparison has never been available to consumers, as far as I
know. That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the
same except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed
both to be played back with matched levels.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

That's true. Initially, upon reading the above, I was thinking that one
merely had to play two copies of the same HDCD disc through two players, one
with HDCD engaged and one without. But since the number of useful bits
without HDCD decoding is truncated by the encoding process itself, it
wouldn't be a fair comparison. One would need a full 16-bit non-HDCD encoded
disc to compare to the decoded HDCD disc to get a level playing field.

[Adam Sampson]

Steven Sullivan writes:

That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the same
except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed both to
be played back with matched levels.

Are the details of the HDCD encoding process public? If so, it would
be fairly straightforward to simulate on a computer with a 24-bit
soundcard: take a 24-bit source recording, and compare a 16-bit
truncated version of it with a version that's been through the HDCD
encoding and decoding process.

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

[Steven Sullivan]

Adam Sampson wrote:
Steven Sullivan writes:

That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the same
except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed both to
be played back with matched levels.

Are the details of the HDCD encoding process public? If so, it would
be fairly straightforward to simulate on a computer with a 24-bit
soundcard: take a 24-bit source recording, and compare a 16-bit
truncated version of it with a version that's been through the HDCD
encoding and decoding process.

it's not totally public, but enough so that major elements of HDCD
*de*codig have been emulated in software.

HDCD promises 20 bit , rather than 24 bit, equivalent playback.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Vinyl Rules!]

Microsoft now owns the rights to HDCD as they purchased Pacific
Microsonics in 2000 or 2001.

I have not been able to find much info about HDCD on the Microsoft
site, but it appears they began incorporating HDCD in Windows Media
Player beginning with version 9.

Perhaps someone who is a wizard with this program can figure out a way
to do what you suggest and burn two versions of the same selection to
a CR-R, one HDCD-encoded and one with non-truncated 16 bit encoding?

On Dec 27, 11:44 am, Adam Sampson wrote:
Steven Sullivan writes:
That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the same
except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed both to
be played back with matched levels.

Are the details of the HDCD encoding process public? If so, it would
be fairly straightforward to simulate on a computer with a 24-bit
soundcard: take a 24-bit source recording, and compare a 16-bit
truncated version of it with a version that's been through the HDCD
encoding and decoding process.

--
Adam Sampson http://offog.org/

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 08:44:18 -0800, Adam Sampson wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan writes:

That would at minimum require two sources mastered exactly the same
except for the HDCD encoding step, and a player that allowed both to
be played back with matched levels.

Are the details of the HDCD encoding process public?

No. Neither Keith O. Johnson, Michael Pflaumer nor Pacific Microsonics have
EVER released an in-depth description of how HDCD works. Neither has
Microsoft (who bought PM a number of years ago).

The best that I can up with for a description is paraphrased from Wikipedia:

The HDCD encoding process inserts a control signal in the Least Significant
Bit (LSB) of the 16-bit Red Book audio samples (a technique called in-band
signaling). The HDCD decoder which may be present in the consumer's CD
player, responds to the signal. If the player is not HDCD equipped, the disc
will play as a regular CD. This use of the LSB actually does little or no
sonic harm to the signal aside from reducing the ultimate signal-to-noise
ratio by an insignificant amount. But the HDCD process provides for several
digital features, which can be added at the engineer's discretion. Among
these a
* Dynamic Range companding (round-trip compression/expansion), by which 4
more virtual bits are added to the sampling.

* A modicum of precision digital interpolation filtering with multiple modes
of operation is added, which can reduce aliasing distortion and other digital
audio artifacts.

If so, it would
be fairly straightforward to simulate on a computer with a 24-bit
soundcard: take a 24-bit source recording, and compare a 16-bit
truncated version of it with a version that's been through the HDCD
encoding and decoding process.

Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media Player have HDCD decoding
written-in as part of the software.

[Tynan Agviðr[_2_]]

Well the ultimate is probably the Benchmark DAC1 but it's pretty pricy
too. You can pick up non-USB versions on eBay for about half price
occasionally.


Gack! You being in UK, I expected that youd say something like DCS or GRIMM
or PRISM, or the ilk! That benchmark is wildly popular, and being
curious, I gave it a good shot, but when I compd against the Mytek a couple
others(Prism, Weiss)it was very bright/harsh sounding. Detail, bass
extension, etc..Benchmark has all that, but it is not, in my
opinion,enjoyable to listen to. Euphonic is what im after, without
sacrificing any of the details. Id be glad to offer up one of my units for
listening tests/comparison if anyone would like. I have an extra here in my
flat(normally used in my studio which is being remodeled--the other one is
in my hifi )

-Tynan

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media
Player have HDCD decoding written-in as part of the
software.

Thus, it is easy to compare a HDCD recording to an undecoded version of
itself.

(1) For your reference - simply rip the HDCD with readily available software
and use readily available software to make a 24 bit version of it.

(2) Play the HDCD recording with Windows Media Player on a PC with an audio
interface that is 24 bit capable and has a SP/DIF output. Record the 24 bit
data stream with another PC or perhaps even the same PC with another 24 bit
audio interface.

(3) Compare the two 24 bit recordings using readily available DBT testing
software.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media
Player have HDCD decoding written-in as part of the
software.

Thus, it is easy to compare a HDCD recording to an undecoded version of
itself.

(1) For your reference - simply rip the HDCD with readily available software
and use readily available software to make a 24 bit version of it.

(2) Play the HDCD recording with Windows Media Player on a PC with an audio
interface that is 24 bit capable and has a SP/DIF output. Record the 24 bit
data stream with another PC or perhaps even the same PC with another 24 bit
audio interface.

(3) Compare the two 24 bit recordings using readily available DBT testing
software.


Using the type of sound boards that come with a typical computer? I'm sure
that will reveal a lot.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media
Player have HDCD decoding written-in as part of the
software.

Thus, it is easy to compare a HDCD recording to an undecoded version of
itself.

(1) For your reference - simply rip the HDCD with readily available software
and use readily available software to make a 24 bit version of it.

(2) Play the HDCD recording with Windows Media Player on a PC with an audio
interface that is 24 bit capable and has a SP/DIF output. Record the 24 bit
data stream with another PC or perhaps even the same PC with another 24 bit
audio interface.

(3) Compare the two 24 bit recordings using readily available DBT testing
software.

I've done this more than a few times. In every case I've seen of this,
the peak level is changed. In most case it's simple 'normalization' of the
whole track to a different RMS/peak level, usually -6dB below the 'undecoded' version.
Thus no change in dynamic range (or more precisely, crest factor). In a subset of cases,
'peak extension' has been used, such that the headroom gained is actually utilized for higher
peaks, increasing the crest factor.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 15:51:26 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media
Player have HDCD decoding written-in as part of the
software.

Thus, it is easy to compare a HDCD recording to an
undecoded version of itself.

(1) For your reference - simply rip the HDCD with
readily available software and use readily available
software to make a 24 bit version of it.

(2) Play the HDCD recording with Windows Media Player on
a PC with an audio interface that is 24 bit capable and
has a SP/DIF output. Record the 24 bit data stream with
another PC or perhaps even the same PC with another 24
bit audio interface.

(3) Compare the two 24 bit recordings using readily
available DBT testing software.

Using the type of sound boards that come with a typical
computer? I'm sure that will reveal a lot.

Straw man argument because *everybody* knows better.

The type of audio interfaces (they most definately aren't boards - they are
chips on the system board) that come with a typical computer don't even try
to handle 24 bit audio. Therefore, anybody who actually tries to implement
my plan with them will be faced with complete and total functional failure
very early in the process.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Of course, all modern versions of the Windows Media
Player have HDCD decoding written-in as part of the
software.

Thus, it is easy to compare a HDCD recording to an
undecoded version of itself.

(1) For your reference - simply rip the HDCD with
readily available software and use readily available
software to make a 24 bit version of it.

(2) Play the HDCD recording with Windows Media Player on
a PC with an audio interface that is 24 bit capable and
has a SP/DIF output. Record the 24 bit data stream with
another PC or perhaps even the same PC with another 24
bit audio interface.

(3) Compare the two 24 bit recordings using readily
available DBT testing software.

I've done this more than a few times. In every case I've
seen of this,
the peak level is changed.

That seems a natural consequence of the HDCD processing.

In most case it's simple 'normalization' of the
whole track to a different RMS/peak level, usually -6dB
below the 'undecoded' version.

I admit it - I glossed over that step of processing in order to come up with
a neat, 1-2-3 format. Note that the person I responded to never got that far
with his objections.

Thus no change in dynamic range (or more precisely, crest
factor).

Not unexpected given that it is so unlikely that there would be a real-world
musical recording that would need the dynamic range extension provided by
the HDCD process.

BTW, someone referenced me to some SACDs of Beethoven symphonies that they
said had exceptional dynamic range. I obtained a few of them and checked
them out. Their dynamic range is exceptional for orchestral recordings - up
in the low-mid 70s. However, this is still about 20 dB shy of the so-called
limitations of the standard audio CD format. Therefore, the extra dynamic
range of SACD is again a solution looking for a problem, and not finding it.

In a subset of cases, 'peak extension' has been
used, such that the headroom gained is actually utilized
for higher peaks, increasing the crest factor.

Even if the peaks are unlimited by several dB, the issue of whether or not
the preservation of the peaks has audible consequences is not necessarily
settled in favor of the high resolution format. We still settle those
things with proper listening tests, right? ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Even if the peaks are unlimited by several dB, the issue of whether or not
the preservation of the peaks has audible consequences is not necessarily
settled in favor of the high resolution format. We still settle those
things with proper listening tests, right? ;-)

It has audible consequence, but the real question is whether
the same result could have been obtained with straight 16/.44.1 mastering.
I don't see why not.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Rob Tweed]

On 1 Jan 2008 16:21:31 GMT, "Tynan Agviðr"
wrote:

Well the ultimate is probably the Benchmark DAC1 but it's pretty pricy
too. You can pick up non-USB versions on eBay for about half price
occasionally.


Gack! You being in UK, I expected that youd say something like DCS or GRIMM
or PRISM, or the ilk! That benchmark is wildly popular, and being
curious, I gave it a good shot, but when I compd against the Mytek a couple
others(Prism, Weiss)it was very bright/harsh sounding. Detail, bass
extension, etc..Benchmark has all that, but it is not, in my
opinion,enjoyable to listen to. Euphonic is what im after, without
sacrificing any of the details. Id be glad to offer up one of my units for
listening tests/comparison if anyone would like. I have an extra here in my
flat(normally used in my studio which is being remodeled--the other one is
in my hifi )

Just a clarification if I may: I wasn't trying to imply that I
recommended the Benchmark. I was just making the point that there's a
fairly broad concensus of opinion I've read over the last year that
suggests a lot of people rate the Benchmark as one of *the* DACs.
Personally I can't justify spending the kind of money it costs to own
a Benchmark (even a second-hand one) and indeed I haven't ever heard
one! If you were in the UK I'd take you up on your offer :-)

I'm personally much more interested in discovering relatively low-cost
equipment that returns a level of audio excellence that would have
been unheard of at such prices even a few years previously. Hence my
enthusiasm for the EMU DAC - at its price, it's a no-brainer, and I
don't believe there's much else around right now at that price to
compete with it, certainly not in the mainstream hi-fi marketplace
here in the UK. I dare say there are better sounding DACs, but to get
much significant improvement, I suspect you're talking orders of
magnitude more money and, personally, I have better things on which to
spend that kind of money.

However at the current pace of change, by next year I'm sure there'll
be something cheaper and better. This crazy rate of change is driven,
it seems to me, by a number of things such as the computer industry
which has commodotised so many of the components of the audio world,
the burgeoning home recording studio marketplace and, of course, the
low manufacturing costs in China. I can't actually remember when I
last bothered to read a hi-fi magazine in the UK or go into a hi-fi
retail shop, but I know the sound I'm experiencing at home now from
equipment primarily aimed at the home studio market is light years
from what the hi-fi industry ever served up to me at the kind of
prices I could justify.

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com