Great...another cable thread

tonyb

You guys may remember me complaining about my digital sound I was getting streaming to a cullen modded Sonos to an Audio gd dac, then analog into my receiver. One last thing I forgot to try was.....cables. Had an older pair of some Bogden Gold IC's out of the dac, wasn't all that crazy about them but my cable inventory is low at the moment. Looking for that analog sound, and having in use already was an Audio Metallurgy digital cable which to my ears bested the Blackcat Veloce slightly. So I figured what the heck, they have some new Ga-o's IC's in silver that I would like to try.
http://cgi.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/auc.pl?cablintr&1322539653&auc

Bingo....great cable. That digital sound is gone while letting the music and details flow. I know what your thinking, silver and digital don't mesh well. In my system they do. I have Bens silver cables going to the amp and the amp likes it. Speaker cables are another story though and for another time. If you guys get a chance, and you like a cable that doesn't get in the way or color the sound, give these GA-0's a whirl. Incidently my pair was 80 bucks at .75m, so step off the high priced cable B.S. If you think 80 bucks is too much for a pair of IC'S, don't post.

Lets not start another cable debate here. This is just meant as a FYI on my own experience and a heads up to those looking for something relatively cheap and an upgrade from monoprice or bluejeans. We all like to find gear that performs well above their price point, mark these as one of them.

pearsall001

Ah geez Tony...you're no fun!! I was just getting ready to pop some popcorn & wait for the fireworks to begin. Glad to hear you found some nice cables that are working well in your system. I'm with you on not having to spend mucho $$$$$ to get great sound.

tonyb

How about it Phil....got that right bro. Thing is, you have to kiss a few frogs to find your prince so to speak. I've been lucky lately on limiting those frogs.

txcoastal1

Hey Tony not to derail your cable debate thread...but I too am a Sonos fan, did you find the Cullen mod worth the improvement?

Thanks
Ron

Drenis

How dare you start a cable thread tony.

However, those are some funky looking IC's. still don't know too much about silver material IC's so I too, might have to experiment.

tonyb

txcoastal1 wrote: »

Hey Tony not to derail your cable debate thread...but I too am a Sonos fan, did you find the Cullen mod worth the improvement?

Thanks
Ron

A slight improvement, not as big as their advertisement claims but still there non the less. If you were to ask me if I could do it over again, I dunno, because the regular sonos doesn't do 24/96, but the modded one does.

Drenis, they have regular copper GA-0's too, look at the auctions. Length usually cost more, as with any cable.

mantis

I for one have no problems with Cable threads , it's part of the system and why not talk about it.

:cheesygrin:

tonyb

tonyb wrote: »

A slight improvement, not as big as their advertisement claims but still there non the less. If you were to ask me if I could do it over again, I dunno, because the regular sonos doesn't do 24/96, but the modded one does.

I want to expand on my own answer here a bit regarding a cullen modded Sonos. At first, I did a head to head between a non modded version and a cullen modded one, I have both in house. At that time I was running both into my receiver by way of a Blackcat Veloce digital cable. In direct mode, the receiver tells me what signal is being run thru it. The modded Sonos had a slight advantage. Now the kicker, since then, I added an Audio-GD dac in the mix, same digital cable, analog outs of the dac to the receiver. Honestly speaking, running both Sonos thru the dac, very hard to tell a difference. So in the end, if I was to spend 500 bones for the cullen mods again, I would say nay nay, spend the coin on the dac....and cables.
It's easy to get caught up in reviews of products, claims of being the best thing since sliced bread. For me, I have to try something in my system to validate such claims. Sometimes they are spot on and other times not so much. Doesn't mean however in another system on different gear the outcome may differ.

tonyb

Incidently, this begs another question.

Is the file, 24/96 or higher, as important as the dac ?

steveinaz

The belden 1694A is quite a performer, and very inexpensive. I like the large solid copper center conductor. I can't honestly hear any difference between it, and my DH Labs D-75--at more than 4 times the price.

steveinaz

tonyb wrote: »

Incidently, this begs another question.

Is the file, 24/96 or higher, as important as the dac ?

Since the end-product is only as good as the source material, IMO, I'd rather have a 24bit recording thru a lesser DAC, than a nicer DAC and a 16 bit recording. Subject however to argument; that's just my take--and the direction I would go.

PrazVT

I know what your thinking, silver and digital don't mesh well. In my system they do.

I dunno - I use Signal Silver ICs to connect from the SB Touches to DACs on both my rigs and feel they've been a good match.

Is the file, 24/96 or higher, as important as the dac ?

I would think the DAC would be more important, as that impacts overall SQ of regular 16/44 and higher audio signals right?

heiney9

tonyb wrote: »

Incidently, this begs another question.

Is the file, 24/96 or higher, as important as the dac ?

In my experience it's the DAC. It's pretty incredible how good a std. 16 bit recording can sound thru a really good DAC.

H9

steveinaz

Let me a give a more specific example; I'd rather run 24/96 thru a Cambridge DACMagic, than 16/44 thru a Bel Canto or Benchmark. You're not going to "lose" anything on the Cambridge--though it may not be articulate to the nth degree--so I'd rather have more "musical" information the 24/96 provides. If it isn't there to begin with (16/44), you are NEVER going to "recover" data that isn't there, no matter how good the DAC.

heiney9

I would still take a really high end "regular" dac vs. a middle of the road 24/96. I've heard too many times how it has a lot to do with parts and design. Also, not all hi-rez files are derived by the same method, meaning some are upsampled 16 bit and some are true 24/96. Atleast that's my understanding. So right there you already aren't comparing apples to apples.

In the end a high end hi-rez unit would be the best, but again the 24/96 material is the variable if it's not all derived in the same manner.

H9

tonyb

Makes sense Steve and I agree with that line of thinking for critical listening. Casual listening though, another story. While I most definately can tell a difference in a 24/96 file, most others can not. Everyone who hears my un-modded sonos played thru an old sony receiver on cheapo Tad bookies, comment on how good it sounds. I guess it comes down to how discerning of an ear one has and how revealing of a system it's played on. The inherit flaws of my un-modded unit is not heard on the crappy system, but on the HT rig, it becomes obvious.
Thats without a dac in the mix, with the dac, the file becomes less important for me, while still being able to enjoy the music. I still enjoy a good recorded redbook cd, low rez by todays standard yet sounds as good if not better than alot of 24/96 files. We all know that all cd's, redbook, are not created equal for the obvious reasons, so my next question is are all 24/96 files created equal ? By my ears, I have to say no as I hear a difference in different 24/96 files.

I know that question is a loaded one as many variables come into play. I'm talking about a 24/96 file, and how or what was the source in recording that file. Shouldn't that vary from site to site on the internet if your buying music that way ?
Many variables exist in cd playback as we all know, quality of recording, gear, cables, blah blah, should be the same in the digital domain too no ? I guess I'm comparing sources....cd as a source to a 24/96 file as a source. One is low rez, the other higher rez. But the 1's and 0's of digital don't necessarily add up to better sound. Don't get me wrong, I dig a good 24/96 file, but on some the amount of detail it presents takes away from the music. My opinion of coarse.

PrazVT

Well the point of high res is to more accurately represent the original analog waveforms right, so there should be an audible improvement moving b/t the files (assuming same gear, source was 24 bit, etc.). But I still think playing either a CD quality file or a high res file is still going to be more enjoyable using a standalone DAC vs say an AVR's DAC, more digital info or not.

steveinaz

My "views" assume we are talking about genuine 24/96 material, and that both examples (16/44 and 24/96) were equally well mastered.

The only thing that really matters is how well mastered the music is; but that is a totally different question. I'd much rather listen to a well mastered 16/44, than a hap-hazard 24/96.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

My "views" assume we are talking about genuine 24/96 material.

The only thing that really matters is how well mastered the music is; but that is a totally different question. I'd much rather listen to a well mastered 16/44, than a hap-hazard 24/96.

That's my entire point, there is no consistency in source material. Most understand this next statement; It comes down to the source material and how it was mastered, not the format they are using in the end product. This is why there can never be an answer to the question. I suppose that's why we constantly are buying multiple versions of the same material, to find out what sounds best to "us", in our rig, with our ears, in our listening environment.

In THEORY all 24/96 should sound better based on what BeefJerky likes to call "mathematics", but in REALITY, it's simply not true because of all the variable introduced.

H9

steveinaz

Well, it should go without saying that we're talking about "respectably" recorded material; otherwise the whole discussion is moot. You have to have some baseline assumptions in order to keep the discussion in the correct context.

Put another way, assuming equally well mastered 16/44 and 24/96 recordings; I (PERSONALLY) would rather run 24/96 through a $400 DAC, than 16/44 throuhg a $1600 DAC. My rationale? I'd rather have more musical information to work with, than the slight improvement a $1600 DAC might afford. All the DAC in the world, won't recover 8 additonal bits of musical information---that is a FACT.

heiney9

Your respectably recorded material and my respectably recorded material and 10 other peoples respectably recorded, probably varies quite a bit. The point is there is no answer. No one can say all 24/96 recordings are better than standard recordings anymore than someone can say 24/96 recordings are a waste of time.

Just like every remaster that is released is not automatically better than the original. Some are and some aren't.

You can't boil it down to the question tony asked, it's still to broad to make any kind of statement.

H9

PrazVT

Put another way, assuming equally well mastered 16/44 and 24/96 recordings; I (PERSONALLY) would rather run 24/96 through a $400 DAC, than 16/44 throuhg a $1600 DAC.

If that is the scenario, I would do the same - and in one of my rigs, I do.

My initial response assumed either having a DAC or not having a DAC (standalone).

steveinaz

Your sound will never be "better" than the source material---it will not be magically transformed by ANY DAC. The audio "chain" can only weaken from the source material ---> on. So the question is, do I want to start with 24bits of musical information, or 16bits of muscial information?

heiney9

So if the source material is an older analog tape mastering it in 24 bits will yield a better transfer to digital than 16 bits? I'd have to say not always because who knows how good the original analog tape is.

Anyway, I'm done being "devils advocate" my feeling is unless you are comparing apples to apples there is no way to know for sure.

H9

steveinaz

Nevermind. Variables "in mass" make any point impossible to demonstrate. So, as I said earlier, it makes the discussion a moot point.

Tony, do what gives YOU a woody brother.

heiney9

steveinaz wrote: »

You're doing a painting. You can choose between 16 colors, and the finest brushes and canvas made; OR you can have 24 colors, and so-so quality brushes and canvas. Which choice will render a more realistic image?

That assumes the same artist is painting the same picture at the exact same time. How can you compare a Steve Hoffman mastered hi-rez to a standard 16 bit mastered at the studio? Does the Steve Hoffman sound better simply because of the 24/96 or because of his vision of how it should be mastered, his "imprint" or interpretation of the material?

To answer I'd take the finest brushes with the finest 16 colors on the finest canvas vs. medicore 24 colors, mediocre brushes and mediocre canvas.

H9

heiney9

If you take the exact same digital recording, recorded at the same time, on the same counsol, with the same equipment with the same engineer and make one a 16 bit and one a 24 bit recording the 24 bit will sound better on the same playback equiopment that is capable of playing both formats, but IMO, I don't beleive that is not the case with all 24/96 material because of all other variables that could be involved.

H9

Tour2ma

tonyb wrote: »

Lets not start another cable debate here.

So far, so good... :cheesygrin:

tonyb

Different debate Bruce, but as long as it isn't cables, let the good times roll.

Steve and H9, I think we all agree on the premis of quality recordings that vary in high rez files, but Steve threw in the dac in the mix so this may go off in another direction. For the sake of arguement, lets take a 16 bit cd. The information is there, but a dac brings it out, otherwise none of us would use dacs to begin with. On a 24/96 file, more info is in there, but that can be a double edged sword as too much info and the way it is presented can become too forward in the presentation thus taking away from the music. Just an observation is all, we all enjoy our music as we each see fit.

Speaking strictly as source material, 24/96, cd's, both can produce good sound, the rest of the equation rests in associated gear. Hopefully we can agree on that. It seems to take more to get good sound from a computer than a stand alone cdp in my experience anyway. Guess I'm guilty of derailing my own thread here, eh?:cheesygrin:

steveinaz

There are some very well engineered CD's out there, unfortunately more the exception than the rule. I've been very pleased (so far) with my results via HDD/Touch---I didn't expect to like it much, I was wrong.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

I've been very pleased (so far) with my results via HDD/Touch---I didn't expect to like it much, I was wrong.

Yeah well, hate to say we told ya so big guy......or that a few of us had to drag you with 40 horses, and 20 ugly hookers kicking and screaming to give it a whirl. Ok.....slight exageration there.:cheesygrin:

Glad your diggin' it Steve, rock that house.