Wadia 170iTransport

Fongolio

Keiko wrote: »

Got vinyl?

:rolleyes:

It must be from living in Hawaii that gives you that always cheery attitude. And no, I'm not being sarcastic (this time).

BlueFox

heiney9 wrote: »

Also the Ipod is NOT an audiophile device nor are the Itunes you are using. I rip all my own music using EAC to FLAC and keep it on a 750G hard drive.

The iPod is a 120 GB hard drive with a screen and an interface. I have not purchased any iTunes, and I never said I did. I copy CDs onto the computer, using the iTune software for managing music on the computer, and store it in Apple lossless, which, when uncompressed, produces the same digital copy as any other lossless encoding. A bit for bit copy that is indistinguishable from the original. The files are then loaded onto the iPod, and then uncompressed for playback.

The DAC, interconnect(s), pre-amp, amp, speakers are the “audiophile” products.

Now my CD player is primarily used to determine if a CD is iPod worthy or not. If the CD is worth listening to multiple times it goes onto the iPod, otherwise it goes onto the shelf.

Since I purchased this music server I have spent more hours listening to music than I would ever have imagined. I love being able to put it on random song shuffle and play for days. Since it is all classical music, the random combinations of songs produces some great concerts. Additionally, I am now keeping the music industry afloat by buying a few hundred dollars worth of CDs every two weeks.

However, like anything in this hobby, there is room for improvement. While the Dac1 produces excellent music, I think it is time to start investigating higher-end DACs, and maybe upgrade the DAC. After all, the DAC, whether it is external or internal to a CD player, is what produces the sound.

Face

Apple lossless is not a bit by bit copy, as I mentioned above, it's a lossy format.

SolidSqual

I've done the lossless stuff with modded Sonos gear and Dac 1 and others . . . they can't compete with CDPs of same quality. Not sure why. Just is what it is. Sooner or later I am confident that all music will be on harddrives, but until then CDP is the best option for those who don't have the patience to spin vinyl.

I'm a kid of the digital age. I've done the lossy, the lossless, the DACs, the ipod, the Media Centers, etc . . . Vinyl is king, A good CDP can hang with some of the best.

BlueFox

Face wrote: »

Apple lossless is not a bit by bit copy, as I mentioned above, it's a lossy format.

While you have said this twice, that does not make it correct.

"Apple Lossless (also known as Apple Lossless Encoder, ALE, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec, ALAC) is an audio codec developed by Apple Inc. for lossless data compression of digital music. Apple Lossless data is stored within an MP4 container with the filename extension .m4a. It is not a variant of AAC, but uses linear prediction similar to other lossless codecs such as FLAC and Shorten…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

“Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

WilliamM2

With 500GB drives at only $80, and 1TB drives for about $125, I don't see any reason to go with lossless codecs at all for home listening. I've got a 400GB drive in my CDR-HD1500, it's got over 400 CD's on it now, with room for at least 400 more.

It's funny that as these codecs improved over the years, the real need for them is no longer there.

shack

BlueFox wrote: »

While you have said this twice, that does not make it correct.

"Apple Lossless (also known as Apple Lossless Encoder, ALE, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec, ALAC) is an audio codec developed by Apple Inc. for lossless data compression of digital music. Apple Lossless data is stored within an MP4 container with the filename extension .m4a. It is not a variant of AAC, but uses linear prediction similar to other lossless codecs such as FLAC and Shorten…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

“Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

You can quote and link to all the internet sites you want...bottom line is Apple Lossless IS NOT AN EXACT COPY of the original data. It is a form of compression which attempts through it algorithms to reproduce the original information. There is a big difference.

SolidSqual

BlueFox wrote: »

While you have said this twice, that does not make it correct.

"Apple Lossless (also known as Apple Lossless Encoder, ALE, or Apple Lossless Audio Codec, ALAC) is an audio codec developed by Apple Inc. for lossless data compression of digital music. Apple Lossless data is stored within an MP4 container with the filename extension .m4a. It is not a variant of AAC, but uses linear prediction similar to other lossless codecs such as FLAC and Shorten…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless

“Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. The term lossless is in contrast to lossy data compression, which only allows an approximation of the original data to be reconstructed, in exchange for better compression rates.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossless_data_compression

Does anyone else think it's funny he's sighting from Wikipedia? A guy in my office just got fired earlier this week because he sited to Wikipedia in a client brief. It has not credibility pal no matter what anyone says.

Systems

As far as convenience and cool factor goes you have a great set up, but IMO more suited for casual listening.For serious listening I would be feeding your excellent DAC 1 from a transport so as too get every bit (pun intended)of data from a CD. Feeding the DAC1 via a neutered data compression scheme limits its ultimate potential.

BlueFox

shack wrote: »

You can quote and link to all the internet sites you want...bottom line is Apple Lossless IS NOT AN EXACT COPY of the original data. It is a form of compression which attempts through it algorithms to reproduce the original information. There is a big difference.

Other than from individuals on this site, such as yourself and other sycophants, I have yet to read anything reputable which validates your statement. If what you say is true then it should not be difficult to prove.

Please provide a reputable link that demonstrates an uncompressed Apple lossless file is not bit for bit identical to the original.

“So when Stereophile writes about iPods and suchlike, we aren't championing lossy MP3s, but what we deem are incredibly convenient transportation devices for storing audio files of "Red Book" quality.

But even granting that an ALC file is a bit-perfect copy of the original recording,…”

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/1008wad/index.html

Fongolio

Bottom line for everyone....if it sounds great to you who cares what anyone else thinks. And why does the established "polkstocracy" feel compelled to beat down anyone who has a differing opinion? I'm sticking myself into the line of fire but enough is enough. Name calling and personal attacks from people who have been around here for years on someone who is enthused about a product that almost every trade publication endorses is out of line. Fire away.

Systems

BlueFox wrote: »

http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/1008wad/index.html

Humm,John Atkinsons footnote#2 is rather interesting.Im sure many disagree but I regard him as one of the most technically astute tester/revievers in print.

Fongolio

And one more thing...wikipedia is a terrible source to quote. I've done it in jest here but anyone can write and publish a wikipedia entry with no credentials making it a very unreliable source.

unc2701

LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS!!!! Good lord people, it's not doctoral level information theory. A wav file isn't very efficient at passing information. A lossless codec doesn't throw out anything, it just does a mathmatical transformation so the same data takes less space on a disc.

For example, If you really wanted to, you could take the series of bit strings off a CD, convert them to standard decimal notation, convert them to english language, convert that to ASCII and put it on a disc.

So 00000100 becomes 8 becomes "eight" becomes whatever the hell that is in ASCII. it'll take up about 50 thousand times as much space, but it'd still contain the same information.

A lossless format is like a zip file. When you zip a MS word document, it's not like half your sentences are missing when you unzip it. I've actually gone through a process much like what's described in the stereophile footnote and gotten the exact same bits.

heiney9

unc2701 wrote: »

LOSSLESS IS LOSSLESS!!!!

Sure it is..............but it's not all bit perfect copies.

Systems

heiney9 wrote: »

Sure it is..............but it's not all bit perfect copies.

How so?I ask because this is a subject I really need to get my learn on.

BlueFox

unc2701 wrote: »

So 00000100 becomes 8 becomes "eight"

Actually, it becomes 4, but you have the right idea.

I have been writing software for the computer networking industry for a few years now, and am well aware of how easy it is to get a bit wrong. And, this industry is very unforgiving when the bits are wrong.

heiney9

GV#27 wrote: »

How so?I ask because this is a subject I really need to get my learn on.

The whole entire key to using lossless compression is in the ripping of the material. This is where the "bits are not bits" controversy comes in. This is why I've advocated using EAC with the correct offset for your drive. IF you don't do this any errors during the extraction process are subject to approximate reconstruction.

Reconstruction is done by a mathematical algorithm that's takes info immediately in front of and after the detected error and fills them with a "best guess".

I don't believe that Apple Lossless files are ever ripped using EAC. It's a 2 step process.

1) Rip the .wav file in secure offset mode w?EAC.
2) convert to lossless format.

I for one say Apple Lossless is not bit for bit exact because they typically aren't created using EAC or similar bit for bit perfect ripping software.

Perhaps this is pure semantics....................not sure I can hear a difference between a bit perfect copy and the not bit perfect as there are so many other variables to consider like jitter, etc.....................jitter is the number 1 killer of digital sound and typically is what gives that 'edgy', glassy, digital sound.

To the OP, the Benchmark DAC-1 is an extremely nice DAC and if it were me I'd upgrade my transport before buying what you say an even higher end DAC. The Benchmark is right up there until you get into really small esoteric companies.

unc2701

heiney9 wrote: »

The whole entire key to using lossless compression is in the ripping of the material. This is where the "bits are not bits" controversy comes in. This is why I've advocated using EAC with the correct offset for your drive. IF you don't do this any errors during the extraction process are subject to approximate reconstruction.

Reconstruction is done by a mathematical algorithm that's takes info immediately in front of and after the detected error and fills them with a "best guess".

I don't believe that Apple Lossless files are ever ripped using EAC. It's a 2 step process.

1) Rip the .wav file in secure offset mode w?EAC.
2) convert to lossless format.

I for one say Apple Lossless is not bit for bit exact because they typically aren't created using EAC or similar bit for bit perfect ripping software.

Perhaps this is pure semantics....................not sure I can hear a difference between a bit perfect copy and the not bit perfect as there are so many other variables to consider like jitter, etc.....................jitter is the number 1 killer of digital sound and typically is what gives that 'edgy', glassy, digital sound.

To the OP, the Benchmark DAC-1 is an extremely nice DAC and if it were me I'd upgrade my transport before buying what you say an even higher end DAC. The Benchmark is right up there until you get into really small esoteric companies.

Thank god for that- I was starting to think you were a complete idiot. The definition of a lossless format is one that is able to produce the exact same bits.

With regards to the ripping, as you can see from JA's footnote in the stereophile, he was able to get the exact same bits. I've done a similar experiment with EAC and apple lossless and gotten the same bits. Maybe your hardware is a little glitchy, and apple isn't ripping right for you, but it really is possible to get the same bits.

Systems

Thanks for the informative response.

heiney9 wrote: »

..........jitter is the number 1 killer of digital sound and typically is what gives that 'edgy', glassy, digital sound.

Luckily for BF his DAC1 is exemplary in the area of jitter,though I thinks thats analog section has a great deal to do with its excellence.

Fongolio

Some of you may have heard of Robert Harley. Please read this:

From The Absolute Sound issue 186 November 2008

iTas

Removing the Sword from the Stone
Wadia 170 iTransport iPod Dock

Robert Harley
As great a product as the iPod is—and it is truly spectacular—it has an Achilles’ heel for discriminating listeners: its digital –to-analog converter and analog output stage. The iPod’s D/A converter and output amplifier are by necessity sonically compromised, restricting the iPod’s usefulness. No serious listener would use an iPod at the front end of a high-end system. That’s a shame, because the iPod is a brilliant device in its functionality, execution, and user interface. It can also store hundreds of hours of music with perfect bit-for-bit accuracy to the source.
Leave it to Wadia Digital to create a product that capitalizes on the iPod’s strengths while completely eliminating the sonic shortcomings that have relegated it to ancillary listening environments. That product is the 170 iTransport, the first Apple-sanctioned dock to tap into the iPod’s digital bitstream and present that bitstream to an outboard digital-to-analog converter of you choice. The iTransport allows you, for the first time, to bring the iPod’s functionality to a high-end system with no excuses—for just $379.
The 170 iTransport looks like a traditional Wadia product in miniature, all the way down to its pointed feet. The flat top surface holds the docking connector, which accepts all iPod models courtesy of a supplied variety of dock inserts. The rear panel presents the iPod’s digital output in S/PDIF format on an RCA jack. You simply connect this output to any outboard D/A converter and the iPod’s sound quality is now determined by the quality of that D/A converter. For those of you without an external D/A converter, the iTransport offers analog outputs. Note that the iTransport doesn’t have an internal DAC; rather, the iTransport simply routes the iPod’s analog outputs to the iTransport’s rear-panel jacks. For those with video iPods, the iTransport offers S-video and component-video outputs. An external power supply plugs into a rear-panel jack.
Controlling the iPod via its click-wheel is made easier by the open iPod-mounting design (iPod docking stations in which the iPod is flush-mounted make operating the click-wheel difficult).With certain iPod models (Nano G1, iPod Video), the click-wheel interface is disabled when inserted into the iTransport, and a small supplied remote control provides basic functions, such as track forward/backward and pause/play.
The iTransport was extremely simple to set up and use. I unpacked it, popped in my iPod Classic, and was listening to music within two minutes of open the box.
As expected, the iTransport sounded like the DAC to which it was connected. I store music on my iPod using Apple Loss-less, which provides perfect bit-for-bit accuracy to the original with about a 40% reduction in storage requirements compared with uncompressed WAV files. In listening comparisons between the iTransport and the CDs from which the music was ripped, I thought the iTransport had a slight advantage. The iTransport had just a bit more space, bloom, and ambience than the CD. The recorded acoustic was slightly bigger, the spatial perspective was a bit more distant, and the sense of air surrounding instrumental images was somewhat more tangible and defined. The differences were slight, but noticeable. This impression is consistent with what I’ve heard when comparing music on CD with the same music read from a hard-disk drive (see my reviews of the Qsonix and Sooloos music server in Issue 177). The iTransport’s slightly-better-than-CD sound quality is a bonus; the real reason to buy the iTransport is that it turns you iPod (which you probably already own) into a music server worth of feeding a high-end system. Anyone who’s used the iPod knows how much easier it is to access music using the click-wheel than finding the CD and inserting it in a player. It equates to more time listening and less time looking through racks of jewel boxes.
The Wadia iTransport is the coolest product I’ve encountered in some time. If you own an iPod, an outboard DAC, and a high-end system, the iTransport is, at $379, essential. TAS

BlueFox

Fongolio wrote: »

Some of you may have heard of Robert Harley. Please read this:

Good post. It was this review that "forced" me to buy an iPod and Wadia. Damn you Robert Harley!

F1nut

And my experience was quite the opposite when comparing the iPod/Wadia/DAC to what I would call an above average CDP.

Systems

F1nut wrote: »

And my experience was quite the opposite when comparing the iPod/Wadia/DAC to what I would call an above average CDP.

I see you mentioned in a previous post that it was an Entech DAC that you auditioned the Wadia with.While the Entechs were decent little DAC's back in the mid 90's they where budget units without any form of jitter reduction.Assuming Atkinson is correct about lossless being a bit for bit copy though plauged with hi levels of jitter,then maybe the Entech was the limiting factor in the comparison?

F1nut

That's entirely possible, just as possible as the OP's $69.00 Panny transport being the limiting factor in his comparision.

BlueFox

The benefit of using an external DAC is the CD transport mechanism becomes irrelevant, as long as the digital bit stream is error free. Thanks to Moore’s law, and engineering know-how, today it is easy and cheap to extract the bits from a CD. Tomorrow, it will be even less expensive.

At this time in my living room, for a CD player, I am using my first DVD player, a Sony DVP-S550D, that I purchased in 1999 for $499 from Frys, along with “Deep Impact” and “Blade Runner”, my first two DVDs. Musically, it actually sounds pretty good.

I suspect, and expect, that equivalent DVD/CD technology can be had today for $69.

Systems

F1nut wrote: »

That's entirely possible, just as possible as the OP's $69.00 Panny transport being the limiting factor in his comparision.

If not for the fact that he is using a DAC1 then that would be a valid argument. The DAC1 has a special clock circuit that does a very good job of reducing the jitter induced from the inferface with the transport.So its concievable that excellent results can still be had with inexpensive transports.

F1nut

Both of you are kidding yourselves.

Systems

f1nut wrote: »

both of you are kidding yourselves.

ok;)

adam2434

In my mind, the only valid test of the Wadia as a transport (playing lossless or wav) is to compare it to other transports (a CD transport, Squeezebox, etc.), all playing the same track through the same DAC. In other words, the transport (and its spdif generation) is the only variable. And I'm not necessarily talking about a quick A/B comparison. Longer term listening is sometimes required to determine if there are differences in things like fatigue and overall music enjoyment.

And then, any conclusions only apply to the specific transports compared. General conclusions about one type of transport vs. another could not be made. For example, one could compare their "best" CD transport (say a $500 CD player) to the Wadia and conclude that they can't hear a difference in their system. However, one would not be able to make the statement that the Wadia is the equal to all CD transports. Maybe they would would have a different conclusion if they compared a $3000 CD transport (or maybe they would not, depending on their DAC and the resolution of the rest of the system).

Immediately dismissing the Wadia without fair and valid listening experiences just does not make any sense to me, nor does proposing that it is the ultimate transport.

Whether it's your cup of tea or not - well that's a whole different matter.