Want to know how to waste your money?

Cpyder

Just buy the Krell KID Ipod dock. For $1200 you get a preamp (very nice), bass and treble controls (also cool), and many different outputs, but wait, what's that? Oh, you will be using your Ipod's ultra high-end DAC!

I love high end audio but throwing thousands of dollars at home audio and then using a $25 digital to audio converter doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Now, on the other hand, you could buy the Wadia 170i Transport, which DOES put out a digital signal! They cost $379. That leaves your wallet $821 heavier and you end up with better sound. (Assuming whatever you send that digital signal to doesn't suck)

http://blog.stereophile.com/he2007/051307ikid/

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_727170I/Wadia-170iTransport-Silver.html?tp=238

Your welcome

Airplay355

Yea but the Wadia doesn't say Krell on it, does it?

BlueFox

I own a Wadia and use it with a 120GB iPod Classic, with the files stored in Apple Lossless. Originally, I was using a Benchmark DAC1, but recently upgraded to a Bryston BDA-1 DAC. I love this setup. Since music servers make music so convenient, I find myself listening to, and buying, much, much, much more music than when I was just using a CD player.

See this thread for more Wadia information.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74140

mantis

Cpyder wrote: »

Just buy the Krell KID Ipod dock. For $1200 you get a preamp (very nice), bass and treble controls (also cool), and many different outputs, but wait, what's that? Oh, you will be using your Ipod's ultra high-end DAC!

I love high end audio but throwing thousands of dollars at home audio and then using a $25 digital to audio converter doesn't make much sense now, does it?

Now, on the other hand, you could buy the Wadia 170i Transport, which DOES put out a digital signal! They cost $379. That leaves your wallet $821 heavier and you end up with better sound. (Assuming whatever you send that digital signal to doesn't suck)

http://blog.stereophile.com/he2007/051307ikid/

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_727170I/Wadia-170iTransport-Silver.html?tp=238

Your welcome

Are you sure about using your Ipod's high end DAC's?

Dan

unclepauly

Airplay355 wrote: »

Yea but the Wadia doesn't say Krell on it, does it?

/thread

Cpyder

mantis wrote: »

Are you sure about using your Ipod's high end DAC's?

Dan

The "high end" part was sarcasm...

But yeah, the 170i is the only commercial ipod dock that bypasses the iPod's DAC.

LuSh

....yah because we ALL know DAC's are the end all and be all of the digital medium. You cease to talk about the analog stages one would find in a Krell...or the power supply.

BlueFox

LuSh wrote: »

....yah because we ALL know DAC's are the end all and be all of the digital medium. You cease to talk about the analog stages one would find in a Krell...or the power supply.

Analog garbage in, amplified analog garbage out. You do not need to be an EE to know that.

LuSh

You've entirely missed my point. The actual D to A converter used is a very small part of a much larger equation. I can take a DAC which was built 20 years ago which could trump most products today for no other reason then a properly built power supply with better analog stages. The golden age of digital was in the 90's, not today. The DAC used in the iPod is likely more then adequate. The power supply among other things is complete rubbish.

Systems

BlueFox wrote: »

Analog garbage in, amplified analog garbage out. You do not need to be an EE to know that.

Are you suggesting that a detailed and accurate analog stage will show the short comings of a poor DtoA conversion stage ?:D

Systems

LuSh wrote: »

The DAC used in the iPod is likely more then adequate. The power supply among other things is complete rubbish.

And don't forget the cheap little IC opamp used for the analog section following the D-A in the iPOD.I suspect it will play a big part in influencing SQ for the bad.

Systems

LuSh wrote: »

I can take a DAC which was built 20 years ago which could trump most products today for no other reason then a properly built power supply with better analog stages.

I agree that the analog section and power supplies are big factors.Most outboard DAC's these days have very good D-A sections with many using the likes of BurrBrowns PCM1792 ,but what differentiates the good from the excellent is the analog section ,power supply design.

lakesailor

BlueFox wrote: »

I own a Wadia and use it with a 120GB iPod Classic, with the files stored in Apple Lossless. Originally, I was using a Benchmark DAC1, but recently upgraded to a Bryston BDA-1 DAC. I love this setup. Since music servers make music so convenient, I find myself listening to, and buying, much, much, much more music than when I was just using a CD player.

See this thread for more Wadia information.
http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74140

That’s a great setup – I run the same in one of my systems only using the Theta DAC.

lakesailor

LuSh wrote: »

You've entirely missed my point. The actual D to A converter used is a very small part of a much larger equation. I can take a DAC which was built 20 years ago which could trump most products today for no other reason then a properly built power supply with better analog stages. The golden age of digital was in the 90's, not today. The DAC used in the iPod is likely more then adequate. The power supply among other things is complete rubbish.

I would actually agree. You can’t judge a DAC solely based on age or the chip set. I have heard some older well made and designed DAC’s that were truly impressive. Even when up against some of the big names out there today.

BlueFox

GV#27 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a detailed and accurate analog stage will show the short comings of a poor DtoA conversion stage ?:D

Yes. That is the whole point of the original post.

Cpyder

LuSh wrote: »

....yah because we ALL know DAC's are the end all and be all of the digital medium. You cease to talk about the analog stages one would find in a Krell...or the power supply.

The data found in my lossless files on my iPod is bit for bit identical to what's on a CD. (Once uncompressed) Are you suggesting my ipod can replace a high end CDP? They do the same function. Gather data, convert it to analogue and send it away.

Cpyder

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes. That is the whole point of the original post.

I think he was being sarcastic. Right GV#27?

Systems

lakesailor wrote: »

I would actually agree. You can’t judge a DAC solely based on age or the chip set. I have heard some older well made and designed DAC’s that were truly impressive. Even when up against some of the big names out there today.

I would agree aswell.The best DAC chips of the 90's like the PCM63 and AD1862 were very good and there were a number of great sounding units that used them.Many of these would compare favourably with many of today's breed.

BlueFox wrote: »

Yes. That is the whole point of the original post.

I know, I was agreeing.
BTW.I believe it's the superior analog stage that gives your BDA1 the edge over the DAC1.

Systems

Cpyder wrote: »

I think he was being sarcastic. Right GV#27?

Yes.;)

LuSh

Cpyder:

Define a high end CDP.

AndyGwis

That's for the post on that Wadia. I guess I could run my iPod through the Wadia through the Digital inputs on my Musical Fidelity CD-Pre24 and be in pretty good shape.

Does the wadia come with a remote and/or video output? Guess I need to read up more.

EDIT: Yes to remote, yes to video output. Need to find a used Wadia and perhaps keep my MF CD-Pre24 a big longer. . .

Cpyder

LuSh wrote: »

Cpyder:

Define a high end CDP.

That's quite a subjective topic but as far as what I would call high end?...

For starters, not containing a DAC found in a device that is NOT for reproducing audiophile grade sound that probably costs no more than $25.

Marantz's Reference line has some really nice players as well as Krell's Evolution line. There are a million others. McIntosh, Rotel, etc...

If we are boiling it down to price, you can get a very nice CDP for $800.
You could pick up a Marantz SA8003 CDP for around that price. Sony has some nice players as well. Most models at this price range would also let you play SACD and DVD-A as well.

For $800, you could get a nice player and dish out $350 more for an 170i Transport and have both for the same price as the Krell KID. Both devices by themselves would have more potential that the KID.

cnh

I can say I've never heard the Krell....I'm certainly familiar with that brand...as the Giant that most Giant-killers are aimed at!

And I do think you can get a decent CDP...for not too much. Currently I'm using a Pioneer BDP with Wolfson DACs as my CDP. And it ain't too shabby for its price! Doesn't do SACDs but I don't have many of those anyway.

cnh

concealer404

cnh wrote: »

I can say I've never heard the Krell....I'm certainly familiar with that brand...as the Giant that most Giant-killers are aimed at!

And I do think you can get a decent CDP...for not too much. Currently I'm using a Pioneer BDP with Wolfson DACs as my CDP. And it ain't too shabby for its price! Doesn't do SACDs but I don't have many of those anyway.

cnh

Agreed.... i wouldn't say that mine is special by any means, but the price sure was right! ($50.)

Stacks up VERY well to some newer $300-$500 range players that i've had it side by side to.

LuSh

I would completely disagree with your observations. Most of the stuff under $3-5k is mid-fi at best. Sony producing a good CDP is news to me. I've never heard a player from there's that wasn't completely mid-fi even the 777-ES. The Rotel stuff...same story...not bad but certainly not high end.

In my experience using CDP's over the long haul true 'high end' sound from a CD doesn't start until you hit the $5k mark for a single box. Note aged reference DAC's with transports can certainly bring that cost down.

I would recommend you reevaluate your assumptions within the digital domain...a DAC is really a small piece of the pie. No offense to Rotel or McIntosh users...nice equipment but not exactly what I'd consider high end.

Face

LuSh wrote: »

No offense to Rotel or McIntosh users...nice equipment but not exactly what I'd consider high end.

I would have agreed with you until recently, check out the the MCD-500.

cnh

LuSh wrote: »

I would completely disagree with your observations. Most of the stuff under $3-5k is mid-fi at best. Sony producing a good CDP is news to me. I've never heard a player from there's that wasn't completely mid-fi even the 777-ES. The Rotel stuff...same story...not bad but certainly not high end.

In my experience using CDP's over the long haul true 'high end' sound from a CD doesn't start until you hit the $5k mark for a single box. Note aged reference DAC's with transports can certainly bring that cost down.

I would recommend you reevaluate your assumptions within the digital domain...a DAC is really a small piece of the pie. No offense to Rotel or McIntosh users...nice equipment but not exactly what I'd consider high end.

That's cool but I've heard high end CDPs and they're not worth over 5K IMO!

And I aced my last hearing test so I know it ain't me. Reference CD players....the CD itself has INHERENT audio LIMITS and there is only so much you can do with it.

Why not 50K players...that would be a great waste of bucks..they exist, of course. And most of the guys who own them probably can't really hear the difference?

cnh

LuSh

chn:

Every individual is different. To some, small differences become larger differences and the temptation to spend is there; others might not. The threshold is entirely held upon the individual. A $5k CDP might not be worth it to you, while another person might think it makes a big enough difference. Acing a hearing test isn't a factor.

All things in audio have margins of improvement. With digital these margins are slim; spending $1000 vs $2000 on a CDP is in my opinion a waste when the threshold for improvement is much higher.

All audio components have limits. Digital media is no different, nor is analog or transducers.

Cpyder

I'm not saying the DAC is the biggest part of the equation and that nothing else matters. Just that, it's kind of like compression - if you are trying to play a lossy file encoding at 128kbps, it doesn't matter how nice your equipment is or that it cost $100K. You simply cannot regain what is lost in the lossy compression.

The same idea can sort of be applied to a DAC. If your DAC is cheap and lacking, it introduces loads of quantization error, that no other high-end component will fix further down the line.

Could you get away with an okay DAC along side nice equipment? Probably. But using a cheap ipod dac with your high-end (5K according to LuSh) equipment just won't work out that great. Especially after I just explained how to get guaranteed better sound (or at least more potential for better sound) in my previous post for WAY less money.

Cpyder wrote: »

For $800, you could get a nice player and dish out $350 more for an 170i Transport and have both for the same price as the Krell KID. Both devices by themselves would have more potential that the KID.

cnh

LuSh,

For the most part I agree with you. Thresholds become a relativistic phenomenon. And hearing tests are not all they're cracked up to be..my point there is not only is my hearing good..I also have a musical ear. I can hear the subtleties as well as anyone, I suspect. What then remains is whether I think those barely perceptible differences should be measured in such extravagant economic criteria.

But again. If you have wealth...that's not a problem...a small difference might be worth 10 grand. I've actually heard this argument many times from senior members who are constantly switching out their gear so I understand where you're coming from.

Personally though, I'd never spend more than 5K on a digital player.

cnh

LuSh

Again, I will agree to disagree. The analog stage and power supply of a $800 CDP is a joke...you've completely robbed yourself of any value. I think the best idea would be to buy a used $800 DAC that was once a reference.

A link to an iPod's DAC (Wolfson DAC) measurements done by Mr. Atkinson:

http://www.stereophile.com/mediaservers/934/index5.html

In summary it measures better then many CD players. Consider Dave Wilson used an iPod to prove the usefulness of spending one's funds on transducers. I'm not one for such trickery nor do I believe sound can be better then the source in which it came from but my entire point is that a DAC found in an iPod isn't as inferior as some might think.