Support Head-Fi.org by
starting all of your
Amazon.com shopping by
clicking here.
____________________________________________________________________
Today's Featured Head-Fi Blog: Jude's Blog
____________________________________________________________________
Please help
support Head-Fi by becoming a Contributing Member
CLICK
HERE -- Contributing Members, thank you
for your generous support! --
okay...a few words...still waiting on the GS-1...how do you all think it will sound in the middle? Currently have the Rotel hooked up with a bluejeanscable Belden 1694A Digital Audio Cable to the Benchmark USB DAC1 bnc in...and the Rs-1s are singing holographically...can't imagine what the GS-1 is going to add...and I look forward to it.
...and another pic(how come mine don't come out this good?)
The RCD-1072 seems like overkill as a transport, especially with something as jitter-immune as the DAC1. Plus, you don't get the benefit of HDCD decoding unless you use the CDP as a source.
Yes, It would be overkill, I would not normally use the RCD 1072 as a transport....It will be the source to the GS-1, when it arrives. I have the Benchmark so I had to try it in the chain, you know how it is.
The RCD-1072 seems like overkill as a transport, especially with something as jitter-immune as the DAC1. Plus, you don't get the benefit of HDCD decoding unless you use the CDP as a source.
I am not sure if there is such thing as over-kill for transport, DAC1 is not really jitter immune, so better transport will usually translate into better sound.
I am not sure if there is such thing as over-kill for transport, DAC1 is not really jitter immune, so better transport will usually translate into better sound.
I s'pose so, but at some point there are diminishing returns. With a non-reclocking DAC, the transport would be a much bigger issue. I just don't like seeing CDPs with nice analog outputs being used as transports. If I had the budget for a RCD-1072 and needed jitter-free CD playback, I'd consider looking at some used dedicated transports (Wadia, Theta, etc.).
I can confirm that the better transport does in fact translate to better sound...and that was what I wondered and wanted to prove to myself...also, I had spent so much on the amplification and headphones...I needed to treat my ears to a budget(650.00) yet quality transport...it's a relatively inexpensive transport/source if you go looking...I'm thinking Plinius, Accuphase, Esoteric, etc. when I think expensive. Interesting points, though...wonder how many people feel that the transport means so little in terms of contributing?
First of all, congrats on the new acquisition. I'm sure your (APS or SAA- recabled?) RS-1 will sound great when the Gilmore arrives.
Originally Posted by chesebert
I am not sure if there is such thing as over-kill for transport, DAC1 is not really jitter immune, so better transport will usually translate into better sound.
While I tend to agree (though not from experience) that better transport will translate into better sound, I thought the DAC1 is advertised to be virtually immune to jitter. Benchmark posted graphs on Head-Fi and on their website showing how even artificially introduced jitter bore little impact on the measurable performance of the DAC1. This leads me to think that jitter is only one of the aspects which may contribute to (or indeed take away from) listener pleasure, and used almost too often as a scapegoat for everything and anything not right about the sound. "Ah it must be jitter!"
First of all, congrats on the new acquisition. I'm sure your (APS or SAA- recabled?) RS-1 will sound great when the Gilmore arrives.
While I tend to agree (though not from experience) that better transport will translate into better sound, I thought the DAC1 is advertised to be virtually immune to jitter. Benchmark posted graphs on Head-Fi and on their website showing how even artificially introduced jitter bore little impact on the measurable performance of the DAC1. This leads me to think that jitter is only one of the aspects which may contribute to (or indeed take away from) listener pleasure, and used almost too often as a scapegoat for everything and anything not right about the sound. "Ah it must be jitter!"
you are correct, I am sure you know that there is no such thing as 'digital' per se, it is simply a modified square wave with 10-90% transition when switching either from '0' to '1' or vice versa. Assuming we live in a perfect world, that would be great because a measureable volt (within 10% of the steady state) is maintained for all your '0's and some other measurable volt (above 90% steady state) is maintained for all your '1's; so really the only major issue in the digital domain is clock sync (jitter as most like to call it). But that's not the case; the real world sucks. Let's say a crappy CDP is outputting something long the lines of 2mv 1.9mv, 2mv, and suddenly it dips to 1.7mv, and comes back to 2mv...well that would really suck because now instead of {1,1,1,1,1} you have {1,1,1,x,1}... granted there are ways to deal with this, mostly using a single parity bit and other technies such as those used in CD production, but is that what's really used in the DAC and transport?...that is, IMO, the real issue....
The conclusion of this analysis points to the reason why ethernet protocal is probably one of the best digital transmission means avaliable, hence my uhashamed plug for SD TP or really expensive digital cable
*found*Rotel RCD-1072*Picture alert!
Linear Mode
