The DAC when money is no object - Page 2

1 picosecond of jitter? are you ****tin' me?

Man, I think you need a more understanding wife, lol!

Edit: if only mine set such 'limits'

Can I come over and play

Value. Just the fact that there are 2 boxes means that extra money has gone into something other than sound. Interconnects (not needed anymore). And no conversion stages (ok less of a problem with systems like yours which have very complicated methods of ensuring that these don't cause issues). All of these however impact on money.

So to answer the orignial question, why just a CDplayer if money is no object. Pure and simple, there is just 1 box. A Nice cdplayer, a nice integrated, and 2 speakers. No cable spagetti, no large number of devices to turn on, heck in my dream system I'm not so sure I would even buy monoblocks. Assuming everything sounds the same which it pretty much does when you start spending 6 digits on hifi, the best looking simplest yet functional design wins in my books.

If money was no object, I would not be as controlled as Garbz

I've recently heard the EmmLabs at Neil's and it was just a wonderful sounding source.

And if money were no object, I would have just a hoot of a time, auditioning all kinds of components .

Either that, or the designers might feel there is no way to achieve the sound they want without going with a 2 box design. Nevertheless, I understand the desire for simplicity. Personally, I like the versatility of 2 box solutions like EMMLabs and Esoteric that also use proprietary connections.

dCS Elgar.

they've recently introduced a nice one box player. this would be on my short list.
http://www.emmlabs.com/html/audio/cdsa/cdsa.html

Again, I agree with these points. The ironic thing that I have noticed is that my headphone system will have more components than were I to buy the Meridian DSP8000s. Eventually, I plan to buy some electrostatic headphones and matching amp like the Stax 007...which require more cables and boxes.

Could be. The desire for two boxes though may come from flexibility or it could be a marketing thing giving consumers choice, I'm just guessing here. I am sure though that Teac's designers are capable of building a CDplayer with an output as good as an Esoteric DAC, afterall DACs and output stages would be identical if the jitter characteristics were the same. That said it may be a matter of space. Those units are pretty big and maybe they just couldn't fit all their components in the one case.

Also versitility is good too, if I used a computer as a source, or multiple digital sources, I would definitely use a DAC, ... and I do

What did you audition that set this one as your winner?

...and a nice turntable, I hope!

I'd say, it depends on the situation (as usual, doesn't it? ) - monoblocks can be a good idea, if you had a big room and would otherwise need very long runs of speaker cable from an integrated or stereo power amp to the speakers. Just as a two-box transport/dac solution would be a good idea for those, for who that transport wouldn't be the only digital source they'd frequently like to use, as you've already mentioned.

But, of course, if one doesn't mind the transport section being powered as well, when using other digital sources, one could also go for one of the high-end 1-box players that additionaly offer digital inputs in order to be used as a dac. And what I personally find very alluring are those nice Accuphase integrated amps with option slot for their comparatively priceworthy dac boards: If I could ever really afford to go the Accuphase route, I'd seriously consider that. And then there are those interesting high-class studio monitor speakers with integrated dacs (e.g. Focal/JMlab SM8) - oh, so many options...

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

I would buy an Esoteric D-01 (and a P-01).
Simply because I think it looks fantastic, and from the price tag I expect it to sound "decent" as well.

Or they make more money by selling separates.

iirc the 2 box concept was started by ps audio back in the '80s. while there are certain things that can be gained by physical separation of components, much of that can be done in a one box player. you should see the guts of my pioneer pd-93. this thing is unbelievably built with a copper chassis and everything being copper lined and wrapped (eg. caps) within the unit and 2 transformers (one each for digital and analog stages) being mounted externally on their own foot. my player was modified by stan warren (the 's' in ps audio). i originally heard about it from some industry people, some of whom built and marketed digital gear. it wasn't a unit that was well known as it was only imported briefly and was never pushed by pioneer. the thing holds it's own remarkably well even today, despite being ~15yrs old, and in comparos has gone head to head and held it's own against $10k separates and soundly stomped a stereophile class a rated ('98-'01) audio research cd-2 player. much of the 2 box concept is marketing driven as it's easier to sell, for example, two $3000 boxes than one $6000 box. it also allows someone to 'upgrade' one half of the digital chain at a time. a couple of companies have done interesting variants of the 2 box concept. rather than having one box for the transport and the other for the dac, resolution audio and naim (2 companies that have produced rather interesting digital players) have used the 2nd box to house the power supply and other potentially noisy parts of the chain, while leaving dac and transport in the other box. going to a one box solution simplifies connections and can optimize communication between the different components while minimizing jitter and impedance mismatches. it also saves money by not having to pay for both interconnects and an extra case (one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, parts of the entire unit.