[Kamil21]

Nobody who knows how a CD actually works would say that IMO. At a guess it's probably that physical CD players don't have a whole bunch of circuits that dump noise into the electronics compared to USB and network gear.

Of note is the photo of the Blu2 in the background, although there is no mention of this in the article. I would hope that a comparison is in the works.

HOT! Here's the Blu2 review in Polish:

http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=


And Google Translated:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=&usg=ALkJrhiOC7VVPh8b4l-qHf--9kHR6tjN7w


If I read it right, it is a rave review, but he still alludes to the notion that CD is the better source to other media!

 

[Malcyg]

Through Dave, in my system the best sound quality was achieved from my MBL CD transport into AES/EBU input. Now, with BluDave, the best sound quality so far has been from Blu II CD replay. Having looked into this recently, it is easy to find convincing arguments that CD sounds better than playing files and this is arguably why people are constantly looking for tweaks and improvements to USB playback

CD represents by far the least amount of music playing for me but what I like about CD is:
1) CD's can be purchased for cheaper than red book downloads - I have never understood why
2) Having bought the CD and ripped it, I have the CD as backup if nothing else
3) CD is so far giving a slightly better quality playback in my system
4) I think that the difference between red book and higher res files are considerably reduced or even eliminated when played through BluDave, so I potentially save even more money when buying a CD instead of the high res download

It is still early days with Blu II for me, but it is entirely possible that I may increase my use of physical CD's based upon experience so far. Maybe those predicting the death of CD's are slightly premature?

 

[theveterans]

HOT! Here's the Blu2 review in Polish:

http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=


And Google Translated:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=&usg=ALkJrhiOC7VVPh8b4l-qHf--9kHR6tjN7w


If I read it right, it is a rave review, but he still alludes to the notion that CD is the better source to other media!

Well, 99% of music are produced in 16 bit 44.1 KHz format. It's natural that the it will benefit more with the M-scaler compared to the hi-res PCM format. Even Moffat's (Schiit) digital filter sounds best with redbook instead of 24/192KHz

 

[DaveRedRef-III]

HOT! Here's the Blu2 review in Polish:

http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=


And Google Translated:

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=pl&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=http://www.highfidelity.pl/@main-3061&lang=&usg=ALkJrhiOC7VVPh8b4l-qHf--9kHR6tjN7w


If I read it right, it is a rave review, but he still alludes to the notion that CD is the better source to other media!

I thought it an interesting comment when highlighting the superior imaging of BluDave "Many times in recent years pointed to shortcomings in this respect (re imaging) many CD players, turntables and virtually all file players."

 

[esimms86]

To be completely honest, I've gotten so spoiled by the convenience of file players to the point where I'm willing to accept what Blu2 has to offer solely as an M scalar for digital files. As it stands, I'm already astounded by the sound I'm getting with the SoTM SMS-200 ultra (with a wall wart 9v power supply) into a ISO Regen with LPS-1. I can barely fathom the thought of the improved sound I'll be experiencing once Blu2 and my SoTM SPS-500 power supply both arrive later this month. These are great days for audiophiles.

 

[onsionsi]

To be completely honest, I've gotten so spoiled by the convenience of file players to the point where I'm willing to accept what Blu2 has to offer solely as an M scalar for digital files. As it stands, I'm already astounded by the sound I'm getting with the SoTM SMS-200 ultra (with a wall wart 9v power supply) into a ISO Regen with LPS-1. I can barely fathom the thought of the improved sound I'll be experiencing once Blu2 and my SoTM SPS-500 power supply both arrive later this month. These are great days for audiophiles.

Looking forward for your opinion and observations because I'm eager to know what Blu2 will add to this hobby as sMS-200Ultra and IR enhancements, elevated the sound to a highest level.

 

[Malcyg]

I dislike doing serious A/B comparisons as I find them to be quite tiresome, so I only generally do them when faced with the prospect of spending some money! However, given my observations in post 872 above, I thought that I should test out the Blu II CD and compare that with hires file playback because my initial reaction to BluDave was that hires downloads may well be unnecessary for me moving forwards. The A/B results confirmed my initial impressions, but were surprising in one respect.

First, I tested some 96/24 PCM hires downloads vs the same albums on CD. Both file and CD were played through the BluDave, file via USB, and I switched between the two to compare. Whilst the hires download was initially impressive, further listening and comparison actually revealed it to be slightly compressed, congested and bloated by comparison to the CD - slightly overstated and trying too hard to impress. The CD by comparison had greater subtlety and finesse, was more transparent and 3 dimensional, more airy, open and dynamic, less fatiguing and just generally more natural, relaxed and 'realistic'. The more I listened, the greater these differences became until they were quite substantial in my mind, but that's how it generally goes with focussed listening.

This made me think that I should test playback of the ripped album file against playback of the CD from which the file was ripped. This is where the surprise came in because whilst CD replay was again superior, the difference was less than it had been between a CD and a highres download. This could be because it is the rip from the same CD, so it is more of a like for like comparison and therefore rules out a number of potential variables, or it could be that with Blu II being a CD player, Rob's code for the MScaler is optimised for red book resolution. Maybe upsampling higher res files gives it that slightly bloated and overblown sound. Whatever, it is a bonus for me as it means that I can continue to buy CD's and rip them instead of highres downloads which are expensive by comparison.

Finally, I may start playing CD a bit more now. File playback and streaming will still be my main approach but, if I want to sit and listen properly to an album, I shall now be more inclined to use the CD with BluDave. The downside is that it seems that I may still have work to do on the file playback side as well as evaluating whether redbook rips sound better than the highres files that I have purchased - I hope not, but suspect that they may.

 

[Triode User]

I dislike doing serious A/B comparisons as I find them to be quite tiresome, so I only generally do them when faced with the prospect of spending some money! However, given my observations in post 872 above, I thought that I should test out the Blu II CD and compare that with hires file playback because my initial reaction to BluDave was that hires downloads may well be unnecessary for me moving forwards. The A/B results confirmed my initial impressions, but were surprising in one respect.

First, I tested some 96/24 PCM hires downloads vs the same albums on CD. Both file and CD were played through the BluDave, file via USB, and I switched between the two to compare. Whilst the hires download was initially impressive, further listening and comparison actually revealed it to be slightly compressed, congested and bloated by comparison to the CD - slightly overstated and trying too hard to impress. The CD by comparison had greater subtlety and finesse, was more transparent and 3 dimensional, more airy, open and dynamic, less fatiguing and just generally more natural, relaxed and 'realistic'. The more I listened, the greater these differences became until they were quite substantial in my mind, but that's how it generally goes with focussed listening.

This made me think that I should test playback of the ripped album file against playback of the CD from which the file was ripped. This is where the surprise came in because whilst CD replay was again superior, the difference was less that it had been between a CD and a highres download. This could be because it is the rip from the same CD, so it is more of a like for like comparison and therefore rules out a number of potential variables, or it could be that with Blu II being a CD player, Rob's code for the MScaler is optimised for red book resolution. Maybe upsampling higher res files gives it that slightly bloated and overblown sound. Whatever, it is a bonus for me as it means that I can continue to buy CD's and rip them instead of highres downloads which are expensive by comparison.

Finally, I may start playing CD a bit more now. File playback and streaming will still be my main approach but, if I want to sit and listen properly to an album, I shall now be more inclined to use the CD with BluDave. The downside is that it seems that I may still have work to do on the file playback side as well as evaluating whether redbook rips sound better than the highres files that I have purchased - I hope not, but suspect that they may.

Interesting and you catch me trying to write a report for a client and needing to have some brain rest for a couple of minutes. So . . . . . .

This is all very interesting. I have found my CD playing has gone up since having the Blu2 but I admit this is partly because of the internet drop outs that we get in wet weather!

Having read your post I was left wondering whether your observed differences might be due to RF interference creeping in to the cable when playing your downloaded or self ripped files. That would seem consistent with the changes in sound quality.

 

[TheAttorney]

Looking forward for your opinion and observations because I'm eager to know what Blu2 will add to this hobby as sMS-200Ultra and IR enhancements, elevated the sound to a highest level.

I'm also looking forward to esimms86's report. Most of the CD vs USB Blu2 comparisons so far have been with Server/PC directly connected to Blu2.
With the significant SQ increase that I'd expect from adding an SMS200 Ultra+IR, this should tip the balance in USB's favour. Or maybe the Blu2 will make the SMS200Ultra+IR redundant?
Also, I'd like to know how "SMS200Ultra+!R without Blu2" compares to "Blu2 without SMS200Ultra+!R"

 

[Malcyg]

Interesting and you catch me trying to write a report for a client and needing to have some brain rest for a couple of minutes. So . . . . . .
This is all very interesting. I have found my CD playing has gone up since having the Blu2 but thi sis partly because of the internet drop outs that we get in wet weather!

Having read your post I was left wondering whether your observed differences might be due to RF interference creeping in to the cable when playing your downloaded or self ripped files. That would seem consistent with the changes in sound quality.

Yes, I suspect that you are right about that, but it doesn't explain why ripped files seem to sound better and closer to the CD than hires downloads. I need to do more comparisons when I get time but if this is universally true, then it is a significant bonus not only for all the CD's and ripped files that I have but also for streaming and future purchases of CD's. CD's are so cheap nowadays, it is amusing and pleasing that it seemingly gives the best sound quality.

The CD replay is a very short signal path whereas file replay has a much longer journey via router and PC and various cables (I use Roon) and so is much more exposed to electrical noise as you imply. When I had a Chord DSX1000, I found that the integrated streamer was the best sounding source so the same principle is at play I think. (Note, I had no CD transport at that time. I had ditched CD to get the DSX1000 because I had hitherto found file playback to be sonically equivalent and obviously far more convenient. I thought back then that I would never play another CD again!).

It is also important not to overstate the differences. My wife brought me a drink in whilst I was testing and I did a quick comparison and she could hear no difference between the two. I'm sure that if she sat and focussed, she may well note a difference, but for most purposes, file playback is more than good enough. It does seem that there is room for improvement for me though anyway.

 

[Kamil21]

I dislike doing serious A/B comparisons as I find them to be quite tiresome, so I only generally do them when faced with the prospect of spending some money! However, given my observations in post 872 above, I thought that I should test out the Blu II CD and compare that with hires file playback because my initial reaction to BluDave was that hires downloads may well be unnecessary for me moving forwards. The A/B results confirmed my initial impressions, but were surprising in one respect.

First, I tested some 96/24 PCM hires downloads vs the same albums on CD. Both file and CD were played through the BluDave, file via USB, and I switched between the two to compare. Whilst the hires download was initially impressive, further listening and comparison actually revealed it to be slightly compressed, congested and bloated by comparison to the CD - slightly overstated and trying too hard to impress. The CD by comparison had greater subtlety and finesse, was more transparent and 3 dimensional, more airy, open and dynamic, less fatiguing and just generally more natural, relaxed and 'realistic'. The more I listened, the greater these differences became until they were quite substantial in my mind, but that's how it generally goes with focussed listening.

This made me think that I should test playback of the ripped album file against playback of the CD from which the file was ripped. This is where the surprise came in because whilst CD replay was again superior, the difference was less than it had been between a CD and a highres download. This could be because it is the rip from the same CD, so it is more of a like for like comparison and therefore rules out a number of potential variables, or it could be that with Blu II being a CD player, Rob's code for the MScaler is optimised for red book resolution. Maybe upsampling higher res files gives it that slightly bloated and overblown sound. Whatever, it is a bonus for me as it means that I can continue to buy CD's and rip them instead of highres downloads which are expensive by comparison.

Finally, I may start playing CD a bit more now. File playback and streaming will still be my main approach but, if I want to sit and listen properly to an album, I shall now be more inclined to use the CD with BluDave. The downside is that it seems that I may still have work to do on the file playback side as well as evaluating whether redbook rips sound better than the highres files that I have purchased - I hope not, but suspect that they may.

@Malcyg, Thank you for taking the time to do this. This and the HighFidelity review validate what I had been suspecting when I ever so briefly compared CD to iPhone into the Blu2 at my dealer's. .. The CD was simply more involving.

Attributing the differences @44.1k to RF could be proven if Blu2 had an optical input, but alas it has none.

 

[Malcyg]

I'm also looking forward to esimms86's report. Most of the CD vs USB Blu2 comparisons so far have been with Server/PC directly connected to Blu2.
With the significant SQ increase that I'd expect from adding an SMS200 Ultra+IR, this should tip the balance in USB's favour. Or maybe the Blu2 will make the SMS200Ultra+IR redundant?
Also, I'd like to know how "SMS200Ultra+!R without Blu2" compares to "Blu2 without SMS200Ultra+!R"

My file playback is from a Melco NAS connected to a mRendu powered by an LPS-1. The only PC involved is the machine hosting Roon and that is far away from my system. There is the round trip to consider though and I always rated the Melco direct into Dave (i.e. pre Blu II) as being very marginally better. I do think that the shorter the journey, the better which is why I am considering a Roon server of some kind sitting in my main rack. In fact, weren't you evaluating these? I seem to recall asking you a question along those lines on a different thread?

When I get time, I'm going to try the Melco direct into the Blu II to see how file playback sounds with minimal round trip. I have avoided that so far because I don't want to know if it is superior because I cannot use Roon which has become my sole playback medium.

 

[ecwl]

I have to admit I really don't hear much of a difference between different sources even with DAVE and even less so with Blu2 (although I haven't tried the CD transport much). And yes, I used to hear dramatic differences between sources with Chord QBD76HDSD, Benchmark DAC1 and Oppo BDP-105. And this is true now direct with headphones or through my speaker system.

For example, I really don't hear a difference between iPad into Blu2 vs my music mini PC. The PC is a computer audiophile website recommended CAPSv3 Carbon design so it's a low-powered PC with an SoTM USBexp card that can also accept external power source. All my components are plugged into the same Nordost Qx8 power bar. The PC is powered by HDPlex 100W linear power supply.

First off, whether streaming from Tidal vs playing local files from JRiver, I don't hear a difference. (And I definitely used to before Chord DAVE). Second, I can power my PC with a 12V HDPlex alone or I can also add another 9V DC line to power the USB card separately. Even with the DAVE I think I hear a subtle improvement with the 9V DC line to the USB card with just a very subtle change to noise floor and minimally decreased harshness but I was never certain if I was imagining it. Now with the Blu2, I don't really hear any difference with or without that separate 9V DC line to power the USB card.

One thing I do notice though is that I still have to unplug/disconnect my other coax sources into my DAVE because those inputs are not galvanic isolated so I find if those sources are sending signal into DAVE, it would degrade the sound. My Blu2 coax input is not connected to anything.

I think people's mileage would vary. But since this is the discussion I see, I thought I'd chime in. My take is this. I suspect the galvanic isolation of DAVE and now Blu2 is excellent, and I suspect the system is sufficiently immune jitter that USB signal integrity also matters less than most DACs. I'm sure there are scenarios where excess RF (or leakage current from ground loops) or decreased signal integrity would affect DAVE and Blu2's sound. It's just that the impact, even if present, is very small and much smaller than any other DAC I've tried. I remember a friend with MSB DAC IV and the firmware version of the CD transport would affect the sound in a reasonably obvious manner. Your mileage may vary and I suspect it comes down to system setup and synergy.

 

[TheAttorney]

My file playback is from a Melco NAS connected to a mRendu powered by an LPS-1. The only PC involved is the machine hosting Roon and that is far away from my system. There is the round trip to consider though and I always rated the Melco direct into Dave (i.e. pre Blu II) as being very marginally better. I do think that the shorter the journey, the better which is why I am considering a Roon server of some kind sitting in my main rack. In fact, weren't you evaluating these? I seem to recall asking you a question along those lines on a different thread?.

I can't quite visualse how your Melco NAS and Roon PC all fit together with the mR, so the impact of the mR may well be different for you than in my system, which has both Roon and redbook FLAC files on the same W10 laptop, which is connected by 2m ethernet cable to mR, then 1m USB cable to Dave. So I suppose my system is effectively all in the same rack. I have a number of next steps to try, including dedicated servers, SOtM Ultras, the newly announced UltraRendu and of course the Blu2. But with so many variables involved, I haven't tried anything new yet, I'm still following various posters experiences to narrow down my choice - it's hard work trying to get all these new components in at same time under the same roof.

 

[Malcyg]

Well, I've got today off so I have done some more comparisons this afternoon - thankyou Attorney, but you opened a can of worms that I had been resisting! I have plugged the Melco directly into the USB input of the Blu II and compared that to CD playback and the results are as before, but less pronounced. CD rips sound even closer to the CD and highres files sound better as well. To put it simply, the CD just has greater transparency, delicacy and finesse to the sound but I must stress that to a casual or even a fairly focussed listener, these differences would be very small and maybe not even distinguishable at all to some people. If you distinguish no difference, I'd say that you should be thankful for that!

I suspect that much of the difference is down to the distance that the signal travels. For CD it is as short as it can possibly be. For the Melco, it is the length of a 1m USB cable. For the mRendu, my PC has to call the files from the Melco, via the router, playback via Roon back through the router to the mRendu and then through a very short USB cable into Blu II. This is quite a journey and I think, to get the most from file playback, I may need to get a Roon server that sits in my rack and either feeds directly into Blu II or out to mRendu or similar and on into the Blu II, so that the signal avoids a two way journey through the router. I've looked at this but, as Attourney says, it is complex, potentially expensive and seems to be an area that is in a state of flux at the moment so I am also going to wait and see.

The main thing though is that music through the BluDave is a real joy to listen to and can be emotionally moving, surprisingly so in fact at times.