[bigshot]

I would think that as convoluted as it is to rip SACDS, it would still be more convenient to transcode DSD to MP3 for portable use. DSD is like carrying an elephant in your pocket.

 

[TidalWave]

I'd like to thank everyone for the great information. The answer is more clear to me now. Hopefully this thread can be of help for other audiophile newbies with the same questions. I won't worry about converting to DSD or actively seeking out DSD material, and I'll look at DACs with native DSD processing only if they also have good PCM processing power. I did get an answer from Topping that their NX4 DSD DAC/amp is still an upgrade for both DSD and PCM material over the older NX4 non-DSD.

 

[bigshot]

If you get a multichannel speaker system, you'll definitely want to look into DSD (i.e.: SACD). That is the main advantage of the format. But for portable use, high data rate MP3 is fine.

One other bit of advice... Audio manufacturers lie and fudge their specs to get you to spend more money than you need to spend. It's their job. Better numbers on a piece of paper rarely relate to better sounding music.

It's your job to be an informed consumer so you don't spend a whole lot of money on theoretical sound quality you'll never hear. The truth is just about any DAC/Amp out there will sound the same to you. And it's quite likely that you don't even need a DAC, a $70 Altoid tin cmoy amp would work just as well. Don't waste your money unless it makes you feel better inside. I have a problem because wasting money makes me feel horrible.

 

[TidalWave]

If you get a multichannel speaker system, you'll definitely want to look into DSD (i.e.: SACD). That is the main advantage of the format. But for portable use, high data rate MP3 is fine.

One other bit of advice... Audio manufacturers lie and fudge their specs to get you to spend more money than you need to spend. It's their job. Better numbers on a piece of paper rarely relate to better sounding music.

It's your job to be an informed consumer so you don't spend a whole lot of money on theoretical sound quality you'll never hear. The truth is just about any DAC/Amp out there will sound the same to you. And it's quite likely that you don't even need a DAC, a $70 Altoid tin cmoy amp would work just as well. Don't waste your money unless it makes you feel better inside. I have a problem because wasting money makes me feel horrible.

I have that problem as well, which is why I usually waste unreasonable amounts of time researching my options before finally settling on something. I do try to go by subjective reviews as well, not just listed specs, though it's better if there are many reviews, as everyone has a different opinion. Especially valuable are comparative reviews, where things like inaccurate specs might become exposed. I had a budget of ~$100 to get an mobile amp or amp+DAC (since some amp/DAC combos have pretty good amps). I ended up getting a pure amp for about that much today to use with my phone. At some point I might try a Topping NX4 DSD as DAC/amp if I'm feeling adventurous.

 

[bigshot]

The best reviews are the ones that focus on usability issues. When it comes to the electronics side of home audio, sound quality is rarely an issue. The real issue is how convenient it is and does it have the features you need to use.

Let us know what you're listening to with your new amp.

 

[old tech]

I have that problem as well, which is why I usually waste unreasonable amounts of time researching my options before finally settling on something. I do try to go by subjective reviews as well, not just listed specs, though it's better if there are many reviews, as everyone has a different opinion. Especially valuable are comparative reviews, where things like inaccurate specs might become exposed. I had a budget of ~$100 to get an mobile amp or amp+DAC (since some amp/DAC combos have pretty good amps). I ended up getting a pure amp for about that much today to use with my phone. At some point I might try a Topping NX4 DSD as DAC/amp if I'm feeling adventurous.

It goes without saying that your best bet is to concentrate your efforts on finding the best recordings/masterings of the music that you like. There can be quite a bit of variation in various analog and digital media from different pressings or reissues. For example, at least 11 different digital masterings have been identified for Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon from the original Sony mastered 1983-84 CDs (many claim this is the holy grail version) up to the present.

If there is a particular album you have in mind, the Steve Hoffman forum is a good resource to obtain this information, if you can look past the audio woo and the vinyl bias. Mostly if there is a large consensus of a particular digital mastering being the best it usually is borne out in practice. Sometimes it is a SACD, sometimes a hi res version and many times it is a CD, particularly those from the pre loudness wars days. Even individual assessments can be informative once you get the hang of it and find members with similar tastes or even more so, disimilar tastes. For example, I usually avoid individual assessments of a digital recording where they say it is "analog sounding". Typically they are from the more digiphobe members and those recordings usually sound warmish but veiled with hardly any top end - the sort of sound characteristics vinylphiles seem attracted to.

I learnt this lesson a long time ago. Rather than doing endless equipment updates or the lastest media fad, focusing and finding the best recording is where it is at. Basic room treatment helps too.

 

[bigshot]

I'm less enthusiastic about the Steve Hoffman forum. That is one of the places where cliques of admins have implemented "consensus by force". Quadraphonic Quad is another like that.

I totally agree that the way to get better sound is to listen to better recordings.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

It goes without saying that your best bet is to concentrate your efforts on finding the best recordings/masterings of the music that you like. There can be quite a bit of variation in various analog and digital media from different pressings or reissues. For example, at least 11 different digital masterings have been identified for Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon from the original Sony mastered 1983-84 CDs (many claim this is the holy grail version) up to the present.

If there is a particular album you have in mind, the Steve Hoffman forum is a good resource to obtain this information, if you can look past the audio woo and the vinyl bias. Mostly if there is a large consensus of a particular digital mastering being the best it usually is borne out in practice. Sometimes it is a SACD, sometimes a hi res version and many times it is a CD, particularly those from the pre loudness wars days. Even individual assessments can be informative once you get the hang of it and find members with similar tastes or even more so, disimilar tastes. For example, I usually avoid individual assessments of a digital recording where they say it is "analog sounding". Typically they are from the more digiphobe members and those recordings usually sound warmish but veiled with hardly any top end - the sort of sound characteristics vinylphiles seem attracted to.

I learnt this lesson a long time ago. Rather than doing endless equipment updates or the lastest media fad, focusing and finding the best recording is where it is at. Basic room treatment helps too.

As someone who listens to about 70% digital and 30% vinyl i can assure you that analog sound is not warmish,veiled or lacking top end...there are good and bad recordings in all mediums...agree with everything else you said though...music above all else.

 

[old tech]

As someone who listens to about 70% digital and 30% vinyl i can assure you that analog sound is not warmish,veiled or lacking top end...there are good and bad recordings in all mediums...agree with everything else you said though...music above all else.

As a general point I agree with you. For example that Sony mastered Dark Side of the Moon CD I mentioned was a flat transfer of the 15ips tape that was used for the late 70s Japan Pro Use LP. I have both LP and CD and compared them side by side on the same stereo (not a blind test) and they sound pretty much identical. Remarkably the noise level of that LP is as quiet as the CD. There are LP issues of albums that sound better than CD issues and vice versa typically related to the mastering or remastering choices and effort that was put into each.

I suppose the point I was making is that many of the vinyl evangelists seem to prefer a sound that can be described as a thickening of bass and a rolling off the top end. I'm not saying that all LPs sound like that but this group of listeners are usually the ones that complain that digital has too much treble and they confuse a lack of bass with articulate bass. I think it is telling that many of them prefer the early UK Dark Side LP over the Pro Use, usually citing the UK's warm presentation, even though the Pro Use has more clarity, less noise and spuriae and of course, a much better top end performance. In my experience the statement "analog sounding" usually describes that warmish, lacking in clarity sound. It is more that the "analog sounding" statement is one of those incorrect descriptions that now seems to be accepted in common parlance which in reality, has nothing to do with an analog sound.

 

[bigshot]

Rolled off high end was pretty common in commercial LPs back in the vinyl era. It was intended to minimize the effects of record wear. It's simple to recreate that sound with an equalizer.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Rolled off high end was pretty common in commercial LPs back in the vinyl era. It was intended to minimize the effects of record wear. It's simple to recreate that sound with an equalizer.

I was around "back in the vinyl era"..thanks for reminding me lol.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Rolled off high end was pretty common in commercial LPs back in the vinyl era. It was intended to minimize the effects of record wear. It's simple to recreate that sound with an equalizer.

I know motown was guilty of this...sold a boatload of records though and paved the way for more musicians.

 

[bigshot]

I know motown was guilty of this...sold a boatload of records though and paved the way for more musicians.

Everybody complains about how bad remasters are and praises vinyl... Well compare any Stevie Wonder album to the CD remasters. The vinyl is terrible in comparison.

 

[Glmoneydawg]

Everybody complains about how bad remasters are and praises vinyl... Well compare any Stevie Wonder album to the CD remasters. The vinyl is terrible in comparison.

agreed....i would still listen to stevie though,even on a clock radio...and no i still wont bite on the vinyl vs digital thing bud.