[computerparts]

Quote:

A needledrop just means digitized vinyl. A basic USB turntable will do the job, but won't sound so hot. The best way to do it is to use a high-end turntable and send the analog out via phono preamp to a high quality sound card. If you record at 24/96 or even 24/192, you can get closer to the true analog waveform than 16/44 allows. There's also room for frequencies above the 22KHz cap on CDs. Vinyl doesn't have the frequency range of SACD or DVD-A (particularly LF range), but I've looked at digitized vinyl recordings in a spectrum analyzer and there's often sound well into 30KHz.
 
I've done some comparisons of CDs ripped to FLAC vs. vinyl in FLAC at 16/44, and the difference can be night/day in favor of the vinyl.
 
 
 

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. Yes I have tried some vinyl flacs in my setup. Although they did sometimes sound better than their pure digital counterparts, the final sound still depended on the dac to determine the quality. There is some bad recorded vinyl out there in which their digital counterpart was actually recorded better, Nirvana comes to mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that 22khz cap only apply to dacs and players that employ digital filtering?
 
Anyhow I haven't tried any needledrops in the new setup, but to be honest, I don't feel a need to do so either. I will say the AN dac has taken everything I thought I knew about digital and turned it upside down. I can't believe an almost unprocessed and unfiltered digital signal actually sounds very close if not identical to vinyl. I say almost unprocessed because I'm sure my transport is still doing some kind of processing. Eventually, I'm going to hunt down one of the AN transports that lets the signal flow through completely unmolested.
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. Yes I have tried some vinyl flacs in my setup. Although they did sometimes sound better than their pure digital counterparts, the final sound still depended on the dac to determine the quality. There is some bad recorded vinyl out there in which their digital counterpart was actually recorded better, Nirvana comes to mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that 22khz cap only apply to dacs and players that employ digital filtering?
 
Anyhow I haven't tried any needledrops in the new setup, but to be honest, I don't feel a need to do so either. I will say the AN dac has taken everything I thought I knew about digital and turned it upside down. I can't believe an almost unprocessed and unfiltered digital signal actually sounds very close if not identical to vinyl. I say almost unprocessed because I'm sure my transport is still doing some kind of processing. Eventually, I'm going to hunt down one of the AN transports that lets the signal flow through completely unmolested.
 

As far as I know both Philips and Sony arrived at a sample rate of around 44KHz in order to achieve the desired 20 to 20 response (there are more technical reasons for 44.1 exactly, but I'll leave that to Wikipedia). My analyzer always shows a 22KHz maximum when reading 16 or 24/44 files, while 88.2 and above tops out at 48KHz.
 
You are correct that the DAC is still leaving its sonic fingerprints on FLAC files from vinyl sources, but in cases where the vinyl master is clearly better, needledrops can be a nice way for those of us without top shelf vinyl setups to still enjoy the music more. You're going A > D > A, and there's obviously going to be some compromise.
 
Anywho, glad you're enjoying the Audio Note. Once I have my EAD tricked out with new caps and the like, I will report on it.
 

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

As far as I know both Philips and Sony arrived at a sample rate of around 44KHz in order to achieve the desired 20 to 20 response (there are more technical reasons for 44.1 exactly, but I'll leave that to Wikipedia). My analyzer always shows a 22KHz maximum when reading 16 or 24/44 files, while 88.2 and above tops out at 48KHz.
 
You are correct that the DAC is still leaving its sonic fingerprints on FLAC files from vinyl sources, but in cases where the vinyl master is clearly better, needledrops can be a nice way for those of us without top shelf vinyl setups to still enjoy the music more. You're going A > D > A, and there's obviously going to be some compromise.
 
Anywho, glad you're enjoying the Audio Note. Once I have my EAD tricked out with new caps and the like, I will report on it.
 

That is interesting. I agree, needledrops are a good way for those without top shelf setups to enjoy digital more. If you're going to have black gate caps put in your EAD, be warned, they take some time to burn in. I'm at just about 72 hours with the AN and it's doing the Jekyll and Hyde thing right now. The first 24 hours or so were heavenly, then it started to sound constricted and the highs were all but gone. Who knows how it will sound tomorrow

 

 

[Currawong]

I recently managed to get hold of a Parasound DAC1600HD, as I'd been wanting to try a PCM63K-based DAC for a while now.  While it is only slightly different tonally to my Reference 1 (similar to the Reference 7) I do prefer it for listening to Chopin, as piano sounds slightly more natural. The overall sound is very slightly less "digital" and more natural.  I intend to re-assess it with good speakers in the next few months.  I might be able to borrow a Marantz Project D-1 (again) as well.

 

[moodyrn]

I saw one on ebay and considered getting it. When I finally decided to, it was gone. I wonder if you were the one who scooped it up.

 

 

[K3cT]

I recently managed to get hold of a Parasound DAC1600HD, as I'd been wanting to try a PCM63K-based DAC for a while now.  While it is only slightly different tonally to my Reference 1 (similar to the Reference 7) I do prefer it for listening to Chopin, as piano sounds slightly more natural. The overall sound is very slightly less "digital" and more natural.  I intend to re-assess it with good speakers in the next few months.  I might be able to borrow a Marantz Project D-1 (again) as well.

It must be one hell of a DAC considering the price and age difference. Does the Reference 1 have any advantages in other areas that you can detect of?

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

I recently managed to get hold of a Parasound DAC1600HD, as I'd been wanting to try a PCM63K-based DAC for a while now.  While it is only slightly different tonally to my Reference 1 (similar to the Reference 7) I do prefer it for listening to Chopin, as piano sounds slightly more natural. The overall sound is very slightly less "digital" and more natural.  I intend to re-assess it with good speakers in the next few months.  I might be able to borrow a Marantz Project D-1 (again) as well.

Welcome to the pcm63 owners club

. Gotta love the beautiful liquidity that chip presents. I believe that model is just one step down from their top of the line. It's a great dac isn't it. Should bring you good listening for years.

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Welcome to the pcm63 owners club

. Gotta love the beautiful liquidity that chip presents. I believe that model is just one step down from their top of the line. It's a great dac isn't it. Should bring you good listening for years.

The top Parasound was pretty different, it used the UltraAnalog DACs rather than PCM63s, and a UA digital receiver. I think it's more like the UA based Classe DAC than the PCM63 DACs - brighter and more analytical.

 

[computerparts]

System change posted, almost forgot to update that.

 

 

[jpelg]

Quote:

Eventually, I'm going to hunt down one of the AN transports that lets the signal flow through completely unmolested.
 

 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/548600/audionote-cdt-zero
 
 

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/548600/audionote-cdt-zero
 
 

Thanks but I'm looking specifically for a cdt-two/II

 

[Currawong]

I saw one on ebay and considered getting it. When I finally decided to, it was gone. I wonder if you were the one who scooped it up.

 

Wasn't me, I bought this privately.

I recently managed to get hold of a Parasound DAC1600HD, as I'd been wanting to try a PCM63K-based DAC for a while now.  While it is only slightly different tonally to my Reference 1 (similar to the Reference 7) I do prefer it for listening to Chopin, as piano sounds slightly more natural. The overall sound is very slightly less "digital" and more natural.  I intend to re-assess it with good speakers in the next few months.  I might be able to borrow a Marantz Project D-1 (again) as well.

It must be one hell of a DAC considering the price and age difference. Does the Reference 1 have any advantages in other areas that you can detect of?

That's something I plan to assess once I have a decent speaker rig. The Ref 1 has slightly stronger bass. There's possibly a small difference between the decay of notes from both of them, but we're splitting hairs in a headphone rig. I have yet to test the fortitude of the inputs on the Parasound versus using my Ref. 3 (which can make a significant difference to the sound quality, depending on the DAC).

Welcome to the pcm63 owners club

. Gotta love the beautiful liquidity that chip presents. I believe that model is just one step down from their top of the line. It's a great dac isn't it. Should bring you good listening for years.

Now if only I hadn't downloaded a crapload of high-res music...I guess I can always run it through iZotope...

 

[trevorlane]

computerparts, I saw an ECD-1 and an AN 4.1 on AG, both so tempting. I didn't know the 4.1 (much less any AN) was capable of 24/96, I thought they were all 16/44 NOS, unless the advert was incorrect in its claims.

 

[computerparts]

 
Quote:

computerparts, I saw an ECD-1 and an AN 4.1 on AG, both so tempting. I didn't know the 4.1 (much less any AN) was capable of 24/96, I thought they were all 16/44 NOS, unless the advert was incorrect in its claims.

I'd forget about the ECD-1 unless you prefer a hi-fi presentation to an organic presentation. That 4.1x looks like an unbalanced version, but it's still a decent price. I don't know about the AN production dacs, but I can say there is very good bang for the buck in the kits. I have to admit if I had the money, I'd go for a 4.1 kit over the production dac just because of the slightly better parts and flexibility the kit offers. The AN is definitely one of the best dacs I have ever owned at any price, even surpassing the mbl 1511D in some respects. Although the mbl had an excellent vivid and transparent presentation which the AN couldn't touch, it couldn't do cymbals the way the AN can. In fact, the only other place I have heard this quality of cymbals is on vinyl. The 2.1B I have isn't even fully burned in yet and it seems to be on par with my Pink Triangle turntable with Accuphase cart. About the 24/96, it's a bit misleading because it will pass the signal. But it will truncate it down to 18/48 as I believe that is the most the AD chip is capable of passing.
 

 

[computerparts]

Update: Currently at 264 hours on the AN which is just over half the minimum recommended 500 hour burn in. That means 500 hours until I should judge it at all, but things seem to have stabilized. Couple quick notes. I took the tubes that were in the Sonic Frontiers and put them in the AN. No comparison, even with the same tubes, the AN is clearly a different dac. It's as if all of my cd's have been turned into vinyl. I go back and forth between my turntable and have a difficult time discerning much difference. I haven't been able to do that with any other dac I have owned. The tuntable always embarrassed any dac that went up against it. Except for the mbl which is beyond even vinyl IMO. Still experimenting with tubes on the new amp to see how it affects everything else.