AudioNervosa
Systemic Development => Bipolar System Disorders => Topic started by: James Edward on January 31, 2022, 01:29:58 PM
-
I currently use a Bluesound Node 2i, which costs around 500.00, give or take 50 bucks.
I use the coax digital output to the DAC input on my cd player(listed below).
I wonder what changes if I buy a more expensive streaming device- what exactly would make it sound better provided I continue to use the same DAC?
I know this question may be basic, and I do not have any preconceived notions, other than that something more expensive might have less jitter, which would be important.
I’m speaking strictly of sound quality- I realize they all probably have a different interface that I would see on my ipad or other device.
Thanks.
Jim
-
Im no expert but I think that there probably wont be much difference. However I will let the Digiphiles chime in.
-
The biggest difference that it will probably get you is the ability to play higher res files. The Bluesound is limited to 192/24 FLACs. a "better " streamer would let you get into the world of DSD and DXD files. DSD and DXD files can potentially be better, but that is dependent on the mastering, but having the ability to play them gives you access to more music, which is a big plus to me. Of course that assumes that your DAC can handle those files And if you are using the streamer tio only play online service like Tidal and Qobuz DSD and DXD campatability would not be an issuers for you.
Other than that what would you get? on the hardware side, most likely a better power supply, which can definitely help your SQ. And most likely a better DAC, but of course the question there is , Better than what? A better streamer would likely have a better DAC than the internal one in your Bluesound, but you are not using the Bluesond DAC now. So the real question would come down to is the DAC in streamer X better than the one built into your CD player? That is tough to answer without doing a side by side demo.
A better streamer might have a better user interface, but not necessarily. The iFi $2500 DAC/Streamer came with really piss poor user software, not even close the the BluOS system in a unit that cost 5X the price of a Bluesound Node. Go figure. Personally, I use Roon, so the manufacturer's software is really of no concern to me.
But the bottom line is that unless you are looking for additional functionality or end up getting a streamer with a built in DAC that is significantly better than what you have now I think the SQ changes from changing the streamer alone will not be all that big. It all just depends on how much of a change you would think is enough to drive a new purchase. I think you would probably get a bigger bang for the buck by chnaging out the DAC.
-
Personally this is not an issue for me. I stream Tidal through and much modified 2012 Core i7 Mac mini with a 1TB SSD that runs dB Audio Labs software instead of OSX. I prefer NOS DACs because all of my music is Redbook. I do have a Soekris 1021 DAC that will be finished once I finish shipping all of the orders that came in the last week of December. Perhaps that will influence me, but I'm a geezer and don't hear like I used to.
To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer 🥸
-
I can’t speak regarding other streamers, but adding a dedicated power supply really improved the SQ on my Auralic Mini.
-
To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer 🥸
Great wisdom retirement has brought you. 8)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/97/ce/9b/97ce9b4a3c19aaf2f4247d5b70c709cb.jpg)
-
To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer 🥸
Great wisdom retirement has brought you. 8)
(https://i.pinimg.com/474x/97/ce/9b/97ce9b4a3c19aaf2f4247d5b70c709cb.jpg)
:thumb:
-
Thank you all for the replies- I should have stated that this particular question is not gnawing at me in the same way as a cartridge upgrade is- https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8385.0 I KNOW I can do better cartridge-wise.
I actually like the way the streaming sounds, though it does not sound as good as a CD playing through the same internal DAC of my player.
As usual, I find Tom’s advice to be a good, sober assessment. In fact, I’ve found some hi-res files too ‘microscopic’, drawing me away from the music; it’s enticing at first listen, then I feel like it’s an autopsy of the music. I’ve certainly not heard enough iterations of hi-res, nor do I profess to have golden ears, so I’m sure there’s much to learn.
-
Thank you all for the replies- I should have stated that this particular question is not gnawing at me in the same way as a cartridge upgrade is- https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8385.0 I KNOW I can do better cartridge-wise.
I actually like the way the streaming sounds, though it does not sound as good as a CD playing through the same internal DAC of my player.
As usual, I find Tom’s advice to be a good, sober assessment. In fact, I’ve found some hi-res files too ‘microscopic’, drawing me away from the music; it’s enticing at first listen, then I feel like it’s an autopsy of the music. I’ve certainly not heard enough iterations of hi-res, nor do I profess to have golden ears, so I’m sure there’s much to learn.
The 'microscopic' seemingly hyper-detail that is brought by some hi-rez files and player/DACs just absolutely leave me cold. I hate that presentation. That is why I prefer the musicality of NOS DACs. Couple that with the fact that I have ancient ears and, well...
-
Hi Res is not a magic bullet that will get you better sound. It is simply a tool that has the capability of transporting a higher level of SQ to you. But you need to keep in mind that how a recording is made and mastered is far more important that the technology that transports it to you. There are all kinds of people that get to stick their fingers in the sonic pie on its journey from the recording venue to your living room and they all have an effect on the final product. Think about it for years we have been listing to LPs that have been reissued, remastered for different formats and remastered even for the same format. How many times have we listened to different versions of the same album and had them sound different. Surely some of that can be due to newer equipment or better technologies in the physical product production (e.g. 1/2 speed mastering, better vinyl formulas or just heavier LPs), but often we here differences in releases of of supposedly the same thing., like reissues of the same album all on standard vinyl.
We would all like to think that a recording is an accurate representation of what the music sounded like in the venue that it was played in. But in reality the recording is really more like what the production team thought it should have sounded like when it was originally played. Take a modern orchestral recording a full symphony orchestra is recorded with dozens of mics and them mixed down in the control room to what somebody decides it must have sounded like in the hall. Very often the people making those decisions spent the entire time in the control room and never actually heard for themselves what it did sound like in the hall. And then further on down the line a mastering engineer will further EQ the master tape as it is cut onto the lacquer. Not this may be a necessary part of getting to sound onto an LP and required to offset some of the limitations of the LP itself, but none the less it is putting somebody's subjective thoughts on what the final recording should sound like and again the folks making those calls very often were no where near the original recording (and often don't even work for the same company).
I would dare say that what you are hearing as hyper detail is not as much a function of the hi res format as it is the mastering of those files. Enhanced detail can easily be done in the recording or the mastering by boosting the EQ it certain frequencies. An that can be done just as easily on LPs or CD as it can on hi res releases. It is just a matter of what the production teams wants the recording to sound like. The best you can hope for is something that you enjoy listening, regardless of how close it is to the original sound. And this doesn't even get into things that are totally created in the studio. Things like Dark Side of the Moon or Sgt Pepper were completely created in the minds of the artists and production team. so who is to say what they are "supposed to"" sound like.
Normally I would think that this is moving into the realm of a thread jacking, except for the fact that the OP was the one who directed is towards this discussion. If we want to go into this any deeper perhaps we should split this off to another thread (unless of course I have beaten this far enough into the ground to bore all of you. :roll:)
I have a number of hi res files where the extra resolution is used not to produce etched in your face hyper detail but rather to more correctly present the ten fine details that provide us with spacial cues and room ambience. Those files use the ability to render more detail to provide you with a soundscape that makes you feel more like you are in the same acoustic space with the musicians as opposed to the hyper detail that gives you the audio equivalent of the visual experience you have sitting in the first row at an IMAX movie. But hey, a lot of audiophiles are detail junkies and like that kind of sound.
I guess what I am trying to say, in a kind of long winded way, is that I don't think that your impression of high res file is as much of a funtion of the file format is it is of the production process adn the value judgements and decisions of the folks involve in that process
-
Hi Res is not a magic bullet that will get you better sound. It is simply a tool that has the capability of transporting a higher level of SQ to you. But you need to keep in mind that how a recording is made and mastered is far more important that the technology that transports it to you. There are all kinds of people that get to stick their fingers in the sonic pie on its journey from the recording venue to your living room and they all have an effect on the final product. Think about it for years we have been listing to LPs that have been reissued, remastered for different formats and remastered even for the same format. How many times have we listened to different versions of the same album and had them sound different. Surely some of that can be due to newer equipment or better technologies in the physical product production (e.g. 1/2 speed mastering, better vinyl formulas or just heavier LPs), but often we here differences in releases of of supposedly the same thing., like reissues of the same album all on standard vinyl.
We would all like to think that a recording is an accurate representation of what the music sounded like in the venue that it was played in. But in reality the recording is really more like what the production team thought it should have sounded like when it was originally played. Take a modern orchestral recording a full symphony orchestra is recorded with dozens of mics and them mixed down in the control room to what somebody decides it must have sounded like in the hall. Very often the people making those decisions spent the entire time in the control room and never actually heard for themselves what it did sound like in the hall. And then further on down the line a mastering engineer will further EQ the master tape as it is cut onto the lacquer. Not this may be a necessary part of getting to sound onto an LP and required to offset some of the limitations of the LP itself, but none the less it is putting somebody's subjective thoughts on what the final recording should sound like and again the folks making those calls very often were no where near the original recording (and often don't even work for the same company).
I would dare say that what you are hearing as hyper detail is not as much a function of the hi res format as it is the mastering of those files. Enhanced detail can easily be done in the recording or the mastering by boosting the EQ it certain frequencies. An that can be done just as easily on LPs or CD as it can on hi res releases. It is just a matter of what the production teams wants the recording to sound like. The best you can hope for is something that you enjoy listening, regardless of how close it is to the original sound. And this doesn't even get into things that are totally created in the studio. Things like Dark Side of the Moon or Sgt Pepper were completely created in the minds of the artists and production team. so who is to say what they are "supposed to"" sound like.
Normally I would think that this is moving into the realm of a thread jacking, except for the fact that the OP was the one who directed is towards this discussion. If we want to go into this any deeper perhaps we should split this off to another thread (unless of course I have beaten this far enough into the ground to bore all of you. :roll:)
I have a number of hi res files where the extra resolution is used not to produce etched in your face hyper detail but rather to more correctly present the ten fine details that provide us with spacial cues and room ambience. Those files use the ability to render more detail to provide you with a soundscape that makes you feel more like you are in the same acoustic space with the musicians as opposed to the hyper detail that gives you the audio equivalent of the visual experience you have sitting in the first row at an IMAX movie. But hey, a lot of audiophiles are detail junkies and like that kind of sound.
I guess what I am trying to say, in a kind of long winded way, is that I don't think that your impression of high res file is as much of a funtion of the file format is it is of the production process adn the value judgements and decisions of the folks involve in that process
Well said.
I think you missed my point, which in reality is exactly what you eluded to: production and mastering values or, more accurately, the lack of it.
I was in and out of the studio for over 50 years working both sides of the glass. As an engineer, mixer and mastered I was sometimes guilty of exactly what you eluded to: eking every bit of high end out of the recording knowing how much would be lost in the transfer to production master by most repro houses and manufacturers.
Another BIG issue was the entire transition to digital audio in the '80s and early '90s. So much of it was done on recorders that were giving 12-14 bit resolution and processed by really crappy SS gear and through equally bad consoles. Not everyone could afford a Neve or SSL console. Add to that poor tracking of anti-aliasing, stoned studio people (hell, in the 80's cocaine was considered a vegetable) and sources like Columbia Record Club turning out absolutely terrible product.
Case in point: my daughter had a CRR sourced copy of Bonnie Raitt's "Streetlights" CD. I had the same one from Record Warehouse. Her copy was dismal in comparison to mine. Perfect Sound Forever, right?
Don't get me wrong. There have been a lot of wonderful recordings mastered by greats like Ludwig, Grundman, Watson, Clearmountain, Williams and a lot of young guns. Unfortunately in the contemporary music scene and in less commercial music like I prefer terrific mastering tends to be the exception, not the rule.
A lot of the music I like comes from the '60s through the 80's and newer indie recordings of acoustic music and eclectic groups. All too often, hi-rez does them no favors.
Bottom line: a lot of recordists and masterers today have all of their taste in their mouths.
-
Jim if you would like to borrow a music server to find out let me know. My system is down . The Innuos sounds great with streaming Qobuz and playing dedicated Hi Rez DSD files. All ya need is an Ethernet cable from router. Nothing like a hands on demo. I agree with most of what has been said by Tom.
charles
-
"To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer. "
I am attempting to grasp what you are saying. Are you saying you decreased the highs in your system? May I ask
what method of reproducing the highs, full range or tweeter?
Or are some/many of the recordings themselves with too much top end, and therefore need taming? The mids are ok?
Or the music seems not natural across most if not all of the musical spectrum? (more than just the highs.) A little thin in the mids as well, sounds like a recording rather than being at the venue itself?
Or completely off, another meaning?
I am having trouble getting a grasp of what you are meaning.
Thanks and cheers
steve
-
"To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer. "
I am attempting to grasp what you are saying. Are you saying you decreased the highs in your system? May I ask
what method of reproducing the highs, full range or tweeter?
Or are some/many of the recordings themselves with too much top end, and therefore need taming? The mids are ok?
Or the music seems not natural across most if not all of the musical spectrum? (more than just the highs.) A little thin in the mids as well, sounds like a recording rather than being at the venue itself?
Or completely off, another meaning?
I am having trouble getting a grasp of what you are meaning.
Thanks and cheers
steve
It is simple, really.
Hi-rez does not meet my needs. I prefer good old tried and true 44.1/16 Redbook through a very good NOS DAC without the phase shift from ragged brick wall filters. As I have aged (and still keep going to the gun range) my hearing is not what it used to be.
The musicality of a good NOS DAC has always been my preference. Add to this the fact that I have terrbytes of Redbook and I'm just a happy listener.
-
"To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer. "
I am attempting to grasp what you are saying. Are you saying you decreased the highs in your system? May I ask
what method of reproducing the highs, full range or tweeter?
Or are some/many of the recordings themselves with too much top end, and therefore need taming? The mids are ok?
Or the music seems not natural across most if not all of the musical spectrum? (more than just the highs.) A little thin in the mids as well, sounds like a recording rather than being at the venue itself?
Or completely off, another meaning?
I am having trouble getting a grasp of what you are meaning.
Thanks and cheers
steve
It is simple, really.
Hi-rez does not meet my needs. I prefer good old tried and true 44.1/16 Redbook through a very good NOS DAC without the phase shift from ragged brick wall filters. As I have aged (and still keep going to the gun range) my hearing is not what it used to be.
The musicality of a good NOS DAC has always been my preference. Add to this the fact that I have terrbytes of Redbook and I'm just a happy listener.
What I am having trouble reconciling is your hearing is not what it used to be due to gun shots, yet the highs in
high rez recordings is offending you. Just curious.
(For general public: Hi rez contains "info" above 20khz which can mess with the dynamics, attacks (rise time) etc.
(That is if the original material is recorded to higher frequencies.))
Anyway, I find the same principle with LPs. There is a recording pole approximately 50khz, which "stops" the gain. However, no one designs a counter pole in playback electronics. I realized this, and the frequency from Stanley
Lipshitz article.
I found out why no one adds the playback pole at 50khz when I installed it. The highs became unbearable to me. (I had always heard that recording engineers back in the day often over emphasized the highs for LPs due to the playback wear of the soft vinyl. This was a separate high frequency setting, not in the RIAA circuit.)
It is quite possible that a speaker adjustment may be necessary to compensate for the higher frequency response high rez creates. With the higher frequency response, rise times (attack in laymen's terms) will change, possibly giving the impression of more highs.
cheers and all the best Dave.
steve
-
"To me it is all about the music (yay, Tom!) and ultimate resolution became less important to me a few years ago when I discovered foot tapping trumping the top octave harmonic series. I'm just not into audiophile delusion any longer. "
I am attempting to grasp what you are saying. Are you saying you decreased the highs in your system? May I ask
what method of reproducing the highs, full range or tweeter?
Or are some/many of the recordings themselves with too much top end, and therefore need taming? The mids are ok?
Or the music seems not natural across most if not all of the musical spectrum? (more than just the highs.) A little thin in the mids as well, sounds like a recording rather than being at the venue itself?
Or completely off, another meaning?
I am having trouble getting a grasp of what you are meaning.
Thanks and cheers
steve
It is simple, really.
Hi-rez does not meet my needs. I prefer good old tried and true 44.1/16 Redbook through a very good NOS DAC without the phase shift from ragged brick wall filters. As I have aged (and still keep going to the gun range) my hearing is not what it used to be.
The musicality of a good NOS DAC has always been my preference. Add to this the fact that I have terrbytes of Redbook and I'm just a happy listener.
What I am having trouble reconciling is your hearing is not what it used to be due to gun shots, yet the highs in
high rez recordings is offending you. Just curious.
(For general public: Hi rez contains "info" above 20khz which can mess with the dynamics, attacks (rise time) etc.
(That is if the original material is recorded to higher frequencies.))
Anyway, I find the same principle with LPs. There is a recording pole approximately 50khz, which "stops" the gain. However, no one designs a counter pole in playback electronics. I realized this, and the frequency from Stanley
Lipshitz article.
I found out why no one adds the playback pole at 50khz when I installed it. The highs became unbearable to me. (I had always heard that recording engineers back in the day often over emphasized the highs for LPs due to the playback wear of the soft vinyl. This was a separate high frequency setting, not in the RIAA circuit.)
Anyway, I have no high rez recordings. I also use redbook and use Youtube premium, and my system sounds better than any other system I have ever heard over the decades, even systems using high rez. Maybe some day I should try high rez just to see.
cheers and all the best Dave.
steve
Steve,
As I recall, it was maybe two years ago or more when I last had my hearing tested. I was good up to about 14 kHz in both ears. Would you, or anyone else here, know if that is average or above average for my age? I just turned 71 recently.
Nick
-
Steve,
As I recall, it was maybe two years ago or more when I last had my hearing tested. I was good up to about 14 kHz in both ears. Would you, or anyone else here, know if that is average or above average for my age? I just turned 71 recently.
Nick
I don't have exact figures Nick, not that versed, but the below graph indicate how average men's and women's
hearing is affected up to 8khz/65 years of age. I would say you are above average, depending upon the exact figures
you were given up to 14khz.
Cheers and great weekend.
steve
-
Steve,
As I recall, it was maybe two years ago or more when I last had my hearing tested. I was good up to about 14 kHz in both ears. Would you, or anyone else here, know if that is average or above average for my age? I just turned 71 recently.
Nick
I don't have exact figures Nick, not that versed, but the below graph indicate how average men's and women's
hearing is affected up to 8khz/65 years of age. I would say you are above average, depending upon the exact figures
you were given up to 14khz.
Cheers and great weekend.
steve
Thanks, Steve. That’s quite a difference between the men and the women. I have a theory as to why, but I’ll keep it to myself :lol:
Nick
-
I've been follwing this thread and me being me, it all comes down to what is the data being fed to the streamer, how does the streamer function and how good is the streamer?
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Just sayin'...
Maybe I retired too soon :rofl:
-
I've been follwing this thread and me being me, it all comes down to what is the data being fed to the streamer, how does the streamer function and how good is the streamer?
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Just sayin'...
Maybe I retired too soon :rofl:
My $500 Auralic Mini streamer sounds quite good partly because it’s getting power from a $600 power supply. As to you retiring too soon, I think you sure earned that :thumb: But I was wondering if you had given thought to still developing a few products here and there and then turning over the final prototype to your new partner/owner for the case work and remainder of the work in getting it ready for shipping.
-
I've been follwing this thread and me being me, it all comes down to what is the data being fed to the streamer, how does the streamer function and how good is the streamer?
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Just sayin'...
Maybe I retired too soon :rofl:
My $500 Auralic Mini streamer sounds quite good partly because it’s getting power from a $600 power supply. As to you retiring too soon, I think you sure earned that :thumb: But I was wondering if you had given thought to still developing a few products here and there and then turning over the final prototype to your new partner/owner for the case work and remainder of the work in getting it ready for shipping.
Nick. My friend. These things are in the works. I'm retired. I haven't stopped thinking :thumb:
-
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Dave it's not you being you, it's you being 100% right.
In reality an amplifier doesn't really amplify anything. What it physically does is modulates a low voltage signal onto a higher voltage DC source. If done correctly the DC voltage from the power supply will vary in exactly the same way as the input signal, except with w higher peak to peak value. Of course this only works if the higher voltage is pure DC. If there is any kind of noise that makes its way through the power supply and into the audio circuit, the higher voltage that gets modulated will be the DC plus the noise, making the noise a permanent part of the output signal. Power supply filtering can get out just so much and the best way to keep noise out of the DC is to reduce as much of it as possible from the input AC. The less that is present, the less problems that need to be address, resulting in cleaner DC to the audio circuits which in turn results in better SQ.
Basically, if you have noise on your B+ that noise will drive its way right to you speaker, if not in an audible way itself, it will at the very least cause the discontinuities between input and output that we commonly refer to as distortion.
Like the old computer saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
I won't get banned for saying this....will I? (https://groups.tapatalk-cdn.com/smilies/1733/1537961555.0825-smilie.gif)
-
A good reason to have a DC blocker in your conditioner.
charles
-
:clap:
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Dave it's not you being you, it's you being 100% right.
In reality an amplifier doesn't really amplify anything. What it physically does is modulates a low voltage signal onto a higher voltage DC source. If done correctly the DC voltage from the power supply will vary in exactly the same way as the input signal, except with w higher peak to peak value. Of course this only works if the higher voltage is pure DC. If there is any kind of noise that makes its way through the power supply and into the audio circuit, the higher voltage that gets modulated will be the DC plus the noise, making the noise a permanent part of the output signal. Power supply filtering can get out just so much and the best way to keep noise out of the DC is to reduce as much of it as possible from the input AC. The less that is present, the less problems that need to be address, resulting in cleaner DC to the audio circuits which in turn results in better SQ.
Basically, if you have noise on your :D B+ that noise will drive its way right to you speaker, if not in an audible way itself, it will at the :thumb:very least cause the discontinuities between input and output that we commonly :thumb: refer to as distortion.
Like the old computer saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
I won't get banned for saying this....will I? (https://groups.tapatalk-cdn.com/smilies/1733/1537961555.0825-smilie.gif)
Hmmm, I can’t think of a good reason….yet!! ….and besides, you are such a prolific poster :thumb:
-
Again: me being me... if the streamer is not fed absolutely pristine power it does not matter what the brains in the streamer are.
Dave it's not you being you, it's you being 100% right.
In reality an amplifier doesn't really amplify anything. What it physically does is modulates a low voltage signal onto a higher voltage DC source. If done correctly the DC voltage from the power supply will vary in exactly the same way as the input signal, except with w higher peak to peak value. Of course this only works if the higher voltage is pure DC. If there is any kind of noise that makes its way through the power supply and into the audio circuit, the higher voltage that gets modulated will be the DC plus the noise, making the noise a permanent part of the output signal. Power supply filtering can get out just so much and the best way to keep noise out of the DC is to reduce as much of it as possible from the input AC. The less that is present, the less problems that need to be address, resulting in cleaner DC to the audio circuits which in turn results in better SQ.
Basically, if you have noise on your B+ that noise will drive its way right to you speaker, if not in an audible way itself, it will at the very least cause the discontinuities between input and output that we commonly refer to as distortion.
Like the old computer saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.
I won't get banned for saying this....will I? (https://groups.tapatalk-cdn.com/smilies/1733/1537961555.0825-smilie.gif)
Besides noise, you alluded to this as well Tom, to follow the input signal over an extremely wide frequency range.
And it has to be exact,,,,,,,,, which is why one perceives different brands/models to sound different. Common component specs don't mean a lot.
cheers
steve
-
The base answer the the OP's question has always been better power. That's why from the time they were both introduced the Aries Mini was always the better unit compared to the same price Node. The Mini has from the beginning had the option of easily adding a better outboard LPS which the Node didn't. I did it immediately as did most people. In the end it's why the Mini was discontinued as with the addition of the LPS the Mini was close enough to their higher priced units that people weren't upgrading. Mine is still in service in a secondary system and will be until it dies. If you subtract the cost of the included free year of Tidal my unit cost me $350 plus the $109 for the TeraDak LPS. Neither has skipped a beat in six years on continuous use.
-
I’ve been on the lam with personal issues since I first posted this- thank you for all the replies. And I owe Tmazz a call…
I just wanted to post and say that I’m digesting all that’s been written and appreciate the knowledge. In the middle of it all Dave posts that he’s modifying a Node; I’ll be following that for sure.
Jim
-
I just wanted to post and say that I’m digesting all that’s been written and appreciate the knowledge. In the middle of it all Dave posts that he’s modifying a Node; I’ll be following that for sure.
Jim
I'll let you all know when the parts all land. I'm not sure how Brad and I are going to go about the mods, but hey... that is half of the fun!
-
Thank you all for the replies- I should have stated that this particular question is not gnawing at me in the same way as a cartridge upgrade is- https://www.audionervosa.com/index.php?topic=8385.0 I KNOW I can do better cartridge-wise.
I actually like the way the streaming sounds, though it does not sound as good as a CD playing through the same internal DAC of my player.
As usual, I find Tom’s advice to be a good, sober assessment. In fact, I’ve found some hi-res files too ‘microscopic’, drawing me away from the music; it’s enticing at first listen, then I feel like it’s an autopsy of the music. I’ve certainly not heard enough iterations of hi-res, nor do I profess to have golden ears, so I’m sure there’s much to learn.
Jim a VG observation about streaming. Yes a better streamer will sound better. Better power supplies, circuits, etc.
charles
-
Another problem is that not only are there external power supplies for motherboards, but they also have onboard switching supplies to manage the different voltages for CPU, memory, external logic interfaces etc. You might make the external power supply quiet, but the onboard supplies are still driving everything.
This all goes back to the transient power nature of digital systems. The lower the power needed by the logic, the lower the noise generated by the SMPS on the motherboard. This is why I prefer small low power SBC's that have minimal onboard SMPS's.
What also helps is using SMPS's that switch at higher than audio band frequencies. That is why I use a GaN based SMPS to drive my Music Server.
Another problem really comes when you are streaming, as some services like Qobuz take large CPU throuhput unlike music file playback with things like Foobar2000 and JRiver MC. Smaller CPU's that are fine for file playback do not have the CPU power to stream using some services. So now a higher power CPU with more current requirements is needed that creates more noise.
Always something.
-
Another problem is that not only are there external power supplies for motherboards, but they also have onboard switching supplies to manage the different voltages for CPU, memory, external logic interfaces etc. You might make the external power supply quiet, but the onboard supplies are still driving everything.
This all goes back to the transient power nature of digital systems. The lower the power needed by the logic, the lower the noise generated by the SMPS on the motherboard. This is why I prefer small low power SBC's that have minimal onboard SMPS's.
What also helps is using SMPS's that switch at higher than audio band frequencies. That is why I use a GaN based SMPS to drive my Music Server.
Another problem really comes when you are streaming, as some services like Qobuz take large CPU throuhput unlike music file playback with things like Foobar2000 and JRiver MC. Smaller CPU's that are fine for file playback do not have the CPU power to stream using some services. So now a higher power CPU with more current requirements is needed that creates more noise.
Always something.
Hi Rich,
Very interesting… Can you elaborate how long you’ve been using GaN products, the difference in measurements etc.
Thanks,
Nick
-
Hi Nick,
I started using the external GaN USBC power supply from the start of the MS-6 Music Server builds, so Feb '21.
They are SlimQ GaN 45 watt USBC PD charger style power supplies. No longer sold, but I have stock to go with all the MS-6 systems to build.
I just listened to the noise floors of a few standard and the SlimQ and there was no question it was quieter. Would have to get an adapter to make noise floor measurements and see if the switching frequency is visible with the equipment I have.
I asked SlimQ if they have noise floor specs, but will see if they provide any.
Best,
Rich
-
Hi Nick,
I started using the external GaN USBC power supply from the start of the MS-6 Music Server builds, so Feb '21.
They are SlimQ GaN 45 watt USBC PD charger style power supplies. No longer sold, but I have stock to go with all the MS-6 systems to build.
I just listened to the noise floors of a few standard and the SlimQ and there was no question it was quieter. Would have to get an adapter to make noise floor measurements and see if the switching frequency is visible with the equipment I have.
I asked SlimQ if they have noise floor specs, but will see if they provide any.
Best,
Rich
Thanks, Rich. I’ll trust your keen ears and judgment
Nick