Ehider, I'm reluctant to open this can of worms, but have you heard the Nova Physics Memory Player? If so, how does it compare to the USB DAC you heard?
- 73 posts total
- 73 posts total
Ehider ... USB DACs are RAM buffered because USB does not stream the data at the bit rate required by the DAC.
Since it's possible to buffer for USB then it's possible to do the exact same for SPDIF.
A more likely explanation is that the USB DAC you heard happened to be a better designed DAC (or more to your taste) than any other SPDIF DAC you'd previously heard.
Chris, I can't imagine how you could remove jitter from an existing digital recording as there's no inherent information that would allow you to determine the jitter in order to subtract it.
I think a bad digital recording is destined to remain a bad digital recording. However I hope to be proven wrong, because a lot of good music is otherwise beyond salvation.
Sean; the USB DAC that I have been citing does NOT connect to a CD transport, It connects directly to a computer i.e. my posts statements regarding the "hard drive" . With this methodology, the computer does not have a SPDIF (traditional) connection whatsoever. It streams pure data directly from the hard drive, WITHOUT the subsequent clock data. It is much different with this methodology. (It is also much more elegant). This is the ONLY way the sonic improvements that I am discussing can have any meaning. If there was a "traditional" CD transport involved, the USB carrying the data wouldn't yield any sonic improvements whatsoever (BTW: this is where your assumptions would be absolutely spot on). So, the complete elimination of having to carry clocking information from the CD transport to the DAC is where the huge jump factor relies (remember, the music data is now on a hard drive). With this in mind, any simplification of transferring the music data from point A to point B really does yield sonic wonders.
Drubin; Yes i have heard the Nova Physics player. I think it is an admirable attempt at solving many of CD issues. Like other offerings though, it is still a band-aid approach that doesn't simplify the transfer of music data as well as the USB approach . Again, the proof is in the pudding though. And this player doesn't actually stand at a complete different level above other UBER priced digital products. It is really good, yes. Revolutionary, well if so, then it should absolutely crush any other digital offering IMHO (which it doesn't achieve).
BTW: Even though my posts have been heavy handed technological discussions, I will always favor the digital product that sonically comes closest to a top level analog rig. IMHO way too many technological assumptions, WITHOUT direct comparison to a source of great music perfection (in my case, a great analog rig) are one of the reasons we are now accepting the crazy expensive digital mess and these inherent "band-aids".
Even if the best sounding digital front end turns out to be a Donkey spinning a CD, using a fifty cent flashlight, connected to an electronic slide rule, amplifying via a megaphone. If this "front end" truly sounds closer to a great analog rig, I'm buying it! ....and alot of Donkey food ;-)
This might answer all your questions.
I believe that the reactions of all the reviewers that first heard the Memory Player were NOT all hype. For Harry Pearson to say "He was in AWE" is huge. If his statement was hype, well he must be a "silent" investor in Nova Physics Group.
To be able to explain the shortcomings of the CD playback system and the approach they took to mitigate it is simply not a band aid approach, in my opinion.