Planning to step up to a high end home audio system. Need advice.

Surprised no one has mentioned this:

Go to Axpona or RMAF - tour the rooms and pick the ones you prefer. Then go audition them locally if possible. You have no idea what kind of sound you want, so its very difficult for us to give recommendations. Take your time, enjoy it. Part of the game.
 
Sounds like you had a good experience and came away with what sounded great to you that day. Not being able to purchase at this time may be to your long term benifit. Many times I've gone into a audio store and have walked away really wanting a piece of equipment or system at that time. And after some time changed my mind. But, audio is a Odyssey not a sprint. Taking your time can pay off in the long haul. If your able to do as KeithR suggest that may give you a lot more insight as to where to spend your money.
 
Hi there.

I would contact my local dealer and try several setups. Make sure that your dealer is working with the highend sigment and that he is not just trying to sell you what ever he gets the biggest margin on or if he tries to sell you whatever he can't sell normally. I would also keep an eye out for used products as that is where you get the most value for money. Don't be hasty and hear several brands before deciding. Just because it is a good demo doesn't neccesarily mean that the products are good if bad are compared to worse. if you haven't been in to the marked for a long time try to look around on audioshark and see what people likes and has interest in.
 
I have found that wav or AIFF no compression same bit depth snd but rate. Example cd 16/44.1 is best if you tip. If you have many cd,s buy a goid used cd Player Thst allows you to use its internal dac with a streamer service like tidal.
Ext input meds to be usb if possible. If not a network is great too. It allows the dac to access your ripped music. A CD player that allows a digital stream to be sent to an external dac is also a great option.
 
Randy Myers said:
One other thing, about the format that you rip to. CDs use the Wav format, but the major problem is that wav and AIFF are pretty bad with meta data, the info about the album, artist, etc., etc., that Roon is so amazing at. I really do not hear a difference in any of the PCM formats (Wav, Flac, AIFF, among others are generally referred to as the PCM formats). DSD is a completely different format that is used on the SACD disks and also sold on many download sites, such as those that have been mentioned. DSD basic format is called DSD64 or DSD 2.8 since it is actually 2.8 Mhz (yes Mhz resolution not Khz like PCM). Most sites also sell double and quad density DSD (not as large of a choice but certainly there depending on music). These are referred to as DSD128 (5.6 Mhz) or DSD256 (11.2 Mhz). Some software can up-sample your music from your server (works better with a PC then pre-built music servers). Roon can, but the best is a software program called HQPlayer which integrates perfectly with Roon.

Using Roon -> HQPlayer (Roon as the controller and HQPlayer as the playback engine) I up-sample everything to DSD512 with a base clock of 48 (versus the standard base clock of 44.1) which translates to 24.6 Mhz. The T+A DAC can handle this perfectly, not many DACs in a reasonable range can. Doing this kind of up-sampling takes a fairly decent computer of course.

Hopefully helping you educate yourself some. It took me quite some time to learn how this whole digital thing works. Again I blame Norman (wisnon) for making me try DSD. :) I could never look back after that though because it was such a huge difference to me and my ears!

One other little side note, the DSD64, DSD128, DSD256, etc., actually do have a meaning. DSD64 is 64 times the resolution of CDs, DSD128 is 128 times, etc.... figure it out, 44.1 x 2 = 88.2, x4 = 176.4, x8 = 352.8.... anyway at x64 it equals 2.8 Mhz :D... amazing how that works out....

Oh by the way, the base clock. The standard which is used with CDs is 44.1, but many download sites have files that use 48 base clock. So while 44.1 double is 88.2... etc., double 48 is 96Khz and quad is 192Khz. These are two very popular resolutions on download sites. DSD uses the base clock of 44.1 to get to the Mhz resolutions but software like HQPlayer can also up-sample to 48 base clock; this is how all my music gets to 24.6 Mhz playback (48, 96, 192, 384.... 512 times = 24.6 Mhz)!!!
Click to expand...
Hey Randy! :hey: With all due respect I have to offer a correction in your explanation of DSD's resolution (a single bit system) compared to PCM (which is a multi-bit system) since you're comparing apples and oranges. DSD does NOT provide 64 times the resolution of CD, but rather it uses noise shaping which uses 64-times oversampling of the signal to reduce the noise and distortion caused by the inaccuracy of the quantization of the multi-bit audio signal to a single bit. It is estimated that DSD64 has higher resolution than a 16-bit 44.1KHz Red Book CD, roughly the same resolution as 24-bit 96KHz PCM recording, but not as much resolution as a 24-bit 192KHz PCM recording. These are only estimates since the true resolution of PCM and DSD cannot be directly compared due to differences in multi-bit vs single bit system performance.
Neither PCM or DSD are perfect as the original proponents of digital recording had claimed with their marketing of CD playback as "Perfect Sound Forever". :skeptical: Like most things in audio there are trade-offs involved with either system although most audiophiles have a preference for one or the other, often being related to which format their DAC of choice may excel at. A good reference on DSD vs. PCM can be found in this article from Mojo Audio for further reference.
 
Sorry, just trying to help and give a little info that was very hard to find when I jumped back in.

I have read that going to DSD256 or above moves all noise out of the the freq range that could affect the music you hear and is one of the reason that over sampling works so well.

I also know that many recording companies archive using DSD and if my old mind is not failing me they archive at DSD512.

Here is an example of actual comparisons that have been done:
A 2014 study conducted at the Tokyo University of the Arts found that listeners could distinguish PCM (192 kHz/24 bits) from either DSD (2.8 MHz) or DSD (5.6 MHz), preferring the sound of DSD over PCM: "For example, Drums stimulus of DSD (5.6 MHz) has p = 0.001 when compared against PCM (192 kHz/24 bit) in overall preference. This suggests that DSD version was statistically significantly preferred over the PCM version."

"DSD met with relatively little success in the consumer market, even though the SACD was actually more successful than its direct competitor, the PCM-based DVD-Audio. Direct manipulation of recorded DSD data is difficult due to limited availability of appropriate software. The advent of new high-resolution PCM standards, such as DXD, further restricted its market niche. DSD, however, is still used as an archival format for studio applications, and it's seen as a possible replacement for analog tapes."

I do prefer DSD, ymmv. Although not everything is available in DSD, a remarkable amount of music actually is. I have somewhere about 400 albums in DSD on my server, both downloads and SACD.
 
Nice reads
now aside from math how do we feel each format sounds to us
this is on part why some prefer one format over the other. After this lets consider the sound reproduction system used for observation.
My reason is this
on headphones exp flag ships on exp amps meaning sota
pcm or dsd is easy to hear
dsd 64 to dsd128 easy
now 256 and 512 good luck there. But even this can be judgmental due how good the dac is
dop or native.
For me dsd 128 is the sweetsopt but I do feel 256 has virtues and 512 not so much
now same observation on my IRS v setup it different
dsd 64/128/256/512 all can be heard.but again 128 is sweet but 256 is more hollowgraohic.
More ambience too. But no matter how good the heapphones are I can't.
Pcm is easy
16/44.1 low end of pcm and for me lets nkt go to MP3
but there is some good MP3
now going to anyting 24 bit depth the noise floor is noted
yet math on 16 seems more than enough
and if my math is correct
16/24 is about 256 times more volume resolution.
Why this matters I don't know but the my thought is it's a lower noise floor that somehow it translates in my brain to blacker background.
Color me nuts it's ok but it's obvious
24/96 sweet spot for pcm too. Why it's still very dynamic or has jump 24/192 model layers less jump in dynamics
 
Now that you have completed your system purchase I had to bring your beginning thread back to the top.

Congratulation on finishing the purchase of your system. How did the $12,000 budget work out? :-)
 
brad225 said:
Now that you have completed your system purchase I had to bring your beginning thread back to the top.

Congratulation on finishing the purchase of your system. How did the $12,000 budget work out? :-)
Click to expand...


Brad, I pretty much obliterated my budget. As I became more educated about high end home audio I realized I'd have to spend much more money than I originally planned. I became aware that to get what I really wanted I was going to have to bite the bullet and buy it. Looking at what I purchased you can easily do the math, so I'll save you the time and tell you I spent a total of about $40,000 over a 10 month period. And that doesn't take into account the weekend trip to Suncoast Audio in Sarasota, FL. to audition components. It kind of reminds me of building a new house...It will ALWAYS cost you more than you think. But I got what I wanted. And next week I'm going to find out if it was worth it. However, I'm not too concerned about that. I can hardly wait.

It was really cool of you, Brad, to bring my original thread back. Thank you for that. I hadn't had the chance to go back and review it. I've really enjoyed rereading it. It's really interesting to see some of the choices I made and the number of times I changed my mind about various components and how I arrived at my final choices. I'm very confident about those choices. I'm not sure what else I could have done. They were exhaustively researched. I know it will pay off.

Tom
 
I would guess most here smiled when you talked about your hopeful budget.

The knowledge you possessed about what you were looking for in sound quality was the end to your hoped for initial budget.
I never would have asked what you spent but would have guessed there or above.
It is interesting to look at peoples thoughts and direction they are thinking of and where reality takes them.

There is no doubt in my mind there will be one happy guy in Iowa next week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top