|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.66.4.43
I agree wholeheartedly with this review - I've had the Bobcat for 15 months now and am sure it will be my last digital source as I'm no longer looking. I just can't figure out what any other source could provide that would make me enjoy music any more than I do now. I no longer read "all out of breath I love my new component" reviews on AA any more - when you've owned it for a year or more, then get back to me!I think the reviewer would have been even more impressed if he had electrostatics to really feel the pace, timing, and soundspace - but that's just my bias after listening to electrostats for 20 years. My bobcat plays through a downstream that is largely invisible in my experience - the Creek OBH-12 passive pre and the Quad 303/ESL 57 combo which are really one unit in my mind. The more invisible your downstream system the more I think the Bobcat will shine.
I think he should have emphasized more that none of the reported sound would be possible without a fantastic DAC, and the Daniel Hertz DAC is just that. I don't use the Burwen software actually, on electrostatics at least it just didn't seem needed. As far as requiring WMP for the Burwen plugin, after trying Jriver with/without ASIO, and a couple other players, I still like WMP the best, bitcounting be damned. Jriver with ASIO provided more individualized instrumental lines, but they didn't seem to be all playing in the same orchestra. As the review states Best of all, it [the Bobcat] pulls all of these aspects together in a grand way where the artists are all jamming in unison. I was able to feed off the energy and connection between the performers in front of me - bingo - and on Quads that effect is surreal, utterly engrossing. Of course you can use any player with the Bobcat/Daniel Hertz DAC if you don't need the Burwen software (which runs only as a WMP plugin - I think there are other versions coming out that don't require WMP but I could be wrong - don't really care for my needs)
I think the bottom line is for the reviewer as it is for me - he states The stereo is now there for my pleasure. Before it was there for my "hobby". I also have let my subscriptions to the print magazines lapse. I don't feel badly about it. And I don't pine at the thought of not having the newest digital "thing" or format they might feature. I also don't look for digital tweaks to make the sound better or trick me into thinking it sounds better. I stopped buying equipment and magazines since I got the Bobcat - only ordering a Quad 99 CDP-2 as a DAC for non-USB sources since (actually to play my turntable through - long story) - and I suspect it will be ushered out the door soon enough.
I would suggest on the planar asylum that a digital source worthy of the Quads has finally arrived, but I fear too much religious intolerance - but if you're not religiously bound to analog sources I think the Bobcat will do you well with or without the Burwen software.
I see the price is now $1995 - 15 months ago it was $1500 - and bear in mind that my 15 month old software may have been improved upon by now - although they haven't emailed me offering any upgrades.
Follow Ups:
Thanks for the compliments on my review. I take great pride in the fact that I purchase my equipment rather than get an industry loan. I don't get any accommodation pricing and it puts me in exactly the same position as the consumer, something that few, if any, reviewers can say.Take a look at Enjoy the Music and the viewpoint on digital formats
The Editor makes a comment to a letter sent to him by John Phelan. The Editor's response to the letter that dismisses out-of-hand CD and any improvement that the Burwen is capable of. So there is a staunch group of "audiophiles" that turn there noses up rather than "enjoy the music".
> I agree wholeheartedly with this review. . .It's very curious that you are citing this review at all.
Since you don't use the software, what you're calling the
"Burwen Bobcat" is actually just the "Daniel Hertz Model 1
USB DAC".From the review:
"On occasion my 16-year old son uses my system when I
am not home. He doesn't use the Bobcat software during
his sessions. When I come home and listen, it doesn't
take long for me to realize something isn't right."It would seem that while you may **think** you agree
wholeheartedly with the review, the reviewer does not
in fact agree wholeheartedly with you. Or something
like that. . . ;->
I think I made it pretty clear that I personally consider the DAC the more important part of the package for my system, and said I wished they'd emphasized it more since that all the glorious sound wouldn't be possible without a good dac, and that I didn't personally use the software. Not sure how much more clear I can make it that with respect to the software, I don't use it myself - I went out of my way to state that one difference of opinion in my post. The reviewer and others on this board like the software - OK - I prefer without.When reviewers speak of their "hobby" turning from audio to music, dropping magazine subscriptions, stopping the tweak-a-thon, etc - I found it most interesting that the same thing happened to me with the Bobcat as well. That's a level of satisfaction above nitpicking the component, something you don't often see even in a world where virtually all reviews are positive. It spoke volumes to me - I thought I emphasized that duly. That to me was the most important part of the review - don't often hear things like that, especially about digital.
I think one obvious explanation for why I may not - in my system (as I emphasized) need the software is one famous quote I'd heard about the Quad ESL 57's (from Stereophile I think) - that Quad 57's are for people who want their ears caressed, not beaten up - I found the extra caress the software placed softened things up a bit too much for my tastes - it was just fine without the software. But from my long unhappy history of CD ownership, it's clear to me the Daniel Hertz DAC is something special all on it's own - I was never nearly as happy with any other player. Just a theory though.
> I think I made it pretty clear that I personally
> consider the DAC the more important part of the
> package for my system. . . Not sure how much
> more clear I can make it. . .Well, it would be much less potentially misleading
if you called it "the Daniel Hertz Model 1 DAC
(the one that's bundled with the Burwen Bobcat
software by Red Rose Music)", or something like
that.
True - it's the DAC I'm in love with - and I guess if they price the software separately now or in the future, you can tell what the DAC costs and what the software costs - I haven't looked it up actually but from your other posts it seems you've looked into it. Look at it this way - the reviewer loved the package with software, and I love it even without the software - so how can you lose? I haven't given up on software by any means, it's such an easy upgrade and totally defeatable if you don't like it. I'm just not sure I can enjoy music any more than I do now - that's my bottom line. I hope others here buy the package and report on it - but if their downstream system doesn't get out of the way of the music, it will probably sound like any other DAC. I figure Linn / NAIM owners are good candidates, among others - they may not be technically "neutral" but they are known for letting the music flow.
Is it just mp3? Can you play flac files using this?
> reading through the site, i've the impression that
> there are 2 pieces (functions) of software.Not sure if you if you mean "functions" of Bobcat RE
(the $200 Windows Media Player plugin) or Burwen Bobcat
software **products** (versions) listed on the site.The $200 WMP plugin will 1) play in real time 2) process
CDs that you've ripped to WMA in Windows Media Player
(or any other format that WMP can rip to), or 3) process
CD's that you've **burned** via WMP. Once you've got
a processed file or a processed CD, you can convert it
to anything you like, via other programs.But actually, there are three **products** (if you include one that
isn't out yet) or maybe four (if you include one that
no one here is actually going to buy).Bobcat RE (the $200 one) is the WMP plugin.
Bobcat DX (for $500) is a DirectX plug-in for **any** digital
audio workstation software that supports DirectX
plugins (such as Steinberg WaveLab). DX
is not limited to 16/44.1 -- it can do 24/44.1 or 24/96,
and it passes 32-bit data to the DAW host which can be
rendered (saved) to a 32-bit file. DX has the same
(18, I think) presets -- Classical 1, Vocal 3, Basic 2,
etc. -- that Bobcat RE has. It does 2-channel stereo.Bobcat Monitor ($900, when it comes out next month, Burwen
sez) can function as a DirectX plugin, or it can convert
files directly. It **doesn't** have the 18 presets,
but only Bobcat Basic or "Bobcat EXTREME" processing.
It can do more than 2 channels -- it can synthesize 5.1
or 7.1 channel surround sound. Internally, it's the same
as Burwen's "Audio Splendor" product, he says.Burwen Audio Splendor ($13,000, or something like that)
has a million controls. Like a software version of the
Cello Audio Palette.
reading through the site, i've the impression that there are 2 pieces(functions) of software. one is a plug-in for window media player. another one is for offline processing of the file. it is not really too clear about the offline part. it sounds as if one can convert a window media format to a normal cd format. so if that is possible, then one can do CD-> window media format -> processed CD -> flac. it is kind of convoluted but it should work. the only catch is that one has to decide upfront the type of processing is required for that particular cd/files.
I'm not really a tekkie when it comes to formats, but the Burwen Bobcat is 2 pieces #1 is the software which is actually a plugin for Windows Media Player, meaning it only works with Windows Media Player, which I doubt plays FLAC. #2 is the DAC and in my system, windows recognizes it as a DAC without any special drivers, so anything I play though my PC plays through it. So if you use something other than WMP that does play FLAC, I assume the DAC will accept the output just fine - but you won't be able to use the Burwen software component (which I never use anyway).I play MP3 internet radio, itunes downloads, and have used a variety of audio players like Jriver, Windows Media Player, itunes, winamp, foobar - all played perfectly well. I've never used FLAC, but if you have a player that plays FLAC I'm pretty sure the output to the Bobcat DAC would work fine because I believe the player does the conversion and outputs a standard 16/44 signal to the DAC.
I've never really experimented much because I like WMP for ripped CD's and I really like itunes for internet radio - so I've never really bothered with much else.
the question is: what accounts for the superior sound you're getting...the fact that you are running tunes off your hard drive, or the BB software or the DAC? I mean, if you don't use the BB software, then presumably any decent dac with a usb input would produce the sound you're getting.
in other words, what makes this unit worth $2000?
thanks for your input.
I don't know what makes the bobcat worth $2000 any more than I know what makes other USB dacs worth $7500 - all I know is I couldn't possibly enjoy music any more than I do already, so for me $2k is all it takes - any more would be a waste of money. All I can say is for me it isn't the software since I don't use it - but the DAC will be my last, I've simply stopped looking. And that's after owning CD players such as the Naim Nait 5, Quad 99 CD-P, Njoe Super Tjoeb 4000, Cyrus CD6, Rega Planet 2000, Musical Fidelity X-ray with independent power supply and tube buffer, and probably a bunch of others I've long fogotten. In short, I'm no longer an audiophile, just a music lover.I know it's a trite old overused expression in audio, but to me the Bobcat doesn't sound like any of the above CD players nor anything at all in particular - it sounds invisible to me and that's what I prize. The music simply sprays all over the room through my Quads and when presented with a 23' wide 10' deep soundspace with beautiful tonality and exquisite detail any further analysis is just splitting hairs. I strongly suspect USB has something to do with it's success judging from other posts on this page, but in the end care not. I've never investigated different formats - just stuck with WMP and couldn't be happier - and itunes for internet radio sounds more than good enough at 128k+ bitrates to really enjoy a world of music every night. Internet radio is just one of two huge bonuses of having a PC based system - the other is having digital domain EQ as both WMP and itunes have.
The final arbiter is that the number of CD's I consider unlisteable has dropped to around 5% since I've switched to the bobcat - if there was any value in a CD from the recording studio, the Bobcat can find it and reproduce seemingly - I credit it's neutrality for that. The ones that are unlistenable aren't usually harsh bright or brittle, just very poor stereo and tonally devoid - but a 5% failure rate I can live with.
If you're unsure of that kind of outlay, there are plenty of economical USB DAC's talked about on this page - start small, see if you feel the USB transmission is a major contributer - but it's hard to separate what contributes to the bottom line just by listening in my opinion. But at least you can experiment with a variety of formats and internet radio and digital domain EQ - then if you upgrade you'll be ready for an apples to apples comparison.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: