 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
216.115.113.31
I have been posting for a couple weeks trying to figure out what digital converter to use on my new computer. My computer only has PCI-Express card slots, so all the good cards don't work (I was hoping to get a Lynx.) That left me with only the USB option, and I wasn't finding anything suitable that did ADC (recording from a tapedeck) and DAC (playback through my computer.)What I have decided to do is get the PS Audio Digital Link III, which is only a DAC, and forego my music archiving for awhile (this unit does not do ADC.)
What I like about this unit is that it has three selectable inputs: USB, Coaxial, and optical. In this manner, I can connect my computer AND my cheap CD player to it (my CD player becomes a transport.) On the front panel, I just select what I want to listen to (it also has automatic source detection.)
This should now give me a kick-butt audio signal from my computer, and make my $200 CD player sound like a $2,000 CD player. WITHOUT having to switch out connections on the back to do so.
(My regular CD player crapped out, and I have been toiling over purchasing a new mega CD player.)
The tube converters, on the surface, don't appeal to me. I don't like the idea of a tube going bad, or getting broken, and having to replace it. The tube converters seem to be alot of show, they are so "pretty" that you almost need to build a mini-stand for them and put them on display. My converter is going to end up in my stack somewhere, on top of my computer, or next to it, or wherever is practical. My McIntosh system already sounds "warm."
Does anyone have expereince with the new PS Audio digitial link III? It is more expensive than what I was willing to spend for just a DAC, but the specs and features have me sold. Does anyone have any other suggestions before I lay my money on the table? Any comments regarding my dislike for tubes or reasons why I should consider tubes?
24 bit 192khz, 8 times oversampling, XLR and RCA outputs, selectable inputs, large power supply.
Follow Ups:
> Any comments regarding my dislike for tubes or reasons why I
> should consider tubes?Tubes sound great. Here's the analogy I always think of. Have
you ever treated a piece of wood furniture with Scott's Liquid
Gold? You know how it makes the grain seem like it's sparkling
up from an enormous depth? Another analogy -- you know how
lapidarists put a piece of cut opal under liquid (water or oil)
to see the color properly? That's what tubes seem to do for
the sound. They bring out the color, they add depth. They
also always seem to shift the tonal "center of gravity" downward.Regarding reliability -- they're probably more robust than
folks give them credit for nowadays. A few decades ago, all
household electronics -- the kitchen radio, the livingroom
TV -- used tubes. But they do generate heat. Caveats (learned
through bitter experience) -- stay away from overly complicated
tube gear. Hybrids of tubes and solid state, for example
(tubes next to op amps -- a Counterpoint SA-4 OTL amp I once
owned comes to mind). Keep tubes **out** of optical disc
transports (a California Audio Labs Tempest II SE I once
owned comes to mind. Also a Cary-modded Rotel 865. In the
case of the Cary, I once opened the case to change the output
tubes for "better" ones that my dealer had strongly
recommended. I had just been playing the Cary/Rotel before
opening the case, and like an idiot, I didn't let it cool down
first. The transport laser died instantly of thermal shock, just
from being exposed to room-temperature air.) I'd definitely go
for a separate tube DAC rather than an all-in-one tube CD
player, despite the S/PDIF-avoiding advantages of the latter.That said, I always feel slightly guilty about playing my tube
gear. I'm conscious of using up a finite resource (and I don't
just mean the extra electricity they eat up!). I especially
don't like to use tubes just for background music. That would
be like guzzling fine wine as if it were Coca-Cola, without
paying attention to its taste. As a result, I find myself actually
avoiding my tube systems. For casual listening, like when I'm
getting ready for work, I'll play a "rough and ready" solid
state system that I don't feel guilty about leaving on all the
time.
Thanks for your perspective on tubes. People who are into tube gear are like people who love black licorice. Not everyone likes black licorice, but the ones who do, REALLY like it!Honestly, I haven't spent much time listening to tubes. So it's not that I dislike them, it's just that they seem cumbersome.
You make a good point about usage. My stereo is on most of the day, 7 days a week. It looks like maybe I should have a dedicated gourmet stereo before I start tasting that fine wine.
Geat analogies! Thanks
> It looks like maybe I should have a dedicated gourmet stereo
> before I start tasting that fine wine.Oh, don't get me wrong -- the PS Audio Link III DAC will be
plenty of "gourmet stereo". I haven't heard one yet, but
it has an excellent pedigree. I expect it sounds terrific.
> ...you know how lapidarists put a piece of
> cut opal under liquid (water or oil) to see the
> color properly?Water. Definitely not oil. ;->
http://www.opal-tibara.com/faq.htm
---------------------------
Can I soak opal in...... glycerine? No, glycerine is hydrophilic and can draw
water from the stone.
... oil? No, can discolor as stone, and is very hard to
clean off.
... water? Yes.
... wet towel? Yes.Why does the fire disappear on rough opal until you
put it in water?Water has about the same refractive index as polished opal,
so rough opal in water is a preview of the cut and polished
opal.
---------------------------
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
