Have your say & ask the experts

.......and that an iPod shuffle has a digital out.

i was told, over at another site (not in very specific detail, mind), that despite the fact that theres no kmixer in Vista, it would still resample, for the worse.

However, im just throwing this out there. i personally have no idea about this and, as i say, the person who told me wasnt very specific, they just said they think it happens.

if it doesnt, however, this would presumably mean, as has been said, that theres no difference between a suitably specced pc and a mac, wouldnt it.

fatboyslimfast:

I believe that Ash thinks that the way Mac's OSX handles the sound card drivers is superior to Windows.

With Vista, I can well believe this, but I'm not so sure about XP...

That's certainly very true.

Macs are de facto in recording studios, partly because the robustness and reliability of (the Unix based) OS X is orders of magnitude superior to any version of Windows, and partly because the latency is <10% of that in Windows.  The latter point is very important, because it means that what you hear with your ears is synchronised with what you see on the screen, whilst editing.

It is also well known that Apple have always used very good quality DACs and audio stages in their computers (typically from Wolfson and Burr-Brown), and this contributes to their good sound quality.  I once did some A/B tests between a Naim CD player and the same tracks imported into my old PowerBook.  The sound from the Mac sounded much more natural compared to the typically bloated bass and harsh spitty treble from the Naim.

Interesting point about the Mac's DAC - maybe it would be worth comparing a Mac>ADM9.1 using both analog and digital connections...

fatboyslimfast:

Interesting point about the Mac's DAC - maybe it would be worth comparing a Mac>ADM9.1 using both analog and digital connections...

Yes indeed.

Although the ADM9.1s use the latest and best Wolfson DAC anyway, so I would expect them to sound very good regardless.

cs:

Although the ADM9.1s use the latest and best Wolfson DAC anyway, so I would expect them to sound very good regardless.

You mean they will sound like Cambridge Audio 640 cd player?

Thaiman:

cs:

Although the ADM9.1s use the latest and best Wolfson DAC anyway, so I would expect them to sound very good regardless.

You mean they will sound like Cambridge Audio 640 cd player?

Yeah or like some multi grand top end players, such as linn's. DAC's are cheap, its what you do with them.

chebby:

I must say that (despite not having my head 'bitten off' yet) I am beginning to feel alienated by the manufacturer even if the product is great. (I even have an iMac!)

I download some 24bit 96khz music (from Linn records for instance. Their 'Spem in Alium' IS magnificent.) and rip my CDs in Apple lossless and think Ashley's philosophy is sound and the product looks great. I almost bought a pair of used ADM9's online today (£729 if anyone is interested and they have not gone yet. Go have a look in the usual e-emporium).

However the contempt shown for potential purchasers (and potential reviewers with international 'reach') is very off-putting.

This.. "If you don't get it then don't come near my product" attitide has worked in my case.

Hopefully my local hi-fi shop will get a pair in one day and I will be able to hear them but until then I will assume the product reflects the maker.

Edit - please do not discuss banned forum posters - Mods

Thaiman:

cs:

Although the ADM9.1s use the latest and best Wolfson DAC anyway, so I would expect them to sound very good regardless.

You mean they will sound like Cambridge Audio 640 cd player?

Cd-replay quality to WHFS&V was at least on par with Primare cd 31. Your emotions must be interfering with your judgment. Is it AJ's website statements?
Personally I find that Ipods should only be considered for use with headphones and macbookpro's pretty darn good as a musical source.

Thaiman:

You mean they will sound like Cambridge Audio 640 cd player?

That all depends on whether Cambridge Audio have followed Wolfson's application recommendations or not !

cs:

Thaiman:

You mean they will sound like Cambridge Audio 640 cd player?

That all depends on whether Cambridge Audio have followed Wolfson's application recommendations or not !

 

Agreed. I think the Wolfson DAC costs in the region of £7-8, which is expensive as far as DACs go, most are in the £2 bracket. How the DAC is applied on the other hand...

It's important to remember that all modern DACs are excellent and the ones in a Cambridge Audio CD player will be just as good (and far better than 16 Bits CDs) and no less expensive than the ones in ludicrously expensive High End CD players. Therefore if you're convinced you need to pay much more than the Cambridge 640, you should compare them before you make a decision.

The differences you hear between CD players and DACs almost don't exist between DAC Manufacturers Evaluation boards.They give them to companies like us to show how good they can be. Therefore the differences that exist between CD players (or DACs) are caused by failure to implement them correctly as CS says.

IMHO reviews would be far more helpful if DAC evaluation boards were used as a standard.

Ashley

Ashley James:

IMHO reviews would be far more helpful if DAC evaluation boards were used as a standard.

What do you mean, Ashley?

Simply that if WHF had DAC Manufacturers Demonstration DACs, they could compare them with the CD Players and DACs they review. There should be no audible difference between them.

As I've said before it's difficult, verging on impossible, to tell one manufacturer's DAC from another now.

Ash

Why don't the DAC manufacturers sell these as offboards?

Are you saying then that some manufacturers mess up the implementation of the DACs they use?