Dacmagic and high resolution files

steffy72004

New member
Jan 25, 2009
20
0
0
Visit site
Hi,

I have the chance to get a Dacmagic at a very reasonable price. I am perfectly satisfied with my Apollo performance but given that it's a cd player able to read only red book format, I was thinking on take the Dacmagic to use with high resolution downloads like studio masters from Linn (24/192). I'd feed the downloaded files from my WD TV through Dacmagic to amp and so enjoy the high quality of these recordings.

Do you think that would be a good way to set up and would I hear the difference in respect of normal cds?

Thanks as always for the invaluable advice!
 

pete321

New member
Aug 20, 2008
145
0
0
Visit site
I use a heavily modded DacMagic for lossless music file playback, including hires music. Although it won't play 192kHz files, it only supports sampling rates up to 96kHz. You won't find that many 192kHz files anyway.

I've always found that I get better sound from my PC via SPDIF to the DacMagic than from the CD, even if the CD player is connected to the DAC via SPDIF.
 

tapper

New member
Feb 26, 2009
3
0
0
Visit site
hi sorry to hijack the thread but i am also intrested in getting my dac modded.

i would just liuke to know a bit more information about which level mod you had done and what doffrence it made to the sound, was it worth the money.

thank you very much .
 

pete321

New member
Aug 20, 2008
145
0
0
Visit site
I've gone all the way! In 2 stages, Level 4 plus Burson opamps. My Azur DacMagic was the first that Fidelity Audio modded, my initial upgrade was similar to the Level 2 + Burson opamps. That was a massive improvement, music kept it's transparency, but was a bit more natural sounding with a much improved midrange. It's not to say that it was a refined and smooth sound, as that wouldn't suit my tatse, but less clinical. Burson opamps weren't cheap then and they're even more expensive now, but they transform the sound to a different level. When I had it lifted to Level 4, the improvements were more subtle and possibly not worth the money spent. So my preference would be the Level 2 + Burson opamps. The LM4562 opamps will still give a noticeable improvement over the stock opamps fitted by CA, although they don't have the natural tones plus midrange and bass abilities of the Burson's.
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
steffy72004:
Hi,

I have the chance to get a Dacmagic at a very reasonable price. I am perfectly satisfied with my Apollo performance but given that it's a cd player able to read only red book format, I was thinking on take the Dacmagic to use with high resolution downloads like studio masters from Linn (24/192). I'd feed the downloaded files from my WD TV through Dacmagic to amp and so enjoy the high quality of these recordings.

Do you think that would be a good way to set up and would I hear the difference in respect of normal cds?

Thanks as always for the invaluable advice!

If you purchase some 24/192 files from Linn or elsewhere, use dBpoweramp to convert them to 24/96 (unless you can buy them like that in the first place). These files connected to a DacMagic will blow your cds out of the water. The first time I listened to a 24 bit file I was shocked. My last purchase was Band On The Run by Wings. I compared it to my CD version and it was in a different league.
 

steffy72004

New member
Jan 25, 2009
20
0
0
Visit site
Thanks Gerrard, exactly what I was waiting for.....so I think it's a go for Dacmagic
emotion-1.gif
 
T

the record spot

Guest
See how you get on. My experience with the DM was far from positive and while good, it has a tendency to be rather cold and clinical. Also comparing a high resolution file against a stock Cd doesn't suggest the DM is a giant killer. Rather that they did a good job with the production of the new version of Band on the Run. Try the Dacmagic out of course - it might work for you and I hope it does, but it lacked the ability to breathe life into music and my CD player left it standing.
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
the_lhc:Oh, any particular reason why? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who's heard them both.

Rightly or wrongly, pretty much why I don't use the similar option on my AV receiver. Why add to a 24bit 96khz file? It sounds amazing, as I mentioned before, listening to my original rip of the old cd is like listening to a cassette in the car compared.

To the OP, take not of Record Spot, I disagree with his views on the DM but that doesn't mean I'm right. For me, with normal cd rips, in lossless format, with a bit perfect transport to the DAC, it's as good as any CD player I've heard (I haven't listened to any worth more than £1k).
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Oh, any particular reason why? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who's heard them both.

Rightly or wrongly, pretty much why I don't use the similar option on my AV receiver. Why add to a 24bit 96khz file? It sounds amazing, as I mentioned before, listening to my original rip of the old cd is like listening to a cassette in the car compared.

Similar option on the AV receiver? Do you mean Dynamic Range Compression? I understood the "standard" version is the one that's had the dynamics compressed, whereas the other one is pretty much as it came off the master? Hang on, I'll check... 'y'er 'tis:

"The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

So did you get the limited or unlimited version?
 

pete321

New member
Aug 20, 2008
145
0
0
Visit site
I got the unlimited version and I must admit was pretty disappointed by it. It just doesn't sound very hires to me. I know it was recorded about 3 or 4 years later, but when I play the DVD-A stereo 24/96 disc of Rumours by Fleetwood Mac that sounds special. Perhaps I should have gone with the limited version.
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
Worth considering that much of the 24/96 material is actually an SACD made available as a download (DL).

And in many instances the SACDs are still available, and cheaper, than the 24/96 - Pentatone's, for example, while Linn's 24/96 DLs are more expensive than its SACD versions.

And many 24-bit DLs are touted as so-called 'studio masters', but when is a file a genuine 'studio master' - when it's 96kHz or 192kHz? Hmm...
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:Oh, any particular reason why? I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone who's heard them both.

Rightly or wrongly, pretty much why I don't use the similar option on my AV receiver. Why add to a 24bit 96khz file? It sounds amazing, as I mentioned before, listening to my original rip of the old cd is like listening to a cassette in the car compared.

Similar option on the AV receiver? Do you mean Dynamic Range Compression? I understood the "standard" version is the one that's had the dynamics compressed, whereas the other one is pretty much as it came off the master? Hang on, I'll check... 'y'er 'tis:

"The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

So did you get the limited or unlimited version?
Ok, I got the unlimited version.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
6th.replicant:Worth considering that much of the 24/96 material is actually an SACD made available as a download (DL).

Hmm, you might need to provide some evidence to back up that statement.

And in many instances the SACDs are still available, and cheaper, than the 24/96 - Pentatone's, for example, while Linn's 24/96 DLs are more expensive than its SACD versions.

It isn't cheaper if you don't have an SACD player though.

And many 24-bit DLs are touted as so-called 'studio masters', but when is a file a genuine 'studio master' - when it's 96kHz or 192kHz? Hmm...

Depends what the master was recorded as I guess.
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:
"The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

So did you get the limited or unlimited version?
Ok, I got the unlimited version.

Ah cool, no issues with volume then?
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:
"The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

So did you get the limited or unlimited version?
Ok, I got the unlimited version.

Ah cool, no issues with volume then?

No, I don't need the volume as loud as normal but there isn't much in it.
 

Gerrardasnails

Well-known member
Sep 6, 2007
295
1
18,890
Visit site
the_lhc:Gerrardasnails:the_lhc:
"The high resolution version is being made available via download and is being offered in two formats: limited, which is comparable in volume to the remastered CD, and un-limited, which in comparison with the limited version will sound quieter, but retain the dynamic range of the original master recording."

So did you get the limited or unlimited version?
Ok, I got the unlimited version.

Ah cool, no issues with volume then?

No, I don't need the volume as loud as normal but there isn't much in it.
 

6th.replicant

Well-known member
Oct 26, 2007
292
0
18,890
Visit site
the_lhc:6th.replicant:Worth considering that much of the 24/96 material is actually an SACD made available as a download (DL).

Hmm, you might need to provide some evidence to back up that statement...

Some examples of SACD-sourced 24/88-96 downloads. The clue is the logo (shown below) on the covers?

SACD_logo.jpg


https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD8012871003853

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD8012871000159

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00028943754422

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD827949001864

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00028944740028

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD090368028662

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD827949004568

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD095115506721

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD7041888511526

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD707723007025

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00018771926429
(I've DL'd - artwork PDF shows SACD logo on back cover)
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
6th.replicant:the_lhc:6th.replicant:Worth considering that much of the 24/96 material is actually an SACD made available as a download (DL).

Hmm, you might need to provide some evidence to back up that statement...

Some examples of SACD-sourced 24/88-96 downloads. The clue is the logo (shown below) on the covers?

SACD_logo.jpg


https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD8012871003853

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD8012871000159

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00028943754422

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD827949001864

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00028944740028

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD090368028662

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD827949004568

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD095115506721

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD7041888511526

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD707723007025

https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00018771926429
(I've DL'd - artwork PDF shows SACD logo on back cover)

Just because they've scanned the artwork doesn't mean that's where the audio has come from, nowhere on that site does it state that to be the case.

The only mention of SACD anywhere that I've found is a slightly odd "conversion chart" that doesn't make an awful lot of sense:

*Native Formats PCM conversion chart

192/24=96/24
176/24= 88/24
SACD=88/24
Analog masters=88/24

And that's not even correct as SACD isn't 24-bit, it's 1-bit and most guidelines put the audio equivalency at roughly 20-bit 88kHz, not 24-bit (although whether anyone can tell the difference is debatable).
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts