Well, I think the in this inquiry would be the use of CEC TLOX transport. If you do putting together a system from the ground up then it is arguable if it makes sense to commit yourself with CEC TLOX. This transport is from the last century and it plays pretty much last century media. If I would be in your shoe I would question myself if I want to lack myself in 16Bit, disk only format… and CEC will not play all disk BTW…

It is a bit confusing as it sound like I am advocating some kind of e-streaming player with absurd sampling rates. I do not and I have criticized the sampling rates devotee more than others. Still, it would be nice to have a digital CD player to be able to play more or less universal files, stream from network and internet, play the SACD, DVD, Blue Rays and whatever else is out there. I think if I were looking for a new transport today then I would be looking for more or less universal transport.  How to find an universal transport that would be playing as good as TLOX was able to play CD? Well, this is $40.000.000 question... of somebody find then let me know.

Regarding DAC I think it would be all depends of what transport you end up. There are ton of DACs out there and more or less good DACs are not so expensive as they were years back. Each week we have a new “revolutionary” DAC arrive to market and each week I see another audio person go over himself by discovering a new DAC. This week it was Italian TwoGoodEars with his new DDAC. That all might be true.

Anyhow, there are a few things you need to take under consideration. If you end up with TLOX then be advised that it is VERY hard-reading transport and it outputs so much “sounds” that they can easy overwhelm. I have seen it with hard-reading DAC and it was not pretty. For most part with TLOX you would need a very soft-sounding DAC with some “prominence” in upper bass and lover midrange. You might be able to adjust it by you acoustic system if you do not have any other souses then this digital DAC. I said “for most part” because some disks are different and it very possible that with one disk you won’t be able to see the difference between the DACs and with another disks it will be day and night. I have seen it many times.

If you do not go for TLOX and go more or less universal frond end then you might want to have a more or less universal DAC with all possible connection, rates and options. The advantage of to be stream and download from your transport is not because it have higher rate but the fact that that you can suppress the CD layer. Even if you have a raw 16/44 file it will be much better then the same file got converted onto CD format. What I am saying 16/44 file on DATA CDR is much better than the same file in audio CDR. Now, where to get the raw 16/44 files is the question…

decoud wrote:

I know there has been controversial discussion of this here, but anything upstream of a DAC, i.e. anything digital can have only one metric of quality: jitter (assuming bit perfection, which these days is assured). Unlike anything in the analogue domain, which no reductive measure can capture synoptically, a digital channel cannot be better--physically cannot--except by reducing jitter, provided adequate isolation of any coincident analogue noise from the source (such as can be achieved by say optical decoupling). So the hunt for the ideal digital source should be a mechanical one, so to speak. But from the DAC on, included, all bets are off.

It is astonishing: what “scooter” wrote in his “Ultra box” post above is what I would write myself.

Anyhow, Charlus when you wrote about “single DAC possessing virtues entirely harmonious with all three sources” then I very much understand what you mean but it is hardly achievable. The problem is that with digital each new source sound different. When you have a DAW and will be playing files from server you will see that any playing software that you will be using will hugely change sound. It knows it is contra-intuitive and it shall not be but it is what it is. So, my feeling is that a person just pretty much selects what s/he feels is comfortable and then builds around that result. So, I do feel that an ultimate DAC for all sources is a wet-dream unicorn but we need to redefine what would be “ultimate” in this case. I think the “ultimate” would be the one that give great result for one souse and acceptable for the rest sources.

The reasonable question would be to ask: why do not have a DAC that would be able to operate with multiple sources and to have custom configuration for each of the source? Now we are taking!!! Some companies did it BTW but they were not so great DACS. I am not informed about a good DAC that would have configurable filtration and perhaps differently configured out stages for each source. I would not even mind the analog EQ for each source, not the physical EQ but the hypothetical IQ.

Stitch, narrative is very interesting.  I never had new Meitner’s DACs. I hear it countless time and each time it was very bad sound but it was always was in context of other brainless people sound and I do not know if the ugly teeth-twisting sound I got was coming from the Meitner’s DAC of it was because the people who used it were idiots. A few years back I was thinking to get the Emmlab to try but at that time Meitner dot associated with Jonathan Thin, I think they appointed him as some kind of marketing director. That character is unspeakable idiot and if a company bring him aboard then to me it is an indication that the building where the company is located need to be blown up with a rocket-propelled grenade. I never paid attention to Emmlab ever since.

The Italian Stefano Bertoncello at his blog was posting the worshiping of German guys about something that they call DDDAC

http://twogoodears.blogspot.com/2013/06/digital-skyrocketing.html

I do not know how to project what they say as they mostly listen just sounds and I have a large detest the music they listen. It might be worth attention or might be not, I do not know.

The last few years the Digital Audio Denmark make very strong ways in pro audio world:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/

Romy the Cat wrote:

Stitch, narrative is very interesting.  I never had new Meitner’s DACs. I hear it countless time and each time it was very bad sound but it was always was in context of other brainless people sound and I do not know if the ugly teeth-twisting sound I got was coming from the Meitner’s DAC of it was because the people who used it were idiots. A few years back I was thinking to get the Emmlab to try but at that time Meitner dot associated with Jonathan Thin, I think they appointed him as some kind of marketing director. That character is unspeakable idiot and if a company bring him aboard then to me it is an indication that the building where the company is located need to be blown up with a rocket-propelled grenade. I never paid attention to Emmlab ever since. The Cat

Stitch wrote:

Well, I made an interesting observation by accident. I didn't know those Emmlab unit (later I read that Mr. Terrific [Tin] made the distribution in USA, but later he switched to something else, which is even more ultra terrific...), went into a Demo with total unknown units and was amazed about the quality of digital Playback. It was a good Demo generally...Some time later I listened to it in 2 different, very expensive Systems (Spectral...Magico) and it was horrible, absolutely awful. When I wouldn't had the experience before, I would have deleted it in my memory. Anyway, I THINK, the unit is passive and what you hear is depending on the quality of the connected System / Preamp. Maybe more than other units it will give different results based on that. My main CD's are from 80's /early 90's, some early Mercury Living Presence CD's...and that unit gives me better results than all the stuff I had before. But digital discussions are endless ... but Meitner didn't walk the path the other 95% did, so it is probably worth a try.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Any  Of course it is about hardware and I do not know why you feel that it is completely useless and why the conversion of fat cow into a racehorse would be valid. The higher sampling rate then 44K is better and move from 16 bit to let say 20 bit is better. This is not useless.