Innuos ZenMK3 - Chord Hugo TT2 - M700 - Focal Kanta No.2. Cabling is all Cardas Clear for signals, a mix of Isotek Elite & CommonGround Whisper fir power, Isotek Polaris power board.
I use Audeze LDCi4 for personal listening.
Cheers
Mick
2 Likes
Nice! That’s great feedback considering I have M700s and Kanta 2s as well. It’s good to know we have capable back ends to appreciate the upgrades to the front end. What ethernet cable and power cable did you settle on? I assume you’re using a straight USB to the Chord and if that’s the case which cable are you using? Thanks again
1 Like
Cardas Clear Ethernet and Cardas Clear High Speed USB (the two conductor one).
1 Like
I obviously missed the details in your earlier post, sorry about that! Thanks for sharing, I am very happy you are satisfied, definitely helps me to make my decision, appreciate that!
The fuse used makes a substantial difference, too. Compared to the stock fuse in the Innuos, a Telos X2 brought more extension at both ends and was easily superior for dynamics micro and macro. The SR Orange has a more sublime midrange and a lot of extra detail, but can’t do the other things the X2 can do. On balance I prefer the X2, but have a QSA Yellow on the way abs a Blue for the Isotek power board.
1 Like
The CD playing through PST still sounded superior to the same ripped files playing through SSD of Euphony Summus 2 server. Both are connected to DS by the I2S connections; the AQ Dragon48 is used for PST and AQ Firebird48 is used for the server. Euphony is connected to an Orbi satellite with a SoTM Cat7 LAN Isolator in between. The ethernet between isolator and server is a SoTM Cat7 cable too. So, the costs between the two digial sources are close.
The SSD file sounded more analog, but it lacked inner details of the CD. It certainly sounded better than Bridge II. I do not know how much more I can improve on my streaming chain other than hard-wired to the router on a different floor, and I doubt if that will be an improvement. From what I read there is no consensus that one way is for sure better than the other.
I use dBpoweramp software for ripping, and I always select FLAC at the highest level 8. I wonder if ripping through computer may be the weak link. I will try an Akiko USB stick to see if it makes any improvement later.
4 Likes
Should you go hard wired, consider fiber optic, not Toslink.
3 Likes
I would suggest you stop using level 8 and drop down to level 4.
I stopped ripping to FLAC entirely and now rip to AIFF. File size is much larger but it sounds a bit better. A bit.
7 Likes
I really like AIFF, and the hi-res downloads from Qobuz sound the best in AIFF files to me. Why didn’t I think of ripping the CDs into AIFF? Thanks for the tip, I will start replacing my files from FLAC to AIFF. Everything matters!
4 Likes
I am totally guessing but I believe AIFF is Apples version of WAV. They are the same size files but AIFF allows proper tagging.
2 Likes
You are absolutely correct, AIFF and WAV files are the exact size and you can tag it. AIFF has been my preferred format since I found that out FLAC is not what they claim to be in SQ by intensive comparisons.
1 Like
The AIFF always sounded preferable to me when I downloaded music files in comparison to others.
(Edit, I just said it already, didn’t I? well, it is worth repeating).
1 Like
You are the reason I switched to AIFF.
1 Like
I don’t think I have compared FLAC and AIFF.
More to do. My list is long.
1 Like
if you don’t compare, you won’t feel compelled to re-rip your entire collection.
I’m not gonna do it, I’m just not!
5 Likes
Good read. According to this FLAC is NOT lossless… then why have the L in FLAC
4 Likes
Nice read! When I download QOBUZ files, the AIFF is obviously better than FLAC in SQ because the original size is larger. It will be interesting to see if CD ripping will make a difference since the original is much smaller in size.
I’ll start with a couple of favorites first to decide if I want to replace my entire FLAC files with AIFF (only a few hundred albums so far).
Somewhat misleading article - it doesn’t make clear that FLAC files are also lossless.
Convert an AIFF into a FLAC, and then convert the FLAC back into an AIFF and you will have the same bits as the source AIFF, but the article is written as if the FLAC file has bits missing like an MP3.
A FLAC file, when played back, may have increased noise, but only because the hardware is generating noise from the extra processing of uncompressing the FLAC file before playing it, however this is very equipment and implementation dependent.
3 Likes
Not true, see my response above.
FLAC is not MP3 (or anything like it).
1 Like
This is supposed to be NOT true. “Free Lossless Audio Codec” is what FLAC stands for. I have been under the impression that it is truly lossless. AIFF was used before but its large since zero compression. If FLAC is lossless it should be same output as AIFF in the bitstream. If it is not, according this one article it is not, then AIFF would sound better because it is lossless with less compression.
FLAC was supposed to be the go to format for easy streaming and ripping and NAS storage etc.. But if this is true I can see why people say its better when played a good transport. I am going to do some poking around the internet. Of course its not true just because its on the internet (unless its this forum..lol), but if all experts agree its not truly lossless than what a waste of time people have been doing if they care (aka Audiophiles)
1 Like