wiimamp user
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2024
- Messages
- 533
But if you want to use the dac of the cd player you will have to use analog in?
Because..when you spend lets say 500 Euros i think you want to use the dac in the cd player and can that be better then the dac of a amp? Because when you use the optical in the dac of the cd player gets bypassed.
Yes its about clock,dac,jitter,transport and so on but i think we may not forget that the disc itself is only storing data isnt it?
So where is the difference when ripping a cd, blu ray to a hard drive? If one says there is a difference you could also say the playback from a 'expensive, blu ray player can produce a better picture then playing the same data( from the disc) from a hard drive with _ lets say_ the Nvidea Shield..
How can there be a difference? If you compare i think you must listen to the same music, master.. dont you think? I mean when listening to the cd or playing it from a HDD. So that you ripped the cd in high quality on a hard drive, usb stick.
Im no expert on this maybe it is better but its good to have a discussion on this i think..maybe to agree to disagree but with having respect for each opinions. Again i dont have a good cd player..im no expert and dont have the opportunity to compare a properly ripped cd with a good cd player.
So who am i to say it isnt better.. but a decent discussion on the subject is a good thing i think. The essential question is: Is a cd,br player better then when playing the data stored on a disc( Film,audio) _ripped properly without data loss_ transfered a hard drive , and playing it on a very good mediaplayer(Nvidea Shield for instance) or DAC, AMP( audio).
Ripping of audio needs to be done properly for instance with EAC. I someone hasn,t ripped the data properly you cant compare it i would say. It has to be ripped accurately that obvious i think. 'Excact Uccurate rip' has to be in use when choosing EAC.
That why i say..illegal downloading is still in place its naive to think its not. I want to pay and support the artists.
Why not offering downloads in high quality in stead of the physical media. Yes illegal downloading is still there but it always has been and still a BR or CD can be ripped and ripped properly without loss of quality.
If they would provide good quality with payed downloading with the artist booklets and so on ..i would pay for it. Maybe _ if possible_ i a better quality then a cd could provide. Yes a cd is a sweet spot but if you can provide , better, why not providing the best as possible.
Its to simple you wont hear a difference..that my personal opinion.
I would never download but pay and support...how could you pull in the younger generation with physical media? I think you could pull them in...and some will pay for good hardware acchieving excellent sound. But staying with physical media i think its a problem..
Because..when you spend lets say 500 Euros i think you want to use the dac in the cd player and can that be better then the dac of a amp? Because when you use the optical in the dac of the cd player gets bypassed.
Yes its about clock,dac,jitter,transport and so on but i think we may not forget that the disc itself is only storing data isnt it?
So where is the difference when ripping a cd, blu ray to a hard drive? If one says there is a difference you could also say the playback from a 'expensive, blu ray player can produce a better picture then playing the same data( from the disc) from a hard drive with _ lets say_ the Nvidea Shield..
How can there be a difference? If you compare i think you must listen to the same music, master.. dont you think? I mean when listening to the cd or playing it from a HDD. So that you ripped the cd in high quality on a hard drive, usb stick.
Im no expert on this maybe it is better but its good to have a discussion on this i think..maybe to agree to disagree but with having respect for each opinions. Again i dont have a good cd player..im no expert and dont have the opportunity to compare a properly ripped cd with a good cd player.
So who am i to say it isnt better.. but a decent discussion on the subject is a good thing i think. The essential question is: Is a cd,br player better then when playing the data stored on a disc( Film,audio) _ripped properly without data loss_ transfered a hard drive , and playing it on a very good mediaplayer(Nvidea Shield for instance) or DAC, AMP( audio).
Ripping of audio needs to be done properly for instance with EAC. I someone hasn,t ripped the data properly you cant compare it i would say. It has to be ripped accurately that obvious i think. 'Excact Uccurate rip' has to be in use when choosing EAC.
That why i say..illegal downloading is still in place its naive to think its not. I want to pay and support the artists.
Why not offering downloads in high quality in stead of the physical media. Yes illegal downloading is still there but it always has been and still a BR or CD can be ripped and ripped properly without loss of quality.
If they would provide good quality with payed downloading with the artist booklets and so on ..i would pay for it. Maybe _ if possible_ i a better quality then a cd could provide. Yes a cd is a sweet spot but if you can provide , better, why not providing the best as possible.
Its to simple you wont hear a difference..that my personal opinion.
I would never download but pay and support...how could you pull in the younger generation with physical media? I think you could pull them in...and some will pay for good hardware acchieving excellent sound. But staying with physical media i think its a problem..
Last edited:
That said it was 1000 back in the day and the quality of the transport is impressive. It also weighs a good 15 lbs so a lot goes into isolation, transport stability and an improved power supply and clock. So it’s a relatively expensive from an engineering and parts perspective. 
