advice on a network player that I am considering (cambridge audio)

[moves]

So the product is the stream magic 6 up sampling network music player and this can be found at Stream Magic 6 - Upsampling Network Music Player for Audio Streaming



I heard this in action the other day and it sounded great. The 20k plus internet radio stations are awesome and are all great sounding (better than CD due to the up sampling).

The box can serve as a pre amp, a DAC, and great for streaming your music.

My question is, does the up sampling really work and does it sound better?

Another question is about HD music from sites such as HDtracks.com. If you but an album at 96khz/24 bit, then why would you need to upscale it? or would you?... I am little new to this as you can tell. Also, doesn't a DAC do the upscaling? Isn't that the purpose of a DAC?

 

[moves]

Really interesting read here on digital music: http://www.hdtracks.com/media/files/ComputerAudio_Demystified.pdf

 

[Lulimet]

The 20k plus internet radio stations are awesome and are all great sounding (better than CD due to the up sampling).

Internet radio streaming 64kbps-128kbps sounds better than CD because it's upsampled by the player?

I hope you are not drinking that Kool-Aid.

 

[moves]

Internet radio streaming 64kbps-128kbps sounds better than CD because it's upsampled by the player?

I hope you are not drinking that Kool-Aid.

please explain

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

please explain

Upsampling vs. Oversampling for Digital Audio | Audioholics

 

[moves]

Thanks for the link but that makes absolutely nooooo sense to me.

 

[moves]

Internet radio streaming 64kbps-128kbps sounds better than CD because it's upsampled by the player?

I hope you are not drinking that Kool-Aid.

Ok I get that that makes sense......... I just read that its the bit rate that makes a diff (16 to 24) and not so much the number of times the files gets accessed.

 

[PENG]

Thanks for the link but that makes absolutely nooooo sense to me.

I think the writer assumes readers of that article know enough math, and electrical theories including the Nyquist. Their are other Googleable articles that explain similar stuff in more understanable ways.

 

[moves]

but but back to the hardware... what do you guys think?

 

[PENG]

Ok I get that that makes sense......... I just read that its the bit rate that makes a diff (16 to 24) and not so much the number of times the files gets accessed.

This 24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed link has been posted before and is probably easy to follow by most people.

In my own experience, it is better to focus on the recording/mastering quality of a CD or digital file than the sampling and bit rates. I have 24/192 files from HDtracks.com that sound worse than my CDs and vinyls. I also have some SACDs that don't sound that good at all. I no longer go by the sample rates and bit rates, but focus on the sound quality if the media, if it is just a 44.1/16 CD or digital file so be it, it is still lossless. I wouldn't go below that though.

 

[PENG]

but but back to the hardware... what do you guys think?

If fail to see what it can do that a mid range AVR cannot do. Just for fun I have set up a little netbook (mini laptop) with Foobar to use with a Cambridge Audio USB DacMagic XS to stream everything from MP3 to 24/192 and it sounds just as good as my Oppo 105. I am still going to get the HA-1 but again just for fun with no expectation of better SQ. YMMV.

 

[moves]

Hey thanks for your reply. You cant tell the diff between mp3 and 24/193?

 

[PENG]

Hey thanks for your reply. You cant tell the diff between mp3 and 24/193?

Unfortunately I can easily tell the difference between the best 256 kbps MP3 and 44.1/16. That's why I would not go below 44.1/16, i.e. CD quality is the minimum. Once you get to CD quality though, nothing else seems to matter, after that it is all to do with the recording/mastering of the media, and your speakers. The sample/bit rates will no longer be the bottleneck.

 

[moves]

Unfortunately I can easily tell the difference between the best 256 kbps MP3 and 44.1/16. That's why I would not go below 44.1/16, i.e. CD quality is the minimum. Once you get to CD quality though, nothing else seems to matter, after that it is all to do with the recording/mastering of the media, and your speakers. The sample/bit rates will no longer be the bottleneck.

hmmmm interesting. I just converted a couple of files in iTunes from AAC to AIFF and I had a hard time telling the difference. however, iTunes only lets you upscale to 16 bit.

I did really like the fact that this component offers the USB option to stick in some hi res files and the internet radio is a nice feature as well. And the fact that it offers a better DAC than my Pioneer SC27.

Do you know of any other good ways to get internet radio? I like the fact that this box also comes with the iPad app so you can control the interface this way.

 

[moves]

188 views someone must have some more input on this.

 

[PENG]

hmmmm interesting. I just converted a couple of files in iTunes from AAC to AIFF and I had a hard time telling the difference. however, iTunes only lets you upscale to 16 bit.

I did really like the fact that this component offers the USB option to stick in some hi res files and the internet radio is a nice feature as well. And the fact that it offers a better DAC than my Pioneer SC27.

Do you know of any other good ways to get internet radio? I like the fact that this box also comes with the iPad app so you can control the interface this way.

I am really confused now, I thought the SC27 can do network streaming via Ethernet, internet radio, play music stored in USB memory thumb drive and made for iPod/iPhone/iPad etc. It also has the same DAC (Wolfson 8740) as the CA network player you are considering.

Again, what is it that the CA player can do that your SC27 cannot do? I am sure there are a few but do you really need those features. It seems me to if you have the SC27, that CA network streamer/preamp does not add much extras for $700, most likely no audible sound quality improvements anyway.

 

[moves]

I am really confused now, I thought the SC27 can do network streaming via Ethernet, internet radio, play music stored in USB memory thumb drive and made for iPod/iPhone/iPad etc. It also has the same DAC (Wolfson 8740) as the CA network player you are considering.

Again, what is it that the CA player can do that your SC27 cannot do? I am sure there are a few but do you really need those features. It seems me to if you have the SC27, that CA network streamer/preamp does not add much extras for $700, most likely no audible sound quality improvements anyway.

Hey thanks for paying attention to this. I noticed the same DACs as well. The CA has 2 of them though.... why would there be 2 DACs in the CA and not the Pioneer? Regarding the internet radio on the pio, I find seriusXM radio a little expensive.

 

[PENG]

Hey thanks for paying attention to this. I noticed the same DACs as well. The CA has 2 of them though.... why would there be 2 DACs in the CA and not the Pioneer? Regarding the internet radio on the pio, I find seriusXM radio a little expensive.

It has balanced output so they probably use one for RCA output and a separate one for the XLR balanced output but I am just guessing. You should email them for an official answer.

 

[moves]

Hmmm good point!

Going back to upsampling topic for a second, I demo listened to this: Time Out - Jazz Bestsellers | HDtracks - The World's Greatest-Sounding Music Downloads on HD tracks and then on itunes and noticed a difference. I noticed the version on itunes was louder and more tinier while the version on HD tracks was not as loud but a little bit more detailed.