Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Not 'necessary', but it does help an outboard DAC to approach the
quality of a one-box player. generally, much better to buy a better
player than to use an outboard DAC for CD replay.

Judging by the prices that DACs are going for, I'm thinking that this would
be a good improvement over the existing setup for less than the cost of a
comparable player. My mate's £500 Arcam player has quickly established
itself as something of a benchmark - I'd like to approach, or improve on,
that sort of quality if feasible. My thinking is that, when my existing
player starts to bite the dust, I could look at getting a transport that can
take a timing signal from a DAC. Is it a standard signal for all (most?)
transports/DACs, or is it rather proprietary?


I'm sure an oscilloscope is a much cheaper approach... ;-)

Actually, he's being coy. 'Better kit' in this case most certainly
does *not* include DACs which can't suppress jitter in the datastream,
but they certainly cost a lot of money, and they do sound bad! :-)

Do you mean DACs that use a sync signal to control jitter, as opposed to
those which can take a raw datastream and make the best (or better) of it?
Would a DAC which has a sync output and a bunch of oversampling be the right
thing to go chasing after?


As noted, try Meridian DACs - they sound good and they do a good job
of suppressing jitter. I'm not sure that you'll notice much difference
between the original 203 and the later models, as they always had the
engineering pretty well spot on.

Duly noted.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)