I have read the NODE has a less capable DAC but if I can only use the digital output between my streamer and Phantoms it is worthless to invest in an external DAC. If that is the case then maybe I can save some money and use a streamer like Bluesound NODE instead. The DAC on the Phantom will be used after it has provided by a digital source. That way the DAC of the streamer won't do anything in terms of help to get better sound. Is this because of the Reactors are being used analog and the DAC of the Cambridge is being used (including upsampling and things like that)? In my opinion the Phantom 1s will only be connected via an optical link and therefor the digital output from the streamer will be used. ![]() What I do not understand at the moment is that John mentions a difference in sound quality now that he's using the Cambridge CXN. I connect the TV via optical and use Spotify Hifi for music streaming.įor now I am still looking to use a streamer. If they do ánd Devialet will be able to use this via Spotify Connect then the extra streamer might not be necessary. I know the buzz about them getting there but it still is very quite around upgrading the quality. There is no question for me to be using a streamer for transporting radio, tv sound and streaming music for as long Spotify is not going to deliver at least CD quality. I will 'only' be using 2 Phantoms and not the enormous amount of devices you seem to be using. ![]() The challenge is that using DOS2, the phantoms volume gets reset periodically, so you'll need to use the app to reset it. now the family uses a single remote to watch TV, play music and control the volume.īefore Dante, I was using a Sonos connect to control a pair of phantoms and found that to be a good option as well. Hence my migration to Dante and integrating my Anthem, JBL and Symetrix receivers with Savant. My wife was literally going to throw every phantom out of the house because she couldn't deal with switching apps for volume control. Also Devialet app vs an app like blueOS or StreamMagic makes them listening to music way more often because user experience is not just a tiny bit better (at least for us) Given that both the CXN (v2) and CXA81 are roughly the same price, and often paired together it is our recommendation that potential customers consider pairing the CXN (v2) with one of Cambridge’s other integrated amplifiers over the Cambridge CXA81.(3, 00:35)njaiswal Wrote: (2, 10:09)fLexOdder Wrote: Using a streamer makes it more usable to the others completing my household. The Wolfsen DACs inside the CXN (v2) proved to be a far better than the ESS Sabre DACs located in the CXA81. CXN V2 vs CXA81Īs a DAC for other connected components, the CXN (v2) proved superior to Cambridge’s own CXA81 integrated amplifier which itself has a built-in DAC. But if you prefer to get up close and personal with your equipment (as I often do) you can control the Cambridge using the front mounted controls and color display. The included remote is good, well built and easy enough to understand, but power users of the CXN (v2) will likely ditch it (the remote) in favor of the App. ![]() The App lets you take full control of the CXN (v2) and all of its higher functionality and acts, more or less, as a replacement remote. While the CXN (v2) does have a largish, full-color screen on its front panel, for best results you’ll likely find yourself controlling the Cambridge via Cambridge’s own Audio Stream Magic App.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |