ā¦
This topic is probably better served in a different discussionā¦
Yes, Iām taking us off topic as usual. Iāve seen that the average person cannot reliably discern any difference between cd quality and hi-rez test material.
Good to know what brands of the new CHI-FI products are trustworthy, thanks
ā¦
Itās the difference between āactive listeningā and āpassive listeningāā¦ Most are āpassiveā, so it all sounds good to themā¦ Iām starting to see Chi-Fi as the new force in inexpensive high-quality audio components with unique designā¦ The little Douk headphone amp takes 5v DC and upās the current on high-quality components, with the ability to swap-out the Op-amp to tasteā¦ They have the know-how and the supply chainā¦
Note: I use 5v battery power to power the little Douk HPA and the HPA power-supply has a robust reserve of capacitanceā¦
I realise that this discussion has moved on but, just to be clear:
I specifically did not suggest an outboard DAC. I gave detailed reasons for this, by which I stand.
What I specifically did suggest was that the OP use Bluetooth. Again, I gave detailed reasons for this, by which I also still stand.
Your pontifications on using the Toslink input to the Ruarks because they would then receive high-res signals are utterly beside the point here.
Even if the OP were actually to encounter such files in real life they would still be going through the Ruarksā DAC, amplifier and speakers, none of which are capable of resolving such differences to the listener to any meaningful extent.
Remember that weāre talking about a pair of Ā£350 bluetooth speakers here, not some high-end and ultimately resolving electrostatics on the end of esoteric amplifiers costing many thousands of magic beans.
The Ruarksā DAC, amps and speakers are a system. They have been designed and built to a price, certainly, but they have been designed and built to work together well.
Trying to out-game them by pumping higher-resolution signals into them than they are capable of resolving themselves will be a fruitless exercise.
It would be like taking a Ford Focus (a perfectly good car) and wasting money attempting to make it do what it cannot by filling it with insanely expensive fuel, changing the seatbelts and putting Pirelli P Zero Corsas on the wheels.
Weāre talking about very real-world stuff here.
And, just to reiterate my sentiments from my earlier post:
The Ruark MR1 mkII are very good indeed for the money and for their size. Seriously, smile-inducingly good.
They are worth every single penny of their price. They will make fantastic and involving music exactly as they are, without any additional expenditure on converter boxes or fancy cables (both of which would be a complete waste of money in this instance), and Iām sure they will make the OP very happy.
1 Like
Ah, you hadnāt mentioned your Rega in your original post!
In that case, and as you have since concluded, your options are simple, cheap and obvious: Analogue 3.5mm minijack input for your Regaās built-in phono stage (with an appropriate Phono > minijack cable) and Bluetooth for your MAC.
That would leave you the Toslink digital input for something like a TV, if you should happen to want that.
Donāt spend any more money on cables or equipment for now, but spend what you will have saved on music instead.
You have a system that is very well balanced and cost-effective, and I think youāre going to love it!
Congratulations! 
1 Like
Best advice ^ ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦ā¦.Now start saving up for the KEF LS60ās
ā¦
@Sionyn My apologyā¦ My mistakeā¦ I missed quoted you, regarding your set-up.
@Sionynā¦ The Ruark designers provided a 24/192kHz DAC in this systemā¦ It is most likely not an after-thoughtā¦ The size and power of the MR1ās is irrelevantā¦ Itās the quality of the sound being purveyed by the system and the listenerās appreciation of the contextual playback qualityā¦ I highly doubt the system is bandwidth limitedā¦ only in contextual scale and within the limitations of the transducer response characteristics and amplifier synergiesā¦
My headphones have single 50mm transducers powered by a 1400mW per-channel class A amplifier into approximately 32 Ohms and I hear very nuanced and dynamic playback quality, that allows me to discern intimate micro-dynamics, and subtle contextual stereo relationships and spatialization in DXDxxx and DSDxxxā¦
Yes, a large speaker produces a larger āscaleā than a small speaker or headphonesā¦ but it is not a given that the large speaker and playback system configuration sounds ābetterāā¦ The subjectiveness of the appreciation of these things is intrinsically tied to subjective contextual interpretations and the listening/playback scenarioā¦
I completely understand this system could just be a background noise-makerā¦ Why not allow them to produce music as the designers most likely wanted them to be heard, primarily, via TOSLINKā¦ My bet is, this is why the designers compromised by employing aptX and a 3.5mm AUX jackā¦ In the case of the AUX input in concert with an outboard DAC, the system can support higher-resolution playback if the playback scenario demands these formats like DXDxxx and DSDxxx.
Yeah, but Bluetooth should also be perfectly fine for such device. Tosling is there to hook up TV to the system.
I donāt think they were thinking about external DAC and DSD when they added AUX input. Itās more to hook up external streamer like Chromecast or similar.
If you want to use the Toslink, I would try to find a streamer that is compatible with Audirvana/UPnP. Maybe even RPi based solution or WiiM streamer.
Iām building the Andrea Doria, Out of balsa wood
ā¦
What āTVā produces Hi-Resolution 24/192kHz audio signalsā¦ ? The only video system that I can think of is a disc player like Blu-ray or DVD, DVD-A, CDā¦ The 3.5mm AUX input would make the most sense for a TV connection or a turntable, etcā¦
In the context of using Audirvana Studio, where lower resolution PCM files can be up-converted to 24/176.4kHz or 24/192kHz the TOSLINK input comes into playā¦
Please, donāt tell me that this Ruark system (given itās scale) is incapable of reproducing the added detail and dynamics resolved by 24/176.4kHz or 24/192kHz with or without an added powered subwooferā¦ And please donāt allude that aptX Bluetooth is equal to the level of 24/176.4kHz or 192kHz resolution as it is implemented in these speakersā¦
I wonāt. You get this capability just because the DAC chip supports it, not because they were actively pursuing Hi-Res reproduction.
ā¦
My question would be then: āWhy design a DAC into the system, if it is superfluous?ā Or should I say: āWhy include a TOSLINK input if it is superfluous?ā
They need a DAC because they have Bluetooth capability. They need to convert it to analog to feed the signal into the class A/B amp.
ā¦
Yesā¦ this is why I edited my last response to question the TOSLINK connection in the designā¦ Since the DAC is capable of 24/176.4k or 24/192kHz playback, why not exploit itās capabilities by virtue of the up-conversion capabilities of Audirvana Studio?
You keep forgetting weāre talking about a mono Bluetooth speaker. Itās a higher end Bluetooth speaker, I give you that, but letās not exaggerate.
The TOSLINK is there to be able to use it as soundbar replacement with your TV, especially if you get a stereo pair. I think Iāve even seen a picture of this in some of their marketing material.
ā¦
Iāve been operating under the impression that this is a stereo-pair configurationā¦
All of your theorized ideas hold no empirical evidence. Everyone knows that Bluetooth is great. Perhaps you should order a set of these fine speakers and produce some solid data to support your mega output of wag. Perhaps modify them to run with a nice pair of Pass Labs monoblocks or Dan Agostinoās so you can extract the maximum potential.
On the other handā¦ā¦ā¦.
ā¦
Iām going with the statements from @Sionyn regarding the playback quality (given the scale of the system)ā¦
I suppose we could apply the same logical comparison to a system employing KEF LS60ās in regard to playback scaleā¦
You can buy either a single speaker or a pair:
Iāve a feeling this thread isnāt going to end well 
5 Likes