well how much do you want to spend? do you have a computer that you could use as a transport? if so you may want a DAC with a USB input. I'm sure many here will have some recommendations on a DAC for you. good luck...

Both your phone and iPod have an internal DAC, and so normally they output an analog signal. That is why you can currently use the analog input of your receiver. There are iPod dock/DAC type devices on the market that can extract a digital signal from the iPod, and these can either incorporate a DAC, or feed the digital signal to an external DAC. I haven't checked in a couple years, so can't recommend any current products. The Wadia 170i transport was one of the first popular solutions a few years ago, but there are smaller and or more affordable units available now. I see a number of i-something products in a quick search.

With the phone, I think you need one with USB audio output to feed a digital signal to a USB capable DAC, but I don't have a lot of practical knowledge in this area with phones, and would have to google "smartphone digital audio out"

A laptop as source commonly uses the USB output to a USB DAC.

Does your receiver have digital inputs and DAC? If you could get coaxial or optical output from your phone/iPod maybe plug in to receivers DAC?

Sorry I can't help with step by step instructions at this time, because there are a few ways you could go.

Whether or not it's worth going to the trouble of incorporating a better DAC depends, in my mind, on whether your receiver and speakers are up to the job of allowing an improved source to show its stuff. More importantly, iTunes downloads, and Pandora use compressed lossy formats, so high quality music files are addressed before any upgrades are considered.

...it is not ideal because you would have two amplification stages. and yes, you were correct...the order would go 1) CD player to 2) pre amp to 3) amp to 4) speakers.

Audio Quest DragonFly V2. $149 Run it from your computer to you line in on input. Sound cannot be beat for the price

re-download everything, and/or rip CD's to your computer- using a lossless format of course, I use WAV files (to supplement your new apple lossless downloads.)

The guys above are correct that when audio exits an iPhone or iPod via the headphone jack it is analog. If you stream via AirPlay or you connect the iDevice via USB it will be a digital signal.

Have you considered a Network Player like a Marantz NA6005 at $649? It serve as exceptional external DAC, is AirPlay enabled, connects to your home network via Wi-Fi, will function as a Wi-Fi enabled UPnP or DLNA device and will stream spotify directly from the unit. This feels like an easier, more functional solution. I have an older Marantz network player and have a new M-CR510 network receiver and love them.

Although the Dragonfly is awesome, you are stuck streaming off of a laptop and you are tethered to your system. I find this to be inconvenient and prefer being able to stream directly off of my iPhone or iPad or if I choose to stream off of my PC, the unit is wireless meaning I am not tethered.

Incidentally, I have directly tested an analog cable out from an iPhone vs. the internal DACs on my network player and the network receiver. The difference in clarity is rather extraordinary. IMO, the Marantz will perform as well if not better than the Dragonfly, Peachtree DAC iTx or Cambridge DAC Magic. It is more expensive, but in my opinion is a more elegant and superior solution.

Also, you are correct that if you have a 256 AAC and convert to an ALAC file, you will not see an improvement in clarity. You will need to re-convert from CD or buy lossless tracks moving forward.

when the file is compressed, the portion that is compressed to create the smaller file is eliminated. When you convert to ALAC, you are creating a 256kbps lossless file. no up scaling occurs. The only thing I have seen that "upscales" lossy files is Marantz's M-DAX technology. if you are playing a lossless file, you would turn it off. If you are playing 256kbps files, setting it to low is ideal, 192kbps set to medium and 128kbps set to high. It isn't retrieving the lost data but guessing what the lost data should be similar to video upscaling. It is not perfect and purists will complain about it, but i find it improves the sound of my older files.

One other note, a superior DAC is going to make 256kbps sound better. That Dragonfly is superior to the DAC you would find in an iPod. If you don't mind being tethered, I don't think you can top it. I will say, you should get a high quality cable with it. This is extra important for the type of cable - headphone to RCA. AudioQuest's Golden Gate line would be ideal.

Your interpretation of 256kbps to ALAC is spot on. You will be shocked at how much better it will sound through a better DAC though. There will be a surprising level of crispness through the Dragonfly.

I can't answer whether it is worth stepping up to the Big Sur line. For a regular RCA, I would say no, but this is a little different. This is all about the stereo plug. If the plug is the same between those two cables, I would get the golden gate. If the plug in the big sur cable is a step forward, i would get the big sur.

In this situation, I can comment that with the level of source material being spoken about; as well as the source itself, I can honestly suggest to save the money and buy the cheaper of the two AudioQuest cables... I myself am extremely happy with the performance of my AudioQuest Rocket 33 speaker cables and King Cobra (discontinued) XLR interconnect. They both fall within what I would consider AudioQuest's "budget" level... which is still waaaayyy better than most cabling out there!

Further, my source music is in 44/16 up to 192/24.... and I am very happy with the level of cabling I decided on. I'm not trying to sound "superior"...just trying in fact to be modest and maybe save you some money.

Good luck with whichever direction you go. One thing to consider when buying the cables is if you intend on significantly upgrading the source and DAC in the future...if so, and if you already know the new, upgraded products will have the same interfaces (1/8" stereo to RCA) then maybe the pricier and slightly better performing cables should be purchased.

This hobby is constantly a debate of quality for each person's setup vs. budget from what I can tell. And I was actually very skeptical of buying in my case $420 worth of cables!??! but they really did make a significant difference, and they are the more moderately priced of Audioquest's line... Best of luck!

Note: I've also read in various sources guidelines that say one should allocate 10% of your budget to cables. In my case, this was spot on. I have roughly $4,000 in audio gear, and spent $420 on cabling.

There is no benefit to premium XLR cables. The fact that an XLR cable has a positive, a negative and a ground ensures that no current will ever flow along the shield creating the ground loop or common-mode issues that you get with unbalanced cables. So long as an XLR cable is made of oxygen free copper and is properly shielded it will perform perfectly.

With unbalanced cables, it is much more difficult and that is why we look for more expensive cables. Here is an excerpt from an article on audioholics.

Second, we want to minimize the resistance of the interconnecting cable shields. Use cables with a copper braid (or even spiral copper) shield instead of a foil shield. Use cables with the heaviest shield possible, or with double shields in order to minimize cable shield resistance. Do not use cables with aluminum foil shields, since their resistances are much higher. (Note: A foil-braid combination shield is fine, as long as the low resistance copper braid is present). Also keep cables as short as possible, since this will also reduce the total shield resistance.

Here is a link to the full article.

http://www.audioholics.com/audio-video-cables/balanced-vs-unbalanced-interconnects

This is why I advocate paying for premium RCA cables but would tell you to find inexpensive XLR cables. This is largely non-controversial. Where you get serious controversy is silver vs. copper in unbalanced cables.

Speaker wire is a different story. Far more controversial. I don't want to offer an opinion on speaker wire as it is a debate I don't want to engage in.

I think that is a wise decision. Especially given what I would consider to be a unique challenge of the length of cable runs you require. If this were my system and my money, that alone justifies stepping down just one rung to the Golden Gates. They look very similar in construction to my Rocket 33's and King Cobras, and I couldn't be happier. If you buy them from Music Direct, and they do NOT bring a noticeable improvement to your system, you can always return them. (I'm not affiliated with Music Direct).

No worries... my original answer still stands. However, if the price difference between the two sets of cables is small, very few people regret buying a little over-spec than under-spec. Also, take into account if you plan on upgrading the components being connected in the future. If not, then just get the lesser spec. They are about what my cables are from AudioQuest, and I am very happy with them in my Creek, PS Audio, Epos Epic 2 setup.