|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.223.64.152
Here are some preliminary observations concerning my search for an improved digital source.
Recall my goal was to find a single box that would serve as a CD/SACD player and a DAC to which I could connect our Macintosh network. My hope is to eventually get to the point where digital sources rival my vinyl setup.
I decided to try the Marantz SA 14S1. It arrived three days ago, and I've spent a couple of hours a day since then listening. Everything works, including the optical and USB inputs, fed from a Macintosh (no driver issues). The controls are not as nice as those of my older Onkyo (the twist dials on the latter are more convenient for searching through tracks than the pushbutton on the Marantz, for example.) The sound seems better, but I'm not yet sure how much. CD's sound good, SACD's excellent, and the DAC (through the optical link) does seem better than the DAC in the Airport Express I had been using. Some details, and a question, follow:
1. Key session: Lorin Maazel's recording of Ravel's l"Enfant et les Sortileges (DG):
This sounds wonderful on LP, with a tremendous sense of space, separation of the different voices and instruments, and beautiful soprano solos. My old CD player sounded okay but lacked the depth and excitement of the LP. Here the Marantz seemed to do very well: the separation and space were there, and the voices sounded beautiful, especially with Filter 2 place.
2. Key session: Patricia Barber SACD's:
I listened to Modern Cool, Distortion of Love, and some of Smash and Cafe Blue. The first two were very impressive on SACD, especially Distortion of Love. Probably these rival the LP recordings I have, and the Distortion of Love SACD may be even better. Smash, perhaps was a bit dry. Cafe Blue is "unmastered" so an unfair comparison.
So far, my thoughts were that the Marantz is a worthwhile upgrade.
3. Key session: Kind of Blue, CD.
A disappointment. I have several LP pressings of this, and they sound simply fantastic on my system, with stunning focus, presence, and musical detail that grabs every bit of your attention. The CD sounded okay but not nearly as good as the LP. I have ordered an SACD version of this disk to see if it matches my vinyl experience.
4. Key session. Hand Eye, performed by Eight Blackbird, CD. Contemporary music.This sounded very good, dynamic, sweet and extended highs, quite exciting. Possiblymore detail and space than I had on the Onkyo, but not a game changer, since the Onkyo wasn't bad either.
So here is my question. Can people with good digital and vinyl equipment comment on
the sound of Kind of Blue in CD vs LP (and maybe vs SACD as well)? Am i wrong to expect
the similar kind of involvement from digital sources as I get from vinyl? My current view is that it depends on the disc(s), so I especially interested in specific comparisons about these discs in particular.
Some people are recommending that I send back the Marantz and get an Oppo and external DAC for the same price. But I would prefer a single box, at least for now, if possible.
Follow Ups:
I can't comment on the vinyl of "Kind of Blue" because I don't have it, but I do have the 1997 20 bit version on CD and the track "So What" on a Sony SACD sampler. In comparing that track on both CD and SACD, I can say that the SACD is superior to my ears. It is smoother and less shrill on the top end with a better sense of body. How that may compare to the vinyl, I don't know, but higher the resolution digital is very good.
MP-D1 Tube DAC. I'm using the Pioneer as a Transport and this combo is really good. The platter stability has really helped out. Very natural decay now. Just enjoy real nice music from my CD player and DAC. Sounds like a very expensive setup now.
Try an Audio Note DAC (preferably 3.1xII) and if you can with the new silver resistors with silver end caps) as there is some big buzz by ears I trust on them. But it's $10 grand. The Dac 0.1X though is an overachiever for $1800 list and is quite good but you have to run it from the coax - the USB DAC board is a bit of a throw in from days of yesteryear.
I still don't think it will compete with the best vinyl rigs but it helps when a guy who has 30,000+ LPS and is an absolute vinyl guy is the guy building digital instead of computer guys who build dacs based on graphs they read on computer screens and probably have never heard a good LP system in their life.
The real key for getting the digital sound right, for me, was going to a dac with the old-fashioned converter - in particular the UA 20400. It is a long-standing 'discussion' here about modern vs old, but to me the old sounds like music, while the new does not. My DAC has 2 of the UA20400 in parallel, and if you can listen a STAX or Counterpoint DAC, or something similar, in a good system, then your solution might be at hand. As with all things, it is a matter of taste and synergy with your system. It sounds like your DAC choice does not have you really close, and only requires a bit of fine tuning. Perhaps a different solution is in order, depending on how serious you are. I think you might be quite stunned by the musicality of the UA 20400.
Regards -- Roger
[So here is my question. Can people with good digital and vinyl equipment comment on
the sound of Kind of Blue in CD vs LP (and maybe vs SACD as well)? Am i wrong to expect
the similar kind of involvement from digital sources as I get from vinyl?]That, my friend, has probably been the primary question about digital playback over the past 30+ years! You're not wrong to expect at least vinyl's level musical involvement, however, you may continue to be disappointed by the present state of digital - although digital playback does continue to progress closer to that end.
As someone who experiments with his own DAC designs, I'm currently of the opinion that the music is actually captured there, locked inside your existing CDs. That's the good news. The bad news is, it seems that the 'trick' with creating involving digital playback is in carefully attending to all of the many seemingly trivial details. DAC physical implementation details are as important as the design details. Just my two cents.
_
Ken Newton
Edits: 06/18/16 06/18/16
What, of the DACs that you have experimented with have given you the most "analog" overall results?
I have/had the following DACs:
Monarchy Audio M22Bse (first serious DAC I bought and a homerun the first time at bat!!) Great soundind DAC with PCM63K chips and a sophisticated I/V conversion (2500uV/sec trans-impedance amp) that is only bettered by passive conversion.
Monarchy Audio M24 DAC: not the current PCM1704 version but the original PCM63 version, which sounds considerably better. Still my main DAC because it has a quite analog like sound quality. No transistors in the circuit at all (passive I/V to a tube SRPP output stage).
Audio Aero Prima DAC: Essentially the Audio Aero Capitole 24/192 cd player without the transport. Tube output stage as well, nice power supply. However, it has that sigma/delta "wispiness" that I find somehow synthetic (it has the Anagram Tech digital filters and AD1853 (I think) DAC chips). I found the Monarchy more correct and sold this even though it was quite nice to listen to for the most part.
Kinergetics Research KCD-55 Ultra: Very rare DAC with two of the Ultra Analog D20400 DAC module. SS output but all discrete. The SS output died and I Lampizated it with their "amber" output stage. This thing does space and solidity very well indeed. Nice DAC both as SS and now Lampizated.
PS Audio Ultralink II: This is using one of the UltraAnalog modules but the later "A" version. It also has the UA AES21 input receiver (at least until it dies...aparently they overheat) and the Pacific Microsonics PMD100 filter (I plan to replace with DF1704). I don't have it yet but I got one cheap so I thought I would try it out. Maybe I will Lampizate it as well if the output stage sucks.
A DAC board from ABC pcb, who seems to have been making the DACs for Audio Aero. It has the Anagramtech S2 digital filter module (an updated version of what was in the AA Prima DAC), 4 dac chips (AD1853s I think) and then some opamps for filter and output stage. I also have the ABC pcb clock that is very advanced and links to the DAC. Power supply is an issue here and probably a culprit in the mediocre and overly bland sound from this setup. Or it could be the multiple opamp outputs...but darn aren't they pretty boards to look at. I will try it again with a better PS sometime soon and see if it helps.
As you can see I gravitated to the R2R ladder DAC sound, particualrly with a tube output stage.
Hi, morricab,
In general, the following are my conclusions after experimenting with DACs of my own design. So, in no particular order:
1. The best sounding I/V circuit I've tried is a simple resistor. This vastly subjectively outperformed the typical op-amp based virtual ground I/V circuits I tried.
2. Power supply common-mode noise rejection makes an audible difference. Meaning, use of common-mode chokes.
3. Digital filtering, or a lack thereof, makes an very audible difference. This isn't to suggest that NOS conversion always sounds best, just that altering the digital filter implementation is very audible. In short, to my ears, NOS does indeed provide a stress free type of sound, yet it also has certain subjective artifacts such as a narrowing of the soundstage width relative to that with digital filtering - although, the soundstage is quite deep via NOS.
4. The analog output reconstruction filter capacitors adversely affect the sound unless they're implemented with care. I'm presently utilizing Wima FKP2 film & foil (not metallized film) units with satisfaction.
5. Regarding, straight multibit conversion versus sigma-delta conversion. I've seen the subjective reports of DSD producing a wispy sound character. While I can't speak about DSD, I've found that the sigma-delta based PCM1794A (a PCM, not a DSD converter) does not have a wispy should character. It produced a sound character every bit as solid sounding as the AD1865 straight multibit converter I've experimented with. I'm presently conducting on-going experiments around the PCM1794A converter.
_
Ken Newton
Which version of the KOB CD do you have? You must avoid the Gold US from 92-93, also the one from 1997 is a crap. Anything from Europe is crap as well. Never buy the FIM version. The best I have is the Japanese DSD version from 2000 (SRCS 9701) and K2 HD+CD version from 2011. For SACD the MoFi is unbeatable.
All KOB versions must sound similar, at least in some ways. So then, what makes one version sound like "crap" and another version sound "unbeatable"?
All of the issues of KOB (including the original LP) prior to 1992 were mastered at the wrong pitch. Also, some of CDs have an alternate take of Flamenco Sketches (which is also absent from the original LP).
.., the one that erik (below) says is "dry and thin" sounding. However, the liner notes say that it was remixed on a tube three track Presto machine and that it has a "rich and full sound", at least compared to all previous releases of KOB, including those on LP.It sounds OK to my ears. I'm really not sure how much richer and fuller it can get than this but what do I know?
Edits: 07/01/16
All KOB versions sound similar in one way - they reproduce the same music. Different masterings sound different. Sonically.
If you want to determine which version is better, first, you have to love the album. I mean that. Not because it's famous, but because it's a masterpiece, and also always remember that it's not an audiophile recording. Then you need to buy three CD versions - 1997 Legacy (dry and thin) very cheap, FIM version (dull, muddy, no air around instruments, shame on Winston Ma) expensive, and Sony K2HD version (very good), again expensive.
If you're lucky enough to have the original vinyl, then it will be easier to compare, because it's a reference point, if not, just play the first three minutes from each CD and see which one you like. I mentioned those three versions, because they're available. If you don't hear any differences between them, then you are a lucky guy, really.
Same comparison is valid for the SACD versions. The latest version is from MoFi, and it's the best - to my ears, and my understanding of music reproduction.
erik-
for CD- I enjoy the 1986 Black Triangle disc from Japan.
I agree that the new MoFi SACD is better than previously released.
My best sounding digital version may be the first one they did (CK 40579, prodiced by Teo Macero who also served as Digital Remax Producer). It has a different Miles photo on the cover than all the others. I was introduced to this one when Pierre Sprey (Mapleshde) and Ron Baumann (inSound) brought it one evening to share with me.
My first thought on seeing it was that it HAD to be awful, given how early it was produced. And of course it was made before they discovered that the original LP side one was recorded at the wrong speed.
Regardless, it's pretty great and only my open reel version (4-track) really beats it, as it beats the first Columbia SACD. I've done 3-day comparisons -- tape, vinyl, SACD -- and the tape always wins. My best sounding LP is the 2-disc "Classic" reissue, the one with a Flamenco Sketches alternatei version at 45 rpm.
It's not so clear to me which CD I have. It says in small print on the back at the bottom:
1997 Sony Music Entertainment.
It also says "Columbia L (legacy) SBM (super bit mapping).
Is this the 1997 one you referred to as "a crap"?
All the vinyl copies I have sound better.
...absolute and complete garbage, at least to my ears.
Let me thank everyone for their input. The MOFI SACD of Kind of Blue arrived, and I have listened to it. It is much better than the CD I had, and perhaps comparable to the vinyl releases that so enthrall me. I don't know if a fancier SACD player and/or DAC would have made the SACD clearly better that the vinyl or not. But at this point I am satisfied enough to keep the the Marantz (SA14S1). It is in general substantially better at playing CD's than my Onkyo, I don't think CD's sound as good (in general) as vinyl on my system, but the SACD's are damn close, and maybe better in some respects.
This Marantz isn't exactly cheap, but neither is it outrageous, and in fact is still only about half the cost of my vinyl rig. Not so expensive that I couldn't consider a separate DAC in the future.
congrats on getting a nice unit.
I can comment on Kind of Blue, the sound is not going to be as good as vinyl. I can't comment on the SACD of that but if you like it perhaps get a good SACD of it and see what you think for giggles. I can recommend a SACD, John Coltrane - A Love Supreme if you are into Jazz, that SACD sounds great to me. I put a link to the track Psalm from that album, it blows me away on SACD. What strikes me as seeing you made the right choice are your comments on Modern Cool and Distortion of Love being right to the height on SACD. As are your comments on Lorin Maazel's recording on CD which you said sounded pretty good for just a CD.
I've got a Yamaha CD-S1000, it sounds really excellent on SACD as it should for close to $1,400 and CD sounds great, I doubt the built in DAC would be as good as a Marantz player in the league you have. I use a separate DAC for my CD playback. If you are serious about that expect to pay around double for what you paid for your player.
With your player I wouldn't recommend getting a separate DAC, and definitely not an Oppo, there is no comparison to Marantz in terms of the levels you have moved up in their line.
I wish you many many years of enjoyment, I would have to say you did great in terms of your search.
I myself have been using digital transports for high res and DSD files, but nothing beats a rock solid disc player if one is really serious about music.
I can't answer you questions, but I can give you a couple of tidbits.
1) You've only had the player for 3 days. Don't make any decisions yet. My Marantz needed to burn in for a while. It takes a while to sound at its best. You need to run a CD continuously for about a week or so. It will sound noticeably better. Then run a SACD for a while too.
2) my Marantz responded very well to after market power cords and vibration control. It took a little bit of patience and tweaking to get it to sound it's best.
HTH,
Jack
What did you end up using for vibration control?
I have it on a Symposium Platform, and 2 (stacked) Herbie's Supersonic Stabilizers right over the drawer mechanism. It makes a noticeable difference.
Jack
Based on a rather careful review of this Marantz, I tried out a Millennium carbon fiber CD mat.
(There are several other positive reviews of this mat out there.) But on several occasions, the mat didn't stay firmly on top of the CD, and caused a horrible grinding noise. I'm going to stop using this, without trying to evaluate any possible sonic benefits.
I'm not so interested in tweaks that cause tiny differences in sound stage depth, etc. I really only care about major effects on musicality.
Yea, they have very shallow drawers. The vibe control was not a big difference, but the power cord change was- cleaner treble, tighter bass, more neutral tonal balance, better transparency.
JackEdit: the sonic stabilizers went on top of the unit, not on in the drawer.
Edits: 06/19/16 06/19/16
After being a vinyl addict for 40+ years I started trying cds. Not to bore you with all the units I tried, but then, by chance, I found one that is perilously close to my Nottingham 294 w/Ortofon Cadenza Black - an Ayon 07s. Fits right in with my tubed pre amp and tubed amps . This thing has ended my years long search after listening to numbers of cd players.
I think that uses the PCM1796 from Burr Brown. Part multibit, part bitstream. They're supposed to be quite good, and are used in the DDDAC NOS project.
Still like my 1704Ks though.
Big J
"... only a very few individuals understand as yet that personal salvation is a contradiction in terms."
Not sure exactly what you are referring to when you write:
I think that uses the PCM1796 from Burr Brown. Part multibit, part bitstream. They're supposed to be quite good, and are used in the DDDAC NOS project.
Still like my 1704Ks though.
(I'm often clueless with regard to abbreviations, acronyms, etc.).
But I do know that the Marantz SA14S1 and the SA11S3 use the Burr-Brown 1792A.
I don't know how that would compare to the 1796.
pretty sure the 1792A is Burr Brown's top of the line, 1796 second (unless fairly recently replaced, I don't follow it that closely).
By the time you get to this level, the difference between chips matters less than circuitry around it; power supplies and output stages.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: