|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
42.3.111.8
In Reply to: RE: Why does a ten year old NOS DAC sound so good? posted by Freo-1 on May 29, 2014 at 16:48:17
It comes down to whatever gets you there. The problem with computer audio somewhat is that audio is now becoming an instant disposable commodity. The music is bit files floating on the net to hard drives but like buying laptops or Cell phones rather than actually listening to "sound quality" we are instead reading numbers the same way we read processing speeds when deciding which laptop to buy.
Of course we want out laptop to operate faster or "perhaps" have the new GUI interface but having a chip with a higher resolution chip in audio is less relevant.
I have long auditioned (and reviewed) Audio Note CD player/DACs which in their lower models also use the 1543 chip and basically the idea behind the whole thing (and most every product Audio Note puts out) is to not create a problem that has to be fixed later.
They design stuff in attempt to do as little damage or interference of the initial signal as is possible. Almost all current technology uses various forms of error correction (negative feedback) to fix something that their design created in the first place (usually because they use cheap parts and because they use cheap parts they then have to "design" an error correcting device to fix the problem. Then the error correction device creates 2-3 other problems and then they have to design error correcting devices to fix the error correcting devices.
NOS is simply a simpler approach and if you use good parts and you don;t have all the crap in the chain the interfere with the sound.
It's a reason that I have long been a fan of AN equipment in terms of sound quality and design because you can see the same approach to their loudspeakers, turntables, and amps. NOS is to make as direct a path from reading the disc to output. The amps being SET typically are the simplest most straightforward processes - (no feedback = error correction) to turntables which don't try to dampen the sound, to speakers that try to release energy as fast as possible without storing sound to linger. The overall result when set-up properly in a good room is astonishing clarity vibrancy and live feel.
The only problem is that it's difficult to afford so you do the best you can with affordable alternatives.
Your DAC doesn't surprise me = plenty of others here rave about various NOS DACs. They create a sense of easy, a bigger sense of ambiance (a sense that you're hearing the hall) where as most digital seems to define the outline attack of a note it seems conspicuously absent of the rest.
I do believe you can get good sound with alternatives - (I have one) and it does make computer audio listenable on long sessions so you can get there. Still after auditioning good Computer Audio DACs from Ayre, Bel Canto, dCS, MSB, Lindemann, Classe, and Bryston - I go back to the Audio Note DAC 3.1.
Wavelength makes a Computer Audio DAC and so you may want to give it a try - When NOS makers do it they probably wish to create something that actually sounds right rather than JUST win Stereophile bench test measurements.
Follow Ups:
My understanding is that the audio note dacs use the AD1865N DAC chip from the 1.1 to the 5 signature
Alan
They use the TDA 1543 in their level 2 and lower CD players. (you are right it appears they use the 1865 in their DACs and the 1543 in their lower priced one box players.
Audio Note is pretty good at telling you what they use in all their products - the chips, caps, resisters, transformer winding materials transport mechanisms as well as who they took from (Snell, SystemdeK, Rega) etc when or where they took stuff and what they did to it to make it better.
Now that you say this I may rethink the 3.1 DAC - I thought it was the 3.1 level and up that use the 1865N chip and now see the 1.1 and 2.1 DAC also use it.
Still the 3.1 uses a much better output IHiB C core transformer and much better parts. Plus I've recently heard it here in HK so unless something comes along that betters it (playing music and not just on a test bench screen) then it's the ugly baby I want.
I have the 2.1 and love it but I am sure the 3.1 is even better. What made a major upgrade in performance is when I found a used Audio note transport. They are expensive but really make a difference. I was previously using my Sony 5400 as a transport but the AN is much better
Alan
"They design stuff in attempt to do as little damage or interference of the initial signal as is possible."
This is a good design principle when it is applicable. To apply this principle you have to know what the original signal is, so you can compare your output with the input. Unfortunately, in a sampled system such as digital audio you can not know what the original signal was, since you have only a sample of the input.
In some cases it is not hard to make a guess as to what the input signal was before it was sampled. In those cases, it is easy to see that the NOS approach (with no analog filtering) does not produce an output that is anywhere close to the input. In these cases there is no doubt that the original signal was damaged.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
" Unfortunately, in a sampled system such as digital audio you can not know what the original signal was"You can by listening. And Audio Note's design principals (via listening) is their "Comparison by Contrast" method which was written by classical composer music reviewer Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note to indeed figure out what was on the original recording by noting that all recordings sound different from each other. Contrast is the ability of a system to contrast those recorded differences - the system that has the highest level of contrast is the system that is being far more truthful to the original discs. (or at least has a fighting chance of accuracy).
Alternatively any system that makes difference recording sound pretty much the same is a system of low contrast and has no shot at being accurate. Which is why I am not a fan of a number of speakers where when I put in a Lady Gaga album or a classical album or a rock album I get a washed out flat presentation then that tweeter or driver while it may be "clear" and it may sound very pleasing to the ear (and may even have less distortion) is not at all accurate compared to speaker B that makes those three sound radically different from each other (even with more distortion).
These debates never go anywhere. The guys who knock NOS makers like Audio Note will say "I have 15 years of digital experience) - yes well Audio Note had HP's head technical guru (with 30 years in digital training) and Voyd Reference turntable designer (and founding owner) Guy Adams helping design AN DACs and turntables as well as the founder and designer of Sonic Frontiers who were at the forefront of tube CD replay as well as their own engineers. So they have 30 years in digital on multiple fronts in their stable. Versus "some guy" on a forum.Kondo-San who founded Audio Note headed the microphone division at SONY. So when "some guy" with zilch credentials or back-up calls out Audio Note I sometimes wonder.
Edits: 06/01/14
" 'Unfortunately, in a sampled system such as digital audio you can not know what the original signal was'
You can by listening. And Audio Note's design principals (via listening) is their "Comparison by Contrast" method which was written by classical composer music reviewer Leonard Norwitz and Peter Qvortrup of Audio Note to indeed figure out what was on the original recording by noting that all recordings sound different from each other. Contrast is the ability of a system to contrast those recorded differences - the system that has the highest level of contrast is the system that is being far more truthful to the original discs. (or at least has a fighting chance of accuracy)."
This is complete BS. One may imagine what one hoped the original might have sounded like, but if the record producers and engineers put something different on the disk then you'd better hear this. If you don't you might as well blame your CD player when the artwork says "Beethoven" and you hear "Beatles". As to the "contrast" principle, this is also a bogus concept. One will automatically hear more differences by turning up the volume to unnatural levels, but the ability to do does not mean that the resulting reproduction will be more realistic, more pleasant, or even safe to hear.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If you didn't understand that article then I can't help you - it is very easy to follow and logically sound and has nothing to do with touching the volume control - in fact it would be advisable to NOT touch the volume control.
"An Ideal Audio System Should Re-Create
An Exact Acoustical Analog Of The Recorded Program
If so, then it would be very useful if we had meaningful knowledge of exactly what is encoded on our recordings. Unfortunately, such is not possible. (This assertion may appear casually stated, but on its truth depends much if the following argument; we therefore invite the closest possible scrutiny.)
Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape--let alone to the resulting CD or LP -- into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio system. Even if we were present at playback sessions through the engineer's monitoring (read: "presumed reference") system, we would be unable to transfer that experience to any other system evaluation. And even if we could hold the impression of that monitoring experience in our minds and account for venue variables such knowledge would turn out to be irrelevant in determining system or component accuracy since the monitoring equipment could not have been accurate in the first place. (More about this shortly.) But if this is true, how can we properly evaluate the relative accuracy of any playback system or component?
The Old Method:
Comparison By Reference
We should begin by examining the method in current favor: The usual procedure is to use one or more favored recording and playing slices of them on two different systems (or the same system alternating two components, which amounts to the same thing); and then deciding which system (or component) you like better, or which one more closely matches your belief about some internalized reference, or which one "tells you more" about the music on the recording.
It won't work! ... not even if you use a dozen recordings of presumed pedigree ... not even if you compare for stage size, frequency range, transient response tonal correctness, instrument placement, clarity of text, etc. -- not even if you compare your memory of you emotional response with one system to that of another -- It makes little difference. The practical result will be the same: What you will learn is which system (or component) more closely matches your prejudice about the way a given recording ought to sound. And since neither the recordings nor the components we use are accurate to begin with, then this method cannot tell us which system is more accurate! It is methodological treason to evaluate something for accuracy against a reference with tools which are inaccurate -- not least of which is our memory of acoustical data.
Therefore it is very-likely-to-the-point-of-certainty that a positive response to a system using this method is the result of a pleasing complimentarily between recording playback system, experience, memory, and expectation; all of which is very unlikely to be duplicated due to the extraordinarily wide variation which exists in recording method and manufacture. (Ask yourself, when you come across a component of system which plays many of your "reference" recordings well, if it also plays all your recordings well. The answer is probably "no;" and the explanation we usually offer puts the blame on the other recordings, not the playback system. And, no, we're not going to argue that all recordings are good; but that all recordings are much better than you have let yourself believe.)
Recognizing that many will consider these statements as audiophile heresy; we urge you to keep in mind our mutual objective: to prevent boredom and frustration, and to keep our interest in upgrading our playback system enjoyable and on track. To this end it becomes necessary that we lay aside our need to have verified in our methodology beliefs about the way our recordings and playback systems ought to sound. As we shall see, marriage to such beliefs practically guarantees us passage to AUDIO HELL. It is our contention that, while nothing in the recording or playback chain is accurate, accuracy is the only worthwhile objective; for when playback is as accurate as possible, the chances for maximum recovery of the recorded program is greatest; and when we have as much of that recording to hand -- or to ear -- then we have the greatest chance for an intimate experience with the recorded performance. It only remains to describe a methodology which improves that likelihood. (This follows shortly.)
Listeners claiming an inside track by virtue of having attended the recording session are really responding to other, perhaps unconscious, clues when they report significant similarities between recording session and playback. As previously asserted, no one can possibly know in any meaningful way what is on the master tape or the resulting software, even if they auditioned the playback through the engineer's "reference" monitoring system.
Anyone who thinks that there exists some "reference" playback system that sounds just like the live event simply isn't paying attention: or at best doesn't understand how magic works. After all, if it weren't for the power of suggestion, hi fi would have been denounced decades ago as a fraud. Remember those experiments put on by various hi fi promoters in the fifties in which most of the audience "thought" they were listening to a live performance until the drawing of the curtain revealed the Wizard up to his usual tricks. The truth is the audience "thought" no such thing; they merely went along for the ride without giving what they were hearing any critical thought at all.
It is the nature of our psychology to believe what we see and to "hear" what we expect to hear. Only cynics and paranoids point out fallibility when everyone else is having a good time.
Another relevant misunderstanding involves the correct function of "monitoring equipment." The purpose of such equipment is to get an idea of how whatever is being recorded will play back on a known system and then to make adjustments in recording procedure. It should never be understood by either the recording producer or the buyer that the monitoring system is either definitive or accurate, even though the engineer makes all sorts of placement and equipment decisions based on what their monitoring playback reveals. They have to use something, after all, and the best recording companies go to great lengths to make use of monitoring equipment that tells them as much as possible about what they are doing. But no matter what monitoring components are used, they can never be the last word on the subject, and it is entirely possible to achieve more realistic results with a totally different playback system, for example a more accurate one. Notice "more accurate," not accurate. It bears repeating that there is no such thing as an accurate system, nor an accurate component, nor an accurate recording. Yet as axiomatic as any audiophile believes these assertions to be, they are instantly forgotten the moment we begin a critical audition."
Continued
TL;DR.
That was all I really needed to say, but for one sentence that is worth quoting and translating into language that idiots can understand.
"Recognizing that many will consider these statements as audiophile heresy; we urge you to keep in mind our mutual objective: to prevent boredom and frustration, and to keep our interest in upgrading our playback system enjoyable and on track. "
For those who don't have a brain, let me translate the emphasized phrase, "So we can collect more of your money into our pockets".
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Once again I will have to partially (at least) disagree with you. I think that comparison by contrast has some validity in the sense that it can help you detect subtle things that are going on between components. I don't think as Peter Q does that it can help you find the absolute best sounding component...this can only be with regard to an absolute reference or the closest thing to that a recording made by the evaluator in real space with one or more real instruments...not an easy task. Comparison by contrast might get you to the best sound in a small group of comparison units though.
WHile I do not condone the high prices for some of their gear, I must admit that their top products sound the business. With simple circuits, parts selection really does become critical. With complex circuits they will never give realistic sound regardless of the parts.
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: