|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.155.23.54
In Reply to: RE: You're right: it's your conclusions that are exaggerated posted by Sordidman on October 17, 2014 at 13:48:44
Hi,
> As a manufacturer, - you should be held to a higher standard.
Why. I am calling them as I see them, hear them, without any other agenda.
I don't even have a dog in this race, all my products work equally well with any number of sources, general purpose Computers as well as streamers.
If you have solid evidence that shows that the points I make are incorrect I will be the first to stand corrected and you know that.
However, what I am reading are not rational well reasoned arguments that provide evidence that how I see and hear things happens to be wrong, but invective and claims I cannot know what I am writing, cannot hear, am ignorant etc.
All these are not arguments that cut the mustard, even if they were true (which they incidentally are not), as they are off topic.
> 1. With an off-the-shelf computer, - the consumer greatly
> modifies it to the point where it is no longer a multi-purpose
> device.
It depends.
I must say I am impressed with the results I am getting streaming audio via a 5GHz network from my AV machine acting as server via our new Router and a 399 USD Smartphone (Phone and Bluetooth turned off, all un-needed tasks killed).
And that is absolutely unmodified (you cannot modify it, it cannot be opened except with special gear, as it water and dustproof to IP58), not even the OS is modified. While I use a different App than the bundled one for HD, I am also surprised how decent the buid in Walkman App sounds, playing from network and SD-Card.
I also often enough use laptops/notebooks that are completely unmodified and only use a specific dual boot setup so they have an "Audio Only" software setup.
So there is no physical modification needed.
Software modification, maybe.
> 2. With one of the 4 streamers under discussion, - the high end
> audio manufacturer starts from a single purpose, & either has built
> custom for her/him, a mainboard, or uses a "stripped down" single
> purpose mainboard and adds the other components that make up the
> device. (Often, it is difficult or impossible to use the mainboard
> for any OTHER PURPOSE).
If I use a generic CPU (with build in Video and other subsystems), generic RAM, generic Flash Memory, generic network and USB Chips and I am running a generic OS, tweaked a little for Audio, how is this different from a generic computer runing a customised OS?
I mean other than the packaging?
If the packaging matters to you, or you cannot bebothered to deal with the software, don't get a computer.
Worse, if I use this generic Platform and I then do not even implement a tiny fraction of the measures that can be readily applied to generic PC Platforms, how does it make it "better" then a tricked out PC?
Of course, we would have to listen.
My listening so far, using my own DAC designs, in my own system and at shows/shop's has not produced any ADVANTAGE for any supposedly purpose build streamer, over the computers I use. They are usually no worse either.
> Wouldn't it be easier to comment from a basis of knowledge?
It is better, which is why I generally do it that way.
> The folks at Meitner, APL, ESOTERIC, Zanden, and Berkeley Design
> are all very, very, familiar with each other's work.
And?
What under g*d's wide and open sky has that to do with the price of tea in China or Generic Computer vs. Generic Computer repackaged as Streamer vs. other options (e.g. SD Card/Flash memory players)?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Follow Ups:
you said that you have no experience, - therefore you have no knowledge.
If you don't have a comparative basis for high-end disc spinning transports AND no experience with commercial, multi-purpose computers, vs Streamers, - then you simply can't make SQ assumptions and judgments.
Cheers,
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Experience does not equal knowledge. For most people experience is a necessary condition for knowledge. However, experience is not a sufficient condition for knowledge.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
important.
You cannt know how something sounds until you hear/experience it.
#because reality + reason
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
disorderly assertions of 'I am always right'.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Fred,
If you have any facts to contribute that invalidate the points I posted, please provide them. We can then debate them and see who's point holds water.
Otherwise your comment is just a load of old bollox.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
The entire discussion of sound quality of streamers results from the poor way that DACs are evaluated by audiophiles and reviewers in their listening tests (and measurements). The assumption behind these tests is that the computer, streamer, or digital transport contributes to the sound quality (or phrased negatively, if not "audio grade" subtracts from sound quality). The issue isn't whether or not this happens. The issue is where the credit or demerit goes. The credit or demerit should always go to the DAC, not the streamer. It should not be necessary to listen to any digital transport, just verify that it is putting out a signal that is within the specifications for the output interconnect (e.g. USB), that is no bit errors at the DAC end of the digital interconnect.
While it is annoying and distatasteful to be told, "You have not heard XYZ, therefore you have no business commenting on it" or, "You haven't heard XYZ, therefore you are not aware of the state of the art" with many types of components these are sometimes appropriate comments. In the case of digital sources such as "streamers" being discussed in this thread, such comments are never appropriate. If a digital source imposes any character on the sound the listener hears (or measures) it is an indictment of the DAC that allowed this to matter, not the source.
I am interested in "bad sounding" digital sources, because they can be uniquely valuable as a way of exposing poor quality DACs. I would expect DAC designers and reviewers to have an array of "bad sounding" digital transports in their arsenal of reference components. A preliminary review of a DAC should be conducted with the entire arsenal of these sources and the final review conducted with the particular source or sources that make the DAC under test sound (or measure) as poorly as possible. No DAC should be rated above Mid-Fi unless its sound quality is completely stable as digital sources are changed. The present approach of testing high-end DACs with high end transports is fundamentally bogus and accounts for the lack of progress during the 20 years since two box digital sources first hit the market.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
ITUnes on a PC sounds the same as JPLAY
It's all the DACs fault
Their is not 1 other person on this planet that agrees with you. What does that say about your assertion?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
There are web statememts about the 'superiority' of a Plextor, but having owned and used one, I find it no better or worse than Samsungs, TEACs or Pioneers.
Plextor drives have been used for some years by mastering engineers burning physical master disks to be sent to CD duplication. (Many newer albums are never realized this way, instead the masters are sent to the factory over the Internet.) I use a Plextor drive because it comes with software that allows evaluation of the error rates on CDs. One can see just how much error correction is needed to read a disk, thereby telling if one's burner is failing or if one is using defective media. Apart from this software, I agree with your comments.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Thorsten correctly pointed out that it could be the fault of the preamp and amps as well as the DAC, including their cabling. It would be possible to isolate the situation down to specific component(s). The situation is no different than I faced as teenaged radio ham when my ham radio transmitter caused interference to my neighbor's phonograph. It was absolutely (and legally) not my fault, it was faulty design of the the phonograph. The problem was fixed at the phonograph.
Note that DACs using SPDIF are broken by design and probably irretrievably so. The same may be true of unbalanced RCA level interconnects. None of this obsolete and inferior technology has any place in a high end system. I don't have any significant software related sound quality issues on my system. I have set up the system properly and do not use technology that was obsolete 20 years ago.
Most iTunes set ups are not bit perfect, at least on Windows which is my only experience. Software that changes what goes to the DAC is obviously going to change the sound. If one changes the bits in the file one can change Beethoven into Beatles. Your iTunes comment is a strawman.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
variety of different situations....People like TBone, Kal, John Marks: have heard tons and tons and tons of sources at many different price levels: and with tons of different cables, amps, speakers, etc.
These folks disagree with each other at an astonishing low rate.
Ed Meitner has been making great external DACs for over 16 years: that sound BETTER than one box disc-spinners.
No USB DAC has ever been said, by anyone, to compare favorably with Meitner.
My question still stands. Can you please explain why you are the only person that holds this position?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
I haven't heard a Meitner DAC, but I have heard quite a few DSD recordings made with the Meitner ADC and was able to come to the conclusion that the Grimm ADC sounded better. (Channel Classics makes pure DSD recordings using both of these converters.) In addition, Bruce Brown has made a number of comparison files with various DSD ADCs, all driven off the same tape deck playing master tapes. These are (or were) available for download, linked from the thread below. After listening to these converters, I concluded that the Grimm beat all the other ADCs at DSD64 and wasn't beat by any of them running at DSD128 either, although the Horus seems to be a close runner up.
When it comes to evaluating DAC quality, the best reference is a live microphone feed or 30 IPS master tape. One compares the straight feed with the ADC - storage - DAC feed. Once one gets to the point where the difference is not significant then there is little need to listen to newer equipment for non-sonic reasons. Without a reference of this kind, one can not tell whether effects, such as high frequency glare, are on the recording and should be reproduced or are an artifact created by a DAC.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
of the conversation: in their entirety.
We are talking about playback devices for the home.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
You are talking about playback devices "for the home". I am talking about digital audio technology which includes recording technology. Let's leave it at that. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Right...but what was the point of your off topic observation concerning an esoteric ADC and DSD?
Grimm does not make consumer grade components that are widely known or distributed.
So is usb, judging from the errors you and I have found, and from the cheapish clocks chips used in many usb audio converters.
I have evidence that the Wave IO, which uses NDK low jitter clock chips fed from an external power source and not the usual cheaper usb powered arrangement, sounds better or at least as good from the spdif output as direct usb input into the W4S DSDSe and Mytek DSD which you use.
So, until you have actually investigated this, please do not propagate the web make such a sweeping and false statement.
When you are all done with this Wave IO setup, how much did you spend on it, power supplies, cables and whatever extra accessories might be needed?
Did this setup provide better isolation from the computer than running USB directly to the DAC? Do software and hardware changes to your computer have as much effect with this extra box in between the DAC?
My comments about SPDIF stand. The design is defective and inappropriately cheap. The use of multiplexed clock and data creates jitter problems that would simply not exist with a dedicated clock line, for example with I2S. Better is for the clock to originate at the DAC. This is an option with I2S. It is possible to build good implementations of a poor architecture that beat poor implementations of a good architecture.
The complexity of USB (A camel is a horse designed by a committee.) makes implementations in DACs noisy unless extra cost is spent on power supplies and isolation. It also makes it likely that many implementations will be poor, if only because the designers attention span isn't long enough to take in the entire specification. (I found it very time consuming to get an answer to a simple question from the USB specification.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Like you said, S/PDIF is flawed by design. I can think of at least 3 major issues with it. Communication is simplex (unidirectional) without flow control and therefore the DAC must have a variable clock, and it must be synchronized to the clock reference provided by the transport using a PLL. Second, the data is self-clocked via Manchester encoding, which was never meant for transmission of a high quality clock signal. Finally, it's single ended, so there will be ground loops and greater susceptibility to EMI and RFI. Given this kind of interface, I think it's unreasonable to expect the DAC to be immune to differences between transports and digital cables. If the audio industry were to adopt an interface standard that avoids these three problems, then I would agree to blame the DAC if transport differences persist.
I2S only addresses one of these 3 flaws, by separating clock and data signals. It's still simplex and still single ended. Likewise, AES/EBU only addresses one of these 3 flaws. It's balanced, but it's still simplex and encodes the clock with the data. And Toslink provides galvanic isolation, but it's also simplex and encodes the clock with the data, not to mention that a lot of Toslink connections are low bandwidth. It seems like all of these transmission standards were created before the importance of clocking in digital audio was well understood. It's a mystery to me why they are still used in high end products.
I think it's best to locate the clocks in the DAC right next to the DAC chips, which requires flow control by the DAC and therefore duplex communications. I'm not aware of any audio specific digital interface standards which support that, so we're stuck with general purpose computer interfaces like Async USB, FireWire, and Ethernet. These have their own disadvantages. Async USB and FireWire include DC power and ground, so they aren't galvanically isolated. Ethernet over twisted pair gets the physical connection right, but requires too much processing to be a good digital transport to DAC connection.
Unfortunately, the only interfaces that tick all the boxes seem to be proprietary.
good set of comments, although usb transfer still requires clocking to produce the 44.1 and 48k related signals and many of them are not that good.
A lot of the noise is due to commercial inter and personal prejudice.
The sdif interfaces in my dCS converters are really good and impedance matched.
What DCS units do you have?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I2S comes in two flavors: clock at source and clock at master. It's the same signals in either case, the difference is where the clock itself is located and which way the clock signal travels on the wire. If the clock is at the source then (assuming all the wires are the same length) there will be no skew problems between the clock and the data lines. The problem is that noise on the clock line translates via limited risetime to a jitter source at the distant end. If the clock is at the transport then this noise jitters the DAC itself, causing distortion. (However, this jitter is at least uncorrelated with the signal, unlike with SPDIF.) If the clock is at the the DAC then noise on the clock line doesn't affect the DAC. The problem might be skew, but this can be minimized by limiting the round trip time to a fraction of a bit time. Alternatively, and this has been used as far back as the 1960's in "super computers" the cable length can be fixed so that round trip time is an integral number of bit times.
I2S was proposed as an on-board interconnect, originally TTL levels. If it is used across a cable there are electrical issues that must be addressed, but the signals can perfectly well be sent in a balanced fashion, reducing noise coupling.
AES can be used correctly, with the clock at the DAC for playback and separate cabling used to send a clock signal to the transport. In this regard, it is almost as good as I2S, since any jitter on the incoming data lines caused by the Manchester coding is lost when the signals are latched by the local clock. (No need for phase lock loops.) I2S over cables is not standardized, so some implementations probably provide balanced signaling.
There is an operational benefit for placing the clock at the source, even though this is sonically inferior. The clock signal identifies the sampling rate. When the clock is placed at the sink then an out of band channel is needed to select a sample rate that matches the source, assuming that the source is not willing to do a sample rate conversion to a common rate. In some professional systems, separate datacomm links have been used for the out of band channel. With USB, not only is there bidirectional data flow, but there is also the ability to send control and status signals as needed to deal with housekeeping factors.
Since the relevant signal quality and jitter issues were known at the best communications and computer laboratories as far back as the 50's and 60's the situation in audio reflects ignorance on the part of the designers or cost pressures that are appropriate to mass market products, but just plain wrong when used to design "cost no object" products, which is what the "high end" purports to do. I say "purports" because some vendors sell expensive audio jewelry.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My comments about SPDIF stand. The design is defective and inappropriately cheap. The use of multiplexed clock and data creates jitter problems that would simply not exist with a dedicated clock line, "for example with I2S. Better is for the clock to originate at the DAC. This is an option with I2S. It is possible to build good implementations of a poor architecture that beat poor implementations of a good architecture.The complexity of USB (A camel is a horse designed by a committee.) makes implementations in DACs noisy unless extra cost is spent on power supplies and isolation. It also makes it likely that many implementations will be poor, if only because the designers attention span isn't long enough to take in the entire specification. (I found it very time consuming to get an answer to a simple question from the USB specification.)"
You are talking theory which is fine, but many are using UBS-SPDIF with positive results. Sometime it is hard to mix theory into practical discussions. Some do not differentiate the two.
You were just told by the streamer cognoscenti not to be discussing ADCs here... Get with the program Tony!!! :):)
Edits: 10/20/14 10/20/14
The idea that spdif is broken arose from vendors of usb audio devices. It was repeated ad nauseam here by promoters of these devices who have never taken the trouble to provide proper impedance matching and who insisted on using a phono connector with poor spdif circuitry such as those used in computers with a web published passive signal line.
Some, including TL, just didn't seem to like Sony or Phillips - not invented here!
agree.
SPDIF may be "broken" in theory but not in application.
Philips and Sony brought us 44/16 instead of 48/16. That was (for decades) the death of high quality audio. This is why I don't like these companies. The battle was between the US on the one side vs. Europe/Japan on the other side. Mid-fi mentality won the day. This was about politics and greed vs. quality.
The idea that SPDIF was broken was publicized first by Julian Dunn. This was well before anybody was using USB for audio purposes. This was at least a decade before USB audio products hit the market.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Broken By Design" is a great name for a new audio company making digital components!!
You're full of Schiit. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Touche'!!!!
No point in discussing your obsession.But usb audio is also broken because you, I, others, and Gordon have discovered errors in transmission highlighted by 'software'?
When you slate something, it needs to be based on collective knowledge and experience, and not on dislike or a quote from someone like Julian Dunn who is highly mathematical and theoretical. His associates actually make and sell very good sounding aes3 or spdif products.
Edits: 10/21/14
box I have; power supplies I have (I did a 'mass' production of ALW superegulators years ago); cables I have.
Time? Maybe 1.5 hours. Messing with different versions of usb software? Hours.
''The design is defective and inappropriately cheap''
Only if you choose to use defective and cheap hardware - it's your own choice entirely just like usb audio boxes.
So many opinions here passing off as facts.
As a matter OF fact, balanced circuits have no business in a modern high end system.
This is easily evidenced by the sheer number of "pseudo" balanced components on the market to cater to a perceived, phoney benefit.
Some vendors lie and make false claims that their product does X. Therefore, no modern system should use X, since it won't have benefits, even if correctly implemented. This is a logical argument? Your "evidence" does show the lack of sophistication of high end customers. The proliferation of ignorant customers with fat wallets poses a large temptation to some vendors who have incompentent engineers and/or dishonest marketing people.
If you believe that fancy CD mechanisms are relevent in today's world, then why do you post on Computer Audio? Fancy CD transport mechanism are a complete waste of money. There is no need for any physical device to spin or move while playing digital audio. Save your money for an LP or tape playback system where there are sonic benefits to impressive machines. When I listen to digital music, the source is solid state memory, not an expensive rube-goldberg mechanism.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Really? LOL.
The Philips drive is so so compared to a TEAC
Tony,First, while I partially agree with "Bits are bits, but we must fix the timing", there are material issues in other magisteria.
Specifically the RFI and EMI resistance of the whole system, common mode and radiated noise and noise conducted by cables between units.
This is a subject to give rise to major engineering challenges in single boxes merely to mandated limits of RFI/EMI, having more than one box interconnected makes it into a bit of a nightmare, even if you get to design all the boxes yourself.
In most audiophile systems different units come from different makers and we have zero control over interconnecting cables and their relative electrical parameters.
This means no matter how well the DAC designer does his job, he has little if any control over final results in a system.
And Computers of any kind regardless how they are designed, are liable to produce massive amounts of noise. Even if they pass mandated emission limits, these emission limits generally only apply above several MHz and are already quite relaxed at those frequencies, the tightest limits are imposed 100MHz - 5GHz.
So below a few MHz few manufacturer even care about EMC as it is not mandated and due to fieldstrength and wavelength becomes fairly hard to control.
This is why even "keeping aroundbad transports" does not help. And this is (not aimed at you Tony) why we must worry and evaluate the underlying mechanisms.
What all the issues I touched on above mean is simple. Evaluting any given device and it's impact (even one not directly connected to the system, such as a Tablet used to control the system, or a LED Lamp) will be severely system dependent.
A system with well designed components (in terms of EMC at low frequencies especially) will be quite resilient. I often astonish people by the improvements I make to sound quality of their systems when I go around the house and systematically shut of any noise generators (including energy saving lamps, Wifi Routers etc.). And these are often systems at substantial cost.
In my own house I use LED Lamps and many other mod con's and creature comfort and if I find it affects the way the system sounds negatively (or rather positively ifI turn them off) I tinker with it, until I can fix this.
There is no generalisation whatsoever that may drawn from results in a single system or even several systems, unless we can first provide reliable proof that measures have been taken to eliminate secondary and tertiary path of degradation, which have zip to do with direct audio forward path.
Finally, instead of a poor transport, it is more gainful for evaluating DAC's resistance to source problems by deliberatly generating a poor source (adding Jitter, Common mode noise etc) and then sweeping the stimulus and observing for example awideband high resolution FFT on an AP2.
Anyway, Tony I am pretty sure based on other posts by you that you do know these niceties, but I felt it important to append them to your post.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/18/14
These are switchers of the cheap kind and so you should listen in darkness, unless you install solar ones.
Hi,> These are switchers of the cheap kind
They are, though they all pass EMC.
> so you should listen in darkness
Why? In my system turning them off makes no difference worth having.
So what about the bet you proposed?
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
Edits: 10/21/14
The bet you proposed which carried no sense as you then control the events.
Talk about twisting words or truth!
Hi,
You wrote "I bet he will do this and that".
If we were actively developing an SD Card player then 6 Month (or perchance a year) would be a sensible timeline for a release or at least for prototypes to show in public. Otherwise there would be no point to try to promote anything. BTW, I do not control the timing of product releases. The Board does, they usually want it the month before last or earlier.
There has to be a deadline. It cannot be "at the end of time".
Any other way makes no sense. You said you wanted to bet, so are you a betting man? I am sure the suggested charity can use your donation.
Ciao T
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
nt
"Anyway, Tony I am pretty sure based on other posts by you that you do know these niceties, but I felt it important to append them to your post."
You are correct.
"This is a subject to give rise to major engineering challenges in single boxes merely to mandated limits of RFI/EMI, having more than one box interconnected makes it into a bit of a nightmare, even if you get to design all the boxes yourself."
One would think that vendors selling "high end" components would have addressed these issues. That they do not, is an indication that the "high end" marketplace lacks knowledgeable customers.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Since you've never heard any high end boxes: how can you make a determination of their level of RFI/EMI interference: or if it is mitigated somehow? Are you familiar with ERS sheets used in the space program? What do you think of them? Have you seen them utilized in any audio applications?
Have you compared any two devices, and made an assessment of RFI/EMI IF?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"Are you familiar with ERS sheets used in the space program? What do you think of them? Have you seen them utilized in any audio applications?"
Go over to the JPlay forum allot of good information. IMO a very worthwhile addition to one's sytem.
If a transport is a high end box it won't cause any interference. There will be nothing to hear. No need to listen. Given that the level of interference of existing devices is low, this bounds the possible gains one might get from pursuing unobtanium. If one wants a reference, then follow Thorsten's suggestion to use an SD card based transport. This is about the simplest possible way of providing digital transport functionality and, while inconvenient, it is no more bother than dealing with reel to reel tape.
Manufacturers and reviewers are the ones who should be evaluating and measuring interference susceptibility. I know enough about this technology from working at a computer manufacturer, including the spook department, to realize that a major investment in test equipment is needed to address these issues. Not a hobbyist venture.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
can't get a simpler truth: are you asserting otherwise?
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
I am asserting that transports "sound" only through the DAC and, to the extent that the DAC input, clock and power circuits are fully up to snuff, the transport will have no sound barring problems with downstream amplifiers. (This is the ideal, and to the extent that this ideal is not attained, one does not have a true reference system.)
With a well set up system, there are existing DACs where the remaining transport differences are small, making it a matter of opinion whether differences are worth worrying about. If they matter, then there is a good chance of improving the sound by adding isolation devices between the transport and the rest of the audio system. These include various devices in the signal path such as reclockers, USB to I2S or SPDIF converters, USB hubs, some with optical isolation or other forms of galvanic isolation. These also include isolation devices in the power wiring and providing noise isolation between digital devices and analog devices. Similarly, careful attention may be needed to signal and power cabling. Even something like moving components or changing the cable dress may affect sound, and if so this is a strong indication of an unstable system.
I am also saying that if one experiences an "unstable" system it is not an indication of a superior system that is somehow more "resolving". It is an indication that something is wrong that warrants fixing. Steps taken to reduce susceptibility to interference in DACs and amplifiers are of benefit even if the digital transport emitted zero noise, because there are other electrical devices that generate interference.
I am also saying that the subjective and objective testing and reviewing of audio equipment should include operating in noisy environments that show the equipment in the worst possible light, thereby driving manufacturers to produce products that deliver their full performance in all realistic electrical environments.
I am not saying that "bits are just bits". I am saying that bits should be just bits and that this ideal can be approached ever closer if the market demands this.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Transports sound different regardless of anything any DAC may or not be doing "wrong."
"" adding isolation devices between the transport and the rest of the audio system"
In the case of the VRDS-NEO, - more information just makes it to the DAC. There are reasons and explanations as to why, and these are born out in listening: and are independent of any isolation devices. We know this through extensive testing.
Sprezza asserts that his Sim Audio Mind sounds different than his Bryston BP-2. He uses the same DAC, the same cable to the DAC. The transports sound different, the DAC is in no way at fault.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"In the case of the VRDS-NEO, - more information just makes it to the DAC"
This is complete and utter BS. There is no "information" on a CD other than the 1's and 0's that were placed there during the mastering and production process. If you are lucky, the best you can hope for is to get these back correctly and then turn them back into sound without any further degradation. The problem with inferior transports isn't the lack of information, it is the extra noise that makes it through an inferior playback chain and masks such information as was on the original disk. (Which, by the way, in case of Redbook, is already significantly less than what would be on a good quality analog master tape.)
In some cases (more than you might like to admit) all of the "information" that got stamped or burned on to the disk that expensive nonsensical NRDS-NEO "read" have already passed through a lowly Plexor drive. Not the situation at all with an LP on a Goldman turntable or a reel to reel tape on a Studer deck unless it was a bogus digitally mastered "analog" recording.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
S
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
No read errors on a decent $40 computer optical drive with an undamaged disk. Zero. Verified by accurate rip for commercial CDs and verified against master WAV files for CDs that I have mastered. Zero errors, unless the disk has obvious damage such as scratches or is a CDR that has been stored at hot temperatures such as in a car. Over 97% of all disks that I have ripped were free of errors and most of those with errors had no audible damage, even when listening specifically at the point where the error occurred. There were a few that had lots of clicks, but they looked like they had been used for a game of Frisbee with a dog.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Born out by listening tests, & widely accepted & undisputed superiority.
In short, no one who has compared it, remains unconvinced.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Listening tests are a tedious and unreliable way of detecting data errors, compared to a direct comparison of the delivered bits vs. the correct bits. People may prefer expensive transports and they may be actually hearing superior sound, but if so the reason is not likely to be associated with the lack of data errors reading the CD, unless the drive in the comparison player was broken.
As to live playback, this depends on the way that the device works to do the CDA error correction. This comes in two levels of correction, plus a level of interpolation plus a level of muting. Most disks have no errors that require the second level of correction. For master disks that I burn there are strict limits on the number of C1 errors corrected and the limit is zero on the number of C2 errors corrected, otherwise I junk the "coaster". This provides the needed tolerance for wear and tear.
I feel sorry for people who have these expensive transports when they suffer wear and tear or laser problems and no longer work reliably, skip, etc... The same thing happens with the cheap computer drives like the Plexor that I use, but it's a 10 minute drive swap (no tools required) and the replacement part is under $50. My drive comes with software that diagnoses disks and plots the number and location of the various types of errors.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The laser's reading ability: as we've seen improves whenever a more consistent and accurate speed is achieved by the motor spinning the disc, and when the disc doesn't wobble: (clamping mechanism).
""As to live playback, this depends on the way that the device works to do the CDA error correction.""
Yes and no. CDA data correction, is not all it's cracked up to be, - due to "A." (less wobble by clamping mechanism).
""For master disks that I burn"
Not relevant or applicable to a playback situation.
Of course, as we've seen with much of this stuff, - theoretical "shoulds" are proven wrong quite often.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
My comments about the lack of bit errors on CD playback are based on years of experience with hundreds of disks, a small fraction of which gave problems. This caused me to seek out and obtain the necessary tools to understand what was going on. This is not a theoretical issue, or a question of "should".
CD players are not getting bit errors on playback on undamaged disks unless the players are broken. A cheap transport may sound worse than an expensive one, but it is extremely unlikely that the cause is bit errors. If you want to verify this for yourself, just take the two CD transports under test and feed their SPDIF output into an SPDIF input of a computer sound card and capture WAV files of the two outputs. You can then use an audio editor to difference the two files and count the errors, if any. Once you've identified their location(s) you can then play clips and see what the errors sound like.
Unless you have actually studied the presence or absence of bit errors as I have, you have no basis for positing a technical cause for sonic defects that you may have heard.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, I have not gotten too involved in the transport debate, but if to condense your view in the briefest of ways, distinct differences in the sound of transports, that being defined as an optical disc transport, or file player, computer, streamer etc, should be attributed to flaws in the DAC design, is that correct?
Not quite. The DAC is the primary place of attack to improve sound in digital audio playback.
The playback chain consisting of digital transport, DAC, and analog amplifiers is a system and its performance has to be evaluated as such. The chain reads the media and generates a string of bits that get clocked, converted to timed samples, converted to a continuous analog stream and then amplified. Reading the media and generating a stream of bits is a solved problem, but the process of doing so generates unwanted noise byproducts. These pollute the operation of downstream components and degrade the sound. There are three ways to fix this: have the transport produce less noise, isolate the transport from the sensitive components, and make the sensitive components less sensitive.
It seems pretty clear that the DAC, as the place where the noisy digital electronics meet the sensitive analog electronics,is the primary place where the noise battle needs to be fought. The second place where unwanted coupling comes in is through power wiring, and the third place is through cabling. It is possible to reduce the noise generated in the computer by "gold plating" the computer, but the economics seems to favor "gold plating" the DAC and amplifiers, especially since there will still be noise from other computing devices even if the transport has been made noiseless by putting it into a Faraday cage with Tempest grade red-black separation as used with military encryption devices.
That we are still arguing over physical machines and whether they can correctly read bits off of media, shows how hopeless the "high end" market is. I have avoided this marketplace for a long time and concentrated instead on equipment made to be sold to professional audio engineers, who are by and large more technically competent that audiophiles.
I hope it remains warm enough to enjoy your Italian car. It's too cold and damp now in Vermont for fun cars as we await the start of ski season.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi Tony:Very little to disagree with your well worded post. I don't agree about Pro Audio gear, I have gone that route with great dissatisfaction, but that is just me.
So in regards to your reply, how would you account for some audiophiles who have superbly set up, high quality gear, yet hear big differences in computer O/S, add ons like Jplay, playback software, and even updates to playback software, and best of all, USB cables?
A perfect example is Mercman. He has superb gear, and clearly knows how to set it up..Ayre, Wilson, MSB, and a number of very good cables, sources, power products etc, yet he consistently says he hears differences in O/S updates, USB cables, playback software etc.
P.S. Nice and balmy where I am...my baby is gripping the roads nicely.
Edits: 10/23/14 10/23/14
Hearing differences is not the end of the world. I hear differences if I move my head half an inch. Every seat in a concert hall sounds slightly different. So it's a concern only if one hears significant differences. If one does hear significant differences and if they are consistent then it is probably possible (with a huge amount of effort) to come to the bottom of the situation and figure out how these differences are happening. As far as I know there is no DAC that is perfect when it comes to isolation. As Thorsten explained, the DAC can be perfect but the amplifiers sensitive to interference. (My Focal powered monitors pick up my cell phone if it's within a few feet.)
There are also people who hear differences that aren't present in the audio equipment or environment but that merely exist inside their own head. I don't believe this covers Merman, since he seems to be a straight up guy. And besides, he has Lucy to keep him honest. Perhaps you should ask Lucy your question? :-)
Also, keep in mind that a Maserati is a more finicky car than a Mercedes, so expensive and high performance is not necessarily the same as stable and reliable. I had a Citation II tube amplifier back in the 60's and 70's and it sounded great when it wasn't blowing up KT88s, etc... I then inherited a Mac 275 that was solid and reliable, but I could never stand its sound. (I was annoyed that I inherited the Mac, because I had advised my grandfather to get a pair of Marantz 9s and he ended up with the Mac 275. However, it might have been a space problem with his custom installation.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We are talking differences that do not include changes in listening position or physical space. Same chair, same chain, but switching out ONE item like a USB cable or an O/S update.I think environmental effects on good audio gear is highly exaggerated. It is extremely easy to isolate a DAC from a power amp.
So back to the original premise, there are listeners who report vast differences in the items previously listed which are changes at the SOURCE only.
I've come to the conclusion that Lucy is the sanest of us all!
Today's Maserati's are not your father's Maserati's. Everything is microchip controlled, CAD designed and tested, and precision engineered. The times have changed.
Today's tube amps are also not your father's tube amps. Been running tubes for 8 years now with nothing but tube biasing once a year. Replaced several sets of tubes voluntarily.
Edits: 10/24/14
posting stuff without good basis or foundation.
If anyone wants a no tool method of mounting a CD Drive, fine but comparing this to a TEAC Neo owner and feeling sorry for him or her? This is a warped way of thinking.
I actually have 2 laser spares for my Krell with swing arm drive
I guess you don't remember the apodzing filters that were celebrated as the second coming of audio jesus...made knarly 80s CDs sound fresh remasters....
I thought you would get a kick out of the marketing tag line for the AMR 77 CD player:
"To bring compact disk playback back en par with the vinyl system."
Apodizing filters belong in the recording process. They do not belong in the playback process. If they were used in the recording process then many of the high frequency problems with Redbook playback would not be present. The problem is that recordings made properly with apodizing filters sound dull when played back with another round of apodizing filters, whereas recordings made with brick wall filters can (usually) be improved by playing them back with apodizing filters. This situation exists only because of the incompetence of Sony and Philips in specifying the Red Book standard. As a result, for best CD playback listeners have to select between a set of filters on a per recording basis, a situation akin to the early days of LPs, pre RIAA. (A few years ago, I simply gave up on tweaking filters. I just accepted the fact that no 44/16 digital recording could ever be considered to be high end and as such can never be a suitable reference for evaluating a playback chain. With CDs, one must simply accept their limitations and enjoy the music or else move on to better formats if the artists are still alive and recording with better technology.)
All of this is easy to verify by starting with a high resolution digital recording and downsampling it to Redbook with various filters and then playing it back with various filters. It can also be measured on spectrum plots or seen in impulse response plots. I speak from a fair amount of personal experience on this matter, as well as a fair amount of theoretical understanding. I have spent many hours experimenting with apodizing (and other) digital filters, measuring their performance and listening to how these filters affect sound quality. In each case, I started with a reference of how the particular recording was supposed to sound and the specific degradation imposed by the limitations of the 44/16 format and the conversion processes used (which were state of the art).
From a marketing perspective, the situation is obscured because of the variety of recordings and the variety of playback systems. Some playback systems start out too bright and in this case an apodizing filter serves as an upper treble "tone control", and in some cases multiple apodizing filters provide much needed high frequency roll-off. This is a characteristic of poor system setup, and has nothing to do with the digital filtering. These set up problems can be identified using high resolution digital recordings and corrected by appropriate measures, typically involving speaker placement, cross-over adjustments or room treatments.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I agree about you that the filters belong in the recording procecs.
But around 2008 or 2009 when the sales of expensive CD players hit the skids, the manufacturers needed something to get people excited about and quite frankly they used clueless reviewers as stooges to spread the word.
It is fairly common for a few posters here, and I am certain you know who they are, to bring in topics from left field, literally out of nowhere, when they can't back their assertions with first hand experience.I also said to myself what on earth a pro grade ADC has to do with this conversation. And even worse, the comments were confined to DSD.
Edits: 10/20/14
He wants to end the conversation, - and that's cool.Sadly though, - I'm going to get beat up the next time i counter someone saying that there's no difference in transports, that everything sounds the same: and experiencing & listening to components have no value.
It's OK, cognitive dissonance is a bigger deal IRL.
Cheers.....
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Edits: 10/20/14
What is interesting is that Mercman proclaimed there was a "problem" on this board with Gordon Rankin.
I have NO problem with Gordon Rankin or his products, and by all accounts he has happy customers. It is with his posts.
Fmak, who i don't always agree with said some manufacturers go about brow beating here on this forum, and he is right.
If GR had take the tact of saying, "USB audio, you just may be surprised, give it a listen"...we get "Gang, USB audio BLOWS AWAY a $10,000 transport." That puts a HUGE bullseye between your eyes, sorry.
And we get things like Ethernet sucks for audio, when in fact it has been used in recording studios and in mission critical live audio applications for a decade plus. Then we here about an Ethernet product he developed, and now a DSD module, after proclaiming DoP worthless.
The fact is it has never been a good strategy to denigrate competitors or competing technologies to sell your product.
"The fact is it has never been a good strategy to denigrate competitors or competing technologies to sell your product."
Agreed. This was one of the ethical principles upheld by the founder and CEO of the computer company I used to work for. He was thrown out by the Wall Street people who had no moral scruples and were interested only in money without regard to screwing customers or employees. Within two years after I left the 100,000 employee company had evaporated. This was around 1996. In another dozen years Wall Street learned how to tap directly into the taxpayers to bail out their incompetence and fraud.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Tony, at my sales first job right of college I was told this. For some reason it has stuck with me ever since.
I was always impressed when the owner of the company, when asked by a potential customer about a competitor, he would say, "They make great products", or when asked about a competing technology, he would say "Perfectly valid approach, but we do things a bit differently for the following reasons". The company grew leaps and bounds in short period of time and I stayed until it was sold, an another opportunity appeared.
But I always remembered that approach.
" at my sales first job right of college I was told this. For some reason it has stuck with me ever since.
I was always impressed when the owner of the company, when asked by a potential customer about a competitor, he would say, "They make great products", "
Burger King???
All you need to know is I left with enough money to never have to work again, drive Italian cars, and hire 10 pee-ons like you as my man servants. And I'm not joking.
"All you need to know is I left with enough money to never have to work again, drive Italian cars, and hire 10 pee-ons like you as my man servants. And I'm not joking."
Yes you are very impressed with yourself, as shown by your attitude here.
BTW: Your Yugo is a copy of an Italian car so it doesn't really count.
And... As far as you being peed on by your 10 man servants, you could have gone down to the pier and had that done for free. I guess we now can see the genesis of your love of STREAMERS...
Let me mull that over while I fire up my Maserati this afternoon. And when I head to the airport tomorrow to one of my two European residences, where I am installing a new streamer. Yes, really.
Edits: 10/21/14
"One would think that vendors selling "high end" components would have addressed these issues."
Yes, one would. I surely do.
Traditionally "audio engineers" think that the world stops at 20Kc and that a single point ground is THE answer. They think (thought?) that because it was usefully true in the tube/analog days. Ah, the "good" old days, some audiophiles and manufacturers still live in them.
For the rest of us that era is long gone, whether for good or ill is blurry and personal. Actually EMC issues have been part of the engineering life since the days of the superregens but pervasive clocked digital systems have really brought it home, as it were.
"...That they do not, is an indication that the "high end" marketplace lacks knowledgeable customers."
I don't agree with that Tony. Customers are paying for performance and expertise, they surely can't be expected to all have the knowledge and skills necessary to analyze these complex systems. Reading AA provides solid proof that most don't even though they have an exceptionally high level of interest in the gear and it's performance.
Rick
although Thorsten's post is just a summary of what many interested audiophiles with a science background know.
Sorting out mutual interference of multiple components is not an engineering challenge, although both posters make this out to be in stressing 'expertise' It is a technological fact of life in the modern connected world.
It may be of interest for me to say that I do all of the things that Thorsten says he does in friends' houses and that it is nothing new or contain any element of special expertise..
I have a Honda that passes all of the Euro tests, but every now and then, when passing groups of aerials, my sound system, though turned off, emits gurgling noises. Not being young, I have not bothered to look at the suppression capacitor or anything like that. But a switched off amplifier reproducing interference? This should be a challenge for a technician to track down.
we listen for the pleasurable experience of enjoying music.
When we pile up experiences, - we get the BEST indication of how a product sounds, within various contexts.
There is no USB DAC yet made that sounds as good as any of the top 3 or four DAC manufacturers. As much as we have any consensus in the SOTA, top-tier, high end audio playback systems, - this is pretty much undisputed...
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Yet another wordy, indulgent post filled with theoretical blather.I will take listening experience over theory any day of the week. None of what you wrote here has any basis in reality or experience. It just makes you feel better.
I have been into digital audio since I bought my first compact disc in 1986, and I have gone through all the progressions from the earliest CD rippers and burners to now. Couple that with an enormous amount of time in recording studios being exposed to digital recording.
To say something like there has been little progress shows me you are incredibly out of touch.
Edits: 10/18/14
recognise that the likes of you and (I?) exist.
Bits were not just bits back in the early 90's when I got my first two box CD player. This appears to still be the case, at least with most equipment and certainly with most audiophile beliefs. Little progress has been made in this regard over the course of two decades.
I don't believe this is an engineering problem. It's a market problem. There are plenty of engineers working for computer equipment companies, telecommunications equipment companies and military equipment companies who know how to provide effective analog to digital isolation and resistence to EMI/RFI at extreme levels. They work in those industries rather than hi-end audio because that's where the money is and also because they have the pleasure of selling their products to knowledgeable customers.
There are a few high end audio designers who understand these issues, but from what I've seen many of them are struggling to afford the necessary lab equipment to bring out stable products. Some also seem more concerned with creating a "house sound" based on coloration as a way of differentiating their products.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Again, you avoid answering the question of listening experience.
An I don't even mean the crazy expensive stuff from cCS, Aurender, Light Harmonic, Constellation etc.
I can tell you from making my own high resolution recordings, and being at the actual event, and then hearing the mastered version through my various front ends, many do have it right.
I just recorded a band in Brooklyn, who brought their own vintage mics. I was at the side of the stage and heard the acoustic event as it unfolded. When I finished the files and loaded them on the server(s), it was all.there within reason of suspending belief.
Same goes for my master tape copies which I dub to high resolution. I can compare live playback from a B77 to the server and the results are astonishing.
I trust my ears more than any lab instruments or theory,
If what you say is true, why the huge market and nostalgia for NOS DAC chips and DACs..Steve Hoffman says the Audio Note digital gear is the "the best he has heard" and they literally using 25 year old designs.
I used to know the guy in Brighton; he liked colourations.
"I used to know the guy in Brighton; he liked colourations."
Many people do to some degree...
At least he is like....
There once was a man from Nantucket...
that's because it is actually not easy to implement a technically high performance system which also sounds 'excellent'
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: