|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
93.109.58.243
In Reply to: RE: Thanks for the review, & postings: question posted by Sordidman on September 22, 2015 at 08:42:26
Remember my posts about the SUSB for audio ie sometimes universal serial bus with its charge pump power supplies?
John Swenson said then that usb audio with an EMU 0404 was what he was 'comfortable' with. Mercman thought that a 13.5 bit TDA1543 dac with valve output trounced his high end TEAC too. MAC with $1500 player program was hailed here as the 'best, of the bunch. My golly, never use a PC with Windows 7 to play music!.
SPDIF done right then sounded good and better (dCS, Universal Audio, even the Juli@) than usb transfer.
Follow Ups:
""Remember my posts about the SUSB for audio ie sometimes universal serial bus with its charge pump power supplie""
I am sorry, I do not remember that post.
I am not trying to say SPDIF is better than USB. I am trying to understand why SQ or "signal integrity" issues are the "fault" of the DAC's PHY processor when these devices clearly "re-generate" and manipulate the USB signal. And, some playback devices clearly, (and most everyone admits), produce a "better" USB signal, that renders the USB Regen a "less effective"
Certainly a DAC can and SHOULD much better if the signal coming into it is improved. But a good reason to re-generate it is because of the quality of the variances in transport USB output. A Squeezebox USB output upgrade will be different than the Bryston BDP-2, and different again from a MAC Mini, and different again from a Razberry Pi. I don't think that a DAC manufacturer, can and should "isolate" his/her PHY processor to mitigate, enhance, and repair, issues with the USB on the transport.
Another analogy, we do not "blame the DAC" of an all-in-one CD player when we upgrade a standard Denon drive with a VRDS NEO. There are many factors that go into making the VRDS NEO "better" and the DAC still works great, but the overall sound of the CD Player is significantly better with VRDS NEO transport.
"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 is only one way to resolve the issue of what is a better audio transfer method and that is to map by measuring the waveforms through the chain from transport to dac to analog output. This could be a PhD project.
Otherwise, there are just too many things to speculate on, including individual opinions and assertions based on commercial interest that are just not universally true or reliable.
"There are many factors that go into making the VRDS NEO "better" and the DAC still works great, but the overall sound of the CD Player is significantly better with VRDS NEO transport."
I just don't agree with this. A computer drive playing to a memory buffer with the ability to reread errors does just as well for a lot less money.
""I just don't agree with this. A computer drive playing to a memory buffer with the ability to reread errors does just as well for a lot less money."Have you performed this comparison? How could it have into the same exact DAC? I can tell you that I've done it with a VRDS NEO, & a Denon: into the same enclosure.
This is an analogy, different disc transports sound different in one box CD players. Just as different computer playback software and USB implementations sound different: with the same DAC, - you've experienced this...
"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: 09/22/15
I have a great deal of experience with VDRS. And yes, I have compared one box CD solutions with DAC/computer. I'll take the latter.
How's about Esoteric SACD players with built in DACs? That's my experience.
I have also compared Playback Design SACD / DAC.
Look, we have a difference of opinion that in the grand scheme of things is a piddly difference.
The rest of your system matters and what you have held as gospel truth does not apply generally. If I remember correctly, you had a Levinson amp which can be 'cool' and earlier Wilson speakers which can be 'upfront'. Some noise dithering in a 13.5 bit dac can help change matters, but the reduction in dynamic range and the increase in distortion would have been there ie 18-19 bits from your TEAC and much lower resolution from your TDA1543 valve dac.
The whole thing build down to system matching and component tuning based on understanding the underpinning science.
Actually, the Levinson amps had a warm sound; not remotely cool. I think I was using a Wilson Watt / Puppy 8s in those days.
"The whole thing build down to system matching and component tuning based on understanding the underpinning science."
Lucky for most of us ignorant bastards that the equipment seems to work and provides some pleasure even though we don't understand the underpinning science.
I was making an analogy between two different types of CD transports only.....Not trying to compare computer audio to CD spinners.
I was trying to make the point that what comes out of the computer via USB can vary in SQ and there are differences between the USB signal with different computers....and playback software... no DAC manufacturer can "fix" these differences inside the DAC.....
"Look, we have a difference of opinion that in the grand scheme of things is a piddly difference.""
Yes, that's truly a given. We both speak from our experiences. Although I have not yet heard anything that beats an APL NWO spinning discs with a VRDS-NEO, - I suspect that I will, and soon.
I was likely unclear that I was not talking about computer/digital file playback in drawing the disc transport analogy. That is prolly easily confused as I've been advocate in comparing digital file playback with optical disc spinners. I should've used turntables in the analogy instead.
Without even hearing it, the USB Regen just makes a lot of sense....
"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: 09/23/15
The TD1543A ? I was talking about was a ladder DAC I used in 2006. Compared to the sound of the Esoteric of that day I would gladly take the the Wavelength DAC of that period.
The software you are referring to was Amarra-and it was $1000. Sonic Studio made it up to us by giving us the updated newer software with the Dirac.
The Esoteric DAC I reviewed for AudioStream last year sounded nothing like the UX-1 under discussion.
an individual's view and system cannot be taken as generally true. With a 13.5 bit dac, one cannot expect 'best' digital replay thru a high performing audio chain.
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: