Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

Return to Computer Audio Asylum

Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?

216.99.99.197
Posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:20:18
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 Indulge me, folks: this is no high-end configuration, but of the fair number of sound cards and lower end CDPs or DACs and music player combinations I've tried this is offering about the best tonal neutrality, detail, and air that I've heard:

. ALAC or FLAC files from an external drive to dedicated WinXP =>

. Foobar2000 9.6.9 with SoX resampler at 176.4 kbps, 97% bandpass, linear phase =>

. Kernel streaming to M-Audio Revolution 7.1 sound card =>

. The Revo's S/PDIF output via 30-foot Blue Jeans/Belden 1694A coax =>

. Very cheap DAC consisting of CS8416 receiver => CS4397 DAC => OPA2604 opamp => CD4053 multiplex/demuliplexer.

Experts, any thoughts??
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 9, 2009 at 11:31:32
Presto
Audiophile

Posts: 2946
Location: Canada
Joined: November 10, 2004
 Your 30 foot blue jeans cable is the secret. Cable reflections and resulting jitter are attenuated more than with a 1m or smaller cable.

SPDIF cables are the exception to the rule. Shorter is not only "not better" but in some cases objectively worse.

Some say 1.5m or 2m is the magic number. Your 9m might be a bit long, but will attenuate reflections even more despite other losses / tradeoffs.

As for the Revo 7.1, it has an impedance matching transformer on the SPDIF output. If you were to run proper 75 ohm BNC connectors instead of RCA you would probably get even more improvement. Jitter is increased by impedance mismatches on connectors as well.

I have always thought of my Revo as my "best budget" digital ouput.

Prepare to spend a whole lot more on a PC solution to beat it. I don't think for the price you CAN beat it. And double the price is not going to beat it either.

Cheers,
Presto

That's what I heard, posted on November 9, 2009 at 13:14:33
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 Thanks, Presto.

I recalled that somebody around here mentioned that the longer S/PDIF cable was a good idea to less reflections due to impedance mismatches. I do suspect it make some small, audible improvement, including with my previous DAC.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 7, 2009 at 10:52:29
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 4088
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 You dont have to spend a fortune to outperform most transports. Selecting the right devices is key.

However, I'm quite certain that I would not consider this combo good in my system. I've done enough testing of the AKM D/A chip to know I dont consider it musical. It's all relative to your particular experience and the state of your system.

Lots of audiophiles feel that they have resolving accurate systems, but they are all at different levels of performance. This is why one must not take reviews, even from professional reviewers too seriously. Even some reviewers have deficient systems.

What is "AKM"?? ~nt, posted on November 8, 2009 at 04:33:54
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 nt
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: What is "AKM"?? ~nt, posted on November 8, 2009 at 06:43:52
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 A manufacturer of converter chips (DACs and ADCs).

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 7, 2009 at 13:07:21
Dynaudio_Rules
Audiophile

Posts: 5594
Location: Georgia
Joined: April 1, 2005
 True there is a difference between clarity and musicality. To me AKM's seem to be the former.



Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
Agree, posted on November 9, 2009 at 13:58:42
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 4088
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 I think it is the switched-capacitor architecture. This is a unique DAC architecture.

Not out of line with my own impression, posted on November 9, 2009 at 13:09:21
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 The sound I'm getting is certainly clear: very detailed and resolved. However, although airy and grain-free, it is a tad bright.

I will likely swap out the OPA2604 opamp for a dual OPA627 module. This might warm the sound a bit.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Not out of line with my own impression, posted on November 10, 2009 at 05:23:16
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 557
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 Well, that, or you could turn down the treble a bit.

People completely lose me with comments like "it's clear but not musical." It's as if we think our systems are musical instruments, like acoustic guitars, with tonal variations resulting from variations in bracing, woods, etc. And of course they can be that, you can develop audio components with "tone." But once you do that, you've abandoned the admittedly difficult goal of accurately reproducing the tone of the guitar. And then, in the same breath, someone will declare the equipment that has abandoned the goal of fidelity and embraced its own character or tone to be "more resolving."

More resolving of what? The musical vision of a boutique DAC builder? The tone preferences of listeners trained to fear equalization they can adjust while seeking it in cables and components?

Music is musical. The clearest, driest, most clinically accurate reproduction of the source recording is the most "musical" thing a piece of gear can ever do. Everything else is compromise. Everything else is less resolving.

Seriously, roll op amps if you like. Or turn down the treble a bit, knowing you can turn it back up when the recording calls for it.

P

Well, I could do that, posted on November 10, 2009 at 08:22:08
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 Unlike Dynaudio_Rules, I'm not saying this setup isn't "musical", only that it is "a tad bright". Attenuating the treble can alleviate brightness a bit, but I find that somehow that quality is more than just too much treble.

I've ordered a dual OPA627 module on eBay to replace the 2604, and shall see whether it makes things even better.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Well, I could do that, posted on November 10, 2009 at 14:53:39
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 557
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 If you just think it's a tad bright, my recommendation is quite serious. Tweaking is a really expensive and ineffective way to adjust tone, and what is worse, it is not easily reversible. While your setup may sound a bit bright on some recordings, it may be great on others. In fact, if the rest of your system is reasonably neutral, it is the finest recordings that will suffer from a "warm" component. And they'll suffer a lot more than the bad ones will from the evils of a bit of digital equalization.

P

RE: Well, I could do that, posted on November 11, 2009 at 10:07:32
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 "Tweaking is a really expensive and ineffective way to adjust tone, and what is worse, it is not easily reversible."

But my toilet paper suggestion is easily removable and quite inexpensive. That's why I suggested it. :-)

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Well, I could do that, posted on November 11, 2009 at 10:53:07
Phelonious Ponk
Audiophile

Posts: 557
Location: NC
Joined: September 3, 2007
 The TP was an excellent suggestion, Tony. More audiophiles should embrace such inexpensive and effective (at changing...for the better is another question...) tweaks. I was listening to a pair of Martin Logans with a ribbon tweeter of some kind yesterday. They would have benefited greatly from the Lauck TP Tweak. Of course someone would come along selling very special paper (long grain fibers, pre-wiped on the perfect pink arsses of vestal virgins) at $500 per sheet, and poor Charmin would be reduced to its terrible original purpose again.

P

RECYCLED long grain fibers, PLEASE nt, posted on November 11, 2009 at 11:18:23
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

Try a bit of toilet paper over the tweeters. nt, posted on November 10, 2009 at 09:22:19
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

LOL. Strong WAF for that ~nt, posted on November 10, 2009 at 11:03:01
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 nt
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: LOL. Strong WAF for that ~nt, posted on November 10, 2009 at 12:10:21
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 If you have removable grill cloths, put it underneath the grill cloth. Getting a good color match may be critical to the WAF. :-)

This is an old tweak, BTW. Indeed, my Snell A's had the equivalent, not over the tweeters, but surrounding them. The idea was to suppress diffraction effects and the resultant comb filtering.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: Not out of line with my own impression, posted on November 9, 2009 at 13:24:35
Dynaudio_Rules
Audiophile

Posts: 5594
Location: Georgia
Joined: April 1, 2005
 I'd like to see AKM's paired up with a good tube buffered output stage maybe with some Mullard tubes. The resolving power of the AKM's are great though...



Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 8, 2009 at 12:44:36
cfmsp
Audiophile

Posts: 353
Joined: October 21, 2006

"True there is a difference between clarity and musicality. To me AKM's seem to be the former."

Based on what?

Seems to me the analog section and other aspects of any DAC would overshadow any inherent bias towards 'clarity' versus 'musicality', if indeed there is ultimately a difference between the two, and if a DAC chip in and of itself can be said to vary between the two.

just curious as to your thought,
clay

RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 8, 2009 at 13:02:01
Dynaudio_Rules
Audiophile

Posts: 5594
Location: Georgia
Joined: April 1, 2005
 My thoughts are based on my subjective opinion.






Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋
RE: Why, why, WHY does this sound as good as it does?, posted on November 8, 2009 at 13:29:00
cfmsp
Audiophile

Posts: 353
Joined: October 21, 2006

I'm curious as to what your subjective opinions are based upon.

thanks in advance,
clay
As for that ..., posted on November 7, 2009 at 13:04:08
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I feel that the DAC is probably the weakest link in my system at the moment. In addition to the "cheapo" described here, I have been recently using an old Assemblage DAC 1.5 -- this is the one illustrated in my signature reference, below. Financial constraints prevent me from looking at high-end equipment now and for the foreseeable.

Can you tell me the function of the CD4053 multiplexer/demultiplexer in the "cheapo" DAC?
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
Mux, posted on November 7, 2009 at 14:01:44
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 4088
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 This Mux probably functions to select between various digital inputs.

Doesn't look like it, posted on November 7, 2009 at 17:14:57
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 Not that I can read schematics very well, but appears to be directly between the opamp and the output connectors. Could it function as an output buffer??
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Doesn't look like it, posted on November 8, 2009 at 11:01:29
audioengr
Manufacturer

Posts: 4088
Location: Oregon
Joined: April 12, 2001
 This particular mux can be used for either analog or digital. Analog in your case. 2:1 selector.

Hehehe! Thanks, folks, for comments so far, posted on November 7, 2009 at 04:22:41
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I suppose sometimes things just sound better than they ought to. Bear in mind that the DAC cost a whopping $60.

I'm pretty convinced that SoX at 176.4 is much better with this cheapo DAC than PPHS at 88.4 which I was using for quite a while. I intend to check out SoX' filtering options further but Linear sounds best to me at this point.

As for ASIO, the Revo 7.1 has a driver for this, but I was getting a lot of "burps" using it, whereas KS is fine.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: Hehehe! Thanks, folks, for comments so far, posted on November 7, 2009 at 07:26:42
Dawnrazor
Audiophile

Posts: 7500
Location: N. California
Joined: April 9, 2004
 F,

When you were using asio, did you always get the "burps"? Even when changing the Revo
s asio buffer setting?


Haven't tried changing it, posted on November 7, 2009 at 07:56:59
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I've always just left the Revo latency at 256 samples. However I have changed the Foobar output Buffer Lenght to various value to no avail.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
OK, now I have, posted on November 7, 2009 at 08:46:26
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 I tried various settings from 64 to 1024 samples in combination with various Foobar output Buffer Lengths. Unfortunately the burps seem to be worse that I recall, in fact almost continuous. A real disaster. Could the problem be SoX?
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
RE: OK, now I have, posted on November 7, 2009 at 10:13:14
Tony Lauck
Audiophile

Posts: 3048
Location: Vermont
Joined: November 12, 2007
Contributor
  Since: February 24, 2009
 Look into your system latency. It may be that there are extraneous processes that are using resources and these are have enough priority to lock out the essential functions of the player. Check also the percentage CPU utilization, which is definitely greater when upsampling to higher rates, although SOX requires less CPU than the other SRC. If CPU utilization is more than around 20% the likelihood of occasional glitches goes way up.

In the past there have been errant processes that got activated that caused me grief. The worst one was some anti-virus software which hung on to resources even though disabled. At present, I suspect problems from running iTunes, which infests my computer with the iTunes assistant and the damned iPod service. (I have no iPOD.)

Take care that you don't use lots of analog gain in conjunction with a lot of digital volume attenuation. That's a recipe for disaster if a glitch hits your system.

Tony Lauck

"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar

RE: OK, now I have, posted on November 7, 2009 at 10:39:25
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 2931
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 Thanks, excellent advice.

I tested CPU utilization which is typically 4% and never more than 8% during Foobar playback. I testing latency using DPC which showed current latency rarely above 80uS and absolute not above 145uS.

Antivirus and iTunes are both hogs. I long since removed both from my music machine. Also I have disable most superfluous Windows services. This said, though, the music machine is old and relatively slow.
___
My Stereo Configuration
Feanor's Classical Music Survey, 250 Compositions
I Don't Know......................, posted on November 7, 2009 at 00:06:01
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 22046
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Digital audio in most part is still a crapshoot....... People have come up with unlikely combinations that sound satisfying....... My answer is if you have something satisfying, quit worrying and enjoy the music...... [-;


Yup., posted on November 7, 2009 at 06:37:27
rick_m
Audiophile

Posts: 2529
Location: Oregon
Joined: August 11, 2005
 But man is a curious animal...

R.

RE: I Don't Know......................, posted on November 7, 2009 at 03:13:48
Squonk
Audiophile

Posts: 1682
Location: Indianapolis
Joined: August 17, 2005
 Exactamundo. I've been ecstatic for years. I think the biggest advantage with computer audio was/is for the average guy. You can now get your foot in the door in highend audio without breaking the bank. Most of the arguments you see in here are from the cutting edge, ultra-highend. You want the best of the best, still gonna cost ya, but, good sound is now available to most. No more bitching about the high cost of hi-fi.




Photobucket
No idea. Of all that, I have experience only with Foobar + SoX - ..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 19:59:00
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 2634
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 ... and I can tell that on my system and to my ears, when upsampling to the same 96KHz sample rate with PPHS and SoX (PPHS doesn't support higher), SoX was noticeably worse, regardless of settings.

The same result was with cPlay, where SRC was head and shoulders above SoX.

It all depends on the system as a whole, plus ears, I guess.

It Can't, posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:33:10
Dynaudio_Rules
Audiophile

Posts: 5594
Location: Georgia
Joined: April 1, 2005
 First off you are using Foobar, not an accepted Audiophile player anymore.

Then you have a sub-par DAC using spdif NOT asynch USB [the only accepted Audiophile method of transfer]

Then you use Kernel streaming...according to Cics only ASIO is worthy of Audiophile grade sound.

And on top of all that you are using opamps....

It goes beyond all reason...you are clearly insane, please check into your local Asylum immediately!



Scrutiny Strengthens The Truth and Breaks Down Lies 音楽は天国と地球のかけ橋

Page processed in 0.071 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]