[computerparts]

I don't even let myself get excited with talk of new chips anymore. I know it will be a long time before the design for a new chip will be optimized so I don't even bother. Very true, the chip has little to do with how a playback machine sounds. Take the Lector CDP-7T MKI for example. It uses PCM63P, not a very state of the art chip, in fact it's rather old. It doesn't even upsample, but man that cd player sounds like good analog. I was curious about 24/96 for a while. But there's so little of it out there and not very many choices of high quality playback machines that can handle those signals without truncating them. I don't think 24/192 will ever come to be.
 
So I decided to stick with good old 16/44.1 and enjoy the music. It can sound quite good with quality playback machines. After I went through a lot of playback machines, I discovered there are machines that make good sounds and there are machines that make good music. I find myself wanting to get back into a machine that makes good music. My next and last step is either going to be one of them Ayon cd players people are raving about or one of the higher end Audio Note dacs. I have yet to try a non oversampling dac so I'm curious about that route. If for some reason that doesn't satisfy me then it's back to MBL lol.
 
 
 
   

 

[maverickronin]

Can different DACs sound different?  Sure I'll buy that.  Does that mean that more expensive DACs objectively sound better?  Not really.  It doesn't take a whole lot of money to engineer and manufacture a DAC that faithfully reproduces the input signal.  The hard part is properly shielding the analog side to keep random noise out of the signal.  That's the main reason people notice a difference between cheap built-in soundcards and high quality soundcards or external DACs.  It's not hard to objectivly test a DAC.  Just get some signals lab hardware and compare the input to the output.
 
If it's not so difficult to make a DAC, then way do some sound different from one another?  I'm guessing its because many higher end DACs have intentional non linearity.  They do this to color the sound in a 'pleasing' way.  I really wish I had a link but, I read an article somewhere showing that 'audiophile' DACs were usually less accurate than cheaper mass market models.  My personal opinion is that there are already enough links in your audio chain that color the sound.  You probably don't need a undefeatable, unchangeable EQ in the middle of your audio chain and that accuracy is the standard DACs should be judged by.  I don't really have a problem with the people selling these 'colored' DAC as long as they state it upfront. (unlike HiFiMan..)  Everyone has different tastes, and if you like the sound of a specific DAC than go for it, but my guess is that you would be better served by a little software EQ or some new 'phones. YMMV

 

[nightrhyme]

Quote:

I don't even let myself get excited with talk of new chips anymore. I know it will be a long time before the design for a new chip will be optimized so I don't even bother. Very true, the chip has little to do with how a playback machine sounds. Take the Lector CDP-7T MKI for example. It uses PCM63P, not a very state of the art chip, in fact it's rather old. It doesn't even upsample, but man that cd player sounds like good analog. I was curious about 24/96 for a while. But there's so little of it out there and not very many choices of high quality playback machines that can handle those signals without truncating them. I don't think 24/192 will ever come to be.
 
So I decided to stick with good old 16/44.1 and enjoy the music. It can sound quite good with quality playback machines. After I went through a lot of playback machines, I discovered there are machines that make good sounds and there are machines that make good music. I find myself wanting to get back into a machine that makes good music. My next and last step is either going to be one of them Ayon cd players people are raving about or one of the higher end Audio Note dacs. I have yet to try a non oversampling dac so I'm curious about that route. If for some reason that doesn't satisfy me then it's back to MBL lol.
 
 
 
   

Again thanx for reply. For me the whole Cd-player era is all ower 

 My pc will host all files from here on. Had to take a look at the Ayon cd player and Audio note dac's though. Sure looks the business. As you liked the Wadia 12 why not some of their new dac's. I'm hearing a lot of talk about the upcoming Wadia 121 not to mention the Wadia 521.
You are probably right regarding the 24/96 files but I hope not. I guess it's all these teenagers that seems quite satisfied with a crummy 128kbs mp3
I also like the machines that make good music
 
Delay on the NAIM dac loan which also used an older chip (burr brown pcm1704). Should get it mid next week. Really looking forward to this one. If it doesn't sound vastly better than the wadia 12. I'll settle for that one. Provided I can get a fair price (it's a little dented and the psu humms which I found out could be eliviated by placing a book on top of the case. As it resonates with the psu)
 
Quote:

Can different DACs sound different?  Sure I'll buy that.  Does that mean that more expensive DACs objectively sound better?  Not really.  It doesn't take a whole lot of money to engineer and manufacture a DAC that faithfully reproduces the input signal.  The hard part is properly shielding the analog side to keep random noise out of the signal.  That's the main reason people notice a difference between cheap built-in soundcards and high quality soundcards or external DACs.  It's not hard to objectivly test a DAC.  Just get some signals lab hardware and compare the input to the output.
 
If it's not so difficult to make a DAC, then way do some sound different from one another?  I'm guessing its because many higher end DACs have intentional non linearity.  They do this to color the sound in a 'pleasing' way.  I really wish I had a link but, I read an article somewhere showing that 'audiophile' DACs were usually less accurate than cheaper mass market models.  My personal opinion is that there are already enough links in your audio chain that color the sound.  You probably don't need a undefeatable, unchangeable EQ in the middle of your audio chain and that accuracy is the standard DACs should be judged by.  I don't really have a problem with the people selling these 'colored' DAC as long as they state it upfront. (unlike HiFiMan..)  Everyone has different tastes, and if you like the sound of a specific DAC than go for it, but my guess is that you would be better served by a little software EQ or some new 'phones. YMMV

Thanx for your input. I think you are technically right. But I just don't judge gear with measuring instruments. I use my ears. I don't think the sound I like could ever be reproduced using EQ.
Just take a look at the succes of NAIM. You might love or hate the sound but thats not the point. The point is that NAIMs gear is highly colored and no amount of EQ I have ever seen can reproduce the NAIM sound. They are just really good at adding some "magic" to the sound IMHO

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

 
Thanx for your input. I think you are technically right. But I just don't judge gear with measuring instruments. I use my ears. I don't think the sound I like could ever be reproduced using EQ.
Just take a look at the succes of NAIM. You might love or hate the sound but thats not the point. The point is that NAIMs gear is highly colored and no amount of EQ I have ever seen can reproduce the NAIM sound. They are just really good at adding some "magic" to the sound IMHO

I'm not advocating only testing audio gear with objective, technical measurements, because even though I think its theoretically possible, no one is probably going to spend the time to create such tests that will only be useful to a small market like us.  Some things could be measured on an absolute scale, while others could be rated on a scale with one subjective preference on each end.  It's also possible for a bunch of poor measurements to somehow add up to something that sounds good, so subjective impressions need to be included along with objective measurements.  My point is that we need both.
 
There are two main reasons for consumers to worry about measuring audio equipment.  The first is because you can't always get a chance to test something before you purchase it.  The second reason is to make sure you're not fooling yourself.  The tests we do have aren't perfect, but if you have two pieces of equipment, one $500 and one $5000, and you're don't perceive a very large difference, and they test the same, then any difference you notice is likely psychoacoustic.  Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
 
I'd also argue that DACs also have a more narrowly defined purpose which make them easier to objectively test.  Even if something like the "NAIM sound" isn't a simple EQ curve, it's nothing that couldn't be replicated by a DSP.
 
Again I'm not saying that non linear DACs are necessarily bad, but it's nothing you can't more easily replicate with something more versatile that can switch between different sounds as the mood strikes you.  If you already know you like the sound of a piece of equipment than go ahead and buy it.  My only beef with people who don't disclose what they are actually selling.

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

Again thanx for reply. For me the whole Cd-player era is all ower 

 My pc will host all files from here on. Had to take a look at the Ayon cd player and Audio note dac's though. Sure looks the business. As you liked the Wadia 12 why not some of their new dac's. I'm hearing a lot of talk about the upcoming Wadia 121 not to mention the Wadia 521.
You are probably right regarding the 24/96 files but I hope not. I guess it's all these teenagers that seems quite satisfied with a crummy 128kbs mp3
I also like the machines that make good music
 
Delay on the NAIM dac loan which also used an older chip (burr brown pcm1704). Should get it mid next week. Really looking forward to this one. If it doesn't sound vastly better than the wadia 12. I'll settle for that one. Provided I can get a fair price (it's a little dented and the psu humms which I found out could be eliviated by placing a book on top of the case. As it resonates with the psu)
 

I tried the whole pc thing, didn't like it. IMO computers are notoriously nasty for noise. They just aren't designed for musical enjoyment. I find it ok as long as the signal never travels outside of the computer. So in other words just listening to music on the desktop. But once that signal travels outside the computer, look out. In my experience, a good dedicated transport still sounds better than a pc, macbook, etc... In what ways does it sound better? It's more smooth, more quiet between passages, more liquid and sound stage width and depth increase. Sure was convenient though having all the albums on a pc. IMO Wadia screwed up after the 15. The 25 and 27ix were also nice but they leaned  more toward making good sounds rather than making good music.
 
IMO the 12 and 15 were the most musical dacs they ever made. The dacs from the 90's were just special, they focused less on processing and more on music. I've never tried the NAIM stuff, just never piqued my interest. If their dac uses the pcm1704, then it should be pretty good. I'm really interested in Audio Note dacs since they don't have a digital filter, no jitter correction, no analog filter, and they use AD chips. I always liked the sound of designs that use AD chips over Burr Brown, BB just seem synthetic in comparison. It's a shame there aren't many dacs with AD chips. Back to the Audio Note, the signal passes through completely unprocessed. That makes sense to me because IMO the more processing dacs have, the less musical they get. There are some exceptions but they are very expensive. Anyway enough rambling from me. Be sure to let us know how that NAIM compares to the Wadia.

 
Quote:

Quote:

I'm not advocating only testing audio gear with objective, technical measurements, because even though I think its theoretically possible, no one is probably going to spend the time to create such tests that will only be useful to a small market like us.  Some things could be measured on an absolute scale, while others could be rated on a scale with one subjective preference on each end.  It's also possible for a bunch of poor measurements to somehow add up to something that sounds good, so subjective impressions need to be included along with objective measurements.  My point is that we need both.
 
There are two main reasons for consumers to worry about measuring audio equipment.  The first is because you can't always get a chance to test something before you purchase it.  The second reason is to make sure you're not fooling yourself.  The tests we do have aren't perfect, but if you have two pieces of equipment, one $500 and one $5000, and you're don't perceive a very large difference, and they test the same, then any difference you notice is likely psychoacoustic.  Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
 
I'd also argue that DACs also have a more narrowly defined purpose which make them easier to objectively test.  Even if something like the "NAIM sound" isn't a simple EQ curve, it's nothing that couldn't be replicated by a DSP.
 
Again I'm not saying that non linear DACs are necessarily bad, but it's nothing you can't more easily replicate with something more versatile that can switch between different sounds as the mood strikes you.  If you already know you like the sound of a piece of equipment than go ahead and buy it.  My only beef with people who don't disclose what they are actually selling.

I disagree, IMO we don't need measuring of any sort, only our ears. Measurements are useless because you could come across a dac with the greatest measurements but it sounds like crap. I say let the reviewing mags stick with the measurements. Sure you could throw an EQ into the mix and all the distortion inherent in its design, thus screwing things up even more when you boost a frequency. I'm not sure what you mean by "non-linear" dacs. Just because a dac has been EQ'd producing a linear response curve does not mean its a non linear dac. All solid state devices produce non-linear distortion. Also, there is a limit to how much dsp's can do. Show me a dsp that can replicate the three dimensionality of tubes and I'll be all over it lol.

 

[zenpunk]

The Idea that computer are noisy and polluted with nasty EMI/EMF is another of those preconceived ideas. A computer built  with quality parts can be practically silent. If electromagnetic interference were that bad you just wouldn't be able to run any OS. Any basic PC can now easily  play HD video and decode 5.1 sounds . A good PC used as a DAW can easily play more 20  24/96 stereo tracks while recording few at the same time. Actually most of today's musician are using their laptop/PC to compose, record and mix their music. 

 

[haloxt]

If you know how high fidelity equipment are made, you'd know 95% of computer parts have qualities that are unideal for music. Your typical computer is not built with low wattage, low vibration, low noise in mind, but then again, some notebooks are well-regarded as having these qualities and people say they are great transports. But even then I'd make sure the software does things like buffer music to RAM, and reduce power consumption with intelligent settings in software, two things high fidelity transports do. In many ways, my mp3 player with optical out has more in common with high fidelity setups than the vast majority of computers, but it probably does have a dogpoo clock and jitter.

 

[Fidelity Castro]

I use a computer as transport and i´m very happy with it, never would buy a standalone device for music playback again. It just depends on you how good the transport get´s, sources to build a hq pc transport are available, just need to try it out. CMP² is a good start, even if you don´t use cmp or cplay at all. Just apply the tweaks and follow the hardware recommendations and be ready to rock.
 

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

If you know how high fidelity equipment are made, you'd know 95% of computer parts have qualities that are unideal for music. Your typical computer is not built with low wattage, low vibration, low noise in mind, but then again, some notebooks are well-regarded as having these qualities and people say they are great transports. But even then I'd make sure the software does things like buffer music to RAM, and reduce power consumption with intelligent settings in software, two things high fidelity transports do. In many ways, my mp3 player with optical out has more in common with high fidelity setups than the vast majority of computers, but it probably does have a dogpoo clock and jitter.

 
I absolutely agree.  However, I was quite surprised how close my Mac Mini (which uses an external power supply) via optical to my Ref7 sounds to my Logitech Transporter using either BNC or AES to my Ref7.  The Mac Mini falls short in certain areas, as I would expect it to compared to the Transporter, but considering it was only about 2/5 of the price of the Transporter it's a great deal.  Team it up with Amarra Mini (which I now think is worthwhile at $295 because it also includes EQ with the new version 2.0) and you have a very nice transport.
 
I also recommend buying an external master word clock, which I plan on doing myself soon.
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by computerparts /img/forum/go_quote.gif

In what ways does it sound better? It's more smooth, more quiet between passages
 
snip...

I disagree, IMO we don't need measuring of any sort, only our ears. Measurements are useless because you could come across a dac with the greatest measurements but it sounds like crap.
 
snip...
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "non-linear" dacs.
 
snip..
 
Also, there is a limit to how much dsp's can do. Show me a dsp that can replicate the three dimensionality of tubes and I'll be all over it lol.

1.  Noise travels through a digital signal path how?
 
2. Only if you live down the street from a hifi store that stocks everything you'd ever consider buying.  Otherwise, it's likely that you'll have to buy something without hearinAlso if it measures perfect but sounds like crap, then obviously there's something wrong with the way you are measuring it!
 
3. A DAC that doesn't transparently output an analogue version of the digital input.
 
4. It's just math, there is no limit. Even if you think it isn't good enough right now, it will be soon enough.

 

[computerparts]

Quote:

1.  Noise travels through a digital signal path how?
 
2. Only if you live down the street from a hifi store that stocks everything you'd ever consider buying.  Otherwise, it's likely that you'll have to buy something without hearinAlso if it measures perfect but sounds like crap, then obviously there's something wrong with the way you are measuring it!
 
3. A DAC that doesn't transparently output an analogue version of the digital input.
 
4. It's just math, there is no limit. Even if you think it isn't good enough right now, it will be soon enough.

That digital signal has to travel somehow, through a cable of course. Even if there were no cables involved, that digital signal is still only as clean as the power supply producing it. You don't seem to get it. If something measures "perfect" it often will sound like crap (sterile, analytical, non musical). Back in my days of car audio I did a ton of measuring and you know what? The amps with the lowest measured THD were often the most non musical, hyper analytical amps I ever came across. By the way I will never measure home audio with all the nasty AC power involved. DC is practically pure and is a far better foundation for measuring equipment. "A dac that doesn't transparently output an analogue version of the digital input".... I must be missing something here because that makes absolutely no sense, can you please clarify? Dsp's still operate in solid state which cannot produce even order distortion. No matter how much math is involved, it's still transistor based and that is its limit.

 

[happyxix]

Quote:

That digital signal has to travel somehow, through a cable of course. Even if there were no cables involved, that digital signal is still only as clean as the power supply producing it. You don't seem to get it. If something measures "perfect" it often will sound like crap (sterile, analytical, non musical). Back in my days of car audio I did a ton of measuring and you know what? The amps with the lowest measured THD were often the most non musical, hyper analytical amps I ever came across. By the way I will never measure home audio with all the nasty AC power involved. DC is practically pure and is a far better foundation for measuring equipment. "A dac that doesn't transparently output an analogue version of the digital input".... I must be missing something here because that makes absolutely no sense, can you please clarify? Dsp's still operate in solid state which cannot produce even order distortion. No matter how much math is involved, it's still transistor based and that is its limit.

Did you just say digital signals is as "clean" as the power supply? What the hell are clean digital signals?
 
Digital you either get it or not. The decoder on the receiving side will translate the code into whatever it needs to be. Doesn't matter how tampered power supply is, a digital signal is as good as the next. If there is true degradation, the music would be choppy and unlistenable period.

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

Digital you either get it or not. The decoder on the receiving side will translate the code into whatever it needs to be. Doesn't matter how tampered power supply is, a digital signal is as good as the next. If there is true degradation, the music would be choppy and unlistenable period.

Do you even know what jitter is?  One digital signal is NOT just as good as the next.  If it were, studios would not use master word clocks.

 

[MrQ]

 
Quote:

Do you even know what jitter is?  One digital signal is NOT just as good as the next.  If it were, studios would not use master word clocks.

I put this link in another thread, but I think worth repeating. There is an article in this months (June 2010) Sound On Sound magazine titled "Does Your Studio Need A Digital Master Clock".
 
They tested the...
ANTELOPE AUDIO Isochrone Trinity $3995, Isochrone 10M $6495.
APOGEE Big Ben $1340. 
AUDIO & DESIGN READING SynchroGenius HD Pro $3063
DRAWMER MClock Lite $1055, MClock Plus $1725
MUTEC iClock $1475
ROSENDAHL Nanoclock $1300
 
 
There is an online version but you need a subscription to read it all.
 
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun10/articles/masterclocks.htm#top
 
edit; there's a section where they discuss jitter

 

[maverickronin]

 
Quote:

Do you even know what jitter is?  One digital signal is NOT just as good as the next.  If it were, studios would not use master word clocks.

Jitter has nothing to do with the quality of the signal itself.  The signal is all still there and can be reclocked and sent about its business.  Jitter occurs in 'stream of conciseness' bitstream formats, like toslink, s/pdif, and most usb DACs, when individual bits that are expected to arrive at perfectly regular intervals, arrive very slightly out of sync, and through a mess of complications, can reduce the apparent bit depth of the signal.  More commonly though, it just breaks up in to noise, because you'll probably only notice it if something is very wrong with one of the clock generators.  Jitter occurs because the two clocks on each end of the signal are out of sync.
 
For most practical purposes, jitter is inaudible.  If you have some kind of professional recording or mixing studio, full of devices communicating by bitstream, each with it own idea of what the clock should be, then you need a master clock to keep them all marching in formation.  Or you could just use an asynchronous transfer mode, and never have worry about jitter again,
 
Note that any noise that is somehow introduced into this system is completely rejected if it is below a certain level.  A digital signal, is either present or it is not.  The noise must be of sufficient strength to flip a 0 into 1.  If it doesn't reach this threshold, it is completely irrelevant.  Also not that the cables can not cause jitter.  Even if the very finest luminiferous aether from Cardas could transfer a signal faster, it wouldn't matter, because jitter is based on relative time, not absolute time.  In short, if your audio chain consists of one bitstream source, connected to one DAC, connected to one amplifier, and you can actually hear any jitter, then something is likely broken.