[Icarium]

No one person/person's experience can definitively answer the question "Does source matter." In fact I don't care how many people you have on whatever side with whatever argument/data/experience/sob story.

And even if people believe source matters where diminishing returns sets in is DIFFERENT for everyone.

What is valuable is a discussion as to where sweet spots are for different price points.

And the whole night and day thing is pretty bogus. But it is kind of how the human mind works. You buy a 20k cd player or amp... you go into the listening experience expecting to hear no change or very little change and instead you hear a distinctly different sound. After second listen you even convince yourself its better. Well you expected to hear NO DIFFERENCE, but isntead you hear a slightly different sound. This is what people interpret as night/day difference a majority of the time.

Another person with the same history/background/taste could buy the same cd player expecting to hear a major difference and hear something that is only slightly better. Chances are he/she will immediately decide that spending a lot of money on a cd player is not worth it. The rate at which this sets in generally is directly proportional to how much he/she can afford to throw 20k around.

Sometimes the person will listen to it for several more weeks to months and then come to the conclusion that there is a difference in the positive but it is subtle and deep and more like real life and vaguely worth it.

I look back at my purchases and here is what I will qualify as true night and day experiences.

1. Going from 100 dollar sony active noise cancelling headphones to Sennheiser HD600s

2. Going from 40 dollar sony ear buds to Etymotic ER6is

Things that I might have described as night and day differences if I had access to an internet connection/computer when I experienced them, but in hindsight... not nearly as impactful/different as the two previous listed.

1. K1000 out of the Zanden

2. Ironbut's reel to reel master tape/zana deux set up

3. HE60 from a Singlepower ES-1 with 3D21A output tubes

4. Qualias (Esp with the SS-1/Esoteric P03/D03 rig)

5. w5000s + zana deux

6. Hearing an Esoteric DV50.

7. Anything else I posted sensationally about because I actually did have access to a net connection immediately after listening to it.

PS. Don't get me wrong everything in list 2 was pretty huge sonically for me. I just wouldn't characterize it as really night and day. I mean night is friggin dark and day is friggin bright.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well at least that's settled I post rubbish No hard feelings on that. Look I think the wires have been crossed somewhere I was posting in response to greggf not saying that to everyone on head-fi would never agree with me (there are a few that do on certain subjects). To give you a little background. So far I've sunk a lot of money into my headphone setup and I've got a pretty amazing source in my opinion. When I did my comparison of a beta22 vs GS-X one of the first thing I was told as to why I couldn't hear a difference was that my source wasn't high end enough and neither were my phones or I was just deaf. I haven't interacted with that many people on head-fi but a large number of those I have seem to take that view (above 25%). Which I find elitist and most likely wrong. I play the viola (badly) and listen to both live and recorded classical music and I know that that instrument at least is supposed to sound like. You know what my setup reproduces the nuances very well. Including the harshness of the bow crunching on the string the littlest bit during a staccato bowing etc. If anything can get this detail better I'm interested. But I am also skeptical because I was told by many people that the beta22 (which I just sold) would destroy my GS-X, and to be honest there wasn't any difference between the two to the best of my hearing and using careful SPL metered volume matching. If I didn't volume match the louder one nearly always sounded better In the end I will continue to look into a higher end DAC and then probably get one and then sell it or sell the DAC1. I hope that I want to sell the DAC1 but personally I doubt it. In closing I'm really not trying to antagonize anyone but just telling you as I see it. Enjoy the music (be it on an ipod or and Esoteric), Chris

None taken.

I think we both were somewhat lost in translation...

I see where you're comming from...

i also happen to know instruments up close and know how they should sound.

I can tell ya that i heard high end sources and amp that were nowhere near the right sound.

I am somewhere in the middle; yes, good sources make a difference but you don't need 20.000 to get the essence of music.

It is a challenge to get the best sound for less money.

It is all in matching the right components.

The most heard complaint about the dac1 is that it is a bit harsh, well, with a good interlink you can do something about that or mod the analogue stage and you're harshness will be gone, for way less money then a high end cdp or dac will cost ya.

I am still tweaking my system but when i am done, i will enjoy the music. I won't spend any more money if i think it isn't necessarry anymore.

But we both agree that you have to invest a "fair' amount of money to get you the good sound we all like.

You know Patrick? He went all the way, very expensive stuff and is settling for a fair priced system now.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vladvlaz /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can see that.. By the way, perhaps a bad thing to say on a headphones forum.. I got some M-Audio studio monitors (BX5a), of comparable cost to the HD650s, only they are active. I love speaker sound (I won't be mentioning the inconvenience of having a volume control and power chord for each speaker to deal with). I guess I'm a speaker rather than headphone person. Incidentally, on these I seem to hear more of a difference between my crappy and better sources (could be a number of reasons: placebo, I've gotten better at spotting the differences, or I just hear them better on speakers than on the headphones). Again, it's not like the difference is huge, but I'm almost certain I can hear it on the monitors (based on 1 piano piece I replayed several times on both sources): CDP reaches to higher frequencies (a difference I'm most sure of). This gives recordings more air (I can't judge the bass as I doubt with a 5" woofer that these would be able to do anything in the lower registers) CDP has better detail in a section where the pianist starts playing lots of notes fast and loud - laptop seems to get a little confused by this and mushes up the sound a little, CDP is much better at providing the separation between different parts Finally, not sure if this is because the laptop doesn't reach the higher frequencies but the tonality on the laptop is less realistic. Laptop sounds more like a (not so well) recorded piano, CDP inches a little closer to reality. Written out these look like definitive differences. But when listening out for these they just seem to be perceptions, not something I'd bet my money on. By the way someone was saying Media player and Winamp sound different. I spotted that even with my k26p. I remember searching on the internet wondering if anyone else had the opinion that Media player sounds worse than Winamp playing back mp3s.

I am more or less convinced that the digital sections are quite equal. More or less preferences between chipsets.

The biggest difference will be however the analogue section of the cdplayer. better caps, resistors and wiring. better caps have better extension in top and bottom...especially the powersupplies in the analogue section are very important...

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

The most heard complaint about the dac1 is that it is a bit harsh, well, with a good interlink you can do something about that or mod the analogue stage and you're harshness will be gone, for way less money then a high end cdp or dac will cost ya.

The most heard complaint about any studio DAC from audiophiles is that they're a bit harsh. This is a transparent, unaltered source throwing unevenly mastered digital at analog-friendly ears. You could mod the analog stage. You could buy an audiophile DAC with the analog stage already moded, a good interlink might help I suppose, but not if it is an interlink made for transparency and detail, certainly not silver.

Or you could turn down the upper mids a bit.

Tim

 

[Cankin]

If studio DACs are truly transparent, can one assume that various DACs from Lavry, Apogee or Benchmark sound exactly the same?

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cankin /img/forum/go_quote.gif If studio DACs are truly transparent, can one assume that various DACs from Lavry, Apogee or Benchmark sound exactly the same?

No, but one can assume that their objective is to add no color to the signal, so they should be pretty close. The better DAC may reveal more detail, better channel separation, better dynamic range etc. But in a perfect world, if the components are "transparent," you should be able to swap them out with almost no change in the balance of the frequency response, because the objective of the design has been to present the incoming information as accurately as possible, not to change the tonal balance in any way.

With that said, we all know the world, and the gear in it, is not perfect. But this approach is very different from that of the audiophile DAC that deliberately attempts to change the signal to make digital sound more analog.

Tim

 

[I-Love-Music]

I agree if the source is lossless. Like flac. I cannot hear a difference between flac or wave.

 

[tfarney]

One more note. In the current issue of Stereophile and in another thread on this forum, a rather well-known audiophile source is described exactly as one would expect a digital source colored to sound more analog:

"Rounded off...smooth...dynamic compression at the leading edge of the treble transient...euphonic...without the etched hardness of most digital sources..."

All that is missing are the ubiquitous "musical" and "warm," but it's quite close enough. More here....

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/ste...on-1-a-333891/

Tim

 

[regal]

Four types of digital sources:

1. "Budget" - whatever best priced parts can be put together, luck of the draw

2. "Transparent" - plays back what was recorded no more no less

3. "Analog Tuned" - tries to sound like a record player

4. " Life-Like" - recreates the band in your living room, taking into account limitations of pre and post processing.

Notice that none of them especially #2 are uncolored. A mic to tape or ADC is not uncolored. There will always be color, a good source counteracts this and compensates. A good source always compensates for the biggest source of color in your system:speakers. This is why a Dac1 is not meant for listening at home, DAC's like it are best left in the studio.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Four types of digital sources: 1. "Budget" - whatever best priced parts can be put together, luck of the draw 2. "Transparent" - plays back what was recorded no more no less 3. "Analog Tuned" - tries to sound like a record player 4. " Life-Like" - recreates the band in your living room, taking into account limitations of pre and post processing. Notice that none of them especially #2 are uncolored. A mic to tape or ADC is not uncolored. There will always be color, a good source counteracts this and compensates. A good source always compensates for the biggest source of color in your system:speakers. This is why a Dac1 is not meant for listening at home, DAC's like it are best left in the studio.

A good source cannot "counteract" or "compensate" for your speakers. The source has no idea what speakers you are using or the conditions of the room they're being played in, so any attempt to do this would do much more harm than good. That would be a pretty bad source.

A good source certainly does not "counteract" or "compensate for color in the recording. The overwhelming majority of the color in the recording, especially studio recordings, is very intentional. A source that counteracts or compensates for the color in a recording is a hardware designer presuming to know better than the artist or the recording engineer. You may call that "good." I'd call it dead wrong.

Regarding your 4 types of digital sources, they work well enough until you get to #4, which is more of what is described in the paragraph above. The designer of a cdp or DAC cannot make a recording more "lifelike" than what was made in the studio and, hopefully, respectfully mastered. That is exactly how "lifelike" the music is when we stick it in the cdp or run it through the DAC. No more, no less. Anything done in that piece of source hardware to make the outcome fit the designer's view of what is more "lifelike" is color and is probably closer to analog, so just go ahead and stick it under #3. Or create a new category:

4. Presumptuous.

Tim

 

[regal]

Compensate was probably the wrong word, overcome is more like it. I can see by your sig that you know what a good source is.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compensate was probably the wrong word, overcome is more like it. I can see by your sig that you know what a good source is.

I've spent enough time in listening to pro equipment to proceed very carefully with my ears and dollars into the voodoo of audiophilia. I'll upgrade sources when I hear the upgrade. For me, that means greater detail, lower noise (if that's attainable these days) and better dynamics and separation, without changing tonal balance. It might be different for you, and that's ok, but compensate, overcome, it really doesn't matter what word you use. It is still a hardware designer coloring the sound of the original recording to his taste or the taste of his customers...often charging a tremendous premium for it. If you like it, cool. Buy it. But is deliberately engineering a tonal imbalance into a source is an "improvement" on the original recording? It could be if the original recording or (more likely) mastering is bad, and the engineered compensation happens to address the problems of that particular recording.

But when you put in a great master of a great recording...your compensation is still there. Are those the good sources I'm supposed to know about?

Tim

 

[regal]

All sources color the sound, those touted as transparent are usually heavily loaded with NFB which is just another form of coloring, measrures well but digusting sounding. Until we can design a bare wire to perform digital to analog conversion we will have colored sources. Good ones work WITH the entire chain, not in spite of it.

 

[tfarney]

Quote:

Originally Posted by regal /img/forum/go_quote.gif All sources color the sound, those touted as transparent are usually heavily loaded with NFB which is just another form of coloring, measrures well but digusting sounding. Until we can design a bare wire to perform digital to analog conversion we will have colored sources. Good ones work WITH the entire chain, not in spite of it.

Refer back to your original post with your four kinds of sources. That was closer to the truth. Yes all sources, all components in a system for that matter, introduce color. It is a matter of whether or not the introduction of color is something the designer of the equipment intends to do or intends to avoid. One is not better than the other. I just think it is instructive to understand what is going on and what we're buying.

Tim

 

[regal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tfarney /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just think it is instructive to understand what is going on and what we're buying. Tim

Its always a crap shoot buying equipment. I won't buy equipment without a circuit diagram.