[neilvg]

I also previously thought that, if I had a very good DAC, and if the source was technically good in transferring info to the DAC, it would essentially be perfect...

Now I can't explain what is going on, I'm not that knowledgeable about it. But I suppose a metaphor could be something akin to high end power cords or interconnects. Time and time again, those relying on statistics alone would have a hard time believing a difference; but those actually listening almost always notice a difference, sometimes quite significant.

I recently purchased a CDplayer combo that many consider at the highest eschelon of digital reproduction (meitner CDSD/DCC2). And after less than 1 minute of listening I was shocked by how good it was.

Plugging my previous CD player (not a shabby transport in its own right - Esoteric DV50) into the DAC alone (DCC2) did NOT yield NEARLY as good a synergy.

It's not that the sound wasn't 'all there' in terms of detail. But it was how aesthetically it was presented. At this point, it really has more to do with more subtle characteristics - treble balance, warmth, depth, soundstage, speed of bass, tightness of bass, midrange control, transient response....

These all may be subtle, but together comprise a signficant change, especially when using highly resolving headphones + amp.

My computer setup cannot nearly match it (yet); the EMM Labs combo sounds HUGE, with great weight.

Neil

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline So, you think those players do not use dacs internal? They use a buffer between reading and transporting the signal to the dac..hence no correction and much better sound. Get your facts straight.

Lol I got into this same problem only a few weeks ago. Turned out we were talking about the same thing we just got hung on the definition of the word buffer.

Buffer and buffer. I'm not sure the details of the miniDAC but in my experience many people claim they have a "buffer" when they simply asyncronously reclock the signal. They aren't really lying. But then if you do have a buffer what do you link it to? A different clock would yield underruns and overruns. If you use an external PLL loop to control a VCXO to slowly track the incomming signal and then run the signal through a single bit reclocking device like a flipflop then you are also technically buffering. Mind you the results are VERY different.

neilvg:
the difference between this and power cords and interconnects is a measurable difference with loads of real scientific research to back up the observations.

DennyL:
The results of different sound are not due to bit errors. Infact if you heard a bit error you would know it straight away, it would skip or blip. The result is timing errors. If the bit arrives at the DAC as much as 0.000000000004s before or after the clock beat then there is a measurable result on the output. I think result for an audible linearity error was something like 20ps but the current run of the mill players are one or 2 orders of magnitude worse than this on their digital outs, thanks largely to the interconnection standard.

 

[HugoFreire]

.

 

[regal]

The difference between transports into an external DAC is jitter.

Just because the data is sent correctly to the DAC doesn't mean it gets the timing right, this causes jitter and is the reason people spend $14,ooo for a transport.

 

[Sleestack]

When I hook up my Esoteric P-03 to the D-03 via the proprietary Dual AES + word synch it sounds different than my SP3 in my headphone rig. I do, however usually set the P-03 transport to upconvert ot DSD before sending the signals out to the D-03. When I simply use the SPDIF out, I really don't hear much difference, nor would I expect to, as the SP3 has relatively low jitter and I'm using FLAC files. In my speaker setup, where I rely on the upgraded TACT DACs, I use SPDIF or optical out of the P-03 and SB3 directly into the TACT. Again, no significant audible differences when using just the SPDIF with no word synch. No stringent DBTs here, just my casual observations.

On a side note.... Transporters arrive in less than a week!

 

[slwiser]

Dan Lavry's opinion suggests that it does not matter much. Check out his own forum and find out what he says concerning this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stangs55 Does it? The reason I ask is because I just purchased Lavry DA10 DAC and I plan on using my computer as the optical input and a dvd/cd player as the digital coax input. Since I'll essentially be bypassing the DAC on the player, is there really going to be much of a difference between what i've got and a more expensive player hooked up in the same manner? Thanks

 

[Jon L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilvg I also previously thought that, if I had a very good DAC, and if the source was technically good in transferring info to the DAC, it would essentially be perfect... Now I can't explain what is going on, I'm not that knowledgeable about it. But I suppose a metaphor could be something akin to high end power cords or interconnects. Time and time again, those relying on statistics alone would have a hard time believing a difference; but those actually listening almost always notice a difference, sometimes quite significant. I recently purchased a CDplayer combo that many consider at the highest eschelon of digital reproduction (meitner CDSD/DCC2). And after less than 1 minute of listening I was shocked by how good it was. Plugging my previous CD player (not a shabby transport in its own right - Esoteric DV50) into the DAC alone (DCC2) did NOT yield NEARLY as good a synergy. It's not that the sound wasn't 'all there' in terms of detail. But it was how aesthetically it was presented. At this point, it really has more to do with more subtle characteristics - treble balance, warmth, depth, soundstage, speed of bass, tightness of bass, midrange control, transient response.... These all may be subtle, but together comprise a signficant change, especially when using highly resolving headphones + amp. My computer setup cannot nearly match it (yet); the EMM Labs combo sounds HUGE, with great weight. Neil

What connection/cable were you using the connect DV50 to DCC2?

But yes, a transport from another company simply isn't going to yield as good a result as the Meitner transport that was developed with DCC2 in mind, using word-sync proprietary digital connections.

I wish Meitner would develop a sound card with same proprietary digital connection as CDSD, with some kind of hack to play SACD files from a computer. That 'might' convince me to drop the $$$ on a DCC2 or Dac6e, since all my music is hard-drive based.

Luckily, my Lynx 2B card has word clock in, and I have been modding the card with a digital adapter equipped with true 75 Ohm BNC connectors for both digital out and word clock in. Now, if that Storm D02a with word clock out would just make its appearance soon..

 

[neilvg]

The only two options for connecting it are COAX or Optical. I tried both, settled on COAX. It sounds great, better than my D70 DAC (1/2 of the P70/D70 combo). But the Meitner combo is impressive. It doesn't have the clinical treble the Esoteric has. The esoteric is very lean and laser-like. Whereas the Meitner sounds warm, euphonic, pastel-ish. More analog.

Neil

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilvg The only two options for connecting it are COAX or Optical. I tried both, settled on COAX. It sounds great, better than my D70 DAC (1/2 of the P70/D70 combo). But the Meitner combo is impressive. It doesn't have the clinical treble the Esoteric has. The esoteric is very lean and laser-like. Whereas the Meitner sounds warm, euphonic, pastel-ish. More analog. Neil

I think that's a result of the DSD conversion. When I run the P-03/D-03 with the DSD upconversion applied to Redbook, I would definitely describe it as being more warm and euphonic than the unconverted signal, which tends sound more analytical.

 

[neilvg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack I think that's a result of the DSD conversion. When I run the P-03/D-03 with the DSD upconversion applied to Redbook, I would definitely describe it as being more warm and euphonic than the unconverted signal, which tends sound more analytical.

You must be right. I generally tend to find well done SACD's to be warm and euphonic as compared to their sometimes more detailed but also more harsh/unrefined Redbook versions. If this is true, then it really is something that both our players are able to impart some of the qualities of a good SACD to redbook.

Even some of my less agreeable recordings (in terms of quality) have a glow around them.

 

[HugoFreire]

.

 

[Garbz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser Dan Lavry's opinion suggests that it does not matter much. Check out his own forum and find out what he says concerning this issue.

Not a credible source IMHO. If Dan conceeded that one transport sounded better than the other on his DAC, it would undermine the jitter reduction claims.

That said I agree to an extent.

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilvg If this is true, then it really is something that both our players are able to impart some of the qualities of a good SACD to redbook. Even some of my less agreeable recordings (in terms of quality) have a glow around them.

Exactly. The DSD conversion seems to make many marginal or average recordings sound better. I'm not exactly what exactly is going on there, but I know I like the way it sounds.

 

[Sleestack]

Double post.

 

[BrianS]

this is an interesting conversation