Maybe stupid question about Digital PCM Filter and oversampling

[bigshot]

We had someone test another high end DAC/amp of that brand and it was transparent.

 

[mjtbah98]

Thank you everyone for your kind and welcoming replies, it's very much appreciated! Someone on ASR did detailed measurements of a CD player similar to mine, using the exact same DAC. I won't pretend I know anything about the numbers or exactly what they mean, but going off of the poster's words, it seems the DAC in this player is not too shabby! Please elaborate on this if it's an incorrect judgement. It is nice to know that this community is kind to people wanting to learn more. It's refreshing to see a mostly civilized discussion board these days. Thank you everyone that replied!






https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...335-review-1990-cd-player.56478/#post-2062612

 

[bigshot]

DACs aren’t usually the problem. The IEMs or headphones are.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

Thank you everyone for your kind and welcoming replies, it's very much appreciated! Someone on ASR did detailed measurements of a CD player similar to mine, using the exact same DAC. I won't pretend I know anything about the numbers or exactly what they mean, but going off of the poster's words, it seems the DAC in this player is not too shabby! Please elaborate on this if it's an incorrect judgement. It is nice to know that this community is kind to people wanting to learn more. It's refreshing to see a mostly civilized discussion board these days. Thank you everyone that replied!






https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...335-review-1990-cd-player.56478/#post-2062612

Good news, it’s audibly transparent. Unless you don’t wanna use CDs anymore, you don’t need to upgrade.

 

[mjtbah98]

DACs aren’t usually the problem. The IEMs or headphones are.

Good news, it’s audibly transparent. Unless you don’t wanna use CDs anymore, you don’t need to upgrade.

Awesome! That means I can enjoy what I have while I wait to upgrade headphones! Thank you both very much!

 

[gregorio]

I won't pretend I know anything about the numbers or exactly what they mean, but going off of the poster's words, it seems the DAC in this player is not too shabby! Please elaborate on this if it's an incorrect judgement.

No, it’s not an incorrect judgement but I’ll elaborate a little anyway, or rather contextualise it.

1. Harmonic distortion, noise (inc. power supply noise), jitter, frequency response, filter and IMD (inter-modulation distortion) are all well below audible levels, even at relatively loud playback levels, so yes, certainly transparent. Even at a fairly high playback level of 85dB SPL all the noise and distortions will be significantly below 0dB SPL, the threshold of hearing for a young healthy adult in an anechoic chamber.

2. Those figures were obtainable by around 1987 in the high-end CD players of the day. Here we have a 1990 mid-priced unit (I believe) achieving that level, within around 5 years even cheap units were achieving it ($50 OEM CD drives for example) and around 5 years after that, the end of the 1990’s, even dirt cheap DACs, those built into cheap TVs and set-top boxes for example, where the entire DAC section cost less than $10, were equally transparent. Not every DAC was measured of course, so we cannot say for certain all DACs were transparent 25-30 years ago but it’s a fair conclusion unless counter evidence is presented.

What’s interesting about all this is that your unit’s very good transparency from 35 years ago and even cheap units from 30 years ago, were before the more recent audiophile marketing based on solving a variety of supposedly serious problems with DACs: Various jitter/phase-noise/clocking issues, digital filters, the analogue sections of DACs in general, balanced/unbalanced, linear/switching and general power supply issues, etc. All of which demonstrate the exceedingly common audiophile marketing strategy of taking an element of how digital or analogue audio works, claiming it’s an unsolved audible issue and then presenting a solution to that problem which mid priced units had already solved 35 years ago!

G

 

[JamoBroGuy]

It’s particularly strange how only recently with audiophile marketing have we somewhat often gotten non-transparent DACs. They’re usually ludicrously expensive, too, even though cheap dongles outperform them.

 

[2leftears]

Thank you everyone for your kind and welcoming replies, it's very much appreciated! Someone on ASR did detailed measurements of a CD player similar to mine, using the exact same DAC. I won't pretend I know anything about the numbers or exactly what they mean, but going off of the poster's words, it seems the DAC in this player is not too shabby! Please elaborate on this if it's an incorrect judgement. It is nice to know that this community is kind to people wanting to learn more. It's refreshing to see a mostly civilized discussion board these days. Thank you everyone that replied!






https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...335-review-1990-cd-player.56478/#post-2062612

You'll be fine with that one as others already suggested.

Players of that vintage can show problems, but they are often to do with the mechanics (slipping tray drive belt, or worn bearings in the motor or disk hold-down clamp), or aged electrolytic capacitors in the tracking & focus servo circuitry.

When vintage players start to skip, worn-out lasers are an often incorrect diagnosed problem; a weak laser is rarely an issue even on vintage players.

 

[gregorio]

It’s particularly strange how only recently with audiophile marketing have we somewhat often gotten non-transparent DACs. They’re usually ludicrously expensive, too, even though cheap dongles outperform them.

TBH, it’s not “particularly strange” it’s entirely typical, audiophile marketing has been doing this for more than half a century, although obviously there were no consumer DACs back then. Not sure if you’ve seen this quote I’ve posted previously:

“The high-end market has become a jungle, where rip-offs are possibly more frequent than they used to be in the low end of the business years ago in the primitive days of the hifi boom. Today, a $1500 power amplifier is more likely to be an overpriced piece of junk than a $300 receiver, which generally delivers decent value for money. Price is no longer a meaningful indication of quality; it has become a marketing gimmick.” - The Audio Critic, January 1977. That’s nearly 50 years ago and intrinsically nothing has changed, it’s exactly the same today, the only differences are that today it’s also used for DAC audiophile marketing, we can exchange “decent value for money” for “audible transparency” and the $300 figure is a lot lower.

G

 

[Ryokan]

I was so impressed with my Rega Brio amp I thought of upgrading to one costing considerably more but after a brief test at home couldn't hear a difference, let alone a notable one which is what I was expecting.

 

[JamoBroGuy]

TBH, it’s not “particularly strange” it’s entirely typical, audiophile marketing has been doing this for more than half a century, although obviously there were no consumer DACs back then. Not sure if you’ve seen this quote I’ve posted previously:

“The high-end market has become a jungle, where rip-offs are possibly more frequent than they used to be in the low end of the business years ago in the primitive days of the hifi boom. Today, a $1500 power amplifier is more likely to be an overpriced piece of junk than a $300 receiver, which generally delivers decent value for money. Price is no longer a meaningful indication of quality; it has become a marketing gimmick.” - The Audio Critic, January 1977. That’s nearly 50 years ago and intrinsically nothing has changed, it’s exactly the same today, the only differences are that today it’s also used for DAC audiophile marketing, we can exchange “decent value for money” for “audible transparency” and the $300 figure is a lot lower.

G

Oh yeah, I remember you sharing that quote. Crazy that it’s been happening for this long.

 

[gregorio]

Crazy that it’s been happening for this long.

If the strategy still works, and clearly it does, then why stop using it? The audiophile world is a strange place, it often seems to be decades behind the times, some issue that was a serious technical problem during the development of digital audio in the 1970’s, solved in the 1980’s, taken for granted and forgotten by the 1990’s and then 20 years later some audiophile marketer sees something in an audio history book and suddenly it’s a massive issue all the reviewers are talking about, that only a cutting edge boutique DAC maker can solve, for a serious premium. Give that man a Nobel prize for inventing a round wheel, a true audiophile marvel of the modern age.

G

 

[JamoBroGuy]

If the strategy still works, and clearly it does, then why stop using it? The audiophile world is a strange place, it often seems to be decades behind the times, some issue that was a serious technical problem during the development of digital audio in the 1970’s, solved in the 1980’s, taken for granted and forgotten by the 1990’s and then 20 years later some audiophile marketer sees something in an audio history book and suddenly it’s a massive issue all the reviewers are talking about, that only a cutting edge boutique DAC maker can solve, for a serious premium. Give that man a Nobel prize for inventing a round wheel, a true audiophile marvel of the modern age.

G

Can’t forget the boutique cables that open up the soundstage due to having a lot of wires.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Thank you everyone for your kind and welcoming replies, it's very much appreciated! Someone on ASR did detailed measurements of a CD player similar to mine, using the exact same DAC. I won't pretend I know anything about the numbers or exactly what they mean, but going off of the poster's words, it seems the DAC in this player is not too shabby! Please elaborate on this if it's an incorrect judgement. It is nice to know that this community is kind to people wanting to learn more. It's refreshing to see a mostly civilized discussion board these days. Thank you everyone that replied!






https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...335-review-1990-cd-player.56478/#post-2062612

Yeah that seems great!

 

[perrew]

TBH, it’s not “particularly strange” it’s entirely typical, audiophile marketing has been doing this for more than half a century, although obviously there were no consumer DACs back then. Not sure if you’ve seen this quote I’ve posted previously:

“The high-end market has become a jungle, where rip-offs are possibly more frequent than they used to be in the low end of the business years ago in the primitive days of the hifi boom. Today, a $1500 power amplifier is more likely to be an overpriced piece of junk than a $300 receiver, which generally delivers decent value for money. Price is no longer a meaningful indication of quality; it has become a marketing gimmick.” - The Audio Critic, January 1977. That’s nearly 50 years ago and intrinsically nothing has changed, it’s exactly the same today, the only differences are that today it’s also used for DAC audiophile marketing, we can exchange “decent value for money” for “audible transparency” and the $300 figure is a lot lower.

G

I see you had some serious work gear but what kind of home setup do you use for headphones?