[KingStyles]

I do respect Dan's opinion as I also used to be a musician and having a couple years in college in electronic engineering. I do not throw out science and I am not saying that the best nos dacs are better than the best os dacs. I was just making a point that I will not overlook a nos dac over a os dac if I find I like the sound quality better at the price range that I can afford just because the technology is older and inferior. As transparency goes, I am thinking of a pretty neutral amp in the future and dont mind a little bit of flavor from my dac. After I get my amp I will look into a better dac and the lavery 2002 will be one of them because I do feel it is a great engineered dac. Sometimes in the midfi and low highfi sector a nos dac can rivel its os counterparts in sound, maybe not in specs. I understand your design philosophy and think it is a great approach. The only problem being if everybody was to use this philosophy, dacs would start to sound more and more alike having no personality of there own to set them apart from other manufactures. So nos while being inferior will always have some fans do to its different flavor. This might be naive, but it is what it is.

 

[tubes]

Thisbenjamin, no hard feelings, this ought to be about having fun and enjoying music no matter how you get there.

 

[WesMiaw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubes /img/forum/go_quote.gif The typical end user does not rely so much on specifications as he does on how the assembled system sounds. Because of the lack of electronics knowledge the typical end user is now on the hampster wheel, buying and selling equipment until they get lucky or just plain throw in the towel.

I'm trying to stay out of the subjective back and forth, but I do want to respond to this because this is exactly why I ended up building my own DAC.

There are tons of DACs out there, and the vast majority (probably >95%) do not explain why their product is good. Specifications are roughly stated. Measurements are limited. Many people are stuck on basic THD+N--due to marketing and trade magazines I suspect--so the manufacturer pushes that super low but the audio suffers. It can be a total gamble when you buy something. As you said, on the hamster wheel.

Since not everyone has the opportunity or knowledge to solve this problem on their own, I think if you find a product that has evidence (which may include explanations in addition to numbers) supporting why it is good, then maybe that's a good place to start.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tubes /img/forum/go_quote.gif The typical end user does not have this luxury when assembling a system unless he works with someone that has already done the groundwork for them. The typical end user does not rely so much on specifications as he does on how the assembled system sounds. Because of the lack of electronics knowledge the typical end user is now on the hampster wheel, buying and selling equipment until they get lucky or just plain throw in the towel.....

Say you want to listen to CD's with a headphone. First, one has to decide that they agree with my rational for transparent DA. If one is not for such a goal, read no further.

But if one does see the wisdom in such a goal, then as a first line of defense, I would stay away from electronics that does not have published specs regarding dynamic range, and distortions. I am not talking about electromechanical gear (headphones and speakers) which has other major important issues. I am talking about pure electronics (electric signal in and electric signal out).

True, a THD spec at 1KHz is far less then “good enough”, but it is better then nothing. Of course it is better when gear is specified for THD+N over the audible range (say 20-20KHz). A weighting dynamic range (or S/N) is not as telling as none A weighting, but it sure beats no specs at all. When you see no specs at all or real poor specs, and if you want transparency, I would not touch such gear. More than 95% when I measure gear that lacks published THD+N and signal to noise (or dynamic range), it had real poor results!

I agree, that the basic specifications will not tell you everything. I agree that with good “basic specs”, gear can still sound far less then transparent. BUT THE OPOSITE IS NOT TRUE. If you measure a lot of noise, do not kid yourself to believe that you will not hear it. If you see high level of distortions, it will impact the sound. Some distortions are real non musical, and other distortions are more musical. A 60Hz or 120Hz hum may be much worse then a little 2nd harmonic distortion. But for transparency, one wants minimal sonic alteration of any kind.

What I said is not a "straight line guide" to selection of transparent gear. But given the numerous amount of gear out there, and the huge possible combinations and iterations of hooking things together, following that advice will reduce a huge amount of trail and error. I am a designer, but I also have to rely on listening. I too have "finds" and "disappointments". The quest for great sound may not be easy or trivial, but that is no reason to go give up any sense of logic and good sense. On the contrary, we should hang on to whatever we can, instead of throwing darts blind folded.

There are many industries that would not tolerate the wide open "anything goes" and "any opinion is just as valid as any hard fact as one finds in hi-fi . Medicine has its problems, but can you imagine folks taking pills based on how it made some internet buddy feel? Take the automobile market. I would strongly recommend testing drive before you buy. One is wise to look at the basic specs such as gas mileage, horse power, size or whatever before just trying anything and everything. Does anyone sell cars without any published basic specs? I do not think so. How about computers? The specs are not always clear, but if one does not tell you anything about clock speed, drive and memory size and so on, will you expect to have a good machine? If the specs are good, the machine may or may not be good. But if the specs are poor or missing, I would not waste my time.

I know folks like to try things for themselves, evaluate and share their experience. But there is ton of gear out there, and the possible iterations are good enough for 10 life times. I am all for listening, and improving sound. I can not get you there, but I am suggesting starting the process “closer” to a desired goal.

Regards
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering

 

[DoYouRight]

Really enjoy your knowledge Dan, wish I had money leftover to try one of your dacs to compare to the Buffalo. I would like no coloration in my system until the headphone end. Its difficult when so many gears are not readily available to test before you buy

 

[moonboy403]

Here's just a curiosity question for both Dan and Wes!

Which headphone do you prefer and why?

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[Ranchu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranchu /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is the best description of the difference that I have read- "The difference between the non-oversampling DAC and the conventional DAC with the digital filter lies whether you attach importance on the accuracy in the time domain [NOS] or in the frequency domain [OS]. In other words, whether you choose the musical performance or the quality of a sound. This trade-off line defines the boundary of the current digital audio format ." From here- kusunoki NOS sounds like 'music is happening', while OS 'sounds like music' if you catch my drift.

I thought people might understand from the small part of the article that I posted. It's all well and good to talk about the frequency accuracy of OS, that is it's strength. What it cannot do is time accuracy, that is NOS's strength. The technology doesn't exist to do both well, so you have to choose which you would prefer to have.

Transparency in time, or frequency? Or is that subjective? lol.

From the article:

"The diagram shows, as an example, the computation of CD data through the high-performance digital-filter SM5842. The accompanied numbers are the actual sizes in the space when replaced with the hard-ware. Since the sampling frequency of CD is 44.1kHz, each delay time for the 1 x sampling is 22.ms per tap. To achieve 8 x sampling, SM5842 repeats 2 x sampling three times, and each step incorporates the taps of, 169 degrees for 2 x, 29 degrees for 4 x, and 17 degrees for 8 x. The accumulated delay of each step becomes, 1.92ms, 0.16ms, and 0.05ms: total of 2.13ms.
Our auditory sense does the frequency analysis at every 2ms interval, and 2.13ms of delay can be caught by our ear.
If the speed of sound is 346m/s, the total length of the row of speakers becomes 737mm. ( In the diagram, the distance between each speaker is presented by the total delay divided by the total number of taps.)
Now, you can imagine what kind of sound will result from such a system. All the notes coming from the speakers before and behind, will mix, intervene with each other, and spread. I would like to express this expansion of the sound over the time axis as a "diffusion of sound coherence". For example, if an attack of a piano note was not clear enough, as if the felt on the hammer became thicker, you might be hearing this "diffusion of sound coherence".
We also need to consider this issue not only on the playback systems, but more totally, including the recording systems.
diagram7
[daiagram7]
in case SM5815A
is used in 1/2 decimation


The diagram 7 indicates the diaphragm 5 replaced with a recording hardware. If you ever felt the digital recording somewhat lacking a core of the sound, please examine this illustration carefully. In a way, one point recording using digital filter is so much nonsense. The time will come in the near future when the performance of a digital filter will be evaluated not only by its cut-off characteristics but also how small a number of taps it has. If the digital filter is a necessary evil, we have to make sure to limit the total delay within 2ms throughout the recording and playback so that it won't be caught by human auditory sense. "

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here's just a curiosity question for both Dan and Wes! Which headphone do you prefer and why?

I am not into recomadations of gear. I am glad to talk about electronics and audio, not specific gear.

Lately, I have been using the HD650 a lot. I am going to try the HD800 soon. Both are 300 Ohms. For low impedance (32 Ohms) I am pretty impressed with Bayer DT860, (the DT990 is also very fine, it is a higher higher impedance then the DT860).

You ask why? first, I prefer open headphones, and it works for me. So going for open type already limits the possibly selection considerably. And of course, I do what I preach. I value my time, and I can only evaluate limited number of units, so I tend to reduce the possible selection by looking at specifications data first.

Note that the models and makes that I mentioned happen to have fine "basic specs" relatively very to many other models and makes. For example, the 650 states .05% THD+N, and the 800 .02%. Of course it only specs it at 1KHz, so one needs to further evaluate it, and listening is always in order.

Also, I am in the pro audio business so I do know a number of top notch audio proffesionals. I lot of these folks are on a never ending mission to improve their sound. I keep my ears open and when I hear a few of those pro's come up independently with the similar positive comments, I get curious. That too helps narrow the possibilities.

Regards
Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ranchu /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought people might understand from the small part of the article that I posted. It's all well and good to talk about the frequency accuracy of OS, that is it's strength. What it cannot do is time accuracy, that is NOS's strength. The technology doesn't exist to do both well, so you have to choose which you would prefer to have. Transparency in time, or frequency? Or is that subjective? lol. "

Finally someone presenting a "technical" comment on the side of NOS. The only problem that is a complete and total nonsense! It is NOT TECHNICAL, out of mid air bunch of made out nonsense. This is beyond words!

If One can take an waveform (say voltage variation over time), and one can reproduce the exact waveform in time, then you have total transparency, in time, in frequency, in terms of phase and any other words you wish to put in.

Sound is air vibrations. If you can reproduce the same air vibrations, you have total transparency. If the input and output voltage variation over time are identical, then all aspects including frequency content and every thing else is perfectly transparent.

Once you line up (say on a scope) the input and the output in the time domain, and make sure the signal amplitude is the same, you can see the difference (if any) between input and output. When identical in time, you have perfect transparency in ALL RESPECTS. If the time picture is different, you have less then perfect transparency!

A good DA yields an output waveform that is nearly identical in time, and when you look at a frequency analysis, be it a response curve, an FFT or what not, that too will look identical when comparing input to output.

Say you line up a 1KHz input and output on a scope. If they look the 1KHz FFT tone will also line up. Now change the input frequency to the higher end of the audio, where NOS has an amplitude loss, and everything will fall apart:

1. The scope picture will show a drop in output amplitude

2. The FFT of the input will show a drop in tone amplitude thus No transparency in frequency.

3. The response curve at the output will show a drop.

4. A good ear will hear that drop in amplitude.

In fact, phase non linearity due to filtering near 20KHz will also causes alterations in the wave form on the scope, but that is more sophisticated stuff.

You said: "The technology doesn't exist to do both well, so you have to choose which you would prefer to have".

This is about the worst garbage I saw in a long time. If you duplicate the waveform in time, you duplicate it in frequency and you DO HAVE BOTH. A good DA does just that, and very precisely so. A poor DA does not. If your input and output waveforms are the same, the frequency content is the same, and so is everything else. When the NOS losses amplitude at higher frequency, both the time and the frequency domains are different thus you lose transparency in both.

Dan Lavry
Lavry Engineering

 

[jsaliga]

Dan, I haven't read through the whole thread...but you have made a few backhanded comments that frankly I thought were rather insulting. I'm just sayin'.

--Jerome

 

[naomi7]

Hello
There's nothing illegal here but as a consumer, you think you are getting a good deal by having the drug of your choice at a much lower price. But unfortunately, you may get a different drug instead. You may still try purchasing at your own risk, but I advise you to do some research first. lowest price
Pa!!!
________________________________
lowest price generic

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[thisbenjamin]

.

 

[Dan Lavry]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsaliga /img/forum/go_quote.gif Dan, I haven't read through the whole thread...but you have made a few backhanded comments that frankly I thought were rather insulting. I'm just sayin'. --Jerome

I assumed the guy is not totally stupid, and given that assumption, I do not see how the guy really think that no change in the signal (output looks the same as the input) is causing any differences in the frequency domain. This is just too basic!

If he is a real idiot, then I deeply apoplgize. Otherwise, I do not. It is wrong for anyone to come across as if they know what they are saying when they have no clue, and it is even worse to state false if the know it is false.

To say that time domain transparancey is not frequency domain transparency, that you have to choose one or the other is terribly wrong. And that false argument was introduced to claim a "desired outcome" that NOS has its advantage.

I am a proffesional and I took the time to contribute here, to educate and elevate. I do not know his motivation, but it was really out of line to try and refute my facts with some nonsense. When one presents false arguments, while trying to pretend to have expertize, they are being disrespectful to the readers. Presenting such misleading statements is real bad news and potentially harmful. So I "called him" on it.

Imagine that I did not tear that garbage apart. Some folks would be stirred to believe what is totally false (which raises the motivation question again). My comments were not back handed, they were straight forward and deliberate. I was holding back some.

Dan Lavry