[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aimless1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So yes, the dac is part of the source. As nor_spoon said, the conversion from digital to analog is a critical function in the sound chain.

Well, isn't this a misconception? The actual digital to analog conversion is done by Burr Brown, AD, TI, Wolfson, etc. The conversion isn't necessarily a factor, as data from a CD is only coming at 1400kbps, which is nothing compared to the bandwidth sent to processors these days. It's what is put in the path from the DAC to the output that changes the sound. Better DACs have "better" capacitors and resistors that shape the sound a certain way. In the end, isn't the sound signature the only difference?

 

[elrod-tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif I just came back from a camping trip in which I was limited to a portable cd player feeding a Stax SROO1M2 portable amp/headphone set-up which altogether cost about $400.00 with a silver IC. Coming back to my main headphone set-up with an 002, big Stax amp (717) , cd transport etc.(which set me back close to $5K without a power amp or speakers, even with some parts bought second hand) and I was immediately struck by the law of diminishing returns. Certainly there are a lot of subtelties of performance that the portable system doesn't achieve, but I don't think I could persuade too many people, not already in this hobby that I got much for the extra $4,600.00. Not that I am about to make the SR001 my main system. But I am of the opinion that a portable cd player and half-way decent phones, and/or portable amp is a very cost effective way to get good sound. I do a minimum of tweaking with the portable, use a bit of sorbethane on the bottom and play the machine on a hard surface, often just a cd jewel box.

Well, one thing I remember about camping is that I'd eat the most vile ca-ca you can imagine - stuff I wouldn't feed my dog when I was at home - and enjoy it. Everything tasted better when we were camping. Maybe everything SOUNDS better too.

I understand what you're saying...one definately gets less bang for the buck as one moves up-market. To some it's worth it, to others it's not. If I had to, I could get by with my portable rig...but I don't have to.

 

[s1rrah]

At OP:

I happen to agree with you ...

In my own opinion ...

The source is the most important item.

Thanks for starting a worthwhile flame war!



Best.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I have two problems with large investments in digital sources.

One, the goalposts move every 18-24 months. The cheap players continually improve. I will not spend big bucks for the "best" that rapidly becomes "obsolete." It's just like buying the top of the line CPU for $800 on introduction, then being able to buy a faster one for $110 18 months later. I don't know who buys the top end procs, but they're insane. Everyone knows something better and cheaper is just around the corner. Likewise, I refuse to pay more than $1,000 for a digital source. You get great sound and a nice case. Maybe not the best, but odds are a $1,000 deck in 2010 will be better than a $5,000 rig in 2008.

Two, chips go obsolete fast these days. Why tie up several thousand in something that can't be repaired in five years? Would you buy a $60,000 car knowing that in five years it couldn't be repaired? Of course not, so why drop a few kilobucks on something that can't be fixed? With my analog gear, I could rewind transformers by hand if I had to. There's zero chance of making my own chips, however.

While there might be some sonic benefits to megabuck digital sources, they make zero sense to me. I'd rather have 1% less sonic benefit than a multithousand dollar machined aluminum doorstop.

 

[s1rrah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have two problems with large investments in digital sources. One, the goalposts move every 18-24 months. The cheap players continually improve. I will not spend big bucks for the "best" that rapidly becomes "obsolete." It's just like buying the top of the line CPU for $800 on introduction, then being able to buy a faster one for $110 18 months later. I don't know who buys the top end procs, but they're insane. Everyone knows something better and cheaper is just around the corner. Likewise, I refuse to pay more than $1,000 for a digital source. You get great sound and a nice case. Maybe not the best, but odds are a $1,000 deck in 2010 will be better than a $5,000 rig in 2008. Two, chips go obsolete fast these days. Why tie up several thousand in something that can't be repaired in five years? Would you buy a $60,000 car knowing that in five years it couldn't be repaired? Of course not, so why drop a few kilobucks on something that can't be fixed? With my analog gear, I could rewind transformers by hand if I had to. There's zero chance of making my own chips, however. While there might be some sonic benefits to megabuck digital sources, they make zero sense to me. I'd rather have 1% less sonic benefit than a multithousand dollar machined aluminum doorstop.

With all due respect ...

It's really not appropriate to compare digital audio conversion sources with computer processors, I mean, in regards to relative and monthly gains that is.

Re: the reproduction of digital sound: It doesn't take too much to get that right ... and once you've nailed it ... in all of it's most natural and realistic glory ... then that's it, the need for further advancement, refinement of the process is really sort of null.

Re: the general processing of digital data: There can never be enough processing power to render a two hour, effects laden video composition. This is as far removed from the need to naturally render digital music via an analogue source as is scratching one's back is to the provision of fusion energy.

You just can't compare DAC advancements with CPU advancements.

A DAC should do one thing (and it's quite simple regarding processing cycles) ... render digitally encoded audio in a natural and beautiful way.

That said ... and erroneous analogies not with standing ...

Among the available DACs, the options for said naturalness, said beauty, are many and varied ... oversampling DACs vs. non oversampling DACs ... etc.

So, best recommendation is to experiment with a variety of sources/DACs and find that which syncs the best with your particular audio chain.

The differences from device to device really will be quite dramatic.

YMMV, though.

 

[J-Pak]

I will throw another wrench into the works- the source matters a lot more in a (good) speaker system than even a very high resolution headphone system

/ducks rotten tomato that flies by my head

 

[powertoold]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1rrah /img/forum/go_quote.gif With all due respect ... Re: the general processing of digital data: There can never be enough processing power to render a two hour, effects laden video composition. This is as far removed from the need to naturally render digital music via an analogue source as is scratching one's back is to the provision of fusion energy. You just can't compare DAC advancements with CPU advancements. A DAC should do one thing (and it's quite simple regarding processing cycles) ... render digitally encoded audio in a natural and beautiful way. That said ... and erroneous analogies not with standing ... Among the available DACs, the options for said naturalness, said beauty, are many and varied ... oversampling DACs vs. non oversampling DACs ... etc. So, best recommendation is to experiment with a variety of sources/DACs and find that which syncs the best with your particular audio chain. The differences from device to device really will be quite dramatic. YMMV, though.

I'm assuming you're saying that these days it's easy to process and convert information sent by a CD, so if processing the bandwidth provided by CDs is not the bottleneck, then the only difference between sources is the sound signature. Isn't this correct?

Why do people like connecting the DAC outputs directly to the plugs, for example, in iMods or other DIY projects. Clearly, the limiting factor isn't the conversion, it's the path from the conversion to the output plugs (or so we think).

 

[2deadeyes]

Also remember that more recent/sophisticated sources does not guarantee better sound - some old school sources can still hold their own against current sources.

 

[s1rrah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2deadeyes /img/forum/go_quote.gif Also remember that more recent/sophisticated sources does not guarantee better sound - some old school sources can still hold their own against current sources.

This is what I was initially and (in a stumbling way) getting at ...

The technology necessary to the conversion of a digital sound to an analogue delivery system (aka DAC) ... is very well established and for many years immediately available.

There really is not a whole lot of truely impacting "DAC progress" to be made ... (IMHO, mind you) ...

The various and varied instances of "oversampling" DACs and their ilk are simply efforts to take the same amount of digital audio data and some how morph it into a finally delivered stream that, supposedly, sounds better.

In the end, though ... oversampling or non oversampling ... your original source file will contain only that amount of data originally recorded and turning bits over upon themselves, doubling or otherwise ... is only a mockery of sound improvement, at best.

So, skewed and subjective leanings considered ...

I'm in the NOS camp for sure.

 

[b17m4p]

I have not herd that many digital sources, but JUST in terms of public opinion (as in user reviews, professional reviews and what gets said over and over on forums) of digital sources (and NOT my experience) I think Erik is totally right. There is always some thread going on in the computer as source forum comparing a newer (often) cheaper dac against some older product that used to be in fashion with the conclusion that the newer product is better. Now this may or may not actually correlate to the sound quality, I don't know, but actually either way it makes me less inclined to look at upgrading my digital source because someone is saying there is a brand new product out that would beat mine. If the correlation is high than its better to wait till the improvements can be had in a cheaper product or on the used market. If the correlation is low, then obviously buying the new product is a waste.

 

[tyrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif <snip> Everyone knows something better and cheaper is just around the corner. Likewise, I refuse to pay more than $1,000 for a digital source. You get great sound and a nice case. Maybe not the best, but odds are a $1,000 deck in 2010 will be better than a $5,000 rig in 2008.

Do you have a real world example of this. I think there are some $5000 and less rigs from 2004,5,6 that sound better than $1,000 rigs today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif <snip> While there might be some sonic benefits to megabuck digital sources, they make zero sense to me. I'd rather have 1% less sonic benefit than a multithousand dollar machined aluminum doorstop.

You assume there is only a 1% sonic benefit. In my experience the benefit can be greater than 1%.

Having said that, most of my source money is in my tt but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate how good some of the mega buck digital players sound.

 

[olblueyez]

I need to agree and disagree with Uncle EriK. I dont think sound quality increases super quick like CPU speeds accelerate. I think sound quality moves at a slower rate, so there we have to disagree. I think people in the audio industry perpetuate the idea that SQ makes leaps and bounds forward every year when the new models come out. I do agree that paying 5 grand for a cd player that will be 2 grand on sale or used a couple of years down the road is clearly the best way to purchase high end items like that. Having the newest gear is great for impressing your friends but that is a very expensive price to pay for a thrill that will last as long as it takes you to show your new gear to your friends.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1rrah /img/forum/go_quote.gif With all due respect ... It's really not appropriate to compare digital audio conversion sources with computer processors, I mean, in regards to relative and monthly gains that is.

You are right, but my point is that digital is under rapid development and will be into the forseeable future. You never know what's going to turn up within months, let alone years. New chips, new DACs, new methods of processing data come with every model upgrade. Product cycles come in the 18-24 month range, always touted as better than the previous model. I can't justify spending a lot of money on something that might be done as well or cheaper in the future. Maybe someone will figure out how to use a hot new multicore to process sound better than dedicatd DAC chips. Heck, radio is now being processed that way, maybe there will be something similar with audio. There's no telling what will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tyrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you have a real world example of this. I think there are some $5000 and less rigs from 2004,5,6 that sound better than $1,000 rigs today. You assume there is only a 1% sonic benefit. In my experience the benefit can be greater than 1%. Having said that, most of my source money is in my tt but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate how good some of the mega buck digital players sound.

I don't have an example and can't quantify how much better something sounds. Megabuck players do sound good; I agree. It's just that diminishing returns, rapid depreciation and lack of parts make them a poor proposition.

Maybe they will give you slightly better sound, but what if the laser pickup goes out four years later and the part is no longer available? What then? Can you sell it at all? Last weekend, I came across a NAD receiver at a secondhand shop. It was in nice shape, but one of its LED segments was burned out. I got on the Internet and ran several searches to see if the part was available or if anyone had successfully replaced or repaired one. There was nothing. As far as I can tell, the only way to fix it would be to take the part from another unit. So I didn't buy the receiver.

The turntable was a significant investment, so I took a hard look at keeping it going. I can source replacement springs from several places, know where to get a motor rewound if necessary (though I bought a spare), and replacement bearings are cheap and easy to get. There's nothing to worry about keeping it going. Neither am I concerned about it becoming obsolete. The arm is designed to be repaired and if SME goes under, a machine shop can make anything it needs. The cartridge is a wear item and there are many in production. I picked the DL103 in part because it's been in production for decades, sounds good and is inexpensive to replace. Expensive carts do sound good, but I'm not going to pay hundreds or thousands for a retip while waiting several weeks for the work to be finished.

All of my other electronics are repairable, too. I don't use anything with tubes too obscure to source and prefer gear with current production tubes. Headphones and speakers tend to be stable in the long term, so they don't worry me too much. Another reason I built the ProAc 2.5 clones is that I can easily get replacement drivers and the crossover parts are easily sourced.

It's just that if the DAC goes out in my SACD player, I'm stuck. I couldn't get another one and would have to buy another deck. That's OK if I paid $600 for the deck. Not OK if it was $5,000.

My thinking is that slightly lower performance is worth the tradeoff of avoiding an expensive doorstop. If I put more than a thousand into something, it should either appreciate or offer long term stability. Digital has neither. Technology moves fast and obsolescence is a given. That means zero appreciation and rapid depreciation. The march of technology and just-in-time inventory guarantee that repair parts will not be available. There's no way to order replacement chips or have a shop make them. Even if the technology was available to reproduce chips on a small scale, patents and various intellectual property would make it impossible to reproduce them. For me, the only thing that makes sense is to buy a digital player that I don't mind throwing away. This is how I look at spending money. I did the same with the car I bought last year. I'm very conservative that way. I'll add that that is not necessarily indicative of my politics (

) though I won't go into that here.

 

[tyrion]

I would definitely pick up a used digital source over buying the latest and greatest gear new.

An Ayre c-5xe is $6000 new and can be found used for $4000 pretty regularly. I believe it's been on the market since '05. It was a great source in '05 and still is today. I doubt there are any $1000 sources today that will are better.

I just don't know if there is or isn't a problem replacing parts in a four year old cdp. I've owned a bunch of different cdp, some 4 years old and have been lucky that I've had no problems. I don't think obsolescence that you are talking about has the application relative to a digital source as it does in a computer. I think you are talking apples and oranges.

 

[krmathis]

Of course!
The source really matters. Cause it wont help how nice the rest of your system are if you use a crappy source.