[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stray Blue now who'll say more about soundcards, it's become a minority in this thread... for what good reason, if there is one? *begs a little*

Not a lot of the soundcard users read the dedicated source threads... You may have much better luck if you start a thread in the Computer for a Source subforum.

 

[Stray Blue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlosgp I'm in the same quest for a great source . I've considered several DACs, but recently found what I think will be the best option for me: USB 2 D/A - D/A Converter and USB Sound System . Cosmopragma seems to prefer it to the Benchmark DAC1 by a big margin, and Aqvox is german. It "only" costs 649€.

Great! I will definitely look into that, thanks a lot!
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Quote: Originally Posted by carlosgp Cosmopragma says: "For a vinyl lover like you the Benchmark is out in round one, it's the least analogish sounding of the bunch. This sentence alone would make me suspect the abilities of the reviewer[...]Reviewers who trot out "analogue" as a description of a desireable quality sound are revealing that their analysis isn't free of bias.

Yes, I must admit that I also saw that line as somewhat suspicious, and the reviewer may be leaning so heavily towards any 'analog' sound, that he doesn't take into account the overall performance of the units. Thank you for pointing it out

.
Still, if this Aqvox dac is as good or almost as good as the DAC1, it would be a great bargain. I will research it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauregard The trick to enjoying hi-end audio is to make the placebo effect work in your favor - and I think you're on the right track!

thank you *slight bow*

also, thank you for your words on soundcards and the significant and uplifting details on DAC1+interconnects

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elephas Onboard sound has improved a lot recently, and may be satisfactory for most casual PC users. However, if you're on this site that probably means you want/need better sound. Your Senn HD25-1 definitely deserves better than the onboard headphone port.

Indeed. That port is shameful

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elephas Some members use the Chaintech AV710 soundcard to output a bit perfect digital signal to an external DAC. It is inexpensive, less than US$30. You will need to use software such as foobar2000 with ASIO to get a bit perfect signal and bypass the Windows Kmixer. An E-MU 0404 (US$100) or 1212m (US$200) will also output a bit perfect digital signal, and you have the additional option of using their analog output. I believe the E-MU cards use drivers that bypass Kmixer as well. Another option is to use the Apogee Mini-DAC's (US$1050) USB connection. I believe Apogee provides their own USB drivers which also bypass Kmixer and are better than the generic Windows USB audio drivers. Like the Benchmark DAC1, the Mini-DAC also has a built-in headphone amp.

Thank you very much for that info. So even if I buy the DAC1 I'll still have to buy a soundcard... even when it's only 30$, it's another purchase, and the 1212m looks more interesting now. And USB dacs, as you've pointed out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jasper994 Not a lot of the soundcard users read the dedicated source threads... You may have much better luck if you start a thread in the Computer for a Source subforum.

Ok. Then I will probably do that. I just didn't want make two almost identical threads.

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot I think if you spend more than $300 on a CD player, you're straying into the land of diminishing returns. Get the NAD. Yamaha makes good ones too. You might be able to get away with just spending $200. See ya Steve

The "point of diminishing returns" is not an objective mark at a given price point, but is an individual matter based on how much a given improvement means to you. For instance, I like both the Linn Genki and the Arcam CD 23 (around 2 to 2.5K new). But the degree of improvement going up to an Ikemi (4K new) is absolutely worth it to me because it dramatically improves my enjoyment of music. Indeed I consider it my best expenditure in audio (well at least second best, behind choosing to get into analog).

But going from an Ikemi to a Unidisk 2.1 (7.5 K new) is not something I want to do. There is a distinct improvement in redbook playback, but not one that affects my enjoyment of music sufficiently. This is *my* point of diminishing returns, at least with respect to these two products. You of course can (and do) have a completely different judgement on where diminishing returns starts in digital playback. Are you right and I'm wrong? No, we are both right in defining the point for ourselves.

Diminishing returns is really only a concept that makes sense when you are talking about it in this personal sense.

 

[bigshot]

It has to do with proportions, not whether it's worth it to you. A $75 speaker sounds MUCH poorer than a $750 speaker. A $7500 speaker sounds a little better still, but there's not as much of a difference as between the first two. You can decide that you want a $7500 speaker, but that doesn't change the fact that it's well into the realm of diminishing returns.

See ya
Steve

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newmanoc The "point of diminishing returns" is not an objective mark at a given price point, but is an individual matter based on how much a given improvement means to you. For instance, I like both the Linn Genki and the Arcam CD 23 (around 2 to 2.5K new). But the degree of improvement going up to an Ikemi (4K new) is absolutely worth it to me because it dramatically improves my enjoyment of music. Indeed I consider it my best expenditure in audio (well at least second best, behind choosing to get into analog). * * * Diminishing returns is really only a concept that makes sense when you are talking about it in this personal sense.

Exactly! It's a personal issue that each person must evaluate for himself or herself. There is really no one answer that applies to everybody categorically. For example, how can someone say what it was worth to ME, or how important it was to ME, to obtain a player that provided a certain type of sound, or that eliminated a certain type of sound, such as harshness or digital hash. And how can someone else say the improvement to ME in sound quality in moving from a $300 CDP to a $600 CDP, was less than the improvement from a $600 to $1200 CDP.

I do agree in general with the notion of diminishing returns, as I think one can say as a general matter that, to obtain improvements one needs to spend more and more $, and also there are limitations to how much improvement there can be after a certain price level, but there is no objective measurement of diminishing returns that applies to everyone and every situation.

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot This sentence alone would make me suspect the abilities of the reviewer. I've found that the whole analogue/digital debate is a pretty good litmus test for finding out which reviewers are listening with their ears and which are listening with their biases. It doesn't matter if something is presented digitally, or using analogue equipment. What matters is that it sounds ACCURATE. Accuracy has nothing to do with format... there are both accurate and inaccurate units out there in both formats....Both formats can sound as good as it gets. Reviewers who trot out "analogue" as a description of a desireable quality sound are revealing that their analysis isn't free of bias.

Oh, Steve! (Envision me shaking my head slowly, heavy with remorse at your lack of understanding

). I have found that the inability of someone to appreciate the superiority of well set up vinyl to digital to be an excellent litmus test of my own.

Now, to say you prefer digital because it can be very, very good and at the same time so much simpler than vinyl is one thing. This is a quite reasonable position (my wife's, in fact). But to say "both formats can sound as good as it gets" means either that you have never heard a really good turntable (tonearm, cartridge, phonostage,etc), or you have ears I don't trust at all.

Please don't reflexively accuse me of some sort of analog bias. I was extremely skeptical about vinyl at first, but extended listening made it annoyingly obvious which was better. Trust me, it was not a position I wanted to be converted to - vinyl seemed just too expensive and complicated.

I do not disagree with some of your other points. People do use terms like "analog" to describe a sound when it might be better to be more precise. I am sure I have been guilty of it.

 

[bigshot]

In the studio, I've listened to a mixdown directly off a 24 track analogue master, and I've compared that to an ADAT playback of the same thing... no difference.

I'm not one of those guys that says that everything made before digital sounds bad. On the contrary, the level of quality was much higher in the analogue era. But that had nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with the quality of the engineering.

See ya
Steve

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot In the studio, I've listened to a mixdown directly off a 24 track analogue master, and I've compared that to an ADAT playback of the same thing... no difference.

I can't comment on sound differences at this stage of recording process. But as a music consumer judging consumer playback, I can say that no redbook digital I have heard ( SACD gets much closer) sounds as good as vinyl on a good analog rig. That includes the best recordings I know of played through Linn's $20K CD 12.

 

[bigshot]

You can't compare commercial vinyl and CD releases to judge which format sounds better. There's no way to know that they were cut from the same master, or that the same EQ and compression settings were used. On older recordings, the LP will almost always come out on top, because it was mastered closer to the time of the recording session, and there would be less time for submasters to be substituted for the deteriorating original session mixdown.

Get a really good sound card and capture your vinyl to a WAV file and compare that to the LP with balanced line levels. In a blind A/B test, you're going to have a mighty hard time picking out the LP.

See ya
Steve

 

[newmanoc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot You can't compare commercial vinyl and CD releases to judge which format sounds better. There's no way to know that they were cut from the same master, or that the same EQ and compression settings were used. On older recordings, the LP will almost always come out on top, because it was mastered closer to the time of the recording session, and there would be less time for submasters to be substituted for the deteriorating original session mixdown.

Another interesting idea, and mastering issues certainly could have something to do with the differences I hear. Mind you, I don't really have a dog in the fight as to which format is better in abstract. Frankly, I really don't care about the issue in abstract. But I care very much about the real world experience I have in my living room. For whatever combination of reasons vinyl seems to have a clear leg up there.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot Get a really good sound card and capture your vinyl to a WAV file and compare that to the LP with balanced line levels. In a blind A/B test, you're going to have a mighty hard time picking out the LP. See ya Steve

Interesting idea, and it seems to have some basis in fact. I know reviewers somtimes save wav files of different cartridges, etc. to use for comparision when they are reviewing new gear. As to whether it will sound the same as analog I am fairly doubtful. I have a friend with a 12 K turntable set up who burns his own CD's with a high grade burner from playback on his turntable. The product sounds much better than comercial CDs, but still not as good as the original vinyl.

 

[ken36]

Outstanding thread. Very informative. Thanks.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot This sentence alone would make me suspect the abilities of the reviewer.

I second this judgement.
This guy is a listener, he never published a review an objectivist could accept.
He should rather write poems than posting impressions of audio gear. Quote:

Good reviews will comment on the flatness of the frequency response, the dynamics, distortion and artifacting, and other SPECIFIC descriptions that are free of emotional coloration.

Exactly.
The fool lacks seriously technical lingo respective he refuses to use it, especially when he's answering a direct question of a guy he's semifamiliar with.
"analogish" isn't even an english term, we will never know what the hell he meant.
And we all know that perception of sound reproduction should never be mixed with emotions, that's just inappropriate.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken36 Outstanding thread. Very informative. Thanks.

ken36, your posts are my favorite running gag at head-fi.

 

[cosmopragma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stray Blue Yes, I must admit that I also saw that line as somewhat suspicious, and the reviewer may be leaning so heavily towards any 'analog' sound, that he doesn't take into account the overall performance of the units.

The opposite is true, all I'm interested in is the overall performance.
Oh well, I promise to never use the term "analog**" again for describing digital sources, seems to be as misleading as it gets.
However, listening and comparing yourself for a longer period is the only way to gain experience and to get the right gear for your preferences.Brief auditioning sessions at a dealer or a meet don't work well IME.
If I were in your shoes I would simply purchase some candidates at shops with good return policy and test them at home for a few weeks.This strategy works for me, I get what I really want this way.
An Emu, an Aqvox and a Benchmark are at least at my location quite easy to get with a perfect return policy.
The Benchmark is pricewise in Europe a bit over the top IMO.

Edit: original offer withdrawn

 

[carlosgp]

Cosmopragma, I wouldn't worry if I were you. I think we all understood very well what you tried to explain when you said "analoguish"

. Is a term widely used in this forums, nothing to worry about. Not very different to saying "warm", "cold", etc.

I'm almost decided about buying the aqvox, but before pulling the trigger I'd like to ask a few questions about cabling:

1. I'd like to connect a PC-Terratec ewx 2496 to aqvox through 4-5 meter TOSlink. Any problem with this cable lenght?
2. I'd like to connect a Denon cd player to a Behringer DEQ 2496 through coaxial. Is this possible in a cheap way? If not I will have to connect the cd directly to the aqvox and miss the equalization for it.
3. Cosmo, what are you using to connect the behringer deq to the aqvox? AES-EBU?