[regal]

Quote:

I'm not talking about the 80's. The first gen digital multi-track recorders were not introduced until the early 90's. Pro Tools HD.... 2002! (Digital mixing/editing prior to that.... well, the less said the better.) As I recall, the PM A/D/A's..... mid 90's. And if you think that the PM A/D/A's were in general use for anything other than mastering........

Oh,  I don't deal with digital mixdowns.   I have hundreds of CD's made in the 90s that were analog mixed and then the analog master converted to digital with the PMD200,  great sound,  you made it sound like everyone was using digital multitrack recording,  there were a lot of hold outs you just have to know who.

 

[borrego]

 
Quote:

This is just not true,  the good studios are still using R2R,  the most popular are the Pacific Microsonics 2 and the Lavry ADC.   Now if you are buying loudness war compress Pop which  is recorded with D_S ADC most of it having a dynamic range of less than 12dB (thats 2 bits of a DAC)  you are better off just sticking with an ipod.
 

I agree with you on the high quality ADC part. But it is how the music production industry/history goes and I for myself cannot limit my music library to digital recordings from the "golden" 90s.
After all we are enjoying music, not audio signal quality. If we are all after dynamic range or other audio merits then nobody will go live concerts.
 
And in 2010, no matter what kind of equipment one has in his/her studio, anyone self-repecting digital music "professional" should aim to produce music that sound good on the "technically inferrior" delta-sigma DAC, simply because they are the mainstream now. One should get fried if his/her 2010 production can only sound good through a R2R DAC.
 
If I can afford, I would have bought a piece of each NOS/R2R/Sabre32 implementation DAC in the Audio-gd NFB-1 quality level, and switch between them when listening to media of different ages. Unfortunately I cannot afford those nor I have the space in my living room (poor guy...). However, I do listen music through my handphone, S:flo2, and even through my notebook speakers at times. Because I enjoy music more than signal quality.
 
Actually, my whole intention posting in this thread is: We all live in compromises, in one way or the other. There is no need to argue too much, just enjoy and be thanksgiving.

 

[borrego]

So I highly recommend anyone with a collection of 90's CD's to try a good R2R DAC,  you will be shocked .

That is for sure. People who did the CD mastering in the 90's cannot predict their productions will be play back through the mainstream delta-sigma DAC in 2000s
 
Those who own "inferior" delta-sigma DACs can try the 2000s XRCD/SACD "remastered" version of the same album. It will sound better.

 

[leeperry]

 

People who did the CD mastering in the 90's cannot predict their productions will be play back through the mainstream delta-sigma DAC in 2000s
 
Those who own "inferior" delta-sigma DACs can try the 2000s XRCD/SACD "remastered" version of the same album. It will sound better.

Can you re-explain w/ a KFC analogy please, because this post doesn't make much sense to me as is 

 
Can you also provide some hard clues as to why the newest D_S chips are "inferior"?

 

[borrego]

Quote:

Can you re-explain w/ a KFC analogy please, because this post doesn't make much sense to me as is 

 

 
Simple: 
 
People who started the KFC recipe in the 30s cannot predict their recipe will have to go together with rice congee in China in 2000s
 
 
Quote:

Can you also provide some hard clues as to why the newest D_S chips are "inferior"?

 
Even simplier:
 
Because delta-sigma chips are not multi-bit R2R and NOS. You even have to ask?

 

[SoupRKnowva]

Quote:

 
Even simplier:
 
Because delta-sigma chips are not multi-bit R2R and NOS. You even have to ask?

thats not an answer to his question, you mearly stated the difference in architecture, which does not dictate inferiority...not to mention the fact that oversampling only helped R2R dacs perform better

 

[borrego]

 
Quote:

thats not an answer to his question, you mearly stated the difference in architecture, which does not dictate inferiority...not to mention the fact that oversampling only helped R2R dacs perform better

There is no need to explain... just have to believe in it

 
Or you can just believe the other way around, delta-sigma is "superior" . It is one's mind that counts. Everyone perceives differently.
 
It is just so funny people still don't catch my point after so many posts:TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE MEANS LITTLE..... and keep asking me to support my argument with technical architecture explaination...

 

[leeperry]

 

 
People who started the KFC recipe in the 30s cannot predict their recipe will have to go together with rice congee in China in 2000s

The food recipes evolve over time....companies "improve" them to appeal to their customers. If you were to compare a KFC menu from the 80's to one in the 2000's, you'd see some major changes...prolly more sugar and more fat in the recipes too.   
 

   
Because delta-sigma chips are not multi-bit R2R and NOS.

But NOS is a terrible idea. OS is the good guy, unlike upsampling:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/438220/nos-dac-marketing-bs
 
http://www.audioholics.com/education/audio-formats-technology/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio/upsampling-vs-oversampling-for-digital-audio-page-2
 
The only argument the R2R believers have is that the noise performance is "better"....but better than what remains to be proven, prolly better than the first D_S chips from the 80's. Talk about living in the past

 

[IPodPJ]

Quote:

There is no need to explain... just have to believe in it

 
Or you can just believe the other way around, delta-sigma is "superior" . It is one's mind that counts. Everyone perceives differently.
 
It is just so funny people still don't catch my point after so many posts:TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE MEANS LITTLE..... and keep asking me to support my argument with technical architecture explaination...

Why even post any of this?  You can't be serious.

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

The only argument the R2R believers have is that the noise performance is "better"....

 
Erm, most people I've met that "prefer" R2R DAC's (especially in a NOS config) prefer them because of the way they sound. That's the only reason.... Nothing at all to do with noise performance.
 

 

[leeperry]

 

Erm, most people I've met that "prefer" R2R DAC's (especially in a NOS config) prefer them because of the way they sound. That's the only reason.... Nothing at all to do with noise performance.
 

Oh yes, the same ppl who say that specs don't mean jack. Good measurements don't mean anything, but bad ones mean that the sound will be very colored IMHO. OS is here to lower aliasing, NOS is not viable in many ppl's opinion...and I hate it when ppl tell you "trust your ears", I trust measurements. Call me old fashion

 

[Parafeed]

Quote:

Oh yes, the same ppl who say that specs don't mean jack. Good measurements don't mean anything, but bad ones mean that the sound will be very colored IMHO. OS is here to lower aliasing, NOS is not viable in many ppl's opinion...and I hate it when ppl tell you "trust your ears", I trust measurements. Call me old fashion

The problem with that argument is that I've listened to gear that had the best specs in the world, but I wouldn't give it house room. Obviously it's a good thing if it measures well, but that isn't the final arbiter of SQ. I do trust my ears!

 

[leeperry]

Don't make me say what I didn't say...good measurements don't prove anything, but bad ones mean that the sound will be colored. I don't buy +$600 gear on hearsay, when I see this kind of RMAA results for instance: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/435290/rmaa-test-results-for-audio-gd-dac-19mk3-and-reference-1
 
I'm sure the TDA NOS Valab stuff doesn't measure much worse

 
colored can be awesome for a short term, but how good is it 6 months later?
 
I'd rather put that money in a Sabre/AK4399 unit.

 

[Dynobot]

I don't know, some people love colored sound...Tubes.
 
Even some manufacturers harp on low jitter and purity of signal or their Dacs and still use a tube.  Sounds hypocritical to be on both sides of the fence but I guess its a manufacturers prerogative.
 
 
 
Quote:

Don't make me say what I didn't say...good measurements don't prove anything, but bad ones mean that the sound will be colored. I don't buy +$600 gear on hearsay, when I see this kind of RMAA results for instance: http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/435290/rmaa-test-results-for-audio-gd-dac-19mk3-and-reference-1
 
I'm sure the TDA NOS Valab stuff doesn't measure much worse

 
colored can be awesome for a short term, but how good is it 6 months later?
 
I'd rather put that money in a Sabre/AK4399 unit.

 

[regal]

Its almost sad when someone can't interpret a DAC RMAA result.   I guess one would prefer a 1993 brickwall filter with 90 degrees of phase shift throughout the treble than a few inaudible decible drops.  Anyone can read a datasheet or RMAA graph,  but you have to have some basic understandings to interpret them.  Its thinkings like this that have lead to a lot of crap sounding gear.
 
 
Parafeed,  I agree with Lee on the oversampling,   it has always proven to sound better to me than NOS but I'm open minded about it.  Which NOS config are you referring to,  I've been pondering another go at building an NOS DAC but there are so many compromises unless you have the money for double crown TDA1541's?