SQ of vintage PCDPs vs MP3 players?

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman That said, what I am sitting on though is a huge library of measurements which have been taken using exactly the same kit and the same methodology. That makes the measurements valuable not in an absolute sense but a relative one.

Why don't you take your measurements and stick them... up on HydrogenAudio. They'd probably be more respected there, as the majority of HA posters seem to enjoy looking at music and/or listening to test tones.

P.S. you have not only attacked me for not having experience with DAPs, you have attacked me for merely recommending vintage PCPDs at all. Filburt has a point, and frankly I believe you have some "hidden" agendas -- one of which is being a shameless DAP fanboy. I really hate people who have bibles to thump (metaphorically speaking). Yours is particularly nerdy and empty of real world meaning.

 

[bangraman]

Yeah so I'm a geek. And am I the only one to do measurements?

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman Yeah so I'm a geek. And am I the only one to do measurements?

I have at least a modicum of respect for openly fanboyish fanboys, but you always seem to be trying to hide it behind a veneer of measurements and claimed experience (as if your ears/opinions were more important than someone else's).

Why not just say "IPoDz RuLeZ, VntG PCDPz Sux0rz" ... you know you want to.

 

[bangraman]

Pot kettle black, matey.

 

[saint.panda]

I think the sound quality of DAPs has improved a lot, up to a point where I really ask myself whether the differences are still worth the hassle of carrying around a bulky vintage pdcp without anti-shock and only 74min of music.

My Ipod Nano sounds really, really good and it's not clear whether I prefer the D-211, especially in conjunction with Sennheiser HD 25-1.

I've always found that the D211 sounds aggressive, and as if knowing its own strengths almost a tad too obtrusive and pretentious at times. There's a metallic touch in the upper midrange which makes a lot of things sound a bit harsh and grainy but usually just pushes the sound more forward than other players do. The Ipod Nano is a more polite player with a more even-handed, you might say sophisticated, frequency response but without the tour de force of a D211. So their tonal characteristics are somewhat different but the technical capabilities like resolution and soundstage are fairly even-matched. All things considered, one could ponder on this issue a bit further and make more audiophile observations but that is under controlled conditions, and without any outside noise, moving around or a wandering mind. So to be honest, I find this kind of quality difference, provided there is a significant difference, to be really negligible considering the portability and data storage the Nano or other DAPs offer. (I copied this paragraph from an older post of mine from another thread.)

The only major advantage I still see in vintage pcdps is their lower price and the "pop in a cd" factor. I have lots of unripped albums in which case I just use the pdcp. So eventually it depends a lot on convenience rather than sound quality -- a consideration that's only possible because the Nano already sounds so good to my ears. Past pdcds I've had include D-303, D-311, D-777, D-465 and a few others.

Either way, I think neither vintage pdcps nor daps can compete with a somewhat decent cd player for the same price.

edit: and as bangraman said, vintage pdcps are indeed louder, which is pretty nice to have for rather hard to drive headphones, but a non-issue for portable headphones like the HD 25-1 or canalphones / earbuds.

 

[fewtch]

Quote:

edit: and as bangraman said, vintage pdcps are indeed louder, which is pretty nice to have for rather hard to drive headphones, but a non-issue for portable headphones like the HD 25-1 or canalphones / earbuds.

No matter how many times I repeat that amped line-out listening is the only kind I do, bangraman likes to keep trotting out that argument about everybody supposedly preferring vintage PCDPs because they get louder. Forget the fact that a lot of DAPs and other modern players don't even have true line outs... very convenient to forget stuff like that when "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so" is the entirety of someone's argument.

Quote:

I think the sound quality of DAPs has improved a lot, up to a point where I really ask myself whether the differences are still worth the hassle of carrying around a bulky vintage pdcp without anti-shock and only 74min of music.

Who says everyone buys vintage PCDPs to "carry around?" The better ones are essentially small-footprint fullsize CD players, nobody is arguing for their superiority in purely portable applications. Some people may be looking for a bedside player, or something small to fit on the desk in their office, or carry around the house to listen in different rooms. Vintage PCDPs fill an "in between" niche of transportable listening.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewtch No matter how many times I repeat that amped line-out listening is the only kind I do, bangraman likes to keep trotting out that argument about everybody supposedly preferring vintage PCDPs because they get louder. Forget the fact that a lot of DAPs and other modern players don't even have true line outs... very convenient to forget stuff like that when "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say so" is the gist of the argument.

Most do. If you had ever had one that's not off the bargain basement shelf (actually even some on the bargain basement shelf) you might know that.

 

[D555]

Good sound is good sound whether it be vintage or new.

I've lived with certain portable vintage gear a long time and find them to be quite satisfying, I have some modern gear which I find to be satisfying as well.

The D-555 certainly isn't everyone's favorite, so what? The MZ-R3 isn't a huge favorite these days. No problem. I enjoy the heck out of both via the headphone out. These players aren't super-portable, weigh (relatively) a lot, and don't have the best battery life. Soundwise, these players do what I like.

If I want SQ, portability, and some battery life I use the D-NE10 and MZ-N10. While I don't think they quite match the vintage equipement in all areas of SQ, I think they come reasonably close and the other advantages kind of make up for the slight lack in SQ.

Paul

 

[Filburt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman Among the PCDPs I have/had either owned or for long-term evals would be the D-777, D-25S, D-555, D-303, D-33 and in fact a whole load of other D-'s. I have also had other PCDP's for shorter than that. I might dig up the list some time.

I see. So is the issue that you can't distinguish them from the DAPs, or that you simply don't think they're better?

Quote:

True. The difference though is sometimes for example heavily influenced by the fact that vintages are louder (a headphone scenario). As we all know, louder ain't necessarily better. As I said before, there are also tonal changes. Some PCDP's give a kick up to the treble. In which case, is there that much point in comparing with the standard perfectly flat response of a DAP when it can do a similar kick-up with it's DSP? Or are you practiced enough to be able to ignore minor changes in tonality when required?

I'm pretty well practiced if you mean ear training. I used to help do tests of psychoacoustic models to help tune them, particularly during the development of the 'MPC' codec which, for quite a while, used an ATH curve based on my hearing. It seems like you're presupposing that a 'ruler flat' output is a desirable property, when that isn't a given with respect to what someone finds desirable in terms of sound. Also, it is _not_ a given that the differences between a PCDP and a DAP can be made up for by tuning the DSP of that unit. There are significant constraints on the character of output of any DAP out there that may prevent a satisfactory output from being produced. Additionally, there are issues with imaging/soundstage that may not be overcome, depending on your requirements. I've tried with nearly every model I can get my hands on, which includes many of the models I've seen talked about in here excluding that Kenwood. I tried a ton of models before I bought my DAP and I still don't like it nearly as much as my PCDP, though I do like it relative to other DAPs.

Quote:

I'll only be sceptical if I don't think the other party has done enough to be able to hold a worthwhile discussion. Fewtch is a good case in point. Only really knows the vintages, clearly has no really relevant / equivalent experience of DAPs yet is very definitive that they're inferior... and when questioned, starts with the rather lame insults.

I haven't said they're inferior in some sort of objective, normative sense. I don't like them as much, but that doesn't mean I can't accept that someone else will like them as much or better. The dispute (at least, mine) was over whether the two were distinguishable from one another, which I certainly find is the case. Preference of one over another is a different matter.

Quote:

Well this is it. Perhaps you need to try more DAPs. With Lossless this time.

Lossless will only make a minor difference (relatively) versus high bitrate lossy compression in many cases. Psychoacoustics are pretty advanced at this point, and unless the channel coupling (if you're even using it) is relatively poor, it isn't going to dramatically impact the imaging/soundstaging in such an obvious manner as the difference I notice between some of my vintage units and DAPs. I have used lossless on a couple iPods though as I have easy access to those (my brother and father have them) and I also used it on a Karma and X5. Predictably, the results weren't exactly dramatic and were generally of more subtle character except in certain areas that are difficult to nail with the psy model such as quick attacks in acoustic music (particularly guitar) and some electronica.

Quote:

I'm not into charts. Some people love reading things beyond what's actually relevant into bendy lines, some are into 'optimising' RMAA results to make their sources look good, etc. You can say anything with charts in isolation and that's why I don't post them as a rule, unless it's very easy for me to make a point... bass fall-off being a perfect example. However even that was prone to misinterpretation.

Fair enough.

Quote:

That said, what I am sitting on though is a huge library of measurements which have been taken using exactly the same kit and the same methodology. That makes the measurements valuable not in an absolute sense but a relative one.

It makes it valuable in terms of determining whether someone with similar physiology, preferences, and gear will find similar results as yourself. It may also be moderately useful in predicting whether a larger group will share some of the same conclusions with you, but your presentation of your opinion on the matter carries a much more normative tone than that.

Quote:

It'd be nice to have a more universally acceptable form of testing. But for now, I try and apply a good degree of common sense and what I believe to be sufficient accountability in the results without going overboard to what I say when people ask "is x better than y?"

Unfortunately, when discussing 'quality' of the audio, there may be very little way to try to generalise results since it's so subjectively bound. Have you ABX'd your gear, as I still find it surprising that you can't distinguish the sources from one another.

 

[warubozu]

Yeah it's true that many who has the opportunity to own and listen to various vintage PCDPs thru the headphone and line out automatically make the assumption that because they sound loud they sound good. That is not the way to go about rating how good a vintage PCDP sounds, you must go beyond the preceived idea that loud with a lot of slam is better. Majority of all of my listening time done on vintage PCDPs is done thru the line out with some time also spent listening thru the headphone out to get an accurate idea on how they sound.

 

[bangraman]

Oh yes, they're distinguishable all right. Thats' not the issue.


What I was making reference to in the response comparison is that an attempt should be made to compare like for like if it's not possible to take away some elements of tonal variability from the quality assessment. Most PCDP's have about 3 - 5 potential sound settings including 'supposedly flat', most of which will be unusable

DAPs on the other hand have far greater sound variability and both should be given a workout. Some players have various wobbles in their response, some very noticeable, others not so through the frequency range. If you were to generalise current players may be more likely to have a stable or flatter frequency response. There is no presupposing of which is more desirable, once again it's simply a case of like for like comparison, either in the aspects of ignoring some tonal changes to assess overall quality or matching said tonality to as close as possible to yield a more directly comparable sample. Reading up comments on classics in conjunction with frequency sweeps, it's pretty easy to determine why things like 'fantastic sense of air', etc are being said. While I'm "down" with the subtle effects of psychoacoustic processing, I'm not convinced you have to make it as complicated as the way you're saying. A quick tweak of the EQ on a suitable DAP would match the response of many a PCDP deemed to sound "sparkling", "warm", etc and would allow for a more direct comparison.


The other thing is that if you go "fewtch's exclusive way" and compare them amped, aspects of soundstaging for example are no longer solely in the hands of the player: They're heavily influenced by the properties of the amp as well. This is in fact a great equaliser when different players have noticeably varying degrees of staging separation.


The listening results nearest to an ABX in my case have been limited to the switch tests... simply put, give two sources the same volume through a VU meter, hook up one of two cables, set both playing and switch once during a track. I usually do it both unamped and amped, with a variety of gear over a period of time. Not totally conclusive certainly, but a better basis of comparison than most I'm sure.


I find the mention of 'hidden agendas' somewhat laughable. Perhaps the 'hidden agenda' differentiation factor is that it makes no difference to me in financial terms whether I spend $30 or $300 on multiple players I have an interest in.


It's that given how I listen (everything from critical classical listening to crap pop), what I listen with (unarguably top-end headgear be it amped or otherwise), what else I've had (a large percentage of the leading HDD DAPs introduced to date, and a decent cross-section of the 'classics'... many of them in multiples at the same time) and how I hear things (I had a highly musical education), to date I don't sonically 'get' what all the fuss is about. Simple as that really.


You don't live in the UK by any chance filbert?

 

[Filburt]

It'd be convenient if I lived in the UK, as then we could simply meet up and compare this once and for all

Okay, I understand what the issue at hand here is. I do regard psychoacoustics as a complicated matter, and having worked with people who develop psy models, I find the information I gathered there seems to reinforce that impression.

Secondly, I've played around tremendously with the DSP settings on DAPs as well as foobar coupled with my Echo Indigo. It's worth noting that I don't like a 'ruler flat' response, and prefer a sound that would probably be termed substantially coloured. I have been hitherto unable to even come close to imitating the sound I'm getting from my PCDP rig, which I mostly consider unfortunate as, again, I don't have any particular affinity for these vintage units apart from the sound, and if that were no longer an issue, I wouldn't use them except for when I haven't ripped the CD yet. It's probably true, though, that the output of some PCDPs can be mimicked by using the DSP on a DAP, but I think it's inaccurate to say that it's a viable substitute in general for all persons. It's going to, again, reduce down to subjective factors. Also, I haven't found amps to be a 'great equaliser' overall, though they can alleviate some issues when using certain gear.

If I could afford the gear, I'd probably do a setup similar to what you've done, though probably try to rig up some sort of ABX configuration. I can't afford to do that, though, so I'll have to stick with the data I have which does include a switch in some of the comparisons. Given how dramatic the differences are versus my current main units, though, it's not exactly a tremendous issue.

Also, I don't know what the insistence upon trying to remove 'tonal variability' is for. That's part of the subjective quality of the source, and seems wholly relevant to the final judgment of whether or not it is satisfactory. If you try to seek out units with a flat response, it isn't particularly surprising that you'll get similar response to DAPs that are giving flat response. The differences will then primarily be in sounstaging and imaging, which is not always spectacular on some of the vintage units (though there are a few that still do a splendid job, I've found). What I care about is the final character of the sound produced from the source, irrespective of what sort of signal processing is involved, as that's what's going to be most relevant to my listening experience. Thus, I'm going to compare these units based on their relative performance in maximising the subjective 'quality' of their sound, including any DSP effects necessary in accomplishing that. This is because, ultimately, I'm not going to be listening to any of these things at a flat response, so the only immediately relevant consideration is what best achieves my subjective criteria for pleasing sound. This is where I've found DAPs to be limited to the point of being unsatisfactory except in situations where sound quality is not the primary concern.

 

[bangraman]

Interesting points. The point I was attempting to make is to either compare sources as like-and-like as possible, or (unmentioned but the other option) to compare them across the board using all of their sound-adjustment capabilities and figure out which is capable of balancing tonality and quality the best.


The other thing I was saying is not that psychoacoustics isn't complicated. I was saying that you seem to be making the core issues more complicated than necessary by attributing them to the more esoteric elements of psychoacoustics.


Quote:

I have been hitherto unable to even come close to imitating the sound I'm getting from my PCDP rig, which I mostly consider unfortunate as, again, I don't have any particular affinity for these vintage units apart from the sound, and if that were no longer an issue, I wouldn't use them except for when I haven't ripped the CD yet.

Quote:

Given how dramatic the differences are versus my current main units, though, it's not exactly a tremendous issue.

I on the other hand don't have any affinity for these vintage units apart from their vintageness, and in the case of the D-555 (my favourite vintage) the way it is designed.


The thing though is how do you determine the relative quality of two sources, when one offers almost infinite adjustability and the other offers say 3? I'm not 'seeking out players with a flat response'. I'm saying that when you evaluate a highly adjustable player with a flat default response against a limited-adjustment player with a coloured response, it may be necessary to disregard tonal variations in order to assess quality.


The DCP-150 for example does sound different to many DAPs, but that's due to a clearly kicked up treble as a default giving more "sense of air" and a comparatively expansive soundstage to some of the narrower-sounding current DAPs. Just a quick twiddle of the treble of the NW-A3000 for example is enough to "out-air" the Denon... and end any 'dramatic differences'. Even comparing the DCP-150 and the 5G iPod, the Apple gets somewhere in the ballpark flavourwise with the Jazz preset and a volume adjustment.


As a result of that, the key quality deciding factors if you match output levels and leave out the variability of tonal characteristics (which is what I was referring to) are IMO things like articulation and resolution. In these respects, the leading DAPs match or outperform any vintage I've heard to date with equivalent source data.

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bangraman As a result of that, the key quality deciding factors if you match output levels and leave out the variability of tonal characteristics (which is what I was referring to) are IMO things like articulation and resolution. In these respects, the leading DAPs match or outperform any vintage I've heard to date with equivalent source data.

This is the clincher... I've just been listening to my Sony D211 and the 5G iPod, and whilst the iPod does appear to have better resolution to the sound, with the Shures, the (tonal) synergy with the D211 is excellent. It really brings the bass of the Shures to the fore, and the midrange... hmm

Shure E4C + D211 = match made in heaven if you like a rich sound with prominence in the bass and midrange
Shure E4C + 5G iPod = a great overall sound, maybe a shade clinical (if we're being anal about it)

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duncan This is the clincher... I've just been listening to my Sony D211 and the 5G iPod, and whilst the iPod does appear to have better resolution to the sound, with the Shures, the (tonal) synergy with the D211 is excellent. It really brings the bass of the Shures to the fore, and the midrange... hmm Shure E4C + D211 = match made in heaven if you like a rich sound with prominence in the bass and midrange Shure E4C + 5G iPod = a great overall sound, maybe a shade clinical (if we're being anal about it)

So the variance we have in this case of the iPod's comparatively clinical sound is that it's EQ presets are not versatile enough to 'out-rich' the specific tonal inflections of the 211, or an attempt has not been made (or it has been unsuccessful) to find a similar tone using the presets (which is surely a hassle). And although it is a small change, both the X5 and current iPod (ando no doubt some others) still features a small bass fall-off, especially with IEM's. That will sound 'less rich'. This issue can also be found to different degrees in a variety of 'classics'. This is why I use a variety of phones with different electrical characteristics to judge sound quality.


A lot of the talk over the iPod's "poor sound quality" boils down to the presets and the comparative lack of tonal control they represent, exacerbated in some cases by the bass fall-off and not the sound quality per se. Being more brutally honest, the talk of poor sound quality in many cases boils down to the iPod's inability to provide a huge bloated bass.


If you throw in an X5 / H1xx / Karma / NW-A1/3000 however, the situation changes to varying degrees. The sound quality will degrade somewhat depending on the player with the use of EQ, but not to below the levels of the 'classics'. Just as in this thread we are not comparing a single 'classic', I'm not comparing a single present-day DAP.