[StanleyB1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonq /img/forum/go_quote.gif There seems to be a lot of hype around the latest and most advance digital technologies. I think they're important too but negreting the output stage will be like taking a great turntable and running the signal thru a crappy phono stage.

I got to agree with you on this. Some (a lot of) people around here would let us believe that the DAC chip used is the most important component that decides the ultimate pleasures one can achieve from any kind of product that uses a DAC chip. And some manufacturers in the Far East have been capitalizing on this by feeding this believe with forever new products where the presence of certain DAC chips are talked up as if they are the final solution.
But what happens if you take that DAC chip and connect its output to a range of analogue output stage designs? I bet you that they'll all sound different. So where is this wonderful miracle DAC chip that is supposed to be the deciding factor? It is clearly turns out that the analogue output stage makes the difference.

 

[StanleyB1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex /img/forum/go_quote.gif So, if I feel like being cheap and using a videogame console for a player, how can I mod it to sound decent?(

Who ever said to you that a games console does not sound decent??? Unless you try one on a revealing audio set up and with appropriate test tracks you cannot fire off a statement like that. Price of the console has nothing to do with how decent it sounds. The audio performance is down to the designers of the console, not the $ sign in the shop. If the shop sold it at ten times more, would that improve the sound quality? I guess it would for some people, but only in their expectations.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is an interesting page (complete with samples) where the author tries to simulate the distortion effects of jitter at different levels of audibility. It isnt as good as the Ashihara paper in that it is a facsimile of jitter rather than generated jitter but it gives an idea of what artifacts at different levels sound like when embedded in even quiet music passages and how strong the masking effect is. Artifact Audibility Comparisons Jitter in commercal playback units is 40 - 50 db quieter than the quietest sample hosted, with one notable exception. How far down are the sidebands for really big jitter numbers Computer Audio Asylum - Jitter Research, Analysis & Measurement - cics - March 24, 2008 at 12:55:55 - well ignoring the text and just looking at the graphs you get an idea of how big jitter sideands for 7ns peak-peak jitter are.

For me it is quite simple:

put a really good clock in your cdplayer and if you hear more, then it works.

ofcourse a bad clock will mask alot of details. if you have a clock that has only 2-3ps jitter vs 50-150 clocks, i bet you'll hear it. More transparency and microdetail/ambiance.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanleyB1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I got to agree with you on this. Some (a lot of) people around here would let us believe that the DAC chip used is the most important component that decides the ultimate pleasures one can achieve from any kind of product that uses a DAC chip. And some manufacturers in the Far East have been capitalizing on this by feeding this believe with forever new products where the presence of certain DAC chips are talked up as if they are the final solution. But what happens if you take that DAC chip and connect its output to a range of analogue output stage designs? I bet you that they'll all sound different. So where is this wonderful miracle DAC chip that is supposed to be the deciding factor? It is clearly turns out that the analogue output stage makes the difference.

THE BIGGEST difference. Sure there are slight differences in dac chips, you have K designated chips wich have been laser cut and sound best! But a good analogue stage makes the sound of the player.

 

[bigshot]

The biggest differences exist in room treatments and differences between headphones and speakers. The ability of the amp to push the speaker comes next with considerably smaller importance. The quality of the analogue output stage is quite a ways less important than that, and differences between DACs is a further small fraction. By the time you start considering jitter, you have sliced up the problem into thin enough slivers that you are well into the range of totally inaudible minuteness.

See ya
Steve

 

[StanleyB1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif THE BIGGEST difference.

I stand corrected. You are absolutely right.
I myself have got hooked to replacing any dual opamp in CD/DVD/DAC output stages with the NE5532FE since I find it far more musical than anything else others recommend. But that's purely my own taste, and the NE5532FE is not so easy to track down these days. So just as well I have a few left. It's worth noting that Philips and Marantz also used those in their top of the range CD players.

 

[PFKMan23]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tourmaline /img/forum/go_quote.gif THE BIGGEST difference. Sure there are slight differences in dac chips, you have K designated chips wich have been laser cut and sound best! But a good analogue stage makes the sound of the player.

Having heard several items that use the same DAC chip (of which some use the same analog stage), I do not agree with you. I feel that both the digital side and analog side both play a large role. I really don't feel confident in saying with any degree of certainty that either is a larger factor and I am highly skeptical of anyone who tries to claim this unless their samlpe size is in the hundreds of players in the very least.

 

[Vic Trola]

We have some 15 players on hand (all tube) and some 25 DACs ( mix of tube and solid state). As you can imagine, although anecdotally, some trends can emerge:


The All Sound Different
And make no bones about it. Some sound more digital than others, some sound like vinyl, some are laid back and some are in your face.

The Chips are all over the place
We cannot correlate sound quality to chip quality by any reasonable means. We can however, correlate sound quality to circuit design around the chip. So old chip designs in great circuits sound better than the latest and greatest most expensive chips in poor circuit designs.

Filtering is understated, jitter is over stated
The filtering device and over sampling (not upsampling) play a big, big, role in the sound characteristics. Ergo, we are at a point where we can always tell if its a NOS DAC vs. a over sampling one. A properly filtered signal has the correct amount of detail and resolution. if you are experiencing digital "grunge", then 9 of 10, it is the a poor filter and not a poor chip.

Upsampling is over stated and over rated
It is not true, really not true, that the higher the upsampling the better the sound. Rather, the right upsampling, the better the sound. What is the right upsampling? - depends on the chip & circuit design. Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember.

And these are just a few... I could go on, but I see you starting to nod off.....
Anyway, what a great blog topic this would make....
Vic.

 

[StanleyB1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I really don't feel confident in saying with any degree of certainty that either is a larger factor and I am highly skeptical of anyone who tries to claim this unless their samlpe size is in the hundreds of players in the very least.

Thanks for your input and in making us aware that you are a sceptic unless proven otherwise by hundreds of samples.
Whilst the words of one or two people are a mere fraction of the required total, real life performance of DACs with similar chips but different output stages have already proved that the output stage makes the biggest difference. I reckon that they must have totalled into the thousands by now. I present you with the PCM1798 and PCM1794. The reputed kings of digital decoders, and more often than not also found in just about every DAC leaving the factories in China. Many of them also sport the OPA2134 etc. However, as many a novice in the DAC jungle would have found out to their cost, finding the 'right' numbers in the specification sheets and components lists pale into insignificance once that DAC is switched on and the amplifier volume control is turned up. The only results that then matter is what the first sentence is that the new owner utters. I bet that many of them used extreme profanity, but erred on the cautious side as far as revealing how their choice of DAC was a big mistake, even though it had all the right boxes ticked.

 

[StanleyB1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vic Trola /img/forum/go_quote.gif Filtering is understated, jitter is over stated The filtering device and over sampling (not upsampling) play a big, big, role in the sound characteristics. Ergo, we are at a point where we can always tell if its a NOS DAC vs. a over sampling one. A properly filtered signal has the correct amount of detail and resolution. if you are experiencing digital "grunge", then 9 of 10, it is the a poor filter and not a poor chip. Upsampling is over stated and over rated It is not true, really not true, that the higher the upsampling the better the sound. Rather, the right upsampling, the better the sound. What is the right upsampling? - depends on the chip & circuit design. Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember.

Jeez, you nailed a secret I have been carrying round for a while and that has netted me a living.
All very true that you write, and importantly so, but many buying decisions come with a set of blinkers. If it was down to me, I would force every manufacturer who makes any sort of claims about their product to offer a money back guarantee if facts and claims do not correlate. The upsampling claims would be at the top of my list.

 

[Akabeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vic Trola /img/forum/go_quote.gif We have some 15 players on hand (all tube) and some 25 DACs ( mix of tube and solid state). As you can imagine, although anecdotally, some trends can emerge: The All Sound Different And make no bones about it. Some sound more digital than others, some sound like vinyl, some are laid back and some are in your face. The Chips are all over the place We cannot correlate sound quality to chip quality by any reasonable means. We can however, correlate sound quality to circuit design around the chip. So old chip designs in great circuits sound better than the latest and greatest most expensive chips in poor circuit designs. Filtering is understated, jitter is over stated The filtering device and over sampling (not upsampling) play a big, big, role in the sound characteristics. Ergo, we are at a point where we can always tell if its a NOS DAC vs. a over sampling one. A properly filtered signal has the correct amount of detail and resolution. if you are experiencing digital "grunge", then 9 of 10, it is the a poor filter and not a poor chip. Upsampling is over stated and over rated It is not true, really not true, that the higher the upsampling the better the sound. Rather, the right upsampling, the better the sound. What is the right upsampling? - depends on the chip & circuit design. Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember. And these are just a few... I could go on, but I see you starting to nod off..... Anyway, what a great blog topic this would make.... Vic.

I've just saved that quote in my head-fi folder.

Thanks for sharing. I'll remember that when the time comes to choose.

 

[LUMIERE]

As far as audiophile grade CD players...

Yes, transport is probably one of the key components to excellent sound reproduction. DAC is of course extremely important. Overall though, as most systems go, the overall cohesive set of strengths will make the best players. It's the weakest link of course that will bring a system down and it's no different for a CD player.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFKMan23 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Having heard several items that use the same DAC chip (of which some use the same analog stage), I do not agree with you. I feel that both the digital side and analog side both play a large role. I really don't feel confident in saying with any degree of certainty that either is a larger factor and I am highly skeptical of anyone who tries to claim this unless their samlpe size is in the hundreds of players in the very least.

I've never found a cdplayer that sounded the same, different brands, higher end.

If everything sounds the same, i would seriously look into your amp or headphone.

They don't use the same analogue stage, unless they use the same resistors, opamps, caps etc, nothing IS the same, especially caps have their own signature, the best have almost no signature!

So, yes, i still stand behind my quote that the analogue section is the most important. Especially output stage and powerstages.

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vic Trola /img/forum/go_quote.gif We have some 15 players on hand (all tube) and some 25 DACs ( mix of tube and solid state). As you can imagine, although anecdotally, some trends can emerge: The All Sound Different And make no bones about it. Some sound more digital than others, some sound like vinyl, some are laid back and some are in your face. The Chips are all over the place We cannot correlate sound quality to chip quality by any reasonable means. We can however, correlate sound quality to circuit design around the chip. So old chip designs in great circuits sound better than the latest and greatest most expensive chips in poor circuit designs. Filtering is understated, jitter is over stated The filtering device and over sampling (not upsampling) play a big, big, role in the sound characteristics. Ergo, we are at a point where we can always tell if its a NOS DAC vs. a over sampling one. A properly filtered signal has the correct amount of detail and resolution. if you are experiencing digital "grunge", then 9 of 10, it is the a poor filter and not a poor chip. Upsampling is over stated and over rated It is not true, really not true, that the higher the upsampling the better the sound. Rather, the right upsampling, the better the sound. What is the right upsampling? - depends on the chip & circuit design. Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember. And these are just a few... I could go on, but I see you starting to nod off..... Anyway, what a great blog topic this would make.... Vic.

I would like to add 2 things:

first, multibit versus 1 bit.
Alot of people prefer multibit players over 1 bit players. Better sound. I heard some new sacdplayers, that are always 1 bit players. I found them lacking in cdplayback.

Second, if you have an older player, say 10 years old, then yes, i think a good clock could be an issue since jitter might well over the 150 threshold. For modern players, it might be different and they could be well under 150pps.

2pps (best reclock designs) versus 150 gotta be audible.

Between 48 and 96: exactly what i was telling some people. Higher upsampling adds something to the highs that add fatigue. You cannot add miraculously some bits that ain't there.

 

[fordgtlover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vic Trola /img/forum/go_quote.gif We have some 15 players on hand (all tube) and some 25 DACs ( mix of tube and solid state). As you can imagine, although anecdotally, some trends can emerge: The All Sound Different And make no bones about it. Some sound more digital than others, some sound like vinyl, some are laid back and some are in your face. The Chips are all over the place We cannot correlate sound quality to chip quality by any reasonable means. We can however, correlate sound quality to circuit design around the chip. So old chip designs in great circuits sound better than the latest and greatest most expensive chips in poor circuit designs. Filtering is understated, jitter is over stated The filtering device and over sampling (not upsampling) play a big, big, role in the sound characteristics. Ergo, we are at a point where we can always tell if its a NOS DAC vs. a over sampling one. A properly filtered signal has the correct amount of detail and resolution. if you are experiencing digital "grunge", then 9 of 10, it is the a poor filter and not a poor chip. Upsampling is over stated and over rated It is not true, really not true, that the higher the upsampling the better the sound. Rather, the right upsampling, the better the sound. What is the right upsampling? - depends on the chip & circuit design. Most of the chip and circuit design we encounter sound right somewhere between 48 and 96 kHz. 192, 176, never sounds right to me, but its me, remember. And these are just a few... I could go on, but I see you starting to nod off..... Anyway, what a great blog topic this would make.... Vic.

Please, do go on.