|
|
Post by misterc on Nov 3, 2020 15:52:27 GMT
It could be the extracted word clock pathways and PLL circuitry inside the dac along with its own dedicated analogue and digital power supplies are much less of a compromise than those inside the cd player which share the power supplies with the CD spinner and servo drive control.
|
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Nov 3, 2020 19:14:54 GMT
@mrc, probably.
Re speaker cables, they're part of a tuned system loading the output stage. On any amp that isn't load invariant you can expect some shift of FR with different speaker cables.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Nov 4, 2020 11:26:22 GMT
Hi Simon just a quick reply as this the digital audio thread. Speaker cables impedance match is very important, the pathway from the output stage of the amplifier through the cables/speaker inputs/x/overs and back to the amplifier is called a transmission line. This incorporates everything in that part of the chain from the start and finish posts on the amplifier terminals. We can measure this whole pathway via TDR (time domain reflectometery) methods. TDR Explanation With regard to speaker cables we can accurately measure and characterize the whole ‘interconnect chain’ this starts from the output binding post to the incoming binding post on the amplifier. This includes the speaker cable, speaker terminals, x/over circuit board, resistors, inductors, drivers, return conductor speaker cable. This is called a transmission line. We can also de-embed each of the various components of the TL to find the weak point in the TL as well so we can individually characterize each piece of the puzzle. We can use TDR S-parameters to view insertion loss, impedance mismatches and various other information; that will indicate other potential issues. We can also use VNA (Vector network analysers) and in some cases (SA spectrum analysers with VSWR adapters fitted) VNA Explanation SA ExplanationCables of all forms have been measured this way for over 70 years both statically and dynamically quite straightforwardly. Now the rub here is simple does a particular measurement deliver a particular type of sound, does cable ‘a’ measuring ‘y’ sound any different from cable ‘b’ measuring ‘Z’? I can’t answer that question, what I can say in that during my observations of various experiments and fault finding with cables is this, without question there is a correlation to impedance mis matched cables sound ‘different’ to those which are properly constructed for their designed purpose. We can see and measure the reflections in cabling and with high powered scopes (HD and high sample rates) we can see post ringing on the wave forms and can actually formulate the exact many times their reflect (bounce) back and forth along the transmission line and the effect on the signal it has. Yes I am a cable believer, though in the last four years it’s been great to really dig in deep as to the possible causes and differences with cables YMMV. |
|
|
|
Post by sq225917 on Nov 4, 2020 20:00:39 GMT
I'm in agreement with you on speaker cables, others, not so much
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 1, 2020 21:13:42 GMT
I am certainly not a digital audio expert but I have heard a lot of digital audio gear. Folk keep telling me digital audio is far closer to what the studio engineers intended when they made the recording however there is one massive problem with this asumption.
ALL digital audio equipment sound different so which one is representing the close replication of the studio engineer, they can't all be accurate if the all sound different.
And then we have the small problem of how you connect and use your DAC and guess what every which way gives you a different sound. So which one is correct and which one represents the close representation of the studio engineer? None because they can all sound vastly different. So I have come to the conclusion that digital audio is a load of bollox when you assume it represents a close proximity to the original recording.
So you take DAC A and it sound bright and detailed but has little bass - oops is this correct or is it DAC B that has a more neutral top end but gut kicking bass? Or is it DAC C which has a wide soundstage but light in the bass. Which one is correct? I ascertain none because they all colour the sound and distort it in some way and you can modify that distortion by connecting via USB or SPDIf or Optical or via a server or the bloody list is endless and they all make your DAC sound different. So which option is correct if they are are all give a different representation of the original studio recording?
I like my distorted inaccurate analogue valve/vinyl system because at least it sounds closer to what my ears are telling me sounds real rather than the fooked up processed sound digital audio creates through the myriad of DAC chips, clocks, filters, power supplies, different connections, servers/network bridges, routers...bloody hell the list of variables is endless!!!
So which digital audio system is accurate and faithful to the original recording??
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 8:47:19 GMT
I disagree that digital sources sound 'vastly different' unless they are designed to - which some are - but I agree they can sound slightly different.
On the other hand the speakers in a typical system are likely to sound very different to the set used in the mastering suite. Likewise the acoustic environment used for mastering will be very different to your living room. These differences will be so large they will swamp any other differences.
One thing you can be sure of is that if you make a digital copy of the master tape it will be an exact copy. So you are at least starting with something that is completely unadulterated. Once you transfer the master tape to vinyl you are starting at a point that is already some distance from the master tape.
If your system shows up the differences in the character of different recordings then it's probably as accurate as you are going to get. It's a bit like snooker - the player doesn't have to get the cue ball to stop in an exact spot in order to be able to make the next shot, he just needs it to stop within a certain area of the table and he's good to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2020 10:10:05 GMT
I am finding digital sources are as different sounding as phono cartridges. I have now heard enough now to make my own assumption that many are not accurately reconstructing the digital information to sound as close to the original recording. They are TECHNICALLY maybe but sound wise they are all over the place as I have alluded to in my previous post.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 2, 2020 10:42:41 GMT
I think there is a more likely middle ground with both of your points
I've found more similarities with DAC than differences WHEN they use the same chips.
I would also suggest that when putting a Teradak up against a Topping D90 in a blind AB test, 99.999999999% would know which was which very easily.
I'd also suggest using a Chord DAVE and Mscaler Vs Topping D30 would be pretty flaming obvious too.
Thing is, Macca made a point there that I have been saying for a long while now.....a copy of a digital master is exactly the same as the master...regardless of how many times you copy it, if kept in file form. Ripping from CDS is less accurate...but by a gnats ball hair.
Digital will always have the edge in terms of Ultimate consistency but I do always revert to sample rate in this discussion.
If you are taking samples per second of any recording, there will be things that are not recorded, no matter how small. Analogue recordings and analogue playback may not be as close to the original master as a digital file of a digital recording, but it ALWAYS has better fluidity and liquidity.
I am yet to be convinced that digital can ever replicate this aspect of Vinyl. But there are certain aspects of Digital that vinyl can never replicate either.
Oh, and don't get at me about the limit of human hearing etc, because I'm not having it.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 2, 2020 10:51:06 GMT
I would also suggest that when putting a Teradak up against a Topping D90 in a blind AB test, 99.999999999% would know which was which very easily. I'd also suggest using a Chord DAVE and Mscaler Vs Topping D30 would be pretty flaming obvious too.
Let me think?  ?
Like listening to a Vorporal sword piecing your tympanic membranes at 650m/s or actually having music played to you humm........ which one would I choose  |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 2, 2020 10:52:40 GMT
I would also suggest that when putting a Teradak up against a Topping D90 in a blind AB test, 99.999999999% would know which was which very easily. I'd also suggest using a Chord DAVE and Mscaler Vs Topping D30 would be pretty flaming obvious too.
Let me think? ?
Like listening to a Vorporal sword piecing your tympanic membranes at 650m/s or actually having music played to you humm........ which one would I choose Exactly! DACs don't sound the same. A lot sound more similar that different but that's the same with any hifi stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2020 10:57:43 GMT
I am not talking about digital from a Technical point of view because i take it we all assume that if carefull copies of digital files are made they should all be the same as the original master.
I also believe that digital may be able to do all the technical aspects very well indeed ie low noise floor, great dynamic range, higher treble and deeper more accurate bass BUT this is so variable between DACs and other digital audio equipment and as such which one do you believe is an accurate representation of the Master recording when they all can sound so different?
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2020 11:01:36 GMT
If DACs dont sound the same then which one do you pick and say that is what the original recording should sound like?
You cant. So they are far from accurate in their representation of what the music should sound like because they are all different.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 2, 2020 11:20:38 GMT
If DACs dont sound the same then which one do you pick and say that is what the original recording should sound like? You cant. So they are far from accurate in their representation of what the music should sound like because they are all different. That's very true Jim....which is why, as with Analogue, one must audition pieces of equipment and THEN decide if that piece of equipment is for them There is no real accurate, only with digital you fat a lot closer to the digital studio recording. But let's not forget, you don't get everything that's recorded as mostly it would be absolutely huge in file size. An album in the studio may be 10GB+ We still only get the condensed version, so really ....... Is digital that close? I have a studio copy of a song I did with an Irish Fella Called Dave Ward. The one track is over 1GB. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2020 11:42:03 GMT
Yes you get far closer to the digitally encoded material but do you get closer to what it sounded like in the studio. None of us can tell that as we were not there but frankly all digital audio equipment only gives us a representation of the music depending on which piece of equipment you are using.
As they are all technically different they all sound different depending on how they are built. You may presume they are all reconstructing 10101 accurately which maybe the case but whether they are accurately reconstructing how something should sound like is a different matter.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 2, 2020 11:45:32 GMT
Yes you get far closer to the digitally encoded material but do you get closer to what it sounded like in the studio. None of us can tell that as we were not there but frankly all digital audio equipment only gives us a representation of the music depending on which piece of equipment you are using. As they are all technically different they all sound different depending on how they are built. You may presume they are all reconstructing 10101 accurately which maybe the case but whether they are accurately reconstructing how something should sound like is a different matter. I can tell you how close the Soekris gets to my recording..as I was there when it was recorded lol |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 12:05:30 GMT
I am finding digital sources are as different sounding as phono cartridges. I have now heard enough now to make my own assumption that many are not accurately reconstructing the digital information to sound as close to the original recording. They are TECHNICALLY maybe but sound wise they are all over the place as I have alluded to in my previous post. You're ignoring the psycho-acoustic aspect. if you know you are lsitening to two different things (DACs, carts, amps, whatever) then the differences will appear magnified. Even if there are no differences then you are still likely to hear some. This is how our brains work. It's like going into an exam with a sheet of paper with all the answers on. Try comparing two items without knowing which is playing. The differences will be reduced by an order of magnitude to the point where you may well find it difficult to distinguish between them - even when they measure drastically differently. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 12:07:47 GMT
I think there is a more likely middle ground with both of your points I've found more similarities with DAC than differences WHEN they use the same chips. I would also suggest that when putting a Teradak up against a Topping D90 in a blind AB test, 99.999999999% would know which was which very easily. I'd also suggest using a Chord DAVE and Mscaler Vs Topping D30 would be pretty flaming obvious too. Thing is, Macca made a point there that I have been saying for a long while now.....a copy of a digital master is exactly the same as the master...regardless of how many times you copy it, if kept in file form. Ripping from CDS is less accurate...but by a gnats ball hair. Digital will always have the edge in terms of Ultimate consistency but I do always revert to sample rate in this discussion. If you are taking samples per second of any recording, there will be things that are not recorded, no matter how small. Analogue recordings and analogue playback may not be as close to the original master as a digital file of a digital recording, but it ALWAYS has better fluidity and liquidity. I am yet to be convinced that digital can ever replicate this aspect of Vinyl. But there are certain aspects of Digital that vinyl can never replicate either. Oh, and don't get at me about the limit of human hearing etc, because I'm not having it. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 12:15:05 GMT
I don't seem to be able to quote Ollies post above due to the Sh#t software but some points
Ripping from a CD is 100% accurate unless the disc is irretrievably damaged. This is proven fact, there can be no debate there.
In a band limited system you will always be able to capture 100% of the waveform via sampling. Nothing is lost. There are no 'gaps between the samples.' Increasing the sampling rate simply increases the bandwidth you can capture. Again this is mathematics, there can be no debate about it.
Limits of human hearing? More of a grey area. Certainly we know after more than a century of research that no-one can hear frequencies higher than 22Khz. Most of us over 30 will be limited to below 17Khz. As to what levels of distortion we can hear that is still open to question, at least to an extent.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 12:20:41 GMT
If DACs dont sound the same then which one do you pick and say that is what the original recording should sound like? You cant. So they are far from accurate in their representation of what the music should sound like because they are all different. The one they used in the mastering suite? You might need to have a DAC for every recording you own though... The thing is they are not 'far from accurate.' If you look on ASR even the worst measuring DACs are not 'far from accurate.' At best they are slightly less accurate. When we have accurate speakers, then you can start worrying about accuracy in DACs. |
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 2, 2020 12:33:28 GMT
I am not talking about the technical measured accuracy, I am talking about how a DAC sounds and they are all different so which one is the most accurate. If they sound different then there they cant be all accurately producing what the original recording sounded like?
Then technically they must be flawed. If they were all technically accurate they should all sound the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 2, 2020 12:46:28 GMT
I will reply to this fully later, have to finish a big order.
Will go into depth about recordings and why they can and do sound different also the reasons why a lot of original analogue records are very good we use Studer A80's and 810's reel to reels in our studios along with pro tools operated by engineers that KNOW how to use them properly.
Must finish this order
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 13:12:48 GMT
I am not talking about the technical measured accuracy, I am talking about how a DAC sounds and they are all different so which one is the most accurate. If they sound different then there they cant be all accurately producing what the original recording sounded like? Then technically they must be flawed. If they were all technically accurate they should all sound the same? They sound far more similar than the impression we will get from sighted listening. This is because the way our brains process sensory input. Our brains are not 'straight wires with gain.' Try blind comparing two DACS that you think sound very different - whilst you will probably still be able to detect some differences between them you will be shocked as to how close to each other that they now sound. You will be able to find many DACs that are indistinguishable from one another. There will always be some outliers of course and these are the ones that tend to get talked about on forums. |
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 2, 2020 13:20:34 GMT
One other factor worth mentioning is the replay system
If this lacks accuracy then it may magnify an inaccuracy in the DAC. So for one person the new DAC will be perceived as a 'big' change, or maybe a subtle but noticeable change, for another person with a more accurate system, they will hear no change when swapping to that DAC.
For example using a loudspeaker that has a midrange 'hump' stretching across a broad range of frequencies. Or using an amplifier with a certain distortion spectrum.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 2, 2020 13:36:32 GMT
ah! now it gets interesting:
"Why should I use EAC, instead of AudioGrabber, WinDAC, etc.?
EAC features some special read modes, known as “Secure Modes”. Using these secure modes, every sector read will be doublechecked and reread or corrected if necessary. On many drives the extraction is not error free, thus these routines will make sure the track is read correctly.
Audio extraction is purely digital, how could unremarked errors occur?
The data transmission itself is purely digital and also the data stored on the CD. But the Red Book standard (standard for audio CDs) is very weak and only little error correction will be performed in the drive. So on bad CD-ROM drives it is possible that you receive erroneous results."
I have used EAC's "secure mode" almost exclusivley until it dropped it's metadata link and you had to put each track title in by hand. I read this statement a long time back now, but couldn't remember where.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 2, 2020 15:13:19 GMT
Recordings why do they sound different?
Many, many reasons from the first point the sound enters the microphones to the point it exits the driver  everything in between no matter how small has an effect on the recording or replay chain.
Lets go back in time for the start of this post, from my own perspective the golden age of recordings were between 1956 and the mid 70's in those days engineers had specific tasks to perform and the knew their CRAFT plus the equipment they used at those points in time were very specialised and these guys where only a select few who really knew how to use them correctly. Not 'Johnny come DJ spliff me brother in crib' MC of the decks in his bedroom with his suite of compression algorithms and tube expanders 
These are all analogue recordings of coarse as the first commercially viable digital recording did not take place until 1980 I believe?
In this period recording engineers were left alone to really come up with the goods for what ever band/Orchestra/Artist they were working with so the TIME / EXPERIENCE and BUDGET was not the concern it is now.
So you are recording Wish you Were Hear in late 74 early 75, you have the best reel to reel recording and playback decks available. State of the art Neve 32+ track mixing consoles, a team of back room technicians one of the best engineers Alan Parsons plus Abbey Road studio's. All the time that a Multi million album selling band like Pink Floyd can lever out of EMI.
The engineers spent their time with mike selection, placement and getting the band sound the way the wanted it, do you feel that happens today?
They are many vinyl recordings that will not be bettered no matter what the digital playback system is Yes really this is due to the original mater tapes and how they were created and how they are stored.
Remember every time you play a record or tape (cassette or reel to reel) you are wearing away part of the medium you are listening to!. Also when the original tapes were mixed and mastered they would have been run, reversed and then cut and spliced to produce that finish article.
The only way to really keep a 2nd generation master copy is first class condition is to hermetically seal it (vacuum sealed bag preferably ultraviolet proof, then placed in a film canister. After that locked in a tape vault temperature control. It still will degrade but at a much reduced rate.
So how many of you go to this length to keep your recordings in 1st class condition?
Now we can talk direct cut to vinyl recording which can be superb no question, however no editing so any mistakes are there plus its costly to get all the right people in the right room at the same time. Plus the cost and how many of these are you going to sell to non audiophiles? remember 88% of all music is sold to 14-24 years olds. Its all about ££$$$££ nothing more. Why are so many real bands now asking for kick-starters to sponsor them to record their next albums. Albums sales do not make money any more TOURING and MERCHANDISE are the BIG ££££ income generators.
Digital recording can sound just as good and has plenty of fluidity and naturalness IF the engineers are left to put the track together without 9dB+ of compression, 300 different effect filters, and the ubiquitous Radio edit
The KEY to any quality recordings is the time, care and real expertise the mastering engineer can bring to the party and a liking of the music they are working on oh and BUDGET 
Now why do certain recordings sound better on Vinyl and CD's? very simple the initial transfer from the original master recordings to the various formats nothing more.
I have some CD's which really are phish at best and other Vinyl which sounds purely wonderful and everything in between. I also have a 200 Gram St Pepper's Japanese copy uber rare pressing and its just  however I also have a Japanese K2 digital CD master copy and its so bloody close it just barking mad!
Have around 500 recordings that have been correctly digitally transferred from the original masters with music from 1948 on-wards and it sound just sooooooooooooooooooo natural and fluid it just ebbs and flows effortlessly makes a lot of the vinyl sound staccato and laboured. It also does this with a totally and utterly grain free and encompassing manner.
The key really is in the master recording transfer, get that right and doesn't matter format you have it will be just so good.
Digital recording can be edited with zero effect and no downsides, effects can be added by the press of a button (if you wish) but remember the equipment is only as good as the operators skill level. As Martin says the consistency of the recording is always there.
A few years ago we presented two TAD systems at the Windsor show one reference system (all analogue) and one evolution system (all digital) later on the Sunday afternoon both Shaun and myself were presenting the different aspects of musical replay CD then Vinyl the Streaming (FBA).
The reference system was using a Oracle Delphi MK VI Gen II with a very special Russian phono stage, Special Benz Oracle only cartridge way above the LPS all set up on a Dr Feickert adjust + system damn fine sound through the R1 speakers and M600 mono-blocks.
Part of the session involved taking requests, one chap wanted us to play his freshly purchased super dooper pressing of PF The wall.
Shaun obliged by putting the record on and cuing up the arm, I in the mean time was setting up the same track on FBA, switched off the CD players display as we used the dac inside the player to decode the files.
At the end of the Comfortably numb we got a around of applause for the playback, with a few of the visitors praising its great analogue qualities and we had manged one of the best sounds of the show.
It wasn't until we inviting the chap with the copy of the wall to retrieve his record and saw the arm was just sat there resting that the room went silent 
Last word when I put together my next project (time and space distortion travel) I will go back and record these great musical events with today's technology and things will be very different
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 6, 2020 12:05:27 GMT
www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kinda-beating-a-dead-horse-but-non-blind-level-matched-dac-comparison.18117/''Hi, everyone, 1st post here. So I'll try to be brief. I (we) could've done this a long time ago but for some reason it never happened until a few days ago.
So I collected a few DACs from my friends (Focusrite Scarlett, FiiO F5, FiiO E10K, a $10 DAC from Aliexpress based on some Burr-Brown all-in-one chip, can't remember which and my own DAC no-one's likely heard of, AD Labs RD-26) + a Roksan Kaspian CD player. Amp used was an Atoll AM200 and a Roksan Kaspian amp was used as a preamp for instant input switching using the remote.
All comparisons were level matched to sub 1% using computer generated sines signal and a DMM. Speakers used Dynaudio Confidence 3.Result: both me and my friend weren't able to hear the tiniest differences.''
|
|
|
|
Post by jimbo on Dec 6, 2020 12:07:01 GMT
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
The HiFi Bear/Audioaddicts/Bigbottle Owner
Posts: 16,407
|
Post by Bigman80 on Dec 6, 2020 12:20:50 GMT
They are all pretty much budget DACS, and the Roksan Pre is shite, I've heard one.
I'm still awaiting a genuine comparison of cheap Vs expensive (not astronomical) comparison, and for someone with a system capable of being "revealing" to do it.
The Atoll 200 amp looks ok from what I have read in the past, but I suspect it's THD is higher than the DACs used here.
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Dec 6, 2020 12:35:53 GMT
And the THD of the speakers is several orders of magnitude higher...
At least we can agree that if you need absolutely top flight equipment to hear the differences, then any differences must be very marginal.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterc on Dec 6, 2020 12:39:54 GMT
The Atoll 200 amp looks ok from what I have read in the past, You would need to listen to one Oli I suspect you may revise that statement afterwards. Think Naim like with attitude |
|
?
everything in between no matter how small has an effect on the recording or replay chain.
however I also have a Japanese K2 digital CD master copy and its so bloody close it just barking mad!