Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,074
|
Post by Bigman80 on Feb 19, 2023 11:16:33 GMT
The Aqvox USB2 D/A (post PS surgery)
I hate SMPS. Really, I loathe them. The amount of sheer performance they hinder can almost be to the total detriment to the devices they are installed in.
The Aqvox is one such device that almost got repacked and shipped off out the door due to one of those devices. Almost. Regardless of whether or not you “believe” in the merits of removing these RFI spewing bastards, or not…the results have been audibly repeatable here and consistent, and an absolute must do job IMO.
Anyway, making the change from SMPS to LPSU made this a serious contender to take the spot in the system. Far removed from the initial experience.
No selection process would be complete without some contest for the position, and for that I had the Parasound 1600 and Alan’s Holo Spring 3. The comparison was….interesting.
Thankfully I managed to do all of this comparative listening with the Ekta in place, which was godsend, as without them, I would not have had such a clear insight into what I was hearing without them.
I used the Holo as the reference, as it was head and shoulders above the Parasound. The Parasound sounded old. Heavy, thick and lacking resolution compared to the Holo. The Holo sounded nimble, timbred, resolving and very natural. Plugging the Aqvox in and comparing it to the Holo was a real shock.
I’d spent a good two weeks or so just listening to the Holo, so at this point, there was no lack of familiarity.
The Aqvox was impressive. Listening to excellently recorded material, such as Sera Una Noche, Beck, LA4 etc, it was nothing short of confusing. Confusing because it instantly reminded me of another DAC I had heard many years ago.
Some years ago i was a guest at a very expensive demo room, with some seriously expensive kit. The Speakers were YG Hailey, amps were Chord (£50k ish IIRC) a Chord Mscaler and a Chord DAVE. Yes, I know…I must be off my nut.
I didn’t particularly like that system, but there were things that I did like. The system did precision. Yeah the room was specially built, the soundstage was incredibly large etc, but it was that memory that sprung to mind when the music hit the neuro receptors via the Aqvox.
PRECISION.
Now, i may have convinced myself that previously that it was the speakers that were doing the magic, and as i already said, without them, this may not have happened, but thats the thing. It didn’t happen with the Holo or the Parasound, only the Aqvox.
Listening to the Aqvox is like experiencing the recording first hand. It’s easy to hear the sliders on the mixing desk pulling information in and out of the mix, fading and panning, and effects too. We all know that reverb and echo are used in recordings to give a sense of space, but it doesn’t sound like space anymore….it sounds like an effect. It’s perversely addictive to hear tracks in this way.
I have a few go to tracks for testing purposes and they all sound different when played via the Aqvox, than they do if compared via the Parasound and the Holo. It’s like a new version of the song, a more revealing version, some kind of unheard master that had never been played and is in original mint condition thats been unaffected by time.
The difference is dramatic.
You may be now furiously about to search the internet for one of these beasties, but hold your horses!
I will freely admit that I LOVE the Aqvox DAC. I think it may be the best DAC I have owned, and I certainly think its worth every penny, but there are times, particularly when a recording is a little rough, or hot, where I wish it had a little Holo Spring 3 about it. A bit of a fuller midrange that kind of allows those mixing/recording foibles to pass by a little more smoothly or less noticeable.
For the Aqvox is not a forgiver of foibles. While listening to FREE, I shot up out of the chair as I thought the tweeter was distorting. I lowered the volume and it was still there. Sh#t! I thought.
I swapped tracks to something else and nothing…it was perfect. Back to FREE, Distortion on the HF…
It took me ages to realise it was in the recording, probably through panic, but again…this Aqvox was displaying things that had previously gone unnoticed. Listening back via the Holo and yeah, there it is….but i had never noticed it, or it had never stood out, take your pick.
And that is the downside of this DAC, it’s so good, there are tracks i love that i now spend a bit more time not listening to because it demonstrates how poorly they were recorded. It’s not the DACs fault, it’s doing its job impressively well….but I would be lying if I said EVERYTHING sounds amazing, because it doesn't.
I love this DAC because it’s honest. No, it won’t make everything sound amazing, but what is recorded well will be given a new lease of life and sound like you’ve never heard it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiegong on Feb 19, 2023 11:44:26 GMT
The Aqvox USB2 D/A (post PS surgery) I hate SMPS. Really, I loathe them. The amount of sheer performance they hinder can almost be to the total detriment to the devices they are installed in. The Aqvox is one such device that almost got repacked and shipped off out the door due to one of those devices. Almost. Regardless of whether or not you “believe” in the merits of removing these RFI spewing bastards, or not…the results have been audibly repeatable here and consistent, and an absolute must do job IMO. Anyway, making the change from SMPS to LPSU made this a serious contender to take the spot in the system. Far removed from the initial experience. No selection process would be complete without some contest for the position, and for that I had the Parasound 1600 and Alan’s Holo Spring 3. The comparison was….interesting. Thankfully I managed to do all of this comparative listening with the Ekta in place, which was godsend, as without them, I would not have had such a clear insight into what I was hearing without them. I used the Holo as the reference, as it was head and shoulders above the Parasound. The Parasound sounded old. Heavy, thick and lacking resolution compared to the Holo. The Holo sounded nimble, timbred, resolving and very natural. Plugging the Aqvox in and comparing it to the Holo was a real shock. I’d spent a good two weeks or so just listening to the Holo, so at this point, there was no lack of familiarity. The Aqvox was impressive. Listening to excellently recorded material, such as Sera Una Noche, Beck, LA4 etc, it was nothing short of confusing. Confusing because it instantly reminded me of another DAC I had heard many years ago. Some years ago i was a guest at a very expensive demo room, with some seriously expensive kit. The Speakers were YG Hailey, amps were Chord (£50k ish IIRC) a Chord Mscaler and a Chord DAVE. Yes, I know…I must be off my nut. I didn’t particularly like that system, but there were things that I did like. The system did precision. Yeah the room was specially built, the soundstage was incredibly large etc, but it was that memory that sprung to mind when the music hit the neuro receptors via the Aqvox. PRECISION. Now, i may have convinced myself that previously that it was the speakers that were doing the magic, and as i already said, without them, this may not have happened, but thats the thing. It didn’t happen with the Holo or the Parasound, only the Aqvox. Listening to the Aqvox is like experiencing the recording first hand. It’s easy to hear the sliders on the mixing desk pulling information in and out of the mix, fading and panning, and effects too. We all know that reverb and echo are used in recordings to give a sense of space, but it doesn’t sound like space anymore….it sounds like an effect. It’s perversely addictive to hear tracks in this way. I have a few go to tracks for testing purposes and they all sound different when played via the Aqvox, than they do if compared via the Parasound and the Holo. It’s like a new version of the song, a more revealing version, some kind of unheard master that had never been played and is in original mint condition thats been unaffected by time. The difference is dramatic. You may be now furiously about to search the internet for one of these beasties, but hold your horses! I will freely admit that I LOVE the Aqvox DAC. I think it may be the best DAC I have owned, and I certainly think its worth every penny, but there are times, particularly when a recording is a little rough, or hot, where I wish it had a little Holo Spring 3 about it. A bit of a fuller midrange that kind of allows those mixing/recording foibles to pass by a little more smoothly or less noticeable. For the Aqvox is not a forgiver of foibles. While listening to FREE, I shot up out of the chair as I thought the tweeter was distorting. I lowered the volume and it was still there. Sh#t! I thought.
I swapped tracks to something else and nothing…it was perfect. Back to FREE, Distortion on the HF…
It took me ages to realise it was in the recording, probably through panic, but again…this Aqvox was displaying things that had previously gone unnoticed. Listening back via the Holo and yeah, there it is….but i had never noticed it, or it had never stood out, take your pick.
And that is the downside of this DAC, it’s so good, there are tracks i love that i now spend a bit more time not listening to because it demonstrates how poorly they were recorded. It’s not the DACs fault, it’s doing its job impressively well….but I would be lying if I said EVERYTHING sounds amazing, because it doesn't.
I love this DAC because it’s honest. No, it won’t make everything sound amazing, but what is recorded well will be given a new lease of life and sound like you’ve never heard it before.Precisely Olster, and that's the trade off in this game, when you are in pursuit of genuine hifi-delity. A good set up will be precise, honest and revealing, couple that with the fact we are subject to the quality of the recording.... I think a lot of people dont actually understand or consider those very important factors and get a bit confused, go round in circles, trash good kit as crap, or it didnt work in my set up/dont know what the fuss is about type thing. There's a big difference between building a system that you want everything to sound great on, and building a genuinely honest, truthful, warts n all, hifidelity system, hifidelity meaning 'reproduction that is faithful to the original. 'the original' will always be a recording' therefore, we are subject to that and all that is within that. Are we pursuing, one thing or the other. If you don't know then the journey will never end or lead to satisfaction. Once music, system folk ask themselves that question and are honest, my thinking is it would likely save a lot less, rabbit hole, ever decreasing circles behaviour we are known for and experience. My conscious pursuit, for a long time was to build a set up that could be as honest and faithful as pos, and I knew that would mean I'd get more of everything, more music/recorded music info and insight so I haven't been tripped up or disappointed. Good recordings are a joy, bad n tizzy ones are just that, but ultimately what's revealed, the music and experience of it rules. |
|
|
|
Post by firebottle on Feb 19, 2023 12:04:44 GMT
Interesting as I had a similar experience yesterday.
Now the streaming signal quality is so good (plus the resolution of the Ekta's) I can't listen to recordings that have any hint of 'compression wars'.
The alternative thought was 'what the xxxx was the recording engineer doing to this?'. Doesn't seem to have a scoobie of how to get the best out of digital. YMMV
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Feb 19, 2023 12:30:14 GMT
I think it important to distinguish between flaws in a recording (as in proper flaws not just production choices we personally don't like) and flaws in the reproduction.
If recording has flaws I'm fine with that it's just part of the recording and I accept it for what it is. If the flaw is in the system and it puts that flaw onto everything I listen to, then that's not something I can live with.
Overuse of compression, or, more accurately, 'limiting' is not an accident nor is it due to the engineer not knowing what he is doing. It's a deliberate choice. Yes it is crap but there it is.
Thankfully I only have a few CDs that are so limited I don't listen to them at all. I have some Eagles remasters where they have overdone it a bit. I suppose I could always replace them with earlier editions but I don't play them that much so I've not got round to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Feb 19, 2023 13:26:41 GMT
Delighted with the increase in sound quality that has been achieved on this DAC and to find that I am not deluded or silly for not liking SMPS anywhere in my system were possible . However the only issue I have with the statement staying true to the original recording is how will we know ? Labels are not very honest or forthcoming about how any album is produced and from what was the original . The only true way of knowing what any recording truly sounded like is to have been present at the recording and heard the original and obtained a direct copy of that recording . Another way is to make it yourself . Once you have this you can then make your system as near as possible a direct sounding copy of that recording and know that it is correct .
Sadly this is almost impossible with most commercial issues , you have not idea if the original master was used or a copy sent for production which may have been mastered in a particular way. Just an example of what can happen and the truth only surfaces much later U2 Joshua Tree album one of the first general albums to be released on Vinyl and CD . heard the Vinyl version which was a good recording and had lots of real atmosphere . Also because I had just bought my first Marantz CD player bought the CD . Sounded awful too much Bass and very dull treble if this had been my first CD I might well have said its not for me . Then years later the truth comes out that the record label were in such a rush to get the CD out they in error used the Vinyl master to for the CD . Now the Vinyl master will have sounded good on LP because it will have been filtered by the RCA Phono circuit and this would have cut the bass and increased the treble to match the boost and cut added when recording . Of course any digital copy would not have this so will have produced what was on the master copy used and sound dreadful because of it . They changed it for the second production but thousands of the first copies were sold with no offer of any exchange . Later got a cheap used version of the Anniversary CD and got to hear it as it should have sounded .
So what I am saying in my usual round about way is getting the most accurate system that shows up all recordings in an honest and accurate way warts and all is a great things and a really excellent goal . However you need a real recording that you personally now the full history of and fully accurate details of what the original recording sounded like in order to be able to have a ground zero to work from . If you have real knowledge and confidence in that base recording then you know it is accurate with the other recordings you feed it .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Feb 19, 2023 13:43:34 GMT
even if you record a live performance you still won't have a totally accurate copy of the live performance because mics are not accurate and a mic does not hear like a human. Plus loads of other factors not worth going into
In short forget accuracy to live performance it doesn't happen. Hi-fi is about playing back the signal as accurately as possible, fidelity to the recording of the performance not the performance itself.
The only way to know if you are doing that is measurements.
Electronics and cables unless they are weird or faulty or just plain piss-poor will not add or take away anything from the signal. Room and speakers will so that's where efforts should be concentrated if you want 'good sound.'
I'm glad to see a trend here towards people using passive room treatments and buying properly-engineered loudspeakers, and reaping the sonic rewards. Okay so there is still some foo-talk but I know some enjoy that aspect so what the hell, maybe they will come around with time.
The vast majority of studio engineers know exactly what they are doing and will achieve what is required of them. What is required of them is not necessarily what we might want as individuals but if you find a lot of recordings 'unlistenable' this is likely to be a problem with the system not the recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Feb 19, 2023 15:14:31 GMT
Yes but what you do have is a recording that you heard and understand and an exact recording . If you can get that recording to sound exactly like the original including all the mic distortions etc then you know for certain that what you are playing back is accurate . For anything else it is a crap shoot you have no idea what the original master sounded like or what the version of the master then transposed to what ever medium you have should sound like so then all you are doing is change things till you think your sound is the closest to the original but the truth is you do not know .
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,074
|
Post by Bigman80 on Feb 19, 2023 15:35:43 GMT
Delighted with the increase in sound quality that has been achieved on this DAC and to find that I am not deluded or silly for not liking SMPS anywhere in my system were possible . However the only issue I have with the statement staying true to the original recording is how will we know ? I don't believe i said that? But in general, i think you have to understand that there are people out there trying to assemble systems that do not deliberately flavour playback, in order to replicate what the recording captured in it's most closest form. I am with macca on the point of listening to a live recording and then listening to it played back. It never sounds exactly as it did at a live venue, and it never sounds exactly like it did in a recording studio. Been there, done that. The reason for this is a lot simpler than you think. It's got nothing to do with playback equipment, it's all to do with the recording itself. When i used to play and record with a few bands, in the rehearsals prior to the session, my ear would be about 2ft above the sound hole in my acoustic. Then we would record and my ears would be in headphones that were linked via the desk to the Mic. Every mic position sounded different, so the one above the sound hole sounded different to the one below and neither sounded anything like the one directly in front of the hole. I'd play my part, and depending on the mix the engineer chose for the acoustic, the three mics would all contribute to the guitar sound you heard in playback. Then we would record it again with totally different mics, and again, that would sound different. in the end, the tone of the guitar was dictated by a blend of around 6 mics in two takes. They do this for mostly every live instrument and for vocals. The aim shouldn't be to replicate the guitar, it should be to get as close to the recording...the final mix that the engineer does. Yes, you are absolutely right, we have no idea if what was intended to come across is making out of the speaker, but then unless you use the EXACT desk and earphones etc that the engineer used, you never will know. I have a few single track recordings of my guitar that i sometimes reference against for tonal accuracy, but that model is flawed as the strings have changed multiple times since and i have no idea what strings i used at the time, but it's a bit of fun. My system is aimed at accurately reproducing the sound of those recorded 6 mics and the two takes that were mixed down...not the guitar itself. I'll never manage it accurately to 100% because the HiFI isn't the same, and it was 20 years ago...my ears are not the same as they were then and the playback equipment was different there, but it's about getting as close as possible. I hope that makes sense? |
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,074
|
Post by Bigman80 on Feb 19, 2023 15:47:58 GMT
Electronics and cables unless they are weird or faulty or just plain piss-poor will not add or take away anything from the signal. Room and speakers will so that's where efforts should be concentrated if you want 'good sound.' I'm glad to see a trend here towards people using passive room treatments and buying properly-engineered loudspeakers, and reaping the sonic rewards. Okay so there is still some foo-talk but I know some enjoy that aspect so what the hell, maybe they will come around with time. Electronics affect SNR, THN+D, capacitance, inductance and resistance, no matter how good they are. As for cables, when the voltage applied to conductors changes, the electric field between them charges or discharges in response. However, this does not occur instantaneously, which leads to a delay in voltage change . The higher the capacitance, the slower the voltage change. The capacitance in cables can also act as a filter. This thread is an interesting read: www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/goldpoint-sa2x-nobsound-ns-05p-passive-attenuator-comparison-technical-measurements.7324/Passive room treatment should be a mandatory installation for anyone serious about this hobby. I know it isn't always practical, but anything is better than nothing. And Foo? what Foo would that be lol. Even if it is foo, i think this forum has a far more sensible crowd than i've seen elsewhere, and YES, the speakers are PROPER.....i'll be writing about them next. |
|
|
|
Post by bencat on Feb 19, 2023 17:02:37 GMT
That is what I am saying and you confirm it . If you made the recording and as you say listened in a different way at the recording then there would be differences . If you then played the master tape / digital file on a system and listened to that then you know what it was intended to sound like . A copy of that played on your home system which then sounded the same would then let you know that you were getting a true accurate replay of that recording and you had would have a base point .
Recording a vocalist or single instrument in your listening room using a single microphone will have noise and distortions but you will be able to hear and recognise that sound . You will then know when played through your system how close you got to the original . When you got so close that you find it hard to tell the recording from the original you will know your system is really transparent .
Oli you did not say that it was Robbie I was answering to .
|
|
|
|
Post by macca on Feb 19, 2023 17:18:20 GMT
I think we can probably say that the mastered recording, played back in the mastering suite, is 'how it should sound.'
Ofc we're not likely to ever have that experience for any recording, most artists don't even get to have that experience.
What we can say about the mastering suite is that it will be acoustically benign and the speakers will be pretty accurate i.e smooth response.
If we can get those two attributes at home then we can get into the ballpark of 'how it's supposed to sound.' In reality that is about the best we can hope for with regard to accuracy.
Fortunately that's good enough for convincing and enjoyable playback, which is all we are after unless we are taking it to - IMO - obsessive levels. I mean we just want to enjoy music really, that was our end goal originally even if we do stray into audiophilia and 'listening to the equipment' occasionally.
I don't see the point in thinking it over any more than that. But if you have a bad room acoustic and speakers with a response like the Alps, expect a lot of recordings to sound pretty bad. That's not the engineer's fault!
|
|
|
|
Post by robbiegong on Feb 19, 2023 17:45:54 GMT
I hear ya Macca. If you've done all you can, good kit, ancillaries etc then you just have to stop obsessing and enjoy the music/system.
My room is small/medium, bare wood floor, bare white walls so I'm sure I'm getting an emphasis on some frequencies you'd ideally not want to get, but it is what it is, there's no way the Mrs will allow any panels going up, as room treatment, no matter how pretty, so it is what it is - I get on with it, thankful and enjoy what I have.
|
|
Bigman80
Grandmaster
AA Founding Member & Bigbottle Audio Creator
Posts: 16,074
|
Post by Bigman80 on Feb 19, 2023 18:02:11 GMT
It gets repetitive, but this video demonstrates how everything affects the recording of something as simple as a guitar.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucew268 on Feb 19, 2023 21:48:45 GMT
... PRECISION. Now, i may have convinced myself that previously that it was the speakers that were doing the magic, and as i already said, without them, this may not have happened, but thats the thing. It didn’t happen with the Holo or the Parasound, only the Aqvox. Listening to the Aqvox is like experiencing the recording first hand. It’s easy to hear the sliders on the mixing desk pulling information in and out of the mix, fading and panning, and effects too. We all know that reverb and echo are used in recordings to give a sense of space, but it doesn’t sound like space anymore….it sounds like an effect. It’s perversely addictive to hear tracks in this way. I have a few go to tracks for testing purposes and they all sound different when played via the Aqvox, than they do if compared via the Parasound and the Holo. It’s like a new version of the song, a more revealing version, some kind of unheard master that had never been played and is in original mint condition thats been unaffected by time. The difference is dramatic. ... And that is the downside of this DAC, it’s so good, there are tracks i love that i now spend a bit more time not listening to because it demonstrates how poorly they were recorded. It’s not the DACs fault, it’s doing its job impressively well….but I would be lying if I said EVERYTHING sounds amazing, because it doesn't. This reminds me of changing out the xover caps in my proacs years ago Solen > Ansar. It was much a similar effect and addictive, though after some time I realised the Solens and Ansars were on two different sides of reality & balance: The Solens tended to be thick and mask fine detail, whilst the Ansars tended to put it under a spotlight and perhaps forensic lens. The data was all there and probably good for an mixing engineer's analysis, but a bit too prominent for good musical balance when listening longterm. I eventually changed over to some nice caps that had good detail but more balanced and musical to my ears. ...not saying this is what's happening with your Aqvox, just that it reminded me of my experience.
BTW: I agree that unless one was in the mastering or control room, we don't know what was heard and intended precisely. That becomes obvious when one has spent time in a studio and later listened to the published copy or has listened to several seasoned engineers talking (arguing) craft. But the studio time nearly 40 years ago was my first clue that my listening experience could be a whole lot better than I currently had at home and got me pursuing better fidelity.
|
|
