advertisement


At last... (Audiolab) - part III

Status
Not open for further replies.

MrScott

Member
Had a chance to have a long listening session yesterday and I'm even more impressed. Next step is to try the CDQ in balanced mode with some active speakers. Following your discussion of actives the other day, are there any designs you'd particularly recommend? Have auditioned Event Opals, Dynaudio BM12s, Klein & Hummel O300s, and Focal Solos and Twins, and liked all of the last three.
I'm not John, but I would like to give you the advice to check out the ADAM Compact Mk3 (Active Version) speakers before "wasting" too much money. You won't regret it, please believe me.
 
Hi.

I have a new cdq which I think is very good indeed and quite amazing for the money, top marks to John and Dominic.

I've been reading this thread (takes a while doesn't it?) and I need some speakers now too.

Do you think the Adam Audio pro stuff is good enough for the house?

I have a budget of £1000 and was thinking of a pair of P11a's

I have never heard a pair of active speakers so I'd quite appreciate your thoughts?

Arthur.
 
TimR said:
Edward said:
Yes, I have experienced the same thing (although, only one day in) but I see it in a more positive light. the squeezebox, or Sonos, may create bit perfect copies of CDs (or very close) but the 'zone player' transports typically have much higher jitter than good CD players. They also introduce a more complicated signal path than a dedicated CDP/DAC unit. So I find it reassuring rather than disappointing that CDs sound noticeably better on the CDQ than their 'lossless' streamed counterparts via Sonos/Squeezebox.
Very well put. I hadn't thought of it like that
I don't find this reassuring.

I know all the reasons why putting the CD transport in with the DAC makes it easier to pull out a jitter free stream. I know that using a wordclock output from the DAC helps overcome the limitations of the spdif standard. Somewhere back at the beginning of this thread (see post #166) John spoke about the MDAC (and therefore I would assume and hope, also the QDAC) having an external clock loop to improve the jitter of external spdif devices

But the CD counterparts are bit perfect, and so 25 years after the creation of the CD digital standard and with the amount of silicon available at low cost ... I expect better

So, referring back to Dominic's comments in post #250, I fully acknowledge that "the way to get the best results (jitter rejection) is not having to perform any". But despite Dominic's comment in that "There is no perfect jitter rejection in this world"...

on the basis that in high quality audio reproduction there is no limitation on time delay within the audio decoding process (this isn't HT and we don't need to sync image and sound), I can't see why data can't be pulled in and buffered and then clocked out in a perfectly stable, controlled and 'jitter-free' way. I do understand that this will/may introduce further circuit design and clocking problems and tasks.

None of this is intended as negative comments on what has been endeavoured and appears to have been achieved in the current designs - I'm waiting for the QDAC as it appears to be just the digital/analogue preamp I'm looking for. Prior to this (thread) I'd been eyeing up the Buffalo and Wyred4Sound offerings, but John & Dominic's designs do seem to genuinely advance the state of the art at a surprisingly low price point.

However, I think that something more universal should be possible for the 'digital source era' ;)

They really are just 0s and 1s

Chris
 
Do you think the Adam Audio pro stuff is good enough for the house?
Most of the Adam Audio Pro stuff are "Nearfield Monitors" for studio work (which means one person in the small sweet acoustic spot is judging a mix and makes corrections). If you're out of that sweet spot the sound gets more or less weird. So, NO the Adam Audio Pro stuff is not meant to be run in a house (living room). That's the reason why Adam Audio has a Home Audio division as well. If I remember right the ADAM "Home Audio" Compact Mk3 (Active Version) is based on the ADAM "Pro Audio" S2X speaker, but I could be wrong.

I have a budget of £1000 and was thinking of a pair of P11a's
Forget the P11a's - both the much cheaper old (and no longer produced) A7 and it's follow up model A7x are better in every aspect except the lowest frequencies. But keep in mind these are Nearfield Monitors as well.

I have never heard a pair of active speakers so I'd quite appreciate your thoughts?
In theory active speakers do have an advantage over passive speakers, but it depends on who do you ask. ;) Sometimes the Built-in Amplifiers of cheaper active speakers (like the old ADAM A7) are a bit noisy if the music is too quiet.
 
I can't see why data can't be pulled in and buffered and then clocked out in a perfectly stable, controlled and 'jitter-free' way.

That's it! You've done it! The crucial step of genius that the digital audio industry has been looking for all this time!

Unless it's a bit more complicated than you might think somehow... ;-)
 
I am using the Adam Compact Mk3 (Piano finish). My friend who runs a high end system with audionote monoblocks, shindo preamp, Avantgarde duo horns, turntable (not familiar with it) were pretty impressed with the Adam when he came listen. Really looking forward to try out the CDQ in my system. Where I am, the next batch will come only mid Feb. As I have my own transport, if I can only wait till April, DQ will be quite fabulous as well.
 
Hello MrScott.

Thank you for your thoughts. A bit of a bummer though as I had thought the Adam's were simply reboxed pro speakers.:(

Does this mean that the pro's 'beam' music at a certain spot as it were?

I don't seem able to find any s/h Adam's just about anywhere, perhaps they are so good they never leave the original owners? :D
 
I am using the Adam Compact Mk3 (Piano finish). My friend who runs a high end system with audionote monoblocks, shindo preamp, Avantgarde duo horns, turntable (not familiar with it) were pretty impressed with the Adam when he came listen. Really looking forward to try out the CDQ in my system. Where I am, the next batch will come only mid Feb. As I have my own transport, if I can only wait till April, DQ will be quite fabulous as well.

From what I can gather on this thread it seems the qdac may end up being a fair bit later than april.

If you are anywhere near Sunderland I could visit with my cdq :) that would help both of us out.
 
ChrisPa said:
I can't see why data can't be pulled in and buffered and then clocked out in a perfectly stable, controlled and 'jitter-free' way.
That's it! You've done it! The crucial step of genius that the digital audio industry has been looking for all this time!

Unless it's a bit more complicated than you might think somehow... ;-)
It was done in Chord DAC64

And it's what Dominik is referring to (again in post 250)
" Asynchronous USB Audio is like a 'Clock Locked' CD transport and unlike an S/PDIF or Adaptive/Synchronous USB Audio"

So if a USB input can be "clock locked" why can't an intermediate "clock locked" module be implemented for a buffered spdif input?
... for that is exactly what an async usb input is for a computer

I know of two DACs which have done this, so "Unless it's a bit more complicated than you might think somehow" does rather miss the point for all the other DACs.

Most spdif inputs rely upon a PLL or desperately hope that async resampling will smooth over the samples.

My question here is one of genuine interest (Domink, John)
- what really are the problems with this?
rather than an "... it's a bit more complicated..." admission of defeat

BTW - the other one is the NAD M2, and I suspect there are others

Chris
 
I don't find this reassuring.

I know all the reasons why putting the CD transport in with the DAC makes it easier to pull out a jitter free stream. I know that using a wordclock output from the DAC helps overcome the limitations of the spdif standard. Somewhere back at the beginning of this thread (see post #166) John spoke about the MDAC (and therefore I would assume and hope, also the QDAC) having an external clock loop to improve the jitter of external spdif devices

But the CD counterparts are bit perfect, and so 25 years after the creation of the CD digital standard and with the amount of silicon available at low cost ... I expect better

So, referring back to Dominic's comments in post #250, I fully acknowledge that "the way to get the best results (jitter rejection) is not having to perform any". But despite Dominic's comment in that "There is no perfect jitter rejection in this world"...

on the basis that in high quality audio reproduction there is no limitation on time delay within the audio decoding process (this isn't HT and we don't need to sync image and sound), I can't see why data can't be pulled in and buffered and then clocked out in a perfectly stable, controlled and 'jitter-free' way. I do understand that this will/may introduce further circuit design and clocking problems and tasks.

None of this is intended as negative comments on what has been endeavoured and appears to have been achieved in the current designs - I'm waiting for the QDAC as it appears to be just the digital/analogue preamp I'm looking for. Prior to this (thread) I'd been eyeing up the Buffalo and Wyred4Sound offerings, but John & Dominic's designs do seem to genuinely advance the state of the art at a surprisingly low price point.

However, I think that something more universal should be possible for the 'digital source era' ;)

They really are just 0s and 1s

Chris

Dear Chris,

You are absolutely right - same data are same data and should ideally result in the same sound. Addressing this issue properly requires more silicon - preferably custom silicon - and that's the way we are going in the future. The current designs have a long and winding history where at the beginning (early 2008) was an attempt at the least complexity best bang for the buck DAC based on ES9008 with Async USB to be launched under Lakewest brand. The current and upcoming Audiolab range is a stretch of that design. It is by no means the best we can do, rather a solid design for the BOM target we had. A design which more or less rely on the ESS chip and it's ability to suppress incoming jitter, which in theory should work very well, but as you can see - not perfect. There are a number of reasons for that and we are going to address them while working on our own silicon later this year. The good news is M/QDAC will have an improved jitter rejection, but still not the ultimate solution.

Dominik
 
Dear Chris,

You are absolutely right - same data are same data and should ideally result in the same sound. Addressing this issue properly requires more silicon - preferably custom silicon - and that's the way we are going in the future. The current designs have a long and winding history where at the beginning (early 2008) was an attempt at the least complexity best bang for the buck DAC based on ES9008 with Async USB to be launched under Lakewest brand. The current and upcoming Audiolab range is a stretch of that design. It is by no means the best we can do, rather a solid design for the BOM target we had. A design which more or less rely on the ESS chip and it's ability to suppress incoming jitter, which in theory should work very well, but as you can see - not perfect. There are a number of reasons for that and we are going to address them while working on our own silicon later this year. The good news is M/QDAC will have an improved jitter rejection, but still not the ultimate solution.

Dominik
Thank you

QDAC looks the right next step for me,
but I also have eager anticipation for whatever follows
...somewhere beyond 2012 I suspect
 
MrScott,
Thanks for the recommendation. It's for the Adam Classic Series Compact mk3, yes?
Can I ask where you bought them and what price they come in at?
The finish (and presence of grilles) on these appears to be far more living-room friendly than a lot of the pro-gear, but from general reading I'm not sure the pro-gear is necessarily a bad match to the home. The Focals, for example, are supposed to be near and midfield, so fine for a listening distance up to 3m. As always the ultimate test is what the system sounds like in your own house, but are the Adams designed to have a much deeper range than that?
Cheers, Duncan
 
From what I can gather on this thread it seems the qdac may end up being a fair bit later than april.

If you are anywhere near Sunderland I could visit with my cdq :) that would help both of us out.

I don't stay near Sunderland. In another country really. Bummer :)

Right now I am kind of stuck as I sold off some stuff and I only have left my CEC transport and the Adam Compact Mk3. I really need a preamp/dac.

BTW, the Adam Compact Mk3 only takes in balanced connection. Do note that. In my search, I think the Artisan Silver cables may be worth trying.

The DQ is different from the qdac. I think that's like the CDQ but without the cd transport. Last heard in this thread could be April/May time frame. I am not totally certain.
 
If you want the best out of the CDQ and must use a streaming device, the Logitech Transporter is the best choice.

An alternative for more money but the same performance and harder to use would be the Linn DS stuff.

The Squeezebox Classic is a budget source. The Squeezebox Touch is better but still not a Transporter.

Better and cheaper to get a quiet computer (or laptop/netbook) and connect it directly to the CDQ via USB.

When using USB, you may notice some ground borne 'processor noises' coming through from the PC if you have the volume way up high or have a very sensitive system. I have now taken delivery of a USB isolator and this cures that potential problem completely. It was £40 from here:

http://electronics-shop.dk/galvanically-usb_isolation

As for active speakers, if your considering the Adam Compact which I think is around £2800 a pair then also consider the The Rock by Unity Audio for £1850 a pair:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr10/articles/unitytherock.htm

http://www.dv247.com/studio-equipment/unity-audio-the-rock-single-2-way-active-studio-monitor--73347
 
Confused, why is this thread about a product allowed to advertise etc etc when if it was AVI it would be shot down?..
 
It is at least contained to this thread and all trade representatives are on labelled trade accounts so you know their angle (For want of a better word)
 
Confused, why is this thread about a product allowed to advertise etc etc when if it was AVI it would be shot down?..

There is no advertising. This thread is a discussion about the technical merits of a ground-breaking design. The thread was started specifically to discuss this particular design and has not deviated from it.
 
After following more than 90pages, I am impressed with this tread. I dont see any advertising but just discussion about the design and sharing of info about the product. :D
 
Confused, why is this thread about a product allowed to advertise etc etc when if it was AVI it would be shot down?..

Because I started it, and I have no connection with John or Audiolab, own none of their products and have gained nothing from it. This thread is entirely on topic and has benefited greatly from the insight of both John and Dominic.

If we had been talking to some arsehole from the marketing dept then you might have a point.

It is interesting however to see how lovers of AVI and their paid shills attempt to appropriate this thread for their own ends every so often.
 
MrScott,
Thanks for the recommendation. It's for the Adam Classic Series Compact mk3, yes?
Can I ask where you bought them and what price they come in at?
Yes, the Adam Classic Series Compact mk3 are great, especially if you prefer a neutral sound with lots of detail.
Bought mine from a dealer called "Hoerzone" in Munich (Germany) - demo models in new condition for 2000€.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top