maxflinn
pfm Member
Please define?
I don't think anyone has said all DACs are perfect, more the means to get bit perfect data to them.
A bit dramatic, Darren, and possibly not helpful?
Digital Source poll
- Thread starter Whaleblue
- Start date
- Status
Please define?
I don't think anyone has said all DACs are perfect, more the means to get bit perfect data to them.
A bit dramatic, Darren, and possibly not helpful?
Mescalito
pfm Member
Nobody is suggesting that a DAC with 0.00005% distortion is not a technical improvement over one with 0.0001% distortion (substitute relevant technical parameter/measurements to taste).
But we are talking about things which are so far below audibility as to be utterly, utterly irrelevant as far as listening to actual music is concerned.
These companies keep bringing out new, improved models because if they did not they would cease to exist.
Chris
maxflinn
pfm Member
It's worth bearing in mind that in terms of pure 1080p playback, the very first Blu-Ray player made by Sony will give you the exact same 1080p image quality as the very latest. They will differ in many other ways though.
Hence, Darren, why I asked you to define better digital.
Hence, Darren, why I asked you to define better digital.
whatsnext
Naimless
Excuse my ignorance as I am only recently becoming aquainted with the detail of digital reproduction but isn't the difference heard between DACs more likely to be due to the analogue output stage than the purely digital decoding chip(s)?
But then the NOS chips are supposed to be more rounded in the extremes of FR.
But then the NOS chips are supposed to be more rounded in the extremes of FR.
darrenyeats
pfm Member
Sure, a similar thing applies to any business. That's supply and demand, and making a living. But my question is about whether they believe these improved products have any benefit in the real world.
Max, you were the one who widened it to digital in general, above. If you want to go back to talking about transports only then fine.
Whaleblue
Southbound
That would be my gut feeling too, but presumably not everyone's.
Of course, this is where just listening cannot provide any further insight.
That's been our motto, at least. The digital side is certainly important, but when people talk positively or negatively about the 'character' of a given converter, chances are it's primarily the analog side (power supply, wire-driving stage) they're reacting to.
DACs have without doubt come on rapidly in the last ten years: obvious strides have been taken with regard to digital interfaces and handling of higher-resolution files. We've still got some way to go re: perfecting USB for audio. But the bigger step-change that really only kicked in last year was - finally - designing DACs that were not merely capable of attenuation, but which are actually designed like preamps, and sound like preamps.
The ODAC is a good example of a design that looks completely linear on paper, and was hugely touted by its designer as the last word in 'objective perfection' . . . but which fell on its face when people heard it. Lesson learned.
I'm flattered. But Russell is very quotable:
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
Amen to this
whatsnext
Naimless
Now things have quietened down.
If people wished to compare a CD player (as a transport or standalone) or SACD to any other of the above or any other non disk reading item considered a transport. How is a like for like comparison achieved?
The CD player SACD uses/reads a physical CD disk.
All the others use some form of file derived from various sources but not necessarily the same file and not the same as the mastering on the CD.
If I compared two CD players I would swap the same disk back and forth - there isn't an equivalent process for evaluating "transports" as listed in this thread. Impressions may be formed but conditioned by the media used as much as anything.
I'm asking because I have been swapping between the inbuilt DAC in my player, using a separate DAC via SPDIF and listening to the same music via Spotify, downloaded file through Jriver Media Centre 19 and the sound is quite distinctively through each method. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses. A futile exercise in one sense.
Apologies to those who had hoped this thread had died.
If people wished to compare a CD player (as a transport or standalone) or SACD to any other of the above or any other non disk reading item considered a transport. How is a like for like comparison achieved?
The CD player SACD uses/reads a physical CD disk.
All the others use some form of file derived from various sources but not necessarily the same file and not the same as the mastering on the CD.
If I compared two CD players I would swap the same disk back and forth - there isn't an equivalent process for evaluating "transports" as listed in this thread. Impressions may be formed but conditioned by the media used as much as anything.
I'm asking because I have been swapping between the inbuilt DAC in my player, using a separate DAC via SPDIF and listening to the same music via Spotify, downloaded file through Jriver Media Centre 19 and the sound is quite distinctively through each method. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses. A futile exercise in one sense.
Apologies to those who had hoped this thread had died.
onlyconnect
pfm Member
It's not trivial but I reckon you need to use the same source as far as possible.
Eg: you want to compare 24/192, 24/96, 16/44 and CD in various combinations.
Start with the 24/192 file. Downsample to 16/44 and 24/96. Burn the 16/44 to CD. Upsample the 24/96 and 16/44 to 24/192 so you can use a DAC at its "best" setting where possible.
SACD is difficult unless you have the means to rip to DSD and convert to PCM without degradation.
I like the Meyer/Moran test which cuts through a lot of this by testing transparency, inserting an ADC/DAC loop into the output chain. But it doesn't answer all questions.
Tim
DevillEars
Dedicated ignorer of fashion
You raise a valid point as, in many cases, the 'transport' type can and does dictate different source media types - each with different base sound quality levels. The frequency response range and dynamic range of hi-res material (eg from SACD of downloaded lossless files) outstrips the capabilities of Red Book CD which, in turn, outstrips lossy compressed mp3 files.
Yes, all could be fed into a common DAC, but even then there are differences imposed by the media architecture on the digital data stream.
Even if one managed to acquire the same songs on the different media, there is a high probability that some media would have been created via a process that incorporated re-mastering.
For such a comparison between music formats to be 'complete' each format needs to replayed via its own complete 'read' & 'decode' component string. This, unfortunately for the thread title, precludes the use of a common DAC so the comparison process of the 'transports' in isolation is rendered meaningless.
For a meaningful thread test, all songs need to be a common media file format - probably .wav as the common denominator. This would restrict the field a bit - to just those devices designed to handle .wav files such as CD players, dedicated CD transports, media players, and such. This would level the playing fields at source and allow a meaningful comparison between the 'transports'.
The other aspect of such an approach is that it actually demands a proper side-by-side comparison process - and not a series of 'audio-memory-based' recollections of sound quality of any candidate devices as heard in uncontrolled environments by people with different personal tastes in overall sound and musical genre.
Fundamentally, this type of poll which lacks 'standards' calls for personal and subjective opinions based on audio memory (unreliable at best) but is also subject to those who demand objective proof/measurements from a process that is, virtually by definition, a subjective preference poll. All of which goes to provide some idea as to why things got somewhat heated at times - the long-running incompatibility of subjectivists and objectivists in discussion...
And, yes, I had begun to hope that this thread had finally died...
Dave
whatsnext
Naimless
You raise a valid point as, in many cases, the 'transport' type can and does dictate different source media types - each with different base sound quality levels. The frequency response range and dynamic range of hi-res material (eg from SACD of downloaded lossless files) outstrips the capabilities of Red Book CD which, in turn, outstrips lossy compressed mp3 files.
............
And, yes, I had begun to hope that this thread had finally died...
Dave
Thank you both you seem to confirm what I suspected that for an average music lover the process of making anything like a meaningful comparison is far from swapping the CD over.
Sorry to stir previous bad feelings. Let it sleep/die once more
maxflinn
pfm Member
- Status