advertisement


A high quality CD Player

hammeredklavier said:
Loss of fine detail is caused by distortion, and even a £10 eBay Special will have distortion so low that it's basically inaudible. Such differences as there may be between digital sources will exist at very low levels, at least -60 dB below full scale and usually considerably below even that.

As I say, you might find cases where there's an audible difference, but things like orchestral dynamics will be rendered identically. A null test would certainly prove it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in opening your mind, so, again, we should just agree to disagree.
 
amsbw8.jpg
 
hammeredklavier said:
I suspect this kind of test has been done a few times. It's very interesting, see if you can dig out the links. I've got to go out in a min, but I'll have a look myself later.

As you say, even where there are audible differences they're very small and you've really got to home in on a 'killer sample', like ABXing lossy codecs. You can do it if you know what to listen for and you really sit down and squint, but it's hard.
Click to expand...

This was the thread. Almost two years ago.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=159485

My 20 pass score results:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2366522&postcount=326
 
One thing I have found out for myself, the human ear is far more sensitive than any known measuring equipment.
Measurements therefore mean little to me, it's all about listening.
Regarding blind tests I totally reject them as an idea.
When I listen to music properly, it is an almost meditative (for want of a better word) experience. I let go of reality and become very immersed in the music itself.
But, with blind testing, the brain goes into rational mode, on high alert, stressed, far from the relaxed state of normal listening.
I shouldn't be surprised if brain scan would show different parts of the brain operating in these different states. Hence blind comparison is of no use. I use music to deliberately leave behind the rational reasoning used in my job as computer programmer.
Well that's a lot of waffling, but it boils down to:
Ignore all arguments based on scientific measurements
Listen to the different components unbiased.
Do so in a relaxed, long term demo in your own home.
Be wary of opinions of hifi forums cos you'll often hear everything measures the same and therefore sounds the same.
 
radamel said:
When I listen to recorded music what I value most is how effortless and articulate it sounds even with complex music. Take Mahler's 9th first movement crescendos... an entry level digital source typically makes music sound inarticulate and messy and some of the dynamic range seems to be lost, not to mention how much less detail you get.
Click to expand...

I should think pretty much anyone who listens to classical music at home on a decent system values those things. I certainly do.

I've heard the sort of changes you describe with different speakers and even amps, but not with digital sources.
 
mattgbell said:
I should think pretty much anyone who listens to classical music at home on a decent system values those things. I certainly do.

I've heard the sort of changes you describe with different speakers and even amps, but not with digital sources.
Click to expand...


What was the best digital source you've tried at home and what were you comparing it to?
 
It was a joke, i uploaded 2 by mistake earlier

Some need to lighten up a little on here sometimes.

Too serious :confused:
 
radamel said:
What was the best digital source you've tried at home and what were you comparing it to?
Click to expand...

The fact is I’ve had quite a lot of digital sources at one time or another, ranging from simple off-the-shelf desktop PCs, through cheap (Sonos Connect) and expensive (Naim NDX) streamers, to a variety of CDPs (I think the most expensive I had was a Copland: can’t remember the model number). I couldn’t tell you exactly which was here when.

The only one that I’ve actually thought at the time was not optimal was the basic Sonos Connect, and that (I felt) was due to the power supply, though I think it quite unlikely I’d have been able to identify it in a blind ABX.

The most interesting tests I’ve done at home have involved different ways of feeding a Devialet (wireless, optical and coax SPDIF, Ethernet). Some people say the differences between these are crass, e.g. because the wireless feed excludes any noise. I’ve not found that to be the case.
 
naimplayer said:
I currently use a Naim CDS II CD player. Due to funds becoming available I am considering upgrading. Your opinions on something better would be greatly appreciated. I would invest up to 2500.00 for S/H say a CDS III or similar and about 5000.00 ish for new. Any suggestions?


I have Teddy PR1/MB100's & Shahinian Arcs all with teddy cable.

Thanking you in anticipation.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are running an olive XPS I would look at getting this serviced maybe even the equivalent DR mod from Les at Avondale and leave it there.
 
Hipper said:
For the experts, could you please explain what an external clock does better then the internal clock already in my boxes? Likewise, I would be interested to hear comments from naimplayer if he experiments with and without the external clock.
Click to expand...
The answer is probably nothing if your dac has a decent clock; but the important point is that if you wanted to improve on the internal clock then it is daft to try to do so using an external clock- the thing to do is to replace it internally. Unlike the clock sent by a transport to a dac, which can be mangled on the way without much harm, the clock driving d/a conversion has to be correct at the dac end: it is irrelevant how pristine it is when sent by the external clock.

It's not difficult to understand and the point has been made by numerous dac designers ad nauseam. It's why the correct configuration is transport slaved to dac and not the other way round. It is also why naim for years refused to make two box cd players (unless you count the psu)- to avoid any form of external clock transmission. However if you have a limited market who will believe anything (and especially if you already make external clocks for their legitimate use in a studio) you are going to sell them.
 
adamdea said:
The answer is probably nothing if your dac has a decent clock; but the important point is that if you wanted to improve on the internal clock then it is daft to try to do so using an external clock- the thing to do is to replace it internally. Unlike the clock sent by a transport to a dac, which can be mangled on the way without much harm, the clock driving d/a conversion has to be correct at the dac end: it is irrelevant how pristine it is when sent by the external clock.

It's not difficult to understand and the point has been made by numerous dac designers ad nauseam. It's why the correct configuration is transport slaved to dac and not the other way round. It is also why naim for years refused to make two box cd players (unless you count the psu)- to avoid any form of external clock transmission. However if you have a limited market who will believe anything (and especially if you already make external clocks for their legitimate use in a studio) you are going to sell them.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't understand how an Esoteric Player/ DAC works with an external Master Clock.
 
venton said:
One thing I have found out for myself, the human ear is far more sensitive than any known measuring equipment.
Click to expand...
You must be joking! You can measure noise and jitter artefacts down at -120dB that you'd never in a million years be able to hear! Similarly, frequency response deviations of a few fractions of a decibel that'd no one could possibly detect aurally.

Apart from blind listening tests, one of the most useful things to do in order to determine whether differences between two audio components are real or imagined is the null test. Feed both the same signal, then subtract one output from the other and see what's left (what remains is, incontrovertibly, the difference). Do this with a couple of recent DACs or SS amplifiers and the difference will be something extremely quiet.
 
radamel said:
You clearly don't understand how an Esoteric Player/ DAC works with an external Master Clock.
Click to expand...

Adam is completely correct, the clock should be as close to the DAC as possible,
external clocks only make sense when daisy chairing a number of components in for example a recording/mastering studio.
A separate clock does give the manufacturer the opportunity to sell another box of course.
Keith
 
hammeredklavier said:
You must be joking! You can measure noise and jitter artefacts down at -120dB that you'd never in a million years be able to hear! Similarly, frequency response deviations of a few fractions of a decibel that'd no one could possibly detect aurally.

Apart from blind listening tests, one of the most useful things to do in order to determine whether differences between two audio components are real or imagined is the null test. Feed both the same signal, then subtract one output from the other and see what's left (what remains is, incontrovertibly, the difference). Do this with a couple of recent DACs or SS amplifiers and the difference will be something extremely quiet.
Click to expand...
Not joking at all. There is a difference between hearing down to -120db, to preferring and hearing a difference between two apparently, according to measurements, similar music.
There are plenty here who say they cannot hear a difference between 320kb lossy and FLAC lossless. Well I most definately can. 100% no doubt about it - on my system anyway.
I would expect the difference between 320kb/flac on a null test would be extremenly quiet. My contention, and my experience is that the extremely small difference is enough to alter my perception of the music. And even if the null test showed no difference, I would argue that the test needs to be made more accurate, perhaps upping the sample rate by a factor of 10 to try to catch minusule differences in transient timings.
 
Purite Audio said:
Adam is completely correct, the clock should be as close to the DAC as possible,
external clocks only make sense when daisy chairing a number of components in for example a recording/mastering studio.
A separate clock does give the manufacturer the opportunity to sell another box of course.
Keith
Click to expand...

The Master Clock should be as stable and immune from interference as possible. Esoteric say that the best way to do this is by having an external highly stable clock.
Having heard that setup vs using the internal clock I agree. There is a significant improvement in SQ.

Again you are taking the chance to bad mouth equipment that you don't sell.
If you agree with Adamdea you should place a complaint against Esoteric with the ASA. But as I said before, good luck with that Keith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top