advertisement


A high quality CD Player

hammeredklavier said:
No. All DACs recreate the original signal accurately; I can't see even the battiest audiophile disagreeing with that. Some DACs might do so to more precision than others, but precision = decimal places = dB = audibility. The disagreements, if you like, between one DAC and another, will be many decimal places down, many dB down from full scale, thus very quiet, and therefore hard to hear.
Click to expand...

Read the post where I linked to difference between accuracy and precision.
 
Hammer,

Accuracy vs precision is one of those things that's often covered in the introductory pages of a chemistry or physics textbook. People often use the words interchangeably but they have different meanings and the distinction is important.

I distinctly remember being told to limit reporting results from lab experiments to, say, three significant figures as any more would imply false *precision*.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Hammer,

Accuracy vs precision is one of those things that's often covered in the introductory pages of a chemistry or physics textbook. People often use the words interchangeably but they have different meanings and the distinction is important.

I distinctly remember being told to limit reporting results from lab experiments to, say, three significant figures as any more would imply false *precision*.

Joe
Click to expand...
Yep, I did chemistry and biology.

Reporting precision to, say, 4 decimal places isn't necessarily 'false', but why would you bother if your margin of experimental error leaves you with only 2 decimal places at two sigma?
 
Hammer,

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. FWIW, Werner's pic nailed the difference between accuracy and precision.

Joe
 
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...
A measurement may give us a reading on a given piece of equipment but cannot even begin to tell us how our brains will interpret this sound.
 
radamel,

Sorry, I'm on a dodgy iPod so following links is a pain. I'm just replying to words or pix I see on the tiny screen between my palms.

Joe
 
Joe P said:
Hammer,

I don't know if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me. FWIW, Werner's pic nailed the difference between accuracy and precision.

Joe
Click to expand...

I know, I was trying, perhaps clumsily, to return to the matter of accuracy vs. precision in recording a musical signal.
 
Joe P said:
An atomic clock that runs a minute fast is not accurate but it's extremely precise.

Joe
Click to expand...

As an aside, almost, I saw a programme once which detailed the process whereby the accuracy of atomic clocks was determined.

Essentially, this involved analysis of data from many atomic clocks being collated and analysed. From that, and by arcane statistical magic, it could be established that at one point 3 months ago the time was both accurately and precisely, say, 15.00 hours.

What can never be established is what the precise time is now.
 
HiFiman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its a Teddy XPS which in my opinion betters the Naim unit by a large margin.

But thank you for your advice, I may end up doing just that at the moment.
 
Whaleblue said:
Soundstage is well understood, so can be defined in measurable terms.

We've already now agreed that machines can measure better than well enough.

Identifying what noises are HiHat vs. Trumpet is a tough one though.

It would make a great undergraduate project.
Click to expand...

Interesting, is there really a machine that can measure soundstage? If we play an identical recording through different dacs, some would hear different soundstages. But the data would be identical so I'd assume a machine would measure the same for both, yet the brain would disagree.
I do find the whole thing fascinating. A clarinet has a certain waveform, a piano has a different waveform, and so on. Yet when we mix a whole band together, the speaker can't independently move for each instrument. It moves in a certain waveform that conveys each instrument, different tones, volumes, chords as a single waveform. The brain, effortlessly puts this together and hears it as seperate things. I'm surprised if any machine can match this feat.
 
Audition a CDS3 , i think you will love it - ive had rega isis , densen 440xs , linn akurate ,weiss 202 and chord hugo all as source and still keep coming back to the Naim:)
 
radamel said:
As you have a one box solution perhaps this won't apply to you. But just out of curiosity, should you have the chance why not listen to a truly good digital source for yourself?
Click to expand...

Why do you think the Naim and the Copland aren't "truly good"? What's wrong with them? Could you name a CD player that will, based either on your experience or on theoretical grounds, categorically perform better than the Copland? (BTW I think the Copland was the CDA 825.)
 
venton said:
I do find the whole thing fascinating. A clarinet has a certain waveform, a piano has a different waveform, and so on. Yet when we mix a whole band together, the speaker can't independently move for each instrument. It moves in a certain waveform that conveys each instrument, different tones, volumes, chords as a single waveform. The brain, effortlessly puts this together and hears it as seperate things. I'm surprised if any machine can match this feat.
Click to expand...
The sound at any point you choose to put your head or a microphone may have been generated by any one of a number of different instruments or anything else that vibrates; there's no deep mystery there. This sound wave is converted to an analogue electrical signal by a microphone and into a digital recording by and ADC. With incredible accuracy and precision! ;-)

This digital representation of the waveform is reconstructed by a DAC, with pretty much absolute accuracy and such precision that any errors are basically inaudible, which is then amplified so that it can drive a speaker.

There's no deep mystery in any of this. The fine detail of digital technology requires a grasp of a specialist branch of maths if you really want to get down to it, but it's mature technology and basically cheap and easy to accomplish.

I think some people have convinced themselves that there's some deep mystery in how audio works that simply does not exist.
 
mattgbell said:
Why do you think the Naim and the Copland aren't "truly good"? What's wrong with them? Could you name a CD player that will, based either on your experience or on theoretical grounds, categorically perform better than the Copland? (BTW I think the Copland was the CDA 825.)
Click to expand...

They aren't truly good because IMO there are better ones. :)

Based on my experience I'd name the Esoteric K-03, especially if the external Master Clock is added.

PS I must say that I never heard that specific Copland so please take what I've just wrote with a pinch of salt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top