advertisement


Getting the best out of a Rega DAC (or any Dac)?

whatsnext said:
Steven (using the 10 foot away rule)

Thanks for you frankness in explaining the experience you had it helps understand the why of your AVI posts. Do you think it does you any good to hold on the injury, sleight of that day and relive it and the insult you felt with the regularity that you do? It just looks a bit like you are a damaged person who cannot rise above any unwelcome interaction with others.

I trust you do not receive that in a negative way
Click to expand...

To be fair to Steve, he gave multiple reasons why he didn't like AVI, but you've latched onto just one of them (probably the most minor).

Andrew
 
jirij said:
His basic point is a good one, though. I mean - if DACs really sound different based on very slight differences of the light intensity coming via Toslink (making different Toslink cables sound different), then there's something very, very, *very* wrong with the DACs.

Wrong to the point of me making them either not use them or not care about such differences.

Same could be said for HDMI - both the actual data input and output are of digital nature, 24bit color representations (AFAIK) for each pixel, easily measurable on both sides, but if some cable interference influences the analog control signal transfer to the pixels themselves so much that it can be spotted, then something is very, *very* wrong with the TV.

I'd rather buy one of those professional NEC MultiSync displays with automatic color correction device on a robotic hand rather than spending an equivalent amount of money on an HDMI cable anyway. :)
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic is in assuming that the transmission & receiving method are themselves without blemish (or immune from external influences) & that therefore if any differences exist in the sound of different cables that the fault lies with the DAC.

If the digital transmission/receiving method itself introduces (or can introduce) some variance then is it the DAC that is at fault? Can these cited transmission methods be made flawless in the DAC ?

If you want more understanding of the inner workings & real-world obstacles in digital audio you could do worse than read John Swenson's recent articles about this whole area:
Part 1: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital

Part 2: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits

Part 3: To follow, I believe
 
AndrewR said:
To be fair to Steve, he gave multiple reasons why he didn't like AVI, but you've latched onto just one of them (probably the most minor).

Andrew
Click to expand...

I hope Steven (not Steve) appreciates your fairness. Thank you for your opinion of the latching and magnitude of matters AVI in Steven's eyes

If that is Stevens public statement then all the matters are relevant. What is your concern? Why am I discussing this with you?
 
AndrewR knows me personally. That may or may not be relevant.

Passive aggression latches onto the most minor of points of course.
 
jkeny said:
The flaw in your logic is in assuming that the transmission & receiving method are themselves without blemish (or immune from external influences) & that therefore if any differences exist in the sound of different cables that the fault lies with the DAC.
Click to expand...
Regarding DACs, I was only mentioning Toslink due to its rather simplistic cable nature. There's no wire needing isolation and the light itself is either strong enough to be recognized as a valid digital signal, or not. Different Toslink cables of different lengths and quality produce different light intensities (due to heavy losses at the specified diameter and light frequency), but if the difference in light intensity actually makes the cables sound different, then I blame the receiver for not being able to do its job properly.

Come to think of it, I use the logic elsewhere, so it may be just me. If your computer doesn't have a good firewall, is exposed to the Internet and somebody gets in and removes your data, it's your fault. If somebody gets into your email account because of weak password, it's your fault. If somebody kills you at night during a walk, it's your fault for not being able to defend yourself. If the sending side meets the voltage requirements needed to distinguish "0" from "1", it's your fault (as a DAC) for being unable to filter out some extra things you need to care about.

However I agree that doing all this in a DAC itself would just overcomplicate things. As I wrote elsewhere, a better interface between the digital source and the DAC would be much better solution, in my opinion. It would basically remove the need for expensive digital sources.

jkeny said:
If the digital transmission/receiving method itself introduces (or can introduce) some variance then is it the DAC that is at fault? Can these cited transmission methods be made flawless in the DAC ?
Click to expand...
If they could be made flawless easily, this discussion wouldn't probably exist.
My logic is that as long as the rest of the chain does what it's supposed to, transfers the digital signal according to some standards, but the DAC still needs some extra requirements to perform optimally, it's the fault of the DAC for not being to take care of itself.
If a TV were to display faded colors with an inexpensive digital cable and beatiful colors with an expensive one, I would still blame the TV for not being able to work properly

jkeny said:
If you want more understanding of the inner workings & real-world obstacles in digital audio you could do worse than read John Swenson's recent articles about this whole area:
Part 1: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-1-what-digital

Part 2: http://www.audiostream.com/content/qa-john-swenson-part-2-are-bits-just-bits

Part 3: To follow, I believe
Click to expand...
Seems to be interesting, thanks, will read it thoroughly later.

The "digital is in fact analog" argument that's often brought up also isn't all-explaining. It explains why there can be analog interference transmitted over a "digital link", but the data themselves still use digital logic, the information transferred is still digital.

The articles also seem to have some fair points,
Most modern DAC chips have a lot of stuff inside creating a lot of noise on the internal power and ground traces, which pretty much nullifies that ultra low jitter clock we are sending it. This is probably why a large number of people have a hard time hearing differences caused by changes to things such as jitter and noise. The effects caused by them are being swamped by the jitter generated inside the chip.
Click to expand...
 
Jirij,
Most Toslink transmitters/receivers add self-noise & jitter to the signal. So the transmission does what it is supposed to do - transmit bit-perfect digital data but also adds something to the signal which is important to understand & this something only becomes noticeable in the D to A conversion step.
The "digital is in fact analog" argument that's often brought up also isn't all-explaining. It explains why there can be analog interference transmitted over a "digital link", but the data themselves still use digital logic, the information transferred is still digital.
Click to expand...
But you have to think of the system more holistically & ask yourself - can something which doesn't effect digital data handling have an effect on digital to analogue conversion? This is where noise comes in - the noise has no effect on the digital DATA handling but certainly has an effect on the D to A conversion step. So once you establish/know/have experienced this fact then you can begin to ask the relevant questions about what noise, from where, what level, etc.
 
Igloo Audio said:
Guys, here's an interesting link to discuss.

http://archimago.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/measurements-do-bit-perfect-digital.html

Peter
Click to expand...
Peter,
It's a pity no-one's commented on this. It's refreshing to see actual measurements at the output of a DAC (in this case ASUS XONAR Essence One) using different digital transports! For a change, actual hard data.

In the conclusion he discusses the scale of the differences, possible causes, the question of audibility and compatibility issues.

I would say differences between transports do exist but they should be very small in the scheme of things, with a well-sorted DAC anyway.
Darren
 
maxflinn said:
WN, I've tried many HDMI cables, before I knew they could make no difference, and they made no difference.

I heard no difference between CD's sending data to a Music Fidelity VDAC from a Marantz CDP or PS3 or Sony BDP, and the DAC in my ADMs when played on a PS3 or Sony BDP or Spotify or iTunes.

I heard no difference between the DAC in an Apple Airport Express and the VDAC and the Marantz CDP's DAC. I haven't bothered to compare the DAC in my ADMs to my Behringer UCA 202 DAC, but would expect no difference.

John K may well be a decent guy but I felt his reply to me yesterday was unnecessarily rude and therefore I'd probably refrain from any external contact with him.
Click to expand...

If you cannot hear the differences between different DACs I suggest you go and see your GP urgently as I fear you are tone deaf.
 
thebiglebowski said:
If you cannot hear the differences between different DACs I suggest you go and see your GP urgently as I fear you are tone deaf.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of the problem is the kit maxflinn is using. But I have heard people with very expensive kit suggest the same. Amazed at how little effort these people with really expensive systems go when setting up their computer audio. Often no real understanding or interest in ensuring they are giving their dac the best chance to shine. People will go to great efforts to set up their turntable with isolation, cartridge, phonostage but reckon any old noisy computer will do for audio. Everything matters in audio the trick is trying to get the best sound out for the least spend but sometimes there is no substitute to getting the wallet out.
 
tonerei said:
I think a lot of the problem is the kit maxflinn is using. But I have heard people with very expensive kit suggest the same. Amazed at how little effort these people with really expensive systems go when setting up their computer audio. Often no real understanding or interest in ensuring they are giving their dac the best chance to shine. People will go to great efforts to set up their turntable with isolation, cartridge, phonostage but reckon any old noisy computer will do for audio. Everything matters in audio the trick is trying to get the best sound out for the least spend but sometimes there is no substitute to getting the wallet out.
Click to expand...

Yea, the kit is half the problem & the mindset the other half. There is very often a strong correlation between these two - a self fulfilling prophecy - those with this mindset don't bother with decent equipment & therefore this reinforces their mindset. It's somewhat logical but also circular logic.

Exactly the same as the "competently designed" mantra. Take the DAC discussed above - if it isn't immune to all outside influences, it therefore isn't competently designed. So therefore any DAC that can differentiate between different upstream configurations is considered "not competently designed". Strange, inverted logic that seems to appeal to some, yet they fail to see the circular logical flaw.

I know this is the goal that developers are working towards - immunity of their equipment to external factors but it hasn't been achieved yet. The only way to seemingly achieve this is to mask the differences so that they are no longer audible (by internal noise, distortion, bad resolution, whatever). This doesn't make the equipment competently designed, quite the opposite.

If you use low MP3 sample rates you can achieve this !
 
thebiglebowski said:
Personally I think he is just winding up anyone willing to bite.
Click to expand...

Ian had it spot on earlier best not to engage as it is all about the wind up.
It must be an illness or addiction as the need to comment on a topic that a person has no value on or believe is worthwhile fascinates me. I reckon it will be classed as a medical condition in the future. Hope it is not catching.
 
jkeny said:
Probably? Certainly acts like a keyboard terrorist - won't break cover by avoiding any/all invitations to audio meetings.
Click to expand...

But if you dont find those offering persons whoose company you would enjoy for whatever reason or group pressure is being applied, as here why would you?
 
What was the advice in the end as I have a Rega DAC and Brio-r so am curious if there is a better option than using optical, can't be arsed reading 8 pages of off topic arguments about DACs though.
 
thebiglebowski said:
What was the advice in the end as I have a Rega DAC and Brio-r so am curious if there is a better option than using optical, can't be arsed reading 8 pages of off topic arguments about DACs though.
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if whatever your owner's manual recommends as best won't be best.
 
jkeny said:
Probably? Certainly acts like a keyboard terrorist - won't break cover by avoiding any/all invitations to audio meetings.
Click to expand...
Do you think that if I went to a few of your audio meetings that I'd start believing that digital cables can affect audio quality? And that one method of transport of digital audio data in the digital domain can lead to better sound quality than another?

Feel free to convert the perceptions (which are the result of expectation bias) of those you make money from into lucrative internet myth if you want, but please don't try to use the fact that I'm educated enough to know that that's what's happening, and thus refuse your invitation, to discredit what I say on the subject under discussion here.



Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top