advertisement


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

I'm with you that digital interconnects do not make a difference and i am not even sure john has stated that there are differences. Only that the electrical characteristics can change, like optical diffraction with different medium materials used. Such could change the effects of jitter but who really knows how much without testing them all and if it would sound any different. Id say no.

Then there is the argument by maxflinn who i think is trying to make a clear point about digital data transfer and how data does not corrupt. When we download, transfer, write to multiple digital devices we are not in fact making a dub but a exact copy and no matter what (excluding the obvious errors) we get the same data as the original with no error or corruptions.
As far as the medium and the transfer techniques i don't think its fair to say that one cable or cd player is better but its the effects they have on the digital to analog converter and what it has to compensate for. Is this why some devices are not clock locked with each other or better yet integrated with each other for superior jitter specifications.
Max i don't know if you have any understanding in digital signal processing or electronics, you say you have some knowledge about digital transfers. How much though ?. I'm not saying your wrong but perhaps you have not looked into it enough to claim that you don't need to listen to anything to know that nothing should be affected.
Even me after studying electronics and now branching out into digital electronics/digital signal processing have come across experiences where i go "yes that makes sense now i understand why". Perhaps you are just doing as i have and misinterpreting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ
Here is a explanation on jitter that may help you understand why digital information is especially crucial with digital to analog converts, much more in fact for those that oversample (which is most today).

Toy this is for you.
I am sure there are computer audio transport setups that sound better than CD transports more because it is more jitter attracted.
Possibly saying that CD transport is superior is not fair to claim as it is on its own a computer in one form or another.

Those of you that believe digital interconnects make a difference i say nee and please try convince me otherwise.
 
Lap 3: the computer in a CD transport is optimised for one specific task. Some CD transports are better than others.
 
Jk you are misrepresenting johns position. He has never stated that adequately specified cables sound different to one another, only that cables performing outside of their spec can affect the sound. He recommends that people use pro-grade audio cables for analogue, correctly specced spdif cables and any old USB cable but keep it to a few m in length.
 
maxflinn said:
I did add to the current topic, and was told that I was brainwashed, deaf, lacking knowledge, winding people up, inexperienced, in denial, spouting rubbish, and owned a crappy HiFi :rolleyes:

Don't you just love the tolerance for different opinions on here ;)

Anyway, I'll bow out of this one.
Click to expand...

Hello Max - found a forum that hasn't banned you or is it just a matter of time? :D
 
Just for the record, when I first got my MDAC, I wasn't able to run it at the same frequencies I used to with my PS3 and DacMagic.
After a clue from John W, I found the optical cable to be responsible.
Replaced the optical cable and I was able to use all PS3 frequencies available.

I'm not saying there were differences in sound, but there were definitely differences in the cables. :)

I believe the old optical cable was damaged despite still working. But because it worked, how could anyone suspect the cable?

Michael
 
Steven Toy said:
Lap 3: the computer in a CD transport is optimised for one specific task. Some CD transports are better than others.
Click to expand...
CD players are optimised for playing CDs. You seem to be unable or unwilling to see the difference between that and being optimised for sp/dif (or usb) transmission. I am not convinced that (m)any of them are optimised for transmission of data to another device; in any event it's clearly not their primary purpose. Frankly the same goes for most dedicated transports, even if it is their purpose.

In any event this whole line of reasoning is bedevilled with "theory" which you claim to eschew in favour of practice. It doesn't stop being theory just because it's incoherent.
 
My Weiss dac202 sounds identical through any of it's inputs, my Weiss MAN301 sounds identical whether it is playing the CD or playing the ripped file of the CD from my NAS.
That is how it should be, if it sounds different through different inputs you have a poorly designed and/or implemented product.
Keith.
 
Purite Audio said:
My Weiss dac202 sounds identical through any of it's inputs, my Weiss MAN301 sounds identical whether it is playing the CD or playing the ripped file of the CD from my NAS.
That is how it should be, if it sounds different through different inputs you have a poorly designed and/or implemented product.
Keith.
Click to expand...

I suspect there may be an alternative explanation.
 
adamdea said:
CD players are optimised for playing CDs. You seem to be unable or unwilling to see the difference between that and being optimised for sp/dif (or usb) transmission. I am not convinced that (m)any of them are optimised for transmission of data to another device; in any event it's clearly not their primary purpose. Frankly the same goes for most dedicated transports, even if it is their purpose.

In any event this whole line of reasoning is bedevilled with "theory" which you claim to eschew in favour of practice. It doesn't stop being theory just because it's incoherent.
Click to expand...

Practice first, theory second. Theory can only explain practice. Some here try to overule practice with theory.
 
sq225917 said:
Jk you are misrepresenting johns position. He has never stated that adequately specified cables sound different to one another, only that cables performing outside of their spec can affect the sound. He recommends that people use pro-grade audio cables for analogue, correctly specced spdif cables and any old USB cable but keep it to a few m in length.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, apologies to JohnW for misrepresenting his views.
I'm not going to enter a debate about cables & "adequately specified" Vs sound.
If you want to try a cheap experiment about digital cables, get yourself some USB adapters that will enable you to connect an asynchronous USB DAC directly to a computer. With a suitably resolving system, you will hear the difference between this & a stock USB cable. You can then measure each & tell what is in-spec & what is not or if they are both in-spec why there is a difference in sound.

You could do the same with SPDIF but it would probably be slightly more expensive to do so.
 
Steven Toy said:
Lap 3: the computer in a CD transport is optimised for one specific task. Some CD transports are better than others.
Click to expand...
Steven Toy said:
Practice first, theory second. Theory can only explain practice. Some here try to overule practice with theory.
Click to expand...
The problem with practice is that it's strictly related to specific units/listeners. The fact that your CD transport can do a better job than your computer doesn't make all CD transports better than all computers. CD transports being "optimised" more than generic computers? What about those GBP 300 USB-SPDIF converters? I'd count those under the "computer" label. Aren't those optimised for a specific purpose? Can't those "sound better" than CD transports?

Given that clock is derived from an incoming SPDIF signal, I'm inclined to believe that there's a nontrivial difference between sources - different CD players, streamers, ...

However the fact of not "being optimised" for a purpose has little to do with it.
Imagine a chainsaw, powered by regular gasoline. Now imagine that this concept confuses many people, so some company starts making special chainsaws that can be powered only be some kind of chainsaw petrol. The latter is "more optimised" for the job, but both are equally able to cut down trees. The optimised variant might be more efficient, might produce less aggresive exhaust gas, but none of this is related to the primary use case (cutting things / streaming data) or even the quality of the primary use case (cutting speed, precision / sound quality).

The optimised variant has the potential of being actually better in the primary use case, but it's not a rule, it can't be applied universally.

PS: Don't try running the chainsaw on whisky, it gets used to it and refuses to run on anything else.
 
jirij said:
The problem with practice is that it's strictly related to specific units/listeners. The fact that your CD transport can do a better job than your computer doesn't make all CD transports better than all computers. CD transports being "optimised" more than generic computers? What about those GBP 300 USB-SPDIF converters? I'd count those under the "computer" label. Aren't those optimised for a specific purpose? Can't those "sound better" than CD transports?

Given that clock is derived from an incoming SPDIF signal, I'm inclined to believe that there's a nontrivial difference between sources - different CD players, streamers, ...

However the fact of not "being optimised" for a purpose has little to do with it.
Imagine a chainsaw, powered by regular gasoline. Now imagine that this concept confuses many people, so some company starts making special chainsaws that can be powered only be some kind of chainsaw petrol. The latter is "more optimised" for the job, but both are equally able to cut down trees. The optimised variant might be more efficient, might produce less aggresive exhaust gas, but none of this is related to the primary use case (cutting things / streaming data) or even the quality of the primary use case (cutting speed, precision / sound quality).

The optimised variant has the potential of being actually better in the primary use case, but it's not a rule, it can't be applied universally.

PS: Don't try running the chainsaw on whisky, it gets used to it and refuses to run on anything else.
Click to expand...

It wasn't my computer. Mine is even worse for it also suffers a loss of dynamics.

Btw, I am not in the habit of anthropomorphisising chainsaws ;)
 
It wasn't my computer. Mine is even worse for it also suffers a loss of dynamics.

Just go into 'hardware and sound, there is a 'dynamics' window, just turn it up to 11.
Keith.
 
Yeah, don't you watch CSI? Computers can enhance pixelated images, so they're likely able to enhance bad recordings as well. Now, that's a killer feature! :)
 
JK, I've run my Mdac via an A/B usb plug, a little fiddly to get the laptop and Mdac sat at the rigth height, but none the less there was no change in SQ, no change in measurements and no difference in the null provided. I did the same thing with my Weiss 202 and a firewire adaptor plug with the same results.

Maybe you should borrow my (printer) USB cable and my £5 Lindy Firewire cable, apparentyl they are world beaters.


Steven, what other reason could you come up with for the 202 sounding the same via spdif and firewire? Do you think the best measuring dac in 30 years of streophile tests is in someway substandard?
 
sq225917 said:
JK, I've run my Mdac via an A/B usb plug, a little fiddly to get the laptop and Mdac sat at the rigth height, but none the less there was no change in SQ, no change in measurements and no difference in the null provided. I did the same thing with my Weiss 202 and a firewire adaptor plug with the same results.
Click to expand...
Yea, well it's there for all to try for themselves at next to no expense - no need to try expensive USB cables
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top