advertisement


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

My undergraduate degree in engineering is from a while ago -- and it's been a while since I've practiced -- so, I'm speculating (and maybe you are as well?).

Your statement assumes that the disc readers in both transports are identical and are extracting the exact same information, in the first instance. Rega has proprietary control software, so I've read, that helps guide the laser more accurately than otherwise. So, there's one possible source of difference. There may be many others that both specialists involved in design and manufacturing these devices, as well as knowledgable enthusiasts may attest to.

What I can state is that I heard a more than subtle difference between the two transports using the same coax SPDIF cable. I didn't want to hear a difference and I was in fact hoping that my cheap blu-ray player would do just as well as my Saturn (freeing up the Saturn to be used in my speaker-based system).

Treb

I hope you don't mind me saying so :), but that is simply not possible.

The data reaching the DAC is exactly the same whether it came from the Saturn or Sony, and so no differences in clarity, soundstage, dynamics or anything else is possible.

Sorry again, I'm not being argumentative, but it just is not possible :)
 
I think data reads have long been perfect from un-scratched discs, whether by high end CD players or 10 quid optical drives from Maplins.

That would leave jitter and noise affecting the DAC output stages or downstream, assuming there is a measurable issue.

There were some transport + DAC tests reported on the Squeezebox forum. Differences in DAC output noise were detected with RCA output but these went away with balanced output.

In another test, the frequency response was slightly different between transports, albeit very slightly! It was suggested this was related to different clock speeds (note, not noise). I was pretty outraged at first, but I think I've come to terms with it now!
 
Maxflinn, as a follow on from Steven Troy's quip of "You need to get out more and hear more gear." maybe you would like to join one of our audio get-together sessions in Ireland, sometime (you're in Waterford, right)? I'm sure you know of the TirnaHiFi forum where a contingent of local audio enthusiasts post & arrange meetings. You would be welcome to come along to any of our informal sessions, I'm sure. Lots of different gear is listened to but beware you may leave with a different mindset, hopefully!
Hi jkeny, yeah I've heard of TirnaHiFi, but I've not posted on there.

I appreciate the offer to come along to one of your get-togethers, I'm sure it would be interesting and fun, perhaps one day I'll look into it :)
 
Max,

I appreciate the offer to come along to one of your get-togethers, I'm sure it would be interesting and fun, perhaps one day I'll look into it :)
Dude, here's your chance to collect some empirical data and be all scientific-like.

Joe
 
My undergraduate degree in engineering is from a while ago -- and it's been a while since I've practiced -- so, I'm speculating (and maybe you are as well?).

Your statement assumes that the disc readers in both transports are identical and are extracting the exact same information, in the first instance. Rega has proprietary control software, so I've read, that helps guide the laser more accurately than otherwise. So, there's one possible source of difference. There may be many others that both specialists involved in design and manufacturing these devices, as well as knowledgable enthusiasts may attest to.

What I can state is that I heard a more than subtle difference between the two transports using the same coax SPDIF cable. I didn't want to hear a difference and I was in fact hoping that my cheap blu-ray player would do just as well as my Saturn (freeing up the Saturn to be used in my speaker-based system).

Treb
Let me give a run-down of my understanding of certain aspects of digital data transfer.

The thing to remember is there's nothing special about digital audio data, it's still just data, the same as any other digital data, no difference.

The first thing to take on board is that under no circumstances whatsoever can the wrong data, or different data, be sent.

Whatever information that's on a disc or file is always what arrives at a DAC or Codec, assuming there's no excessive corruption that breaks the data stream. Different, or, wrong information can never be sent, and if for some reason too much corruption of that data stream takes place, it will break down and there'll be no sound, or in exceptionally rare circumstances, there will be sound dropouts, or pops and clics, etc. ie, clearly audible errors.

This is why in the extremely rare occasions when a HDMI cable is faulty - but you still get a picture - it'll be littered with white specs, or snow as it's sometimes called. The pixels are not getting the information they need and they default to a static white colour. They never go red, or blue, or any other colour, because they can't unless instructed to.

It's the same with audio, you simply cant get better sound by using a more expensive digital cable, as better means different, and you can't get different, as there are only one set of instructions. Some might argue that a lesser cable will lose data, or corrupt it, or not allow it to flow as well as it can through a high-end cable, or whatever. But if too much degradation on a digital stream takes place you get failure, and if not enough to cause failure takes place, you get everything as it should be, ie, after error correction you still have a bit-perfect data stream.

There simply is no grey area, there is no scenario where even 99.9999999% of the stream makes it's way to a DAC, it's all or nothing when the appropriate error correction is employed (which it is on virtually all devices now).

So how can one transport sound better than another?

How can one digital cable sound better than another?

How can one streamer stream better data than another?

How can one HDMI cable give a better picture than another?

You can't get better because you can't get different, and something has to be different for it to be better, and digital data transfer does not do different.

No doubt others will ignore this, and speak of the effects of jitter, noise, etc, but these things only become a problem if they cause a break-down of the data stream, which STILL doesn't mean anything is different, as you get total failure.

Less bass, more bass, better clarity, bigger soundstage etc, none of these things can ever be the result of the mode of digital data extraction or transport used. They are things that have no relationship with digital data, none whatsoever.

If I had a USB cable connecting a mouse to my PC, I could type the letter E on my keyboard for a million years, and assuming the keyboard didn't wear out or Pink Fish close down:), E is what you'd see on my post here. And if I changed to a different USB cable every day for those million years, you'd still see the letter E on here when I type it. You could never see the letter X, or any other letter as a result of the change of cable.

To claim differences between digital transports and cables is to believe that a different USB cable could turn an E into an X.

It cannot happen :)
 
When Maxi's done some listening one of two things will happen:

1) He'll be screaming "lalalala.... I'm not hearing this!" with his fingers in his ears.

2) He'll think WTF! How does that happen?
 
When Maxi's done some listening one of two things will happen:

1) He'll be screaming "lalalala.... I'm not hearing this!" with his fingers in his ears.

2) He'll think WTF! How does that happen?

Nah, if he did listen at one of these get-togethers he would tell us all how what we are hearing is impossible - explain how (he thinks) digital audio works & leave.
But I guess he is not going to risk that happening so he won't ever show up at one of our gatherings.
This is for Max - he reminds me of a well known moment in recent Irish politics which has coined the term GUBU (grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented) when the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey described a situation where a double murderer was given refuge in the house of the then Attorney General

Edit: his problem is that he hasn't yet learned the difference between digital data & digital audio despite being told many, many times. I agree, he is doing himself a disservice posting as he does
 
Let me give a run-down of my understanding of certain aspects of digital data transfer.
You are right about the data transfer, this is how computers work.

However, where digital gets turned into analogue (the DAC chip) and anywhere after that (the DAC output stages, the output cables etc) you can still suffer from jitter (via the S/PDIF input stream even if via optical, or caused by noise entering the DAC) and general noise (via EMI or via power supply) and these "MIGHT" be different with different transports.

I happen to believe if you can't measure a difference at the end of the DAC's output interconnects, there probably isn't one. But there you go.
Darren
 
You are right about the data transfer, this is how computers work.

However, where digital gets turned into analogue (the DAC chip) and anywhere after that (the DAC output stages, the output cables etc) you can still have jitter (via the S/PDIF input stream even if via optical, or caused by noise entering the DAC) and general noise (via EMI or via power supply) and these "MIGHT" be different with different transports.
That's the catch. One can't claim that something can't happen unless one has a deeper understanding how the components in question really behave.

For example - you need to *know* that a TV displays white for pixels missing data and have the ability to point out to a specific piece of code in the firmware, *know* how many losses with what probability happen on Toslink cables of certain vendors / qualities, ...

There's no absolute, no 100% in this real world, unfortunately. You can argue that USB cables make no difference (which which I agree), but you can't mathematically prove it, because there will always be at least some difference between the cables and that difference could - however unlikely - result in different levels of EMI transferred to the DAC.

Given a fully digital setup with digital input and digital output, there could probably be no "foo", but - unfortunately for this cause - the output is not digital.

You effectively can't disprove any of the statements made by anyone in the hifi world.

Want another example? .. What about flac vs wav? Decoding each type of file results in different CPU instructions being applied, in different quantities, possibly affecting the mains circuit, and - by extension - the DAC. However crazy that sounds, you can't disprove it. You can empirically conclude that the existing levels of noise are far greater than what flac vs wav would generate, but you still can't prove that the difference is none.
 
Wow bits is bits arguments could last forever. Max you really need to get up to the big smoke and have your memory banks challenged. From what I have experienced with various computer audio set ups everything matters no more or less than any other part of the hobby. Power supplies play a huge part in this as they do in cd players and amps. No doubt there are suggestions and routes taken that yield nothing or don't produce good results but the improvements achieved in CA over the last number of years is indisputable to anybody actually listening to it.

Good to see some open minds here. There is no doubt CD players are going the way of the dodo and quicker than people imagine. There are lots of big players in computer audio emmlabs for example who put a huge amount of effort into power supplies in their dacs and for good reason. Look at the high end wadia cd players they weight a ton and most of that relates to power supplies. What is so enlightening about CA is that the user can now build their own specified transport and not rely on manufacturers who will charge considerably more and generally difficult to upgrade.
 
It's all very well saying a person needs to go and demo etc, but there are some instances where doing so is pointless.

For example, I don't care how many home cinema buffs tell me that their £200 HDMI cable makes blacks deeper and motion better on their big HDTV, I know that that is simply not possible, so I wouldn't waste my time.

I also know that no digital cable - no matter how much money it cost - or what any expert reviewer may have said about it - can make sound quality better, or worse, or different in any way to another digital cable, so again, I wouldn't waste my time.

No method of digital data transfer can improve sound quality either, and no method can degrade it in any way that doesn't cause an obvious failure, so you can't get more clarity, a wider soundstage, or better dynamics from using one form of data transfer over another, so again, I wouldn't waste my time.

What I would say is good luck to anyone who chooses to believe differently, if they trust their ears and so deduce that the above isn't reality for them, and that makes them derive more enjoyment from the hobby, then happy days.

But please don't tell me that I need to suspend reality, and go listen for non-exsistent differences so that I'll have more experience. I don't need experience of listening for something imaginary.
 
In the early 15th Century most travellers would not go across the Atlantic because the Earth was flat and they wouldn't waste their time checking out the edges at the risk of falling off... The first who did was in for a surprise!
I'm not saying that cables work and neither am I saying that they don't, but unless you are absolutely not in the least interested in hifi gear (which is not your case since you write on this forum) or your time really is worth a great deal of money, check it out for yourself, maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong, in any case you will be able to answer people who challenge your ideas with some empirical support for your scientific beliefs.
 
In the early 15th Century most travellers would not go across the Atlantic because the Earth was flat and they wouldn't waste their time checking out the edges at the risk of falling off... The first who did was in for a surprise!
I'm not saying that cables work and neither am I saying that they don't, but unless you are absolutely not in the least interested in hifi gear (which is not your case since you write on this forum) or your time really is worth a great deal of money, check it out for yourself, maybe you are right or maybe you are wrong, in any case you will be able to answer people who challenge your ideas with some empirical support for your scientific beliefs.

I give up :rolleyes: :) ;)
 
No method of digital data transfer can improve sound quality either, and no method can degrade it in any way that doesn't cause an obvious failure, so you can't get more clarity, a wider soundstage, or better dynamics from using one form of data transfer over another, so again, I wouldn't waste my time.

Hi Max,

As I see it, there's a flaw in your logic. I read you as assuming that data transfer and data conversion are the same thing. If you read into what Jkeny, or John W. has written here, and you are to accept that they are, more than, competent digital engineers, they both state that it's the points of conversion that yield the errors and where the tricky engineering takes place.

Do yourself a favour and listen to some other gear.
 
Hi Max,

As I see it, there's a flaw in your logic. I read you as assuming that data transfer and data conversion are the same thing. If you read into what Jkeny, or John W. has written here, and you are to accept that they are, more than, competent digital engineers, they both state that it's the points of conversion that yield the errors and where the tricky engineering takes place.

Do yourself a favour and listen to some other gear.
Hi Peter, everything I've covered has been pre-conversion, or pre-DAC, if you like.

Cheers.
 


advertisement


Back
Top