advertisement


Interesting...

Steven Toy

Steven Toy

Accuphase newbie
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2013/12/kih-3-can-digital-volume-controls-keep-it-honest/

I think this article illustrates that theorising alone isn't going to get you very far. You need to do some listening too. Then you can theorize to your heart's content as long as you accept what your ears are telling you.

A good preamp is not deleterious compared to source-direct-to-power, on the contrary. This is only debatable for those who don't listen. On the whole, digital attenuation seems to suck and I have disabled it on my own DAC, preferring the DACT switched attenuator in my valve pre to do the work.
 
+1

Agree with that Steve (from what I've heard myself). Engineering a decent pre isn't rocket science and often it will improve matters by balancing output sensitivity (voltage) and impedance to match the requirements of the power amp. Just because components are in the signal path doesn't mean that they are deleterious to sound compared with not having that balance and control. I have yet to hear digital source attenuation that hasn't been detrimental to sound quality. There are exceptions (as with everything hifi) though, such as the new breed of one box systems like the super new Devaliet audio system where it's all been properly designed/implemented. Personally, where I've had DACs with digital gain in the system, the gain has been left at 100% and fed through a preamp which has handled the volume control. For a single-source system, I would probably use a passive with a HQ volume pot between digital source and amp.
 
Variable analogue output is so useful in a dac/pre, allowing you to select the correct amount of gain for your system, the new M2Tech Young/DSD dac has both variable analogue output
and a digitally controlled analogue attenuator.
Keith.
 
The digital attenuation in the NAD M51 is IME both transparent and as good as any preamp I've heard costing less than £5K.

Sounds like your Dac is poorly designed.
 
IME good analogue attenuation bests the digital that I've heard.

However I'm not a massive fan of potentiometers for volume controls as some of these degrade signal integrity as opposed to other methods, such as transformer and autoformer.

Jeff Rowland's current preamps do it via a "monolithic resistor attenuator" not sure exactly what that means but it sounds fantastic to me (started with Naim and then moved to Transformer based, now Rowland)... not sure if it's down to "TI Burr Brown OPA1632 fully differential I/O audio amplifier modules"? My knowledge of electronics doesn't extend that far. Normally I would be advocating fully decsrete but at the moment my ears tell me the Rowland is better. Also the preamp gives great flexibility and HT bypass.

(thus the VEGA is always set to 100).
 
-1

This is a matter of principle.
I want the analogue path to be as short as possible for the sake of fidelity.
That doesn't mean I cannot prefer the sound of a particular track with a little bit more bass, a little bit more treble or any other interference or equalization introduced by something else like a preamp.

But if I have the choice, I want it flat, just as close as it was mastered in the first place.
For me, that's the goal we should all look for, because that's also the key to get the best possible sound from a good recording.

For the same reason, despite liking the sound of vinyl, I will never go that road again.
I don't want music to be made to sound good on vinyl, or any other specific systems. I want the music to be well recorded and mastered.

Michael
 
Steven Toy said:
I think this article illustrates that theorising alone isn't going to get you very far.
Click to expand...

Indeed. A single subjective opinion unsupported by any evidence will of course always trump all the scientific knowledge humankind has amassed over the centuries.
 
Steven Toy said:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2013/12/kih-3-can-digital-volume-controls-keep-it-honest/

I think this article illustrates that theorising alone isn't going to get you very far. You need to do some listening too. Then you can theorize to your heart's content as long as you accept what your ears are telling you.
Click to expand...
There is no grasp of 'theory' shown in the article. If there were then he wouldn't be advocating a $10000 valve pre as a 'solution' to a mismatched DAC and power amp.

I had to read to the bottom before I realised this was an article from Six Moons. The guy is fundamentally signed up to magic and ignorance rather than reality and reasoning. Not a good example for whatever point you were trying to make.

Paul
 
Julf said:
A single subjective opinion unsupported by any evidence will of course always trump all the scientific knowledge humankind has amassed over the centuries.
Click to expand...

Any, and all, subjective opinion is open to qualification by scientific analysis, and that is the proper method to separate speculation from reality.

JC
 
It's just an article that Steve picked to help him illustrate a point. Yes, there isn't concrete reference to theory and the author is somewhat divisive but Steve's point (I think) is that there are few available good digital attenuation devices in built into things like DACs, so getting hung up on the author or the article is perhaps missing the point?

You don't need a Phd to agree or disagree with that. You just need your ears. Sure, there are properly implemented examples but you tend to find those on kit with a price tag of £1000's rather than £100's. The components needed are not that expensive to do it properly though.
 
jcbrum said:
Any, and all, subjective opinion is open to qualification by scientific analysis, and that is the proper method to separate speculation from reality.

JC
Click to expand...


I'd like to speculate that reality is overrated.
 
Person A: 'Analogue is better than digital'

Person B: 'How would you define 'better'?

Person A: 'It sounds better to my ears'

Person B: 'How can you know that without blind testing?'

Person A: 'Blind testing is fundamentally flawed. I trust my ears.'

Person B: 'But your ears are easily fooled. Have a look at this You Tube video featuring Poppy Z Brite that proves this'

Person A: 'That video proves nothing. You only have to listen to hear that analogue is vastly superior to digital in capturing the emotion in a recording'

Person B: 'The emotion is in the music. It cannot be added by the system'

Person A: 'The emotion is conveyed via subtle timing and musical cues which are lost once digital components are introduced'

Person B: 'You do realise that any recordings made in the past 40 years include some digital elements? Have a read of this white paper by Professor Plum published in The Journal of Electrical Engineering way back in 1975'.

Person A: 'I bet Professor Plum wore a white lab coat and carried an oscilloscope'

[cont'd to page 94 and threadlock]
 
Professor Plum has been thoroughly discredited since being found in the library with a candlestick inserted up his ass.
 
Steven Toy said:
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/2013/12/kih-3-can-digital-volume-controls-keep-it-honest/

I think this article illustrates that theorising alone isn't going to get you very far.
Click to expand...

I think this article is designed to get you thinking that way so you'll be fooled into spending money needlessly due to expectation bias.

you can theorize to your heart's content as long as you accept what your ears are telling you.
Click to expand...

You can offer advice to your heart's content as long as you accept what you're not allowing your brain to tell you ;).
 
merlin said:
Professor Plum has been thoroughly discredited since being found in the library with a candlestick inserted up his ass.
Click to expand...

Discredited for what? Maybe he really enjoys having a candlestick in said location. Hmmm, what the hell does this have to do with audio except that a lot of this crap is about being too anal in the first place. :D
 
Julf said:
Indeed. A single subjective opinion unsupported by any evidence will of course always trump all the scientific knowledge humankind has amassed over the centuries.
Click to expand...

Not all the scientific knowledge just some of it when the bigger picture is ignored for whatever reason.
 
merlin said:
The digital attenuation in the NAD M51 is IME both transparent and as good as any preamp I've heard costing less than £5K.

Sounds like your Dac is poorly designed.
Click to expand...

If this is so the dCS Vivaldi stack at £67,000 is also poorly designed.

This thread is already separating out quite nicely the theorisers from the listeners. Theory should reflect the experience not the other way round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top