advertisement


Interesting...

The final test is always the human appreciation of the music.
My experience with the digital attenuation on a Wadia 861, compared to my DNM premp (2 pot.) was that the digital attenuation did rob the the sound of some musicality so I didn't use it.
The boffins will be using their alchemy to improve things,and of course measure the results, but I don't believe you need "Golden Ears" to hear the difference.
As I've said elsewhere, the cynic in me believes that most manufacturers will just make equipment good enough to sell and then try to convince you it is wonderful.
Don't believe the hype, trust your ears.
 
I'm just amazed that anyone could read that article! Apart from the words the visuals and feel of it was quite nauseating.
 
Pac1 said:
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?
Click to expand...
If that's his point then he is wrong. And this author claims to use upsampling in his computer source on the one hand and then to hear an 0.5dB digital attenuation on the other. Not a credible writer.

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.
Click to expand...
If Steve's system is correctly configured then the digital attenuation will be definitely inaudible (other than as a level change...) until it reaches significantly greater attenuation than -30dB. And probably much more since the loss of information is well into the noise floor of the system and environment.

Unless Steven can come up with a cogent argument against simple accounting of theory of signal/noise ratios then it doesn't matter to anybody else what he believes he hears, or wants to spend his money on. That is just between his ears. I'm assuming JohnW is competent, which seems a very safe assumption.

Paul
 
How about if, instead of theory, Steven does some experiments? He could use his PC to create a CD containing some low level tones, at 1 or 2 bits perhaps, and then see what they sound like at varying levels of both analogue and digital attenuation. And how quiet they are at any level near that which he uses for music.

If his DAC has 21 bits of resolution, which it should have, then it can fully resolve a 16 bit signal at a digital attenuation of -30dB. I predict that he would find a gain structure that allowed a -96dB tone to be heard at an attenuation of -30dB far too high, he would be turning it down further for normal listening. I await the results, then we can start to get somewhere.

Paul
 
Paul R said:
How about if, instead of theory, Steven does some experiments? He could use his PC to create a CD containing some low level tones, at 1 or 2 bits perhaps, and then see what they sound like at varying levels of both analogue and digital attenuation. And how quiet they are at any level near that which he uses for music.

If his DAC has 21 bits of resolution, which it should have, then it can fully resolve a 16 bit signal at a digital attenuation of -30dB. I predict that he would find a gain structure that allowed a -96dB tone to be heard at an attenuation of -30dB far too high, he would be turning it down further for normal listening. I await the results, then we can start to get somewhere.

Paul
Click to expand...

I'd rather listen to music, thanks. :)
 
I have yet to hear a digital volume control which affected the sound beyond attenuation including the one built into an SBT, the one built into a Wolfson 8741 and the one built into mediamonkey. I accept that its theoretically possible that one might if it had been designed by an idiot.

Perhaps if one had the time to try out the built in volume controls on Youtube or something, but why bother?
 
Steven Toy said:
If this is so the dCS Vivaldi stack at £67,000 is also poorly designed.
Click to expand...


I guess it must be then.

As I say, I speak from experience.

The fact that the experience mirrors the theory is refreshing. I'd look at either getting a better Dac or doing controlled tests.
 
Let's save a bit of time here.

"Have you identified digital attenution in a blind test?"
"No, unlike you measurists I have no craving for certainty."
"So it could be expectation bias then?"
"No, I trust my hearing and anyway blind testing is flawed."
"It isn't."
"It is."
*stalemate*

There we go, 20 pages averted, commence with PONY TIME in 3 ... 2 ... 1
 
Michael P said:
Let's save a bit of time here.
Click to expand...

Spoil-sport. We want our fun.

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...

Yes it's down to implementation and like everything in life there is good, bad and meh.

I think Steve is still using a level 95 turbo fusion powered MDAC so I would expect that to be a superb design. Likely the results are down to expectation bias, probably from reading dodgy reviews ;)
 
Steven Toy said:
I'd rather listen to music, thanks. :)
Click to expand...
I think your faith is not very strong and your curiosity curiously absent.

So I'm not sure why you bothered to start this thread. You aren't actually interested in the theory and you're not at all interested in the listening.

Paul
 
Robert said:
I think Steve is still using a level 95 turbo fusion powered MDAC
Click to expand...

Is that the one with the pixie dust knob, or the one that sounds the same as every other dac when under the spell of Professor Plum?
 
Paul R said:
If that's his point then he is wrong. And this author claims to use upsampling in his computer source on the one hand and then to hear an 0.5dB digital attenuation on the other. Not a credible writer.


If Steve's system is correctly configured then the digital attenuation will be definitely inaudible (other than as a level change...) until it reaches significantly greater attenuation than -30dB. And probably much more since the loss of information is well into the noise floor of the system and environment.

Unless Steven can come up with a cogent argument against simple accounting of theory of signal/noise ratios then it doesn't matter to anybody else what he believes he hears, or wants to spend his money on. That is just between his ears. I'm assuming JohnW is competent, which seems a very safe assumption.

Paul
Click to expand...

"he is wrong" is just as sweeping a statement as the very one's you have issue with unless specifically evidenced.

I agree with you RE the writer. I don't think that his theorising is credible but the GENERAL point was that in the main, analogue attenuation seems to sound better to some (myself included). As stated (please re-read) there are of course exceptions where digital attenuation is done properly.

No-one is arguing that properly configured, digital attenuation is largely inaudible until at least -30dB is reached but it is simply foolish to poo-hoo the fact that some digital attenuation devices (precisely because they are not properly implemented) do in fact degrade SQ quite noticeably, therefore quite measurably too.

Why do so many threads on PFM these days simply seem to degenerate into pointless circular arguments usually involving subjectivist V's objectivist with no middle ground these days? Very few threads, this one included, seem to allow for genuine grown up debate without degenerating into meaningless squabbling.
 
Pac1 said:
Very few threads, this one included, seem to allow for genuine grown up debate without degenerating into meaningless squabbling.
Click to expand...


It's true. People relying on science naturally argue their point from a scientific POV and require scientific evidence to counter their stance.

It's generally not possible to provide such evidence, and so people with a genuine love of music and a passion for it's replay are left bashing their heads against a brick wall.

I can't see how there can be a middle ground when it comes to science.
 
Pac1 said:
Why do so many threads on PFM these days simply seem to degenerate into pointless circular arguments usually involving subjectivist V's objectivist with no middle ground these days? Very few threads, this one included, seem to allow for genuine grown up debate without degenerating into meaningless squabbling.
Click to expand...

+1

... and eloquently put.
 
Pac1 said:
I agree with you RE the writer. I don't think that his theorising is credible but the GENERAL point was that in the main, analogue attenuation seems to sound better to some (myself included). As stated (please re-read) there are of course exceptions where digital attenuation is done properly.
Click to expand...
I'm not really sure what he is saying, it seems confused. At various places he appears to suggest that some analog attenuation plus digital fine control is the best solution, at others he implies that any digital attenuation whatsoever is audible.

He even makes the point (ignored so far on this thread) that the real culprit is excessive gain in the power amp. John Siau is coming up with a power amp with gain of 9. If others follow then the issue will fade away for the most part. Isn't it about time we caught up with the fact that digital sources have 2V+ output?

Of course that leaves the "problem" of audibility of any digital volume control which bedevills one of the author's multiple personalities.
 
merlin said:
It's true. People relying on science naturally argue their point from a scientific POV and require scientific evidence to counter their stance.

It's generally not possible to provide such evidence, and so people with a genuine love of music and a passion for it's replay are left bashing their heads against a brick wall.

I can't see how there can be a middle ground when it comes to science.
Click to expand...

There is a middle ground if you take the absolutism out of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top