advertisement


Sean Jacobs DC3 Power Supply in da house

The Boulder DAC claims THD+N of 0.0008%.

The M400 has THD+N of 0.00007% (the additional zero is not a typo).

Follow the science.

And that difference is audible, is it?

I agree with following the science but part of this is knowing when a zero is important and when it isn’t.
 
I agree with following the science but part of this is knowing when a zero is important and when it isn’t.

You have zero's of 'measurable distortion' in your DAC which is added to your signal. You then pass that signal plus DAC noise to your preamp where more 'zero's' are added, then to your amp and speakers.
How many zero's are left when the signal reaches your ears ?

Every time I have added zero's and hence reduced numbers, sound quality has improved.

I started with Quad 989 ESL's as they are still one of the lowest distortion loudspeakers, and loudspeakers are the greatest source of distortion in the replay chain.
Peter Walker measured the distortion of his ESL's in 1955. Since then many seem to have adopted 'the science' of, John says that he thinks that X sounds better than Y, so that must be right.

There is plenty of noise in many recordings without adding to it in the replay chain in my book.
 
Also knowing exactly what to measure is important - I know stuff that measures well and sounds crap, and vice versa. No point waving numbers around if they do not represent the whole story (hint - we can't measure the "whole picture" in terms of what ears and brains perceive). BTW, the OP has said nothing about owning that particular DAC model, that's just another wrong assumption (I happen to know what model he has).
 
You have zero's of 'measurable distortion' in your DAC which is added to your signal. You then pass that signal plus DAC noise to your preamp where more 'zero's' are added, then to your amp and speakers.
How many zero's are left when the signal reaches your ears ?

Every time I have added zero's and hence reduced numbers, sound quality has improved.

I started with Quad 989 ESL's as they are still one of the lowest distortion loudspeakers, and loudspeakers are the greatest source of distortion in the replay chain.

But that's precisely my point.

If your amp has 0.1% distortion and your speakers have 1%, then the difference between 0.0008 and 0.00007% right back of the beginning of the chain will be completely lost!
 
Anybody who doesn’t understand the role and importance of science in the development of any technology is, quite literally, ignorant. The real question concerns the application of science to hi fi. I’m pretty sure we now have certain manufacturers who are designing their products entirely by reference to the particular suite of measurements that ASR uses simply because they know that will guarantee them a certain volume of sales. Is that a bad thing? To answer that we need a much better understanding of what makes a piece of hi fi gear sound “good” to most people. Our present level of knowledge in this area is lamentable and that just fuels the fire in the fight of the subjectivists vs the objectivists. Science will though tell us one day. Some research has been done into what makes loudspeakers sound good by Toole and Olive. I’m not saying there is no more to learn in that area but they have certainly advanced our knowledge to the extent that by examining the key measurements it is possible to predict with something like 85% accuracy (if I recall correctly) whether most people will think a given speaker will sound “good”. The purpose of their research was to determine what the key measurements are and which ones don’t affect our perception of “good sound”. Their findings formed the basis of a new loudspeaker measurement standard adopted by the AES. We need more research like this into all stages of the hi fi chain if we are to develop a better understanding of “good sound”.
 
SJ, I'm surprised you've not yet come to terms with the fact that a forum doesn't provide the best platform for an intimate discussion of the minutiae of every detail of a particular design. I actually think parallel lt3045 psu and usb in/out reclocker sums up the phoenix pretty accurately, the rest can be reasonably inferred, inlet filter, traffo, rectifier smoother board, pre-reg etc etc.

Unless 'you' know different.
 
As Peter Walker was aiming for minimum distortion and minimal room interaction from his loudspeakers in 1955, I think we have not advanced very far.

http://www.meridian-audio.info/public/pwintnow96[2199].pdf
It’s easy to get rosy eyed. I had, and loved, a pair of of ESL57s, but although they had such narrow horizontal dispersion and didn’t interact with side walls much, the rear radiation and its reflection by the rear wall certainly was a problem, as was the lack of dynamic range and convincing bottom end. Wonderful for a solo guitar perhaps, but if you want to get close to a hint of a credible grand piano in your living room there are far better, lower distortion options nowadays.
 
I had the misfortune of hearing the RME Dac on my system a few weeks ago...my word it was awful compared to the Boulder...

the OP has said nothing about owning that particular DAC model, that's just another wrong assumption (I happen to know what model he has).

Maybe the 866 Integrated amp/DAC, or the 1012 D/A Pre then.

Lets keep it all a secret though, like any measurements.
 


advertisement


Back
Top