PDA

View Full Version : My session at the Toyster's...



Marco
25-07-2008, 13:27
Well I had a great session at Steve’s on Tuesday listening to his virtually new system (as shown in the signature under his posts). The last time I was down he was running a Linn Majik CDP/Spectral preamp/Densen power amp and a pair of Piega loudspeakers – so quite a change. I’ve always enjoyed listening to the systems Steve’s owned through the years because whilst we may disagree sometimes on specific aspects of preferred presentation (this is a matter of personal taste, after all) the systems he runs always play music, in the sense that one easily becomes immersed in the performance rather than merely seduced by hi-fi effects. This is because Steve, like me, pays particular attention to the correct set-up of equipment in terms of mains, supports and cables. So with this in mind I looked forward to hearing his latest collection of carefully chosen components and ancillaries.

As you will see all was well in the end but, initially, what a shock I was to get…

When I walked into Steve’s lounge where his system was set-up he was playing some raucous sounding material (poorly re-mastered Fleetwood Mac) at frankly too loud a volume. It was obviously a horribly compressed commercial recording and it was giving me ear bleed. The sound was quite frankly bright, 'shouty' and pretty unpleasant. He asked me what I thought and at first told him it was ok but I was thinking to myself "What on earth has he done?" Then we sat down and proceeded to do some serious listening, letting the track finish to the end.

When the track finished Steve again asked me what I thought. First of all I told him that it wasn’t really my type of music (not that I don’t like Fleetwood Mac, it was just the particular track Steve was playing) and the recording quality was dire, which he agreed. Then I told him what I thought of his new system so far. Now Steve and I have known each other for years so we are able to be frank without either of us taking offence. We are not 'precious' about our systems and always value constructive criticism. So I had to be honest with him as I would expect him to be about my own system…

I told him that I could hear the talents of the Bel Canto CDP and his TD/AOS valve power amp, but I didn’t like his Heco speakers. The Spectral preamp I felt was pretty much doing its job of relaying the signal it was fed, or so I thought. The sound coming from the Hecos though was very 'boom 'n' tizz' and almost completely lacked subtlety. The treble in particular had a glassy, piercing quality. At first I put it down to a 'German thing' (the drive units are made there) as in my experience Germans tend to like their speakers voiced in a particular way (as do most nations) which usually emphasises the bass and treble in an unnatural way to increase the 'excitement factor'. The more expensive ones tend not to do this but it is quite often evident in their entry level to mid level units.

Anyway, in order to assess things more accurately I asked Steve to put on a CD of my own that I was familiar with (Ryan Adams & The Cardinals – Everybody Knows EP) and asked him to play the title track 'Everybody Knows'. For anyone who doesn’t know this album it’s a live studio recording of bluesy acoustic rock with a country edge. As soon as the acoustic guitar intro and the voice of Ryan Adams came flooding into the room I knew this was instantly better. This is a superb album both musically and in terms of recording quality and so it showcases the talents of any hi-fi system. I knew that if Steve’s system didn’t sound good with this CD then something was badly broken. However good though it was there was still a prevailing artificial fullness in the bass and a 'peaky' quality to vocals, which I certainly don’t get in my system, so I knew there was more to come from this recording. Therefore it was time for a change…

I had brought with me my Sony transport and DAC, Croft preamp (recently modified) and my Yaqin valve amp. I asked Steve what he would like to change first, he wanted to try the Sony DAC, so we lifted up his Bel Canto transport, plonked the Sony underneath on his QS Reference acrylic rack, and separated the two units with some of Tony C’s 'black ravioli' isolation pads, connected a length of Transparent Premium Digital Link cable between both units, and configured the Bel Canto for Red Book playback, then pressed play and listened to the same track again. Within no more than the first few notes, we both turned to each other and said "Bloody hell!!"

The difference was quite incredible – the sound became instantly 'bigger' in terms of not only soundstage width and depth, but also in overall scale: it now had a feeling of live music. Ryan’s voice had much more presence and character, the acoustic guitar gained weight and body together with greater resolution and timbre such that the plucking of strings conveyed more of its natural nuances, and thus one gained more insight into the performance as a whole. Tonally, gone was the 'peaky', mechanical, midrange, and one-note bass, although there was still an element of over-prominence in the lowest registers and a slight grainy quality to the presentation, but all-in-all it was a massive improvement. Quite simply, the Audicom International modified Sony DAC comprehensively trounced the built-in one in the Bel Canto CD player. It confirmed to me yet again the musical superiority of NOS DACs using TDA1541 chips.

At this point I was quite keen to hear what the Sony transport would do together with the DAC compared to the transport in the Bel Canto, so we unplugged the Bel Canto and replaced it with the Sony X-777ES, and played the same track again. Interestingly, initially, it was not an improvement. The Sony transport introduced a thinness and somewhat opaque quality to the sound. However, part of this was due to the fact that it had been powered down for some hours and was cold. Prolonged listening showed that it was starting to get into its stride and was now sounding very nice indeed with the Sony DAC. It however had a leaner, slightly more forthright presentation than the Bel Canto transport, but also one that to my ears was more detailed and tonally accurate. However with vocals the Bel Canto appeared to have more textural resolution. This one, unlike the DAC, was by no means as clear cut and boiled down to personal preference. I preferred the Sony (just) and Steve, the Bel Canto.

I know from experience though that the Sony DAC and transport don’t like being placed together so near each other, as I’ve had them on top on the same shelf at home and they definitely perform much better on separate shelves on the rack. Next time Steve comes round to my place (probably for the forthcoming Chester fest) we’ll compare transports again and if the Bel Canto pulls off the same trick in my system then I will have to look into things further. One thing it proves though is that the transport mechanism in the Bel Canto is very good indeed, and an order of magnitude better than the built-in DAC. It seems obvious where most of the money has been spent on this player. Either that or the Sony is several leagues ahead in performance to modern DACs being made today.

We kept the Sony transport in with the DAC and continued to listen to a variety of music, enjoying the much improved presentation the Sony DAC was giving; its combination with the transport being so musically compelling. The whole system now was starting to sing, so we thought it was a good time to introduce the Croft. Therefore the Spectral was whipped out and the Croft, with its separate PSU connected with a hard-wired umbilical cable, somewhat awkwardly inserted into place on the QS rack. The PSU was placed on its own dedicated mini QS Ref acrylic support, and the main preamp section on the rack itself. We had just been listening to Ray Lamontagne’s 'Empty', from the album 'Till The Sun Turns Black'.

All I can say is that if the difference between the Bel Canto DAC and the Sony was huge, then this was huge with a capital 'H'! Quite frankly, it was one of the biggest differences I’ve heard with hi-fi. And in 25+ years of fiddling with all manner of exotica that’s saying something… The remaining slight 'boom 'n' tizz' factor and grainy edge that still persisted even after introducing the Sony DAC, which in my head I had attributed to the Heco speakers, was now completely gone and replaced with a wonderful layering of textures throughout the frequency range giving bass notes a tight, rhythmic, propulsive, quality reminiscent of top-notch Naim equipment when fully on song. There was also oodles of 'slam' and extension. The top end however was now sweet sounding, detailed, and massively extended such that it enveloped musical notes with a vibrancy and shimmer that made Lamontagne's music become a palpable living, breathing, entity instead of the somewhat artificial grainy sounding, 'mechanical' rendition in evidence before when relayed through the Spectral. The result was that the Croft and TD/AOS valve amp had combined to dramatic effect.

But the business end of the audio spectrum – the midrange – was where the Croft/TD AOS really excelled. Here, it imparted vocals and acoustic instruments with a tonal purity and expressiveness that was nothing short of beguiling, showing that valve preamps (and power amps) done well impart a magic on the music that no solid-state devices, through design, can realistically replicate. It's that 'valve thing' again. Remember, the Spectral is hardly 'entry level', costing some £4k+ new, but it was quite simply outclassed. The Croft was always a good preamp, but it has become something truly special since being recently modified by Glenn Croft. Steve has heard how it originally sounded and obviously how it has since evolved, and I’m sure would confirm that it has improved leaps and bounds since being upgraded and modified by a very talented valve engineer. I will be writing a separate detailed piece shortly on the Croft modifications because people need to know just how good things get when a Charisma-X is tweaked to perfection.

At the end of the session we tried the Yaqin instead of the AOS/TD amp, and whilst it was very good it lacked the magic of the AOS/TD amp (as described) and sounded somewhat 'hi-fi' like in comparison. This is not to say that the Yaqin was poor – it wasn’t; it didn’t do anything wrong – it was simply that the AOS/TD amp was *SO* good. There is clearly much more to come from the Yaqin when Anthony modifies it further. Certainly after hearing the results of his work with the AOS/TD amp, it bodes well for what the Yaqin will become after it receives similar treatment. I am very excited by the prospect.

Talking of talented valve engineers, there is another who deserves much praise. I’m of course referring to Anthony Matthews of Tube Distinctions who redesigned (it’s not simply modifying in this case but something much more fundamental) Steve’s Puresound A30, which in itself is an excellent valve amplifier, but as an AOS/TD incarnation transports its status firmly into the big league. The synergy and musical talent of the Croft/AOS (TD) has quite simply got to be heard to be believed. I have never before encountered an amplifier combination that gets it so right on every musical level, and yet comfortably ticks all the prosaic hi-fi boxes, too.

A final word must go to the Heco loudspeakers, which I was rather disparaging of when I first arrived. Quite clearly they are an excellent design and offer serious sound-per-pound value due to their construction in China. They’re extremely well built and feature drive units of the highest quality not commonly seen on speakers of this price. However, quite clearly, they require top-notch source and control equipment to showcase their sonic and musical abilities. These are not speakers I would use with equipment of the same price, or even necessarily somewhat more expensive. They must be partnered carefully in a sonic sense by equipment that is tonally even through the frequency range, I would say preferably with valves, and given the best source signal possible. In essence what I'm trying to convey is that in my opinion the Hecos are best with valve rather than solid-state gear.

Whilst in terms of system building there is undoubtedly a case for adopting a 'speaker first' philosophy, and indeed in this computer audio orientated day and age it is usually sensible to do so, Steve’s albeit traditional system, was one example where only by improving the source signal quality did the capabilities of the speakers become truly realised. This clearly demonstrates and confirms my belief that there is no 'one true path' with hi-fi and that there’s still much to be said for the traditional approach of getting as much information from the recording as possible, and handling it correctly down the chain, in order that a pair of talented speakers have something fundamentally 'juicy' to chew on, providing of course that speaker/room interaction has been optimised. In Steve's system it was simply not enough to have a 'competent' source and preamp - it needed something more talented downstream to showcase the full capabilities of his speakers.

So it was indeed a very interesting and educational listening session. If Steve can obtain a Sony DAS-R1, or something of its ilk, and a Croft preamp similar to my own then he will have one hell of a system. Indeed I’ve been informed that the recent addition of the Heco 700s have brought about some significant improvements, so I shudder to think what those would sound like with the previous electronics quoted at the helm. I think he owes it to himself to find out!

As such, I think Steve should listen to the modified DAS-R1 against the separate Bel Canto DAC, which is capable of facilitating the new high resolution digital formats available with computer downloading. What he needs to assess is what plays his existing CD collection best (some 1000+CDs) versus the undoubted exciting possibility of what can be achieved by high resolution formats in the digital computer audio domain. I suspect that the NOS DAC will be best for Red Book CD duties, although this has still to be confirmed by doing the necessary comparison, so I guess it depends on how serious Steve intends to get into computer audio.

Time will tell, and personally I can’t wait to hear the results…

Thank you for reading!

Marco.

tfarney
25-07-2008, 15:06
So I assume Steve will soon be dumping his DAC and preamp? Or does he not agree? Thanks for the detailed report, by the way. This place is a living, breathing learning experience for me.

Marco
25-07-2008, 15:09
Oh, one thing I forgot to add was that we tried replacing the NOS 1980s Philips JAN 6SN7s on the TD/AOS amp for the NOS US Navy military spec 1950's Jan 6SN7s I use in the Yaqin, and the difference wasn't subtle.

It lowered the noise floor, consequently bringing musical information to the fore, and tonally the sound was much more even-handed, losing a slight treble forwardness, which I correctly had attributed to the Philips valves of Steve's. Steve has now got another significant upgrade to get by obtaining some 'proper' NOS 6SN7s. 1950s vintage, or earlier, is undoubtedly the way to go.

I have asked Steve (SPS), who can supply such valves, to contact him accordingly :)

Marco.

Marco
25-07-2008, 15:18
So I assume Steve will soon be dumping his DAC and preamp? Or does he not agree?


I'll let him tell you himself. I'm sure he'll be adding his own comments in due course - and with pictures [Note to Steve: get them uploaded from your phone and posted A.S.A.P] ;)


Thanks for the detailed report, by the way. This place is a living, breathing learning experience for me.

Thanks, Tim. I thought it was important to concentrate on detail since there was so much ground to cover. I also knew that there were a few people interested in the outcome, so I had to be thorough.

Hopefully, though, it wasn't a boring read; as is sometimes the case with 'hi-fi reviews'.

I'm particularly interested in the views of Guy Sergeant and Tony C, who sell Puresound & Heco, and Bel Canto, respectively.

Marco.

pure sound
25-07-2008, 16:11
Later Marco. Off out with the kayak now!

Marco
25-07-2008, 16:15
No worries, dude. Enjoy! :)

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 16:33
US Navy military spec

Not a criticism of you Marco, but where do people keep coming up with this 'military spec' stuff?... There is no such thing!

The JAN and CV monikers come from a method of standardising the nomenclature of valves. They were not made to some special specification AFAIK. Yes, they were tested to ensure they were 'in spec', but they were standard production valves.

If anyone knows differently then please let me know. :scratch:

Marco
25-07-2008, 16:45
No worries, Mike. I was told that "military spec" valves were those used by the Army, Navy, etc, which were selected as having a higher tolerance to 'domestic' valves, and thus were generally more reliable and likely to have a longer lifespan than than those of a lower electrical tolerance.

Of course, that didn't necessarily mean they would sound any better when used in audio applications (military organisations were of course not concerned by sound quality), as was borne out by the 'military grade' Mullard CV4004 you sent me, which to my ears was good but sonically inferior to the 'domestic grade' 1950's origin Mullard ECC83 Anthony sold me. Vintage is more important with valves than any military specification. All things being equal though it's best to have 'military grade' valves because they're likely to last longer. That's my take on it anyway.

I think some clarification on this matter from our resident valve gurus is needed :)

Have you any thoughts on the main body of the review? I guess you'll get to hear it all soon enough at Chester!

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:05
All things being equal though it's best to have 'military grade' valves because they're likely to last longer. That's my take on it anyway.

I think some clarification on this matter from our resident valve gurus is needed :)



Indeed!... I couldn't agree more. :)

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:09
Have you any thoughts on the main body of the review? I guess you'll get to hear it all soon enough at Chester!

Fascinating TBH. I can't wait for the Chesterfest!

I'm particularly interested in listening to pre-amps, that's next 'to do' on my list!
I'm a long way short of having the disposable income for the likes of your Croft so a little, err, 'lateral thinking' may be required! ;)

Cheers....

Marco
25-07-2008, 17:10
What, on the first bit or the second bit? :)

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:11
Eh? :scratch:

Marco
25-07-2008, 17:13
Lol. You couldn't agree more on:

a) All things being equal though it's best to have 'military grade' valves because they're likely to last longer.

Or

b) I think some clarification on this matter from our resident valve gurus is needed.

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:15
Ah right!.... Both ya big 'Scotch' muppet! :lolsign:

Marco
25-07-2008, 17:17
Righty, ho. I wasn't sure :eyebrows:

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:22
No worries, Nick will put us right any second now. ;)

lurcher
25-07-2008, 17:22
Well, AFAIK, JAN and CV were just numbers issues. It meant that any valve with the same number could be used as a replacement, but didnt mean anything other than that in terms of quality or reliability.

Special quality (SQ) valves were a different matter, normally marked in the US by the use of a number instead of the normal codes, and in the UK after the war the sequence was reversed. The SQ valves WERE specially graded and tested (or only produced in that quality), so for example

6DJ8 is normal, 6922 special quality
ECC88 is normal, E88CC special quality

That do ya?

Prince of Darkness
25-07-2008, 17:25
Later Marco. Off out with the kayak now!

Careful you don't turn up in Panama!:lolsign:

Mike
25-07-2008, 17:55
6DJ8 is normal, 6922 special quality
ECC88 is normal, E88CC special quality

That do ya?

Yup! :)

That's how I understand it.

Another eg.

CV492 = ECC83
CV4004 = M8137 (SQ version of ECC83)

In the above example (at least) the thing to look out for is the 'SQ' part, meaning 'special quality'.

These ARE made to a better standard, and the performance could be better in an audio application.

Or am I talking bollox again? :(

Marco
25-07-2008, 18:03
Interesting. Basically, when I'm selecting NOS valves I go for vintage of the type I'm after generally before anything else. There is a magical sound with valves from the 1950s era (and earlier) that simply isn't there with later NOS valves, "SQ" quality or not.

"SQ" 1950s valves must be something very special, though!

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 18:12
I don't think there are any 'guarantees' Marco, as always, use your ears! ;)

Marco
25-07-2008, 18:23
Yep, valves are strange beasts!

But I've not been disappointed so far with any 1950s era valves I've used or heard. GEC 1950s KT88s were wonderful sounding, as have been ECC83s, 6SN7s, and ECC35s from that era. No doubt though something will come along eventually that will be a sonic disaster...

Marco.

Mike
25-07-2008, 18:33
No doubt though something will come along eventually that will be a sonic disaster...

Like that Chinese 12AX7 I sent you maybe? :lol:

What a piece of crap!

Iain Sinclair
25-07-2008, 19:24
I'll let him tell you himself. I'm sure he'll be adding his own comments in due course - and with pictures [Note to Steve: get them uploaded from your phone and posted A.S.A.P]

Interesting read, thanks. It does put Steve's earlier rhapsodies about his system into perspective! I look forward to reading his comments.

Mike
25-07-2008, 19:52
I look forward to reading his comments.

Don't hold your breath! :lol:

Marco
25-07-2008, 20:57
Oh don't worry he'll be along in the early hours of tomorrow morning once he's finished his taxi duties... ;)

I'm quite sure though, Iain, Steve's "earlier rhapsodies" were entirely accurate. The last time I visited him he had (apart from the Spectral preamp) an entirely different system. The Bel Canto CDP is undoubtedly better than the Linn Majik it replaced, as are the Hecos compared to the Piegas. I think all the Hecos needed was a decent valve preamp in-line, and Steve is taking the necessary steps to obtain one. I also never heard the Puresound A30 in its standard guise in Steve's system. No doubt though after hearing how phenomenal it is in AOS/TD form he was justified to wax lyrical about the improvement Anthony's redesigning has brought about.

Marco.

pure sound
25-07-2008, 22:19
1950's valves are crap Marco. Its valves from the 20's & 30's you want!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lot-of-2-Globe-112A-12A-112-A-Tubes-RCA-radiotron_W0QQitemZ160264093683QQcmdZViewItem?hash =item160264093683&_trksid=p3286.m14.l1318#ebayphotohosting


http://cgi.ebay.com/3-RARE-NICE-MATCHING-CUNNINGHAM-RCA-TYPE-71A-POWER-TUBE_W0QQitemZ200241394318QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item 200241394318&_trksid=p3286.m14.l1318


Interesting write up though. Looking forward to Steve's comments. You actually heard the standard A30 and the Celan 500's at the Practical show in Manchester last Autumn. We played a couple of tracks from the Mark Knopfler solo album you'd just bought.

Marco
25-07-2008, 22:33
Guy,


1950's valves are crap Marco. Its valves from the 20's & 30's you want!


LOL - mad stuff. Hence why I said "or earlier", and I guess that's ok if you're into SETs :)


Interesting write up though. Looking forward to Steve's comments. You actually heard the standard A30 and the Celan 500's at the Practical show in Manchester last Autumn. We played a couple of tracks from the Mark Knopfler solo album you'd just bought.


Yep, that's very true, and as I told Steve, I didn't like it much until your SP10 went on ;)

The Bel Canto is undoubtedly a fine CD player - it's just that in my opinion its DAC is not of the same quality as its transport section, or perhaps I'm just spoiled by the Sony?

The Hecos are superb for the money but in my opinion need a good pre/power valve combo to achieve greatness. It was difficult to assess the A30 at the show and judge exactly what it was doing in a then unfamiliar system, but based on what I heard at Steve's it appears the Hecos need somewhat more serious amplification to show what they can really do.

Marco.

Steve Toy
26-07-2008, 02:57
I think Marco was right to point out the fact that my system is slightly imbalanced and that my source component/pre needs to be upgraded to match the rest. The Spectral is a good pre and I prefered it to the Croft before Marco had it modified, but the latest mods have taken the Croft well into the Big League for detail and effortless beautiful music Now I want one or at least something like it.

The Heco Celan 500s in place when Marco was here are a 2 and half-way design that perhaps lends itself to sounding slightly full in the bass with an equally recessed midrange.

The 700s I now have and own are better in this regard in that they are a full 3-way design. The midrange has more presence and the bass is tighter. I still miss what the offboard DAC and valve pre can do though.

My plan is to get a DAC of some description, either the DAC3 by Belcanto or a Sony DAS R1 if I can find one for reasonable money (or at all). I think the Bel Canto DAC is more likely. The pre could come from either Glenn Croft, Anthony or possibly elsewhere. An offboard PSU for the pre and a matching one for the Bel Canto transport that runs off 12 volts DC, would also be desirable.


It does put Steve's earlier rhapsodies about his system into perspective! I look forward to reading his comments.

Iain,

I think you were eagerly awaiting to read (and reply with) something negative here. I don't know if you deliberately set out to pick fault, look for flaws and generally play the role of negative sceptic, raining on parades and doubting the integrity or accuracy of experiences shared on this forum for the sake of balance, or because you're a grumpy old sod.

Either way I don't think such contributions really add anything of benefit to the forum, tbh. I hope that your future contributions here will do more than just have a knock at what others are doing to improve their music listening experiences.

.....

Ahem, pictures of our little bake-off will follow shortly.

alb
26-07-2008, 06:36
It's good to have someone come round and give their honest opinion.
All to often people are too polite to say anything, for fear of upsetting the owner.

The difficulty is ... that everyone has their own ideas about how things should sound.
This is where taking your gear to a friends place can be invaluable, sometimes for both parties. Always something to be learned.

Iain Sinclair
26-07-2008, 09:17
Iain,

I think you were eagerly awaiting to read (and reply with) something negative here. I don't know if you deliberately set out to pick fault, look for flaws and generally play the role of negative sceptic, raining on parades and doubting the integrity or accuracy of experiences shared on this forum for the sake of balance, or because you're a grumpy old sod.

Either way I don't think such contributions really add anything of benefit to the forum, tbh. I hope that your future contributions here will do more than just have a knock at what others are doing to improve their music listening experiences.

.....

Ahem, pictures of our little bake-off will follow shortly.

I had no expectations; if anything, I'd have thought Marco would like the sound of your system.

And, yes, I'm a grumpy old sod, but that's beside the point, which is that you were over the moon about how good your system was sounding, then Marco came along and says it sounds not so good, so now you've got some more box-swapping to do. Which is fine if you're into box-swapping.

The words of the poet Pope spring to mind:

'Where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise'.

Marco
26-07-2008, 09:30
Steve,

It was a useful session for both of us, and I think you know exactly where to go now. The sale of the Spectral should fund a no cost upgrade for the Croft, so you're on a win-win there. I will speak to Glenn while you're away on holiday and find out about having a preamp built to the spec of my Charisma-X, so you will have some news when you get back.

I will also speak to Mark about the possibility of obtaining a DAS-R1. Based on what we heard the other day, I think you should try as hard as possible to obtain one before contemplating the purchase of the Bel Canto DAC, as the DAS-R1's combination with your Bel Canto transport was a magical one. It's not often in hi-fi that such a special sound is obtained and it would be a shame not to have access to that experience listening to music on a daily basis.

Like I said, it boils down to how serious you intend to get into computer audio. If you're totally focussed going down this route, and are aware of all that this entails in terms of necessary computer hardware and associated ancillaries (you will probably need to purchase an up-to-date laptop, or similar, as I doubt your aging PC is up to the task) and are au fait will all the necessary software procedures to get things up and running, and most importantly, you are *totally* committed to this procedure from now on, then the Bel Canto DAC is a no brainer.

But if you're still going to be buying CDs for the foreseeable future and playing your existing 'physical' music collection regularly, then you know exactly what the DAS-R1 brings to the party.

Hey, why not have both? :lol:


Ahem, pictures of our little bake-off will follow shortly.

Can we please (pwetty pweese) get these up before you go to France? It will make the thread 'hang together' better :)

Marco.

Marco
26-07-2008, 09:59
I had no expectations; if anything, I'd have thought Marco would like the sound of your system.

And, yes, I'm a grumpy old sod, but that's beside the point, which is that you were over the moon about how good your system was sounding, then Marco came along and says it sounds not so good, so now you've got some more box-swapping to do. Which is fine if you're into box-swapping.


Iain,

I know what you're getting at, but what you have to remember is that Steve's recent 'box-swapping' has largely been brought about by his transition from solid-state to valves, and getting it all working the way he wants it (finding speakers that compliment his valve amp in particular), which is completely my fault because I let him hear the Yaqin when he was perfectly happy with his Spectral/Densen combo! :eyebrows:

It's the same with his recent CD shenanigans... I guess it's only natural to want something better when you hear it, and this often happens when Steve visits me. If his mates had shite hi-fi systems I suppose it would save Steve a lot of money! :lol:

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
26-07-2008, 10:08
Iain,

I know what you're getting at, but what you have to remember is that Steve's recent 'box-swapping' has largely been brought about by his transition from solid-state to valves, and getting it all working the way he wants it (finding speakers that compliment his valve amp in particular), which is completely my fault because I let him hear the Yaqin at my place when he was perfectly happy with his Spectral/Densen combo! :eyebrows:

It's the same with his recent CD shenanigans... I guess it's only natural to want something better when you hear it, and this often happens when Steve visits me. If his mates had shite hi-fi systems I suppose it would save Steve a lot of money! :lol:

Marco.

Fair enough. My mates think I'm mad to have spent as much as I have on a 'mere' hifi system (and they don't know how much some of the 'invisible' stuff cost). I've no doubt my system could be bettered, but what's really needed chez moi ahead of any box-swapping is a re-organisation of the listening room furniture and general tidy-up of the cabling, and that at least should be a cost-free upgrade!

Steve Toy
26-07-2008, 10:31
Iain, perhaps you would like to post some pics, notably of your setup/cable dressing. Either of us may be able to help, it's what we do. The worst thing that can happen is that it is already optimised.

Marco
26-07-2008, 10:32
Iain,

Yep, I guess it depends if your mates are into hi-fi or not. Most of the ones I see regularly are, so we're always doing comparisons between our kit and telling each other about what new discoveries we've made, and this includes new music too, incidentally - it's not all about hi-fi. That's why events such as the forthcoming Chester fest are so good. Why not come along? I think you'd find it an enlightening experience. What part of the country are you in?

Listening to what's good certainly keeps me on my toes as far as my system is concerned, and in the end it's all good fun :)

With hi-fi I like to constantly learn and evolve; that doesn't mean box-swapping (I rarely change gear) but simply keeping informed of what's new and interesting. However only if something is *really* good and represents excellent sound-per-pound value does it make it into my own system.

Sadly, in terms of out-and-out sound quality, most modern gear, to my ears, doesn't cut it and it's the old technology which seems to deliver most on performance, which is why I run the type of system I've got. I'm not interested in convenience or being fashionable and having the latest new 'gadgets' - all that matters is what makes music sound its best.

Talking of valve amps, are you sticking with your BP or was your wavering towards solid-state more than a temporary blip?


I've no doubt my system could be bettered, but what's really needed chez moi ahead of any box-swapping is a re-organisation of the listening room furniture and general tidy-up of the cabling, and that at least should be a cost-free upgrade!


You've got a very good system, actually, particularly your T/T, and better than many people will have. Room treatments are always worthwhile though so do as much in that respect as you can. As for cable 'dressing', that's usually always a good thing to do, and in my experience often results in improved sound quality. Like Steve says, post some pics, and if there's anything needing sorted we'll offer our advice.

Marco.

Iain Sinclair
26-07-2008, 12:26
Thanks for the comments, both.

The cabling is as far from 'optimised' as possible; indeed the challenge would be to make it any worse! It's mostly bundled out of sight behind the equipment stand. After the temporary 'wobble' I'm definitely keeping the Border Patrol, but it's going to get a check-over and possible re-valve over the summer, which will give me a chance to get at the cables and sort them out (the BP weighs a ton and I move it as little as possible!)

Can't make the Chesterfest as it's my younger daughter's birthday that weekend, but thanks for the invite.

tfarney
26-07-2008, 19:39
Sadly, in terms of out-and-out sound quality, most modern gear, to my ears, doesn't cut it and it's the old technology which seems to deliver most on performance, which is why I run the type of system I've got. I'm not interested in convenience or being fashionable and having the latest new 'gadgets' - all that matters is what makes music sound its best.

We must not be running on the same hip cycle as the UK. Over here, there is absolutley nothing in hifi more fashionable than valves. Well, unless it is vinyl.

Tim

Marco
26-07-2008, 20:10
Tim, it's pretty much the same here in the UK. There have never been as many decent affordable T/Ts, phono stages and valve amps on the market as there is now.

But computer audio is also a hot topic, and without doubt it has much to offer when done well.

I'm just slightly dismayed (although pleased because I own one) that near 20-year old DAC technology in the shape of a Sony DAS-R1 is so comprehensively better than some of the best of what today's technology has to offer. I am of course referring to my recent session at Steve's, and his Bel Canto CDP.

The Bel Canto though is far from alone. I'm quite sure the same would have happened with the built-in DAC on any modern CD player at pretty much any price. In the quest for 'perfect' measurements we seem to have lost the plot, musically, which is where it really matters.

The question I would ask is if modern DAC chips sound so broken in comparison to the venerable old TDA 1541, what hope is there for computer audio and downloading when so much of what is heard relies on the DAC? The high resolution formats may be the answer but until this becomes more mainstream people are relying on ‘ordinary’ modern DACs to do the job when streaming music files from their computer, and patently these fall way short in terms of performance compared to NOS DACs such as the Sony.

I'm going to be writing a separate thread on this very issue and challenging anyone, anywhere in the UK, to give me some hope for the future and let me hear a modern DAC that outperforms the Sony. I will travel anywhere in the UK to hear it and will report on each listening session on the forum. I will even offer a 'prize' of £100 to anyone who demonstrates to me a DAC that's superior! It doesn't matter what it costs - £50 or £50,000.

There must be something out there which is better. I want to find it - quite simply to prove that we haven't spent more time going backwards than forwards for the last 20 years...

Look out for 'Marco's UK DAC challenge' soon!! :)

Marco.

purite audio
26-07-2008, 20:30
Marco next time you are in town you must pop in and bring the Sony ,we can compare it to a few modern DACS including my favourite the Stahl-Tek, I shan't take your money.

Marco
26-07-2008, 20:36
LOL! :)

We must arrange this then Keith. The money's yours if whatever you've got wins. I just want to hear something that's better to prove the future of digital audio isn't doomed!

How much does the Stahl-Tek retail for?

Marco.

purite audio
26-07-2008, 21:14
Marco I couldn't take any money don't be daft, like you I am always keen to listen to something exceptional, I suppose I have listened to about 20-25 contemporary players ( and a few older ones ) in my own search for the ultimate DAC, I believe the Stahl is better than wnything else I have heard here , the really expensive nos dacs haven't fared so well the AMR and Audio Note UK DAC 5 were both very dull, the majority of machines sound pretty similar imho.
The Vekian is $15k, so not cheap.

Marco
26-07-2008, 21:17
I'm up for it Keith and I'm sure it will be fun :)

I'm due in London in September so perhaps we can organise something then?

$15k? That's fairly juicy... But nevertheless it will be interesting!

Marco.

purite audio
26-07-2008, 21:27
Yes why not, it would be great to meet, re the price it is a great deal of money and to be frank, diminishing returns kicks in very hard ,but it has the greatest resolution of any dac I have heard, the sustain on a high hat or the weight of a piano is just more 'real' , I am in Milan over the weekend of the 21st, but before or after would be fine,Keith.

RobHolt
26-07-2008, 22:05
My plan is to get a DAC of some description, either the DAC3 by Belcanto or a Sony DAS R1 if I can find one for reasonable money (or at all). I think the Bel Canto DAC is more likely. The pre could come from either Glenn Croft, Anthony or possibly elsewhere. An offboard PSU for the pre and a matching one for the Bel Canto transport that runs off 12 volts DC, would also be desirable.


Steve,

Try a Cambridge 840C on 30 day trial.
£750 and you get a fine sounding CD player with a pair of coax/optical inputs that will give you 24/384 resolution.
Means a trip to Richer but be brave- you can do it ;)
I think you'll be surprised.

Marco
26-07-2008, 22:43
Keith,

We'll definitely sort something out. PM me your contact details and I'll be in touch!

Rob,

Out of interest, what DAC is used in the 840C? Is it a Wolfson, or suchlike, with some kind of upsampling nonsense? Sorry, I'm not a fan of upsampling. I'm sure the 840C is a fine player though for the money. I do rate Cambridge gear, in the appropriate context.

I sincerely hope Steve tries your recommendation, and when he gets it, if the 840C outperforms the DAS-R1 I'll not only give you £100, but also £1000 to the charity of your choice and eat my underpants!!

;)

Marco.

RobHolt
26-07-2008, 23:47
The 840C uses dual differential Analog Devices AD1955 DACs and the entire machine topology is balanced right through to the XLRs.
Up-samplng is at 384khz and the software is not unlike that used by DCS.
Then there are the 20+ separately regulated power lines and jitter that's down at the limits of measurability....
Don't judge it by the price tag, unless you like the taste of underpants ;)

One of the problems in many digital players is the need for steep filtering on the output. In the 840, up-sampling pushes noise far away from the audio band so that only very gentle Bessel filters are needed.

I don't think up-sampling is the problem, more the implementation.

tfarney
27-07-2008, 00:06
'm just slightly dismayed (although pleased because I own one) that near 20-year old DAC technology in the shape of a Sony DAS-R1 is so comprehensively better than some of the best of what today's technology has to offer. I am of course referring to my recent session at Steve's, and his Bel Canto CDP.

The Bel Canto though is far from alone. I'm quite sure the same would have happened with the built-in DAC on any modern CD player at pretty much any price. In the quest for 'perfect' measurements we seem to have lost the plot, musically, which is where it really matters.


But Marco, hifi has always pursued the numbers, the measurements, because everything else is subjective. I mean surely you understand that, as much as you love your beloved vintage Sony, it's superiority is a matter of opinion? One listener's warmth is another's mud, one's smooth and liquid is another's lack of detail, one's bright is another's clear. And that's just among audiophiles, a sample so small as to be nearly immeasurable. The rest of the world of music lovers are listening along to their midfi, totally unaware of the fact that it is utterly unacceptable, lost in the jab of Coltrane's sax, the lilt of Emmylou's voice, sting of Knopfler's Stratocaster. They're too busy to care about our little audiophillic obsessions, and if you're going to pay 200 pounds every time one of them doesn't hear the superiority of your DAC, you'll be a very poor man. If you're only going to pay 200 pounds when, in your own opinion, the old Sony has been trumped, well, ok. I guess that's a pretty safe bet.

Tim

Steve Toy
27-07-2008, 04:46
But Marco, hifi has always pursued the numbers, the measurements, because everything else is subjective.


This is true but don't be too hasty in dismissing subjective judgements. I've found that if you take a number of people in a room witnessing changes to a system, its components and the way it is set up, whilst individuals may disagree as to which they prefer, they rarely disagree on what they actually hear.

Better hi-fi is usually about more information being extracted from the disc, i.e: deriving more insight into recordings. For one DAC to be better than another, we are talking more information retrieval not how subjectively pleasant the artifice of reproduction may be.

Togil
27-07-2008, 07:03
I found most of the 1980s CD players pretty dire when it comes to opera especially sopranos were unlistenable ( ie sharp sounding ) including the Sony 555

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 09:28
I found most of the 1980s CD players pretty dire when it comes to opera especially sopranos were unlistenable ( ie sharp sounding ) including the Sony 555

This was certainly true IMO of the budget end of Sony's CD players. About the only bearable CDPs back then were Meridian (at a high price) and Arcam.

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 09:32
This is true but don't be too hasty in dismissing subjective judgements. I've found that if you take a number of people in a room witnessing changes to a system, its components and the way it is set up, whilst individuals may disagree as to which they prefer, they rarely disagree on what they actually hear.

Better hi-fi is usually about more information being extracted from the disc, i.e: deriving more insight into recordings. For one DAC to be better than another, we are talking more information retrieval not how subjectively pleasant the artifice of reproduction may be.

The criterion Marco has stated for the prize is that the alternative DAC must be 'superior' to the Sony. Surely the only fair/unbiased way of judging that is for a voting panel to do a 'blind' A/B test, giving each DAC marks out of ten?

purite audio
27-07-2008, 09:38
Isn't it immediately apparent when one piece of equipment is superior?

Marco
27-07-2008, 10:54
Keith and Steve are spot on.

Iain,

It's normally blatantly obvious when one piece of kit is superior to another. I'm not talking subtle differences here. When I took the Sony DAC round to Steve's and compared it to the one in the Bel Canto the difference was so huge I can assure you no blind A/B test was needed!

I'm also sure you didn't need a blind A/B test to decide that your Border Patrol or Roksan was superior to whatever you had before it ;)

Sometimes things are just so obviously much better that no debate or further testing is required.

However, picking up on Steve's point, I want to stress exactly what I'm getting at with the DAS-R1. I don't use it because its sound is somehow tailored to suit my individual preferences - I use it because is simply extracts more musical information from the disc and presents music in a more natural and believable way than so far any DAC I have ever heard or used.

I've taken it along to use in umpteen different systems belonging to other people (very good systems I would hasten to add) and every time it's been a no-brainer upgrade to what was being used, and most were modern DACs. That's why I'm keen to find something out there that's better than the DAS-R1 (outside of the new high resolution units such as Tony C mentions) to prove if any genuine progress has been made in the audio performance of DAC chips in the last 20 years compared to the venerable Philips TDA 1541.

Now let me qualify that to make myself absolutely clear - of course there are plenty of examples of inferior CDPs from the 80s and 90s (such as Hans has mentioned) and many of today's players easily outperform those machines, so in that sense there has been progress. What I'm getting at is when comparing THE BEST CDPs and DACs of late 80s/early 90s (such as the DAS-R1) to THE BEST (in any affordable sense) of what's available today, the latter so far in my experience falls way short in performance to the former. *That* is the key difference.

And, Rob, I'm sorry but I've yet to hear an upsampling player where the process of upsampling doesn't manifest itself on the music in an extremely negative and artificial way. And doesn't the 840C also use a DVD ROM? Again, in my experience, such mechanisms sound vastly inferior to dedicated high quality CD-only ROMs when playing CD. Nope, for me, to hear CD at its best requires a proper Red Book transport and DAC where minimal pissing around with the signal has taken place.

However, if you're up for the challenge (and you can only win out of it) I will gladly bring my DAS-R1 round to compare with your Cambridge, and if the Cambridge is better, despite all that I've said, my wallet will be £100 lighter and my arse somewhat colder (with possibly some indigestion, too) after eating my underpants :lolsign:

Let the DAC search begin!!

Marco.

alb
27-07-2008, 11:04
Might be worth searching for some edible underpants as well.:)

Marco
27-07-2008, 11:09
LOL. True. Perhaps I'll need them at Chester? :eyebrows:

I could well do, actually, because I was very impressed with your DAC at Owston, which I'm sure you'll have tweaked since then, and Tony (Moore) will be bringing his excellent looking TDA 1541-based creation, so very good advice, Al! :lol:

Marco.

tfarney
27-07-2008, 11:35
This is true but don't be too hasty in dismissing subjective judgements.

I'm not. I would propose that the subjective judgments are, in fact, what matters.


I've found that if you take a number of people in a room witnessing changes to a system, its components and the way it is set up, whilst individuals may disagree as to which they prefer, they rarely disagree on what they actually hear.

I can't say I've ever put a number of people in a room to witness changes in a system, but I don't doubt this at all.


Better hi-fi is usually about more information being extracted from the disc, i.e: deriving more insight into recordings. For one DAC to be better than another, we are talking more information retrieval not how subjectively pleasant the artifice of reproduction may be.

Objectively, I agree. The depth and accuracy of information retrieval is probably the only way more than a couple of people can judge a piece of gear to be "superior." In practice, I completely disagree. I have no doubt that the pleasure most individuals derive from listening have more to do with subjective variables than with information retrevial, and I suspect that the big differences between most competent, modern DACs has to do with the artifice of reproduction.


Isn't it immediately apparent when one piece of equipment is superior?

Hardly. And when it is apparent that one piece of equipment is dramatically different from another, which is superior is often a matter of opinion.

Sorry to be the devil's advocate here, and don't get me wrong - Marco's pursuit of a modern DAC that satisfies him as much as his old Sony is a good thing, but I think the objective of declaring something "superior" is futile. And I think the only criteria for superiority that will be valid is "information retrieval" and the only way to objectively judge it is through measurement (is there a scope that measures detail?) and ABX testing (because who cares that you can measure it if a proper sample of people can't reliably hear it?).

A quest to find aural satisfaction? Fun and worthwhile.

A challenge? Silly and futile.

Tim

Steve Toy
27-07-2008, 11:54
No measuring equipment can yet assess detail for the human ear is still the most sensitive and critical difference detecting apparatus available. Unfortunately the ear can only make unquantifiable formative assessments.

The available summative assessment methods available are somewhat crude and uninformative.

purite audio
27-07-2008, 12:08
Tim I agree with you, the only criteria I use is resolution, but it is blatantly obvious when a high hat say, sounds more real from one player to the next.

Marco
27-07-2008, 12:09
Tim,

I understand what you're saying, but you're getting far too 'heavy'.

The fact is there are times in hi-fi when a piece of equipment is in a no-brainer, no question, type of way better.

At a hi-fi meeting in the UK earlier this year (Owston) I took the Sony along and demonstrated it to over fifty people (all hardened D.I.Y-ers with discerning ears) and compared it to their own designs and also a number of well-respected commercial ones, and to a man all preferred the Sony, and that was without the requirement of one single blind test ;)

I'm confident that the same result would have occurred had there been ten times or whatever as many people in the room simply because it just wasn't difficult to hear the difference.

Do you have to road test a Mini and a Bentley to ascertain which is superior in terms of engine performance and overall quality? Or watch the World Cup Champions play football (sorry 'soccer') to *know* that they are more talented than an amateur 'pub' side? No, because there are things in life which *are* just simply better and there is no question or dispute about it.

And it is precisely this conclusion people (so far) reach when hearing the DAS-R1.

So, please, someone somewhere let me hear a modern DAC that beats it!

That is what this challenge is all about. It's a beneficial situation for me (apart from perhaps the chance of losing a few quid) because if I don't hear something better then I know just how good the DAS-R1 is, and if I do, I simply buy whatever it is that's superior and end up with an even better system - almost a win-win :)

Marco.

purite audio
27-07-2008, 12:21
You may find that you simply can't justify the cost to improve upon the performance of your Sony ! That the money spent would bring far greater benefits elsewhere! Speakers for example.

RobHolt
27-07-2008, 12:22
Isn't it immediately apparent when one piece of equipment is superior?

Not IME.

It should be, but too many things cloud the picture - bias, politics, purchase justification etc. You need to be absolutely sure of your ability to cut through all that or listen under blind conditions.

RobHolt
27-07-2008, 12:31
And, Rob, I'm sorry but I've yet to hear an upsampling player where the process of upsampling doesn't manifest itself on the music in an extremely negative and artificial way. And doesn't the 840C also use a DVD ROM? Again, in my experience, such mechanisms sound vastly inferior to dedicated high quality CD-only ROMs when playing CD. Nope, for me, to hear CD at its best requires a proper Red Book transport and DAC where minimal pissing around with the signal has taken place.



Again not IME, so I simply say 'try one'.

The cheaper £250 640 was able to match the performance of the Meridian 206 (16 bit original version with CDM4) that I have and also a fully tricked-out Naim CDX - to the ears of all three present.

purite audio
27-07-2008, 12:34
I take your point, I just leave gear with potential customers, I would never try to influence them , as a 'punter' I suffered far too much of that crap, so hopefully that would remove purchase justification, often there are differences in presentation but i wouldn't consdier that an improvement, politics hmmmm!

Marco
27-07-2008, 12:47
Tim I agree with you, the only criteria I use is resolution, but it is blatantly obvious when a high hat say, sounds more real from one player to the next.

Mmm... I don't think it's all about out-and-out resolution, Keith. If it was just about that then I would automatically prefer SACD to CD, and I don't. SACD has unquestionably higher resolution but to my ears sounds very 'hi-fi' like and artificial, whereas Red Book CD done well sounds more 'organic' and 'real', and ultimately more musical to my ears.

The TDA 1541 chip is after all only 16-bit, so if it was simply a question of resolution, why does it seem to make better music than today's 24-bit chips?

Therefore I'm certain there's more to the design of a good DAC or CD player than simply resolution alone. I think the key is in the implementation of whatever chips are used.

Marco.

Marco
27-07-2008, 13:02
It should be, but too many things cloud the picture - bias, politics, purchase justification etc. You need to be absolutely sure of your ability to cut through all that or listen under blind conditions.


You're right, but fortunately the people I know who have listened to the DAS-R1 are completely unburdened by such nonsense - they simply tell it as they hear it.


Again not IME, so I simply say 'try one'.


Why not take up my challenge so you can learn, too? Personally I would like a witness to hear the difference, especially someone whom I don't know. The result, if in favour of the Sony, would be expressed with less bias by you than me doing it and then waxing lyrical about how much better the Sony was. That's presuming of course you could be utterly honest in your appraisal ;)


The cheaper £250 640 was able to match the performance of the Meridian 206 (16 bit original version with CDM4) that I have and also a fully tricked-out Naim CDX - to the ears of all three present.


I don't doubt that whatsoever. However, does the Meridian use TDA 1541s? This is what I reckon brings the magic to the party (when properly implemented in a top-notch design) - and that last bit's very important. As for the CDX, I've owned one in the past (it's not in the same league as the Sony) and also a £6500 CDS2, which the Sony replaced. Why do you think that happened? Well, the Sony wouldn't have replaced it if it was worse, that's for sure :eyebrows:

Also, regarding Naim players, ever wondered why some people prefer the old CDS to either the CDS2 or even the CDS3? The original CDS used TDA 1541s...

Marco.

Ali Tait
27-07-2008, 13:29
Marco,you may be surpised at Nick's DAC.It's something quite special.See what you think at Chester.

Steve Toy
27-07-2008, 13:30
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/6901/bakeoff0708039ph7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Bel Canto CD2 into the DAS R1 and Croft Charisma hotrodded pre with offboard PSU (not shown in this pic) into the Yaqin and Heco Celan 500s.


http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/4069/bakeoff0708038yq0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Croft with its offboard PSU on a Quadraspire Reference table.


http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1286/bakeoff0708034rk5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sony 777 ES used as a transport, DAS R1, Croft pre, TD/AOS Class A valve power amp.


http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/9664/bakeoff0708044mx6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Croft's intestines.

Marco
27-07-2008, 14:31
Look's great, Steve! Many thanks for that - visual aids serve to add more realism to the reading experience :)

Ali,

I don't doubt it. I got a brief listen to Nick's DAC last time I was at his place, and I'm sure he's refined it further since then.

I've also read your excellent report of your mini bake-off with the SP10, etc. I will comment later. Chester is certainly shaping up to be a great occasion :smoking:

Right, girls, I'm off to have a long and boozy lunch in the garden... I believe it is honey-roasted Gressingham duck in a plum, apricot, and Star-Anise jus, flamed with Saki, and served with Singapore chilli noodles (yum!), washed down with some chilled Chablis.

Much later! :cheers:

Marco.

tfarney
27-07-2008, 14:50
Tim I agree with you, the only criteria I use is resolution, but it is blatantly obvious when a high hat say, sounds more real from one player to the next.

Only when one is blatantly bad. I've stood on stage with high hats hundreds of times, in studios with them dozens of times. I know what they sound like. I've listened to playback of high hats, and all manner of pop music-making instruments, on highly-resolving studio monitoring systems and heard the same recordings, through an otherwise unchanged system, after an electronic component is switched, or physically changed in and out. Can a difference be heard? Of course. But blatantly, objectively obvious? Only if something is wrong or the resolution gap between the components is exceptionally wide (ie: one of them is crap).

If Marco's 80s Sony DAC is that superior - in resolution, not the tone of the analog output stage - to even expensive audiophile DACs of current manufacture, that would be remarkable. Very remarkable. And please, excuse my skepticism, because I mean no offense, but I could only believe it if it proved to be so in a series of ABX tests with studio pros who listen to resolution for a living, who are professionally trained, through many hours, to hear detail past tone. There is far too much psychology involved otherwise.

Think about it logically for a minute, and please understand that I'm not saying Marco's Sony doesn't sound great, or that it is wrong to prefer it -- but we're saying here that an early DAC, retrieves so much more detail from a recording than high end DACs benefiting from another two decades of the development and refinement of digital audio technology that it is immediately obvious, that it is not a matter of tone or preference, but that the 20 year-old DAC blatantly out-performs the best modern models at converting the data to voltage.

I've got no skin in this game. I'm the midfi guy in this crowd who will never put $1000 into a DAC. But really, what are the odds?

Tim

RobHolt
27-07-2008, 14:55
Why not take up my challenge so you can learn, too? Personally I would like a witness to hear the difference, especially someone whom I don't know. The result, if in favour of the Sony, would be expressed with less bias by you than me doing it and then waxing lyrical about how much better the Sony was. That's presuming of course you could be utterly honest in your appraisal ;)




Such a comparison could be useful, perhaps on a wider scale with several different machines used, but only under blind conditions. I'm done with meaningless box swapping at bake-offs.

A simple comparison of the red book player v non red book won't be useful IMO because you are already predisposed to not liking up-sampling, DVD rom drives and have certain expectations of what a £750 player can do.

No one can take all that and place it to one side, however well intentioned.

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 15:14
Sorry to be the devil's advocate here, and don't get me wrong - Marco's pursuit of a modern DAC that satisfies him as much as his old Sony is a good thing, but I think the objective of declaring something "superior" is futile.

Indeed. Is lamb 'superior' to beef? Is red wine 'superior' to white wine? Is Beethoven 'superior' to Bach? And does it really matter?

Marco used the Bentley/Mini comparison, but what about cars in broadly the same price range? One might be better in terms of handling, another might be more economical with fuel, another might have more comprehensive safety features. The decision on which is 'best' or 'superior' is less clear-cut than in judging between a luxury car and something more basic, and you would need a 'Which' type report for anything approaching an independent judgment.

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 15:21
Keith and Steve are spot on.

Iain,

It's normally blatantly obvious when one piece of kit is superior to another. I'm not talking subtle differences here. When I took the Sony DAC round to Steve's and compared it to the one in the Bel Canto the difference was so huge I can assure you no blind A/B test was needed!

I'm also sure you didn't need a blind A/B test to decide that your Border Patrol or Roksan was superior to whatever you had before it ;).

The Roksan was interesting. I A/B'd it against an LP12, or rather, I went to audition the LP12 and the dealer suggested I also have a listen to the then newly-launched Roksan, which I'd never heard of. To me, it was night and day; the Roksan was far better than my then turntable (AR Classic) and it also easily bettered the Linn. But I know plenty of people whose preference is for the Linn and who think the Roksan sounds 'wrong'.

The BP I bought on a whim, because it was a very good price and I knew I could sell it on if need be. I was truly amazed at how good it was, and have never heard anything to approach it, even at double the list price.

purite audio
27-07-2008, 16:44
BP is Border Patrol?

tfarney
27-07-2008, 17:50
Just one more point: I will agree, without the slightest doubt, no test required, to the superiority of Marco's lunch. I had a grilled hamburger, no booze. Good tone, but lacking in detail.

Tim

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 21:17
Just one more point: I will agree, without the slightest doubt, no test required, to the superiority of Marco's lunch. I had a grilled hamburger, no booze. Good tone, but lacking in detail.

Tim

I had a ham sandwich; the culinary equivalent of a micro-system.

Iain Sinclair
27-07-2008, 21:17
BP is Border Patrol?

It is.

purite audio
27-07-2008, 22:01
Can they be configured as mono's?

Marco
27-07-2008, 22:04
Tim,


If Marco's 80s Sony DAC is that superior - in resolution, not the tone of the analog output stage - to even expensive audiophile DACs of current manufacture, that would be remarkable. Very remarkable.


That's precisely what I'm hearing so far with the current manufacture DACs I've been comparing it to. Tone is one thing, and it is superior to my ears in that area, but the magnitude and significance of the difference between the Sony and the rest is much more fundamental than that.


And please, excuse my skepticism, because I mean no offense, but I could only believe it if it proved to be so in a series of ABX tests with studio pros who listen to resolution for a living, who are professionally trained, through many hours, to hear detail past tone. There is far too much psychology involved otherwise.


No offence taken whatsoever. I'm enjoying your contributions, Tim, but don't presume that "studio pros" know what constitutes as a superior sound more than anyone on this forum, or elsewhere. My experience of people in the professional sector tells me that some of them wouldn't know a good sound if it jumped up and bit them on the bum! There are others who have excellent ears but they're not necessarily in the majority.

Like I said before, the fact is if a piece of hi-fi equipment sounds superior to such a degree that it is as obvious in the same way it is obvious that a Bentley is superior to a Mini then you don't need 'trained ears' or to be a "studio pro" to hear it. That's the situation I've experienced so far with the DAS-R1.


Think about it logically for a minute, and please understand that I'm not saying Marco's Sony doesn't sound great, or that it is wrong to prefer it -- but we're saying here that an early DAC, retrieves so much more detail from a recording than high end DACs benefiting from another two decades of the development and refinement of digital audio technology that it is immediately obvious, that it is not a matter of tone or preference, but that the 20 year-old DAC blatantly out-performs the best modern models at converting the data to voltage.


Ok, a few points. First of all, what needs to be made absolutely clear is that the Sony, unmodified, may well be 20 year old technology, but remember mine has been extensively upgraded by Audiocom International to the tune of around £800, with PSUs, clocking, caps, op-amps, and all manner of component upgrades having been carried out, replacing the standard and inferior obsolete items from the 80s. Therefore my DAS-R1 combines the best of old and new technology - *THAT* is why it sounds so exceptionally good! The modifications must be factored into the equation.

The best of the old technology is the TDA1541 single crown DAC chips, and it is those which are in my opinion special and sonically superior to their modern counterparts. Therefore, Tim, it's important to remember that the 20 year old technology which I'm referring to as superior is simply the TDA1541s, not the whole DAC unit itself.

Secondly, as far as finding it difficult to believe that 20 year old DAC chips could be superior to those with "two decades of the development and refinement of digital audio technology", I would ask you this:

How much do you think audiophiles have been conditioned, through marketing and other means over the years, to automatically believe that 'the latest and greatest' is best? Pick up any hi-fi magazine and that's precisely what you are told - that 'Model Z' such and such has been 'upgraded' by the manufacturer to new super-duper status 'Model Z Signature' and yes you better believe that it's better!!

I can assure you that in many instances that's not the case - it's simply that a key component used by a hi-fi manufacturer in the design of their products has been discontinued at source by one of the major worldwide audio component manufacturers such as Philips, Pacific Microsonics, or whatever, because they've found something cheaper to use.

Therefore an urgent rethink is needed by said hi-fi manufacturer, and so other components are selected which are often sonically inferior but which can with judicious tweaking to other parts of the circuit of the CD player, amp, or whatever, by the manufacturer make the equipment in question appear sonically superior to those who don't possess the experience to know differently. And here's the rub: when this cycle is repeated often enough over the years it leads to the situation that the latest and greatest in hi-fi often is anything but!

It's a scary thought perhaps, but I can assure you there's more than a hint of truth in what I'm saying. The sad fact is so many hi-fi manufacturers today have lost their way and gone off on a tangent.

That's why so often classic gear outperforms a lot of modern equipment simply because it was 'right' in the first place, and that includes gear like the Sony DAS-R1.

Marco.

Marco
27-07-2008, 22:38
Indeed. Is lamb 'superior' to beef? Is red wine 'superior' to white wine? Is Beethoven 'superior' to Bach? And does it really matter?

Marco used the Bentley/Mini comparison, but what about cars in broadly the same price range?


LOL. None of the above is relevant to the point I was making.

Iain,

The whole point of me making that comparison was to underline the fact that in life there are things which are beyond question better than something else, such as the fact that a Bentley is superior to a Mini in terms of engine performance and overall quality, and you don't need to road test them both to know that.

If I had used a different example using cars in broadly the same price range then the point I was making wouldn't have been as effective.

Marco.

Marco
27-07-2008, 22:57
Such a comparison could be useful, perhaps on a wider scale with several different machines used, but only under blind conditions. I'm done with meaningless box swapping at bake-offs.


I'm up for that. We can do it blind if you wish, but I'm confident that the difference will be apparent enough not to warrant such attention to detail ;)


A simple comparison of the red book player v non red book won't be useful IMO because you are already predisposed to not liking up-sampling, DVD rom drives and have certain expectations of what a £750 player can do.


You might be surprised at how easily I can dispense with such 'predispositions'. In these tests I simply judge which player gets the test music more right than the other, and perhaps also tonal presentation.

Neither of us are novices, Rob, both of us have experienced ears and as such I'm confident that if we're both honest with each other (which I would hope would be the case) that it would be immediately obvious which player (or DAC) was superior, 'predispositions' or
not.

So where and when should this event take place? :)

Marco.

gary
27-07-2008, 23:31
May be a stupid question but doesn't it also depend on the rest of the system too.

I have done ABX tests in the past and on one system player A was a clear winner yet on a different system player B was. If player A only sounds better on first system but not on the next one is it really a subjective test.

Unless of course player A consistantly sounds better on every system in which case where can I get one.

Gary

Marco
27-07-2008, 23:36
Gary, tut tut, you've not been reading the thread properly ;)


Unless of course player A consistantly sounds better on every system in which case where can I get one.


That's exactly what's happening (and has happened) with the DAS-R1. Read back again and you'll see that its been tested in umpteen different systems.

Marco.

gary
27-07-2008, 23:40
Ok Marco back to second question where can I get one LOL

gary
27-07-2008, 23:46
How does it compare to the likes of naims cds3

Marco
27-07-2008, 23:54
LOL. Borrow one from Boydie and we'll do a comparison!

The CDS3 is a fine CD player, and to be honest I don't judge Naim CDPs, or Naim anything, out with of the context it was designed to be used in. Experience tells me that you're unlikely to hear it at its best any other way.

Marco.

tfarney
28-07-2008, 00:07
May be a stupid question but doesn't it also depend on the rest of the system too.

I have done ABX tests in the past and on one system player A was a clear winner yet on a different system player B was. If player A only sounds better on first system but not on the next one is it really a subjective test.

Unless of course player A consistantly sounds better on every system in which case where can I get one.

Gary

I think that's true if your listening for tone. Synergy can make a huge difference. But if you're listening for the resolution of detail in the digital to analog conversion process (which is really the only objective thing to listen for), the more resolving system, regardless of tone signature, would be the best test for any DAC or player.

Tim

gary
28-07-2008, 00:14
My brother has cds3 hence the question its IMO a really good machine but if what you are saying is that your sony x777es/das-r1 dac are as good or better they must be really good indead.

Marco
28-07-2008, 00:24
Gary,

It's been a long time since I've heard a CDS3 so it would be unfair of me to say that the Sony is unquestionably better without doing a proper comparison.

You see, that's the thing with me - I only make statements on hi-fi based on direct (and recent) practical experience. I don't just waffle for the sake of scoring points or whatever, that's when you lose any credibility.

This DAC challenge is not an ego trip (I know you're not accusing me of that though); it's to obtain genuine information about where DAC technology has progressed in the last 20 years or so, and expose areas where I feel things have gone backwards.

Marco.

gary
28-07-2008, 00:25
Hi Tim

I agree however trying to listen for detail in a system that has overpowering bass can be difficult for example as I was talking about cds3 above which is great player amazing at digging out detail in right system but when pluged into a different system in this case the bass overpowered everything else and it sounded dreadfull I would geuss that the same goes for any hifi component

Gary

gary
28-07-2008, 00:34
Hi Marco

I am genuinely interested in your findings on this one Marco, will read with interest. My brother may bring his cdp down on Sat I can only ask so I will let you know, was also wondering if dac is better suited to valve amps rather than ss that seems to be what a lot of you guys are listening to.

tfarney
28-07-2008, 02:57
Hi Tim

I agree however trying to listen for detail in a system that has overpowering bass can be difficult for example as I was talking about cds3 above which is great player amazing at digging out detail in right system but when pluged into a different system in this case the bass overpowered everything else and it sounded dreadfull I would geuss that the same goes for any hifi component

Gary

I see what you mean, Gary. In an extreme case, yes, I'm sure it could be hard to listen for detail.

Tim

tfarney
28-07-2008, 03:30
No offence taken whatsoever. I'm enjoying your contributions, Tim, but don't presume that "studio pros" know what constitutes as a superior sound more than anyone on this forum, or elsewhere. My experience of people in the professional sector tells me that some of them wouldn't know a good sound if it jumped up and bit them on the bum! There are others who have excellent ears but they're not necessarily in the majority.

I've known too many studio pros to assume that they all know what constitutes "superior sound." I am assuming, however, that the mixing and mastering professional has spent many, many work hours listening to the smallest details of recordings, which is precisely the skill that would be required to make anything approaching an objective listening test of digital to analog conversion. I would grant you that many of them, while being very skilled at listening in to the fine details of a recording, then have the poor taste to render it all but unlistenable in mastering. But that's the subjective "tone" thing.


but remember mine has been extensively upgraded by Audiocom International to the tune of around £800, with PSUs, clocking, caps, op-amps, and all manner of component upgrades having been carried out, replacing the standard and inferior obsolete items from the 80s. Therefore my DAS-R1 combines the best of old and new technology - *THAT* is why it sounds so exceptionally good! The modifications must be factored into the equation.

The best of the old technology is the TDA1541 single crown DAC chips,


I'm sure it sounds fabulous, but all of the above, with the exception of the clock, constitutes tweaks of the analog sections of your DAC. The remaining 20-year-old piece is the one that is responsible for the accuracy of the conversion from zeros and ones to volts, and believing in the superiority of its resolution is, as I said before, believing that digital technology has marched backward for 20 years. That, is, I believe, precisely what you expect and want to test. I look forward to your reports. But, and please forgive me, I still think it is quite unlikely and I will probably continue to believe that what you're hearing is the tone of the analog elements of your DAC, not the superiority of the resolution of early digital technology to the best of the third generation (4th? I lose track.).

And I would guess that if you could pull the 20 year old DAC chip out of all of the fabulous upgrades that now surround it, and drop in a perfectly ordinary but competent 16-bit DAC of modern design....it would sound no worse. Probably better. Now that's and ABX test I'd love to see -- your heavily modded Sony as is, vs. your heavily modded Sony with the old Phillips chip replaced by a competent but common Burr-Brown or Cirrus Logic of current vintage!

Tim

Iain Sinclair
28-07-2008, 06:38
Can they be configured as mono's?

Generally speaking, yes, but mine is an early model and I'm not sure if that's possible.

Tony Moore
28-07-2008, 08:44
Hi Tim,


And I would guess that if you could pull the 20 year old DAC chip out of all of the fabulous upgrades that now surround it, and drop in a perfectly ordinary but competent 16-bit DAC of modern design....it would sound no worse. Probably better. Now that's and ABX test I'd love to see -- your heavily modded Sony as is, vs. your heavily modded Sony with the old Phillips chip replaced by a competent but common Burr-Brown or Cirrus Logic of current vintage!


This is a comparison that I would love to hear too! I feel it would be technically too difficult to get anywhere close to this though, as one very useful things about the old TDA1541A is that it ouputs a low level current signal which then requires converting to a voltage and amplifying/buffering. In a lot of DACs this is done "on-chip" which means that you're stuck with whatever the designer thought would satisfy the specs. The TDA allows for a lot of improvement due to the fact that this part of the circuit is external and therefore can be improved upon.

Maybe this is why some 1541 implementations can sound so good and some bog standard 80's implementations can sound so average? The TDA lends itself to some serious tweaking but it must be implemented well. Some modern DAC chips also have external taps into the main parts of the internal circuitry so that superior circuit/components can be implemented but I don't have info to hand just now on which these are.

I do feel that there _is_ a fundamental difference in the presentation when listened to via a NOS multibit DAC against an oversampled bitstream DAC. (IMO) My experience is not wide but I've experimented with modern Cirrus and AKM DACs and the TDA1541A and I know which I prefer! I'm always open to ideas though!

Regards,
Tony

tfarney
28-07-2008, 10:53
Hi Tim,



This is a comparison that I would love to hear too! I feel it would be technically too difficult to get anywhere close to this though, as one very useful things about the old TDA1541A is that it ouputs a low level current signal which then requires converting to a voltage and amplifying/buffering. In a lot of DACs this is done "on-chip" which means that you're stuck with whatever the designer thought would satisfy the specs. The TDA allows for a lot of improvement due to the fact that this part of the circuit is external and therefore can be improved upon.

Maybe this is why some 1541 implementations can sound so good and some bog standard 80's implementations can sound so average? The TDA lends itself to some serious tweaking but it must be implemented well. Some modern DAC chips also have external taps into the main parts of the internal circuitry so that superior circuit/components can be implemented but I don't have info to hand just now on which these are.

I do feel that there _is_ a fundamental difference in the presentation when listened to via a NOS multibit DAC against an oversampled bitstream DAC. (IMO) My experience is not wide but I've experimented with modern Cirrus and AKM DACs and the TDA1541A and I know which I prefer! I'm always open to ideas though!

Regards,
Tony

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I wanted what can't be had. Your story reinforces my suspicion that what Marco is hearing is in the analog components of his DAC, not the TD1541A itself. Of course this could effect resolution as well as just tone, just as better quality components can limit noise and prevent loss of SQ anywhere in a signal chain. But all of the analog magic in the world won't improve the detail coming out of the old chip in the first place, so I still suspect it is tone that he's hearing. Too bad it can't be tested, because I think that's the real question here, not the subjective superiority of one DAC over another.

ON EDIT: One other thing I'd add to the test, to make sure the comparison is valid -- measured volume-matching. I know no one who prides themselves on their critical listening abilities wants to believe this, but even a slight increase in volume, all other things being equal, is almost always perceived as superior sound. In fact, very slight increases are more deceptive because it's not obvious that the volume is what has changed. Both sources need to be run through a preamp that allows you to balance the volumes between sources and then switch back and forth between them without re-cabling or re-setting anything, or you really don't have any valid results.

Tim

Marco
28-07-2008, 11:20
Tim,


I've known too many studio pros to assume that they all know what constitutes "superior sound."


Basically, the people whose ears I respect most belong to those whom I know and trust and there are plenty of discerning ears I would trust well before those of today's "studio pros". Some of the studios I've been in are a complete shambles in terms of equipment set-up, cabling, and all manner of stuff that influences the recording signal, so how some of them could have the remotest idea of what constitutes as a good sound is anyone's guess! ;)

Sadly, some of the dire recordings produced by studios these days confirm all too well the inadequacies of their procedures. So 'golden eared' studio technicians? Forgive me if I laugh :lol:

That's not to say that there aren't some talented people in the professional sector but to automatically give added kudos to "studio pros" in terms of their listening ability without knowing the conditions they're listening in is rather misguided. I'm not saying you're doing that, though.


I am assuming, however, that the mixing and mastering professional has spent many, many work hours listening to the smallest details of recordings, which is precisely the skill that would be required to make anything approaching an objective listening test of digital to analog conversion. I would grant you that many of them, while being very skilled at listening in to the fine details of a recording, then have the poor taste to render it all but unlistenable in mastering.


That's all good and well but if the end result is crap what good is all the skill that's gone before it? The final recording/sound is all that matters. It's the same with the TDA1541 chip: it might not be as 'skilled' (read as having as high resolution) as a Burr Brown, but (based on the results I've heard so far) it sure as hell plays much better music!

What good is measured higher resolution if the final sound fails to engage the listener? *THAT* is the bottom line. If musical information is rendered as 'uninteresting', or worse, unpleasant, by our ears then the equipment has ultimately failed in its purpose regardless of how technically superior or 'accurate' its core components are, unless you subscribe to the idea that the ultimate job of a hi-fi system is for some purpose other than to provide musical satisfaction for the listener. That's why measurements in audio tell us so little because they cannot realistically explain how the ear treats music signals.

The fact is there is plenty of equipment in production which measures almost perfectly but which sounds totally anodyne and boring (AVI gear springs to mind) so quite clearly there is more to hi-fi than measurements and specifications alone, therefore one can't judge DAC chips or anything else using solely that criteria, which brings us back to the phenomenon of the TDA 1541. Based on objective logic it *shouldn't* sound superior to current production DACs which measure better, but that's certainly not what many pairs of discerning ears have concluded when they've heard the DAS-R1. So what's going on then? I aim to find out.


I'm sure it sounds fabulous, but all of the above, with the exception of the clock, constitutes tweaks of the analog sections of your DAC. The remaining 20-year-old piece is the one that is responsible for the accuracy of the conversion from zeros and ones to volts, and believing in the superiority of its resolution is, as I said before, believing that digital technology has marched backward for 20 years.


Well in terms of the audio quality of DAC chips (outside of the 'resolution factor') I think things have gone backwards. And as I've already explained, it's not all about resolution. Tim, you seem to be conditioned to believe that new in audio is automatically better than old. That's a dangerous mindset to have because it's quite simply not always the case.

Valves and vinyl are a case in point. Since you're a resolution freak, I've yet to hear anything in the digital domain that gives the resolution of high quality vinyl replayed through a top-notch turntable, certainly CD doesn't. Perhaps the new high resolution digital downloading formats will be better but for me the jury's still out. And as for valves, they get nearer to making recorded music sound real than any solid-state devices I've heard so far, despite measuring worse.

So perhaps the TDA 1541 chip is the digital equivalent of the valve? ;)


That, is, I believe, precisely what you expect and want to test. I look forward to your reports. But, and please forgive me, I still think it is quite unlikely and I will probably continue to believe that what you're hearing is the tone of the analog elements of your DAC, not the superiority of the resolution of early digital technology to the best of the third generation (4th? I lose track.).


What I want to test is if there is a current production DAC out there which outperforms my DAS-R1. If there isn't then modern DACs are getting it fundamentally wrong from the heart of the design - the DAC chip. So far, many discerning ears have concluded there is nothing to beat the venerable TDA1541, and if that's the case then digital technology (outside of the new computer high resolution domain) has gone backwards more than forwards in the last 20-odd years.


And I would guess that if you could pull the 20 year old DAC chip out of all of the fabulous upgrades that now surround it, and drop in a perfectly ordinary but competent 16-bit DAC of modern design....it would sound no worse. Probably better. Now that's and ABX test I'd love to see -- your heavily modded Sony as is, vs. your heavily modded Sony with the old Phillips chip replaced by a competent but common Burr-Brown or Cirrus Logic of current vintage!


As Tony has pointed out, that wouldn't really be possible.

And what would be the point of removing the TDA1541s and replacing them with Burr Browns, or whatever? That would just make the DAS-R1 the same as any modern high-end DAC, the likes of which I've already listened to and found to be sonically inferior.

It's precisely the TDA1541 chips that give the DAS-R1 its magic and sonic superiority. The rest of the components are merely there to ensure the chips are implemented correctly and to optimise performance or to reduce jitter.

Incidentally, if you Google 'Zanden', a seriously high-end manufacturer, and look at their £50,000 (or so) CDP (transport & DAC combo) you'll see that the DAC uses TDA1541s. Now why do you think they would do that in such a respected modern high-end design if those chips weren't considered (musically) superior to anything else in current production today?

Marco.

Marco
28-07-2008, 11:30
But all of the analog magic in the world won't improve the detail coming out of the old chip in the first place, so I still suspect it is tone that he's hearing. Too bad it can't be tested, because I think that's the real question here, not the subjective superiority of one DAC over another.


LOL. You insist on treating hi-fi equipment like test apparatus instead of as a music-making device!

The world of audio is not 'black and white'.

I know exactly where you're coming from but if I take my DAC to one hundred people's systems and they all prefer the way the Sony makes their music sound then it is by definition 'superior', regardless if the DAC chips it uses measure worse and (apparently) have inferior resolution.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Marco.

Mr. C
28-07-2008, 12:21
I am going to say, things have moved on. if you like the old double crown thats good.
I do not, however there are a few that also don't aspire to own one.
They do not seem to be raming home the message do they??

Marco
28-07-2008, 12:34
Tony,

From that statement I presume that you would consider the DAC in the Bel Canto you sell superior?

I can assure you that's not the case, and Steve will tell you the same thing. If you were there you would have arrived at the same conclusion; unless you allowed retailer bias to cloud your better judgement. Remember the DAS-R1 has been extensively modified with up-to-date components so it is not just merely the "old double crown".

And I'm not 'ramming' anything home other than me explaining the perfectly valid results of a listening test we carried out at Steve's, and attempting to find out why what happened did happen. The issue has been taken into a wider context by Tim (and others) and so I am simply addressing their observations.

Marco.

Mike
28-07-2008, 13:00
Remember the DAS-R1 has been extensively modified with up-to-date components so it is not just merely the "old double crown".

Would the DAS-R1 be quite such a 'world beater' (just an expression) without Audiocom's extensive modifications???

I think a lot of the reason that this old Philip's chip is so popular with the DIY and tweaking fraternity is the fact that so many off-chip shenanigans can be altered, and not necessarily due to the fact that it is a superior digital to analogue conversion tool.

I'm sure this is the point Tim was making.

Marco
28-07-2008, 13:07
Perhaps that's why the D.I.Y-ers like the TDA1541, Mike, but I suspect there's more to it than that, certainly in Tony (Moore's) case.

Yes, the Audiocom mods are very significant (I think that's what Tony C doesn't quite appreciate as he's got no idea what effect those mods have on the perfromance of the TDA1541s or the Sony DAC as a whole) but the core sound of the DAS-R1 comes from the chips themselves. They have to be implemented correctly of course, as I mentioned.

Marco.

Togil
28-07-2008, 14:06
So why do so many of the very high-end players except Zanden not use this chip ( even though many use the old Philips Pro transport ) ?

lurcher
28-07-2008, 14:22
So why do so many of the very high-end players except Zanden not use this chip

I would guess the fact they are not being made anymore is a big part of it.

From what I can see the main reason that one bit DACs are common now is they are cheap and simple to make. R2R ladder dacs like the 1541 were complex to make and needed laser trimming, in theory there should be no difference in the sound between the two types, but I am not sure if theory doesn't seem to match practice. But as said before I don't know if that difference is down to the dac, the style of dac (I have some modern ladder dacs to try out), or the fact that the I/V converter may have more care taken over it. Or just its a better implementation.

None of the above has much to do with what Marco's sounds like, as its got a old DAC but also lots of newish jitter reducing stuff, and better analog parts.

And reducing jitter has a very obvious effect on sound, thats very easy to demonstrate.

Marco
28-07-2008, 14:32
So why do so many of the very high-end players except Zanden not use this chip ( even though many use the old Philips Pro transport ) ?

Hi Hans,

I think Nick has explained it very well. All I would add is that specialist companies such as Zanden will go the extra mile to obtain the best sound possible from their equipment, and this often involves some thinking 'outside of the box', such as using discontinued classic NOS chips.

My view is that the day you start automatically believing that everything shiny and new in audio is best is the day you've taken your eye off the ball and allowed manufactures, dealers, and the hi-fi press to condition your way of thinking.

That is not a world I ever wish to inhabit!

Marco.

tfarney
28-07-2008, 15:23
Marco,

You've got me all wrong, my friend. It's probably the fault of my poor communications skills, but I do not think of audio as measurement tools, nor do I think newer is necessarily better. I do most of my listening from a 35-year-old amp into 10-year-old headphones. It isn't anything even close to the best, and I know that, but I enjoy listening to music on it and that's what important.

Exactly the same applies to your DAC. If it sounds good to you, that's all that matters. If you're interested in discovering whether or not there is something you like better, put a few of the best into your system and send back the losers. Simple enough. But if you're interested in proving that your DAC is superior to all modern DACs, you will need a methodology for collecting untainted data. There really is no alternative, or you have proven nothing to anyone but yourself and a handful of friends, and that objective appears to have already been met. I'm not really questioning your ears or your equipment, Marco. I'm sure both are better than my own. But I'm a bit mystified regarding what you hope to accomplish, and if it is establishing the superiority of one electronic component over a choice of others, I lack confidence in your methodology.

In other words, I don't, and I am not asking you to listen like a scientist, but if you hope to prove anything, I'm suggesting you test like one. Simple ABX testing would be a good start. Enough ABX testing to achieve a statistically significant sample would actually give you quantified data. And if you were to actually go to all that trouble, I'd have to ask why? If you have listened to some of the best modern DACs and your ears prefer the Sony, what else matters? There is no need to prove it to anyone else.

Tim

Marco
28-07-2008, 15:44
Hi Tim,

Good post, and I'm sorry if there has been a misunderstanding. I agree entirely with what you are saying.

My point is basically that such objective methodology isn't needed if I could find enough people (discerning listeners) to hear the DAS-R1 in comparison to what they use then it would go beyond simply being "a group of friends".

Basically what I'm saying is that if I could demonstrate the Sony to tens of thousands of discerning hi-fi enthusiasts, or however many possible (if such a thing were feasible or practical!) then the discerning listeners present would clearly hear the musical superiority of the Sony if the outcome was as clear cut as it was at Steve's because the difference was *THAT* obvious. The difference was black and white - chalk and cheese.

Going back to the Mini/Bentley comparison (I seem to be trying in vain to get people to understand the point) no-one in this world needs to road test both cars to *know* that the Bentley is superior in terms of engine performance and overall quality - therefore no 'proof' or objective testing is needed; it is simply an indisputable fact.

Given that the difference in audio performance between the Sony and any other DAC I've heard so far is as obvious (when you hear it) as the superiority of a Bentley is compared to a Mini then, similarly, once this difference is heard no further objective proof is needed. It simply becomes accepted as fact in the same way as the Bentley's superiority does.

Does that make any sense at all, Tim, or are we still going to be going round and round in circles until we are both 70? :lolsign:

Marco.

tfarney
28-07-2008, 17:03
My point is basically that such objective methodology isn't needed if I could find enough people (discerning listeners) to hear the DAS-R1 in comparison to what they use then it would go beyond simply being "a group of friends".

And my point is that if you are not using scientific methods designed to take all the pre-knowledge, persuasion and psychological factors out of the listening tests, there is no verifiable difference between 100 discerning hifi enthusiasts and just yourself. And there shouldn't be, because if it sounds good it is good. You are absolutely all you need.

I suspect the reason you're having trouble getting your Bently/Mini analogy to stick is because people just aren't buying it. It isn't hard to understand. It is extremely difficult to believe. We're all accustomed to the differences between electronic components, even those of very different design, being pretty subtle. A DAC that creates a massive, undeniable, completely objective upgrade, evenn when compared to something as carefully engineered and expensive as a Bel Canto? I'd love to hear that. But alas, I'm on the wrong side of the pond.

Tim

Marco
28-07-2008, 17:16
A DAC that creates a massive, undeniable, completely objective upgrade, even when compared to something as carefully engineered and expensive as a Bel Canto? I'd love to hear that.


Yes, that's *EXACTLY* what is happening. It's as massive as differences get in hi-fi short of comparing a pair of AVI ADM9s to Tannoy Westminsters. Do you think Steve and I 'imagined' the difference, not to mention the other 50-odd people so far who've also heard it? ;)

That's a rhetorical question, incidentally!


But alas, I'm on the wrong side of the pond


Yep, but let me assure you that if you ever fancy a holiday in the UK I would put you up for a week or however long is necessary for you to enjoy yourself, see the local area, and do some silly DAC listening :lolsign:

I think that's the only way we'll ever settle this discussion - when you hear the results for yourself.

Marco.

tfarney
28-07-2008, 18:20
Be careful what you offer. I have a daughter living in Germany and could find myself passing through...

Tim

Marco
28-07-2008, 18:30
LOL. Well pass through at your leisure, Tim!

I don't make offers unless I mean it. You can even taste that duck recipe ;)

Marco.

leo
28-07-2008, 19:22
Excuse me if this has been asked and answered before but has your Sony DAS-R1 been converted to NOS (zero oversampling ) Marco?
I was just curious

I still find it amusing when people mock the age of these dacs, whats even more amusing is seeing the smirks wiped off their face once they have compared their modern day unit against a well implemented 1541:lolsign:
I've had to do this comparison more than once just to prove a point:eyebrows:

leo
28-07-2008, 19:31
The other thing that people seem to keep forgetting is that the important stuff is locked inside the chip with newer dacs, back in the old days this was not possible with the TDA1541A, the advantage is though we are not so limited in design where as the newer dacs your stuck with those inbuilt things like filters,current to voltage stages etc.

Once you know the secrets that make these chips tick they are more than capable of kicking some serious botty:smoking:

PCM1702 and PCM1704 was also nice dacs but still like the 1541 best
PCM63 isn't bad but always found that tiring

Newer stuff like the differential PCM1794 is not bad, again still prefer the 1541
I've tried lots of others, ones I personally could not stand was PCM1716, lots of people still use this one, no matter what I did with this it sounds artificial

Next on my list to try is the ESS Sabre soon as I can get hold of one

Marco
28-07-2008, 19:42
Excuse me if this has been asked and answered before but has your Sony DAS-R1 been converted to NOS (zero oversampling ) Marco?
I was just curious


Interesting question, Leo. I'm not sure! How would I know? :)

I must quiz Mark from Audiocom about that. He's the one who's carried out all the modifications.

Yes I know exactly what you mean about wiping smirks off people's faces!

It's a difficult thing for some chaps to get their heads around when a 'golden oldie' kicks the arse of a young upstart :eyebrows:

Marco.

leo
28-07-2008, 20:09
Interesting question, Leo. I'm not sure! How would I know? :)

I must quiz Mark from Audiocom about that. He's the one who's carried out all the modifications.

Yes I know exactly what you mean about wiping smirks off people's faces!

It's a difficult thing for some chaps to get their heads around when a 'golden oldie' kicks the arse of a young upstart :eyebrows:

Marco.

I've not been inside the Sony, it'll have a digital filter chip before the TDA1541a, if that digital chip has had the I2S in and out bypassed then it will have had the NOS performed on it.

NOS has problems too of course, I can use my dac as NOS or OS

Marco
28-07-2008, 20:42
PCM1702 and PCM1704 was also nice dacs but still like the 1541 best
PCM63 isn't bad but always found that tiring

Newer stuff like the differential PCM1794 is not bad, again still prefer the 1541
I've tried lots of others, ones I personally could not stand was PCM1716, lots of people still use this one, no matter what I did with this it sounds artificial

Next on my list to try is the ESS Sabre soon as I can get hold of one


Nice experience of DACs there, Leo. What's your opinion of Burr Browns in comparison to the TDA1541?

Any idea what's used in the Bel Canto?

Marco.

leo
28-07-2008, 21:21
Nice experience of DACs there, Leo. What's your opinion of Burr Browns in comparison to the TDA1541?

Any idea what's used in the Bel Canto?

Marco.

The Bur Browns (now texas instruments) vary greatly in quality , basically the ones starting with PCM are BB/TI

The stinkers from PCM1716,1732,1738,1742 etc the ones that are good IMO are PCM1702/04 the newer PCM1794
They have quite a range mate:) they also do the USB based ones.

I'm not sure what the Belcanto has in it, we can always try and find out for interests sake

I agree implementation is as important as the type of dac chip used but at the end of the day its still the heart of the unit, only so much gold plating you can do to a turd:lol:

Marco
28-07-2008, 21:26
LOL. What are you like? :eyebrows:

If you can I'd like you to find out what's used in the Bel Canto. Can you make it a special 'Leo project' and report back to me? ;)

Marco.

lurcher
28-07-2008, 21:49
looking at their website

"The PCM1792 dual-differential multi-bit delta-sigma DAC circuit "

Marco
28-07-2008, 22:00
LOL. I was going to look at the website but wasn't sure if it would have given that info.

So, Leo, have you had any experience with the PCM1792? :)

Marco.

purite audio
28-07-2008, 22:03
I would have thought the power supplies and analogue output stages are every bit as important as the chips.

Marco
28-07-2008, 22:07
I completely agree, Keith. But I think the chips give a DAC its 'sonic signature', or 'character'.

Marco.

lurcher
28-07-2008, 22:21
I would have thought the power supplies and analogue output stages are every bit as important as the chips.

Yep, I agree. With a noisy power supply, a single CMOS gate can introduce jitter.

Marco
28-07-2008, 22:31
Yep, as always with any piece of audio equipment the PSU is God.

There are a few of them in the DAS-R1, which contribute to its 20kg weight ;)

I remember passing it to Ali at Owston and him saying words to the effect of "Jeezuz, what the f*ck's inside that!" :lolsign:

Marco.

leo
29-07-2008, 00:43
Of course psu's are important, I've recently listened to a dac (had it in my system) that was full of discrete regulation, each part was separated, it used schottky diodes, low ESR main capacitors heavily bypassed, the regulation was all followed by CRD's + more low ESR caps bypassed with a selection of film caps.
Due to the type of discrete regulation low ESR caused no stability problems which can happen with the standard three pin type output.
The output stage had servo's so coupling caps was not needed.
The dac used was a PCM type, I'm not going to mention the make and model of this dac, all I will say it that it cost a fair bit.
the supplies measured clean, the output had the usual pre and post ringing you get with a lot of OS type units but of course we don't listen to square waves do we:)

Anyway how did it sound? TBH IMHO it was poor, the main flaw to me was vocals, it sounded lively but artificial, it has the usual processed signature I hear with a lot of digital units, grand piano sounds more like a cheap electronic keyboard.
People obviously like this type of sound, ok its unfair to call it total shit but compared to 1541 it was synthetic and certainly not something I could live with

I've heard and messed about with enough of this stuff now to know what I like and dislike;)

leo
29-07-2008, 00:47
So, Leo, have you had any experience with the PCM1792? :)

Marco.


Not the 1792 but it looks the same as most of the 179* family

lurcher
29-07-2008, 06:40
Of course psu's are important, I've recently listened to a dac (had it in my system) that was full of discrete regulation, each part was separated, it used schottky diodes, low ESR main capacitors heavily bypassed, the regulation was all followed by CRD's + more low ESR caps bypassed with a selection of film caps.

I think that the power supply, the DAC, the analog stage, the i/v used. and the receiver used are all the most important part, in that if any of them are wrong, the other parts can't make up for it.

Seems to be a common theme, the end result isn't the sum of the parts, but the product :-)

leo
29-07-2008, 10:47
I think that the power supply, the DAC, the analog stage, the i/v used. and the receiver used are all the most important part, in that if any of them are wrong, the other parts can't make up for it.

Seems to be a common theme, the end result isn't the sum of the parts, but the product :-)

Theres not much choice for receiver , the Cirrus logic family and Wolfson are the most common, all are poor compared to I2S direct but thats for another discussion.
Most modern day dacs do not require external I/V, they use either internal cmos or switched capacitors for their internal i/v, all thats needed with most voltage out dacs is a filter/ buffer section or if they are differential output some form of differential to line out that usually consists of op-amps.

btw I don't think anybody argued that the rest of the circuitry is not important, the problem for me is that once your trying to base a design around one of these newer chips it leaves you limited with the type of filter and I/V you want to use, most inbuilt ones are just ok for doing the job but theres no way to improve something thats locked inside the silicon, as I mentioned in another thread theres a lot of units out there thats based on the 1541 but they sound poor.

lurcher
29-07-2008, 11:05
Theres not much choice for receiver , the Cirrus logic family and Wolfson are the most common, all are poor compared to I2S direct but thats for another discussion.
Most modern day dacs do not require external I/V, they use either internal cmos or switched capacitors for their internal i/v, all thats needed with most voltage out dacs is a filter/ buffer section or if they are differential output some form of differential to line out that usually consists of op-amps.

btw I don't think anybody argued that the rest of the circuitry is not important, the problem for me is that once your trying to base a design around one of these newer chips it leaves you limited with the type of filter and I/V you want to use, most inbuilt ones are just ok for doing the job but theres no way to improve something thats locked inside the silicon, as I mentioned in another thread theres a lot of units out there thats based on the 1541 but they sound poor.

Hmm, not sure why you seem to be arguing with me there, as I think we agree.

Yep, there isn't much choice in the way of recievers, but there is a fair choice in the implementation of that reciever, they do a better job it seems running in slave mode to a low jitter clock thats PLL locked to the incoming data rate, for example.

I wasn't restricting the discussion to modern day dacs, but some of the modern ones can still use passive or inductive I/V conversions as well as the older types.

I agree there are bad implemnations of 1541 DAC's its not a magic bullet, but they can also sound good, at least thats my opinion, your opinion may differ.

Yep, direct I2S is better (though jitter still needs to be considered), once you have I2S then there are also a few extra things that can be done that improve matters, differential and offset driving of multiple dacs for example.

Marco
29-07-2008, 11:30
Leo,


Not the 1792 but it looks the same as most of the 179* family


So ok but nothing special? That confirms what I heard.


Anyway how did it sound? TBH IMHO it was poor, the main flaw to me was vocals, it sounded lively but artificial, it has the usual processed signature I hear with a lot of digital units, grand piano sounds more like a cheap electronic keyboard.People obviously like this type of sound, ok its unfair to call it total shit but compared to 1541 it was synthetic and certainly not something I could live with


Spot on, mate. Your observations mirror my own experiences when hearing these types of DACs that are considered by many as 'state of the art' and superior to the TDA1541, which is just plain wrong, simply because they are up-to-date and new and measure well. It is precisely your observations above, combined with my own listening experiences, which confirm to me there have been little real advances in DAC audio quality since the likes of TDA1541 was produced.

Your comment in bold above sums things up nicely. It is this "processed signature" and "synthetic" quality which these current production DACs impose on the music that serves to make voices and instruments sound thin, flat, and one-dimensional, which of course means that you're listening to a cardboard cut-out of the music rather than anything which approaches realism.

That's what made Steve and I nearly jump out of our seats when the Sony went on in place of the Bel Canto DAC, because where before there had been a thin, anaemic, 'processed' hi-fi sound, suddenly there was this huge widescreen 'living and breathing' music spilling out the speakers, full of weight, 'body' and 'texture' and all manner of subtleties, nuances and detail, which before was noticeable by its absence.

You've got to hear it though yourself to be able to appreciate the magnitude of difference between properly implemented TDA1541s and the sort of DACs you mention above, because until that happens a) current production DACs sound 'perfectly acceptable', and b) people like you and me are perceived as simply '1541 fanboys' exaggerating and getting somewhat overexcited. Sadly, for modern DAC technology, the latter is anything but true. The other fact is there are plenty of examples from the 80s of TDA1541s done badly, and anyone hearing this stuff will think the sound they produce is somewhat bloated and dull, so I understand why they have their detractors, but quite simply, if that's what the detractors are basing their opinions on then they are misguided because it is nothing like how 1541s sound when properly implemented in a DAC like the DAS-R1.

Part of my DAC challenge is to try and find something out there which betters the DAS-R1, for reasons stated, but another part is also to 'educate' people about TDA1541s and to stop them from believing that they're 'obsolete' technology, letting them hear the significant difference these chips make, and trying to stop people wasting money buying brand new CDPs and DACs which are fundamentally flawed, as described. Instead people will save a fortune if they buy a classic CDP or DAC on Ebay, or from whatever source, with all the right bits in and then have it modified and brought up to date by someone like Mark from Audiocom International.

This will result in them having something truly special which plays music in a way that very few current production CDPs or DACs are capable of doing. Much has been made of Anthony Matthew's brilliant 'fettling' of a Puresound A30, well let me assure everyone that Mark Bartlett of Audiocom is every bit as talented with digital technology as Anthony is with valves. *This* is where it's at with hi-fi now if you truly want the best and don't want to pay over the odds for expensive commercial designs which quite often don't deliver the goods. Spend the money where it matters - on the bits inside!!!

Yes you will have to do some searching around, and know what second-hand equipment to look for, or which Chinese valve amps to buy and have modified, but experienced advice is available on this forum to enable the process to be as hassle-free as possible, so I urge people to go down this route if you really wish to achieve total satisfaction with your system and leave the hi-fi 'rat race' of constantly chasing the 'next best thing'.

Marco.

tfarney
29-07-2008, 13:54
OK Marco, now you have my attention. If you know a reasonable path to aural bliss that will take obsessive audiophiles off the treadmill of upgrades (though be warned: For many of them, the treadmill of upgrading is the point) that is a great thing to share. It may, however, be a hidden path through the most remote mountains of Tibet that leads to this sonic nirvana. When I did a Google search on your DAC all that came up were a few of your posts on Art of Sound!

But here I go playing the Devil's advocate again: One thing still confuses me. I've heard and read descriptions like the ones being used in this thread from audiophiles for years -- human voices that are thin and lifeless, grand pianos that sound like cheap electronic keyboards, cymbals that are more hiss and splash that real, etc. But I only hear what is being described on cheap equipment. Even the very modest equipment I use does not suffer from these ailments.

What I hear when I listen to very high-end systems is an extension of FR and dynamic range, and in systems that are in properly tuned rooms, very good imaging on a broad, deep sound stage with a sense of space that is lacking in lesser systems (and it's a great effect, but I'm not convinced it's more life-like). If it is in a really well-tuned room, I'll hear detail at or even a bit above what I'm used to with cans, but let's be clear: Such a room is the home-based answer to a top-flight studio control room. It is a very carefully treated, dedicated listening room. Is all of that worth the money? Perhaps. That sense of space is particularly compelling. It might even be worth a trade-off of some detail. But the negatives attributed to "compromised" systems? I just don't hear most of them when really good speakers or headphones are in use, even with very modest equipment. When I play a file of Alison Krauss and Union Station Live, from my Mac through my exceedingly cheap little Chinese DAC, into my 35-year-old midfi integrated amp and then, finally, into my old Senn HD580s, Alison Krauss crawls up onto my shoulder and whispers in my ear. And she sounds like a living, breathing, singing human, with all the texture, flaws and beauty I expect.

Is it lack of listening experience? I don't think so. I've been a mostly acoustic musician for 40 years. What I have to compare it to is not life-like, it is life.

I've often said that I have a photogenic memory: I remember things as much more attractive than they actually were. Maybe I have a similar phenomenon going on when it comes to listening to music. Maybe I somehow push through the reproduction to the music itself, perhaps my memory fills in the blanks and I manage hear more beauty, texture and realism than is actually there. If that is the case, I think I'll call take it as a gift.

Tim

Marco
29-07-2008, 14:39
Great post, Tim, of the quality we've come to expect from you. I'm a bit busy now but rest assured I will reply later!

Marco.

tfarney
29-07-2008, 15:40
Great post, Tim, of the quality we've come to expect from you. I'm a bit busy now but rest assured I will reply later!

Marco.

I'll look forward to it.

Tim

leo
29-07-2008, 19:45
Hmm, not sure why you seem to be arguing with me there, as I think we agree.

Yep, there isn't much choice in the way of recievers, but there is a fair choice in the implementation of that reciever, they do a better job it seems running in slave mode to a low jitter clock thats PLL locked to the incoming data rate, for example.

I wasn't restricting the discussion to modern day dacs, but some of the modern ones can still use passive or inductive I/V conversions as well as the older types.

I agree there are bad implemnations of 1541 DAC's its not a magic bullet, but they can also sound good, at least thats my opinion, your opinion may differ.

Yep, direct I2S is better (though jitter still needs to be considered), once you have I2S then there are also a few extra things that can be done that improve matters, differential and offset driving of multiple dacs for example.]

I'm not arguing my friend, sorry if it came across that way;) please ignore what may look like me ranting, its honestly not intential:smoking:

PCM1794 ,1798 and a few others are newish ones which use external I/V
The latest ESS Sabre looks very promising, I think it offers the option of both internal and external I/V, the jitter reduction is supposed to be the best available too so I'm looking forward to trying it

leo
29-07-2008, 20:15
Leo,



So ok but nothing special? That confirms what I heard.



Spot on, mate. Your observations mirror my own experiences when hearing these types of DACs that are considered by many as 'state of the art' and superior to the TDA1541, which is just plain wrong, simply because they are up-to-date and new and measure well. It is precisely your observations above, combined with my own listening experiences, which confirm to me there have been little real advances in DAC audio quality since the likes of TDA1541 was produced.

Your comment in bold above sums things up nicely. It is this "processed signature" and "synthetic" quality which these current production DACs impose on the music that serves to make voices and instruments sound thin, flat, and one-dimensional, which of course means that you're listening to a cardboard cut-out of the music rather than anything which approaches realism.

That's what made Steve and I nearly jump out of our seats when the Sony went on in place of the Bel Canto DAC, because where before there had been a thin, anaemic, 'processed' hi-fi sound, suddenly there was this huge widescreen 'living and breathing' music spilling out the speakers, full of weight, 'body' and 'texture' and all manner of subtleties, nuances and detail, which before was noticeable by its absence.

You've got to hear it though yourself to be able to appreciate the magnitude of difference between properly implemented TDA1541s and the sort of DACs you mention above, because until that happens a) current production DACs sound 'perfectly acceptable', and b) people like you and me are perceived as simply '1541 fanboys' exaggerating and getting somewhat overexcited. Sadly, for modern DAC technology, the latter is anything but true. The other fact is there are plenty of examples from the 80s of TDA1541s done badly, and anyone hearing this stuff will think the sound they produce is somewhat bloated and dull, so I understand why they have their detractors, but quite simply, if that's what the detractors are basing their opinions on then they are misguided because it is nothing like how 1541s sound when properly implemented in a DAC like the DAS-R1.

Part of my DAC challenge is to try and find something out there which betters the DAS-R1, for reasons stated, but another part is also to 'educate' people about TDA1541s and to stop them from believing that they're 'obsolete' technology, letting them hear the significant difference these chips make, and trying to stop people wasting money buying brand new CDPs and DACs which are fundamentally flawed, as described. Instead people will save a fortune if they buy a classic CDP or DAC on Ebay, or from whatever source, with all the right bits in and then have it modified and brought up to date by someone like Mark from Audiocom International.

This will result in them having something truly special which plays music in a way that very few current production CDPs or DACs are capable of doing. Much has been made of Anthony Matthew's brilliant 'fettling' of a Puresound A30, well let me assure everyone that Mark Bartlett of Audiocom is every bit as talented with digital technology as Anthony is with valves. *This* is where it's at with hi-fi now if you truly want the best and don't want to pay over the odds for expensive commercial designs which quite often don't deliver the goods. Spend the money where it matters - on the bits inside!!!

Yes you will have to do some searching around, and know what second-hand equipment to look for, or which Chinese valve amps to buy and have modified, but experienced advice is available on this forum to enable the process to be as hassle-free as possible, so I urge people to go down this route if you really wish to achieve total satisfaction with your system and leave the hi-fi 'rat race' of constantly chasing the 'next best thing'.

Marco.


Absolutely spot on!


In all honesty I would love to find a newer , fancy arsed chip which to me outperforms the oldie, its proving damn hard though:confused:

The weight,body and texture is something you soon take for granted, if you listen to a unit that does not deliver what your used to ,it tends to stand right out, its obviously not a problem for the guy who's used to this, its when he hears something much better like the modded Sony dac it becomes obvious what he's been missing:eyebrows:

Marco
30-07-2008, 10:40
Tim,


OK Marco, now you have my attention. If you know a reasonable path to aural bliss that will take obsessive audiophiles off the treadmill of upgrades (though be warned: For many of them, the treadmill of upgrading is the point) that is a great thing to share.


To be honest, that's my primary motive. There are people on the forum like Jerry who box-swap for fun, it's a hobby for him, and that's fine because he knows exactly what he's doing. But for others constantly box-swapping is occurring for more unfortunate reasons, and it's because they're not satisfied with their systems and constantly chasing some idea of audio nirvana they will never find.

They will never find it quite simply because a lot of the equipment people are buying now is fundamentally flawed from the outset (as already explained about current production DACs), equipment is dressed up to look 'pretty', but where it counts, underneath the bonnet, quality is compromised together with a whole host of set-up and compatibility (read as 'synergy') issues from source to speakers which create a merry-go-round of dissatisfaction, but that is a discussion for another thread.

However there's an ignorance out there - a belief that the 'latest and greatest' in hi-fi is automatically the best, which has been ingrained over years in people's psyche by the hi-fi press, dealers (naturally) and forums, through one-upmanship, where the insecure must own the latest new box in order to claim bragging rights amongst their peers, which I believe is fuelling the widespread dissatisfaction that exists amongst hi-fi enthusiasts and their systems.

It is this thirst to constantly upgrade by buying new equipment which I feel needs to be quenched in order to solve the above, and the only way to do that is to buy something *genuinely* good in the first place, and then if you want to get even more from it, enlist the help of a specialist (Mark from Audiocom, Anthony from TD, Nick, Leo, etc - there are plenty of people around if you look hard enough) who know exactly which components to upgrade so that your money is spent where it matters most - not on frivolous aesthetic fripperies, commercial manufacturer overheads, or 'over-enthusiastic' retailer profiteering.

At one time equipment was built to a standard, now it's built to a cost - and that is half the problem!

If you buy something now that was built to a standard in the first place you then have the basis of something good (relevant examples are any good Jap direct-drive T/T from the 70s and 80s, and properly engineered CDPs from the late 80s to mid 90s, amongst many other things) that with some judicious modifying with modern components will end up as something truly special, which you will never feel the need to upgrade simply because it performs better than almost anything commercially produced today, and the pride of ownership factor is thus second to none. All those factors kill the upgrade bug and the need to have 'the next best thing' dead.

I know that I will unlikely ever sell my KAB-modified 1210, my Croft preamp, and my Yaqin valve amp (once fully modified by Anthony) precisely for those reasons above. I know Steve feels the same way about his AOS/TD amp, and I'm sure all the D.I.Y guys feel the same way about their best designs. Like I said before, *THIS* is where it's at with hi-fi now if you want the best in terms of performance and value for money, by which I mean sound-per-pound value.

But will people wake up and smell the coffee? The majority of course won't and will continue to buy new commercial designs out of ignorance or a stubborn desire to own 'the latest great thing', but if my posts here and my efforts outside of that succeed to convert just one person taking them off the treadmill of pointless box-changing then my efforts will have been worthwhile. As an aside, I'm seriously considering starting a business doing exactly what I have described.


It may, however, be a hidden path through the most remote mountains of Tibet that leads to this sonic nirvana. When I did a Google search on your DAC all that came up were a few of your posts on Art of Sound!


Nice one. It proves we're going up the Google rankings! :)

If you want to read about the DAS-R1 try here:

http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/sonyesprit/CDPDASR1/CDPR1DASR1.html


But here I go playing the Devil's advocate again: One thing still confuses me. I've heard and read descriptions like the ones being used in this thread from audiophiles for years -- human voices that are thin and lifeless, grand pianos that sound like cheap electronic keyboards, cymbals that are more hiss and splash that real, etc. But I only hear what is being described on cheap equipment. Even the very modest equipment I use does not suffer from these ailments.


Like I've said before, it's simply to do with your available benchmark - 'benchmark' being another word for your experience to date. You've already claimed, Tim, that you're a "mid-fi" guy, so your current benchmark perhaps doesn't allow you to differentiate to the same degree between how modest equipment reproduces the above and truly special, highly capable, equipment such as the Sony, compared to those whom have first hand experience of using this type of equipment on a daily basis. Therefore the result is they hear larger differences than you do simply because their benchmark is higher.


What I hear when I listen to very high-end systems is an extension of FR and dynamic range, and in systems that are in properly tuned rooms, very good imaging on a broad, deep sound stage with a sense of space that is lacking in lesser systems (and it's a great effect, but I'm not convinced it's more life-like). If it is in a really well-tuned room, I'll hear detail at or even a bit above what I'm used to with cans, but let's be clear: Such a room is the home-based answer to a top-flight studio control room. It is a very carefully treated, dedicated listening room. Is all of that worth the money?


What you're describing is the effect I get when listening to music in my own dedicated listening room, which due to the shape of the room (I live in an old lodge house dating from the 1890s), and the way I've laid out the furniture, gives me excellent acoustics. To answer your question I would say that it's best to do whatever is necessary to obtain a good room for your hi-fi system. It is *THE* most important factor to consider in order to get a good sound. When we next move house one of the primary considerations for me will be that it has an appropriate room for the hi-fi system! And the good news is I know that my wife will support me on this ;)


That sense of space is particularly compelling. It might even be worth a trade-off of some detail. But the negatives attributed to "compromised" systems? I just don't hear most of them when really good speakers or headphones are in use...


I've already tackled the first bit, but the fact that you're listening through headphones, as opposed to conventional speakers, means that you're used to a 'hard-wired' sound which in many cases, through a decent headphone set-up such as yours, gives music more realism and believability. In effect one could say that music is being 'syringed' directly into your ears, and of course you're not exposed to detrimental factors introduced by the room and other anomalies. That's probably a factor as to why even modest equipment to you is satisfying. Remove the headphones, thus introducing the room into the equation, and replay the same source signal through loudspeakers, and it might become a whole new ball game!


When I play a file of Alison Krauss and Union Station Live, from my Mac through my exceedingly cheap little Chinese DAC, into my 35-year-old midfi integrated amp and then, finally, into my old Senn HD580s, Alison Krauss crawls up onto my shoulder and whispers in my ear. And she sounds like a living, breathing, singing human, with all the texture, flaws and beauty I expect.


That describes perfectly the 'hard-wired' sound I was referring to with good headphones. You wouldn't necessarily get that experience from the same system using conventional speakers.


Is it lack of listening experience? I don't think so. I've been a mostly acoustic musician for 40 years. What I have to compare it to is not life-like, it is life.


That fact ties in nicely with what I've highlighted below in bold.


I've often said that I have a photogenic memory: I remember things as much more attractive than they actually were. Maybe I have a similar phenomenon going on when it comes to listening to music. Maybe I somehow push through the reproduction to the music itself, perhaps my memory fills in the blanks and I manage hear more beauty, texture and realism than is actually there. If that is the case, I think I'll take it as a gift.


I think you've hit the nail on the head, and it's precisely why most musicians don't own anything special in terms of hi-fi equipment because their brains are able to 'fill in the blanks', as you describe. They have access not only to an aural memory which is based on extensive exposure to real music, but also to playing real musical instruments on a daily basis, therefore their ears are attuned to how things *actually* sound. People like me, on the other hand, only hear music that way when going to live gigs or concerts therefore we need very good hi-fi systems to 'fill in the blanks' that you guys take for granted.

Does that sound acceptable? :smoking:

Marco.

tfarney
30-07-2008, 12:20
I think you've hit the nail on the head, and it's precisely why most musicians don't own anything special in terms of hi-fi equipment because their brains are able to 'fill in the blanks', as you describe. They have access not only to an aural memory which is based on extensive exposure to real music, but also to playing real musical instruments on a daily basis, therefore their ears are attuned to how things *actually* sound. People like me, on the other hand, only hear music that way when going to live gigs or concerts therefore we need very good hi-fi systems to 'fill in the blanks' that you guys take for granted.

Sadly, you don't hear it then either, unless you're hosting acoustic house concerts. Anything but classical or small ensemble jazz in an intimate setting will be amplified...and by a system that isn't as capable as the one in your home. If it's any consolation, I'm not hearing it either, not on headphones. A good headphone system provides a wonderful view into detail and tone, but none of the sense of space that brings things to life. I've heard beautiful voices and acoustic instruments in rooms both soft and lively, hundreds of times, and I know I'm not getting it on my system. Give me a good enough recording and I'm getting the tone and texture -- Jerry Douglas' dobro sounds just like a dobro. I can't ID the brand, but I can tell you it's a wood body and a spun brass resonator. I can hear it. If it were a metal body, I'd know. I can hear the distinctive, percussive attack of an Adirondack spruce (or a particularly stiff Stika spruce) top on a guitar vs Englemann spruce or cedar. I can hear the guage of Richard Thompson's strings, the bite of his pick vs the snap of flesh on steel. But the sense of space and placement I'd get if the musicians were sitting in a chair in my kitchen is not there. And I know that sense all too well.

You may be right about my musician's brain filling in the blanks, but only to a degree. It's not filling a space between a cheap electronic keyboard and a grand piano. I know that space. It's not filling the space between thin and lifeless and a full, palpable human voice with all its organic texture intact. My photogenic hearing is, perhaps, a part of the equation; it is, perhaps, my psychoacoustic effect. But I suspect there is a psychoacoustic effect in play with the hearing of audiophiles as well, resulting in a remarkable ability to pick up nuance and amplify it to be every bit as large, if not larger than their latest investment.

I'm just sayin'....;)

Oh and I think you know, but just in case -- I'm not arguing with you Marco, just discussing the nuances of listening in the language of music so tasty you can almost chew it. There is almost nothing I'd rather talk about and someone was foolish enough to invite me, so until the powers that be see the wisdom of cutting me off, here I am. :)

Tim

purite audio
30-07-2008, 13:20
Tim you need to hear some large horn loudspeakers, really good compression drivers in a good implementation.

Marco
30-07-2008, 13:51
Tim,


Sadly, you don't hear it then either, unless you're hosting acoustic house concerts. Anything but classical or small ensemble jazz in an intimate setting will be amplified...and by a system that isn't as capable as the one in your home.


I should have been more specific. You're quite right in what you're saying of course but amongst my live listening sessions include small ensemble jazz performances in intimate settings. There is a place just like that in Chester (England) that we often go to where superb food is served and then accompanied by live (un-amplified) jazz music afterwards.

However I also enjoy live (amplified) rock concerts in the likes of the Manchester Apollo or The Academy. I do prefer live un-amplified acoustic music but there's something to be said for the throbbing 'physicality' of full-on rock music played at deafening levels - it takes something special to get near to replicating that at home on a hi-fi system. Fortunately, in the type of room I've got and the way my system is set-up, it does the 'physical' visceral thing (with appropriate music) as well as the subtleties required to create that 'smoky jazz' vibe with gentler styles of music.


If it's any consolation, I'm not hearing it either, not on headphones. A good headphone system provides a wonderful view into detail and tone, but none of the sense of space that brings things to life.


I agree. That's why I don't use headphones that often, even though I have a decent pair of AKG K701s, headphone amp, and superb valve preamp. I much prefer the sound of my system through the Yaqin and SP100s - but for late night listening the AKGs can create a truly magical (although less accurate) musical experience.


I've heard beautiful voices and acoustic instruments in rooms both soft and lively, hundreds of times, and I know I'm not getting it on my system. Give me a good enough recording and I'm getting the tone and texture -- Jerry Douglas' dobro sounds just like a dobro. I can't ID the brand, but I can tell you it's a wood body and a spun brass resonator. I can hear it. If it were a metal body, I'd know. I can hear the distinctive, percussive attack of an Adirondack spruce (or a particularly stiff Stika spruce) top on a guitar vs Englemann spruce or cedar. I can hear the guage of Richard Thompson's strings, the bite of his pick vs the snap of flesh on steel. But the sense of space and placement I'd get if the musicians were sitting in a chair in my kitchen is not there. And I know that sense all too well.


Well I wouldn't say I get the level of detail you've just described when listening to acoustic music at home, but it's certainly good enough to allow me to suspend disbelief, and with talented source components at the helm like the Sony, you get very, very close to the real thing.

I remember going to a Catfish Keith gig last year in Bangor (Wales), the whole performance was simply him singing songs and playing a variety of acoustic guitars totally un-amplified to a small audience in a compact, intimate venue. I'm not sure if you're familiar with his music but live he is sensational, and has a hypnotic command of his various instruments which has to be heard to be believed.

Anyway, at the end of the gig there were CDs for sale of his latest album, which included live tracks he had performed that evening, obviously that had been recorded before at some other venue. When I got home about two and a half hours later, and my aural memory of the performance was therefore still fresh, I played the CD on my system and was transported instantly back to where I had been earlier in the evening listening to him play live, such was the realistic way the system was able to replicate not only the sound of his voice and guitar, and intent behind his vocals, but a sense of the venue itself tinged with that special atmosphere that only envelops live acoustic performances. *THAT* is when you know your system is capable of reproducing real music and not simply a processed facsimile thereof. And it takes equipment like the DAS-R1 to help facilitate that experience.


You may be right about my musician's brain filling in the blanks, but only to a degree. It's not filling a space between a cheap electronic keyboard and a grand piano. I know that space. It's not filling the space between thin and lifeless and a full, palpable human voice with all its organic texture intact. My photogenic hearing is, perhaps, a part of the equation; it is, perhaps, my psychoacoustic effect. But I suspect there is a psychoacoustic effect in play with the hearing of audiophiles as well, resulting in a remarkable ability to pick up nuance and amplify it to be every bit as large, if not larger than their latest investment.

I'm just sayin'....;)


LOL. You're absolutely right - audiophiles exaggerate all the time when describing things, but with experience you can quickly suss out who's full of crap and who is actually writing something honest of consequence and meaning.

When Leo mentioned about "grand pianos that sound like cheap electronic keyboards", of course he was exaggerating, but he was doing so simply to make a point - and that point is that grand piano reproduced through modern DACs is a poor, pale imitation, compared to how they are reproduced and portrayed through properly implemented TDA1541s, and by a DAC like the DAS-R1.

Like I said, Tim, until you've experienced it yourself words written on hi-fi forums like this are mere froth. That invitation to visit is therefore still open...


Oh and I think you know, but just in case -- I'm not arguing with you Marco, just discussing the nuances of listening in the language of music so tasty you can almost chew it. There is almost nothing I'd rather talk about and someone was foolish enough to invite me, so until the powers that be see the wisdom of cutting me off, here I am.


Don't worry, I'm taking what you're writing exactly in the spirit it was intended. There is nothing I love more than a robust exchange of views about hi-fi or music in a convivial and friendly atmosphere. It is precisely why this forum was created and you are one of its most valued members, so keep up the good work! :smoking:

Marco.

tfarney
30-07-2008, 22:18
Well I wouldn't say I get the level of detail you've just described when listening to acoustic music at home, but it's certainly good enough to allow me to suspend disbelief, and with talented source components at the helm like the Sony, you get very, very close to the real thing.

Actually, I'll bet you are getting that level of detail, but are just not familiar enough with the instruments and techniques to identify what you're hearing. I'm almost sure your system is capable of distinguishing a pick from a fingersnap, a wood-bodied Dobro from a brass resonator guitar. The guage of Thompson's strings. We could sit down for 10 minutes, I could point to what to listen to, and you'd be able to hear it from then on. I know you could on the K701s. If the acoustics in your room are right, you'd get it on your speaker system as well. I won't do that to you, though. It's a bit of a curse.

Tim

Marco
31-07-2008, 10:29
You're probably right, Tim. I guess it's just a matter of knowing what to listen for :)

Something tells me you're slowly starting to come round to my way of thinking and approach with NOS DACs, etc, and perhaps have found this thread just a little thought provoking? ;)

Marco.

tfarney
31-07-2008, 12:21
You're probably right, Tim. I guess it's just a matter of knowing what to listen for :)

Something tells me you're slowly starting to come round to my way of thinking and approach with NOS DACs, etc, and perhaps have found this thread just a little thought provoking? ;)

Marco.

Well...yes and no. I remain very skeptical that the differences between competent electronic components in a well-balanced system are ever dramatic. I remain confident that 90% of good audio is in the recording and the transducers and we're basically tweaking the last 10% (at best). But there is this nagging voice, pushing through the other voices in my head, reminding me of how awful the DAC was in that otherwise wonderful little Glow Audio tube amp I had in the house last week, and how dramatic the improvement was between that and the simple little DAC I have. So I know it can happen.

Still, the rational voice comes back to the forefront and says that probably wasn't a comparison between compentent components, but between a pretty good one and one that really sucked. But the experience has left some doubt about the conclusions from the sum of all experiences up to that point. Gotta hate it when that happens.

Tim

tfarney
31-07-2008, 12:26
Tim you need to hear some large horn loudspeakers, really good compression drivers in a good implementation.

Been there, done that. Altec, Klipsch, Electrovoice. The presentation is pretty compelling, the dynamic range is stunning, and they probably offer the best sound at low volumes (even though they are capable of such high volumes). But they have their compromises too. In my case, the room required to accommodate them rules them out at this point.

Tim

Marco
31-07-2008, 20:13
Tim,


Well...yes and no. I remain very skeptical that the differences between competent electronic components in a well-balanced system are ever dramatic.


I know what you're getting at, and it's more often than not the case that differences between electronic components are subtle, but that's largely the case with mass-produced commercial designs.

There are occasions where a piece of equipment is simply much more successfully well designed from the ground up, this is usually in evidence with equipment from smaller, more specialist, manufacturers or from major manufacturers where no expense has been spared on particular equipment, and the manufacturer's ability to optimise these designs has such a significant effect on performance that it is extremely noticeable on listening. The DAS-R1 DAC in comparison to the Bel Canto and Croft valve preamp compared to the Spectral solid-state preamp were two crystal clear examples of that.

Like I said, you had to be there to fully appreciate the quite frankly vast difference both those components made.


I remain confident that 90% of good audio is in the recording and the transducers and we're basically tweaking the last 10% (at best).


I would agree, but that last 10% is the difference between the music a hi-fi system makes sounding simply like a good recording, or like live music in the way I described earlier with my system and the Catfish Keith CD. It's that last 10% which separates a truly high-end system (and it doesn't have to be hugely expensive to qualify for that status) and something merely competent; that difference is obviously more important to some than others.


But there is this nagging voice, pushing through the other voices in my head, reminding me of how awful the DAC was in that otherwise wonderful little Glow Audio tube amp I had in the house last week, and how dramatic the improvement was between that and the simple little DAC I have. So I know it can happen.

Still, the rational voice comes back to the forefront and says that probably wasn't a comparison between compentent components, but between a pretty good one and one that really sucked. But the experience has left some doubt about the conclusions from the sum of all experiences up to that point. Gotta hate it when that happens.


Don't hate it - embrace the experience and learn from it. I think what you describe above is more than likely what happened, but the experience should light a candle in your head that large sonic differences with DACs DO happen. It's that 'benchmark' thing again, Tim. When you raise the bar next time even higher that candle will light up again and shine even more brightly...

Marco.

tfarney
01-08-2008, 12:33
I would agree, but that last 10% is the difference between the music a hi-fi system makes sounding simply like a good recording, or like live music in the way I described earlier with my system and the Catfish Keith CD.

I not only agree, I think that is one of the best and most honest statements on the subject I've ever read. Much of my experience with very high end equipment has been with studio systems. They will almost never sound "live" because that is not their purpose. But the experiences I've had with the consumer high end align well with this statement. A really excellent, high-quality live recording (and, I suppose, some very simple audiophile studio recordings) sounds more like musicians in the room, less like a really excellent, high-quality live recording.

But I'd still bet you I could stick good-quality, system-matched (ie: enough power) midfi components between the source and the speakers and create the effect. I wouldn't get that last bit of detail that the best high end audio lets through, but that detail isn't there in a live performance anyway. Yes, I've heard the spit under the reed of a saxophone, the noise of a singer parting her lips, but only when sitting right next to them or listening to hifi. I've never heard it in unamplifed performance. Not even from across the room. Hyper detail is an anomaly of the studio that we use to judge the resolution of our hifi, not a representation of reality. And actually, it is an anomaly most studio pros will try to get rid of. And with all of that said, it's really cool to hear it.

Tim

Oh, and on Catfish Keith. Give me Bob Brozman, Kelly Joe Phelps, John Hammond. Keith can play, there is no question about it, but I just can't get past the name, the clothes, the schtick. It is just one step shy of going on stage in black face in my view. TF

alb
01-08-2008, 12:52
Quite right Tim.

An obsession with ultimate detail can lead you astray.
Certainly did in my case, when a few years ago i ended up with with a highly detailed but thoroughly unenjoyable sound. By the time i had realised what the problem was, the money had been spent.

Nowadays i have stuff that creates a sound that i like, and any extra resolution that crops up through tweaking is just a bonus.

It doesn't bother me anymore, and i find that i have little desire to make any major changes to my system. I suppose i'm in a state of temporary contentment.

StanleyB
01-08-2008, 12:55
I wouldn't get that last bit of detail that the best high end audio lets through, but that detail isn't there in a live performance anyway. Yes, I've heard the spit under the reed of a saxophone, the noise of a singer parting her lips, but only when sitting right next to them or listening to hifi. I've never heard it in unamplifed performance. Not even from across the room. Hyper detail is an anomaly of the studio that we use to judge the resolution of our hifi, not a representation of reality. And actually, it is an anomaly most studio pros will try to get rid of. And with all of that said, it's really cool to hear it.

But you don't need high-end (read: expensive) equipment for that kind of resolution. The sad fact is that by the time most folks discover that they have already spent OTT on what they got and then it is a rush to the classifieds and ebay.

tfarney
01-08-2008, 21:08
But you don't need high-end (read: expensive) equipment for that kind of resolution.

Oh, I know. I hear that kind of detail with relatively inexpensive equipment now. That kind of resolution is a function of very close placement of very sensitive (usually large diaphragm condenser) microphones. The hifi equipment's job is to get out of the way, and it really doesn't have to be expensive. If it is in the recording and preserved in the mastering, I get it. If it's not, I don't. And the only "high-end" gear I own are my headphones. I'm assuming the guys who have a ton of money in components are hearing something even more...more.

Got a link to info on your DAC? I Googled it and just got discussion boards.

Tim

Mike
01-08-2008, 21:26
Here's a bit:

http://www.homehifi.co.uk/main/main.html

Marco
01-08-2008, 21:32
I think you'd like the Beresford, Tim :)

Marco.

leo
01-08-2008, 23:48
I think you'd like the Beresford, Tim :)

Marco.

Not a bad little unit for the price

StanleyB
02-08-2008, 07:55
This is one of the very few forums left where my DAC can be discussed. It was the first serious DAC to blow wide open the pricing monopoly that was keeping many potential DAC buyers from even trying a DAC. All that technical mumbo jumbo and BS to substantiate ridiculously high prices for DACs are just that. A DAC is basically a CD player without the mechanism and LCD display, and far fewer electronic parts.
The improvements in sound are purely down to two factors:
1. Careful circuit design and layout, in order to avoid digital signal errors that would then be incorrectly decoded.
2. Proper analogue output design to prevent additional errors creeping into the signal.

All good DACs have those two features. But because it cost very little to achieve them with high-end results, a lot of designers have had to resort to 'value added' additions just so the price point could be increased. I don't go for that kind of stuff. In my eyes and to my ears a DAC is to designed to be listened to, not admired for its beautiful interior and expensively machined case work.

Mike
02-08-2008, 08:15
Hmmm... I think I'm going to have to try one sooner rather than later. :eyebrows:

Marco
02-08-2008, 08:35
It's an absolute no-brainer, Mike. I've heard it on a couple of occasions and you just laugh out loud when you hear how good it is compared to some of today's so-called 'hi-end' DACs at ten times the price, and more.

And I know what a good DAC sounds like ;)

As Stan says, he keeps it simple and gets it fundamentally right from the ground up.

I'll be enjoying the Beresford's music making again soon when I visit Snapper :)

Marco.

DHT
02-08-2008, 08:42
It's an absolute no-brainer, Mike. I've heard it on a couple of occasions and you just laugh out loud when you hear how good it is compared to some of today's so-called 'hi-end' DACs at ten times the price, and more.

And I know what a good DAC sounds like ;)

As Stan says, he keeps it simple and gets it fundamentally right from the ground up.

I'll be enjoying the Beresford's music making again soon when I visit Snapper :)

Marco.

I purchased a beresford,a 6/3 version , there had been so much written about it, I was expecting something quite special, unfortunately no, it is cheap though.
The manufacturers in China produce a large range of Dacs,I presume they are simly re-badged for the UK.

Marco
02-08-2008, 09:00
Hi DHT,

I guess that it depends what you mean by "something quite special".

It's not "something quite special" in the way of the Audiocom-modified DAS-R1, but then very little is - at any price.

However, in my experience (and it is extensive) of comparing the Beresford with some current production DACs considerably more expensive, it quite frankly pisses on them from a great height.

I'm certainly not devaluing your experience with it though. You heard what you heard.

Marco.

Togil
02-08-2008, 09:11
Marco, what do you mean by NOS Sony ? Do you mean you managed to find a 1980s Sony DAC which had never been used before it was modified ?

Steve Toy
02-08-2008, 09:51
NOS in this instance means non-over-sampling not new-old-stock.

lurcher
02-08-2008, 09:52
As the subject of the Berisford dac has come up, can I ask quick question?

I know a couple of folk who have found it sounds better with a > 12v supply. Whats the forward drop of the diode at the front of the supply?, and whats the drop out voltage of the 10v reg at the front? Its been wondered if the combination of the diode and a 12v supply doesn't allow the reg enough scope to regulate.

Prince of Darkness
02-08-2008, 09:53
With respect to DAC's, NOS usually stands for none over sampling. Slightly confusing as it is otherwise usually used for new old stock.:confused:
I see Steve posted while I was writing my post.:unfair:

Togil
02-08-2008, 10:01
So what is a NOS 1541 chip ? :)

Marco
02-08-2008, 10:01
Hans,

LOL. No. I suppose I meant it in reference to the TDA1541s. It had nothing to do with 'Non-oversampling'.

However I'm using the term incorrectly - I guess it's become fashionable to refer to classic (electronic) equipment as "NOS", probably adopted from valve culture where it is more relevant.

I shall correct this error in future! ;)

Marco.

Mike
02-08-2008, 10:02
As the subject of the Berisford dac has come up, can I ask quick question?

I know a couple of folk who have found it sounds better with a > 12v supply. Whats the forward drop of the diode at the front of the supply?, and whats the drop out voltage of the 10v reg at the front? Its been wondered if the combination of the diode and a 12v supply doesn't allow the reg enough scope to regulate.

Indeed!... I have also heard this. 13.5V has been mentioned. Also quite a number of other 'tweaks'. It all sounds pretty interesting to me.

lurcher
02-08-2008, 10:08
So what is a NOS 1541 chip ?

It normally means the 1541 is fed a 44.1ks/s signal directly, instead of going via a upsampling digital filter.

Marco
02-08-2008, 10:10
Yes that, too! :)

Marco.

leo
02-08-2008, 12:01
Hi DHT,

I guess that it depends what you mean by "something quite special".

It's not "something quite special" in the way of my NOS Sony, but then very little is - at any price.

However, in my experience (and it is extensive) of comparing the Beresford with some current production DACs considerably more expensive it quite frankly pisses on them from a great height.

I'm certainly not devaluing your experience with it though. You heard what you heard.

Marco.

I've tried one in my system (it wasn't mine) for the price I certainly could not fault it.
With most things that are hyped peoples expectations get a little too high, this is no dig at Stan but some comments thats been posted by others on various forums, I tend not to judge anything until I've actually listened to it first.
I have heard units costing more that sounded worse, is it the best dac I've heard? NO! but for people not into diy and wanting something cheap thats a easy straight plug in and go you can do much worse

Marco
02-08-2008, 12:14
I'd go with that, Leo. I would add that I've compared it to the built-in DAC in some players costing up to £2k, and nine out of 10 times the Beresford has won - in some cases by a significant margin. Given what I've heard I'd imagine that it would fare pretty well against, for example, the DAC in the Bel Canto.

Marco.

leo
02-08-2008, 12:40
I've been inside more CDPS and dacs I'd like to admit:lol: theres a huge amount of crap out there thats hid inside a fancy exterior.
Its the main reason I mainly stick with diy, at least you know what you get for your money

jandl100
02-08-2008, 12:43
A couple of points I'd like to make ...

1. Yup, in the right system Stan Beresford's DAC can be very impressive. I sold my Kharma Ceramique 3 speakers (rrp £5k) on the back of a system dem including Stan's DAC - the buyer actually had to look behind the rack to check that it really was the "silly little" £100 Beresford DAC that was connected up and making such great sounds. :) He not only bought my speakers (what a fine chap!) but also went and bought himself a Beresford DAC which trounced and replaced a £2k rrp Linn Ikemi.
The Beresford can really work well in some systems, although I have heard it in a mid-line system with Roksan electronics and Opera speakers and it didn't strut its stuff at all.

2. Based on this thread, Marco is definitely not invited round to my place - I bet Steve was happy listening to his music until Marco turned up! ;)

Marco
02-08-2008, 13:14
2. Based on this thread, Marco is definitely not invited round to my place - I bet Steve was happy listening to his music until Marco turned up!


LOL! You have to be honest, Jerry. I tell it as I hear it :)

What else do you suggest I do?

Incidentally, Steve hasn't thrown his toys out of the pram (no pun intended) - far from it, he knows the score, and I wouldn't expect anything else from him.

Marco.

Ali Tait
02-08-2008, 13:52
Mike,
I've a Beresford-latest spec I think-that I'm not using at the moment as I've got the Audio-Note now.You're welcome to borrow it if you like.It's in Leeds,so it would have to wait till the next time I'm down and I can post it off to you.(I haven't forgotten about the cables thread,just evaluating them in what is basically a new system to me,having bought a KEL84 to use at my partner's place with my old P5's and a spare cd player.Will post tomorrow and then get them off to the next person.Hope that's ok.)

Regards,Ali.

Mike
02-08-2008, 14:34
Will post tomorrow and then get them off to the next person.Hope that's ok

Yep, no problem at all.

As for the other bits, yes please I'd love to try your Beresford. AND I also read your comments on the KEL84 elsewhere and thought "you should try your statics with a WD88", which is what I happen to use! As it happens I'm less than an hour away from Leeds :eyebrows:, maybe you'd like to give it a go? I'll have it with me in Chester so maybe we can arrange something for then?

Cheers...

tfarney
02-08-2008, 16:43
it quite frankly pisses on them from a great height.

:lol:

Tim

Ali Tait
02-08-2008, 16:54
Hi Mike,
Yes that would be interesting to try.I also have an original WAD 300b PP that I use on occasion.There just seems to be something special with the KEL and statics,hate to use the word synergy but can't think of another word! Interestingly,on Nick's baffles,the liang sounded rather nice and the KEL sounded pants.Go figure.

Marco
02-08-2008, 18:50
:lol:

Tim

Did you like that one, Tim? I have many more such expressions in my arsenal of audiophile flim-flam :eyebrows:

Marco.

tfarney
02-08-2008, 22:52
Did you like that one, Tim? I have many more such expressions in my arsenal of audiophile flim-flam :eyebrows:

Marco.

I did. But having lived in the Southern United States now for going on 30 years, I"ve collected a long list of colorful expressions. Perhaps it requires a thread of its own, though one of the defining characteristics of The Art of Sound seems to be thread drift or, rather, an eclectic conversation among members, carried on in the context of whatever happens to be the popular thread of the moment, not limited by the actual subject of the thread in question. But I digress. A couple of my favorite Southern colloquialisms:

Used to suggest that someone is, perhaps, attempting to flatter you gratuitously: "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."

Used to describe the combination of oppressive heat and humidity that is common to this part of the world about, well, now: "It's hottern' the inside of a dog's mouth."

The American South is a wonderful, unique place, in spite of its dark history. It is a handful of cultural blends that don't quite exist anywhere else and has created art and food that is unique and wonderful. And it is fading fast as the "new south" rises economically and people such as myself move in, settle and water down the cities into a facsimile of ever other homogeneous city across the continent. There are still some serious tastes of the old world left in the old towns -- New Orleans, Memphis, Charleston, Savanna and a few others, but they're blending too, and you have to get off the beaten path to find more than the tourist South. Soon, to find it we'll have to read Faulkner, O'Connor, Williams. It is fading into legend. I'll miss it. I love this place. Y'all come see us while it's still here.

Tim

Marco
06-08-2008, 08:04
I did. But having lived in the Southern United States now for going on 30 years, I"ve collected a long list of colorful expressions. Perhaps it requires a thread of its own

Good idea, Tim. Could you start one? I have a few quaint Scottish expressions I could add to it!

Marco.