+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 161

Thread: Digital audio vs vinyl

  1. #61
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 72,318
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haselsh1 View Post
    Indeed it could easily be down to the characteristics of CD replay equipment versus vinyl replay equipment. Each and every one of us suffer from this as there are clear differences with replay equipment otherwise why would we bother..?
    Outside of this it comes down to characteristics that can only be measured by laboratory equipment and this I have no interest in as it has no significant importance on the enjoyment I get from my sound system. Every piece of equipment we own as individuals has its own limitations and these connect to each other to produce our systems characteristics. No system is without this synergy, this in itself making some systems sound wonderful and others sound ordinary. However, this in itself is largely governed by what we actually hear and how it influences our mood on a subconscious level. Thankfully we are all very different to each other in what stirs our emotions so the sonic limitations of my system are so different to the sonic limitations of your system but they clearly exist in all cases and it could be one of those limitations that ultimately makes us feel what we feel when we play music.
    Absolutely, Shaun, I completely agree. The point I was making, however, was in reference to what I wrote earlier on the matter:

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco
    I just think that the only way anyone can properly compare the capabilities of their digital and vinyl sources, is when there exists a level playing field, both in terms of financial expenditure, and simply how much time and effort has been spent by the owner, in terms of 'maxing them out'.
    For me, unless that's the case, one simply isn't properly qualified to make any *definitive* pronouncements on the respective merits of CD and vinyl replay.

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  2. #62
    Join Date: Feb 2013

    Location: W Lothian

    Posts: 36,567
    I'm Grant.

    Default

    must be an internal psu as it has a iec on back

    Regards,
    Grant ....

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply-doesn't-work
    .... ..... ...... ...... ................... ..... ..... ..... ..... .....
    DENON DV2900 - TWIN PRO MONOBLOCK AMPLIFIERS - XIANG SHENG DAC\PRE\HEADPHONE AMP - AVANTREE OASIS CLASS 1 BLUETOOTH - AUDIO TECHNICA ATH-MSR7 & OPPO PM-3 PLANAR HEADPHONES - WIN10 JRIVER23, SPOTIFY PREMIUM - ECHO DOT - SMSL M6 MINIDAC - FULL RANGE TWIN TELEFUNKEN's - Q ACOUSTIC BT3 actives - CANTON SUB - MAINS REGENERATED AND FILTERED.

  3. #63
    Join Date: Aug 2009

    Location: Staffordshire, England

    Posts: 17,840
    I'm Martin.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Yes indeed, or that you (and whoever else is stating the same about jitter) perhaps is wrong...

    My view is that it's most likely one of those technical areas where various experts simply disagree, and that no-one is unquestionably right. At the end of the day, however, all that matters is what our ears tell us, in respect of how any perceived effect translates itself to and/or affects our enjoyment of recorded music.

    Marco.
    Well it is interesting that those 'experts' who disagree tend to have a vested financial interest. Also interesting that they claim that the effect of jitter is not to create audible distortion (the famous 'digital harshness') but to curtail soundstaging and imaging.

    On a wider note has anyone considered that their preference for analogue and their perception that it sounds more 'real' might be caused by something as simple as second harmonic distortion? And nothing to do with the 'purity' of analogue?

    This seems to be the area where the article linked to in the O/P makes its biggest error: the assumption that with digital we are trying to make steak tartar into mince and that is the cause of the problem. The steak tartar analogy is just plain wrong, as is any analogy to digital video or photography. The latter is like trying to make assumptions about the performance of a car by studying the performance of a boat.
    Martin



    Current Lash Up:

    Sony X505ES CD Player * NVA P90SA passive pre / Krell KSA50S Power amp * JM Lab Electra 926 loudspeakers *



    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Hunter S Thompson

  4. #64
    Join Date: Dec 2008

    Location: Lincolnshire, Home by the Sea

    Posts: 3,611
    I'm Shaun.

    Default

    I completely agree that there should be a baseline measure from which all of these things are taken. Without a baseline there is no scientific basis and if that baseline has to be the financial cost of the equipment then there you go. Financial cost of one way of getting a level playing field (baseline) but it has little scientific value in real terms. That then brings us back to laboratory measurements but as already stated, I have no interest in these things from a musical point of view. I hear a big difference between the same music on CD and vinyl within my system which I would think is very definitely due to the differing characteristics of the two sources, outside of that it comes down to scientific measurement.
    Marantz CD6005 into Audiolab MDAC
    Nottingham Analogue Interspace turntable with Origin Live Onyx tonearm/Denon DL103/Dynavector P75 MkIII phono stage

    Prima Luna Prologue preamp
    Prima Luna Dialogue Premium power amp/EL34

    B&W CM8 S2 loudspeakers

    Atlas Hyper interconnects
    Van Den Hul Teatrack biwired cables

    Anything Ozric Tentacles based

  5. #65
    Join Date: Oct 2012

    Location: The Black Country

    Posts: 3,657
    I'm Alan.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    Not cheap, but *if* it was as good as Alan claims, I'd consider it. However, for those who know the Dave DAC, could you please confirm a) if it uses up-sampling technology, and b) if it features the use of a proper (linear) PSU, as opposed to SMPS?

    Both factors would be crucial in terms of the likelihood of me buying one. Put that behind you.

    Marco.
    Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.

    The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.

    Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.

    The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.

    When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.


  6. #66
    Join Date: Jan 2013

    Location: Birmingham

    Posts: 3,102
    I'm James.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebottle View Post
    Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.

    The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.

    Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.

    The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.

    When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.

    I could post up what Rob Watts actually says about the power supply for DAVE but most people, including myself would not understand hardly any of it.

    The only way to understand DAVE is to experience it and as you found out it is an experience you can never forget. It fundamentally changes your experience of hearing anything in hifi both vinyl or digital and now with the BLU 2 and m-scaler digital audio has been taken to another level.
    VPI Scout 1.1 / JMW 9T Tonearm / 2M Black /Croft 25R+ / Croft 7 / Spendor SP2

  7. #67
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 72,318
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Macca View Post
    Well it is interesting that those 'experts' who disagree tend to have a vested financial interest. Also interesting that they claim that the effect of jitter is not to create audible distortion (the famous 'digital harshness') but to curtail soundstaging and imaging.
    Well, in terms of the latter, one simply hears what one hears, or measures what one measures, and attributes an effect to it accordingly (or not). However, none of that necessarily acts as conclusive proof of anything.

    As for the 'vested interest' thing, perhaps, but equally it could be that *some* of said experts have actually hit upon something that works, and fundamentally addresses a very real phenomenon, and therefore have designed and sold products which achieve that, for the benefit of their customers.

    Such things aren't always necessarily a 'scam', as deemed so by your cynical mind

    On a wider note has anyone considered that their preference for analogue and their perception that it sounds more 'real' might be caused by something as simple as second harmonic distortion? And nothing to do with the 'purity' of analogue?
    Yes of course. Anyone with a genuinely open mind would've done that, me included. The concept, however, of simply being 'seduced by euphonic distortion', in that respect, is old hat, although that's not to say it's not possible.

    Thing is, when you've been in this game for as long as others and I have, dabbled *extensively* in the domain of both digital and vinyl replay, have spent considerable sums of money doing so, own a large music collection that facilitates both, currently have digital and vinyl sources of equally high calibre, and subsequently for what you consider as valid reasons, out with of the distortion argument, your ears have continually told you that vinyl replay (at its best) still sounds more 'real' than its digital counterpart, then the considerable experience you've amassed, over all those years, quite simply outweighs the 'facts' which appear to indicate the contrary.

    That's why at the end of the day, ultimately, we trust our ears over currently accepted 'facts' or measurements, until such times are we consider (based on OUR judgement criteria) that the latter indisputably render what we've experienced to date as invalid.

    It's called being a subjectivist

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  8. #68
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 72,318
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firebottle View Post
    Here is a conundrum. I make an MC phono stage that uses a SMPS as its power source and it performs very well, and squashes the belief that this couldn't work.

    The DAVE dac is different in so many factors that upsampling and SMPS use is irrelevant, believe me. It is difficult for non techie people to appreciate the subtlety of the differences, but one of the overriding factors that gives the transparency and lack of digital nasties of DAVE and HUGO is the noise shaping software.

    Think of it as part of the 'filtering' that is necessary when converting to analogue, traditional approaches with proprietary dac chips use FIR filtering, a well understood way of performing the filtering function in the digital domain. However with traditional approaches the residual noise, or 'noise floor' is modulated (affected in ultimate level) and this tends to mask the very low level signals that give the air and depth to the sonic image.

    The different filter and noise shaping of DAVE gives immeasurable changes/modulation of the noise floor and results in spectacular transparency.

    When I say the Chord technology is different I mean it is so advanced that no one else is using it, it is proprietary to Rob Watts and Chord.
    I'll take that then as a 'yes', that the Dave uses SMPS and up-sampling technology?

    No worries though, I take on board what you've said, and am in no position to dispute it. My argument though would be that out-and-out engineering quality plays a huge part in the performance of ANY piece of hi-fi equipment, and in a way that can't be levelled by technological advances alone.

    However, as you know with me, such advances mean HEE-HAW unless *my* ears tell me that it makes the product in question sonically and musically superior to what I currently have, and so there's only one way to resolve that, which for me is to hear the Dave for myself, against my current benchmark in my own system.

    So if you can do that, then I look forward to it. I can promise you one thing, Alan, me being me, if to my ears it trounces the Sony DAC, then quite simply I'll want one

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  9. #69
    Join Date: Jan 2008

    Location: Wrexham, North Wales, UK

    Posts: 72,318
    I'm AudioAl'sArbiterForPISHANTO.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haselsh1 View Post
    I completely agree that there should be a baseline measure from which all of these things are taken. Without a baseline there is no scientific basis and if that baseline has to be the financial cost of the equipment then there you go. Financial cost of one way of getting a level playing field (baseline) but it has little scientific value in real terms. That then brings us back to laboratory measurements but as already stated, I have no interest in these things from a musical point of view. I hear a big difference between the same music on CD and vinyl within my system which I would think is very definitely due to the differing characteristics of the two sources, outside of that it comes down to scientific measurement.
    ...or the possibility that your current player isn't up to the task of allowing you to hear CD at its best, and crucially, in a less capable way than your turntable is allowing you to do the same with vinyl, hence why you're hearing such big differences between both.

    Other than that, we're in agreement

    Marco.
    http://www.thestainedglasscompany.com

    "A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and gets to bed at night, and in between he does what he wants to do" -- Milan Kundera.

  10. #70
    Join Date: Nov 2008

    Location: Rossendale

    Posts: 8,006
    I'm AMusicFanNotAnAudiophile.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marco View Post
    I'll take that then as a 'yes', that the Dave uses SMPS and up-sampling technology?
    SMPS, yes. The device auto senses voltage and adjusts itself accordingly.
    Upsampling, probably not.

    Don't forget that Chord is one company that does SMPS properly, and builds the damn things properly - you're not talking about the cheap as chips wall wart rubbish that's supplied with most everything today.
    Chris

    Once we've made sense of our world, we wanna go fuck up everybody else's because his or her truth doesn't match mine. But this is the problem. Truth is individual calculation. Which means because we all have different perspectives, there isn't one singular truth, is there?

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 17 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast



 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •