NVA 'TFS': 'The Future Statement' lands at Marco Towers...

[Audioman]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. Take Rumours....some parts of it in hi rez show how the original recording is screwed. Ie the last 15 secs of The Chain. It's better as redbook because it's lower rez! Hi rez material is expensive, there's needs to be a way to check it's quality. It's hard to return a download!

Sorry for the digression.

I know this is a digital thread but Rumours in high res is fantastic - just get the Hoffman/Gray 45rpm USA vinyl. I think as been said before 'it's all in the mastering'.

As for the TFS I'm glad Marco has found something great sounding. My view is it could do with loosing some unecessary physical adornments. It also appears to lack visual indication of track selection as per music server or PC ?
I would also want such a device to accomodate internet radio. If the on board DAC could be tweaked it may possibly rival the Sony on all material.

Looks like you need a monitor/ipad/smartphone for control and display. Not a bad price for a commercial product but there are extras to pay for.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NVA-TFS-Co...item336f000de9

[Marco]

Let's face it, records decks are not going to get much better than the very best achieve today. They've been developed for several decades, there will be refinements but the technology is pretty stable and capable of producing lifelike sound. File-based audio is only just past it's early development stages and is at a point now where it bears comparison to highly developed record decks. These points make it reasonable IMO to use analogue as a benchmark. And yes, tape can be even better!

Too right, Clive!

John, digital *does* have an intrinsic sound, which is attributable to many factors. Why else do various types of DAC chips sound so completely different, when implemented in their respective correct ways?

Also, the comparison between my mulit-bit TDA-1541-based Sony DAC, and the bitstream Burr-Browns of the DAC inside the TFS, reveals very distinctive sonic differences between both. Such listening experiences really are rather enlightening. Much depends, too, on how digital music reproduction is implemented, and the sonic impact of the 'infrastructure', in terms of components, used around it - not to mention the MASSIVE effect PSU quality has.

One major difference in the intrinsic 'sound' between digital and analogue is the 'hardness' that switiching noise imparts on the former, giving it a relentless and 'in yer face' quality (in comparison with the best of analogue), *until* that noise is successfully filtered out. Indeed, this was most obvious before I plugged the TFS into my TD digital noise filter. The effect with my Sony CDP is exactly the same - and remember that it also uses huge linear PSUs! But that's not the issue here..

Analogue equipment possesses no such switching noise, which is why my T/T sounds markedly worse going through the same filter that transforms the sound of my CDP, DAC, and now the TFS. Go figure.

I like you John, but I don't think you realise that you're often 'dragging along your preconceptions', regarding certain issues that you appear to have a rigid mindset in, the exact same way as you're accusing others from the 'analogue camp' of doing!

Marco.

[MartinT]

I do wish people would stop saying things like "It is the most analogue computer audio system I have heard".

Methinks you're forgetting something fundamental. Music and soundwaves are analogue.

Converting them to digital and then back to analogue is a non-natural process.

[Marco]

Indeed, Martin! And you can hear it, until the effect is minimised to the point of insignificance, such is the case when the best digital equipment is used in conjunction with effective noise filtering.

However, the fact that noise intrinsic to digital music reproduction can never be fully eradicated, is the reason why, as superb as the TFS/Sony DAC combo is (and it is really, really good), my heavily-modded Techy (playing the finest audiophile vinyl pressings) still currently edges ahead

Marco.

[Joe]

Methinks you're forgetting something fundamental. Music and soundwaves are analogue.

Converting them to digital and then back to analogue is a non-natural process.

<Heads off to join Amish community>

[Welder]

I think the issue is getting confused here.

Yup, comparing the sound of Dacs and or other components in the replay chain may indeed be valid and an analogue and digital replay chain can indeed sound different.
It all gets a bit more complex when you play digitally recorded vinyl. Given, according to some at least, the differences between analogue and digital are obvious then these people should have absolutely no problem identifying a digitally sourced recording on any medium.
This certainly hasn't been a resounding success in my experience.
So, lets not get the source and replay chain mixed up.

Regarding my preconceptions. Of course, I have to accept this may be true but bear in mind it wasn't that long ago I was all Vinyl and viewed digital with the same scepticism as many here.
It was only after sitting down and listening, hopefully with minimum preconceptions, but some will have been present, to a first class digital replay system that I had to finally acknowledge it beat my Vinyl system to a pulp.

Perhaps my Vinyl system wasn't what some would consider first class, but a London Decca Gold with Hadcock 228 built on a custom Thorens TD 160S produced a fairly decent sound against the vast majority of turntables I had heard.
Add to this I decided to sell my entire record collection, record deck which i had spent years modding, my SUT, Pre amp etc etc and start from scratch, I would argue that my preconceptions didn't stop me taking what was at the time some very painful decisions based purely on quality of sound.

[Welder]

Methinks you're forgetting something fundamental. Music and soundwaves are analogue.

Converting them to digital and then back to analogue is a non-natural process.

Martin, the whole audio replay chain is a very non-natural process when one considers music is the final objective.
Suppose we don't do any conversion Martin and stay digital right up to the transducers?

[Marco]

I think the issue is getting confused here.

Nope, not really. What are you views on this, which I wrote earlier:

One major difference in the intrinsic 'sound' between digital and analogue is the 'hardness' that switiching noise impacts on the former, giving it a relentless and 'in yer face' quality (in comparison to the best of analogue), *until* that noise is successfully filtered out. Indeed, this was most obvious before I plugged the TFS into my TD digital noise filter. The effect with my Sony CDP is exactly the same - and remember that it also uses huge linear PSUs! But that's not the issue here..

Analogue equipment possesses no such switching noise, which is why my T/T sounds markedly worse going through the same filter that transforms the sound of my CDP, DAC, and now the TFS. Go figure.

It is the switching noise I'm referring to above which defines the 'sound' of digital data (such as has been described) when converted to an analogue audio signal. Therefore, the situation is not as 'cut & dried' as you think.

Marco.

[Welder]

Still getting shortfalls in the conversion chain confused with digital as a medium here Marco.

I know it seems knit picking but its important.

[Marco]

Nope, I don't think so. I'm still waiting on your comments on what I've quoted in post #88, above.

Come on, let's be 'avin ya! Or are you not able to give a proper answer?

Marco.