Jump to content
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    country-ZZ

Retained

  • Member Title
    Freshman Member
  1. Sorry if i'm hijacking your thread.... I think i went about it the wrong way. I just have a lot of questions about usb-async and pc implementations in particular. -why do better/audiophile usb cables make wavlength and Ayre dacs sound better as they admit they do? -Why do ssd hd's make the dac's sound better as Gordon (owner of Wavelength) admits it does. I suspect usb-async is not as jitter proof/galvanically isolated as claimed.
  2. Plus, just look at Wavelength's Async USB DAC offerings: -Proton: $900 -Cosecant: $3500 - $10,000 -Crimson: $7000-$15000 It's very apparent from Gordon's pricing scheme, that even though all these dac's have async usb, he believes that the cosecant is worth $2600 more, because of the other parts inside it. I'm just saying, don't expect the $2500 Ayre dac to be a giant killer just because it's got jitter figured out.
  3. “how does the Pass do at driving the ribbons? I love my X 150.5.” This pass labs is the only amp that could create imaging on my ribbons. They kick as vs the Krell’s and Sim audio’s I’ve tried. Very musical and not solid state sounding at all. “ 60, since, apparently you have had the Minerva in your system, could you please comment on what aspects of its sound bothered you?” I wasn’t able to try the minerva on my system. Instead I was able to bring my Pass Labs D1 DAC to the dealer for a comparison. I wasn’t impressed at all to be honest. I thought it was digital sounding, uninvolving, with an overemphasized mid range. But this is my own personal opinion, so take it for what it’s worth. I also had the chance the try the Emm Labs dcc2 in my system for a week and thought it was better than the Weiss, but still suffered from the same basic faults. Read my post on audio asylum for the details. “the BB1704 is apparently the only old style chip around these days, and my understanding is that it is NOS, and as such very, very expensive, and therefore is not used in many designs with the exception of products priced well beyond my reach.” The 1704 is not a nos chip. You can oversample on it. Here’s a link that lists what dacs use what dac chips http://www.marantzphilips.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_list/ If you’re not opposed to buying used, lot’s of these dac should be in your price range. “SPDIF is not an option for me at this point, it is just too compromised to accept when there are quite a few alternatives available-my experiences testing products with very low jitter has confirmed to me that reducing jitter to the lowest possible levels is critical to getting good sound with high resolution. One thing I would like to note-sometimes, in some designs or systems, higher jitter actually sounds better (one might say smoother)-I believe this happens becuase the low level noise that is the result of jitter can mask problems (distortion artrifacts) that would otherwise be unpleasant.” Is this from personal experience? I’m not in love with spdif. I don’t care what interface I use. Spdif, aes, usb, firewire, whatever. I would prefer one that has less jitter, but it is not the #1 priority for me in a DAC. As many people mentioned, it’s the sound that matters. The Benchmark DAC is a great example of a DAC that is supposedly jitter free, but is not the most musically involving. The interface is only one component of the DAC. But I do want to note that from my personal experience, perfect galvanic isolation is extremely important for dacs, which is something that cannot be achieved with USB. As well, if USB is supposed to be so jitter free, I wonder why more expensive usb cables will improve the sound. This is something Charles Hansen has admitted to me in the forums, but was not able to explain why. “In theory, I am not against upsampling at all, I believe it can allow for much less obtrusive digital filters to be used, and it can push nasty digital artifacts out to frequencies where they no longer cause any problems. But, all upsampling is not created equal, the math used is totally beyond me, but it is quite obvious when one listens that there is a difference between the upsampling done on a stock chip, like the TI 4192, or similar devices from Crystal, and the proprietary upsampling done in DACs from companies like Linn, Chord, Ayre, etc. Companies that have the experience and skill to write their own upsampling algorythms have the ability to make upsampling work to make their products sound the way they want them to, rather than being at the mercy of TI or Crystal's engineers.“ Correct me if I’m wrong, but oversampling is the thing that helps digital filters. Upsampling is used for other purposes. I’ve tried software upsamplers (SRC) and have heard upsampling from Meridian (which could be turned off), Weiss, and Emm labs dacs. It may be a personal preference but I prefer no upsampling.
  4. "The Weiss uses the BB1792, which is a SOTA chip... My experience in helping with the product development of DACs, especially when trying to interface with a hard disk, has shown that jitter is the current primary problem with digital audio" Hmmm... I'm not sure about this. It actually seems to me that we're going backwards in digital. THe BB1792 is a delta sigma chip. From my travels in the forums, many people and famous Dac designer's seem to list multi bit dac's as their favourites (http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=719&hilit=pcm63+gordon). My understanding is that the move from multi bit to delta sigma was a costs savings move by the chip manufacturers at the detriment of sound. I also haven't had great experiences with upsampling dac's: the Emm labs dcc2 and Weiss Minerva specifically. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=digital&m=145592 I'm of course biased, but I think i was able to find a gem of a dac. You can see my system here:
  5. If the QB9 is using the same dac chip as the cd player, which the president of Ayre has admitted isn't the best out there, then yes, i think I can make the conclusion that the QB9 does not have uncompromising sound. It will not be a giant killer. It's probably a very good dac, but not the latest greatest thing just cause it has Async USB.
  6. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the qb-9 is a great dac for it's price range, but i think people are focusing way too much on jitter issues. Just because a DAC has a claimed SOTA interface, does not mean that dac is SOTA. Many things make up a great DAC: jitter management, DAC chip, Analogue stage, power, I haven't seen specs on the QB-9, but if we look at their Ayre's flagship CD player we can see that it uses a "PCM1738 was the best part available at the time we designed the CX-7, apart from the PCM1704 which cost 10x as much" (quoted from Charles Hansen, founder of ayre: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/digital/messages/14/146112.html). THey also use opamps for their analoge stage, which is one of the more conventional, cost efficient solutions. So if the dac is built anything like the cd player, why would you expect this dac to be a giant killer if it's not using the best Dac chips and output stages? Plus i'm very skeptical if an async usb solution will indeed sound better than a well implemented spdif solution. Unfortunately the Async usb dacs (Ayre and wavelength) don't come with a spdif option so we can never try it out. What i do know is that reviews of the Benchmark USB have commented that they believe the spdif interface to sound superior to the usb interface (admitedly not async usb). My own experience in fighting jitter has told me that it's an essential tweak, but not on the same level as clean power or better ic/speaker cables. It's the icing on the cake.
  7. So your saying it's morally wrong to bypass the dealer and by straight from the manufacturer if they sell to you? Does that mean i shouldn't go to factory sales cause i'm bypassing Walmart? Lying about something is morally wrong. Breaking a commitment is morally wrong. Breaking the law is wrong. Unless you've made a verbal commitment, you have no obligation to buy anything from a dealer even if you use their demo facilities. Nothing moral about this. Haven't you ever gone to a car dealer and taken a car for a test drive just to try out the car? God is not shaking his head at you. People may prefer to use a dealer because they prefer the customer service, and the extra assurance that if they need help afterwards they can go to their dealer. Internet is good. It opens up competition and expands consumer knowlodge. THis is not a moral issue.
  8. Do you mean wrong as in morally wrong? Or wrong as in against the laws of nature wrong? Just need to clarify.
  9. I respect that audio is never black and white, and system configurations can affect the performance of a component. Everything is relative. I'd like to point out that before i got my Pass Labs i thought the EMM Labs was the epitome of digital reproduction and did no wrong. It was only after a comparison against the Pass labs have i been able to view it from another point of view. I do not feel i have made any blanket statements. I've only made relative statements (DAC A is smoother than DAC B, or if you prefer, DAC B is harsh compared to DAC A), and have justified any personal opinions by pointing out it's my own subjective opinion. My opinion on the nature of the sound of the EMM labs did come from listening to it in my own system for a week. I do feel the Weiss has a similar sound signature (midrange bloat), and thus I’m confident enough to post this subjective opinion. BTW, my friend who owns the EMM Labs agreed with me about the bloat after he was able to borrow my DAC for the same week. Finally, IMHO, if you experience one component is smoother than another in the same system (a system probably more geared towards the Weiss than the Pass Labs since it was the dealer's), you don't need to spend another week with it to confirm that it is indeed smoother. The other 2 people in the room also agreed with me about the smoothness.
  10. For those of you out of the loop, Ted is referring to my post here http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=digital&m=145592 where I do various comparisons of the Pass Labs D1 vs the Weiss, the Emm Labs DCC2, the PS Audio Digital Link III and the Meridian 568. Excerpt: “went to a local dealer to listen to the Weiss; I brought my Pass. The test system consisted of Magico V3 speakers and Reference Ayre Amps and Preamps, CD players. We compared the Weiss vs the Pass as DACs, using the Ayre preamp (since the wWeiss was already connected to the preamp). The Weiss struck my as having a similar lush/filled out tone and forward sound of the EMM, my friends concurred. However, while my Pass sounded analogue, smooth, organic, and musical, to my ears the Weiss sounded harsh, and sterile. It was not musically engaging at all. I could not imagine the musicians were in front of me: it sounded like the sound was coming from a stereo, digitally processed. We later heard the Weiss bypassing the preamp. While the music sounded more direct, I had the same reaction as when listening to my Meridian’s digital volume: that I needed to turn up the volume to hear any detail.” The transport was the Ayre CD player using the dealer’s AES cable. Sure you can claim it’ll sound better with firewire, but from my on experience, while reducing jitter can do a lot, it doesn’t change the fundamental characteristic of the dac. Besides, my Pass Labs was using the same transport. So unless you want to argue a 12 year old dac has better jitter reduction than a supposed state of the art dac, let’s call it a wash. I disliked it for subjective and objective reasons. Subjectively, I believe the type of sound it creates is wrong. It’s a digital sound with an over-emphasized midrange (just like the Emm labs has). It’s very impressive sounding at first, but over an extended period of listening with these types of dacs, when I compare it to something like the Pass Labs, I realize it’s not very natural at all. It’s kind of like when photographers over saturate photos or use HDR effect ( ). It’s too sweet. You lose all the delicate tones, details, and dynamics. Objectively it’s not a smooth dac. If you compare it to something like the PS Audio Digital Link III or the Benchmark Dac1 I’m sure it sounds smooth… but compared to my Pass Labs D1 it was very harsh. To be fair I don’t think my Pass Labs is the smoothest as I know the Emm Labs to be smoother. So is smoothness all relative? Am I being nit picky? No…. real life is the benchmark for smoothness. And that’s the point of HIFI, is it not? My friend who owns the Emm Labs was also not impressed with the Weiss. The things that impresses me about the Pass Labs the most (besides the fact it’s 12 years old) are its naturalness and analogue sound nature. It has the same level of detail as the emm and weiss, and imho has better dynamics and tone. My friend has related to me it has no sins of co-omission.. it doesn’t do anything wrong. The one thing I wish it did do better was present harmonic richness truer… but I think maybe that’s what the EMM labs and Weiss try to do with their over-emphasized mid range, but fail at.
  11. Anyone heard this dac before? http://www.passlabs.com/pdf/old%20product%20manuals/d1_om.pdf I have the opportunity to buy one, but I can’t find much on it. It came out in 1997 but the features look impressive. The specs remind me of the Bryston BDA-1, but what it lacks in the latest digital technology it seems to gain in superior analogue implementation. -24bit 96khz dac (the dac has the upgrade). -volume control: The output level is adjustable using a 24-position switch that operates as a differential shunt between the two polarities of the I/V D/A converter - Output stage: The I/V conversion in the D1 is accomplished with single Mosfet device operated in common-gate single-ended Class A mode: 25 watts. " In a typical D/A system, the I/V D/A converter consists of either an operational amplifier operated as a phase inverting summing junction or a variation of the same circuit using discrete transistors. In either case, negative feedback is used to achieve low distortion.When negative feedback is used in a high gain circuit, stability problems occur when the feedback is exposed to the high frequency transients that are generated by the digital circuits. The transient noise created is not directly audible but since the feedback loop must process both it and the musical signal, reflections into the audible band do occur." - Jitter: In the D1, the digital input is switched through low capacitance relays through a digital transformer to a Crystal digital receiver. The Crystal receiver is used to feed a phase lock loop system that clocks the digital filter and D/A Converter circuits. In addition, the Crystal receiver reduces jitter to as low as 20 picoseconds at digital zero. The circuit also uses a Fujitsu PLL with Lithium Tantalate crystal that are optimized for DVD and 96 kHz data rates. -Power Supply: The power supply of the D1 uses two shielded oversized toroidial transformers. One powers the digital circuitry and the other powers the analog section. Both power supplies have individual regulators for each circuit section and are at least triply regulated. -Inputs: The input system offers AT&T, AES/EBU, SPDIF, and Toslink inputs.
  12. hmmm.. i guess what i'm wondering is all things being equal, wouldn't an external sound card be better for digital output vs an internal card, since the word clock is more isolated from the dirtiness of the compter environment? If lynx made a external version of their card which connected to the pc via a propreitary pci/pci-e card, wouldn't that be better than the internal version? Especially considering that the rme externals can be had on the used market for cheaper than used lynx internal cards, it would seem to me to be a more preferable choice.. since people have commented on various forums that the internal rme's are comparable to the lynx cards.
  13. Anyone have any thoughts on this? Seems logical that using an external sound card for external digital out to a DAC would be better than an internal card since you can get away from the noisy environment of the pc and get cleaner power. After all it's my impression that the work clock of the sound card is very sensitive to dirtiness....
  14. I guess my question is a multipart: 1. Do xrcd's only tweak the cd mastering process? 2. Do digital downloads bypass this process? Meaning they come straight from the original studio masters and are not just ripped off cd's. (i'm talking about legal places like HDTracks) 3. if 1 and 2 are correct, than should digital downloads have the benifits (or more) of the supposed xrcd process vs regular cd's. Meaning would the xrcd process become obsolete in terms of digital downloads... meaning it would be better to get the digital download in terms of sound quality vs buying a cd or xrcd and ripping it.
  15. Hi, I've recently bought some xrcd's and had the opportunity to compare them to standard versions of the same albums. THe music does sound clearer and more defined, as if a veil was lifted. As i understand it, xrcd's improved audio quality by enhancing the process of mastering and manufacturing compact discs. They don't remaster the music itself like Mobile fidelity (MFSL) does. THey just enhance the transfer of the music to cd, so they sound the same as the standard cd's, just clearer. Unfortunately they are expensive and hard to find. My question is if you buy digital music from places such as HDTracks and Music Giants, do you get music the same quality as xrcd since you skip the whole cd process altogether. I'd love to try this experiment out.. i have the standard diana krall look of love cd, and the the xrcd version of it. I was going to buy the digital version when i found out Music Giants only accept U.S. buyers (i'm canadian). So guys, any thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...