Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting

[trappy]

"It could be timing & low level detail portrayal - they are both intimately interconnected."

 

It might be, but I had the exaSound e22 in my system for a year and I've gotta say, you would be hard pressed to find a DAC that can excavate more detail than that thing can. However, it's possible it misses certain *kinds* of detail.

 

What I do find puzzling about digital recording, and I think some folks here are trying to get at this idea, is if we know how to register detail "properly" in the recording process, how can we not translate that consistently at the reproduction end? Do all recording engineers understand what's going into their digital envelopes when they're making recordings, I.e., do they know everything their instruments are grabbing from the event? I've never sat behind a recording desk so I ask this in all curiosity, not being at all sarcastic.

[trappy]

I think you are the one who's added the word "smooth" to the conversation. I used the word "euphonic", which doesn't imply any particular sound or type of distortion - other than that some users find it more pleasant or more "real" sounding.

 

That's not a pejorative statement. It's too bad you add that meaning to it. What I find euphonic, you may not, and vice-versa. As I stated earlier, all components add some sort of coloration, each person should find the combination that sounds good to him/her. Doesn't mean I'm saying my choices are better or more accurate than yours, just different.

 

I don't think I was the first, but I take your point.

 

As I say, however, I don't believe this is a case of coloration. As someone above said (sorry, I forget which of you) I would expect coloration to be a wash over the whole sound, and this is not the case. The exception possibly being the sense of tone density, which does seem to me to be more generalized. Either something is being obscured in other DACs (by pre-ringing?) or there's something about the way they process the signal that misses some part of the waveform.

 

Btw, I haven't seriously listened to vinyl since about 1990, so while it's possible that sensation is still buzzing around my head 25 years later, I'm pretty sure I'm not trying to recapture an "analogue" sound.

[semente]

While I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, since you said there's no point, I just want to point out that your assumption re. advertising influencing editorial is wrong. I'll only speak to AudioStream, which relies on ad revenue, and point out that as the Editor I only know who is an advertiser when I see their ads pop up on the site. I do not not how long their ads will run, what new ads are going to show up, etc. We have staff devoted to this task who have nothing to do with what I do.

 

Also, if you look at our reviews and compare them to ads, you'll see there is zero correlation.

 

If "professional" reviews dismiss all shortcomings as character and try to sell the idea that ultimately it's all a matter of taste - and that any equipment, irregardless of its performance, is bound to please someone - something is wrong.

 

The industry subsidises magazines and these in turn don't criticise the products.

It's a win win situation.

Except for the unsuspecting reader...

 

Stereophile produces measurements of most reviewed equipment and in most cases these technical evaluations invariably end up with JA saying that despite the shortcomings it sounds nice or the problems aren't significant.

 

Yes, something is very wrong.

 

R

[semente]

Yes, I object to the way this conversation has morphed into an acceptance of the idea that some of us prefer a "smooth" sound because we can live with purportedly audible distortion (in the case of the Metrum -- and I don't even know how the Musette measures. It's said, by those who owned both to be an order of magnitude better than the Octave, and better than the Hex in some respects, and detail is one of those respects.)

 

What I've said repeatedly here and in other threads is that I like the sense of note to note continuity, and the increased tactile sense, I.e the sense that musicians are actually playing their instruments, instead of the instruments, gloriously separated, hanging in the air, which is what I get off of almost all of the DACs I've heard. Also, a generally better sense of being able to distinguish timbre and (somewhat) tone density (I'll concede this might be a distortion thing.)

 

To me these all seem to be artifacts of *timing* not distortion, and the effect is emphatically NOT smoothness. And I say again, if the current measurements can't account for it, then measurement itself is incomplete, and if it is, then, for the moment, ears are better than measurement.

 

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "note-to-note continuity"?

 

Piqued with curiosity by all the raving reviews, I owned a TDA1543-based NOS filterless Redbook 47labs DAC, quite a different beast from the Metrums.

Its measured performance is pretty pitiful.

I would characterise the sound as "smooth" and "rolled" in the top, and subsequently "warm" and apparently less "detailed", a bit monophonic as well as dynamically challenged when compared to conventional US/OS DACs like the PCM63-based Parasound.

 

I can understand why some describe it as more "analogue" sounding.

 

R

[mmerrill99]

I think you are the one who's added the word "smooth" to the conversation. I used the word "euphonic", which doesn't imply any particular sound or type of distortion - other than that some users find it more pleasant or more "real" sounding.

 

That's not a pejorative statement. It's too bad you add that meaning to it. What I find euphonic, you may not, and vice-versa. As I stated earlier, all components add some sort of coloration, each person should find the combination that sounds good to him/her. Doesn't mean I'm saying my choices are better or more accurate than yours, just different.

 

The fact that there are vinyl lovers who will consistently prefer the sound of an LP produced from a digital source to the actual playback of the digital file tells us something. The medium (vinyl) and it's playback method are adding something to the sound of the original master that isn't heard by the same people when the original digital source is played back to them over a good system.

 

Are you going to seriously argue that taking a digital source and converting it to analog, then LP, and then playing that LP back through the whole cartridge and phono preamp- RIAA curve process, is more "accurate" playback than direct quality playback of of the original digital file?

 

I think that's a very difficult argument to make, to put it mildly.

So, let's see how difficult it is. You maintain that ALL playback has colorations. Do you know precisely how auditory perception works & what are the precise auditory effects of these colorations? No? Then how can you judge the auditory significance of each coloration & it's level. How can you therefore judge the auditory effect of digital's colorations Vs vinyl's colorations?

 

My conclusion is that the whole LP production and record playback process is adding something that vinyl lovers like to the sound. That's fine, I have no argument with it.

I prefer good digital playback of something recorded digitally - to me it sounds better.

 

Both methods add some sort of coloration, distortion, whatever you want to call it. Some people prefer one type, some people prefer another. That's all.

In other words the heart decides & forces the mind to then justify this decision

[mmerrill99]

Don't know, but look at any of the measurements of DACs in Stereophile and you can generally see examples of pre-ringing, it is quite measureable.

Has the correlation between pre-ringing & it's auditory perception (how it sounds) been established? I haven't seen this but might have missed it?

[mmerrill99]

"It could be timing & low level detail portrayal - they are both intimately interconnected."

 

It might be, but I had the exaSound e22 in my system for a year and I've gotta say, you would be hard pressed to find a DAC that can excavate more detail than that thing can. However, it's possible it misses certain *kinds* of detail.

Yes, I believe this is different detail - the 'pay attention to me' detail that is endemic to digital. What I'm talking about is very low level detail that doesn't stand out in itself but affects the perception of what's being heard. This is the sort of detail that correctly reproduces the tails of sounds. It is the sort of low level detail that is needed to be reproduced in order that the recorded acoustic space is realistically reproduced.

What I mean by timing & low level detail being intimately interconnected is that with this correctly reproduced low level detail the full extent of notes are rendered, the correct timing of the start & end of notes are reproduced & a lot of the characteristics described become understandable - better sound stage definition, deeper sound stage depth, flow & emotion in the music & an overall more realistic sounding presentation

What I do find puzzling about digital recording, and I think some folks here are trying to get at this idea, is if we know how to register detail "properly" in the recording process, how can we not translate that consistently at the reproduction end? Do all recording engineers understand what's going into their digital envelopes when they're making recordings, I.e., do they know everything their instruments are grabbing from the event? I've never sat behind a recording desk so I ask this in all curiosity, not being at all sarcastic.

One thing I would say is that digital playback is more sensitive than digital recording hence why early CDs which were once thought as flawed prove not to be when played back through better digital playback.

[mmerrill99]

If "professional" reviews dismiss all shortcomings as character and try to sell the idea that ultimately it's all a matter of taste - and that any equipment, irregardless of its performance, is bound to please someone - something is wrong.

 

The industry subsidises magazines and these in turn don't criticise the products.

It's a win win situation.

Except for the unsuspecting reader...

 

Stereophile produces measurements of most reviewed equipment and in most cases these technical evaluations invariably end up with JA saying that despite the shortcomings it sounds nice or the problems aren't significant.

 

Yes, something is very wrong.

 

R

 

Yes, the measurements bear very little relationship to how something sounds - that is the something that is very wrong & not the insinuations you intend

[mansr]

Yes, the measurements bear very little relationship to how something sounds - that is the something that is very wrong & not the insinuations you intend

I'll grant you that measurements bear little relationship to what people want to hear.

[mmerrill99]

I'll grant you that measurements bear little relationship to what people want to hear.

Ah, I see - you want people to hear what the measurements show - typical circular logic of the religion of measurements.

Nothing wrong with measurements whatsoever, it's just when they become infused with this religious fervour & blindness, they become propaganda tools & lose all value as a result.

[semente]

Yes, the measurements bear very little relationship to how something sounds - that is the something that is very wrong

 

I and many other would disagree with this.

 

The problem is that a lot of people including "professional" reviewers don't evaluate sound, they taste it.

 

R

[firedog]

So, let's see how difficult it is. You maintain that ALL playback has colorations. Do you know precisely how auditory perception works & what are the precise auditory effects of these colorations? No? Then how can you judge the auditory significance of each coloration & it's level. How can you therefore judge the auditory effect of digital's colorations Vs vinyl's colorations?

 

Why the antagonism?

No, I can't prove anything and didn't say I can. So what? If you seriously think the multiple steps and multiple format changes a digital file goes through to be played back as an LP, arguably result in less coloration/distortion than the same master file directly played back and converted to analog, then more power to you. I'd say your argument defies common sense and just about everything we know about audio reproduction. But no, I can't PROVE it.

Wow, you've really put me in my place. I'll just retire from the forum due to the force of your superior logic and powerful argument.

[mmerrill99]

Why the antagonism?

Didn't mean it to be antagonistic, just logical - I guess it can look the same?

No, I can't prove anything and didn't say I can. So what? If you seriously think the multiple steps and multiple format changes a digital file goes through to be played back as an LP, arguably result in less coloration/distortion than the same master file directly played back and converted to analog, then more power to you. I'd say your argument defies common sense and just about everything we know about audio reproduction. But no, I can't PROVE it.

I didn't say or ask you to prove anything, I was just giving an alternative possibility to the scenario you painted as being incontrovertibly correct. Maybe you consider disagreement with your opinion as antagonism?

 

I noted a few pages back you said in answer to this "show that simple circuits give better SQ"

"There's no such proof. There are simple and complex devices that both give good sound.

Why make a specific technology in a design some kind of litmus test for whether the component sounds good? Listen and decide"

 

Now you are saying that fewer stages is indeed beneficial??

[mmerrill99]

I and many other would disagree with this.

 

The problem is that a lot of people including "professional" reviewers don't evaluate sound, they taste it.

 

R

What do you mean by "taste it"?

[Ralf11]

The industry subsidises magazines and these in turn don't criticise the products.

It's a win win situation.

Except for the unsuspecting reader...

 

he already said his webzine uses a technique to isolate ads from his opinions - similar to what a newspaper does between its reporting and ad divisions

 

or, if you mean in general, then you have a very valid point; tho I think a refusal to do blind testing on products is more important, not to mention failure to describe any of the testing methodology

 

as to the coloration issue - consider the Maggie speakers: they often have problems when tested, but do some other things so well that they enjoy a very high reputation

 

when Peter Aczel (Audio Cryptic) tested some he said something along the lines of: they have no right to sound this good based on the test measurements, but they do...

[esldude]

Didn't mean it to be antagonistic, just logical - I guess it can look the same?

I didn't say or ask you to prove anything, I was just giving an alternative possibility to the scenario you painted as being incontrovertibly correct. Maybe you consider disagreement with your opinion as antagonism?

 

I noted a few pages back you said in answer to this "show that simple circuits give better SQ"

 

 

Now you are saying that fewer stages is indeed beneficial??

 

Get a grip. Several stages of media transformation and circuits with different number of active elements are quite different things. Of course that is obvious to anyone.

[sandyk]

Very worth trying it with a native DSD DAC.

 

Hi Yash

I don't have a native DSD DAC, neither do I feel the need for one, especially as very little material available in DSD is of interest to me.

 

Regards

Alex

[mmerrill99]

Get a grip. Several stages of media transformation and circuits with different number of active elements are quite different things. Of course that is obvious to anyone.

"quite different things" to what?

[mansr]

"quite different things" to what?

To each other.

[esldude]

"quite different things" to what?

 

If you need that question answered, you should figure it out on your own before posting again.

 

It appears mansr thought you needed the help so he gave it to you. You should thank him.

[mmerrill99]

Yes, you are correct, thank you mansr & Dennis!

[sandyk]

I should have addressed these points in my previous reply.

 

The reviews I write for Stereophile are edited to make me sound like a better writer ;-) To be more direct, my reviews are edited by an editor. These edits have only ever served to improve my poor grammar and have never served to change the meaning of what I've written. If anything, the edits have served to better convey my point.

 

Yes, I read John Swenson's posts here. I also interviewed John in a 3-part series for my site, and have included direct quotes from him and Alex in my review.

 

I have to say, this focus on AS is beginning to make me uncomfortable as it strikes me as being inappropriate, here. I'd be happy to continue any discussion and answer any questions via email.

 

Michael

As I don't read Stereophile, I am unaware of the articles that you write, although I have certainly heard of you . As you have explained that the only editorial influence on your writing is to correct grammatical errors, and make your submissions more readable, I unreservedly apologise for having insulted your integrity.

Unless you have some interest in the subject matter that I previously mentioned, which throws an entirely new light on digital audio problems AND methods to improve them, if I am proved correct, which Martin Colloms, Barry Diament, Marcin from jPlay, John Kenny.Peter St.(Phasure NOS DAC and XXHE ) and many others have already concluded, it would seem pointless for me to continue any further discussions with you by either email or PM.

 

The CD-Rs that I mentioned are already in the USA with esldude ( Dennis) if anybody with a better than average CD player and system is interested in hearing these differences for themselves.

Once again, my apologies.

Alex

[mmerrill99]

What Firedog said which I awkwardly responded to was

If you seriously think the multiple steps and multiple format changes a digital file goes through to be played back as an LP, arguably result in less coloration/distortion than the same master file directly played back and converted to analog, then more power to you. I'd say your argument defies common sense and just about everything we know about audio reproduction. But no, I can't PROVE it.

 

According to this logic we should all change to DSD playback & not bother with any further discussion as DSD direct recording & DSD playback are the most direct digital audio chain.

[sandyk]

I'd take a Lavorgna article over a Darko one any day (refused to find DSD files to test a DSD DAC with once, hopefully he improved on his reviews).

 

Hi Yash

It is possible that I may have read articles by Michael previously without realising that he wrote them. I have certainly read articles where John Swenson was interviewed.

 

Regards

Alex

[esldude]

What Firedog said which I awkwardly responded to was

 

According to this logic we should all change to DSD playback & not bother with any further discussion as DSD direct recording & DSD playback are the most direct digital audio chain.

 

Still need to tune up your reasoning.