FORGETTING the Digital to Analog conversion part, what is BEST Digital source?

[Ryan Berry]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

Perhaps you could share an example of this poor engineering?

Take for example Ayre products.  These are exceptional audio performers by anyone's standards, but, Ayre chooses not to use global negative feedback in their circuits.  Because they make the subjective choice to not use GNF, their products exhibit slightly higher distortion and lower damping factor (in amplifiers), the distortion levels are still low enough to be below what is considered to be audible.  They have these somewhat higher distortion measurements ON PURPOSE because it is their feeling that GNF sounds worse.  This is not poor engineering, in fact it is superb engineering as they have been able to produce innovative solid state circuits without resorting to GNF, which still have low distortion.  The engineers at Ayre are highly capable, and could produce much lower distortion components by adding some GNF, but they choose not to specifically to produce a sound they feel is more accurate.

 

I can do you one better and point out that Ayre actually introduced some feedback in our designs in 2014.  After designing another product that had negative feedback out of necessity and knowing that the product sounded good, Charley had thought that it would certainly sound better than our existing design.  So they put it in, but didn't really listen to it as much as we normally would as they were under a time crunch and I was swamped with other work at the time and could put zero time into it myself.  The first models went out and were almost universally complained about.  They sounded better in some ways and certainly improved a few other factors in the units (not to mention they were way easier to set up in the shop), but the overall sound quality was definitively worse in other ways and uncharacteristic for Ayre, preventing them from standing out in the market.  So we recalled every unit in the field and re-released the redesigned units. 

 

We, like many other companies, make sure to subject our products to a large number of tests when designing and building our products.  In production, this can quickly tell us if something is wrong with a unit, while in development it can spot some pretty obvious faults early on that helps us wasting time later.  For example, if an amplifier that's designed to put out 300 watts starts showing 5% distortion at 20 watts through a 4 ohm load, SOMETHING'S not right and we may as well figure that out before bothering to hear how good or bad it may sound.  As you rightly point out, there are limits to how low this number gets without giving up far more important parts of the circuit design, only one of which is the lack of feedback; but measuring the distortion of a static signal and then expecting it to tell the story of how dynamic music is going to sound through the unit is an attempt to oversimplify things...something we were were suckered into a few years ago and understand that it's very easy to fall into the trap from the outside.

 

Distortion's a very convenient number to look at for people that do not have the resources to test theory after theory as they design a product themselves, or for the casual shopper that cannot spend months auditioning gear, but it's really not a good premise to base your design work or purchasing around as it ignores other factors that are not expressed in simple measurements.  Not to mention the fact that we're all human and thus have our own preferences and biases.  In our experience, hitting low distortion numbers is something that's nice on paper, but we don't buy the products to stare at the spec sheet.  In fact, one of the reason for our circuit design is an attempt to minimize coloration, not introduce it.

Of course, I'm speaking as a manufacturer, so I know my comments will be taken with a grain of salt.  But hopefully it also helps a few people.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, marce said:

I'd rather listen to music rather than sounds, that the whole point of having any system in my book...

 

One listens to sounds rather than music when diagnosing what's wrong with a system - when the wrongs are righted, then one can just listen to the music in total comfort, there are no nasty or irritating interludes; it always just flows ...

[barrows]

Thanks Ryan, always good to hear from another manufacturer here.  At Sonore we use measurements, mainly to tell us that we have not made a blatant engineering error somewhere, but otherwise, if we expect to make a cutting edge product (we do) we listen, and work hard to get it "right".

[fas42]

8 hours ago, adamdea said:

Happy New Year, Mr O: always a pleasure. I seem to remember that there is a technical distinction in perceptual science between illusion and hallucination- is it down to whether it is a result of a properly working system or not?.
 

 

A "properly working system" throws up an immensely impressive illusion, one which includes all the intensity and "vibe" of the "real thing" - anything less in capability couldn't even be called a hallucination ... perhaps a good analogy would be a very young member of your family trying to show you magic tricks, that he's learning from a book - you hide your smiles behind your hand, as he fumbles through the moves  ...

[mansr]

37 minutes ago, Ryan Berry said:

They sounded better in some ways and certainly improved a few other factors in the units (not to mention they were way easier to set up in the shop), but the overall sound quality was definitively worse in other ways and uncharacteristic for Ayre, preventing them from standing out in the market.

In other words, it lacked the Ayre house distortion. If an amp stands out, it's doing something wrong, IMO.

[fas42]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

In other words, it lacked the Ayre house distortion. If an amp stands out, it's doing something wrong, IMO.

 

What one is chasing is for the recording "to stand out" - the machinery making it happen must be totally 'invisible' - compare it to the ideal cinematic projection system.

[mansr]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

What one is chasing is for the recording "to stand out" - the machinery making it happen must be totally 'invisible' - compare it to the ideal cinematic projection system.

For once, I agree with you.

[Ralf11]

I just want to thank barrows for "Ayre chooses not to use global negative feedback in their circuits" - my emphasis - it is all too rare that people distinguish global vs. all or local neg. feedback

 

 

moving on:  Benchmark is using a feed forward circuit in their AH2B

[mansr]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

I just want to thank barrows for "Ayre chooses not to use global negative feedback in their circuits" - my emphasis - it is all too rare that people distinguish global vs. all or local neg. feedback

 

moving on:  Benchmark is using a feed forward circuit in their AH2B

What we need is a feedback-and-forth design.

[audio.bill]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

moving on:  Benchmark is using a feed forward circuit in their AH2B

As does Hegel with their patented Sound Engine technology, which claims to virtually eliminate Class A/B crossover distortion.

[Ralf11]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

What we need is a feedback-and-forth design.

 

 

like visual processing in the vertebrate eye?  or more like the brain?

[Ryan Berry]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I just want to thank barrows for "Ayre chooses not to use global negative feedback in their circuits" - my emphasis - it is all too rare that people distinguish global vs. all or local neg. feedback

 

 

moving on:  Benchmark is using a feed forward circuit in their AH2B

A fair distinction in general.   However, we do not use only zero global feedback. 

[Ryan Berry]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

In other words, it lacked the Ayre house distortion. If an amp stands out, it's doing something wrong, IMO.

I disagree with your assessment. The goal is to be as transparent as possible, not to try and "improve" the music with what the designer may happen to like. 

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, Ryan Berry said:

I disagree with your assessment. The goal is to be as transparent as possible, not to try and "improve" the music with what the designer may happen to like. 

I agree with that. But then, how does an amp "stand out"? The goal should be for all amps to sound exactly alike: transparent.

[fas42]

9 minutes ago, mansr said:

I agree with that. But then, how does an amp "stand out"? The goal should be for all amps to sound exactly alike: transparent.

 

Yes, it should ... the reality is that they don't - simply raising the volume level on many instantly reveals they lack the ability to maintain composure when delivering higher current to the speakers - decades ago, I depaired of coming across any that were capable; these days it is possible to find at least a few ...

[Ryan Berry]

17 minutes ago, mansr said:

I agree with that. But then, how does an amp "stand out"? The goal should be for all amps to sound exactly alike: transparent.

That's the million dollar question that we haven't had to answer yet.  If a perfectly transparent amplifier did exist, then I imagine you'd see a lot of companies scratching their heads and trying to figure out how to differentiate themselves amongst the competition.  I believe that with the many designers in the world, most of them have the same goal -- to create a product that is as revealing as possible.  But like Charles Hansen would remind people when discussing design options: there's no such thing as a free lunch.  So designers spend hundreds of hours listening to various ideas and ultimately have to choose what they believe gets them to that goal better than the other options.  Everything is a compromise of some degree.  Through the many innovators in the world using their uniquely talented minds to determine what they feel is the best choice, I believe is why we wind up with varying opinions on the subject of what makes the most important differences in sound quality; and thus products in the market that sound different from each other.  Some go by measurements.  Some go by our very subjective ears.  Some use scientific methods of changing single factors at a time and double-blind testing, others scoff at the notion.  Almost all of us do all of these things to various degrees, I'd imagine.

 

That's not to say that I'm naïve enough to believe that there's not some level of putting a company's "signature sound" in the product, though that's often a result of the overall design the inventors chose.  And of course, other companies may embrace having a "flavor" to the sound: I know my vehicle's audio system is no where near what I would consider clear and transparent...but man is it fun to listen to when I'm on the road.  I'd never let a system like that in my house to relax for the evening, though.  There are also inconvenient things like budgets and needing to make a product that people would by and that you can afford to sell in order to stay in business that factor in, of course; but even removing those silly notions and sticking with straight theory, you're going to see different designers trying to reach the same so far seemingly unattainable point through different paths.  Please note that I'm not trying to speak for any other companies here.  You'd have to get their feelings on the topic from them, but these are my beliefs.

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, Ryan Berry said:

That's not to say that I'm naïve enough to believe that there's not some level of putting a company's "signature sound" in the product, though that's often a result of the overall design the inventors chose.  And of course, other companies may embrace having a "flavor" to the sound: I know my vehicle's audio system is no where near what I would consider clear and transparent...but man is it fun to listen to when I'm on the road.  I'd never let a system like that in my house to relax for the evening, though. 

 

A system being "fun to listen to" is part of the deal - car audio sometimes gets enough things right for that reaction to kick in - the deficiencies are benign enough not to interfere with that subjective aspect.

 

The big step upward is for the rig to be "clear and transparent" and "fun to listen to" - getting both in the room at the one time is the big trick - but achieving this makes all the efforts to get there worthwhile ...

[beerandmusic]

On 1/17/2018 at 3:23 PM, sandyk said:

 

 Many manufacturers claim that. However , you would need to check the Data sheets in each case to confirm that one low phase noise type has much better specifications than the other.

 Also, it doesn't matter just how good it's specifications are unless it is also powered by a higher quality than typical ,further  isolated power supply, perhaps using S.O.A. voltage regulators, or a Shunt type PSU.

where can you find the data sheet or info on the nt503?  I am just curious if the ethernet part of the nt503 is just as good as sonore...barrows says sonore supports dsd512, but i dont know if that the nt503 supports only up to dsd5.6mhz as result of dac portion or enet portion?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

where can you find the data sheet or info on the nt503?  I am just curious if the ethernet part of the nt503 is just as good as sonore...barrows says sonore supports dsd512, but i dont know if that the nt503 supports only up to dsd5.6mhz as result of dac portion or enet portion?

 

 

 Unless a manufacturer makes a big deal about them using a special Xtal Oscillator module or other special features such as Ethernet , you are unlikely to find it on their web site. You would need to contact the manufacturer directly .

You may also find this information in the owner's manual, which can often be downloaded by prospective purchasers.

[barrows]

Remember sandyk's advice, you have to check the voltage regulators as well, and the PCB layout, and the decoupling caps, and, and, and... the devil is in (all) the details.

 

At the very least compare the phase noise spec at 10 Hz for the Ethernet clock on the Teac, and the voltage regulators on the board.  And then you can compare those parts to what Sonore uses in the Signature Rendu SE, additionally, does the Teac have a dedicated transformer just for the Ethernet interface?  I bet it does not...

[Ralf11]

20 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

A system being "fun to listen to" is part of the deal - car audio sometimes gets enough things right for that reaction to kick in - the deficiencies are benign enough not to interfere with that subjective aspect.

....

 

 

the great thing about car audio is that driving + car audio can create some synesthesia

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

Remember sandyk's advice, you have to check the voltage regulators as well, and the PCB layout, and the decoupling caps, and, and, and... the devil is in (all) the details.

 

 

That's the "answer to everything" - scale the concept to include the whole system, and real progress can be made. I don't have a CD player, an amp, and some speakers - it's a single circuit that happens to be an audio playback mechanism; and I troubleshoot until it performs adequately. This perspective is what gave me my original burst of competent sound, and what I have used ever since - take care of anything that may be relevant, and the rewards always emerge.

[beerandmusic]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

Remember sandyk's advice, you have to check the voltage regulators as well, and the PCB layout, and the decoupling caps, and, and, and... the devil is in (all) the details.

 

At the very least compare the phase noise spec at 10 Hz for the Ethernet clock on the Teac, and the voltage regulators on the board.  And then you can compare those parts to what Sonore uses in the Signature Rendu SE, additionally, does the Teac have a dedicated transformer just for the Ethernet interface?  I bet it does not...

less power supplies and less clocks can also mean less noise and less manufacturing costs...They do advertise torroidal transformers to reduce noise....the biggest question really is, do they get the bits to the dac buffer with less noise, right?

[sandyk]

46 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

...They do advertise torroidal transformers to reduce noise...

 

 Toroidal transformers are normally used for their efficiency and low cost.

There are better transformers such as R Core transformers if you want less noise.

Less power supplies/ voltage regulation is a recipe for poorer performance in devices like DACs where for best results you need to separate the power for the Digital and Analogue areas.

[beerandmusic]

37 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 Toroidal transformers are normally used for their efficiency and low cost.

There are better transformers such as R Core transformers if you want less noise.

Less power supplies/ voltage regulation is a recipe for poorer performance in devices like DACs where for best results you need to separate the power for the Digital and Analogue areas.

Does sonore use rcore?

If not, maybe they should try it?