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

[beerandmusic]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

I t appears that you keep wanting to find a simple and cheap solution to achieving the best possible sound quality, and I keep pointing out that this is not going to happen, all the details are going to matter no matter what you say.

 

Everyone wants the best possible sq within their budget, for those that have a budget. 

I would be willing to pay more, if i knew that one absolutely is much better...or even 20% better, where there is consensus.  When the SQ is subjectively better (From what i have read, sotm is), but I am sure there may be a few that have tried both and like the rendu more as well.  But again, I just am not convinced that any enet is better than another....just subjective opinions. that i believe people could not agree on. 

 

I personally would be willing to pay a lot more if products were given a ranking based on DBT.  Like you said, you don't think there is much difference in dacs less than $2K.  I have tried so many dacs, after hearing, whoa best dac ever, only to be unimpressed, that i am just skeptical any more.

 

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

I personally would be willing to pay a lot more if products were given a ranking based on DBT.

 

Just because a panel preferred the sound of one product over another under non sighted conditions doesn't necessarily prove it is superior to another. The preferred product may have sounded a little warmer, which many like, due to a higher percentage of even order harmonics, as with many Vacuum Tube amplifiers.

[beerandmusic]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

Just because a panel preferred the sound of one product over another under non sighted conditions doesn't necessarily prove it is superior to another. The preferred product may have sounded a little warmer, which many like, due to a higher percentage of even order harmonics, as with many Vacuum Tube amplifiers.

 

i never said it was...and on the contrary, i don't think either is superior...if i had to pick one or the other, i would likely go with the SOTM, based only on what i have read.

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

i never said it was...and on the contrary, i don't think either is superior...

 

 

 I wasn't just referring to SS vs. Valve. Some SS amplifiers such as several designs by Aspen Audio from Melbourne (  DIY Audio member Hugh Dean) deliberately enhance the fairly low even order harmonic distortion for a slightly warmer sound which some prefer.  Measurements should also accompany any such DBT comparisons.

[beerandmusic]

5 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 I wasn't just referring to SS vs. Valve. Some SS amplifiers such as several designs by Aspen Audio from Melbourne (  DIY Audio member Hugh Dean) deliberately enhance the fairly low even order harmonic distortion for a slightly warmer sound which some prefer.  Measurements should also accompany any such DBT comparisons.

 

Besides measurements, i would like to see comments on why someone preferred one to another...my guess is that in many cases, that the responses would be all over the place with little consistency, and that if the same people redid the test changing the order, that they wouldn't be able come up with the same responses for the same gear.  Speakers and amplifiers i believe would be a lot easier to distinguish than dacs, interfaces, and cables....  I believe it is very possible with good design to use lesser cost components, where more costly components may only have marginal improvements.  It really depends...  so just saying something doesn't have a dedicated transformer, doesn't necessarily mean it will sound better....remembering with these devices, we only want to transfer bits and minimize noise, not make music.

[adamdea]

On 1/19/2018 at 10:17 PM, fas42 said:

 

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  ...

Err sorry: I meant to ask in the context of the distinction between an illusion and a hallucination whether the former may be a the result of properly working perceptual system. 

[lmitche]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

Remember, we want to get the consumer grade computer gear away from the audio system.

Barrows,

 

This dialog is really over the top.  There are many ways to create a great sounding music server. You know this. Please stop spouting platitudes about Sonore gear.  It's tiresome. Having a vendor answer the question what is BEST Digital source? 

sounds like advertising to me.

 

There are many ways to skin the cat. One of those is to purchase one of the many fine Sonore solutions. Likewise, there are many other vendors of similar products.  And lastly DIY approaches made from consumer grade components can be had that match or exceed the SQ of purpose built components.

 

It is nice to know that you work for a vendor whose products you use and admire. However biased statements like the one above discredit the otherwise useful information you share in these pages.

 

Larry

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, adamdea said:

Err sorry: I meant to ask in the context of the distinction between an illusion and a hallucination whether the former may be a the result of properly working perceptual system. 

 

I'm no expert, but this seems like a valid distinction. An illusion is caused by a 'properly' operating perceptual system, one that is making conclusions that do not correspond with reality under some specific conditions. Illusions are a minor mis-interpretation of sensory input by the perceptual system, repeatable, and often shared by many, if not most individuals.

 

Hallucinations are specific to a single individual, rarely shared, and often involve a complete misinterpretation of reality, not just of a single sensory input. More akin to dreaming where the sensory inputs are almost completely ignored.

[nbpf]

14 hours ago, barrows said:

Yes.  But you will still need a low noise high quality source component to provide the best possible USB signal, not a consumer grade computer.  Remember, we want to get the consumer grade computer gear away from the audio system.

...

The problem is that there are quite different consumer grade computers and quite different high quality source components, let apart DACs. Thus, to make a specific example, I have only recently realized that the DAC I am using (the old Naim DAC) overrides the clocks of its S/PDIF sources under normal operation. Thus, for Naim DAC users, improving the clocks of the source is likely to yield no significant improvements in sound quality. By contrast, most S/PDIF DACs will take advantage from improved source clocking. There are many ways of getting "the consumer grade computer gear away from the audio system". Streaming over Ethernet is the one that is understandably most advocated by manufacturers of streamers and network players. Streaming over USB via a USB to S/PDIF isolator is another way. For users of DACs with S/PDIF inputs, the latter is, in most cases, by far more convenient.     

[barrows]

10 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Around? Think in these terms - that the structure that supports the driving mechanism of the speakers, however they are constructed, remains as motionless as possible.

 

A big part of my first good sound was that the chipboard boxes used for the B&W bookshelf speakers were very strongly coupled to the concrete sub-floor - gave me very tight, subjectively intense bass quality - never have the slightest desire for a subwoofer ...

I am surprised...  Typically I would expect you to respond to realistic, musical sounding bass.  I never really hear "tight" bass in live music.  And what about the bottom octave?  I really like what adding a well implemented sub does for the foundation of both orchestral and other types of larger scale music.  My sub is crossed in at only 40 Hz, so it disappears into the sound field easily and does not bring attention to itself.  But it does increase soundstage depth, and gives body and weight to music which has information in the sub35 Hz region.

[barrows]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

My guess is that most streamer/dacs (even high-end) don't have a separate transformer for the enet intfc alone, that the engineers don't feel it is necessary and probably would just add more noise to have a 3rd one...You have a dedicated one because it wouldn't work without one.  As far as "ultra low phase noise" clocks, i don't know, they do market saying "high precision low noise clocks", and option for external clock for even better clocking..In one file they even state "noiseless reference internal clocks".  As you and others say its impossible to be noiseless, but the fact that they would use the term, i would tend to believe they have "really low noise", and debatable as to who has lower noise?

These things are not debatable, it easy just to look and see what the clock is, then you will know.  A separate transformer for the Ethernet interface is highly advisable, other wise the noise from the Ethernet processing will couple through the transformer to everything else.  The new(wish) Ayre DAC has 4 transformers internally, it is likely that one of these is dedicated to the (built in) Ethernet interface.

[barrows]

8 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Besides measurements, i would like to see comments on why someone preferred one to another...my guess is that in many cases, that the responses would be all over the place with little consistency, and that if the same people redid the test changing the order, that they wouldn't be able come up with the same responses for the same gear.  Speakers and amplifiers i believe would be a lot easier to distinguish than dacs, interfaces, and cables....  I believe it is very possible with good design to use lesser cost components, where more costly components may only have marginal improvements.  It really depends...  so just saying something doesn't have a dedicated transformer, doesn't necessarily mean it will sound better....remembering with these devices, we only want to transfer bits and minimize noise, not make music.

I do not find this to be the case at all.  At Sonore we make three levels of Ethernet Renderers: the microRendu, the ultraRendu, and the Signature Rendu SE.  There is a clear step up in sound quality from the lowest model to the highest, and this step is obvious, repeatable, and consistent in different systems.

As to component costs and design choices:  If you already have the best possible design, then further advancements in sound quality can still be made by using better (usually more expensive) components.  Of course throwing expensive components at a poor design would be a fools errand.  having separate power supplies raises costs, but REDUCES NOISE, adding another transformer REDUCES NOISE.  Using a lower phase noise clock improves performance.

While I would never suggest that someone add better parts to a poor design, adding better parts to a good design will increase the performance.  In terms of parts quality, consider voltage regulators: the difference between a standard voltage regulator is it has about ten times more noise on its output than a really good voltage regulator has-this is not a matter of opinion, it is a measurable fact.  The good voltage regulator in this example also costs about 5X more than the standard choice.

So if we want to produce a really good product, with really good performance, we are going to need both really good design, AND, proper attention paid to really good parts quality where it matters (such as voltage regulators and clocks).

[mansr]

17 minutes ago, barrows said:

These things are not debatable, it easy just to look and see what the clock is, then you will know.

How do you reliably identify an unknown crystal? The markings tend to be rather generic.

[barrows]

6 minutes ago, mansr said:

How do you reliably identify an unknown crystal? The markings tend to be rather generic.

If it is that generic one can then reliably assume that it is not anything special.  All the XO I have seen which achieve very low phase noise have obvious markings (Crysteks, NDK although for NDK one needs a really good magnifier to read it!, FOX etc),

The clock in all the Rendu models has obvious markings. 

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Around? Think in these terms - that the structure that supports the driving mechanism of the speakers, however they are constructed, remains as motionless as possible.

 

A big part of my first good sound was that the chipboard boxes used for the B&W bookshelf speakers were very strongly coupled to the concrete sub-floor - gave me very tight, subjectively intense bass quality - never have the slightest desire for a subwoofer ...

 

Quads and Maggies don't use cabinets, so don't have their problems.  It was a joke - tho, I do see some cabinets made of Al these days

[barrows]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Quads and Maggies don't use cabinets, so don't have their problems.  It was a joke - tho, I do see some cabinets made of Al these days

Except they do have the problems associated with no cabinets, lack of weight and body, transparent to the point of being see through.They are awesome at what they do well, but music has body and soul as well as transparency...

[Ralf11]

I agree with the general negatives, but not the specific characterization as "body and soul"

 

if anybody wants to gift me some Sonus Faber Aida's I will promise to dump the Maggies...

[barrows]

I have not heard the new statement models from Magenplanar, the may be large enough to produce realistic body, at a price of course.  I do love what planars do right.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

I am surprised...  Typically I would expect you to respond to realistic, musical sounding bass.  I never really hear "tight" bass in live music.  And what about the bottom octave?  I really like what adding a well implemented sub does for the foundation of both orchestral and other types of larger scale music.  My sub is crossed in at only 40 Hz, so it disappears into the sound field easily and does not bring attention to itself.  But it does increase soundstage depth, and gives body and weight to music which has information in the sub35 Hz region.

 

Depends upon what we have in mind when we say "tight" bass - I use that term because it seems to correspond to what others use when they describe a quality that I can relate to. Most systems don't get bass right - it's bloated and over cooked; and doesn't correspond in the slightest to what one hears live.

 

I find bass almost irrelevant to large scale music - I had a system running at one stage with a separate subwoofer, it was part of the raw system, which covered a large part of the bass range. And because of my tweaking at times this subwoofer cut out, it was totally non-operational - and I had many occasions where I listened to whole albums, and was completely oblivious to this fact ... finally, I would put on some solo piano, and think, gee, the left hand is sounding a bit thin - and realise the situation ... .

 

Test recordings I use for "tight bass" are Boney M; and ZZ Top in their heavy duty synth albums - the bass has 'visceral' impact in these, which often goes completely missing.

 

 

[fas42]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

Quads and Maggies don't use cabinets, so don't have their problems.  It was a joke - tho, I do see some cabinets made of Al these days

 

But these speakers would still benefit from locking the supporting frame into position - a non-trivial exercise, but I would certainly do it.

[barrows]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

But these speakers would still benefit from locking the supporting frame into position - a non-trivial exercise, but I would certainly do it.

And there mod kits out there specifically to do that for early Quads, new Quads have better bracing.

[Ryan Berry]

4 hours ago, barrows said:

These things are not debatable, it easy just to look and see what the clock is, then you will know.  A separate transformer for the Ethernet interface is highly advisable, other wise the noise from the Ethernet processing will couple through the transformer to everything else.  The new(wish) Ayre DAC has 4 transformers internally, it is likely that one of these is dedicated to the (built in) Ethernet interface.

Hey Barrows,

 

That's correct.  One of the transformers in the QX-5 is dedicated to the Ethernet PCB, which runs the Ethernet connection and the two USB Host ports for flash drives or WiFi antenna if you plug it in.  We also have separate windings on the other 2 board-mounted transformers for the S/PDIF inputs, the USB section, the Logic, and the FPGA - all powered linearly; and of course the separate stand-alone Mercury transformer dedicated to the Audio portion of the unit.  It's definitely not an inexpensive way to do things, but the hit on sound quality for any of the alternatives was not an option for us.

[beerandmusic]

On 1/22/2018 at 3:16 PM, Ryan Berry said:

Hey Barrows,

 

That's correct.  One of the transformers in the QX-5 is dedicated to the Ethernet PCB, which runs the Ethernet connection and the two USB Host ports for flash drives or WiFi antenna if you plug it in.  We also have separate windings on the other 2 board-mounted transformers for the S/PDIF inputs, the USB section, the Logic, and the FPGA - all powered linearly; and of course the separate stand-alone Mercury transformer dedicated to the Audio portion of the unit.  It's definitely not an inexpensive way to do things, but the hit on sound quality for any of the alternatives was not an option for us.

 

I just looked up the QX-5.  That looks like an impressive piece of gear like what I am looking for.  It may be out of my budget, but it looks like you really have something here which is what I have been longing to see....It may be worth reaching for....

 

Can you tell me does it cross off all my checkboxes?

 

DSD256+ on both usb and enet

galvanic isolation on usb

ES9038 in mono mono design

ultra low phase noise clocks

LPS or optional LPS

WIFI

Ability to turn off circuits not in use

jitter reduction circuitry

 

And did i see the price right?  $6K?  That seems very low for AYRE?

Did you skiimp on the dac or somewhere, where separates would offer more SQ?

 

thanks

[beerandmusic]

^^^ nvm...i just googled and found this

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=ayre+qx-5&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

 

and saw the $6k...just realized that was for a used one...9K retail....a little too much for me to stretch too....

Still looks like a nice piece of gear....wishful dreaming....

[Ryan Berry]

12 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I just looked up the QX-5.  That looks like an impressive piece of gear like what I am looking for.  It may be out of my budget, but it looks like you really have something here which is what I have been longing to see....It may be worth reaching for....

 

Can you tell me does it cross off all my checkboxes?

 

DSD256+ on both usb and enet

galvanic isolation on usb

ES9038 in mono mono design

ultra low phase noise clocks

LPS or optional LPS

WIFI

Ability to turn off circuits not in use

jitter reduction circuitry

 

And did i see the price right?  $6K?  That seems very low for AYRE?

Did you skiimp on the dac or somewhere, where separates would offer more SQ?

 

thanks

 

Would be happy to talk to you about the features sometime, but I think we hit most of what you'd be looking for and a few things besides.  I don't want to sound like I'm advertising on the forum (not sure of the rules on that), but can talk in private message or over the phone any time.  I know the price is out of the range, but keep an eye out, you never know what we may be coming out with next...