The Best for the Least

[fas42]

1 minute ago, GUTB said:

 

There’s no chance that these little plastic class D toy speakers  are any good.

 

Ummm, wrong - I've heard mic pickup of what they're producing, and they do do a remarkable job - vastly better than many over expensive efforts out there ...

[fas42]

47 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 The little cheap 5" driver being run by a tiny class D module will never be able to move a satisfying amount of air.

 

Just on that point, a "cheap 5" driver" "will never be able to move a satisfying amount of air" - irrespective of how it's driven - is a nonsense. I've had it demonstrated to myself, over and over again, that small, low cost drivers connected to an amplifier of relatively low power, in which the whole setup has been carefully optimised, can deliver sound which is deafening, and alternatively, highly satisfying.

[fas42]

The bit about EEs is relevant in that some of these don't wish to move out of a safe space of thinking about "how it all works" - I'm one of those strange blokes who doesn't, work out who the Most Important Guy In The Room is and then suck up everything that that person spews forth - if something happens that doesn't make sense, to me, then I'll go away and try to get a handle on it ... my way.

 

Which means that the simple explanations that fill textbooks are not the full story - I have done software simulations so many times of realistic, rather than ideal circuits - and, the real story is somewhat messy! Glitches and unwanted behaviour are there aplenty - and I have created circuit modifications which, by simulation testing, make the behaviour 'better'. Wonders of wonders, doing these mods for real improves the sound - who would have thunk it !! Which means, that it all is very logical, everything follows - but if one switches off wanting to understand beyond a certain point, then your grasp of the whole will always fall short ...

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

A few years back, I heard a CD which had pops and cracks recorded in their mix. Sounded nostalgic until it became irritating. Remind me why we embraced CDs...

 

 

Ummm, some really, really bad work in this regard was done with Amy Winehouse tracks - to me, these pieces are unlistenable to, the "fakeness" of the effect screams at me, and completely disrupts enjoyment of the musical flow.

[fas42]

Worrying about electrical safety is not relevant to the matter at the heart of this - that we are still way off being able to derive numbers that correlate with the subjective SQ. Being able to produce figures might make some people happy, but not others - I have a 30 year old power amplifier which has spec numbers which would embarrass many current offerings, in terms of the detail given, and the values derived - but that didn't stop it having audible problems. If you can't fully characterise everything that matters in audio, then you ain't got sh!t !!! ...

[fas42]

18 hours ago, Spacehound said:

"we are still way off being able to derive numbers that correlate with the subjective SQ."

 

Of course we can. You just destroyed your own argument by mentioning 'subjective SQ'.

 

What someone thinks is good SQ is  entirely personal, as in  "Spacehound likes it but fas42 doesn't"..

 

No more than that.

 

But it you measure it, and find that it  (be "it" a DAC, amp, speaker, whatever) has low noise, a flat frequency response, low phase shift throughout its frequency response, and a high input impedance and a low output impedance so it will work well with whatever is in front of it and behind it:

 

It can't HELP but reproduce the source accurately.

 

Which, lacking the artistes in your room, so having to use a recording as your source,   is the very definition of 'good sound quality'  (hifi = high fidelity = accuracy = qood sound quality). Got nothing to do with whether you like it or not. If you don't then buy a different recording.

 

 

 

Objective SQ is what we currently measure, subjective SQ is how perceive the presentation; whether it ticks all the boxes. What I like, and so far others that I've come across like, are no audible giveaways that the sound being heard is a "fake", that there are no signature sounds of a hifi system doing its thing; other phrases could be, complete invisibility of the speakers anywhere in the area, and that all recordings throw up a convincing illusion. These aspects may not be agreeable for you, but that's fine ...

 

To this day I have no way of measuring what the key parameters are, by instrument. All those parameters you mention are helpful, but not sufficient for understanding whether the system "measures up" - the critical ones are in the area of low level distortion, noise, interference effects; aspects which are never measured.

 

If you have never heard the SQ I speak of then it may be hard to understand what the goal is - I obviously have, and it's "as clear as day" when a system has it, and when it doesn't ...

[fas42]

5 hours ago, bigbob said:

I found a remarkable, and a quite noticeable improvement, when I took a run of speaker wire and wrapped one end around the metal water pipe under the sink, and the other end around the tab on a 3-prong adapter, in which I plugged my Chang Lightspeed Encounter--and by extension every other component plugged into it.

I also attached a run to the GRD on the back of the Denon. I was told this was a "star-ground". Okay, all I know is that is sounded better.

 

 

These are exactly the sort of experiments I did, and still do, to work out where room for improvement exists. If the sound changes, that means the components, forming a system, are not stable - that is, the observed behaviour is not invariant when simple, easily performed tests are done. The audio industry should have sorted this out decades ago - but since they haven't, it's up to the curious to see if more can be extracted from the raw ingredients - the rewards can be immense, as I found out decades ago.

[fas42]

42 minutes ago, bigbob said:

 

Well, I am making the assumption that the DAC is the ultimate "source" of the analog signal, which the amp will amplify, and the speakers will turn into sound.

I don't think the computer or the USB cable which transports the digital file from a hard-drive will impact in a positive manner a bad signal from the DAC. I have heard a noticeable improvement when I got the Nordost Valhalla speaker ribbons--but I would not be recommending an $8,000 speaker wire upgrade as the place to start.

 

The principle with audio reproduction that counts beyond everything else is that every aspect is working "well enough" - inserting the most brilliant speakers in the world, say, will not compensate for some dodgy implementation in the amplifier, say. Reasonable quality in everything will produce outstanding sound - but superb DAC and amplifier still won't sound right if, say, the linkage between some parts is not working as well as it should - perhaps a new acronym should be coined; GWGO - Garbage Weakness, Garbage Output.

[fas42]

17 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Yes, you have it solved.

 

or nearly so -- maybe nothing is ever solved

 

What has been solved, by at least some people, is creating a system which allows any recording to provide listening pleasure, at any reasonable volume one chooses. This is a major step up on what most ambitious setups are capable of - nearly all show audible deficiencies in some aspect of their operation, which means restrictions in the type of material that can be played, and the volumes that reproduction is acceptable at.

[fas42]

The 70, 80 dB down area is where the action is, in terms of getting it right or not - a setup that gets part of the story accurate to 200 dB down, but messes up another aspect at -60 dB ain't winning ...

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Spacehound said:

Chord and dCS go their own way and they are genuinely superior. And you will notice that superiority in less than a minute.

 

What makes you think they're superior?

[fas42]

9 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

DCS is out of my budget anyway...what's your take on Chord?

 

Technology in itself is not the answer. I heard the most expensive iteration of the dCS range about a dozen years ago, and the sound was dreadful - it had everything wrong about it, classic "digital sound", what people have been scathing about since the early years. It was a system problem, as nearly all these situations are - but it didn't help that the particular rig when playing vinyl was superbly good, as a contrast.

[fas42]

22 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

What makes you think they're superior?

 

I note you say Chord and the dCS  "sounds  vastly better than any other DAC" - so, what in the specifications make that obvious to a curious buyer?

[fas42]

11 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

the claim is the proprietary fpga algorithm's isn't it?

 

Okay, that is an engineering solution which supposedly "makes it better" - but what specifically is "better", that's measurable?

[fas42]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

 

everything is subjective anymore....we only got our ears to judge if we like better...most people realize that in most cases the measurements don't tell the story anymore....surely you have been on this site long enough to know that by now. 

 

 

I've been on enough audio forums to know how it works - the objectivists say that measurements are all we need to know - but the obvious reality is that not enough is measured, and we're still clueless as to how to assess the equipment, by numbers. IME, nearly all are still flawed in various areas - so, either accept some compromise in what you get, or, do work to iron out the remaining deficiencies - the latter is extremely effective, I've found.

[fas42]

10 hours ago, semente said:

 

If the vinyl was "superbly good" then it couldn't have been a system problem, could it?

Perhaps there was a problem with the DAC?

 

My suspicion is that there was cross interference between the dCS, and the amplifier setup. This was Halcro, the "lowest distortion" amplifier one could buy, when they were flavour of the month. But, they used switching mode power supplies, and I feel that the combo of circuitry was causing the anomaly. When purely vinyl, the Halcro circuitry could shine, and did so.

[fas42]

15 hours ago, Spacehound said:

I'm a 'dyed in the wool'  objectivist.

 

But this time I have to say "my ears" 

 

Perhaps I should have said 'different' rather than 'superior' as we have no reference. But now I find all other DACS I've tried are either boring or unlistenable.

 

I didn't buy the Chord because I thought it sounded good, I never heard it at all. I just bought it because I knew  from the specs that it would drive the rather insensitive car 'aux' input.  But it's stunning in my home system too.

 

I know why.

Neither the Chord nor the dCS use a ten dollar DAC chip made for   TVs and portable radios, like the others do. All the chips have to do is be low cost. and work after a fashion, who pays much attention to the sound quality of  flat TVs?

 

That may be why the Yggdrasil is said to be good (I've not heard it). It uses  a DAC chip but it's  an unusual one,  not, I believe, originally meant  to help keep the price of TVs as low as possible.

 

 

Right, it's your ears - and I'm totally on your side! Now, the way I would describe the situation is that "all other DACS I've tried are either boring or unlistenable" is because all those DACs operating in the context of the setup where they're part of the chain are directly or indirectly causing audible distortion to be part of the sound. "Boring or unlistenable" IS the nature of "digital distortion" - a sometimes subtle deadening, sucking the life out of the recording are the signature signs of its presence - and when that flaw is resolved, the SQ snaps back to life again, gloriously.

 

Cheap chip DACs can get it right, but they need to be engineered well - a "ridiculously expensive" CH Precision CDP got the job done with a single, cheap chip - as evidenced by my ears at the time - but the internals had battleship levels of construction quality; which was the key factor, IMO, which gave that audible result.

 

Alternatively, careful DIY tweaking of the system as a whole - the way I do things - can produce "stunning sound" - the specs only tell one what is possible; not what the actual rig is delivering, in the room.

[fas42]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Oohashi’s results haven’t proved to be repeatable. Experimental results which aren’t confirmed by others don’t really count for anything in science. 

 

In addition, some people who’ve looked at the experiment think that what the subjects were reacting to was.a type of distortion caused in the playback equipment by the very high frequency sources, and not the high frequencies themselves. Oohashi didn’t control for this factor, so you can’t actually say that his results show subjects reacted to hearing high frequencies.

 

 

A huge amount of the sciencey testing crashes into the "not controlling for all possible factors" pothole - because it takes too much time, is far too difficult, they're not interested, etc, etc - and hence is largely useless. I give up reading AES papers very quickly, because it's clear that the experiment is not even close to testing what the real purpose should be to find out: what circumstances lead to the best possible sound?

[fas42]

IME, information above 20kHz is completely irrelevant to getting good sound. But - and it's mighty big, But - getting the range 10 - 20kHz super clean is absolutely essential - most systems I listen to are pretty hopeless in this range; and thus the chances of convincing sound are pretty well dead in the water ...

[fas42]

59 minutes ago, firedog said:

 

You must never have read posts about how a tweak totally changed the sound of someone’s system. There have been many.

 

Yes, this can happen. If there is a single flaw remaining which prevents a convincing illusion of the presentation forming then the sound can "miraculously" alter, from a tweak that sorts that flaw.

[fas42]

Implementation of the playback chain determines audible differences between, say, SACD and CD versions, if the same mastering is used. Just convert the CD quality version to SACD format, and then compare the two SACD takes - that will tell you if anything else is going on.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, semente said:

 

Most of the distortion produced by vinyl record playback is signal correlated and sometimes time delayed, creating a "3D effect" or "spaciousness " somewhat like reverb. It also adds perceived "warmth". Some people love it and find it more "lively" and "real". Same with valves and tape.

 

Not in my experience. High quality vinyl playback delivers the same subjective experience as high quality digital, and if there happens to be copies of the LP and CD of a particular recording available I perceive the presentation as being close enough to being identical - the obvious reason why, of course, is because the underlying captured event is identical, and  therefore if the systems "get out of the way" what you hear has to match ...

 

3D, spaciousness, warmth are the intrinsic qualities of what was recorded - digital often has a harder time reproducing these aspects correctly, as compared to vinyl - hence why people talk of "analogue" qualities in good digital.

 

Digital is not "better" because easily derived numbers look more impressive - it is capable of superb quality, but this does not automatically fall into place, just by plugging the pieces together like Lego.

[fas42]

Ummm ... what counts is the quality of the implementation of the playback chain - everything else is so less important in terms of what gives the most satisfying subjective experience, as to be meaningless to me. I can pick up a "junk" $1 CD from an op shop, and be blown away by what was put down on the disk - and then go to some audiophile's home, and listen to the best audiophile hi-res he has, and think, "Well, that was a waste of time!" ...

[fas42]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

All i can say is that if you state this is "established science", then all I can say is that "established science" is wrong.

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with "established science".

 

think harmonics with different rise and falls at different times...too hard to explain....i won't bother trying to explain, but if anyone is close to thinking what i think, they will understand....there is NO WAY to slice time to get all details.

 

 

The others are right - the digital processing, sampling, retains everything that matters to human hearing - the fact that playback mucks it up, so often, is just an artifact of the designers of typical audio gear not doing enough to ensure clean enough subjective quality, in the reproduction chain. Where audio engineers do keep making mistakes is thinking that meeting certain specs of playback performance is "good enough" ... well, it ain't !!!

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I lean more towards the belief that quad dsd is closer to true analog (wink)....but both are far from "perfect".

 

Nothing's "perfect" - but ordinary CD can manifest a completely convincing illusion of real, live music; easily as good as the best analogue playback you've ever heard, in all the areas where 'analogue' is supposed to be so good. I know this because I've been there endless times - but it requires a degree of fussiness that most enthusiasts are just not interested in visiting; so, they don't ever hear it ...