Consensus about upsampling to 512 DSD

[barrows]

19 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Okay, one vote for "modded DAC beats solid state pre". The fact that you doubled the DAC's current delivery seems to indicate that you implemented a serious upgrade to the analog circuitry.

The change was not mine, it was the designer of the output stage (Russ White).  The first version used a single small signal MOSFET to drive the output of each phase (4 total, balanced).  The change was to parallel three MOSFETS in that position (12 total).  Small change really, simple, and not expensive for anyone to implement.

As an example, plenty of IC opamps have more than enough current to drive any modern amplifier's input stage.  I have another DIY DAC which uses a OPA 1632 to drive the output, these are fully differential ICs with, if I recall correctly, about 150 mA of current capability-this is plenty of current.  The fact is that most DAC's output stages have plenty of current to drive an amplifier's inout.  It does not take much current, we are talking tens of mA here, as most contemporary amplifiers have quite sensitive input stages with high input impedances.  And do not get me started on discrete vs. IC, I used to believe that nonsense, but now I have enough enough experience to know that a good gain/buffer stage can be designed with either discrete components or with ICs, or with a combination, the result is about how the design is implemented, and not whether it is fully discrete parts or not.

 

OK, sorry for derailing, back to DSD 512 oversampling...

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, GUTB said:

Care to name an example of a DAC and amp that won’t benifit from a pre?

Benchmark DAC3 + AHB2 amp. Probably not expensive enough for you though.

[jabbr]

26 minutes ago, GUTB said:

 

Alright a unicorn DAC which obviously disqualifies itself from discussion.

 

Care to name an example of a DAC and amp that won’t benifit from a pre?

 

Phasure NOS1a with new G3 output stage into  FirstWatt J2 as one not unicorn example. 

 

The iFi Micro BL as another example where you can either send the output direct or via the amplification stage (it has a headphone amp) — better direct.

 

But go ahead try to twist & turn and redefine your argument to try and maintain your self imposed “fact”ual accuracy. 

[Jud]

1 minute ago, jabbr said:

 

Phasure NOS1a with FirstWatt J2 as one not unicorn example. 

 

The iFi Micro BL as another example where you can either send the output direct or via the amplification stage (it has a headphone amp) — better direct.

 

You obviously have him confused with someone to whom facts matter.  He likes stirring the pot and seeing who answers back. And he still likes it even after you’ve given a correct reply.

[GUTB]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Phasure NOS1a with new G3 output stage into  FirstWatt J2 as one not unicorn example. 

 

The iFi Micro BL as another example where you can either send the output direct or via the amplification stage (it has a headphone amp) — better direct.

 

But go ahead try to twist & turn and redefine your argument to try and maintain your self imposed “fact”ual accuracy. 

 

Which preamps did you try which you found inferior to direct?

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, Summit said:

I would probably go insane if I could not trust my senses and constantly doubt if they are real or just imaging. I guess am lucky that my ignorance of so called “prof” can be such a blessing.  

 

you are probably already insane - there are numerous perceptual deficits in vertebrates including 'ghosts' (from the invaginated 'blind spot' in the retina) and many many others

 

you have the FDA to thank for saving you from death and disease caused by patent meds and similar placebos

 

but you are welcome to blunder along in your unicorn adorned universe -- just don't waste other people's money with bad advice

[Ralf11]

Many DACs are designed to obviate a separate pre-amp.  The DACs listed just above are quite expensive.  I am not going to claim that a $100 DAC will sound better than a $10,000 pre-amp.

 

Nonetheless, if the output stages in a DAC are well implemented, and the control functionality is present, then there is no reason to buy a separate pre-amp.

 

But, mea culpa, I have an ARC LS25 Mk II which gives me more functionality and euphonicizes the sound with its tubey goodness.  I happen to like the way it sounds with a simple outboard DAC.  I am likely to change to a DAC built in to a universal disc player (Oppo 205) next.  After that, I may think about some expensive DAC ...

 

What I don't understand is why (or even whether) a $25,000 sounds better than a $5,000 DAC, and if either sounds better than a $1,000.  I assume it's in minor things like component matching and precisions, pcb layout etc. accumulating but don't know.

 

I am quite sure it ain't the volume controls...

[mansr]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

What I don't understand is why (or even whether) a $25,000 sounds better than a $5,000 DAC,

Compare the specs for the Benchmark DAC3 and the dCS Vivaldi. The latter is 10x the price and delivers worse (pretty average, in fact) performance. I haven't personally heard either, but John Siau seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy.

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, GUTB said:

 

Which preamps did you try which you found inferior to direct?

Not necessarily inferior but not necessarily better would be NP's own recommended B1: https://www.passdiy.com/project/preamplifiers/b1-buffer-preamp. This basic circuit also forms the basis of active filters/crossover such as the B4.

 

But again, I prefer DACs with excellent analog output stages --- the quality of the output stage makes the biggest difference in SQ in my experience.

[Ralf11]

37 minutes ago, mansr said:

Compare the specs for the Benchmark DAC3 and the dCS Vivaldi. The latter is 10x the price and delivers worse (pretty average, in fact) performance. I haven't personally heard either, but John Siau seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy.

 

Shoot out

 

meet you at the ok corral

[jabbr]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

But, mea culpa, I have an ARC LS25 Mk II which gives me more functionality and euphonicizes the sound with its tubey goodness.  I happen to like the way it sounds with a simple outboard DAC. 

 

Nothing at all wrong with the classic tube sound -- this should be about having fun. A few years ago I was listening to a bottlehead crack/speedball that I was endlessly rolling caps and tubes. Ultimately I chose to increase accuracy, bass control etc but different folks have different tastes. 

[Ralf11]

Yes - the thing is - the ARC seems to have quite a bit of accuracy & bass control.  I'm sure the newer ones are better...

 

I also never heard such a "sense of pace/rhythm" until I got it (also with newer, bigger Maggies) - I had dismissed that trope as audiophilournalism until then.

[fas42]

14 hours ago, Summit said:

 

It must be really hard not to be able to trust your own perceptions and always feel the need to get them verified before you can decided what sounds good or not. The same with food, drinks, love or anything that involves our senses and preference, and which we maybe can have some form of bias to. I would probably go insane if I could not trust my senses and constantly doubt if they are real or just imaging. I guess am lucky that my ignorance of so called “prof” can be such a blessing.  

 

With audio, it can be made pretty simple. Go and listen to some live, non-amplified music at close quarters - I grab every opportunity to sidle up to buskers who are playing some acoustic instrument - and soak up the sense of what that experience is. Then, how close is your rig to replicating that vibe ... ?

 

Conventional audio, no matter how expensive, is usually miles from getting that right - all the information is in the recordings to allow one to have the same experience; this is then your guide as to the progress being made.

[Ralf11]

Just now, fas42 said:

listen to live, non-amplified music at close quarters

 

sidle up to buskers

 

around here, the threat of disease transmission is too high for that

[barrows]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

$25,000 sounds better than a $5,000 DAC

This question is pretty easy to answer for anyone who has any experience developing high end audio products and pricing them.

First: a manufacturer can do a very good DAC for $5K, especially if features can be a bit limited and the chassis does not need to be really nice.

 

The PS Audio DS, for example of a popular model, is close to the $5 K example.  PS achieves this price for their DAC, while maintaining a reasonable dealer margin by hybrid manufacturing approach, with US based assembly and testing, while some sub assemblies are made in Asia.  The DS is very good sounding DAC, but there are compromises-for example the power supplies are fairly simple, using a single transformer with multiple secondaries, and fairly basic integrated circuit regulators.  Additionally, there is little if any isolation between sections of the DAC, the USB input, for example, is not isolated from the signal ground.  The DS uses a very good, but standard off the shelf, clock from Crystek.

 

Now let's consider the Ayre QX-5, a more expensive DAC.  The Ayre is fully built in the US, using many US made parts as well.  The Ayre features four separate transformers to power different sections of the DAC independently: it is much more expensive to have multiple independent power supplies like this, as transformers are one of the more expensive parts to source.  The Ayre also features discrete voltage regulation designed in house, where the PS Audio uses fairly ordinary off the shelf, integrated circuit regulators.  The Ayre also features inputs isolated by optocouplers, which are then re-clocked just before presentation to the DAC.  The master clocks in the Ayre are also custom designed ultra low phase noise parts made specifically for Ayre, by Russian clock maker Morion.

 

So there are two examples of what costs more in two DAC price points.  I do not have much experience of DACs at the $25 K level, so I will not comment on that price point, except to say that at such a high price the amount of DACs being produced and sold is going to be very low, such that the economies of scale will start increasing the retail price exponentially.

 

Additionally, I am leaving out fully made i Asia stuff here (excepting Japan) as it is suspect in my experience.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Shoot out

 

meet you at the ok corral

I have no horse in this race. Yet.

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

But, mea culpa, I have an ARC LS25 Mk II which gives me more functionality and euphonicizes the sound with its tubey goodness.  I happen to like the way it sounds with a simple outboard DAC.  I am likely to change to a DAC built in to a universal disc player (Oppo 205) next.  After that, I may think about some expensive DAC ...

 

What I don't understand is why (or even whether) a $25,000 sounds better than a $5,000 DAC, and if either sounds better than a $1,000.  I assume it's in minor things like component matching and precisions, pcb layout etc. accumulating but don't know.

 

I am quite sure it ain't the volume controls...

 

Have you ever considered that "tubey goodness" is actually more accurate sound - I have heard extremely expensive tube electronics, and often that's a lot closer to competent sound - solid state quite often comes with a nasty dollop of edginess, which may take some efforts to eliminate. I don't do "tubes", never intend to do so - accuracy is perfectly achievable with transistor gear, it just may take some fiddling to get there.

 

If the volume controls are of poor quality, and are analogue, then they may be the most serious impediment to optimising SQ - you're not going to get around this issue by Adding Goodness elsewhere ...

[Ralf11]

Yes, I'm aware Frank.

 

Thx barrows.  The QX-5 is $9k.  I googled it and got a large number of ayrey looking coffee cups...

[pkane2001]

44 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Have you ever considered that "tubey goodness" is actually more accurate sound

 

How would you determine that, Frank? Accurate to me means more faithful to the recorded/produced sound, and not the sound that you happen to prefer. 

 

[fas42]

55 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

How would you determine that, Frank? Accurate to me means more faithful to the recorded/produced sound, and not the sound that you happen to prefer. 

 

 

The sound I prefer is that which most reminds me of what the live experience of music making is like - as I mentioned in the post above. Which, fortunately, ties in with what has been captured in the recorded/produced sound.

 

There is no way to pass ultimate, subjective judgement on what recording "is really like", because the only way to assess such is via a playback chain. Which will always be flawed to some degree. So a working solution is to nail the characteristics of the content of a particular recording by hearing it on a variety of the best possible playback environments - and if you do this intelligently you build up a picture, within, of what the recording can sound like in the most optimum circimstances. Amazingly ?, this picture is unique - it doesn't suddenly alter dramatically when you play it on an "even more fabulous rig" - this just fills in a touch more detail, improves the tonality somewhat; added refinement is what is gained.

 

Very complex recordings give the game away: poorer setups present a bit of an unappetising stew, which can be bland, or have unpleasant flavours; if in better shape, then all the detail is clearly evident, with the multiple flavours within all distinct from each other, and having an integrity which matches live experiencing of the sound makers.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

The sound I prefer is that which most reminds me of what the live experience of music making is like - as I mentioned in the post above. Which, fortunately, ties in with what has been captured in the recorded/produced sound.

 

There is no way to verify this, Frank, other than you saying so. So, why should I believe you, considering I know how easy it is to fool a human mind to hear what is really not there? In fact, reminds me of someone insisting on this fact a while back... wait, wasn't it you?

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, jabbr said:

 

The advantage of a line stage is not with volume control, rather matching impedance and level.

 

I agree there are more likely reasons why a pre-amp is important than loss of bit resolution.

 

We have all no doubt heard the simple math of say a 16 bit file having 96dB of dynamic range, 24 bit file 144 dB DR, volume controls in JRiver for example having 64 bit precision and most DACs at least supporting 24 bit output, human hearing about 120 to 130 dB DR (some say less) and most recordings only having less than 12 dB, throw in some dither, headroom, clipping, floating point operations, then take away the number you first thought of.....Equals loss of 6dB per bit of attenuation?. At most listening levels this should not matter in most circumstances. Also if you use ASIO in JRiver the output bitdepth selection is ignored automatically delivering audio to the soundcard to the highest bitdepth possible.

 

Still, I just don't like the idea of mangling with the signal even if its in the digital domain. So, why an analogue pre-amp to mangle the signal then?

 

What has been traditionally offered is impedence matching, source selection, Voltage gain - line level pre-amp (excluding phono) to supposedly feed to a power amp to amplify current in its most linear section of its output. It is claimed that if you feed line level output into a power amp, unless the input sensitivity is sufficiently high, you will lose dynamics.

 

All that theory aside, an analogue pre-amp just sounds better than using a digital volume control. I have auditioned this extensively with various high end products that offer digital volume control eg a Bricasti DAC which I owned at one time but other products and in different systems. A pre-amp just sounds better for me. The best description came from a non audiophile friend for whom I put together a system initially without a preamp to keep costs lower. His words were, comparing the difference without a preamp, "it lacks body, sounds sterile". This has always been my experience, totally but unapologetically subjective that it is.

 

 

[fas42]

18 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

There is no way to verify this, Frank, other than you saying so. So, why should I believe you, considering I know how easy it is to fool a human mind to hear what is really not there? In fact, reminds me of someone insisting on this fact a while back... wait, wasn't it you?

 

 

 

Does playing a party trick with the human senses prove, or disprove anything? Short term, one can get away with almost anything, because it is human nature to want to not "rock the boat", to go along with the thinking of the moment, the lines of perceiving one has been prompted to follow. Long term, years and years of seeing the concepts being reinforced by multiple variations of the same core experiences tends to add up ...

 

It takes a great deal of effort to constantly 'fool oneself', when the evidence is really quite clear that what you are perceiving doesn't make sense at an instinctive, lifetime of leaning level - in audiophile circles, this unfortunate affliction is called "listening fatigue", ? ... accurate replay of recordings doesn't cause this problem; quite a significant win, I would say ...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, mansr said:

Compare the specs for the Benchmark DAC3 and the dCS Vivaldi. The latter is 10x the price and delivers worse (pretty average, in fact) performance. I haven't personally heard either, but John Siau seems like a no-nonsense kind of guy.

 

I have heard them. I was not impressed with the dCS Vilvaldi.I wouldn't say it was bad, just not worth it IMO.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Does playing a party trick with the human senses prove, or disprove anything? Short term, one can get away with almost anything, because it is human nature to want to not "rock the boat", to go along with the thinking of the moment, the lines of perceiving one has been prompted to follow. Long term, years and years of seeing the concepts being reinforced by a multiple variations of the same core experiences tends to add up ...

 

It takes a great deal of effort to constantly 'fool oneself', when the evidence is really quite clear that what you are perceiving doesn't make sense at an instinctive, lifetime of leaning level - in audiophile circles, this unfortunate affliction is called "listening fatigue", ? ... accurate replay of recordings doesn't cause this problem; quite a significant win, I would say ...

 

Can you please rephrase this in simpler terms, I don't understand? Are you saying this is based on instinct, years of experience, and lack of listening fatigue? Hardly real evidence of audio accuracy.

 

You said tubey sound is more accurate. I'd like to hear any evidence of this other than 'it sounds better to Frank'.