Members Products of the Decade

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, fas42 said:

Obviously, there should be no differences - but the warmup characteristics are different. My original Yahama CDP uses the classic PCM56 R2R chips - and the switch on from cold sound is mellow, laid back; pleasant but won't set the world on fire - it took some experimentation to determine that it needed about 3 days of on time to finally "catch alight" - deliver hard driving rock, say, as it should come over.

 

Delta Sigma are typically dead sounding, irritatingly mediocre - all the hallmarks of the digital sound that people used to hate are there in abundance - very solid driving over some time period finally gets the circuitry to stabilise, and again decent SQ emerges.

 

Of course, excellent engineering in a product will largely overcome these behaviours, and premium models using either technology should deliver essentially identical sound.

Well, of course there should be a difference, and why wouldn’t there be? Different topologies sounds different. Just as integrated circuit op-amps don’t sound as good as discrete transistors (although some op-amps are very good, these days), so does R2R sound better than delta-sigma. Most people agree that the best sounding DACs are not delta-sigma (MSB, Chord HugoTT2, dCS Vivaldi, etc.)  MSB is a discrete R2R, the dCS is a ring DAC, and the Chord is a proprietary design using FPGA “multiple-pole” filters with nary a SabreDAC in sight!

[fas42]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

Well, of course there should be a difference, and why wouldn’t there be? Different topologies sounds different. Just as integrated circuit op-amps don’t sound as good as discrete transistors (although some op-amps are very good, these days), so does R2R sound better than delta-sigma. Most people agree that the best sounding DACs are not delta-sigma (MSB, Chord HugoTT2, dCS Vivaldi, etc.)  MSB is a discrete R2R, the dCS is a ring DAC, and the Chord is a proprietary design using FPGA “multiple-pole” filters with nary a SabreDAC in sight!

 

Well, to me a replay system should add nothing to the sound - if otherwise, then it's a form of seasoning, being added to a restaurant meal, just out from the kitchen, to "enhance" the flavour.

 

Consider this thought experiment ... you've just been through a solid recording session, and now listening to playback through your favourite monitoring chain. Except, this time the output from the DAC is split, and then runs through a number of extra, parallel ADC/DAC combos, as well as direct. The ADC is constant, and is the best you can muster; the DACs are MSB, dCS, Chrod, some top line delta sigmas. You can hear the direct path, and know it is the direct; and then hear any of the others, one after the other ...personally, the winner is the one that makes it hardest to know that the extra circuitry has been inserted in the path ... 🙂.

[gmgraves]

1 minute ago, fas42 said:

 

Well, to me a replay system should add nothing to the sound - if otherwise, then it's a form of seasoning, being added to a restaurant meal, just out from the kitchen, to "enhance" the flavour.

 

Consider this thought experiment ... you've just been through a solid recording session, and now listening to playback through your favourite monitoring chain. Except, this time the output from the DAC is split, and then runs through a number of extra, parallel ADC/DAC combos, as well as direct. The ADC is constant, and is the best you can muster; the DACs are MSB, dCS, Chrod, some top line delta sigmas. You can hear the direct path, and know it is the direct; and then hear any of the others, one after the other ...personally, the winner is the one that makes it hardest to know that the extra circuitry has been inserted in the path ... 🙂.

That’s not really the point. The point is that as much as many of us desire and strive for sonic neutrality, it doesn’t exist; everything has a sound. The better the equipment, the harder it might be to put one’s finger on that sound signature, but it’s there, nonetheless.

Of course, your thought experiment is absolutely correct, and as audiophiles we fervently hope that the DAC we spent our hard-earned money on is the one that came out on top in that thought experiment. Unfortunately, if we can’t conduct that experiment for real and for ourselves, there’s no way to know which DAC the winner is going to be. Most of us have to just pick one and hope it’s a good one. I have the advantage of being able to audition, in my own home, lots of DACs from different manufacturers. For my money, the best I’ve heard is the Chord Hugo 2 (not the TT, because I’ve only heard it briefly, under unfamiliar circumstances and wouldn’t hazard an opinion under such a fleeting acquaintance).

[Blackmorec]

For my product of the decade I pick the Finite Element Pagoda Master Reference Rack. 

It makes anything it supports sound better, requires no adjustment once set-up and looks better as it ages. Its sonic signature is clarity, purity, naturalness and transparency. Unfortunately it’s no longer in production. 

 

[Richard Dale]

7 minutes ago, Blackmorec said:

For my product of the decade I pick the Finite Element Pagoda Master Reference Rack. 

It makes anything it supports sound better, requires no adjustment once set-up and looks better as it ages. Its sonic signature is clarity, purity, naturalness and transparency. Unfortunately it’s no longer in production. 

 

I’ve got one of those and I agree it is a great equipment support, but I bought mine about 20 years ago. So it doesn’t really spring to mind to me as a product of the decade as I would have thought the category would only apply to products that were introduced in the last decade.

[Blackmorec]

16 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

I’ve got one of those and I agree it is a great equipment support, but I bought mine about 20 years ago. So it doesn’t really spring to mind to me as a product of the decade as I would have thought the category would only apply to products that were introduced in the last decade.

Errrm yes,  I bought mine quite a while ago. How about ‘My Product of the Last 2 Decades’ ?

[Ralf11]

For my product of the decade I pick this support system.  It is far more effective than any audiophile rack.

 

 

[Ralf11]

If the looks are not to your liking, stick some Bubinga wood on it.

[fas42]

19 hours ago, gmgraves said:

That’s not really the point. The point is that as much as many of us desire and strive for sonic neutrality, it doesn’t exist; everything has a sound. The better the equipment, the harder it might be to put one’s finger on that sound signature, but it’s there, nonetheless.

 

Yes, "perfect" doesn't exist - but "good enough", does ...

 

Quote

Of course, your thought experiment is absolutely correct, and as audiophiles we fervently hope that the DAC we spent our hard-earned money on is the one that came out on top in that thought experiment. Unfortunately, if we can’t conduct that experiment for real and for ourselves, there’s no way to know which DAC the winner is going to be. Most of us have to just pick one and hope it’s a good one. I have the advantage of being able to audition, in my own home, lots of DACs from different manufacturers. For my money, the best I’ve heard is the Chord Hugo 2 (not the TT, because I’ve only heard it briefly, under unfamiliar circumstances and wouldn’t hazard an opinion under such a fleeting acquaintance).

 

Why I'm down on the Benchmark, say, is that I've read enough to know that it's doing something to the sound that it shouldn't be - it's "subtracting" information from what's on the recording, even though what gets through is fine. I have heard one of the models, in a room of the last audio show I went to, used by an exhibitor that ran a number of rooms that had an overall high standard of SQ. Again, there was nothing particularly incorrect about the sound, but I listened to a CD that I had brought, that I knew the potential of, and far too much was missing - a couple of other rooms, using completely other hardware, delivered far more of the recordings they were playing, and they were the true highlights.

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, "perfect" doesn't exist - but "good enough", does ...

 

 

Why I'm down on the Benchmark, say, is that I've read enough to know that it's doing something to the sound that it shouldn't be - it's "subtracting" information from what's on the recording, even though what gets through is fine. I have heard one of the models, in a room of the last audio show I went to, used by an exhibitor that ran a number of rooms that had an overall high standard of SQ. Again, there was nothing particularly incorrect about the sound, but I listened to a CD that I had brought, that I knew the potential of, and far too much was missing - a couple of other rooms, using completely other hardware, delivered far more of the recordings they were playing, and they were the true highlights.

I had the same reaction. With both the Benchmark DAC3 HGC, and the Oppo 205 (Both use the ESS SaberDAC Pro) I always feel that something is “missing”.

[Norton]

On 1/7/2020 at 1:15 AM, gmgraves said:

Most people agree that the best sounding DACs are not delta-sigma

I’m not sure I see any evidence for that claim; if anything I see greater agreement for the proposition that the particular chip or DA conversion methodology used is way down the list of the major influences on DAC SQ.

 

For an alternate viewpoint, at Audio Science Review a lot of the best received DACs are ESS or AKM based.  By contrast, Amir has published very poor test results for some non delta-sigma DACs.

 

 

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Norton said:

I’m not sure I see any evidence for that claim; if anything I see greater agreement for the proposition that the particular chip or DA conversion methodology used is way down the list of the major influences on DAC SQ.

 

For an alternate viewpoint, at Audio Science Review a lot of the best received DACs are ESS or AKM based.  By contrast, Amir has published very poor test results for some non delta-sigma DACs.

 

 

Again, it is important to keep in mind, that the very best, most highly regarded (and expensive) DACs are not delta-sigma; the dCS, the MSB, the Chords, etc. I don’t, of course, have any way to ascertain, if the criticisms leveled against delta-sigma sound are due to the fact that all of these kinds of DACs are Integrated Circuit chips, or if these criticisms are the result of flaws in that form of processing the digital signal.

 

 

 

[Richard Dale]

9 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

Again, it is important to keep in mind, that the very best, most highly regarded (and expensive) DACs are not delta-sigma; the dCS, the MSB, the Chords, etc. I don’t, of course, have any way to ascertain, if the criticisms leveled against delta-sigma sound are due to the fact that all of these kinds of DACs are Integrated Circuit chips, or if these criticisms are the result of flaws in that form of processing the digital signal.

 

 

 

As far as I know the Chord DACs use a very high end delta-sigma type of conversion implemented in FPGAs

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Richard Dale said:

As far as I know the Chord DACs use a very high end delta-sigma type of conversion implemented in FPGAs

Right. They just call it something else to confuse people like George.

[semente]

23 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

For my product of the decade I pick this support system.  It is far more effective than any audiophile rack.

 

 

 

What about a granite block like those used on beamlines at the Diamond Synchrotron?

It would stop anyone from thinking about swapping cables...

 

[Ralf11]

I see people talk about a "hump" in the ESS chips.  What is that really?   

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I see people talk about a "hump" in the ESS chips.  What is that really?   

It's a slight increase in IMD at moderate signal levels. Weird, but not audible. Some manufacturers, such as Benchmark, have found ways to avoid it.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Richard Dale said:

As far as I know the Chord DACs use a very high end delta-sigma type of conversion implemented in FPGAs

I spoke, briefly with a Chord representative at a Hi-Fi show a few years ago, he assured me that the Chord Dave and Hugo2 DACs were not based on delta-sigma architecture but on a proprietary multi-bit scheme. He seemed to be quite technical, and knew what he was talking about. If he was wrong, I have no way of ascertaining it. Can you elaborate?

Of course, as I said earlier, it could be that delta-sigma technology is capable of very high levels of performance, just not in single-chip monolithic form as made by semiconductor companies such as ESS, Texas Instrument (Burr-Brown), Analog Devices, etc.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, mansr said:

Right. They just call it something else to confuse people like George.

Easily done, I might add.🧐

[mansr]

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I spoke, briefly with a Chord representative at a Hi-Fi show a few years ago, he assured me that the Chord Dave and Hugo2 DACs were not based on delta-sigma architecture but on a proprietary multi-bit scheme. He seemed to be quite technical, and knew what he was talking about. If he was wrong, I have no way of ascertaining it. Can you elaborate?

Look at what they say themselves (https://chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DAC-64-Information-Sheet.pdf):

Quote

Pulse Array as a DAC technology has been universally praised for its outstanding natural sound quality. The fourth generation builds on this success; it employs 64 bit 7th order noise shaping, 2048 times oversampling rates and improved pulse width modulated elements.

 

Or this (https://chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAVE-Technology-Presentation.pptx):

 

They go to great pains to avoid saying delta-sigma, yet that is exactly what this is.

 

10 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Of course, as I said earlier, it could be that delta-sigma technology is capable of very high levels of performance, just not in single-chip monolithic form as made by semiconductor companies such as ESS, Texas Instrument (Burr-Brown), Analog Devices, etc.

Delta-sigma modulation is just maths, and its performance is easy enough to determine by all-digital means. The only limitation is the amount of computational power (number of gates) you're willing to throw at it. Now more gates means a bigger, more expensive chip and higher power consumption, so going to extremes here is simply wasteful if the overall performance is anyway limited by the analogue parts. There is no reason the guts of a Chord DAC couldn't be made into a chip. There's just not enough of a market for such a device to make it commercially interesting.

[gmgraves]

10 hours ago, mansr said:

Look at what they say themselves (https://chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/DAC-64-Information-Sheet.pdf😞

 

Or this (https://chordelectronics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/DAVE-Technology-Presentation.pptx):

 

They go to great pains to avoid saying delta-sigma, yet that is exactly what this is.

 

Delta-sigma modulation is just maths, and its performance is easy enough to determine by all-digital means. The only limitation is the amount of computational power (number of gates) you're willing to throw at it. Now more gates means a bigger, more expensive chip and higher power consumption, so going to extremes here is simply wasteful if the overall performance is anyway limited by the analogue parts. There is no reason the guts of a Chord DAC couldn't be made into a chip. There's just not enough of a market for such a device to make it commercially interesting.

Thanks for the info, Mansr.

[fas42]

As always, it's all about the implementation ... if Chord squashed it into a chip, it could very easily be a me-too product, because it could be too hard to precisely control the parameters that truly dictate the subjective SQ.

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

As always, it's all about the implementation ... if Chord squashed it into a chip, it could very easily be a me-too product, because it could be too hard to precisely control the parameters that truly dictate the subjective SQ.

That certainly seems to be the conventional wisdom about IC implementation vs discreet components. It certainly used to be universally true, but today’s op amps are very close to what you can get with separate components, So, I suspect it’s just a matter of time before IC based DAC catch up to discrete ones like those made by a MSB and a few others. But the SabreDACs aren’t there yet if you ask me.

[AudioDoctor]

If I’m not mistaken the Marantz HDAM is nothing more than an IC made up of discrete parts rather than a chip or opamp. 

[AudioDoctor]

On 1/7/2020 at 12:58 PM, Ralf11 said:

For my product of the decade I pick this support system.  It is far more effective than any audiophile rack.

 

 

effective at what exactly?