empirical audio or lynx aes 16 sound card

Here’s the inherent issue when asking untold numbers of card carrying audio nuts a question. One usually attains an untold number of answers…. Plus from 3 to 30 more unasked for solutions which might be pertinent or not..

I found this online in a Q&A session with some ‘in the know sorts’ which are all answering the exact same questions.

Of that lot, Andreas Koch of Playback Designs made a statement regarding the 2D item mentioned above here…

>> "As we all know, audio is represented in a y/x-axis system: the y-axis for amplitude and the x-axis for time. Mostly because of analog audio's sensitivity problems in the y-axis, digital audio was introduced. But digital audio not only quantizes the y-axis, it does so as well on the x-axis. Sounds like we got more than we wanted—true and too bad. A typical state-of-the-art DAC converts between quantization levels in the digital y-axis and the analog y-axis and is completely transparent and open as to what happens on the x-axis (time domain). Sounds like we forgot the quantization on the x-axis."<<

Read more at:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue41/ca_koch.htm

Links at the bottom of that page let you see what Bel Canto, Wavelength, Emperical, Weiss, and other’s have to say.

I think another mention of it is made by another designer… somewhere… at some point.. Read through it and see it’s kind of long, but definitely interesting.

If a DAC can speak to these X & Y axis items and according to andreas remarks virtually eliminate the rhetoric surrounding which drive, transport, feed, or digital source to the state of being inconsequential, while producing audiophile sound quality AND further, be AFFORDABLE, it would change the face of digital audio IMO.

Irrespective of A.K.’s input, how amplitude and timing are addressed, in whomever’s DAC, the litmus test is as always, how does it sound to you? In your own rig/setup… with the most appropriate caveat being, “Can it be had affordably?” It matters very little if it does sound fantastic, but is then financially out of reach of the masses.

I also found quite curious the one major thing all agreed upon as the main obstacle DACs & digital audio face.... "jitter".

Each and everyone of these designers has by their own hands attempted to resolve this problem. The how of it varies. The end product varies too.

But then one must ask other questions given the resultant sonic performances are quite varied... Was jitter eintirely removed? How was the analog output stage outfitted? Waht about that power supply

to point out just a couple.

Personally, I like what the BC D3 does in my own setup. Apart from the fact that the whole of electronically recorded music is ‘artificial’ and illusionary at best when replayed, I find little in tone or timber qualities which sounds artificial using my setup. So there’s that for fake sounding DACs. After all, isn’t artificial just another term for fake? A bit harsher a term perhaps yet within the original context, valid.

I will say as to the resultant sound of any DAC, how it is integrated into one’s system, and with what associated appliances, means at times, a world of difference in the sound quality.

I’ve connected mine as a preamp with SS, Hybrid, & tube amps, and found the latter best of that lot. Definite diffs were noticeable with each combo for sure. Adding a decent preamp provided a still better experience. Swapping in and out some pc’s made other changes or gains appear.

AS to the Ops implementation a call to either Empirical and/or Lynx should answer the Q about distance and cabling interfaces.

Then, there’s ONLY the Q of which flavor?

….and we’re back to the business of setup yet again, and the room, other components, preffs wallet, and ears of Rodvujovicsr.

G’ luck, Rod………

I found it curious that in the poll, the importance of the transport was diminished a very good bit... eg., "...walkman, DVD player, etc could be used with such a DAC and provide equal results.".

yet they don't want to use just any transport inside their own $15K CDP, opting for a far higher grade unit than simple run of the mill sorts. Apart from 'read errors', if their DAc is so adept at fixing/eliminating all other erros, why install such an expensive transport?

Perhaps as said above, many claim a thing... yet not all such claims are found to be valid in the end.

..and we're back to the listening event... and setup, despite the technology as the final axis waiting to be addressed.... regardless the claims made or who is making them.

Interfaces?

I thought the DAC was supposed to address the area of jitter. Some do it better than others. Some have been measured by 3rd parties and shown to be better at addressing jitter too.

I've tried two of these tested DACs and could live with either, although one was a lot more jittery as tested than was the one I kept. What I'm saying is let's not beat a dead horse to death, hearing it is why we buy it. After that it's just simple chest beating as to why we did and a lot of the time people will then point to such things. had my needs for my system been different, I'd have bought the lesser expensive albeit more jittery DAC.... because of it's 'Sound'. As sound is all I have at my discretion to judge a thing with.

I found nothing wrong with the tone of either unit.... just one was softer and more refined than the other, and I had too much of a good thing by adding still more of that softer refinement to my system. A good stew needs salt.

Check the 'corrected' jitter figures JA made in his review of the Bel Canto e one DAC3 in Stereophile. Additionally, the balance of the tested specs of the BC D3 also in that same review.

The important part of it all is just how much jitter, or how little jitter, can a human being actually hear?

At some point one has to be reasonable with specs. I've yet to find specs which dictate how a thing will sound, regardless how good or poorly the device measures out at. Especially given one uses only the manufacturers specs.

The only specs that still carry weight with me, are price, size & weight, (sometimes), and color (sometimes).

It always comes down to hearing it. That's the spec to go by.