I think both stories are true. There are a lot of remasters people don't realize as well as better DACs.
The frequency response, compression, and channel separation of vinyl, CD's and SACD have been shown to be explicitly different.
SOME SACD transfers were shown to actually be remasters. CD's when they first came out were compressed in amplitude and L to R separation.
HOWEVER!! It is also very true that this generation of DAC's plays 44/16 MUCH better than before, and I can't tell you why.
I had an ARC DAC 8, and it was a prime example of this. It played high resolution files beautifully, as well as upsampled files, but 44/16 was pretty mediocre.
I upgraded to the Mytek I use now, and that difference vanished. It played all formats better than the DAC 8, but also, it no longer depended on the resolution. I've heard this same effect with a couple of other DACs so I have to believe it is now more wide spread.
If I was forced to use older DACs today, I'd be pretty stuck on getting high resolution files or SACD. That's gone now. I'm happy with high res, but I'm also much happier with 44/16
Look for a silver disc revival like we have seen in vinyl. There will be the dollar bins and there will be the ones that fetch big bucks. Meanwhile, if you got 'em, spin 'em and enjoy !
BTW, I own a few CD's but I never spin them. All my listening now is via USB and either internet radio or my flash drive. A perfect example of how good 44/16 is, listen to KCSM on line via your DAC if you can. It can be pretty amazing.
Someone said the Mytek is "not bad" ... if you are referring to the Manhattan, that's selling it way short. It's a great DAC. Same for the Bricasti M1SE. Lesser DAs are surely coming up as the OP says but it's not my expertise.
Bottom line with playback ... is knowing the mastering source sample rate. There is no advantage to upsamping and MQA adds distortion. Just the 24 or yes the 16 of the real deal file is great.
Older DA needed the higher rates, great DA never have needed it.
There is no audio perfection, and that quest is costly and pointless.
Imho, musical original masters recorded directly to a hi-res digital format should be the norm. It has the highest capacity for frequency response and detail accuracy, a lower noise floor and the ability to capture the actual transient response/dynamics of live instruments and voices. Hi-res digital files also don't deteriorate over time and unlimited exact copies can be easily made without any degradation to sound quality.
I had a very weird experience last weekend. My friend has a DIY dac. In it was a NOS TDA1543 Philips chip hooked on a a Rasberry pi with i2s. It could only play 16/44. The power supply was a very cheap phone charger with an extra usb cable in the charger (2nd power supply). I looked at the psu and my thoughts were. "are we going to listen to music through this?"
When the music started playing i fell off the couch in disbelieve. The music was so pure, tangible. It was audiophile heaven...... He paid €300,- for this setup. It sounded like a million bucks.
I'm seriously thinking to sell my own dac after hearing his.
My own stuff is no slouch either. and i buy new cd's constantly!
So what are the best r2r dacs tknget for a good price . I’m currently using a marantz sa14 s1 for sacd/cd playback that uses a burr brown dsd1792a chip . Is this r2r or sigma delta?
Wherever people talk about DACs, certain themes reliably emerge: -- that R2R, specifically NOS, sounds better, more natural than D/S -- D/S DACs sound way more accurate than multibit & NOS DACs, and image way better -- that certain DACs or DAC mfrs totally suck based solely on their measurements (irrespective of multibit vs D/S)
I agree with the first (wholeheartedly), but not the 3rd (and really don't much care about the 2nd). The limitation of any "measurements are all that matters" approach is that it disregards all subtle sonic differences from components--pretending that such differences don't exist or don't matter.
I own 2 DACs from Audio GD, the brand one post above disparaged. One is multibit (DAC-19) and the other is NOS multibit (NOS 19). Both are better than any delta-sigma DAC I ever heard or owned. The NOS 19 is my day-to-day DAC (in primary desktop system w/studio monitors + sub as well as headphones); and the DAC-19 is in my secondary, headphone-only system.
I started listening to digital in the mid-1980s (on a big, high-resolution 2-channel system) and pretty much hated it. Things slowly got better, but only w/the arrival of multibit have I succeeded in forgetting the whole digital vs analog conundrum and just enjoy the music.
Both my monitors (ATC SCM12 Pro) and various headphones & amps are highly resolving, so I am basing this opinion on sonic experience, not simple prejudice.
Media sample rate takes a backseat to recording quality no doubt.
However I am now a convert to upsampling and there is no going back. I upsample all files to DSD 512 and play back through the T+A DAC8 DSD’s single bit chipless DSD converter.
While there are many “sounds the same” DACs around $2k that are very good, the T+A Dac is more than a couple notches above these. How much of that is due to the upsampling and more powerful filtering, I don’t know.
I can’t help but think this method is going to gain more and more traction as CPU cycles get cheaper because it’s another significant step up.
I have the D3020, and it's a pretty sweet and small integrated! I used to use it on my desktop. Certainly better than DAC's and Class D from 20 years ago.
I am a novice at modern day DACs but the ones I have tried as a stand alone DAC using my Marantz CDP as a transport sound a tad too clinical, upfront and not as musical as the internal DAC in my Marantz SA11-S2. I do have on loan a T+A DAC 8 non-DSD so can't wait to hear it later this evening.
I'm very pleased with Reference Recordings (HDCD) whether on LP or CD. The Japanese have also contributed to excellent sounding CD's and SACD's. The only question I HAVE is, if you still own some "records", how much should you spend on a turntable, arm, and cartridge? I know I'm going to get some negative feedback for this, but I wouldn't rule out getting the entire set-up in a box from company "X" and just assembling it in an hour, without sweating the alignment procedures, etc. Considering several price points (starting at perhaps $2000) you might get a super-well manufactured 'table that compares to the same level of fidelity as your CD's, so that one is not a disappointment and the other a revelation. Why I mention this is simply that not every vinyl disc has been released on CD, and many of them are very special even with a few pops and clicks, etc. I wanted a Dave Brubeck album (My Favorite Things-a superb record BTW) and had to get a Japanese import (at least "they" had it). A good used record shouldn't cost $150 either, and I wouldn't do that to someone. But I'm more nostalgic for vinyl that I grew with than a mono-Beatles' set although both are great depending on your inclinations. I mainly listen to my CD collection, but I also used to love shopping for records. For the $5 you could get "the good stuff"- great sound, clean pressings, good packaging, etc. I don't see a lot of those records on CD. Like 8K television, we're moving forward into "the outer limits" but we're losing sight of where we've been. My stereo gave me goosebumps 30 years ago. Just saying....
The Sigma Delta architecture has to my ears a sound that gives digital a bad reputation. I own a Wadia 15 which uses the fabulous Burr Brown PCM63 and considering what I paid for this second hand I am surprised more folks don't snap them up. The TDA1543 was mentioned, also good is the IMO better TDA1541, PCM 1702 and some implementations of the 1704. Also UA D20400
I have an Oppo 103 and after living with its screeching disregard for human dignity, obtained a better sounding DAC to send my music to, a Bryston BDA-1. Yes it was better, quite good even, but still not right. Then came the Wadia and WOW, music music music, but, and I'm not concerned, only does redbook. A game changer. Wadia 25 outstanding, uses 4x1702 with slightly different sound and run don't walk if you find a Wadia 9, uses 8xPCM63.
There are many DACs using the above mentioned chips that are for sale used. Lots of guys that owned these DACs, not realising what they had, traded them in on the latest craze of Sigma Delta super hires units. http://vasiltech.narod.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm Check out the link for very many players or DAC's that use the above. I modded an inexpensive Marantz CD40 that uses the TDA1541 and with Lukasz Fikus' help of Lampizator fame came straight off the DAC chip's pins to the grids of a tube completely bypassing their cheap inferior output stage. Later cut the traces to render it NOS. Non oversampling. This dirt cheap little thing sounded amazing. Try your hand at it, has lots of space to work and you can find them for practically nothing. You may still find instructions on his site.
Most of the Philips units shared the same board as Marantz so must be thousands of them floating around. Look out for a CD85 or CD95 which uses TDA1541s1 single crown and excellent transport. Great player as is and modified will beat most stuff.
not realising what they had, traded them in on the latest craze of Sigma Delta super hires units.
They had to get a Delta Sigma based dac because they were sucked into doing DSD download playback, and this was their down fall. As Delta Sigma does not get the best out of PCM redbook, it’s a "facsimile" only, and it’s not "bit perfect" . That’s why many now with big CD collections are reverting back to used R2R Multibit dacs like the PCM1704’s ect like you did, and if not buying used, getting the new discrete R2R Multibit ones, which the numbers of, are growing at a rapid rate.
Erik, Your point is well taken. I've grabbed some of my really old CDs and with my modern disk transport and DAC, the sound quality I enjoy is often times really excellent! I would not necessarily associate the format of a digital source (i.e. 44.1/16, 192/24, DSD, etc.) with the ultimate sound quality. I have a few SACDs where I find the "regular CD" sounds better. I suspect it's in the mastering.
I agree that DACs have advanced to a point that the only real issue is the recording. . . I feel we’ve stepped into a realm where mysticism often masquerades as truth and there aren’t enough of us that can push the recording industry to do the right thing. . .
As as far as 16/24 sounding great. Here’s why it is possible. Almost all records are produced from analog tape used in recording studios. Analog tape can only capture 73db of what the human ear can hear (130db in the range from +/-20k. Real world examples are a whisper to a jet engine) Every time analog tapes are copied it looses 6db. There are 5 copies made from each master and the record is being cut from those so a record at best can only capture 61db. This translates to about 12 bits in PCM digital. A traditional CD has 16 bits and the extent of human hearing can be captured digitally at 96kHz/24bit PCM. The real issue is how the studio engineers are crushing the sound levels and loudness wars with little dynamics so it sounds good on earbuds and the radio. It doesn't matter if the production is then placed on analog or digital means of distribution, it all sounds bad. It's been common practice for many years and there are a few studios doing it right. Only those studios who record and produce the music digitally at 96/24 or higher throughout the music chain can claim the title of high resolution audio. I get upset at studios taking old recordings and sticking them in big bit buckets and saying they are high resolution and making people feel they need to buy their music over again at 2-3 times the cost. If you analyze the file it's filled with air. Provenance of the recording is the most deficient aspect of the recording industry (detailing the entire recording chain). I wish the recording industry had standards they must follow and would detail where the song was made, mike technique, production chain, and bit depth range of the recording. . . Fortunately or unfortunately for us most music produced today can't take advantage of the increased dynamic range because they simply don't use it.
With a high resolution system you can hear great recordings done right. I’ve had to listen to streaming for awhile because my CD collection was buried. I pulled out Peter Hurford playing Bach and OMG. I swear I’m in the cathedral he is playing in, that’s all captured on 16/24 even the notes that vibrate my body. It’s great to hear that people are rediscovering how good CD really is. Most Redbook CDs were not recorded digitally at that bit depth or engineered at that rate unless they have been recorded and produced within the last few years even then it’s ubkikely. If at any point during the recording process the bit depth is reduced there is no adding in information. Most Redbook CDs were recorded on tape and so your CD counterparts easily capture what you’re listening to on Redbook.
The Sigma Delta architecture has to my ears a sound that gives digital a bad reputation.
Just bad implementations. If you do the digital filtering right, it can easily beat all the old chips, including 1541/1702/1704. I designed DACs with the 1704 as well. Musical, but not live like my Sigma Delta DAC.
I designed DACs with the 1704 as well. Musical, but not live like my Sigma Delta DAC.
Sorry don’t know about yours, but totally the opposite for me, no Delta Sigma I’ve heard can match it with those three R2R Multibit dac chips you mentioned or others when implemented well, for "prat", "boggie factor" and "dynamic slam" when converting PCM redbook.
If anything the good Delta Sigma’s are too sweet and limp, not exciting, without any "live" feel to them when doing PCM Redbook, but they can do DSD SACD if your into that stuff.
I hope that CDs will also hit a revival life LPs. I have 7,000 CDs. However, currently there are CDs that sell for $100s each. Those are the Kevin Grey/Steve Hoffman CDs especially gold DCC CDs. I also favor Japanese jazz CDs from the 1980s which were expertly transferred/mastered. I have about 2 dozen remarkable Japanese jazz CDs from that era. I've been buying excellently remastered CDs for a decade now and jumped on the CD bandwagon since I bought my EAR Acute CD player. No, it's not the latest R2R DAC but wow, it sounds as good as my $22K analog front end.
As to LPs, many of my 1980s classical Japanese pressings, although perfect and often virgin vinyl, used lower quality submaster tapes which had lower resolution and compression compared to the original masterings. I can point to German pressed Living Stereo recordings which generally sound dynamically tepid compared to the originals, only superior in pressing quality. The master copy of the recording makes the difference there.
Sorry don’t know about yours, but totally the opposite for me, no Delta Sigma I’ve heard can match it with those three R2R Multibit dac chips you mentioned or others when implemented well, for "prat", "boggie factor" and "dynamic slam" when converting PCM redbook.
That's the point. You have not heard every DAC, so making sweeping statements is not useful. The dynamics and clarity I get is unsurpassed. Every time a customer brings over or ships me a DAC to try, it is disappointing. Other vendors have brought their DAC's over (I wont mention) and they lasted 30 seconds in the system because they sounded so bad. Even the other vendors wanted me to remove them.
You have not heard every DAC, so making sweeping statements is not useful.
Yes it is totally useful, and you can get off "your own product protection horse", as I did say every dac I've heard, and I hear pretty much a new dac every couple of weeks.
Other vendors have brought their DAC's over (I wont mention) and they lasted 30 seconds in the system because they sounded so bad. Even the other vendors wanted me to remove them.
Wow! you must sell so many, sound like nothing but an ad to me.
breezer - Since 2006, I've been using an EAR Acute CD player. It has large D getter, earliest version Amperex 6922 tubes, a seriously upgraded power cord and sits on Stillpoints Ultra-minis. Now on their fourth version, my original Acute sells for 1/3 the price, between $1800 to $2000. Absolutely worth it, unless you want to stream. The subsequent versions include external DACs and higher resolutions like 192/24 instead of my 96/24. The latest version is $6795 http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/EAR-Acute-Classic.htm I've heard it and it sounds very similar to my original with STOCK tubes. Quite an accomplishment.
http://www.earyoshino.com/images/Reviews/HiFiChoice_Oct_2016.pdf The Stereophile review was based on a defective unit that had a 6v hot output rather than a 2v which resulted in distortion. It was sent back repaired and the reviewer grungingly claimed it was worth the money now.
velveteen1 posts02-02-2019 8:24pmI love my digital front end, with r2r technology! I couldn't imagine my redbook CDs sounding any better than they do now.......
Mark Levinson No 31.5 Mark Levinson No 30.6
It’s kind of hard to image what you haven’t heard. If you could hear what I’ve heard with my ears.
You say you can hear a difference in the direction of an ac mains fuse, you hear nothing!
Mark Levinson No 30.6 4 x
PCM1704-K + 2 x SHARC ADSP-21061L
"
The Mark Levinson No.30.6's measured performance is about as good as it can get. No wonder I liked its sound so much".—John Atkinson
The ML 30.6 is now 20 years old and still a magnificent sounding R2R Multibit dac. Only last month I had the pleasure of listening to one up against my Linn CD12, using the Linn as a transport there was a "poopteenth" in it between them, your lucky to have it
velveteen.
all things being equal, higher rez files can sound a little better overall. but, of course, all things are rarely equal.
i agree with the whole recording quality being more significant than the digital format, but that’s only half the equation. the 800 pound gorilla in the room is native recording source resolution. that’s where you find optimal sound. i always try to listen to the least mucked up source. this goes equally for analog too. give me 1/2" 30ips tape if that is what the recording started life as, or redbook if that’s where it started. direct to disc vinyl is also phenomenal and can compete directly with the best tape.
my MSB Select II has a hybrid dac which optimizes both pcm and dsd whatever resolution. it is astonishingly good on redbook, and does a great job with MQA. but my favorites are consistently the native resolution if i have a way of determining that.
i have dozens of native dxd (352/24) and quad dsd files and those are pretty awesome when the recording quality is also superior. if you think redbook sourced recordings are equal (especially as the music gets more complex) you have work to do.
and not every system will equally reveal media differences. so my experience and realities might not equally apply to all.
Stereophile: " Although predicting the influence on sound quality of the EAR Acute Classic’s poor rejection of jitter is difficult, I do suspect that AD’s reporting of there being "an excess of high-frequency texture," and sound quality that was "slightly grain[y]," is related to this behavior. As much as I admire Tim de Paravicini’s expertise as an analog engineer, the EAR’s digital circuitry is not up to the standard I expect from him".—John Atkinson
From this you can probably understand why there was 3 different versions of the Acute.
You say you can hear a difference in the direction of an ac mains fuse, you hear nothing!
>>>>>You get an F in directionality. God gave you two ears and one mouth for a reason. Audioquest controls directionality in their higher end power cords for a reason. And I don’t mean marketing. You agree power cords are part of an AC circuit, yes?
Wishful thinking, Georgie Boy. I didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I can hear a mouse fart at 20 yards. It’s so obvious. You must be deaf. Or superstitious, probably the latter.
...and you know something’s happening but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones? 😳
The Real Reason Some People Prefer Analog To Digital
There’s a problem that has been ignored by the entire music industry which I believe is really important for music-lovers that I think you my want to investigate. Approximately 35 years ago when digital media was introduced to the music consuming public as a media with “Perfect Sound Forever” the music industry made a huge screw up when it got the playback polarity of digital music on CDs and later DVDs, etc. in reversed (inverted polarity). On a purely random basis that means that digital media and files are heard in the wrong polarity approximately 85% of the time and either 92% wrong or correct when audio systems are set to a fixed playback polarity.
The result is that the music played in inverted polarity sounds harsh and two-dimensional. And that’s probably the major reason that some music-lovers still believe (without knowing the real reason) that analog sounds better than digital. Analog media plays in the correct polarity over 99.9% of the time but also sounds bad if played in inverted polarity. It’s difficult if not impossible to make meaningful comparisons of the fidelity and musicality of media and audio components when they aren’t playing in absolute polarity. The better the playback system the easier it is to hear the differences in polarity. Confusion over polarity may cause music-lovers to expend needless time and money trying to smooth out the irritating and flat sound of digital media when the real problem is music played in inverted polarity.
This should be an object lesson on how an entire industry with its experts and electrical engineers can get it wrong and not do anything about if for over 35 years and counting! So it should be an object lesson that the entire industry that creates recorded music and is based upon scientific principles continues to mostly get polarity wrong.
I've written two monographs that go into great detail about the problem at:http://www.AbsolutePolarity.com andhttp://www.PolarityGeorge.com. If you or anyone you know might be interested in developingThePerfect Polarizer™ that will detect and correct polarity in real-time, then please forward this email to them/encourage them to contact me, because I believe it could be accomplished with AI/App. Now, do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution?”
“On a purely random basis that means that digital media and files are heard in the wrong polarity approximately 85% of the time and either 92% wrong or correct when audio systems are set to a fixed playback polarity.”
>>>>>That’s the second time you wrote that. Can you explain what you mean by that? It kind of doesn’t make sense. And why would analog be correct Polarity 99% of the time yet digital be incorrect Polarity most of the time.... or am I misinterpreting your statements?
You make a lot of very verbose claims about audio polarity. Can you point out a specific track or better yet, CD which you feel should make this perfectly obvious to anyone?
Preferably something on Tidal.
Next, are you stating that that you have solved the Vinyl sounds better issue, and that with proper polarity, digital will sound as good or better than Vinyl?
Stereophile F...d Up on their review of the EAR Acute Classic, beginning with a defective unit (overdriving inputs with a 6 volt output) that sounded terrible, bright and brittle. They did not review the prior units.
Everyone else reviewed various models and found them exquisetly analoglike WITH NO HIGH END DISTORTIONS OR BRIGHTNESS. Since I've owned the Acute 1 for 13 years using especially rich sounding tubes, I do not hear brightness. I've heard the Acute III and the Acute Classic. NO BRIGHTNESS even with stock tubes. These are great sounding CD players. I've included several other Classic reviews previously. No mention that it sounds bright or with a peaked treble. I would said so as I've heard so many CD players (probably 100 by now) in my home, at friends homes and at audio shows. The EAR is one sweet sounding player, maybe too forgiving in the highs.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
