How much do you need to spend to get digital to rival analog?
I have heard some very high end digital front ends and although they do sound very good, I never get the satisfaction that I do when i listen to analog regardless if its a"coloration" or whatever. I will listen to high end digital, and then I soon get bored, as if it just does not have the magic That I experience with a well set up analog system. So how much do I need to spend to say, " get a sound that at least equals or betters a 3K Turntable?
35 yrs ago I had a fully vinyl rig set up to compete with a heavily modded magnavox player du jour (which did sound way better than other players of the day). I had many vinyl/CD repeats and auditioned them extensively, one after the other (through a big tube amp & Vandersteen 4 speakers). Digital always sounded different from vinyl in way described above, and to my ears, vinyl usually sounded better. But it was easy to see the vinyl recession that would follow--vinyl would no longer be ascendant.
I formed an opinion then that still holds up, though my audio gear is vastly different today: that is, if I had a vinyl system, I would put serious $$ into the TT & cartridge, also the phono preamp--because the extra outlay could be heard relatively easily. But with digital, I would keep it mid-level, never plunging on the big-$$ brands of the moment. Beyond making sure the cables were good quality, I'd upgrade players from time to time, rather than going for any one SOTA player.
And so it is today in my desktop audio system. No vinyl here (no room). I use DACs pretty much as I did CD players back in the day. I'm fond of non-oversampling (NOS) multibit DACs & am on my 2nd. Its sound is very fine for digital (MHDT Labs Orchid @$700). I have no urge to upgrade. My passive studio monitors are very high resolution & sound wonderful to me in the current setup. I listen to a lot of streaming music, also 100s of GBs of music I ripped to the HD.
One thing I would certainly try if I had a vinyl front-end (1500 LPs in storage) is to rip vinyl recordings to disk, then output through DAC + speakers. That would be very interesting, to see if the positive attributes of vinyl survive digitization.
There are audiophiles who swear by analog. The other day, I saw, in a coverage of the AXPONA show (If I am not mistaken) a TT that costs $130,000! There was a debate in the forum about LP's that were mastered digitally. I find them to be as good as those that were mastered from Reel-to-Reel decks. I am one of those audiophiles who are annoyed by the clicks and pops when listening to Vinyl. The only way to solve this is to buy an uber-expensive FM Acoustics Phono Stage - they supress the clicks and the pops. As for me, my TEAC CDP3450SE CD Player (with ken Isiwata teaks) sounds as good as analog. No grain, not analytical, just a warm, articulate sound. But I want to share with you a simple, cheap setup that I have devised. I bought a 1USB to 3USB splitter ($20), and connected it to a USB port at the back of my PC. from there, I connected a cheapo ($5) USB cable to my humble integrated amp. All I have to do is type the name of a concert, album, song, in any genre, in Cortana. The source of the files is YouTube. Now, You wouldn't think that a $25 setup like this is a recipe for a good SQ? Surprise Surprise, the SQ is excellent! My mother, my brother, and myself were impressed by the SQ. No need for a costly streamer, this set-up does the job beautifully!
I have 25,000 LPs, 7,000 78s and 7,000 CDs. Sure, I love playing analog. As of yesterday, I now have more than an analog-like sounding CD front end (EAR Acute). I purchased a COS Engineering DAC (D2). I have entered to realm of great digital playback. As mentioned, digital can be sonically uncolored unlike most analog gear. My new DAC is not 100% perfect but it allows me to hear music with a unfettered/untethered frequency response, dynamic contrast, soundstage, tonality, resolution and imaging. I wonder if it's pacing could be bettered. There is so much music I was missing, the subtle sounds that my best LPs have. Moreover, this is the first time that I can enjoy music from very soft to very loud sound pressure levels (my system should have been able to play quietly did not until now). My friend Grover Huffman has the H1 and last week showed me how fabulous my system could sound. I got pant flapping bass without distortion, wild dynamic contrasts and an ability to listen for 4 or 5 hours without listener fatigue (his demonstration led to a very long listening session). I should mention that I have Grover to thank for his all silver RCA 75 ohm SPIF cable, his Pharoah A/C and RCA ICs which I own. I enjoyed the EAR from 2006 with it's rich, lively sound but it has been eclipsed by the DAC. Warning-this DAC is not forward sounding to bright. The plane of the sound is between the speakers. Digital playback cannot make a mediocre or poorly mastered CD sound great, but I have so many great CDs that it is as difficulty to choose music to hear as it is in the analog realm.
I totally disagree ,if you listened to the Zlatest Lampizator Vacuum tube dacs with top quality USB cable which is essential to bring the realism out I highly recommend the Final touch Audio- Callisto usb, and their great interconnects. Records lack in many areas for example a record at best 12 bits digital almost double Thst, dynamic range No contest, Bass also . and in a proper setup the warmth of the tubes and greater resolution , as well as not all the added headaches of cleaning records, storing a wall of vinyl. i just get my tablet and play. A good turntable setup is well over $5 k the entry Lampizator with upgraded tubes ,power cord and usb is about $5k. at $5k with full turntable setup and cartridge ,That is maybe average for a decent turntable setup , which I heard many , and I would never go back to a turntable too much added labor and No sonic benefit IMO. Some reviewers are jaded for their hearing likes a duller warmer foundation , your cartridge can tune your turntable like a different Vacuum tube can flavor your system . one person likes a more defined leading edge, where another prefers a silky smooth midrange ,that too is why we hav3 Vacuum tube Amps preamp , land solid Stste many times mixed Solid-state Amp,Vacuum tube preamp you system cables ,power cords all have influence . That is why you hear many good systems ,and vinyl had maybe 10% of music selection of high res DSD or cd . And far more expensive ,and need a room just for storage. If you like Analog good ,I prefer good digital .go to a show where Lampizator or other Highend digital is playing for sure you will hear a major difference , I do agree that vinyl will sound better at the lower priced setups , but once you start approaching over $5-10 grand the gaps closes fast ,check out the $25k Lamoizator Pacific,or Golden gate World class sounding music Period 🎶🎶👍
I think digital has made it to the point where it is very competitive. I also would not spend mega-bucks on digital as it is still improving and evolving.
I have a VPI TNT-HRX with a Lyra Scala cartridge and Audio-Research PH-6 phono stage. I recently purchased a Roon Nucleus, Holo Audio Spring 2 DAC Kitsune tuned with the Kitsune Tuned Edition SU-1 DDR USB digital to digital converter.
If I have a MoFi UHQR and a hi-res download, the UHQR still wins. But standard vinyl pressings against hi-res downloads are often too close to call.
This is roughly $5,000 digital front end versus almost $20,000 vinyl front-end. I still love vinyl, I still use vinyl. But to my mind vinyl is no longer cost effective. I am unlikely to buy more vinyl.
It was almost 18 years ago that Michael Fremer, you know, of Stereophile Magazine’s Analog Corner fame, declared that of the top five best sounding systems at the Big Show in Vegas that that year, four were digital. Hel-loo! Only one vinyl rig, the Walker/ Kharma room, made the top five. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭
Comparison's made with the same system cancel out everything except the variables being changed.
Except, how to escape the music being a variable itself when digital and analog are made from different (differently produced) masters? A fair comparison digital vs analog should include analog and digital sources made from the same master...
For digital it is relatively simple. It is all about the DAC. Any good transport will suffice.
Possibly in a world of CD transports it's closer to reality; however there's comp audio, which is more interesting because of its openness to all the existing digital formats and resolutions...
rluciano - Similar to my system. Phono-VPI TNT6 super platter, SDS speed control, tricked-out SME IV arm, Benz Ruby 3, Townsend Seismic Sink, Audio Interface SUT and custom made subminiature tube phono stage. Cost over $22K plus cabling. Digital = half that now that I purchased a separate DAC. Still, great LPs sound great despite the 12 bit resolution asserted to by the other poster.
Yes zalive, it comes down to the master. But better is better. We have no control over which master is used. The question is, is computer audio better than digital playback from a CD drive. I can not really answer that question. I have compared the original CD to its copy on a computer (Apple Mini with Pure Audio) and I can not tell the difference and the computer is up sampling to 192/24 the player is not. A down loaded Hi Res version does usually sound better than it's CD counterpart but again are they using the same master? I am more than happy to get rid of all my CDs. They are now all on the hard drive, what a PITA that was. Gives me more room for records:) I have nothing bad to say about computer audio. I love the degree of flexibility you have with Pure Music which uses iTunes library to organize the music. The whole set up cost me about $5K. The Mini, a 6 TB hard drive and a Berkeley Alpha USB. This is about the price of my cheapest cartridge so from a price perspective digital has it all over analog. I only buy a CD on rare occasion when music I want is not available to download. Geoffkait with two F's, Michael Fremer's opinion is not one I would rely on. His hearing is way better than mine and your's for that matter. He can hear the "dramatic" difference between a $100K turntable and a $400K turntable. His use of superlatives boggles the mind. I can't even tell if he likes music. Geoffkait, I'm worried about your ears. Cassette tapes suck. I have a Nakamichi Dragon up in the attic you can buy from me if you like. I bought it to record cassettes for the car before CDs became available. I'll bet you are an 8 track fan! Fleschler, I only have 2,348 78's
Mijo I will buy your Dragon. It can join my zx7 and 660zx. Cassettes suck? What a preposterous blanket wet noodle statement but how come I am not surprised. I invite you to an evening of cassette tape playback on my rig with some of my tapes. Of course some tapes suck, just like some vinyl and some CDs etc etc.
I used a Tandberg 320? and a Nakamichi zx7 for recording live choirs in the 80s along with a Tandberg 9000 R2R. The DAT deck was superior. However, the cassettes I made were of superior quality to nearly all prerecorded tapes. There lies the probable cause for the previous posts. Prerecorded tapes generally were awful compared to LPs and R2R 2 track or 7.5 ips 4 track. Premium cassettes recorded at home or live sounded good. I got rid of about 500 cassettes and kept only my live recorded tapes.
Mijostyn-good for you, another audiophile interested in the music first although 78s can be very dynamic if frequency rangebound. They are direct discs with perfect non-edited take credentials. My 78s go back to 1900 so stylus size, speed and equalization make it more cumbersome to listen to. It's an active hobby to listen to acoustic 78s (pre-1925).
Uberwaltz, I am thrilled that you like to watch little reels go round and round but even under the best circumstances cassettes are colored and bland. If you turn the dolby off they sound better but noisy and the worse kind of noise is the steady state stuff like tape his. There is no way you can win but back in the day it was the best way to get music in your car and in a way they are better than CD's because they are harder to damage. One good scratch in the right direction and a CD is worthless. Played back on the Dragon they are worse than MP3 files. If you like to listen to then for nostalgic reasons wonderful, that is why Howard Johnson's made 23 flavors.
Then send the Dragon to me. We all have opinions obviously but you should avoid silly blanket statements that you cannot substantiate. Sorry but I do not watch the little reels spin whatsoever, too absorbed in the sweet music. No nostalgia involved, just music on a grand scale. As I said I invite you to listen to them on my rig......
To the Op's question - as it applies to New Music sourced from a digital file going to vinyl.
I talked years ? ago to a few of the studios that do the vinyl cutting near where I live. Its a well known fact that the engineer when supplied with higher resolution files from the artist will use these for the actual vinyl cutting.
So, to the Ops question in regards to...... new music on vinyl - a DAC that will play 24-96 khz - on average is the requirement to match the vinyl record.
With that I personally have heard 16/44.1khz CD's , per my previous posts here, whose source recording / mastering was done so well that it was - right there. Likewise, some Hi Resolution files sounded like Ka Ka - due to I assume - poor recording technique. We are at the mercy of the recording.
Pre-mastering is the process of getting your audio ready for the vinyl lacquer cutting stage. If your audio is already mastered for vinyl, you will not require pre-mastering services from Train Records.
What is required for submitting an acceptable vinyl premaster to Train Records?
Source Audio Files: • 24 bit 96kHz WAV or AIFF format file is the vinyl pre-master standard. Other file resolutions are acceptable, down to CD quality audio, 16 bit 44.1kHz • File resolution should be the highest available, but should not be converted up to a higher resolution. • MP3 audio is not a suitable source for vinyl production. • The source audio files should be provided as a single WAV or AIFF format file for each side, with track spacing as it is intended to appear on the record and with an accompanying PQ sheet, indicating track IDs
A Note About High Frequencies:
The lacquer cutting system (the next step in vinyl manufacturing) is capable of putting very high peak levels on the record, but only ideal playback systems in optimal conditions will be able to play the sound back without distortion. Since we need the record to be playable on all types of equipment, it's necessary to limit the High Frequency information. It's recommended to provide a vinyl premaster that already has a balance of high frequency suitable for vinyl production.
A Note About Low Frequencies:
Excessive level in the very low bass can cause the record to skip. Excessive stereo information in the bass appears as vertical movement in the groove, so it's sometimes necessary to remove the stereo component of the music as well as any out of phase information in the very low frequency range. The cutting system is equipped to correct minor issues with the bass however, more severe problems will result in a record that can't be cut or that sounds very different from the source audio files provided. It's recommended to provide a vinyl premaster that already has low frequency level and stereo content that is suitable for vinyl production.
Fleschler. I will grant you that were indeed a number of poorly recorded tapes sold, but so too CD and records. There were/ are some superb pre recorded tapes as well though but yes generally a very well home recorded tape on say TDK SA media on a top flight Nakamichi deck can sound spectacular. As good as same treatment on a good r2r? No of course not but nothing like Mijo blanket critique. If his Dragon truly gave such poor results it obviously needs a full restoration!
...he heard tape and vinyl do dynamics far beyond what any digital could do
I am perplexed at the use of the word "can" because digital, esp hi-rez, *can* do dynamics (i.e. the difference between the lowest & highest amplitude reproduced) beyond what analogue *can* do. Whether the files contain such dynamics is another matter, of course -- in my experience, they often do not! In fact, much of the digital content available today is abysmally compressed. Additionally, the digital compression rate is much higher than we find in LPs. compression, I believe, is one reason why vinyl sounds better: because the source material is better, to begin with.
In this respect, it is not surprising that an LP in your system has better dynamics and generally sounds better than many (mediocrely mastered) digital files.
Following up on @ct0517 post above, I have compared a vinyl reproduction to the same LP encoded 20/192 (direct from the TT output). The playback results in both digital & analogue were not particularly different; being of a certain age, I like the analogue sound—but frankly, I cannot say the digital copy sounded bad in any way (in fact, I'm not sure I could easily tell the difference!).
@tzh21y As to the original question:As mentioned before, the answer to this depends on certain variables, but to simplify things, let's assume an excellent quality LP and a similarly outstandingly mastered digital counterpart and an outstandingly well set up TT with a superb sounding phono. In my experience, you would need in excess of 3k for a high performing dac, a reclocker, and a very good music player & suitable cabling in between.
Maybe I will take a look at the Lampizator as they seem to be pretty well respected. The best I've heard to date have been the DCS products. Still, they do not sound like my very modest analog rig.
I wiz listening to some NOS early Beatles cassettes - the ones you never see anymore, blue with no barcode - yesterday on my SONY Professional portable cassette player. You simply cannot hear dynamic range like that on any Beatles CD - especially the recent spate of reissues that came out on the last few years. It’s great to hear the opening Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band the way it’s SUPPOSED to sound. Same for the White Album on early cassette.
Dear @ronres : ""
If you enjoy and seek the sound analog creates then no amount of money spent on digital will be able to replicate the analog experience. """
Why do you want to replicate the analog experience that's wrong and different medium where you lost a huge signal amount of information and where adds a lot of non recorded signal information. Digital is truer to the recording to what recording microphones pick-up?:
Mikelavigne, I totally agree, it all comes down to the master. I also can not tell a difference between vinyl and a 192/24 version done with Pure Vinyl of that very same record. I am debating getting one of their phono amps but have not made that leap yet. The Hi Res files files I buy are usually old material I already have because they have been remastered such as older Bowie discs, the older Stones records etc and the remasters have universally been improvements over the older versions. Occasionally a new record will come out in Hi Res. Several groups are allowing this such as King Crimson, The Shins and Wilco. Obviously I have no old recordings to compare these too but they are all first class projects all the way through and they do sound better than your usual CD and dynamic compression is used much more sparingly so they are as or more dynamic than an LP.
rauliruegas, The problem with your statement is it takes a simplistic approach to "information". I won’t disagree with you that digital, especially high resolution digital contains within it more raw information, but let’s look at a really simple example:
A CD is 1411 bkps to achieve 44100 samples/second at 16 bits and 2 channels.
What if we had an uncompressed signal at 128kbps? ... That would allow us to do say 2 channels, 10 bits, 6400 samples/sec or 3.2KHz. We could do 8 bits, at get up to 4KHz. Not too terribly impressive huh?
How do you think 8 bits at 8ksps would sound compared to a 128kbps MP3 or AAC? It would sound awful by comparison even though technically both have the same amount of information.
Why does the MP3 sound better for the same raw information? Because the MP3 concentrates the information into areas in which the brain can make use of it.
Perhaps due to dynamic compression during the mixing/mastering process, other intentional choices made during mixing and mastering, even what we consider limitations during playback, we are maximizing the audio information that the brain can take in. Perhaps that inherent "filtering" that a turntable does maximizes the useful audio information that the brain can take in my minimizing extraneous information that can cause information overload. I am more of a digital guy, but even I feel this happens at times.
That information limit will be different for different people. That could even explain why some love vinyl, and some, not so much. I think it could also speak to the listening fatigue that some claim to experience when listening to digital. It is simply information overload, especially when coupled with "loudness wars" information levels which could be considered extreme.
You could make arguments against this, like, "why are high end DACs" then viewed as being closer to vinyl? I would counter with, who is making those statements and why is their brain telling them that and why do some of those DACs measure so poorly. Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some). Perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear?
rauliruegas9,612 posts11-11-2019 10:24amWhy do you want to replicate the analog experience that’s wrong and different medium where you lost a huge signal amount of information and where adds a lot of non recorded signal information. Digital is truer to the recording to what recording microphones pick-up?:
My experience with live recordings using a Tandberg 310 back in the early 1980s with chrome? Sony and TDK top cassettes had really low noise/hiss levels without Dolby. I have transferred my recordings to CD using a Alesis Masterlink and they play back similar to a well mastered LP to CD. Unfortunately, the deck was problematic and I switched to a Nakamichi ZX-7 which wasn't as low noise without Dolby. I really don't like Dolby B cassette sound. I think I'd rather hear a highest res 320 khz MP3.
My own system is modest but surprisingly satisfying for me in my quest of sound quality... And experience had lead me to observe that NO audio system at any price sound the same in different room, and that room treatment can make differences in a room that are way bigger that any change of gear, be it a TT or a Dac… I will not even speak of vibration controls, or electromagnetic grid treatment of the house...I read all this thread and many arguments coming from all side are somewhat astute, sound or interestingly thoughtful... But the question of the OP is very difficult to answer in one way or another, without knowing, the room where his audio system will be, nor the way his electromagnetic house grid will be addressed, and which vibration controls methods will be used or not and I dont even speak about the particular hi-level quality gear involved...The level of hi-quality of vinyl and digital gear, side by side in an ascending scale, is one factor only, the room treatment, the vibration controls, and the treatment of the electro-magnetic grid of the house 3 other fundamental factors, and they are other important factors also ( like the source materials etc)… My best to all...
Not only conventional room treatment is paramount for sound quality, but the treatment of the electrical grid of the house and of the room, and some others unconventional treatment are paramount too for me : Schuman generators modified, Helmholtz resonators (homemade one), and other resonators of my own design (cheap homemade but with astounding results)…
Upgrading an amplifier or a dac, if you had already a good one or even speakers, before implementing these controls methods is for me throwing money without even knowing the real optimal sound of the audio system you already owns before upgrading it...Most audiophile change gear some months apart without addressing any of the fundamentals relatively cheap methods to improve in a stellar way their already very good audio system...
Beside that comparing digital sound and analog one in the abstract, or in a very particular system with a particular files or vinyl in a very particular room in a very particular house is for me without any value for anyone...Except for boasting about your taste or system... Basic problems first...I apologize for my rant and wish the best to all...
Room acoustics are extremely important but that avoids the question. Given the same room and system how much do you have to spend on digital to equal the performance of a $3K turntable. I do not know if that includes the cartridge and tonearm but say it does which means it is not a very high end table. It would be one of intermediate performance. You could probably beat it with a $2K computer and usb interface. That does not include the DAC but the turntable does not include the phono amp.
Exactly! Assume the same room. I guess we should assume attention is given to isolation, RFI/EMI, too. It’s difficult or maybe impossible to have a level playing field.
I do not evade the question.... My point is about fundamentals to an audiophile experience....And give me the money + these fundamentals implemented in a room I will give you the best of digital or analog "relatively" equal in quality almost on par with each other...Because in a " particular system" the answer will be yes or no relatively to many factors, not only the gear price, but many other factors...People dont understand that the problem cannot be solved in the " same room" because "this same room" is only "a particular room" … In another room the answer will be another answer.... It is basic …:) The digital sound and the vinyl sound dont exist by itself in the blue sky of audio idealities with a value attached to them....They exist implemented and manifest to some ears in a particular environment with a particular audio system...
My point is that money only cannot solve the question once and for all, at least a reasonable amount of money by itself cannot resolve the question once and for all, without taking account of the room grid, house grid, audio electrical grid and mechanical vibrations grid, etc... And the ears factor :)
In some room be it the "same" for the experiment the vinyl will be best.... And alternatively in another room, or better said in another audio experiment with other gear and tweaks, and system, the digital will be best...It is a relative comparison, there is no ABSOLUTE answer to that... And no room by itseIf magically decide once and for all that a vinyl rig or a digital rig is the best...This is not only engineering good sense it is basic reasoning...
A vinyl or a digital files are only one factor in a chain of so many factors implicated in a specific audio experience than deciding that in a particular room, be it "the same", vinyl or digital are the winner had no signification except for that particular room, particular audio system, room environment and ears....
It is like tube quality amp. versus S.S. amp. debate controversy, there is no absolute...Sansui takes 25 years to replicate exactly the sound of their best tube amplifier in solid state form and they demonstrate the fact...It is the same thing for engineering digital or vinyl contest...
Why do non-OS R2R DACs sounds better (only to some).
I was discussing the R2R vs delta-sigma approach of PCM DA conversion with a local knowledgeable guy who is audio designer himself (though more on the analog side, yet he has designed digital as well and has a lot of knowledge on the subject).
R2R is basically a natural, straightforward approach in itself. There's no feedback in the process, unlike delta-sigma for which the feedback is necessary means of getting the DA done. And feedback is generally associated with corrections, approximations and messing with the time domain (as with the feedback you always correct with the time delay relative to the signal you're correcting with). This basically renders technical problems and various noise generated in the DA process which depends on the input sequence. Delta-sigma is from the very beginning on the path of constant improvement of the DA process...because it requires constant improvement, because of its imperfection.
The thing is that constant tone and FFT tests don't reveal flaws in delta-sigma conversion. To reveal noise produced you need more complex tests which requires bit more complex test signal which will provoke what's going on. One of such signals from what I could read is a square signal, which consists of various harmonics of the base frequency.
With R2R, this process is so simple that you don't have anything other than error from the resistor ladder due to resistors precision limits, which shows as HD (plus IMD which results from the THD). There's nothing more to provoke which wont show on simple tests, that's all.
As for NOS vs OS, as much as I have understood, NOS is the was which is least demanding for output filtering, as it is most tolerant for less steep filtering - it's even tolerant for a non-filtered approach. And it's the steep output filters which produce pre and post ringing. Which is nothing other than a time domain oscillation audible in a HF range, rendering an unnatural effect - nothing similar happens with the sound in the nature. My opinion is that brain is unable to handle it - since it's not even remotely close to natural phenomena, brain doesn't know how to filter it out from the impression he sends to the cortex.
Hearing mechanism aims to render information from the raw tonal data entering the ears (and reflecting in the ears). When unnatural tonal signal enters ears, brain cannot draw correct information from it because it's impossible - but it still attempts to do so. The end result of this attempted brain processing on unnatural signal is easily far from what was intentional when producing the record. And this is the reason why relatively small in scale time distortion such as ringing is can do much wrong to an impression.
NOS design can sacrifice the strength of filtering out the ultrasonic noise from a DA reconstruction to make the pre and post ringing much lower (or non existent), in an idea that ultrasonic content, its eventual audibility plus IM byproducst in the audible range, will do less audible damage than ringing time domain distortion, from the 'viewpoint' of a human hearing mechanism. It can be either completely non-filtered approach (no ringing but more noise) or filtering with lower steepness (less ringing than steep filters like brick wall but also more ultrasonic noise, though much less than with non-filtered approach).
With PCM HR signals of a higher sampling frequency, 88.2kHz or higher, there's a benefit since ultrasonic noise from DA reconstruction happens higher in the frequency (where attenuation from a less steep filter attenuation of a noise is stronger), so there's a clear benefit over a 44.1kHz signal DA. So for such signals 'mild filter' approach may benefit more than with non-filtered NOS.
DSD is a different story since DSS native conversion is different than PCM and basically it's again more straightforward than delta-sigma PCM conversion. So DA converters with direct DSD DA conversion path (no conversion to PCM prior to DA) can benefit in sound since DSD conversion doesn't require output filter at all, so no ringing as well. However typical cheap DAC converts DSD to PCM, then processes DA as with ony other PCM signal.
Perhaps the high frequency artifacts that modulate into the audio band mask additional information allowing the brain to concentrate on what it most wants to hear?
I suspect it's about less damage, comparatively. Artifacts themselves are noise which can further increase the IMD and it can't be beneficial to the sound. But the alternative delta-sigma deals with specific additional noise, plus ringing.
For the same reasons your speak about i personally opt for a minimal design NOS battery dac (tda 1543) and to this day i see no limitations in my audio system with it...Upgrading this 24 bucks bidded french battery dac from Ebay is excluded...The S.Q of this dac is so good that each improvement in my system were never dragged behind by it...There is way better than this dac, but way way much costlier...And I dont want to pay for the research and design of some very known dac designer...
Hey, I just got back from an audio show. There are some digital systems out there that play in a magical way. But, way expensive. Case in point, the mbl room. They showed off their all digital flagship system. I never heared a system play music like that ever. It really was amazing and I've been into hifi for 40 years now. That been said, only the speaker system (two speakers and two subs) was arround 866,000.00 plz., each of the foue amps were 84,000 plz., and I stopt looking at the little sighns there. 😕 Yes it is out there but....
R2R is basically a natural,
straightforward approach in itself. There's no feedback in the process,
unlike delta-sigma for which the feedback is necessary means of getting
the DA done. And feedback is generally associated with corrections,
approximations and messing with the time domain (as with the feedback
you always correct with the time delay relative to the signal you're
correcting with).
Even on an almost 900K system, I still feel there are compromises. For one thing, its not analog. also, I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system. Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice as some music is digital and was never releases in analog or (tape, record).
Dear @atdavid : Exist a lot of misunderstood about digital operation ( including my self where I'm way ignorant of several " things . ) about DSD nd PCM DAC operation.
There are several DAC chip manufacturers s: AD, AKM, BB, SABRE and the like.
My humble CDP came from Denon that use BB/TI DAC ( 32/192 ) and this goes around PCM technology but I remember that Denon was one of the few LP recording digital company in the early times. Other was Telarc and latter on Varese Saravande, Chalfont, Delos and more.
Telarc used Soundstream digital PCM recorder and I own all Telarc recordings where many of them are even today very hard to beat about its quality level performance of the music information in those LP grooves. Not all Telarc are good recordings.
In the case of Denon they designed and builded its own PCM digital recording machine with some " advantages " over the Soundstream standard in those old times. I know this because I own several Denon PCM LPs where as with Telarc many are first rate recordings and some others not so well . So Denon has a lot of knowledge levels not only for digital recording but how to achieve the best and more from those BB/TI DAC chips.
Almost no one cares a bout Denon as a CDP manufacturer but they know in deep about and they know too what goes around analog because Denon already has deep knowledge levels manufacturing LP analog rig along analog recordings and electronics design too and Denon was side to side with CBS. So they should know something on each single side of overall analog and digital subjects by multiple first hand experiences and skills and its CDP are non-expensive units.
I have a half dozen Denon digital recorded LPs. They have good sound. Denon made 2,039 digital LPs/CDs (visit Discogs.com to view) with many original recordings. Denon 1300, 1500 and 1600 CD players were very good for their time. Today, a cheap Sony Bluray player beats the pants off of them. I have a 1300 and 1500 (as well as about 30 other 1980s/1990s) CD players for sale, cheap!
I already sold all my CDs except the special ones like my RT personally signed copy of Shoot Out the Lights. I downloaded them all to a hard drive and sold them to Bullmoose Records for store credit which I turned into records:) It took I think it was two months and 6 trips to Bullmoose. Now I have all that room for more Records and another 4 TB left on the hard drive for Hi Res downloads. Does life get any better? I think the JVC Direct To Disk LP are as good as LPs get not that there are not others out there particularly in the classical realm. I was never big on Telarc disks mostly because I had versions of all the stuff they did by artists I liked better. High quality recordings are no good if you don't care for the performance. The first popular digital recording was Ry Cooder's Bop Till You Drop. Great music but is is missing a little of the sparkle the best recordings have. Thanx again atdavid for clearing the air. One other comment to add is that negative feedback is not the big bad boogeyman. Done correctly it is vital for some designs and "no feedback" is not necessarily better. Mahgister, theoretically you are right but sometimes you have to make compromises and testing a rig in everyone's home is not practical so you can only say, "in this room with this system." Frankly, all of use are guessing based on our experience. In reality I can't even comprehend the question because my turntables cost a whale of a lot more than $3K and my digital playback system cost less than 1/3rd of my cheapest turntable. I'm guessing again but I would say when it comes to serious listening digital and analog get an equal share of my attention. I am also not picking out the music based on sound quality but because it is the music I want to hear at the time. If I were given the opportunity to buy an older analog recording in remastered Vinyl or Hi Res digital I would try to go for the one that I though sounded better. If I can't determine that I just get them both:) I also think it is obvious that digital is a much better value than Analog. It takes much less money to get to a near SOTA set up.
For sure you are right, most of the times we must compare and choose...
But each for their own potentials, digital and analog, are only interactive elements of design in an unbreakable chain that is so mixed that choosing absolutely for one and rejecting the other is neither possible nor desirable, choosing is only possible in a particular context actualizing some possibilities for some people taste and room and system design ... This is my point...My best wishes to you...
Dear @fleschler : For CDs Denon is more than enough. Please listen the old Gladiator motion picture soundtrack CD ( in a Denon 1600. ) against its today LP counterpart. As other gentlemans posted in this thread we don’t need to listen 4x DSD and the like to " note " the today superiority of digital alternative. I like both alternatives but for a tiny different reasons.
Digital makes many things rigth but one of them is the way it handled the bass range where LPs just falls to handle with the same " true and aplomb ".
You can see with any delta-sigma conversion diagram there’s a feedback associated. While those are simple conversions, you can’t escape a feedback no matter how advanced or modern it is, because...at some point you’ll have to do a delta-sigma, you know? ;) you can’t escape LPF-ing too.
Even on an almost 900K system, I still feel there are compromises. For one thing, its not analog. also, I have never heard drums, cymbals and overall air sound right on any digital system. Unfortunately, sometimes you have no choice as some music is digital and was never releases in analog or (tape, record).
Whether it releases on analog or digital, most music in the last several decades was digital right up to the cutting machine.
Cymbals on LPs made from digitally made masters don’t sound right either, if you listen critically. I can go to a hifi show, listen to many analog systems, but on a typical record I usually can’t hear an ’analog sound’ out of the analog rig, With digitally made records it’s not what’s there.
On cassettes that are “digitally remastered” it seems that many of the sonic ills present on the CD are gone. Why is that? The cassette version is more lush, is more open sounding, more natural sounding, has more air, greater resolution and greater dynamic range. Why? It’s because the CD is more compressed and because of the limitations of CD playback I’ve been describing lo these past many months. You want some examples? OK, Kind of Blue, Country Joe and the Fish on Vanguard and AC/DC’s If You Want Blood You’ve Got It. Check it out!
Again, we/you were talking DACs, and I have copied that "qualities" you have associated with "Feedback" below. None of these properties you have assigned to "Feedback" apply to a Delta-Sigma DAC. Anything that appears as feedback in a Delta-Sigma DAC is a bit-perfect, time-perfect mathematical process. It could all be calculated ahead of time and simply fed to the actual single bit DAC output (though usually 3-6 bits). A DSD signal can be technically be fed directly to a single bit DAC. You can't escape low pass filtering in a NOS DAC either, though some seem to try, and older audiophiles with poor high frequency hearing seem to tolerate them and mistake aliased noise for "air" and "ambience".
A "typical" record today was recorded on digital gear, mixed and mastered on digital gear as well. That has been true for quite some time.
Cymbals on LPs made from digitally made masters don’t sound right
either, if you listen critically. I can go to a hifi show, listen to
many analog systems, but on a typical record I usually can’t hear an
’analog sound’ out of the analog rig, With digitally made records it’s
not what’s there.
I am now tremendously excited to be old, I understand now very well why my S.P.S NOS dac is so good....But wait guy, be happy too, you will be old sooner than you think …. : )
By the way I want to know if 3-d holographic imaging in headphones or speakers, and natural musical timbre instrument and voices rendering is also the results of very old age with this NOS dac of mine? Let me guess that your answer will be "probably" ….:)
«You can’t escape low pass filtering in a NOS DAC either, though some seem to try, and older audiophiles with poor high frequency hearing seem to tolerate them and mistake aliased noise for "air" and "ambience". » atdavid
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.
