Empirical Audio does not exhibit at CES anymore because it is primarily a dealer show. We do RMAF and Newport.
Steve N. |
Its beyond me why anyone would put tubes in totally digital equipment, even just for power regulation. Nothing about tubes is interesting for digital. If you want it to perform like something from 1950, this would be the way.
When I was in the 7th grade I got a Bendix G15 computer to disassemble. This was all tube digital.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
I have also found that ALAC AIFF and FLAC all color the sound compared to .wav. I find AIFF actually worse than ALAC.
I believe there is only one server out there that makes FLAC sound like .wav, the Antipodes.
BTW, if you want to make your digital sound more live, like analog, check out the Plasmatron from VHAudio.com. Once I heard this AC regulator, I had to have one.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Agear - there are two things that can affect this:
1)if they are using a network streamer, some of these sound identical or very close between FLAC and wav
2) their systems may not be up to the level required to hear the difference
Everyones system is at a different level, so one must take all of these posts with a grain of salt.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Agear - I have both Sonos and the Off-Ramp. Even using the Synchro-Mesh reclocker to reduce jitter of the Sonos is not as good as the Off-Ramp by itself. The Off-Ramp is in another class from the other USB converters.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
My hypothesis is that AIFF is a different format than wav as is FLAC and ALAC. These require a different CODEC. The real-time behavior of these CODECs may be different than static behavior, as in doing bit compares.
Also, there is a lot more than just data in these files. The formats all have lots of tagging and other information in them, including offset. If the offset is not properly decoded, this definitely impacts SQ. I have a number of test tracks that prove this conclusively.
BTW, the Off-Ramp 4 that Grannyring has been updated to include the latest OT transformer mods and the OR5 wall-wart, both improvements in SQ.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
agear wrote: "98/100 people would agree, and they obviously don't."
98 out of 10 people do not have a system with low enough noise, compression and distortion (or an optimized acoustic environment) to hear the difference. Makes sense to me.
It's time for those 98 percent to realize that their systems are not as good as they think they are. They are at level 5 and some of us are at level 9. The so called "computer scientists" actually have no credentials to make this judgment either IMO. Maybe a EE with 35 years experience. Even then, the experience must include the learning that there is a lot in audio that we don't measure that is still audible.
The state of measurements for stereo are a lot like the measurements and specs for TV monitors. Most of the measurements and specs (black levels, color saturation etc..) are done for 2-D viewing of static images. There actually very few specs or measurements for 3-D accuracy or motion accuracy. Whether a given TV monitor is good at 3-D and/or motion is determined mostly by a reviewer watching the monitor. These are really complex effects as is the 3-D imaging of a good stereo system in a good acoustic environment.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
I makes sense to put a tube analog output on a DAC, but even then the power supply must be really good and the tubes really good. The best preamp-type tubes are rare and expensive and mostly NOS. Even these are hard-pressed to deliver tight bass like good SS can. Been there, done that.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Agear - look, there is nothing sinister about my comments of tubes not being the best choice for digital. Any EE worth his salt will agree with this. I have 30 years of salt in my ears.
This is a lot like the habit that many designers have to use HC logic family for digital circuits that must maintain low-jitter. Makes no sense at all, except to those that don't understand the physics.
There also companies that offer tube analog buffer stages that don't understand why these are interesting. They actually do work well in many cases. It has to do with replacing a low-drive strength DAC output buffer with one with high drive strength, better adapted to drive a cable with capacitance. The ideal thing would just have a better output stage in the DAC.
There is a lot of blind leading the blind designers out there. Sometimes bad habits and choices get copied. I've seen it all. Even junior designers from Sony making fundamental errors in high-end CDPs. Modding a LOT of components for over 10 years opened my eyes.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Agear - did you go to THE Show at CES? |
Metralla - these that you mention are not digital application of tubes. These tubes are all used in the analog output stages.
I also used to offer a tube output DAC. This is analog, not digital.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
This is what I say on every forum. The jitter of the digital source is MORE IMPORTANT than the DAC. It's true. And Empirical Audio has been developing lower and lower jitter products for more than 15 years.
You must understand what jitter is and how it should be measured if you want to make intelligent decisions. A single RMS or even peak-to-peak jitter number is grossly insufficient. If you purchase gear based on such specs, you are making a gross error. The first flag that everyone should raise with a product is if they claim to eliminate jitter or have zero jitter. Impossible.
Jitter occurs as a Gaussian distribution of cycle-times. If you only publish one number, you don't know the shape of the Gaussian curve. It could be wide a flat or narrow and tall and still have the same RMS jitter number. The "tails" of the jitter distribution are also important. If these P-P maximums only occur every 20-30 seconds, this is totally inaudible. At Empirical Audio, we measure the jitter distribution in a histogram. We have found that narrow and tall distributions sound much better than wider, shorter distributions, even if the majority of the jitter is in the 50psec range. This makes perfect sense, since the jitter of a thin distribution is bunched in a tight range and not varying widely on average.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"Steve, the Ifi crew claims lower jitter specs than Offramp at a fraction of the cost (www.digitalaudioreview). Any comments?"
I don't know where they get this. Send me an iFi and i'll publish the jitter distributions of OR5 and iFi.
In the end what matters is how the device sounds when connected to a DAC, not how it measures when connected to a test system anyway.
I don't see any iFi things taking best of show at Newport or RMAF. They have their pricepoint and I have mine.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
You can get close to the Duelands with ~3uFd oil caps combined with .22uFd CUTF caps from v-cap.com. I think the non-CAST Duelands would be sufficient. The CAST are best in speaker crossovers.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"If this is reality and believe in break in period, why bother showcasing your system if they are not at its best?"
Well, the show managers will not let us in but one day before the shows and this is simply not enough for break-in. Barely enough time for good setup. BTW, it's not just new components. I have exhibited at maybe 16 shows and each time the equipment needs break-in, even equipment that has had years of break-in. This effect I believe is due to static charge developing on all of the dielectrics during shipping and setup. Sunday is always the best day and it will probably always be that way.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"hooked it up via SPDIF through the Empirical Offramp4 and though he said it sounded better than his Mojo Audio DAC, he expected much more."
There are improvements in the OR5, but there are also updates to the OR4 that make it a LOT better. Those that lose touch by not visiting my forum regularly lose out on these updates. Most are very inexpensive.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
"Certainly TAD is one clear exception. They may seek better rooms and may fine tune their systems, but I have not heard much difference from day one onward."
I had TAD E1's in my room 2 years ago at Newport show. They claimed they were broken-in. They weren't. Took 2-3 days before they opened-up.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
King - I agree. I have stopped partnering with companies that cannot properly prepare for shows. I have been left high and dry sometimes. There is no excuse.
I finally found some really good ones that have outstanding equipment and work hard to do each show, Vapor Audio (vaporsound.com) and Antipodes Audio. No slackers there.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
Passive preamps sound leaner because you are trying the wrong technology. Resistive attenuation is the WRONG solution. Transformer passive or TVC is the RIGHT solution. No leanness there. It only makes sense technically.
BTW, driving DAC to amps directly is the BOMB! However, doing it balanced and using the Final Drive is significantly better for SQ:
http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/final-drive
Steve N.
Empirical Audio |
