Easy to do simply on a scope using test bench cd's, just a flat across the board 30db channel separation with resistance across left and right channels, but to get it follow like a cartridge takes quite a bit more complexity.
@georgehifi That's a very good piece of analysis and detective work George. I am particularly impressed that you could actually design and implement a circuit to do what you did.
For a rock kicking civil engineer, I am always amazed at how electronics work and how it all fits together. I think I should have studied a different engineering stream.
Well done!
@folkfreak A very fascinating article. love the science in it.
It must be very sad to believe that everything we find attractive in this hobby is an artefact or coloration
Ah yes, but not sad, just understandable, As I said this was only with old stuff Beatles, Beach Boys ect. that was recorded and voiced with no digital involved, and where the "channel separation null’ing network" worked a treat with digital. With later stuff recorded and voiced on digital equipment, the null’ing circuit is definitely better left out, and to me far better through the digital gear, and not through vinyl.
folkfreak Having said all that spinning vinyl has turned out to be so much more rewarding these last few days
Funny you should mention vinyl, I also love to listen to it now and then especially on old stuff like Beatles ect which kills the digital of the same thing, which tends to be cold and very pin-pong from left to right, and no bass or body to the vocals like vinyl does.
So I knuckled down to find out why I preferred it with old stuff over digital , besides all the clicks and pops, was the channel separation. So I concentrated on the channel separation of vinyl, and at best it’s 30-40db at 1khz, above and below that, it worse almost mono in the bass, digital is over 100db separation across the audio band 20hz -20khz in most cases
So what I did was make a switchable network circuit to bleed the left into right and visa versa on the output of my cd player to blend the channel separation from 100db down to 30db and instantly you could hear those old Beatles, Beach Boys, ect come to life. Almost gone was the exaggerated ping-pong effect, the bass was richer because it was "mono’ized" and the voices had more body because the of the richer bass, the only down side was the image wasn’t as spread across the room, which is also understandable, because of the "mono’isation". But all this and still no clicks pops and surface noise, it’s a winner.
This CD/digital "vinyl mimicking" circuit with far more complexity would be even closer to vinyl, if below 1khz the 30db it would follow the vinyl’s worsening channel separation in the bass and treble.
@georgehifi -- I'm very happy with the verdant, lush, wild and exciting primal woodland panorama my tube based active pre-amp gives me thank you very much and will not be spending a moment more worrying about fussing with going back to a direct connection
Having said all that spinning vinyl has turned out to be so much more rewarding these last few days -- loving the Weitblick Peinemann WDR releases for example
Aside from the 0.2V output setting for the direct connection, I'd also toggle between the different filters available since the one you prefer when listening through the preamp might not sound the best when going direct.
Fine -- and when I change my phono stage and drop from 45dB gain to 40dB the 0.2V may also be a better match than the 0.6mV
But still no explanation of why the direct connection does such a relatively worse job of handling dynamic range (if we put all the soundstage stuff down to coloration, which btw I wholeheartedly do not) -- and no it’s nothing to do with the -9dB cut as the dCS volume control is digital and non bit stripping
Now apply 9dB of digital attenuation to the 0.6V signal, you get:
-2.21dBu - 9dB = -11.21dBu = 0.21V
So whether you use the 0.6V (with 9dB of digital attenuation applied) or the 0.2V (with no digital attenuation) output setting, the DAC outputs the same voltage basically at 0dBFS.
Yes, to have some range to go louder above the "comfortable listening level", but if the max SPL you listen to has the volume control always set at -9-14dB then the 0.6V output is too hot.
If you keep the volume on the Vivaldi between -9-14dB for a -20dBFS signal, the volume level on the Vivaldi will still be at -9-14dB for a 0dBFS peak signal. The attenuation level stays constant irrespective of the source's signal amplitude, the same attenuation level is applied to a -20dBFS signal and a 0dBFS signal.
-20dBFS signal + 9dB attenuation = -29dBFS signal 0dBFS signal + 9dB attenuation = -9dBFS signal
So you always listen at -9-14dBFS peak levels.
Keeping the volume between -9-14dB on the Vivaldi for the 0.6V setting means the output level is too high.
Will you guys please get of your hobby horses and do some simple maths.
My amps rated sensitivity is 750mV. The 600mV output of the (0dBFS) of the DAC preserves as much of the potential dynamic range in the signal without needing either attenuation (acceptable but undesirable) or amplification (always and in every case undesirable)
When using a test tone at -20dBFS my preferred volume settings were in the range of -9 to -14dB -- now no one listens to test tones, we listen to music with dynamic range -- in the case of the dynamic range database the peak to median level for the Stacey Kent track I use is 14dB (which by the way I play at the -9dB setting) -- if we assume (which is wrong) that the test tone represents the median (it doesn’t as test tones tend to need to be played lower than music) then the setup I have corresponds to peaks almost exactly hitting unity gain
I know you people believe that in all circumstances a preamp is bad but none of you have offered any explanation as to why the direct connection appeared to limit dynamic range and cause the peaks in the tracks (especially vocals) to harden?
ps interesting that only now do you talk about bit stripping .. of course by using the dCS at 0dB this problem is avoided, plus I understand that the implementation of the Vivaldi DAC avoids this issue ...
I’d try the 0.2V output setting on the Vivaldi if you attenuated between 9.5dB and 14dB; this way you’d be able to run the volume control to max, with no more than 5dB of attenuation.
Yes seigen has the right idea, this way you run minimal risk of "bit stripping" Wadia and ML know about it.
Here is what Wadia says with their digital domain volume control products, also Mark Levinson has the same instructions with theirs. As they both have gain setting links on their analogue output buffers, so this is level preset to allow the sources digital volume control work at near full volume with no "bit stripping" https://ibb.co/kc4OCo
Also a very true and correct statement by seigen with a band-aid fix at the end.
My take is that if you wouldn’t prefer the Vivaldi direct on its 0.2V output setting to the preamp route, you don’t really like how the DAC sounds and prefer the coloration/enhancement that the preamp gives you.
If you attenuate between 9.5dB and 14dB on the Vivaldi with the 0.6V output setting going direct, running 0.2V into the preamp won't need its 12dB gain at all.
Using your preamp you first attenuate the signal from the source and then amplify it back to the level required for your listening anyway, since you're forced to apply the preamp gain to the signal no matter what. (the gain stage in your ARC preamp is fixed not variable like in Ayre's preamps btw)
If you have a TT you need a preamp anyway and it's irrelevant to the discussion what output setting you prefer on the Vivaldi through the preamp for various reasons; the discussion is about differences between DAC direct vs preamp and I think the Vivaldi direct should be used in its optimal configuration to the amps in question, for the result to be as meaningful as possible.
My take is that if you wouldn't prefer the Vivaldi direct on its 0.2V output setting to the preamp route, you don't really like how the DAC sounds and prefer the coloration/enhancement that the preamp gives you.
Plus I should add that the test tone I used for level setting is -20dBFS so if you like the peak you are actually hearing with 14dB cut is +6dB
This all gets confusing which is why I always keep my gain cascade spreadsheet handy and check all the levels so that I get as close as possible to 0dBFS at power amp input sensitivity at the level of preamp gain I prefer
Why match? To avoid having to remember to add or cut 20-30 steps on the volume control or risk playing way too loud. As it stands the two inputs use the same range which is what I want. Also we want to avoid at all costs using any gain at all in the pre-amp and reducing to 0.2V would mean needing to use almost the full gain stage (12dB) to get 0.7V rated output (not that I of course drive the amps that high but peaks may) while 600mV is much closer to the desired 0.7B output sans gain ... make sense?
In other words the volume control setting and cuts I describe represent the average, the peaks may be close to unity
Why do you need to match the output level between your DAC and phono stage? I mean, are you doing on the fly changes between inputs on the preamp while listening simultaneously to your TT and DAC? In that case the Vivaldi would be quieter than your phono stage at the same volume level on the preamp.
The 0.2V setting on the Vivaldi might sound better when run direct into the amps since you'd hardly get to use the volume control at all, keeping it mostly at max.
Fair point @seigen but the other consideration is level matching with my phono stage. With the current settings the two need the same rough preamp volume settings and so avoid the danger of playing too loud.
Gain matching across the entire amplification cascade is an interesting topic and one I’ve previously commented on (albeit in the context of phono)
my listening levels for the tracks were between 9.5dB and 14dB cut on the DAC
I'd try the 0.2V output setting on the Vivaldi if you attenuated between 9.5dB and 14dB; this way you'd be able to run the volume control to max, with no more than 5dB of attenuation.
Big difference between you and I George. I can easily accept the fact that people can and will choose either approach. If someone prefers DAC direct I don’t 2nd guess their decision (why should I?) . You on the other hand are dogmatic in your opinions and display a tendency to belittle those who do not share your viewpoint or attribute it to "pleasing" coloration. As pointed out previously DACs direct to amps presents their own inherent coloration and shortcomings, You aren’t experiencing straight wire with gain. Don’t fool yourself. These choices we discuss are "all" sonic tradeoffs. Cheers, Charles
Regarding silver cable, they all certainly do not sound the same. I use Ocellia Silver Reference IC and SC. It’s the antithesis of, thin, cool, bright etc. In fact it has natural warmth, full bodied tone with terrific fleshed out harmonics. It has a very organic character. Charles
Johndoe, It may be better to run the Vivaldi DAC straight to the power amplifier for you. Folkfreak clearly and thoroughly described his experience doing so and prefers the better sound quality with the ARC REF 40. These are his findings listening in his own system. Granted you may choose otherwise but he simply reported what he heard. Strange how this seems to be discounted because it doesn’t meet someone else’s expectations. Very strange behavior.
I get the impression that folkfreak is an experienced listener who knows what he likes and trusts his ears and judgement. We're all different in our hearing and perception, this is an obvious truth. Charles
First of all I tend to agree with jareko and georgehifi... As far as I'm concerned it's better to use the Vivaldi straight into the power amp. As for the WEL Signature interconnect.... Silver it may be but never bright, lit up, dry or cold. On the contrary, it's got way more body and warmth then copper cables (top notch cables not entry level). My AQ Everest has the same attributes as well.
"The continued observations of "experts" who based only on specs and their biases know what other users systems sound like and which is obviously "best" is one of the mysteries of on line forums such as AudioGon"
Big thank you for your great response. Listening today to your offerings and particularly like the Scottish tradition suggestions. Salt House is right down my alley.
@grannyring asking me for folk recommendations is opening rather a can of worms ...
Firstly I will note in passing that I am not much of a current US, so-called folk/Pickathon fan -- all rather arch and affected to my taste
My preferences are more towards the stalwarts of the 80s and 90s. It is great to see Cry, Cry, Cry back up and touring again and of course any of the work of their three members (Dar Williams, Richard Shindell and last but in my opinion best Lucy Kaplansky) is worth looking up
I’m also on a big Jonatha Brooke jag at present -- a very solid artist with a long history
My real passion however is for the folk tradition of the British Isles, which is where I am from. What makes this community distinct is how the historic tradition is constantly reinvented and revitalized by each generation. I love hearing the sons and daughters of the past generation taking the music and making it their own.
Great places to start are the artists on The Elizabethan Session album, or any of the work of Kathryn Roberts and Sean Lakeman, or of course Kate Rusby -- I’m really into her 20th anniversary album where the cross over with guest artists (including many Americana names you will recognize) gives a different take on her songs
Finally the Scottish tradition is very much alive - check out Salt House and my current number one album and something you must listen to (it’s a concept piece so ideally you listen all the way through) -- A Pocket of Wind Resistance by Karine Polwart
@jareko if you look at my virtual system you will see the (somewhat extensive) steps I have gone to to optimize around the Vivaldi. As you note such details as footers, power cords, cabling, clocking, damping all matter and are very audible.
However even with all of the above I for one would never choose to listen to it direct when I have the option of a pre-amp like the Ref 40.
This of course is in my system, built up to suit my preferences, silver cable and all.
The continued observations of "experts" who based only on specs and their biases know what other users systems sound like and which is obviously "best" is one of the mysteries of on line forums such as AudioGon
My rule is to take note of input based on personal experience only and discount all others
The Vivaldi volume control is digital one, you cannot switch it off or bypass it. Therefore no matter you connect the line preamplifier or not - you would always use its analog output section. If you find that preamplifier makes the Vivaldi sound better, this is because it introduces its own sound to the system usually by limiting high frequency, rolling off the spectrum above hearing capabilities.
The analog output section of Vivaldi seems to be top quality, I can hardly imagine it could be any better.
Any preamplifier would introduce something of its own to the sound, some may like it more and some may like it less. I can understand that introducing the preamplifier can make the sound more "digestible" is some systems, my advice is however to use Vivaldi direct to gain unlimited transparency, unless my must use preamplifier because of turntable or other analog source. If your sound is too bright or not so musical, search a weak part in your system that is responsible for that but this is not Vivaldi DAC, but rather a source component feeding it with the data or some digital jitter.
Changing cables may help a lot. I have found that putting some vibration control device under Vivaldi makes the sound much, much better. I would also recommend switching the Vivaldi buffer off, turn to 6V and use higher filter. I like the MAP 1 or MAP 3 better than MAP2. Also using power conditioner can help reducing a lot of "digital-like artifacts" from the sound helping to get more analog sound - check Shunyata Denali or Triton 3.
Also like Nancy Harms. I am really getting into Americana music since moving to the Nashville area. Part of this includes folk. Love for you to list some folk artists I should listen to.
Thank you so much for such a well written and understandable post on your listening experience. The Ref40 is one heck of a preamp for sure. My past experience with this sort of comparison yielded the exact same results although I never summarized it as wonderfully as you have here.
Also, thanks for the music references! Listening to Stacey Kent right now and love it.
Just to add to this discussion on space and warmth. I cited the example of the Nancy Harms track and the reverb. Via the direct connection it was clearly artificial reverb in a halo around the voice. The striking double bass was clear and direct but with no sense of body or presence in space.
However via the preamp the bass was palpably in its own space and had scale and heft, almost three dimensional, and the reverb on the vocal dropped back behind in space.
So ok maybe this was all studio trickery but via the preamp it sounded more like a group playing together in one space while direct it was just like a bunch of tracks on a mixer
Of course for recordings that were more honest like the jazz trio Bach the spatial cues and scale were all present via the preamp but much less distinct and appreciable in the direct connection
"Warmth not added but realized" Terrific cursory summation David, spot on. I heard 2 hours of live unamplified piano 1 Week ago at a Steinway piano gallery recital. Wow, full bodied, rich, dense tone and harmonics, just beautiful! Much warmth and emotion. If active preamplifiers get one "closer" to this realism they’re doing something right regardless of what the measurements say. Sometimes you just have to get out and hear the real thing. I experience the same when I visit local jazz clubs.Warmth, body, dynamics and rich tones dominate these live settings. Charles
@folkfreak Thanks for taking the time and effort to do the comparison. Your findings are helpful and add to the discussion. A great read also!
I was wondering how your comparison was going (this very morning) while reading Positive Feedback’s ’revisit’ of the Prism Sound Callia DAC. Highlighting some takeaways here, by the author Larry Cox, who compares the Callia Direct vs via a Pass Labs XP-12.
[Note: my focus is around the ’notional’ and not the DAC itself]
"Connecting the Callia to Pass Labs XP-12 transformed the sound....The Callia Pass Labs XP-12 combination added a measure of warmth with an increased humanity being presented....with a fuller bodied preamp, like Pass Labs’ XP-12, the Callia transforms into a richer, fuller bodied DAC that is delightful."
My own experience finds that adding an active preamp injects body and richness and a ’completeness’ to the music that brings it closer to what I experience with music in person. Larry sums this up as "warmth not added but ’realized’."
“I use it on the bass but for mids and highs I use ofc copper.”
george, are you referring to the ICs or speaker cables? Just intrigued on how you route the bass and the treble separately between the components. By the way, my (limited) experience with speaker cables is consistent with your remarks about silver being a bit drier sounding than copper.
Well written and explained, your plus’s for going direct are all expected improvements, especially the transparency reference (ability to distinguish artificial reverb). Any negatives are possible the result of the source it’s self, or maybe the type of interconnects used as there is 10mt per side of it and any character it has will be magnified by that length, WEL Signature interconnect is silver, and to me silver interconnects can have a cold quality to the mids/highs but is great for tightness of bass. I use it on the bass but for mids and highs I use ofc cooper. But it’s with the preamp that lets you relax into the music more then it’s the colouration you need to counter any negatives.
Folkfreak. Thanks for taking the time to post your well written listening impressions. Given the description of what you heard I can understand your preference. I would make the same choice. I'll always prefer the more involving and emotionally engaging component. Charles
I previously noted a difference between the balanced and single ended outputs on the Vivaldi and my preference for single ended. The difference manifest as somewhat of the same sense of compression and homogenization noted in the direct so perhaps this is largely a function of how dCS have implemented the balanced output (perhaps another amplification stage).
I did not see any difference in soundstage however between the two connections when going via the amp -- so as @shadorne suggests perhaps that is an (artifact) of the pre-amp 😏
Yup - ARC preamps tend to add depth to the Soundstage. I have heard the difference myself on an ARC Ref 6. I think the tubes do it as my Mcintosh tube preamp does the same vs SS. I know there is added harmonics (in minuscule quantity with ARC) and McIntosh is even more lush or warm than ARC. At the end of the day it is what works for the listener - lose some resolution but gain some musicality!
Time to report back on my experiment with comparing the Vivaldi DAC direct vs via my ARC Ref 40 preamp. The full description of my setup can be found in my virtual system but the key things today is that we were comparing two different analog outputs from the DAC to my VTL MB450III
Path A was my usual setup
DAC to ARC via 2M Single Ended WEL Signature
ARC to VTL via 10M Balanced WEL Signature
And Path B was direct
DAC to VTL via 10M Balanced WEL Signature
The DAC is set at 0.6V output and the VTL has 0.775V input sensitivity
All levels were matched using pink noise (Stereophile test CD2 track 15) and incidentally my listening levels for the tracks were between 9.5dB and 14dB cut on the DAC
Four tracks were used for comparison, all CDs 16/44.1 upsampled to DSDx2
Overall it was an interesting experience with as some have suggested two different presentations. If I use Path A (via ARC) as my reference the direct route was in comparison definitely more analytical, arguably clearer but with some important caveats
On the plus side
Preserved full soundstage width, possibly sounding even a fraction wider?
Very analytical ie. ability to distinguish artificial reverb on the Harms track vocal
Greater clarity on individual instrumental lines e.g. different elements in a percussion kit could be followed very well
Seems louder than the route via the pre-amp (note they were level matched)
But a number of significant negatives
Overall homogeneity to the sound, the instruments all tended to sound like one another
A sense of compression (matches with the perceived louder)
Tensing up on peaks - especially male vocal (e.g. the Bach track) which sounded forced
Massive collapse in soundstage depth (maybe 20% of the perceived depth conveyed via the pre-amp) -- especially evident on simple miked track like the Bach where its key to keep the scale and relative position of each instrument distinct -- direct they all seemed to be on top of each other
Some tailoring at both frequency extremes -- bass seemed less deep, very high treble (supertweeter range) seemed to be missing
So if I was in a studio and doing a mix I might prefer the direct but for recreating the sound of real musicians in space the pre-amp is definitely adding something -- I don't know if its coloration but if it is its a very beneficial one. I think the massive power supply and ability of this pre-amp to swing peaks while still preserving the lowest level details (i.e. the soundstage information) is actually what's making a difference here
I can understand that others may prefer the direct path, arguably my Magicos sounded more like classic Magicos going this way that's fine, and also bear in mind that my entire system is built and optimized around including the pre-amp
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.
