I keep hearing this... and I cannot agree

[Nikko75]

According to those at hydrogenaudio, audio playback is perfect as far as our ears are concerned. While I have yet to receive any reply to a request for proof of such "studies", the ongoing claim is that some elusive ABX tests results show subjects could not identify between DACs (re; CD players and soundcards) dating from the mid 80s to present. Of course, they're the same group that also believe tests that suggest 256kbs MP3s are sonically as good as redbook and DSD.

Sadly, a lot of skeptics and big wigs think that way; that audio playback was perfected long ago and that further progression isn't needed. I take such claims with a pinch of salt.

Has anyone here came across Gibbs phenomenon? It's a distortion on square and fast rising waves below the bandwidth limit. It's prevalent in all on-Gaussian DAC filters. When a stimulus contains waveforms beyond the Nyquist limit (as is also the case with a perfect square waveform at any frequency) then bandwidth limiting is going to give rise to ringing unless the bandlimiting filter is Gaussian shaped. If you can use Excel, here's an experiment for you. Write out the Fourier series for a 2kHz square wave up to some high order term, then truncate above that point (i.e., perfect brickwall filter, the ideal for preventing aliasing while maintaining an essentially perfect flat response over the desired bandwidth). Now enter the equations into Excel and plot a couple cycles. It's quite bad and is present into the mid X00Hz range.

The way to avoid distortion on signals with a high rate of change is to use a milder filter with a smooth roll off. These are not as flat from 10kHz upwards, but seem to get more appreciation among people who actually listen than brickwall types do.

 

[Bubo]

"DAC technology is changing so rapidly that it's too hard to keep up, and it's pointless to own the latest and greatest when something new is already in the works"


Yes, there are benefits to PC audio, but it's not the "end all" when it comes to digital source transmission, the good old CD is certainly a viable media source.

All of the big easy gains to be made in DACs have occurred and the top standard chip sets are all pretty good, most understand the wrap around technology that goes with the chip sets.

A big component of the DAC is the data comm part which most of the companies don't or didn't handle well since they had have no experience in data comm.

Optical isolation from the PC to eliminate PC noise is a good idea, the tosslink was...... is not a very good implementation, but it's what we have. I would say try USB first since its the best we have.

Like all markets, lots of companies entered during the rapid growth high profits phase; since the tech and the market are maturing, there will be a shake out as the less cost-effective aka didn't achieve volume companies go by the wayside.

Sure there will be niche markets like tube dacs etc.....

The second tech that the audio guys struggle with is software. Even basic stuff is a moon shot project for them IMHO.

As far as the hardware buzz, a chip that works great in one design, may not work great in another. Part art, part science, lots of hard learned experience.

My crystal ball:

The next improvements in digital sound will probably come from content finally being released in 24x96 and a better optical interface. When??

In the mean time, there are lots of good DACs at all price points.

 

[Bubo]

Asynchronous USB has nothing to do with data transfer speed, and everything to do with which device provides the "clock" for the data transfer. The vast majority of USB based digital audio devices use asynchronous USB nowadays, rather than the inferior adaptive or synchronous USB. I think because it is now so commonplace, it's not focussed upon as much as it once was.

USB interfaces and chips like the XMOS, audio-gd USB32/VIA Envy and Amanero Combo384 offer insanely good asynchronous USB for very little dollars. Asynchronous USB has never been stronger than it currently is!

Agree, clocking is the issue, asynch requires deriving the clock and framing bits from the data stream on the incoming message, to a point speed is not an issue.

Older data protocols required locked clocks, and even SONET Synchronous Optical Network in the backbone networks required/s locked clocks.

It's worth noting that TCP-IP has blown SONET away in the backbone, much to the chagrin of the large Telcom Manufacturers many of whom were sold for pennies after betting on the wrong horse.

 

[JoeESP9]

Asynchronous USB has nothing to do with data transfer speed, and everything to do with which device provides the "clock" for the data transfer. The vast majority of USB based digital audio devices use asynchronous USB nowadays, rather than the inferior adaptive or synchronous USB. I think because it is now so commonplace, it's not focussed upon as much as it once was.

USB interfaces and chips like the XMOS, audio-gd USB32/VIA Envy and Amanero Combo384 offer insanely good asynchronous USB for very little dollars. Asynchronous USB has never been stronger than it currently is!

I just bought a DAC that sounds insanely good and doesn't support asynchronous data transfer. For those interested it's a HiFime DIY DAC ($49 @ Amazon). I'm sorely tempted to buy their asynchronous DAC ($10 more). I'm burning it in now. However, preliminary impressions are that it's a giant killer. It uses a Sabre DAC. It's the least expensive Sabre DAC. However this thing sounds like it costs a lot more. Currently I have it connected to a laptop via, DAC/Bravo V2/ Grado SR60i's or JBL J55's. It's actually making me like headphones!

Below is a link to the Amazon page.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AOH5JTQ?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00

 

[pete_mac]

I just bought a DAC that sounds insanely good and doesn't support asynchronous data transfer. For those interested it's a HiFime DIY DAC ($49 @ Amazon). I'm sorely tempted to buy their asynchronous DAC ($10 more). I'm burning it in now. However, preliminary impressions are that it's a giant killer. It uses a Sabre DAC. It's the least expensive Sabre DAC. However this thing sounds like it costs a lot more. Currently I have it connected to a laptop via, DAC/Bravo V2/ Grado SR60i's or JBL J55's. It's actually making me like headphones!
]

Nice one! They are excellent bang for buck. I owned both the USB powered version above, and the mains powered version which I modified so that the clock was applied properly to the ES9023 chip.

For the money, the USB version is very hard to beat. The implementation is shown to be lacking when compared to more sophisticated ES9023 implementations (the Resonessence Labs Concero is superb and the Hifimediy sounds very edgy in comparison) but for me, it's about as good as you'll find for a compact plug and play solution at $50. The power supply regulation and quality of the clock circuitry is the let-down.

I'd love to hear the asynchronous version some day, as well as their ES9018 version which is about $100. All things being equal, asynch trumps adaptive every day of the week.

 

[luvvinvinyl]

Why do you guys want to continue using a DAC, when you can use the digital coaxial connections or digital optical connections? My understanding is that when you are using the digital connections, a DAC is no longer needed.

I have an amplifier with a built-in phono stage. I use an outboard one, anyway. The outboard one performs better than the built-in on in the amp. More gain, loading options, and just flat-out sounds better.

Maybe the same thing is happening here.

Or, maybe the amp doesn't have digital inputs.

Or, maybe they just want to use the outboard DAC.

 

[pete_mac]

Why do you guys want to continue using a DAC, when you can use the digital coaxial connections or digital optical connections? My understanding is that when you are using the digital connections, a DAC is no longer needed.

There are not all that many decent 2 channel amplifiers that have digital inputs (ie. with onboard DACs).

For any amplifier with analogue inputs only (which is the vast majority) some form of DAC (whether in a PC, a CD/DVD player or external DAC) is required.

 

[Bubo]

Why do you guys want to continue using a DAC, when you can use the digital coaxial connections or digital optical connections? My understanding is that when you are using the digital connections, a DAC is no longer needed.

Not all amps have built in decoders

No vintage gear has built in decoders.

Decoders have fallen far faster in price vs performance than amps equipped with them far surpassing the decoder built into most amps after a few short years.

Granted, for one or two hundred you can purchase a used totl surround amp that sounds great using it's decoders.

 

[scott1019]

Very good discussions here. I feel wholeheartedly that there are only micro-progressions to be made as were outlined by Nikko75... I would very much like for some resources on these topics you touched on... would be interesting to read. I am sure my tech friend would also find it interesting (although I am sure he is probably well versed in these phenonema)

 

[pete_mac]

If I can make one suggestion, it would be to upgrade from the Teralink X2. It uses the old Tenor TE7022 adaptive USB chipset. It's a rather woolly-sounding device compared to the better converters released over the past 3-4 years and will be limiting the capabilities of whatever DAC it is connected to (or featured within). IMHO the TE7022 is only slightly better than the old PCM2704 from TI/BB.

USB audio and reclocking technology has never been better. Whilst I will freely admit that I prefer the sound of R-2R DAC chips like the PCM1704UK vs newer sigma delta ES9018 chips, the quality of some of the USB to SPDIF converters (or onboard USB like the Amanero 384, XMOS and USB32) is astonishingly good compared to what was around a few years back.

And some of the DACs featuring FPGAs... incredible to say the least! :thmbsp:

 

[stereofanboy]

"DAC technology is changing so rapidly that it's too hard to keep up, and it's pointless to own the latest and greatest when something new is already in the works"............

I never heard that until seeing this thread.

What I have heard alot on the subject is that DAC technology has improved so greatly that the DAC in a cheap DVD player from now is better than the DAC in a high end CD player from about 10-15 years ago. I've been hearing this for a least five years, so say DVD player 0-5 years old is better than TOTL CD player 15-20 years old.

 

[scott1019]

If I can make one suggestion, it would be to upgrade from the Teralink X2. It uses the old Tenor TE7022 adaptive USB chipset. It's a rather woolly-sounding device compared to the better converters released over the past 3-4 years and will be limiting the capabilities of whatever DAC it is connected to (or featured within). IMHO the TE7022 is only slightly better than the old PCM2704 from TI/BB.

USB audio and reclocking technology has never been better. Whilst I will freely admit that I prefer the sound of R-2R DAC chips like the PCM1704UK vs newer sigma delta ES9018 chips, the quality of some of the USB to SPDIF converters (or onboard USB like the Amanero 384, XMOS and USB32) is astonishingly good compared to what was around a few years back.

And some of the DACs featuring FPGAs... incredible to say the least!

I felt, since about 2008 when I got the TeraLink that it was the best piece of equipment I had owned for PC audio as it immediately raised the bar many notches... and got me into the mindset of using USB as a viable transmission source... I have since sought out others, but haven't gotten much further than realizing I am happy with what I have "for now"... when I build my purpose built media PC I will look into this further.

The Audio-GD you have, BTW, was on my short list for a long time because of the glorious PCM1704 chip set and all of the things you just mentioned. My only issue was buying from an overseas supplier and lack of domestic support... not the gear itself. Those speakers you own BTW, will easily best "most" of the typical bookshelf's in the states, many costing much much more, they really nailed the crossover to get the drivers working together without sucking the life out of them (a trait all too common these days) seemingly.

 

[sKiZo]

It is pretty easy to remove - I used it....

ASIO4all ... have you done a stroll through the registry? Mine was still littered with little time bombs after a standard uninstall ... and it kept coming back and trying to take over.

Maybe I forgot to uncheck the "it will never die" box on the installation screen. <G>

Anyway, I'd make that a gig item for selecting a new DAC ... no drivers required, and less clutter in the signal path. Especially with Windows WASAPI handling all the audio chores internally ... next best thing to bit perfect!

 

[Vintagear]

This is totally true.....

Are you sure???

If so, I'd better run and get that neglected super cheap little Sony CD/DVD Player DVP-SR200P that's been relegated to the Salamander rack with my HT stuff (a place I rarely go!). I only purchased it to play DVD's that I used to get from Netflix, remember those days?

So to be clear, are you guys saying this little crappy Sony player will sound better than the Sony ES CDP I had in the early '90's?

 

[Bubo]

Are you sure???

If so, I'd better run and get that neglected super cheap little Sony CD/DVD Player DVP-SR200P that's been relegated to the Salamander rack with my HT stuff (a place I rarely go!). I only purchased it to play DVD's that I used to get from Netflix, remember those days?

So to be clear, are you guys saying this little crappy Sony player will sound better than the Sony ES CDP I had in the early '90's?

DSP tech follows the same development, performance and cost curve as microprocessors, if I recall correctly power doubles every 9 months and cost goes down.

I don't know your models, but if it's a new DSP vs a 5 year old one chance are the new one is better.

 

[pete_mac]

I felt, since about 2008 when I got the TeraLink that it was the best piece of equipment I had owned for PC audio as it immediately raised the bar many notches... and got me into the mindset of using USB as a viable transmission source... I have since sought out others, but haven't gotten much further than realizing I am happy with what I have "for now"... when I build my purpose built media PC I will look into this further.

The Audio-GD you have, BTW, was on my short list for a long time because of the glorious PCM1704 chip set and all of the things you just mentioned. My only issue was buying from an overseas supplier and lack of domestic support... not the gear itself. Those speakers you own BTW, will easily best "most" of the typical bookshelf's in the states, many costing much much more, they really nailed the crossover to get the drivers working together without sucking the life out of them (a trait all too common these days) seemingly.

After re-reading my post, I'm sorry if I came across as overly negative - I wasn't intending to poo-poo your gear!

In isolation, the Teralink is a clear improvement over any onboard PC-based SPDIF output, no question. It's only when you go back-to-back with other devices that the difference shows through.

The audio-gd stuff is very decent for the dollars, no question. Importing the gear is easy enough (as Kingwa and his team have this down to a fine art nowadays) but as you say, the lack of local warranty support is a downside. I've had around 10 different audio-gd purchases so far and all have been flawless.

Re: the speakers, I adore them. They are the best I've personally owned, bettering many more expensive (and more fancied) speakers. They aren't going anywhere in a hurry, that's for sure! :thmbsp:

 

[scott1019]

No offense at all taken pete... I looked into many of the options you discussed and know I have been "standing pat" with my Teralink until I build a media PC.

I'm really excited about where this thread is heading, as the "intent" of my original posting is starting to gain some traction... I hope Nikko75 comes back to follow-up, some great info there.

 

[pete_mac]

No worries!!

I'm a firm believer in the importance of the source in digital audio. It's amazing how the performance gap between entry-level and mid-level DACs can be narrowed when the source is improved. USB audio has made significant advances in the past few years.

 

[Vintagear]

DSP tech follows the same development, performance and cost curve as microprocessors, if I recall correctly power doubles every 9 months and cost goes down.

I don't know your models, but if it's a new DSP vs a 5 year old one chance are the new one is better.

I'm with you 100% on the advances in this space. I agree that they move fast. This is very different from say- class A/B amplification that many try to tell us has advanced just as rapidly.

For whatever it's worth, that comment intrigued me enough to go through the trouble of pulling out the inexpensive Sony CD/DVD Player DVP-SR200P out of the HT rack to give it a whirl with a few CD's in a 2 channel system. It sounded terrible. It couldn't even hold a candle to the same CD played on an HP DVD 1260 drive on my PC being fed to an "ancient" M-Audio 2496 card. There is no way that the DVP-SR200P would sound better than the 25 year old Sony ES with a TDA1541 (or any old Sony ES CDP without the TDA1541 for that matter).

It's more than a bit misleading for someone to say that it is "totally true" that a cheap "DVD player 0-5 years old is better than TOTL CD player 15-20 years old." There's much more to it than that.

 

[Djcoolray]

I can't believe what I just read....digitally reproduced sound is at a loss for frequency response. If music is recorded on analog Ampex real to reals to create master tapes to begin with, then listening to analog play back in stereo using equipment that does not alter sound is the way to go. Tube receivers and tube amps....