What is the cause of PCM glare? Bad recording or Bad DAC? Anything banish it?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
PCM glare is bad enough but allied to 'timing smear' and the information lost through sampling 'steps' it is a wonder that anyone listens to digital at all.
Keith
Keith
Given that I have PCM recordings that have "glare" (AAD, DDD, all genres) and other PCM recordings, even MP3s, that don't, I can only conclude that it's the recordings. Given that I get this clear variation, this revealing view into the recordings, through a DAC that is built into a pair of active monitors that cost less than what some of you guys pay for cables, I can only conclude that if a DAC seems to be eliminating glare from all recordings, it is doing something to mute or cover up that glare (and is muting or covering signal in the same range).
Sometimes. And other times I think people are so accustomed to listening to systems that fatten the lower mids and roll off the highs that they don't really know what harsh, but natural, sounds like. There is "glare" in some instruments, in rooms...god knows there's plenty of it to be found in some tweeters and midrange drivers and the crossover between them. But if your reference is analog sources that soften those frequencies, when you put on digital, and they're suddenly there, it is natural to blame the source, even when it is merely revealing something that is not of the source.
Tim
Sometimes. And other times I think people are so accustomed to listening to systems that fatten the lower mids and roll off the highs that they don't really know what harsh, but natural, sounds like. There is "glare" in some instruments, in rooms...god knows there's plenty of it to be found in some tweeters and midrange drivers and the crossover between them. But if your reference is analog sources that soften those frequencies, when you put on digital, and they're suddenly there, it is natural to blame the source, even when it is merely revealing something that is not of the source.
Tim
Ladies and Gentlemen, our friend Keith appears to have lost access to emoticons.
Tim
I am going to have to be quite firm with you Tim, otherwise you will be suggesting that well engineered , but relatively inexpensive equipment sounds as good as if not better than obscenely expensive 'hi-end' equipment, products which are more akin to sticking diamonds on the face on a quite ordinary wristwatch, where will it end!
Keith.
Keith.
'Support the industry' Tim, but something expensive but only moderately well engineered.Here you go, bud:Got your back.
Tim
BW Keith.
No, not quite. I would say, recording artifacts in addition to DAC equipment artifacts. I do agree that digital encoding in general is not responsible, while certain formats of digital such as CD are borderline transparent.
My Schiit Bifrost (uber, gen2 usb) was one of the worst. Horrible DAC to be honest. Amir found some big problems with it. Not sure I'd give Schiit another chance after that although I want to like them... made in the USA, direct sales, no discounting... same as I do.
I'm pretty happy with my Sony HAP, they keep improving the firmware and the sound has gotten much better since I got it. That's pretty cool...
Agreed, there's huge differences in PCM nasties depending on the DAC. DSD seems much less afflicted.
Not sure you need to spend big $$$ to get a good DAC these days and it's only getting better/cheaper...
I don't mean to be discourteous but nothing could be further from the truth. Digitals faults' are of its' own making.
Based upon what? What faults are inherent to digital?
Are there bad sounding under-performing DACs made? Sure, just like every other component. Good DACs with good recordings can be excellent.
It can never end. Simply up the current sample rates by 2x and banish that last little bit of digital glare, and time smear you didn't notice before now. Each step getting closer to the infinite sample rate of analog.
Of course in time we will run into this audible problem of high frequencies causing clicks and buzzing sounds.
http://www.stopthecrime.net/Human Perception FINAL.pdf
Seems the 200 mhz to 10 ghz region is the most sensitive. We already have 16x DSD, so I estimate in 6 years we will start running into this problem in a big way. I suppose shielding will be needed. So expect lots of special accessories and traps for this.
Frankly, the Schiit Yggy and Gumby DACs are stellar. I have not heard the Bifrost. I can state that many people in our audio group have purchased them besides me and all are very happy with them. You should give the Yggy a listen.
I don't detect any discourteousness (is that a word?).
Many of the posts here and on the linked avsforums thread seem to point to the recording itself as the problem. Are you saying they are completely wrong about this glare thing (whatever it is) ?
Maybe digital glare is inherent to digital the way lighting works. A bright 5000k color temp spotlight vs a murky yellow light with a color temp of 2200k.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |