Then there are those of us who believe that "good digital company" and "their sound stands out" are contradicting terms.
Tim
Then there are those of us who believe that "good digital company" and "their sound stands out" are contradicting terms.
Tim
Why is that Tim? Every DAC's got an algorithm, whether it's run via DSP or programmed into a chip.
That's the thing, it is the source. How do you know which DAC is doing the right job? They are all crunching the same numbers, just differently. If one sounds different from the rest, that's not proof positive that it isn't doing its job and being "true" to the code and hence the recording. It is within the realms of possibility that one of these "different" sounding DACs might actually be the more faithful.
(...) I take some comfort in the fact that what I hear, as described above, seems to correlate well with the aforementioned comprehensive, independent measurements, when I can find them. (...)
Tim
Considering DACs, I would like to know which are the "comprehensive, independent measurements," you refer. Anyone in the business will tell you that the so called "independent measurements" ( a nice name for magazine tests) are not comprehensive at all. They are just a very reduced set of measurements that will only show gross faults.
The only comprehensive measurements I know about are Miller Audio technical reviews for HFNRR - they are accessible at http://www.milleraudioresearch.com/avtech/index.html. However there is so much information that a non technical consumer probably will probably not know how to interpret it. And we know manufacturers use other measurements during development, involving listening tests, they keep secret.
Unhappily Paull Miller tested only a few digital units - however the last Krell CD 525a or the Mark Levinson No 512 show to be exemplary. But I can assure you they do not sound alike.
BTW, anyone claiming that tube sound is due to added distortions and colorations that are easily measured should look at the measurements of Audio Research recent preamplifiers - they show to be better than many solid state equivalents. Yet, the preamplifiers still have the "tube liquidity and tridimensional sound" characteristic of the brand.
One thing that makes me think a lot about accuracy.
Accuracy as currently measured and used to deem a product transparent (whether this is too limited is for other threads) can only go so far when using it for source-pre-amp audio products because speakers are far from accurate and have different characteristics so what was recorded is artificially changed anyway.
And isnt the recording an illusion and not an accurate representation of the event for many reasons?
Such as mixing the many channels in the studio down to just a stereo pair that is also played on two speakers, that also generate a false illusion of soundstage and intruments, or the use-placement-number of mics involved in the recording (different engineers will use different techniques) and this is important for real instruments and orchestras.
This possibly comes back to ambisonics and whether this would had been a better solution for studios to adopt, still an illusion but possibly more accurate.
I wonder what the reasoning was for people to go multi channel, and whether it is related to creating a more accurate sound of the event recorded, but this is way off from the OP, so maybe Tim's post and our responses should be moved.
I'll get back to you...
Tim
Sorry for the delay, had to take some kids to school. Here you go...
(...)
Tim
Not necessarily disagreeing with this Tim, just how accuracy can be used and in reality its scope, especially if one is a strong advocate of accuracy to what we hear (in comparison to live sound), which must also include and consider the recording-mastering-stereo sound process.While I agree that SOTA tube designs can be transparent enough, I consider the inclusion of a tube output stage in a DAC a pretty good indicator of an intent to color the sound. If I'm wrong and the tube DAC is utterly transparent, I'm still ok with eliminating it because it will be unnecessarily expensive and fiddly (the technical term).
I've never understood this argument. Why should the limitations of 2-channel technology, the recording, the transducers or even the room forgive the errors that lie between them? I can't have transparent speakers, I get that. I'll choose my color there, then, and keep it as faithful to the recording as I can afford to up to that point. If further adjustments need to be made, that's what EQ is for. YMMV, of course. This is my approach; I'm not asking anyone else to follow it.
Tim
orb said:Looking at this debate, it is fair to say some strive for accuracy while others look for products that will provide extended listening enjoyment-preference as a priority, both are right if viewed in the correct context, but importantly both can overlap in terms of the same SOTA audio product.
I quote Audiocritic " Distortion is distortion, no matter where it comes from, and the tests above cover that ground in sufficient detail. To isolate and measure jitter, one would have to remove the cover and go inside the Benchmark DAC1, because it doesn’t have a digital output (nor does it need one). The instruction manual goes into great detail about jitter, with four different graphs to prove the DAC1’s immunity to it." end of quote. I would not call referring the manufacturer graphs "an independent comprehensive measurement".
Not necessarily disagreeing with this Tim, just how accuracy can be used and in reality its scope, especially if one is a strong advocate of accuracy to what we hear (in comparison to live sound), which must also include and consider the recording-mastering-stereo sound process.
That aside I feel my comment in previous post matches yours to some extent.
Thanks
Orb
Thanks Micsrostrip,Orb,
F. Toole says it magisterly in his book "Sound Reproduction"
"A simple reproduction of the microphone signals cannot duplicate the experience. That is where the professional recording industry steps in."
That aside I feel my comment in previous post matches yours to some extent.
Originally Posted by orb
Looking at this debate, it is fair to say some strive for accuracy while others look for products that will provide extended listening enjoyment-preference as a priority, both are right if viewed in the correct context, but importantly both can overlap in terms of the same SOTA audio product.
J(...) But if someone has designed and built a neutral component and chooses to market it as "warm," "euphonic," "analog-like..." you get the picture, well, I'd just as soon deal with someone a bit more honest and straightforward.
YMMV.
Tim
Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |