Trinity's claims vs. what actually happens in digital

[TRINITY]

Hi Al as you correctly confirms it is the output of the DAC, means it is exactly what I have described.
There are NOS (non-oversampling DACs) (I mean final products) on the market without any filter, they play signals like the simulation has shown!!!! that was the reason why I have written this paper to show my opinion that such a system is not useful. Obviously you have the same opinion. The Problem is not only that these sampling artefacts are above 20kHz, the real Problem is that amplifier with limited linearity will do a "down convolution" of this artefacts in the Audio band. Like you know from the Intermodulation distortion. Enclosed a simple calculation with the assumption that the Music is a 1kHz tone with a 3rd harmonic
The same can happen with the sampling noise of single bit Sigma-Delte converters, that means even if the noise is above 20KkHz it can happen that you can hear it as clear noise in the Audio band.
So sorry if I misunderstood your comment, but I am an engineer, if we speak about a DAC we mean a DAC IC and not the surrounding electronic.
To call a final product only DAC is the wrong phrases, since the final product contains in the most cases an active low-pass filter and a lot of other electronic.
TRINITY DAC does not need such an active low-pass filter caused by the LIANOTED architecture.
By the way as the CD was lunched they used analog brick-wall filters, since the DAC IC were not fast enough and digital oversampling filter were not available at that time.
Since you know we have a 16bit system and an audio bandwidth of 20kHz with a sampling frequency of 44.1kHz you can calculate the necessary order.
You need for a non-oversampling CD system a low-pass filter, which attenuates signals from 20kHz to 22.05kHz by 16bit x 6dB=96dB!!!!!
That is a very steep filter, which creates a lot of group delay Errors and so on.

 

[esldude]

Esldude,

if I understood correctly what you point out, the problem is not one with Nyquist. The video that I posted confirms this.

Rather, the problem is one with no filtering. If you have no filtering, if I understand correctly, you have digital content that is much higher in frequency. This needs to be removed, otherwise it would introduce content that is above Nyquist and thus would distort the clean wave forms shown in the video (the video does mention that higher frequencies, and only that, would distort the Nyquist sampling by adding content above the cut-off).

As the comment above graph 13 in your Stereophile link says, "(The sharply defined steps in the waveform imply the existence of content well above the signal's nominal passband of 22.05kHz.)"

But then the claim on Trinity's website is highly misleading, when they say "Figure 1 compares the output signal of a D/A converter ...". For the sake of truthfulness, the text should be modified to mention that it is a filterless D/A converter, which is emphatically not the norm in digital. Otherwise it becomes cheap marketing that preys on the ignorance of people (and yes, a few weeks ago I might have questioned Trinity's claims to a lesser extent too).

***

So it seems clear to me that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with 16/44 digital in theory, but only with its practical (filtered or non-filtered) implementations.

Yes, I think like you. At first or maybe even second look if you don't know how digital audio works, you think he is showing some general digital deficiency, and that his DAC avoids it. In fact, without the heroic and terribly expensive efforts to work around no filter, it is his design which is deficient and not digital as normally done or predicated upon Nyquist. His solutions is of course quite valid. His DAC maybe the best.

I am wondering when it would be so good that one is better off spending $50k+ on this DAC vs. buying a BADA and getting $45K better speakers/room treatment. But that is a decision any satisfied customer can make of course.

 

[Audiocrack]

Yes, the why's and the what's are the interesting part of the game ... Adam referred to the Scarlatti in these threads - but IMHO the Vivaldi should be the valuable comparison now-a-days, as many people know how it sounds. BTW, my interests are biased towards high quality reproduction of Redbook - the music I listen and really enjoy exist mostly in CD and LP.

Microstrip, believe me I invested a lot of money in red book owning thousands of cd's. I have no reason at all not to tell you and other WBF members the audio truth as I experience it: good high res is to my ears clearly better. Try to listen to some 24/192 recordings of eg Channel Classics or 24/176.4 recordings of Reference Recordings. I realize that an awful lot of music is not (yet) available in high res. But keep in mind quite a lot of music is. Apart from CC and RR companies like 2l and m&a - just to name a few- produce very impressive sounding high res recordings. Just try it out on a real good dac like eg Trinity and you might be as impressed as I am.

 

[Al M.]

There are NOS (non-oversampling DACs) (I mean final products) on the market without any filter, they play signals like the simulation has shown!!!! that was the reason why I have written this paper to show my opinion that such a system is not useful.

[...]

So sorry if I misunderstood your comment, but I am an engineer, if we speak about a DAC we mean a DAC IC and not the surrounding electronic.
To call a final product only DAC is the wrong phrases, since the final product contains in the most cases an active low-pass filter and a lot of other electronic.

I understand, Dietmar, but I would nonetheless greatly appreciate if you would clarify the issue on your website. As Esldude says:

At first or maybe even second look if you don't know how digital audio works, you think he is showing some general digital deficiency, and that his DAC avoids it. In fact, without the heroic and terribly expensive efforts to work around no filter, it is his design which is deficient and not digital as normally done or predicated upon Nyquist. His solutions is of course quite valid. His DAC maybe the best.

 

[Audiocrack]

Why would you think that? I certainly would have no problem with the idea that it sounds great or even may be the best (while I could never afford a $50,000 DAC and am enormously happy with my Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 at 1/10th of the price). On the other thread I only had quibbles about comparing a barely warmed up dCS Vivaldi with a continuously powered Trinity DAC -- while keeping the option open that the Trinity DAC indeed might be better.

And my problems with Trinity as posted on this thread are not with the Trinity DAC itself, but with the gross misrepresentation on their website of what digital really does. As Esldude pointed out, as written the suggestion appears to be that Nyquist sampling at 48 kHz simply isn't good enough, which is debunked in the video. Rather, the issue appears to be one of filtering. I hate misrepresentations of 16/44 digital since the medium has been, as it turns out with recent sonic developments, so often unjustly maligned over the decades -- and many have pretended that hi-rez is the only solution (really, with the measly music selection available there?). I can only imagine biased vinyl fans (nothing against vinyl per se) pointing at the graphs on the Trinity website and gleefully proclaiming, "see I told you so" about 16/44 digital -- while the claims made there are not revealing the entire truth.

Well, take a look at some words that have been used in both threads regarding the Trinity dac. I do not understand this hostillity - and just to be sure: a critical attitude is fine of course - but I suppose audio components that cost a substantial amount of money trigger such reactions.

 

[Al M.]

Well, take a look at some words that have been used in both threads regarding the Trinity dac. I do not understand this hostillity - and just to be sure: a critical attitude is fine of course - but I suppose audio components that cost a substantial amount of money trigger such reactions.

On the other hand, pushing the envelope with state-of-the-art products, at any cost, benefits all of us (even though I cannot imagine myself spending that kind of money). It is hardly conceivable to me that I would enjoy the marvelous digital playback that I do, had the envelope of digital playback not constantly been pushed in the past few decades with the then most optimal solutions regardless of price, of which the design of my current DAC undoubtedly has benefitted.

 

[Audiocrack]

On the other hand, pushing the envelope with state-of-the-art products, at any cost, benefits all of us (even though I cannot imagine myself spending that kind of money). It is hardly conceivable to me that I would enjoy the marvelous digital playback that I do, had the envelope of digital playback not constantly been pushed in the past few decades with the then most optimal solutions regardless of price, of which the design of my current DAC undoubtedly has benefitted.

I suppose you are completely right. In my view there is no need for any hostillity in our hobby audio world on this forum and being polite is not a sign of weakness. On the contrary I would say.

 

[Al M.]

I am wondering when it would be so good that one is better off spending $50k+ on this DAC vs. buying a BADA and getting $45K better speakers/room treatment. But that is a decision any satisfied customer can make of course.

Indeed, with improvements elsewhere in the chain you can discover just how resolving your current DAC really can be, letting its potential unfold optimally rather than replacing it. See for example my upgrade for just 4 grand of my amps with BorderPatrol external power supplies:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...trol-MB-external-power-supplies-for-tube-amps

To anyone who reads my review it will be obvious that a system like mine would have less resolution with a Trinity DAC and my amps in their prior state than with the BADA and my amps in their current state, with the BorderPatrol power supplies in the chain. The amps in their prior state would hardly have let through the potentially increased resolution of the Trinity DAC. In that case an investment of 50 grand would have been worth less than the 4 grand spent elsewhere in the system.

And yes, I did spend 6 grand on acoustic room treatment (custom designed by ASC), without which I could not even appreciate the increased resolution of the BADA over my old Wadia DAC, let alone the increased apparent resolution of the BADA with the BorderPatrol power supplies in the chain.

Fortunately, expertly guided by Goodwin's High End and others, I made the right investments that gave me the most bang for the buck. There is way too much money spent in High End on all the wrong things -- what a waste. Of course, for those who have taken care of optimal resolution throughout their system and their room, and who find that the Trinity DAC gives them musical bliss after all the other optimization, the more power to them.

 

[microstrip]

Microstrip, believe me I invested a lot of money in red book owning thousands of cd's. I have no reason at all not to tell you and other WBF members the audio truth as I experience it: good high res is to my ears clearly better. Try to listen to some 24/192 recordings of eg Channel Classics or 24/176.4 recordings of Reference Recordings. I realize that an awful lot of music is not (yet) available in high res. But keep in mind quite a lot of music is. Apart from CC and RR companies like 2l and m&a - just to name a few- produce very impressive sounding high res recordings. Just try it out on a real good dac like eg Trinity and you might be as impressed as I am.

Audiocrack,

As you, I also know that HiRez can sound a lot better that 16/41 - I own a few excellent recordings and currently have an Audio Research CD9. But unfortunately the few recordings I really enjoy from RR are not available in 24/192 and I am not going to change my music preferences just to get HiRez and impressive sound more often. So my priorities in choosing or debating a DAC are focused on Redbook. I have listened to both Metronome and DCS top systems sounding exquisite with CDs in great systems - in fact better than 24/192 in other systems that were surely not of such high quality, something that makes meaningful comparisons impossible. BTW, I appease my extreme audiophile facet listening to LPs or a few tapes - it is also a reason why Hirez is not currently a too important subject for me. I surely understand and accept that other people have different interests.

 

[LL21]

Audiocrack,

As you, I also know that HiRez can sound a lot better that 16/41 - I own a few excellent recordings and currently have an Audio Research CD9. But unfortunately the few recordings I really enjoy from RR are not available in 24/192 and I am not going to change my music preferences just to get HiRez and impressive sound more often. So my priorities in choosing or debating a DAC are focused on Redbook. I have listened to both Metronome and DCS top systems sounding exquisite with CDs in great systems - in fact better than 24/192 in other systems that were surely not of such high quality, something that makes meaningful comparisons impossible. BTW, I appease my extreme audiophile facet listening to LPs or a few tapes - it is also a reason why Hirez is not currently a too important subject for me. I surely understand and accept that other people have different interests.

Hi Micro, I have taken that same decision for the time being as well. I would love to own a great hi-res player someday when there is more music that I regularly listen to, available on true hi-res. I am convinced all else being equal and with the most resolving systems, it must have the potential to handily surpass redbook, particularly in the long run as system electronics/speakers continue to advance. (That said, I also remember the advice I was given by 2 reviewers...which was, in all instances, to keep the Zanden as their fav digital playback, and if I really wanted hi-res, to get something else just for hi-res.)

I suppose the day for a separate hi-res player (for me) is not today, nor in the foreseeable future. I respect that many have sought the best of the best in digital and hi-res, and all the more power to them. I have elected to place my resources behind the best redbook, and enjoy my music thus. And it is such that listening to it, I do not desire to look at LP, Tape or hi-res, even though I greatly respect some of the TT's that I have been fortunate to hear and which sounded truly great (particularly the Clearaudio Statement, Pro-Ject, Linn LP12?).

 

[Elberoth]

It seems that the internet marketing on it must live on the discredit of the established top DACs and rumors, not on its real sound qualities or its real value.

I have to say, I'm most surprised by this comment. One of the most common complains about professional reviews, is that reviewers rarely compare the gear under review to competing products or known references - which makes the reviews pretty much useless.

When, for one, someone compares the product to his old DAC (what else he could use as a reference !?) then we hear that it is done to 'discredit the established top DACs'.

Am I missing something here ?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Am I missing something here ?

Yes, Adam, you are missing the whole post - the part of sentence you quoted taken from the whole is meaningless.

 

[LL21]

My main reservations about the Trinity DAC would apply to any top very expensive high-end equipment in similar conditions. Distribution and availability of the unit is very scarce - it was not even shown in CES2014 - so very few people have listened to it. The very few existing reports (most is a nice word to hide it) are essentially reports of the type I owned the expensive X DAC, this one was so much better that I bough it immediately, with little real value description of the evaluations.

... iI seems that the internet marketing on it must live on the discredit of the established top DACs and rumors, not on its real sound qualities or its real value. Anyway, I hope that as soon as more people get it and listen to it, we can have real reviews of this DAC. ... BTW, I am grateful to all the WBF members who enthusiastically posted on the Trinity DAC - if it was not them we would not be debating it.

I have to say, I'm most surprised by this comment. One of the most common complains about professional reviews, is that reviewers rarely compare the gear under review to competing products or known references - which makes the reviews pretty much useless.

When, for one, someone compares the product to his old DAC (what else he could use as a reference !?) then we hear that it is done to 'discredit the established top DACs'.

Am I missing something here ?

Hi Adam,

To give Micro the benefit of the doubt, I am going to guess that what he is trying to say is that, with few exceptions, the comments about the Trinity DAC have not focused on specific examples or descriptions of how it sounded with particular music relative to a reference...but rather simply 'it was better than my ___ DAC, so I bought it.'

I think Micro is saying he feels those posters (again, for me, a few exceptions here...to name one, Audiocrack who has been pretty descriptive)...have simply said 'Trinity is better than my ____ DAC' without describing more specifically how or why...which is the interesting part, and helps people shape their own impressions of the Trinity before actually being able to hear it for themselves.

Micro - did I interpret correctly? If not, please correct.

 

[microstrip]

Hi Adam,

To give Micro the benefit of the doubt, I am going to guess that what he is trying to say is that, with few exceptions, the comments about the Trinity DAC have not focused on specific examples or descriptions of how it sounded with particular music relative to a reference...but rather simply 'it was better than my ___ DAC, so I bought it.'

I think Micro is saying he feels those posters (again, for me, a few exceptions here...to name one, Audiocrack who has been pretty descriptive)...have simply said 'Trinity is better than my ____ DAC' without describing more specifically how or why...which is the interesting part, and helps people shape their own impressions of the Trinity before actually being able to hear it for themselves.

Micro - did I interpret correctly? If not, please correct.

Lloyd,

Is there any other possible interpretation? Even for those who did not care to search and read the Audio Exotics forum or read the whole WBF threads?

 

[LL21]

Hi Adam,

...I think Micro is saying he feels those posters (again, for me, a few exceptions here...to name one, Audiocrack who has been pretty descriptive)...have simply said 'Trinity is better than my ____ DAC' without describing more specifically how or why...which is the interesting part, and helps people shape their own impressions of the Trinity before actually being able to hear it for themselves.

Hi Adam,

I was reading this while being on holiday/traveling, etc...and did not read/remember every post. Having gone back, I should add that you also (not just Audiocrack) were very descriptive and helpful in your review/comparison of your MSB vs Trinity. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Namaste]

I have been following the Audioexotics forum for a while and I found that there are a lot of flavours of the month equipment there. With this record, one has to very careful about what's being written there. Visit that forum and you'll know what I mean.

 

[Audiocrack]

I have been following the Audioexotics forum for a while and I found that there are a lot of flavours of the month equipment there. With this record, one has to very careful about what's being written there. Visit that forum and you'll know what I mean.

Totally agree. Look eg how they pushed Stahltek digital gear rather recently but now this brand seems completely forgotten. Of course it is a commercial site only concentrating on the brands Audio Exotics represents. However, the fact that I indeed sometimes disagree with some of their very bold statements (and I do not like at all the arrogance that filters through now and then) and the site is commercially driven does not contradict with the fact that some of their products are really impressive, like Trinity and Tripoint.

 

[PeterSt]

Hi,

I have been preparing a very large post about this all and one of the subjects is about how 16/44.1 is to be treated according to Trinity. Now, I am 100% sure that I read this somewhere with an "almost sure" it has been written by Trinity itself. But I can't find it in the manual, nor in their website. Possibly I have read it in the other thread (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC) but I'm not much into rereading that.
Does anyone have a pointer ? I don't want to make mistakes ...

Regards,
Peter


PS: The text went something like "But CD needs 8 times upsampling" (implying a digital filter needed after all and which was *explicitly* told in that text).

 

[esldude]

Hi,

I have been preparing a very large post about this all and one of the subjects is about how 16/44.1 is to be treated according to Trinity. Now, I am 100% sure that I read this somewhere with an "almost sure" it has been written by Trinity itself. But I can't find it in the manual, nor in their website. Possibly I have read it in the other thread (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12023-Trinity-DAC) but I'm not much into rereading that.
Does anyone have a pointer ? I don't want to make mistakes ...

Regards,
Peter


PS: The text went something like "But CD needs 8 times upsampling" (implying a digital filter needed after all and which was *explicitly* told in that text).

I think I have read the same thing Peter St. You can look over this page:

http://www.trinity-ed.de/typo/index.php?id=19&L=1

I think it got confusing in the translation to English. He refers to using his 8 DACs in a time delay as analog oversampling (the LIANOTEC as he refers to it). It really is just staggering the time each DAC is fed the digital signal and combining the outputs to create 8x interpolation. Down the page he explains that without a digital filter lower sample rates were not produced well enough. So for 32-96 khz sample rates they employ 8x digital oversampling which is then fed through the LIANOTEC system to get a further 8x interpolation. A total of 64x samples as I understand it. So if I understand this correctly at the sample rates higher than 96 khz there is no digital oversampling, but merely the 8x interpolation from the time delayed output of the 8 DAC's per channel.

I still feel as though something is confused somewhere in that description or something left out. That would lead to a bit rate output higher at the lower sample rates. For instance 48 khz would become 3.072 mhz and 192 khz would become 1.536 mhz. Maybe he is using 2x oversampling at the higher bit rates, and I missed that in the description. Either way it appears he is not using a filter at the output at any sample rates.

 

[Namaste]

Totally agree. Look eg how they pushed Stahltek digital gear rather recently but now this brand seems completely forgotten. Of course it is a commercial site only concentrating on the brands Audio Exotics represents. However, the fact that I indeed sometimes disagree with some of their very bold statements (and I do not like at all the arrogance that filters through now and then) and the site is commercially driven does not contradict with the fact that some of their products are really impressive, like Trinity and Tripoint.

I'm sure Trinity is a great DAC but I'm not sure if it is 3 notches better than the CH Precision C1. Was the comparison done with the C1 using Ethernet streaming? If it was and it was really 3 notches better, I'll seriously consider buying the Trinity DAC.