State-of-the-Art Digital

[Al M.]

As I wrote, I think treatments can tend to over-dampen a room, at least to my preferences. Great for audio effects and shaping of the sound, but not for a more natural sound experience. IMO.

Agreed that over-damping is possible, that is why I enjoy the benefits of removal of some of the treatments that I had -- upon your useful suggestion, I might add. Yet while you can over-do things, you can also easily under-do them. Extremes go both ways.

Again, it will very much depend on the room, and it will often be a fine balance, also between competing things one wants to achieve, according to specific individual tastes. There are no hard and fast, rigid rules.

 

[morricab]

But that is exactly what goes through my mind. Paul McGowan once said that when one walks by an open window and hears a piano play or voice sing, we instinctively know whether there's a human being practicing or a system playing back. Same is true for the difference between we perceive as inherent to the recording and the playback system. You only need to listen to your favorite music in your car. You could tell if it's the recording. What about if the song were on the radio and completely unknown to you?

As to SOTA DACs, a good friend once quipped about one brand (you know which): "In a best case scenario, you'll hear everything. In a worst case scenario, you'll hear everything."

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Yes, you can tell if it is live or not regardless of whether or not you are familiar with the song. It has nothing to do with the music (unless amplified...and even then you can tell most of the time) itself but what is fundamentally lost and added to recording/playback chain.

I would argue that a “warts and all” DAC is probably not actually telling it straight, adding small, but pernicious distortions that can exaggerate leading edges, creating a false impression of enhanced resolution.

 

[morricab]

Read again what I wrote. Only one of these two options is logically possible.



Agreed!



As I said above, good electronics are the foundation, so agreed on that point.

Yet you grossly underestimate the importance of good room acoustics, and Acousticsguru is right to stress them.

The effect of the room will also depend on the speaker type, however. It appears that because of their radiation patterns electrostats are less sensitive to quality of room acoustics than conventional cone speakers. It seems to be a consensus that similar holds true for horn speakers.

What was the room made of?

I think you and Acousticsguru are over estimating the importance of the room for delivering a musically realistic performance. Your ear/brain is far more sensitive to wholly unnatural electronic signatures, like various types of amplifier distortion, digital distortion and other artifacts not found in nature.

 

[acousticsguru]

Yes, you can tell if it is live or not regardless of whether or not you are familiar with the song. It has nothing to do with the music (unless amplified...and even then you can tell most of the time) itself but what is fundamentally lost and added to recording/playback chain.

I would argue that a “warts and all” DAC is probably not actually telling it straight, adding small, but pernicious distortions that can exaggerate leading edges, creating a false impression of enhanced resolution.

That's merely a use of the attribute "warts and all" that differs from how it's normally used: what you're describing is a DAC that has distortions, the very contrary of a "warts and all" DAC, which to me is a DAC that's transparent to the source, i.e. doesn't add or distract anything whatsoever. You may say no such DAC exists (as yet), and I'd agree. But to say a DAC that brings out all there is in a recording (if such perfection existed in the real world), including the recording's "warts and all", would by necessity be one that's adding distortions, whereas one that does not reveal all there is on the recording would be comparatively free from distortion, is, sorry to be so blunt, nonsense.

To put it another way: in a discussion with an audiophile who happens to own both a dCS Vivaldi stack and MSB Select II, asked to describe the difference, he called the former "lifelike" and the latter "ruthless". Although I do not at all disagree with his respective impressions (nor his take on the difference), as a (former) linguist, I find the choice of attributes/adjectives remarkable: in this context of a discussion of SOTA DACs, do they not appear to refer to the exact same thing (= transparency to the source)?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

What was the room made of?

I think you and Acousticsguru are over estimating the importance of the room for delivering a musically realistic performance. Your ear/brain is far more sensitive to wholly unnatural electronic signatures, like various types of amplifier distortion, digital distortion and other artifacts not found in nature.

There's a difference between enjoyable and realistic. If the room adds to or detracts from a transparent playback of a recording, the playback is by definition not realistic. It may still be enjoyable. Which is why, as you'll remember, I keep telling people to stay away from source components that, in my terminology rather than yours, are "warts and all" transparent to the source, unless they're willing to pay the price (which is: go all the way). No room is perfect, but there's a limit to the extent to which one can compensate for issues by mixing and matching components.

As to artifacts not found in nature, I agree 100% - that is why I am so adamant on the transparency of source components, the need for room treatment etc. Systems based on the concept of compensation (for flaws of any kind) may sound enjoyable, but never realistic. Think of digital room correction, for example. It's a way of pretending we humans are smarter than nature. We're not. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[PeterA]

That's merely a use of the attribute "warts and all" that differs from how it's normally used: what you're describing is a DAC that has distortions, the very contrary of a "warts and all" DAC, which to me is a DAC that's transparent to the source, i.e. doesn't add or distract anything whatsoever. You may say no such DAC exists (as yet), and I'd agree. But to say a DAC that brings out all there is in a recording (if such perfection existed in the real world), including the recording's "warts and all", would by necessity be one that's adding distortions, whereas one that does not reveal all there is on the recording would be comparatively free from distortion, is, sorry to be so blunt, nonsense.

To put it another way: in a discussion with an audiophile who happens to own both a dCS Vivaldi stack and MSB Select II, asked to describe the difference, he called the former "lifelike" and the latter "ruthless". Although I do not at all disagree with his respective impressions (nor his take on the difference), as a (former) linguist, I find the choice of attributes/adjectives remarkable: in this context of a discussion of SOTA DACs, do they not appear to refer to the exact same thing (= transparency to the source)?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

IMO, for a transparent DAC to sound "lifelike", the recording must sound "lifelike". So, in your example, the dCS sounding lifelike implies all of the recordings used to reach that assessment are lifelike. In the case of the MSB, "ruthless" implies transparency to both good and bad recordings.

I do not think both adjectives mean the same thing in this context. From what you have written, I would infer (correctly or incorrectly) that the dCS adds or removes very little to make a good recording sound lifelike but it must add or remove something more to make a bad recording sound lifelike (or good), if it is even possible to make a bad recording sound that way.

I have heard both of these top DACs described as having a sound of their own by people who have heard them, but then so do most/all components.

 

[acousticsguru]

IMO, for a transparent DAC to sound "lifelike", the recording must sound "lifelike". So, in your example, the dCS sounding lifelike implies all of the recordings used to reach that assessment are lifelike. In the case of the MSB, "ruthless" implies transparency to both good and bad recordings.

I do not think both adjectives mean the same thing in this context. From what you have written, I would infer (correctly or incorrectly) that the dCS adds or removes very little to make a good recording sound lifelike but it must add or remove something more to make a bad recording sound lifelike (or good), if it is even possible to make a bad recording sound that way.

I have heard both of these top DACs described as having a sound of their own by people who have heard them, but then so do most/all components.

All components do. My impression is that the better they are (in the sense you're describing), the more difficult it is to put their "contribution" to the sound into words. Totally unlike a great wine where flowery attributes spring to mind easily.

As mentioned, the choice of adjectives in this comparison wasn't mine. I'm not sure he meant to imply the Vivaldi is the more forgiving of bad recordings, but you may be right. It's an interesting thought. I wish I had the luxury to make a direct comparison. I've always thought this very aspect a possible reason to want to own more than one SOTA DAC, as I'm the kind of music lover who'll listen to anything provided I like the music and/or am interested in the performance, modern or historic, good or bad.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[Al M.]

Which is why, as you'll remember, I keep telling people to stay away from source components that, in my terminology rather than yours, are "warts and all" transparent to the source, unless they're willing to pay the price (which is: go all the way).

Agreed. That's what I strived to do, go all the way. It's not the easy way out, but more than worth it (post #444):

State-of-the-Art Digital

You're kidding, right? You want to make believe the choice of equipment of musicians, recording engineers and producers are not based on sonics? And yet, you'll buy recordings, even spend money on gear to improve playback quality? Ever considered the term "audiophile" may be more aptly used for...

www.whatsbestforum.com

In the meantime, since that post was written half a year ago, I have made substantially more good progress towards this goal.

 

[acousticsguru]

IMO, for a transparent DAC to sound "lifelike", the recording must sound "lifelike". So, in your example, the dCS sounding lifelike implies all of the recordings used to reach that assessment are lifelike. In the case of the MSB, "ruthless" implies transparency to both good and bad recordings.

I do not think both adjectives mean the same thing in this context. From what you have written, I would infer (correctly or incorrectly) that the dCS adds or removes very little to make a good recording sound lifelike but it must add or remove something more to make a bad recording sound lifelike (or good), if it is even possible to make a bad recording sound that way.

I have heard both of these top DACs described as having a sound of their own by people who have heard them, but then so do most/all components.

In my experience, the Upsampler can be used to make bad recordings sound more palatable. Not sure this is the same as say it'll automatically make a recording sound more lifelike or "better", but definitely more listenable (the most important aspect to me: no use owning a so-called forgiving DAC that'll make me turn off or quit playing certain recordings). My take on bad recordings has always been that the best one can do is to find a highly resolving source component (DAC in this case), so less compensation or interpretation is needed on the side of my ears/brain to get the most out of it.

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[acousticsguru]

Agreed. That's what I strived to do, go all the way. It's not the easy way out, but more than worth it (post #444):

State-of-the-Art Digital

You're kidding, right? You want to make believe the choice of equipment of musicians, recording engineers and producers are not based on sonics? And yet, you'll buy recordings, even spend money on gear to improve playback quality? Ever considered the term "audiophile" may be more aptly used for...

www.whatsbestforum.com

In the meantime, since that post was written half a year ago, I have made substantially more good progress towards this goal.

Addressing rather than covering flaws? I seem to remember those were your words (sorry if I'm misquoting). Yay!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

(...) To put it another way: in a discussion with an audiophile who happens to own both a dCS Vivaldi stack and MSB Select II, asked to describe the difference, he called the former "lifelike" and the latter "ruthless". Although I do not at all disagree with his respective impressions (nor his take on the difference), as a (former) linguist, I find the choice of attributes/adjectives remarkable: in this context of a discussion of SOTA DACs, do they not appear to refer to the exact same thing (= transparency to the source)?

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Interesting - I have no serious experience with the MSB Sellect II, but would not assume it as "ruthless" considering what I read in this forum.

BTW, your friend should also get an Wadax Reference - I would love to know the word he would use to describe it.

 

[christoph]

BTW, your friend should also get an Wadax Reference - I would love to know the word he would use to describe it.

Ugly?
SCNR

 

[acousticsguru]

Interesting - I have no serious experience with the MSB Sellect II, but would not assume it as "ruthless" considering what I read in this forum.

BTW, your friend should also get an Wadax Reference - I would love to know the word he would use to describe it.

Must admit I don't even know the Wadax (may have seen it at a trade show, but I've learnt to let those "inspire" me rather than jump to conclusions). I see you kept your Kondo (seem to remember you thought about selling it)!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

 

[microstrip]

Must admit I don't even know the Wadax (may have seen it at a trade show, but I've learnt to let those "inspire" me rather than jump to conclusions). I see you kept your Kondo (seem to remember you thought about selling it)!

Greetings from Switzerland, David.

Well, some people who listened to the big Wadax told me it was worth listening - it is being demoed not far from me, but this Covid days are not inviting to solitary travels.I decided to part with the Kondo DAC and it is being currently advertised, but no one has shown any interest.

 

[Al M.]

What was the room made of?

Don't know the plaster, but it's a wooden house, like you find frequently in American towns, and the music room has lots of windows (these are now all covered, on the front wall with ASC window plugs, in the back with shutters).

I think you and Acousticsguru are over estimating the importance of the room for delivering a musically realistic performance.

If you had the years long, detailed and intensive experience as I have with improving my room acoustics, and with how treatments can change the sound in other people's rooms, you would not make that dismissive assertion. I suppose Acousticsguru has even more experience than I do; I'm just an eagerly learning amateur in this hobby, but one who at least tries to push biases aside and see things as they are.

Your ear/brain is far more sensitive to wholly unnatural electronic signatures, like various types of amplifier distortion, digital distortion and other artifacts not found in nature.

But that's the weird part. A good amount of what I originally perceived to be artificial digital distortions in my system, especially 'digititis' in the highs, turned out to be room distortions (soundwave distortions by the room or by objects in the room, including gear). The digital is just fine (as also confirmed in a friend's room who has in principle the same digital setup).

Think about it. Why do concert venues usually sound so good? An important part of the equation is that because of their size and design they exhibit few of those nasty uncontrolled short-distance reflections. It's important to mitigate those in your music room as well, if you want anything somewhat resembling a concert experience.

 

[kodomo]

There is no contest on what causes non-linearity on a listening chain. The recorded signal whether digital or analog will be most deviated by speakers and the room, this is a fact. No amplifier, preamplifier or a source can cause as much non-linearity to your original signal as these two.

Unless you experience a very good room you may not be aware. A good room does not mean a few fancy looking acoustic treatments or a lot of hodge-podge treatments that has been put in without careful inspection and measurement. The room has to be studied and the acoustic treatment should be applied accordingly. Replay/listening room acoustics is not rocket science and is not concert hall acoustics. The concert hall acoustics is a whole another subject and still is in a way an art as much as science. The replay/listening room is not so much.

So, do not think you know how a good acoustically treated room is unless it has been studied, correctly treated and measured to check for results.

 

[Mikem53]

But that's the weird part. A good amount of what I originally perceived to be artificial digital distortions in my system, especially 'digititis' in the highs, turned out to be room distortions (soundwave distortions by the room or by objects in the room, including gear). The digital is just fine (as also confirmed in a friend's room who has in principle the same digital setup).

Think about it. Why do concert venues usually sound so good? An important part of the equation is that because of their size and design they exhibit few of those nasty uncontrolled short-distance reflections. It's important to mitigate those in your music room as well, if you want anything somewhat resembling a concert experience.

I was experiencing a hard sound that I related to “digititis” in the highs, like you mentioned. This was because of the placement of my speakers to accommodate the “TV room“ setup. Once I straightened out my priorities, and moved my speakers out into the room, moved my listening position closer to the speakers and had no hard reflective surfaces close to the speakers anymore... All the issues I was having disappeared. Im also sitting closer to the speakers, not quite near field, but enough to cut out the anomalies of the room which were causing several issues for me..
I plan to add some more acoustical treatments in the future, but this setup now is working out amazingly well without massive room “ correction”, which is making my wife happy, which by itself affects the sound immensely!

 

[Carlos269]

There is no contest on what causes non-linearity on a listening chain. The recorded signal whether digital or analog will be most deviated by speakers and the room, this is a fact. No amplifier, preamplifier or a source can cause as much non-linearity to your original signal as these two.

Unless you experience a very good room you may not be aware. A good room does not mean a few fancy looking acoustic treatments or a lot of hodge-podge treatments that has been put in without careful inspection and measurement. The room has to be studied and the acoustic treatment should be applied accordingly. Replay/listening room acoustics is not rocket science and is not concert hall acoustics. The concert hall acoustics is a whole another subject and still is in a way an art as much as science. The replay/listening room is not so much.

So, do not think you know how a good acoustically treated room is unless it has been studied, correctly treated and measured to check for results.

So what, in your wise wisdom and education, is the desired target curve for a good acoustically treated room? Flat response?

Is not the room’s response system dependent?

Do tell us more about experiencing a “very good room”. What exactly constitutes a “very good room”?

I’m curious and look forward to your answers.

Somehow, I think that many here have lost sight of the goal, which is musical enjoyment and not instrumentation.

I know that I have personally have never needed a good acoustically treated room to enjoy Miles Davis, John Coltrane, the Doors, the Cure, the Smiths, Sonny Rollins or ..........on a high resolution system.

 

[SCAudiophile]

If you haven't heard these components how in the world could you possibly report to us that they are the best?

Damned good question,...while I have heard both the Wadax Reference DAC and the entire Atlantis stack alternated in-room against the finest TT/phono preamp rigs out there, and was extremely impressed and consider them among the few "very" best choices that exist, there are other stacks like the Esoteric P1X/D1X that would put up a significant fight for title of 'the' best. Truth is, digital has advanced at such a rate in the last few years and to such high levels, that there are multiple. choices at each level that depending upon one's listening tendencies, system synergy and goals, would easily constitute a 'best' choice at given price level.

The poster's original statement, "you get what you pay for...." underlies something that I consider extremely debatable in this hobby cum obsession; that being higher price always gets you better aural results.

In the case of Wadax components, from what I've seen directly (Atlantis and Reference), heard and studied of their design, they definitely rank among the very best and most meticulously thought out, designed and implemented devices out there with an eye towards future-proofing and upgrade path in place for their users via a modular architecture (Reference level in particular) which is as it should be IMHO. The two leads of the company whom I met in Munich and have had a few subsequent communications with are about as passionate about what they do, quality and musical reproduction as a human possibly can be so kudos to them for their accomplishments as well!

 

[morricab]

There is no contest on what causes non-linearity on a listening chain. The recorded signal whether digital or analog will be most deviated by speakers and the room, this is a fact. No amplifier, preamplifier or a source can cause as much non-linearity to your original signal as these two.

Unless you experience a very good room you may not be aware. A good room does not mean a few fancy looking acoustic treatments or a lot of hodge-podge treatments that has been put in without careful inspection and measurement. The room has to be studied and the acoustic treatment should be applied accordingly. Replay/listening room acoustics is not rocket science and is not concert hall acoustics. The concert hall acoustics is a whole another subject and still is in a way an art as much as science. The replay/listening room is not so much.

So, do not think you know how a good acoustically treated room is unless it has been studied, correctly treated and measured to check for results.

While speakers have the most distortion in terms of magnitude, they are rarely as pernicious as electronic distortion. Coloration due to resonances and tonal imbalance are still of a mechanical nature and as such follow patterns well known of other mechanical sounds in nature. This means they are more easily adapted to and therefore less likely to destroy realism. Areas where they do impact more is dynamics and the compression of the sound envelope will impact realism.

Electronics and digital signals, produce distortions that are wholly out of nature and it therefore Only requires very small amounts to cause irreparable damage to the signal. This of course assumes the recording itself is not too damaged from these effects...then not much will save it.

Despite what is being said here, room acoustics cannot behave like electronic artifacts as they, like speaker issues, arise in the purely physical world and therefore obey a different set of rules.