You make a good point here about the questions you ask yourself and as you know I also ask similar questions (this is why i defend the "does it sound like real live music" as a standard to uphold) but to my ears the kind of gear often that provides what you would consider the closest to the recording to me sounds less like the real thing...and I don't necessarily think it has to do with the recording quality. It has to do again with telltale artifacts of a synthetic character...something the Kondo gear, for example, has done a good job of eliminating while perhaps sacrificing some other artifacts that give it a "flavor" if you will but not one that screams synthetic. The residual artifacts in even the best measuring gear can be highly detrimental to our mental reconstruction of what sounds "real" or a close facsimilie thereof, which has allowed for the resurrgence of less than stellar measuring gear that nonetheless sounds simply closer to the direction of less synthetic.
State-of-the-Art Digital
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
You make a good point here about the questions you ask yourself and as you know I also ask similar questions (this is why i defend the "does it sound like real live music" as a standard to uphold) but to my ears the kind of gear often that provides what you would consider the closest to the recording to me sounds less like the real thing...and I don't necessarily think it has to do with the recording quality. It has to do again with telltale artifacts of a synthetic character...something the Kondo gear, for example, has done a good job of eliminating while perhaps sacrificing some other artifacts that give it a "flavor" if you will but not one that screams synthetic. The residual artifacts in even the best measuring gear can be highly detrimental to our mental reconstruction of what sounds "real" or a close facsimilie thereof, which has allowed for the resurrgence of less than stellar measuring gear that nonetheless sounds simply closer to the direction of less synthetic.
I know that this was true with my ex-girlfriend who is a top level violinist would attend shows or visit audiophiles with me and from the moment she heard the sound (always with classical and mostly involving violin or singers) she knew if that system had some kind of "ring of truth" or not. If not, at shows she would walk out within 30 seconds. If yes, we might be there half the day. She was also a valuable critic of my own system (she loved Apogees and Acoustats with tubes) and even wanted to buy the Acoustats off of me after we had gone our separate ways.
http://komarova-artists.com/en/anna-reszniak-violin/
I have some I absolutely love on vinyl like Wilhelm Kempff playing Beethoven piano Sonatas (can’t remember exactly which ones).
In general I think there are two paths audiophiles can choose from in order to arrive at a satisfying sound:
1) cover up the flaws
2) address the flaws
My Yggdrasil 2 DAC is also a rather neutral, and extremely resolving, revealing DAC. When I upgraded my system to a better tube amp with more extended highs, and to monitors that are much more resolving, 'outspoken' and extended in the highs that my previous ones from the same company (Reference 3A), many things changed for the better. But there were also some problems that were not as evident before with the previously less resolving sound, including a somewhat 'hard' sound and 'digititis' in the treble.
I could have easily covered up the problems, including with a more colored, "beautiful" sounding DAC, a more rolled-off tube amp or less neutral signal cables. Yet then I would have lost resolution and truthfulness to the music. Instead I decided to confront the problems head on, which were both of an acoustic and an electronic nature.
I had worked on my room acoustics already for years. Yet in order to further fix my room acoustics, I carefully chose another carpet around the listening area, covering up more of the wooden floor but without introducing too much absorption, redistributed diffuser panels in my room and lastly, installed ceiling diffusers, to great effect. I also adjusted speaker set-up. Finally, in order to address problems in the electronic chain, I switched preamps and purchased the one which, by design, matches my power amp (now my system has an Octave HP700/RE320 pre/power combo).
Not only did I successfully address the somewhat 'hard' sound and 'digititis' in the treble. In the process, resolution and truthfulness to musical timbre dramatically increased further. I would have lost these with attempts to cover up rather than address problems. The end result is so much more musically satisfying, exciting and engaging than it would have been in the cover-up scenario, even though with the latter I could have arrived much quicker at a 'pleasing' sound. It seems though that many audiophiles choose the ultimately less satisfying short-cut.
When audiophiles choose the cover-up short cut, they often put blame on components that do not deserve it. In their system context, a colored and objectively inferior component may then sound 'better'.
Last edited:
Of course there are, but you realize that is not what the guys were talking about referring to the concert they both attended (independently, it appears)?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
And? I have no qualms admitting I like other brands, too. It's the other way round, as you may have noticed. You'll notice that if it weren't for Kedar and you bringing it up, that I didn't mention what I personally use, let alone exclusively, nor that I believe nothing else matters, nor tell anyone what to buy, and least of all, that they're delusional in their preferences, if indeed they have any. I realize this site and this thread are supposed to be about "what's best". Can't one simply be curious rather than judgmental? I like different stuff for different reasons. And I know you do too: you like Living Voice/Kondo same as I, as well as systems that to me are as far removed sonically from that type of sound as anything else that's been discussed in this thread. I do not remember wondering about the open-mindedness of others.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
I believe that was his point: that they're not as bad as some claim.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Can't say I'm surprised comparatively few of them are posting on forums.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
I agree. But I understand those who opt out of the thorny path, in particular because of what you're pointing out further below:
It's simple combinatorics: when one listens to a number of systems, some of them great, some of them not, but all using the same component (in particular the source), that component can't possibly be the culprit. As to covering up flaws, I happen to find the concept per se debatable. In my experience, compensation for (a) flaw(s) inevitably means: comes at a price.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Agreed. Compensation for flaws, rather than trying to confront them, is one of the reasons why some systems do not sound as good as they should, for the money spent.
Your getting offtrack here. Please reread the posts...or not it’s rather trivial anyway...
Just pointing out that you might have a dog in this fight because you own the same brand as one of the “contenders”. You are not as impartial as you appear because you have spoken with your hard earned cash. Just like Ked could be accused of being biased in any Lampi discussion, people want to know what’s behind your claims one way or the other. Not revealing your gear openly means your motives are also potentially not transparent.
Now, if we were talking purely high level about the merits of a given speaker alignment I would say it matters less but you guys were going round and round about specific brands of gear with diametrically opposed philosophies and you have already bought into one of those philosophies with that specific brand. Also, weren’t you the one telling me that non-oversampling DACs give you a migraine? The Kondo DAC is just such a DAC I believe. Hmmm...
Your definition of "off-track" is your topic versus their topic: theirs was, given this type of quality in a voice (i.e. all else being equal), can/do room acoustics make it worse?
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
NOS DACs give me migraines? Not my experience at all. Some NOS DACs maybe.
Some DACs give me migraines, and I can tell within a split-second, just as if I were looking into fluorescent light, virtually the same flinching, muscles tightening - after 35 years of suffering from migraines one just knows when to leave the room and avoid a trigger. One of my audiophile buddies who lives in Zürich has it worse than me, and it didn't come as a surprise to me that when I was first invited to his house, that he's been listening with dCS for a decade or two, someone who listens a lot and not just as hobby, also professionally.
I do not remember claiming at any time nor any place that I know exactly why some DACs do this, which in particular do it etc. After first posting about this a few years ago, Mark Levinson called me a number of times as he was interested in the subject, and he some suggestions about what the reason(s) might be, but you'll realize he's primarily a musician and collector of ideas rather than an engineer. It's definitely got to do with digital playback, possibly out-of-band noise and other digital artifacts, some of which may be inaudible in the common sense of the term.
What I do know is there are more brands that build DACs I could live with, again, I'm someone who listens to a lot of music given I have the time to do so, so anything that I can't listen to for half a minute is an instant failure.
I also have suspicions about some chip sets such as ESS that irrespective of the brand of DAC it's being used in immediately make me feel like a cat that's being brushed against the grain.
Having said that, it may not be the chip sets but the implementation. Maybe there are engineers on these forums who can give you a more helpful answer. If I had to guess, I'm convinced it's not what we perceive as "sound" and/or what we hear subjectively, but digital artifacts, something, anything that DOES NOT BELONG THERE. Something that could be measured if only we knew what to look for.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
As I have very little experience compared to most of the active folks here, I will pontificate anyway. People are different, people hear dIfferently. One Dac causes issue for that person(1) , but to another sounds better than person(1) choice.. There are no abolutes otherwise we would all buy the same speaker, amp etc. Take this with a grain of salt, I watched an interesting video a few months ago, I believe it was DarkAudio but not sure. He did a blind A/B of uncompressed files(hi-rez) against the exact same track of the exact same album release via MQA (which has compression). He was floored that he choose (i forgot the exact numbers) MQA 13 out of 15 times. So which is best if we go just off his opinion (i extrapolate to This general thread And leave it there).
I'm wondering where you picked that up, and trying to figure out in what way you suspect oversampling may improve matters?
What Mark Levinson mentioned among other was what he called the PCM step function (at least I'm hoping to quote him correctly). It's probably true of all migraine patients that to be exposed to a stroboscope is a trigger. Mark wondered if people with this sensitivity wouldn't have an easier time listening to DSD than PCM.
He may be onto something, but I'm not sure it's that easy. When I listen to a dCS DAC playing back DSD using Filter 1 (roughly 90kHz), I'm noticing I'm feeling less relaxed than using their new Filter 5 they added in Version 2.0 - pointing to out-of-band noise as one possible problem. The earlier passively filtered Lampizator DSD board also sounded completely free of whatever we want to call this quality, even if at the cost of some treble extension (actually, I hear differences in treble extension in the dCS filter choices as well, but nowhere as extreme).
Referring to the early Lampizator DSD board, I'm reminded of a cheap passively filtered PCM DAC I loved and gave away, or the Kondo measurement protocol that showed rolloff at either end of the frequency range (which, as microstrip mentions further above, makes it sound less extended) - it's true I'd consider that a lesser price to pay for being able to enjoy music over long periods of time if indeed it were the only possible solution.
Maybe when others refer to "listening fatigue", they're referring to the exact same as I do, yet they're simply more immune? It's true that when I first bought dCS, it was because I heard it at a trade fair where Alfred Rudolph of Acapella used a Delius and Purcell combo as source component, and I noticed how relaxed I felt. No flinching as it were. No muscular tension.
I have no problem admitting that to me, this has priority over how "beautiful" playback sounds. It does occasionally make me wonder if those who can listen to repulsive digital playback are truly nonsensitive, or if they would notice if they paid attention. Be that as it may, I can't speak for others…
I'm wondering if this whole discussion is off-topic, then again, I believe it can't be because these are clearly flaws in the playback and not the music. In the same vein as I don't understand how people can work in offices lighted by fluorescent tubes, I don't think DACs are supposed to add anything whatsoever of their own to music playback, even if the happy nonsensitive do not feel bothered.
Having said that, I understand this may be thought of as having nothing to do with what's commonly called "sound", if a majority can't tell a difference. So maybe these considerations don't belong here.
Greetings from Switzerland, David.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
