Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?

[Al M.]

I will hear the Tambaqui again in my friend's system this weekend after a long time not hearing it. The last couple times I heard it there was a clear emphasis in the upper mid/lower treble that spotlit that frequency range. Perhaps it needed more break in from new. It is very clean but did not sound very natural sounding compared to products from Lampizator and Ayon.

As not only I have said, but others too, based on their experience in several other systems, the Tambaqui sounds organic and does not sound bright. If it did, or still does, there is something wrong with the system context.

I find it curious that are only now admitting the short comings of your previous Yggy DAC and that it has this digital "hash" that others of us knew was there but you defended for a very long time. Did enough of your friends find it unpleasant that you finally took notice?

It's not quite that simple. Lots of the 'hash', or HF distortion, in my system/room in the past had origins other than the digital itself, which in the end accounted for just 10- 15 % of the overall problem.

The switch to the new speakers was part of the improvement. They sound much cleaner than the Reference 3A monitors, at least at the relatively loud, closer to realistic, SPL levels that I listen at (I listen loudly within limits, adhering to NIOSH guidelines for daily SPL exposure).

Yet the biggest chunk of HF distortion and harshness came from the room, and from electrical power, with the room being at least double the problem of the electrical power (rooms can distort tremendously at higher SPL).

After I cleaned up all those problems, the digital itself turned out to be just a small part of the HF distortion problem.

And it's all relative: An audiophile, who had never heard my system before, recently heard it with the Yggy (just before I switched to the Tambaqui) and marveled at how clean it sounded, without harshness and distortion.

At that time I thought the remaining issues with HF distortion that I heard were mostly still room related, yet switching to the Tambaqui tought me that there still had been an intrinsic problem with the digital. And of course, as has often been said with audio, sometimes you only notice a problem once it has gone away.

Streaming/computer audio can also be a source of HF noise. I have noticed that many times when switching from streaming or local files to physical CD in another system. I don't have that particular problem because I only play physical CDs in my system. Streaming can be fine, of course, but often it isn't. And at shows a large part of the annoying digital "hash" there may be bad streaming.

Finally, I have heard what sounds similar to digital "hash" or digital distortion in vinyl-based systems, with apparently varied origins of the problem. Some of it being the vinyl setup itself, but as in my system some of it also seemed to involve other issues, one of them being room distortion.

Therefore it is over-simplified to say that digital has "hash" and analog doesn't. The truth is more complex than that.

 

[morricab]

As not only I have said, but others too, based on their experience in several other systems, the Tambaqui sounds organic and does not sound bright. If it did, or still does, there is something wrong with the system context.



It's not quite that simple. Lots of the 'hash', or HF distortion, in my system/room in the past had origins other than the digital itself, which in the end accounted for just 10- 15 % of the overall problem.

The switch to the new speakers was part of the improvement. They sound much cleaner than the Reference 3A monitors, at least at the relatively loud, closer to realistic, SPL levels that I listen at (I listen loudly within limits, adhering to NIOSH guidelines for daily SPL exposure).

Yet the biggest chunk of HF distortion and harshness came from the room, and from electrical power, with the room being at least double the problem of the electrical power (rooms can distort tremendously at higher SPL).

After I cleaned up all those problems, the digital itself turned out to be just a small part of the HF distortion problem.

And it's all relative: An audiophile, who had never heard my system before, recently heard it with the Yggy (just before I switched to the Tambaqui) and marveled at how clean it sounded, without harshness and distortion.

At that time I thought the remaining issues with HF distortion that I heard were mostly still room related, yet switching to the Tambaqui tought me that there still had been an intrinsic problem with the digital. And of course, as has often been said with audio, sometimes you only notice a problem once it has gone away.

Streaming/computer audio can also be a source of HF noise. I have noticed that many times when switching from streaming or local files to physical CD in another system. I don't have that particular problem because I only play physical CDs in my system. Streaming can be fine, of course, but often it isn't. And at shows a large part of the annoying digital "hash" there may be bad streaming.

Finally, I have heard what sounds similar to digital "hash" or digital distortion in vinyl-based systems, with apparently varied origins of the problem. Some of it being the vinyl setup itself, but as in my system some of it also seemed to involve other issues, one of them being room distortion.

Therefore it is over-simplified to say that digital has "hash" and analog doesn't. The truth is more complex than that.

It is the type of noise or “hash” that is the problem. What analog and digital produce are not comparable even if at first listen they seem similar. Long term, the impacts will be different.
As I said, the Tambaqui will get another listen and it is in the context of my friend getting new speakers and with a few different amps to try out…everything from Class D to 3.5 watt SET.

 

[Audiohertz2]

As not only I have said, but others too, based on their experience in several other systems, the Tambaqui sounds organic and does not sound bright. If it did, or still does, there is something wrong with the system context.



It's not quite that simple. Lots of the 'hash', or HF distortion, in my system/room in the past had origins other than the digital itself, which in the end accounted for just 10- 15 % of the overall problem.

The switch to the new speakers was part of the improvement. They sound much cleaner than the Reference 3A monitors, at least at the relatively loud, closer to realistic, SPL levels that I listen at (I listen loudly within limits, adhering to NIOSH guidelines for daily SPL exposure).

Yet the biggest chunk of HF distortion and harshness came from the room, and from electrical power, with the room being at least double the problem of the electrical power (rooms can distort tremendously at higher SPL).

After I cleaned up all those problems, the digital itself turned out to be just a small part of the HF distortion problem.

And it's all relative: An audiophile, who had never heard my system before, recently heard it with the Yggy (just before I switched to the Tambaqui) and marveled at how clean it sounded, without harshness and distortion.

At that time I thought the remaining issues with HF distortion that I heard were mostly still room related, yet switching to the Tambaqui tought me that there still had been an intrinsic problem with the digital. And of course, as has often been said with audio, sometimes you only notice a problem once it has gone away.

Streaming/computer audio can also be a source of HF noise. I have noticed that many times when switching from streaming or local files to physical CD in another system. I don't have that particular problem because I only play physical CDs in my system. Streaming can be fine, of course, but often it isn't. And at shows a large part of the annoying digital "hash" there may be bad streaming.

Finally, I have heard what sounds similar to digital "hash" or digital distortion in vinyl-based systems, with apparently varied origins of the problem. Some of it being the vinyl setup itself, but as in my system some of it also seemed to involve other issues, one of them being room distortion.

Therefore it is over-simplified to say that digital has "hash" and analog doesn't. The truth is more complex than that.

I would not be surprised if those systems had IC based PP , such PP can make analog sound similar to digital playback ..

 

[Al M.]

I would not be surprised if those systems had IC based PP , such PP can make analog sound similar to digital playback ..

Sorry, what is PP?

 

[analogsa]

I will hear the Tambaqui again in my friend's system this weekend after a long time not hearing it. The last couple times I heard it there was a clear emphasis in the upper mid/lower treble that spotlit that frequency range. Perhaps it needed more break in from new. It is very clean but did not sound very natural sounding compared to products from Lampizator and Ayon.

I agree, but how fair is to compare dacs with integrated tube beautyfiers to ones without? As those tubes seldom serve a different function inside dacs. Common grid I/V stages are like the proverbial hen's teeth. Perhaps a Tambaqui into a dht preamp may sound equally natural.

 

[ssfas]

What does that mean?

I reckon for equally enjoyable digital and analogue, you need to spend about double on analogue.

 

[Al M.]

I agree, but how fair is to compare dacs with integrated tube beautyfiers to ones without? As those tubes seldom serve a different function inside dacs. Common grid I/V stages are like the proverbial hen's teeth. Perhaps a Tambaqui into a dht preamp may sound equally natural.

I would say the Tambaqui is a neutral source, not bright but also not beautified. The sound is natural and full-bodied *) in my system context, with tube amplification and speakers that are neither bright nor dull sounding (and with no beryllium tweeters).

You could also provocatively argue that something is not right in a system where you need a tube DAC to spruce up the sound and make it "natural".

Of course, I won't do that .

_______________________

*) with good weight in the low midrange, e.g., cello, orchestral low brass, left hand of piano

 

[morricab]

I agree, but how fair is to compare dacs with integrated tube beautyfiers to ones without? As those tubes seldom serve a different function inside dacs. Common grid I/V stages are like the proverbial hen's teeth. Perhaps a Tambaqui into a dht preamp may sound equally natural.

If it sounds better…it is better. If you get equivalent resolution but superior tonality and sense of acoustic space then it is better sounding. The goal is good sound, not best measurements.

 

[morricab]

I would say the Tambaqui is a neutral source, not bright but also not beautified. The sound is natural and full-bodied *) in my system context, with tube amplification and speakers that are neither bright nor dull sounding (and with no beryllium tweeters).

You could also provocatively argue that something is not right in a system where you need a tube DAC to spruce up the sound and make it "natural".

Of course, I won't do that .

_______________________

*) with good weight in the low midrange, e.g., cello, orchestral low brass, left hand of piano

Given you have tubes in your system, how can you say where tubes belong or don’t belong in the chain? There is less distortion from the tubes in a DAC most likely than your power amp.

 

[Al M.]

There is less distortion from the tubes in a DAC most likely than your power amp.

But most likely not less than from the tubes in the preamp.

 

[Holmz]

But most likely not less than from the tubes in the preamp.

And still the distortion is less than what the speakers are likely kicking out.
But who cares about distortion anyhow?

 

[morricab]

But most likely not less than from the tubes in the preamp.

The output symtage of a DAC is essentially a preamp without a volume control. So, why would a tube output stage be inherently higher or lower distortion than a tube preamp?

 

[Gregm]

If you get equivalent resolution but superior tonality and sense of acoustic space then it is better sounding. The goal is good sound, not best measurements.

Hmmm. I wouldn't bash the in-room measurements: good sound measured from the listening position (i.e. where the sound is actually "good") gives good figures, accordingly; (FR, directivity, t60, etc...)

 

[Al M.]

The output symtage of a DAC is essentially a preamp without a volume control. So, why would a tube output stage be inherently higher or lower distortion than a tube preamp?

Exactly my point.

 

[morricab]

Exactly my point.

No you said NOT less than a tube preamp. My point was they are inherently equivalent.

 

[Al M.]

No you said NOT less than a tube preamp. My point was they are inherently equivalent.

Which was exactly my point.

Now you are just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.

Any readers can judge for themselves, really.

 

[dcathro]

Now you are just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.

The whole point of the forum?

 

[treitz3]

The whole point of the forum?

Our goal is to have a friendly place where everyone shares ideas and information without the level of bickering and angst that other forums tend to create.

Tom