I'll say this:
Archimago was an extremely important voice in exposing the technical fraud of MQA (now thankfully, RIP). All kudos to him for that.
Can digital get to vinyl sound and at what price?
- Thread starter ScottK
- Start date
I'll say this:
Archimago was an extremely important voice in exposing the technical fraud of MQA (now thankfully, RIP). All kudos to him for that.
If this were the case, wouldn't Peter Qvortrup have long ago added an AN (femto)clock to his product range?
The man clearly knows how to develop and maintain a business model
Last edited:
Even before its official launch it was quite obvious that MQA was a fraud, like other 'promising solutions' in recent times.
Last edited:
Despite the obvious marketing, this article explains in layman's terms when an external clock makes sense.
Including: "... even in bigger and more complex studios, it’s generally best to use an A/D as the master clock".
Including: "... even in bigger and more complex studios, it’s generally best to use an A/D as the master clock".
The problem with this type of article, and Archimago's as well, is that skips mentioning an important fact, which is that clock performance is considerably degraded with noise.
Noise is inherent to digital audio.
Mechanism of Causing Electromagnetic Noise 2 | Noise Suppression Basic Course | Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Murata's Products. - Mechanism of Causing Electromagnetic Noise
www.murata.com
The impact on clock performance is illustrated here (I've already mentioned this);
Is jitter an issue with usb signals ?
Funny how cables are still singled out when it comes to jitter. Nevermind that usb "jitter" doesn't matter at all with async. Nevermind that in the non-async modes, the timing of the host is probably worse by orders of magnitude that any deviation the cable could introduce. Nevermind that the...
"Graphs won’t tell you what audible advantages or disadvantages to expect, because these jitter graphs are based on single or dual test tones (fundamentals). Music is infinitely more complex, it has a fast changing dynamic spectrum that creates the biggest problems in any DAC. The jitter graph won’t cover this because it only shows the DAC jitter response with these test signals only, it doesn’t show what happens when the data content and spectrum are infinitely more complex"
More about issues in digital audio here:
Is jitter an issue with usb signals ?
Funny how cables are still singled out when it comes to jitter. Nevermind that usb "jitter" doesn't matter at all with async. Nevermind that in the non-async modes, the timing of the host is probably worse by orders of magnitude that any deviation the cable could introduce. Nevermind that the...
So all these discussions about clocks, noise, bits are bits, by amateurs like Archimago are totally useless and BS.
Archimago thinks noise is irrelevant because he measures sources with noise levels below audible levels. If you read those articles I mentioned you can see that this is laughable!
The irony, of course, is that Archimago poses as an "objectivist", while in fact he probably has no clue about the science behind what he is talking about.
Quoting the link I mentioned: "HF signals are not audible so why bother? The problem occurs when these modulated carrier waves get demodulated and then dump the contained audible interference right into the audio spectrum, like with a radio receiver. It only takes a single P-N junction to demodulate such amplitude modulated carrier."
No one really knows how to solve these issues. There is no perfect DAC.
Concerning clocks, you could imagine that in a poorly conceived DAC an external clock may be beneficial, despite the DAC's clock specs.
It is best not to get into these technical discussions, and just listen for yourself to various equipment.
I am sure you can enjoy music with the type of equipment that Archimago uses in his living room, but everyone enjoys music, and who really cares what he chooses to use?
Last edited:
The impact on clock performance is illustrated here (I've already mentioned this);
Is jitter an issue with usb signals ?
Funny how cables are still singled out when it comes to jitter. Nevermind that usb "jitter" doesn't matter at all with async. Nevermind that in the non-async modes, the timing of the host is probably worse by orders of magnitude that any deviation the cable could introduce. Nevermind that the...www.diyaudio.com
"Graphs won’t tell you what audible advantages or disadvantages to expect, because these jitter graphs are based on single or dual test tones (fundamentals). Music is infinitely more complex, it has a fast changing dynamic spectrum that creates the biggest problems in any DAC. The jitter graph won’t cover this because it only shows the DAC jitter response with these test signals only, it doesn’t show what happens when the data content and spectrum are infinitely more complex"
Thanks for this.
That is the problem with the pseudoscientific attitude of taking simplistic measurements as the entire truth.
In my field of biochemistry we scientists are keenly aware that all isolated measurements are necessarily simplifications, and that biological reality is vastly more complex, in a way that would be incredibly hard to measure. In fact, nobody knows yet how to perform the measurements which would capture reality as a whole.
We just don't pretend that the measurements we actually are able to perform tell the whole story.
Again, we are talking about reclocking the data stream between source and DAC. Not syncing multiple digital units to one master clock.
on the subject mutec comes from studio recording technology. where today PCs are used for mixing and editing. The data package that is sent from the PC via USB reaches the input receiver of the Mutec 3+USB. There is a galvanic isolator there that removes all dirt from the PC. e.g. power supply or grounding problem noise.
Then the USB package is split into a clock signal and a digital audio signal. The time correctness of the signal is checked there and if it is not correct then the signal by mutec (reclocked). Then a completely time-correct signal is received at the digital outputs. This also works via the device's usual digital inputs AES/EBU, BNC or optical. I can say that about the quality of the Mutec no matter how high up the shelf you started, the mutec device helps you achieve a better-sounding end result.
P.S
There are people outhere who switch several mutec 3+ in cascade and also have them brought to a temporal level with more precise mutec ref 10 clock.
www.mutec-net.com
Then the USB package is split into a clock signal and a digital audio signal. The time correctness of the signal is checked there and if it is not correct then the signal by mutec (reclocked). Then a completely time-correct signal is received at the digital outputs. This also works via the device's usual digital inputs AES/EBU, BNC or optical. I can say that about the quality of the Mutec no matter how high up the shelf you started, the mutec device helps you achieve a better-sounding end result.
P.S
There are people outhere who switch several mutec 3+ in cascade and also have them brought to a temporal level with more precise mutec ref 10 clock.
MUTEC – Digital Audio Equipment – High End | Professional Audio - MC3+ USB
MUTEC Germany - Manufacturer of Digital Audio and Video Studio Equipment
www.mutec-net.com
Last edited:
Real science doesn’t dismiss observation out of hand like many on those DIY Audio threads or ASR do. They “know” how it all works so they are closed to the possibility that things are going on that they don’t understand.
Well said.
The point of continuing scientific endeavor is that you work on things that you don't know yet and keep an open-minded attitude in your inquiry, constantly able to adjust your models based on new, often unexpected observations.
Cocky, arrogant audio engineers or wanabees on the other hand have the closed-minded attitude of knowing everything about audio and of thinking, in a pseudoscientific manner, that they already know how to measure all there is to measure.
The best audio engineers do not fall in that category. They use measurements as invaluable tools to guide their work, but are well aware, given our limitations of what we can measure and of interpreting the data, that the ear must be the final arbiter, in an open-minded manner.
To be fair, this is a problem with real scientists, too. We tend to get caught up in our assumption that the standard model represents reality and we sometimes dismiss or are not able even to register information that conflicts with our models.
It's a difficult challenge to balance subjective observations that can be unreliable and objective data that can be incomplete, which is why it is can be difficult to assess some audiophile components and tweaks that are sometimes dealing with very subtle variations in sound characteristics.
Well said! Being open-minded is so important, and it would reduce some of the bickering that can hijack some threads here.
Very true. Scientists are humans too, caught up in biases. Yet over time science as an undertaking of a whole community tends to correct itself.
In extreme instances this can take decades, unfortunately. I am still waiting for string theory to go bust. Meanwhile entire scientific careers have been spun around a hypothesis ("theory" is a misnomer here) that can neither be proven nor disproven and has split entire physics departments of universities. Just wait for the next higher collision energy in the particle collider, then a whole new world will open and finally string theory will be vindicated. Yeah, sure.
I guess in this case the problem is that the foundations of science when it comes to observation and observability have been cast aside. Same for the multiverse.
I'm familiar with the articles and links.The problem with this type of article, and Archimago's as well, is that skips mentioning an important fact, which is that clock performance is considerably degraded with noise.
Noise is inherent to digital audio.
Mechanism of Causing Electromagnetic Noise 2 | Noise Suppression Basic Course | Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
Murata's Products. - Mechanism of Causing Electromagnetic Noisewww.murata.com
The impact on clock performance is illustrated here (I've already mentioned this);
Is jitter an issue with usb signals ?
Funny how cables are still singled out when it comes to jitter. Nevermind that usb "jitter" doesn't matter at all with async. Nevermind that in the non-async modes, the timing of the host is probably worse by orders of magnitude that any deviation the cable could introduce. Nevermind that the...
"Graphs won’t tell you what audible advantages or disadvantages to expect, because these jitter graphs are based on single or dual test tones (fundamentals). Music is infinitely more complex, it has a fast changing dynamic spectrum that creates the biggest problems in any DAC. The jitter graph won’t cover this because it only shows the DAC jitter response with these test signals only, it doesn’t show what happens when the data content and spectrum are infinitely more complex"
More about issues in digital audio here:
Is jitter an issue with usb signals ?
Funny how cables are still singled out when it comes to jitter. Nevermind that usb "jitter" doesn't matter at all with async. Nevermind that in the non-async modes, the timing of the host is probably worse by orders of magnitude that any deviation the cable could introduce. Nevermind that the...
So all these discussions about clocks, noise, bits are bits, by amateurs like Archimago are totally useless and BS.
Archimago thinks noise is irrelevant because he measures sources with noise levels below audible levels. If you read those articles I mentioned you can see that this is laughable!
The irony, of course, is that Archimago poses as an "objectivist", while in fact he probably has no clue about the science behind what he is talking about.
Quoting the link I mentioned: "HF signals are not audible so why bother? The problem occurs when these modulated carrier waves get demodulated and then dump the contained audible interference right into the audio spectrum, like with a radio receiver. It only takes a single P-N junction to demodulate such amplitude modulated carrier."
No one really knows how to solve these issues. There is no perfect DAC.
Concerning clocks, you could imagine that in a poorly conceived DAC an external clock may be beneficial, despite the DAC's clock specs.
It is best not to get into these technical discussions, and just listen for yourself to various equipment.
I am sure you can enjoy music with the type of equipment that Archimago uses in his living room, but everyone enjoys music, and who really cares what he chooses to use?
"No one really knows how to solve these issues. There is no perfect DAC.
Concerning clocks, you could imagine that in a poorly conceived DAC an external clock may be beneficial, despite the DAC's clock specs.
It is best not to get into these technical discussions, and just listen for yourself to various equipment."
Agreed.
This article has probably been posted before.
This is why, for audio at least, I like the work around trying to correlate what listeners prefer or find less offensive with technical data. Looking for a model that fits from the data is an interesting pursuit, IMO. It acknowledges that raw numbers (lowest THD and IMD, for example) are not valid ends in themselves and it must be balanced against what listeners find better to listen to. I think scientists have less problems with this in general than engineers.
Good article, thanks. If we are curious about some solutions, within our budget, it's more valuable to seek out ways to experience them for ourselves than to waste time arguing on forums
I believe that point was made when the author stated:
"there are still plenty of vintage records (and some new productions) that are produced completely analog, and they are a pleasure to listen to."
It's clearly preference dependent. You see people switching from speakers to headphones (only), vice versa and there are people who appreciate both.
For me personally, the physical sensation is important, such as in a live performance.
Btw, are you the same hopkins who posted in the TDA1543 thread on diyaudio?
Speaking of multibit DACs, in regards to jitter, there's something about multibit/R-2R versus (early) computer-based audio versus modern USB.
Here's a quote from a company that goes to great lengths to reduce/eliminate jitter, noise and other unwanted disturbances:
"There is a fundamental difference between the way parallel multibit converters and the sigma/delta type work. The parallel type use a separate cascade of resistors and switches for each dynamic modulation of the audio signal, whereas the sigma/delta type (or one-bit, as they are also called), rely on a constant comparator to define changes in the audio signal's dynamic magnitude. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage of multibit conversion is that they are theoretically less susceptible to the influences of clock jitter. Their main disadvantages lie in their sensitivity to the influences of heat fluctuation.
The sigma/delta microchips have the advantage of being less sensitive to heat fluctuations, however, they react very readily to any amount of clock jitter."
Here's a quote from a company that goes to great lengths to reduce/eliminate jitter, noise and other unwanted disturbances:
"There is a fundamental difference between the way parallel multibit converters and the sigma/delta type work. The parallel type use a separate cascade of resistors and switches for each dynamic modulation of the audio signal, whereas the sigma/delta type (or one-bit, as they are also called), rely on a constant comparator to define changes in the audio signal's dynamic magnitude. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.
The main advantage of multibit conversion is that they are theoretically less susceptible to the influences of clock jitter. Their main disadvantages lie in their sensitivity to the influences of heat fluctuation.
The sigma/delta microchips have the advantage of being less sensitive to heat fluctuations, however, they react very readily to any amount of clock jitter."
I fully endorse this.
Anyone with some frame of reference sees through the non-scientific idealization of (limited) measurements, of which SINAD is probably the most obvious (~irrelevant).
Similar threads
