Great article on "Analogue Warmth"
- Thread starter Blizzard
- Start date
- Status
Based on my experiments with my chipless DAC, it's drastic going up to a better USB interface chip and clock. But I was unsatisfied with all the turn key OEM boards and went 100% custom with the XMOS Xcore chip.
I have no idea what that does. I played around with it, and when I realized it's just special effects software, I uninstalled. I like my audio pure and untouched.
Last edited:
Like I said before, you can usually get better results with a higher jitter clock located close to the DAC chip inside the DAC case. or chipless DSD low pass filters, than using a much lower jitter external clock. This is because the jitter specs are no longer that great by the time it runs through the cable and connectors, to the DAC chip. But it is a big money maker, as they can sell you another expensive box. They just have to ensure that the built in clocks are mediocre, so a big difference is experienced when you connect the external.
External clocks were created for the prosound world because of the need to clock sync multiple devices. In the audiophile world they are used to get more money out of you.
I saw a company called audiocom who mod oppo with a 37 femto second clock for the audio board. How much would a clock of this quality cost and how much better can clocks get than 37 femto seconds? Could one install these into a USB interface easily?
This whole "Femto second" talk is a bunch of BS. It's referring to a spec that's so far out of the audio range that it's irrelevant. But it sounds better because they can use the word "Femto". It's purely for marketing. What really matters for audible jitter for audio is the 10 and 1hz phase noise spec. A plot like I posted is what's required to know this. And also keep in mind even very good clocks can be +- 15db of phase noise from the published spec, so I wouldn't buy a clock that doesn't come certified as individually tested, with the phase noise plot of the actual clock you're buying.
Okay ta. Could you point me in the direction of a clock that would be sota? Not that I can get Lampi to agree to all this but can ask.
A very adroit and not completely unanticipated answer. Your intent is valid no matter what.. your assessment of SOTA is a different matter. It is demostrably false and can be demonstrated by a proper recording and stereo system (yes include the room in the definition of stereo system). As Ron pointed out here is where we descend into is an is not plagorund pushing and shoving argument . I wish that I couuld perform some sort of demo for you suchas the one Gary did when he hired the singer to perform at one of his shows.Certanly you can cite some examples in support of your point as can I. The name of this forum is What's best. I assume, I think correctly to pursue the "real thing"or the absolute sound. I suppose their are sub-goals and ou named a few.
In my mind only the pursuit if the absolute sound makes any sense.
I like this one. Doesn't look like a cross between a Rube Goldberg and a Las Vegas jewelry store.
Tim
Well the crystek 957 is a good readily available clock. Much better NDK's are available, but long lead time and minimum order quantities. All the best clocks are like that. Clocks are like precious gems, no 2 are the same, so they must be sorted and tested in order to really know the spec. For example, I'm only going to use the top 5% of a reel of 500 in my DAC's. Each one must be tested on a $100000 machine, and it's takes 2 hours to test each one! So I must buy a reel of 500 just to get 25 clocks. And I also have to pay to get all 500 tested and sorted. It's not cheap, and very few do this. But I want every DAC to sound identical.
Thanks. I also noticed that some of the diy brigade heavily shield these as they are very noisy?
Maybe from vibration isolation. You usually want it as close to what your clocking as possible. The good clocks aren't noisy, that why you choose one with low phase noise.
I was at a classical concert a couple of weeks back, only a few rows away from the stage, and I listened carefully for 'imaging'. As has been mentioned before, there was not much to speak of. Closing my eyes, I wouldn't have been able to tell you precisely where each instrument was left to right or front to back. If I had been able to move around the auditorium I am sure the sound would have changed. Some people were sitting close to walls, some under balconies, some on the balconies, people were further back than me, but higher up. They all hear a different sound, but I am confident that none of them sound 'wrong'. I think the conductor probably does hear a fairly good 'image'. I was struck by the 'warmness' and 'roundedness' of the acoustic, and I suspect the conductor hears something slightly less 'warm' - as has been mentioned, brass close up can sound harsh or positively distorted.
I know that what we hear in many recordings is different from the real thing: multiple microphones close to the instruments all mixed together with a dash of 'ambient' mic thrown in, but each microphone's output is individually linear and 'valid'. Mix them altogether and our brains simply accept it as an arrangement of instruments in an acoustic. Stereo from speakers isn't correct, because both ears hear both speakers anyway, but we are adept at filtering out the error. The upshot, for me, is that it works amazingly well and is a pretty good substitute for the real thing. In fact, I think it is superior much of the time simply because it provides 'the best seat in the house' - even if that seat doesn't really exist.
I would want to avoid the addition of "analogue warmth", though, because in doing so we are introducing intermodulation distortion that, for me, ruins the illusion of the acoustic. Also phase errors, timing errors, and frequency response inconsistencies all help to destroy the illusion.
I agree in principle. In a sense a good multi-miked recording really is 'the best seat in the house'. If I remember correctly, when the famous conductor Herbert von Karajan was once asked if a live concert is not the best, rather than a recording, he answered "For whom?". Yet I wouldn't want to miss regular live concerts, both for the experience and the reference of the real thing.
Warmth is indeed often, though not always, heard in the concert hall. Yet I agree, I wouldn't want that artificially added in the recording either. The timbre should not reflect any particular seat in the hall as if it would 'replicate an original event' (impossible), it should sound believable within the wide range of timbres heard in live settings.
Sigh it's like quicksand the more I struggle the deeper I get sucked im.
I think the topic in this thread is analogue warmth.
Solid Stae and digital have thier own distortions. Tube vinyl have thier own sidstortions. Bith have their attributes. So do the advantages contribute to the illusion of realism(musciality ) or distract from it. etc. Of course all music is analogue. The fact of the matter is that sterile and cold are attributable to certain types of devices . Many people want to equate cold and.steril to accurate and neutral. I feel sorry for you if you fall for it. You can walk to light any time you wish.
I think the topic in this thread is analogue warmth.
Solid Stae and digital have thier own distortions. Tube vinyl have thier own sidstortions. Bith have their attributes. So do the advantages contribute to the illusion of realism(musciality ) or distract from it. etc. Of course all music is analogue. The fact of the matter is that sterile and cold are attributable to certain types of devices . Many people want to equate cold and.steril to accurate and neutral. I feel sorry for you if you fall for it. You can walk to light any time you wish.
Agin why do you think warmth is an artificil additon? At the same time most never regard cold and sterile as such.
Ideally we make the best product we can an pick our poison.
Because for a good part it''s a general acoustic ambience due to the reflections of the sounds in the hall that, if I understand it correctly, may be lost, or partially lost, in close-up multi-miking and mixing of all those feeds back together. Therefore, 'adding it all back' would indeed be an artificial addition, or rather artificial modulation of timbre (e.g., a roll-off in high frequencies and/or boosting of lower midrange after capturing the sound linearly by close-miking). And no, the (partial) absence of that warmth does not imply that it should sound, or in fact does sound, 'cold' and 'sterile'. Neutral is not the same as cold and sterile.
There are concert hall acoustics that are rather cold, but musical all the same when the same musicians play whose playing sounds warm in other acoustics, but that is a different matter. 'Musical' is not the same as 'warm', even though warmth is often present in live acoustics.
Last edited:
Digital distortions are orders of magnitude lower than analog. And in some cases such as frequency response, non-existent. There is no equality there. Analog distortions can be easily demonstrated and proven to degrade the original signal in audible ways. Not so with digital. Even when we degrade digital with lossy compression, vasts majority of people have a hard time hearing those. We all however hear analog distortions such as increased noise floor, change of frequency response, etc.
I enjoy hours of my digital music experience. If something is sterile, it is in the recording. It is not because it is digital.
The only illusion to not fall for is thinking a less accurate recording process like analog, is more accurate at the end.
- Status
Similar threads
