Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?

[Phelonious Ponk]

Al M.,

If we were playing Topfschlagen, I would be saying HOT at this moment.

Can I tell you I find curious that most people are prepared to accept they do not understand it all when they debate sound quality, but once it involves bits almost everyone is an expert. It looks so simple ...

BTW, I also could have said HOT sometime ago when you referred to Spectral, but I was absent minded. And perhaps it could be used against my point!

If it were simple, so many people wouldn't get it so wrong.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

Tim, the DAC1 is $995, the DAC2 (a different animal, and the one under discussion here) is $1795.

My point (which I thought was self-evident, sorry) was that there are always incrementally diminishing returns as the price rises. That doesn't mean that the more expensive item isn't demonstrably better, it's just a question of how much better. BTW, I don't have the measurements for the Benchmark, Auralic Vega and dcs Vivaldi in front of me (I don't think they are all on-line yet), and I wasn't commiting them to memory when I initially read them, but despite statements to the contrary by others my impression was that on measurements alone the ranking was the same as by sound, i.e., dcs, Auralic, Benchmark.

The point-of-view at which my original post was directed is that hardware/firmware implementation of digital audio theory is near-perfect. I still don't think that is true, neither by measurements nor by audible "evidence". But that's just my belief, although I think I came to that belief using available evidence. If you follow my posts or look at my profile, you know I have no attraction to "LP sound", I'm pretty firmly in the digital camp. That doesn't mean I don't things there can't improve.

Edit: all the reviews are on-line, I'm going to look at them now. Upon further review, I would say overall the 3 units measure pretty much the same.

 

[Al M.]

Just because we can't measure everything doesn't mean we shouldn't try to measure things. If people feel there is some effect we can't currently measure, the first step is to verify that the effect really exists. Despite all the shortcomings, double-blind, controlled ABX is still the best tool we have for determining if a difference exists at all (ABX is useless for determining which one is *better* - that is a different issue). Once we establish the effect exists, we can (and should) try to devise methods for measuring it.

Sure, that would be the scientific approach that should be used. I am certainly convinced that we do not measure everything yet that can be measured. That is the case in any science, so I don't see why it should be different in audio engineering. Curiosity should win over complacency.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, nothing wrong with the picture that marketing did not create in the first place! And, IMO, while our gear can measure the same every day, our ears and ear/brain interface are so fickle that on no two days can it agree against any hearing tests when we factor in our moods, time of day etc.

We are the variable. We like to buy new toys. Notice when you go to audio shows, that you can go into 70 rooms and only like 3 of them, and the gear can range from $5K total to $200K total, and price is not the issue. (there are variables here of course, as in not having your head in a vice, but if you dont do that then ALL bets are off anyway).

Ego mastubation is a part of this too. And, how stuff looks and how it is built too. And, for those who really understand, how things are put together under the hood. How things are put together can draw a premium for satisfaction of ownership, another variable.

How come new references every few years? Market churn. You have got to be kept feeling you are somehow out of the loop, are missing something....yeah, other than source and speakers, your missing a change in tonal color..thats about it.

There are some techical differences in circuit topology, but implementation of same types should not cause huge price differences

And, the biggest one of all.......folks are willing to pay, in any hobbyist thing....a lot of money for a true OR percieved upgrade..not matter how obscure or virtually inaudible. I think its called pride of ownership for which I dont think there is a top dollar limit!

Yep.

Tim

 

[esldude]

Sure, that would be the scientific approach that should be used. I am certainly convinced that we do not measure everything yet that can be measured. That is the case in any science, so I don't see why it should be different in audio engineering. Curiosity should win over complacency.

Oh I agree we might not measure everything important. But we get most of it.

Another thing is this oft repeated idea we measure with sine waves and not complex music with its transients. Well, just take the two tone IMD test. It goes from nothing to max volume, with right at max possible transients 1000 times every second. There is no music that stresses a system with a signal like that. The other regular tests were chosen to flesh out the envelope of performance of a piece of gear too. Music, despite imaginations to the contrary, doesn't push those edges of the envelope as much as test signals.

You also can do difference testing of gear, and you find music doesn't leave as much residual as the tougher test signals.

Or you can do multi-tone, multi-level testing. That is one of the things Spectral does. A series of high frequency tones spaced I think 500 hz apart and see if anything turns up elsewhere. Something I have done just messing around, digitally notch out an area, maybe a 1 khz band in different places. Then play and record the music with that notch in it. See if undesired signal intrudes above the noise floor in that notch from the rest of the music. I typically don't find anything at all.

According to Fourier any waveform can be constructed from sine waves. Music fits this idea. It is only a series of sine waves. Testing with sine wave makes plenty of sense.

 

[Al M.]

cause they need you to believe in magic so you will perpetually buy new devices,

I don't believe in magic, I believe my ears.

Also, I don't perpetually buy new devices. My speakers (albeit modified and re-foamed) and my Tice power conditioner are 23 years old, and so are my amps -- these have been heavily upgraded over the years though, and the latest upgrade with external power supplies two months ago has been a smash. My CD transport is 20 years old and will soon be replaced for the only reason that it is dying and spare parts are not available anymore. I upgraded my DAC from an also 20 year old Wadia DAC only because I needed a digital volume control (long story) -- but I am glad I did. My Monster cables are more than 20 years old as well.

The purchase of a REL subwoofer 14 years ago and of acoustic room treatment over the last 2 years were additions, not replacements.

I am in this hobby for quality sound reproduction, not for perpetually new toys to play with.

***

By the way, can someone tell me if the NAD M51 and the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 measure identical or highly similar? If so, I would have a story to tell.

 

[esldude]

http://www.stereophile.com/content/dcs-vivaldi-digital-playback-system-measurements

http://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac2-hgc-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-measurements

http://www.stereophile.com/content/electrocompaniet-classic-ecd-2-da-processor-measurements

Here are the test results pages if anyone wishes to look them over.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac1-usb-da-processor-headphone-amplifier-measurements

This is one for the 2003 Benchmark. I do believe though some tests are the same, that since then the FFT size may have changed for others. So some measurements are not directly comparable. Larger FFT sizes will show lower levels of noise in narrower channels, and graphs of that will look better than earlier smaller FFT results.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac1-usb-da-processor-headphone-amplifier-measurements

Other than pride of ownership, and build quality, it is hard to see what your $80k plus is buying sound quality wise versus the $2k Benchmark, DA, headphone, pre-amp or the $3100 Electrocompaniet DAC both of which measure in some ways better than the DCS, and aren't far behind it in any category other than price. All three are also within spitting distance of theoretical perfection in a measured sense for a digital system.

 

[esldude]

I don't believe in magic, I believe my ears.

Also, I don't perpetually buy new devices. My speakers (albeit modified and re-foamed) and my Tice power conditioner are 23 years old, and so are my amps -- these have been heavily upgraded over the years though, and the latest upgrade with external power supplies has been a smash. My CD transport is 20 years old and will soon be replaced for the only reason that it is dying and spare parts are not available anymore. I upgraded my DAC from an also 20 year old Wadia DAC only because I needed a digital volume control (long story) -- but I am glad I did. My Monster cables are more than 20 years old as well.

The purchase of a REL subwoofer 14 years ago and of acoustic room treatment over the last 2 years were additions, not replacements.

I am in this hobby for quality sound reproduction, not for perpetually new toys to play with.

***

By the way, can someone tell me if the NAD M51 and the Berkeley Alpha DAC 2 measure identical or highly similar? If so, I would have a story to tell.

Don't know of measurements of the BADA that are online. The NAD 51 measures very well, but does have some anomalies in the IMD results and noise floor at higher signal levels. It is possibly not audible, but it is a ways from the theoretical results something like the dCS gets close to.

 

[Al M.]

Don't know of measurements of the BADA that are online. The NAD 51 measures very well, but does have some anomalies in the IMD results and noise floor at higher signal levels. It is possibly not audible, but it is a ways from the theoretical results something like the dCS gets close to.

Here are some BADA measurements:

http://www.normanaudio.com/files/reviews/Berkeley Audio - Alpha DAC - Australian HiFi.pdf

I don't know how this compares with the NAD M51.

 

[GaryProtein]

. . . . I am in this hobby for quality sound reproduction, not for perpetually new toys to play with. . . .

Me too! I'm interested in the music.

 

[esldude]

Here are some BADA measurements:

http://www.normanaudio.com/files/reviews/Berkeley Audio - Alpha DAC - Australian HiFi.pdf

I don't know how this compares with the NAD M51.

Thanks for those.

SNR on 44.1/16 bit material seemed subpar. Was fine at 48/24. IMD and channel separation was less than others we have been discussing though I doubt the difference would be audible it is measurably different. Power supply noise was also higher than the three DACs above in the thread. So the BADA and NAD 51 have some measurable differences at least.

 

[Al M.]

Me too! I'm interested in the music.

Yes, high-quality reproduction of the music I love is my goal. That is also why I don't understand the whole hi-res craze (even if it would sound better, and perhaps it does). Almost all my music is available on CD only, and I am not interested in playing the same 20 hi-res files over and over again. I choose the music, I refuse to let the format choose the music for me.

 

[Al M.]

Thanks for those.

SNR on 44.1/16 bit material seemed subpar. Was fine at 48/24. IMD and channel separation was less than others we have been discussing though I doubt the difference would be audible it is measurably different. Power supply noise was also higher than the three DACs above in the thread. So the BADA and NAD 51 have some measurable differences at least.

Thanks for that. So which one measures better, the NAD or the BADA?

For the record best DAC I have had ears on is a BADA. Kind of low end compared to these $20-250K DACs. So I wonder what would I hear if I heard a $20K DAC, and didn't know that is what I was listening to?

So the best against which other DACs that you listened to?

 

[microstrip]

Tim, nothing wrong with the picture that marketing did not create in the first place! And, IMO, while our gear can measure the same every day, our ears and ear/brain interface are so fickle that on no two days can it agree against any hearing tests when we factor in our moods, time of day etc.

We are the variable. We like to buy new toys. Notice when you go to audio shows, that you can go into 70 rooms and only like 3 of them, and the gear can range from $5K total to $200K total, and price is not the issue. (there are variables here of course, as in not having your head in a vice, but if you dont do that then ALL bets are off anyway).

Ego mastubation is a part of this too. And, how stuff looks and how it is built too. And, for those who really understand, how things are put together under the hood. How things are put together can draw a premium for satisfaction of ownership, another variable.

How come new references every few years? Market churn. You have got to be kept feeling you are somehow out of the loop, are missing something....yeah, other than source and speakers, your missing a change in tonal color..thats about it.

There are some techical differences in circuit topology, but implementation of same types should not cause huge price differences

And, the biggest one of all.......folks are willing to pay, in any hobbyist thing....a lot of money for a true OR percieved upgrade..not matter how obscure or virtually inaudible. I think its called pride of ownership for which I dont think there is a top dollar limit!

Tom,

IMHO this is a very distorted and bitter view of the high-end and of the considerable sound reproduction progress that was made during the last decades.
I am sorry for those who build their opinions on internet, audioshows and reading reports about them. They just see the show-off, surely dominated by marketing and even conspiracy to create an image, and will not experience the good, sometimes great moments of this hobby.

 

[treitz3]

I choose the music, I refuse to let the format choose the music for me.

Hello, Al. That's signature material right there. Nice.

Tom

 

[Al M.]

I don't believe in magic, I believe my ears.

By the way, I also don't believe in reviews. Some reviews are fun and/or interesting to read but I only believe what I hear.

 

[Al M.]

Hello, Al. That's signature material right there. Nice.

Tom

Hehe, thanks Tom. I guess you just gave me an idea . . .

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, the DAC1 is $995, the DAC2 (a different animal, and the one under discussion here) is $1795.

My point (which I thought was self-evident, sorry) was that there are always incrementally diminishing returns as the price rises. That doesn't mean that the more expensive item isn't demonstrably better, it's just a question of how much better. BTW, I don't have the measurements for the Benchmark, Auralic Vega and dcs Vivaldi in front of me (I don't think they are all on-line yet), and I wasn't commiting them to memory when I initially read them, but despite statements to the contrary by others my impression was that on measurements alone the ranking was the same as by sound, i.e., dcs, Auralic, Benchmark.

The point-of-view at which my original post was directed is that hardware/firmware implementation of digital audio theory is near-perfect. I still don't think that is true, neither by measurements nor by audible "evidence". But that's just my belief, although I think I came to that belief using available evidence. If you follow my posts or look at my profile, you know I have no attraction to "LP sound", I'm pretty firmly in the digital camp. That doesn't mean I don't things there can't improve.

Edit: all the reviews are on-line, I'm going to look at them now. Upon further review, I would say overall the 3 units measure pretty much the same.

Yep. And I'm not trying to say there is no room for improvement in the digital realm. What I am trying to say is that, by all objective measures, these three products are at equity. And by any reasonable judgement, they are closely comparable. The difference in value, in technology, in performance is negligible. The least of them would be the most transparent link in almost any consumer audio chain. But the difference in price is massive, absurd, punitive. Who buys this stuff? Why? They need an intervention.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Sure, that would be the scientific approach that should be used. I am certainly convinced that we do not measure everything yet that can be measured. That is the case in any science, so I don't see why it should be different in audio engineering. Curiosity should win over complacency.

Al M.,

A simple answer - money and time! High-end audio is a very competitive business, and once a manufacturer establishes a certain number of measurements that correlate with the type of sound he wants for his equipment he is not eager to publish or share with the competition. Usually they release a few insights for marketing purposes, but keep the critical aspects locked. Look for interviews with statements of designers like Keith Johnson of Spectral, Ralph Karten of Atmasphere, Bret d'Agostino of MSC, and many others. But we can not expect to find their recipes for DIY people.

People should look into the long manuals of the latest versions of the very powerful Audio Precision analyzers and the suites of measurements they allow. Enough to keep an audio engineer busy for long decades ... Do you expect Stereophile to hire a team of PhD experts to develop and carry new measurements?

 

[microstrip]

I don't believe in magic, I believe my ears. (...)

Then your brain will tell you your ears are believing in magic ...

I will give you an example quoted from The Spectral DMA-400 MonauralReference Amplifier
The Quest for Superior Amplification Devices
Keith O. Johnson, Director of Engineering

" In developing new and advanced amplifier topologies,
we are constantly researching available semiconductor
transistors for premium devices which will be superior
in Spectral high-speed analog applications, including
a new generation of SMT transistors. Many of
these surface mount semiconductors we could use for
new designs have quicker responses and possess
excellent amplification potential, yet their inclusion
into carefully designed Spectral circuits would not live
up to our expectations. Many were found to damage
resolution and clarity."

Do you think that any of the consumer magazines measurements will show these differences?

You can read the very interesting full text at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspectralaudio.com%2Fbulletins%2FBulletin%25200912.pdf&ei=R8_uUrugG6TQygPQlID4CQ&usg=AFQjCNEeALYppNvHoFuC-NYUs6aLRR6pmQ&bvm=bv.60444564,d.d2k