Let's Get A Consensus Of The Best DAC's In The Market Today

[Bruce B]

Hi Bruce,

What do you think of the Lavry Gold DA924 compared to your top 10? I use one in my system alongwith an AD-122-96 Mk III (for analog sources) and Dirac Live. You are probably the only one here who has heard these!

The Lavry Gold was a great DAC and ADC..... 10yr. ago. Because it couldn't do over 96k was a non starter for me. If you only listen and record up to 96k, there's not a lot of PCM converters that can touch them! liked them better than the PM2, if that says anything.

 

[Elberoth]

As always, what matters with jitter is its spectrum and not numerical value. If MSB wants to advertise anything, it should be the measured spectrum, not such small numerical values that have little meaning beyond marketing.

And yet, the difference can be easily heard. The better the clock, the smoother, more rersolved and more dimensional the sound becomes.

I agree that giving the clock jitter figure without any freq range is totally useless.

I belive the Trinity DAC still has better clocks onboard than the $20k MSB 33 Femto clock option.

 

[Bruce B]

FWIW... I've never heard an outboard clock make a single converter sound better. I've tried everything from $200 clocks all the way up to the 10M Rubidium. And I don' think the external clock in the Vivaldi system makes it sound better either!
Now if you're trying to make 2 or more converters play well in a system, then an external clock is almost mandatory!

 

[jeromelang]

What does it mean to "make a converter sound better"

Puts it in another way - how do we define "better" when comparing between different dacs?

 

[Bruce B]

What does it mean to "make a converter sound better"

Puts it in another way - how do we define "better" when comparing between different dacs?

For me, closer to the source. I have the original source and I want my digital as close to the source as I can get it!

 

[amirm]

And yet, the difference can be easily heard.

Well no. We are told there are two differences: one is what is heard as you say. And the other, half the femotseconds worth of jitter. I am saying there is no reason to state the second one as it has no technical/objective meaning. It is "star trek" language meant to impress the uninitiated.

The better the clock, the smoother, more rersolved and more dimensional the sound becomes.

Maybe . I am not going to dispute what chocolate tastes like to you. I am here to say that changing the sugar content of chocolate from 1% to 1.00000000000001% is not indicative of a sweeter chocolate .

Would your views of one having more dimensional sound change if they had not given numerical jitter values?

I agree that giving the clock jitter figure without any freq range is totally useless.

Now you are speaking my language .

 

[jeromelang]

For me, closer to the source. I have the original source and I want my digital as close to the source as I can get it!

What source is that?

 

[Jeffy]

I just had a friend report to me that he listened to a Keith Jarrett record and a cd of the same performance. Both were remastered and done the same year. This was an all digital recording made in 1982. He said the record sounded better. Has anyone else tried this with all DDD recordings? I can't understand this as I would think the CD should be better.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

there are many Classical Deutsche Grammophon digital recordings from the late 70's and early 80's where you have an Lp sounding much better than the CD. i have many other examples.

i have at least a few hundred Lps which have a digital source and at least 50 of those where i have both Lps and Cd's where the recording was originally digital. some are mastered to analog tape and some are mastered to a digital medium.

95% of the Lps with a digital source sound better than the CD (or SACD), and mostly much better.

but really; the reality is that it's hard to know what degree of care the CD was mastered with compared to the Lp......so anecdotal experiences don't ultimately prove anything.

but my 'opinion' is that the Lp mastering and playback format simply sounds better. some will say that the Lp adds coloration that people like. i say that the Lp is more complete.....but is not as 'clean' as digital. clean is way overrated. accuracy at a point in time means little when you don't have all the points......

 

[Audiophile Bill]

there are many Classical Deutsche Grammophon digital recordings from the late 70's and early 80's where you have an Lp sounding much better than the CD. i have many other examples.

i have at least a few hundred Lps which have a digital source and at least 50 of those where i have both Lps and Cd's where the recording was originally digital. some are mastered to analog tape and some are mastered to a digital medium.

95% of the Lps with a digital source sound better than the CD (or SACD), and mostly much better.

but really; the reality is that it's hard to know what degree of care the CD was mastered with compared to the Lp......so anecdotal experiences don't ultimately prove anything.

but my 'opinion' is that the Lp mastering and playback format simply sounds better. some will say that the Lp adds coloration that people like. i say that the Lp is more complete.....but is not as 'clean' as digital. clean is way overrated.

Hi Mike,

Very interesting about the DG Lps - I have always found this too and could never understand it. Just so I understand, are you saying that the mastering of the cd and lp is different despite coming from same digital master?

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Hi Mike,

Very interesting about the DG Lps - I have always found this too and could never understand it. Just so I understand, are you saying that the mastering of the cd and lp is different despite coming from same digital master?

no. i'm saying that mostly we don't know about how the recordings are mastered. on the DG's it does say digital recording. but it could be mastered to tape. does that give the Lp a head start? maybe. would the CD be better or worse if it was kept all digital? it's a question.

I do agree with Bruce that generally it's best to stay native with a format. but there are so many variables.

 

[amirm]

I just had a friend report to me that he listened to a Keith Jarrett record and a cd of the same performance. Both were remastered and done the same year. This was an all digital recording made in 1982. He said the record sounded better. Has anyone else tried this with all DDD recordings? I can't understand this as I would think the CD should be better.

I did careful blind listening tests of some Chesky SACD titles against DVD-A and found the SACD to sound better. I then asked David Chesky why and he said the original master was the DVD-A and the SACD was a conversion of it! So I think we are hearing transformations of music that are more europhonic to us. I imagine the process of mastering for LP and CD have a lot to do with the preferences that are formed.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter at some level why one sounds better in this regard. If it does, then that version of the format is the winner. As long as we don't try to explain the "why," that is all that matters .

 

[marslo]

" I imagine the process of mastering for LP and CD has a lot to do with the preferences that are formed"

Very true and key issue imo , I would add " the process of mastering and hearing"
I believe our preferences are not stable, we all get older and our brain learn and accommodate.
It's why mature people like horns

 

[sujay]

Hi, I must say, it does defy logic that a LP cut from a digital master should sound better than the CD.....though I am quite thrilled to hear that given my recent foray into analog. In the same breath I have noticed that some of the digital downloads through my server sound worse than the remastered CDs.

Cheers

Sujay

 

[Jeffy]

I think if those same digital masters were done in the 24/192 format then this would probably beat the record. The record may hold more information than the regular cd.

 

[bmoura]

I did careful blind listening tests of some Chesky SACD titles against DVD-A and found the SACD to sound better. I then asked David Chesky why and he said the original master was the DVD-A and the SACD was a conversion of it! So I think we are hearing transformations of music that are more europhonic to us. I imagine the process of mastering for LP and CD have a lot to do with the preferences that are formed.

Ultimately though, it doesn't matter at some level why one sounds better in this regard. If it does, then that version of the format is the winner. As long as we don't try to explain the "why," that is all that matters .

Depends on the Chesky album. My understanding is that some of the early ones were DSD recorded while the later ones were PCM recorded. So the original recording of the later titles were probably from a 24/96 PCM tape vs. a DVD-A disc. And some DVD Audio titles used copy protection (that some found audible) and MLP "lossless packing" which also could provide different results than the 24/96 file played directly.

Could a 24/96 PCM tape create a better SACD than a DVD Audio disc, who knows?

 

[amirm]

Depends on the Chesky album. My understanding is that some of the early ones were DSD recorded while the later ones were PCM recorded.

This was some of the first ever SACD/DVD-A releases as the formats launched. Editing tools for DSD were non-existent and hence the capture and edit in PCM and conversion to DSD on the process of creating the SACD. Again, this came from David Chesky himself.

So the original recording of the later titles were probably from a 24/96 PCM tape vs. a DVD-A disc.

Tape? I don't think so. The recording was done on an audio workstation I am sure. Either way though, the bit stream is identical PCM.

Could a 24/96 PCM tape create a better SACD than a DVD Audio disc, who knows?

As I mentioned, this was the case. It was not as much of a better disc but rather, the end result through a different (SACD) DAC that seemed to sound better to me.

 

[bmoura]

Either way though, the bit stream is identical PCM.

Is the bit stream identical if MLP packing and DVD Audio copy protection are used on a DVD-A disc? It depends on how transparent, or not, those processes are.

 

[amirm]

Those processes are transparent. Indeed an file you download has some sort of wrapper around the PCM whether it is FLAC, WAV, WMA Lossless, ALAC, etc.

Or I should say that they are transparent for all but the worst designed DACs/playback systems.

 

[cjfrbw]

I have been reading this thread with some bemusement, since I have been out of the "digital game" for so long. I have been happy for over ten years with the DACs in my Yamaha RX Z9. I know that the occasional visitor is impressed by the digital playback even compared to the vinyl rig.

Is there anything that becomes obsolete/doorstop faster than a so called state of the art DAC at any price?

I just recently upgraded the AVR preamp section to the Yamaha CX-A5000. The Sabre dacs sound incisive and ethereal. However, being a permanent fan of surround mode, I am on the same page as Dallasjustice in thinking that the DSP modes are going to make or break the ultimate performance. Much of the improvement in the new Yamaha seems to be it's ability to process huge amounts of information to create very dense sound fields, and the improvements in YPAO adjustments. The plain ole dacs in straight stereo mode sound better to me than the state of the art stuff I heard ten years ago.

It does streaming and I can listen to 128 KBS stuff streamed from my mini mac with satisfaction.