Its speculation - note 'possibly'. And I agree that the power supplies, I/V stage, filtering, buffering and transmission of the DAC's output matter more than the chip itself. That's not to say there aren't better and worse DAC chips though - some have flaws that just can't be cleaned up no matter how extreme the supporting circuitry.
MSB Select II arrival
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Its speculation - note 'possibly'. And I agree that the power supplies, I/V stage, filtering, buffering and transmission of the DAC's output matter more than the chip itself. That's not to say there aren't better and worse DAC chips though - some have flaws that just can't be cleaned up no matter how extreme the supporting circuitry.
I think there is a hierarchy in reproduced sound...at least IMHO. At the top is the analog tape, then there is vinyl and lastly there is digital. Whenever I listen to tape, I can immediately determine the faults in the same piece played back on vinyl, same goes for vinyl to digital. IME, tape has a certain projection of tone and dynamic that is superior to vinyl ( although I do think the very best vinyl is catching up here). Next is vinyl to digital ( and I have heard some of the best digital, including the MSB Select 11 and others). IME, the digital always has a certain "hardness" and/or lack of 'gestalt' ( yes, I know this is a much abused term, but in this instance and IME it is very applicable).
Digital is very "noise" dependent. I do not think the internal grounding scheme or shielding can remove all the interference necessary to make digital as good as possible. Digital can be very smooth,revealing and explosive.
Not "all" but I am certain you agree that good grounding and good power cords can really make digital sound "smooth, revealing and explosive."
Kind regards,
Tang
Yes noise control is the key to getting dynamic and fatigue-free digital, beginning right at the DAC (chip or module) itself. Seems that subjectively the sound is most appealing when strict noise hygiene is observed between digital and analog subsystems - I achieve this by fierce passive filtering of the DAC's output. I look forward to learning more about how MSB has conquered the noise endemic to DACs.
Yes,without the necessary amount digital will not achieve what it is capable of in performance.
Absolutely true
Filters have mathematics behind them, and the outcomes can clearly be predicted
As reconstruction filters can add artefacts backwards in time as well as forward
As I scroll thru different filters the effects are clearly audible
As you go up in computing power you can reiterate the function to smooth it out
This is the big breakthrough Chord have pushed
When I first heard their latest dacs I was impressed by the natural acoustic generated
Interesting mention of filterless DAC like audio note U.K.
One of the things often not mentioned in their dac was the completely separate ground planes of the analogue and digital sides
Something a friend of mine who modified them very extensively claimed was a big plus in their design
One of the interesting things mentioned but seemingly glossed over - that vinyl recorded to digital doesn't result in digititis - is this correct?
I believe investigating this might give a clue to what is underlying digititis which has noise at its core?
I believe investigating this might give a clue to what is underlying digititis which has noise at its core?
Ok, thanks for the correction.
Here's my take on some part of what might be happening - our auditory perception analyses & perceives certain types of noise as a background separate to the foreground music. This, I believe occurs if the noise is random (Gaussian). This is the sort of noise encountered in good tape & vinyl playback & because it is analysed as a separate entity, can easily be ignored when we focus on the foreground sound. As the noise moves away from random, it becomes more & more intrusive i.e. less easily ignored. The reason is found in ASA
According to Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA), auditory perception works by analysis & categorising of the auditory signals into auditory objects - one of which is what we term the background/room/ambience.
So what I mean by intrusive is that this noise is no longer categorised as background & now becomes a signal that our auditory perception tries to categorise as part of one of the existing auditory objects already determined as part of the auditory scene. It can't do this if the noise is between fully Gaussian & fully patterned i.e. if it is fluctuating. This inability to categorise the 'noise' leads to an unease & feeling of tiredness, digititis.
Most of what goes on in our auditory processing is not available to consciousness & readily examined - it has its effect but we don't recognise the origin of this effect.
Now it may be that digital is a victim of it's own success - it's noise floor as measured with standard measurements show exemplary low noise i.e there is a very low level of Gaussian noise. But if these measurements are failing to identify fluctuating noise but our auditory perception is then we have this dichotomy between measurement & perception. In a system with low Gaussian noise any fluctuations in noise will stick out as there is no perceived 'background noise' into which this fluctuation can be categorised.
Perhaps, in tape & vinyl, where there is a higher level of Gaussian noise, our auditory perception much more easily categorises any noise fluctuations as part of this ground noise? Think of dithering but at a much more macro level - a new term "macro dithering" - you heard it here first
Rather than poo-pooing the 'noise' of analogue & the superiority of digital noise level, as I've seen being done in the past, it may be pointing out how our auditory perception works & what is important to it.
my MSB Select II is grounded to the Tripoint Troy Signature, and the Tara Labs Grandmaster Evolution w/HFX dual grounding boxes.
I have not played around with taking that ground away, so I cannot comment right now on it's in or out contribution......except that it sounds great.
Ok, thanks for the correction.
Here's my take on some part of what might be happening - our auditory perception analyses & perceives certain types of noise as a background separate to the foreground music. This, I believe occurs if the noise is random (Gaussian). This is the sort of noise encountered in good tape & vinyl playback & because it is analysed as a separate entity, can easily be ignored when we focus on the foreground sound. As the noise moves away from random, it becomes more & more intrusive i.e. less easily ignored. The reason is found in ASA
According to Auditory Scene Analysis (ASA), auditory perception works by analysis & categorising of the auditory signals into auditory objects - one of which is what we term the background/room/ambience.
So what I mean by intrusive is that this noise is no longer categorised as background & now becomes a signal that our auditory perception tries to categorise as part of one of the existing auditory objects already determined as part of the auditory scene. It can't do this if the noise is between fully Gaussian & fully patterned i.e. if it is fluctuating. This inability to categorise the 'noise' leads to an unease & feeling of tiredness, digititis.
Most of what goes on in our auditory processing is not available to consciousness & readily examined - it has its effect but we don't recognise the origin of this effect.
Now it may be that digital is a victim of it's own success - it's noise floor as measured with standard measurements show exemplary low noise i.e there is a very low level of Gaussian noise. But if these measurements are failing to identify fluctuating noise but our auditory perception is then we have this dichotomy between measurement & perception. In a system with low Gaussian noise any fluctuations in noise will stick out as there is no perceived 'background noise' into which this fluctuation can be categorised.
Perhaps, in tape & vinyl, where there is a higher level of Gaussian noise, our auditory perception much more easily categorises any noise fluctuations as part of this ground noise? Think of dithering but at a much more macro level - a new term "macro dithering" - you heard it here first
Rather than poo-pooing the 'noise' of analogue & the superiority of digital noise level, as I've seen being done in the past, it may be pointing out how our auditory perception works & what is important to it.
Great post there! And I agree. Also there is the thought that some noise (tape hiss for example) can help us discern more detail and low level information. Don't ask me how, I just read that in various papers and some pro audio reviews.
But to me, my personal problem with this digititus thing as we are calling it is more simple than any of these things. It is a coarseness in the 10-15 Khz region. To break it down to descriptives, it sounds like a chain saw type noise as a recessed part of the details and some sibilance (very subtle but is there regardless). I have no real technical backup to prove this, but I wonder if it is caused by the digital filtering and / or up sampling? Hard hat donned for the blow back here! But anyway, that is my theory. The DACs I seem to relax with and enjoy the most (less stressful) seem to be the R-2R variants, and the ones I don't enjoy seem to be the DS variants. Huge caveat and I have not heard them all obviously, I am talking a round up of my demos.
If digital always has a certain "hardness" it means your digital playing system is not adequate and is affecting your ranking. Just to please my curiosity, which recordings existing in the three formats did you use for your evaluation?
Do you also share this opinion that some, not all, vinyl sourced from digital or having digital delay lines in the cutter do not induce "digititis"?
I do not have an opinion on this. I listen to vinyl I like (good recordings) on demos, the few times I heard DG digital (without knowing what it was) I haven't liked it. But I don't have a high sample size and haven't actively looked at this.
The select II has its only isolation base grounding system (connecting to power amp chaisis). The factory cable provided looks uninspiring though, so I replaced that with a DIY pure silver one (made by my brother).
Additional grounding gadgets could also help. I added a telos gnr active box, and an entreq silver minimus to it. Taking them out and it sounds a bit dry. I 'm sure Mike's Troy and GME are superb (way better than my stuff). BTW, I heard from others that if you ground your GME to entreq or bigger boxes it could improve further.
At the recent HK audio show, entreq had a new Olympus 10 anniversary mini box out (same size as silver minimum but said to have Olympus grade performance ~us$1500). That could be interesting...
Cheers
Additional grounding gadgets could also help. I added a telos gnr active box, and an entreq silver minimus to it. Taking them out and it sounds a bit dry. I 'm sure Mike's Troy and GME are superb (way better than my stuff). BTW, I heard from others that if you ground your GME to entreq or bigger boxes it could improve further.
At the recent HK audio show, entreq had a new Olympus 10 anniversary mini box out (same size as silver minimum but said to have Olympus grade performance ~us$1500). That could be interesting...
Cheers
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |