Non Oversampling DACs versus High Rez Hype

[LL21]

Now your'e making too much sense, Opus111 & someone will jump in a "prove" mathematically that S-D DACs measure better than NOS DACs, ignoring, of course, what you just said about CURRENT measurements not being a good indicator of what's important, sonically! I just thought I would say this before the inevitable posts start - it just might help improve the signal to noise ratio?

+1!

 

[LL21]

From what I've read about the design, the Zanden is somewhat detracting from the voice of the TDA1541A. So I take it you'd like to hear more of the DAC, allowing less to get in the way of that.



The answer to that first question is 'Yes, for redbook CD source material'. The TDA is too noisy only for hi-res material (though some of that still has a noise above the DAC, being transcribed from RBCD or analog tape). RBCD's inherent noise (due to being 16bits) is comfortably above the DAC's own noise.



Not a dumb question - the only dumb questions are the ones asked not for curiosity's sake

THANK YOU!!!!! Wow, that is really helpful!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

View attachment 3936View attachment 3935

ACtually, a caricature does not put the same filter on every picture...it simply focuses on capturing a very different part of the person...an Al Hirschfeld caricature is an extreme example...but Al Hirschfeld captures far more of a person than a police mug shot of the same individual.

Now i am NOT condoning we go ahead and use caricatures as an appropriate direct analogy for audio. But i AM using it to illustrate the point that there may be elements of SET/NOS or caricatures...or paintings that capture something you cannot measure with a ruler, but that yOU CAN measure somehow else...that still relates directly back to the original recording/tape.

For example, some of us having probably seen those huge pixelated photos (examples above)...somehow the human brain knows it is Albert Einstein. I leave the other one anonymous but anyone can easily google it if need be or PM me. It is remarkable...the brain clearly is picking something up that can recognize these individuals with a blob...one could not possibly measure that photo and say accurate...but the brain KNOWS who it is.

By measurements, a computer would clearly tell us there is NO way we should know anything about who these people are. The measurements would be ridiculously bad. Off the charts bad. But our brains know. Thus, our brains are measuring something or picking something up we have not yet measured that can assimilate certain video or audio cues.

Coming back to your analogy of painting...then the question still applies, and one could easily take a photo of someone...and none of us would recognize that person standing right next to us. And you might have the right painting and be able to pick that person out of a moving crowd of 25.

I think we're really torturing this analogy, but I'll play: The photograph, or painting, is the recording. If it is a competent picture and you can't recognize the piece in the recording (or the person in the picture) that probably has to do with the performance (Was the subject's back turned? Did they change the time and arrangement of the piece?). If it is a familiar piece, as familiar as those two pictures above, it would take overwhelming distortion to render it unrecognizable. The playback system is the print. Is it desirable for the print to reproduce the original as closely as possible? It is to me. But it seems there are some who like their prints, and playback systems, to alter the color and/or texture of the image. They like it better that way. Some even believe that distorting the original makes it more like the original.

That strikes me as somewhere between nonsensical and presumptuous. But all I have to do with that is simply not listen to that kind of system.

Tim

 

[jkeny]

Lloydelee21 makes a good point about our brains being excellent pattern matching devices & I sense that this is the kernel of the argument.

Let's start with the agreed concept that stereo audio is an attempt at recreating an illusion of a 3 dimensional audio performance.

As can be seen from those heavily pixelated images of the Mona Lisa & Einstein - our brains are excellent at picking out familiar patterns. (I don't think I've ruined the puzzle for anyone )In fact if anyone ever took LSD they will know that our brains are constantly making visual patterns out of what we see - it's just that in normal perception we filter this out from the concious part of the brain

So maybe SET & NOS give us enough of that pattern for our brains to lock onto & no extraneous distracting information whereas Amps & S-D DACs which rely heavily on feed back for linearity, give us lots more accurate detail but also some elements which jar & distract our brains from always locking onto this pattern/illusion of the event.

So it's not the accuracy of the reproduction that's actually important (as we happily fill in the gaps anyway - we probably even like to do this?) but the absence of distractions that's important! It's the distractions that jar us from our brain happily recreating the illusion & snaps us back to a more analytical, "what's wrong" part of our thinking. BTW, some say that this is what is the problem with A/B testing - it's a different part of the brain being exercised!

What these distractions might be are yet to be discovered (& measured) but it again goes back to a thorough understanding of psychoacoustics - something which is on-going research, I believe!
So, yes current measurements misses these possible distractions which I contend may be either at a very low level or may be simply a mis-correlation between a number of elements that we currently tend to measure independently - like frequency & timing for instance?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Lloydelee21 makes a good point about our brains being excellent pattern matching devices & I sense that this is the kernel of the argument.

Let's start with the agreed concept that stereo audio is an attempt at recreating an illusion of a 3 dimensional audio performance.

As can be seen from those heavily pixelated images of the Mona Lisa & Einstein - our brains are excellent at picking out familiar patterns. (I don't think I've ruined the puzzle for anyone )

So maybe SET & NOS give us enough of that pattern for our brains to lock onto & no extraneous distracting information whereas Amps & S-D DACs which rely heavily on feed back for linearity, give us lots more accurate detail but also some elements which jar & distract our brains from always locking onto this pattern/illusion of the event.

So it's not the accuracy of the reproduction that's actually important (as we happily fill in the gaps anyway - we probably even like to do this?) but the absence of distractions that's important! It's the distractions that jar us from our brain happily recreating the illusion & snaps us back to a more analytical, "what's wrong" part of our thinking. BTW, some say that this is what is the problem with A/B testing - it's a different part of the brain being exercised!

What these distractions might be are yet to be discovered (& measured) but it again goes back to a thorough understanding of psychoacoustics - something which is on-going research, I believe!
So, yes current measurements misses these possible distractions which I contend may be either at a very low level or may be simply a mis-correlation between a number of elements that we currently tend to measure independently - like frequency & timing for instance?

This is where I suppose I become the subjectivist. Analog's colorations (and I put NOS DACs in that camp) certainly don't obscure the pattern for me but they are a distraction. When I listen to euphonic tube amps/pres, particularly when I listen to vinyl, there's this stuff in there, fattening the music, filling the gaps...filler...ever-present, much more pleasant than tinnitus, but similar in its effect. I don't like it. To me it is exactly what you describe above; extraneous. It is in digital well-done that I hear the absence of distractions. These digital distortions you guys are always talking about? Perhaps I've talked myself out of them, but they don't distract me. Like all the test equipment, all the measurements we have available here in 2012...I don't hear them.

YMMV.

Tim

 

[LL21]

Gents,

I FULLY appreciate your actually taking the time to bear through what i admit is a radical way of trying to pick out one point about NOS, SET, SS, linearity, etc.

The point i was trying to illustrate in the 2 low-pixel images...is that there is something i do not know how to measure that my brain does...and PERFECTLY measures enough to know that is the Mona Lisa and Einstein.

I TOTALLY agree with you, Tim, that linearity on an absolute basis is important...purposely distorting the signal itself cannot in and of itself be right. However, the point i am trying to make is that clearly there IS something 'correct and accurate' in those low-pixel images...otherwise we would not recognize them.

thus the NIRVANA of audio...would be to provide BOTH the linearity we DO/CAN Measure AND the 'unknown element' we cannot measure which the low-pixel images also get perfectly correct...and which, i am suggesting, perhaps SET/NOS DACs also get right...but for which we dont yet have a measurement.

If we did have such a measurement for this element, we might even find some perfectly linear equipment might actually perform very badly on this other test...and only when that linear equipment is re-designed to improve its performance on this other test, might it satisfy those of us who 'hear'/care about whatever un-measurable element we hear in the NOS/SETs...and also satisfy those who hear/care about the linearity which we can measure today.

 

[jkeny]

This is where I suppose I become the subjectivist. Analog's colorations (and I put NOS DACs in that camp) certainly don't obscure the pattern for me but they are a distraction. When I listen to euphonic tube amps/pres, particularly when I listen to vinyl, there's this stuff in there, fattening the music, filling the gaps...filler...ever-present, much more pleasant than tinnitus, but similar in its effect.

What are you comparing to & saying that it is fattening the presentation - to digital, to your memory of real instruments, voices?

I don't like it. To me it is exactly what you describe above; extraneous. It is in digital well-done that I hear the absence of distractions.

These distractions are not always concious but you know that people have often talked about an unease when listening to some digital - yet they can't put their finger on a problem that they are hearing! It's these issues that are perhaps the problems - it's how our mind is distracted away from our enjoyment of the emotion within the music (even at a subconcious level) that eventually tires us & leaves an unease

These digital distortions you guys are always talking about? Perhaps I've talked myself out of them, but they don't distract me. Like all the test equipment, all the measurements we have available here in 2012...I don't hear them.

YMMV.

Tim

But Tim, that's the point - you are not a piece of equipment - equipment doesn't hear & doesn't want to get anything from the music - an emotion, a surprise, an interesting twist to a well known tune, a return to a theme within the music, a memory of a past event, etc. What we get from music is far more than any piece of equipment & it's because we have a brain! Maybe this is the connection that more attention should be paid to - how we process the music & what may interrupt or cause this processing to tire us?

I guess, in summary, what I'm saying is that it's not the stuff that is accurately reproduced that is important - it's the stuff that shouldn't be there that is more important & needs to be categorised

 

[opus111]

Analog's colorations (and I put NOS DACs in that camp) certainly don't obscure the pattern for me but they are a distraction.

Certainly a NOS DAC with the sin(x)/x frequency response roll-off uncorrected counts as coloured. Have you ever listened to a NOS which has a corrected frequency response? I was just wondering if you had, whether you perceived it as coloured?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I TOTALLY agree with you, Tim, that linearity on an absolute basis is important...purposely distorting the signal itself cannot in and of itself be right. However, the point i am trying to make is that clearly there IS something 'correct and accurate' in those low-pixel images...otherwise we would not recognize them.

At this point we're discussing your analogy, not audio, but I'm cool with that. The something that is correct and accurate in those low pixel images is the familiarity of the images themselves. Give me a painting I'd never seen before, a photograph I don't know, and I'd hardly know what I was looking at....

thus the NIRVANA of audio...would be to provide BOTH the linearity we DO/CAN Measure AND the 'unknown element' we cannot measure which the low-pixel images also get perfectly correct

...which means there is no "unknown element" in the reproduction of the images. It is, in fact, what is known about them that makes them identifiable through the distortion. It is no different than my ability to enjoy Born to Run through the distortions of my car radio, or recognize it, even when the station won't quite lock in and crackling and fuzzing and fading in and out. I still know Born To Run is in there.

I don't believe in the unknown element, John. YMMV. I believe you either enjoy your distortions, accept them, or you endeavor to eliminate them, and the "unknown element" is just a justification of them. Turning a love of salt on everything into a nouvelle cuisine. YMMV on that one as well, but I know the distortions in my systems well; I know which ones I enjoy, which ones I've decided to tolerate and which ones I'd love to vanquish.

None of this means that my choices don't have their own distortions which I have rationalized away. I'm not immune to my own biases.

What are you comparing to & saying that it is fattening the presentation - to digital, to your memory of real instruments, voices?

Probably both, but I'm a working musician. I hear real instruments all the time. I probably know what it sounds like to stand in the same room with a drum kit, a mandolin, acoustic and electric guitars, various basses and keyboards, etc. better than all but a very few audiophiles. And I can tell you this much is certain: Listening to the overwhelming majority of recordings is much more like standing in that room than it is like being in a seat in the venue. Even live recordings.

These distractions are not always concious but you know that people have often talked about an unease when listening to some digital

I do. I don't experience it. That these people are almost always analog-lovers makes me wonder if their frame of reference is analog, not live music. If I were used to listening to analog every day, digital might give me a sense of unease. I don't know. I do know that surface noise of vinyl (not talking about clicks and pops, but the ever-present background of vinyl that is so often denied here but can very easily be measured and demonstrated) does annoy me. Different strokes.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Certainly a NOS DAC with the sin(x)/x frequency response roll-off uncorrected counts as coloured. Have you ever listened to a NOS which has a corrected frequency response? I was just wondering if you had, whether you perceived it as coloured?

I've only heard a handful of NOS DACs and only had one in my system, a Scott Nixon. All that I've heard had an analog-like warmth. That doesn't mean, of course, that there are no transparent NOS DACs.

Tim

 

[opus111]

I've only heard a handful of NOS DACs and only had one in my system, a Scott Nixon.

I found a 6moons article about one of his DACs - http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/nixon/tubedac.html

Seems he doesn't much like his circuit for flattening the response and so prefers to leave it out.... Its a TDA1543 design, so I predict an overly 'analog' sound. I used to love the TDA1543 for its ease of getting rid of the digital hash. I now feel its too 'soft focus' but its colourations are pleasant enough.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I found a 6moons article about one of his DACs - http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/nixon/tubedac.html

Seems he doesn't much like his circuit for flattening the response and so prefers to leave it out.... Its a TDA1543 design, so I predict an overly 'analog' sound. I used to love the TDA1543 for its ease of getting rid of the digital hash. I now feel its too 'soft focus' but its colourations are pleasant enough.

I don't remember which model it was. And yes, the colorations were pleasant enough. I just don't personally believe in getting my color from sources or amplification. I can't avoid getting them from transducers, so I like to keep things as linear as I can up to that point, then flavor to taste. I suspect what you loved about the TDA1543 was its ease of masking digital hash. Getting rid of it is much better.

As always, YMMV.

Tim

ON EDIT: I know it wasn't that model; it didn't have a tube output stage.

 

[opus111]

I suspect what you loved about the TDA1543 was its ease of masking digital hash. Getting rid of it is much better.

What do you think it masked the hash with? I have other ways of getting rid of digital hash - with an LC filter for example - I find such a filter isn't needed after a TDA1543 but is after some more hashy-DACs (like TDA1545A for example).

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What do you think it masked the hash with? I have other ways of getting rid of digital hash - with an LC filter for example - I find such a filter isn't needed after a TDA1543 but is after some more hashy-DACs (like TDA1545A for example).

"Warmth."

 

[opus111]

Can't follow - to me 'warmth' means a kind of frequency response tilt. Hash (HF IMD products) would need some additional acoustic features to be both present, and louder, than the hash, to mask them.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can't follow - to me 'warmth' means a kind of frequency response tilt. Hash (HF IMD products) would need some additional acoustic features to be both present, and louder, than the hash, to mask them.

Could be possible that I'm just wrong.

Tim

 

[LL21]

The something that is correct and accurate in those low pixel images is the familiarity of the images themselves.

...which means there is no "unknown element" in the reproduction of the images. It is, in fact, what is known about them that makes them identifiable through the distortion.

Thanks for bearing with me, Tim. The unknown element i am referring to is...EXACTLY what you just pointed out...what is it about that low-res image that IS familiar to us so that we can identify it? Because by any "Ordiinary measurements", the low-res image are just grossly distorted and inaccurate. period. But the human mind says it can identify some element that is so familiar...you can actually recognize it. And a bad art student could trace the drawing, get a few bits wrong and 25% of people couldnt figure it out. So what is that element still in the grossly distorted low-res image that makes it instantly recognizeable?

And then...back to audio by analogy...is there a similar element captured well in SET/NOS that makes some of us say it feels more like the real instrument than some other equipment that may be more linear by traditional metrics?

I have listened to the mighty the mighty DCS Scarlatti full-stack and know it is more linear/ with far lower noise floor than my Zanden...but i studied piano for 12 years...and still find elements of piano better on the Zanden.

 

[LL21]

Can't follow - to me 'warmth' means a kind of frequency response tilt. Hash (HF IMD products) would need some additional acoustic features to be both present, and louder, than the hash, to mask them.

Hi Opus111...i wanted to say thanks again for your advice. I expect in a couple of weeks, i will probably speak with Zanden and get some specifics about the upgrade they have suggested would substantially lower noise floor, improve detail/decay and to a degree dynamics. I'll let you know what the say.

 

[jkeny]

.......
I have listened to the mighty the mighty DCS Scarlatti full-stack and know it is more linear/ with far lower noise floor than my Zanden...but i studied piano for 12 years...and still find elements of piano better on the Zanden.

Now, just to anticipate, here - can you do this blind?

 

[LL21]

Now, just to anticipate, here - can you do this blind?

In the case of the Zanden v DCS, i think they are different enough that yes, many people could distinguish them. They are both wonderful, but there is a distinct delivery-style that they each have. I think it would be harder to distinguish DCS, Wadia S7i blind without care. Though the DCS Scarlatti's noise floor is spectacular and might possibly give it away.