The 2 philosophies in DAC design, hands off and hands on. Which is better?

[Orb]

Don I am laughing.
OK I think we misunderstood each others post back at #62
We are not disagreeing on anything but it may look like it as it seems to me we may had taken earlier posts wrongly.
In post 62 it seemed to me you were responding to mine and suggesting that I thought OS is unusual, when in fact I was focusing on chips that allow for both ideal os/nos implementation.
My response to your post 62 was then skewed as I took it that you implied all chips and DAC architectures are nos capable, hence the confusion I would say.

I commented on Sigma Delta because IMO its limitations as a nos is greater than r2r as it is more specific to oversampling-newer generation (this follows on from my view that you were suggesting all dac architectures can be nos ideal), which is why I am sure you will see nearly all nos commercial dacs are r2r ladder type architecture, with the paper I linked explaining this along with the reasons you also mention, and was curious if Accuphase did this differently somehow.

And as you say at the end, totally agree with you again
It is about the algorithm complexity and processing power /computational speed (several whitepapers out there by the chip manus on this I may be able to find if really interested) and specific (I used the word bespoke) filters/noise shaping/etc.
One additional benefit of the FPGA is the substantially greater taps including integral PLL/DAC/Filter/etc on the processor/chip (such as Xilinx being one of the primary audio based manus), however I appreciate we are both summarising.
I appreciate ASIC also have benefits.
Cheers
Orb

 

[microstrip]

Sometimes taking the same component and placing it in a different system only to find that the synergy is gone

Good point. Besides having a good time, it is the main thing you get from these one day listening tests in one system - you find synergies.

Long ago I read in the defunct Audio magazine a curious fact - to assemble the White House hifi system every USA manufacturer supplied a list of his top equipment and then a raffle was carried. The First Lady picked one ticket from each of the ballots boxes, choosing the full system unit by unit randomly . The lucky manufacturers where then asked to offer the respective pieces and be represented in the White House audio system. Synergy?

 

[Steve Williams]

Wow. What a story.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The first lady was clearly not an audiophile and expected the equipment to be built to standards that would make it work together. I've never quite grasped "synergy." Probably just bad attitude on my part. To put it simply, if all components are well-designed to accepted standards, and with signal neutrality as a primary goal, synergy should be simple: make sure you have enough power to drive the transducers of choice. Now, I understand that quite a few high-end electronics are not built to accepted standards, and that quite a few are not built with signal neutrality as a goal, requiring the end user to match impedances, for example, and balance tonal signatures through what appears to be a rather long, expensive, and oddly unpredictable process of upgrades and trades. I even understand how that process itself might be fun. What I've never quite understood is why this is acceptable in any equipment, much less very expensive equipment.

YMM, of course, V.

P

 

[Steve Williams]

I hear what you say Tim but if muralman1's DAC and transport sounded better than the PD then I'd say we are onto something.

Case in point was a recent review here by my friend Marty regarding the new Meitner transport vs the PD and the older Meitner CDSA SE. Although all three are terrific players it was Marty's feeling that the new Meitner was multitudes greater than than the other two machines. How would one explain that?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I hear what you say Tim but if muralman1's DAC and transport sounded better than the PD then I'd say we are onto something.

Case in point was a recent review here by my friend Marty regarding the new Meitner transport vs the PD and the older Meitner CDSA SE. Although all three are terrific players it was Marty's feeling that the new Meitner was multitudes greater than than the other two machines. How would one explain that?

I'm no engineer but I'd guess that if you have components in a system that operate well outside of the norms, but when properly matched sound better than very well-engineered in-standard components, one of two things is happening: 1) You are experiencing the very rare occurrence of well-established standards being bested (probably the re-defining of the standards in the making), or 2) You are listening to a system that, while problematic, floats the subjective boat of a particular listener.

But before we jump to the conclusion, as much as we'd all like to, that #1 is in play, consider the odds. Could a brilliant engineer design a system that broke the rules and still demonstrated good, perhaps even superior performance? Sure. But seriously, how many audiophiles are really likely to stumble upon such serendipity in the often random search for "synergy?" Synergy is something, I believe, that happens by design in the hands of the highly qualified. Matched components, all from a single source, designed to work together is probably the path to synergy, not buying, selling, upgrading, swapping and compensating one component's voice with another's. Though even that should be unnecessary. If all components are properly designed and spec'd, you should be able to connect DAC X to preamp Y to amp Z. And it should work beautifully as long as X,Y and Z played by the rules.

I'm a realist. It works for me.

P

 

[Bruce B]

What I don't understand are the engineers that design and build converters and don't even listening to them, relying solely on the listening tests of the people who use them. Saying, I build this to what are industry practices and if you don't like it, YOU'RE the problem!
I sat and spoke to one engineer that said he doesn't even have a listening room or decent stereo!

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What I don't understand are the engineers that design and build converters and don't even listening to them, relying solely on the listening tests of the people who use them. Saying, I build this to what are industry practices and if you don't like it, YOU'RE the problem!
I sat and spoke to one engineer that said he doesn't even have a listening room or decent stereo!

I haven't met those engineers. I haven't met one that doesn't love music and isn't designing reproduction components primarily because he loves to listen to them, but I'll say this much - if what comes out of an amp or preamp is neutral within the limits of audibility, ie: the input signal with gain, and you don't like it, you're not the problem, but the recording is.

P

 

[JackD201]

Synergy to the audiophile goes beyond getting the components working under optimal conditions. It's a given that there will always be trad-offs because of recorded music's inherent limitations so it's about matching them in a way that caters to the individual's priorities. I have no doubt that Muralman is telling the truth that his system is near perfect to him at least. It does not guarantee however that it will be so for others that visit. The reason I do not adopt the "signal" paradigm is a basic philosophical one. Nobody has heard it. Everybody that subscribes to this has heard it only through a transducer but never in it's natural state. How then can one claim that what he hears is actually neutral?

It amuses me when people take the "pro" is better line. It's no secret at all that all working and credited professionals take great pains in choosing their equipment, even more so than audiophiles do as these are tools that not only allow them to do their jobs but can also give them a competitive advantage. If you doubt this P, just surf around the web looking at the award winning mastering houses. Count for yourself which houses use pro loudspeakers and amplification and which use audiophile ones. Mind you that the market for their output is the radio, car and boombox listening public and not the extremely small subset called audiophiles. Bragging rights has nothing to do with it. The general public doesn't even read the credits much less look into what gear was used to make the recordings.

 

[muralman1]

There are seven different manufacturers that designed the components that form my system. Take the last addition for example. The 47 Labs Flatfish is made to partner with the 47 Labs Progression DAC. P, according to you, i should have bought the DAC with the Transport. I didn't, because I did my homework. Reading all the reviews, I decided the Progression is too polite of a DAC. I was right. My transformed AN DAC produces all the music according to their kind. The power duo moves the Scintillas to play all genres of music with ease.

That is the really wonderful aspect of this sound. Even with the wild drum rolls, searing trumpets, and wall of sound orchestral crescendos, the music remains relaxed.

I attribute the relaxed state of the music to the new transport. There really is something to the designer's insistence to keep the circuit as short and uncluttered as possible.

 

[JackD201]

There are seven different manufacturers that designed the components that form my system. Take the last addition for example. The 47 Labs Flatfish is made to partner with the 47 Labs Progression DAC. P, according to you, i should have bought the DAC with the Transport. I didn't, because I did my homework. Reading all the reviews, I decided the Progression is too polite of a DAC. I was right. My transformed AN DAC produces all the music according to their kind. The power duo moves the Scintillas to play all genres of music with ease.

That is the really wonderful aspect of this sound. Even with the wild drum rolls, searing trumpets, and wall of sound orchestral crescendos, the music remains relaxed.

I attribute the relaxed state of the music to the new transport. There really is something to the designer's insistence to keep the circuit as short and uncluttered as possible.

You're mistaking me with someone else. I believe I've never recommended you buy anything whatsoever only that I have the entry level Shigaraki Transport and NOS Dac and like it when you asked about 47 Labs.

 

[muralman1]

You're mistaking me with someone else. I believe I've never recommended you buy anything whatsoever only that I have the entry level Shigaraki Transport and NOS Dac and like it when you asked about 47 Labs.

Actually, I was writing to Phelonious, I used his initial, P Like he signs of with. I see that was too obscure. As to who suggested I get the Flatfish that would be my good friend Henry of H2O. I made up my own mind, though. The Perfect Wave transport looked good to me at first. Then I noticed it filters the signal. That turned me to the Flatfish. I made a lucky choice. The Flatfish is amazing.

 

[JackD201]

I missed that

 

[Orb]

Actually, I was writing to Phelonious, I used his initial, P Like he signs of with. I see that was too obscure. As to who suggested I get the Flatfish that would be my good friend Henry of H2O. I made up my own mind, though. The Perfect Wave transport looked good to me at first. Then I noticed it filters the signal. That turned me to the Flatfish. I made a lucky choice. The Flatfish is amazing.

Muralman, if you get the chance it may good idea to try and listen to the Naim DAC just curiosity how it compares to the nos, they have taken a subtly different approach that includes IIR instead of FIR along with their own coding and powerful processing and using PCM1704 (think this is also r-2r ladder architecture) combined with Naim's IIR, also it has what I feel the lowest measured jitter of any products so far (its measurement is rather incredible).
However I must admit I am more laid back about jitter being as close to zero than in the past.
Still, this is one product worth checking out (also would suggest so for others) as they have gone a different path to many.
It is also competitively priced in terms of the good high end.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Synergy to the audiophile goes beyond getting the components working under optimal conditions. It's a given that there will always be trad-offs because of recorded music's inherent limitations so it's about matching them in a way that caters to the individual's priorities.

Absolutely. This is what I would call coloring to taste. I would submit that it is much easier, more efficient and more cost-effective to use signal neutral electronics, choose your broad color at transducers and tweak with EQ than it is to find your bliss through the long, expensive search for synergy, but that is my path. Enjoy yours.

The reason I do not adopt the "signal" paradigm is a basic philosophical one. Nobody has heard it. Everybody that subscribes to this has heard it only through a transducer but never in it's natural state. How then can one claim that what he hears is actually neutral?

Two transducers, actually. Microphones do not hear like humans do. The reason I do not adopt the "live music as reference" paradigm is that the reference changes when you change seats and that most recordings are made in studios and bear no relationship to live performance anyway. In other words, no one has actually heard that reference either. With the "signal as reference" paradigm I at least have measurements as a guide. I can successfully find electronic components that pass the recording through relatively unaltered and I can successfully avoid those that alter it deliberately or simply perform poorly. I do not claim that what I hear is actually neutral. I know neutrality is compromised, at least, by the transducers and the room. But seeking neutral components, speakers that at least make an attempt at flat response and room conditions and set up that limit problems. It's the best that I can do. Imperfect. But I like the sound. What many audiophiles would call boring, polite, dry, is what I have gravitated toward for years, even before I realized why.

It amuses me when people take the "pro" is better line. It's no secret at all that all working and credited professionals take great pains in choosing their equipment, even more so than audiophiles do as these are tools that not only allow them to do their jobs but can also give them a competitive advantage. If you doubt this P, just surf around the web looking at the award winning mastering houses.

Yes, mastering engineers listen to their work through passive systems, because that's what the end user will be using. And many of them listen to it through high-end audiophile systems, when they're not listening to it through crap systems chosen to give them a view into how the master will sound on a car stereo or an iPod dock. And mastering is, arguably, the bane of modern recording. It is not about accuracy. It is about tone. If you want to hear a pro system designed to reveal the smallest unaltered details of the recording, go to the control room, not the mastering suite.

The 47 Labs Flatfish is made to partner with the 47 Labs Progression DAC. P, according to you, i should have bought the DAC with the Transport.

No, according to me, I may have chosen the 47 Labs Progression DAC, to hopefully deliver a neutral signal to my analog system, so at least my source would not be altering my recordings to make them less "polite." If I find recordings that need excitement, I have eq.

To be more succint, I believe that once you get your system as accurate as you can afford, then by all means, if you find a box that makes it sound more realistic of just more fun to you, go for it.

I agree completely. But for me it is a box that is adjustable, with a bi-pass switch, because there are many recordings I want as unaltered as I can get them. And please, no one should take offense at my passion for this approach. I do believe it is much more direct and would help many audiophiles find their bliss much faster and less expensively, but it is my path. If it is not yours, enjoy whatever brings you joy.

P

 

[JackD201]

Yes, mastering engineers listen to their work through passive systems, because that's what the end user will be using. And many of them listen to it through high-end audiophile systems, when they're not listening to it through crap systems chosen to give them a view into how the master will sound on a car stereo or an iPod dock. And mastering is, arguably, the bane of modern recording. It is not about accuracy. It is about tone. If you want to hear a pro system designed to reveal the smallest unaltered details of the recording, go to the control room, not the mastering suite.

Oh Ponk. Who started this piece of fiction anyway? Recording and Mixing Engineers all have their preferences too. They often bring their monitors along with them. Monitors they chose for more reasons than their being flat, which all pro monitors "claim" to be but we know really aren't except at their measured reference levels. The difference between pros and audiophiles is that pros accept this and it is not a big deal, it isn't even news. When one engineer says he prefers this pre over another for a certain application, nobody's feathers get ruffled. The audiophile on the other hand always over thinks it.

Besides, given a choice of a monitor of limited frequency range and a full range mastering rig. I will always choose the latter. If you want to respect the signal and I the music, there is common ground. Play every note in its entirety. A small speaker can't active or passive. That's physics not preference.

 

[muralman1]

Hello P, We have different opinions on eq. It is just as well we skirt that issue. I just wonder how a DAC adds to the mix dynamics, depth, dynamic range, attack, decay, rhythm without any direction from the signal. This same DAC was a lot shyer when fed by the PSA transport. The bass was clumped, and indistinct. The music sounded bold, but stereophile.

If my source is self equalizing the signal, how is it that sung consonants and drum rim whacks are equally true? I think I would need one of those Wall Street super computers to get all frequency loading just right.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Oh Ponk. Who started this piece of fiction anyway? Recording and Mixing Engineers all have their preferences too. They often bring their monitors along with them. Monitors they chose for more reasons than their being flat, which all pro monitors "claim" to be but we know really aren't except at their measured reference levels. The difference between pros and audiophiles is that pros accept this and it is not a big deal, it isn't even news. When one engineer says he prefers this pre over another for a certain application, nobody's feathers get ruffled. The audiophile on the other hand always over thinks it.

Besides, given a choice of a monitor of limited frequency range and a full range mastering rig. I will always choose the latter. If you want to respect the signal and I the music, there is common ground. Play every note in its entirety. A small speaker can't active or passive. That's physics not preference.

The fiction was, no doubt, started by manufacturers of studio equipment. You're right, of course, if all studio equipment was dead flat there would be little differences for the preferences that obviously exist. It's a matter of degrees. All good studio equipment endeavors to be accurate within a few ticks to the warm or the bright. We all know that's not true of audiophile equipment. Much of it is deliberately pretty far off of flat response. The difference between a Naim and a Conrad Johnson is more dramatic than any discrepancy between any pro audio amps you're ever likely to hear. You're also right about small active monitors and their bandwidth limitations. But the comparison between audiophile equipment and quality pro gear doesn't need to be limited to big speakers and small ones. There are plenty of big, full range monitoring systems out there, many purpose-designed and custom made, many tri-amped with racks full of heavy metal, many capable of delivering the range and SPLs of any high-end rig you care to think about. Some of them even cost as much.

I just wonder how a DAC adds to the mix dynamics, depth, dynamic range, attack, decay, rhythm without any direction from the signal.

Much more often than not, that answer is not how, but where -- in the analog output stage of the DAC. Once you get there, the how is pretty easy.

P

 

[muralman1]

I disagree. Coming from an all Pass Labs system that was as good as a sound I expected, to where now I have class D amps, and an amazing preamp by the same company, I have heard far deeper into the CD.

Even the very first instance, when I unhooked those big blue eyed amps, and plugged in a pie shaped sheet metal amp in, I could hear more into the CD. Everything was more discernible, and that wasn't because of a hot treble. My ears have always been very sensitive to brightness. This was with all the same source, wires, speakers, and preamp.

That was 8 years ago. My system has come a long way from then. All wires, source, and preamp have been changed. I have the same speakers, and a much better class D amp. The class A preamp deserves the most praise.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I disagree. Coming from an all Pass Labs system that was as good as a sound I expected, to where now I have class D amps, and an amazing preamp by the same company, I have heard far deeper into the CD.

Even the very first instance, when I unhooked those big blue eyed amps, and plugged in a pie shaped sheet metal amp in, I could hear more into the CD. Everything was more discernible, and that wasn't because of a hot treble. My ears have always been very sensitive to brightness. This was with all the same source, wires, speakers, and preamp.

That was 8 years ago. My system has come a long way from then. All wires, source, and preamp have been changed. I have the same speakers, and a much better class D amp. The class A preamp deserves the most praise.

I can't of course, tell you what you did and did not hear, but class D amps 8 years ago? Hot treble is pretty likely. Or, more accurately, audibly high levels of distortion manifesting itself in the trebles and sounding like "detail" or "edge" depending on your hearing and your tastes. Did you have the ribbons then? I would expect them to make early class D to sound like bacon frying.

P