Valin's new MSB Reference dac & transport review, AS Product Year Award

[Ron Resnick]

1) Purely conceptually MikeL’s report (if I understand it correctly) that, in his experience, a digital recording tends to sound best when reproduced in the native format in which it was recorded, makes sense to me. Therefore, if I were ever in the market for a DAC (which I won’t ever be) I would want the flexibility of the all-format MSB (if I understand it correctly, which I might very well not).

2) In The Quest For Perfect Sound, the article I love by Edward Rothstein of The New Republic (December 30, 1985) explaining our passion for high-end audio, there is a quote to the effect that analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

If this is the case doesn’t it make some sense that double DSD and quad DSD might allow one to achieve a more accurate approximation?

 

[Al M.]

Dear Al,

Regarding Schitt versus MSB why not set up an appointment at Goodwin’s, take your DAC to Goodwin’s, compare your DAC directly to an MSB in the same system, and report your detailed listening impressions and conclusions here?

I am sure you won’t have any trouble getting one or more of the other members of the WBF Boston Audio Group to accompany you.

Dear Ron,

thank you for the suggestion. Comparing the DACs was certainly on my mind, and DMSB's explanations have raised my interest. I think I can arrange something even better, a home trial .

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Ron,

thank you for the suggestion. Comparing the DACs was certainly on my mind, and DMSB's explanations have raised my interest. I think I can arrange something even better, a home trial .

That would be ideal! Then you can have an official meeting of the BAG, and we can learn about your respective impressions of the differences between the DACs!

 

[Al M.]

2) In The Quest For Perfect Sound, the article I love by Edward Rothstein of The New Republic (December 30, 1985) explaining our passion for high-end audio, there is a quote to the effect that analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

If this is the case doesn’t it make some sense that double DSD and quad DSD might allow one to achieve a more accurate approximation?

While it was perfectly understandable at the time, in 1985, Edward Rothstein did not quite understand the principles of digital (even though writing about the topic he should have). Per the Nyquist theorem (proven by Shannon) the digital signal is not an approximation, but an accurate representation of an analog signal, as long as that signal is band-width limited.

Of course, imperfections of practical implementation can make the theoretically perfect presentation less accurate than it should be, and as we all know, in digital audio this has proven to be a major problem.

 

[Ron Resnick]

While it was perfectly understandable at the time, in 1985, Edward Rothstein did not quite understand the principles of digital (even though writing about the topic he should have). Per the Nyquist theorem (proven by Shannon) the digital signal is not an approximation, but an accurate representation of an analog signal, as long as that signal is band-width limited.

Of course, imperfections of practical implementation can make the theoretically perfect presentation less accurate than it should be, and as we all know, in digital audio this has proven to be a major problem.

Thank you.

 

[Al M.]

You are welcome, Ron. I have read Rothstein's article that you so generously had made available by electronic scan, and it was a fascinating historical document as to how digital was seen at the time by many. If I remember correctly, he attributed the 'dryness' of early digital to an insufficient sampling rate, while we now know that this was due to non-linearities of early converters, their inability to properly handle low-level signals. Inferior analog output stages may also have played a role.

 

[microstrip]

While it was perfectly understandable at the time, in 1985, Edward Rothstein did not quite understand the principles of digital (even though writing about the topic he should have). Per the Nyquist theorem (proven by Shannon) the digital signal is not an approximation, but an accurate representation of an analog signal, as long as that signal is band-width limited (...)

Not exactly. Theoretically digital will never reproduce accurately an analog signal, as digital sampling introduces truncation. At best we consider that digital is good enough because our hearing has limited dynamics and analog has noise.

The Nyquist theorem states that the band-width limited signal can be accurately represented by exact samples, not by approximate samples. It is valid in the analog and in the digital domain. Analog delay lines using capacitors (the bucket-brigade) were an excellent example of analog sampling.

 

[microstrip]

1) Purely conceptually MikeL’s report (if I understand it correctly) that, in his experience, a digital recording tends to sound best when reproduced in the native format in which it was recorded, makes sense to me.

Conceptually yes, in practice it can depend on the DAC implementation and our system and preference. The final part of the referred Grimm article suggests why.

Therefore, if I were ever in the market for a DAC (which I won’t ever be) (...)

Do you expect some one to offer it to you? IMHO as soon as you will have your system playing again, temptation will be much stronger!

2) In The Quest For Perfect Sound, the article I love by Edward Rothstein of The New Republic (December 30, 1985) explaining our passion for high-end audio, there is a quote to the effect that analog seeks to approximate perfection, but digital perfects an approximation.

If this is the case doesn’t it make some sense that double DSD and quad DSD might allow one to achieve a more accurate approximation?

Some years ago you kindly provided us with scans of this article - thought provoking but technically weak, carrying several inaccuracies. BTW, some people consider that using current technology DSD rates over double DSD introduce more problems than benefits. But as far as I remember they were just subjective opinions - I can not locate the source anymore.

 

[Al M.]

Not exactly. Theoretically digital will never reproduce accurately an analog signal, as digital sampling introduces truncation. At best we consider that digital is good enough because our hearing has limited dynamics and analog has noise.

The Nyquist theorem states that the band-width limited signal can be accurately represented by exact samples, not by approximate samples. It is valid in the analog and in the digital domain. Analog delay lines using capacitors (the bucket-brigade) were an excellent example of analog sampling.

I assume by truncation you mean the limitation of band-width (e.g., 20 kHz). That is why I included in my statement, "as long as that signal is band-width limited".

 

[microstrip]

I assume by truncation you mean the limitation of band-width (e.g., 20 kHz). That is why I included in my statement, "as long as that signal is band-width limited".

No. Truncation always happens when you digitize a signal. At best case you get an error of the analog equivalent of half the less significant bit, but in practice it is much worst, ADCs are not ideal devices.

Using other people words - even ideal ADCs have quantization noise. Quantization noise is a model of quantization error introduced by quantization in the analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) in telecommunication systems and signal processing. It is a rounding error between the analog input voltage to the ADC and the output digitized value.

 

[Al M.]

No. Truncation always happens when you digitize a signal. At best case you get an error of the analog equivalent of half the less significant bit, but in practice it is much worst, ADCs are not ideal devices.

Using other people words - even ideal ADCs have quantization noise. Quantization noise is a model of quantization error introduced by quantization in the analog-to-digital conversion (ADC) in telecommunication systems and signal processing. It is a rounding error between the analog input voltage to the ADC and the output digitized value.

O.k., I see what you mean, quantization noise. Yes, that is a problem and an argument for the idea that a bit depth of 16 bit is not enough, even though theoretically it provides a dynamic range of 96 dB, far greater than that typically of a stereo system.

Dithering has been used to randomize quantization error, making it random noise, i.e., unrelated to the music. Some have drawn an analogy to tape hiss.

 

[pke10000]

Our Pro ISL input is our most capable current input and supports 32bit PCM resolution at up to 3Mhz sample rates (good for 16x DSD also).

Hi
I'm interested in Pro ISL. Now it forces to use your own transport only.
But I hesitate to get reference transport after oppo closed, do you have any plan to make other sources?
And do you have any plan to expend PRO-ISL to other brand? like as aurender, roon, metronome, esoteric, ...

 

[QuadDiffuser]

It’s the evening of the 29th here in Hong Kong, and the January 2019 issue of The Absolute Sound is still NOT available for download for subscribers of the digital version. In past months/years, they were downloadable by the 19th of the prior month. What’s going on?

 

[Rhapsody]

That would be ideal! Then you can have an official meeting of the BAG, and we can learn about your respective impressions of the differences between the DACs![/QUOTE

Al, I know that you and everyone else here knows this, but just to mention - if you would do a comparison of your dac vs. the MSB, whether at a dealer OR at your place, please make sure to optimize the system around each DAC. If you just put DAC A in a system that has been optimized around DAC B it's not fair to insert DAC A into that system and then conclude that DAC B is the better DAC.

Changing the power cords (DAC A may perform more optimally with a certain pc or IC's) or if one dac is say on a top quality rack and the other because of just "visiting" is set in a less optimal position in the sytem, OR DAC A or B may like AES/EBU, I2s/HDMI or a specific connection from the server to the Dac OR ????

Just saying there a a LOT of variables that can skew the results one way or the other.

 

[microstrip]

It’s the evening of the 29th here in Hong Kong, and the January 2019 issue of The Absolute Sound is still NOT available for download for subscribers of the digital version. In past months/years, they were downloadable by the 19th of the prior month. What’s going on?

I got a message from TAS saying that they are changing the digital subscription formats - bad news for me, I prefer the old PDF download method to online browser based platforms.

 

[Al M.]

Rvisinta,

yes, good points. I would have both DACs in the same spot on the rack as they are playing. As for connection to my CD transport, AES/EBU would be the choice, it does not offer the MSB option. Power chords: I'd use the one recommended with the MSB (and hopefully provided by the dealer), but only if I don't hear the desired improvements with my stock power chord. I did experience having different power chords between DACs screw up the comparison between them (with an audiophile power chord causing a disadvantage to the DAC on it vs. the other one on stock power chord). So I'm aware of potential problems.

 

[microstrip]

Al, I know that you and everyone else here knows this, but just to mention - if you would do a comparison of your dac vs. the MSB, whether at a dealer OR at your place, please make sure to optimize the system around each DAC. If you just put DAC A in a system that has been optimized around DAC B it's not fair to insert DAC A into that system and then conclude that DAC B is the better DAC.

I have been saying this for long at WBF - even concerning turntables versus DACs.

Individual shootouts mostly show the compatibility with the system.

 

[Rhapsody]

I have been saying this for long at WBF - even concerning turntables versus DACs.

Individual shootouts mostly show the compatibility with the system.

I couldn't agree more with you on this. Someone has a system all settled in with 25+ variables and then they stick in a ???? instead of one of the systems components/cables/?? and it doesn't sound as good as the original piece that was substituted for, really no surprise.

Actually the piece that is inserted could be 2X more pleasing sonically if a few of the other variables were changed to make up a new "magic recipe".

 

[microstrip]

Rvisinta,

yes, good points. I would have both DACs in the same spot on the rack as they are playing. As for connection to my CD transport, AES/EBU would be the choice, it does not offer the MSB option. Power chords: I'd use the one recommended with the MSB (and hopefully provided by the dealer), but only if I don't hear the desired improvements with my stock power chord. I did experience having different power chords between DACs screw up the comparison between them (with an audiophile power chord causing a disadvantage to the DAC on it vs. the other one on stock power chord). So I'm aware of potential problems.

As far as understood Rvisinta post addressed much more than what you are considering, even in your system. For example (IMHO) , discarding your passive preamplifier and using the DAC as a preamplifier, adjusting the sub levels or using a different digital source.

 

[Rhapsody]

As far as understood Rvisinta post addressed much more than what you are considering, even in your system. For example (IMHO) , discarding your passive preamplifier and using the DAC as a preamplifier, adjusting the sub levels or using a different digital source.

As far as understood Rvisinta post addressed much more than what you are considering, even in your system. For example (IMHO) , discarding your passive preamplifier and using the DAC as a preamplifier, adjusting the sub levels or using a different digital source.

Al, I mean what you mean, no sacred cows except probably the speakers, if you truly want to see what a certain component is capable of.