What You're Missing

[audioarcher]

I think the slope of the diminishing returns on DACs is so steep that it makes the expensive ones nearly pointless, but I wouldn't expect anyone who has invested several thousand dollars in a DAC to agree with that.

Tim

I'm no expert on DACs but my guess is that most of the improvement in sound is from better power supplies and output stages. Meaning improving the analog part of a DAC is more important than the chip used.

I am happy to be proved wrong on this. I know everything makes a difference, I just think that the analog part of the DAC probably has more influence. Has anyone done any experiments with different chips with the same PS/output stage?

Sean

 

[JackD201]

The quotation marks were a short cut for basically the desired output for the master as they wanted it. It's the job of the guy manning the cutting lathe to do the pre and de-emphasis because this varies according to the spacing of the grooves, mainly. The test pressing would then be compared to the master. If they sent a dub pre-eq'ed there's no way to get the bass back. It would be like trying to get detail back from an overexposed picture. It makes no sense to send a pre-eq'ed master, the hapless dude would have nothing to base his work on. What usually happens is that the master is archived (for security purposes) and a next generation dub is sent to the pressing plants but these aren't prepared specifically for LP at least in that era. Things are a bit different now since most mastering is done at least partly digitally. Stations being non-destructive many versions are pre-canned in final form. Even if a file was meant for LP they wouldn't send one already pre and de-emphasized again because the degree is dependent on the spacing and speed. That's what I know and I'm pretty sure about this, however, I'm only human and I could be wrong. I doubt it though.

 

[microstrip]

In honor of this thread, I decided to have a "digital" night with my much neglected CDs. No ultra fancy stuff, Pioneer DVD player with firewire to Yamaha RX Z9 dacs.

Sounded fantastic, no conventional digititis. I usually put the digital signal through a Meridian digital preamp/processer which increases the digital word length to 24 and adds dither, and sounds a bit more resolving and smooth, but haven't used it in so long, I didn't want to bother hooking it up.

Can't say I have heard digital at any price that sounds significantly better. Played some SACD as well, sounded nice.

Finished it off with a vinyl-gasm and Peter Gabriel.

Digital (and almost all new audio products) always sounds great for the first night.
The problem is the hangover ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The quotation marks were a short cut for basically the desired output for the master as they wanted it. It's the job of the guy manning the cutting lathe to do the pre and de-emphasis because this varies according to the spacing of the grooves, mainly. The test pressing would then be compared to the master. If they sent a dub pre-eq'ed there's no way to get the bass back. It would be like trying to get detail back from an overexposed picture. It makes no sense to send a pre-eq'ed master, the hapless dude would have nothing to base his work on. What usually happens is that the master is archived (for security purposes) and a next generation dub is sent to the pressing plants but these aren't prepared specifically for LP at least in that era. Things are a bit different now since most mastering is done at least partly digitally. Stations being non-destructive many versions are pre-canned in final form. Even if a file was meant for LP they wouldn't send one already pre and de-emphasized again because the degree is dependent on the spacing and speed. That's what I know and I'm pretty sure about this, however, I'm only human and I could be wrong. I doubt it though.

I don't doubt for a moment that you're human, Jack, but what you said makes sense.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I'm no expert on DACs but my guess is that most of the improvement in sound is from better power supplies and output stages. Meaning improving the analog part of a DAC is more important than the chip used.

Sean

I don't doubt that the analog part of the DAC can make the biggest difference, Whether or not the difference is an improvement is the question. I don't believe that everything always makes a difference, but I believe that anything can make a difference, and not always a good one, which is why I believe in fewer things, simpler designs, not more expensive components in more complex designs. YMMV.

Tim

 

[NorthStar]

"This did not seem problematic to me since the RX-Z9 has a superb noise floor in all listening modes, partly attributed to careful circuit layout and implementation of the absolute best DAC's on the market - the Burr Brown DSD-1792s in differential configuration. As a side note, two channels of the PCM/DSD-1792's cost about twice as much as all of the lesser audio DAC's used in many costlier exotic processors. The good news is Yamaha spared no expense and implemented these DAC's on all channels , including the presence and subwoofer channels - and in balanced configuration! What my listening tests confirmed was the RX-Z9 was acting like a great sounding DAC for two-channel applications. If you have an older CD changer with an optical or coax output, I highly recommend using it as a transport and letting the RX-Z9 revitalize its fidelity."

From Audioholics review.

I also seem to remember the product brochure stating that there were dual dac for each channel. the RX Z9 has nine channels including sub. Maybe you are looking at 11 channels from the Z11?

Who knows, it sounds great, I will check later to find the product brochure that has a diagram that illustrates the dac's. I am not an expert on digital design, differential dacs were supposed to sound better.

The RX Z9 was Yamaha's last large AV receiver that was primarily devoted to sound quality. The later RX Z11 was more about home theater.

1. If I wasn't sure I wouldn't post.
2. Yes the TI BB PCM & DSD-1792 DAC is expensive ($22 each when purchased in large quantity).
3. The RX-Z9 is not a balanced design. Neither the RX-Z11.
... And the Z11 uses the inferior TI BB DSD-1796 DACs ($3 each).
4. Again, the DACs in the Z9 are NOT in dual differential configuration. It is NOT a balanced AVR.
5. The Z9 has eleven channels (11) total, including the two front Presence channels,
and the two Subwoofer channels (Stereo), with various configurations.
6. The Z11 has thirteen channels total (13).
7. The Z9 had a major flaw; it ran super hot 'cause of poor heatsinks' design & implementation.
8. Yamaha is not big in video processing; it's their 'talon d'achille'.
9. Since the mid 80s Yamaha had always some design (or implementation) flaws on most of all their A/V receivers. But they aren't the only ones; Denon, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo/Integra, ... are all guilty as well.

 

[NorthStar]

---What gives the very best sound?

=> It's a combination of analog with digital, and fine-tuned to match well with the rest of your electronics including your loudspeakers. ...Parts quality, implementation, analog stage, digital stage, fine-tuning (sound preference), are all parts of the ensemble. Methinks.

Usually, it's not the cheapest products, but it certainly could be the most expensive ones. :b
And more often than not it is!

 

[cjfrbw]

1. If I wasn't sure I wouldn't post.
2. Yes the TI BB PCM & DSD-1792 DAC is expensive ($22 each when purchased in large quantity).
3. The RX-Z9 is not a balanced design. Neither the RX-Z11.
... And the Z11 uses the inferior TI BB DSD-1796 DACs ($3 each).
4. Again, the DACs in the Z9 are NOT in dual differential configuration. It is NOT a balanced AVR.
5. The Z9 has eleven channels (11) total, including the two front Presence channels,
and the two Subwoofer channels (Stereo), with various configurations.
6. The Z11 has thirteen channels total (13).
7. The Z9 had a major flaw; it ran super hot 'cause of poor heatsinks' design & implementation.
8. Yamaha is not big in video processing; it's their 'talon d'achille'.
9. Since the mid 80s Yamaha had always some design (or implementation) flaws on most of all their A/V receivers. But they aren't the only ones; Denon, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Onkyo/Integra, ... are all guilty as well.

"At the end Yamaha DSP-Z9 wins hand down with its PCM1792DBR DACs in simple single-ended configuration reaching a SNR of 129 dB, 6 dB more than Denon & DSP-Z11 in multi channel mode. In stereo mode Denon comes 3 dB closer but still looses out. Mind you the center channel is in differential configuration mode so the SNR bumps to 131 dB here. Also the DSP-Z9 DACs are way superior in terms of dynamic range, passband ripple & stopband attenuation than the rest"

I guess audioholics and the other info stated dual differential, failing to mention it was only with the center channel, or just assuming they were all dual differntial. The rest of the channels are as you stated, single ended, but there is one dual differential dac at the center channel, thus the confusion.

I remember other literature mentioning dual differential, so there is ONE dual differential channel, the rest are single. Don't know if that was a purposeful puffery on Yamaha's part, or just misunderstanding of reviewers.

Yes, there are 11 dac channels total. There are two dacs for subwoofer to allow L and R discrete, or Front and Back, and two dac's for additional back surround channels (dolby PLIIx), adding up to the 11.

The unit runs hot, but has been flawless for the seven years I have had it. A small fan only goes on when the temp is over 95 degrees in the room. I'll keep it until it goes kaplooey, then look for another one, it is that good.

 

[NorthStar]

---Audioholics had some good articles in the past, and some extensive reviews on some products.

But they are also sponsored. ...Yamaha, Denon, Emotiva, and them loudspeakers that have reviews almost every week!

Audioholics ain't anymore what they used to be; and their forums (in general) are a sad page in life ...

* Regarding Burr-Brown DACs (Texas Instruments), the PCM-1792 used in the Denon AVP-A1HDCI surround processor are in Dual differential balanced mode. And I believe that when in Stereo audio mode the DACs automatically configure themselves in Quad mode (four DACS per each Left & Right channel).
That pre/pro is the real deal!

Also, the BB PCM-1704K DAC is preferred by some audiophiles. ...And in particular when two or even four DACs per channel are used.
By the way, the 1704 is a single DAC (Mono), as opposed to the PCM or DSD-1792 Stereo DAC on a single chip.
The PCM-1704K DAC is $24 each! ...And it's only a mono DAC! It's a 24-bit* DAC.
Yamaha RX-V1 and RX-Z1 used that DAC (ten of them). ...One DAC per channel.

The SNR figures you just mentioned above; sure they look good on paper, but it's not the full story.

* The much more recent TI BB PCM-1795 DAC is a 32-bit DAC (used in top Onkyo/Integra products), but it only cost $5-6 each. ...Used to complement Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

I believe we are far away from what's coming in the future ... :b

 

[Gregadd]

I found digital tape used to make vinyl records and DDD and ADA all had the same faults. While I agree Ican be happy with digital or vinyl, the differences are appearent. At one point I comapred vinyl with several different genera tions of digital. All the of same recording.

 

[microstrip]

The quotation marks were a short cut for basically the desired output for the master as they wanted it. It's the job of the guy manning the cutting lathe to do the pre and de-emphasis because this varies according to the spacing of the grooves, mainly. The test pressing would then be compared to the master. If they sent a dub pre-eq'ed there's no way to get the bass back. It would be like trying to get detail back from an overexposed picture. It makes no sense to send a pre-eq'ed master, the hapless dude would have nothing to base his work on. What usually happens is that the master is archived (for security purposes) and a next generation dub is sent to the pressing plants but these aren't prepared specifically for LP at least in that era. Things are a bit different now since most mastering is done at least partly digitally. Stations being non-destructive many versions are pre-canned in final form. Even if a file was meant for LP they wouldn't send one already pre and de-emphasized again because the degree is dependent on the spacing and speed. That's what I know and I'm pretty sure about this, however, I'm only human and I could be wrong. I doubt it though.

Jack,

I have always read that most mastering houses prepare different masters for vinyl and CD release - great sound engineers such as Bob Ludwig, http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/ Doug Sax and our Bruce B. in a recent thread say so. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?7217-What-is-Mastering

Some people thing differently - see http://productionadvice.co.uk/vinyl-mastering/, but after reading it it seemed to me as a poor excuse to keep costs down , and, greatest horror, he is referring to digital mastering of vinyl!

 

[cjfrbw]

---Audioholics had some good articles in the past, and some extensive reviews on some products.

But they are also sponsored. ...Yamaha, Denon, Emotiva, and them loudspeakers that have reviews almost every week!

Audioholics ain't anymore what they used to be; and their forums (in general) are a sad page in life ...

* Regarding Burr-Brown DACs (Texas Instruments), the PCM-1792 used in the Denon AVP-A1HDCI surround processor are in Dual differential balanced mode. And I believe that when in Stereo audio mode the DACs automatically configure themselves in Quad mode (four DACS per each Left & Right channel).
That pre/pro is the real deal!

Also, the BB PCM-1704K DAC is preferred by some audiophiles. ...And in particular when two or even four DACs per channel are used.
By the way, the 1704 is a single DAC (Mono), as opposed to the PCM or DSD-1792 Stereo DAC on a single chip.
The PCM-1704K DAC is $24 each! ...And it's only a mono DAC! It's a 24-bit* DAC.
Yamaha RX-V1 and RX-Z1 used that DAC (ten of them). ...One DAC per channel.

The SNR figures you just mentioned above; sure they look good on paper, but it's not the full story.

* The much more recent TI BB PCM-1795 DAC is a 32-bit DAC (used in top Onkyo/Integra products), but it only cost $5-6 each. ...Used to complement Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

I believe we are far away from what's coming in the future ... :b

I had the RX V1 before the RX Z9. To my ears, the Z9 has much better sounding dac performance for whatever reason and much better surround modes. It is interesting, though, that the V1 had a more audiophile dac, per se. The V1 didn't decode SACD.

When I got the Z9, I sold my expensive tubed ultimate two channel dac from Sonic Frontiers that sold for $6000 originally. The Z9 whipped it easily, pissed me off and surprised me at the same time.

 

[mep]

When I got the Z9, I sold my expensive tubed ultimate two channel dac from Sonic Frontiers that sold for $6000 originally. The Z9 whipped it easily, pissed me off and surprised me at the same time.

That kind of stuff happens sometimes as I have previously described. To be fair, my digital server and my DAC cost around $550 total. The sound quality of that $550 is pretty damn incredible and you won't duplicate the sound quality with an analog front end for $550 I can promise you.

 

[NorthStar]

I had the RX V1 before the RX Z9. To my ears, the Z9 has much better sounding dac performance for whatever reason and much better surround modes. It is interesting, though, that the V1 had a more audiophile dac, per se. The V1 didn't decode SACD.

When I got the Z9, I sold my expensive tubed ultimate two channel dac from Sonic Frontiers that sold for $6000 originally. The Z9 whipped it easily, pissed me off and surprised me at the same time.

The BB PCM-1704 DACs in the V1 and Z1 I believe were NOT of the "K" variety (highest grade) though.
And both the Z9 and Z11 have many more DSP chips for a much much higher level of processing power.
...Six times greater DSP capacity than the previous RX-Z1.
In the Z9 the frequency response has been expanded two-fold, and so the upsampling audio signal (from 48 to 96kHz).
And because of all of that, the amount of early reflection data is tripled.
...Which provides significantly better surround sound performance.

* I had the Z11 for a short while, and sold it for a very nice profit.

____________________

I would love to see Yamaha using Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with PRO, or TRINNOV; but not in this lifetime.
Yamaha's all 'bout DSP Cinema & Hi-Fi, and Parametric EQ for all its 13 channels (RX-Z11).
As a Stereo audiophile preamp, it sounds real good (no DSP).
And for Cinema maison, YPAO with DSP is an acquired taste; but me I'm an Audyssey man. :b

Strictly Jazz Club and Classical Concert Hall DSP effects, Yamaha rules them all.
But wou'd better be ready to experiment and change some controls according to the music material you're listening.
Been there done that; no more time to waste in life, music is simply too precious to constantly fiddle with.

 

[valkyrie]

So while I can clearly see that any response to this thread will be "tilting at windmills" as the conclusions were stated at the beginning by the OP I still feel it is important to at least fire a few shots in the directions of the throbbing mass of Luddites and their antediluvian devices (vinyl engines and their owners the "Vinylistas").

YES; I do listen to vinyl - in fact have a complete vinyl engine - Clearaudio, CJ phono amp, et cetera. But for the purposes of this thread my response will be focused on my experiences with a SOTA rig; Shindo table with the Shindo "blessed" cartridge, an ARC REF phono-amp, full ARC stack (including the ARC REF-40 pre) and a set of Artemis speakers. My friend who owns all this "expensive" and clearly "Highest End" gear is of course a major vinyl lover - and maintains as the OP that only vinyl can deliver the musical goods.

Our test music was "Gladiator" - Hans Zimmer the composer is known as a careful producer whose productions, whether digital or analog are first rate. In fact that pompous windbag HP named Zimmer's "Thin Red Line" as perhaps one of the best CDs ever produced - I agree - a work of stunning beauty both musically and sonically.

Unfortunately for the retro types the CD absolutely crushed the vinyl production (the CD player was an ARC DAC-8 with a Modwright (Denon) being used as a transport). The CD had far greater dynamics, more vivid timbres, smoother tonality and just made the vinyl sound as what it is; an old, tired, low resolution and extremely limited medium for recording.

Before all the ancients get their blood pressure too high I want to add some insight into what I believe is going on in this endless debate between digital lovers and deluded vinylistas - for while these types are suffering there are some real reasons for the delusional behavior.

Basically it goes like this; I was listening on my own rig to an old Aerosmith tune "Train Kept a Rollin'" - nice little pop ditty from the '70s and good tight music - goes great with Bourbon and water. Since I have both the album and the CD I went back and forth and could clearly hear that the digital was far less involving - less emotionally accessible - and at the end of the day our response to music is almost totally about emotion - not rational analysis.

I wondered about this and thought this is exactly what the vehement vinylistas are always going on about. But as I thought more deeply it occurred to me that what the CD was doing was revealing that this tune, on this album was all recorded in booths, i.e. individual tracks. With the vastly superior clarity and transparency of CD I could hear that the acoustic for each performer was different - and sonically at odds with each other. With the sloppy, wobbly performance of vinyl this clear difference in performance acoustic was submerged in a sea of noise - so as a result the VINYL SOUNDED BETTER. The tune was more emotionally accessible - and that is what I listen for - to be entertained. To connect with the wonder of music - no matter the genre.

It is NOT that the vinyl IS better - it is the fact that the production of many performances relied heavily on the mushy, rolled-off characteristics of vinyl to "put a little lipstick on the pig". I have often commented that vinyl seems "more whole" when you listen to it - but I have concluded that this "better gestalt" is more about reduced clarity and medium limitations than it is about any form of sonic superiority.

When you couple this with Harley's observations in the last TAS concerning the horrible condition of the tapes used in the production of CDs during the '80s and through the '90s (read the article but in many cases the CD was made with a tape that already had the vinyl compression applied - and of course did not sound "right" on a digital medium) it is no surprise that many digital releases WERE rather horrible and "off" sounding.

Add in the woeful design of the first through third generation digital playback devices (from ANY manufacturer) and only the clear superiority of the digital medium could have survived such an inauspicious roll out.

One last comment; many of the so-called "high end" systems have a characteristic "flat, hard, emotionally distanced" sound to them - all the usual suspects are equally guilty. Yes I have been to audio shows and have sat in rooms with JV (and his worn out moldy vinyl) and listened to $100k systems that I thought were simply "dead" sounding. In almost every "SOTA" rig I have heard the overall sound was nothing short of morbid - denying music in favor of an analytical tour de force of "clarity" and that most ugly word "transparency". Gear listeners - not music lovers. Given one of these mostly dead sounding systems it is small wonder that their creators (trade rag readers and believers one and all) to infuse even a small grain of emotion into their systems embrace the mushy, rolled-off, sound of vinyl.

best to all of you,

D

 

[FrantzM]

So while I can clearly see that any response to this thread will be "tilting at windmills" as the conclusions were stated at the beginning by the OP I still feel it is important to at least fire a few shots in the directions of the throbbing mass of Luddites and their antediluvian devices (vinyl engines and their owners the "Vinylistas").

YES; I do listen to vinyl - in fact have a complete vinyl engine - Clearaudio, CJ phono amp, et cetera. But for the purposes of this thread my response will be focused on my experiences with a SOTA rig; Shindo table with the Shindo "blessed" cartridge, an ARC REF phono-amp, full ARC stack (including the ARC REF-40 pre) and a set of Artemis speakers. My friend who owns all this "expensive" and clearly "Highest End" gear is of course a major vinyl lover - and maintains as the OP that only vinyl can deliver the musical goods.

Our test music was "Gladiator" - Hans Zimmer the composer is known as a careful producer whose productions, whether digital or analog are first rate. In fact that pompous windbag HP named Zimmer's "Thin Red Line" as perhaps one of the best CDs ever produced - I agree - a work of stunning beauty both musically and sonically.

Unfortunately for the retro types the CD absolutely crushed the vinyl production (the CD player was an ARC DAC-8 with a Modwright (Denon) being used as a transport). The CD had far greater dynamics, more vivid timbres, smoother tonality and just made the vinyl sound as what it is; an old, tired, low resolution and extremely limited medium for recording.

Before all the ancients get their blood pressure too high I want to add some insight into what I believe is going on in this endless debate between digital lovers and deluded vinylistas - for while these types are suffering there are some real reasons for the delusional behavior.

Basically it goes like this; I was listening on my own rig to an old Aerosmith tune "Train Kept a Rollin'" - nice little pop ditty from the '70s and good tight music - goes great with Bourbon and water. Since I have both the album and the CD I went back and forth and could clearly hear that the digital was far less involving - less emotionally accessible - and at the end of the day our response to music is almost totally about emotion - not rational analysis.

I wondered about this and thought this is exactly what the vehement vinylistas are always going on about. But as I thought more deeply it occurred to me that what the CD was doing was revealing that this tune, on this album was all recorded in booths, i.e. individual tracks. With the vastly superior clarity and transparency of CD I could hear that the acoustic for each performer was different - and sonically at odds with each other. With the sloppy, wobbly performance of vinyl this clear difference in performance acoustic was submerged in a sea of noise - so as a result the VINYL SOUNDED BETTER. The tune was more emotionally accessible - and that is what I listen for - to be entertained. To connect with the wonder of music - no matter the genre.

It is NOT that the vinyl IS better - it is the fact that the production of many performances relied heavily on the mushy, rolled-off characteristics of vinyl to "put a little lipstick on the pig". I have often commented that vinyl seems "more whole" when you listen to it - but I have concluded that this "better gestalt" is more about reduced clarity and medium limitations than it is about any form of sonic superiority.

When you couple this with Harley's observations in the last TAS concerning the horrible condition of the tapes used in the production of CDs during the '80s and through the '90s (read the article but in many cases the CD was made with a tape that already had the vinyl compression applied - and of course did not sound "right" on a digital medium) it is no surprise that many digital releases WERE rather horrible and "off" sounding.

Add in the woeful design of the first through third generation digital playback devices (from ANY manufacturer) and only the clear superiority of the digital medium could have survived such an inauspicious roll out.

One last comment; many of the so-called "high end" systems have a characteristic "flat, hard, emotionally distanced" sound to them - all the usual suspects are equally guilty. Yes I have been to audio shows and have sat in rooms with JV (and his worn out moldy vinyl) and listened to $100k systems that I thought were simply "dead" sounding. In almost every "SOTA" rig I have heard the overall sound was nothing short of morbid - denying music in favor of an analytical tour de force of "clarity" and that most ugly word "transparency". Gear listeners - not music lovers. Given one of these mostly dead sounding systems it is small wonder that their creators (trade rag readers and believers one and all) to infuse even a small grain of emotion into their systems embrace the mushy, rolled-off, sound of vinyl.

best to all of you,

D

WElcome to our corner of the Cyber Universe.. Please post more often.. You will need you will need a flame suit because you will be doused .. Again welcome ...

Great first (?) post.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I am sure valkyrie hasnt heard a real good vinyl set up , because it can makes cds weep and shut down , meaning them sounding artificial and not real in comparison , on good elpees that is

 

[Gregadd]

To sum up-vallkyrie misses nothing. He's quite happy with CD. I can live with that.

 

[NorthStar]

---We're a funny bunch! :b

 

[andromedaaudio]

i am sure , but i doubt its the best , and that is what this forum is all about

To sum up-vallkyrie misses nothing. He's quite happy with CD. I can live with that.