Well, serious about audio I am. Looking for the most pleasant sound does not interest me; faithfull sound, faithfull reproduction of a recording, reproduction which tells me what goes on during a performance, that what it is about for me.
I did not suggest that the NOS dac sounds pleasant on a specific collection of music; to me it sounds neutral on everything it reproduces. My ears tell me so.
When it does not sound well I could use measuring equipment in an effort to see why, but in this case I don't feel the need.
We can not measure everything. Does a good sounding piece of equipment sounds good because we measure no distortion? Why then do excellent measuring amplifiers sound different? Aren't the things "we don't know" the reason of much we are talking about here?
Ghosts of forums past
I just thought I'd repeat what I wrote a few minutes ago over at "classdaudio vs hypex" in the Class D Forum:
No
Originally Posted by john dozier:
Quote:"Has anyone heard these amps in the same system?..."
Me:
"The answer after 24 posts is no. Apparently no one who owns a UcD finds any value in comparing to amps whose manufacturer descended from a deceitful brand. Remember the former "classdaudio" which *never* sold a Class D circuit? Yet because the forum moderator had no integrity, he allowed trash to pollute and wreck a once-respected, *actual* class D forum.
The new classdaudio company's designs look fine for cheap DIY amps. They don't bother to post a datasheet, not even IMD numbers, so one shouldn't expect the stellar performance that UcD achieves. Hence the comparison is rather silly, IMO."
Never mind, sorry for the interruption.
I just thought I'd repeat what I wrote a few minutes ago over at "classdaudio vs hypex" in the Class D Forum:
No
Originally Posted by john dozier:
Quote:"Has anyone heard these amps in the same system?..."
Me:
"The answer after 24 posts is no. Apparently no one who owns a UcD finds any value in comparing to amps whose manufacturer descended from a deceitful brand. Remember the former "classdaudio" which *never* sold a Class D circuit? Yet because the forum moderator had no integrity, he allowed trash to pollute and wreck a once-respected, *actual* class D forum.
The new classdaudio company's designs look fine for cheap DIY amps. They don't bother to post a datasheet, not even IMD numbers, so one shouldn't expect the stellar performance that UcD achieves. Hence the comparison is rather silly, IMO."
Never mind, sorry for the interruption.
I half agree
The amplification stages should definitely be transparent
The source unit should provide the inverse of the recording process (it should output whatever the input signal was prior to its encoding for storage)
And the speakers should convert the electrical signal back to the acoustic waves that first hit the microphone
However
when the producer and recording engineer handled the recording sessions they tweaked and adjusted based on the kit they were using to monitor the sessions
And the in the reproduction chain the speakers have interactions with the room they are placed in
But overall the reproduction system is an "illusion engine" trying to get us close to the musicians when they are, say, recorded in a vast concert hall but reproduced in a reverberating 3x4m room
And to give us the maximum subjective pleasure from listening to recorded music
- what's the point of the perfect reproduction chain if it just makes us miserable in our despair over the signal that was encrypted during the recording process?
so at some point it (sadly) feels valid to insert a process which helps or provides the illusion engine and gives us pleasure when we listen to the decoded signal
(open loop valve buffer, anyone?)
I've had some delightful sessions borrowing a friend's old Quad II/22 amps
- accurate? No
- pleasurable? Absolutely delightful!
As it happens, to date I've found that the more transparent the reproduction device the better the illusion engine works for me, but I do think that 'it sounds pleasant' is a valid achievement. I have many friends who think their music replay systems are great - 'listen to the bass' = 1 note resonant mush - but maybe they've reached audio nirvana ahead of me because, to their ears 'it sounds pleasant'
Last edited:
I thought Bruno made it pretty clear earlier that the ncore is insensitive to PS.
roscoeiii, at the risk of sounding like a nCore fan-boy...on my speakers, in my system and to my ears the nCore is superior in every way to my 60 watt Class A OTL's. The difference is not subtle IMHO. And my speakers are an easy load for OTL's to drive as well.
My OTL's have good tonal and energy balance and a sense of immediacy (what audiophiles typically and incorrectly refer to as transparency) but, are considerably less accurate. The OTL soundstage is exaggerated left to right and compressed front to back. There is much lower macro and micro detail which obfuscates or homogenizes the true sound of everything. If your source, speakers or room are bright or thin then I think many would and do find the OTL's to sound very pleasant and musical.
The nCore's have better tonal and energy balance, the soundstage is very accurately conveyed in all dimensions and remains rock solid even during complex, dynamic passages at both very low and high SPL while even the subtlest of details are conveyed in the most effortless fashion.
For example, a delicate triangle strike in the far back right of the orchestra during a crescendo. Not only do you hear it clearly in space and time, but you hear the partials with greater accuracy and detail than any amplifier I've heard. The same with every other instrument or vocal.
It's not a great analogy, but for me it is like the difference between HD and conventional TV. Once you see HD there is no going back.
Now then, as I mentioned before, if your source, speakers or room have inaccuracies this amplifier will lay them bare and for some, like that famous line by Jack Nicholson in a Few Good Men....they might not be able (or want) to handle the truth....
And, of course, we have the issue this is a Class D amplifier with a SMPS to boot and everyone knows it can't compete with the best Class A amps....
Last edited:
Sam, perhaps I am misinterpreting your post, but I at least for one have directly compared the Class D Audio SDS to the Hypex nCore and my review can be found earlier in this thread.
Well, it's more then 20 pages and I found the first 20 pretty boring so I stopped.I just changed m user settings the other day and cut it down to 100 pages
since some people asked about DACs, have you looked at the new Weiss 202? it has impressive measurements, John Atkinson said it's the best he ever measured in his career: Weiss DAC202 FireWire D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com
and looking inside it seems the boring opamp job, which is reassuring http://picturestack.com/472/486/zyLdac202bH9c.jpg
unfortunately at $8000 it's not exactly in the budget price range.
I think of reviews in magazines mostly as literature.
I'm not a total objectivist myself, I think there's still a lot we need to learn about psychoacoustics. think jitter, in the '70s they decided 10s (or was it hundreds?) of nanoseconds are ok. but when we simply start to take for granted what is measurable deviation of signal (and far more complex than harmonic distortion at that) we need to start to ask ourselves if we're on the right path. I'll never be able to understand how come some audio designers opt for very sane engineering choices in some departments (everyone agrees we need to reduce jitter) but for totally absurd ones in others (only one gain device). makes me wonder about the empirical design philosophy, how do they do it, toss coins?
and looking inside it seems the boring opamp job, which is reassuring
http://picturestack.com/472/486/zyLdac202bH9c.jpgunfortunately at $8000 it's not exactly in the budget price range.
why do you think that? Bruno said that the measurement results were obtained using the Hypex SMPS, not that no PS would surpass it. I would stay away from obscure switching supplies too, but I can't see why a good old linear PS can't be good.
no, don't get me wrong. I mean, ANY review is useful in its way. even if the effect is losing credibility in the reviewer. say you read a review to a piece of gear that you know very well and you totally disagree with it, you'll know that you need to keep the salt near when reading the next by the same author.
I think of reviews in magazines mostly as literature.
one thing that has always intrigued me is this "sounds realistic" thing. IMO realism is lost the very moment when sounds becomes electricity. or even before that, think reverb boxes for vocals. sound is altered (intentionally or not) during the recording process, how can one take as a reference an unknown voice that was recorded using an uknown mic, has reverb and maybe EQ added?
I take it that was proven. or maybe we can rephrase and say we're not fully able to interpret meaningful measurements?
not the best example IMO. I only take as a reference an experienced ear who had the occasion to compare bad to decent, decent to good, good to extraordinary etc. I know a lot of people who prefer the boombox bass. I know this guy who used to listen with all the EQ's all the way up on the bass: Winamp, sound card and amplifier! 3 of them! if you add the room gain I think he had some 40 dB of gain in the mid-bass region. was he happy with that "sound"? yes. do I want to be like that? no.
I'm not a total objectivist myself, I think there's still a lot we need to learn about psychoacoustics. think jitter, in the '70s they decided 10s (or was it hundreds?) of nanoseconds are ok. but when we simply start to take for granted what is measurable deviation of signal (and far more complex than harmonic distortion at that) we need to start to ask ourselves if we're on the right path. I'll never be able to understand how come some audio designers opt for very sane engineering choices in some departments (everyone agrees we need to reduce jitter) but for totally absurd ones in others (only one gain device). makes me wonder about the empirical design philosophy, how do they do it, toss coins?
exactly! I used to think that transparency means the same thing, you know when you feel the voice is pushed to front and you get the sensation that you can reach out you hand and touch it, but at the same time there is no depth? glad I'm past that. my current understanding of transparency is a kind of efortlessness that makes you think that the gear does not want to attract attention to itself.
that would mean infinite PSRR at all frequencies + total immunity to all types of interferences. I don't think the NCORE has those.
Last edited:
Yes, exactly my point. Stick with the Hypex supply as the Class D supply is NOT a linear supply that will surpass the Hypex Switcher. Quite frankly I find it hard to belive that a linear would make any sense given the results that Bruno has achieved.
Thanks earflappin, I sent your comparison back to the other forum, with apologies the Class D Audio, who are not those irresponsible Class_D Ltd. people who did the damage.
Agreed on Atma-Sphere OTLs, they are lovely sounding amps. But while they were dynamic and honest in their day, they could not hold a candle to the SS amps my little company (Essence) once built and certainly not to nCore. Two things hit me in 3 seconds with *great* amplifiers: 1) dynamics, and 2) stunning presentation that overwhelms the emotional response. You *know* the tonal balance is almost or essentially perfect, after you get off the floor from the dynamics explosion.
On DACs, It is of course no surprise that the ESS Sabre is a 6-bit DAC. There hasn't been a true >15bit ladder DAC since, since, geez, I don't know when. I mean the best ADC is Bruno's own Grimm 1-bit asynchronous unit! The top AKM DAC is either 5- or 6- bit and so is the TI 1792. It is just a balance of components that yields the best overall behavior.
I would like to hear DACs from Bel Canto, Ayre, Lavry, Weiss, DAD,...I have a wonderful Mytek that uses AD1955s.
My opinion about DACs, amps and "sound".
If it makes you happier person, do the changes to the sound preferably where you have the control. Not in the audio source, not in the amp and as little as possible in the speakers and acoustics, but in the input signal itself, in form of DSP of other audio processing. Then the changes are meant to be and fix the sound and not random fairy dust or good sounding distortions. Nobody lives in an anechoic chamber either (well, some may, but it's very rare).
I am sure there aren't many artists who really mind that much if you don't listen to their product bit-by-bit exactly the same as they provide it to you. What matters more, is that you listen to it, it delivered it's message (feelings included) and you bought it and buy their next record too, because you liked it. I think, it's the only the hardcore hifi people who imply that it would be a really important thing for the artists too.
I think good reproduction of sound just opens new possibilities beacause there is less limiting factors. With good reproduction, you don't ever get bored with your hifi system, because it does not sound like some "capacitor" or some expensive "house sound", but hell, if you like, you CAN make it sound like that too if you know how, instead of buying yourself a new random "house sound".
If it makes you happier person, do the changes to the sound preferably where you have the control. Not in the audio source, not in the amp and as little as possible in the speakers and acoustics, but in the input signal itself, in form of DSP of other audio processing. Then the changes are meant to be and fix the sound and not random fairy dust or good sounding distortions. Nobody lives in an anechoic chamber either (well, some may, but it's very rare).
I am sure there aren't many artists who really mind that much if you don't listen to their product bit-by-bit exactly the same as they provide it to you. What matters more, is that you listen to it, it delivered it's message (feelings included) and you bought it and buy their next record too, because you liked it. I think, it's the only the hardcore hifi people who imply that it would be a really important thing for the artists too.
I think good reproduction of sound just opens new possibilities beacause there is less limiting factors. With good reproduction, you don't ever get bored with your hifi system, because it does not sound like some "capacitor" or some expensive "house sound", but hell, if you like, you CAN make it sound like that too if you know how, instead of buying yourself a new random "house sound".
Last edited:
Let me know when it's ready. I'm buying one.Thanks Earflappin
What would be the Ncore of DAC's? No idea. I have some serious plans to dive into a PWM based DAC, consisting of a modulator like the one described in http://www.hypex.nl/docs/papers/AES120BP.pdf and using a FIR type DAC for improved HF jitter tolerance. Although I'm aiming for much higher measured performance than even the ESS chips, I think that one of those or some other decent chip with a smartly designed I/V is not to be sneezed at. I'm halfway through the design of an AD1955 based board with a very fancy I/V (loads of feedback, as you can imagine), I have high hopes for it.
Here are measurements of the Bricasti Bruno mentioned by the way:
http://www.bricasti.com/images/stereophile_review.pdf
Looks very good, but the Weiss DAC202 seems to be better.
Weiss DAC202 FireWire D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com
http://www.bricasti.com/images/stereophile_review.pdf
Looks very good, but the Weiss DAC202 seems to be better.
Weiss DAC202 FireWire D/A converter Measurements | Stereophile.com
Stig, sounds like the N Core is a real winner on your subwoofers. What about on your B&G RD75's? Do you like them there as well? Are there any amps you have tried that you really liked on the RD75's? PLEASE would love to know. Thanks.
I''ve used Ncore on the RD75 ribbons since before christmas, and I really do like it very much. I posted my early impressions here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/vendors-bazaar/190434-hypex-ncore-95.html#post2829491
The bit in the ellipsis is where you actually say the thing I start every lecture with
The problem with putting euphonic distortion in the replay chain is that it is always the same, whichever record you play. Everything gets the same treatment. That would be like a mastering engineer who always keeps his chain locked at the same settings for every project he gets. Or like a cook who sprinkles the same seasoning over every dish. Such a cook wouldn't even get a job at McD's. Wilfully distorting the sound in replay equipment is not giving the content creator a sporting chance of making a good job of it.
Besides, most audiophiles do not accept they are wilfully introducing colouration. Valve lovers insist that their valves are preserving a quality that is destroyed by solid state, and they're willing to propose a fantastic array of pseudoscientific scenarios of what that should be. Vinyl lovers idem. NOS DAC fans idem. Feedback phobiacs idem. Most audiophiles who have plainly colouring kit will insist that no, it's the other stuff that has a problem, because of digital, feedback, solid state, you name it.
Last edited:
Then you'd be surprised to find out that it's not a 6-bit DAC. Far from it.
In fact, in terms of "raw" resolution, 9018's >21-bit (depending on implementation ofc, there's always someone "skilled" enough to mess it up) are more than enough to crown it King Of The Hill among all integrated chips currently in production.
Gordon Rankin says he managed to get between 134dB and 139dB S/N out of it (measured on his Prism dScopeIII). That's ~23-bits, though this hasn't been confirmed by any 3rd party as far as I know.
The Weiss 202 converter (review posted above) demonstrates ~21bits of real resolution on the test bench. Weiss Media+ probably even more (now that is actually a DAC I'd like to see measured).
Look at this discussion, for example (look for posts by dusfor99 aka Dustin Forman, Senior Engineer at ESS and lead designer of the Sabre chips).
Seriously, there is no fun in beating a dead horse (i.e. that MSB "article"), so search the net a bit (pun intended).
I mean, Sabres are so good that even die-hard noise-shaping-is-just-noise-nothing-beats-my-1541 fans like ThorstenL seem to like them. That should be enough.
Let's get back to our regular NCore lovin' schedule.
Last edited:
Nicely put.The bit in the ellipsis is where you actually say the thing I start every lecture with
The problem with putting euphonic distortion in the replay chain is that it is always the same, whichever record you play. Everything gets the same treatment. That would be like a mastering engineer who always keeps his chain locked at the same settings for every project he gets. Or like a cook who sprinkles the same seasoning over every dish. Such a cook wouldn't even get a job at McD's. Wilfully distorting the sound in replay equipment is not giving the content creator a sporting chance of making a good job of it.
Besides, most audiophiles do not accept they are wilfully introducing colouration. Valve lovers insist that their valves are preserving a quality that is destroyed by solid state, and they're willing to propose a fantastic array of pseudoscientific scenarios of what that should be. Vinyl lovers idem. NOS DAC fans idem. Feedback phobiacs idem. Most audiophiles who have plainly colouring kit will insist that no, it's the other stuff that has a problem, because of digital, feedback, solid state, you name it.
I have a question regarding electronics. One thing is measurements. The other is what's audible. Do you feel that we know sufficient about what's audible today? Or are there still possible blindspots?
Objective studies are seldom shared in the public.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.