I did an experiment once where I plugged a mic in to clean preamp, and plugged that into my power amp, and listened to the mic through my speakers. I then inserted a very high quality A/D -> D/A with no processing between the preamp and power amp, and listened again. The digital conversion was far from transparent.
So, I would say if one's digital conversion is transparent, then I was joking. If it was like mine, then I was serious.
In the experiment I tried, I used the Lynx2 converters, specifications here: http://www.lynxstudio.com/pop/product_file.asp?i=22
If I had used the Crane Song HEDD and the DAC-1 instead, it probably would have sounded much better, which is why I use that combination now.
So, I would say if one's digital conversion is transparent, then I was joking. If it was like mine, then I was serious.
In the experiment I tried, I used the Lynx2 converters, specifications here: http://www.lynxstudio.com/pop/product_file.asp?i=22
If I had used the Crane Song HEDD and the DAC-1 instead, it probably would have sounded much better, which is why I use that combination now.
Last edited:
Tell you what, I just uploaded two files to dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/9r5kiiptr00seub/AAC5zEynkg-ZmriNSkQxFPaEa?dl=0
They are two level matched recordings made from tape. The only differences are the A/D converters that were used. Listen carefully to the cymbals, and see if you can tell a difference, and if so, which one do you like better?
They are two level matched recordings made from tape. The only differences are the A/D converters that were used. Listen carefully to the cymbals, and see if you can tell a difference, and if so, which one do you like better?
If you have a cheap cartridge see if you can dampen it some. I just added tiny bits of No-Rez to mine and it took it to some other level. The cheap cartridges often have resonating plastic parts, that are hollow, on the stylus, that's bad.
Then find the right combination of mats that decouple some from turntable, and importantly deaden the sound going down through the vinyl, that's coming from the speaker that is the tip of the stylus. I use a rubber stock mat with a cork one on top. The most important thing about using mats is that the vinyl won't slip and the mats don't slip. Tiny amounts of drag will cause slipping you don't see, and sound will suffer. I'm tempted to try leather instead of cork.
It's not necessary to spend mega bucks to make a turntable sound good. There's plenty of good DIY phono projects on this forum too.
Then find the right combination of mats that decouple some from turntable, and importantly deaden the sound going down through the vinyl, that's coming from the speaker that is the tip of the stylus. I use a rubber stock mat with a cork one on top. The most important thing about using mats is that the vinyl won't slip and the mats don't slip. Tiny amounts of drag will cause slipping you don't see, and sound will suffer. I'm tempted to try leather instead of cork.
It's not necessary to spend mega bucks to make a turntable sound good. There's plenty of good DIY phono projects on this forum too.
I have indeed but was not impressed enough to shell out 15k. For some reason, any ticks and pops were increased enormously in 'objection level'.
Furthermore, there were many, many more of them than expected and after some arms wringing, the manu admitted that it was 'probably due to air borne dust particle reflections of the read lasers'.
We even debated setting up some provision to have overpressure inside the player to keep dust out, much as they do with clean rooms, but I didn't really follow it up.
The sound was very, very good, really, except for those points mentioned which pretty much made it a conversation piece rather than a player you'd use on a day by day basis.
Jan
I have read in all the reviews that you basically need to wash and vac each record each time before use to prevent that. This is a case where digitising and feeding through a declicker in real time might be a step forwards. That or a clean room for listening 
(and note I've never been able to justify 15k on anything other than a house).
(and note I've never been able to justify 15k on anything other than a house).
I have read in all the reviews that you basically need to wash and vac each record each time before use to prevent that. This is a case where digitising and feeding through a declicker in real time might be a step forwards. That or a clean room for listening
(and note I've never been able to justify 15k on anything other than a house).
When I give tours of my shop I explain which equipment costs more than my shop building, which cost more than my house and which more than my car. (1, 2, 4)
As to turntables, lately I have been trying to brush in a small amount of powdered graphite. Seems to offer some improvement. But only a very small amount. Excess ends up plowed to the inner pick up grooves.
Last edited:
Thanks. As soon as I get ability to listen to music critically at home again I will.Current arrangements are less than satisfactory but end in sight.
TBH from my perspective, even if the ADC in the miniDSP is not neutral, the benefits of a digital active crossover outweigh the losses for me. 80-90% of my listening is from digital sources and the additional flexibility that the DSP offers in optimising the crossover allows me to try options that would be a pain to do in the analog domain. Basically system SQ optimisation trumps and loss from one node.
Plus I can always add a better ADC down the line if I need to. win/win.
Note: Benchmart ADC1 at $1800 might be an improvement, but that is a lot of spendy. On looks along it would be perceived as better of course.
Last edited:
what limitations? The measured response is pretty good. I see nothing in the measurements TomChr did with his AP to suggest audible artifacts. There are better measuring products out there, but do they really sound better? measurements here if you missed them https://www.neurochrome.com/minidsp-4x10-hd/ .
BTW: what happened to the Mark we knew and loved? You've gone all JC in your responses last 24 hours.
BTW: what happened to the Mark we knew and loved? You've gone all JC in your responses last 24 hours
.One of the files I posted was of a Lynx2 A/D, and I provided a link to it's specs in an earlier post. The other file was of a Crane Song HEDD A/D. Despite the good specs, the Lynx2 is audibly inferior to the HEDD. Some people can hear it, and some can't. Distortion in the Lynx2 is roughly on the same level as undithered 16/44, which is to say its audible on a good playback system.
Many people here seem to feel confident that earlier research showing most people can't hear such subtitles can be taken as reliable. But my experience is contrary to that. I have shown people the difference between the Lynx2 and the HEDD, and sure, at first they don't notice any difference. However, once it is pointed out what to listen for, they can hear it reliably, but only on a very good playback system.
Of the people here, I think Mooly must have such a system, and he knows what to listen for. However, he probably doesn't want to get into arguments about it. I guess I'm not as smart as he is in that respect.
Its just puzzling to me that there seems to be so much interest here by many people in low distortion amplifiers, yet nobody wants to accept that good low distortion amplifiers and good speakers can reveal defects in all but the best data converters. That despite specs and (apparently faulty) prior research. The files I posted demonstrate this, and I can hear the differences, and probably Mooly can too. And I could hear those differences using the Lynx2 DAC, although its easier using the DAC-1. Don't know if anyone else has a good enough system and knows what to listen for.
Anyway, once one hears the distorted sound for what it is, its hard to accept a system as truly hifi and low distortion if it exhibits such problems.
If the argument is that its better not to know what to listen for, because its a curse, then the same argument should hold for other hifi equipment, and then who should care if an amplifier is low distortion? Unless maybe it is also a curse to have a distortion analyzer handy?
Many people here seem to feel confident that earlier research showing most people can't hear such subtitles can be taken as reliable. But my experience is contrary to that. I have shown people the difference between the Lynx2 and the HEDD, and sure, at first they don't notice any difference. However, once it is pointed out what to listen for, they can hear it reliably, but only on a very good playback system.
Of the people here, I think Mooly must have such a system, and he knows what to listen for. However, he probably doesn't want to get into arguments about it. I guess I'm not as smart as he is in that respect.
Its just puzzling to me that there seems to be so much interest here by many people in low distortion amplifiers, yet nobody wants to accept that good low distortion amplifiers and good speakers can reveal defects in all but the best data converters. That despite specs and (apparently faulty) prior research. The files I posted demonstrate this, and I can hear the differences, and probably Mooly can too. And I could hear those differences using the Lynx2 DAC, although its easier using the DAC-1. Don't know if anyone else has a good enough system and knows what to listen for.
Anyway, once one hears the distorted sound for what it is, its hard to accept a system as truly hifi and low distortion if it exhibits such problems.
If the argument is that its better not to know what to listen for, because its a curse, then the same argument should hold for other hifi equipment, and then who should care if an amplifier is low distortion? Unless maybe it is also a curse to have a distortion analyzer handy?
Last edited:
Bill, I didn't see anything there about the A/D performance, which you are planning to use. The DAC in the miniDSP-HD might be good enough to hear the differences between the ADC files I posted, assuming of course, amp and speakers are up to it, and assuming one knows what to listen for.
. These were all analog in analog out tests, so the whole system.
I don't have the miniDSP in the system yet, so would just be my usual DAC and I have my koss ESP/950 so who knows I might suprise myself in learning something about my hearing abilities. But I could use it as a straight though DAC I guess. Bear with me!
At this point in time the Lynx2 is quite long in the tooth. While a quite credible card, it is a card in a computer vs an outboard converter, much more difficult environment. I have used it for many years myself.
The HEDD is a very good unit from Dave Hill, but it comes in a number of iterations, currently I believe it is in its 4th or 5th digital conversion version. He keeps up with the chip changes to not be outdated in the generations of conversion development.
So which version of converter was it?
Cheers
Alan
The HEDD is a very good unit from Dave Hill, but it comes in a number of iterations, currently I believe it is in its 4th or 5th digital conversion version. He keeps up with the chip changes to not be outdated in the generations of conversion development.
So which version of converter was it?
Cheers
Alan
It's a HEDD 192. Last time I talked to the folks at Crane Song about it they said it was the latest version, that there was nothing newer than 192.
There really have not been significant improvements in ADC's for audio in the last 15 years. There are some new chips with even higher sample rates, but the sacrifice linearity for the higher sample rates. Its possible to combine converters to get bigger dynamic range but that usually has other penalties as well. The bulk of the energy in new audio DAC's has been much cheaper 100 dB SNR chips. The HEDD seems to be focused on internal DSP to add color.
The Lynx is a good technical implementation but doesn't have the best audio reputation. The RME card, which does not have as good a converter, seems to have a bigger audience. Lynx switched converters on their latest card to another 15 year old design.
I suspect the implementation is more important than the ADC at this stage. Actually getting the full performance of an AK5394A is very technically challenging it turns out.
The Lynx is a good technical implementation but doesn't have the best audio reputation. The RME card, which does not have as good a converter, seems to have a bigger audience. Lynx switched converters on their latest card to another 15 year old design.
I suspect the implementation is more important than the ADC at this stage. Actually getting the full performance of an AK5394A is very technically challenging it turns out.
Mark, I think that your input is right on! We have always found that a direct AD-DA put in series with an all quality analog source is apparent to just about everybody. It takes the ABX sort of test to confuse the issue, as it seems to 'filter out' the digital problems during the test, only to have them reappear when listening openly.
Dave Wilson found this out decades ago, and he even made a vinyl record with 'direct' on one side, and AD-DA on the other side, of course from an analog recorder (ultra-master) initially recorded live. He even demoed it at CES! We don't like this, but we accept that it is a real problem that we continue to attempt to fix.
Dave Wilson found this out decades ago, and he even made a vinyl record with 'direct' on one side, and AD-DA on the other side, of course from an analog recorder (ultra-master) initially recorded live. He even demoed it at CES! We don't like this, but we accept that it is a real problem that we continue to attempt to fix.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.