If I'm not mistaken, Nelson Pass said about Firstwatt users that about 30% prefer 2H, 30% prefer low distortion (or 3H) and the rest show no clear preference. Seems different group focus on different aspect of source illusion of the audio reproduction system. Has there been other findings that you or others in this thread are aware of?
Illusion and entertainment, I have no problem with this just say it like it is.
[/URL]
I think it depends whether you are listening to a mono source or a complex stereo sound field.
Lets take for example a simple stereo vocal + guitar that is recorded in a large reverberant room, or conversely, recorded dry but processed through a VHQ large room reverb patch on say a Bricasti M7. The result will be a highly complex L to R channel relationship creating that perceived space.
If you distort both L and R the resultant perceived field will change slightly. It will not necessarily be better or worse, just different.
Here's an interesting take on perceptible levels of distortion by Rob Watts, designer of Chord Dave DAC. He's talking levels below -130dB. Note, Dave is the best measuring DAC Stereophile have ever reviewed. The distortion levels are staggeringly low.
To the peanut gallery - Yes, I know, he has a vested interest.
YouTube
I think it depends whether you are listening to a mono source or a complex stereo sound field.
Lets take for example a simple stereo vocal + guitar that is recorded in a large reverberant room, or conversely, recorded dry but processed through a VHQ large room reverb patch on say a Bricasti M7. The result will be a highly complex L to R channel relationship creating that perceived space.
If you distort both L and R the resultant perceived field will change slightly. It will not necessarily be better or worse, just different.
Here's an interesting take on perceptible levels of distortion by Rob Watts, designer of Chord Dave DAC. He's talking levels below -130dB. Note, Dave is the best measuring DAC Stereophile have ever reviewed. The distortion levels are staggeringly low.
To the peanut gallery - Yes, I know, he has a vested interest.
YouTube
I'll watch this before commenting, on the surface these claims usually don't stand up. Let me guess though he did not bring files for the audience to listen to where "-130dB to -150dB distortion was easily audible" and they all agreed or better yet it is obvious over Youtube.
Here is some more from same presentation WRT noise shaper levels.
YouTube
WRT the referred levels, for example -350dB, fron the graphs, he is referring to the level of 'grass' on the FFT. Obviously it gets difficult to package noise shaper levels into a neat 20k BW figure because they are always looking beyond the audio spectrum where enrgy rises significantly.
T
YouTube
WRT the referred levels, for example -350dB, fron the graphs, he is referring to the level of 'grass' on the FFT. Obviously it gets difficult to package noise shaper levels into a neat 20k BW figure because they are always looking beyond the audio spectrum where enrgy rises significantly.
T
I would suggest you take it up with him Scott, rather than your usual shoot from the hip response here.
He's one of the best digital designers on the planet, the measured results speak for themselves. I believe he does contribute to some discussion forums.
T
Everything except for DR. I think the DR of these DAC's is similar.
Interestingly, RW doesn't put as much weight on DR as all the rest.
He feels as long as there is zero noise modulation, that is the most important thing.
Watch the vid, then make *constructive* comment.
T
I shoot from 42 years of experience, and 100's of happy customers. BTW I was right wasn't I? Let me watch this when I have time, peace please in the meantime.
EDIT - This is funny as if FPGA's are not silicon.
Last edited:
Watch the vid, then make *constructive* comment.
T
You claimed something that wasn't true. How was my comment not 'constructive'?
Everything except for DR. I think the DR of these DAC's is similar.
Interestingly, RW doesn't put as much weight on DR as all the rest.
He feels as long as there is zero noise modulation, that is the most important thing.
Watch the vid, then make *constructive* comment.
T
Surprise surprise, Scott was right. There is nothing but some anecdotes that his kids could hear the difference watching cartoons.
Usually those making extraordinary claims are the ones that need to provide evidence.
The Chord products seem well designed, but even the the lunatic fringe here does not seem to believe that anything 130 to 150 dB down from the signal is audible.
Yes - I find it hard to believe myself Chris.
However, I always keep an open mind to these things, especially when it's coming from someone with a lot of knowledge and credibility, rather than just shred them on a public forum.
The Dave has lower distortion, lower IMD, lower jitter (look at the 'skirt') and is very likley pushing the boundaries of AP test set.
The DR is similar.
Being an FPGA -> discrete OP pulse array DAC, it has none of the hardware constraints that the Benchmark does for example using a chip based ASRC and whatever limitations the Sabre chip has.
The more I've read about this DACs design and measured performance, the more I am impressed by the designers ability and knowledge.
T
From what I understand, Rob Watts was a very successful designer outside the audio field. I believe the audio stuff for Chord was more passion driven than outright financial. Obviously we all have to make a living but he strikes me as someone with a fair degree of integrity that is pushing the boundaries because he's truly passionate about it - and he's got the knowledge to do it.
These sorts of people (Putzeys also comes to mind) are the good guys of our industry that are truly pushing the envelope.
T
And the benchmark has a 10dB lower noise floor? Everything is so far below (say) the noise floor of the mike or even the listening room and in some cases the molecules of air in the room its not worth even considering other than for willy waving. The only measurement I can see where there is a significant delta between the 2 products (the Dave being 3x the price) is the 19/20kHz IMD where you have maybe 14dB to the Dave, but -114dB vs -128dB. I'd spend the $10,000 where it mattered TBH.
An FPGA is a chip. The ESS DAC was developed via FPGA prototypes and then committed to a dedicated IC. This aspect of this discussion is nonsense, a small company simply can't afford to do a run of a custom chip and it sounds nice to those who don't know better.
Last edited:
Not to deaden the conversation too much, but discussing the latest benchmark and chord products for anything significant is probably a waste of time. Unless one has notably greater output swing, which may play better/worse with the downstream equipment.
And while I agree Scott with the ridiculousness of conflating "silicon" with DAC ASICs, it's really a throwaway comment worthy of an eyeroll and not much else.
And while I agree Scott with the ridiculousness of conflating "silicon" with DAC ASICs, it's really a throwaway comment worthy of an eyeroll and not much else.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.