I'm not at all surprised. Clapton is well known to like old analog sounds, BB. King like. And I believe he chose this studio (British Grove Studios) because they have a LOT of old gears (I made a mix in there) able to produce this kind of sound. So, the only thing i ca say is they succeed this goal, if it was-it.
And you confirm that it was an analog recording.
When I talked of distortion, I was referring to his voice. The guitar ? Are-you kidding ?
Be nice, if you have a good digital record (digitally recorded and mixed, the desk can be analog) like Harry Connick "France i wish you love" with his huge dynamic, his piano that sound like a Piano, and the perfect drums, precise and dynamic, full of details everywhere, you will really reveal differences.
Note that Album, it is a must have. And the horns !!!!
Last edited:
Simulators are only as good as their models - I believe one of the biggest hurdles with high order noise shaper design is the complexity of multiple feedback levels & ensuring stability? Anybody here ever design a DAC at this level? Funnily enough, this is precisely what Mallinson was talking about in his presentation on ESS DAC at one of the RMAF gatherings
Syn08, I was hoping for technical talk about what he said but maybe you prefer your suspicions/opinions/allegations about him?
Syn08, I was hoping for technical talk about what he said but maybe you prefer your suspicions/opinions/allegations about him?
Last edited:
More than 10 years ago I can get XT25 locally for $50 (a pair) with current exchange rate. Now Vifa is owned by Scan-Speak, and there are more models similar to XT25. Some other tweeters (or midwoofer) can be found in John Krutke site where you can compare drivers harmonic distortion:
John Krutke: Zaph|Audio
Troels Gravesen: default page
Scan-Speak 10F midrange is nice too. From the sound I predict that H2 is high too (at least it should be dominant than H3).
I have used local tweeters too (which I think is produced by same company who produces SB-Acoustics) with very high H2. I needed to purchase 15 just to get matched 2.
You may already know that objectivists will say that this (level of) harmonic distortion is INAUDIBLE.
Yes. Many have used waveguides. I have tried but failed. I guessed my ears are too sensitive so I could always hear issues with my waveguides (or any horn speakers I have ever heard). But most of us cannot hear the last octave well so many of its weakness is not really 'audible' imo. This is actually budget tweeter but I think it is used in expensive speakers too. I used to knock my head if I couldn't make more expensive tweeters to sound subjectively better than this XT25
Last edited:
I hear you. Best way to do a blind test is to provide listeners with similar experience when they claim they hear something. And this is mostly after the speaker, where unfortunately if we record after the speaker the difference will be huge, cannot be done with ABX, but can be done with question such as "which one is using silver wire?". This won't take too much energy for the listeners.
I have been confused too, why test files provided in most tests do not sound like high quality? In real life I think nobody want to hear it (I prefer the sound files provided by Dan lately where I have no objection listening to it as background music while working). But when the artist is Steely Dan then I could understand.
Well someone like Dr. Geddes in the speaker world. Anyone that cannot easily believe that there are others who have more sensitive ears. This is actually the root cause, imho. If we cannot hear better, everything seemed similar, and we can be too 'rigid' with our concept of 'hifi', 'accurate reproduction', etc. If we have good ears, even if not, if we have lots of knowledge, we will understand that it is impossible to reproduce the reality, it is even impossible to hear what the mixing engineer hear even if we use the same speaker, so we can be more 'flexible' with the concept of accurate reproduction.
Have you designed modulators in Matlab or other software and subsequently in silicon - can you tell us your experience?
Martin Mallinson at RMAF11, then chief designer at ESS, says in his presentation here that Matlab does not solve the issue that he & JohnW are talking about - the stability of the modulator when certain types of dynamic signal characteristics are encountered
Last edited:
Analog and digital process simulation are very different. A digital process to the extent it is logical operations is usually modeled with something like Verilog at a certain level of abstraction. Verilog to FPGA tools are fairly mature. DAC's are not digital only systems.
Last edited:
For me, this controversy about "There is no difference between DACs" is pretty strange. It is like "No differences between amps". Everybody can make dayly its own opinion (an have yet). Why to ask for a boring blind test ?
About test files, I am with you. Of course, there is no difference in the linearity of the bandwidth between modern DACs. So the tonal balance stay unchanged between all of them.
The difference I look-at is in microdynamic. Sharpness of attacks. When there is no attack in the source, but a "wall of sound" that cover everything, how can-we make any difference ?
Mark4, as an other example, seems focused on something i never looked at: "Reverb tails". When there is no dynamic, no silence, in a test file, how can some make any difference on this point ?
Last, when there is such a huge difference between digital and analog tapes in distortions levels and signal noise ratios, does it make sense to take the analogue as a reference and digital as the copy? It's like evaluating the performance of a Formula one stuck behind an SUV on a track where you can not overtake.
Last, I'm like you, when I do not like the music or the sound quality of a file, I do not like to concentrate on it ;-)
Last edited:
So you weren't referring to anyone on this forum. OK.
It is pretty strange that you bring claims posted some place else to this forum. That is unless you've seen those claims on this forum and can quote them.
No, I haven't designed modulators, but have a little experience with VHDL, Verilog and FPGA realizations.
Given that the input to the modulator is digital, and the output is digital, I don't see a problem here. They will have testbenches that could generate any conceivable input.
I listened to the clip, and Martin was not saying that their tools were insufficient to simulate this (where do you think they got those graphs from?). Martin was just saying that he didn't like what the canned 5th order modulator library/wizard spit out. Maybe you can explain why something that can be implemented in C on a microcontroller could not be "simulated" effectively.
Further, in the section of the clip you linked, Martin is explaining that their modulator does not exhibit the behavior that John seems to be complaining about.
On this topic, Marcel is the person you want to best answer your questions.
Last edited:
I think it is very different. Amps have obvious differences between them (coz for example they have to be loaded with 'crazy'/abnormal speaker load). I can understand Evenharmonics. Current cheap CD players are using high quality chips already.
Amps are different. Most amps are actually wrong (according to my findings). Most people cannot hear it, they just follow the band wagon. When everyone say amp A is great, they build the amp and think that it is great. Some spread the news without even hearing it.
Most solid state amps cannot portray room ambience. Even to show a little ambience is difficult. But I can assure you that the ambience information is abundance in recordings (and is still there out of computer sound card).
That's true
In real life, listener has his 'moment' when he hears the difference. We have to understand this 'moment' and construct the test so that it will show exactly the same thing that happened at that 'moment'. Of course, most listeners do not even understand what happened during the moment High quality dac chips are quite capable of producing very poor sound quality, which they often do. One can make a cheap, mediocre, or great dac all using the same chip. Making a great dac is complicated and costly.
The dac chip itself sets a limit on the best a dac can be if everything else about the implementation is perfect. The 'everything else' is the hard part.
Last edited:
Yes, I have had in the past many expensive CDPs that sound inferior to cheap commercial CDPs. The sound of these cheap CDPs were good enough for me. Not a bottleneck imo. With such DAC capability and the fact that amplifiers are so lousy, it shouldn't easily be a bottleneck.
I have tried that with TDA1543. I think I have probably got to the limit and the SNR is probably the bottleneck.
I have a USB DAC somewhere but I don't even interested to find it. Direct from tabletPC is good enough for me.
Johnego, most "high end" amplifiers are lousy. It is possible to design and build absolutely transparent amplifier, especially in class A.
Or not. Nothing is easier than to prepare a test with low level signal where anyone can hear the difference in noise and clicks when he turns volume full right to an unusable position for normal listening level.
That's true
Or not. Nothing is easier than to prepare a test with low level signal where anyone can hear the difference in noise and clicks when he turns volume full right to an unusable position for normal listening level
.See, we have a subjectivist who likes TDA1543 and the analog output of his tablet PC.Yes, I have had in the past many expensive CDPs that sound inferior to cheap commercial CDPs. The sound of these cheap CDPs were good enough for me. Not a bottleneck imo. With such DAC capability and the fact that amplifiers are so lousy, it shouldn't easily be a bottleneck.
I have tried that with TDA1543. I think I have probably got to the limit and the SNR is probably the bottleneck.
I have a USB DAC somewhere but I don't even interested to find it. Direct from tabletPC is good enough for me.
Seems hard to take seriously the claimed effects of jitter, noise modulation, settling of higher order SD modulators, etc. when the bar is set this low.
Interesting. Yes, I agree.
When we build many highest quality amplifiers, and if our ears are sensitive, we will find that it is difficult to build one amp that is best in every aspects of quality. My problem is that class-A has that 'quality' that I have never found in class-B, and I'm trying to avoid the high electrical bill. But from all class-A amps that I have built, I don't think I will pick any of them either when compared to my class-B
So may be the solution should be a 'complex' class-A. Not necessarily as complex as a PGP or Extrema, but 3 or 4 stages CFA with complex current sources and 'smart' power supply. Currently I'm interested with the 'natural' sound of CFP output or collector/drain follower.But may be I have found the class-B, I will see in a few weeks.
ExtremA has very good power stage and very poor front-end. The front-end with output stage in fb loop has very bad stability and extremely horrible non-symmetrical and slow step response with very low slew rate. Tons of correspondence with Sander Sassen and some with Bruno. Tons of measurements. But the output stage is close to perfect when in class A, due to local feedback. Give it a good front-end and you have it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.