My Belcanto Reflink has AES/EBU, S/PFDIF over Coax and over ST-fiber, not to be confused with Toslink fiber.
The Ghz ST-fiber sounds the best.
I think it’s a generalisation to throw all S/PDIF in one heap.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/bel-canto-mlink-ulink-and-ref-link-usb-converters/
The Ghz ST-fiber sounds the best.
I think it’s a generalisation to throw all S/PDIF in one heap.
https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/bel-canto-mlink-ulink-and-ref-link-usb-converters/
Last edited:
I do hear the typical LP quirks when local FM stations play jazz and classical LPs,
so at least some FM broadcasts are reasonably transparent.
Playing my LPs that were made from tapes, I can often clearly hear hiss from the master tape and tape electronics,
as it cuts in at the beginning of the piece. But between pieces, the hiss is not there, and the pure vinyl sound is very quiet.
But on CDs made from tapes, like those by Rudy van Gelder, the tape hiss is less audible, and less extended in the highs.
Sounds to me you have not listened to other DSD DAC. How do you compare Pavel Pogodin's to Mori's?
The ASR members doing the listening test discovered a very important fact:
"Running a well-controlled experiment is extremely difficult. We had to measure groups on different days and getting the level matching and all the bugs worked out was a challenge. We learned a lot and will apply it to our next set of tests."
But their post started with:
"....and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions."
and they should realize that writing down as clearly as possible (right at the beginning) what the questions to explore are, is a crucial point, as everything else follows from this description.
Toole likes it, because of his premise ("Compared to the 99.9% of "listening tests" and "reviews" that are done without even the most basic controls in place this is a masterpiece.")
That seems to be plausible but misses the point that the purpose of any scientific approach is to give correct results. A test is a "masterpiece" if the result is correct and the drawing of conclusions is possible and justified.
As the description of the question they wanted to examine is missing, it's impossible to comment on that.
"Running a well-controlled experiment is extremely difficult. We had to measure groups on different days and getting the level matching and all the bugs worked out was a challenge. We learned a lot and will apply it to our next set of tests."
But their post started with:
"....and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions."
and they should realize that writing down as clearly as possible (right at the beginning) what the questions to explore are, is a crucial point, as everything else follows from this description.
Toole likes it, because of his premise ("Compared to the 99.9% of "listening tests" and "reviews" that are done without even the most basic controls in place this is a masterpiece.")
That seems to be plausible but misses the point that the purpose of any scientific approach is to give correct results. A test is a "masterpiece" if the result is correct and the drawing of conclusions is possible and justified.
As the description of the question they wanted to examine is missing, it's impossible to comment on that.
If its the one I'm thinking of, I looked at Pavel's DSC2 (?), and in particular at the use of CT7302, and, IIRC, the use of transformer coupled outputs. That was a non-starter for me. I had already evaluated CT7302 in consultation with their factory and found it unsatisfactory. In addition, at the time I looked at that dac I had never heard a line level transformer I liked the sound of. More recently things have changed in the latter respect but its something I'm have agreed not to talk about in any detail for now.
Regarding other DSD dacs, I have quite a bit of experience running AK4499EX in DSD volume bypass mode, and some lesser experience with DSD using Rohm BD34301EKV, and AKM with AK4499EXEQ/AK4191. IME none are as good as the recent Andrea Mori DSD dac. It means that to the extent Andrea and I were friendly competitors for best SQ, he beat me. I don't usually give up easy, I sure didn't with Allo. This time its no contest as far as I'm concerned, he won and I'm impressed.
Last edited:
Those are PCM dac that accept DSD data, most probably not optimized for DSD.
There are tradeoffs. The chip dacs have DES/DEM to counteract the effects component matching (which discrete resistor dacs don't typically do). Also, in volume bypass mode the chip dacs do not convert DSD to PCM, that whole stage of processing is bypassed. Moreover, some of the chip dacs sound better in DSD256 volume bypass mode than they do in PCM mode. Have you actually studied the details, and or done any experimental work on this yourself? Done listening tests between PCM and DSD (such as with Topping D90)?
Last edited:
All three DAC's tested seem lossy as you suggest, a condition that is perceived also to covering up their differences. In contrast my phono system can resolve pre-digital LP's more transparently with greater presence, though this can be the result of being DC coupled throughout and using all teflon caps for the RIAA and for frequency compensation. A few of these old recordings contain clear turntable rumble artifacts and other irregularities that seem would be masked if digitally done. Although many vinyl recordings can be horrendous overall they seem digging deeper into the background, for better or worse. It is also interesting how a good phono system can cut through the rubbish that lesser phono systems can't.
There seems would be an advantage in using cost no object A/D, D/A converters in the creation of vinyl if transparency comes at a high price.
No, but I know Pavel's was originally designed with Amanero USB module instead of CT7302 as shown in his site puredsd.ru.
Hi Bonsai.
Not only on MC. MM and MI as well.
A few different methods were tried for to check but no evidence.
It’s all in the https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/cartridge-dynamic-behaviour.320026/post-5370025.
Great contributors there, great synergy, fruitful period.
Please, use the search function. Enter “reciprocity” as search criteria, you will get a list of relevant posts. The term was coined by Scott Wurcer who was the initiator of the excercise.
Mark, I am surprised. I have more than a few ADD CDs with classic/opera, where the tape hiss is heard even by these shot ears.
Also, all vinyl limitations (I would call them artefacts) are present on my LP rips.
George
Last edited:
I started to digitize vinyl, but had to spend a lot of time cleaning it up - the odd dust noise etc. Fortunately everything I had on my (now archived) vinyl is now available on CD or other lossless formats, digitised from master tapes, a much better process. It's amazing in some ways - even some of the really obscure stuff I have from the 60s and 70s is now available!
True about tape hiss on classical type recordings. Obviously its possible to record white noise onto a CD.
Similarly, for old Telarc vinyl releases originally recorded to digital, the digital graininess is plainly audible using optical cart vinyl playback.
IOW, some gross effects can come through on any recording medium.
I was thinking more about things like subtle details of tape distortion, wet/dry ambience, tape volume dynamics, etc. If CD were transparent then all the imperfections of tape would be exactly as bad when played back from CD. IOW, there would be zero SQ difference.
I'm more with rayma on this overall point: not even tape hiss is reproduced with full transparency on any CD reproduction system I have heard so far.
Similarly, if CD were truly transparent and people like the sound of vinyl, we would only need one record player per CD pressing plant. Play the record there, record it to CD and the sound would be exactly the same as the finest vinyl rig. It isn't.
Rather if you record from digital to vinyl, then it usually sounds better that way. Say, once you have the digital recording sounding better by recording it to vinyl, then just record that version to a new CD for the final product so you have all that vinyl magic! In reality it doesn't quite work that way. Something gets lost again.
The above having been said, I continue to be surprised by the amount of subtle, detailed information encoded on some CDs, details I have never heard before from some very good dacs. For one example, today I offline converted CD rips of Miles Davis, "Kind of Blue." The realism using offline conversion to DSD256 can be, I would say, probably stunning to most people. It's almost unbelievable that CD can sound that spacious, organic and real if the D/A process is sufficiently good. IME it also easily outstrips any SACD I have heard so far (which are at DSD64). (Note: of course this all was with ESL speakers.)
Thus I continue to feel that the biggest remaining technical problems with digital mostly have to do D/A technology: need for improved accuracy of conversion (other than in terms of PSS measurements), and bringing down cost of ownership for the highest quality reproduction.
Last edited:
How are you sure it's from the master tape gpauk?
What i've seen (and did) was often from vinyl to digital because original tapes were either lost or damaged. Even for big selling artist.
About artefacts of analog media: i'm often amazed how people doesn't hear and identify the 'pre-echo' present in any recording that was put to tape at one time or another during production... or 'ghost' parts from multi miked live parts with rerecording done after...
Last edited:
Issues with DSD are well known. So are issues with PCM, say, for example, element matching (which does not work perfectly in practice, and is non-PSS).
Ultrasonics can be noise shaped far out of the audio band and effectively filtered. DSD256 is far better in that respect than SACD (DSD64).
What has always interested me, in part, in an attempt to understand where difficulties in the reproduction of material using PCM, relates to the nature of the switches directing current. This goes back to the days when a Linn CD player was modifiable to accept the new PCM1702, replacing the PCM63's in it. Although this change was lauded by many at the local Linn store, for me it was a step backward as particularly in losing detail.
From my understanding one of the changes was that Burr Brown went from bipolar switching to MOS switches. What is suspicious is that MOS devices are expected as holding more charge than bipolar switches, at least back in those devices. At the lowest level bits the relationship between the current being switched and the storage charge of the switches increases in significance, becoming more so as bit depth increases. The old TDA1541a's appear as bipolar switches, that being only 15 to 16 bits appear as not nearly subject to the potential "memory" affects of greater bit depth MOS devices. Certainly modern devices have reduced such capacitances, though at 32 bit depths perhaps not enough.
From my understanding one of the changes was that Burr Brown went from bipolar switching to MOS switches. What is suspicious is that MOS devices are expected as holding more charge than bipolar switches, at least back in those devices. At the lowest level bits the relationship between the current being switched and the storage charge of the switches increases in significance, becoming more so as bit depth increases. The old TDA1541a's appear as bipolar switches, that being only 15 to 16 bits appear as not nearly subject to the potential "memory" affects of greater bit depth MOS devices. Certainly modern devices have reduced such capacitances, though at 32 bit depths perhaps not enough.
Last edited:
So, the 44.1kHz/16bit CD disk despite the bushing it gets, seems to be able to hold all the information required for to amaze audiophiles when they are testing “better” CD transports, “better” DACs, “upgrading” transformations from red book format to “higher quality” formats.
The bad name is due to improper/ careless/ criminaly bad transfers to CD of many old music performances (live or studio) for which there were also vinyl pressings, so comparison was socking.
There were also many CD transfers which did reveal the capabilities of the medium in dynamics and low freq high power content reproduction, which on LP were suppressed, for playability reasons.
If I may, attached are photos of a CD set where all the miniscule details of the original recording have been retained, including tape hiss, tape distortion, tape volume dynamics. Ambience information (*) is there too. A technically and artistically proper transfer
George
(*) Lots of ambience information on Emil Gilels live solo recitals at various large auditoria (1961-1984 from Russian Archives, licensed to Pipeline Music USA in CD format)
