NON-OS DAC sound
hi Sassen, I usually compare the sound of my NON-OS DAC with LP sound and life music. No, no, no pop noise; classical music: clavichord, organ, violins, sopranos etc.
hi Sassen, I usually compare the sound of my NON-OS DAC with LP sound and life music. No, no, no pop noise; classical music: clavichord, organ, violins, sopranos etc.
Hi Bernhard,
You're excused, but indeed, my point exactly, that's a harmonic distortion generator, not a cd-player 😱
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
You're excused, but indeed, my point exactly, that's a harmonic distortion generator, not a cd-player 😱
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Defective ears
To Bernard and Sassen:
Peter, Scott Nixon, Kusunoki, me and many others must have defective hearing!
Please fasten your safety belts!
To Bernard and Sassen:
Peter, Scott Nixon, Kusunoki, me and many others must have defective hearing!
Please fasten your safety belts!
You are the one wasting space here. You are talking about information no sound system made can reproduce. That's like when the marketing departments publish these ad pieces with images comparing the ragged 16-bit signal to the less-raged 24-bit signal. Put the most beautiful flower under a microscope and it's not beautiful anymore. Do you see the world through a microscope? Can you hear the difference between 16-bits and 24? No on both accounts.
Hahahaha I am inclined to say I see the world through a Hasselblad or Leicaflex......phn said:
😀
BTW were you addressing me phn?
Put an IC under the microscope and it looks so beautiful! Will post picture later, promised!
LOL
No, SSassen.
"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying 'there are only facts,' I would say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations." -- Nietzsche.
What I would like to know is, does Sassen measure or listen first.
"Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying 'there are only facts,' I would say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations." -- Nietzsche.
What I would like to know is, does Sassen measure or listen first.
Phn? I think you need to re-examine your cotton-clad pure silver interlinks, the cotton-fibre weave pattern looks somewhat disturbed on the left channel interlink which causes an unjust attenuation in the mid-band. See what I'm getting at? This isn't voodoo, but pure cold and hard physics and mathematics.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
True. I'm one of the "hard core measurements-are-everything guys." I use power cord for speaker cable, so no use going down that road.
No matter how much you are a "hard core measurements-are-everything guy," you cannot take reality out of the equation. If we did, a machine could replace a virtuoso violinist.
The reason I don't believe in resolution and detail like I once did is partly the low-bandwidth iron used in tube gear. But the main reason is what I know about the recording end of audio. I have learned on this forum what I write here isn't universal. But according to the guy I know in pro audio, you have to transfer the digital master to analogue tape and back. This is done to reduce resolution. Those digital masters, by his account, sound terrible. So out the window go resolution and s/n ratio.
The following is purely speculation. But I believe the two Groundhogs CDs I have were cut from digital (re-)masters, having learned that there actually are such things as digital masters. They don't sound nice. (They sound less harsh on the PlayStation.) My guess is that they measure like there's no tomorrow. I can only guess since they are also the only copy protected CDs I have. I cannot play them on my PC.
To speculate further, I don't think we want the same things out of a sound system as we do from reality. A microphone doesn't work like the human ear. (The same goes for the camera lens and the eye.) As a vinyl junkie that hasn't heard a CD player I haven't hated, I'm forced to believe that. The alternative is to believe that vinyl has no problem with distortion and phase shift and whatnots. As a fairly reasonable being, I cannot believe in the latter. You only have so many options when reality slaps you in the face.
No matter how much you are a "hard core measurements-are-everything guy," you cannot take reality out of the equation. If we did, a machine could replace a virtuoso violinist.
The reason I don't believe in resolution and detail like I once did is partly the low-bandwidth iron used in tube gear. But the main reason is what I know about the recording end of audio. I have learned on this forum what I write here isn't universal. But according to the guy I know in pro audio, you have to transfer the digital master to analogue tape and back. This is done to reduce resolution. Those digital masters, by his account, sound terrible. So out the window go resolution and s/n ratio.
The following is purely speculation. But I believe the two Groundhogs CDs I have were cut from digital (re-)masters, having learned that there actually are such things as digital masters. They don't sound nice. (They sound less harsh on the PlayStation.) My guess is that they measure like there's no tomorrow. I can only guess since they are also the only copy protected CDs I have. I cannot play them on my PC.
To speculate further, I don't think we want the same things out of a sound system as we do from reality. A microphone doesn't work like the human ear. (The same goes for the camera lens and the eye.) As a vinyl junkie that hasn't heard a CD player I haven't hated, I'm forced to believe that. The alternative is to believe that vinyl has no problem with distortion and phase shift and whatnots. As a fairly reasonable being, I cannot believe in the latter. You only have so many options when reality slaps you in the face.
Hi Phn,
You seem to conveniently pile a lot of completely seperate things into one big heap. The reason why they reduce resolution is to be able to use compression later on, most of the recording studios record popular music which is played back on run-of-the-mill equipment or worse; iPods with earphones. The idea is to have a set level for playback without too much variation, as the end-user doesn't want to adjust the volume too much if he changes songs, or CDs.
Hence the recordings have their resolution reduced, the dynamic range is hence compressed, and then the recording is leveled out at a set level. But like I said this is usual practice among most recording studios. Some, that work for less profitable (usually smaller) labels, don't do this, as they aspire to capture all the dynamic range in a recording, for example a bassdrum has a enormous dynamic range when compared to a violin, and hence eats up more bits than the latter.
If you pick out the gems among the millions of CDs that were recorded with the mindset of an accurate reproduction of the music recorded you'll notice that the medium CD is able to keep pace, and even outclass LP.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
You seem to conveniently pile a lot of completely seperate things into one big heap. The reason why they reduce resolution is to be able to use compression later on, most of the recording studios record popular music which is played back on run-of-the-mill equipment or worse; iPods with earphones. The idea is to have a set level for playback without too much variation, as the end-user doesn't want to adjust the volume too much if he changes songs, or CDs.
Hence the recordings have their resolution reduced, the dynamic range is hence compressed, and then the recording is leveled out at a set level. But like I said this is usual practice among most recording studios. Some, that work for less profitable (usually smaller) labels, don't do this, as they aspire to capture all the dynamic range in a recording, for example a bassdrum has a enormous dynamic range when compared to a violin, and hence eats up more bits than the latter.
If you pick out the gems among the millions of CDs that were recorded with the mindset of an accurate reproduction of the music recorded you'll notice that the medium CD is able to keep pace, and even outclass LP.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
I didn't mention compression, so it's uncalled for for you to assume I meant something I didn't say. That shows very poor manners. I was in fact talking about quality recordings. But I must congratulate you for missing every single point I made. That's no small achievement.
I see the pattern here. Everybody else either has poor sound systems, poor ears or is a poor sound engineer.
To be perfectly honest, this leads nowhere. It's obvious that everything I like you hate and vice versa. I think Krell is a lifeless heap of junk. You think it measures well.
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
I see the pattern here. Everybody else either has poor sound systems, poor ears or is a poor sound engineer.
To be perfectly honest, this leads nowhere. It's obvious that everything I like you hate and vice versa. I think Krell is a lifeless heap of junk. You think it measures well.
"Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Phn?
Geeezzz, go have a cup of coffee or something, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your line or reasoning, or rather, why things are the way they are with recordings.
Furthermore I don't hate, nor love, equipment based on specs or looks, I do tend to keep a keen eye out for what works and what doesn't. The non-OS TDA1543 is just as much at fault as the minimalist LM3886 approach some people subscribe to by using two 100uF caps for power supply buffering because it just sounds better to their ears.
See why I prefer lurking? Many of the zealots here are unable to think straight and cloud others people's judgement by ascribing all sorts of mystical properties to audio equipment and then go out and tell their friends. It is the power of suggestion rather than cold hard facts and I refuse to be a part of that 'religion'.
/enters lurking mode once more
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Geeezzz, go have a cup of coffee or something, I'm merely pointing out the flaws in your line or reasoning, or rather, why things are the way they are with recordings.
Furthermore I don't hate, nor love, equipment based on specs or looks, I do tend to keep a keen eye out for what works and what doesn't. The non-OS TDA1543 is just as much at fault as the minimalist LM3886 approach some people subscribe to by using two 100uF caps for power supply buffering because it just sounds better to their ears.
See why I prefer lurking? Many of the zealots here are unable to think straight and cloud others people's judgement by ascribing all sorts of mystical properties to audio equipment and then go out and tell their friends. It is the power of suggestion rather than cold hard facts and I refuse to be a part of that 'religion'.
/enters lurking mode once more
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
/begin{asskissing}
Sander, I hope you keep posting here. Your views and articles provide some needed balance, IMHO. For example, I just read your review of the NuForce 8's (although I think there is a newer model), and obviously, your view of this amp is very different from the prevailing current. In contrast, your positive review of the Hypex UCD amp, acutally made me want to go out and build one for myself (of course, I haven't yet). It's good to have at least one black sheep out there who doesn't follow the herd. I am not much of DIYer (only build some speakers), but I do like to learn the opinions of supposedly knowledgeable DIYers about what they feel are the best components to be bought or built.
/end{asskissing}
Sander, the main question for you would be, "What is your favorite DAC (DIY or otherwise)?"
Sander, I hope you keep posting here. Your views and articles provide some needed balance, IMHO. For example, I just read your review of the NuForce 8's (although I think there is a newer model), and obviously, your view of this amp is very different from the prevailing current. In contrast, your positive review of the Hypex UCD amp, acutally made me want to go out and build one for myself (of course, I haven't yet). It's good to have at least one black sheep out there who doesn't follow the herd. I am not much of DIYer (only build some speakers), but I do like to learn the opinions of supposedly knowledgeable DIYers about what they feel are the best components to be bought or built.
/end{asskissing}
Sander, the main question for you would be, "What is your favorite DAC (DIY or otherwise)?"
No, you do not reason. You did not point out any flaws in my reasoning. You attributed to me something I never said. That's dishonest.
You talk like you read straight out of a book. It's evident that you don't know the first thing about recording music. I don't have any first-hand experience either. But I have at least talked to people that know, and according to them if you ever get to hear hi-rez you will never want to hear it ever again. As I said, I was surprised to hear that digital masters even existed. I'm the first to point out when I'm in doubt or when I go out on a limb.
I think I made it pretty clear that I have no convictions and, subsequently, no religion. I made a deduction from preferring flawed vinyl to "perfect" digital. I point to Picasso's "The Old Guitarist" and say, "I like what I see." You start to measure how blue the blues are. As the saying goes: He who cannot create art cannot understand art.
It's you who are stuck in convictions. Why shouldn't you? The first thing you learn when you join the quasi-religion of positivism is that interpretation is a sin. Which is basically what you just said:
"The non-OS TDA1543 is just as much at fault as the minimalist LM3886 approach some people subscribe to by using two 100uF caps for power supply buffering because it just sounds better to their ears."
To quote Nietzsche once again: "Everyone knows nowadays that the ability to accept criticism and contradiction is a sign of high culture."
That apparently does not apply to you.
You talk like you read straight out of a book. It's evident that you don't know the first thing about recording music. I don't have any first-hand experience either. But I have at least talked to people that know, and according to them if you ever get to hear hi-rez you will never want to hear it ever again. As I said, I was surprised to hear that digital masters even existed. I'm the first to point out when I'm in doubt or when I go out on a limb.
I think I made it pretty clear that I have no convictions and, subsequently, no religion. I made a deduction from preferring flawed vinyl to "perfect" digital. I point to Picasso's "The Old Guitarist" and say, "I like what I see." You start to measure how blue the blues are. As the saying goes: He who cannot create art cannot understand art.
It's you who are stuck in convictions. Why shouldn't you? The first thing you learn when you join the quasi-religion of positivism is that interpretation is a sin. Which is basically what you just said:
"The non-OS TDA1543 is just as much at fault as the minimalist LM3886 approach some people subscribe to by using two 100uF caps for power supply buffering because it just sounds better to their ears."
To quote Nietzsche once again: "Everyone knows nowadays that the ability to accept criticism and contradiction is a sign of high culture."
That apparently does not apply to you.
Hi phn,
I think you've been reading too much Nietszche, there's specific forums that deal with his writing I'm sure, no need to endlessly quote him here.
I actually have befriended two engineers that work at a recording studio here in Holland and subsequently know a number of musicians that spend some time in a studio once every while. They play jazz and percussion and, like me, and the studio engineers, are pretty anal when it comes down to sound quality. I can't remember how many times we've gone over the pros and cons of digital mastering vs. the old tape reels, but rest assurred I've spent many hours debating the topic.
I'm not stuck in convictions either, actually I don't have a firm set of guidelines I operate with apart from the fact that I evaluate each and every product or technology with an open mind, first I listen to it, and then I hook it up to a battery of testing equipment. This seperates the cold hard data from the measurements from my emotional experience of having spent time evaluating the product.
I found the non-os TDA1543 lacking in every respect and for example the WM8740 quite pleasing. It just so happens that the measurements are in line with my subjective evaluation, but if it had been the reverse I wouldn't have been inclined to doubt them. Nothing cultural about it either, although I'll agree with you if you say the Dutch (I'm from Holland) are often direct and don't beat around the bush too much, that'd certainly apply to me.
But hey, as you said 'that apparantly does not apply to you', hence stop talking in riddles or going in circles.
Oh, and to stay somewhat on topic, I know Guido personally and rest assured he knows what he's doing; if the TDA1543 indeed was leaps and bounds above the kit he'll be offering, do you think he'd bother? I can assure you he would not, and having heard the kit, I know why he didn't, it is several magnitudes better than any TDA1543 I've ever heard.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
I think you've been reading too much Nietszche, there's specific forums that deal with his writing I'm sure, no need to endlessly quote him here.
I actually have befriended two engineers that work at a recording studio here in Holland and subsequently know a number of musicians that spend some time in a studio once every while. They play jazz and percussion and, like me, and the studio engineers, are pretty anal when it comes down to sound quality. I can't remember how many times we've gone over the pros and cons of digital mastering vs. the old tape reels, but rest assurred I've spent many hours debating the topic.
I'm not stuck in convictions either, actually I don't have a firm set of guidelines I operate with apart from the fact that I evaluate each and every product or technology with an open mind, first I listen to it, and then I hook it up to a battery of testing equipment. This seperates the cold hard data from the measurements from my emotional experience of having spent time evaluating the product.
I found the non-os TDA1543 lacking in every respect and for example the WM8740 quite pleasing. It just so happens that the measurements are in line with my subjective evaluation, but if it had been the reverse I wouldn't have been inclined to doubt them. Nothing cultural about it either, although I'll agree with you if you say the Dutch (I'm from Holland) are often direct and don't beat around the bush too much, that'd certainly apply to me.
But hey, as you said 'that apparantly does not apply to you', hence stop talking in riddles or going in circles.
Oh, and to stay somewhat on topic, I know Guido personally and rest assured he knows what he's doing; if the TDA1543 indeed was leaps and bounds above the kit he'll be offering, do you think he'd bother? I can assure you he would not, and having heard the kit, I know why he didn't, it is several magnitudes better than any TDA1543 I've ever heard.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
I like Nietzsche because he is blunt. There's no doubt about what he means. Putting words in my mouth isn't being blunt. You already know what I think that is.
I don't know what you try to imply with that. I have never said the TDA1543 is a good chip. In fact, I called it mediocre. My sole point was that you shouldn't discard it because of the specs. If you like it when you hear it, fine. If you don't, look elsewhere.
It was especially meant in objection to the artificial term "high-end." High-end may have made sense back in the 1980s, with those plastic turntables. After the Sonic Impact T-amp, the term is just silly. Instead of high-end I would prefer to call it "dedicated audio," especially now with these multi-format, one-player-fits-all machines.
Are you trying to tell me you do not see that you contradict yourself?
I will end this with an old joke.
Three men are standing on a mountaintop in an area crowded with similar mountains. They are bent over a map, looking worried. Suddenly one of them raises his head, pointing to a mountain, saying with relief: "Now I know, we must be over there!"
SSassen said:
I don't know what you try to imply with that. I have never said the TDA1543 is a good chip. In fact, I called it mediocre. My sole point was that you shouldn't discard it because of the specs. If you like it when you hear it, fine. If you don't, look elsewhere.
It was especially meant in objection to the artificial term "high-end." High-end may have made sense back in the 1980s, with those plastic turntables. After the Sonic Impact T-amp, the term is just silly. Instead of high-end I would prefer to call it "dedicated audio," especially now with these multi-format, one-player-fits-all machines.
SSassen said:
SSassen said:
Are you trying to tell me you do not see that you contradict yourself?
I will end this with an old joke.
Three men are standing on a mountaintop in an area crowded with similar mountains. They are bent over a map, looking worried. Suddenly one of them raises his head, pointing to a mountain, saying with relief: "Now I know, we must be over there!"
Phn,
Are you just out to make fun of me, or do you want me to seriously reply to your posts? From your replies I can only conclude it is the first, so I'll refrain from posting any further, you're too caught up in your own world to make any sense in ours.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
Are you just out to make fun of me, or do you want me to seriously reply to your posts? From your replies I can only conclude it is the first, so I'll refrain from posting any further, you're too caught up in your own world to make any sense in ours.
Best regards,
Sander Sassen
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com
I've been following this 'debate' for the best part of today and I'm sorry fellows but such sniping leaves me cold.
Its obvious that the pair of you are never going to agree so why not leave it there?
As far as I'm concerned nothing reproduced will ever sound as good as the original no matter what the format or technology involved.
Having said that when I want to listen to music I do want to listen to something that will keep me involved and satisfied. I don't much care what format it is or if it measures good or crap, if I don't like the resultant sound it wont matter how much the equipment costs.
I've been down that particular road and no longer have the time or finances to bother, my present system is worth peanuts in the real world but gives me more pleasure than virtualy anything I've had before and to these ears sounds better than a lot of what I've heard that pretends to be high class, high end or whatever.
Thats not to deny those that enjoy owning and using such kit, each to his own but the reason I joined this forum was to widen my horizons as to what is possible with a little bit of effort and prove for myself if some of the marketing in hi-fi is plain bull and a case of the emporers new clothes, which in the main I have concluded is indeed true.
Until such time as this thread can give the answers to the original question then I guess I'll have to try the NOS TDA1543 type dacs for myself!
Feel free to pile in and anihalate me now but I think it needed saying.
Its obvious that the pair of you are never going to agree so why not leave it there?
As far as I'm concerned nothing reproduced will ever sound as good as the original no matter what the format or technology involved.
Having said that when I want to listen to music I do want to listen to something that will keep me involved and satisfied. I don't much care what format it is or if it measures good or crap, if I don't like the resultant sound it wont matter how much the equipment costs.
I've been down that particular road and no longer have the time or finances to bother, my present system is worth peanuts in the real world but gives me more pleasure than virtualy anything I've had before and to these ears sounds better than a lot of what I've heard that pretends to be high class, high end or whatever.
Thats not to deny those that enjoy owning and using such kit, each to his own but the reason I joined this forum was to widen my horizons as to what is possible with a little bit of effort and prove for myself if some of the marketing in hi-fi is plain bull and a case of the emporers new clothes, which in the main I have concluded is indeed true.
Until such time as this thread can give the answers to the original question then I guess I'll have to try the NOS TDA1543 type dacs for myself!
Feel free to pile in and anihalate me now but I think it needed saying.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.