Agreed...
Our knowledge of the human ear/brain perceptual system is limited. There is fair amount of research going into this now, using brain imaging technology, and the researchers are learning more all the time. I find some of this research fascinating, and it may inform audio component design in the near future.
Our knowledge of the human ear/brain perceptual system is limited. There is fair amount of research going into this now, using brain imaging technology, and the researchers are learning more all the time. I find some of this research fascinating, and it may inform audio component design in the near future.
And...
To those who think DACs are already "perfect", and have been for awhile. I will not respond to your posts, as this is not my experience, and my conclusion is that either you have little experience listening to the best DACs, or you are relatively deaf.
I would suggest that anyone who believes DACs are already perfect compare a "perfect" DAC such as the Khadas Tone Board with a Mola Mola Tambaqui in the same system. Unless one actually listens and compares, saying such things is just a lot of talk backed up by no real experience.
To those who think DACs are already "perfect", and have been for awhile. I will not respond to your posts, as this is not my experience, and my conclusion is that either you have little experience listening to the best DACs, or you are relatively deaf.
I would suggest that anyone who believes DACs are already perfect compare a "perfect" DAC such as the Khadas Tone Board with a Mola Mola Tambaqui in the same system. Unless one actually listens and compares, saying such things is just a lot of talk backed up by no real experience.
Agreed...
I believe both measurements and listening tests are important in concert with each other. In my opinion, the best designers/engineers pay attention to both, and try to correlate the two as much as possible.
I do think that the standard tests, such as single tone full scale signals are entirely inadequate to illustrate all aspects of audio performance-all audio component engineers should be constantly striving to find the best measurements which describe all aspects of performance, especially the performance of circuits when presented with complex changing signals. For example, even simple multi tone testing as now advised by AP appears to show distortion elements which are not apparent in steady state single tone testing.
As far as the ability to listen test to evaluate gear, most audiophiles themselves only have this capability. Listening tests are very valuable, but they are most certainly a learned skill-perhaps it would be a good pursuit to actually teach audiophiles themselves how to do reliable and good listening tests, and to practice these abilities.
I believe both measurements and listening tests are important in concert with each other. In my opinion, the best designers/engineers pay attention to both, and try to correlate the two as much as possible.
I do think that the standard tests, such as single tone full scale signals are entirely inadequate to illustrate all aspects of audio performance-all audio component engineers should be constantly striving to find the best measurements which describe all aspects of performance, especially the performance of circuits when presented with complex changing signals. For example, even simple multi tone testing as now advised by AP appears to show distortion elements which are not apparent in steady state single tone testing.
As far as the ability to listen test to evaluate gear, most audiophiles themselves only have this capability. Listening tests are very valuable, but they are most certainly a learned skill-perhaps it would be a good pursuit to actually teach audiophiles themselves how to do reliable and good listening tests, and to practice these abilities.
Well...
I think a well engineered component should pass that test, but perhaps it is not necessary for it to be tested at full scale. Perhaps this test would be more relatable to actual performance with music signals if it was done at -2 dB.
Additionally, once our distortion products are below -120 dB, I do not think we should conclude that a DAC which measures even lower than that is "better", this is where many make mistakes. Once those distortion products are below -120 dB on a single tone test, let's say the DAC passes and then move on to more demanding tests.
I think a well engineered component should pass that test, but perhaps it is not necessary for it to be tested at full scale. Perhaps this test would be more relatable to actual performance with music signals if it was done at -2 dB.
Additionally, once our distortion products are below -120 dB, I do not think we should conclude that a DAC which measures even lower than that is "better", this is where many make mistakes. Once those distortion products are below -120 dB on a single tone test, let's say the DAC passes and then move on to more demanding tests.
You would have a point if you can cite the listening test done with level difference, placebo effect and aural memory loss compensated for. Otherwise saying such thing is just a lot of talk backed up by no evidence.
How is such listening test set up? Please share the details because when you say listening test, it can be many different things. So please, for the sake of being on the same page when discussing the sound quality, be specific on how the test is set up. Thanks in advance.
Don't see how that could work.
When I think about recording and playback, first there is a mic. Have you looked at the electronics circuits inside a top of line condenser mic? (Maybe google something like 'schoeps circuit'. Often there is an RF oscillator in there too.) Then there is phantom power decoupling in a preamp, the preamp amplifier sound, the ADC sound, etc.
How could one possibly know what sound quality effects, good or bad, to attribute to only the dac?
OK - to answer at least part of your post, I found a patent with listed inventors who are working for Marantz or the parent company.
This describes a Pulse Density Modulation DAC with a type of RTZ encoding and OP FIR (moving average) filtering. So it appears to be a what I would call a discrete pulse array DAC.
I don't really see any difference between this and what Putzeys or Watts are doing in their DACs so why a Patent was awarded is a mystery.
TCD
Hi Terry,
Thanks for that information. The SA-10 came out in 2017, so I would assume it was designed in say 2015-2016.
In reading around there just isn't that much information available on these players and there are no Service Manuals available from the usual online places that generally have everything.
Given the price of Bruny Putzeys Mola Mola products, these new Marantz products are bargain priced in comparison.
That is true and hat's off to Marantz but to put things in correct perspective the
Mola Mola DAC really does address, at the highest level, every design aspect of an ultra performance DAC.
Edit - Also Marantz can obviously take advantage of the economy of scale. Don't take this the wrong way, I like Marantz and they
have done some great products over the years.
At the heart of MM, it has an ASRC done right, to take care of marrying clock domains with very high jitter rejection already below 0.1Hz. The DAC runs off
a single SC-cut OCXO, has 32 OP elements for much higher DR and will pass every objective test with superlative results. It's a very complete design,
at the highest level typical of BP.
TCD
Last edited: