Gordon McGregor said:
Parts quality, layout, clock, transport, box... the same?
Cheap "universals" have different dacs and even op-amps for each pair of channels, lowsy (switching) PSUs, etc., etc., useless.
Nah...
Yes the CD12 has the same dac chip as the denon 635.😀
Relax, I would never spend that money, I don't have it anyway.
What I have in mind is use something like a Pioneer as a transport and make a dac with the best chip I can get my hands on.
I'm into stereo anyway, so, only 2 (good) channels.
But now I have other priorities, and I can't find the music I want on those formats, so give it time, don't even bother.
I don't live with demo discs or old recordings, once again the major labels do it again, no respect for their clients.
Fleetwood Mac, anyone?😀
Not everything is the same, how could we expect it with SUCH difference in prices?
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/HardwareReviews/LinnUnidisc21/LinnUnidisk21.html
The difference is in op amps (they don't use Black Gate caps in Linn), as I said before, replace them and you don't need to pay THAT MUCH 😉
http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/multips3.pdf
http://sparg.derby.ac.uk/SPARG/PDFs/SPARG_AES19_Paper1.pdf
I can supply more links, but the most important point is - they use different quality on stereo and multichannel tracks in SACD multichannel disks and in DVD-A disks ... here is the information concerning SACD stereo track vs CD stereo track on Hybrid SACD
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html
And here - stereo track vs multi-channel through the same processing paths in my system ...
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/DK1.PNG
And here are the initial signals of those tracks (stereo vs multi-channel for the same SACD multi-channel Taylor "Hourglass", 1997), we can see that they are completely different (speakers in the receiver set in Large to avoid the filtering) http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/Forms.PNG
Without multi-channel system you will never get the same sound quality, Sir 🙁
I can understand if you use LPs mainly, but if CDs ... oh, well.
Really? Let's see:
http://www.michaeldvd.com.au/HardwareReviews/LinnUnidisc21/LinnUnidisk21.html
Then:
Better DACs? 😀 Pioneer used CS4392 in older 47A (747A in Europe) DVD players, and starting from 47Ai (757Ai in Europe) they used PCM1738 for front channels and DSD1702 (both better then CS4392) for other channels.
The difference is in op amps (they don't use Black Gate caps in Linn), as I said before, replace them and you don't need to pay THAT MUCH 😉
Then you are just arguing about something which you don't even think about? Interesting ... I am relaxed 😀
Good idea/ Will will be glad to see.
Why not mono? 😀 seriously, read this: http://world.std.com/~griesngr/paris.pdf
http://www.meridian-audio.com/w_paper/multips3.pdf
http://sparg.derby.ac.uk/SPARG/PDFs/SPARG_AES19_Paper1.pdf
I can supply more links, but the most important point is - they use different quality on stereo and multichannel tracks in SACD multichannel disks and in DVD-A disks ... here is the information concerning SACD stereo track vs CD stereo track on Hybrid SACD
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/index.html
And here - stereo track vs multi-channel through the same processing paths in my system ...
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/DK1.PNG
And here are the initial signals of those tracks (stereo vs multi-channel for the same SACD multi-channel Taylor "Hourglass", 1997), we can see that they are completely different (speakers in the receiver set in Large to avoid the filtering) http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/Tests/Forms.PNG
Without multi-channel system you will never get the same sound quality, Sir 🙁
really? I'd found a LOT ... in both DVD-A Advanced resolution and SACD multi-channel, look at the difference: http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/comparo/part4.html
I can understand if you use LPs mainly, but if CDs ... oh, well.
Gordon, I've heard the Unidisk 1.1, not the 2.1.
The 2.1 is a video machine, more optimized for video.
The 1.1 is the opposite.
You can compare the 1.1 to the Pioneer.😀
Forgive me, but I like to listen to my music in stereo (not mono😀 ) and I think you're not gonna change my mind.😉
I don't like those artifacts going all around my head, I'm listening to the music as I was the audience, not on the stage.
It's really strange to hear instruments on my back.
I know, there are recordings and recordings...
Anyway, I've just received a mail (I have my contacts...😉 ) to listen to this, on 22 July (this week):
- Linn Kinos processor (new, to be released soon).
- Unidisk 1.1
- Linn amps, and Linn Akurate speakers.
- Barco projector
- Fujitsu 50" plasma
Don't worry, I'm not a Linn man, I have absolutely no interest, it's just that they have some very special things, from what I've heard.
My friend wants me to go, and they have Port wine.😎 😀
The 2.1 is a video machine, more optimized for video.
The 1.1 is the opposite.
You can compare the 1.1 to the Pioneer.😀
Forgive me, but I like to listen to my music in stereo (not mono😀 ) and I think you're not gonna change my mind.😉
I don't like those artifacts going all around my head, I'm listening to the music as I was the audience, not on the stage.
It's really strange to hear instruments on my back.
I know, there are recordings and recordings...
Anyway, I've just received a mail (I have my contacts...😉 ) to listen to this, on 22 July (this week):
- Linn Kinos processor (new, to be released soon).
- Unidisk 1.1
- Linn amps, and Linn Akurate speakers.
- Barco projector
- Fujitsu 50" plasma
Don't worry, I'm not a Linn man, I have absolutely no interest, it's just that they have some very special things, from what I've heard.
My friend wants me to go, and they have Port wine.😎 😀
Are you sure that you want it?First of all Linn 1.1 is not a DVD player, but I am still ready to compare:carlosfm said:
Those are the IMD measures of Linn 1.1 in 24 bit mode:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1203LINFIG7.jpg
And here are the same IMD measures, same frequencies 19k+20k, of 47Ai through i-link to modified 49TXi (it is the output of PROCESSOR already , not of the player itself):
http://www.angelfire.com/clone/gordon0/49TXi/imd.png
As we can see, we got -95dB at 1kHz and at 2kHz -102dB in Pioneer and -102dB at 1 kHz plus -97dB at 17 kHz in Linn - more or less the same. But look at the noise background floor! It is -140dB in Pioneer and -115dB in Linn, and we have to think about the additional noises when we will process the analog signal of Linn through the additional pre-pro (we got that pre-pro already for Pioneer). I am not talking about abilities of 47Ai (59AVi is even better) as DVD player and the difference in prices ... we don't need to compare designs and elements, if we have the measures, don't you think so?
Yes, it is a personal preference, and I can't discuss it.
I don't worry at all 😀 I am not a Linn or Pioneer man either, just wanted to let you know about some myths, that's it 🙄 If we need to talk about High-End staff, I would prefer to talk about dCS, Weiss, or Aure Acoustics, IMO.
I don't like sweet wines as well 😉
Gordon, I don't really give much importance to specs, sometimes they're misleading.
Listening is what gives you (me) a real conclusion.
I've heard DCS transport/dac, I know what you're talking about.😉
But talking CD, I've spent hours alone with the Linn CD12, and that's deam good.
The Unidisk 1.1, on CD, isn't far behind.
Let's not discuss this, let's just drink a good wine (not sweet).😎
Listening is what gives you (me) a real conclusion.
I've heard DCS transport/dac, I know what you're talking about.😉
But talking CD, I've spent hours alone with the Linn CD12, and that's deam good.
The Unidisk 1.1, on CD, isn't far behind.
Let's not discuss this, let's just drink a good wine (not sweet).😎
That is true, but usually not, if we have enough information 😀carlosfm said:
We can do that as well. Let's record some samples through different systems and compare them through PC ABX 😉 In this case we will be able to make some real listening (matching levels at required 0.1dB) instead of looking at the nice looking expensive box and fooling ourselves 🙄 I am not talking about you personally, but I had been invited to participate in many presentations with nice women, cognac and such stuff, and the demo units were significantly more attractive then in the real life 🙂
Yup, I am talking about those systems:
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/images/dCS.jpg
http://members.cox.net/alex_lat/images/MBL.JPG
Well, my opinion is different, but I have no idea to argue about yours 😀
OK, agreed 😀 We don't need to argue about the personal preferences, especially in wines 😉
P.S. By the way, if you will have a chance, take a look inside new Linn Kinos AV processor and let us know what chips do they use - DACs, op amps, DSPs. May be drop there some Port wine to let them open the cover? 🙄
I have a Theta Pro Basic 3A which uses 4pcs PCM1702K followed by 4pcs AD841JN as I/V conversion with 5K resistor+270nf cap feedback. Is there any benefits for me to remove the AD841s and replace them with AD811, opa627bp or AD844 that mentioned in this thread? Do I need to modify any feedback resistor and/or caps?
Since the pins are different and hard to buy AD841 now, I want to hear any comments from the experienced before I remove those AD841s.
Thanks everyone for the interest thread and valuable information.
Since the pins are different and hard to buy AD841 now, I want to hear any comments from the experienced before I remove those AD841s.
Thanks everyone for the interest thread and valuable information.
analogdiy said:
What are the offset specs on those? I have an application with a gain of 10 to 15 where even small offset voltages make quite some contributions on the output. I admit, to save space in a prototype, I used OPA2134, which happend to be the duals I had the most of at the time....
Think about your gain and how much tuning you are okay with.
Greetings,
Børge
Oh, I lost track of this thread.
We made several comparisons between the Unidisk 1.1 and 2.1.
The 1.1 is clearly another level.
It sounds very good, even with CD.
Compared, the 2.1 is just another universal player.
And, once again, stereo sounds much better to me than multi-channel.
They offered me a Linn SACD hybrid disc, very good sounding indeed. On the CD layer it's HDCD.😎
The presentation was very good, the Linn guy really wanted to show that the Unidisk 1.1 and 2.1 are very diffirent products.
Btw Gordon, the 1.1 is also a DVD player.
It's a universal DVD player, with a proprietary Linn transport that has a dedicated decoder for every format.
Only the laser is Sony.
The 2.1 doesn't have this transport.
The sound was good, with all that artillery thrown in (the front speakers were active with a dedicated 5 channel power amp for each one😱 ).
The Kinos was a pre-production machine, and it was presented here for the first time in the world.
It seams a good pre, but I can't say. The sound was good but we didn't change or compare preamps or processors.
Oh, the best sound of the night (for me) was a Steely Dan DVD-A at 24/192, two channels.😎
We made several comparisons between the Unidisk 1.1 and 2.1.
The 1.1 is clearly another level.
It sounds very good, even with CD.
Compared, the 2.1 is just another universal player.
And, once again, stereo sounds much better to me than multi-channel.
They offered me a Linn SACD hybrid disc, very good sounding indeed. On the CD layer it's HDCD.😎
The presentation was very good, the Linn guy really wanted to show that the Unidisk 1.1 and 2.1 are very diffirent products.
Btw Gordon, the 1.1 is also a DVD player.
It's a universal DVD player, with a proprietary Linn transport that has a dedicated decoder for every format.
Only the laser is Sony.
The 2.1 doesn't have this transport.
The sound was good, with all that artillery thrown in (the front speakers were active with a dedicated 5 channel power amp for each one😱 ).
The Kinos was a pre-production machine, and it was presented here for the first time in the world.
It seams a good pre, but I can't say. The sound was good but we didn't change or compare preamps or processors.
Oh, the best sound of the night (for me) was a Steely Dan DVD-A at 24/192, two channels.😎
Carlos,
You are a DIY forum member, why don't you provide the information about chips, used in 1.1 and Kinos (we know about 2.1)? It's against the rules! 😀
We have enough subjective listening evaluations to ignore them 😉 ... I would LOVE to hear something about DBT comparison between 2.1 and 1.1 and such stuff ... in other case take a look at the fig 4 here http://international.infinitysystems.com/homeaudio/whitepapers/audio_art_science.pdf and you will know the answer why plastic speakers, which in reality had sounded the same and even better then other more expensive ones, got only 50% in sighted tests ... isn't it the same between 2.1 and 1.1? We don't know 😉
You can read this as well:
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html
What Steely Dan DVD-A exactly did you listen to?
You are a DIY forum member, why don't you provide the information about chips, used in 1.1 and Kinos (we know about 2.1)? It's against the rules! 😀
We have enough subjective listening evaluations to ignore them 😉 ... I would LOVE to hear something about DBT comparison between 2.1 and 1.1 and such stuff ... in other case take a look at the fig 4 here http://international.infinitysystems.com/homeaudio/whitepapers/audio_art_science.pdf and you will know the answer why plastic speakers, which in reality had sounded the same and even better then other more expensive ones, got only 50% in sighted tests ... isn't it the same between 2.1 and 1.1? We don't know 😉
You can read this as well:
http://2eyespy.tripod.com/myaudioandhometheaterhomepage/id3.html
What Steely Dan DVD-A exactly did you listen to?
Gordon McGregor said:
Gordon, the difference is huge.
Jeff Buckley's "Grace", on track 6 "Hallelujah" on the 2.1 seamed like a bad guitarist in a bad day (or drunk), with a cheap guitar, playin' on a garage.
On the 1.1 it was clearly that there is only one instrument on this recording - the guitar (not perceptible on the 2.1), and all the notes were clearly defined, with all the harmonics of a good guitar and good guitarist on a good day.
The 2.1 makes a disgrace out of this recording, and others we tested.
This is one of the best tracks I know to test a system.
And it's not even a good recording!
Anyway, Linn insists that the 2.1 is a video machine.
A universal player too, but with much cutted corners.
It's also around half the price...😀
Oh, btw, this track plays much better on my system than on the 2.1.
The thing is, if my source is better or at the same level as the 1.1, only with a direct comparison.
But the 1.1 is a universal player, and this performance on CD tells me alot.
It's the first time I hear a CD sound on a DVD player that doesn't make me wanna vomit, whatever the price.
Again, it is just your subjective listening evaluation 🙂
Concerning the sound quality of CDs on a DVD player ... why don't you listen to Ayre D-1x?
I need to know what is inside 1.1 to make any assumptions 😀
Concerning the sound quality of CDs on a DVD player ... why don't you listen to Ayre D-1x?
I need to know what is inside 1.1 to make any assumptions 😀
Gordon McGregor said:
Mine and everyone present on that room.
Around 20 people.
We are talking very different products.
😱Gordon McGregor said:
Do you listen with your ears or with a schematic?
It is still a possibility that you all fooled yourself. Take a look at the Fig 4 - how many experts were listening to the plastic speakers?carlosfm said:
Because they look different? How do you know that they are different, having no information about the objective difference in elements?
the experts on Fig 4 also listened by their ears ... if you are talking about the difference, I want to know about the objective difference - sounding comparison in DBT or difference in elements.
Why High-End industry doesn't like DBT and almost nowhere use it? I know the answer 😀
Gordon McGregor said:
Fantastic.
A bunch of deaf people, including me.
Gordon McGregor said:
Fantastic.
You sure know what you are talking about.
They look exactly the same.
Gordon McGregor said:
And what did I post?
Transports are completely different, digital and analog seccions too.
The 1.1 uses a Linn transport with independent decoders for each format (CD, SACD, DVD...).
I don't know much more details.
Gordon McGregor said:
I'm sorry, but I don't trust those "experts".
There are people that on a blind test can't detect the difference between a cheap Onkyo AV amp and a Bryston 2-channel amp.
I trust my ears and I trust what I've heard there.
I hear a "jittery" presentation (the 2.1) and a very tight and detailed one (the 1.1).
I'm sorry, I'm not deaf.
Let's stop here, I just posted because you asked me to post the conclusions.
Sorry, I can't give you more technical details.
I'd like to know more details too.
But that doesn't mean that I can't evaluate the sound of a product.
Linn Unidisk 1.1 internals
Audio:
Independent decoders for each format:
SACD: CXD1882 + CXD2753
DVD(A): ES6038 (from ESS)
CD: CXD3068
PCM data is transmitted in I2S mode, SACD in DSD to the audio board.
Dacs: 3xCS4397, running at each format's rate (44.1 to 192khz for PCM, 2.8224Mhz for DSD).
Video:
Dac: ADV7300 12bit/108Mhz, progressive scan by Sil504, and DVI interface by Sil170.
Spec freaks may read this and more, including jitter measurements (~30psec) in Hi-Fi News from June 2004.
My ears tell me more than specs, but anyway, to do a machine like this it's not cheap.
Audio:
Independent decoders for each format:
SACD: CXD1882 + CXD2753
DVD(A): ES6038 (from ESS)
CD: CXD3068
PCM data is transmitted in I2S mode, SACD in DSD to the audio board.
Dacs: 3xCS4397, running at each format's rate (44.1 to 192khz for PCM, 2.8224Mhz for DSD).
Video:
Dac: ADV7300 12bit/108Mhz, progressive scan by Sil504, and DVI interface by Sil170.
Spec freaks may read this and more, including jitter measurements (~30psec) in Hi-Fi News from June 2004.
My ears tell me more than specs, but anyway, to do a machine like this it's not cheap.
Re: Linn Unidisk 1.1 internals
Thanks, Carlos! Sometimes it is better to argue with people then just ask them to supply some information 😉
ES6038 (ESS Vibrato, not ESS Vibrato II) is not the best chip available ... it had been used in Denon A1 (9000 in US) DVD player ... it has so called "chroma bug" AFAIK.
Here are the explanations (problems due to upsampling errors in ESS Vibrato):
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-...rer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0#DenonDVD-9000
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-...rer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0#DenonDVD-3800
In Denon 5900 (which is absolete now already) they used ES6138 (ESS Vibrato II) without such bug ... and Faroudja deinterlacer FLI2310, which is better then the old Sil504, used in Denon 2900 ...
I have to buy this magazine ... and the difference between CS4397 and CS4392 should be definitely audible IMO, Carlos 😉
I bet that 1.1 also uses different op amps in the audio path ...
Thanks, Carlos! Sometimes it is better to argue with people then just ask them to supply some information 😉
Nothing really new here, CXD2753 is an old DSD decoder, used almost everywhere, and CXD1882 - no info about such chip. Isn't it CXD1881 or CXD1885 - I have the info about those ...carlosfm said:
CXD3068 actually is one-in-one solution - Digital Servo processor, DSP, DF ... it is used in Sony SCD-XA9000ES player.
ES6038 (ESS Vibrato, not ESS Vibrato II) is not the best chip available ... it had been used in Denon A1 (9000 in US) DVD player ... it has so called "chroma bug" AFAIK.
Here are the explanations (problems due to upsampling errors in ESS Vibrato):
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-...rer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0#DenonDVD-9000
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-...rer=0&maxprice=0&deInt=0&mpeg=0#DenonDVD-3800
In Denon 5900 (which is absolete now already) they used ES6138 (ESS Vibrato II) without such bug ... and Faroudja deinterlacer FLI2310, which is better then the old Sil504, used in Denon 2900 ...
5-years old multi-bit delta-sigma DAC's ... not recommended for the new designs (CS4398 are recommended instead of them. AFAIK CS4397 is DSD version of CS4396) ... this is a strange decision IMO. Though no doubts, they are significantly better then CS4392, used in 2.1.
The video processing is exactly as in 2.1, right?
Jitter measurements 30ps??? Is it for the clock only, and how was it measured? http://www.linkhouse.co.uk/hifi/content/next.html
I have to buy this magazine ... and the difference between CS4397 and CS4392 should be definitely audible IMO, Carlos 😉
I bet that 1.1 also uses different op amps in the audio path ...
Re: Re: Linn Unidisk 1.1 internals
Buy the magazine.
The information I posted is there.
I don't know what the 1.1 uses on the analog stage.
If you have a chance, listen to the 1.1.
The CD12 beats it by a small margin on CD.
Impressive stuff, as the CD12 costs almost double the price and only reads CD.😱
Gordon McGregor said:
Buy the magazine.
The information I posted is there.
I don't know what the 1.1 uses on the analog stage.
If you have a chance, listen to the 1.1.
The CD12 beats it by a small margin on CD.
Impressive stuff, as the CD12 costs almost double the price and only reads CD.😱