I am a believer that the digital artifacts can be tamed to a minimum with good capacitor selection, fine tuning and tweaking. However, I have yet to find any digital source that sounds as analog as real analog playback. However I have never heard an analog source that sounds as precice and noise free, as digital.
I guess we just have to accept both mediums for what they are.
I cant wait for this Arda DAC to be released. I'm very interested to hear what this one can do. Arda Technologies - AT1401 Flagship Audio D/A Converter
Did you included in the listings some good SACD sources (native DSD)? To me those are the ultimate "analog" quality but without the noise... Like a dark background for analog instead the gray noise of the LP/ree-to-reel.
I have not spent a great deal of time listening to SACD. I have heard Pink Floyd DSOTM on SACD played through the Marantz top-of the line disc player.
It was pretty good. I liked it a lot. I still did feel that there was a digital nature to the sound. Again, not really a bad thing, just a characteristic of the medium. but, sure, its far more transparent, than CD is.
Yes, SACD or native DSD, is really good. Probably as good as it gets at the moment.
However, the biggest problem is
a) the cost of a top-of-the-line SACD or DVD-A player to do justice to the medium
b) the inability to connect SACD to an external DAC and get the native data through.
c) you cant rip SACD to your HDD to play on your DAC... whereas at least you can extract DVD-A
I wouldnt mind paying say, $1000-1500 for a really good source, but the best SACD sources cost about $5000 (in Australia anyway)
then there is the issue of the cost of SACD discs. Then there is the issue, that so many pieces of music that I listen to are not released on SACD or DVD-A.
I have also heard dirt cheap SACD players and they sound..... well, dirt cheap
It was pretty good. I liked it a lot. I still did feel that there was a digital nature to the sound. Again, not really a bad thing, just a characteristic of the medium. but, sure, its far more transparent, than CD is.
Yes, SACD or native DSD, is really good. Probably as good as it gets at the moment.
However, the biggest problem is
a) the cost of a top-of-the-line SACD or DVD-A player to do justice to the medium
b) the inability to connect SACD to an external DAC and get the native data through.
c) you cant rip SACD to your HDD to play on your DAC... whereas at least you can extract DVD-A
I wouldnt mind paying say, $1000-1500 for a really good source, but the best SACD sources cost about $5000 (in Australia anyway)
then there is the issue of the cost of SACD discs. Then there is the issue, that so many pieces of music that I listen to are not released on SACD or DVD-A.
I have also heard dirt cheap SACD players and they sound..... well, dirt cheap
Last edited:
The OP was a comparison of TDA to 9018. My comment was simply, that the 9022 and 9008 are different animals than the 9018.
Brian,
From what i understand, you are involved in the Twisted Pear releases. If this is true, could you desribe the differences for us, since you probably haev more expreience than anyone in this area. THe Lampiztor fellow speaks very highly of the Twisted Pear DAC's, rating them at the very top of the heap, but the question arises as to what is his style of listening.
From what i understand, you are involved in the Twisted Pear releases. If this is true, could you desribe the differences for us, since you probably haev more expreience than anyone in this area. THe Lampiztor fellow speaks very highly of the Twisted Pear DAC's, rating them at the very top of the heap, but the question arises as to what is his style of listening.
Sure. For the record, I am a co-owner of Twisted Pear (just me and Russ).
All the information is in the various datasheets and in threads here. Basically, the 9018 has improved (different) filters, different DPLL, etc from the 9008. They influence the sound and behavior significantly.
I in no way mean to say the other ESS chips sound bad, they are just different chips, (significantly) different implementations.
All the information is in the various datasheets and in threads here. Basically, the 9018 has improved (different) filters, different DPLL, etc from the 9008. They influence the sound and behavior significantly.
I in no way mean to say the other ESS chips sound bad, they are just different chips, (significantly) different implementations.
Nope. You will find I never offer subjective opinions on how things sound.
Everyone has different ears (shape, hair, sensitivity, etc), different systems, different emotions and biases, different tastes, not to mention different implementations of the various chips and their output stages.
I will say they sound different.
Nope. You will find I never offer subjective opinions on how things sound.
Everyone has different ears (shape, hair, sensitivity, etc), different systems, different emotions and biases, different tastes, not to mention different implementations of the various chips and their output stages.
I will say they sound different.
Indeed, Brian for president
of what exactly?
of whatever you choose to be president of;
in no ranking order:
- Twisted Pear Audio
- The universe
- Society of Audiophiles
But mainly of this Thread
I will say they sound different.
Is that subjectively different?
How very helpful of you!
Thanks for coming.
Please come again
Last edited:
Ok, how's this... the ES9018 has a veiled nutty sound, like an old oak floor; but the 9008 is more of a new oak sound... a bit more creeky in the midrange with vocals, but with a warmer glow.
Technically different, and subjectively different.
Ok, how's this... the ES9018 has a veiled nutty sound, like an old oak floor; but the 9008 is more of a new oak sound... a bit more creeky in the midrange with vocals, but with a warmer glow.
Technically different, and subjectively different.
Sounds very diplomatic
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.