At least some people are still working on improving digital. Someday I would like to be completely happy with digital playback, so far I am not.
I have been listening to digital playback since 48 years ago. Yes, we had AD-DA 12 bit 50K electronics that we seriously listened to, playing back analog master recordings, and we heard problems. Duh! Unfortunately as the years went forward, like 42 years ago, I heard a digital playback at Phillips Research Labs, and it WAS better, but not perfect. The 'CD' they used then was as big as a laserdisc. Then, about the same time, I made my first bucket brigade time delay, and I actually got away with almost perfect transparency. Why? Well, I really overdesigned the electronics, my sampling rate was perhaps 60KHz or so, and we only delayed audio above 4KHz. But it DID WORK! A few years later, a colleague designed a 16 bit, 100KHz delay line and it sounded pretty darn good too! YET, by the early 1980's, Sony had dropped the sampling rate to 44KHz, for their own reasons, and we have had to live with it since.
I was disappointed in CD's from the beginning, and also the associated digital recording systems such as the F1, etc from the very beginning. Even digitally mastered vinyl had problems. Still, CD was 'good enough' for most everybody, so it became very successful, even up to today. However, most real audio design engineers find improvements can be made, and even formats beyond CD offer a better sounding playback. This is where we are today.
Now, those of you, mostly getting on in age, and very happy with CD over the decades, this is not your topic. The rest of us are still interested in improving the electronics and we shall do so. Quibbles, and put downs for this are not really appreciated.
I have been listening to digital playback since 48 years ago. Yes, we had AD-DA 12 bit 50K electronics that we seriously listened to, playing back analog master recordings, and we heard problems. Duh! Unfortunately as the years went forward, like 42 years ago, I heard a digital playback at Phillips Research Labs, and it WAS better, but not perfect. The 'CD' they used then was as big as a laserdisc. Then, about the same time, I made my first bucket brigade time delay, and I actually got away with almost perfect transparency. Why? Well, I really overdesigned the electronics, my sampling rate was perhaps 60KHz or so, and we only delayed audio above 4KHz. But it DID WORK! A few years later, a colleague designed a 16 bit, 100KHz delay line and it sounded pretty darn good too! YET, by the early 1980's, Sony had dropped the sampling rate to 44KHz, for their own reasons, and we have had to live with it since.
I was disappointed in CD's from the beginning, and also the associated digital recording systems such as the F1, etc from the very beginning. Even digitally mastered vinyl had problems. Still, CD was 'good enough' for most everybody, so it became very successful, even up to today. However, most real audio design engineers find improvements can be made, and even formats beyond CD offer a better sounding playback. This is where we are today.
Now, those of you, mostly getting on in age, and very happy with CD over the decades, this is not your topic. The rest of us are still interested in improving the electronics and we shall do so. Quibbles, and put downs for this are not really appreciated.
Flat frequency response, low distortion and noise. Which is more than you can say for lots of fashion devices selling in that same price range.
They should fire the copywriters. They totally failed to misuse the word "quantum" -- very remiss...
So what is wrong with current digital? Is DSD going to take over, or is 24/384 the next big thing? All I want for happiness is decent multi-channel not crippled by Sony and their DRM. Actually I also want switchable matrixes for the decoding and someone to come up with something for music that rivals what we had 40 years ago just waiting for the playback technology to be up to it.
I chanced into the local hifi store here the other week just after the Meridian guys had been there and left the demo tracks.
I listened on an unfamiliar system (good equipment, not over the top) and heard a very fine presentation of the material. Didn't have much to compare it too, but what I heard suggested it was worthy of furthur listening and investigation. So I can't really say much more than that with the experience I had.
Alan
Well,
I just got my printed and mailed copy of Electronics Products Magazine. Inside is a pamphlet introducing "RS Pro" from Allied Electronics. Product categories include "Hand Tools, Hardware, Sensors, Connectors, Security, Safety, Batteries and Swithces."
So on page 4 they show stainless steel ball valves, for 1/4" through 2" pipe! Actually at good prices if your CD player needs a new one. (Unknown quality though.)
🙂 🙂 🙂
ES
Max 2-5 EST OK
I just got my printed and mailed copy of Electronics Products Magazine. Inside is a pamphlet introducing "RS Pro" from Allied Electronics. Product categories include "Hand Tools, Hardware, Sensors, Connectors, Security, Safety, Batteries and Swithces."
So on page 4 they show stainless steel ball valves, for 1/4" through 2" pipe! Actually at good prices if your CD player needs a new one. (Unknown quality though.)
🙂 🙂 🙂
ES
Max 2-5 EST OK
I remain unconvinced by MQA, and don't like the stone age business model in any case.
Some analysis and comparison of MQA encoded FLAC vs normal optimized hires FLAC - Blogs - Computer Audiophile
Rispect Bob Carver too , my 1990 Silver Seven sound wonderful at the time !!
Good engineers and good hucksters are not mutually exclusive categories.
My favorite Carver "invention" was his "autocorrelator". A late former friend, a composer and Prof. of Music, who was about as neurotic as he could be without being forcibly confined, particularly fell for the autocorrelator rhetoric, and swore up and down about its benefits. Then the pots on the joystick control of his Carver preamp began to get flaky.
A significant problem with digital is analog. Unlinear IV conversion, low bias op amps, poor quality coupling and signal path capacitors, low quality surface mount resistors, rf contaminated signal path and power supplies, three terminal regulators, poorly filtered cost compromised switch mode power supplies, poorly designed hf filtering of the recovered analog signal. The same egineering skill devoted to state of the art analog line stages and phono preamps needs to be also utilized in improving analog stages of digital playback systems and the resulting musical experience.
That reads like a 6moon reviewer laying out his beliefs before reviewing some megabuck snakeoil! I don't suppose you have examples to back up this list of horrors that all our DACs have in them? As has been pointed out, even cheapy units perform with grot down in noise.
You'd think that if there were analog problems that you describe, they'd show up in the measurements. Do you have any idea of why they don't?
I remember reading a CD player mod series some years ago in Audio Amateur where they kept talking about linearization, but the before and after measurements were largely missing, and the few that were in there didn't support the mods' efficacy. I did the mods on my player and if there was any change in the performance, it escaped me. That was one of my learning moments...
These appear to be some pretty excellent measurements fram a cheap and non-exotic analog section. Of course, for $10,000, the fashion audio guys can give you this level of performance.
I agree with you, ticknpop on one important area for CD-SACD improvement. The linear sections are usually compromised with 30 cent (or much less) linear IC's. This and other linear compromises are what often limits full fidelity that usually is not easily shown in static measurements. I know from my listening experience with my OPPO 105. A very good digital player, AND almost 3 times the price of the Marantz that SY likes so much (good job for the money, Marantz). I did listening tests with STAX electrostatic headphones, direct driven by tubes, not just some Met 7's, etc. I DID hear a difference, even between the normal out and the headphone out. Of course, the OPPO engineer did not believe me and take my advice. After all, it would not have improved the specs to do it 'right'. Still, I persist in thinking I know better. It would appear that Benchmark does it right. Wish I could afford it.
Since the measurements shown in my link all are dynamic, perhaps you can point to where the performance is compromised? I have no trouble pointing to the problems in the $10,000 player.
Of course, if you peek, the Marantz will certainly sound cheap! But some of us actually trust our ears rather than using that as an empty slogan.
Managed to find a reference to the op-amps used in the DAC2
Analog path is LME49680 and headphone is LME49600. Who'da thunk a $1.40 op-amp could be so good if implemented properly.
Also note a 6-layer PCB. Nice that someone reads the App notes rather than trying to get mixed signal working on a 2-layer board!
Analog path is LME49680 and headphone is LME49600. Who'da thunk a $1.40 op-amp could be so good if implemented properly.
Also note a 6-layer PCB. Nice that someone reads the App notes rather than trying to get mixed signal working on a 2-layer board!
Jim Williams of Audio Upgrades used to modify Alesis digital gear. The differences were striking. I used to funnel him schematics and give him ASICs in case he slipped and blew one.
I doubt that SY's Marantz could afford the IC's that Benchmark is using. Even the OPPO 105 IC's might be too much. And so it goes!
It's irrelevant, since what they chose and how they engineered it combine to achieve impeccable performance. When engineering is used, rather than voodoo, one gets great results.
If your discrete circuits perform that well, you ought to be proud of the achievement.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.