I think Richard is quite interested in content too. He has a large collection of albums. He just happens to enjoy his music most when the sound quality is good, IMHO.
Last edited:
I started out, after a firestorm destroyed my entire hi fi system, to rebuild it very much as Scott is doing today. This was in 1992, I got a pair of speakers from a colleague (I was sharing an office with him) to use and I purchased a pair of used Dyna Mk4 tube amps to drive them. Then, I bought a Grado cartridge (the very cheapest one) and put it in a British turntable that a friend gave me. Still, I needed a preamp, so I got a Parasound discrete preamp to have some control and a phono stage. I used this set-up for about 1 year, but I became increasingly dissatisfied. That is the difference between you and me, Scott. I ultimately replaced everything with either my own designs or used audio equipment purchases, such as a pair of the WATT 1 loudspeakers, that were identical to the pair that I had lost in the firestorm. I am still on a quest for better sound quality, especially in the digital area. My OPPO is marginal, unfortunately.
We have a ways to go, in my opinion, for best sound quality.
We have a ways to go, in my opinion, for best sound quality.
I enjoy my music when the content is good in spite of the reproduction. BTW our musical tastes are so diametrically opposed there is little basis for discussion. Please don't speak for him or me.
The Oppo design appears to be mostly taken from the ESS evaluation board design. Maybe they had to design to a price point, don't know. Sabre dacs can sound a lot better than that, but only with more complex and costly designs, IMHO. For example, Benchmark DAC-3 comes a lot closer to an analog sound. However, its been around awhile and we're probably getting closer to the point where better dacs will start coming out in a similar price range (my best guess).
Last edited:
Sorry, I took a bit of liberty because I know Richard and forgot to add the IMHO qualification at the end (fixed shortly afterwards). Don't know you, so very different situations.
In the same vein, so is the 60k AP not helpful for DACs*. There's a practical limit. And low-passing to only get the IM products is pretty effective. Synchronous sampling is good for detecting low-level funkiness, but you've got to get your ADC up there together with the DAC.
*The direct input system they have is pretty dang trick though.
Which comes back to the fact that, if you are only doing 2 channel reproduction you are 50 years behind.
Music in the Round #96: Roon & Dolby Atmos Page 2 | Stereophile.com
Interestingly Floyd Toole now is using a 9.6.4 setup and experimenting with how to process 2 channel source material to get the most from it. This is moving forwards. Sticking with 2 channels is stuck in the past.
For those of us for whom music comes first of course we don't mind being out of date as long as we get music.
BTW John, don't forget you admitted a few weeks ago that you hardly ever fire up your big rig and listen mainly on the MET7s on your bench...
I can only recommend what I have tried in recent times. In that regard, Benchmark DAC-3 and AHB2 power amp are very good. There may be better, of course, but very they measure well and sound good to me. Stereophile rates them A+ recommended, bargain priced, and SOA in terms of measurements.
Unfortunately, I'm not a reviewer or a hi-fi salesman, so I don't get to try out much variety these days other than what I choose to buy. Stereophile seems to do the best job with their recommended equipment list, IMHO, most of which probably sound pretty good. That's my guess, anyway.
Last edited:
Really?
Here's my audio corner. Left-right, top down
- Tektronix 2465A 350MHz analog scope
- Advantest R9211C LF analyzer
- HP 3562A LF analyzer
- Rohde & Schwarz UPD dual domain audio analyzer
- HP 35665A spectrum analyzer
- Stanford Research SR-530 Lock In Amplifier
- PM5193 function generator
- Panasonic 7722A distortion analyzer
- Panasonic 7722A distortion analyzer
- HP 8903B distortion analyzer
- Amber 5500 distortion analyzer
- Sorensen DLM60-10 power supply
- HP 3457A 7 1/2 multimeter
- Tektronix PFG5105 function generator
- Tektronix DM5120 6 1/2 multimeter
- Tektronix DC5010 frequency counter
- Tektronix FG5010 function generator
- Tektronix PS502 pulse generator
- Tektronix DC5009 frequency counter
- Tektronix SG505 low distortion generator
- Tektronix SG5010 low distortion generator
- Tektronix AA501 distortion analyzer
- Tektronix AM5030 current probe
- Tektronix AM5030 current probe
- Tektronix PS5004 precision power supply
- Tektronix PS5004 precision power supply
- Tektronix PS5010 power supply
- 4x Sorensen DLM60-10 power supplies
- HP 6627A power supply
Now show me something worth measuring. Bybees do not qualify.
Attachments
Last edited:
Markw4, if I had to buy a DAC today, I would most probably buy the Benchmark. Richard has done a direct comparison between it and the OPPO and found the Benchmark better, I am pretty sure. I recently turned down improving an ESS 9038 prototype bd with discrete circuits, because I cannot yet control the oscillator or digital filters, just the I-V, and power supply. Still, my sources tell me that ANY Delta-Sigma converter is seriously flawed, so it's back to the drawing board.
He should fire Feynman on spot. Every Nobel Prize winner should have a minimum of soft skills.
The only dac I know of that is said to be very similar in sound quality to DAC-3 at around the same price is Crane Song Solaris, but it is something more oriented to the recording industry. No remote control, etc. A more 'musical' dac might be Chord Dave, but the price is way too high for most. Maybe too many 64-bit FPGAs in it (seems likely from what they say).
Last edited:
The one I *loosely* interacted with (common lecture series/internal conferences) certainly lacked social graces, at least when it came to differing interpretations of the science in question.
Then again, so do a lot of folks in academia, it seems!
P.S. that's a pretty crazy measurement suite you've picked up through the years.
So musical not accurate? What does Richard think of these "musical" but not accurate components? If a DAC added -60dB of 2nd harmonic distortion cleverly in the right phase and garnered a huge fan base would that not be good?
There is one very interesting flaw in DAC-3, which is limited ability to reproduce low level reverb tails as they were recorded. I noticed the issue when comparing dacs myself, then later found out about a published article that talks about it: Audio Fur and the Border Patrol DAC | Part-Time Audiophile
EDIT: One can quickly get to the DAC-3 reverb tail part by searching the page for DAC3.
I just reviewed a new dac design that sells for $5 in kit form, and which reproduces the tails quite well: https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/dig...-rbcd-multibit-dac-design-30.html#post5712455
Interesting stuff. In DAC-3 I think I can show the problem is related to excessive jitter, although its measured jitter is pretty good by most reckoning.
EDIT: Could be Solaris dac is better in the above respect. It has a very low jitter clock.
Last edited:
All I know is that it measures well in most respects, but as good as DAC-3. One can read the description of the sound at Stereophile in the blurb on it in the recommended equipment list, and or in the full review article. I doubt the sound is due to simple harmonic distortion.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.