Manley Studio Gear and the problematic here
Well, behind the quite bizarre Web-Design (a matter of taste? na ja, hopefully someone take care about the dog at the entrance to the building…), Manely looks not at all bad, and actually even quite interesting; not always with the "usual gears… (good so!). No wonder they imply that they are considered to be among the "free thinking" in the field, which should be appreciated.
More to our point - they didn't get yet a great review about the Angaram DAC, which they use btw as an option to their SLAM!, a mix of a preamp and a limiter. Hmmm.
But the issue is different, I believe; it has to do with the necessity of 96Khz or 192Khz and/or Up-sampling for home use, if at all.
The reproducing of music at home with 44/16 had shown it advantageous. To get it better then the much proved to be great - 16bit/44Khz, will be a-very-difficult-to-achieve-task.
No news here & it is a much complicated subject.
The following thread is a good example for this. One should at least try to hold through, from Post #1 to the very last one (which is #40 at the moment).
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3194
Greetings,
IJ.
Well, behind the quite bizarre Web-Design (a matter of taste? na ja, hopefully someone take care about the dog at the entrance to the building…), Manely looks not at all bad, and actually even quite interesting; not always with the "usual gears… (good so!). No wonder they imply that they are considered to be among the "free thinking" in the field, which should be appreciated.
More to our point - they didn't get yet a great review about the Angaram DAC, which they use btw as an option to their SLAM!, a mix of a preamp and a limiter. Hmmm.
But the issue is different, I believe; it has to do with the necessity of 96Khz or 192Khz and/or Up-sampling for home use, if at all.
The reproducing of music at home with 44/16 had shown it advantageous. To get it better then the much proved to be great - 16bit/44Khz, will be a-very-difficult-to-achieve-task.
No news here & it is a much complicated subject.
The following thread is a good example for this. One should at least try to hold through, from Post #1 to the very last one (which is #40 at the moment).
http://www.rme-audio.de/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3194
Greetings,
IJ.
http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/104fifth/index1.html
took me some time to remember on this one.
took me some time to remember on this one.
How to proceed
flshzug,
Yes indeed, the "Orpheus DAC One", based on the Angaram Chip seemed to be a fantastic DAC. There is no German representation however, so I will have to listen to it when I am abroad (in Switzerland or in Austria).
It is clear to me that the all work & modifications on the AVM DAC 1.2 (CS8414, DF1704, PCM63P-Y, BG capacitors, Burson Discrate OpAmps, 8x OPA627BP, PSU (Diodes, Inlet-Filter & Fuse, etc. etc.), resistors exchanging, new ALPS poti, new XLR out, all this costs me time and material, probably much above the US $ 4800.- (about 3200 Euro) which is requested for a new Orpheus DAC.
On the other hand, it was/is a wonderful learning & sharing process, where I am not even done yet. I am just getting the music step by step, towards what I want it to sound. In short time, I will be listening to Spencer's V3 Clone of the PASS D1 DAC (just bought one), and again, it cost what it cost.
I had a nice talk to Mr. Sellenthin from ASE Audiotuning. He told me that his PCM1704U-K Adapters should be the best upgrade for the PCM63. One of his strong arguments is that each of his adapters has about 7 Black Gate capacitors on it, which should let the PCM1704 to sing at its best. Obviously this can't be cheap.
Well, I am going to listen to 4x of them – against the K2, KY and Y in the D1V3. This will be interesting to do and I will report.
Then:
Once I will be done with my personal reference DAC (AVM? or D1V3? With PCM63Y? or PCM 1704U-K adapters & BG capacitors? With DF1704 or SM5842APT or SM5847? With BB DIR9001 or CS8414? or may be some Upsampling, with CS8420? With attacking the elusive Jitter subject, may be with a Tent XO2.3, or with the Tent-Link, or with Herb’s re-clocking schema?) –
then I will have to compare it to the Orpheus, or Weiss, or whatsoever....
I am open to every possible surprise. It is also about the process, not only about the final results.
One more point: The new technology should be the better one, isn’t it? but it is also a matter of implementation. As I am a musician and not a technician. I can’t implement an Angaram DAC into an existing device.
May be this should be the next challenge for this board.
Greetings,
IJ.
flshzug,
Yes indeed, the "Orpheus DAC One", based on the Angaram Chip seemed to be a fantastic DAC. There is no German representation however, so I will have to listen to it when I am abroad (in Switzerland or in Austria).
It is clear to me that the all work & modifications on the AVM DAC 1.2 (CS8414, DF1704, PCM63P-Y, BG capacitors, Burson Discrate OpAmps, 8x OPA627BP, PSU (Diodes, Inlet-Filter & Fuse, etc. etc.), resistors exchanging, new ALPS poti, new XLR out, all this costs me time and material, probably much above the US $ 4800.- (about 3200 Euro) which is requested for a new Orpheus DAC.
On the other hand, it was/is a wonderful learning & sharing process, where I am not even done yet. I am just getting the music step by step, towards what I want it to sound. In short time, I will be listening to Spencer's V3 Clone of the PASS D1 DAC (just bought one), and again, it cost what it cost.
I had a nice talk to Mr. Sellenthin from ASE Audiotuning. He told me that his PCM1704U-K Adapters should be the best upgrade for the PCM63. One of his strong arguments is that each of his adapters has about 7 Black Gate capacitors on it, which should let the PCM1704 to sing at its best. Obviously this can't be cheap.
Well, I am going to listen to 4x of them – against the K2, KY and Y in the D1V3. This will be interesting to do and I will report.
Then:
Once I will be done with my personal reference DAC (AVM? or D1V3? With PCM63Y? or PCM 1704U-K adapters & BG capacitors? With DF1704 or SM5842APT or SM5847? With BB DIR9001 or CS8414? or may be some Upsampling, with CS8420? With attacking the elusive Jitter subject, may be with a Tent XO2.3, or with the Tent-Link, or with Herb’s re-clocking schema?) –
then I will have to compare it to the Orpheus, or Weiss, or whatsoever....
I am open to every possible surprise. It is also about the process, not only about the final results.
One more point: The new technology should be the better one, isn’t it? but it is also a matter of implementation. As I am a musician and not a technician. I can’t implement an Angaram DAC into an existing device.
May be this should be the next challenge for this board.
Greetings,
IJ.
hi , you are misinterpreting me now, i never said you should buy the off the Orpheus from any dealer, but Anagram can sell you these oversampling filters / local clock MODULES one by one. I was reacting on that you said there wasnt any favorable interview. Read the datasheets , and look for ev-kits at their site (those wont be that cheap!) . And most certainly I never dismissed you for using the d1V3 pcb However, I wanted to state that the sum of:
-JITTER- (which is solved in anagram modules by means of ASRC+ low jitter local clock , and dsp algorithms running on real dsp instead of hardwired filterchip)
-OVERSAMPLING- process itself ( look for anagram's patents on the subject , easy to find with google if you want to dwell upon it)
might weight more on that "subjective" listening experience scale. For your interest I myself have 1pc D1v3 and 2pc D1v2 too. For the v2, I think of something really novel (which I think you'd prefer to your current v3 setup) : its clearly possible to bypass the digital section this way: drop in a new adapter in place of the digital filter, accepting external i2s signal, coming from some guaranteed low jitter source , be it 96khz or the 384khz of anagram an module. If the source is close you dont even need an adapter, however, I want LVDS protocol inbetween, and put the receiver right there.
As for the pcm1704 on adapters, let me know if someone wants to trade those for my pcm63's
-JITTER- (which is solved in anagram modules by means of ASRC+ low jitter local clock , and dsp algorithms running on real dsp instead of hardwired filterchip)
-OVERSAMPLING- process itself ( look for anagram's patents on the subject , easy to find with google if you want to dwell upon it)
might weight more on that "subjective" listening experience scale. For your interest I myself have 1pc D1v3 and 2pc D1v2 too. For the v2, I think of something really novel (which I think you'd prefer to your current v3 setup) : its clearly possible to bypass the digital section this way: drop in a new adapter in place of the digital filter, accepting external i2s signal, coming from some guaranteed low jitter source , be it 96khz or the 384khz of anagram an module. If the source is close you dont even need an adapter, however, I want LVDS protocol inbetween, and put the receiver right there.
As for the pcm1704 on adapters, let me know if someone wants to trade those for my pcm63's
Anagram and going forward
Hi,
no bad feelings whatsoever; actually you are opening for me (and for others here) a window to the unknown. Thank you for this.
What I meant with the Orpheus was simply to listen to it. Any Anagram device is welcome, just like every other good electronics.
I never thought that a PCM63 or 1704 should be the last word in Digital Technique: There have been many new developments - mainly by BB and AD since the 20bit generation… I didn't keep a track but it should be clear to everybody hre that there are no more PCM63 in the studios' monitoring rooms... still sounds excellent!!
So what I am asking here is how to go forward.
Have you already tried yourself the Anagram products? The idea of experimenting with their hardware in an existing product (like in the D1V3, or V2) is surely fascinating. At least for you and for me.
The other point which I was trying to make: I am sure that for many of the members/guests here, who are not technicians or engineers, this knowledge - which you and others are talking about - is extremely important. People like me are always willing to donate their well trained ears for feedback. See te case of the "Y" (may I say). But, the know-how should come from the engineer’s side.
I can give Anagram a call; it is easy to do from here
The problem is – what exactly to ask for... An evaluation board might be an advanced step to take – at least for the non technicians people here, like me. May be you and others can help.
It would be nice to go to the highest possible level of develpment. Until this will take place, there is still a way to go.
BTW, I am not sure if I am such a "hard case" here... Members here are still holding to NONOS, PCM56 or 18 bit, Tubes, etc. So I would say that PCM63 is an advance device and the 1704 is already a revolution
And while looking forward to the PCM1704 + Black Gate capacitors as an EXPERIMENT (you see, it is a dangerous field here), I "own" this thread the next update:
There are some PCM63P-Y from 1995 & 1996 available; I think they are genuine…
http://goods.ruten.com.tw/item/show?11080429598883#pic
Just needs being somehow carefull with it. One can never know the source...
Greetings,
IJ.
Hi,
no bad feelings whatsoever; actually you are opening for me (and for others here) a window to the unknown. Thank you for this.
What I meant with the Orpheus was simply to listen to it. Any Anagram device is welcome, just like every other good electronics.
I never thought that a PCM63 or 1704 should be the last word in Digital Technique: There have been many new developments - mainly by BB and AD since the 20bit generation… I didn't keep a track but it should be clear to everybody hre that there are no more PCM63 in the studios' monitoring rooms... still sounds excellent!!
So what I am asking here is how to go forward.
Have you already tried yourself the Anagram products? The idea of experimenting with their hardware in an existing product (like in the D1V3, or V2) is surely fascinating. At least for you and for me.
The other point which I was trying to make: I am sure that for many of the members/guests here, who are not technicians or engineers, this knowledge - which you and others are talking about - is extremely important. People like me are always willing to donate their well trained ears for feedback. See te case of the "Y" (may I say). But, the know-how should come from the engineer’s side.
I can give Anagram a call; it is easy to do from here
The problem is – what exactly to ask for... An evaluation board might be an advanced step to take – at least for the non technicians people here, like me. May be you and others can help.It would be nice to go to the highest possible level of develpment. Until this will take place, there is still a way to go.
BTW, I am not sure if I am such a "hard case" here... Members here are still holding to NONOS, PCM56 or 18 bit, Tubes, etc. So I would say that PCM63 is an advance device and the 1704 is already a revolution
And while looking forward to the PCM1704 + Black Gate capacitors as an EXPERIMENT (you see, it is a dangerous field here), I "own" this thread the next update:
There are some PCM63P-Y from 1995 & 1996 available; I think they are genuine…
http://goods.ruten.com.tw/item/show?11080429598883#pic
Just needs being somehow carefull with it. One can never know the source...
Greetings,
IJ.
Re: Anagram and going forward
In the "real or fake PCM63" thread pretty extensive testing showed the PCM1704 to be harsher than the PCM63. This has been my experience, though not with a comparison in the same DAC. I am interested in your experiement results please report out your finding.
... Members here are still holding to NONOS, PCM56 or 18 bit, Tubes, etc. So I would say that PCM63 is an advance device and the 1704 is already a revolution
And while looking forward to the PCM1704 + Black Gate capacitors as an EXPERIMENT (you see, it is a dangerous field here), I "own" this thread the next update:
. [/B]
In the "real or fake PCM63" thread pretty extensive testing showed the PCM1704 to be harsher than the PCM63. This has been my experience, though not with a comparison in the same DAC. I am interested in your experiement results please report out your finding.
Wadia 581i - new digital era - but which PCMs?
Regel,
Yesterday night I heard the Wadia 581. It is quite an amazing CD Player (it is a combi of Transport + Balanced DAC + PreAmp in one box). There are several of Wadia developments inside, like the Volume Control which is done in the digital domain and the words-length (internal processing) values which are much higher then by the rivals, etc. The sound was very "analogue" and may be what impressed me at most - beside the detailed performance - is the easy way it is going with music, especially when loud orchestral passages are being played.
In the most louded (& loaded) moments, the sound is always somehow still soft-edged, never nervous, and the distance between the instruments is always there. Really phenomenal, although may be a bit “over done” – more beautiful then the reality is…
I came back home and went online, to see which PCMs are build inside this Wadia 581i – and now I can answer your post: The Wadia 581i has not other then … 4x Burr Brown PCM1704 (!!!!) in Balanced-Mode.
Not a bad PCM, isn’t it?! So what are we exactly doing with it?
The German “Audio” (HiFi Magazine) has just compared (in May 2008 http://www.audio.de/Testbericht/Wadia-581-iSE_2595744.html ) the sound of a Wadia 581i while playing a CD - with its original Maser-Tape, as being played from the original Recording Machine (source), which was being supplied by the record company for this test. He found the Wadia to be almost 1:1 true. Only the Overtones by the Violins were “declared” as not 100% accurate (but very minimal), and as I wrote above, the distance between the instruments (and stage space) might have been “over done”.
Follows Up:
Next week, I will compare it at my home with the AVM (non Balanced, with PCM63P-Y). Then:
In about 1o days, I hope to be able to compare it with the D1V3 (with 4x PCM63 & 4x PCM1704)! I am very curious to see where we are.
I was just about to check my AVM and to see, what shell be done so that the Violins will sound realistic. It seems that this is one of the hardest tasks to achieve by Digital reproducing.
And the reason why I was looking for a SM5842APT to DF1700 Adapter (my other Thread from few days ago – no any answer…) was exactly this!! May be, the DF1704 is a bit too hard? I will have to compare it once again with the other available filters.
After the Wadia experience – which came to me just on time but completely unexpected – I am quite sure that with both PCMs (63-K2,KY & Y) and 1704U-K, we have no problems: The PCMs are excellent!
The “work” has to be done on the other topics: Filtering, Volume Control, Up-Sampeling & Algorithm for intern processing (I am not sure about this yet!), etc.
The comparison with the D1V3 should give some answers. I will keep this board informed.
Thank you all for your interest.
Greetings,
IJ.
Regel,
Yesterday night I heard the Wadia 581. It is quite an amazing CD Player (it is a combi of Transport + Balanced DAC + PreAmp in one box). There are several of Wadia developments inside, like the Volume Control which is done in the digital domain and the words-length (internal processing) values which are much higher then by the rivals, etc. The sound was very "analogue" and may be what impressed me at most - beside the detailed performance - is the easy way it is going with music, especially when loud orchestral passages are being played.
In the most louded (& loaded) moments, the sound is always somehow still soft-edged, never nervous, and the distance between the instruments is always there. Really phenomenal, although may be a bit “over done” – more beautiful then the reality is…
I came back home and went online, to see which PCMs are build inside this Wadia 581i – and now I can answer your post: The Wadia 581i has not other then … 4x Burr Brown PCM1704 (!!!!) in Balanced-Mode.
Not a bad PCM, isn’t it?! So what are we exactly doing with it?
The German “Audio” (HiFi Magazine) has just compared (in May 2008 http://www.audio.de/Testbericht/Wadia-581-iSE_2595744.html ) the sound of a Wadia 581i while playing a CD - with its original Maser-Tape, as being played from the original Recording Machine (source), which was being supplied by the record company for this test. He found the Wadia to be almost 1:1 true. Only the Overtones by the Violins were “declared” as not 100% accurate (but very minimal), and as I wrote above, the distance between the instruments (and stage space) might have been “over done”.
Follows Up:
Next week, I will compare it at my home with the AVM (non Balanced, with PCM63P-Y). Then:
In about 1o days, I hope to be able to compare it with the D1V3 (with 4x PCM63 & 4x PCM1704)! I am very curious to see where we are.
I was just about to check my AVM and to see, what shell be done so that the Violins will sound realistic. It seems that this is one of the hardest tasks to achieve by Digital reproducing.
And the reason why I was looking for a SM5842APT to DF1700 Adapter (my other Thread from few days ago – no any answer…) was exactly this!! May be, the DF1704 is a bit too hard? I will have to compare it once again with the other available filters.
After the Wadia experience – which came to me just on time but completely unexpected – I am quite sure that with both PCMs (63-K2,KY & Y) and 1704U-K, we have no problems: The PCMs are excellent!
The “work” has to be done on the other topics: Filtering, Volume Control, Up-Sampeling & Algorithm for intern processing (I am not sure about this yet!), etc.
The comparison with the D1V3 should give some answers. I will keep this board informed.
Thank you all for your interest.
Greetings,
IJ.
Attachments
“Filters are responsible for very significant differences in sound quality”.
Yes, I know this report very well.
However, there are hundreds of possible mistakes - and none of us is safe from doing them. For example: "All comparisons were made in their most favourable mode. The PMD-200 and DF1704 can accept 96 x 24, so they were upsampled and interpolated to those resolutions".
Very fair? May be: I can't tell if this is the favourable mode for the filter. I can’t tell as well, how exactly the filter was configurated; from my own experience, it is enough to configurate the DF1704 to fast (instead of slow) - and one can just forget it all.
"An unmodified Pioneer DV-414 DVD Video player was used as transport" - Why this please?
"sending S/PDIF audio data to the D2D-1" (Assemblage D2D-1 to upsample to 96 kHz)”. Hmmm, is this a definite advantage? Would a reliable CD Transport not have given us a better feeling?.
Just few of my thoughts.
This does explain however, why all of us are having such “hard life” here. Almost nothing is definite yet.
Another example: I have the “Aural Symphonics Digital Statement” (BNC-BNC, 75 Ohm Digital Cable) that didn’t want to sound by me the last 6-7 years (!!!!).
Only once the “Y” are inside – and the DF1704 is on Slow (etc.) this cable wins against all the others, and how!!
My own conclusion? Two many mistakes are still being done unwillingly, on the way to perfectionism. I wish we could avoid them.
I am waiting to the day when I will be able to report to you: The PMD-100 is great. I have no idea if this day will come or not.
Greetings,
IJ.
Yes, I know this report very well.
However, there are hundreds of possible mistakes - and none of us is safe from doing them. For example: "All comparisons were made in their most favourable mode. The PMD-200 and DF1704 can accept 96 x 24, so they were upsampled and interpolated to those resolutions".
Very fair? May be: I can't tell if this is the favourable mode for the filter. I can’t tell as well, how exactly the filter was configurated; from my own experience, it is enough to configurate the DF1704 to fast (instead of slow) - and one can just forget it all.
"An unmodified Pioneer DV-414 DVD Video player was used as transport" - Why this please?
"sending S/PDIF audio data to the D2D-1" (Assemblage D2D-1 to upsample to 96 kHz)”. Hmmm, is this a definite advantage? Would a reliable CD Transport not have given us a better feeling?.
Just few of my thoughts.
This does explain however, why all of us are having such “hard life” here. Almost nothing is definite yet.
Another example: I have the “Aural Symphonics Digital Statement” (BNC-BNC, 75 Ohm Digital Cable) that didn’t want to sound by me the last 6-7 years (!!!!).
Only once the “Y” are inside – and the DF1704 is on Slow (etc.) this cable wins against all the others, and how!!
My own conclusion? Two many mistakes are still being done unwillingly, on the way to perfectionism. I wish we could avoid them.
I am waiting to the day when I will be able to report to you: The PMD-100 is great. I have no idea if this day will come or not.
Greetings,
IJ.
After reading the thread, I have a feeling that the comment is very subjective and only base on a platform of implementation. The platform sounds to be more important than the filter and it is telling people to buy the platform as its final purpose.
I totally agree that a better transport should be used for comparision.
I totally agree that a better transport should be used for comparision.
Platform
Spencer,
Indeed. For example: Philips chipset SAA7350 and TDA1547 1 bit converter works remarkable different in a Yamaha professional DAC - in comparison to a Marantz CD10 or 72SE, even when they are working together, as a pair.
PCM1704 performs different in a Wadia CD 581 then in a CEC TL51 Z or a MARK LEVINSON No 30.6 ....
However, what we already know is that the above mentioned parts ARE good. Our difficulties are by the implementation(s). Will be good to agree on what we can agree.
Most people will agree that if a BB OPA627BP sounds bad, then the problem is not the OPA itself; the same about few other parts… but may be too few?
I truly wish we had established here a list of agreed-upon devices… but this might also create a W.W. III. How about starting with a simple device, like the PMD-100 ?
Spencer,
Indeed. For example: Philips chipset SAA7350 and TDA1547 1 bit converter works remarkable different in a Yamaha professional DAC - in comparison to a Marantz CD10 or 72SE, even when they are working together, as a pair.
PCM1704 performs different in a Wadia CD 581 then in a CEC TL51 Z or a MARK LEVINSON No 30.6 ....
However, what we already know is that the above mentioned parts ARE good. Our difficulties are by the implementation(s). Will be good to agree on what we can agree.
Most people will agree that if a BB OPA627BP sounds bad, then the problem is not the OPA itself; the same about few other parts… but may be too few?
I truly wish we had established here a list of agreed-upon devices… but this might also create a W.W. III. How about starting with a simple device, like the PMD-100 ?
post production
Ideally speaking, the music is always being recorded in natural acoustics and one does not need any intervention in altering the recorded sound later on.... The problems start however when the recording-location is not ideal, like it is in reality. In such a case (and there are many), artists might face some sound-engineers whose ego is much bigger then their capability .
Good to know that we don't have anybody like this on this forum, of course .
And there are very positive examples: Listen to Aulis Sallinen (* 1935) Symphony 8 & Violin Concerto on cpo 999-972-2, with Jaakko Kuusisto (Violin), the Staatsphilharmonie Rhenland-Pfalz conducted by Ari Rasilainen: It was recorded in the orchestra’s rehearsal room - the very small hall called Ludwigshafen Philharmonie, a not great sounding location, where my very dear friend Stephan Reh did excellent recording and post production job. It sounds "Wow!".
Post-production is quite a reliable process nowadays and many sound engineers are very sensitive to critic. Concerning the Wadia-Test, it seems to me that the engineer Andreas Spreer & his “Tacet” company (who are declared to be purists) have done some good mastering/post production job, so that the Wadia sounds - all in all - like the original Master (very probably).
There are good recordings around and we should arrive to this level of true Hi-End soon....
To be continued.
Greetings,
IJ.
spzzzzkt said:Re the Wadia test:
it seems like there are a couple of missing steps?? Like analog to digital conversion and mastering before the Wadia even comes into the picture. Of course those processes have zero impact on the sound being transfered to cd in audiophile phairyland.
Ideally speaking, the music is always being recorded in natural acoustics and one does not need any intervention in altering the recorded sound later on.... The problems start however when the recording-location is not ideal, like it is in reality. In such a case (and there are many), artists might face some sound-engineers whose ego is much bigger then their capability
.Good to know that we don't have anybody like this on this forum, of course
.And there are very positive examples: Listen to Aulis Sallinen (* 1935) Symphony 8 & Violin Concerto on cpo 999-972-2, with Jaakko Kuusisto (Violin), the Staatsphilharmonie Rhenland-Pfalz conducted by Ari Rasilainen: It was recorded in the orchestra’s rehearsal room - the very small hall called Ludwigshafen Philharmonie, a not great sounding location, where my very dear friend Stephan Reh did excellent recording and post production job. It sounds "Wow!".
Post-production is quite a reliable process nowadays and many sound engineers are very sensitive to critic. Concerning the Wadia-Test, it seems to me that the engineer Andreas Spreer & his “Tacet” company (who are declared to be purists) have done some good mastering/post production job, so that the Wadia sounds - all in all - like the original Master (very probably).
There are good recordings around and we should arrive to this level of true Hi-End soon....
To be continued.
Greetings,
IJ.
IJ,
I'm sure the recordings are good. My point is that there are processes applied to the original recordings to prepare it for CD which mean that the CD is not going to be 100% perfect representation of what is on the master tape. To then compare a master tape with the playback from the Wadia is comparing the sum of differences resulting from these multiple conversions, and not simply the contribution of the Wadia.
Can you identify with any degree of certainty where in that chain the loss of overtones from the violins originates? It could be at A to D conversion, in mastering or dithering the converted data for CD, or at playback. This is why the using this process to make specific claims about the performance of the Wadia is nonsense.
best
PJ
I'm sure the recordings are good. My point is that there are processes applied to the original recordings to prepare it for CD which mean that the CD is not going to be 100% perfect representation of what is on the master tape. To then compare a master tape with the playback from the Wadia is comparing the sum of differences resulting from these multiple conversions, and not simply the contribution of the Wadia.
Can you identify with any degree of certainty where in that chain the loss of overtones from the violins originates? It could be at A to D conversion, in mastering or dithering the converted data for CD, or at playback. This is why the using this process to make specific claims about the performance of the Wadia is nonsense.
best
PJ
spzzzzkt said:
Should not be so, of course.
Agree. It would have been much better to have a different chains, like having at least 3 different recording desks, 3 different A/D (includes the Lavri..), etc. etc.
Might well be! All what it IMPLYS is that the Wadia is not realy a bad player... Still, we are looking here for having it better with our PCM63, with no intern upsampling - no data boofering - no digital volume (etc. etc.), so unless the Wadia is a pure manipulation - BTW I assume it is not - we might not have it so easy after all. However we already know this
Remember, the Wadia is here only as a reminder (after Regel's remark) that PCM1704 can still be a good Chip.
Warmly,
IJ.
Unfortunately the real world falls short of perfection. For example it is not possible to down sample without loss of detail for example. If the Wadia is playing red book CD the source has been down sampled and CANNOT be 1:1 with the source. You lose detail at this point no matter where it was recorded, who the performer was, or which selection of esoteric gear was used to capture the performance.
I don't doubt the Wadia is an excellent player. What I question is the value of comparisons between original analog source and CD as a means of identify the characteristics of the player alone. If the comparison had been done in the mastering suite comparing playback with the digital mater through the same monitoring system you would have a meaningful comparison. As it stands the test is of the entire digital chain, and looks like nothing more than a marketing stunt. I wonder why that might be
I don't doubt the Wadia is an excellent player. What I question is the value of comparisons between original analog source and CD as a means of identify the characteristics of the player alone. If the comparison had been done in the mastering suite comparing playback with the digital mater through the same monitoring system you would have a meaningful comparison. As it stands the test is of the entire digital chain, and looks like nothing more than a marketing stunt. I wonder why that might be
I also agree that the PCM1704 is an excellent chip. It's been used in some very good products - Mark Levinson No.36, Krell , Wadia, Tent Labs DIY, Shanling, Primare....
I have considered abandoning the PCM63 simply because of the BS that is going on in regards to fakes and the questionable origins of the current available chips. To have to even consider paying $80-90+US for a single PCM63 is ludicrous, and a sure sign the sharks are circling. PCM1704 is in production and readily available through reputable distributors at a price that allows me to buy 4 for less than the price of a pair of PCM63P-K.
I have considered abandoning the PCM63 simply because of the BS that is going on in regards to fakes and the questionable origins of the current available chips. To have to even consider paying $80-90+US for a single PCM63 is ludicrous, and a sure sign the sharks are circling. PCM1704 is in production and readily available through reputable distributors at a price that allows me to buy 4 for less than the price of a pair of PCM63P-K.
I totally agreed that PCM1704 is much better than PCM63P.
I have modify my Rotel RCD 991 from PCM63 to PCM1704 with a transit PCB and the acoustic improvement is amazing.
The sound is sweet and rich. Just like change a new high end CD player. But unfortunately, my CD player trnsformer have the problem last week. I need some body help to provide the service manual and the transformer spec.
I have modify my Rotel RCD 991 from PCM63 to PCM1704 with a transit PCB and the acoustic improvement is amazing.
The sound is sweet and rich. Just like change a new high end CD player. But unfortunately, my CD player trnsformer have the problem last week. I need some body help to provide the service manual and the transformer spec.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.