jean-paul said:
1, If nobody else does, I do it. Others show their rat nests 😀
2, You don't think so, but I do.
3, I already do it and beside opening canned oscillators, I started building Kwak clock.
4, So do I.
jean-paul said:
Misunderstanding.
The real important thing is speakers. To me.
Sweet little flames 😀
1st: speakers
2nd: listening room
after that all the other stuff
in my experience so far
For me its helpfull to see what others measured. It helps finding mistakes i made. And i suspect there are more reasons why people post every poop they made but no measurements...
2nd: listening room
after that all the other stuff
in my experience so far
For me its helpfull to see what others measured. It helps finding mistakes i made. And i suspect there are more reasons why people post every poop they made but no measurements...
This is the thing called audio and it can not be explained in one post or in one book or in one day or in one year.Bernhard said:
Generally, you have two kind of stuff there, one is technical, the second is subjective. Audio is technically created art. So you will hardly get anywhere in it with that impatience.
Pedja
Bernhard said:
What?!
NOS 1541a sounds better because it doesn't like to be oversampled, it's very sensitive to jitter, mainly at low frequencies.
The TDA1543 behaves better than the 1541a when working with the 7220.
When you take care of a proper layout, proper PSU and correct the treble rolloff that you have on a NOS Dac, you'll hear something special.
Nothing of these you have on your Philips CD650.
I know this player very well, I own one.😉
And please don't parallel 1541s that way.😱
What a bunch of wires...
Talking of paralleling, I've made extensive LISTENING tests and I have to agree with what Peter Daniel told me some time ago: paralleling is bad.
The best sound you can get from a TDA1543, for instance, is with a single chip.
IMHO and whatever.
carlosfm said:
And because it doesn't like to be oversampled, distortion is better with oversampling.
carlosfm said:
You judge from some bad experience.
Ever thought about that you maybe combined the wrong chips ?
When paralleling chips, they need to be selected.
Like mosfets in Aleph need to be selected.
If you do not measure, there are so many traps, you can't escape.
I
Bernhard,
Any difference between the signal at the input and the signal at the output is considered to be a distortion. There are many nice gentlemen (and probably ladies) who investigated and still investigate these problems. A lot of literature is written about it and in the Internet age you should be able to come across something of that very easily.
Generally, there are a few kinds of distortion. First we have linear ones and here belong amplitude and phase distortions. Then there are non-linear ones and here we have harmonic (which you have discovered) and non-harmonic (intermodulation) distortion. There is also transient distortion with all its sub kinds like transient intermodulation distortion or slew induced distortion.
However, as I said previously, even if you consider all these kinds of distortions i.e. even if you know all the figures for certain device, you can not undoubtedly deduct from them a final sonic nature of device.
Now excuse me, I will join to those who gave up.
Pedja
Any difference between the signal at the input and the signal at the output is considered to be a distortion. There are many nice gentlemen (and probably ladies) who investigated and still investigate these problems. A lot of literature is written about it and in the Internet age you should be able to come across something of that very easily.
Generally, there are a few kinds of distortion. First we have linear ones and here belong amplitude and phase distortions. Then there are non-linear ones and here we have harmonic (which you have discovered) and non-harmonic (intermodulation) distortion. There is also transient distortion with all its sub kinds like transient intermodulation distortion or slew induced distortion.
However, as I said previously, even if you consider all these kinds of distortions i.e. even if you know all the figures for certain device, you can not undoubtedly deduct from them a final sonic nature of device.
Now excuse me, I will join to those who gave up.
Pedja
Yes, and the final definition of sound is hidden in some yet undiscovered effect.
You should have a look at your statements from a distance.
A device that distorts more sounds better than another device which distorts less, because distortion as a known effect is not important while the yet undiscovered effects make the device sound.
Congratulations.
I already join your club...
You should have a look at your statements from a distance.
A device that distorts more sounds better than another device which distorts less, because distortion as a known effect is not important while the yet undiscovered effects make the device sound.
Congratulations.
I already join your club...
Bernhard said:
😕
Useless.
You're a type of guy that doesn't even deserve to be helped.
I'm gonna say goodbye like Elso does.
WILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
😀
There are people out there who seem to like parralleled DAC chips.
The new Accuphase CDP got 4 paralleled ADXXXX and very low distortion.
But sound must be bad because we know that guys like Carlos did extensive listening tests with paralleled chips and came to the conclusion that they do not sound to their taste.
The new Accuphase CDP got 4 paralleled ADXXXX and very low distortion.
But sound must be bad because we know that guys like Carlos did extensive listening tests with paralleled chips and came to the conclusion that they do not sound to their taste.
Please let us not become personal as this thread is going in the wrong direction.
There are different ways of paralleling and simply piggy backing chips is not beneficial in most configurations is my experience as well. I think Carlos is referring to that way of paralleling chips.
There are different ways of paralleling and simply piggy backing chips is not beneficial in most configurations is my experience as well. I think Carlos is referring to that way of paralleling chips.
and I thought this tread was on standard canned crystals...anyways if even ur clock was 100% accurate and 100% jitter free...the original recording device or master wouldn't have that kinda accuracy right?? So how do you know it sounds better...?? IMO going to the extremes is just a waste of $$$ and time...yeah we should aim for the better...but not necessary the best...measurements dun give a ****...how many times have you hated Tube Amps because they have higher distortion figures?? But have you actually listened to one??
who started to get personal? Not Bernhard, only some gurus who became angry when they did not get as much acclamation as they need for ego.
jean-paul said:
What about PCM56 ?
It exists in K selection and does not need so many external components like 1541.
And it can be combined with SAA7220 😀
I got a Denon DCD3300 with this chips, sounds not so bad, a little like non os, but with low level signal, distortion is 20dB worse and noise floor 10dB worse compared to 1541.
And it has nonharmonic distortion...
Bad implementation ?
It has optocouplers between digital filter and PCM56k.
Upper CD880 with 1541
Lower DCD3300 with 2 x PCM56k
Attachments
li_gangyi said:
You can safely assume that the master clock in recording studios is of a higher level than the standard 74HCU04 and 10 cents crystal most cdplayers use.
till said:
I should ignore this post but OK; it was meant for all ( including myself, being a non-guru ).
When threads start to get nasty things have to be done to avoid personal vendettas.
so what do those recording studios use?? perhaps using that we can get the "best" or at least we get a close to perfect reproduction...with the only exception being the DAC of course...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.