IIUC that model uses an ES9018PRO? If so, its a couple of generations old as compared to the latest ES9039PRO. Main thing is if you like it, then you like it. That's all there is to it. Enjoy!
I played Demetri and His Big Band Silverware, "Another-Place-Setting".
One would think that a recording of a band with so many brass instruments would blast one's ears off. This one doesn't (at home listening levels). Brass instruments actually have a nice timbre. They are loud but not piercing. Only when they use the mute do brass instruments blast one's ears off. 😉
I have a lot of recordings of the same instruments that could not capture that quality.
Ed
One would think that a recording of a band with so many brass instruments would blast one's ears off. This one doesn't (at home listening levels). Brass instruments actually have a nice timbre. They are loud but not piercing. Only when they use the mute do brass instruments blast one's ears off. 😉
I have a lot of recordings of the same instruments that could not capture that quality.
Ed
I realize there are many possibilities why CDs often sound strident, hollow, flat, bloated, irritating, honky, congealed, projected, wooly, piercing, distorted and dull. The first step in recovery is realizing you have problems. The next step is isolating the reasons for the problems. The final step is finding a solution to the problems. Hey, I didn‘t even have to bring up the Loudness Wars and CDs’ oft flatlined dynamic range. If one can’t hear these problems more power to you. 🙂
Last edited:
Has anyone ever re-soldered the solder joints of (only) the digital section of converters? If a change in sound can be heard, then - here too - some questions arise, such as:
Can the "digital signal" be modulated by, for example, material and conductor diameter?
If material and cross-sections modulate the signal, do a lot of material and cross-sections modulate the signal more?
If channel-separated structure...?
And so on;-)
Can the "digital signal" be modulated by, for example, material and conductor diameter?
If material and cross-sections modulate the signal, do a lot of material and cross-sections modulate the signal more?
If channel-separated structure...?
And so on;-)
This discussion thread has now strayed extremely far from the original intention and is now dealing with the question of the data on a CD audio disk.
Basically, you have to admit to yourself that there is nothing wrong with the original CD-Audio format.
There are two things that could be technically improved and expanded:
#
I have been using a nice tool in parallel for a few years now, namely a tc electronic clarity m stereo audio meter. Whenever something in the sound seems strange to me, this analyzer confirms that the data has been irrevocably destroyed during mastering (?).
We all know what this is about. It's not the DAC or the reading of the data stream.
But there is one circumstance that plays into the hands of the DAC constructors: every possible calculation method (from processing to final conversion into the time domain) reacts slightly differently to the garbage values.
##
DAC in daily use:
Basically, you have to admit to yourself that there is nothing wrong with the original CD-Audio format.
There are two things that could be technically improved and expanded:
- A higher resolution in X and Y direction, i.e. a sampling rate of up to 200kHz and a quantization with 20 bits instead of 16 bits and 44.1kHz.
- However, to be honest, the CD problem, which is not a processing or reconstruction problem, has long since been solved.
#
I have been using a nice tool in parallel for a few years now, namely a tc electronic clarity m stereo audio meter. Whenever something in the sound seems strange to me, this analyzer confirms that the data has been irrevocably destroyed during mastering (?).
We all know what this is about. It's not the DAC or the reading of the data stream.
But there is one circumstance that plays into the hands of the DAC constructors: every possible calculation method (from processing to final conversion into the time domain) reacts slightly differently to the garbage values.
##
DAC in daily use:
- MF-V90-DAC
- CA-DacMagic Plus
If possible, use the psu of the source, such as the drive or the computer, to drive the extern DAC. A step towards clarity and cleanliness;-)
I’d propose the purity and type of the conductor is important, so is the dielectric material, but the cross-section is related to current (power) handling capability of the conductor. Also, the “digital signal” in conductors is really the same thing as the “analog signal” inasmuch as the “audio signal“ is what causes the speaker diaphragms to move in and out.
Last edited:
For every audiophile argument there’s a 180 degrees opposite argument. “Yes, it is.” “No, it isn’t.“ The difference is I can prove it is but you can’t prove it isn’t. 🙂
Many swear by large boxes with complex DACs inside. But I also advise against this. Just one look at the circuit boards and the ground connections shows that current, for example, has not been taken into account. A rework would be time-consuming, would take many many days, would be pointless, but would only lead to the realization that it is hopeless to get even a clean sound. I advised the simplest external ones. EC card size. Then the work remains manageable, perhaps two days, with an unknown device. And the sound is fantastic;-)
I love the old converters, most 1 bit and corresponding samplers and stuff like that. Somehow I have the impression - it may be due to the noise - that they breathe more openly and the colors are finer, far more resolved. They don't sound so artificial, like dollhouse colors and doll contours: the authenticity of the time of the recording, the era somehow shines through, as with old analog tapes, films...-)
It may be my imagination;-)
I love the old converters, most 1 bit and corresponding samplers and stuff like that. Somehow I have the impression - it may be due to the noise - that they breathe more openly and the colors are finer, far more resolved. They don't sound so artificial, like dollhouse colors and doll contours: the authenticity of the time of the recording, the era somehow shines through, as with old analog tapes, films...-)
It may be my imagination;-)
True; one person's "excellent" can be another person's "lousy". It's in the ear of the beholder.
just another SYMM,
the "TIM-free" ReVox A740 !
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of discussion. As interesting as the DAC discourse may be, it's better off in the digital sources subforum.
kindly,
HBt.
the "TIM-free" ReVox A740 !
Just to add a little fuel to the fire of discussion. As interesting as the DAC discourse may be, it's better off in the digital sources subforum.
kindly,
HBt.
Would that newer ES9018PRO make a noticeable improvement in perceived sound quality over what I have?
IIUC ES9018PRO is the version of Sabre32 dac in your Oppo unit.
That said, there are better dacs out there now. Topping and or SMSL are pretty reputable companies that make a variety of dacs for most consumer market budgets. Beyond that there are dacs that are better yet but more expensive. Part of the reason is that the best dacs in the world often don't use dac chips, they use their own discrete dac designs (at least one such discrete dac is still under development here in the forum). Plus things like SOA clocks and well designed discrete power supplies all add up. Doing it super well still tends to be beyond the budgets of most folks, at least for something like a dac.
That said, there are better dacs out there now. Topping and or SMSL are pretty reputable companies that make a variety of dacs for most consumer market budgets. Beyond that there are dacs that are better yet but more expensive. Part of the reason is that the best dacs in the world often don't use dac chips, they use their own discrete dac designs (at least one such discrete dac is still under development here in the forum). Plus things like SOA clocks and well designed discrete power supplies all add up. Doing it super well still tends to be beyond the budgets of most folks, at least for something like a dac.
I should do a write-up on my latest amplifier ideas / iterations. Details may or may not come later as I get closer to actual listening and figuring out what to do with the result, but here's a bit of description:
-- P+N MOSFET output stage, as common source. For one thing, you get useful voltage gain, and instead of swinging 10s of volts at the gates, it's only about +/-1V.
--Like @cumbb has pointed out, rapid switching of the audio between a gain of 'N' and a slightly different gain of 'P' is not a great idea, unless for fun. It's possible to linearise the result, but the usual approach is a shared feedback line, where the 2 output currents are mixed together. This is just asking for technical weirdness to occur at a low level.
Let's look at a snapshot of the Hiraga Monstre, or the simpler Pass ACA mini, where, say, the 'P' channel is wide open and the N channel is mostly closed, momentarily producing a high voltage. So, P is producing most of the signal, but the feedback that is supposed to be correcting it is influenced by the current drawn by N. Similarly, the N channel is poorly corrected because the overall output is dominated by the P channel. So a simple THD measurement or simulation will only hint at the issues. As the audio signal is driven closer to one or the other rail, the "almost-off" MOSFET is getting less feedback. It's like the gain-setting resistor ratio is getting modulated by the audio signal, which is bizarre! So I'd expect higher harmonics to momentarily appear and then disappear, as the MOSFET cycles between extremely low current and extremely high current. There's no way the N+P will be perfect complements, so there will be some persistent level of modulation as they sum together...
...Normally.
What I've come up with is parallel input stages taking feedback independently from each MOSFET. So each MOSFET is running at a consistent level of linearity at all times. When their outputs are summed together, it doesn't change how they operate. Not as much as usual, anyway. The caveat is that it forces it to be "current drive", which is fine by me, but I decided to re-introduce some shared feedback for DC and low frequencies, because it just makes life easier.
One would think that sticking with 'vanilla' voltage feedback would make life easier, but then the above issues just keep getting recycled over and over — Push-pull just makes the sound "dynamic". You're overthinking things.
Thank you very much,
I'm looking forward to your results, a sketch often says more than many words
🙂.
I'm looking forward to your results, a sketch often says more than many words
🙂.
Getting there. See if you can find the error/s...
The 30k NFB and capacitor NFB have opposite phase. The cap coming off the P-channel MOSFET could connect to the bottom half and v.v., but I don't want to do that, as the system would probably catch on fire if it ever crosses into class B.
The LTPs use their right legs to drive the output, which is fine for current drive, but the voltage NFB for low frequencies needs to be inverted somewhere.
The LTPs use their right legs to drive the output, which is fine for current drive, but the voltage NFB for low frequencies needs to be inverted somewhere.