I understood immediately. Stationary is usually used in the context of noise analysis. Something that is always there is stationary (like hum). The rest of the noise is random.
There has long been a question of how relevant a steady state sine wave test is for a system that reproduces something that changes across a very wide frequency range and amplitude range. However what would be a relevant test? Still there are tests like Bill Waslo's Audio Diffmaker Audio DiffMaker that show a hidden brass band is inaudible in a string quartet. The question being what are the real sensitivities?
And maybe the hardware and the acoustic pressure waves have little to do with the perception and it all about the weather/phase of the moon/perfume your significant other is wearing.
Couldn't have said it better. @Markw4 What's holding you back? Knowledge wants to be free!
SWMBO doesn't wear perfume, but what she is wearing can certainly change my perception
.
It is not the same Nirvana at all. We all have very different tastes and ideas of what constitutes good sound. Per example i really dislike the sound of PCM converted to DSD by HQPlayer.
It depends also on the intended usage. The LME49720 have also a better phase behaviour than, say, the OPA1612. This actually helps reduce the distortion further in a feedback circuit (if you want a no feedback single ended circuit, the OPA16xx series is better). So, if you have a long cable this output stage is not optimal. I have 4 feet interconnects. Are they already too long? When is too long for this output stage? AFAIK driving a few meters of cable is fine with the LME49720 at the output.
I am definitely not, and on ASR I have tried to explain to people why this is complete crap. Measuring DACs always at 4V may in some cases increase the distortion that one normally observes, say at 0.5V levels or less (more common when listening at home) if the output stage is a bit stressed. In other cases the distortion may increase at lower levels or, if the DAC circuit is a sign magnitude R2R Dac, the distortion might be the same... in other words this is an arbitrary value that not only does not tell the whole story, but may be even misguiding. With noise, at usual output levels the noise is of course usually higher, and may more easily drown the distortion if the latter at the same time decreases or stays equal. In other words, anything can happen and this might explain why my system sounds different if I attenuate less digitally and put attenuators in the signal...
I do not doubt that these things can be measured. In fact, I know that they can. The question is whether they are audible. And for instance, we know that they response to impulse rendition is debated, with no conclusive evidence (AFAIK), and I am not talking about primitive oversampling methods like Track and Hold, that can still be found in some chips.
This said, I am always open to update my knowledge and change opinion. But "graininess" for voices and cymbals on the D90, nah
The ASR groupies are rabid in their defense of his testing methods. They will hunt you down with pitchforks. I cornered one of them on a different forum and picked apart his “understanding” of whats important in audio. The whole group is a tragic farce.
because...
In my experience, and the experience of the vast majority of those who have tried it and reported their results, HQPlayer oversampling to DSD 256 is nearly unanimously preferred to playing PCM natively.
I asked the questions I did because the results can, of course, be DAC dependent.
For example I find true DSD DACs, with no modulator and no other processing in signal path (like AK 4499 in DSD direct more, or DSC-2, or my Bricasti M3) to really sound fantastic with HQP oversampling to DSD 256, especially with the SDMEC7 modulator. But I still hear improvements with DSD oversampling even in my ESS 9038 PRO Buffalo DAC.
If one is talking about a very good R2R DAC (like Holo Audio May, perhaps) with high rate PCM, I could see how the results might be different...
In my experience, and the experience of the vast majority of those who have tried it and reported their results, HQPlayer oversampling to DSD 256 is nearly unanimously preferred to playing PCM natively.
I asked the questions I did because the results can, of course, be DAC dependent.
For example I find true DSD DACs, with no modulator and no other processing in signal path (like AK 4499 in DSD direct more, or DSC-2, or my Bricasti M3) to really sound fantastic with HQP oversampling to DSD 256, especially with the SDMEC7 modulator. But I still hear improvements with DSD oversampling even in my ESS 9038 PRO Buffalo DAC.
If one is talking about a very good R2R DAC (like Holo Audio May, perhaps) with high rate PCM, I could see how the results might be different...
Might the results be different in level matched and double blind listening of AK 4499 in DSD direct mode or DSC-2 or your Bricasti M3?
Barrows,
Do you have any experience listening to the new Marantz player/dac's - SA-10, Ruby, SA-12, or 30N? These are full function USB dac's that also play sacd and rbcd discs. All inputs become Quad DSD and are then low pass filtered to usable analogue - no dac chip.
I have a Ruby player and it is by far the best player/dac I have had since standalone dac's came along in the early 90's.
I have 2000 discs, of which 1500 are sacd's. So I need an sacd player. I really only got the Ruby for the reliable transport mech. Though I had read about what the player did, I was quite surprised at the music output.
I have no idea if the Marantz circuitry is similar to HQPlayer with PCM input, but they tend to do the same thing - convert to Quad DSD.
Sacd, or 1 bit, playback is so much better than anything previous. PCM, or 16 bit, playback is variable with some discs sounding close to sacd and some just better than previous.
FWIW, I had an older Marantz SA-8260 player re-engineered from advises found here on Diyaudio, and elsewhere. I thought it was pretty good and I used it for years. It's now in storage as a spare. It got retired after the first play of the Ruby.
Anyway, just curious if you or anyone has heard these new players.
I think the Ruby uses a discrete pulse array DAC. Looks like a nice player,
CD94's second coming haa!
WRT converting to DSD256 and feeding DAC, this is gaining popularity.
I've been experimenting with DSD256 files on a Sabre based Moon DAC
and they sound better to me, more natural, better everything.
TCD