That only seems to happen in pathological cases where there are problems in the electronics surrounding the dac chip. However, such issues are more common than one might imagine in low-cost dacs. Even good engineering can't overcome not having enough budget for parts that are good down to -130dB or maybe better, and other considerations. Why that number? Because errors add up, and to get to really good audible performance isn't trivial, IMHO.
For example, Khadas Tone Board is very well engineered for a $99 dac board. But, nobody can afford the surrounding parts to make an ES9038Q2M sound its best and still hit a price point like that. Allo will try soon at about twice that price point. Still no DAC-3 I don't think.
By the way, just for the sake of completeness, I will point out the obvious that a high priced dac is no guarantee of sound quality. Neither are the best measurements, although bad measurements usually mean trouble.
Last edited:
It's an excerpt from Bob Katz's book 'Mastering Audio'. IMO, worth every penny. (I don't remember where I got the pdf excerpt, though).
Mastering Audio by Bob Katz - Digido.com
Which is correct in the context of preparing material for release. The title of the end comment reads 'The Advantages or Remastering 16/44.1 Recordings at Higher Rates'.
BTW, the mentioned Andy Moorer's research papers can be found here:
James A. Moorer Personal Website
Bzzzzzt. Wrong answer Hans, would you like to go to double jeopardy where the dollars really add?
Saving, be right back..
Ok, I mentioned source type because simply moving a planar speaker back a tad doesn't affect IID as much as a point source does.
When one channel is delayed, the listener can simply move the head to center an image. But if the image center is a result of a frequency that is IID dominant, no movement is required as we wouldn't be sensitive to the time shift.
So if you focus IID, the ITD dominated frequencies will shift. ITD based imaging will be altered.
Jn
Last edited:
Not so sure. I have drum kit on other instruments right here. I can record them if I want. I also can make a more sonically accurate and enjoyable dac than DAC-3.
First of all, conversion to DSD512 changes everything that can happen in terms of sound quality (and it does involve upsampling, of course). Very long filters help a great deal, but take a very powerful computer. When have you even heard how a CD sounds after such processing (DSD512 with 20-million tap filter)?
To be fair, I do find there are still some very small issues with very tiny details at HF, but I can't prove they are not from an ADC. Can you?
In the meantime I continue experiments to see what the best I can do is. It takes time especially since I don't work long hours anymore. Short hours is more like it
I dont see your connection to CD as an accurate source. yes they are somewhat better than 1990 and ADC/DAC of the highest caliber at 24/96+ are better.
The best 24b DAC's and high sampling is much better than any CD. At some point, I am tempted to believe on faith what BenchMarks designer said the analog sections have the more audible affects. But there is still the need to measure as well. GD for the filters and noise shaping and HF artifacts all contribute.
Since we can download master files of 24/192+ now, there is no point in not doing so. IF you want greater accuracy. I was surprised after decades of CD sound when I heard such. I would think younger ears would hear what I heard easily. We are now getting up there.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
hahaha. Well that was my experience - other than freq nulls. But you said sound stage.
Who is Next ? .... step right up.
-Richard
Last edited:
Okay. However, most recorded music is still on CD. We need to figure out how to get the best out of it we can, and the best can be quite good actually.
Also, I have tried downloading some of the hi-res titles and was disappointed that they all sound the same at HF, kind of sterile (compared to Crane Song HEDD at 24/192, a mainstay of mastering studios). I didn't get why that would be the case, but then I heard there was only one maker of DXD ADCs (at least back then). Started to suspect that might be the culprit, but still don't know for sure.
It's an excerpt from Bob Katz's book 'Mastering Audio'. IMO, worth every penny. (I don't remember where I got the pdf excerpt, though).
Mastering Audio by Bob Katz - Digido.com
Which is correct in the context of preparing material for release. The title of the end comment reads 'The Advantages or Remastering 16/44.1 Recordings at Higher Rates'.
BTW, the mentioned Andy Moorer's research papers can be found here:
James A. Moorer Personal Website
A. Moore.....48-Bit Integer Processing Beats 32-Bit Floating-Point for Professional Audio Applications.
A bit more than i need to know
THx-RNMarsh
There is a lot of variation on what constitutes a Master quality file for download. Also, how was it recorded. All analog or all/part digital. because many are not new recordings. But a truly good recent Master done well is quit a trick and worth looking for, paying for and listening to.
Do you ever use the M2's on loan? Do they help find improvements in DAC development?
-Richard
Last edited:
Yes, and yes.
Built an active line level cross-over using very good quality components. Benchmark AHB2 powering horns, tried and old Bryston 4-B and then a Aragon 8008 MkII for the lows. Still could use a bit more tweaking, but they sound very good (Jam says 'not bad' or 'not too bad' comparing the setup to something like his big electrostats and big hulking customized power amps. In the context of evaluating each other's work, we are critical, not polite, so 'not bad' is actually quite good.).
Ultimately, I strongly suspect the speakers could sound their best bi-amped using an SOA 4-channel dac with every channel running DSD512 with very long filters.
Have REW data from a former JBL engineer for M2s so would not need new measurements of the speakers to get all frequency, phase, and delay stuff compensated.
Good speakers are always better than headphones for serious critical listening, including for DAC evaluation. I have to say that using cables designed by Jam (not for sale at this time, don't know about the future) helped get the very best out of the system. Some people think special cables are a fraud, period. I used to think that too, understand the point of view quite well. Its one reason I invite people out to visit, so they can swap cables if they want to see what effect (if any) they think it has. Or not, if they don't want. Up to them
Last edited:
Nah...you brought politics in, a definite no no. Heck, even I know that..Dan? he was so mild compared to many here. I must have said something bad about our president that his followers didnt like. But wth, one boo-boo out of 11,000 isnt too bad. Was thinking i was perfect until then.
-Richard
Jn
Mastering audio download.
http://exellon.net/book/Mastering%20Audio%20-%20Bob%20Katz%20-%20Complete(a4).pdf
http://exellon.net/book/Mastering%20Audio%20-%20Bob%20Katz%20-%20Complete(a4).pdf
So, could you record some cymbal hits that we could analyse for spectrum, rise times etc?
That's a shame... He was always entertaining... And there was always the Goop launch to look forward to!!
I got that already from JBL and downloaded it into their PA/DSP. Real plug and play. Just the PA part isnt so great and thats what Damir's amp is to replace, someday. I want to find the point inside the unit where the signal goes to the PA portion and bring that out. Not quit as good as your idea but it exists.
THx-Richard
Don't know exactly. It is well known from experience in the recording industry that mixing a record on headphones tends to produce a mix that does not 'translate' well to other systems. Just doesn't work. Mixes on speakers translate better to headphones better than the other way around.
Presumably, it has something to do with human perception. We are naturally inclined to move our heads, walk around, etc. Sometimes walking out of the room down the hall and back allows recognition of something that was perceptually missed. Might be a metaphorical elephant was in the room all along, but somehow not noticed/focused-on.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.