Got to be better than mine though!
I think the sheffield track record sums up the divide. Beautiful recording of non-music. Great for setup checking, but you wouldn't sit down to listen to it for fun. Then again Motorhead 'killed by death' is one of my test tracks
I'm jealous, never seen him in the flesh. As you say, his bands were incredibly tight, they had to be, working for such a task master
Not only were the band always tight, the sound quality was always the best - makes a lot of today's automatically eq'd and boom & tinkle PAs sound even worse by comparison.
Oh, and Bill - thanks for the morning Thomas Tallis prompt. I love his works.
Hi Scott,
Yes, sorry for the long break...
That's partly true. The basilar membrane alone acts like a real-time, continuous, analog spectrum analyzer. A full FT requires the full time-domain signal but digital spectrum analyzers could use a STFT (Short Time Fourier Transform). As part of the complete system, it is is highly nonlinear.
The HCs are analog mechanical-to-neurochemical (specifically glutamate, a neurotransmitter) transducers. Right next to them is the first nerve cell going toward the brain (primary afferent neuron), which detects the glutamate and right at that connection (synapse) produces an action potential (spike), if the necessary conditions are met. That is where an ADC occurs, if you consider the neural code (a pulse position modulation, PPM, or sometimes a pulse density modulation, PDM) to be digital.in conjunction with the hairs is also an ADC?
I made an assumption there (often a bad idea) that "equipment" meant the audio and/or test equipment with which we are familiar and discuss in forums. In the context of filtering or spectrum analysis, we seek linear equipment and typically use linear systems analysis, neither of which necessarily help to fully understand the auditory transduction in the ear. It is nonlinear. Certainly, if we had a full understanding of the way the ear transduces sound (we don't), we could model it with a mechano-electric/electronic piece of "equipment". My error.
But understanding nonlinear sensorineural systems often starts with a linear approximation. The plucking of a string (indeed many notes from musical instruments) produces a waveform (often a simple harmonic series) multiplied by an envelope (ADSR), where HF components can be produced. The HF components occur not only from the steepness of the envelope (e.g. "fast" attack), but also its first derivative (the corners of the envelope). I considered it possible (= I don't know for sure, I could be wrong here) that the corners could produce HF components transiently which would transiently stimulate HF HCs, but the steepness could vary such that the time course of LF HC stimulation would reflect that variability.
But part of the role of the "cochlear amplifier" is to enhance certain properties of the composite waveform. It is nonlinear and not faithful to the original. Processing of the signal has already begun in the ear. The ear is not just a biological microphone.
No, of course not. But you brought up a great example of the streetlight effect:
There were many (crazy, incorrect) ideas about how hearing worked before von Békésy. They were constrained by the methods available at the time (under the streetlight). von Békésy thought outside the box and created a new method (in the park) and thereby won the Nobel Prize. He used high-speed photos and silver grains with mostly-intact cochleas dissected from dead cats and dead humans. Brilliant!
Did he figure it out? He made great strides in advancing our understanding, but no. In his last paper about his research and career, published posthumously, he laments "In time, I came to the conclusion that the dehydrated cats and the application of Fourier analysis to hearing problems became more and more a handicap for research in hearing. Therefore, my interest went more into the psychological questions." His prize-winning work illuminated a new part of the park, but not enough for the whole picture. An understanding of perception and therefore the "purpose" of the ear is needed. Again, not a microphone.
Enough blathering for now... sorry if I "talked" your ear off...
Cheers, SAM
Thank you for your full reply
Ok, I thought it was a bad analogy because I didn't see it as complete, i.e. The policeman would have had a torch and gone into the park with the drunkard to look for the keys.
Apologies, it's just me, I'm not good at analogies
Interesting. It confirm what i said with my "too much ?" description about details from some modern DACs.
Buit, for a short period, I like this. So, the solution would be to use two DACs, depending of what we want ?
I will have no problem with the forum scientifically correct brigade, as "DACs all sound the same" ;-)
Last edited:
Maybe if Terry were talking about a much less capable part than PCM1704 I could accept this theory. PCM1704 is not missing any detail, I assure you.
Of course, it is always the newer and better measuring part that sounds more detailed
. This same theory presents itself every time a new generation of parts appear. I recall similar posts from many years ago on how PCM1704 is not "analogue enough" and PCM56 or AD1862 is the real king.
Sorry, but your definitive certainly is based on what ? Experience ? Comparative measurements of the dynamic behavior of both DACs?
I should be interested to have more details about your deep scientific study of those aspects.
If I read correctly between your lines, we all listen with preconceived opinions instead of our ears ? That's it ?
This is an unexpected chance to have, among us, an authority that escapes this calamity that affects the rest of ordinary humans.
Of course, before writing your answer in your usual way, you will have taken care to demonstrate us how you are not affected by this flaw.
Attachments
Last edited:
Sounds like it's no different with using C5200 as opposed to MJ15004, or using C3953/A1538 video transistor as opposed to BD139/BD140. Wide bandwidth low capacitance transistors give you a window for 'detailed' reproduction but you have to be prepared to do more.
I don't like to work with DACs because all DAC boards i have are using SMDs. But i have a feeling that the problem is not with the digital itself. Could be even at amplifier level?
Experience, and the body of measurements of others on the many PCM1702/PCM1704 DACs that have been produced. Of course, you are quick to accept anything that comes from someone aligning with your viewpoint.
How am I not affected by this flaw? I already answered this in my initial post. I do not believe PCM1704 is lacking in regard to detail. If you would learn to read it would really help.
Looking for the slew rates and extended Hf bandwidth since decades in my own amps designs (CFA), i think I'm "prepared" to this ;-)
To answer your second remark, this 'details' dynamic behavior of some DACs can be noticed whatever the amp/enclosures I use. From my big system to my poor PC one.
I would add that something leads me to think that this hardness is not a consequence of the extra performance of a device at high frequencies. Although it is superior on this point to many commercial amps, I chose the amp (CFA) that I use for treble precisely for its softness and fluidity in this registry.
May-be, who knows, you are right in your expectation that it have something to do with the poor V./C. performance of some resistances in the DACs or SMDs?
Last edited:
Chris, maybe you are missing the point of Terry's post & taking the word "detail" too literally? I read it that the Sabre presents the same detail in a way that somehow differs from the multibit PCM1704 such that one is perceived as fatiguing over extended listening & the other as relaxing to listen to.
Again, do we know what the factors that cause this change in perception? No, not yet as standard measurements don't seem to reveal them.
Again, do we know what the factors that cause this change in perception? No, not yet as standard measurements don't seem to reveal them.
Last edited:
I’ve listened to a box with it, have you? What DAC ICs have your golden ears listened to? I’ve heard almost every single high end part for various amounts of time from the PCM56 onward.
What have you listened to? Since you value subjective impressions so highly, what has the master Tournesol heard and thought? Ah yes, I forgot, my subjective impressions don’t count as much as yours, wise and experienced guru.
Maybe, but this is a repeating story. I’ve been around here long enough to see that every 5-10 years the same thing happens again and again. It used to be that PCM1704 was too digital. Then PCM1794 after that.
Wouldn’t you know every commercial outfit moved on to these fatiguing DACs. If PCM1704 was really better then you’d think Charles Hansen (rip) would have done a lifetime buy instead of throwing new parts into flagship Ayre gear.
Don’t worry, in 10 years we will hear how ES9008 was the high point of DACs and the new thing sounds hyper detailed and fatiguing.
You could consider that the test is flawed and/or the difference might not exist. For starters, trying to compare converter ICs without identical analog output circuitry is questionable at best. Nevermind the fact that I could find you 100 people that think the Sabre DACs are the best thing ever and 100 that don’t like them.
Last edited:
Think about it for a moment (not meant offensive).
Maybe he was just asking for the different appreciation/judgement about subjective listening impressions wrt to the inevitable impact of all thinkable bias effects.
So, if you assert that the "sighted" listeners always suffer from their preconception it is a legitimate question which way you avoided that trap.
I have a strong feeling that i know. When you compare the Sabre and PCM1704, have you taken out the other dependent variables such as the analog circuitry? What circuitry did you use for both chips? Did you use recommended circuitry in the datasheet?
Ok, you can dismiss it out of hand, if you like - I'm suggesting that you took Terry's use of the word "detail" literally & posted an argument about measurements in defense of your position that PCM1704 was no less detailed than the Sabre. I pointed out how that approach may have been mistaken & there was another way of looking at it - a way that's often overlooked
Your view on the history of DACs is your opinion & has meaning for you
Last edited:
Think about it for a moment (not meant offensive).
Maybe he was just asking for the different appreciation/judgement about subjective listening impressions wrt to the inevitable impact of all thinkable bias effects.
So, if you assert that the "sighted" listeners always suffer from their preconception it is a legitimate question which way you avoided that trap.
A legitimate question, which is why I don’t like sighted tests. If you’re going to accept evidence from someone else’s sighted tests then you might as well consider mine. Especially since I’m not very old and deaf yet.
Maybe I didn’t avoid the trap, but why would anyone else?
I’ve literally heard both, a Bel Canto 1704 and Buffalo Sabres (not the hockey team!) 9008 and 9018. So if you want to count subjective impressions on different days and different environments then I disagree that PCM1704 is any less detailed. Like I said before, my subjective impressions apparently only count for half of a real person, so whatever
.The only problems with PCM1704 are not related to the quality of its output. It’s EOL, expensive, requires -5V supply, and external oversampling filter.
Last edited:
I agree with you but if Chris is saying that the measurements show the same HF response for both Sabre & PCM1704 then the analog circuit isn't affecting this? Most DACs use the published datasheet circuit but as you can see on this DIY forum often these circuits can be improved for instance the Sabre DACs tend to be very sensitive to PS quality, particularly the AVCC supplies. I'm of the opinion that if the power to all parts of DAC chips is optimal, the differences between the sound of DAC chips is greatly reduced & depends much more on the analog output. But again if measurements are showing these two DACs shouldn't be audibly different where does that leave us?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.