Thanks for the explanation, that is beyond my simple diy knowledge and very interesting.
When I studied TDA it was interesting to see how L/R always have a delay and how the splitting works, very fascinating indeed. What is your take on PCM53? why did it had all the bass? I wonder is my new pcm58 I will have soon will give me the same results?
I am also overcoming a couple of thousand dollars of projects in the works to be completed. I took a big financial hit this year in investments.
I'm licking my wounds.
The DAC will happen...
Time.
I'm licking my wounds.
The DAC will happen...
Time.
I am afraid the vinyl is going to disappear soon, with the new high res 96khz 24 bits, its quite a difference, it truly gives an edge to new recordings and I cant even imagine going back to my vinyl , especially because there is so much more new releases I cannot keep up or add more vinyl...
The new R2R dacs, things like Ydrassil (never heard it) and Weiss and others are soon going to be an alternative.
Years ago I was listening to an Audio Research Dac3. something or 4, and I was like wow this sounds very good!, then I would switch to vinyl 20x and XV dynavectors and I was like wow this sounds good it has so much liveness and it digs out so much details through Graham Slee phono, I was like how this is possible? then return to the AR and was awww the quietness of digital and the firmness and stability, but it lacking the craziness of vinyl sound, and vinyl lacked the stability and quietness of digital.
I believe we are entering a new era where DACs will be giving us the joy of vinyl without the noise, the distortion, the lack of stereo, the ultrasonic distortion etc.
I was listening to some new recording of 2020s in 96khs/24, I had the singers with me here and my system is not so good. It gives a lot of pleasure when a real musician plays for you, its rewarding for the senses.
So with the revisiting of old pcm53 or so dacs and playing the high resolution recordings I think it will be night and day. Even If it is in 44khz, because it was recorded in 96khz it has so much info!
Last edited:
But digital is just faster analog, that's all ! As I said all those numbers and bits are the basement of the knowledge for marketing, but all what is below is just science and electric engineering.
And living in the world we live, all is about cost and time : chips must be made less expensive and so on. More bits = more speed = more expensive to do at iso quality than before with nowadays experience and knowledge shared here by slow coocker that like good food. Cheap Chi-fi = young engineers = measures good = check... again ! The rest they learn it here !
While you also can find excellent sota project like Marcel's RTZ DACs (1000 usd with all the parts and pcbs needed for the better sounding itteration?).
Basicly DIY is costly because the price of the parts as most of the experience is shared or projects free or very affordable.
An AM radio is all we need to be happy, iirc my youngs days ! 🙂
Second hand is the best Q/P !
And living in the world we live, all is about cost and time : chips must be made less expensive and so on. More bits = more speed = more expensive to do at iso quality than before with nowadays experience and knowledge shared here by slow coocker that like good food. Cheap Chi-fi = young engineers = measures good = check... again ! The rest they learn it here !
While you also can find excellent sota project like Marcel's RTZ DACs (1000 usd with all the parts and pcbs needed for the better sounding itteration?).
Basicly DIY is costly because the price of the parts as most of the experience is shared or projects free or very affordable.
An AM radio is all we need to be happy, iirc my youngs days ! 🙂
Second hand is the best Q/P !
Last edited:
Whatever you do if you succeed in a great sound it will be worth the effort.
Nothing like having enjoyable music on demand, it is especially fun with guests and dancing. People can finally hear how the recording was supposed to sound like HAHAHAHAH
Do you mean that the digital side of the DAC except the clock adds its own intrinsic jitter? Both the clock and the DAC? Strange model of what is discussed. A clock is a part of a DAC. But maybe you mean "DAC chip" when you write DAC and not the whole product? I interpret "DAC" as the whole "box" - just to be clear.
Clocks have jitter. A DAC chip is effected being fed by a clock with jitter. What comes out of a DAC that has a jittery clock is not a "jittery" sound. It is a distorted sound effecting the only parameters valid for an analog waveform i.e.; HD, Noise (i.e. non HD), phase, FR and level. These 5 properties completely define an analog signal - or did I miss one?
We have been through this before. Whats so hard? I think many understands this basic aspect of D/A conversion by now... Or are we adding confusion on purpose to make the tech mystical and only fully understandable for a few select - selected by themselves...
//
A dac chip adds it own jitter; a discrete dac circuit adds its own jitter. Everywhere clock signals go they always get degraded to some extent by noise. If you use SPDIF, or if you use I2S over HDMI connectors, then that circuitry will add some of its own jitter noise.
Depending on the exact bass sound, it could have been an effect of correlated 1/f noise occurring in the dac. Or maybe it was some other effect. Don't know offhand what that bass sounded like.
Pointing out that the claims made about the benefits of expensive clocks are based on subjective opinions which most likely are governed by confirmation bias is not a personal attack. No studies or controlled test supporting the claim exist and research has shown that confirmation bias is strong and widespread. As long as you keep making claims about expensive clocks you should also expect others to point out that your claims are just opinions.
Well guys never new under the sun always the same, objective vs subjective opinions.
Clocks matters but as all it depends how are implemented & the rest of circuit also so all matters and I guess if not all is optimized is when you no hear subjective differences for better SQ.
Clocks matters but as all it depends how are implemented & the rest of circuit also so all matters and I guess if not all is optimized is when you no hear subjective differences for better SQ.
Clocks matters to some extent. Typical recording studios do not use expensive ultra-low phase noise clocks. And as the video in post #473 showed transparent loopback recordings can be made without fancy and expensive clocks or dacs.
Ouch. As you don’t ask a lady how old is she, the same applies to the audiophiles. We are mostly old farts anyway. I can’t hear past 12 kHz but that doesn’t affect all that subtle details I hear below that point. My ‘best before’ date has passed but I’m still immensely enjoying audio. 😆
In my opinion, this is a meaningless question, at least in a "noble" sense.
Just because you know very well, or at least you should know, that even if the recipient of your question answered "18 years old" or "21 years old" this information would be useless by itself.
And then you should then ask him about his gender, social class, musical education, education in listening to reproduced music, his school level of learning and an infinite number of other things, wanting to arrive not to say at a conclusion, but at least to some point.
That instead your question, even if he were given a truthful answer, leads nowhere.
So, right now the question is: why did you ask that question?
My feeling is that some people behave in a provocative manner and pretend to know a lot and pretend to care about the progress of the various threads, but they are only mimetic provocateurs.
And in fact very often they call out their own kind, many seem to post in pairs, having a lot of laughs.
Where I come from, they say: "They throw the stone and hide the hand".
I await an adequate response, if any.
P. S.: Just as a partial demonstration of the above, you used the pluralis maiestatis because you did not even have the frankness to say: "May I ask...", but instead you preferred: "May we ask..."
Makes it sound like since the earliest days of digital audio we have had, "Perfect Sound Forever."
Thomas Edison made similar claims of perfect recordings back in 1915.
https://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2015/05/is-it-live-or-is-it-edison/
Truth is a lot of typical recordings are flawed for various technical reasons. That includes from both analog and digital technology. Recordings made to DAT tape machines were particular stinkers.
Despite that, all along there have been people who have tried to sell crappy recordings as audibly perfect.
-------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the video in post #473, if its that one about counting cuts, one could make various claims for what it shows because there were zero controls. It could simply show inexperienced listeners are not skilled at counting "cuts." It could also be claimed to show that nobody could hear a difference because of the awful clocks in their home dacs. Only point is, it could be claimed to show just about anything anyone wants given the lack of proper controls.
Last edited:
No such claim was made.
If the recording is flawed or crappy ultra-low phase noise clock used at playback does not make it better. So what exactly is your point?
If you've watched the video or read the pdf you would have noticed that over 900 of the 1300 participants did not hear any cuts so it is not about being skilled at counting cuts. And how can one be skilled at counting cuts which are transparent?
Last edited: