Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Rhgoo7
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and formrd an opinion of
this unit?

Richard
  #3   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

(Rhgoo7) wrote:

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and formrd an opinion

of
this unit?



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Overpriced and overhyped - typical MF. Buy a good one-box player,
ideally a 'universal' like the top Denon or Pioneer models.


How did the MF *sound*, Stewart? Give us a description.
Regards,
Mike

  #8   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

On 29 Jan 2004 20:29:55 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 16:11:27 GMT, "Alan Murphy"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:EMURb.175034$xy6.818966@attbi_s02...
On 28 Jan 2004 16:01:32 GMT, (Rhgoo7) wrote:

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and formrd an
opinion of
this unit?

Overpriced and overhyped - typical MF. Buy a good one-box player,
ideally a 'universal' like the top Denon or Pioneer models.


Why one box. Provided the output is reclocked from the dac the
two box solution seems to offer a number of practical advantages.


But it's *not* reclocked, which is why it's of necessity inferior.
Check jitter results for even a cheap Sony player against these
so-called 'high end' DACs.



Stewart, what do you make of the technical results of
comparing one-box vs
separates in this paper, where Dunn et al conclude that
disc- or player-related sampling
jitter is NOT the cause of the distortion observed in their
measurements of one-box players?

http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf


I don't see anything relevant there, and as it happens, I was one of
the 'postal votes'. Note that there is well-documented evidence of
significantly lower jitter in one-box players from many years of Paul
Miller's technical tests in HFN.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #9   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 20:29:55 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 16:11:27 GMT, "Alan Murphy"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:EMURb.175034$xy6.818966@attbi_s02...
On 28 Jan 2004 16:01:32 GMT, (Rhgoo7) wrote:

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and formrd an
opinion of
this unit?

Overpriced and overhyped - typical MF. Buy a good one-box player,
ideally a 'universal' like the top Denon or Pioneer models.


Why one box. Provided the output is reclocked from the dac the
two box solution seems to offer a number of practical advantages.


But it's *not* reclocked, which is why it's of necessity inferior.
Check jitter results for even a cheap Sony player against these
so-called 'high end' DACs.



Stewart, what do you make of the technical results of
comparing one-box vs
separates in this paper, where Dunn et al conclude that
disc- or player-related sampling
jitter is NOT the cause of the distortion observed in their
measurements of one-box players?

http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf


I don't see anything relevant there, and as it happens, I was one of
the 'postal votes'. Note that there is well-documented evidence of
significantly lower jitter in one-box players from many years of Paul
Miller's technical tests in HFN.


But Dennis et al. seem to find that jitter isn't the culprit of
the spuriae they measured specifically in one-box players;
they attribute that to 'amplitude modulation
of the analog outputs by motor- and servo-related interference'.
See the section 'Measurement of Spuriae'
and the first few paragraphs of the Conclusion. It appears,
unless I've misunderstodd the paper, that
one-box systems measured consistently worse than two-box systems
in their tests. The distortion is posited to be audible
(see paragaph 1 of the Conclusion) though
the audibility of the distortion was not
directly tested.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

  #10   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

The only practical advantage would be if it had multiple inputs. The
reason that I offer my customers to avoid outboard DACs in favor of
one box players is that even if all other things are equal you get a
free transport, which is the most likely part of the system to fail.
What's not to like? A DAC upgrade and a free transport. It seems
pretty obvious where the advantages lie without even looking into how
the sections were purpose designed to operate together. That said, I
bought an on-board upgrade to my Bryston BP25 preamp (BP25DA), which
is a DAC installed where the phono board might go. I have their
excellent external phono stage (BP1.5) and had the space. What I
gained by doing that was the ability to plug-in whatever DVD player I
liked and also have a second digital input available for Satellite TV
or Digital Cable Radio or whatever digital medium that I fancy next.
It also takes-up no space being on-board. (ok I can't wait to hear the
physics gurus tell me how it does take-up space...). The reason that I
bought the upgrade was to take advantage of the additional input and
the fact that I already had a nice DVD player with low hours.
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Alan Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:EMURb.175034$xy6.818966@attbi_s02...
On 28 Jan 2004 16:01:32 GMT, (Rhgoo7) wrote:

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and formrd

an
opinion of
this unit?


Overpriced and overhyped - typical MF. Buy a good one-box player,
ideally a 'universal' like the top Denon or Pioneer models.
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Why one box. Provided the output is reclocked from the dac the
two box solution seems to offer a number of practical advantages.

Alan




  #12   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

On 30 Jan 2004 01:46:58 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 20:29:55 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Stewart, what do you make of the technical results of
comparing one-box vs
separates in this paper, where Dunn et al conclude that
disc- or player-related sampling
jitter is NOT the cause of the distortion observed in their
measurements of one-box players?

http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf


I don't see anything relevant there, and as it happens, I was one of
the 'postal votes'. Note that there is well-documented evidence of
significantly lower jitter in one-box players from many years of Paul
Miller's technical tests in HFN.


But Dennis et al. seem to find that jitter isn't the culprit of
the spuriae they measured specifically in one-box players;
they attribute that to 'amplitude modulation
of the analog outputs by motor- and servo-related interference'.
See the section 'Measurement of Spuriae'
and the first few paragraphs of the Conclusion. It appears,
unless I've misunderstodd the paper, that
one-box systems measured consistently worse than two-box systems
in their tests. The distortion is posited to be audible
(see paragaph 1 of the Conclusion) though
the audibility of the distortion was not
directly tested.


OK, I see what you're getting at. Please note that this is certainly a
matter of implementation, and the authors do note that it's not too
difficult to address. The one-box player they used was a Marantz
CD-63, and I doubt that even its most ardent fan would claim that this
represents the state of the art! Compare and contrast with say the
Arcam CD-23 or especially any of the Meridian players, and you'll see
that this effect is essentially absent.

If you recall, there was considerable discussion about the sound
quality of CD-R when it came out, and it was noted that on some
players, the copy sounded *better* than the original! This was traced
to the 'wobble track' on the CD-R being easier for the servo circuits
to track, and Martin Colloms noted that the sound degradation was
exactly due to amplitude modulation from the servo circuits finding
its way into the analogue output. He also discovered that better
players did not demonstrate this effect. Note that Prism Sound don't
make a one-box player, do make excellent jitter-reducing DACs, and
seem to have extrapolated their findings on one cheap one-box player
to *all* one-box players. A step too far, methinks.

Anyway, I have to go now, as I'm off to India for a couple of weeks.
Well timed, as it's snowing here!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #14   Report Post  
Uptown Audio
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

Better designed players have multiple power supplies and shielding to
prevent this. Cheaper ones do not, so it is all over the place as to
how a "one box player" might be constructed or measure or sound. In a
pinch, I bet even the cheapest sound better than your old tape player
(pun unavoidable!).
- Bill
www.uptownaudio.com
Roanoke VA
(540) 343-1250

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 20:29:55 GMT, Steven Sullivan

wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 16:11:27 GMT, "Alan Murphy"


wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:EMURb.175034$xy6.818966@attbi_s02...
On 28 Jan 2004 16:01:32 GMT, (Rhgoo7) wrote:

Has anyone heard the new Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC and

formrd an
opinion of
this unit?

Overpriced and overhyped - typical MF. Buy a good one-box

player,
ideally a 'universal' like the top Denon or Pioneer models.

Why one box. Provided the output is reclocked from the dac the
two box solution seems to offer a number of practical

advantages.

But it's *not* reclocked, which is why it's of necessity

inferior.
Check jitter results for even a cheap Sony player against these
so-called 'high end' DACs.


Stewart, what do you make of the technical results of
comparing one-box vs
separates in this paper, where Dunn et al conclude that
disc- or player-related sampling
jitter is NOT the cause of the distortion observed in their
measurements of one-box players?

http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf

I don't see anything relevant there, and as it happens, I was one

of
the 'postal votes'. Note that there is well-documented evidence of
significantly lower jitter in one-box players from many years of

Paul
Miller's technical tests in HFN.


But Dennis et al. seem to find that jitter isn't the culprit of
the spuriae they measured specifically in one-box players;
they attribute that to 'amplitude modulation
of the analog outputs by motor- and servo-related interference'.
See the section 'Measurement of Spuriae'
and the first few paragraphs of the Conclusion. It appears,
unless I've misunderstodd the paper, that
one-box systems measured consistently worse than two-box systems
in their tests. The distortion is posited to be audible
(see paragaph 1 of the Conclusion) though
the audibility of the distortion was not
directly tested.




--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and

reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director


  #15   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

"Mkuller" wrote in message
news:bhzSb.143371$Rc4.1147042@attbi_s54...
(Mkuller) wrote:
How did the MF *sound*, Stewart? Give us a description.



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Like any other reasonably competent outboard DAC. Hence, overpriced
and overhyped - and using irreplaceable components.


You mean you couldn't hear any difference between the NuVista tubes and

other
solid state DACs? That seems pretty remarkable...
Regards,
Mike


Actually, mike, he never said he *listened* to it. He just disavowed it.



  #16   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default Musical Fidelity TriVista DAC

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Jan 2004 01:46:58 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2004 20:29:55 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:


Stewart, what do you make of the technical results of
comparing one-box vs
separates in this paper, where Dunn et al conclude that
disc- or player-related sampling
jitter is NOT the cause of the distortion observed in their
measurements of one-box players?

http://www.prismsound.com/downloads/cdinvest.pdf


I don't see anything relevant there, and as it happens, I was one of
the 'postal votes'. Note that there is well-documented evidence of
significantly lower jitter in one-box players from many years of Paul
Miller's technical tests in HFN.


But Dennis et al. seem to find that jitter isn't the culprit of
the spuriae they measured specifically in one-box players;
they attribute that to 'amplitude modulation
of the analog outputs by motor- and servo-related interference'.
See the section 'Measurement of Spuriae'
and the first few paragraphs of the Conclusion. It appears,
unless I've misunderstodd the paper, that
one-box systems measured consistently worse than two-box systems
in their tests. The distortion is posited to be audible
(see paragaph 1 of the Conclusion) though
the audibility of the distortion was not
directly tested.


OK, I see what you're getting at. Please note that this is certainly a
matter of implementation, and the authors do note that it's not too
difficult to address. The one-box player they used was a Marantz
CD-63, and I doubt that even its most ardent fan would claim that this
represents the state of the art! Compare and contrast with say the
Arcam CD-23 or especially any of the Meridian players, and you'll see
that this effect is essentially absent.



They measured a 'variety' of one-box players, according to the
paper, and the Marantz results were considered 'typical'.
It appears they tested players by Philips, Technics and Sony,
though I am not clear on which were one-box.


If you recall, there was considerable discussion about the sound
quality of CD-R when it came out, and it was noted that on some
players, the copy sounded *better* than the original! This was traced
to the 'wobble track' on the CD-R being easier for the servo circuits
to track, and Martin Colloms noted that the sound degradation was
exactly due to amplitude modulation from the servo circuits finding
its way into the analogue output. He also discovered that better
players did not demonstrate this effect. Note that Prism Sound don't
make a one-box player, do make excellent jitter-reducing DACs, and
seem to have extrapolated their findings on one cheap one-box player
to *all* one-box players. A step too far, methinks.


Again, they claim to have measured several one-box players.


Anyway, I have to go now, as I'm off to India for a couple of weeks.
Well timed, as it's snowing here!



Lucky dog!

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Musical & Political Facts Bruce J. Richman Audio Opinions 0 March 25th 04 06:28 PM
Objective Testing for Audio Fidelity Thumper High End Audio 6 February 20th 04 02:46 AM
Users guide for Musical Fidelity X-A2 amplifier Simon Sirca High End Audio 2 December 10th 03 05:09 PM
science vs vs pseudo science Johnd1001 High End Audio 21 October 29th 03 02:30 AM
Musical Fidelity & Monitor Audio Events in Chicago, IL 7-29 & 7-30 MA guy High End Audio 0 July 20th 03 08:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"