[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
But the Sony unit (as I pointed out in a previous post)
is still built to a higher technical quality.

Saying so does not make it so.

You didn't read my previous posting.

How would you know that? Your previous post was an unsubstantiated
assertion.

The Sony uses multiple DACs on each (stereo) channel. This is uncommon.

Using multiple DACs is a not-uncommon means for improving the dynamic range
of DACs with inadequate performance, at a relatively high cost. Dynamic
range improves by about 3 dB for every doubling of the number of DACs. You
get into dimiminishing returns very fast.

Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

But it is higher _technical_ quality.

Simply having a better performing DAC is the far better idea.

[William Sommerwerck]

But the Sony unit (as I pointed out in a previous post)
is still built to a higher technical quality.

Saying so does not make it so.

It does in this case. Expensive equipment tends to be built to a higher
technical standard. Whether or not this results in better sound is beside
the point.


You didn't read my previous posting.

How would you know that? Your previous post was an unsubstantiated
assertion.

If I say that a car has rubber tires, would you call that an unsubstantiated
assertion?


The Sony uses multiple DACs on each (stereo) channel. This is uncommon.

Using multiple DACs is a not-uncommon means for improving the dynamic
range
of DACs with inadequate performance, at a relatively high cost.

By your own reasoning, that makes no sense. (See your comment below.)


Dynamic range improves by about 3 dB for every doubling of the
number of DACs. You get into dimiminishing returns very fast.

Well, duh, yes.


Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

Inform me. Name some commercial CD players or sound cards that do so. And
let me know what percentage of the player/card market the represent.


But it is higher _technical_ quality.

Simply having a better performing DAC is the far better idea.

Typical AK waffling. * That wasn't the point.

Why don't you admit that you're badly disturbed that I own an SACD player
that cost $2000? That is not a lot of money for a player built to a high
level of mechanical and electronic quality.

I would gladly do a comparative listening test with the multi-ch function of
my Sony DVD player. But I don't have a test SACD to set levels, and even if
I did, you'd vigorously object if I preferred the sound of the
more-expensive player.

* Isn't it interesting that we both have "derogatory" initials -- AK and BS.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message
But the Sony unit (as I pointed out in a previous
post) is still built to a higher technical quality.

Saying so does not make it so.

It does in this case.

OK, so you can cause equipment to come into existence by speaking the word.
Pretty impressive!

Expensive equipment tends to be built to a higher technical standard.

Statements like that are known as "sweeping generalities".

Whether or not this
results in better sound is beside the point.

Sweeping generalities a convincing argument does not make.

You didn't read my previous posting.

How would you know that? Your previous post was an
unsubstantiated assertion.

If I say that a car has rubber tires, would you call that
an unsubstantiated assertion?

That's common knowlege.

The Sony uses multiple DACs on each (stereo) channel.
This is uncommon.

Using multiple DACs is a not-uncommon means for
improving the dynamic range of DACs with inadequate
performance, at a relatively high cost.

By your own reasoning, that makes no sense. (See your
comment below.)

????????????????/

Dynamic range improves by about 3 dB for every doubling
of the number of DACs. You get into dimiminishing
returns very fast.

Well, duh, yes.

Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

Inform me. Name some commercial CD players or sound cards
that do so.

That's just it, this is a technical feature that is not commonly used in
production gear because it is not a cost-effective means to obtain high
performance. I've heard of a few commerical players made this way in the
past. No, I can't rattle off make and model.

But a little searching with google and I come up with:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/esoteric9/sa60.html


The word tweak as applied to audio gear refers to things that home
constructors do.

A little more searching with google and I come up with:

http://www.diyhifi.org/forums/viewto...t=1488&p=33295

post at 3/11/2008 8:18 am

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...43#post1625043

post at 919/2008 8:18 am

And let me know what percentage of the
player/card market the represent.


But it is higher _technical_ quality.

Simply having a better performing DAC is the far better
idea.

Typical AK waffling. * That wasn't the point.

Its not waffling, its conventional wisdom about engineering.

Why don't you admit that you're badly disturbed that I
own an SACD player that cost $2000?

Why should I? I have owned CD players that cost as much in constant
dollars. I already have a SACD player that sounds and measures well.

I have no problems with paying extra money for good gear when that is what
needs to be done.

That is not a lot of
money for a player built to a high level of mechanical
and electronic quality.

For me its all about sound quality and usability.

[William Sommerwerck]

Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

Inform me. Name some commercial CD players or sound cards
that do so.

That's just it, this is a technical feature that is not commonly used in
production gear because it is not a cost-effective means to obtain high
performance. I've heard of a few commerical players made this way in the
past. No, I can't rattle off make and model.

Arny, forget for a moment that we don't respect each other, and look
carefully at the preceding exchange.

You say that "Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak". Then when I ask you to
name make and model (other than my Sony), you say "[it's] not commonly used
in production gear because it is not a cost-effective means to obtain high
performance".

Now, if it's not commonly used, how can it be common? (I'm interpreting your
original "common" as "commonly used", not "commonly known".)

I sometimes "bob and weave", but you seem to do it all the time.


The word tweak as applied to audio gear refers to things that home
constructors do.

You introduced the term, I didn't. I was talking about production equipment.

[Arny Krueger]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

Inform me. Name some commercial CD players or sound
cards that do so.

Did it in another post that I made yesterday.

That's just it, this is a technical feature that is not
commonly used in production gear because it is not a
cost-effective means to obtain high performance. I've
heard of a few commercial players made this way in the
past. No, I can't rattle off make and model.

Arny, forget for a moment that we don't respect each
other, and look carefully at the preceding exchange.

You say that "Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak". Then
when I ask you to name make and model (other than my
Sony), you say "[it's] not commonly used in production
gear because it is not a cost-effective means to obtain
high performance".

In another post I provided you with links to tweak web site articles that
were relevant.

I also provided links to descriptions of commercial gear that were relevant.

Doesn't change the main point - which is that its generally more economical
to use a proper part than a kluge composed of many parts. Kluging up a
better FAC out of substandard parts is not good engineering, no matter how
much it may impress you personally.

The irony is that it doesn't take a SOTA DAC to beat the actual dynamic
range of any known commercial recording by about 10 dB.

The word tweak as applied to audio gear refers to things
that home constructors do.

You introduced the term, I didn't. I was talking about
production equipment.

I provided references to both, yesterday. The idea I was trying to convey is
that yes, you can stack DAC chips ad infinitum to improve dynamic range, but
doing so is not a reliable sign of technical sophistication.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
message

Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak.

Inform me. Name some commercial CD players or sound
cards that do so.

Did it in another post that I made yesterday.

That's just it, this is a technical feature that is not
commonly used in production gear because it is not a
cost-effective means to obtain high performance. I've
heard of a few commercial players made this way in the
past. No, I can't rattle off make and model.

Arny, forget for a moment that we don't respect each
other, and look carefully at the preceding exchange.
You say that "Doubling-up DACs is a common tweak". Then
when I ask you to name make and model (other than my
Sony), you say "[it's] not commonly used in production
gear because it is not a cost-effective means to obtain
high performance".

In another post I provided you with links to tweak web site articles that
were relevant.
I also provided links to descriptions of commercial gear that were
relevant.

Arny, you need to talk to a professional about the gross inconsistency and
internal contradictions of your comments (see above), and your deliberate
refusal to answer direct questions. You need to find out why you do these
things so much more often than most people.

[Powell]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote

Arny, you need to talk to a professional about the gross
inconsistency and internal contradictions of your comments
(see above), and your deliberate refusal to answer direct
questions. You need to find out why you do these things
so much more often than most people.

He's been lying since he starting posting on USEnet. It's
unreasonable to think he could change after all this time.
He's not one of the top Ass-clowns© on R.A.O. for
nothing, William.