| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? ST |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
ST wrote:
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much less better? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ): 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? ST Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers DAC 2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players. Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony XA777ES SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping digital filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my Sony and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV box through the DAC2.6). |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Sep 8, 11:11*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote (in article ): 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? ST Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers DAC 2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players. Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony XA777ES SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping digital filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my Sony and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV box through the DAC2.6). About the digital filter I usually select Filter 3 for Cds and Filter 1 for SACD. But sometimes Filter 1 sounds better for certain Cds. But was just too lazy playing around with filters than listening to music so I settled for Filter 3 for Cds. Am I hearing less details? I don't think so. I will get a new Cd which I have not heard before to see which one got more details. In the past I tried to upgrade the Theta DAC. Every person I contacted couldn't find a 30.0000Mhz oscillator clock to upgrade it. By the way is there a better alternative for the AD841 Op-Amp? ST p.s This is not to say Marantz SA11s2 is no good. It is just polite. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Sep 8, 11:10*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
ST wrote: 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much less better? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Yes, I was expecting less resolution less of everything. But that wasn't the case here. The bass alone made it more musical. Sharp, precise and well defined. I agree Marantz is not famous for bass and some complained it is more like tube sound. But even the plucking of guitar gives the a better sense of being realistic. The only department I would say it lacked Marantz is the vocal where I can hear a slight sibilance. A very slight sibilance. About oversampling - yeah... Theta oversample them 8 or 16 times - can't find the manual. ST |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
On 8 Sep 2009 03:12:17 GMT, Sonnova
wrote: I'm still running a Theta Gen Va Balanced, which has to be pushing 13 yrs old. Tomorrow I will receive, for evaluation, a Benchmark DAC1 HDR. It will be interesting to see if there is any appreciable audible improvement. I have my doubts.. I'm betting that the Theta will trounce it. I received a Benchmark DAC 1 PRE to review and I found that both my upgraded DAC2.6 and the Redbook playback via my Sony XA777ES sounded better! "..trounce it" is perhaps pushing it somewhat. "..sound different" perhaps? Why do I say that? Well I don't know if you've seen the Audio Clinic review of the Benchmark DAC1 HDR (http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=40&blogId=1) ....in which Peter Aczel says the following: "What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple as that. It has no sound of its own. Furthermore, its measurements could be 20 or 30 dB worse and it would still sound the same. I have convinced myself of that over and over again in double-blind listening comparisons of all sorts of electronic components at matched levels. The 100% purity of the DAC1 HDR is of benefit mainly in professional systems, where the integrity of the equipment chain needs to be verified and guaranteed. To audiophiles it’s a somewhat abstract luxury, but not an excessively costly one, Conclusion All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be said. If I could change anything at all about it, it would be to add a couple more analog inputs. I realize that there is no room for that, so I use a small input switch box that sits on top of it. Most users won’t need it. There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police come and take me away in handcuffs." Should we believe him?? --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:35:24 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ): On Sep 8, 11:11*am, Sonnova wrote: On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote (in article ): 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? ST Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers DAC 2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players. Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony XA777ES SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping digital filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my Sony and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV box through the DAC2.6). About the digital filter I usually select Filter 3 for Cds and Filter 1 for SACD. But sometimes Filter 1 sounds better for certain Cds. But was just too lazy playing around with filters than listening to music so I settled for Filter 3 for Cds. Am I hearing less details? I don't think so. I will get a new Cd which I have not heard before to see which one got more details. In the past I tried to upgrade the Theta DAC. Every person I contacted couldn't find a 30.0000Mhz oscillator clock to upgrade it. By the way is there a better alternative for the AD841 Op-Amp? The latest generation of op-amps from National Semiconductor are better than those available 10-15 years ago. Mostly, the improvements are in self-generated noise, and slew symmetry. Most older op-amps have asymmetrical slew - that is to say, the positive going half of the waveform takes a different (shorter) path through the op-amp than does the negative going half. Whether or not this is audible is debatable, however, I will say that no audio designer worth his salt would purposely design a discrete gain or buffer stage with that characteristic. ST p.s This is not to say Marantz SA11s2 is no good. It is just polite. Again, that just might be taste - for which there is no accounting. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
Dick Pierce wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s. Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's, IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1986. A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before the end of the 1980's OK, late 80s rather than early 90s. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has not changed since the early 1980's Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have been referring to the playback technology. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
ST wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:10?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: ST wrote: 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used ?Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much less better? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Yes, I was expecting less resolution less of everything. But that wasn't the case here. The bass alone made it more musical. Sharp, precise and well defined. I agree Marantz is not famous for bass and some complained it is more like tube sound. But even the plucking of guitar gives the a better sense of being realistic. The only department I would say it lacked Marantz is the vocal where I can hear a slight sibilance. A very slight sibilance. Or very active imagination. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
On Sep 10, 12:14*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic * artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units * until the early 90s. Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's, IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1986. A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before the end of the 1980's OK, late 80s rather than early 90s. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has not changed since the early 1980's Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have been referring to the playback technology. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Yes, playback technology. Or did DAC really make significant improvement in the past 15 years. The prices may have gone down and some boutique DAC gone several times up. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
"ST" wrote in message
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some other kind of quality difference. Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? Theta used Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever to be used widely in high-performance equipment. The PCM64K spec sheet says: "More recently, DACs employing a different architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced ("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)." Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is 1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD player was oversampled. The spec sheet goes on to say: "These (oversampled) DACs overcome the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed." If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then (1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see today. The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be completely untrue. One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital domain. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to control *any* variables at all. I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating order and performed as well recently as it did on the best day of its life. Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue. Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs and price/performance improved. The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Sep 10, 11:38*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ST" wrote in message 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some other kind of quality difference. Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? Theta used *Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever to be used widely in high-performance equipment. The PCM64K spec sheet says: "More recently, DACs employing a different architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced ("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)." Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is 1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD player was oversampled. The spec sheet goes on to say: "These (oversampled) *DACs overcome the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed." If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then (1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see today. *The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be completely untrue. One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital domain. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to control *any* variables at all. I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating order and performed as well recently as it did *on the best day of its life. Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue. Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs and price/performance improved. The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used. My DAC is PCM63 ( when I wanted to upgrade/mod the DAC I was told I already got the highest range for PCM63 ending with K and P, I think) but you were referring to PCM64. The same specs apply to both? But may main concern is are we being ripped of year in year out by claims of a newer DAC or player being better than the other previous models? I believe the the best possible CD playback technology been achieved at least 10 years back by some companies using the best available technologies at that time. BTW, maybe measurements may show the latest got components better than legacy units but the question is can we hear the improvement? ST |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:27:41 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ): On Sep 10, 12:14*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Dick Pierce wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic * artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units * until the early 90s. Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's, IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1986. A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before the end of the 1980's OK, late 80s rather than early 90s. And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has not changed since the early 1980's Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have been referring to the playback technology. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine Yes, playback technology. Or did DAC really make significant improvement in the past 15 years. The prices may have gone down and some boutique DAC gone several times up. Just because Redbook hasn't changed (that's just format specs anyway) doesn't mean that there haven't been improvements in the equipment chain BEFORE the actual CD is mastered to glass. Part of the CD mastering chain, for a number of years, was the Sony PCM-1610, 1620 and 1630 digital recorders. All analog and most digital recordings bound for the CD mastering room in the early days was put on video cassette (half-inch U-Matic was the standard) via one of these Sonys. They were lousy and I should know, I owned and used a Sony PCM-1620 for years*. Filled with 741 style op-amps and electrolytic and tantalum capacitors in the signal path, CDs made with them in the chain sounded truly dismal. I'm sure that at least part of CDs early bad reputation for general harshness and distorted highs was a direct result of the industry-wide use of these junkers. Eventually, as computers came along and people started to pay closer attention to the production side of things, these machines were retired in favor of other means to make and deliver digital recordings to the mastering lab. On the other end of the chain, the quality of most players has improved too. CD players no longer have steep analog filters full of cheap op-amps and electrolytic capacitors cascaded into multi-pole filters for antialiasing. Most antialiasing is done today in the digital realm and oversampling has placed the need for this kind of filtering far above the audio passband. Today's CD readers are less error prone than were their forebearers and less likely to cause as many interpolation-level errors where the Solomon-Reed error correction ends up having to "guess" at what the digital word is supposed to be. Even though it's an intelligent guess and probably, in and of itself, is not sonically catastrophic, add all these things together and the result is that with todays digital filters, Delta-Sigma DACs, and more robust front ends, digital playback has improved considerably over the early machines. *I used a PCM-1620 with a Sony SL-HF1000 Super Betamax (which, unlike VHS recorders of the period, allowed one to turn-off all video enhancement circuitry in the recorder. This was done specifically to facilitate digital audio recording) to record a local municipal symphony orchestra for a number of years. For backup, I ran a Sony TC-880P reel-to-reel recorder at 15 i.p.s., half-track using Sony's FeCr mastering tape (for which the 880 could be optimized. Most recorders couldn't supply enough bias current to use this tape). I have always thought that the analog back-up recordings sounded MUCH better than the digital masters - tape hiss and all. When I finally decided to transfer the entire library to DAT in the 1990s, it was the analog reel-to-reel tapes that I used for the transfers, not the digital recordings made on the Betamax recorder and the PCM-1620 because they sounded so poor by comparison (even when the transfer was done digital-to-digital). |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "ST" wrote in message 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some other kind of quality difference. Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for. Theta used Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever to be used widely in high-performance equipment. The PCM64K spec sheet says: "More recently, DACs employing a different architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced ("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)." Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is 1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD player was oversampled. If you are talking about the little Magnavox FD-1000, you are correct. It used 4X oversampling and digital filtering and even though it was only only 14-bit, it sounded much better than the Sony CDP-101 or the Kyocera, or the Denon or any of the other first generation players - it was also about half the price of these other players and was built like a tank. The spec sheet goes on to say: "These (oversampled) DACs overcome the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed." If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then (1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see today. The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be completely untrue. One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital domain. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to control *any* variables at all. I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating order and performed as well recently as it did on the best day of its life. Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue. Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs and price/performance improved. The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used. CD players have improved considerably since those early units. But what has improved more is the recording side. Getting rid of those awful Sony PCM-1610, 1620 and 1630 processors that were practically de-riguer for early CD production helped a lot. Those things were AWFUL! |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
On Sep 8, 1:45*am, John Stone wrote:
On 9/7/09 10:11 AM, in article , "ST" wrote: 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s, 30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed Marantz? Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the sound? ST I'm still running a Theta Gen Va Balanced, which has to be pushing 13 yrs old. Tomorrow I will receive, for evaluation, a Benchmark DAC1 HDR. It will be interesting to see if there is any appreciable audible improvement. I have my doubts.. Hi John, Did you get your Benchmark? Please provide us your evaluation. ST |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
|
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "ST" wrote in message 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some other kind of quality difference. Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for. IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very doable. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
Sonnova wrote:
Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level make any difference in tests of quality. Sure, if you are trying to tell if you can tell ANY difference between systems, it matters ... you could have two absolutely identical systems, that were indistinguishable if level matched, and if they were off by 0.5 dB anybody coll tell them apart. But it would be impossible to tell qich was "better" since they would be the same. I've tried such tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is better even if not level matched. Approximate level matching might also be important if two systems differed only in frequency response (in which case, of course, exact level matching would be impossible, for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even if the levels were only approximately matched. I've tried such tests too, and the level matching did not matter. Of course, it is true that I was unable to hear differences that other claimed to hear. Maybe I have a tin ear, but I doubt it (other of course than being old.) Doug MCDonald |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
"ST" wrote in message
But may main concern is are we being ripped of year in year out by claims of a newer DAC or player being better than the other previous models? Only if you actually act on them. I believe the the best possible CD playback technology been achieved at least 10 years back by some companies using the best available technologies at that time. Agreed. We did fairly scientific investigations of this issue back in the late 80s or early 90s for Stereo Review. We found that one of the first generation players did sound a little different than the then-newer models, but only a tiny amount. After that, good players strongly tend to be indistingishable. They may vary in terms of how they handle scratches and blemishes. BTW, maybe measurements may show the latest got components better than legacy units but the question is can we hear the improvement? Once you get frequency response down to within 0.1 dB variations, which happened at least 20 years ago, there's not a lot of difference to hear. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "ST" wrote in message 3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some other kind of quality difference. Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for. IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very doable. I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an oscillator/test tone CD and an audio voltmeter can do that. I mean acoustically, at the listening seat using an SPL meter. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:55 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ): Sonnova wrote: Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level make any difference in tests of quality. Sure, if you are trying to tell if you can tell ANY difference between systems, it matters ... you could have two absolutely identical systems, that were indistinguishable if level matched, and if they were off by 0.5 dB anybody coll tell them apart. But it would be impossible to tell qich was "better" since they would be the same. I've tried such tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is better even if not level matched. The human ear, for some reason that I cannot explain, will always pick the louder of two sound sources as the "better sounding" of the two. If you are trying to ascertain whether or not two amps, two preamps, two CD players, two tuners, two tape decks, or two speakers exhibit any sonic differences between them, then they have to be as exactly level matched as possible. Due to possible component interaction (and especially with speakers for obvious reasons) this should be done at the listening position with an SPL meter using tones if possible. Approximate level matching might also be important if two systems differed only in frequency response (in which case, of course, exact level matching would be impossible, for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even if the levels were only approximately matched. I've tried such tests too, and the level matching did not matter. Of course, it is true that I was unable to hear differences that other claimed to hear. Maybe I have a tin ear, but I doubt it (other of course than being old.) That seems to not be the case. If one is noticeably louder than the other, even experienced listeners will favor it - even though it might have a bit more distortion. Doug MCDonald |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message Sonnova wrote: Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as speakers. I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level make any difference in tests of quality. Because differences in level are very easy to confuse with differences in sonic quality. Sure, if you are trying to tell if you can tell ANY difference between systems, it matters ... Small differences in level often don't sound like simple differences in loudness. They can make many people think they are hearing differences in timbre, resolution, graininess, etc. you could have two absolutely identical systems, that were indistinguishable if level matched, and if they were off by 0.5 dB anybody could tell them apart. Often but not always. But it would be impossible to tell whch was "better" since they would be the same. Well, if they sound the same, what's wrong with that? I've tried such tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is better even if not level matched. It is very rare in general for people to hear differences and not decide that one is "better". Approximate level matching might also be important if two systems differed only in frequency response (in which case, of course, exact level matching would be impossible, If you have two systems that differ in loudness to an audible degree, how do you know that there is actually another other difference, especially if that difference is subtle? for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even if the levels were only approximately matched. Distortion will cause systems that are level-matched at low levels to have mismatched levels when played much louder. I've tried such tests too, and the level matching did not matter. I don't know why there would be any angst over level-matching. It is generally easy enough to do. If it can't be done because there are significant frequency response differences or distortion, then those are a very valuable things to know. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
"Sonnova" wrote in message
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "ST" wrote in message [ excess quoting snipped ] Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for. IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very doable. I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an oscillator/test tone CD and an audio voltmeter can do that. I mean acoustically, at the listening seat using an SPL meter. There's *never* a need to match levels acoustically if you are comparing DACs and digital players. The only need to match levels acoustically that I know of is if you are comparing microphones or speakers. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:50:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "Sonnova" wrote in message On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote (in article ): "ST" wrote in message [ excess quoting snipped ] Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB? That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for. IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very doable. I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an oscillator/test tone CD and an audio voltmeter can do that. I mean acoustically, at the listening seat using an SPL meter. There's *never* a need to match levels acoustically if you are comparing DACs and digital players. The only need to match levels acoustically that I know of is if you are comparing microphones or speakers. I agree but my original post I was talking generally. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or
Arny Krueger wrote:
It is very rare in general for people to hear differences and not decide that one is "better". I see. I must be very rare. I simply can't decide. Doug McDonald |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| How to best improve my system | High End Audio | |||
| Redbook (CD-Audio) documentation | Pro Audio | |||
| Redbook documentation | Pro Audio | |||
| Redbook CD/Firewire Drive/Mac | Pro Audio | |||
| ".mp3" format --> some format suitable for an audio burn software | Tech | |||
Linear Mode
