GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site - Take two buffers and call me in the morning!

Didital Things
Topic: Take two buffers and call me in the morning!

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 »

Posted by Romy the Cat on 12-08-2013

Oh that forgotten pleasure… I am not spoiled with audio experiments nowadays. Partially because I do not have a lot of drive and have reached a definitive return in my possible audio experiments. Another partial preseason is that I kind of able to predict the results in so many cases… The last nigh is the case to point.

A local audio guy came to me complaining that Sound of his CD setup so much worse than the sound of his LP setup. He has indeed a very nice LP setup and he plays CD from OPPO 95. I never valued OPPO as any player that would be suitable for anything but a crappy video room, but it was what it was and the guy was asking what I would advise to do.

Well, I told that he needs to define for himself if it is possible to get better sound from CD but verdure or better CD equipment. I gave to him my Lavry DA-924 DAC and advice to substitute it the OPPO’s output stage. The guy called in reported a substantial sonic advantage. I explained to him that he just substituted $1 DAC Chinese consumer chip-DAC with one of the best true R2R Multi-bit DACs ever built. Well, that was predictable. He asked it is possible to push the envelop even further and to improve sound even more introducing a new CD transport. I said possible but I was not at ease.

Of cause the next thin was the guy brought o my listening room a couple of transports and I was watching, very predictably(!!!), how TL0/Bidat destroyed them in comparing. For sure it did simulate my dilapidating ego but my felling not to be at ease was only aggravated. For sure the guy can go to used market if not afraid and get TL0 and find a good DAC that he likes, however, would it be the way to go nowadays? It would be fin in 1993 but 20 years later I am very convinced that it would not be a direction that I would go myself.

I do think that I today world audio people do need a universal CD player that would play CD, DVD, Blue Ray, the garbage SACD, be able to stream 1X, 2X, 4X, DSD and to work off network. It has to do it delivering no worse result that what TL0/Bidat did 20 years back and it shall cost 1000 a package. The whole OPPO family is a wonderful idea but they sound (at least on CD) no near acceptable, unless it is a bedroom or basement system. To recommend the gay to look into the EMM Labs product is kind of contra productive as EMMs are ridiculously priced and do not deliver reputable sonic results.

So, what the hypothetical friend of mine shall do? He is not a hypothetical person but the question is much wider than the interest of that specific guy. The 20 years after TL0 – do we have anything in market of universal multi-format players that would be even remotely compatible to the best red-book CD of 20 year back?

The Cat

Posted by steverino on 12-08-2013

It is one of those curious facts that Golden Ages generally occur quite early in the process of some domain of activity and then things slowly go downhill. In other words the Golden Age is followed by the Silver Age then the Bronze Age then the Slag Age but not the reverse sequence ending with the Golden Age. I am no digital specialist for sure but even I am aware that many experts consider the build quality of 90s digital components superior to anything built today. To be fair, given that most people are listening to mp3 audio on phones and portable players or to poorly implemented HT, wouldn't a vendor think there was more money in "upgrading MP3" than doing something like a Golden Age $1k DAC or music server? At this point I'm only aware of Marantz and Esoteric (and perhaps Sony) even offering a traditional escalating line of CD/SACD/DVD players and DACs. Even with them, the only improvements in years have been with convenience features and more I/O options. I think also that the poor sonics of many CDs and SACDs discourage much development because a more accurate player may make them all unlistenable. It's safer to provide a better USB cable or IPOD docking station. I agree that the dedicated laptop server with associated music files is probably the only thing that we can reasonably look forward to seeing. Bryston has a silly priced dedicated non-transport player for CD files but at least they are removing all kinds of moving parts and non essential computer components from the player.

Posted by decoud on 12-09-2013

What about a digital buffer: a device that takes any digital stream, from whatever cheap, village source you feed it, stores enough to reclock it properly, and then feeds it out to the DAC of your choice? Since even the cheapest reading devices offer excellent bit fidelity, and the issues are really with timing, if the system is properly implemented it will be relatively immune to the nature of the reader.

Posted by scooter on 12-09-2013

I'll take two of those decoud!
It makes all the sense in the world but just doesn't seem to work that way.
Al Moulton from Goodwins sat me down with that $5k Alpha DAC when it came out c.5 years ago and basically gave me the keys to that big room for an hour or so. He noted when the Alpha was partnered with Goodwin's optimized PC (which I think came with the Lynx card, SSD, lots of RAM, register tweaks, etc.) he thought it sounded very good vs. $7k traditional CD solutions in stock and was a pleasure to use. He also opined more expensive dedicaed CD solutions were more pleasing from a sonics perspective.
I though Al was right on the mark then and I still do. Who knows why. I love the computer audio idea but never got great sound that way. Still trying!
The Alpha guys issued some type of input buffer box a few years ago so I suppose that is some recognition by them of an "issue." Of course there are other endless buffer solutions available...
Anology alert - A guy who lives in my building has a phd in math and is paid to build the fastest supercomputers in he world. He uses graphics cards. He noted graphics cards perform so well because they are optimized to perform limited tasks (vs. the versatile CPU). And they are cheap. He also noted that IBMs supercomputers always beat his because IBM basically custom built everything, bringing optimization to another level.
The cost differential between the IBM supercomputers and graphics card supercomputers must be staggering...

Posted by Paul S on 12-09-2013

Interesting discussion. I am now thinking of John Wright, the guy who mods the (old...) Museatex DACs to get the best sound overall that I've heard from digital sources. Sure, he has his patent approach to deciphering digital, but John has always said his focus was on the "analog" part of the hardware, whatever that means. I think what it means is that the purely "mathematical" aspects of conversion, etc. will get us only so far, at least at this point. Or, it may be that the slippery algorithm is simply a functionally acceptable starting point, like pi, to a basically unresolvable equation.

As much as I would like to have unlimited access to some sort of a cloud library of music, I have not yet been motivated to go all out to hear more of the re-processed music I have heard so far. This is all the more frustrating for me since I have long owned digitally re-processed LPs that - somehow - sound acceptable to me. OTOH, just knowing what sounds good is hardly enough, since there has never been a way to convince everyone else to do everything the way I like it at every turn. Basically, I would try a lot harder at this if there were serious indications that there were musical rewards awaiting.

Best regards,
Paul S

Posted by steverino on 12-09-2013

Two reasons that audiophile designers always harp on the analog end of the CD player: they don't have the wherewithal to develop a new ADC algorithm and they believe the word "analog" sells boxes. I thought there were already digital audio devices that provided plenty of buffer space. Even the aforementioned Bryston music file reader does that. If there is a problem with digital audio it seems to me it lies more with the analog digital converter than the DAC. It's like a car. If the engine isn't good, improving the catalytic converter and exhaust system may smooth it out a bit but won't fix the bad engine.

Posted by bernie_f on 12-17-2013
fiogf49gjkf0d ...Romys chimney this Xmas?

Posted by Romy the Cat on 12-17-2013

The new reference Lavry that eventually does 4X is a very cool idea. The volume control is a bit damn thing to have in there, particularly for pro unit but it is what it is, thank God it is analog volume control anyhow. The mono switch is also a cool thing. It is not known if the new Lavry will be true R2R multibit of the same topology as DA924 was. I do anticipate that Lavry would not screw up his reference DAC line. However, it has been passed 20 year as he did his DA924 and people’s approaches might change. Dan might feel that putting a few contemporary chips and using good op-amps would produce the same result, or at least the result that would be appreciated the same by most of his consumers. We have seen it again and again from many other makers who developed a lot of justifiable cynicism in their expectation of consumer appreciation. Would Larvy be the next in the long line? It is hard to say. I am sure with time the technical paper about the new DAC will be available and one way of another the rumors about the DAC sound will hit public.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 12-17-2013

From the link below

http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3919

it looks like the new Lavry DAC is a completely new design. For sure they do not want to talk about it and it might be not a good sigh. The Lavry DA924 was something that only describing it topology it was clear that it has to be significant unit. The reason why Lavry people do not want to talk about it because it might be just a simple nothing special DAC but sold under umbrella of reputed shop, some kind of Lavry version of Berkley Audio DAC. It very much might not be the case and the new Lavry topology might be even better then what it was before. It is hard to say without listening or without knowing what is going one. The secrecy they maintain is not a promising sign as my experience with the industry indicates that wherever secrecy is then the secrecy hides lies, trickerys and deceptions.

The Cat

Posted by decoud on 12-17-2013

If the relatively recent DA11 is any guide, it is hard to be optimistic. Though offering reasonable sound in optimal circumstances it has farcically inept noise rejection via the USB input, so much so that one could use it as a "system sounds" alternative, for it sent clearly audible noises to the output in synchrony with system events such as scrolling or moving windows around. You may well say those who attempt to use usb to source deserve all the pain they get, but the point here is the contempt for the user implied in offering an implementation so cynically indifferent to the real world environment.
I think this and other cut corners in the design of the DA11 have been discussed here before.

Posted by decoud on 12-22-2013
fiogf49gjkf0d http://www.empiricalaudio.com/products/synchro-mesh Of the idea: I do not know how well it works in practice.

Posted by Romy the Cat on 12-22-2013

I do not know how this pacific devise I am bit prejudicial about all of those in-line re-clocking devises. I have seen tone of them in past and all of them were incredible crap. Well, if one has a bad performing playback with objectively shitty (even highly regarded) ingredients then using those digital improving toys might send a message that something got better. In reality it is frequently not better but different and since system owners are generally uninformed then they can not differentiate an improvement from peripherally different irrelevance.

I do not know what Empirical devise is made for. Empirical made name by providing modification for those Chinese Parasound bid amplifiers, I think they were called Halo. They were incredible crap and they fact that Empirical dealt with them is an indication that Empirical is very willing to deal with low demand, low result and high on scam audio entireties. So, I would not be surprised if the new Synchro-Mesh toy would be a devise that would be able to demonstrate to the a few idiots from Audio Asylem – the target market for Parasound Halo.

The larger point of my comments is that a properly implemented transport, DAC or played does not need any re-clocking improvements, nor might be improved by a virtue of reclosing. The very same is in analog audio. There were zillion of analog devises from parametric EQ to quantum penetrators that audio companied suggested to plug between preamps and power amps to make “the difference it makes is rather astonishing. As soon one get a truly capable preamp and good power amp then all those inline toys go directly into garbage.

Posted by decoud on 12-22-2013

I am sure you are right a properly implemented device would be in no need of such things, but my point was the diversity of digital forms is too great for someone to do it properly in one machine. And surely sorting out a bad digital stream *is* feasible in the way sorting out a bad analogue stream is not. Provided the signal is bit perfect, there is only the jitter to play with, and reclocking, properly done, can make a big difference.

Posted by mark on 01-06-2014

good point in here;graphic cards perform so well because they are optimized to perform limited tasks and are cheap.I have been listening ,researching and experimenting to get musically interesting and satisfyting results from cd for 25+ years now.I have a cheap cd systemthat consists of radio shack cd-3400(100$ used) on black ravioli footers,an omega mikro zephyr digital cable(150-180 used),a dac kit thatcost 20$,but with several hundred dollars of p.s. batteries,extreme high quality parts in the critical, priority areas.It betters almosteverything i have owned (audio aero capitole classic se,john wright modified bidat,etc.),the only cd playback i have heard that betters itis the omega mikro insound galileo cd player at 18k$,of which i will have later this year as reference to further improve my cheap cd onlysystem.Several years ago i posted my thoughts on listening 47 labs flatfish,progression dac (In digital,or dacs and things),identifyingwhat i felt was right and areas of performance that were in need of significant improvement,mainly purity,smoothness,naturalness,freedomfrom that artificiality that most, especially upsampled delta sigma dacs impose on natural acoustic instruments.

dont think i will ever hear the do all formats in one dac or player at this level regardless of cost.If you listen to cd mostly or exclusivelywith your digital stay with cd only and you dont need to spend more than $1000 really to do it really well.

also have heard many demos of sacd and hi res,most recently through a berkeley dac,24/192 i think, a download of music i knew,it washorrendously artificial.I am sure there are good sounding hi res setups in terms of detail soundstage etc.BUT what about the basicsof natural realistic acoustic sound without artifice? Who can listen to that hi res/multi fomat crap for more than 2 seconds,i dont care how much hi-res or detail or imaging/soundstage

Posted by Romy the Cat on 01-06-2014

mark wrote:
…also have heard many demos of sacd and hi res,most recently through a berkeley dac,24/192 i think, a download of music i knew,it washorrendously artificial.I am sure there are good sounding hi res setups in terms of detail soundstage etc.BUT what about the basicsof natural realistic acoustic sound without artifice? Who can listen to that hi res/multi fomat crap for more than 2 seconds,i dont care how much hi-res or detail or imaging/soundstage

Mark, this is slightly misdelegated rage in my view. It is not because I disagree with your that most of today hi-res sound is in fact crap. The problem is not with the hi-res as a concept but rather with HOW that hi-res was cooked. The hi-res music does sound artificially but it is not necessarily have to be this way. It is not about format but the people who use the format and most of them in industry are unfortunately Morons. If the very same people used 16/44 properly then even this, inferior format, can produce a phenomenal quality, if used properly.

For sure hi-res offers a LOT of additional opportunities. Unfortunately it is not being used as the Morons kill recordings by many other means that not necessary relate to the format itself. As I multiple times said as this site: it is very easy for any person to make own judgment. Take any good 16/44 A/D and D/A, connect them in series, make a recording and play a file. Do not touch the file in any form and shape that would do any DSP on the file. The quality that you get will be orders of magnitude better than any CD that you have, beater most of the LPs and faked hi-res file that you will come across. The quality that you would hear would be how we have to have 16/44 years back.

Rgs, the Cat

Posted by Dmitry_youguanxi on 07-10-2014
fiogf49gjkf0d Hi, Roman Is there any new info, experience about Lavry Quintessence? Have you had a chance to listen? Thanks, Dmitry

Posted by Romy the Cat on 07-10-2014

Yes, Lavry released a successor or his Lavry Gold 924 DAC. The Lavry Gold DA-N5 Quintessence is up to 4X sapling tat and has a number of other bells and whistles. Interesting to have it from Dan Lavry - from the person who was for year advocating moderate sapling rates - I guess the forces of marker are real forces.

I kind of suspicions about this new DAC as Lavry does not say anything about it. His now is 25 years older and shall be 25 years more cynical, so only god know what he made in this DAC. When he made his Gold 924 he trumpeted his define al, over the world and there was a reason for it - it WAS great design. Now with new DAC one would expected to do the same... if the design present the same level of greatness. However, Lavry is silent. Strange and it might be not a good sign.

The Pacific people 25 year after the Microsonic did Alfa DAC that was from my perspective crap compare to the level of talent they are able to invest into a DAC. Did Lavry do the same and juts cashed out his name bringing to market another $10K DAC of he came up with new truly old-Lavry worthy converter? I do not know. I did not listen and I do not see me trying it in near future. I play with Lavry only 2X files (for 1x and 4X I used different DACs)and at this point I do not feel a need to update.

Rgs, Romy

Posted by Dmitry_youguanxi on 07-10-2014

Romy the Cat wrote:
[Lavry] now is 25 years older and shall be 25 years more cynical <...> When he made his Gold 924 he trumpeted his define al, over the world and there was a reason for it - it WAS great design. Now with new DAC one would expected to do the same... <...>. However, Lavry is silent. Strange and it might be not a good sign.

Roman,
I share your suspisions, & can only add, that when I asked Marc Lavry about the new product (last October), this what he would personally reply: "the designer has stated that this unit will be more accurate than the DA924. However, we aren't ready to publish the performance specifications just yet, so I cannot tell you by how much this unit will exceed the DA924 in accuracy, noise, etc."
Does it means, that he, Mr. Marc Lavry, is not the designer of the top of the line Lavry DAC?
I have no idea.

Posted by steverino on 07-10-2014
fiogf49gjkf0d Perhaps people should look up the definition of Quintessence. That might answer their questions.

Posted by Purite Audio on 07-11-2014

steverino wrote:
Perhaps people should look up the definition of Quintessence. That might answer their questions.

I presume Marc is Dan Lavry's son?Keith.

Page 1 of 2 (33 items) 1 2 »