CD reveals "limitations of source tape"?

[techspurt]

The paper you quoted was discredited and proved incorrect at a later convention - see below.

I had a quick read of the paper you cited. It cites the paper I linked as reference [2] but II can see nowhere where it proves anything Lipshitz said incorrect. Can you quote chapter and verse for me please?

Since then, players like DCs, Wadia, Accuphase, MBL etc etc have proven the format to be at the pinnacle.

Reference please that demonstrate these players avoid the pitfalls outlined in the Lipshitz paper?

[techspurt]

That's not what I would consider superior.

Would that lack of superiority be based on listening or something else?

Besides, why bother with low bit rate?

How about - because the vast majority of recorded digital material is low bit rate?

[TP1]

Would that lack of superiority be based on listening or something else?

It is based on listening, not theory or even hope Techspurt.

I mentioned in an earlier post you will not find cutting edge commercial proprietary information on producing the best sound from CD/SACD on the internet as this is developed and protected by the companies that make the high end gear. In any event, the best informed view can only be formed by listening.

Edited September 15, 2012 by Tasso

[techspurt]

As I mentioned in an earlier post you will not find cutting edge commercial proprietary information on producing the best sound from CD/SACD on the internet as this is developed and protected by the companies that make the high end gear.

But its quite easy to find the technical flaws inherent in DSD processing as the linked paper demonstrates.

So no evidence or reasoning to back up your claim that Lipshitz's paper has been invalidated?

In any event, the best informed view can only be formed by listening.

I agree there - which TDA1541A implementation did the prominent forum member discard?

[TP1]

I had a quick read of the paper you cited. It cites the paper I linked as reference [2] but II can see nowhere where it proves anything Lipshitz said incorrect. Can you quote chapter and verse for me please?

Reference please that demonstrate these players avoid the pitfalls outlined in the Lipshitz paper?

I do not recognise Lipshitz paper as being proved and as I mentioned before, it was rebutted at a subsequent convention. In any event, there does not need to be a technical discussion on the subject as the consequences predicted were never realised in practice. This is based on listening tests - the only ones that count .

[TP1]

But its quite easy to find the technical flaws inherent in DSD processing as the linked paper demonstrates.

So no evidence or reasoning to back up your claim that Lipshitz's paper has been invalidated?

I agree there - which TDA1541A implementation did the prominent forum member discard?

I am not interested in selective quoting of technical information on the internet. If you are truly interested in this information, I suggest that you email the authors of the link I posted previously.

I will add that history is full of engineers bagging what their competitors produce. If the Wright brothers had listened to engineers that proved people would not fly, they never would have done so. Thomas Edison publicly ridiculed Tesla in technical papers stating that AC was inferior to DC for providing electricity to the masses - the rest is history. As it is with whosiwhatsit's paper.

Now in the interests of a discussion that is actually meaningful to most readers, please detail your listening comparisons between high end SACD players and TDA1541A based players.

[TP1]

I agree there - which TDA1541A implementation did the prominent forum member discard?

I am hesitant to name it because it may identify the member who is not a party to this thread. Now I must make something absolutely clear. I really don't care what chip is used in my SACD player as long as it sounds the best from my available choices. I have no loyalty to a chip or for that matter a brand. If there is a player or DAC combo that sounds better than what I currently use, and I can afford it , I'd cheerfully buy it and thank the person who provided the demo. This is why I'm always happy to attend/host GTG so we can really learn from each others experiences.

[ArthurDent]

Yes but the problem here is that the TDA1541religious zealots aren't so you're flogging the proverbial dead horse.

And isn't it interesting that they seem to base their opinions of said obsolete DAC's on "listening' but when it comes to high res it all comes down to "technical papers".

And in regard to the topic, they were talking about tape hiss.

[techspurt]

I do not recognise Lipshitz paper as being proved and as I mentioned before, it was rebutted at a subsequent convention.

You mentioned it, sure but I couldn't see any grounds for your claim. So I asked you for support for this but so far you've provided none. So what you claim remains just an unsubstantiated claim.

In any event, there does not need to be a technical discussion on the subject as the consequences predicted were never realised in practice.

I hear those consequences - or what seem most likely to be them. Loss of dynamics with DSD recordings on CD played over my multibit DAC. I'm not alone in this, but if you don't hear this effect good luck with your journey.

[techspurt]

And isn't it interesting that they seem to base their opinions of said obsolete DAC's on "listening' but when it comes to high res it all comes down to "technical papers".

The technical paper I cited was only about DSD, not hires.

[TP1]

You mentioned it, sure but I couldn't see any grounds for your claim. So I asked you for support for this but so far you've provided none. So what you claim remains just an unsubstantiated claim.

I hear those consequences - or what seem most likely to be them. Loss of dynamics with DSD recordings on CD played over my multibit DAC. I'm not alone in this, but if you don't hear this effect good luck with your journey.

Its not I that has to prove anything Techspurt. The proof is in the SACD players the world over which you have not listened to. If you are hearing a loss of dynamics over your 16 bit DAC, then it is hardly the fault of the DSD master. Let me explain. I too have heard losses in dynamics on 24 bit PCM taken from DSD masters. But the DSD ( SACD) played through the Accuphase SACD player is significantly superior. What this says to me is that the conversion process from DSD to PCM is not always perfect. Indeed when I tried it using available programs it was terrible. To hear the full potential of an un-compromised DSD master, you must listen to the SACD it was transcoded to through a decent SACD player. There is no way around it no matter how good a multibit converter is for Redbook 16 bit PCM.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Tasso

[TP1]

For people interested in the type of DACs used in different CD players, the attached link is reasonably comprehensive.

http://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/the_complete_d_a_dac_converter_list/

[techspurt]

Its not I that has to prove anything Techspurt.

I haven't suggested you do have to do anything. But 'that which may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence'. I'm more than content just to ignore what you have claimed.

The proof is in the SACD players the world over which you have not listened to. If you are hearing a loss of dynamics over your 16 bit DAC, then it is hardly the fault of the DSD master. Let me explain. I too have heard losses in dynamics on 24 bit PCM taken from DSD masters. But the DSD ( SACD) played through the Accuphase SACD player is significantly superior. What this says to me is that the conversion process from DSD to PCM is not always perfect.

I wouldn't expect it to be perfect - no format conversion process ever is. Charles Hansen of Ayre says he (his company I guess) tried to devise ways to convert DSD to PCM and always were to some degree disappointed with the result. I see no reason to doubt what he says about that. But then he says that DSD sounds 'soft' and I don't doubt him on that either as I hear the same.

I'm not denying your experience here - I accept fully that DSD sounds good to you when played back through your Accuphase. I'm simply not interested in DSD enough as a format, given its technical imperfections and that almost all my material (>1000 CDs) is in redbook.

[LuzArt]

Whatever take your computer transport to steven valves and run it against his wadia cd transport if its as good i am sure he will sell me his wadia

I've heard Steve's system, extremely good. It comes alive with certain genre's and recordings made with very good methods of mic'ing, mixing and mastering. I've also bought some terrific preamp tubes from him and plan to buy more, he knows his tubes that's for sure. Some redbook's I took along though didn't shine as well as some other, older recordings which had used all analog stages such as tape, tubes and analog compression and a sensibility from a different era. Steve also remasters many of the CD's he enjoys with methods unknown to others. That all said, and acknowledging Steve likes his DAC's with a max. of 16 bits, I'm not altogther convinced that the material he plays would sound much worse or much less enjoyable through my source and transport. The full range speakers he uses and the all vintage tube amplification play a big part. There may well be a difference between transports but I believe the hair you're splitting is becoming so fine that I would have more productive use of my time by matching my socks in chronological order every other Tuesday evening. At the end of the day, a bit like vinyl (yes much vinyl is available now but still not everything, and new pressings are very often dervied from digital sources) there will be less and less music available at 16 bit and 44k as times travels on. Downsampling just doesn't make any worthwhile point to me...

Edited September 14, 2012 by LuzArt

[TP1]

I'm more than content just to ignore what you have claimed.

Ditto But I remain mystified how you can form a view on the sound quality of DSD as a format without ever listening to it properly, and by selectively accepting negative opinions of others as being infallible while ignoring the vast majority of people who have experienced such systems.

I'm not denying your experience here - I accept fully that DSD sounds good to you when played back through your Accuphase. I'm simply not interested in DSD enough as a format, given its technical imperfections and that almost all my material (>1000 CDs) is in redbook.

Well its your loss.

[techspurt]

Ditto

Well you'd be totally reasonable to ignore what I've claimed, as I am in ignoring what you've claimed. However Lipshitz's paper is not claims, its reasoned out math. You dismiss the work of a reasonably well respected mathematician in the audio field with just the wave of a hand in the direction of a later paper which doesn't address Lipshitz's alleged math errors at all. That's unreasonable.

But I remain mystified how you can form a view on the sound quality of DSD as a format without ever listening to it properly, and by selectively accepting negative opinions of others as being infallible while ignoring the vast majority of people who have experienced such systems.

Rather a lot of non-sequitors there. I've formed a view on hearing it myself (not very recently though) and from not finding any errors in Lipshitz's paper (which I've studied). Nor am I accepting of opinions (which is why I dismiss your rejection of Lipshitz's paper), rather listening impressions which to me are data points, not opinion. As a designer I prefer to design with formats which haven't been shown to be flawed - i.e. PCM - and not waste my time trying to turn a pigs ear into a silk purse. Implementation of PCM is already a big enough challenge without the knowledge that there are insurmountable flaws in its theory distracting me.

Well its your loss.

From your pov, yes it is. I'm happy with your perception that its my loss

[THOMO]

Fortunately we have a member here who has both the Accuphase and a highly modified Marantz CD transport and what is essentially a TDA 1541 Killer Dac.

I have heard both and thought that on CD they both sounded good and also pretty similar.The humble Sony 715 was also included in the mix and on some recordings this sounded better.It is a very special player when it comes to "air and ambience"in recordings and on some recordings this could be heard.Not as refined and smooth as the Accuphase or as expressive in the midrange as the KillerDac but just as good in its own way.But really in absolute terms there was not much difference.Certainly less difference than you would get between interconnect cables.

When it comes to 16 bit it seems to me that once you reach a certain standard everything sounds pretty much the same in terms of absolute quality.You might get very small tonal differences that you might think is better but it probably just suits your speakers or room better.

SACD on the Accuphase was clearly better than any CD played.Also clearly better than a Yamaha CD-S2000 SACD that was also on hand.

I also believe that the Accuphase players use multiple chips.8 from memory.Probably where Audio Gd got the idea.

So yes Tasso is right when he says that Accuphase [and perhaps a few others] have really nailed SACD playback.

I guess like many others I have heard some pretty ordinary SACD playback but when done properly it really is rather good.

Edited September 14, 2012 by THOMO

[techspurt]

Anyone know of a link to the technical details of the Killer DAC?- I'd like to determine the quality of its implementation

[THOMO]

Anyone know of a link to the technical details of the Killer DAC?- I'd like to determine the quality of its implementation

Just Google-Fairies inside my DAC.

[techspurt]

I also believe that the Accuphase players use multiple chips.8 from memory.Probably where Audio Gd got the idea.

There's a fan of the 8 * AD1955 Accuphase over on Head-Fi - I asked him for the technical justification of using multiple S-D type DACs over a week ago. So far, only tumbleweeds...

As far as I'm aware, Audio-gd's Kingwa isn't a marketing oriented type and doesn't use multiple S-D type DACs,(beyond differential). Only multiple multibit where there's a good technical justification. But if I'm wrong and Kingwa's seen the light more recently do please set me right.

[techspurt]

Just Google-Fairies inside my DAC.

Didn't work - 2nd link I got though was to Lampizator What relevant link did you get from that search?

[THOMO]

Didn't work - 2nd link I got though was to Lampizator What relevant link did you get from that search?

Sarcasm sorry.Magical little beings inside a box and all.

There is a KillerDAC forum.

Edited September 14, 2012 by THOMO

[aechmea]

Well, they probably mean you can hear the tape hiss etc........

... and for people like me that are allergic to noises and distortion that weren't part of the original (tape hiss, wow, flutter, clicks, pops, rumble, wear, mis-tracking, feedback etc.), CDs, with a theoretical SNR of 96dB or thereabouts (depending on recording level), would be considered to be revealing of faults as the old CD jacket says.

[Monkeyboi]

Anyone know of a link to the technical details of the Killer DAC?- I'd like to determine the quality of its implementation

The problem with that request is that no two KillerDACs are alike. IIRC, the KillerDAC is an ongoing project. For an example of differences to be heard from one KillerDAC to another just compare the one hens has to kajak12's. Designed around the same DAC chip, but the implimentation is different using different parts, hence the sound is different.

I think it's more of the KillerDAC that killed the KillerDAC (if you get my drift).

Cheers,

Alan R.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Monkeyboi

[Once was an audiophile]

I've heard Steve's system, extremely good. It comes alive with certain genre's and recordings made with very good methods of mic'ing, mixing and mastering. I've also bought some terrific preamp tubes from him and plan to buy more, he knows his tubes that's for sure. Some redbook's I took along though didn't shine as well as some other, older recordings which had used all analog stages such as tape, tubes and analog compression and a sensibility from a different era. Steve also remasters many of the CD's he enjoys with methods unknown to others. That all said, and acknowledging Steve likes his DAC's with a max. of 16 bits, I'm not altogther convinced that the material he plays would sound much worse or much less enjoyable through my source and transport. The full range speakers he uses and the all vintage tube amplification play a big part. There may well be a difference between transports but I believe the hair you're splitting is becoming so fine that I would have more productive use of my time by matching my socks in chronological order every other Tuesday evening. At the end of the day, a bit like vinyl (yes much vinyl is available now but still not everything, and new pressings are very often dervied from digital sources) there will be less and less music available at 16 bit and 44k as times travels on. Downsampling just doesn't make any worthwhile point to me...

Try your source then, i have run a ap2 on my system against my cd94 and steve tried a offramp from bill,spoke to steve about off ramp he still uses the wadia and has no intention buying a offramp due to lack off timbre heart and soul of music.