DAC timbre and tonality - It's not what it seems

[TP1]

How many of us have listened to a DAC and made a call on its sonic signature?   Probably everybody i would imagine but I now think its  extremely difficult to be definitive without a definitive reference point.   For example, I have both analog vinyl  and digital recordings of several albums and mostly the vinyl can sound better .  However, having since recorded the  same vinyl record at DSD 128 using a Korg MR-2000s , the DAC sounds every bit as good in terms of timbre and tonality, spaciality etc., as the vinyl.  Clearly then there is an issue with mastering  of each format as well as sonic differences between the  analog transducers  used ( tape heads  to ADC for CD creation vs cartridge for Vinyl ).

 

Putting aside the  reasons  for a moment , It seems that  this  could be the closest we can get in a domestic setting to comparing the actual music source to the DAC output.   I would wager there will be a few surprises using this method to evaluate DACs.  I would think the more accurate DACs will fare better than those built to output a specific type of sound. 

 

This also raises other issues on Vinyl vs digital but there is always a discussion on that  topic going on somewhere else on the forum.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Tasso

[Happy]

Rip vinyl to pcm and compare?

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk 2

Edited June 26, 2015 by davidro

[TP1]

Rip vinyl to pcm and compare?

Sent from my X10a using Tapatalk 2

 

Yes, I think  ripping from vinyl,  be it DSD or PCM ,  and comparing each DAC  to the original should give an indication of relative  performance. 

[Sir Rab of Everest]

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds to me like the same old accuracy versus tonality/musicality/whatever debate.

Yes, if you love the sound of the raw source material then you'll want the dac to do as little as possible.

[Jventer]

How many of us have listened to a DAC and made a call on its sonic signature?   Probably everybody i would imagine but I now think its  extremely difficult to be definitive without a definitive reference point.   For example, I have both analog vinyl  and digital recordings of several albums and mostly the vinyl can sound better .  However, having since recorded the  same vinyl record at DSD 128 using a Korg MR-2000s , the DAC sounds every bit as good in terms of timbre and tonality, spaciality etc., as the vinyl.  Clearly then there is an issue with mastering  of each format as well as sonic differences between the  analog transducers  used ( tape heads  to ADC for CD creation vs cartridge for Vinyl ).

 

I think you are raising an interesting question here:" Clearly then there is an issue with mastering  of each format as well as sonic differences between the  analog transducers  used ( tape heads  to ADC for CD creation vs cartridge for Vinyl )."

[JDWest]

Tasso, just checking; does this mean you've compared the same songs as SACD-to-DSD vs. vinyl-to-DSD and prefer the latter?

[Equaliser]

Vinyl = rolled off musicality, digital = crisp and bright sounding/more perceived detail

[TP1]

Tasso, just checking; does this mean you've compared the same songs as SACD-to-DSD vs. vinyl-to-DSD and prefer the latter?

In some cases yes, particularly where the original recording is analog. It's the analog to digital transfer as well as the mastering process that affects the sound.

Having the analog source ( vinyl record) as a reference point, you can also hear the differences in resolution. At the extremes, it is easy to determine differences between say 5.6 ghz DSD vs 16/44. It saves all the arguments of theory being able to demonstrate first hand.

[TP1]

Vinyl = rolled off musicality, digital = crisp and bright sounding/more perceived detail

I tried not to have a vinyl vs digital debate but there are some high end vinyl setups which are anything but rolled off. In those setups, digital can sound rolled off. There are too many variables to generalise IMO

[qwerter]

Vinyl = rolled off musicality, digital = crisp and bright sounding/more perceived detail

You obviously haven't heard good vinyl setup. There are great systems in both worlds   .

[Addicted to music]

You obviously haven't heard good vinyl setup. There are great systems in both worlds   .

I have.....still prefer digital because its base on two digits, enough to keep both ears happy.

[qwerter]

I have.....still prefer digital because its base on two digits, enough to keep both ears happy.

Fair enough!

[JDWest]

I think post #1 is very clear on the context of this thread...worth a read  .  For those who happen to like the vinyl sound, there may just be a way to recreate it (or a fair chunk of it) with the convenience of digital playback...providing you have an accurate DAC.

 

I, for one, am excited by this prospect. Thanks Tasso, I understand it may depend on the original recording.

[Jones99]

Vinyl = rolled off musicality, digital = crisp and bright sounding/more perceived detail

Your not hearing digital at its best wrong if it sounds bright....... the best vinyl rigs sound more similar to top notch digital in my experience.I really do not like the  term "musical" used to describe the different formats . What is "musical" can be very very different for each person.........................but back on topic does it get rid of the pops and crackles @@Tasso? :lol:  :lol: 

Perhaps a GTG with a few DACs that are perceived as musical could be pitted against the  perceived accurate DACs  with Vinyl DSD recordings? I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts......and would definitely try to make it with Kalliope . I think it would definitely surprise dare I say shock quite a few people. 

[Equaliser]

I tried not to have a vinyl vs digital debate but there are some high end vinyl setups which are anything but rolled off. In those setups, digital can sound rolled off. There are too many variables to generalise IMO

 

 

You obviously haven't heard good vinyl setup. There are great systems in both worlds   .

 

 

Your not hearing digital at its best wrong if it sounds bright....... the best vinyl rigs sound more similar to top notch digital in my experience.I really do not like the  term "musical" used to describe the different formats . What is "musical" can be very very different for each person.........................but back on topic does it get rid of the pops and crackles @@Tasso? :lol:  :lol:

Perhaps a GTG with a few DACs that are perceived as musical could be pitted against the  perceived accurate DACs  with Vinyl DSD recordings? I would be interested to hear peoples thoughts......and would definitely try to make it with Kalliope . I think it would definitely surprise dare I say shock quite a few people. 

 

I love how you guys have come to conclusions about how I haven't heard good systems on both format front ends. Shows you know nothing about what I've heard. If a 60k dCs stack or 40k MSB Diamond IV isn't good enough for digital then I don't know what is. Remember both these are considered the pinnacle end game for digital DAC setups. 

 

If the Sota Cosmos or Pioneer Exclusive P3 and various other high end vintage and modern turntable flagships of yesteryear isn't considered good then what I don't know what is. Certainly not a $200k Goldmund.

 

As I said again, vinyl/analogue = slight presence of rolled off highs, lush mid range and meatier low end. Digital = if we are talking about all the ESS Sabre based DAC's in existence with a discrete output stage = bright sounding. Philips family TDA1541 = as close to vinyl analogue as you're going to get.

 

Folks who hate the the bright glare that gives the listener fatigue in digital prefer vinyl/analogue. Folks who want more perceived detail (i.e bright treble and emphasised mids) prefer digital. General consensus you'll see on every audiophile forum board online.

Edited June 27, 2015 by DefQon

[TP1]

I love how you guys have come to conclusions about how I haven't heard good systems on both format front ends. Shows you know nothing about what I've heard. If a 60k dCs stack or 40k MSB Diamond IV isn't good enough for digital then I don't know what is. Remember both these are considered the pinnacle end game for digital DAC setups. 

 

If the Sota Cosmos or Pioneer Exclusive P3 and various other high end vintage and modern turntable flagships of yesteryear isn't considered good then what I don't know what is. Certainly not a $200k Goldmund.

 

As I said again, vinyl/analogue = slight presence of rolled off highs, lush mid range and meatier low end. Digital = if we are talking about all the ESS Sabre based DAC's in existence with a discrete output stage = bright sounding. Philips family TDA1541 = as close to vinyl analogue as you're going to get.

 

Folks who hate the the bright glare that gives the listener fatigue in digital prefer vinyl/analogue. Folks who want more perceived detail (i.e bright treble and emphasised mids) prefer digital. General consensus you'll see on every audiophile forum board online.

 

 

ESS based Sabre DACs do not need to be etched  in the their sound, There are good examples of  very accurate analog  sounding sabre DACs.  Turntables  have far less effect on tonality compared to the cartridge and phono stage choices.  Adjusting VTA and VTF can drastically change the tonal balance any way you want it to go.  I have a P3 and can have it as sweet sounding  and as  hard sounding as you can get it depending on cartridge choice, cartridge loading and VTA/VTF adjustments.  The sweet sounding rolled off vinyl you hear is because so many people like it that way, not because its the only way it can be played.

[Addicted to music]

 

As I said again, vinyl/analogue = slight presence of rolled off highs, lush mid range and meatier low end. Digital = if we are talking about all the ESS Sabre based DAC's in existence with a discrete output stage = bright sounding. Philips family TDA1541 = as close to vinyl analogue as you're going to get.

 

Folks who hate the the bright glare that gives the listener fatigue in digital prefer vinyl/analogue. Folks who want more perceived detail (i.e bright treble and emphasised mids) prefer digital. General consensus you'll see on every audiophile forum board online.

Nah,

I want the best of both worlds.......

[TP1]

Folks who hate the the bright glare that gives the listener fatigue in digital prefer vinyl/analogue. Folks who want more perceived detail (i.e bright treble and emphasised mids) prefer digital. General consensus you'll see on every audiophile forum board online.

Observations like yours about the differences between the formats inspired the title to this thread. The point being, show me a dry etched sounding DAC that accurately reproduces the recorded material and I will show you the same DAC sounding just as rolled off and sweet as the Vinyl rig it's being compared to.

Using any vinyl rig as a source an accurate, a highly resolving, low distortion DAC will display the same timbre and tonality as whatever vinyl rig is being recorded.

[Equaliser]

I always found any discussion surrounding timbre or tonality a form of subjective gibberish.

It wouldn`t be called a an accurate sounding reproducing dac accordinging to the recorded material if it adds any coloration to the sound be it dry etched or warm and rolled off. You can have somebody say a dac that is dry and etched sounding accurately reproduce music and another person say the opposite. Most folks I know online or in person prefer R2R dacs because they supposedly more musical sounding. I have yet to hear a properly designed ess sabre based dac that doesn`t have an artificial and emphasised sounding mid range treble , easiest way to test this is playing a classical piano piece or well recorded slow song with female vocals, both very hard to reproduce as natural and accurately sounding to the source possible.

Rather audiophile madeup jargon like timbre and PRaT I prefer to use sound signature and tonality.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[TP1]

I always found any discussion surrounding timbre or tonality a form of subjective gibberish.

It wouldn`t be called a an accurate sounding reproducing dac accordinging to the recorded material if it adds any coloration to the sound be it dry etched or warm and rolled off. You can have somebody say a dac that is dry and etched sounding accurately reproduce music and another person say the opposite. Most folks I know online or in person prefer R2R dacs because they supposedly more musical sounding. I have yet to hear a properly designed ess sabre based dac that doesn`t have an artificial and emphasised sounding mid range treble , easiest way to test this is playing a classical piano piece or well recorded slow song with female vocals, both very hard to reproduce as natural and accurately sounding to the source possible.

Rather audiophile madeup jargon like timbre and PRaT I prefer to use sound signature and tonality.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure if you actually read my first post in its entirety but I'm here to tell you that your assumptions ( which were also mine previously) are wrong, although I do think many sabre DACs are not properly designed.

Consider this. Vinyl rig playing classical piano piece and slow female vocals sounds liquid and inviting. The same pieces on "well recorded" CD's/ SACD's sound dry and hard by comparison. Record that actual vinyl rig in hi res digital and that same DAC ( providing it is accurate) will also sound warm and inviting. That is what I have done and have amassed many repeatable results. What I have done is not new.

Rigs used:

Vinyl- Pioneer Exclusive P3 turntable with Accuphase AC-5 cartridge and Audia Flight phono stage.

DAC- Accuphase DC-37

Digital Recorder : Korg MR-2000S recording at double DSD - 5.6MHZ, and played back at 5.6MHZ through the DC-37.

If you want to compare an RTR DAC to any other, you need a solid reference point which is the point of the thread. " x sounds better than y" is meaningless without knowing which is portraying the actual recording more accurately, and not just how we would like it to sound.

[Addicted to music]

@@Tasso,

How many ESS 9018 implementation have you heard?

To me whether it's WFS 2, EE mini max DAC plus, OPPO or the Auralic, Yamaha implementation , and regardless of implementation or how you would colour it to be audibly acceptable, it's still has this cold edgy stripped to the Bone as Jonny Darko would describe it. Yes it is a very detailed chip, but it's detail because of its audible traits.

[acg]

Consider this. Vinyl rig playing classical piano piece and slow female vocals sounds liquid and inviting. The same pieces on "well recorded" CD's/ SACD's sound dry and hard by comparison. Record that actual vinyl rig in hi res digital and that same DAC ( providing it is accurate) will also sound warm and inviting. That is what I have done and have amassed many repeatable results. What I have done is not new.

 

 

I used to play piano and can honestly say that I would not use the the term "liquid" or "inviting" to describe the sound of the piano (nor my playing - but that is another subject).  If a real life piano sounds "liquid" (or at least my definition of liquid) in my opinion there is something wrong.  Part of the beauty of the piano is its ability to cut to your core with one hand and stand you back up with the other.  Liquid is just not part of a piano's sound in my opinion.  

 

 

Regarding this topic, well I have listened to several vinyl-to-digital recordings and compared them to the digital master on my dac and have always preferred the digital master.  I am not saying that my experience here is extensive and neither have I listened to those original records in an analogue system but the differences between the vinyl-to-digital and digital master have always been the same:  more channel separation leading to much much better imaging and sound-staging and to my ears a better representation of mid to high frequencies, both in favour of the digital master.  There can also sometimes be tonal differences but I think that this is largely the result of the different MF/HF region.  As I said earlier, I have not heard the vinyl played on the turntable but rather the digital version compared to the vinyl-to-digital version.  Anecdotally, the guys that make these "rips" all say that the vinyl-to-digital in their system is almost indistinguishable from the vinyl as playback, which makes sense.

 

My dac is non-oversampling PCM only (based on eight PCM1704) with 16 times oversampling (up to 32/768) digital filters applied in software.  It is the most "not-there" dac I have ever heard by which I mean it seems to impart less of a sonic character that any other dac I have tried.  I have also used identically mastered PCM and DSD to compare this dac to some highly regarded DSD dacs and again it was the quality of the dac that won out, not the digital format.

 

So, there are two simple take-home messages here:

1. Mastering is king.  If you like the vinyl master then buy the vinyl and convert it to digital yourself.  If you do it well the digital will sound just like the vinyl.
2. Dac quality will trounce any digital storage format one thousand times over, so find one that you like and buy music to suit it.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

[statman]

@@Tasso,

How many ESS 9018 implementation have you heard?

To me whether it's WFS 2, EE mini max DAC plus, OPPO or the Auralic, Yamaha implementation , and regardless of implementation or how you would colour it to be audibly acceptable, it's still has this cold edgy stripped to the Bone as Jonny Darko would describe it. Yes it is a very detailed chip, but it's detail because of its audible traits.

Get a "vintage" paper in oil cap, a good one, not some piece of crap leftover from the rubbish. Connect it directly to the ESS9018 positive output and earth. Leave the negative phase unconnected (yeah, yeah I know that is not how to do it).

Let it play for 24 hours min. It will then sound more like a 1541 than what you describe, although not nearly as good as a properly maxed out 1541. Its not the chip, its always the implementation. But your half right, it shouldn't need this kind of manipulation. 

[Addicted to music]

I used to play piano and can honestly say that I would not use the the term "liquid" or "inviting" to describe the sound of the piano (nor my playing - but that is another subject). If a real life piano sounds "liquid" (or at least my definition of liquid) in my opinion there is something wrong. Part of the beauty of the piano is its ability to cut to your core with one hand and stand you back up with the other. Liquid is just not part of a piano's sound in my opinion.

Regarding this topic, well I have listened to several vinyl-to-digital recordings and compared them to the digital master on my dac and have always preferred the digital master. I am not saying that my experience here is extensive and neither have I listened to those original records in an analogue system but the differences between the vinyl-to-digital and digital master have always been the same: more channel separation leading to much much better imaging and sound-staging and to my ears a better representation of mid to high frequencies, both in favour of the digital master. There can also sometimes be tonal differences but I think that this is largely the result of the different MF/HF region. As I said earlier, I have not heard the vinyl played on the turntable but rather the digital version compared to the vinyl-to-digital version. Anecdotally, the guys that make these "rips" all say that the vinyl-to-digital in their system is almost indistinguishable from the vinyl as playback, which makes sense.

My dac is non-oversampling PCM only (based on eight PCM1704) with 16 times oversampling (up to 32/768) digital filters applied in software. It is the most "not-there" dac I have ever heard by which I mean it seems to impart less of a sonic character that any other dac I have tried. I have also used identically mastered PCM and DSD to compare this dac to some highly regarded DSD dacs and again it was the quality of the dac that won out, not the digital format.h

So, there are two simple take-home messages here:

• Mastering is king. If you like the vinyl master then buy the vinyl and convert it to digital yourself. If you do it well the digital will sound just like the vinyl.
• Dac quality will trounce any digital storage format one thousand times over, so find one that you like and buy music to suit it.

Cheers,

Anthony

Excellent post,

I use to belong in the analog/vinyl camp until I purchased a set of cans back in the 80s. 1st 5mins of listening told me something I refused to believe and then it took whole weekend, sleepless nights and time and time again I preferred the Other medium. Then you listen to both medium through the rig and you realised just how blind all the verbal documented hype has blinded you and prevented you from what you are hearing. It's that moment that is buried in history that this is the next medium I preferred and never looked back. I have no idea why anyone would use a digitally recorded vinyl as reference to gauge a digital system infact that at both Melb Hifi show when the rep demonstrate and puts a file that's recorded of vinyl, I walked out the door, it's that noticeable.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Addicted to music

[davewantsmoore]

I think post #1 is very clear on the context of this thread...worth a read  .  For those who happen to like the vinyl sound, there may just be a way to recreate it (or a fair chunk of it) with the convenience of digital playback...providing you have an accurate DAC.

 

I, for one, am excited by this prospect. Thanks Tasso, I understand it may depend on the original recording.

 

 

Indeed.   If you record the output of a turntable.... and play that recording back on a reasonably well functioning digital playback system.

 

.... it sounds just like the turntable.

 

 

but back on topic does it get rid of the pops and crackles @@Tasso? :lol:  :lol:

 

There are systems available which will automagically edit out the pops and clicks for you.   Yes..... but depending on the quality of the turntable you capture, you might not need to.

 

 

I always found any discussion surrounding timbre or tonality a form of subjective gibberish.

 

You can have somebody say a dac that is dry and etched sounding accurately reproduce music and another person say the opposite.

 

Indeed.   It's like everyone standing at the opera house, and making their best estimate (by eye) how long the bridge is....  and then we'll all discuss, and decide who's estimates to use.

 

People were using rulers with 0.1mm accuracy in about 2500BC.

 

 

 

 

I used to play piano and can honestly say that I would not use the the term "liquid" or "inviting" to describe the sound of the piano

 

     This is an extremely important point in the realm of subjective evaluation.    Many recordings don't actually sound good....  and assessing them in the way you want them to sound, is a mistake for evaluating the playback fidelity of your system.

 

 

This even holds for when you are the person who made the recording, and heard the original event.     If I were to sit down and audition a recording I made, against what I remember the original event to sound like ..... this is NOT a good way to evaluate playback equipment. ....   because the two bigger (flawed) variables in play are the recording process  (only a "perfect" recording process would make the recording sound exactly like the original event) .... and my own memory of what the original recording sounded like.

 

 

FWIW - I have some notable test tracks which sound "bad".    As a bit of fun, I do a test where I play them - and if the system doesn't reproduce them in a way which makes you want to scratch your ears off ..... then the system is pulling punch(es) somewhere.

 

 

 

Liquid is just not part of a piano's sound in my opinion. 

 

I would mostly agree with this  (but haven't played much as an adult)   Piano is also extremely difficult to record.

 

It has extremely complex harmonics ....   and needs a playback system with very low intermodulation distortion.

 

 

 

Dac quality will trounce any digital storage format one thousand times over, so find one that you like and buy music to suit it.

 

The biggest caveat to evaluating DSD vs PCM is to ensure they are level matched   (you could often expect them not to be without intervention)