Advice please!

[Theamoebason]

Hi all.

I dont post often but have a question.

For the past few years I have simply been using a majority fitzwilliam 3 budget streamer through a schitt modi 3 to my yamaha HS8s. I appreciate the source is low end, but through the modi things are quite good. I have A/B tested the rca outputs verses through the modi and its a big improvement.

The HS8s are really due to my job in 3D and AV production. They seem to be a bit of a modern standard like the old NS-10s were. Im quite happy with them although for listening pleasure only I'd ideally have something else.

Recenltly I purchased an old Arcam CD82. I think I simply like selecting a disc and listening. The 'tyranny of choice' when streaming gets in the way.

The thing is the Arcam sounds fantastic. I have A/Bd the analogue outs and through the Modi and the Arcam is wider and clearer...I really like it.

So my question is this: does the Arcam simply have a more accurate DAC or does it colour the output in some way? If I want to replicate this from my other source is there an equivalent DAC? I have read some excellent reviews on this site of DACs that I would assume blow the Arcam away on paper...but is this what I'm liking?

I hope that makes sense!

Thanks

 

[Joe Smith]

Looking it up, design uses Wolfson DACs, separate DAC for each channel. Burr-Brown op-amps. "Class 1 crystal oscillator." I will be interested to see what others say. Wolfson DAC chips were frequently used in the past (90s), not sure if they are still being used? (Perhaps in higher-end stuff, that I don't tend to know about.) But certainly less common today than ESS and AKM.

My feeling is, it's kind of tough to get the exact thing you're hearing with the Arcam player and to chase that down with a current DAC. Not impossible, but kind of "needle in a haystack" problem.

Maybe others can relate whether the dual Wolfson chips point to a current DAC offering...?

@NTTY - perhaps you can weigh in on this? You are the expert I know on all things related to CD devices...

 

[Theamoebason]

Many thanks Joe for your fast reply...

 

[antcollinet]

but is this what I'm liking?

the problem is that without controlled level matched blind comparisons neither we - nor you - know if "what you are liking" exists in the sound waves reaching your ears at all. And I am guessing that these are not the sort of comparisons you are doing. An alternative would be good repeatable measurements.

It is sort of pointless speculating what it might be if you are basing your "impressions" on sighted uncontrolled listening - when by far the most likely thing you are hearing is the result of perceptive bias.

 

[Chrispy]

Informal sighted comparisons don't mean a lot as said, let alone whether or not you're listening to the actual same recording in both....

 

[Theamoebason]

I have the Arcam RCA analog outs and the SPDIF coax out through the modi both going into a Tisbury audio mini passive preamp. I can A/B the signals here. I have tried this many times. To my ears they are level matched and I totally forget which one is which. I aways choose the Arcam...it's night and day.

Ok it's not a double blind scientific experiment but im confident in my preference and it would be hard for me to believe anyone with reasonable ears wouldn't hear a difference either...which one they preferred is another matter. (I'd be happy to record the output if anyone was interested..)

The issue im interested in is not that, it's to why I prefer the old players sound. I would imagine it would measure much worse? I thought that perhaps someone on here would know if these old players used to color the sound in such a way that was inaccurate but pleasing to some?

When mixing (at work) I may add saturation for instance to the stereo mix. Absolutely this adds distortion, but it can liven things up just a bit and 'improve' the mix.

I mainly listen to classical recordings that I presume have had minimal post processing. In fact some I have are so 'pure' that they arnt even normalised and peak at a quite alot lower than 0dB.

Of course it could simply be that the old DAC/output stage is much more accurate than a modern relatively cheap Modi 3.

Anyway thanks for your time.

 

[kemmler3D]

To my ears they are level matched and I totally forget which one is which. I aways choose the Arcam...it's night and day.

This probably means they aren't level-matched. Or at least, this is the most likely explanation without eliminating that and other variables.

Level-matching to less than 1dB by ear (even with professional-level listening skills) is extremely difficult, even with test tones. However, due to the loudness effect (a simple trait of human hearing that effectively boosts perceived bass and treble as something gets louder) a difference of a fraction of a dB can sound distinctly 'better' even though it's just a bit louder.

As such, testing digital gear by ear like this, even with fast switching, is not going to yield a reliable result unless you match the output to ~+/-0.1dB using a multimeter.

The issue im interested in is not that, it's to why I prefer the old players sound. I would imagine it would measure much worse? I thought that perhaps someone on here would know if these old players used to color the sound in such a way that was inaccurate but pleasing to some?

It probably measures "much worse", but modern DACs can do 100dB+ SINAD. Old (nice) gear like this player might do 85-95dB SINAD on a good day. Technically that's a big difference, but even 80dB SINAD is transparent in most cases. So the measurements are probably worse but the sound in practice is probably no worse than the new gear. As you're noticing, digital gear was already better than most people think 20, even 30 years ago.

I'd say it's possible that the old gear is adding enough harmonic distortion to sound better, maybe especially if it hasn't been serviced in some time, but a small level difference is IMO the most likely culprit here.

I'd be happy to record the output if anyone was interested..)

Would definitely help determine why you're hearing what you're hearing.

If you haven't checked it out, the free software Deltawave lets you do an advanced type of "null testing" which is where you subtract one signal from another and find everything that's different. If there's something going on beyond level differences, you can find it that way.

I am not suggesting you're not hearing a difference, but neither unit is likely to have enough noise, distortion, or frequency response deviation to produce a subjectively better/worse sound. Competent DACs by definition don't have a "sound"... unmatched levels are by contrast almost guaranteed to produce a subjectively better/worse sound...

 

[Theamoebason]

Thanks for your reply.

Im skeptical it's just a level matching issue but of course you could be right.

If I record and upload the output is there a specific track/tone etc. that people use for this purpose?

Ill check out that software thanks.

 

[voodooless]

Im skeptical it's just a level matching issue but of course you could be right.

Decades of research says he is right. People claim differences when there is 0dB difference over the whole spectrum, but are suddenly skeptical that the cannot distinguish between two volume differences. I’m always baffled by this!

And the reason why is obvious: we don’t perceive the sound spectrum the same at every volume. So the sound volume differences makes us hear differences in apparent frequency response, the primary thing our ears are good at in distinguishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contoury

 

[Theamoebason]

well, like I said yes it could be that of course. But if it is, doesn't that assume that the two DACs separated by more than 20 years sound exactly the same?

I think ill record the outputs like I said - and to check if its the levels Ill keep both recordings 100% untouched. Is there a default track people use for this purpose?

Certainly not trying to prove a point here - just interested to understand my own preference...ifs it's simply levels that would be fascinating in itself! Many thanks for all the input...

 

[RexrothPigeon]

doesn't that assume that the two DACs separated by more than 20 years sound exactly the same?

we know that all competent DACs sound the same, and we also know that even incompetent DACs are very very very hard to distinguish from competent ones even in direct blind ABX testing. So while it might not be great to fully assume an explanation, we can certainly Occam's Razor one.

 

[Theamoebason]

yes - good point - OK ill record and upload..

 

[Theamoebason]

OK. Ideally I would have plugged in my multitrack interface and recorded these at the same time. I didn't do this however so recorded one after the other. Exactly the same settings for each. The only post processing was to sort of line them up...so:

recorded using a Yamaha URX22C directly into Steinberg Cubase.
24-bit/96kHz
a section or the Brahms Violin Concerto 1st movement. (Jansen/Pappano 2015)

My thoughts currently:

You are right that there is a matching issue!
however - even with correction (or over correction) the Arcam is still superior to my ears. It seem like there is a brighter top end and 'space'

Perhaps it's all in my head! - anyway if you're interested here is the link (will I get in trouble for this??)

Sam Banbury sent you 2 items

Audio_testing

www.dropbox.com

 

[dualazmak]

Jus for my curiosity, I quickly analyzed them using MusicScope 2.1.0;

 

[antcollinet]

Perhaps it's all in my head!

Well now you have the two files, you can load them into Deltawave, have delta wave perform the level and phase matching, then use the ABX testing within deltawave to see if you can really tell them apart.

 

[Theamoebason]

Many thanks dualazmak! - most interesting. OK that seems like a plan - I may try that after work this evening...

 

[Joe Smith]

AI says this as a summary* - at least a bit of support for what you say you are hearing:

*Querry was: do wolfson dacs have a different sound that other dacs Search tool: Google (browser)

Yes, Wolfson Digital-to-Analog Converter (DAC) chips were often described as "coloring" the audio signal, typically by introducing a warmer, more "musical," or mid-range-focused sound signature
. While technically modern, high-fidelity DACs aim for absolute transparency, Wolfson chips (particularly popular in older iPods and Audiophile gear) were often favored for having a less clinical or "edgy" sound compared to competitors like ESS Sabre.

Key Aspects of Wolfson "Coloration":

• Warmth and Musicality: They are frequently associated with a warmer, slightly more analog-sounding presentation.
• Midrange Focus: Some users report that Wolfson chips emphasize the midrange, leading to a richer vocal or instrumental presence.
• "Musical" rather than "Analytical": Unlike ESS DACs, which are often characterized as brighter and more detailed, Wolfson chips are often described as prioritizing a pleasant, musical listening experience.

Contextual Nuances:

• Implementation Matters More: The "coloration" is often not solely from the chip itself, but from the surrounding components, specifically the output stage, capacitors, and power supply design.
• Legacy Status: Wolfson was acquired by Cirrus Logic in 2014, and while the chips are considered "legendary" by some, modern DACs have largely surpassed them in measurable performance.

 

[voodooless]

Okay, so compared the first 60 seconds of the recording.

Indeed, they are not level-matched. They are about 1dB off, which is way too much for a listening test. Otherwise, the two are pretty much the same. The worst differences are 80 db down. Most of the differences are above 20 kHz, likely due to differences in filtering:

AI says this as a summary - at least a bit of support for what you say you are hearing:

Yes, Wolfson Digital-to-Analog Converter (DAC) chips were often described as "coloring" the audio signal, typically by introducing a warmer, more "musical," or mid-range-focused sound signature
. While technically modern, high-fidelity DACs aim for absolute transparency, Wolfson chips (particularly popular in older iPods and Audiophile gear) were often favored for having a less clinical or "edgy" sound compared to competitors like ESS Sabre.

Key Aspects of Wolfson "Coloration":

• Warmth and Musicality: They are frequently associated with a warmer, slightly more analog-sounding presentation.
• Midrange Focus: Some users report that Wolfson chips emphasize the midrange, leading to a richer vocal or instrumental presence.
• "Musical" rather than "Analytical": Unlike ESS DACs, which are often characterized as brighter and more detailed, Wolfson chips are often described as prioritizing a pleasant, musical listening experience.

Contextual Nuances:

• Implementation Matters More: The "coloration" is often not solely from the chip itself, but from the surrounding components, specifically the output stage, capacitors, and power supply design.
• Legacy Status: Wolfson was acquired by Cirrus Logic in 2014, and while the chips are considered "legendary" by some, modern DACs have largely surpassed them in measurable performance.

This is the regular AI nonsense based on all the non-technical subjective crap that has been posted for decades.

 

[Theamoebason]

Thanks all for your input - very interesting!

 

[Joe Smith]

Okay, so compared the first 60 seconds of the recording.

Indeed, they are not level-matched. They are about 1dB off, which is way too much for a listening test. Otherwise, the two are pretty much the same. The worst differences are 80 db down. Most of the differences are above 20 kHz, likely due to differences in filtering:

View attachment 507442

View attachment 507443


This is the regular AI nonsense based on all the non-technical subjective crap that has been posted for decades.

Well, but, I would posit that AI summary comes from various online threads and comments over time - while it may not be "verifiable by measurement," it points to the thought that other listeners with Wolfson dac items believed that they hear a difference and commented somewhere about it - which means at least that our poster is not alone in his belief...