New "Science": FLAC vs. WAV

[fas42]

Tim, I think even you are influenced by audiophile mythology. I am confident that a DAC indistinguishable from audiophile products can be built for a few dollars, not grand. The key to this is of course that because it is all on one chip, with inherently matched sub-elements all close together and at a common temperature, an integrated circuit can achieve performance levels way in excess of any 'discrete' contraption and can be mass produced for a few cents.

Audiophile DACs take the approach of either gilding a DAC chip bought for $1 - $20 with a uselessly excessive power supply and exotic box, or they create a monster comprising several DAC chips linked together or a 'discrete' circuit, both of which suffer from nonlinearity that gets worse as the temperature varies, telling us that "at this level of sonic performance, measurements do not tell the whole story" or some such.

Yes, he is very much so. Tim wants it both ways - he ridicules me when I say I get competent sound from very cheap hardware - your $1 DAC - and then says people shouldn't pay silly money for boxes that have "audiophile" bling encrusting them - now, there's a confused lad ...

Good SQ can be achieved by "babying" equipment, especially cheap stuff - this is what I do - but it won't be robust - put it in an environment which is not electrically friendly, and the performance will degrade - badly. One solution is the "excessive power supply and exotic box" - CH Precision do this, and charge a pretty penny for the beast - I've heard what it delivers, and I'm impressed; it didn't display the usual, consumer grade failings.

Very few people are able to, or willing to, engineer a complete system that shows overall competence - the Kii Threes are very close to achieving this, so the day of getting an off the shelf solution that always 'works' is getting nearer ...

 

[Cosmik]

Good SQ can be achieved by "babying" equipment, especially cheap stuff - this is what I do - but it won't be robust - put it in an environment which is not electrically friendly, and the performance will degrade - badly. One solution is the "excessive power supply and exotic box" - CH Precision do this, and charge a pretty penny for the beast - I've heard what it delivers, and I'm impressed; it didn't display the usual, consumer grade failings.

Very few people are able to, or willing to, engineer a complete system that shows overall competence - the Kii Threes are very close to achieving this, so the day of getting an off the shelf solution that always 'works' is getting nearer ...

Well, I regard audio equipment as having a well-defined job to do. It is easy to see how a DAC or amplifier can be made cheaply and still do that job, using integrated circuits - which are just the 'hard copy' output of a CAD design. Speakers have got actual mechanical parts, so they're not quite so 'virtual', but even then, using DSP they become a hybrid between hardware and software, so they, too, benefit in terms of price and performance from the throwaway prices of integrated circuits.

But I'm still not sure about this idea of buying supermarket-grade hardware and tweaking it. I think that passive speakers are beyond the pale, as are speakers that employ drivers outside their ideal frequency ranges (often the same speakers). No amount of massaging with extra bits of wire and patches of absorbent foam (or whatever it is you do) is going to get them close to doing the job properly. Ditto for anything else that isn't working properly for fundamental reasons.

 

[TBone]

this threads totally of the rails, remember flac vs wav, or it that now beyond the pale ...

 

[ceedee]

this threads totally of the rails, remember flac vs wav, or it that now beyond the pale ...

Ah there wasn't really much to talk about with that anyway …



I vote for more pics of Fremer's listening space!

 

[TBone]

I vote for more pics of Fremer's listening space!

consider starting a new thread; i'm certain it will get populated quickly ...

 

[TBone]

"beyond the pale" ...

 

[Thomas savage]

Pale vs bucket...

 

[TBone]

Pale vs bucket...

I've used "chasing ghost" past; perhaps "beyond the pale" sounds better.

 

[Sal1950]

this threads totally of the rails, remember flac vs wav, or it that now beyond the pale ...

How bout Casey Jones.

 

[TBone]

the dead; man, they invented heavy metal ...
http://94rock.iheart.com/media/play/23224314/

 

[Sal1950]

the dead; man, they invented heavy metal ...
http://94rock.iheart.com/media/play/23224314/

Dave, Dave's not here man. LOL

 

[fas42]

Well, I regard audio equipment as having a well-defined job to do. It is easy to see how a DAC or amplifier can be made cheaply and still do that job, using integrated circuits - which are just the 'hard copy' output of a CAD design. Speakers have got actual mechanical parts, so they're not quite so 'virtual', but even then, using DSP they become a hybrid between hardware and software, so they, too, benefit in terms of price and performance from the throwaway prices of integrated circuits.

But I'm still not sure about this idea of buying supermarket-grade hardware and tweaking it. I think that passive speakers are beyond the pale, as are speakers that employ drivers outside their ideal frequency ranges (often the same speakers). No amount of massaging with extra bits of wire and patches of absorbent foam (or whatever it is you do) is going to get them close to doing the job properly. Ditto for anything else that isn't working properly for fundamental reasons.

Back on the off rails bit ... tweaking cheap gear is just demonstrating, to me at least, that only a nominal hardware quality is adequate for decent sound, obviously the smart move is to acquire intelligently designed, well implemented components that are good value for money, and sorting out the hopefully far fewer issues that stop the gear from giving of its best. Speakers, and I have been surprised by this over and over again, only need to be driven by a signal of a good enough quality to produce satisfying sound - the converse is very true; extremely expensive, ambitious speakers can sound appalling if not given a decent waveform to transduce.

Very rarely have I found something that is fundamentally wrong with the gear I have played with - simple, sometimes obvious weaknesses, shortcuts, poor quality of key bits of hardware, lack of attention to detail is what causes a system to not perform - the solution is very straightforward, the "hard" bit is understanding what's important to look at in a particular case.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim, I think even you are influenced by audiophile mythology. I am confident that a DAC indistinguishable from audiophile products can be built for a few dollars, not grand. The key to this is of course that because it is all on one chip, with inherently matched sub-elements all close together and at a common temperature, an integrated circuit can achieve performance levels way in excess of any 'discrete' contraption and can be mass produced for a few cents.

Audiophile DACs take the approach of either gilding a DAC chip bought for $1 - $20 with a uselessly excessive power supply and exotic box, or they create a monster comprising several DAC chips linked together or a 'discrete' circuit, both of which suffer from nonlinearity that gets worse as the temperature varies, telling us that "at this level of sonic performance, measurements do not tell the whole story" or some such.

Really, the DAC is one of those counter-intuitive gizmos that costs very little to produce, but outstrips the performance of the biggest, heaviest, most expensive audio equipment that existed before 'digital'. There is still a desire to believe that the same price/performance ratio exists, but in reality this has gone. In the pro world, extra cost could be justified for making it physically robust, but I think that this should be in the hundreds, not thousands of dollars.

I agree with all of that, Cosmick. I was trying to be generous. I've compared the DAC built in to my actives to a Benchmark. Couldn't hear a difference.

Tim