Stop it you two. This forum is not about battle of words.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What is 'incompetent digital' ?
- Thread starter Opus111
- Start date
-
- Tags
- digital audio
- Thread Starter
- #322
I agree there Amir, there's no battle of words. But there is so far an absence of curiosity about whether these measurements have any significance in the real world. So if anyone curious has questions by all means chip in and ask, don't be deterred by the high level of banter.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Of course not. Opus loves to speculate...and when bluff called, turns into Fred Astair
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
We're very curious, let's hear about the audio significance of what you posited about rising IM with the MiniDSP.
Of course, if you don't actually know...
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,600
Opus, if someone wishes to read, take part in or contribute to this thread, your endless ridiculous total content free replies don't help at all. If this is all you have to contribute you should feel incompetently informed to post.Demonstrate your curiosity and you might receive a response. Until then, no cigar
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,600
Bingo. That is all that is needed. Isn't it funny how ear trusting audiophiles seem to veer away from using their ears to determine such stuff? They argue, imagine, and pontificate yet don't want to simply listen and see if they hear a difference without knowing how they expect the answer to turn out first.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,600
My opinion is that Opus 111 is a rhetorical a-hole. My opinion is Opus 111 can falsify that anytime he wishes. My opinion is Opus 111 can't help himself and will not falsify my opinion.
I am sure Amir wishes people not attack posters, attack their arguments. In this case, there is no argument to address which is my whole complaint.
Posts deleted. AJ and Opus you will both be banned if you keep the war of words going. Posts need to be informative. Otherwise you need to find another forum for this type of bickering.
Others already replied before I got to this, but I'll add just bit for clarity:
Yes, it's difficult / impossible to separate out a D/A alone to assess if it's audibly transparent and has no sound of its own. So instead we use both the A/D and D/A in the same unit. If passing a signal through A/D then D/A comes out indistinguishable from the source in a proper (level-matched and blind) test, both the A/D and the D/A are known to be transparent. And then we can use that device's A/D to assess other products that provide only the D/A portion.
I'll add that these days transparent converters are common and affordable. For me this is about being a smart consumer: Why spend $1,000 or more for an outboard D/A when a $50 converter (or the converter you already have in your Blu-ray player or laptop) is transparent?
--Ethan
Don Hills
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Not quite. All we know is that the specific combination of A/D - D/A is audibly transparent. We don't know if any shortcomings of one - say, a less than optimum filter implementation - are being masked / compensated by the implementation of the other. Testing with different combinations of devices is necessary to gain confidence in the transparency.
(For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that most devices built with attention to competency (as opposed to aiming for the lowest cost) are "close enough for rock'n'roll".)
Very good to hear from you Ethan, You valuable input is always much appreciated by us here at ASR.
il saluto
Sal
Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 634
Call me a purist or any other name in the book, but I absolutely do not want any extra d-a, a-d, d-a conversions in my system. They cannot possibly benefit the sound. At best, they are neutral, but I do not want to waste my time determining whether they are or are not. It is all to easy to just avoid them entirely. One final d-a will do for me, thank you.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,600
I don't think anyone is suggesting unnecessary ad/da conversions. But if one or more are audibly benign it lends credence to the idea a well done single da step is audibly benign. So at that point there is nothing to be gained from exotic expensive DACs trying to guild the lily or fix an imagined problem that isn't.
TBone
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 348
... too dismissive of this "smart consumers" expectations.
IIRC, my current BRP cost about ~$200; is 24/192 capable, and more importantly it has analog rca-outputs allowing it to be plugged directly into my main stereo system. I would not label it incompetent by any means, it may not have Oppo's build quality, and it certainly doesn't have the sonic chops to replace ANY decent CD player or transport/dac I've ever used, even @192, but for my personal HT setup, it serves my expectations well. Along with that BRP, I have 3 other CD players at present ... yet, only one isn't overly opaque (imparting its own sonic character on every CD played).
I'm here to understand why that is so, until then ...
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Your method of comparison lacks any controls and is thus error prone.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Great, well there's your reasonable explanation for all those disc player "sounds"
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,759
- Likes
- 37,600
I am assuming Tbone you get what AJ is pointing to though somewhat obscurely. That if your impressions are under sighted conditions with uncontrolled listening the differences you hear might disappear with level matched listening especially level matched unsighted listening. The assumption being all your CD players are in good working order with flat FR, low distortion and noise levels as is the norm. So have you done some A-B comparisons while at least matching the sound levels?
TBone
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
- Likes
- 348
88, they all work fine, although I replaced one's power-supply capacitors just recently. Once that unit has some playing time under its belt (just to avoid a potential variable), perhaps I'll rip each from analog output to digital recorder, and measure them accordingly for comparison. (I'd also like to measure my old Rega Planet, which I still have limited access, very interested in how that player may measure). And yes, I've been involved in a number of "controlled" tests, some sighted, others not; that said, I rarely attend those sessions anymore ...
I admire AJ's tenacity. But more fruitful than demanding listening tests would be to just look at the design and the measurements. If they are equivalent, the listening test is a waste of time. The listening test will never happen, anyway, which leaves the issue hanging, unsolved.
I don't understand the fascination with (non-existent) listening tests. If it were only a case of audibility in listening tests, we would probably still be using 14 bit non-oversampled DACs. However, as technology advances, a much better DAC costs no more to manufacture. Even if we can't hear the difference directly, we should choose the better design, anyway. If it allows more leeway in headroom when recording, or with DSP room correction etc. it is still worth having.
I don't understand the fascination with (non-existent) listening tests. If it were only a case of audibility in listening tests, we would probably still be using 14 bit non-oversampled DACs. However, as technology advances, a much better DAC costs no more to manufacture. Even if we can't hear the difference directly, we should choose the better design, anyway. If it allows more leeway in headroom when recording, or with DSP room correction etc. it is still worth having.
Similar threads
