Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
herr dirigent
There is someone that have heard both?
Thanks
Andy Evans
up to you how you interpret them. As follows:
Shootouts:
1. OS Benchmark clearly smoother and more musical than the others
2. NOS Audio Mirror (DAC AH with posh parts)
3. NOS dAck!dac
4. NOS Scott Nixon
I have the DAC-AH. ORDER DIRECT! $135 base price. A TOTAL STEAL! I
e-mailed them and asked for the opamps to be socketed, I think they
only charged me another $15 or so. You can also ask for output cap
upgrades and I think they will also sell you opamp upgrades too. Even
with sockets, opamp upgrades, cap upgrades, and shipping the unit
should be under $200. http://eshop.diyclub.biz/ You can order this
direct and specify socketed opamps and upgraded output caps. Throw some
OPA627s in there and you have an incredible DAC for under $200. I
personally prefer the DAC-AH to all I have tried but I would also say
they are a lot closer sonically than most audiophools would admit.
I don't think the Benchmark DAC1 is avaialable with a USB interface
(Apogee is). For S/PDIF they deploy two differetn schools of thought.
The main difference between the Mii-DAC and DAC1 aside from the
converter chips and output stage is the degin of the clocking cicuit.
Apogee uses an idependent local clock that is regulated by the rate of
the incoming signal.
The DAC1 uses an asynchronous sample rate converter and runs it's local
clock completely independent. Both techniques result in a low jitter
local clock. The big difference being that the Apogee will actually
convert the same samples every time you play a song, while the
Benchmark DAC might be converting different values every time. I have
heard the Apogee and Benchmark although only very shortly. I have a
Bryston SP1.7 at home and a Monarchy M22C in the office and can
probably best compare to those. I did not have the chance to A/B them
in my systems. So this is purely by memory which is of coure highle
influenced what I have read about all this equipment. I found the
Benchmark more detailed but lacking in bass compared to the CS43122 and
discrete class A stage in the Bryston. The Apogee sounded very smooth
and full. Since I am using Harbeth and Spendor speakers I am nit sure
how this would harmonize. Even if the driven by sources with very low
jitter you will find that the Apogee Mini-DAC and the Benchmark DAC1
have a different sonic signature. This becomes pretty obvious if you
hear them side by side but it does not show in the measurements.
If the server has a USB port and you intend to use it for playback
only, you can avoid a sound card altogether. Get an external USB to
S/PDIF converter, such as an M-Audio Transit ($80) to make the
connection to your preferred DAC via TosLink. Or you could get a USB
enabled external DAC, such as an Apogee Mini-DAC. There are a number of
other choices among competing products, some costing thousands of
dollars.
I'm very pleased with the M-Audio Transit feeding a Benchmark Media
DAC1, which retired my CD player and preamplifier.
consider the Brick: i haven't try yet the apogee minidac but i v got a
Cd player AUDIOAERO capitole mkII and i have compared both , first i
want to say that the cd palyer is 8OOO$
the sound of the Brick comes closed to the fantastic tube dac of the
audio aero in term of finest , and definition .. but anyway the brick
is so much natural and finest than many of the mdprice dac you can find
( famous benchmark dac1 included )
This is what I recommend - get Benchmark DAC1 rather than Apogee ( use
M-Audio as digital source ) However, please use Audigy 2 NX and power
it with battery instead of AC adapter. M-Audio getting power from PC
bus is not going to give good sound. Audigy 2 NX use external power and
can easily replace by batteries. It is better than M-Audio by miles
unless you are paying somebody to mod the M-Audio for your. For choice
of DAC, Benchmark DAC1 is sure winner.
I would stay away from the Apogee USB version if you are already using
a pro audio sound card. Sample the audio up to 24/96 via coax or AES
(best option) and you'll love the Mini-Dac. The same holds true for the
Benchmark Dac 1. Sample the audio up to 24/96 and it's a totally
different sounding dac. The Dac 1 is designed to be used fully balanced
(in/out)...if you scale back to unbalanced it sounds like
garbage...thin, unattached, etc. Balanced in/out has a ruler flat noise
free frequency response. People have complained about using the Dac 1
as a preamp....it's all non sense....it makes a for a fine preamp, but
you have to match up the output voltage to your amp. If not matched
properly you can cause clipping at the amp input and a host of audible
problems will emerge.
I find you must use a isolation transformer to get the best out of the
Dac 1 and Mini Dac. I keep mine plugged into a Plitron NBT LoNo.
consensus from the mastering engineers was very positive. One of them
did an A-B comparison, with some other mastering engineers present,
where they recorded an acoustic guitar and voice in the room and played
it back. They did a shoot out comparison with 4 other pro DAC's,
including the Apogee PSX-100
(http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/index.html, scroll down to the
bottom under accessories for review) and Alesis Masterlink
(http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?605), the results where
that the DAC1 was THE closest representation to what they heard in the
room - with the Alesis being the worst of the bunch and the Apogee
placing 2nd. If this is your holy grail in music reproduction, then I
suggest you consider the Benchmark
There is no perfect DAC, but the Apogee Mini-DAC could fill the bill
for middle-priced digital playback. It may be more "polite" than the
norm, but also very listenable. While maybe not as "spectacular" as the
Benchmark DAC1, it has the tonal refinement which, to my tastes, was
the DAC1's downfall.
Before I elaborate on what I hear sonically that is unique to
asynchronous sample-rate-conversion (aka "upsampling"), first I want to
mention the players and DACs I've heard this phenomenon with- The
Toshiba 3950 and 4960 CD players, the Benchmark DAC1, and the Esoteric
Audio DV-50 multidisc player. (I don't recall this phenomenon prior to
auditioning upsampling players, but I will not say it has never existed
in earlier players- It's just that I never was aware the quirk before.)
The Toshibas seem to be more-offensive with the artifacts than the
Benchmark and Esoteric units, and I've not had the chance to hear the
Esoteric unit with the upsampling defeated (it's defeatable with that
particular player).
I also want to mention that my ears are *extremely* sensitive to
extreme highs in the "20-20k" audio range- I can, for example, tell if
a TV is running in the next room, just from the high-frequency whine
from the TV's flyback transformer. Those who are not so sensitive to
extreme highs may not pick up what I'm about to describe.
At first listen, a digital system utilizing asynchronous sample-rate
conversion does sound impressive. It sounds as if there is good
ambience retrieval and a sense that the music seems "less digitized"
compared to typical conversion. Then, after my ears get used to the
playback, I start sensing a high-frequency "noise" setting in- Not
unlike what one would hear with a TV flyback transformer, but higher in
frequency than a TV flyback transformer and more like a narrow band of
noise than a distinct "tone." (I don't notice this noise initially-
only after several minutes.) As my ears get further "acclimated," I
start noticing the noise kind of "riding" on the music, particularly
music with a lot of high-frequency energy. (Like a continuous high-hat
in a rock or jazz track.) This noise obscures attacks and decays in
cymbals and triangles, and robs the music of its organic quality. What
sounds spectacular at first becomes grating and fatiguing later. The
big problem I have with this HF noise is I ultimately become "fixated"
on it. After about 10 to 15 minutes of listening. And then I cannot
block it out, no matter how hard I try. As if the noise was part of the
music itself. (I can block out the flyback transformer on a TV because
it's totally separate from the TV's audio.) While this noise is not as
"offensive" with better products like the Benchmark, it still bothers
me enough to eventually have to switch to another source, be it my
other system or the tuner on the same system. And unlike other
phenomena, it even bothers me while I'm playing CDs as background
music. (This problem is not so apparent playing "mellow" music, like
soft jazz, light classical, pop ballads, or especially music that does
not contain either massed violins or high-frequency percussion.) This
phenomenon has become more apparent in its conspicuous absence playing
the Sony CDP-X707ES CD player stand-alone, the Prism DA-2 DAC, or my
new Apogee Mini-DAC. I don't hear any semblance of this phenomenon. And
none of these products use asynchronous sample-rate conversion.
I personally disagree with the premise that CD playback has been
getting better. I prefer the internal DAC of the venerable Sony
CDP-X707ES CD player over the Benchmark DAC1 and the Apogee Mini DAC.
The Sony to me simply sounds more like living, breathing music. (With
all the comments about the Benchmark's near-absolute performance, in
spite of my disdain for the product, I expected the Sony player to
sound like crap. I only played it as a stop-gap between when I sold the
Benchmark and attained the Apogee, hence the discovery.) The only
recent products of note that I really like are the ART DI/O DAC, the
Ack dAck DAC, and the Paradox-modified JVC XLZ-1050 CD player. These
products gave me the false impression, for a while, that at least
budget products were getting better. I prefer the APogee to the
Benchmark- Mainly because that fatiguing HF noise problem of the
Benchmark is absent in the Apogee and the Apogee has a much-cleaner
top. The Apogee is not finicky with transport like the Benchmark was.
The Apogee does have an upward tonal balance, maybe even more so than
the Benchmark. (But the presentation is very clean, the tonal balance
is not really bothersome.) So if the HF noise of the Benchmark does not
bother you (it does not bother everybody), and you want a more-neutral
presentation, you might prefer the Benchmark. My primary objection with
the Apogee is that upward tonal balance- When I play recordings with a
lot of cymbal work (like Charlap's "Somewhere"), it could sound
"etched" in a benign sort of way. But in spite of the objection, this
DAC is *very* listenable. (It almost sounds like vinyl with the VTA set
a little too high.) Like may other DACs, the Apogee does not have the
absolute resolution and gestalt of the Prism DA-2. But the flaws are
rather benign, and like the Ack dAck, a good choice in the $750 to
$1000 price range. I prefer Digital Renaissance over both the
Benchmark and Apogee Mini DAC. The Digital Renaissance is simply more
transparent and dynamic. It also is neutral in tonal balance relative
to the two pro units. It's still a tad "upward" compared to the Prism
DA-2. (Only because the Prism has more deep bass extension.) But the
transparency and resolution are in the Prism's league. The only thing
this DAC lacks relative to the Prism is the clean HF presentation and
long-term listenability.
I put a ceramic/ferrite ring around the cables at the output, and it
knocks down the "digital fatigue"... (It did not knock down the "HF
noise" problem with the Benchmark.) The HF "grain" (from it being
non-OS) is still there, but it seems more benign now, a la the original
dAck. Although still not quite as listenable as the dAck. I do think a
non-OS design with insufficient post-filtering could benefit greatly by
using ferrite rings or clamps at the output. I will continue with such
experimentation. This is a DAC that could be a real winner, not to
mention one of audio's great steals, if its HF problem could be
ameliorated. For it otherwise delivers the goods of the mega-DACs.
apogee mini dac, i am using one and i like it better than the benchmark
dac.
second the apogee mini. unlike the others mentioned it also has an
optional usb input which is ideal for computer audio.
second the apogee, i like it better than the benchmark. benchmark has a
huge 'wow factor', but it also makes long term listening unpleasant
unless it is paired up with some crazily colored gear. OTOH my apogee
minidac has no such wow factor, but it makes long term listening much
much easier without apparent sonic compromises.
The Benchmark is basically a pro dac / preamp. The Apogee DA 1000 sound
quality is far superior. I know the sound quality of both products
including your DA 1000, I use a Rosetta 200 / Big Ben combo in my
studio rig, and it's hard to beat the Apogee sound quality. The
Benchmark is not bad for a sub $1k component, but it does lack tonal
purity in my opinion. In the sub $1k market it's hard to beat the
Apogee Mini-Dac (non-USB version) for sonic purity. The one thing the
Benchmark has going for it is the volume control. The quality of the
volume control is far superior to the Mini-Dac.
The benchmark has a much drier sound with a lot of detail in the treble
region. I am not sure what the magazines touted it as the best thing
since sliced bread. It is a great DAC, but not the last word. The
Apogee Mini-DAC is based upon the larger multichannel DACs and offers a
USB port. I find it similar tonally to the Benchmark, actually. I am
not sure what makes it "far superior"
I use the Rosetta 200 in my home rig, and the Mini-Dac and Benchmark in
my portable. The Rosetta 200 is one of the best bargins in the digital
market today. Have you tried pairing up t6he Rosetta with the Big Ben.
The external work clock steps up the dac's performance several notches.
I have the Benchmark and the Apogee, the two are very good, but the
Benchmark have better headphone amplifiers (The Apogee sound harsh).
herr dirigent
Andy Evans ha scritto:
> I can only report some subjective evaluations taken from the Net - it's
>
Thanks!!
TT
"herr dirigent" <calci...@yahoo.it> wrote in message
news:1157652833.5...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
:
: Andy Evans ha scritto:
:
: > I can only report some subjective evaluations taken from
the Net - it's
: >
:
: Thanks!!
I have just been through this and nearly bought the
Benchmark unit myself.
I've ended up with this
http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html
I am extremely impressed with this unit.
Regards TT
Andy Evans
http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html
I am extremely impressed with this unit. >>
It looks great. To my mind this really is the way to go - the
DAC-Preamp. All your digital sources go into it and there you are.
Can you give us a fuller description of how it operates and sounds, and
in what ways it was better than the other equipment you had before or
tried out?
I can't find any reviews of this, so the above would be welcome.
Eeyore
herr dirigent wrote:
> What is the best?
What do you mean by 'best' ?
Graham
herr dirigent
Eeyore ha scritto:
the DAC more precise,linear,full of detail,realistic,with a really
wonderful stereophonic image.
Eeyore
herr dirigent wrote:
Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and objectively. The
remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.
Graham
Andy Evans
objectively. The
remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener. >>
So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> Eeyore wrote
> !
> > Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> > objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.
>
> So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
and linearity.
Graham
please learn to quote properly btw
Laurence Payne
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
>
>Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective evaluation.
>That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
>those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
>and linearity.
Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.
Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !
Graham
John Phillips
> Laurence Payne wrote:
>> Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?
>
> We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
> blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.
>
> Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !
This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
combination transparent. Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context.
(Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
that taste.)
--
John Phillips
Eeyore
John Phillips wrote:
> On 2006-09-09, Eeyore <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Laurence Payne wrote:
> >> Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?
> >
> > We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be sonically
> > blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.
> >
> > Some ppl even say they're better when a toob is used after the DAC !
>
> This configuration always fascinates me. If the DAC isn't (sufficiently)
> transparent then putting a valve (tube) in series with it cannot make the
> combination transparent.
Sssshhhh ! Don't tell anyone ! No amount of science was involved in the observation.
> Yet sometimes I see the T word used to describe
> "better" in this context.
Yes.
> (Note, before the deluge starts, that I am not commenting on anyone's
> sonic taste. Merely commenting on the words sometimes used to describe
> that taste.)
I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is all about.
It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from vacuum tubes
equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).
What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior is utterly
bogus.
Graham
Andy Evans
Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
evaluation.>>
Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.
> That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
> those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
> and linearity. Graham
Many SET amps sound very good.
> please learn to quote properly btw
please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
obey your own views.
Andy Evans
Of course. And they sound better still when the tube is a DHT. You
don't get all this do you. And since I'm convinced that you have never
in your life heard a DAC with a DHT output, forgive me if I remark that
you have very little basis for comment.
Andy Evans
in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
sometimes I see the T word used to describe
"better" in this context. >>
Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? So
something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
transformer,capacitor or tube stage. The advantage of a tube stage is
that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
tube, and the DC included in the biasing. You can't talk about a DAC as
if there's "nothing" on the end of it.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
> evaluation.>>
>
> Exactly. That's how most people evaluate products.
Which is fine as far as it goes. Do you expect everyone's listening preference to be
identical though ? There lies the limitation !
> > That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be seen from
> > those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt precision
> > and linearity. Graham
>
> Many SET amps sound very good.
So some say. They also produce oodles of intermodulation products which are most
unmusical. This will easily be revealed by playing 'complex' music, yet they will
tend to sound excellent on a single instrument, or say a quartet.
> > please learn to quote properly btw
>
> please learn to be more flexible and stop demanding that other people
> obey your own views.
Please pull your head out of your arse !
Graham
Andy Evans
intentionally flawed but
entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
wrong with their
listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
superior is utterly
bogus. >>
The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the sound
exactly ?
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
You clearly don't know much about DAC back end circuitry.
Do tell me about this supposed advantage with tubes.
Graham
Andy Evans
is all about. >>
You could not have chosen a worse place - you will learn absolutely
nothing from that newsgroup. Read the Tube DIY forum on
www.audioasylum.com and you will find posts by the leading tube
designers. Try it out for a month or so. You will see a universe of
difference in the quality of engineering, debate, knowledge and
information. Plus it's leading edge - people experimenting with ideas.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
You've snipped all the previous content so it's impossible to know what exactly
you're replying to.
Please use 'inline posting'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_posting#Inline_replying
You currently have all the hallmark signs of an arrogant opinionated
self-obsessed jerk !
Graham
Andy Evans
It's up to you if you want to lower the quality of debate and make
senseless comments - I'm quite happy to debate this on a rational level.
Andy Evans
sound
exactly ? >>
Why do you expect me to describe sound in words - why not go and listen
to a variety of tube output stages then you can find out for yourself.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on them btw.
For someone with cloth ears I must have been doing well to examine some problems
audibly in the noise floor here on Thursday .....
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_mark_knopfler/
http://www.recordproduction.com/mpg-event-june05.html
http://mixonline.com/news/headline/prism-sound-knopfler-060106/
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this
> is all about. >>
>
> You could not have chosen a worse place - you will learn absolutely
> nothing from that newsgroup.
Actually it's rather good once you learn to avoid the character assasinations
that plague it.
> Read the Tube DIY forum on
> www.audioasylum.com and you will find posts by the leading tube
> designers. Try it out for a month or so. You will see a universe of
> difference in the quality of engineering, debate, knowledge and
> information. Plus it's leading edge - people experimenting with ideas.
Ok. I will. I normally only post on pro forums and groups but I'll certainly
give it a try.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the left ?
Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably greater
credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
You mean you have no answer to offer ?
So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound exactly ?
Is that too tricky ?
Graham
Andy Evans
them btw. >>
I've no doubt you know valves from ( ?50s, 60s?, 70s?), but you'd be
very surprised at how much things have changed. Not the function of the
triode itself, which is well known, but the support circuitry is now
quite complex - cascode active loads, constant current sinks etc. - a
whole cuisine of modern ss devices and traditional stuff like glow
tubes. It really is "nouvelle cuisine" if you pardon the expression.
We're not talking Mullard circuits with EF86s and ECC83s any more.
Andy Evans
left ? >>
Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.
Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably
greater
credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms. >>
As an ex musician I'm so used to being an outsider that credibility -
in terms of fitting in with the norm and conventional behaviour - is a
bit of a Fata Morgana. If I'd wanted credibility I'd have become a bank
manager.
Andy Evans
> to a variety of tube output stages then you can find out for yourself.
You mean you have no answer to offer ? >>
No, I sincerely mean that's the best answer.
So, do tell me. In your opinion how does the tube stage influence the
sound exactly ? Is that too tricky ? >>
You really want me to say "it sounds transparent with faithful timbre
to instruments and delicate nuance in the treble which is particularly
remarkable on brushwork on cymbals"? Surely not - you have to hear this
kind of thing with your own ears.
I suspect you want me to give a technical explanation, which I have to
a certain extent - the output, DC included, goes straight to the grid
of the triode, which can be resistor, active device, choke or
transformer loaded, or in the case of a balanced output can go to a
diff pair with CCS, transformer, parafeed etc etc. After that you have
a reasonably small coupling cap (or transformer) followed by a stepped
attenuator or TVC. These are all widely used topologies and considered
by many to sound excellent. Tube DACs are on the increase, but again,
you'd have to listen to them to satisfy your own ears about the sound.
I can't do that for you with any amount of adjectives.
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4502B117...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
Interesting to see that, sooner or later, all of you clowns who just don't
*get it* with valves have to result to guttersnipe phraseology....
Keith G
"Andy Evans" <performan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157810585....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
> left ? >>
>
> Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.
>
OK, let me help here - Mozilla is the cheese used to make pizzas, King Kong
is the Chinese province used to make *British* hifi equipment....
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:450292A8...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
'Shocking failings'....???
(I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote
> I've spent some time in rec.audio.tubes to try and establish what this is
> all about.
> It's quite clear that the 'toobies' believe that added colouration from
> vacuum tubes
> equals 'higher fidelity' ( because they like the sound ).
Fidelity? What's that? Do you somehow manage to *not* use speakers...??
I think you're confusing valvie's claims of greater realism and naturalness
with valves with so-called *measured* accuracy....???
>
> What they are confusing this with is their preference for an intentionally
> flawed but
> entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing wrong
> with their
> listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently superior
> is utterly
> bogus.
Another one who expects people to agree their preference is inherently
*inferior*....???
Have this one on me - a valve amp (SET in paticular) is *shite* for playing
MP3s when you're out jogging......
Keith G
My suspicion is that a lot of people with strong views on valve kit is that
they haven't actually ever *heard* any......
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4502B393...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
>
>
> Andy Evans wrote:
>
>> What they are confusing this with is their preference for an
>> intentionally flawed but
>> entirely pleasnt and relatively benign form of distortion. Nothing
>> wrong with their
>> listening preference but the presentation of this as inherently
>> superior is utterly
>> bogus. >>
>>
>> The idea that valves are simply "added distortion" and nothing else
>> could only be made by somebody with a) very little knowledge of modern
>> valve circuits and how they sound or b) somebody with cloth ears.
>
> There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on them
> btw.
Nahh, I doubt that - you post like you've learnt nothing at all.....
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4502B29F...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
And you don't....??
Keith G
You've got more faith with some of these 'hot under the collar' types than I
have Andy - I take a lot of what they say with a pinch of salt (large one).
Most of 'em have never heard a valve amp and some of the others have only
heard some old *legacy* struggler at best and seem to forget what some of
the transistor equipment from the 70s could sound like.....
John Phillips
>> If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
>> in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
>> sometimes I see the T word used to describe
>> "better" in this context. >>
>
No, it's a device with an analogue output (not necessarily an analogue
output *stage*). For example, in the case of current summing DACs the
summing point is sometimes connected directly to a pin on the DAC and you
are expected to supply your own virtual-earth transimpedance amplifier
(valve or SS) if you want a voltage instead of a current output.
> So
> something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
> transformer,capacitor or tube stage. ...
Well, in the audio context a DAC will not (usually) drive a loudspeaker
so you need amplification and/or impedance conversion and/or current
to voltage conversion after the DAC itself. However I can't see the
relevance of this. There is still a very real DAC in the reproduction
chain.
> The advantage of a tube stage is
> that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
> tube, and the DC included in the biasing.
That may be an advantage in certain cases but you still have a DAC
feeding the tube stage (if I have interpreted you correctly) which can
then (as you say) feed the grid of the tube amplifier with DC as well
as the analogue signal.
However that DC is only needed in the case of feeding a tube grid
- it is not usually necessary if feeding other amplifying devices.
Indeed a DAC driving a tube output stage that fed a lot of DC as well
to the output socket would be a dangerous device. (I think I must be
mis-reading something here.)
> You can't talk about a DAC as
> if there's "nothing" on the end of it.
Of course you can. What do you call the device whose output you connect
directly to the tube output stage?
I am totally puzzled (sorry - I *have* tried to think what the agument
and point is, but I've failed).
--
John Phillips
Jim Lesurf
Andy
Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener. >>
> So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as defined by
the series of sample values. The correspondence is uniquely defined if the
series of samples was correctly recorded. This much is simply a matter of
Information Theory and engineering. Also as you might expect from the phase
for which 'DAC' is an acronym.
The purpose of the *listener* is to listen to the results. So far as I can
tell, no DAC has awareness, or any ability to actually listen to anything.
:-)
Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples of
waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them altered in
specific ways. Thus a real DAC may be designed to systematically alter the
results if the designer so decided. But the DAC still isn't actually
listening. :-)
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Laurence Payne wrote:
> >
> > Don't we know how to make a transparent DAC yet?
> We know how to make ones that measure so well that they must surely be
> sonically blameless yet certain ppl insist they differ still.
We may also know how to make them so that, in a suitably controlled
comparison listening test, those listening might find they may be unable to
tell the difference between an original signal, and one passed through a
ADC-DAC pairing - provided they only have the sounds to use as a basis for
their decision, and the ADC-DAC are designed and compared with due care.
But of course, some DACs may be made so as to alter the results in
specific ways. Hence someone might then prefer this to a result
indistinguishable from the original prior to ADC conversion. :-)
Jim Lesurf
Andy
Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The advantage of a tube stage is that the output with DC on it can be fed
> directly into the grid of the tube, and the DC included in the biasing.
Are you claiming this is impossible for non-tube stages?
Andy Evans
correctly) which can then (as you say) feed the grid of the tube
amplifier with DC as well
as the analogue signal. >>
I think you've misunderstood this. The DAC - or my DAC to be precise -
outputs an analogue signal of about 1.3v AC with about 2v DC
superimposed on it. To eliminate the DC one could put a capacitor at
this point (i.e. "something" on the end of it) But what I'm saying -
and what my setup does - is to put the analogue signal (both AC signal
and DC) directly into the grid of the triode of what we should call the
"line stage". At the output of this line stage, which has some gain, we
have the usual coupling cap and volume control. You can't put the
volume control in front of the grid because of the DC on the signal,
but the tube stage rather neatly incorporates the 2v DC into the bias
requirements of the stage. To be precise, my DAC has a balanced output
into the grids of a diff pair with a CCS under it, so the CCS
determines the current through the stage.
Andy Evans
> directly into the grid of the tube, and the DC included in the biasing.
Are you claiming this is impossible for non-tube stages? >> JLS
Bad choice of words - I can see what you mean. Let me rephrase "it's
convenient to go directly into the grid because you don't need a
coupling cap at this point". You're the expert at ss, and I'd be
delighted to see a schematic for a ss solution with no coupling cap.
Eeyore
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <1157796038.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> > objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener. >>
>
> > So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
>
> The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as defined by
> the series of sample values.
Unforunately due to Mr Evans half-assed method of quoting you mixed his comments
with mine.
I did indeed say " Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener ".
And he said " So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it. "
Graham
Andy Evans
specific ways. Hence someone might then prefer this to a result
indistinguishable from the original prior to ADC conversion. :-) >>
I see all the signs of you being rather sly here, and if I can rephrase
this it looks like "some people prefer colourations to accurate sound",
which we know from a litany of posts about valve equipment. No, I'm
speaking about instrumental timbre which appears to be more faithful
rather than less. I can only ask people posting on this subject to hear
this for themselves, since neither scientific method nor adjectives
will substitute for the actual sound itself.
Eeyore
Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <1157804099....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> Andy
> Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The advantage of a tube stage is that the output with DC on it can be fed
> > directly into the grid of the tube, and the DC included in the biasing.
>
> Are you claiming this is impossible for non-tube stages?
Mr Evans omits to mention that the output on the tube anodes cannot be directly
coupled to the load.
Selective criticism applies as ever with this kind of tortured thinking.
In comparison, an op-amp or discrete transistor 'DAC follower' can indeed be
100% DC coupled.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on
> them btw. >>
>
> I've no doubt you know valves from ( ?50s, 60s?, 70s?), but you'd be
> very surprised at how much things have changed.
There has been no change whatever. Tube technology peaked in the early 50s.
> Not the function of the
> triode itself, which is well known, but the support circuitry is now
> quite complex - cascode active loads, constant current sinks etc. - a
> whole cuisine of modern ss devices and traditional stuff like glow
> tubes. It really is "nouvelle cuisine" if you pardon the expression.
> We're not talking Mullard circuits with EF86s and ECC83s any more.
Indeed, toobists now use semiconductors to help cure the inherent flaws of
thermionic devices.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
> left ? >>
>
> Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.
So what are you using to post here ? This is what your headers say.
User-Agent:
G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via:
HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.1.1 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/1.1
Turboweb [los-tc042 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-los-ad01.proxy.aol.com[C35D1561]
(Traffic-Server/6.1.2 [uScM])
> Or are you simply choosing to be perverse ? You would have considerably
> greater
> credibility if you adhered to Usenet norms. >>
>
> As an ex musician I'm so used to being an outsider that credibility -
> in terms of fitting in with the norm and conventional behaviour - is a
> bit of a Fata Morgana. If I'd wanted credibility I'd have become a bank
> manager.
Ok. You *are* perverse!
Linux maybe ?
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
> "Andy Evans" <performan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157810585....@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > Does Mozilla normally put the quoting arrows on the rhs instead of the
> > left ? >>
> >
> > Mozilla means as much to me as King Kong.
>
> OK, let me help here - Mozilla is the cheese used to make pizzas,
LOL ! Pppffftttttt...... I have some Mozzarella in the fridge though !
> King Kong is the Chinese province used to make *British* hifi equipment....
IAG !
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
It had nothing do do with 'toobiness' at all actually.
Graham
Andy Evans
I really have to stand up for my quoting here. The above looks like the
Battle of Agincourt on my AOL system - enough arrows to bring down the
cream of the French aristocracy. Hopeless for a quick comment. In
addition although the first comment is attributed the rest are not. And
even worse, AOL hides the whole previous text so you have to click on
it to see it al all - one more click stroke. In ordinary conversation
(you can imagine the oak dinner table and the bottle of Chablis) one
would say something like "to pick up your point about "skin deep" I
believe it was S J Perelman who said that after the USA, even though
politeness in Britain was only skin deep, that was deep enough for
him". One would not repeat the whole previous conversation word for
word. You may see newsgroups as a literary experience, but I consider
them as essentially conversation, and I believe that picking up on a
point somebody makes is quite enough in the omnipresent information
overload of the Net.
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
By any established technical standard for sure.
> (I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)
You haven't heard the half of it.
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
Certainly doesn't apply in my case.
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
You're suggesting that it's arrogant to use and encourage the use of established
Usenet norms ?
They exist for a reason as you'll see when you read another of my posts. Evans's
method of attribution led you to incorrectly attribute part of what I said to
him.
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
Do continue. What is it you think I do / don't know ( have / haven't learnt )
about valves ?
Graham
Eeyore
Keith G wrote:
Why would I consider the performance of 70s transistor equipment as having any
more weight than legacy tube kit ?
Graham
Eeyore
John Phillips wrote:
> On 2006-09-09, Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If the DAC isn't (sufficiently) transparent then putting a valve (tube)
> >> in series with it cannot make the combination transparent. Yet
> >> sometimes I see the T word used to describe
> >> "better" in this context. >>
> >
> > Isn't a DAC by definition something with an analogue output stage? ...
>
> No, it's a device with an analogue output (not necessarily an analogue
> output *stage*). For example, in the case of current summing DACs the
> summing point is sometimes connected directly to a pin on the DAC and you
> are expected to supply your own virtual-earth transimpedance amplifier
> (valve or SS) if you want a voltage instead of a current output.
Modern DACs are now typically voltage output again. There's no inherent
advantage to be had either way with current or voltage output really.
> > So something must be on the end of it, whether ss circuit,
> > transformer,capacitor or tube stage. ...
>
> Well, in the audio context a DAC will not (usually) drive a loudspeaker
> so you need amplification and/or impedance conversion and/or current
> to voltage conversion after the DAC itself.
Absolutely. There is no avoiding this.
> However I can't see the
> relevance of this. There is still a very real DAC in the reproduction
> chain.
100% true.
> > The advantage of a tube stage is
> > that the output with DC on it can be fed directly into the grid of the
> > tube, and the DC included in the biasing.
>
> That may be an advantage in certain cases but you still have a DAC
> feeding the tube stage (if I have interpreted you correctly) which can
> then (as you say) feed the grid of the tube amplifier with DC as well
> as the analogue signal.
A long-tailed discrete differential pair would work nicely here but you still
have to get rid of the DC output offset from *that* stage !
> However that DC is only needed in the case of feeding a tube grid
> - it is not usually necessary if feeding other amplifying devices.
> Indeed a DAC driving a tube output stage that fed a lot of DC as well
> to the output socket would be a dangerous device. (I think I must be
> mis-reading something here.)
Exactly right.
> > You can't talk about a DAC as if there's "nothing" on the end of it.
>
> Of course you can. What do you call the device whose output you connect
> directly to the tube output stage?
>
> I am totally puzzled (sorry - I *have* tried to think what the agument
> and point is, but I've failed).
Me too.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> you still have a DAC feeding the tube stage (if I have interpreted you
> correctly) which can then (as you say) feed the grid of the tube
> amplifier with DC as well
> as the analogue signal. >>
>
> I think you've misunderstood this. The DAC - or my DAC to be precise -
> outputs an analogue signal of about 1.3v AC with about 2v DC
> superimposed on it. To eliminate the DC one could put a capacitor at
> this point (i.e. "something" on the end of it) But what I'm saying -
> and what my setup does - is to put the analogue signal (both AC signal
> and DC) directly into the grid of the triode of what we should call the
> "line stage". At the output of this line stage, which has some gain, we
> have the usual coupling cap
So, you're saying it's OK to have a cap here but not *there* ?
> and volume control. You can't put the
> volume control in front of the grid because of the DC on the signal,
> but the tube stage rather neatly incorporates the 2v DC into the bias
> requirements of the stage. To be precise, my DAC has a balanced output
> into the grids of a diff pair with a CCS under it, so the CCS
> determines the current through the stage.
Meaningless waffle, selective ignorance and obfuscation.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
It's trivially simple.
Graham
Laurence Payne
Well, make your mind up! Either valve circuits have changed or they
haven't.
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> But of course, some DACs may be made so as to alter the results in
> specific ways. Hence someone might then prefer this to a result
> indistinguishable from the original prior to ADC conversion. :-) >>
>
> I see all the signs of you being rather sly here, and if I can rephrase
> this it looks like "some people prefer colourations to accurate sound",
That would seem to be an accurate statement.
> which we know from a litany of posts about valve equipment. No, I'm
> speaking about instrumental timbre which appears to be more faithful
> rather than less. I can only ask people posting on this subject to hear
> this for themselves, since neither scientific method nor adjectives
> will substitute for the actual sound itself.
Since musical timbre entirely *depends* on rich harmonics to sound good, it's
hardly surpising then that a toob will 'flatter' them is it ?
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> > > In article <1157796038.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> > > > objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener. >>
> > >
> > > > So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
> > >
> > > The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as defined by
> > > the series of sample values.
> >
> > Unforunately due to Mr Evans half-assed method of quoting you mixed his comments
> > with mine.
> >
> > I did indeed say " Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> >
> > objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener ".
> >
> > And he said " So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it. "
> >
> > Graham
>
> I really have to stand up for my quoting here. The above looks like the
> Battle of Agincourt on my AOL system
AOL ? Good God !
> - enough arrows to bring down the
> cream of the French aristocracy. Hopeless for a quick comment. In
> addition although the first comment is attributed the rest are not. And
> even worse, AOL hides the whole previous text so you have to click on
> it to see it al all - one more click stroke. In ordinary conversation
> (you can imagine the oak dinner table and the bottle of Chablis) one
> would say something like "to pick up your point about "skin deep" I
> believe it was S J Perelman who said that after the USA, even though
> politeness in Britain was only skin deep, that was deep enough for
> him". One would not repeat the whole previous conversation word for
> word. You may see newsgroups as a literary experience, but I consider
> them as essentially conversation, and I believe that picking up on a
> point somebody makes is quite enough in the omnipresent information
> overload of the Net.
I suggest you use a decent 'newsreader'. Your problems are entirely of your / AOL's
own making.
Graham
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
That's a hybrid circuit not a tube one.
Such improvements as exist are due to semiconductor use. Tubes themselves
haven't changed in any significant way since the advent of new types with radar
for the most part ( and also UHF TV ).
Graham
Laurence Payne
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's a hybrid circuit not a tube one.
So what? What DO you allow? Resistors, caps....?
Andy Evans
That's a hybrid circuit not a tube one. >
It's my experience that "hybrid" amplifiers have both tube and ss
amplification stages, not ss current sinks, active loads etc. It would
be deviating from common practice to call a circuit where the
amplification stages were all tube a "hybrid" circuit, although clearly
as you say the technology is hybrid.
Andy Evans
What I'm saying is you eliminate one cap by DC coupling to the grids of
the amplification stage (I believe Jim says you can do this with ss
devices, which is absolutely fine). The conventional way would be
cap>amplification stage>cap.
To be precise, my DAC has a balanced output into the grids of a diff
pair with a CCS under it, so the CCS determines the current through the
stage. > AE
Meaningless waffle, selective ignorance and obfuscation. >> EY...
Well it may be meaningless to you, but I've built four of these so far
and done a range of comparative listening tests over the last 6 months
with a number of colleagues (engineers, if that makes a difference). If
I built them in ignorance and hid them under a tarpaulin I must have
been bloody lucky they all worked.
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
Are you being simply obtuse or actually monumentally obtuse ?
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
Thank you. It is indeed a 'hybrid' and nothing wrong with that at all !
Graham
Laurence Payne
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Are you being simply obtuse or actually monumentally obtuse ?
We're discussing your response to:
> There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on
> them btw.
There's more than a valve in a "valve circuit". Now there may be
solid-state components too.
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
Which makes them hybrid, not exclusively valve.
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> So, you're saying it's OK to have a cap here but not *there* ? >> EY..
>
> What I'm saying is you eliminate one cap by DC coupling to the grids of
> the amplification stage (I believe Jim says you can do this with ss
> devices, which is absolutely fine).
Yes, that's entirely fine.
> The conventional way would be cap>amplification stage>cap.
It would be ? Do elaborate.
> To be precise, my DAC has a balanced output into the grids of a diff
> pair with a CCS under it, so the CCS determines the current through the
> stage. > AE
Good. Excellent design priciples there. I'll venture that the CCS is
semiconductor though.
> Meaningless waffle, selective ignorance and obfuscation. >> EY...
>
> Well it may be meaningless to you, but I've built four of these so far
So ? The products I've designed have sold in hundreds, thousands and tens of
thousands. What's the big deal ?
> and done a range of comparative listening tests over the last 6 months
> with a number of colleagues (engineers, if that makes a difference).
It might do. Who are those 'engineers' ?
> If
> I built them in ignorance and hid them under a tarpaulin I must have
> been bloody lucky they all worked.
What's your point ?
Graham
Laurence Payne
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> We're discussing your response to:
>> > There is precious litle 'modern' about any valve circuit. I learnt on
>> > them btw.
>>
>> There's more than a valve in a "valve circuit". Now there may be
>> solid-state components too.
>
>Which makes them hybrid, not exclusively valve.
So who said "exclusively"? We're discussing modern applications of
valves. They're GOING to be hybrid. (They're probably also going to
be snake-oil, but that's another matter.)
TT
> I've ended up with this
> http://www.cec-web.co.jp/products/dac/dx71mk2_e.html
> I am extremely impressed with this unit. >>
>
> It looks great. To my mind this really is the way to go -
the
> DAC-Preamp. All your digital sources go into it and there
you are.
>
> Can you give us a fuller description of how it operates
and sounds, and
> in what ways it was better than the other equipment you
had before or
> tried out?
>
> I can't find any reviews of this, so the above would be
welcome.
>
Apologies for the late reply.
What I have been able to achieve with this is to "shorten"
the chain of gear and hopefully keep the signal integrity
more intact. So I now use the CEC as a DAC and a pre-amp
using it's balanced outputs direct to my Australian made
ME850's balanced inputs. So when I feed an AES/EBU (as
opposed to SPDIF) signal to the CEC I can use it's onboard
Clock and the result is IMHO quite spectacular. I really
never thought garden variety red book CDs could sound so
good. I will need to do some DBTs to compare to the
SACD/DVD-A equivalents now to confirm some this of course.
Doing a comparison with my Marantz DV8300 (multi player)
using SPDIF/TOSlink and then through a pre-amp I could not
tell a difference until I swapped the CEC to pre-amp
function as well.
The biggest gain I have noticed is "magically" that
fatiguing CD sound has gone and it has that more natural
SACD/analog sound.
It is still early days and I am still tweaking (playing
around) with this thing but my initial opinion is that it
really is something special.
BTW I am using this to feed the CEC
http://www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=237&subcategory=239&product=15189
So I can output a AES/EBU digital signal up to 192/24 and
set the preferences to allow for an external clock i.e. the
CEC's. So I keep a faithful digital signal all the way to
DAC/pre-amp.
I hope some of this helps. My suggestion is try to get hold
of a unit and demo it for yourself.
Regards TT
Andy Evans
and demo it for yourself. >>
I'm alright for a DAC, but I do have to get a sound card to input midi
to my computer since I want to put down all my songs in MIDI. 16 track
would be just fine. Do you use yours for home recording off a keyboard?
TT
a computer to hi-fi interface. Also because it has a RIAA phono stage as
well I can also transcribe LPs.
I chose it because of the very high pro specs.
Regards TT
Andy Evans
Addenda, "The purpose of having the DAC is to listen to it"
Up to the listener, of course, if they actually want specific examples
of waveforms to be accurately reconstructed, or if they want them
altered in specific ways>>JLS
This is one of many ways of saying "true believers use accurate
reproduction systems, while heretics worship at their own pagan
shrines" - I think the implications are clear enough.
Keith G
"TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote
> The biggest gain I have noticed is "magically" that
> fatiguing CD sound has gone and it has that more natural
> SACD/analog sound.
*Ding Dong*........
;-)
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4502EFC4...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
>
>
> Andy Evans wrote:
>> which we know from a litany of posts about valve equipment. No, I'm
>> speaking about instrumental timbre which appears to be more faithful
>> rather than less. I can only ask people posting on this subject to hear
>> this for themselves, since neither scientific method nor adjectives
>> will substitute for the actual sound itself.
>
> Since musical timbre entirely *depends* on rich harmonics to sound good,
> it's
> hardly surpising then that a toob will 'flatter' them is it ?
More from the 'It's shite but at least it's *accurate*!' school of thinking?
What do you people play recorded music for - to be entertained and pleased
or sit there with a notepad and write down what defects you *think* you can
hear....??
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4502E451...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com...
See my response to your 'shocking failings' post......
Keith G
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote
>> > Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
>> > evaluation.
>> > That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be
>> > seen
>> > from
>> > those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
>> > precision and linearity.
>>
>> 'Shocking failings'....???
>
> By any established technical standard for sure.
>
>
>> (I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)
>
> You haven't heard the half of it.
OK...
First question - have you ever heard a SET and if so, on what speakers?
Second question - how is an amp failing when it a) switches on and off OK,
b) amplifies perfectly well all day long, b) sounds better than the other
amps one may have to hand?
Next - what price 'precision and linearity' to someone who is interested in
*using* the kit and not designing it? When it comes to audio, provided no
harm comes to kids, the elderly and little fluffy animals, I believe 'the
end justifies the means' and I am not too strung out about some of the
'facts and figures' when it comes to *measurements* and the like.
A task for you - play this fairly explosive track:
http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/10%20Benge%20-%20Moment%20In%20Love.mp3
...and listen to it first on a pair of headphones and then over your 'hifi
system'.
Report here what 'shocking failings' in your system you found. Comment on
the 'fidelity' aspect and tell us how *accurate* you think it sounds. Then
make the effort to hear it on a SET amp and tell us how it compares and what
you have *learned* - this is what *we* SET users do, who also have a
selection of other amps *both* SS and valves.....
(SETs are pretty thin on the ground in the UK and I have a leetle tiny
suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply never
heard one....??)
Andy Evans
suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply
never
heard one>>
A leetle tiny suspicion??? Does this come from a Zorro film? I'd love
to see the sign of the Z on all the Audiolab gear about town, and a
caped intruder floating away into the darkness........
Andy Evans
pleased
or sit there with a notepad and write down what defects you *think* you
can
hear....?? >>
There are people who believe that if you drive from Huddersfield to
Bognor Regis in a) a Trabant and b) a Ferrari (pick your model) and the
journey time is identical, then the driving experience must be the same.
Andy Evans
amplification stages, not ss current sinks, active loads etc. It would
be deviating from common practice to call a circuit where the
amplification stages were all tube a "hybrid" circuit >>>
> Thank you. It is indeed a 'hybrid'>>
You're not being (gulp) "wilfully perverse" here are you? There may be
hope yet.
tony sayer
<kei...@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>
>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>> > Listening will only tell you what *you* think of it, i.e. subjective
>>> > evaluation.
>>> > That is no reliable measure of 'goodness' whatever as easily can be
>>> > seen
>>> > from
>>> > those who think SET tube amps are great despite shocking failings wrt
>>> > precision and linearity.
>>>
>>> 'Shocking failings'....???
>>
>> By any established technical standard for sure.
>>
>>
>>> (I love it when you Denial Boys start to talk dirty.....!! :-)
>>
>> You haven't heard the half of it.
>
>
>OK...
>
>First question - have you ever heard a SET and if so, on what speakers?
>Second question - how is an amp failing when it a) switches on and off OK,
>b) amplifies perfectly well all day long, b) sounds better than the other
>amps one may have to hand?
>
>Next - what price 'precision and linearity' to someone who is interested in
>*using* the kit and not designing it? When it comes to audio, provided no
>harm comes to kids, the elderly and little fluffy animals, I believe 'the
>end justifies the means' and I am not too strung out about some of the
>'facts and figures' when it comes to *measurements* and the like.
>
>A task for you - play this fairly explosive track:
>
>http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/10%20Benge%20-%20Moment%20In%20Love.mp3
Which deck did you record that off Keith?....
>
>...and listen to it first on a pair of headphones and then over your 'hifi
>system'.
>
>Report here what 'shocking failings' in your system you found. Comment on
>the 'fidelity' aspect and tell us how *accurate* you think it sounds. Then
>make the effort to hear it on a SET amp and tell us how it compares and what
>you have *learned* - this is what *we* SET users do, who also have a
>selection of other amps *both* SS and valves.....
>
>(SETs are pretty thin on the ground in the UK and I have a leetle tiny
>suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply never
>heard one....??)
>
>
>
>
--
Tony Sayer
TT
"Keith G" <kei...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:nOKdncaJq9nybJ7Y...@pipex.net...
players the same and *ALL* DACs sound the same and that an external DAC is a
complete "waste" of time I believe I have found something that works
exceptionally well.
Regards TT
Keith G
"tony sayer" <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ONddIBL...@bancom.co.uk...
Lucky Goldstar GSA-4167B
<that's OK Tony, I'll snip the rest of the shit off.....>
Keith G
"TT" <TTence...@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4504086a$1...@quokka.wn.com.au...
Arny's usually got a lot to say about many/most here, but at the end of the
day he's the one who just don't *ever* learn*....!! ;-)
Keith G
> SETs are pretty thin on the ground in the UK and I have a leetle tiny
> suspicion that many people with strong opinions about them have simply
> never
> heard one>>
>
> A leetle tiny suspicion??? Does this come from a Zorro film?
No - Blazing Saddles....
I'd love
> to see the sign of the Z on all the Audiolab gear about town, and a
> caped intruder floating away into the darkness........
>
Ooh, er, I say - steady on, old chap!! :-)
Watching Gohatto atm (split over 2 evenings) it's kinda killing the
*Samurai* thing for me! What next? - 'The Ginger Ninja'...??? :-))
Oops, there's me being *shallow* again......
:-P
Wally
> What do you people play recorded music for - to be entertained and
> pleased or sit there with a notepad and write down what defects you
> *think* you can hear....??
Right on, Keith.
--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.
Jim Lesurf
Andy
Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The advantage of a tube stage is that the output with DC on it can be
> > fed directly into the grid of the tube, and the DC included in the
> > biasing.
> Are you claiming this is impossible for non-tube stages? >> JLS
> Bad choice of words - I can see what you mean. Let me rephrase "it's
> convenient to go directly into the grid because you don't need a
> coupling cap at this point". You're the expert at ss, and I'd be
> delighted to see a schematic for a ss solution with no coupling cap.
IIUC what you are saying the equivalent would be to connect the DAC output
directly to the gate of a FET or base of a transistor, in either case
operating as a gain stage/buffer like the valve. Then fit a dc break cap
following it, just like the valve. Hence so far as I can see there is no
'advantage' for valves here. And it could be just as 'convenient' with
SS devices - if that was what you wanted to do.
Publish the valve circuit you have in mind and I or someone else can
probably give one for essentially the same topology using a SS gain
device.
BTW regardless of valve or SS I would not personally follow a DAC directly
with a gain device. I'd be quite likely to include a passive LPF regardless
of the type of gain device. But perhaps not everyone would bother to do
this, and nothing to do with type of gain device per se.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html
Jim Lesurf
<rabbitsfriend...@REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <1157796038.0...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Andy Evans <performan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Precisision and linearity can be measured scientifically and
> > > objectively. The remainder are in the ear and brain of the listener.
> > > >>
> >
> > > So? The purpose of the DAC is to listen to it.
> >
> > The purpose of the DAC is to reconstruct an analogue waveform as
> > defined by the series of sample values.
> Unforunately due to Mr Evans half-assed method of quoting you mixed his
> comments with mine.
Sorry for that. I'm afraid it is one of the hazards of trying to make
sense of his postings.
I've also tried to get Andy to learn to show some consideration for others
and adopt the usual conventions for postings. As have others.
Eeyore
Laurence Payne wrote:
That seems to be a curious definition. By the same token you could call a
hybrid, a semiconductor circuit in that case !
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> It's my experience that "hybrid" amplifiers have both tube and ss
> amplification stages, not ss current sinks, active loads etc. It would
> be deviating from common practice to call a circuit where the
> amplification stages were all tube a "hybrid" circuit >>>
So why use semiconductors at all then ?
Graham
Eeyore
Andy Evans wrote:
> What do you people play recorded music for - to be entertained and
> pleased
> or sit there with a notepad and write down what defects you *think* you
> can hear....?? >>
You think I do that ?
Graham
Jim Lesurf
Andy
My "straw man argument" detector just triggered. :-)
Andy Evans
I was hoping for something along the lines of:
"carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's
argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the
scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no
longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion".
Andy
Arny Krueger
> You've got more faith with some of these 'hot under the
> collar' types than I have Andy - I take a lot of what
> they say with a pinch of salt (large one). Most of 'em
> have never heard a valve amp and some of the others have
> only heard some old *legacy* struggler at best and seem
> to forget what some of the transistor equipment from the
> 70s could sound like.....
And some of us jsut lately spent three days at a well-known high end audio
show, listening to bunches and bunches of this crap. Did I say that it was
crap?