2. digital
  3. 155131-20253

It isn't the bits, it's the hardware

I have been completely vindicated!

Well, at least there is an AES paper that leaves the door open to my observations. As some of you who follow me, and some of you follow me far too closely, I’ve said for a while that the performance of DAC’s over the last ~15 years has gotten remarkably better, specifically, Redbook or CD playback is a lot better than it was in the past, so much so that high resolution music and playback no longer makes the economic sense that it used to.

My belief about why high resolution music sounded better has now completely been altered. I used to believe we needed the data. Over the past couple of decades my thinking has radically and forever been altered. Now I believe WE don’t need the data, the DACs needed it. That is, the problem was not that we needed 30 kHz performance. The problem was always that the DAC chips themselves performed differently at different resolutions. Here is at least some proof supporting this possibility.

Stereophile published a link to a meta analysis of high resolution playback, and while they propose a number of issues and solutions, two things stood out to me, the section on hardware improvement, and the new filters (which is, in my mind, the same topic):



4.2
The question of whether hardware performance factors,possibly unidentified, as a function of sample rate selectively contribute to greater transparency at higher resolutions cannot be entirely eliminated.

Numerous advances of the last 15 years in the design of hardware and processing improve quality at all resolutions. A few, of many, examples: improvements to the modulators used in data conversion affecting timing jitter,bit depths (for headroom), dither availability, noise shaping and noise floors; improved asynchronous sample rate conversion (which involves separate clocks and conversion of rates that are not integer multiples); and improved digital interfaces and networks that isolate computer noise from sensitive DAC clocks, enabling better workstation monitoring as well as computer-based players. Converters currently list dynamic ranges up to∼122 dB (A/D) and 126–130 dB(D/A), which can benefit 24b signals.

Now if I hear "DAC X performs so much better with 192/24 signals!" I don't get excited. I think the DAC is flawed.
erik_squires
heaudio123
689 posts
 
... if only we had things like dynamometers, or error rate detectors so we would not have to guess if these were issues or not.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Or.....ears 🤗
fleschler
2,008 posts
 
A comment was made concerning Esoteric's finest player which uses their  VRDS-NEO VMK-3.5-20S transport,  This transport reportedly hugs the CD in an exact position for the laser reader and eliminates wobble.  It was designed to be vibrationally isolated from the mechanics of moving the disc.  I don't think that 2 of geokaitt's complaints concerning transport reading problems are valid for this design.  The remaining problem of scattered light is still valid although with accurate laser tracking, this problem should be reduced by the lens superior focusing.   I also read that Luxman's transport is also designed for superior vibration and tracking capabilities.  These units are extremely superior to the 1980s CD players which I detested for the most part (mostly due to jitter and their DACs).  Maybe CD and DVD players of today are still imperfect (so is analog playback)  but it's damn great!
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Everything is relative. As I oft say, audiophiles are prone to making declarations such as the ones you just made, I.e., that somehow modern players are superior by buffering, etc. While it may be true that some CD players are more innovative than others in dealing with these issues or other issues, all modern players don’t address the issues I mentioned, especially the scattered light issue.

I hate to judge too harshly but I don’t think any CD player manufacturer has even mentioned scattered light is a problem much less offers a solution. Self inflicted CD wobble and flutter is another issue very few manufacturers mention. The Green Pen is an example of a partial solution. Isolation is also a partial solution. Other older players stabilized the CD - e,g., Sony SACD PLAYER used a brass weight to hold the disc firmly, so that idea’s not new. It should be mentioned that a relatively inexpensive Tweak for an existing player must be weighed against great expensive of a “modern player,” assuming the modern player even addressed the problems, which it probably doesn’t.
fleschler
2,008 posts
 
I read several current high end player and transport manufacturers who specifically cite their vibration isolation and freedom from wobble/precise laser readers from a mechanical reference point. As to light scatter, I read several manufacturers who maintain that their units are totally black. However, you have mentioned that black-out conditions are insufficient as there is unseen light frequencies which are detectable by the laser but not the eye.

I still have Kyocera CD players from about 1985 and they sound quite nice. I kept my EAR Acute as it sounds musically interesting but not as highly resolving. Hence, I purchased a 2016 engineered DAC which is the cat’s meow for the price (COS Engineering D2). I will try a superior transport to see how much it will add to my enjoyment with my new DAC.   Over the years, I have made extreme upgrades in my cabling, which accounts for the DAC and EAR maximizing their potential.

What I previously stated is that when mechanical vibration is eliminated as a source of jitter, etc., and only infrared light scatter remains an issue, CD playback can be extremely enjoyable, comparable to high end analog playback.
More to discover