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
fleschler
2,046 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.
heaudio123
689 posts
 
What is with the scattered light psychosis? Is this an attempt at humor?


Any CD player can pretty much with correction extract a bit perfect stream. If you don't buffer you have jitter. Buffer and reclock and jitter disappears.  No scattered light psychosis to worry about. Check the calendar. Is 2020 not 1999. You missed the millennium and the 20 years after.


Are you trying to intentionally mislead people?


That's directed at geoffkait, but fleschler, mechanical vibration and impact on jitter disappeared on audiophile CD players over a decade ago. Modern players buffer and reclock. What happens at the mechanism is almost meaningless.
geoffkait's avatar
geoffkait
23,365 posts
 
Stabilizing the disc is important, glad someone is doing that. But what’s that, 1% of the players? Hel-loo! Moreover, careful vibration isolation of the player from seismic type vibes is also important and separate from stabilizing the disc and requires an aftermarket solution. I’m not trying to set the world on fire, just start a flame 🔥 in a few hearts 💕
fleschler
2,046 posts
 
Heaudio  I wonder if my EAR Acute from 2006 has an adequate transport as I read it was a standard Sony.  The unit was originally Adcom, not an audiophile level unit sonically.   That's why I am questioning whether an exotic/high end transport would improve my digital end enjoyment.  Actually, the COS D2 DAC was a 2018 engineered product so it is relatively current.  Both units (and my entire system) uses GoverHuffman Pharoah level cabling and differences in power cables were immediately noticed on both the DAC and EAR Acute (as a transport).
fleschler
2,046 posts
 
I just saw a 3 month old YouTube video with Esoteric rep at a show explaining their new transport and DAC.  The dual mono DAC increased 64 bit processing power from the prior 36 bit and resulted in a gain of 268 billion higher resolution.  This is the PX1 model DAC.   All processing is done with discrete components rather than chips.  This is supposed to get the most out of the CD.  If true, then I hope the trickle down to less expensive DACs/players will eliminate the need for streaming at lower quality except for convenience.  
More to discover