The Monkey Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Further to the above, I am wondering if people can help define what they mean by a "digital" sound. We're all familiar with this refrain when critics talk about DACses' shortcomings, but what does it really mean? In particular, for those of us who don't have much experience, if any, with hi-end vinyl, how would you describe this "digital" sound signature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currawong Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Further to the above, I am wondering if people can help define what they mean by a "digital" sound. We're all familiar with this refrain when critics talk about DACses' shortcomings, but what does it really mean? In particular, for those of us who don't have much experience, if any, with hi-end vinyl, how would you describe this "digital" sound signature? It's especially noticeable listening to pianos and violins. Piano notes sound hard-edged and artificial, violins just don't sound real to me. Speaking of which, this is one reason I miss Australia, as I still own a piano. I'd love to do some amateur recording and compare results between DACs using it. I do have a rich friend who has a grand piano though (to have a house big enough that you have spare room for a grand piano in Japan, you have to be seriously loaded). I don't own a Duet any more though to record with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 nihilist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cetoole Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 I believe I agree with Reks. WTF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamwhisper Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 I've been listening to the D/AC 1000. A very satisfying sound. Lots of mids, plenty of bass. Some congestion, too. And a relatively close soundstage. Great bang for the buck. The Dodson is better, IMO, but I see why people love the Parasound DACs. Yeah I guess people don't need the biggest soundstage for headphones. Interesting that you mention congestion, I never seem to notice that I am not arguing with you as I think you are right and were with the Electrocompaniet as well. So what are some DAC's that have little congestion? What is the opposite of congestion anyway, clarity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinp6301 Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Separation? Wouldnt the PMD100 filter "fix" some of these problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Yes, I think separation is probably the term I would use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoAudio Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 In particular, for those of us who don't have much experience, if any, with hi-end vinyl, how would you describe this "digital" sound signature? Well, the thing about vinyl is that it isn't always an apples-to-apples comparison. When making an album for both vinyl and CD release, the sound engineer may not apply the same processing to both. This is understandable to a degree, considering their target audiences are different. But it makes it more difficult to say the "processing path" is why something sounds the way it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamwhisper Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 I don't have experience with high-end vinyl, but I'm aware that vinyl has more dynamic range in general than your average cd. This has more to do with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war than it does with vinyl as a medium: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Vinyl_Myths Your average cd these days is produced so that it sounds good on the crappiest speakers, like one of those portable radios. SACD and specially mastered/remastered versions are different because, as Neko says, they're targeting a different audience. I've only heard 24/96 vinyl rips on computer which I think sound lower in volume as well as compressed. (compression is another way of saying lower in dynamic range which is ironic) Evidently, (from my experience) digital vinyl is no solution. hah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamwhisper Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Yes, I think separation is probably the term I would use. lol you might just think this way because the first dac you owned was the benchmark dac1, which sounds very seperated, seperate shattering shards of glass. (and you yourself is the one who said this) However, in my short time with the Benchmark I did feel the same way. Inversely, the first dac I owned was the Lavry DA10 where everything sounded compressed and semi-veiled, so we may be coming from different places on this whole compression thing. that would depend on your definition of "average cd." good point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefy Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 I don't have experience with high-end vinyl, but I'm aware that vinyl has more dynamic range in general than your average cd. This has more to do with the Loudness war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia than it does with vinyl as a medium: Myths (Vinyl) - Hydrogenaudio Knowledgebase This points to wasting of CD as a medium more than anything else. At a technical level CD has, I think, 20-30dB higher dynamic range than the best vinyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Further to the above, I am wondering if people can help define what they mean by a "digital" sound. We're all familiar with this refrain when critics talk about DACses' shortcomings, but what does it really mean? In particular, for those of us who don't have much experience, if any, with hi-end vinyl, how would you describe this "digital" sound signature?I'm not sure I can put it into words. I just know that something goes away -- and no, it's not a veil -- when I listen to high-res PCM (24/96), SACD, or analog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NekoAudio Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Your average cd these days is produced so that it sounds good on the crappiest speakers, like one of those portable radios. Well, I don't know about making it so it sounds good on crappy speakers. I'd probably say it's about making it so you can hear all the foot-tapping and sing-along parts on your car radio or in other noisy environments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamwhisper Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 This points to wasting of CD as a medium more than anything else. At a technical level CD has, I think, 20-30dB higher dynamic range than the best vinyl. Interesting, where does reel to reel fit in? Well, I don't know about making it so it sounds good on crappy speakers. I'd probably say it's about making it so you can hear all the foot-tapping and sing-along parts on your car radio or in other noisy environments. Sorry, I meant "Your average cd these days is produced so that it sounds good even on the crappiest speakers, like one of those portable radios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted October 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not sure I can put it into words. I just know that something goes away -- and no, it's not a veil -- when I listen to high-res PCM (24/96), SACD, or analog. meh, don't cop out on me Dusty. Use your words! Do you think high res/SACD/analog sound alike? I know this stuff is hard to describe, but that's why I asked the question. Moar words! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefy Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Interesting, where does reel to reel fit in? According to one reference I found quickly (which agrees with previous reference I have seen for CD and vinyl), the dynamic range of reel to reel tape tops out at 5dB above vinyl. So the hierarchy is: Vinyl 60-65 Reel to reel 70 CD 90 Though tape does seem to have many tricks to increase DNR and SNR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 meh, don't cop out on me Dusty. Use your words! Do you think high res/SACD/analog sound alike? I know this stuff is hard to describe, but that's why I asked the question. Moar words!I do think high res/SACD sound more like analog -- certainly close enough that I don't think I could tell the difference, even if we found a way to DBT "fatigue". The problem with describing it is that it's subliminal -- honestly, you're getting so close that really the only difference is fatigue, which I can't hear until I listen for several minutes, perhaps an entire disc. Okay, here's word for you: "grunge". And I don't mean full-on distortion, I mean a really subtle grunge that you barely notice. It goes where I said "veil" did not. It's easiest to hear when you go back and forth between SACD and CD on the same player (as I've been doing all week). CD is still perfectly listenable, but there's a relief when listening to SACD that just isn't there with CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monkey Posted October 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Thanks Dusty. That actually describes very well some of the differences I am finding between sources. "Grain" is also a word that comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp11801 Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 (edited) the talk of dynamic range of cd vs LP vs blah blah blah is academic as generally speaking cds never take advantage of their edge in this area. Most recording in the rock arena have dynamic ranges in the 10-15 range on a LP. On cd with a decent mastering job you'll get about the same with most commercial masters you get a brickwalled sausage. So when you examine things like dynamic range you should also be aware that after a certain point it is meaningless. A 10 -15 db change in volume is pretty huge, classical cds might do better and the mastering might give it an edge in the cd realm but for jazz and rock LP and CD are still better than digital if not for any other reason than brickwalling, no noise, ham fisted compression..... in the mastering. I found that I preferred DVD A audio over SACD but keep in mind this was for jazz and rock where I believe that masterings were suspect. Edited October 25, 2009 by jp11801 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3cT Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Has anyone compared Pico DAC with the Gamma 1 before? Beefy said that the Pico is all-around better but more opinions are definitely welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefy Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Be careful not to misrepresent me, I said that I had read that the Pico is better. Search for yourself; the comment I am referring to is in either the y1 or Pico thread on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3cT Posted October 26, 2009 Report Share Posted October 26, 2009 True that, I should have been clearer. My apologies, man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Camper Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Thank you all for a readable and learnable thread on a complicated topic. Digital seems hollow or missing a fullness of sound that analog provides. Could it be that digital is on or off in signal transmission and analog has a full signal through the gray area between on and off? If this makes no sense, it's because I haven't the vocabulary to express it. When you go from a 128k to a 320k file, the music is smoother or more refined in presentation. Going analog seems to have the fullest or most refined sound. A wav. file should have the same presentation but can be noticeable on certain instruments as has been mentioned. Hard to detect unless you go hunting for it, but once noticed, draws your attention (like a fly on the TV). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphsci Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I have to agree with Reks it is the implementation on both the recording (especially mastering) as well as how the playback gear is being implemented. Most disc players and DACs have really lousy output stages. Even some of the big bucks players have pretty mediocre ouput stages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nattonrice Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Has anyone compared Pico DAC with the Gamma 1 The gamma1 is not the correct comparison afaik. The gamma2 is the one you should compare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.