wrote in message
oups.com...
Jim,
Obviously a 'zero width sound stage' would be impossible except in an
anechoic chamber, all other rooms would have some resonance. The fact
my ESL63s are less than two feet from a hard rear wall is probably the
culprit but there is really no other place to put them.
I guess what I'm really curious about is whether this apparent
widening is a 'fault' or a 'feature' (real improvement) because it is
similar to the effect on stereo recordings that I hear as an
improvement. After listening to the X-DAC for a time then switching
back to the Quad, the sound seems a little compressed and slightly
muffled. I just wonder if I am I being fooled by some artefact that
the X-DAC is introducing to make it sound 'better' or is the fact that
instruments are more clearly defined making the perceived sound stage
wider.
I'll check out the 'Scots guide'.
Regards,
John.
On 8 Oct, 17:33, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article om,
wrote:
Hi,
I recently picked up an old Musical Fidelity X-DACat an audio sale. It
seems to be a slight improvement on my Quad CD66, little wider sound
stage, fractionally more precise instrument positioning.
However, what did surprise me was that some mono recordings seem to
have
this 'widened sound stage'. Is this possible? Can aDACdo this or is
there some DSP or analogue tweak being used to artificially 'improve'
the apparent sound stage?
if the input is genuinely mono then the streams of values for 'Left' and
'Right' on the CD will be precisely identical. Thus if you don't hear a
central image with essentially zero width this is an artefact introduced
by
your replay system (inc speakers and room acoustics, etc). This may
either
be due to an imperfection of the system, or some deliberate tampering to
alter the results, having nothing to do with 'fidelity' as such. May be a
sign of a problem (not necessarily in eitherDAC, but elsewhere in the
listening arrangements).
BTW - Can someone point me to a not too technical article(s) on how
DACs
work
If you look on the 'Scots Guide' you can find explanations at different
levels of detail. But no doubt there are many alternatives around, and
you
may prefer those.
and why it is that oneDACcan sound 'better' than another?
The problem is that you first have to define "better". :-)
if you mean, "you prefer the results" we would find need to find out what
your X-DACis doing that causes mono to have a 'wide' soundstage when no
such info is in the data on the CD. :-) The snag is that this may be
due
to a flaw which a simple explanation of how aDACworks won't cover as it
won't know what the maker of the X-DACdid, or in what way it is faulty.
;-
We would also need to be confident that what you report you hear is for
the
reasons you think. The 'difference' might be for some other reason for
all
we know. Very easy to do this when comparing items in a domestic audio
unless you know and follow the relevant methods.
it is easy enough for two DACs to sound "different" if one has been
deliberately (or incompetently) made to alter the output. Or if one is
faulty in some way. Or if one is misused in some way. But I can't say
which
you might then prefer.
BTW2 - WhatDAC(chip set?) is used in the Quad CD66?
Pass. Have data on the CD67, but not the CD66. They may use the sameDAC,
but I don't know offhand if this is the case.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
I seem to recall that the X-DAC had a poorly designed receiver that didn't
reclock the digital signal. This consequently made it sensitive to jitter
especially cable-induced jitter. It was one reason why a review at the time
said this DAC was so good, it would clearly show up the differences between
digital cables.......
Just for fun, you may want to try the X-DAC with different bits of cable,
for this exercise what the cable is, impedance etc, really doesn't matter,
you're listening for differences. A DAC with a well-designed receiver
shouldn't show any difference whatever the cable is, (within reason!).
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com