|
|
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Wally wrote:
Judging by the prices that DACs are going for, I'm thinking that this would be a good improvement over the existing setup for less than the cost of a comparable player. My mate's £500 Arcam player has quickly established itself as something of a benchmark - I'd like to approach, or improve on, that sort of quality if feasible. My thinking is that, when my existing player starts to bite the dust, I could look at getting a transport that can take a timing signal from a DAC. Is it a standard signal for all (most?) transports/DACs, or is it rather proprietary? I'm sure an oscilloscope is a much cheaper approach... ;-) Actually, he's being coy. 'Better kit' in this case most certainly does *not* include DACs which can't suppress jitter in the datastream, but they certainly cost a lot of money, and they do sound bad! :-) Do you mean DACs that use a sync signal to control jitter, as opposed to those which can take a raw datastream and make the best (or better) of it? Would a DAC which has a sync output and a bunch of oversampling be the right thing to go chasing after? The best value for money in jitter immune DAC's is reputed to be the Benchmark DAC1 which uses a sample rate convertor in front of the DAC. It is a little out of your price range at $850 (no UK distributor either). I'd forget about word clock outputs for your purpose - very few CD players can actually use them. Cheers. James. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
In article , Ian Molton
wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:53:29 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf wrote: For my taste the Meridian DACs seem excellent. Do you know anything about the ARCAM Delta black box 3? Not really, I'm afraid. At the time I settled for the Merdian I was mostly comparing with a few 'one box' players like the Quad 67, not with other outboard DACs. Didn't try any ARCAM. does it sound good? Pass. Also 'sound good' tends to be something people argue about... ;- Hence others (and yourself) might not agree with me on that. does it have an optical input? Pass. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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 |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
In article , Ian Molton
wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:53:29 +0000 (GMT) Jim Lesurf wrote: For my taste the Meridian DACs seem excellent. Do you know anything about the ARCAM Delta black box 3? Not really, I'm afraid. At the time I settled for the Merdian I was mostly comparing with a few 'one box' players like the Quad 67, not with other outboard DACs. Didn't try any ARCAM. does it sound good? Pass. Also 'sound good' tends to be something people argue about... ;- Hence others (and yourself) might not agree with me on that. does it have an optical input? Pass. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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 |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
To minimise this effect components should be placed side by side, not stacked. Most hi-end gear was not designed to handle the effects of relitivity. Eh? Well, by Einstein's principle of equivalence gravity (at a point) is Indistinguishable from acceleration, so time should be very slightly faster for the top component ;) This **tiny** difference between side by side and stacked is maybe about as worthwhile as many other hifi tweaks. -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
To minimise this effect components should be placed side by side, not stacked. Most hi-end gear was not designed to handle the effects of relitivity. Eh? Well, by Einstein's principle of equivalence gravity (at a point) is Indistinguishable from acceleration, so time should be very slightly faster for the top component ;) This **tiny** difference between side by side and stacked is maybe about as worthwhile as many other hifi tweaks. -- Jim H jh @333 .org |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:12:49 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:15:00 GMT "Wally" wrote: So, what's the difference between async and reclocked? If reclocking is about feeding back time adjustment info from DAC to transport, It isn't. does asynchronus mean there's some sort of buffering in the DAC? No, it means that there's no actual clock reference involved. thats not reality, sorry. the 'reclocked' signal is simply one that has been resynchronised to another clock, with bits added / discarded to suit the difference in clock speed between the spdif clock and the reference one. Er, no, reclocking need not necessarioly drop *any* bits at all, since you clock them into a buffer at one rate, and clock them out at another rate. of course, you do need to ensure that the buffer is big enough to cope with differences in the clock rates............ BTW, will you FFS get a newsreader that outputs defined line lengths? Ideally about 70-72 characters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:12:49 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:15:00 GMT "Wally" wrote: So, what's the difference between async and reclocked? If reclocking is about feeding back time adjustment info from DAC to transport, It isn't. does asynchronus mean there's some sort of buffering in the DAC? No, it means that there's no actual clock reference involved. thats not reality, sorry. the 'reclocked' signal is simply one that has been resynchronised to another clock, with bits added / discarded to suit the difference in clock speed between the spdif clock and the reference one. Er, no, reclocking need not necessarioly drop *any* bits at all, since you clock them into a buffer at one rate, and clock them out at another rate. of course, you do need to ensure that the buffer is big enough to cope with differences in the clock rates............ BTW, will you FFS get a newsreader that outputs defined line lengths? Ideally about 70-72 characters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:15:00 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Ian Molton wrote: With the 'async' SPDIF you will hear every bit correctly (and thats still dependant on the conversion method). with a reclocked output, given the clock will NEVER be a perfect match for the SPDIF clock anyway, you are garaunteed to either drop or stretch a whole bit at some point. ick. No, this is simply not true - although it depends on an adequate buffer. So, what's the difference between async and reclocked? If reclocking is about feeding back time adjustment info from DAC to transport, does asynchronus mean there's some sort of buffering in the DAC? Best plan is a single-box player, where *everything* runs off a single low-noise free-running master clock. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 01:15:00 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Ian Molton wrote: With the 'async' SPDIF you will hear every bit correctly (and thats still dependant on the conversion method). with a reclocked output, given the clock will NEVER be a perfect match for the SPDIF clock anyway, you are garaunteed to either drop or stretch a whole bit at some point. ick. No, this is simply not true - although it depends on an adequate buffer. So, what's the difference between async and reclocked? If reclocking is about feeding back time adjustment info from DAC to transport, does asynchronus mean there's some sort of buffering in the DAC? Best plan is a single-box player, where *everything* runs off a single low-noise free-running master clock. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:44:54 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Not 'necessary', but it does help an outboard DAC to approach the quality of a one-box player. generally, much better to buy a better player than to use an outboard DAC for CD replay. Judging by the prices that DACs are going for, I'm thinking that this would be a good improvement over the existing setup for less than the cost of a comparable player. My mate's £500 Arcam player has quickly established itself as something of a benchmark - I'd like to approach, or improve on, that sort of quality if feasible. It's feasible, but only with a single-box player! :-) Try the brilliant Sony NV-900, for instance, which should be available very cheaply - and it plays DVDs, too! My thinking is that, when my existing player starts to bite the dust, I could look at getting a transport that can take a timing signal from a DAC. Is it a standard signal for all (most?) transports/DACs, or is it rather proprietary? No, this is a very rare and always proprietary feature, and doesn't always work too well (the Linn being a case in point). I'm sure an oscilloscope is a much cheaper approach... ;-) Actually, he's being coy. 'Better kit' in this case most certainly does *not* include DACs which can't suppress jitter in the datastream, but they certainly cost a lot of money, and they do sound bad! :-) Do you mean DACs that use a sync signal to control jitter, as opposed to those which can take a raw datastream and make the best (or better) of it? No, I mean DAC which typically has dual PLLs, one wideband to ensure viability with poor transports, and one narrow-band to ensure low jitter with a good transport. Would a DAC which has a sync output and a bunch of oversampling be the right thing to go chasing after? No, a single-box player will always be superior. As noted, try Meridian DACs - they sound good and they do a good job of suppressing jitter. I'm not sure that you'll notice much difference between the original 203 and the later models, as they always had the engineering pretty well spot on. Duly noted. I still have my trusty 203 in its original box if you're interested, but I still recommend a new player. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 21:44:54 GMT, "Wally" wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Not 'necessary', but it does help an outboard DAC to approach the quality of a one-box player. generally, much better to buy a better player than to use an outboard DAC for CD replay. Judging by the prices that DACs are going for, I'm thinking that this would be a good improvement over the existing setup for less than the cost of a comparable player. My mate's £500 Arcam player has quickly established itself as something of a benchmark - I'd like to approach, or improve on, that sort of quality if feasible. It's feasible, but only with a single-box player! :-) Try the brilliant Sony NV-900, for instance, which should be available very cheaply - and it plays DVDs, too! My thinking is that, when my existing player starts to bite the dust, I could look at getting a transport that can take a timing signal from a DAC. Is it a standard signal for all (most?) transports/DACs, or is it rather proprietary? No, this is a very rare and always proprietary feature, and doesn't always work too well (the Linn being a case in point). I'm sure an oscilloscope is a much cheaper approach... ;-) Actually, he's being coy. 'Better kit' in this case most certainly does *not* include DACs which can't suppress jitter in the datastream, but they certainly cost a lot of money, and they do sound bad! :-) Do you mean DACs that use a sync signal to control jitter, as opposed to those which can take a raw datastream and make the best (or better) of it? No, I mean DAC which typically has dual PLLs, one wideband to ensure viability with poor transports, and one narrow-band to ensure low jitter with a good transport. Would a DAC which has a sync output and a bunch of oversampling be the right thing to go chasing after? No, a single-box player will always be superior. As noted, try Meridian DACs - they sound good and they do a good job of suppressing jitter. I'm not sure that you'll notice much difference between the original 203 and the later models, as they always had the engineering pretty well spot on. Duly noted. I still have my trusty 203 in its original box if you're interested, but I still recommend a new player. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:34:04 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:04:30 -0000 Jim H wrote: I wonder - would the DAC ensure the discarded bits are the least significent ones? If so wouldn't the worst reclocking can do just lower the resolution from 16 to 15 bits for 1/44000 of a second? You tell me. I dont know what the DACs are doing internally. Well, they're not discarding any bits, for starters! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:34:04 +0000, Ian Molton wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:04:30 -0000 Jim H wrote: I wonder - would the DAC ensure the discarded bits are the least significent ones? If so wouldn't the worst reclocking can do just lower the resolution from 16 to 15 bits for 1/44000 of a second? You tell me. I dont know what the DACs are doing internally. Well, they're not discarding any bits, for starters! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The sound of 'lost data' depends upon the details, and the DAC. :-) The clearest example I've had of this was some PDO Cds that had the 'brown rot' problem a few years ago. This eventually caused them to misbehave. Listened to via the Meridian 263 DAC, the loss produced rough swishing sounds like bursts of noise. Not getting anything like that. Listened to on a Quad 67 the sound just got very vague and dull. (This was using the Meridian DAC outboard from the Quad, so reading the same data/errors in each case.) The Quad seems to try and 'hide' serious losses by smoothing them over when the meridian seems to decide "bugger it! I'd better let them hear this isn't right!" :-) Vague and dull is more like what I get from the Schneider player. Many moons ago, I used to listen to these speakers via a half-decent turntable and SS amp, and I remember the sound being much clearer than what I get at present - the mate's Arcam approached the turntable-sourced sound in terms of detail and clarity. Much better separation of instruments. Pay yer money and take yer choice on which approach you'd prefer... Given that I don't have a handy DAC with which to test my cheapie player, I suspect it's more a case of paying my money and taking my chance... :-) Afraid I can't really say. In normal use, my experience is that DACs do not often make large differences once the system is essentially decent. That leaves me feeling that almost any external DAC is going to be an improvement over the player's internal one. Which leads me to wonder if something at the (very) cheap end of second hand would make a good improvement. snip The advantage of the 563 over the 263 is that it has a wider choice of input formats. Note though, that each DAC seems to have gone through different 'versions'. The advantage of the 263 is that it is cheaper than the 563. :-) However mine only has a co-ax input. I've noticed in my browsing that some are listed as doing 30-something KHz, as well as 44.1 and 48, and assumed that some were designed to handle different rates. I've been wondering if I should be looking for something which will handle 48KHz as well as 44.1, as a future-proofing thing, but I'm feeling now that 44.1 will be sufficient for a good while. In general I tend to prefer classical music (and some acoustic jazz) to rock or pop. For my taste the Meridian DACs seem excellent. Have a relaxed, natural sound to my ears, and seem able with good material to give an excellent stereo image. My tastes are broader and would include hard rock and various flavours of pop. AC/DC's Hell's Bells had a much better edge on the Arcam compared to the Schneider - it had the feel of a rock band givin' it laldie. They also seem to be very well engineered. However you may well find other DACs suit you (or the other items in your system) better. My own impression is that once DACs are well made, their 'sounds' become fairly similar, and any residual differences are tiny compared with those between, say, loudspeakers. The key difference between my set up and my mate's, using his Arcam player, was that his has better detail - we both felt that mine was a little dull in comparison. My amp and speakers are the Maplin Millennium valve kit and large KEF B139/B110/T27 reflex boxes; his is an Arcam amp (8? 9?) and shiny new Ruark Prologue II speakers. I felt that his was a touch cleaner overall, better soundstaging, faster sounding, and with better detail at higher frequencies. We're planning to try my amp at his place to see how it sounds, hopefully with a view to narrowing down where the differences lie. I just set my DVD to output S/PDIF. This automatically gets the DVD player to extract 'stereo' from film soundtracks that are Dolby x.1 surround, and gives me the LPCM track if there is one. I guess I should have a look at my DVD and see if there's anything I need to set for the digital out to do the right thing - I'd imagine it'll be fine with a normal CD, though (apart from when I first got it, I don't have it hooked up to a display, so I've never really investigated the options). -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The sound of 'lost data' depends upon the details, and the DAC. :-) The clearest example I've had of this was some PDO Cds that had the 'brown rot' problem a few years ago. This eventually caused them to misbehave. Listened to via the Meridian 263 DAC, the loss produced rough swishing sounds like bursts of noise. Not getting anything like that. Listened to on a Quad 67 the sound just got very vague and dull. (This was using the Meridian DAC outboard from the Quad, so reading the same data/errors in each case.) The Quad seems to try and 'hide' serious losses by smoothing them over when the meridian seems to decide "bugger it! I'd better let them hear this isn't right!" :-) Vague and dull is more like what I get from the Schneider player. Many moons ago, I used to listen to these speakers via a half-decent turntable and SS amp, and I remember the sound being much clearer than what I get at present - the mate's Arcam approached the turntable-sourced sound in terms of detail and clarity. Much better separation of instruments. Pay yer money and take yer choice on which approach you'd prefer... Given that I don't have a handy DAC with which to test my cheapie player, I suspect it's more a case of paying my money and taking my chance... :-) Afraid I can't really say. In normal use, my experience is that DACs do not often make large differences once the system is essentially decent. That leaves me feeling that almost any external DAC is going to be an improvement over the player's internal one. Which leads me to wonder if something at the (very) cheap end of second hand would make a good improvement. snip The advantage of the 563 over the 263 is that it has a wider choice of input formats. Note though, that each DAC seems to have gone through different 'versions'. The advantage of the 263 is that it is cheaper than the 563. :-) However mine only has a co-ax input. I've noticed in my browsing that some are listed as doing 30-something KHz, as well as 44.1 and 48, and assumed that some were designed to handle different rates. I've been wondering if I should be looking for something which will handle 48KHz as well as 44.1, as a future-proofing thing, but I'm feeling now that 44.1 will be sufficient for a good while. In general I tend to prefer classical music (and some acoustic jazz) to rock or pop. For my taste the Meridian DACs seem excellent. Have a relaxed, natural sound to my ears, and seem able with good material to give an excellent stereo image. My tastes are broader and would include hard rock and various flavours of pop. AC/DC's Hell's Bells had a much better edge on the Arcam compared to the Schneider - it had the feel of a rock band givin' it laldie. They also seem to be very well engineered. However you may well find other DACs suit you (or the other items in your system) better. My own impression is that once DACs are well made, their 'sounds' become fairly similar, and any residual differences are tiny compared with those between, say, loudspeakers. The key difference between my set up and my mate's, using his Arcam player, was that his has better detail - we both felt that mine was a little dull in comparison. My amp and speakers are the Maplin Millennium valve kit and large KEF B139/B110/T27 reflex boxes; his is an Arcam amp (8? 9?) and shiny new Ruark Prologue II speakers. I felt that his was a touch cleaner overall, better soundstaging, faster sounding, and with better detail at higher frequencies. We're planning to try my amp at his place to see how it sounds, hopefully with a view to narrowing down where the differences lie. I just set my DVD to output S/PDIF. This automatically gets the DVD player to extract 'stereo' from film soundtracks that are Dolby x.1 surround, and gives me the LPCM track if there is one. I guess I should have a look at my DVD and see if there's anything I need to set for the digital out to do the right thing - I'd imagine it'll be fine with a normal CD, though (apart from when I first got it, I don't have it hooked up to a display, so I've never really investigated the options). -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Alicia Tamblyn wrote:
I already have a player - I'm looking into improving it with a DAC. just comparing price differences etc Ah, okay - no probs. Asda also do cheaper units now - getting towards £40 or so. -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Alicia Tamblyn wrote:
I already have a player - I'm looking into improving it with a DAC. just comparing price differences etc Ah, okay - no probs. Asda also do cheaper units now - getting towards £40 or so. -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
James Perrett wrote:
The best value for money in jitter immune DAC's is reputed to be the Benchmark DAC1 which uses a sample rate convertor in front of the DAC. It is a little out of your price range at $850 (no UK distributor either). Aye, a tad pricey. :-) I'd forget about word clock outputs for your purpose - very few CD players can actually use them. Yup, I've pretty-much accepted that this isn't worth chasing after. -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
James Perrett wrote:
The best value for money in jitter immune DAC's is reputed to be the Benchmark DAC1 which uses a sample rate convertor in front of the DAC. It is a little out of your price range at $850 (no UK distributor either). Aye, a tad pricey. :-) I'd forget about word clock outputs for your purpose - very few CD players can actually use them. Yup, I've pretty-much accepted that this isn't worth chasing after. -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
[original post missing from my server]
In article , Jim H My point is, with digital better fidelity means better at recovering data. If high-end dacs were good at this they would find it harder to justify ridiculous CD transport prices. How would you square this view with my earlier comment that, if a cheap CD drive can deliver faultless computer data, then a cheap CD transport should be able to do so as well? Do CD transports lack error correction that one presumes is present in computer kit? -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
[original post missing from my server]
In article , Jim H My point is, with digital better fidelity means better at recovering data. If high-end dacs were good at this they would find it harder to justify ridiculous CD transport prices. How would you square this view with my earlier comment that, if a cheap CD drive can deliver faultless computer data, then a cheap CD transport should be able to do so as well? Do CD transports lack error correction that one presumes is present in computer kit? -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , just me writes It's a comparative thing. The DAC on my DAB tuner (Sony STD777es) sounds inferior then when compared with the sound whilst connected through the DAC of the Arcam Black Box 500. I would assume that lesser DAB tuners would also benefit in this manner. Yes the bitrate of the transmission has a large bearing on the sound, but then so does the DAC. When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts. Yes better, but NICAM and FM still sound better..... Not really relevant though. No UK radio transmissions employ NICAM (do they elsewhere?) whilst the radio services offered via Freeview aren't available on FM. NICAM is used to feed the main FM transmitters in the UK well BBC ones. I should have been more specific, but I think it was clear I was refering to domestic broadcast services and not network operations. The extra radio channels on freeview are not available on FM as you rightly point out. However freeview does use higher transmission rates then T-DAB.. Which takes us back to my previous point, "When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts" |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , just me writes It's a comparative thing. The DAC on my DAB tuner (Sony STD777es) sounds inferior then when compared with the sound whilst connected through the DAC of the Arcam Black Box 500. I would assume that lesser DAB tuners would also benefit in this manner. Yes the bitrate of the transmission has a large bearing on the sound, but then so does the DAC. When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts. Yes better, but NICAM and FM still sound better..... Not really relevant though. No UK radio transmissions employ NICAM (do they elsewhere?) whilst the radio services offered via Freeview aren't available on FM. NICAM is used to feed the main FM transmitters in the UK well BBC ones. I should have been more specific, but I think it was clear I was refering to domestic broadcast services and not network operations. The extra radio channels on freeview are not available on FM as you rightly point out. However freeview does use higher transmission rates then T-DAB.. Which takes us back to my previous point, "When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts" |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:36:54 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote: DACs like the Meridian ones apply control loops to read in the data, and then play them out under the control of a 'smoothed' local clock. This can reduce the effects of jitter provided the input isn't too bad. well, there comes a point where cumulative jitter is more or less the same as either no jitter, or (effectively) a different than expected clock speed (with resulting loss of bits if it goes on long enough). a 'smoothed' clock would basically be a 'super long timebase PLL' (is that what you were getting at there?) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:36:54 +0000 (GMT)
Jim Lesurf wrote: DACs like the Meridian ones apply control loops to read in the data, and then play them out under the control of a 'smoothed' local clock. This can reduce the effects of jitter provided the input isn't too bad. well, there comes a point where cumulative jitter is more or less the same as either no jitter, or (effectively) a different than expected clock speed (with resulting loss of bits if it goes on long enough). a 'smoothed' clock would basically be a 'super long timebase PLL' (is that what you were getting at there?) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Wally wrote:
[original post missing from my server] In article , Jim H My point is, with digital better fidelity means better at recovering data. If high-end dacs were good at this they would find it harder to justify ridiculous CD transport prices. How would you square this view with my earlier comment that, if a cheap CD drive can deliver faultless computer data, then a cheap CD transport should be able to do so as well? Do CD transports lack error correction that one presumes is present in computer kit? I think all decks are basicaly the same at recovering data, its the conversion to analoguw where the differences lie. Ian |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Wally wrote:
[original post missing from my server] In article , Jim H My point is, with digital better fidelity means better at recovering data. If high-end dacs were good at this they would find it harder to justify ridiculous CD transport prices. How would you square this view with my earlier comment that, if a cheap CD drive can deliver faultless computer data, then a cheap CD transport should be able to do so as well? Do CD transports lack error correction that one presumes is present in computer kit? I think all decks are basicaly the same at recovering data, its the conversion to analoguw where the differences lie. Ian |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:56:14 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: With the 'async' SPDIF you will hear every bit correctly (and thats still dependant on the conversion method). with a reclocked output, given the clock will NEVER be a perfect match for the SPDIF clock anyway, you are garaunteed to either drop or stretch a whole bit at some point. ick. No, this is simply not true - although it depends on an adequate buffer. No, you ARE wrong. there are two scenarios, and jitter really isnt an issue, becaue Scenario 1: Two clocks are a *perfect* frequency match. Unheard of unless they are physically synchronised, which isnt what we are discussing, so discard this scenario. Scenario 2: The two clocks are not a prefect match, the DAC clock is either slower or faster than the data sources clock. in this case, if its faster, it will (periodically) drain all its buffering, no matter how much there is, and will end up stretching bits to fill the gap (or playing silence, whatever) if its slower, it will, periodically end up with the buffer over-filling and bits will be lost. jitter is simply noise above, and will average out to nothing. If it DIDNT cancel out, it'd effectvely be a frequency drift of the data sources clock, which is no longer called jitter (duh). such a 'drift' would imply a loss of data -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:33:51 GMT
"Wally" wrote: The best value for money in jitter immune DAC's is reputed to be the Benchmark DAC1 which uses a sample rate convertor in front of the DAC. It is a little out of your price range at $850 (no UK distributor either). Aye, a tad pricey. :-) And, IMHO, the wrong solution to the problem. Can we say 'aliasing' ? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:33:51 GMT
"Wally" wrote: The best value for money in jitter immune DAC's is reputed to be the Benchmark DAC1 which uses a sample rate convertor in front of the DAC. It is a little out of your price range at $850 (no UK distributor either). Aye, a tad pricey. :-) And, IMHO, the wrong solution to the problem. Can we say 'aliasing' ? -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:56:15 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: I still have my trusty 203 in its original box if you're interested, but I still recommend a new player. Damnit! (out of interest, how much were you asking?) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:56:15 +0000 (UTC)
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: I still have my trusty 203 in its original box if you're interested, but I still recommend a new player. Damnit! (out of interest, how much were you asking?) -- Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ |||| Maintainer: arm26 linux Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with ketchup. |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
In article , just me
writes "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , just me writes It's a comparative thing. The DAC on my DAB tuner (Sony STD777es) sounds inferior then when compared with the sound whilst connected through the DAC of the Arcam Black Box 500. I would assume that lesser DAB tuners would also benefit in this manner. Yes the bitrate of the transmission has a large bearing on the sound, but then so does the DAC. When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts. Yes better, but NICAM and FM still sound better..... Not really relevant though. No UK radio transmissions employ NICAM (do they elsewhere?) whilst the radio services offered via Freeview aren't available on FM. NICAM is used to feed the main FM transmitters in the UK well BBC ones. I should have been more specific, but I think it was clear I was refering to domestic broadcast services and not network operations. Well the higher rate of the NICAM distribution enhances the FM signal:-)) The extra radio channels on freeview are not available on FM as you rightly point out. However freeview does use higher transmission rates then T-DAB.. Which takes us back to my previous point, "When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts" -- Tony Sayer |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
In article , just me
writes "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , just me writes It's a comparative thing. The DAC on my DAB tuner (Sony STD777es) sounds inferior then when compared with the sound whilst connected through the DAC of the Arcam Black Box 500. I would assume that lesser DAB tuners would also benefit in this manner. Yes the bitrate of the transmission has a large bearing on the sound, but then so does the DAC. When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts. Yes better, but NICAM and FM still sound better..... Not really relevant though. No UK radio transmissions employ NICAM (do they elsewhere?) whilst the radio services offered via Freeview aren't available on FM. NICAM is used to feed the main FM transmitters in the UK well BBC ones. I should have been more specific, but I think it was clear I was refering to domestic broadcast services and not network operations. Well the higher rate of the NICAM distribution enhances the FM signal:-)) The extra radio channels on freeview are not available on FM as you rightly point out. However freeview does use higher transmission rates then T-DAB.. Which takes us back to my previous point, "When I buy a new Freeview box with digital output next month I should benefit from the superior bitrates seemingly available via this platform with some broadcasts" -- Tony Sayer |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
|
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
|
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Ian Molton wrote:
And, IMHO, the wrong solution to the problem. Can we say 'aliasing' ? We very probably can, but we might be wondering what we mean by it... Hmm, sample rate converter... Would this be something like taking a signal at a given rate and then trying to interpolate additional bits that aren't in the original stream, presumably with a view to increasing the rate? ISTR a recent discussion about HDCD... -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
Ian Molton wrote:
And, IMHO, the wrong solution to the problem. Can we say 'aliasing' ? We very probably can, but we might be wondering what we mean by it... Hmm, sample rate converter... Would this be something like taking a signal at a given rate and then trying to interpolate additional bits that aren't in the original stream, presumably with a view to increasing the rate? ISTR a recent discussion about HDCD... -- Wally www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh) |
Add a DAC to a cheap CD player?
In article , Wally
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: Listened to on a Quad 67 the sound just got very vague and dull. (This was using the Meridian DAC outboard from the Quad, so reading the same data/errors in each case.) The Quad seems to try and 'hide' serious losses by smoothing them over when the meridian seems to decide "bugger it! I'd better let them hear this isn't right!" :-) Vague and dull is more like what I get from the Schneider player. It is therefore possible that this is due to smoothing over lost data. However it may simply be that the frequency response is poor and is rolling off the HF. Hard to say without some measurements, etc. Pay yer money and take yer choice on which approach you'd prefer... Given that I don't have a handy DAC with which to test my cheapie player, I suspect it's more a case of paying my money and taking my chance... :-) :-) That does tend to be the way around - unless you can pursuade someone to loan you a DAC on a 'try before buy' basis. Afraid I can't really say. In normal use, my experience is that DACs do not often make large differences once the system is essentially decent. That leaves me feeling that almost any external DAC is going to be an improvement over the player's internal one. Which leads me to wonder if something at the (very) cheap end of second hand would make a good improvement. I'm biassed, but my recommendation would be for an old meridian DAC as these seem well engineered, and sound excellent to me. Other DACs may be superb, though. Some makers do seem to engineer a specific 'sound' which you may prefer. I've noticed in my browsing that some are listed as doing 30-something KHz, as well as 44.1 and 48, and assumed that some were designed to handle different rates. I've been wondering if I should be looking for something which will handle 48KHz as well as 44.1, as a future-proofing thing, but I'm feeling now that 44.1 will be sufficient for a good while. If you are going to play the sound from DVDs then 48kHz is required. Also check that your DVD can be set to output S/PDIF, not just the 'bitstream' for surround Dolby, etc. Older DACs can understand S/PDIF but not the bitstream. (BTW This is yet another multiple-use of a word as 'bitstream' has also been used for something quite difference to its meaning in this context.) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/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 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk