Jim H wrote:

But designing the equipment specially so that imperfections stand out
is a different thing altogether.

I would agree, although I'm not sure how that would be done - isn't that
just a natural result of better fidelity?


Likely be fine, although technically it should be 75ohm coax, like TV
aerial cable. I wouldn't worry about noise, coax is pretty good at
rejecting it and we're talking about tiny bandwidth.

Quite. I'll keep the 75 ohm requrement in mind.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Jim H wrote:

How good, or not, is DAB through the external DAC?

The limiting factor is usually bitrate, not the DAC, so still worse
than FM.

Audibly, what differences are there between DAB and FM? I'm not a critical
FM listener (mainly because my tuner isn't exciting), so I'm wondering how
DAB would fare for background stuff.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

Jim H wrote:

How good, or not, is DAB through the external DAC?

The limiting factor is usually bitrate, not the DAC, so still worse
than FM.

Audibly, what differences are there between DAB and FM? I'm not a critical
FM listener (mainly because my tuner isn't exciting), so I'm wondering how
DAB would fare for background stuff.


--
Wally
www.art-gallery.myby.co.uk
Latest work: The Langlois Bridge (after Van Gogh)

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:23:04 GMT, Wally wrote:

Audibly, what differences are there between DAB and FM? I'm not a
critical
FM listener (mainly because my tuner isn't exciting), so I'm wondering
how
DAB would fare for background stuff.

Think cassette vs 48k mp3.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:23:04 GMT, Wally wrote:

Audibly, what differences are there between DAB and FM? I'm not a
critical
FM listener (mainly because my tuner isn't exciting), so I'm wondering
how
DAB would fare for background stuff.

Think cassette vs 48k mp3.

--
Jim H jh
@333
.org

In article , Wally
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

If there is a serious problem with the transport, then it may be
losing data. Having a nicer DAC isn't likely to help with that.


I don't think it's losing data, but then I don't know what that sounds
like. There's no scratchy/jumpy digital noise, it just sounds dull,
soft, mushy, indistinct compared to my mate's Arcam.

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. 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!" :-)

Pay yer money and take yer choice on which approach you'd prefer... ;-

Assuming that the data stream is okay, I'd imagine that almost any
external DAC would be an improvement. The difference between my player
and the Arcam was big. It occurs to me, though, that some of the cheaper
DACs on eBay might be quite early models (late 80s, early 90s, perhaps).
How would these typically compare with modern mass-market domestic kit?

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.

FWIW I'd recommend considering Meridian DACs like the 263 and 563.
These sound fine to me, and seem to work very well in my experience
with a wide range of sources.

How would you rate them against the Meridian 203? Is there a particular
spec of DAC that's worth looking out for, like that oversampling stuff?

I should give a 'health warning' that reactions to this area seem to depend
upon personal preferences as well as the choice of source, etc. Hence you
might not share my own views. However that said...

Not heard a 203 in some time. However I decided once I'd heard it that the
263 was superb. It is my impression that the Meridian DACs seem to do a
particularly good job of latching onto external data steams and ignoring
imperfections like jitter. Works very nicely with DVD output at 48kHz,
despite nominally being intended for 44.1kHz.

I tend to be dubious of some of the claims made for 'upsampling'. etc. Most
DACs over/upsample in one way or another, so much of what you read in
magazines seems to me to be marketing re-arrangements of the deckchairs.

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.

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. 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.

However they are stereo only, so not
suitable if you require multichannel surround sound from DVD's.

Stereo's fine - not into all that surround sound stuff. DVD playback is
very rare. I bought the player because the previous cheapie packed in -
the new one was chosen mainly because it had digital out (for putting
stuff on minidisk).

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.

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

In article , Wally
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

If there is a serious problem with the transport, then it may be
losing data. Having a nicer DAC isn't likely to help with that.


I don't think it's losing data, but then I don't know what that sounds
like. There's no scratchy/jumpy digital noise, it just sounds dull,
soft, mushy, indistinct compared to my mate's Arcam.

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. 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!" :-)

Pay yer money and take yer choice on which approach you'd prefer... ;-

Assuming that the data stream is okay, I'd imagine that almost any
external DAC would be an improvement. The difference between my player
and the Arcam was big. It occurs to me, though, that some of the cheaper
DACs on eBay might be quite early models (late 80s, early 90s, perhaps).
How would these typically compare with modern mass-market domestic kit?

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.

FWIW I'd recommend considering Meridian DACs like the 263 and 563.
These sound fine to me, and seem to work very well in my experience
with a wide range of sources.

How would you rate them against the Meridian 203? Is there a particular
spec of DAC that's worth looking out for, like that oversampling stuff?

I should give a 'health warning' that reactions to this area seem to depend
upon personal preferences as well as the choice of source, etc. Hence you
might not share my own views. However that said...

Not heard a 203 in some time. However I decided once I'd heard it that the
263 was superb. It is my impression that the Meridian DACs seem to do a
particularly good job of latching onto external data steams and ignoring
imperfections like jitter. Works very nicely with DVD output at 48kHz,
despite nominally being intended for 44.1kHz.

I tend to be dubious of some of the claims made for 'upsampling'. etc. Most
DACs over/upsample in one way or another, so much of what you read in
magazines seems to me to be marketing re-arrangements of the deckchairs.

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.

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. 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.

However they are stereo only, so not
suitable if you require multichannel surround sound from DVD's.

Stereo's fine - not into all that surround sound stuff. DVD playback is
very rare. I bought the player because the previous cheapie packed in -
the new one was chosen mainly because it had digital out (for putting
stuff on minidisk).

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.

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

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:08:21 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

The standard domestic links (coax and optical) are 'one way' systems
with no backwards link. However provided that the transport and DAC
are working reasonably well, I'd say this does not really matter much.

Righto. If it's not a 'neccessary' thing, then that's fine.

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.

Something to do with better kit does a better job of showing up
flaws, hence, really good kit sounds crap? ;-)

I'm not stepping into that one... :-)

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! :-)

In principle, coax may pick up electronics noise, and might provide an
unintended path for something like an earth loop. In practice, I
can't say I've ever noticed any difference between coax S/PDIF and
optical. They both work fine in my experience. Co-ax has the
advantage of being cheap and easy to make up yourself.

I already have an optical interconnect for punting stuff to a portable
minidisk recorder, so I'd probably give that a go first. The DACs I've seen
for sale all look to have both coax and optical, so it's not like there's a
potential cost saving to be had by going after something without one or
other connection type.

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 15:08:21 GMT, "Wally" wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:

The standard domestic links (coax and optical) are 'one way' systems
with no backwards link. However provided that the transport and DAC
are working reasonably well, I'd say this does not really matter much.

Righto. If it's not a 'neccessary' thing, then that's fine.

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.

Something to do with better kit does a better job of showing up
flaws, hence, really good kit sounds crap? ;-)

I'm not stepping into that one... :-)

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! :-)

In principle, coax may pick up electronics noise, and might provide an
unintended path for something like an earth loop. In practice, I
can't say I've ever noticed any difference between coax S/PDIF and
optical. They both work fine in my experience. Co-ax has the
advantage of being cheap and easy to make up yourself.

I already have an optical interconnect for punting stuff to a portable
minidisk recorder, so I'd probably give that a go first. The DACs I've seen
for sale all look to have both coax and optical, so it's not like there's a
potential cost saving to be had by going after something without one or
other connection type.

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.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

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.

Now say 100 times:
"My dapper Dad's damn DAB DAC doesn't do DAT justice."

Didn't hear you saying it )