In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:
James Harris wrote:

Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers



James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)

I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering, etc.

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad 67)
despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical reasons.

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A situation
with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,
Tat Chan wrote:

James Harris wrote:


Nad C541i as transport,
Meridian 203 DAC,
Rotel RA-02 amp,
Dynaudio Audience 62 floorstand speakers




James, I am curious. The Meridian DAC is at least 12 years old. I would
have thought that the newer Burr Brown DACs in the NAD would measure
better and produce "better" sound than the older Philips DAC in the
Meridian (is it multibit or bitstream?)


I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering, etc.


well yes, but the NAD 541i is a one box solution and as such, shouldn't it have
much lower jitter levels compared to using a separate DAC and transport, even
with the well-engineered Meridian DAC?

And since the NAD player has HDCD playback capability, it must use a certain
digital filter that is highly regarded? (can't remember the name of it atm)

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad 67)
despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical reasons.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital data in
a "funny" way?


Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A situation
with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


I doubt that this is simply a matter of choice of DAC chip. Other
influences will include the PSU, buffering, differences in filtering,
etc.


well yes, but the NAD 541i is a one box solution and as such, shouldn't
it have much lower jitter levels compared to using a separate DAC and
transport, even with the well-engineered Meridian DAC?

It will certainly help that the SPDIF transfer is avoided in a one-box
system. However the Meridian systems seem to have very good reclocking,
etc. In then end it would come down to how well each systems was actually
engineered.

In my case I use each DAC for multiple sources, so some sort of transfer is
involved. However if I was buying a new Cd player today it would probably
be a meridian one-box system. :-)

And since the NAD player has HDCD playback capability, it must use a
certain digital filter that is highly regarded? (can't remember the
name of it atm)

FWIW I remain a fan of the Meridian 263 and 563, (as well as the Quad
67) despite them being 'out of favour' for a while for technical
reasons.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital
data in a "funny" way?

They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort of
ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from some of the
same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the end this comes down
to how good a job the engineers did.

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A
situation with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)

Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and he
would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems of SACD.
Yet he made a neat job of sigma-delta DACs of a similar type before moving
on to what he would now - I think - say were 'better'.

From his POV SACD is probably a 'step backwards' to a method he discarded
about 10 years ago. But at the time he made nice DACs that way...

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

thanks for all the info.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the digital
data in a "funny" way?


They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort of
ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from some of the
same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the end this comes down
to how good a job the engineers did.



would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion? On a
thread a few weeks back, it was pointed out the my Rotel 965BX CD player
was noisy, with a lot of ultrasonic noise. And, the Rotel was one of the
early bitstream CD players as well (I am under the impression that SACD
uses a conversion method similar to bitstream conversion from the early 90s)

And could the ultrasonic noise explain why some people have been
comparing SACD to vinyl?

Maybe they'll become popular again if SACD really takes hold. A
situation with a certain wry irony for Bob Stuart if it occurs... ;-


and why would that be? (possibly related to my question above)


Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and he
would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems of SACD.

and he's responsible for the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) format used
in DVD-A!

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

snip

thanks for all the info.


what would the technical reasons be? Did they process/filter the
digital data in a "funny" way?


They use low-bit sigma-delta. Hence they tend to produce the same sort
of ultrasonic 'hash' as SACD. Can also, theoretically, suffer from
some of the same drawbacks as other low-bit methods. However in the
end this comes down to how good a job the engineers did.



would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion?

Short answer: "Pass" :-)

Longer answer: "I suppose it might do in some circumstances. Indeed, I
wrote an article that Hi Fi News published a few months ago that included
this speculation as a possibility springing from the nonlinear nature of
human hearing." :-)

On a thread a few weeks back, it was pointed out the my Rotel 965BX CD
player was noisy, with a lot of ultrasonic noise. And, the Rotel was one
of the early bitstream CD players as well (I am under the impression
that SACD uses a conversion method similar to bitstream conversion from
the early 90s)

And could the ultrasonic noise explain why some people have been
comparing SACD to vinyl?

Again, I refer you to my above-mentioned article. :-)

Since I am in "plug" mode... There will be a follow-on article in a few
months. Book your issue of HFN early to avoid dissapointment. ;-

FWIW once the next item appears in the magazine, I am hoping to put a
longer account of the background, etc, on one of my websites.


Because Bob is what might be termed a 'critic' of the SACD system and
he would prefer LPCM as used in DVD-A to avoid the potential problems
of SACD.

and he's responsible for the MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing) format used
in DVD-A!

Yes. :-)

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

Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Tat Chan
wrote:


would the ultrasonic hash lead to a "pleasing" kind of distortion?


Short answer: "Pass" :-)

Longer answer: "I suppose it might do in some circumstances. Indeed, I
wrote an article that Hi Fi News published a few months ago that included
this speculation as a possibility springing from the nonlinear nature of
human hearing." :-)


UK magazines take a few months to reach Oz. With any luck, the newsagent will
have that copy in stock.


Since I am in "plug" mode... There will be a follow-on article in a few
months. Book your issue of HFN early to avoid dissapointment. ;-

FWIW once the next item appears in the magazine, I am hoping to put a
longer account of the background, etc, on one of my websites.


looking forward to it.