In article , RJH
wrote:
On 10/03/2014 16:49, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Eiron
wrote:
On 10/03/2014 15:15, alexd wrote:
No gold was harmed in the making of these tests. :-)
Just to make your blood boil:
http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...usic-converter
Seems fairly typical for 'subjective' reviews.
or https://tinyurl.com/q8ju7p9
Incidentally, can you *hear* any difference between all these DACs?
Well, in this thread I've been talking about ADCs rather than DACs.
However...
FWIW I don't personally write, or take very seriously, a lot of what
appears as 'subjective comments' in audio reviews. I can't comment as yet
on any relative audible differences between the ADCs I've been testing. So
far, I'd only prefer one to the others because it clearly has better
behaviour in terms of distortion, noise floor, etc. i.e. ye olde basic
injuneering.
Have I sometimes heard differences between various DACs, CD players, etc?
Yes, I think so. Generally slight to negligable when I do. Do I think that
should sway anyone else? No. Not unless I can give a concrete reason.
On that I can say things like:
I preferred the sound of my first CD player (Marantz using the first
Philips chipset) when I added an analogue low pass filter to its output.
(Toko 19kHz low pass filters meant for good FM tuners.) I think that may
have suppressed some garbage around 20kHz and up. May also have altered
the impulse behaviour.
I preferred a Meridian 263 DAC to other DACs and players for many years. No
idea why, but I guess it simply did a better reconstruct and filter job
than others of the period. There are various ways for DACs to seem fine in
some ways but have flaws that cause audible problems.[1] However I didn't
sort out why I preferred it, but it just sounded more pleasing on source
material I liked. [2]
I now prefer the Cambridge Audio DACs, particularly the one in the 851C
player/DAC. Sounds good, and unlike my old 263 and 563 will play higher
rate source material via USB. Also (praise!) has a digital balance control
as well as volume one. Why can't everyone do that!?
So in practice I'd probably still be happy with the decades-old Meridian
263 and 563 if it hadn't been for USB audio, and 'high rez' files, etc.
But I have no idea what I may imagine or what has a real physical basis,
and no idea if anyone else using different ears, room, kit, and sources,
would agree with me. So I avoid giving flowery poetic descriptions of 'why'
one item is 'better' than another. Leave that to people who feel they can
do so, but tend to skip over what they write. :-)
Jim
[1] I've looked at various examples over the years. e.g. the behaviour of
DACs when presented with sample series that require intersample peaks above
0dBFS. Which, alas, happens a lot with modern pop CDs. Yet almost no-one
ever bothers to test for this.
[2] Sometimes the reasons may pass by the standard tests people make. e.g.
I noticed in the ADC measurements that one ADC's noise floor rises quite a
lot when you apply an input signal. So simply measuring the noise level
with no signal doesn't tell you what happens when a signal is applied. I
don't *know* why this happens, only that I can measure it. I can *guess*
various reasons for it happening. But whatever they are, it makes me feel
it is a mark against the ADC. That said, I can of course also say that ye
olde analogue mag taps used to exhibit modulation noise, probably at a
higher level, and we all survived that OK. :-)
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
USB Audio ADCs
Linear Mode
