Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?

ST
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

ST wrote:
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much
less better?

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts.
Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ):

3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?

ST


Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers DAC
2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it
sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari
professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made
with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players.

Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also
expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably
up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony XA777ES
SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference
between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried
comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping digital
filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my Sony
and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my
DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV
box through the DAC2.6).
  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Sep 8, 11:11*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ):

3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


ST


Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers DAC
2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it
sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari
professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made
with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players.

Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also
expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably
up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony XA777ES
SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference
between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried
comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping digital
filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my Sony
and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my
DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV
box through the DAC2.6).


About the digital filter I usually select Filter 3 for Cds and Filter
1 for SACD. But sometimes Filter 1 sounds better for certain Cds. But
was just too lazy playing around with filters than listening to music
so I settled for Filter 3 for Cds. Am I hearing less details? I don't
think so. I will get a new Cd which I have not heard before to see
which one got more details.

In the past I tried to upgrade the Theta DAC. Every person I contacted
couldn't find a 30.0000Mhz oscillator clock to upgrade it. By the way
is there a better alternative for the AD841 Op-Amp?

ST
p.s This is not to say Marantz SA11s2 is no good. It is just polite.

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Sep 8, 11:10*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
ST wrote:
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much
less better?

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts.
Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


Yes, I was expecting less resolution less of everything. But that
wasn't the case here. The bass alone made it more musical. Sharp,
precise and well defined. I agree Marantz is not famous for bass and
some complained it is more like tube sound. But even the plucking of
guitar gives the a better sense of being realistic. The only
department I would say it lacked Marantz is the vocal where I can hear
a slight sibilance. A very slight sibilance.

About oversampling - yeah... Theta oversample them 8 or 16 times -
can't find the manual.

ST

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Rob Tweed Rob Tweed is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

On 8 Sep 2009 03:12:17 GMT, Sonnova
wrote:

I'm still running a Theta Gen Va Balanced, which has to be pushing 13 yrs
old. Tomorrow I will receive, for evaluation, a Benchmark DAC1 HDR. It will
be interesting to see if there is any appreciable audible improvement. I
have my doubts..


I'm betting that the Theta will trounce it. I received a Benchmark DAC 1 PRE
to review and I found that both my upgraded DAC2.6 and the Redbook playback
via my Sony XA777ES sounded better!


"..trounce it" is perhaps pushing it somewhat. "..sound different"
perhaps? Why do I say that? Well I don't know if you've seen the
Audio Clinic review of the Benchmark DAC1 HDR
(http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index...Id=40&blogId=1)

....in which Peter Aczel says the following:

"What the Benchmark DAC1 HDR adds to or subtracts from its input
signal is borderline unmeasurable, so the sonic character of its
output is obviously the sonic character of its input. It’s as simple
as that. It has no sound of its own. Furthermore, its measurements
could be 20 or 30 dB worse and it would still sound the same. I have
convinced myself of that over and over again in double-blind listening
comparisons of all sorts of electronic components at matched levels.
The 100% purity of the DAC1 HDR is of benefit mainly in professional
systems, where the integrity of the equipment chain needs to be
verified and guaranteed. To audiophiles it’s a somewhat abstract
luxury, but not an excessively costly one,

Conclusion

All in all, the Benchmark DAC1 HDR is damn close to a perfect piece of
equipment. Neither its digital performance nor its analog performance
could be meaningfully improved. That’s really all that needs to be
said. If I could change anything at all about it, it would be to add a
couple more analog inputs. I realize that there is no room for that,
so I use a small input switch box that sits on top of it. Most users
won’t need it. There exist DACs and preamps at ten times the price of
the Benchmark, but they aren’t any better. Let the high-end police
come and take me away in handcuffs."

Should we believe him??

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:35:24 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 8, 11:11*am, Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 08:11:42 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ):

3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


ST


Well, it's a question of the details. I have a 9-year old Sonic Frontiers
DAC
2.6. I've upgraded the OP-Amp in it and added a 96 KHz up-converter and it
sounds better than most CD players, it certainly sounds better than my Otari
professional DAT recorder's built-in DAC, but it's much more carefully made
with better quality parts than those used in most stand-alone players.

Now your Theta, IIRC was a very expensive piece of kit. The Marantz, is also
expensive (My 2009 Music Direct catalog has it priced at $3500) and probably
up-converts standard Redbook CDs to DSD before decoding them (my Sony
XA777ES
SACD deck does this too) and should sound very good, so the difference
between the two is probably a matter of taste on your end. Had you tried
comparing the Theta with all of the SA11s2's switchable noise shaping
digital
filters? You may find one that's more to your liking. I did this with my
Sony
and it's the only digital component I have that doesn't play through my
DAC2.6 (I even play my Apple Lossless Compression files out of my Apple TV
box through the DAC2.6).


About the digital filter I usually select Filter 3 for Cds and Filter
1 for SACD. But sometimes Filter 1 sounds better for certain Cds. But
was just too lazy playing around with filters than listening to music
so I settled for Filter 3 for Cds. Am I hearing less details? I don't
think so. I will get a new Cd which I have not heard before to see
which one got more details.

In the past I tried to upgrade the Theta DAC. Every person I contacted
couldn't find a 30.0000Mhz oscillator clock to upgrade it. By the way
is there a better alternative for the AD841 Op-Amp?


The latest generation of op-amps from National Semiconductor are better than
those available 10-15 years ago. Mostly, the improvements are in
self-generated noise, and slew symmetry. Most older op-amps have asymmetrical
slew - that is to say, the positive going half of the waveform takes a
different (shorter) path through the op-amp than does the negative going
half. Whether or not this is audible is debatable, however, I will say that
no audio designer worth his salt would purposely design a discrete gain or
buffer stage with that characteristic.

ST
p.s This is not to say Marantz SA11s2 is no good. It is just polite.


Again, that just might be taste - for which there is no accounting.

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

Dick Pierce wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic
artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units
until the early 90s.


Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's,
IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where
at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon
and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display
adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune
in November of 1986.


A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before
the end of the 1980's


OK, late 80s rather than early 90s.

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like
ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has
not changed since the early 1980's


Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have
been referring to the playback technology.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

ST wrote:
On Sep 8, 11:10?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
ST wrote:
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used ?Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Why do you think this 'experiment' shows it sounds different at all, much
less better?

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic artifacts.
Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units until the early 90s.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


Yes, I was expecting less resolution less of everything. But that
wasn't the case here. The bass alone made it more musical. Sharp,
precise and well defined. I agree Marantz is not famous for bass and
some complained it is more like tube sound. But even the plucking of
guitar gives the a better sense of being realistic. The only
department I would say it lacked Marantz is the vocal where I can hear
a slight sibilance. A very slight sibilance.


Or very active imagination.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

On Sep 10, 12:14*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic

* artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units
* until the early 90s.
Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's,
IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where
at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon
and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display
adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune
in November of 1986.
A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before
the end of the 1980's


OK, late 80s rather than early 90s.

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like
ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has
not changed since the early 1980's


Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have
been referring to the playback technology.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


Yes, playback technology. Or did DAC really make significant
improvement in the past 15 years. The prices may have gone down and
some boutique DAC gone several times up.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

"ST" wrote in message


3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen
III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To
my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then
SA11s2.


The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often
varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in
level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some
other kind of quality difference.

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of
the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB?

Theta used Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp.


The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever
to be used widely in high-performance equipment.

The PCM64K spec sheet says:

"More recently, DACs employing a different
architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and
very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced
("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)."

Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is
1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling
DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD
player was oversampled.

The spec sheet goes on to say:

"These (oversampled) DACs overcome
the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense
of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of
channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the
succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed."

If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then
(1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the
promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see
today. The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent
limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be
completely untrue.

One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include
any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be
omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog
domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious
questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in
the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital
domain.

So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new
reasonably well designed Marantz?


I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to
control *any* variables at all.

I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating
order and performed as well recently as it did on the best day of its life.
Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue.

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long
time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the
sound?


By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the
market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since
the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs
and price/performance improved.

The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical
failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical
performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the
analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and
could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program
material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and
dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional
minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used.

  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Sep 10, 11:38*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"ST" wrote in message



3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen
III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To
my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then
SA11s2.


The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often
varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in
level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some
other kind of quality difference.

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of
the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB?

Theta used *Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp.


The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever
to be used widely in high-performance equipment.

The PCM64K spec sheet says:

"More recently, DACs employing a different
architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and
very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced
("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)."

Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is
1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling
DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD
player was oversampled.

The spec sheet goes on to say:

"These (oversampled) *DACs overcome
the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense
of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of
channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the
succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed."

If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then
(1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the
promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see
today. *The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent
limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be
completely untrue.

One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include
any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be
omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog
domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious
questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in
the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital
domain.

So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new
reasonably well designed Marantz?


I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to
control *any* variables at all.

I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating
order and performed as well recently as it did *on the best day of its life.
Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue.

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long
time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the
sound?


By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the
market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since
the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs
and price/performance improved.

The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical
failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical
performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the
analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and
could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program
material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and
dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional
minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used.




My DAC is PCM63 ( when I wanted to upgrade/mod the DAC I was told I
already got the highest range for PCM63 ending with K and P, I think)
but you were referring to PCM64. The same specs apply to both?

But may main concern is are we being ripped of year in year out by
claims of a newer DAC or player being better than the other previous
models? I believe the the best possible CD playback technology been
achieved at least 10 years back by some companies using the best
available technologies at that time.

BTW, maybe measurements may show the latest got components better than
legacy units but the question is can we hear the improvement?

ST



  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:27:41 -0700, ST wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 10, 12:14*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Dick Pierce wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


How long is 'long ago'? Oversampling can prevent some possible sonic
* artifacts. Oversampling DACs didn't become common in consumer units
* until the early 90s.
Not so. The Philips CD players did oversampling in the 80's,
IN 1987, it was common enough to inspire a NYT article where
at least 3 explicit examples of products from Magnovox, Denon
and Accuphase were featured as having oversampling. Display
adds for a Mitsubishi CD player appeared in the Chicago Tribune
in November of 1986.
A brief search reveals that oversampling was QUITE common before
the end of the 1980's


OK, late 80s rather than early 90s.

And, as I pointed out elsewhere, conversion techniques like
ovsersampling are not related to the redbook format. That has
not changed since the early 1980's


Since the Redbook format obviously has not changed, I assumed he must have
been referring to the playback technology.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine


Yes, playback technology. Or did DAC really make significant
improvement in the past 15 years. The prices may have gone down and
some boutique DAC gone several times up.


Just because Redbook hasn't changed (that's just format specs anyway) doesn't
mean that there haven't been improvements in the equipment chain BEFORE the
actual CD is mastered to glass. Part of the CD mastering chain, for a number
of years, was the Sony PCM-1610, 1620 and 1630 digital recorders. All analog
and most digital recordings bound for the CD mastering room in the early days
was put on video cassette (half-inch U-Matic was the standard) via one of
these Sonys. They were lousy and I should know, I owned and used a Sony
PCM-1620 for years*. Filled with 741 style op-amps and electrolytic and
tantalum capacitors in the signal path, CDs made with them in the chain
sounded truly dismal. I'm sure that at least part of CDs early bad reputation
for general harshness and distorted highs was a direct result of the
industry-wide use of these junkers. Eventually, as computers came along and
people started to pay closer attention to the production side of things,
these machines were retired in favor of other means to make and deliver
digital recordings to the mastering lab.

On the other end of the chain, the quality of most players has improved too.
CD players no longer have steep analog filters full of cheap op-amps and
electrolytic capacitors cascaded into multi-pole filters for antialiasing.
Most antialiasing is done today in the digital realm and oversampling has
placed the need for this kind of filtering far above the audio passband.
Today's CD readers are less error prone than were their forebearers and less
likely to cause as many interpolation-level errors where the Solomon-Reed
error correction ends up having to "guess" at what the digital word is
supposed to be. Even though it's an intelligent guess and probably, in and of
itself, is not sonically catastrophic, add all these things together and the
result is that with todays digital filters, Delta-Sigma DACs, and more robust
front ends, digital playback has improved considerably over the early
machines.

*I used a PCM-1620 with a Sony SL-HF1000 Super Betamax (which, unlike VHS
recorders of the period, allowed one to turn-off all video enhancement
circuitry in the recorder. This was done specifically to facilitate digital
audio recording) to record a local municipal symphony orchestra for a number
of years. For backup, I ran a Sony TC-880P reel-to-reel recorder at 15
i.p.s., half-track using Sony's FeCr mastering tape (for which the 880 could
be optimized. Most recorders couldn't supply enough bias current to use this
tape). I have always thought that the analog back-up recordings sounded MUCH
better than the digital masters - tape hiss and all. When I finally decided
to transfer the entire library to DAT in the 1990s, it was the analog
reel-to-reel tapes that I used for the transfers, not the digital recordings
made on the Betamax recorder and the PCM-1620 because they sounded so poor by
comparison (even when the transfer was done digital-to-digital).



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ST" wrote in message


3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen
III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To
my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then
SA11s2.


The most obvious difference among DACs is their output voltage. It often
varies over a range of several dB or more. A fractional dB difference in
level may not be perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as some
other kind of quality difference.


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match
all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than
another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the
devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying
devices as well as speakers.

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see that the output of
the two devices was the same within 0.1 dB?


That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find that 0.25 dB is
about all one can realistically hope for.

Theta used Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp.


The PCM63K being one of the last non-oversampling, non sigma-delta DACs ever
to be used widely in high-performance equipment.

The PCM64K spec sheet says:

"More recently, DACs employing a different
architecture which utilizes noise shaping techniques and
very high oversampling frequencies, have been introduced
("Bitstream", "MASH", or 1-bit DACs)."

Which is true in a way. The copyright on the PCM64K spec sheet I have is
1990 which is probably when the part was introduced. By then oversampling
DACs had been around for almost a decade - the original Philips/Magnavox CD
player was oversampled.


If you are talking about the little Magnavox FD-1000, you are correct. It
used 4X oversampling and digital filtering and even though it was only only
14-bit, it sounded much better than the Sony CDP-101 or the Kyocera, or the
Denon or any of the other first generation players - it was also about half
the price of these other players and was built like a tank.

The spec sheet goes on to say:

"These (oversampled) DACs overcome
the low level linearity problem, but only at the expense
of signal-to-noise performance, and often to the detriment of
channel separation and intermodulation distortion if the
succeeding circuitry is not carefully designed."

If you understand where the oversampling technology has gone since then
(1990) and why, then you understand that oversampling *always* had the
promise of improved performance with vastly reduced costs, such as we see
today. The above paragraph seems to suggest that there were inherent
limitations with the basic oversampling technology, which we now know to be
completely untrue.

One of the other issues with the PCM64K is that it does not seem to include
any reconstruction filtering. Reconstruction filtering could even be
omitted. Reconstruction filtering, particularly that done in the analog
domain is generally very expensive if done well. There are even serious
questions whether or not it is feasible to do reconstruction filtering in
the analog domain as ideally as can be done economically in the digital
domain.

So my question is how could an old DAC out perform a new
reasonably well designed Marantz?


I question the evaluation technique that was used. It does not seem to
control *any* variables at all.

I also question whether all equipment involved was in fact in good operating
order and performed as well recently as it did on the best day of its life.
Bench testing would provide insights related to this issue.

Is it possible CD format technology already matured long
time ago and there's nothing new can really improve the
sound?


By the time the second generation of CD players such as the CDP 701 hit the
market, the audio side of the technology was pretty well perfected. Since
the mid-1980s, all that happened is that performance with suboptimal discs
and price/performance improved.

The first generation players such as the CDP 101 had very minor technical
failings that were very benign compared to the general level of technical
performance of audio equipment when they were introduced. For example, the
analog filters in the CDP 101 were subject to production variations and
could cause very mild dulling of high frequency sounds with certain program
material. The CDP 101 also shared the same DAC chip both temporally and
dynamically. The latter was not a problem the former could cause additional
minor dulling if an electrically-summed center channel was used.


CD players have improved considerably since those early units. But what has
improved more is the recording side. Getting rid of those awful Sony
PCM-1610, 1620 and 1630 processors that were practically de-riguer for early
CD production helped a lot. Those things were AWFUL!


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
ST ST is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

On Sep 8, 1:45*am, John Stone wrote:
On 9/7/09 10:11 AM, in article , "ST"

wrote:
3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen III DAC to my
Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To my surprise it sounded
better (more to my liking) then SA11s2. Theta used *Motorola 56001s,
30.0000mhz Rubidium clock, PCM63K and AD841 Op-Amp. So my question is
how could an old DAC out perform a new reasonably well designed
Marantz?


Is it possible CD format technology already matured long time ago and
there's nothing new can really improve the sound?


ST


I'm still running a Theta Gen Va Balanced, which has to be pushing 13 yrs
old. Tomorrow I will receive, for evaluation, a Benchmark DAC1 HDR. It will
be interesting to see if there is any appreciable audible improvement. I
have my doubts..


Hi John,

Did you get your Benchmark? Please provide us your evaluation.

ST

  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ST" wrote in message


3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen
III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To
my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then
SA11s2.


The most obvious difference among DACs is their output
voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or
more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be
perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as
some other kind of quality difference.


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must
be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device
under test is even subliminally louder than another,
that's the one that the ear will favor as being the
better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true
for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as
speakers.

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see
that the output of the two devices was the same within
0.1 dB?


That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find
that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for.


IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very
doable.

  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Doug McDonald[_3_] Doug McDonald[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

Sonnova wrote:


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match
all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder than
another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the
devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying
devices as well as speakers.


I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level make any
difference in tests of quality. Sure, if you are trying to tell if you
can tell ANY difference between systems, it matters ... you could have two absolutely
identical systems, that were indistinguishable if level matched,
and if they were off by 0.5 dB anybody coll tell them
apart. But it would be impossible to tell
qich was "better" since they would be the same. I've tried such
tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is better even if
not level matched.

Approximate level matching might also be important
if two systems differed only in frequency response (in which case,
of course, exact level matching would be impossible,
for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had
other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even
if the levels were only approximately matched. I've tried such tests too, and
the level matching did not matter. Of course, it is true that I was
unable to hear differences that other claimed to hear. Maybe
I have a tin ear, but I doubt it (other of course than being old.)

Doug MCDonald


  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

"ST" wrote in message


But may main concern is are we being ripped of year in
year out by claims of a newer DAC or player being better
than the other previous models?


Only if you actually act on them.

I believe the the best
possible CD playback technology been achieved at least 10
years back by some companies using the best available
technologies at that time.


Agreed. We did fairly scientific investigations of this issue back in the
late 80s or early 90s for Stereo Review. We found that one of the first
generation players did sound a little different than the then-newer models,
but only a tiny amount.

After that, good players strongly tend to be indistingishable. They may vary
in terms of how they handle scratches and blemishes.

BTW, maybe measurements may show the latest got
components better than legacy units but the question is
can we hear the improvement?


Once you get frequency response down to within 0.1 dB variations, which
happened at least 20 years ago, there's not a lot of difference to hear.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ST" wrote in message


3 days ago I decided to hook up my old Theta DS Pro Gen
III DAC to my Marantz SA11s2 just for the fun of it. To
my surprise it sounded better (more to my liking) then
SA11s2.

The most obvious difference among DACs is their output
voltage. It often varies over a range of several dB or
more. A fractional dB difference in level may not be
perceived as a difference in loudness, but rather as
some other kind of quality difference.


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must
be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device
under test is even subliminally louder than another,
that's the one that the ear will favor as being the
better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true
for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as
speakers.

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to see
that the output of the two devices was the same within
0.1 dB?


That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find
that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope for.


IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using steady tones is very
doable.


I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an oscillator/test tone
CD and an audio voltmeter can do that. I mean acoustically, at the listening
seat using an SPL meter.
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:55 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must be careful to match
all levels exactly. If one device under test is even subliminally louder
than
another, that's the one that the ear will favor as being the better of the
devices under evaluation. This holds true for signal sources, amplifiying
devices as well as speakers.


I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level make any
difference in tests of quality. Sure, if you are trying to tell if you
can tell ANY difference between systems, it matters ... you could have two
absolutely
identical systems, that were indistinguishable if level matched,
and if they were off by 0.5 dB anybody coll tell them
apart. But it would be impossible to tell
qich was "better" since they would be the same. I've tried such
tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is better even if
not level matched.


The human ear, for some reason that I cannot explain, will always pick the
louder of two sound sources as the "better sounding" of the two. If you are
trying to ascertain whether or not two amps, two preamps, two CD players, two
tuners, two tape decks, or two speakers exhibit any sonic differences between
them, then they have to be as exactly level matched as possible. Due to
possible component interaction (and especially with speakers for obvious
reasons) this should be done at the listening position with an SPL meter
using tones if possible.

Approximate level matching might also be important
if two systems differed only in frequency response (in which case,
of course, exact level matching would be impossible,
for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had
other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even
if the levels were only approximately matched. I've tried such tests too, and
the level matching did not matter. Of course, it is true that I was
unable to hear differences that other claimed to hear. Maybe
I have a tin ear, but I doubt it (other of course than being old.)


That seems to not be the case. If one is noticeably louder than the other,
even experienced listeners will favor it - even though it might have a bit
more distortion.

Doug MCDonald


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

"Doug McDonald" wrote in
message
Sonnova wrote:


Yep. When making any kind of sonic evaluation, one must
be careful to match all levels exactly. If one device
under test is even subliminally louder than another,
that's the one that the ear will favor as being the
better of the devices under evaluation. This holds true
for signal sources, amplifiying devices as well as
speakers.


I simply do not understand this. Why should exact level
make any difference in tests of quality.


Because differences in level are very easy to confuse with differences in
sonic quality.

Sure, if you are trying to tell if you can tell ANY difference between
systems, it matters ...


Small differences in level often don't sound like simple differences in
loudness. They can make many people think they are hearing differences in
timbre, resolution, graininess, etc.

you could have two absolutely identical systems, that
were indistinguishable if level matched, and if they were off by 0.5 dB
anybody could tell them
apart.


Often but not always.

But it would be impossible to tell
whch was "better" since they would be the same.


Well, if they sound the same, what's wrong with that?

I've tried such tests, and indeed it is impossible to tell which is
better even if not level matched.


It is very rare in general for people to hear differences and not decide
that one is "better".

Approximate level matching might also be important
if two systems differed only in frequency response (in
which case, of course, exact level matching would be impossible,


If you have two systems that differ in loudness to an audible degree, how do
you know that there is actually another other difference, especially if that
difference is subtle?

for all frequency bands!) But if two system actually had
other differences (distortion) it should be noticed even
if the levels were only approximately matched.


Distortion will cause systems that are level-matched at low levels to have
mismatched levels when played much louder.

I've tried such tests too, and the level matching did not matter.


I don't know why there would be any angst over level-matching. It is
generally easy enough to do. If it can't be done because there are
significant frequency response differences or distortion, then those are a
very valuable things to know.

  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ST" wrote in message


[ excess quoting snipped ]

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to
see that the output of the two devices was the same
within
0.1 dB?


That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find
that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope
for.


IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using
steady tones is very doable.


I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an
oscillator/test tone CD and an audio voltmeter can do
that. I mean acoustically, at the listening seat using an
SPL meter.


There's *never* a need to match levels acoustically if you are comparing
DACs and digital players.

The only need to match levels acoustically that I know of is if you are
comparing microphones or speakers.




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or so?

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:50:24 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:18:00 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 08:38:47 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"ST" wrote in message


[ excess quoting snipped ]

Have you compared specs or done some bench checks to
see that the output of the two devices was the same
within
0.1 dB?

That's difficult. Under real-world circumstances, I find
that 0.25 dB is about all one can realistically hope
for.

IME matching electrical levels within 0.1 dB using
steady tones is very doable.


I'm not talking about electrical levels. Anybody with an
oscillator/test tone CD and an audio voltmeter can do
that. I mean acoustically, at the listening seat using an
SPL meter.


There's *never* a need to match levels acoustically if you are comparing
DACs and digital players.

The only need to match levels acoustically that I know of is if you are
comparing microphones or speakers.


I agree but my original post I was talking generally.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected] mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME@scs.uiuc.edu is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Did we really improve redbook format in the last 15 years or

Arny Krueger wrote:


It is very rare in general for people to hear differences and not decide
that one is "better".



I see. I must be very rare. I simply can't decide.

Doug McDonald

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to best improve my system [email protected] High End Audio 26 January 28th 07 07:23 PM
Redbook (CD-Audio) documentation John Pro Audio 3 February 8th 05 09:40 PM
Redbook documentation John Pro Audio 0 February 1st 05 11:57 PM
Redbook CD/Firewire Drive/Mac Mike Caffrey Pro Audio 46 August 28th 03 09:33 AM
".mp3" format --> some format suitable for an audio burn software WiseGuy Tech 0 August 6th 03 01:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"