Hyperbole, newer better DACS help high res sound better as well.
From what I have heard, the delta between 44/16 and higher is a lot smaller. The value of high resolution audio files is therefore diminished.
Best,
E
High resolution digital is dead. The best DAC's killed it.
Something that came as a surprise to me is how good DAC's have gotten over the past 5-10 years.
Before then, there was a consistent, marked improvement going from Redbook (44.1/16) to 96/24 or higher.
The modern DAC, the best of them, no longer do this. The Redbook playback is so good high resolution is almost not needed. Anyone else notice this?
Before then, there was a consistent, marked improvement going from Redbook (44.1/16) to 96/24 or higher.
The modern DAC, the best of them, no longer do this. The Redbook playback is so good high resolution is almost not needed. Anyone else notice this?
173 responses Add your response
Erik, Your point is well taken. I've grabbed some of my really old CDs and with my modern disk transport and DAC, the sound quality I enjoy is often times really excellent! I would not necessarily associate the format of a digital source (i.e. 44.1/16, 192/24, DSD, etc.) with the ultimate sound quality. I have a few SACDs where I find the "regular CD" sounds better. I suspect it's in the mastering. |
not realising what they had, traded them in on the latest craze of Sigma Delta super hires units. They had to get a Delta Sigma based dac because they were sucked into doing DSD download playback, and this was their down fall. As Delta Sigma does not get the best out of PCM redbook, it’s a "facsimile" only, and it’s not "bit perfect" . That’s why many now with big CD collections are reverting back to used R2R Multibit dacs like the PCM1704’s ect like you did, and if not buying used, getting the new discrete R2R Multibit ones, which the numbers of, are growing at a rapid rate. Cheers George |
The Sigma Delta architecture has to my ears a sound that gives digital a bad reputation. I own a Wadia 15 which uses the fabulous Burr Brown PCM63 and considering what I paid for this second hand I am surprised more folks don't snap them up. The TDA1543 was mentioned, also good is the IMO better TDA1541, PCM 1702 and some implementations of the 1704. Also UA D20400 I have an Oppo 103 and after living with its screeching disregard for human dignity, obtained a better sounding DAC to send my music to, a Bryston BDA-1. Yes it was better, quite good even, but still not right. Then came the Wadia and WOW, music music music, but, and I'm not concerned, only does redbook. A game changer. Wadia 25 outstanding, uses 4x1702 with slightly different sound and run don't walk if you find a Wadia 9, uses 8xPCM63. There are many DACs using the above mentioned chips that are for sale used. Lots of guys that owned these DACs, not realising what they had, traded them in on the latest craze of Sigma Delta super hires units. http://vasiltech.narod.ru/CD-Player-DAC-Transport.htm Check out the link for very many players or DAC's that use the above. I modded an inexpensive Marantz CD40 that uses the TDA1541 and with Lukasz Fikus' help of Lampizator fame came straight off the DAC chip's pins to the grids of a tube completely bypassing their cheap inferior output stage. Later cut the traces to render it NOS. Non oversampling. This dirt cheap little thing sounded amazing. Try your hand at it, has lots of space to work and you can find them for practically nothing. You may still find instructions on his site. Most of the Philips units shared the same board as Marantz so must be thousands of them floating around. Look out for a CD85 or CD95 which uses TDA1541s1 single crown and excellent transport. Great player as is and modified will beat most stuff. |
I'm very pleased with Reference Recordings (HDCD) whether on LP or CD. The Japanese have also contributed to excellent sounding CD's and SACD's. The only question I HAVE is, if you still own some "records", how much should you spend on a turntable, arm, and cartridge? I know I'm going to get some negative feedback for this, but I wouldn't rule out getting the entire set-up in a box from company "X" and just assembling it in an hour, without sweating the alignment procedures, etc. Considering several price points (starting at perhaps $2000) you might get a super-well manufactured 'table that compares to the same level of fidelity as your CD's, so that one is not a disappointment and the other a revelation. Why I mention this is simply that not every vinyl disc has been released on CD, and many of them are very special even with a few pops and clicks, etc. I wanted a Dave Brubeck album (My Favorite Things-a superb record BTW) and had to get a Japanese import (at least "they" had it). A good used record shouldn't cost $150 either, and I wouldn't do that to someone. But I'm more nostalgic for vinyl that I grew with than a mono-Beatles' set although both are great depending on your inclinations. I mainly listen to my CD collection, but I also used to love shopping for records. For the $5 you could get "the good stuff"- great sound, clean pressings, good packaging, etc. I don't see a lot of those records on CD. Like 8K television, we're moving forward into "the outer limits" but we're losing sight of where we've been. My stereo gave me goosebumps 30 years ago. Just saying.... |
Media sample rate takes a backseat to recording quality no doubt. However I am now a convert to upsampling and there is no going back. I upsample all files to DSD 512 and play back through the T+A DAC8 DSD’s single bit chipless DSD converter. While there are many “sounds the same” DACs around $2k that are very good, the T+A Dac is more than a couple notches above these. How much of that is due to the upsampling and more powerful filtering, I don’t know. I can’t help but think this method is going to gain more and more traction as CPU cycles get cheaper because it’s another significant step up. |
Wherever people talk about DACs, certain themes reliably emerge: -- that R2R, specifically NOS, sounds better, more natural than D/S -- D/S DACs sound way more accurate than multibit & NOS DACs, and image way better -- that certain DACs or DAC mfrs totally suck based solely on their measurements (irrespective of multibit vs D/S) I agree with the first (wholeheartedly), but not the 3rd (and really don't much care about the 2nd). The limitation of any "measurements are all that matters" approach is that it disregards all subtle sonic differences from components--pretending that such differences don't exist or don't matter. I own 2 DACs from Audio GD, the brand one post above disparaged. One is multibit (DAC-19) and the other is NOS multibit (NOS 19). Both are better than any delta-sigma DAC I ever heard or owned. The NOS 19 is my day-to-day DAC (in primary desktop system w/studio monitors + sub as well as headphones); and the DAC-19 is in my secondary, headphone-only system. I started listening to digital in the mid-1980s (on a big, high-resolution 2-channel system) and pretty much hated it. Things slowly got better, but only w/the arrival of multibit have I succeeded in forgetting the whole digital vs analog conundrum and just enjoy the music. Both my monitors (ATC SCM12 Pro) and various headphones & amps are highly resolving, so I am basing this opinion on sonic experience, not simple prejudice. |
@erik_squires I had a very weird experience last weekend. My friend has a DIY dac. In it was a NOS TDA1543 Philips chip hooked on a a Rasberry pi with i2s. It could only play 16/44. The power supply was a very cheap phone charger with an extra usb cable in the charger (2nd power supply). I looked at the psu and my thoughts were. "are we going to listen to music through this?" When the music started playing i fell off the couch in disbelieve. The music was so pure, tangible. It was audiophile heaven...... He paid €300,- for this setup. It sounded like a million bucks. I'm seriously thinking to sell my own dac after hearing his. My own stuff is no slouch either. and i buy new cd's constantly! |
Imho, musical original masters recorded directly to a hi-res digital format should be the norm. It has the highest capacity for frequency response and detail accuracy, a lower noise floor and the ability to capture the actual transient response/dynamics of live instruments and voices. Hi-res digital files also don't deteriorate over time and unlimited exact copies can be easily made without any degradation to sound quality. Tim |
Someone said the Mytek is "not bad" ... if you are referring to the Manhattan, that's selling it way short. It's a great DAC. Same for the Bricasti M1SE. Lesser DAs are surely coming up as the OP says but it's not my expertise. Bottom line with playback ... is knowing the mastering source sample rate. There is no advantage to upsamping and MQA adds distortion. Just the 24 or yes the 16 of the real deal file is great. Older DA needed the higher rates, great DA never have needed it. There is no audio perfection, and that quest is costly and pointless. |
I think both stories are true. There are a lot of remasters people don't realize as well as better DACs. The frequency response, compression, and channel separation of vinyl, CD's and SACD have been shown to be explicitly different. SOME SACD transfers were shown to actually be remasters. CD's when they first came out were compressed in amplitude and L to R separation. HOWEVER!! It is also very true that this generation of DAC's plays 44/16 MUCH better than before, and I can't tell you why. I had an ARC DAC 8, and it was a prime example of this. It played high resolution files beautifully, as well as upsampled files, but 44/16 was pretty mediocre. I upgraded to the Mytek I use now, and that difference vanished. It played all formats better than the DAC 8, but also, it no longer depended on the resolution. I've heard this same effect with a couple of other DACs so I have to believe it is now more wide spread. If I was forced to use older DACs today, I'd be pretty stuck on getting high resolution files or SACD. That's gone now. I'm happy with high res, but I'm also much happier with 44/16 |
wtf - I own the dac that mzkmxcv often brings up and praises. It is good, but it is not perfect. Neither is any other dac that I have owned. As for the Benchmark, it is quite forward sounding. I agree with him that it is very clear, but it does not evoke the "you are there" feeling that I get with my other dac. Which raises the point that even though modern dacs are greatly improved, they can sound quite different, and different models may appeal to different types of audiophiles. |
I'll just weigh in that having read many of the posts, there are lots of things being confused here. 1. Confusing Upsampling vs magically creating more bit depth2. Confusing why one upsamples (its not to get more info)3. A vague notion that digital is suddenly good. Some of it has been good for ages, much still is awful, and most of that from the studio, and in Rock/pop4. Confusing chips with implementation. Differences are in the latter. Gimme some of the old 18/20 bit R2R DACs any day. Hell, don't give them to me, but please sell them to me. :-) 5. And just to make my point, it still doesnt matter because i can make both PDM and R2R sound good or sound bad. (note: PDM = 1 bit = sigma delta, it works like your fuel injection) But yes, overall things are improving, will continue, and red book is good enough But it does make all our engineering lives very difficult due to the proximity of the sampling rate to the nyquist limit. Give us some filter slop room, please! Why does auto-correct want ot make "Nyquist" = NyQuil? G ps: i have info on some of this on my blog at sonogyresearch.com |
The Redbook playback is so good high resolution is almost not needed.Agreed. I have owned 5 dacs in the past two years. Two of them upsampled to DSD. With DSD upsampling, I felt the sound was washed out and flat compared to playback using 44.1/16. Presently, I have a Benchmark DAC3L (used primarily in 44.1/16 mode) and a Border Patrol DAC SE, both currently manufactured. Although they are quite different sounding, they both in their own way bring a liveliness and fullness to the sound that I quite enjoy. No upsampling required. |
I am of two minds. I have about 8K red book titles ripped to flac. Recently I upgraded my bridge to a SOtM sMS-200 Neo and was blown away. My little Teac NT-503 never sounded better. When I added the external word clock and Ben's Illuminati DC power it was unbelievable. The CDs were alive! But... I also have quite a few HiRes files that sound great too. I have found that those DSDs from analog master tape just sing. Yeah it's mostly the mastering, but the best sounding files in my collection are DSD256s. All that said, I have started buying 10" Jazz and Classical records. In mono! |
Now, you may not like hearing what your music sounds like, you may want distortion or coloration, in that case I would look at tube DACs or some poor measuring DACs from Audio-GD or similar. But if you want to hear the music as recorded, the DAC3 L and Qutest are the best for the ~$2000 price range. Not the first time I've read similar from you. Have you actually heard some of these DACs you so easily disparage? In fact, you seem to have opinions on many, many components (not just DACs) and I'm genuinely curious if you've heard them all. Are you in the industry? BTW, I'm also curious to know which components comprise your audio system. Care to share? |
We own close to 2,000 CD's which we haven't been listening to for years--mainly because we were falling back into vinyl and it was a pain to get a flashlight to search the bookcases for specific CD's. My wake up call that DAC's had come a long way was after purchasing a Bluesound Vault 2i, mainly to archive all of the CD's. I have about 1300 ripped so far (as native resolution flacs). I set up an Intel NUC running the Roon Rock OS and the Vault connected to my Audio Research preamp with Transparent Audio interconnects. After being blown away by listening to just a few of the flac files I realized that the 6-year old DAC just didn't have the mojo the new ones do. Now digital and vinyl are enjoyed at about 50-50 rate. It's like getting all new CD's. |
The Benchmark DAC3 L and Chord Qutest are both more transparent. Now, you may not like hearing what your music sounds like, you may want distortion or coloration, in that case I would look at tube DACs or some poor measuring DACs from Audio-GD or similar. But if you want to hear the music as recorded, the DAC3 L and Qutest are the best for the ~$2000 price range.nickecb, i agree with mzkmxcv on these two DACs on my short list as well -- so are the Mytek Brooklyn and iFi Audio Pro iDSD. Depending on unit/config some are slightly above the $2k range but probably still worth a listen. |
assetmgrsc ... I am old enough to remember that Phillips invented digital audio ...Denon was recording digital audio back the the '70s, years before Phillips. |
Just a point of perspective; I am old enough to remember that Phillips invented digital audio and proposed a joint venture with Sony to stop competitive standard conflicts. Phillips' proposed standard was PCM, with 21 bit resolution. This came out as an LP sized CD. The head of Sony insisted that the product had to be reduced in size so as to allow for portability: hence the Sony Walkman. This meant that resolution had to be lowered down to 16 bits and the current Red-book standard came from this limitation. I would personally like to see a new upgraded standard for digital recording and thus, digital play, so long as it is backwardly compatible. Look at what this philosophy has done for PCs over the last 25 years! Lastly, I think that most of the observations ahead of my comment are pretty astute, I just thought that I would broaden the scope a little on how we got here and how we might continue to improve the reproduction of music. |
I'll weigh in as someone who designs this stuff, that redbook is in fact very very good. In fact i have been blogging on digital formats, compression, etc and trying to undo some myths. (Sonogyresearch.com/blog if you care) Audiophiles' suspicion of redbook has been fueled by what can be either mis-steps or arrogant errors in the industry. Perfect sound forever (this in 1985). Bits are bits on digital interfaces a9whcih have a large analog component in timing), rotten early digital mastering and reconstruction filter. Yet, as noted, we are figuring it out. But some in fact were pretty good > decade ago. One stand out at its time was the Theta DS-Pro. I still have one and switch to it occasionally - and it can make great music with great recordings. Of course, like any clear lens, it can also make awful sounds with awful recordings. But that's the two-edge sword of reproduction, as opposed to production. G |
@nickecb The Benchmark DAC3 L and Chord Qutest are both more transparent. Now, you may not like hearing what your music sounds like, you may want distortion or coloration, in that case I would look at tube DACs or some poor measuring DACs from Audio-GD or similar. But if you want to hear the music as recorded, the DAC3 L and Qutest are the best for the ~$2000 price range. |
As explained to me by Paul Weitzel of Tube Research Labs, who was both a recording and equipment engineer, the problem centers around engineering, engineering of the source material and engineering at the reproduction end. People fixate so much on format types and it really comes down to the quality of the recording and the quality of the equipment used to transduce it. Hi Rez formats have no relevance to me as most of my source material and prized music is Redbook. |
Now, we can finally do discrete dacs well enough and economically enough...so R2R comes back with a vengeance, in the high end area of digital. Same for the FPGA versions of similar design and thinking as discrete R2R dacs. And this Airist discrete R2R Multibit Dac was peanuts, around $299 or something with a Massdrop purchase, got the quota filled very quick. All 300 getting shipped next month so they say. https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-airist-audio-r-2r-dac?mode=guest_open&utm_campaign=Drop%... Review https://darko.audio/2018/06/airist-audios-r-2r-dac-350-via-massdrop/ Measurements https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/airist-r2-r-dac-measurements.6418/ Cheers George |
Digital has made great strides ,and many dacs have custom analog output stages as well as very well designed power supplies which were often overlooked.even the digital cables have come a long way in 10 years ,bits are notjust bits. digital noise or artifacts better know as jitter is finally much bettter understood. there are still a lot of Audiophiles who get sucked in with the numbers game such as DSD which can be very good but not much for offerings.and 48/192, when in fact most digitalis in 24/96. all the terminology about sampling,oversampling is many times a marketing ploy. it can make a difference if designed properly but there are so many ways to implement a digital design . Unless you are a digital engineer you just have to trust your ears. some of the best digital I ever heard was the now rare Multibit dacs like the BB 1704 ladder dacs which were individually tested which was why they were often used in pro audio.or even The old Phillips 15 series 16 bit non oversampling dacs ,they we're very natural sounding ,there are also great Vacuum Tube dacs that truly add body And naturalness to recordings . You can spend over $100 k from DCS if you have the income to afford it. I have heard several of their lower budget stuff around $35k which was fantastic. But as Eric stated for under $2k youcan get excellent digital performances,and who would have thought even 5 years ago that we would have highquality streaming ? And there is still Much more to come .digital now can not only match a good turntable but in many ways surpass them in several areas . Welcome to the future !! |
