Building a Hi-Fi advice

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
Price isn't the deciding factor for me, because if it was, I would prefer the DCS Debussy to an Electro EMC 1UP, or a Chord QBD76 to a MDS...which I don't, so I certainly don't erroneously correlate price with performance.

The below statement of yours says otherwise.

CnoEvil said:
IME. The Source is vital, and if expensive, it needs an equally revealing system to show the difference.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
unsleepable said:
And that's, I think, a very naïve opinion, lacking commercial sense. I agree that digital sources should sound similar—after all, the DAC chipsets used by even the most estoric DACs can be found dirt cheap in eBay. But the truth is that some vendors keep on colouring their products to please specific shares of the market. For example, bumping lower frequencies to better match cheap, lean speakers.

I agree

DACs / Streamers can sound different depending on type (eg.NOS), and things like Upsampling, Oversampling, Filtering, Power Supply, isolation, Clocking etc
 

Overdose

Well-known member
Feb 8, 2008
279
1
18,890
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
The appreciation of music and how much you will like a particular system, is subjective. There are no measurements for realism, cohesiveness, believeability and the transmission of music in an emotive way.

With respect, this seems a typically meaningless 'audiophile' statement. If more money doesn't mean higher fidelity, then what are you spending your money on?

The whole purpose of hi-fi is to reproduce faithfully, a recording of any chosen media. If systems vary so widely in playback, particularly at the price point you are suggesting, then something has falling very short of the mark and the system is anything but hifi. If you truly believed the above, then a much cheaper system utilising a comprehensive DSP package would be all that you'd need or ever want.

Just dial in your current emotive state and off you go.
 

matt49

Well-known member
Apr 7, 2013
52
4
18,545
Visit site
Overdose said:
It's statements like these that show more than a little naivity exists still. All digital sources measure ruler flat, or as near to it as makes no difference. If they don't, then something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

Given the exact same frequency response and in most cases, an inaudible noise floor, they will not sound different from one another. Level match the equipment and you will remove any perceived differences.

You seem to be erroneously corelating price to performance. True, quality improves with greater expenditure, but in the digital realm this stops fairly early and a simple transparent (and transparent is frankly as good as it gets) DAC can be had for around £100.

I think it's a bit more complex than that.

I've certainly heard differences between allegedly transparent digital sources and have done so reliably under blind conditions. For instance, the effect of changing a streamer's or DAC's PSU can in some circumstances be quite dramatic.

Equally, the differences between DAC filters are pretty clear if you know what you're listening for: Running through the various filter options in the MDAC illustrates this clearly.

On the other hand, I agee that streaming from a MAC/PC can be done very cheaply these days, and it's dead easy to exclude all the possible sources of distortion and noise by storing files on SSDs, streaming wirelessly or via ethernet, and using battery PSUs.

So it's perfectly reasonable to build a digital system with a source that costs a fraction of the amp and speakers.

Matt
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
Would you spend £20k on a system without listening to it?

Rich people often do with 10 times that number. They just leave it to the professionals.

I would buy a Meridian active system without auditioning for 20K.

CnoEvil said:
The appreciation of music and how much you will like a particular system, is subjective. There are no measurements for realism, cohesiveness, believeability and the transmission of music in an emotive way.

There are no measurments for realism, only for reality. Engineers will try to reproduce the real thing as best to their ability / budget. Making yourself believe what you hear is real is up to you and the marketing industry.
 

unsleepable

New member
Dec 25, 2013
6
0
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
unsleepable said:
And that's, I think, a very naïve opinion, lacking commercial sense. I agree that digital sources should sound similar—after all, the DAC chipsets used by even the most estoric DACs can be found dirt cheap in eBay. But the truth is that some vendors keep on colouring their products to please specific shares of the market. For example, bumping lower frequencies to better match cheap, lean speakers.

I agree

DACs / Streamers can sound different depending on type (eg.NOS), and things like Upsampling, Oversampling, Filtering, Power Supply, isolation, Clocking etc

Well, that's not exactly what I meant… Colouring and quality are in my opinion different things.

Jitter (clocking) is already an obsolete issue for current, quality systems, however important it used to be. Only very cheap DACs, stuff like the Raspberry PI or bad software implementations are affected by it. I'd be surprised if any DAC released in the last couple of years over £200 suffers from audible jitter.

Noise isolation is always very important. But again, this is an issue that can be solved without incurring in high costs.

Upsampling is a simple trick to simplify systems design. Instead of implementing a system that can deal with a number of scenarios, it's much easier to convert all the scenarios to the most complex one, and just deal with that. When mixing audio signals, upsampling helps keeping the noise level out of the audible frequencies. But regarding music reproduction, it does not in my opinion make any difference—or again, shouldn't with a reasonable good DAC implementation. Same goes for non-oversampling DACs—with the added issue that these probably use older DAC chipsets.

I agree that DACs may sound different. My point is that from a given price level, the differences will likely not be related to their quality but to a vendor choice.
 

unsleepable

New member
Dec 25, 2013
6
0
0
Visit site
matt49 said:
I've certainly heard differences between allegedly transparent digital sources and have done so reliably under blind conditions. For instance, the effect of changing a streamer's or DAC's PSU can in some circumstances be quite dramatic.

Equally, the differences between DAC filters are pretty clear if you know what you're listening for: Running through the various filter options in the MDAC illustrates this clearly.

If a DAC is taking noise from the mains because it is not well isolated, replacing the PSU may alter its sound. But this is just solving an issue, not improving the sound quality. I mean, you cannot keep on replacing the PSU by a more expensive one and getting a better sound.

As for filters, I'd argue that DAC filters are pretty much the same as tone controls in amplifiers. :eek:
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
Vladimir said:
I would buy a Meridian active system without auditioning for 20K.

Then I suspect you have heard some sort of Meridian system in the past, to make that statement....I have, and it was indeed very good.

If this forum is anything to go by, one size certainly doesn't fit all...remember, the only way to discover another person's taste with any certainty, is to sit them in front of a variety of different sounding systems, and then ask them. There is no measurement you can take to predict this....only ask subjective questions.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
unsleepable said:
If a DAC is taking noise from the mains because it is not well isolated, replacing the PSU may alter its sound. But this is just solving an issue, not improving the sound quality. I mean, you cannot keep on replacing the PSU by a more expensive one and getting a better sound.

As for filters, I'd argue that DAC filters are pretty much the same as tone controls in amplifiers. :eek:

- When Linn introduced their Dynamik p/s, it made quite a noticeable worthwhile difference.

- Here is Linn's take on upsampling and what they do: http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Up-sampling

- DCS make some great sounding stuff and provide a separate Clock to further improve the sound......I have only heard their systems that include the clock, but IIRC WHF have heard the positive difference that the Clock makes.
 

Vladimir

New member
Dec 26, 2013
220
7
0
Visit site
When someone compared the Sony PlayStation 1 as a CDP to some expensive bits of gear, it stood on equal ground.

There are two explanations for this:

1) All basically well made digital sources sound the same when level matched for output.

2) The Sony PS1 is special, it is a Giant Killer!

Guess which route the audiophiles and the magazines took.

John Atkinson measured the PS1 and it had consistently worse measured performance than any CDP yet it wasn't audibly any worse. He just said it remains a mistery why it sounds so good.

smiley-undecided.gif
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
Overdose said:
CnoEvil said:
Price isn't the deciding factor for me, because if it was, I would prefer the DCS Debussy to an Electro EMC 1UP, or a Chord QBD76 to a MDS...which I don't, so I certainly don't erroneously correlate price with performance.

The below statement of yours says otherwise.

CnoEvil said:
IME. The Source is vital, and if expensive, it needs an equally revealing system to show the difference.

By expensive, I meant that it justifies its price.....sorry if that wasn't clear in what I was trying to get across, which was that superior sources (often more expensive) need a system of requisite quality to shine.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
Overdose said:
With respect, this seems a typically meaningless 'audiophile' statement. If more money doesn't mean higher fidelity, then what are you spending your money on?

You seem to be missing every point I'm trying to make.

The best sources I've heard have been expensive, but being expensive is no guarantee that it will be better.

How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?....By listening.

In reality, the whole purpose of Hifi is to reproduce music in such a way that the purchaser actually likes what he hears, otherwise they won't listen to it.

Trying to get a system to sound perfectly neutral is near impossible since there are so many variables at play....enjoyable is a more realistic goal, with a much higher chance of success.
 

matt49

Well-known member
Apr 7, 2013
52
4
18,545
Visit site
unsleepable said:
matt49 said:
I've certainly heard differences between allegedly transparent digital sources and have done so reliably under blind conditions. For instance, the effect of changing a streamer's or DAC's PSU can in some circumstances be quite dramatic.

Equally, the differences between DAC filters are pretty clear if you know what you're listening for: Running through the various filter options in the MDAC illustrates this clearly.

If a DAC is taking noise from the mains because it is not well isolated, replacing the PSU may alter its sound. But this is just solving an issue, not improving the sound quality. I mean, you cannot keep on replacing the PSU by a more expensive one and getting a better sound.

I agree that dealing with mains-borne noise is cheap and easy; that was my point. It's cheap and easy to get digital right.

But I do also think that amp power can be improved by better components and design. For instance in digital amps some power units generate more noise than others. This is measurable and can have an audible effect on noise floor. You can design a less noisy SMPS, for instance the Devialet has four SMPS units running at 90 deg to one another. It's measurably quieter.

unsleepable said:
As for filters, I'd argue that DAC filters are pretty much the same as tone controls in amplifiers. :eek:

I can sort of see why you'd say that, but there are some important differences. DAC filters are essential in order to block the effects of foldover round the Nyquist frequency. Tone controls are not essential. Some DAC filters introduce effects in the time domain such as pre-ringing. You won't get any effects in the time domain from tone controls, or at least you shouldn't if they're well designed.

Matt
 

lindsayt

New member
Apr 8, 2011
16
2
0
Visit site
Overdose said:
It's statements like these that show more than a little naivity exists still. All digital sources measure ruler flat, or as near to it as makes no difference. If they don't, then something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

Given the exact same frequency response and in most cases, an inaudible noise floor, they will not sound different from one another. Level match the equipment and you will remove any perceived differences.

You seem to be erroneously corelating price to performance. True, quality improves with greater expenditure, but in the digital realm this stops fairly early and a simple transparent (and transparent is frankly as good as it gets) DAC can be had for around £100.

It's statements like this from someone that hasn't heard a selection of digital sources at widely varying prices that demonstrates a closed mind.

Frequency response and an adequate signal to noise ratio do not tell you all you need to know about how something will sound. Far from it.

I do think that it costs less to produce a world class digital source than it does to produce a world class vinyl source, or world class speakers or world class amplification. All you need is a world class DAC chip, with a world class analogue stage - which might even be no analogue stage if the chip has sufficient output for our needs - plus a world class power supply of modest power.

If we can dispense with the analogue section, our world class DAC would cost nearer to £100 than £1000. If we need an analogue amplification section for world class performance in any particular system it would cost nearer to £1000 than £100 or £10,000.
 

unsleepable

New member
Dec 25, 2013
6
0
0
Visit site
CnoEvil said:
- When Linn introduced their Dynamik p/s, it made quite a noticeable worthwhile difference.

Sure, like Naim and Cyrus. I know that their power supplies improve the sound of their components. But if their systems need a better power supply, they should add it from the beginning and be done with it, instead of charging extra.

That's the difference between vendors that try to make the best possible sounding devices, and make a business out of it, and vendors that make business out of consumers trying to get the best possible sound. Funnily enough, the strategy of such vendors is in detriment of consumers, as one of the most expensive parts of modern Hi-Fi systems is often the casing.

CnoEvil said:
- Here is Linn's take on upsampling and what they do: http://docs.linn.co.uk/wiki/index.php/Up-sampling

Just read the document. Sorry, but in my opinion it's full of marketing EDITED—pretty much like those found in the websites of other Hi-Fi vendors. The only thing they talk about that makes sense is noise.

Upsampling does not only not increase the sound quality, it may actually degrade it. When upsampling, interpolation is performed to create the missing data in the increased-resolution audio signal. This operation is not exact in our decimal system—192 or 384 are not perfect multiples of 44.1—, even less with the floating numbers used by computing devices, which may carry a lot of information in the sense that can quantify very small differences, but do not actually round up easily.

The error is of course so very small that cannot be heard. But I'd argue that given the experiment of converting 44.1 audio to 192—or 384 as Linn proposes, it does not matter—, and then back to 44.1 again without rounding numbers, and performing this same process a sufficient number of times, eventually the difference would be heard. In practical terms this experiment would be unuseful anyways—but upsampling the audio signal cannot increase the level of detail or any other quality that is not there to start.

CnoEvil said:
- DCS make some great sounding stuff and provide a separate Clock to further improve the sound......I have only heard their systems that include the clock, but IIRC WHF have heard the positive difference that the Clock makes.

Also Antelope and other vendors that overprice their products make DACs that can use external clocks. Marketing-wise, I'll admit that this is very cool stuff. The clock is only used to codify the audio signal though, and all that matters is that it "ticks" at precise instants in order to prevent jitter. If you heard a sound improvement between two products from the same vendor, and the only difference was an added clock, that means that the lesser product actually suffers from jitter high enough to be heard—which I'd suggest is quite, quite lame for a respectable Hi-Fi vendor.

I know it happens. And we haven't yet seen the limit of creativity when it comes to getting more money out of people. But the truth is that a very precise crystal oscillator costs less than a couple of bucks. And these things are tiny—they definitely don't need casing of their own. Lack of precission is not the reason for jitter for a current product… Probably just a bad implementation, or in case of devices with a central CPU, competition for resources that prevent the device from processing data at the exact moment it has to.

A final thought about external clocks… Since time precission is so vital to prevent jitter, I would have thought that it made more sense to sit the clock right next to the DAC, as to avoid a longer transmission path and any possible interferences. In reality this does not matter so much, as a signal as simple as a tick can easily be guarded from interferences given an adequate voltage, and the time it takes for the signal to reach the DAC does not matter so much either—all that matters is that the delay is equal for every tick so that the interval between them is kept constant. But it is easy to see how the margin for error is bigger with an external clock than with an internal one, and the only reason that justifies this kind of design is pure marketing.
 

CnoEvil

New member
Aug 21, 2009
556
14
0
Visit site
@ Unsleepable.

Linn did build-in the P/S, which took three years of development and is now standard......though I agree with your sentiment of ever more expensive add on Power Supplies.

I am not trying to defend the different approaches of these companies, but I'm trying to show why DACs / Streamers can sound different. Generally I hear the product first and only get into the "Marketing" after being impressed, to see if I can understand why.

IME. The only way to determine if Audio Note's NOS Valve DACs, Linn's Upsampling or DCS's Ring DAC / Master Clock work as a solution, is to try it against its peers.

FWIW. The best digital source I've heard is the Linn Klimax DS/1, and it's by no means the most expensive.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
lindsayt said:
TrevC said:
I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.
I like pianos to sound like pianos. The Behringer isn't very good at making pianos sound like pianos. It's OK with pop music.

What utter nonsense. There is no difference between a Behringer producing 100 wats at 0.01% distortion than a Krell doing the same thing.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
TrevC said:
CnoEvil said:
eg. Valve or Solid State; Active or Passive; Class A or Class D;

Not valve, unless you like distortion and unreliability. Class AB preferably. I've never demoed an amplifier in my life, they all sound so similar. Speaker sonic differences are huge however and it would be best to borrow some if you can.

The balance of the Universe is now restored, as i couldn't agree less.

Which Valve or Class D amps have you tried?

My own home brew 6L6 / 6SN7, and ECC83 RIAA preamp, loads of Quads and Leaks, Eagle, Conrad Johnson, Concord. (I used to repair them) Not heard a class D, but what's the point in them apart from power saving? Once upon a time transistor amps were not great, now they are. Who wants a big hot lump in your listening room on a hot summer's day?

The limitation with a valve amp is poor damping at LF caused by the output transformers.
 

Native_bon

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2008
181
5
18,595
Visit site
Overdose said:
CnoEvil said:
Overdose said:
steve4232 said:
If all digital sources sounded the same and equally good, none of these companies making high end digital equipment could exist. Last week I resisted the temptation to audition a £75,000 CD player, not just because I couldn't afford it by a long shot but I did not want to be disappointed with my own system when I got home again!

With regard to digital sources in particular, high end equipment merely gives you exclusivity and a lighter wallet. The internals of such a player are likely as not using off the peg PCBs as used in much cheaper and just as capable equipment.

High end companies exist to offer this exclusivity not to offer the pinnacle of audio technology and performance. They also seem quite adept at marketing.

How many high end sources have you heard, or is this pure speculation?

IME. The Source is vital, and if expensive, it needs an equally revealing system to show the difference.

To me, it's about where is the best place to put money to get the biggest gain.....in my case, the difference between ADS and MDS was less than that between 203/2s and 205/2s.

It's statements like these that show more than a little naivity exists still. All digital sources measure ruler flat, or as near to it as makes no difference. If they don't, then something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

Given the exact same frequency response and in most cases, an inaudible noise floor, they will not sound different from one another. Level match the equipment and you will remove any perceived differences.

You seem to be erroneously corelating price to performance. True, quality improves with greater expenditure, but in the digital realm this stops fairly early and a simple transparent (and transparent is frankly as good as it gets) DAC can be had for around £100.
Apparently the new Hugo chord dac has made cd sound just as good as records. It has revolutionized cd play back once again. At the price of £1400.00. I have heard this talk before, but this does not sound like marketing bull**** to me.

Edit: or it may be bull.... What ever the case this one looks like a must listen. Always about the ears.
 

TrevC

Well-known member
Native_bon said:
Overdose said:
CnoEvil said:
Overdose said:
steve4232 said:
If all digital sources sounded the same and equally good, none of these companies making high end digital equipment could exist. Last week I resisted the temptation to audition a £75,000 CD player, not just because I couldn't afford it by a long shot but I did not want to be disappointed with my own system when I got home again!

With regard to digital sources in particular, high end equipment merely gives you exclusivity and a lighter wallet. The internals of such a player are likely as not using off the peg PCBs as used in much cheaper and just as capable equipment.

High end companies exist to offer this exclusivity not to offer the pinnacle of audio technology and performance. They also seem quite adept at marketing.

How many high end sources have you heard, or is this pure speculation?

IME. The Source is vital, and if expensive, it needs an equally revealing system to show the difference.

To me, it's about where is the best place to put money to get the biggest gain.....in my case, the difference between ADS and MDS was less than that between 203/2s and 205/2s.

It's statements like these that show more than a little naivity exists still. All digital sources measure ruler flat, or as near to it as makes no difference. If they don't, then something has gone terribly wrong somewhere.

Given the exact same frequency response and in most cases, an inaudible noise floor, they will not sound different from one another. Level match the equipment and you will remove any perceived differences.

You seem to be erroneously corelating price to performance. True, quality improves with greater expenditure, but in the digital realm this stops fairly early and a simple transparent (and transparent is frankly as good as it gets) DAC can be had for around £100.
Apparently the new Hugo chord dac has made cd sound just as good as records. It has revolutionized cd play back once again. At the price of £1400.00. I have heard this talk before, but this does not sound like marketing bull**** to me.

Edit: or it may be bull.... What ever the case this one looks like a must listen. Always about the ears.

A good CD will blow vinyl away, quality wise.
 

lindsayt

New member
Apr 8, 2011
16
2
0
Visit site
TrevC said:
lindsayt said:
TrevC said:
I can buy a Behringer amplifier for £150 that exhibits all the desirable qualities that anyone could wish for in an amplifier at any price. High damping factor, low distortion, huge power and a doubling of the available power at 4 ohms compared with 8 ohm impedance loads. I could match this with speakers that cost thousands and the speakers would still remain the weakest link in the setup.

OK, so it looks like carp.
I like pianos to sound like pianos. The Behringer isn't very good at making pianos sound like pianos. It's OK with pop music.

What utter nonsense. There is no difference between a Behringer producing 100 wats at 0.01% distortion than a Krell doing the same thing.
I don't know about a Krell as I don't know which Krell you're referring to.

There is a difference between the £150 Behringer and my class A and class A/B amplifiers with solo piano music.

A difference that I can quite easily demonstrate, if you're interested?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts