Article: And Now For Some Serious Good Schiit (Skoll Yggy!)

Joel-

I think your question is a false dichotomy.

I can like the tube distortion - but know it's distortion.

That doesn't really appeal to me as a default way of listening. As Chris said, playback equipment should playback what's on the file accurately - not add in something that's not there. In any case, with the technology at my disposal, I can easily color (distort) the sound with DSP - more accurately and closer to my preferences - than I can by using a very crude method like a tube amp, that colors every recording the same way. 

My actual answer to your question would be: I don't want to pay good money for equipment that is highly colored/distorted.

I'd find an amp that sounds good AND measures well. There are plenty out there.

It's false to think that equipment that measures as highly accurate somehow doesn't sound good. 

PS

1. I own a tube pre-amp and a tube DAC/pre - I sometimes use them to color the sound - for fun. But it's not how I listen normally.

I also have  VST plugins that can add the sound of a turntable to a recording: in other words,  I alter the playback with the amount of tracking error, pops, clicks, and surface noise that seems to me appropriate to make the recording sound like it did 40 or 50 years ago when I had a system playing back LPs. Good for nostalgia, and reminding me of why LP playback is inferior.

I have another program that adds the sounds of the 50's and 60's boards at Abbey Road to playback. You can choose each board  or limiter from then and add in how much you want it's sound to alter playback. I will listen to recordings like the Beatles with that added sometimes. It also makes the playback sound like vintage playback. But again, that's added distortion, and it's not my usual preferred way of listening. 

2. Some of the time in my playback I add a tiny bit of boost to the upper range of bass and the low mids - b/c I like sound that way - on many recordings, not all. That's a conscious choice - and I'm well aware I'm distorting the playback so that it suits my personal taste at that moment. Or maybe b/c I don't like the way the recording was produced and am altering it.

But it's a very precise form of coloring - strictly controlled at certain limited frequencies and in the amount of boost. It's very subtle - not some general coloring of the sound. Can be switched on and off with a click. Some days I will use it and other times not - on the same music. Depending on mood. 

I'd not want a system that started off colored/distorted. I want to hear accurate playback, and if I somehow don't like the sound, to alter it myself. 

"I think your question is a false dichotomy."

Firedog,

I never said you can only have accurate measuring equipment or good sound.

I'm offering a hypothetical.

If someone had to choose, which would they prefer, an accurate measuring component or the sound they prefer?

If you don't want to answer the question as I've offered it, that's fine.

I don't think most people would say that even though they love the sound of a component they would reject it if they found it doesn't measure well.

I believe the tremendous variety of tube amplifiers, horn speakers, etc. which clearly don't measure well but are still popular are evidence of this point.

But if your criteria is to know you have accurate measuring components before you buy them, I have no issue.

As an example of my contention, I have a pair of prototype speakers and I have no idea how they measure. But that fact takes nothing away from how happy they make me.

For other readers of this thread, my question stands.

Joel

IMO vinyl sounds "better" than digital...but digital is more convenient and the majority of my listening which is casual.  I do not listen critically as it takes too much effort.  I grew up with vinyl so cracks and pops are background noise to me and I really do not notice unless really bad.  If, at a show and on a high end system, a demo has vinyl full of noise...that is a disservice to the listeners and equipment.

The elephant in the room is that 'vinyl' is so damn expensive these days! Even decent used records. For the price of 5 single or 3 new double albums I can pay for my entire years Qobuz subscription. It will be interesting just how sustainable this revival of interest is with prices like this. But then again, my daughter and her friend asked to go to Five Guys for lunch yesterday - I'd never been - and now I'm looking for a kidney buyer. Serious sticker shock for what I thought were supposed to be fast food burgers. So I guess it's all relative...

8 hours ago, firedog said:

. Good for nostalgia, and reminding me of why LP playback is inferior.

My initial reaction is to fire back, but our fearless leader admonished us to stay away from starting a fight over what is subjective, so I will not take the bait. Nice try though.

29 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

The elephant in the room is that 'vinyl' is so damn expensive these days!

completely agree, but physical media of all types is expensive.

A BluRay to get a True HD Atmos files isn't  cheap either, but vs streaming,  buying vinyl is certainly not the cost effective option. 

Used vinyl is where it gets stupid. Some rich guy pays a stupid price because he wants it and money is no object, and everyone else thinks that establishes what they are worth and we see a bunch of copies posted for the same stupid price, and they just sit there

On 6/24/2024 at 9:42 AM, The Computer Audiophile said:

On 6/24/2024 at 9:32 AM, bbosler said:

Putting the data through various digital filters in the DAC changes the data.

 

No. It removes things like nonlinearities and artifacts not present in the recording. 

Reading  the Bartok review and how the DCS DAC processes the data prompts me to revisit this. 

 I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that the data is not changed. I said it was, you said “no”

“A digital filter uses a digital processor to perform numerical calculations on sampled values of the signal. The processor may be a general-purpose computer such as a PC, or a specialised DSP (Digital Signal Processor) chip.”

https://123.physics.ucdavis.edu/week_5_files/filters/digital_filter.pdf

You can believe that these calculations that change the data make for better sound just like I can believe dragging a needle through a plastic groove makes it sound better, but you can’t deny that the filters change the data. And since it is changed, you can’t say with certainty that what results is more accurate to the source any more than I can.

Look through the filter explanations in the HQP manual where he discusses the pros and cons of the different filters. How every version has some issue and how some of the artifacts are more audible than others, why some filters are better suited for this or that because the undesired side effects are less in one situation than another. If the digital filter corrects for one thing while introducing something else it really isn't more accurate, it just makes it sound better AND different people choose different filters based on what that individual thinks sounds the best.

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

It doesn’t change what’s on the recording. Removing artifacts of course changes data, but those artifacts weren’t in the recording anyway

You keep saying "the recording," and "in the recording" but what is that really? It is a bunch of numbers in a digital file that represent an analog signal.  How can you  determine what comes out of your DAC as analog is an accurate reproduction of what is encoded in those numbers? The only thing you can do is assume  if it sounds better it did a better job, because you don't know what those numbers are supposed to sound like. You can say this processing sounds better to me  than that one, but you can't confidently  say the one that sounds better is more accurate.

Yet you, somehow, without knowing what those numbers really represent, know that your processing results in a more accurate reproduction of the recording those numbers represent, even though there is no consensus about which of the myriad of  filters and processing options is the best. . That's not splitting hairs or being pedantic, that's not focusing on minor details, that  is the heart of the matter. 

So feel free to dismiss me again if it makes you feel better. I know I'm wasting my time because you have such faith in the power of digital processing. On the other hand, having spent extensive time with all sorts of high end DACs, PCM to DSD processors and filtering in software like HQP and hardware like DCS and Chord and others, upsamplers, oversamplers,and all of that.....my experience is that the more you process, the further you get from the truth. Obviously, our experiences differ. 

oh, and not all DACs upsample

on second thought, just delete my last post and this one. All of them if you wish.

I am not "out of my league here" as you stated nor will I stand to be dismissed as if some sort of uneducated, pedantic  idiot. I have an extensive electronics background , a degree in the same, having taught digital electronics and worked in the field for over 40 years so even though you have the utmost faith in digital processing, my background says otherwise.

You can run your site as you see fit and since you have decided condescension and derision is ok,  I want no part of it. I'm sure you will be  glad to see me go since nobody wants to deal with those out of their league.

please delete my account, I don't see any way to do that on this end.

good day

4 hours ago, bbosler said:

How can you  determine what comes out of your DAC as analog is an accurate reproduction of what is encoded in those numbers?

We have two methods available today. 
 

Our ears and objective measurements. 
 

4 hours ago, bbosler said:

oh, and not all DACs upsample

Correct, which is why I used quotes. The “ten” DACs that don’t were designed for people using external upsampling. 

3 hours ago, bbosler said:

please delete my account

Sure thing. 

4 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Correct, which is why I used quotes. The “ten” DACs that don’t were designed for people using external upsampling. 

Ha.  Apparently, I am a digital dinosaur.  My DAC proudly proclaims its lack of upsampling.  I don't even know if my Innuos can do it, either.

I bought the DAC because it was a perfect match for the amp, but now I can tell Rob Watts he is full of it...

6 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

Ha.  Apparently, I am a digital dinosaur.  My DAC proudly proclaims its lack of upsampling.  I don't even know if my Innuos can do it, either.

 

I bought the DAC because it was a perfect match for the amp, but now I can tell Rob Watts he is full of it...

Which DAC are you using?

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Which DAC are you using?

Linnenberg Satie.  And look at those specs sans upsampling.  

Linnenberg SATIE Owner's Manual (Page 20 of 24) | ManualsLib

42 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

Ha.  Apparently, I am a digital dinosaur.  My DAC proudly proclaims its lack of upsampling.  I don't even know if my Innuos can do it, either.

 

I bought the DAC because it was a perfect match for the amp, but now I can tell Rob Watts he is full of it...

No upsampling DAC for me. Naim DAC V1. Dinosaurs rule. Tried upsampling in Roon a few times and disliked it. Like using a noise filter in Photoshop. Smoothed things out too much for my taste. I can see why some would like it. 

New one on me Kimo

5 minutes ago, jhwalker said:

What makes you think either the Lindemann Satie -or- the Naim DAC V1 are non-oversampling?

 

From the specs / information available, they both appear to be pretty standard, oversampling DACs, using normal chips in a normal processing pipeline, including oversampling.

 

Neither are advertised as NOS, and, in fact, Absolute Sound specifically confirms Naim DAC V1 is a normal, oversampling DAC.  Since Lindemann also advertises filter selection, it's clear it is oversampling, as well.

Thanks for doing the research. Was just going to dig into this :~)

1 hour ago, jhwalker said:

What makes you think either the Lindemann Satie -or- the Naim DAC V1 are non-oversampling?

 

From the specs / information available, they both appear to be pretty standard, oversampling DACs, using normal chips in a normal processing pipeline, including oversampling.

 

Neither are advertised as NOS, and, in fact, Absolute Sound specifically confirms Naim DAC V1 is a normal, oversampling DAC.  Since Lindemann also advertises filter selection, it's clear it is oversampling, as well.

We were talking about upsampling.

The whole thing about native resolution and all.

Chris, you still need to do your research.

10 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

We were talking about upsampling.

 

The whole thing about native resolution and all.

 

Chris, you still need to do your research.

Your DAC uses the ES9038PRO chip right?

It's either upsampling or oversampling or both. I'm sure @Miska knows much more than me.

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Your DAC uses the ES9038PRO chip right?

 

It's either upsampling or oversampling or both. I'm sure @Miska knows much more than me.

I was replying to a comment on upsampling, not oversampling.  According to the manufacturer signals are passed in their native resolution to the ESS.  

But of course the ESS uses oversampling.  At the risk of bringing in Junior Samples in for another opinion, I don't think that those two things are exactly the same....upsampling and oversampling.

Just now, Kimo said:

 

I was replying to a comment on upsampling, not oversampling.  According to the manufacturer signals are passed in their native resolution to the ESS.  

 

But of course the ESS uses oversampling.  At the risk of bringing in Junior Samples in for another opinion, I don't think that those two things are exactly the same....upsampling and oversampling.

Correct, not the same thing, but in the context of the previous discusison of DSP, I think many of us were using them synonymously and contrasting them with NOS DACs. 

No worries either way.