D/A Converters

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
following:

1. Benchmark DAC1
2. Bel Canto DAC2
3. D'ack! DAC

Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Add a reply

Register or log in to remove.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
Different model, though.

Ugly, too basic and valve.

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
> I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
> following:
>
> 1. Benchmark DAC1
> 2. Bel Canto DAC2
> 3. D'ack! DAC
>
> Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
> player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:

> I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
> following:
>
> 1. Benchmark DAC1
> 2. Bel Canto DAC2
> 3. D'ack! DAC
>
> Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
> player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

How about a CD player that is much less expensive? Would you consider that?

Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
return if you don't like them.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various DACs?
I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play with.
The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete with ICs
from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?

"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message news:<4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51>...
> You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
> recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
> Different model, though.
>
> Ugly, too basic and valve.
>
> "Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
> > I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
> > following:
> >
> > 1. Benchmark DAC1
> > 2. Bel Canto DAC2
> > 3. D'ack! DAC
> >
> > Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
> > player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/29/04 6:38 PM, in article cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com, "Marcus"
<marcus2055@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various DACs?
> I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play with.
> The ICs pretty much are all that matters.

I have heard (just *heard*) that many CD players tend to differentiate
themselves with the analog stages as they tend to use similar chips (Burr
Brown, Wolfson, etc) - some do discrete analog and some do op amps, and some
tubes!

> There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete with ICs
> from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?

I think dCS does the ring DAC in discrete components - and it highly
regarded for studio work as well as audiophile. I have no idea how it
compares to cheaper CD players, though on the system I had the pleasure of
listening to - it sounded great with the Nagra tube amps driving some JM
Labs speakers. I think the "full up" dCS stack runs about $20k + though.

Arcam makes a CD player that uses the ring DAC and upsampling all built into
a proprietary IC that is highly regarded as well, how they compare, I don't
know!

>
> "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
> news:<4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51>...
>> You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
>> recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years ago.
>> Different model, though.
>>
>> Ugly, too basic and valve.
>>
>> "Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
>>> I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> 1. Benchmark DAC1
>>> 2. Bel Canto DAC2
>>> 3. D'ack! DAC
>>>
>>> Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a new CD
>>> player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote in
news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com:

> Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
> various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
> designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
>

Absolutely correct.

> There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
> with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?
>

In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
on all the bits settling at the same time.

To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] 5,ContentI
D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D,00.html

(you may have to paste that URL back together)

or

http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] AD1955%2C0
0.html

(that one too)

Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
take them a few iterations to get it right, though.

-- JS

> "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
> news:<4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51>...
>> You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
>> recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
>> ago. Different model, though.
>>
>> Ugly, too basic and valve.
>>
>> "Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
>> > I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
>> > the following:
>> >
>> > 1. Benchmark DAC1
>> > 2. Bel Canto DAC2
>> > 3. D'ack! DAC
>> >
>> > Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
>> > new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Reply to Jim

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/28/04 6:57 PM, in article cbq7ot01ldn@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
> the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
> reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
> than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
> DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
> return if you don't like them.

I *had* thought about the newer SACD players - and it seemed to be a better
alternative to vinyl (which is another consideration).

Since I do a considerable amount of listening to streaming audio on the NET,
an attraction to having an outboard D to A would be that it could be used on
the computer!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Most DACs are based on monolithic (DAC) ICs. I kind of believe
the ICs play the dominant role, and there is little that the DAC
designers can do.

There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do you think
they compete against ICs from big players like Analog Devices?
I think the chipmakers win; they have resources, and they
developed technologies like MASH.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 02:14:38 GMT, Jim <jdstrickler@comcast.net> wrote:

>marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote in
>news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
>> various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
>> designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
>>
>Absolutely correct.

Absolutely wrong! The main differentiator in modern standalone DACs is
how they handle the incoming bitstream. See the Benchmark DAC-1 for a
prime example of how this should be done. Please note that this DAC is
about as close to perfection as we'll ever see, and it costs less than
$1,000. Compare and contrast with the rubbish being sold at many times
this price by so-called 'high end' companies like Mark Levinson and
Audio Note.

>> There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
>> with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?
>>
>In a nutshell, they can't.

Um, not necessarily true. Indeed, one of the most highly linear DACs
on the pro market, the dCS RingDAC, uses a discrete hybrid solution.

> To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
>made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
>($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature.

No, this assumes a full multi-bit DAC, which is not the norm today.

> A
>hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
>an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
>same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
>discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
>and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
>on all the bits settling at the same time.

Alternatively, use a high-oversampling design with 5 bits or less, and
such problems largely go away. They are of course replaced by
precision timing concerns, but the performance of modern 'low bit'
designs (both discrete and integrated) is proving the point that 'less
is more' when it comes to DAC design!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim wrote:

> marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote in
> news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>> Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
>> various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
>> designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
>>
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
>> There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
>> with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?
>>
>
> In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
> made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
> ($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
> hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
> an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
> same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
> discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
> and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
> on all the bits settling at the same time.
>
> To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
> bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see
>
> http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] 5,ContentI
> D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D,00.html
>
> (you may have to paste that URL back together)
>

Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
$6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
Shack for that price?

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Marcus" <marcus2055@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com...
> Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the various
DACs?
> I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC designers to play
with.
> The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
>
How about buffering and reclocking the data stream prior to conversion?

Alan.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote in
> news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
>>Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
>>various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
>>designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
>>
>
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
>
>>There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
>>with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?
>>
>
>
> In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
> made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
> ($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
> hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
> an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
> same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
> discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
> and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
> on all the bits settling at the same time.
>
> To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
> bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see
>
> http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] 5,ContentI
> D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D,00.html
>
> (you may have to paste that URL back together)
>
> or
>
> http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] AD1955%2C0
> 0.html
>
> (that one too)
>
> Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
> take them a few iterations to get it right, though.
>
> -- JS
>
>
>>"Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
>>news:<4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51>...
>>
>>>You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
>>>recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
>>>ago. Different model, though.
>>>
>>>Ugly, too basic and valve.
>>>
>>>"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>>I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
>>>>the following:
>>>>
>>>>1. Benchmark DAC1
>>>>2. Bel Canto DAC2
>>>>3. D'ack! DAC
>>>>
>>>>Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
>>>>new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.
>
>
Interesting. That analog DAC boasts a 24/192 capability for SACD. Excuse
me for this perhaps ignorant question, but does that mean that
internally the DAC converts DSD data to PCM? And if so, how can SACD be
better than DVD-A if DVD-A is natively PCM?

CD

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:

> On 6/28/04 6:57 PM, in article cbq7ot01ldn@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>> Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
>> the Pioneer 563 universal player. They all have received positive
>> reviews, and have very modern DAC's. You can get the Panasonic for less
>> than $100. Money saved could be spent on getting DVD's, CD's and
>> DVD-A's. Another factor is that they are widely available, and easy to
>> return if you don't like them.
>
> I *had* thought about the newer SACD players - and it seemed to be a better
> alternative to vinyl (which is another consideration).
>
> Since I do a considerable amount of listening to streaming audio on the NET,
> an attraction to having an outboard D to A would be that it could be used on
> the computer!

Given that you can get one of those CD players for around $100, it is a
no-brainer. Heck, it costs less than an audiophile Toslink cable.

If you want a DAC to work with streaming audio, get a portable AUDIGY2
USB sound card from Creative Labs. It's as good as it gets, from
streamimg audio.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
better than maybe 20-bit precision.

I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
foundries do. AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
quite close in architecture.

Jim <jdstrickler@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<impEc.1387$XM6.581@attbi_s53>...
> marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote in
> news:cbsr0s0e5b@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> > Suppose the DACs are based on (DAC) ICs, what differentiates the
> > various DACs? I knid of believe there is not much left for the DAC
> > designers to play with. The ICs pretty much are all that matters.
> >
>
> Absolutely correct.
>
> > There are also DACs based on discrete devices. How do they compete
> > with ICs from big players like Analog Devices, etc.?
> >
>
> In a nutshell, they can't. To get even close to 16-bit resolution, a DAC
> made from disretes requires *very carefully* hand selected components
> ($$$), and probably can't maintain that resolution over temperature. A
> hybrid using laser-trimmed components does better, but why bother because
> an integrated DAC's "components" are inherently matched and maintain the
> same relative ratios to one another over temperature. The fact that a
> discrete design is spread out over a substantial area means capacitance
> and that makes the design of switching circuits difficult, so don't count
> on all the bits settling at the same time.
>
> To get an idea of what a state of the art integrated DAC (2 channels, 24
> bits, SACD + legacy, 192 KHz, $6.78 in quantity) can do, see
>
> http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] 5,ContentI
> D%253D9344%2526aind%253D%2526resourceWebLawID%253D,00.html
>
> (you may have to paste that URL back together)
>
> or
>
> http://www.analog.com/Analog_Root/ [...] AD1955%2C0
> 0.html
>
> (that one too)
>
> Of course, if Analog Devices' DAC's are anything like their DSPs, it will
> take them a few iterations to get it right, though.
>
> -- JS
>
> > "Chelvam" <chelvam@myjaring.net> wrote in message
> > news:<4YXDc.130205$Sw.83947@attbi_s51>...
> >> You can try Model_3 CD Player / CD transport. I have not heard it but
> >> recieved a few good words from a friend who was there about two years
> >> ago. Different model, though.
> >>
> >> Ugly, too basic and valve.
> >>
> >> "Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> news:cbo0dm01u28@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> > I am contemplating getting a new D/A converter and am considering
> >> > the following:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Benchmark DAC1
> >> > 2. Bel Canto DAC2
> >> > 3. D'ack! DAC
> >> >
> >> > Anyone have any other suggestions? I would also consider getting a
> >> > new CD player if it were about the same expense as the other ones.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/30/04 8:56 PM, in article cbvngn0gc7@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> If you want a DAC to work with streaming audio, get a portable AUDIGY2
> USB sound card from Creative Labs. It's as good as it gets, from
> streamimg audio.

Good point - I will use the sound card my computer will have (this one is
about dead at 6 yrs old - CD-ROM won't work and the CRT screen is acting
funny) and see how it goes!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote:

>I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
>better than maybe 20-bit precision.

Which is why no one tries............

>I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
>to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
>randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
>foundries do.

No, it's known as oversampling.

> AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
>discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
>and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
>quite close in architecture.

All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
> Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
> the Pioneer 563 universal player.

The current model seems to be:
Pioneer DV-578A Universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio player

Price: $149.99
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ [...] 0002ERY6W/
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-JnxU5 [...] 130DV578AS

The DV-578A is not yet mentioned in the Pioneer web page:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 70,00.html
except in a press release:
http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 12,00.html

The European model (DV-575A) seems to be priced at 249 euros, which
is about $300 (double!)
http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/pro [...] y_id=62-84

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
> chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>> Try the Sony SACD players, the Panasonic "Remastering" DVD-A players, or
>> the Pioneer 563 universal player.
>
> The current model seems to be:
> Pioneer DV-578A Universal DVD/CD/SACD/DVD-Audio player

The DV-578A seems to be very different than the DV-563A, which is still
available in the US from a lot of places.

The DV-578A apparently converts SACD DSD to 88.2KHz PCM at all times.
See this thread:

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles [...] 32f0825ea4

People have picked up the DV-563A on close-out from Circuit City for $70.

>
> Price: $149.99
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ [...] 0002ERY6W/
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-JnxU5 [...] 130DV578AS
>
> The DV-578A is not yet mentioned in the Pioneer web page:
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 70,00.html
> except in a press release:
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ [...] 12,00.html
>
> The European model (DV-575A) seems to be priced at 249 euros, which
> is about $300 (double!)
> http://www.pioneer-eur.com/eur/pro [...] y_id=62-84
>

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04>...
> On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote:
>
> >I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
> >better than maybe 20-bit precision.
>
> Which is why no one tries............
>
> >I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
> >to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
> >randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
> >foundries do.
>
> No, it's known as oversampling.
>
> > AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
> >discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
> >and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
> >quite close in architecture.
>
> All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
> 5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
> oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
> Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
> DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04>...
> On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote:
>
> >I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
> >better than maybe 20-bit precision.
>
> Which is why no one tries............
>
> >I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
> >to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
> >randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
> >foundries do.
>
> No, it's known as oversampling.
>
> > AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
> >discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
> >and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
> >quite close in architecture.
>
> All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
> 5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
> oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
> Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
> DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
noise. It does not improve linearity.

If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
ignoring minor secondary effects. But it would take too much oversampling
to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.
But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
(distortion) into noise.

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<g2XEc.8215$MB3.5340@attbi_s04>...
> On 1 Jul 2004 00:57:51 GMT, marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote:
>
> >I suspect it is impossible for the components to be matched
> >better than maybe 20-bit precision.
>
> Which is why no one tries............
>
> >I looked up the dCS converter and I can see it has some technology
> >to cope with this problem. It is also known as scrambling,
> >randomization, or averaging, which is similar to what the IC
> >foundries do.
>
> No, it's known as oversampling.
>
> > AFAIK, all 20- to 24-bit DACs (monolithic or
> >discrete) are based on a multi-bit core DAC with randomization,
> >and of course oversampling is in place. In that sense, they are
> >quite close in architecture.
>
> All '24/192' DACs (including the dCS units) are in fact between 1 and
> 5 bits in basic resolution, and gain their 24-bit rating by high
> oversampling. This is not a new technique, as the very first
> Philips/Marantz CD players back in 1983 used a 4x oversampling 14-bit
> DAC to achieve 16 bit resolution.

Reply to marcus

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Jul 2004 03:36:33 GMT, marcus2055@yahoo.com (Marcus) wrote:

>Oversampling, often combined with noise shaping, attenuates quantization
>noise. It does not improve linearity.

It improves linearity in the sense that a 'raw' 1-bit converter which
is only 20% linear between its two states, can produce an output which
is linear to better than 20 bits (or 0.00001%), given a sufficient
oversampling rate. While you are semantically correct, the practical
result is somewhat different.

>If the core DAC is one-bit in resolution, it is infinitely linear,
>ignoring minor secondary effects.

As noted above, that rather depends on how you define linearity, and
jitter is more important in determining the linearity of a 1-bit DAC.

> But it would take too much oversampling
>to achieve 20- to 24-bit resolution.

Obviously not true, since the majority of available '24/192' DACs
*are* 1-bit designs.

>If a multi-bit DAC is the core, a practical oversampling ratio is enough.

What is that supposed to mean? The first 16-bit players used no
oversampling, the best current multi-bit converters are 20-bit with 8x
oversampling. Both are 'practical'.

>But the linearity of the core DAC becomes an issue. Usually the core DAC
>is built with unit elements (still not matched), and the elements are used
>randomly (hence scarmbling, etc.). It effectively converts nonlinearity
>(distortion) into noise.

As you noted yourself, the linearity of the core DAC is *only* an
issue with multi-bit DACs - one reason why they are now very rare.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article cbvmvt0fno@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
> $6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
> Shack for that price?

IN a lot of ways, yes!

But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
materials, eh?

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi,

In message <ccrkip0bp2@news3.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
writes

>But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process

That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
simple process. It's not. I've worked for 3 companies that did ASIC
design as a primary part of their business, and I've known some chips
take over three years to design. Once the design is finalised, then the
process of fabricating them is automated, but you have to sell a *lot*
of chips to get your R&D investment back on a design with even modest
complexity. Chips can be cheap because the costs involved get amortised
over a large number of sales, not because you can knock them up with a
hammer and chisel in a garage.

We won't even get in to how much cost is involved in contracting time on
a fabrication line or, heaven forbid, building one.

>- and cable making
>requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
>materials, eh?

.... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
arrows on.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <ccrkip0bp2@news3.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article cbvmvt0fno@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
> > Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
> > $6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
> > Shack for that price?
>
> IN a lot of ways, yes!
>
> But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
> requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
> materials, eh?

And it's an apples and oranges comparison between the cost of a
component part and a finished retail product.

How many DAC chips do you have to buy to get that price?

Stephen

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:
> On 6/30/04 8:47 PM, in article cbvmvt0fno@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>> Isn't it amazing that a DAC with that kind of performance costs only
>> $6.78, and you can't even buy a decent pair of interconnects from Radio
>> Shack for that price?
>
> IN a lot of ways, yes!
>
> But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process - and cable making
> requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
> materials, eh?

Are you serious? How much do you think it costs to run a fab? How much
does a wafer cost? How much is the amortized machinery cost? The cost of
the robotic transports and handlers? The package? The testing? And we're
not even talking about the amortized process development or the circuit
design!

In comparison, the labor cost in a pair of RS interconnects is most
likely no higher than US $0.10. I'm amazed that as an engineer you don't
see this huge difference between labor cost of a pair of interconnects
and the material cost of a DAC chip.

BTW, if labor cost is a big part of the interconnect cost, how come the
cable price scales almost linearly with length? Shouldn't the labor cost
be the same whether it's a 3-foot run or a 12-foot run?

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Glenn Booth glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In message <ccrkip0bp2@news3.newsguy.com>, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
>writes
>
>>But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process
>
>That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
>simple process. It's not. I've worked for 3 companies that did ASIC
>design as a primary part of their business, and I've known some chips
>take over three years to design. Once the design is finalised, then the
>process of fabricating them is automated, but you have to sell a *lot*
>of chips to get your R&D investment back on a design with even modest
>complexity. Chips can be cheap because the costs involved get amortised
>over a large number of sales, not because you can knock them up with a
>hammer and chisel in a garage.
>
>We won't even get in to how much cost is involved in contracting time on
>a fabrication line or, heaven forbid, building one.
>
>>- and cable making
>>requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
>>materials, eh?
>
>... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
>are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
>arrows on.
>
>--
>Regards,
>Glenn Booth

Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.

It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
special.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article ccss8b01off@news3.newsguy.com, "Glenn Booth"
<glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process
>
> That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
> simple process. It's not.

Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
autoamted than cable manufacturing.

If you make 1 cable and 1 chip - the cable maker has the advantage, but if
you uhave to make 100,000 the economics are reversed.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Jul 2004 04:22:24 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article ccss8b01off@news3.newsguy.com, "Glenn Booth"
><glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process
>>
>> That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
>> simple process. It's not.
>
>Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
>autoamted than cable manufacturing.

Nope, cable making has been highly automated for about a century.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/12/04 12:17 AM, in article qhoIc.72327$Oq2.52536@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>>> - and cable making
>>> requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
>>> materials, eh?
>>
>> ... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
>> are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
>> arrows on.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Glenn Booth
>
> Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
> perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
> integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.
>
> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
> special.

I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/12/04 1:04 PM, in article 8wzIc.62071$a24.29042@attbi_s03, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> On 12 Jul 2004 04:22:24 GMT, B&D <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/11/04 10:15 PM, in article ccss8b01off@news3.newsguy.com, "Glenn Booth"
>> <glenn@qtlg.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> But chip making is a simple, fairly automated process
>>>
>>> That's the first time I've ever heard somebody say that chip making is a
>>> simple process. It's not.
>>
>> Correction - chip MAKING in operations is a lot more controllable and
>> autoamted than cable manufacturing.
>
> Nope, cable making has been highly automated for about a century.

Actually you are mistaken. Almost every cable used has a lot of manual
labor - at least more than typical IC's - coaxial line, etc/.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 7/12/04 12:17 AM, in article qhoIc.72327$Oq2.52536@attbi_s52, "Nousaine"
> <nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>> - and cable making
>>>> requires some hand assembly - so go figure! Labor is worth more than the
>>>> materials, eh?
>>>
>>> ... Not forgetting that some cables are sold for *way* more than they
>>> are worth, even allowing for margin, labour, and painting the little
>>> arrows on.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Glenn Booth
>>
>> Thank you for the perspective. It's interesting that the general public (or
>> perhaps the audio public) can develop an idea that designing and building
>> integrated circuits is a cheap and easy process.
>>
>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
>> special.
>
> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!

You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
price-tag.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
>>> special.
>>
>> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
>> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
>> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!
>
> You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
> quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
> only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
> price-tag.

No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.

I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:
> On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
>>>> special.
>>>
>>> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
>>> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
>>> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!
>>
>> You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
>> quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
>> only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
>> price-tag.
>
> No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
> for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
> performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.
>
> I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.

I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
has performance that is among the worst?

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cd2ao001lha@news4.newsguy.com...
> B&D wrote:
> > On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54,
"chung"
> > <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
> >
> >>>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac
amplifier as
> >>>> special.
> >>>
> >>> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with
price to a
> >>> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the
quality and
> >>> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any
different!
> >>
> >> You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
> >> quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car
that can
> >> only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1
million
> >> price-tag.
> >
> > No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay
too much
> > for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the
quality and
> > performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to
stink.
> >
> > I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.
>
> I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand
if
> the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no
redeeming
> qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
> debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product
that is
> perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and
yet
> has performance that is among the worst?

It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
sounds different than the competition?

Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
some people will prefer its sound.

Norm Strong

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/13/04 11:53 PM, in article cd2ao001lha@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> B&D wrote:
>> On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
>>>>> special.
>>>>
>>>> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
>>>> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
>>>> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!
>>>
>>> You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
>>> quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
>>> only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
>>> price-tag.
>>
>> No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
>> for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
>> performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.
>>
>> I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.
>
> I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
> the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
> qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
> debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
> perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
> has performance that is among the worst?

I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.

One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
review myself) If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
- perhaps this is a definitive example?

I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
suffers...

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/14/04 6:38 PM, in article cd4cl401s9p@news3.newsguy.com, "normanstrong"
<normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

> Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
> perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
> done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
> some people will prefer its sound.

At $350,000 it is hardly "marketing" an amp at least to any kind of sizeable
market - instead I think they making a statement.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 7/13/04 11:53 PM, in article cd2ao001lha@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>> B&D wrote:
>>> On 7/12/04 9:40 PM, in article g4HIc.60690$JR4.18225@attbi_s54, "chung"
>>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> It makes me wonder why any of them would see the $350k Wavac amplifier as
>>>>>> special.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have found that with most things quality tends to rise with price to a
>>>>> point. Above that point things get needlessly complex and the quality and
>>>>> performance suffers. I can't see how this would be any different!
>>>>
>>>> You are missing the point. This amp is seriously bad. To say that
>>>> quality or performance of this amp suffers is like saying a car that can
>>>> only get up to 25 mph has performance that suffers, despite a $1 million
>>>> price-tag.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't miss the point. What I am saying is that if you pay too much
>>> for something - way out of line from what you would expect, the quality and
>>> performance, except, perhaps in one or two regards, is *likely* to stink.
>>>
>>> I am agreeing with you - but also adding that I am not surprised.
>>
>> I am very surprised that a $350K can be this bad. I can understand if
>> the performance is simply average, but this amp has really no redeeming
>> qualities, from a measurement point of view, other than looks (and
>> debatable of couse). How often do you see an electronics product that is
>> perhaps 100 times the cost of products that do the same thing, and yet
>> has performance that is among the worst?
>
> I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.
>
> One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
> review myself)

Youi mean you've been frequently posting in this thread, and you still
have not read the review or the measurements! Wow!

> If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
> transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
> - perhaps this is a definitive example?
>
> I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
> features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
> people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
> one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
> suffers...

To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong wrote:
>
> It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
> gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
> approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
> hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
> companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
> sounds different than the competition?
>
> Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
> perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
> done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
> some people will prefer its sound.
>
> Norm Strong

Of course a side "benefit" of such an approach is that it is sensitive
to just about anything, like AC line noise, or capacitances at the
output. Seeing how the output has spikes at 100KHz and so on, it is not
surprising that some loads and perhaps some cables may make the amp
oscillate. Some people call it very "revealing". Did anyone else notice
that the balanced input simply has one side grounded?

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/14/04 11:02 PM, in article cd4s4d02124@news2.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.
>>
>> One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
>> review myself)
>
> Youi mean you've been frequently posting in this thread, and you still
> have not read the review or the measurements! Wow!
>
>> If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
>> transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
>> - perhaps this is a definitive example?
>>
>> I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
>> features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
>> people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
>> one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
>> suffers...
>
> To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
> million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.

I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
job, too.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

normanstrong wrote:

> It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
> gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
> approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
> hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
> companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
> sounds different than the competition?
>
> Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
> perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
> done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
> some people will prefer its sound.

I agree with Norm's analysis. Still, I ask the following
question: If a Picasso is a poor reproduction of its subject,
does that make it a failure? It seems to me that a $350,000
amplifier has moved from the realm of reproducer, in which
realm merit can be judged by objective standards, to that of
art, in which value is in the eye and ear of the beholder.

Indeed, much of the vituperous debate here seems to spring
from different opinions of the nature of hi-fi gear. The
question is, Is high-end gear instrumentation, or is it art?
Given that it can be different things to different people, let
me ask this: If you think it's instrumentation and someone
else thinks it's art, what does it accomplish to call them a
fool or a fraud, over and over again?

MHP

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager wrote:

> normanstrong wrote:
>
>> It has been said that the perfect amplifier is a "straight wire with
>> gain." In the last couple of decades even low priced amplifiers have
>> approached this performance so closely that it would be impossible to
>> hear any difference, even if it was perfect. This leaves amplifier
>> companies with a problem: How can they make an amp that actually
>> sounds different than the competition?
>>
>> Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
>> perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
>> done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
>> some people will prefer its sound.
>
> I agree with Norm's analysis.

I'm glad that you agree that the amp has bad performance.

> Still, I ask the following
> question: If a Picasso is a poor reproduction of its subject,
> does that make it a failure?

If the Picasso is meant to be a reproduction of its subject, and it does
not do that with any objective accuracy, then it is a failure. But a
Picasso as you know is not meant to be a reproduction.

A better analogy is if someone wants to make an accurate copy of a
Picasso, and it fails to do that with any objective accuracy. Then you
would call that copy a failure, correct?

And what does Picasso have in common with a power amp? Does the Picasso
have a spec sheet?

> It seems to me that a $350,000
> amplifier has moved from the realm of reproducer, in which
> realm merit can be judged by objective standards, to that of
> art, in which value is in the eye and ear of the beholder.
>
> Indeed, much of the vituperous debate here seems to spring
> from different opinions of the nature of hi-fi gear. The
> question is, Is high-end gear instrumentation, or is it art?

Does high-fidelity mean anything?

> Given that it can be different things to different people, let
> me ask this: If you think it's instrumentation and someone
> else thinks it's art, what does it accomplish to call them a
> fool or a fraud, over and over again?

If the product has a stated "effective power" of 150 W, but shows gross
distortion (e.g. 5%) at 15 W, what do you call that?

The "over and over again" is simply part of the debate process in this
newsgroup; if there were no argument, then there would be no need to
repeat the points.

>
> MHP
>
> Mike Prager
> North Carolina, USA
>

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager wrote:
>>
>> Make it worse, instead of trying to approach the asymptote of
>> perfection even more closely. It appears that that is what Wavac has
>> done--marketed an amp with performance that is bad in such a way that
>> some people will prefer its sound.
>
> I agree with Norm's analysis. Still, I ask the following
> question: If a Picasso is a poor reproduction of its subject,
> does that make it a failure? It seems to me that a $350,000
> amplifier has moved from the realm of reproducer, in which
> realm merit can be judged by objective standards, to that of
> art, in which value is in the eye and ear of the beholder.
>
> Indeed, much of the vituperous debate here seems to spring
> from different opinions of the nature of hi-fi gear. The
> question is, Is high-end gear instrumentation, or is it art?
> Given that it can be different things to different people, let
> me ask this: If you think it's instrumentation and someone
> else thinks it's art, what does it accomplish to call them a
> fool or a fraud, over and over again?

Maybe not an art, but an object which gives you the "image" being able to
afford something so expensive. It really is like a Ferrari. Too broad and
delicate to be useful in everyday traffic, but it serves well picking up
girls when you drive down the promenade. In fact you will have to own at
least another useful car for those times when the Ferrari is at repair(very
often) or when you go shopping etc.

A small joke:
An elephant and a mouse have become friends and used to go for a walk in the
evening, when one day the mouse fell into a hole in the street. When the
elephant saw it, he lowers his trunk and helps the mouse out. Next day they
walk again and this time the elephant falls into the hole. So the mouse gets
a robe, fixes it to a red Ferrari and pulls the elephant out.
So what????
The moral is:
You do'nt need a long trunk when you've got a red Ferrari! :-(
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

Reply to ban

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 7/14/04 11:02 PM, in article cd4s4d02124@news2.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>> I suppose as rare as it is, here is one.
>>>
>>> One question that is fair - is what was its design goal? (I didn't read the
>>> review myself)
>>
>> Youi mean you've been frequently posting in this thread, and you still
>> have not read the review or the measurements! Wow!
>>
>>> If it is like the Japanese SET amps with silver wound
>>> transformers that are upwards of $20k - and lots of even harmonic distortion
>>> - perhaps this is a definitive example?
>>>
>>> I don't know. But a lot of times an expensive car above $150k or so,
>>> features start disappearing, reliability drops somewhat, and things most
>>> people would consider basic about the vehicle start disappearing. But the
>>> one or two things that they focus upon tend to be superlative, all else
>>> suffers...
>>
>> To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
>> million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.
>
> I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
> job, too.
>

Can you think of even one example? I can't.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/16/04 11:20 AM, in article TmSJc.69664$WX.31087@attbi_s51, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> If the Picasso is meant to be a reproduction of its subject, and it does
> not do that with any objective accuracy, then it is a failure. But a
> Picasso as you know is not meant to be a reproduction.
>
> A better analogy is if someone wants to make an accurate copy of a
> Picasso, and it fails to do that with any objective accuracy. Then you
> would call that copy a failure, correct?

Of course.

But it all depends upon the objective of the design if it is a success or
not. Period.

If you want it or not - that is a different question.

> And what does Picasso have in common with a power amp? Does the Picasso
> have a spec sheet?

Of course not, but a Picasso is NOT an accurate painting if realism is your
goal.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:

> On 7/16/04 11:20 AM, in article TmSJc.69664$WX.31087@attbi_s51, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>> If the Picasso is meant to be a reproduction of its subject, and it does
>> not do that with any objective accuracy, then it is a failure. But a
>> Picasso as you know is not meant to be a reproduction.
>>
>> A better analogy is if someone wants to make an accurate copy of a
>> Picasso, and it fails to do that with any objective accuracy. Then you
>> would call that copy a failure, correct?
>
> Of course.
>
> But it all depends upon the objective of the design if it is a success or
> not. Period.

Didn't I just say that "if someone wants to make an accurate copy..."?
Are you simply agreeing violently with me?

>
> If you want it or not - that is a different question.

As far as that amp is concerned, so far no one on this ng said that
he/she wants it.

>
>> And what does Picasso have in common with a power amp? Does the Picasso
>> have a spec sheet?
>
> Of course not, but a Picasso is NOT an accurate painting if realism is your
> goal.
>

Thanks for repeating what I said in that first paragraph.

Reply to chung

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/17/04 1:25 AM, in article EL2Kc.99152$IQ4.60400@attbi_s02, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
>>> million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.
>>
>> I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
>> job, too.
>>
>
> Can you think of even one example? I can't.

Indy car or Fomula 1 race car. Lousy for commuting and normal car uses.
Only good for high speed travel. No AM/FM radio or cupholders, either.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 05:25:56 GMT, chung <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>B&D wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/04 11:02 PM, in article cd4s4d02124@news2.newsguy.com, "chung"
>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
>>> million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.
>>
>> I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
>> job, too.
>>
>
>Can you think of even one example? I can't.

The Sultan of Brunei has several special commisions by Bentley and
Rolls-Royce, which probably ran that figure pretty close.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 7/17/04 10:45 AM, in article cdbe2c09rm@news3.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> B&D wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/04 11:20 AM, in article TmSJc.69664$WX.31087@attbi_s51, "chung"
>> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>>
>>> If the Picasso is meant to be a reproduction of its subject, and it does
>>> not do that with any objective accuracy, then it is a failure. But a
>>> Picasso as you know is not meant to be a reproduction.
>>>
>>> A better analogy is if someone wants to make an accurate copy of a
>>> Picasso, and it fails to do that with any objective accuracy. Then you
>>> would call that copy a failure, correct?
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> But it all depends upon the objective of the design if it is a success or
>> not. Period.
>
> Didn't I just say that "if someone wants to make an accurate copy..."?
> Are you simply agreeing violently with me?

In most cases - this is true. If the desire (in the case of this amplifier
perhaps?) is to produce coloration in a particularly euphonic way - and an
amplifier succeeds in an amazing way - that would be a successful design as
well - though most people on this NG would never consider it even if cost
were no object.

>>
>> If you want it or not - that is a different question.
>
> As far as that amp is concerned, so far no one on this ng said that
> he/she wants it.

No argument from me (pick yourself up off the floor!) - the point here is
not that anyone is lusting after it, but whether we are or not, has no real
bearing on the success of the design to its goals and objectives. Which may
not (let's hope so) be to produce sound accurately.

>>> And what does Picasso have in common with a power amp? Does the Picasso
>>> have a spec sheet?
>>
>> Of course not, but a Picasso is NOT an accurate painting if realism is your
>> goal.
>>
>
> Thanks for repeating what I said in that first paragraph.

Yes, if you agree that if your design target is could be euphonic impression
of music rather than an accurate reproduction thereof - then producing a
design with distortions that sounded nice would be a successful one.

We ageee.

Reply to Anonymous

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

B&D wrote:
> On 7/17/04 1:25 AM, in article EL2Kc.99152$IQ4.60400@attbi_s02, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>>> To make the comparison fair, it would be like a car that costs $4
>>>> million. That is outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price.
>>>
>>> I am sure you can find a car or two that would cost that much - be a custom
>>> job, too.
>>>
>>
>> Can you think of even one example? I can't.
>
> Indy car or Fomula 1 race car. Lousy for commuting and normal car uses.
> Only good for high speed travel. No AM/FM radio or cupholders, either.

But is it outpowered by just about every car at 1% of its price? You
think an Indy car or F1 car is a POS? Have you seen the measurements of
an F1 car?

Reply to chung

Forum Audio : High-End Audio - D/A Converters

Please mind

Become a fan

D/A Converters

Forum Audio : High-End Audio - D/A Converters

Please mind