My reference system has changed again, not surprisingly I suppose, as I'm inclined to finding incremental improvements that make the listening experience a little more satisfying.
Inputs:
1.Fanless PC built and optimized solely for audio, Windows/JRiver player program, up sampling to 352.8 or 384 KHz, Exa U2I USB-I2S convertor into Ackodac Sabre dac, seperate tube output stage using 7788 tubes, heater bias, tube shunt regulation, Magnequest output trans.
2. Luxman PD-444 turntable , Dynavector DV-505 arm with Ortofon SPU cartridge modified with Expert Stylus cantilever and stylus. FR-64 arm with Accuphase AC-1 cartridge modified with Expert Stylus cantilever and stylus.
No CD, or spdif inputs- they are a dead end to my ears.
Pre-amplification
6SN7/71A DHT preamp with built in 12dB crossover at 220Hz, 6H30 tubes drive bass outputs.
Power-amplification
Carver Sunfire 5 channel power amp capable of greater than 1000 watts/1 ohm into all channels.
Speakers
MartinLogan Request electrostatic hybrid speakers with 12" sealed bass drivers, passive crossovers removed, crossover provided by preamp.
DSP
DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033s Bass correction with Wharfdale 10" subwoofer.
Description:
The Exa-U2I usb to I2S convertor remains my choice of digital source , I haven't heard anything over the last 6 months that surpasses it yet. Similarly the Ackodac remains at the forefront of digital dac design, I expect something quite different and better every day, things change fast in digital land, but it will have to be audibly better for a change. I've tried some new devices but no reason to change yet.
Vinyl stays the same, why change what is very satisfying, although waiting on some Lundahl chokes to try a new LCR RIAA phono design.
The preamp is new, I've shifted the DEQX digital crossover to another system and now using a preamp with inbuilt crossover for 4 channel output, 220Hz @ 12dB . The upper frequencies come from a 6SN7/71A tube stage and 6H30's for the bass. No cathode followers in the12dB filter sections. Phono uses 6688,CCa and 6E6P tubes.
Another change is I've gone back to using a solid state high current capable power amp.
I was quite happy with the 4 monoblock tube amps, but, I listen to a diverse range of music from opera to electric blues, and usually I play everything LOUD. My listening studio is rural and private and I like the dynamics of live-like sound.
Tube amps, especially the low output impedance amps I build can drive normal speakers to these levels, but electrostatics simply need very high power levels, especially into the higher frequencies where the stats load drops dramatically.
My favorite all time solid state amp, the Carver Sunfire can deliver more than a 1000 watts into 1 ohm, from all 4 channels.
Some very distinguished hi fi critics have said the the Carver Sunfire is nearly the perfect amplifier, and as far as electrostatics go it is hard to find anything better. Super reliable too.
Speakers remain the same, Martin Logan Requests, new panels and the dynamic robbing passive crossovers removed.
The 12" bass drivers used in sealed boxes were perhaps ML's best solution to integrating bass with the stat panels and retaining deep solid bass.
These speakers are not the polite, dynamically restricted stats people used to Quads etc know. They can play at very loud concert levels with any kind of music, always exciting, never tiring. It always with a tinge of regret when its time to stop listening to the music.
The DSPeaker Anti-Mode 8033s is new- it is designed to remove bass standing waves and works in conjunction with an additional sub-woofer to clean up the bass. It doesn't really extend the bass, the ML's have quite good bass extension, but it does a great job of tightening and cleaning up the lower bass.
The systems only real flaw is that the speakers are very directional and the sweet spot is very tight- move 6" either way and the sound-staging and imaging go 2 dimensional, but I usually enjoy my music alone so no problem for me, I have a well-worn arse-groove in the perfect position. The stat panels I'm currently evaluating (see previous post) are much better in this regard and stacked panels may eventually replace the ML panels.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
An inexpensive top quality Electrostatic speaker kit
The people who designed and commissioned the Nakamichi Dragon electrostatic speaker build (which I rate highly, see previous post) , are making a stat panel driver available that is based on the same technology used in the Dragons.
http://www.involveaudio.com/audio.php?id=33&pid=10
The speaker evaluation kit contains a pair of panels, a step up transformer and a DC power supply , essentially everything you need for a speaker to work from its lower frequency response of around 200Hz to 20Khz.
You also need a bass driver to fill in the bottom end <200Hz and a crossover.
As I was so impressed with the Dragons I had to try the FP-440 Sonic Panel to see if there was a similarity in sound, and the price certainly makes it a very attractive proposition.
To get the system going I used a pair of subwoofers I have in my workshop that use an Acoustic Elegance 18" driver in sealed boxes. The AE drivers are very good, have very clean deep bass but they are also very linear up to 1Khz, which makes them perfect for integrating with the Sonic Panel.
For a crossover I used a DEQX digital crossover- this has the optional Jensen output transformers and is a very nice, analogue type sounding digital active crossover.
I like 12dB 2nd order crossovers for stats and used a 220Hz crossover point.
From a myriad of amps in the workshop the closest was a 100 watt Redgum solid state amp I quite like, so that was connected to the Sonic Panels and a Parasound 200 watter was connected to the bass speakers.
I used the Parasound as it has level controls and I figured the bass level would have to be adjusted down to suit the Sonic Panels 88dB sensitivity. Of course any worthwhile system has to have some tubes in it, so I used a 6SN7/71A DHT preamp to drive the power amps.
It took me no more than 30 minutes to set everything up and have music playing.
First impressions were that this is different: most stats have a rising treble but this panel sounds very smooth , it sounds very much like it's published frequency response- very flat response. The detail/micro-dynamics of electrostatic drivers is still there, but it is not forceful or in your face as much as some stats can be. The Dragons can be a bit too un-restrained sometimes, especially with badly recorded music (they're just being truthful really), but the Sonic Panels are always very enjoyable and easy to listen to.
They dont go as loud as the Dragons, obviously, as they have only less than half the panel area of the Dragons, but still have more than enough output for the average listening room.
Over a period of a week listening to them I've quite enjoyed them, I have them in a very large workshop which is not an ideal listening environment, and this should be borne in mind in context of my impressions, but with JRiver in shuffle mode I've listened to a lot of different music while working on preamps in the early hours of the morning and late at night.
I've often been drawn over to the listening seat to have a closer listen to something that sounded interesting, and always found the sound to be very satisfying- it is not the strident "studio monitor" sound that can sometimes be tiring , but a very natural, musical sound. Quite different from most stats and something that I think is very worthwhile.
Like the Dragons, imaging is very good, they throw a good 3D effect, with excellent width and depth, the crossover has a lot to do with this.
I think they are a real bargain, and recommend them for anyone who would like to try stat sound at a very affordable price.
I'll soon take them into my main listening room , try tube amps, different crossovers, etc, and report on how they go.
Whats next? I'm going to order another pair of panels to double up and see how that sounds. More is better? Maybe, maybe not.
I've also ordered a pair of AE 15" dipole drivers as I want to make a simple frame using a slim open baffle design. It may work with the Sonic Panels and it may not, we shall see.
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=32
http://www.involveaudio.com/audio.php?id=33&pid=10
The speaker evaluation kit contains a pair of panels, a step up transformer and a DC power supply , essentially everything you need for a speaker to work from its lower frequency response of around 200Hz to 20Khz.
You also need a bass driver to fill in the bottom end <200Hz and a crossover.
As I was so impressed with the Dragons I had to try the FP-440 Sonic Panel to see if there was a similarity in sound, and the price certainly makes it a very attractive proposition.
To get the system going I used a pair of subwoofers I have in my workshop that use an Acoustic Elegance 18" driver in sealed boxes. The AE drivers are very good, have very clean deep bass but they are also very linear up to 1Khz, which makes them perfect for integrating with the Sonic Panel.
For a crossover I used a DEQX digital crossover- this has the optional Jensen output transformers and is a very nice, analogue type sounding digital active crossover.
I like 12dB 2nd order crossovers for stats and used a 220Hz crossover point.
From a myriad of amps in the workshop the closest was a 100 watt Redgum solid state amp I quite like, so that was connected to the Sonic Panels and a Parasound 200 watter was connected to the bass speakers.
I used the Parasound as it has level controls and I figured the bass level would have to be adjusted down to suit the Sonic Panels 88dB sensitivity. Of course any worthwhile system has to have some tubes in it, so I used a 6SN7/71A DHT preamp to drive the power amps.
It took me no more than 30 minutes to set everything up and have music playing.
First impressions were that this is different: most stats have a rising treble but this panel sounds very smooth , it sounds very much like it's published frequency response- very flat response. The detail/micro-dynamics of electrostatic drivers is still there, but it is not forceful or in your face as much as some stats can be. The Dragons can be a bit too un-restrained sometimes, especially with badly recorded music (they're just being truthful really), but the Sonic Panels are always very enjoyable and easy to listen to.
They dont go as loud as the Dragons, obviously, as they have only less than half the panel area of the Dragons, but still have more than enough output for the average listening room.
Over a period of a week listening to them I've quite enjoyed them, I have them in a very large workshop which is not an ideal listening environment, and this should be borne in mind in context of my impressions, but with JRiver in shuffle mode I've listened to a lot of different music while working on preamps in the early hours of the morning and late at night.
I've often been drawn over to the listening seat to have a closer listen to something that sounded interesting, and always found the sound to be very satisfying- it is not the strident "studio monitor" sound that can sometimes be tiring , but a very natural, musical sound. Quite different from most stats and something that I think is very worthwhile.
Like the Dragons, imaging is very good, they throw a good 3D effect, with excellent width and depth, the crossover has a lot to do with this.
I think they are a real bargain, and recommend them for anyone who would like to try stat sound at a very affordable price.
I'll soon take them into my main listening room , try tube amps, different crossovers, etc, and report on how they go.
Whats next? I'm going to order another pair of panels to double up and see how that sounds. More is better? Maybe, maybe not.
I've also ordered a pair of AE 15" dipole drivers as I want to make a simple frame using a slim open baffle design. It may work with the Sonic Panels and it may not, we shall see.
http://www.aespeakers.com/drivers.php?driver_id=32
Friday, October 26, 2012
Combined Pre-amp/ Crossover
I guess the main problem is that the device can only be used with a system totally designed for active use, with seperate amps for each speaker driver, and the crossover points set for a particular speaker system.
I normally use a DEQX digital crossover on my two-way active electrostatic speakers and the versatility of the DEQX is quite useful- I have 3 crossover settings, EQ available via remote control, and can change settings on the fly to suit taste and recordings etc.
The DEQX is very transparent and with tube preamp and tube amps designed for the stats the sound is accurate and natural.
But if you crave an all tube system, and know what crossover settings your speakers need, a tube active crossover can give very good results. With a two way system it is quite easy to go up to 24dB fourth order slopes with tubes, combine a very good preamp in the design and have an exceptionally satisfying sound with all tube pre/active amplification.
Kevin Covi did a lot of crossover design work for me in 2006 and I built quite a few preamp/crossover units for those dedicated audiophiles with a passion for tubes.
Another advantage of combining the preamp and crossover is that the unit can be optimised for the range of frequencies each section covers.
In the pre/crossover I'm using now I have 6SN7/6H30 tubes in White Follower configuration driving the bass section. This is optimised to give very deep, tight bass response.
The mid/treble uses a 6SN7/101D (dht) transformer coupled circuit which is optimised for performance from 200Hz. Normally I use a 71A dht for my preamps as it has the best balance for overall sound, but the 101D is maybe the best tube for clarity and is ideal from lower midrange up to high treble.
With this setup and using a bit of EQ via the JRiver player program the sound is perhaps not as precise and accurate as the DEQX but it sounds wonderfully engaging and musical.
On the pix above the middle front tubes are the bass section, and the round 101D tube handles the mid/treble. There is a seperate volume control for the bass which works in combination with the master volume control.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Computer Audio Oct 2012
Computer Audio(CA) continues to advance. People who 6 months ago were telling me that it could never be better than CD/SACD are now emphatic that it is the finest reproduction they have heard.
It's interesting to see how the press critics have come around, and how some of them are trying to wipe the egg off their faces without being seen!
There's still some dissention, but it generally comes from flat earthers who like their sound colored and romantic, that is, very unfaithful to the recording.
They usually have bloomy tube amps or colored speakers that are far from accurate.
There's no hope for these people as they don't want to hear the recording, they want to hear their version of how it should sound.
However for those of us who do want to hear the actual recording of the music, it is getting easier and easier to accomplish.
I believe quite a lot of people are keen to dip their toes into CA but are a bit apprehensive about it, believing it is quite difficult and it requires a fair bit of computer skill.
There's no denying a little computer skill helps, but even the average 60 year old has enough experience of computing to manage CA now.
And if you haven't got it, you damn well better get it or you will be severely disadvantaged in the near future.
Basically to use a computer for audio you need 4 things,
(1) a computer or laptop, loaded with windows 7 or 8
(2) a program to play the files, either JRiver for windows or PureMusic for Mac (there are others, but let's keep it simple
(3) a storage system for music files, I strongly recommend a simple USB powered 500Gb portable hard drive . I can carry all my music around in my pocket, it's simple, and as long as you have at least one backup is safe.
(4) a USB dac.
That's it, that's all you need for very high quality sound.
Of course you can make it a lot more complicated, and even higher quality, but this is a great way to get going and my systems are loosely based on this set-up.
There is a bit of potentional angst in setting up the program player, but computer people seem to finally have realized that not everyone is a geek and the programs are a lot more explanatory now, and if you have problems it's not that hard to get help.
I've helped people set up computers for CA in less than 30 minutes , and it's always fun to see the look on their faces when they hear pure digital as it should sound.
If any Supratek owners are contemplating CA and require some advice please feel free to email.
BTW I have a MicroMega MyDac usb dac for sale @ $AUD350, perfect for introduction to CA.
Next blog, back to the future, our version of the ultimate phono preamp.
It's interesting to see how the press critics have come around, and how some of them are trying to wipe the egg off their faces without being seen!
There's still some dissention, but it generally comes from flat earthers who like their sound colored and romantic, that is, very unfaithful to the recording.
They usually have bloomy tube amps or colored speakers that are far from accurate.
There's no hope for these people as they don't want to hear the recording, they want to hear their version of how it should sound.
However for those of us who do want to hear the actual recording of the music, it is getting easier and easier to accomplish.
I believe quite a lot of people are keen to dip their toes into CA but are a bit apprehensive about it, believing it is quite difficult and it requires a fair bit of computer skill.
There's no denying a little computer skill helps, but even the average 60 year old has enough experience of computing to manage CA now.
And if you haven't got it, you damn well better get it or you will be severely disadvantaged in the near future.
Basically to use a computer for audio you need 4 things,
(1) a computer or laptop, loaded with windows 7 or 8
(2) a program to play the files, either JRiver for windows or PureMusic for Mac (there are others, but let's keep it simple
(3) a storage system for music files, I strongly recommend a simple USB powered 500Gb portable hard drive . I can carry all my music around in my pocket, it's simple, and as long as you have at least one backup is safe.
(4) a USB dac.
That's it, that's all you need for very high quality sound.
Of course you can make it a lot more complicated, and even higher quality, but this is a great way to get going and my systems are loosely based on this set-up.
There is a bit of potentional angst in setting up the program player, but computer people seem to finally have realized that not everyone is a geek and the programs are a lot more explanatory now, and if you have problems it's not that hard to get help.
I've helped people set up computers for CA in less than 30 minutes , and it's always fun to see the look on their faces when they hear pure digital as it should sound.
If any Supratek owners are contemplating CA and require some advice please feel free to email.
BTW I have a MicroMega MyDac usb dac for sale @ $AUD350, perfect for introduction to CA.
Next blog, back to the future, our version of the ultimate phono preamp.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Whise HA1500 aka Nakamichi Dragon
I dont normally do "reviews" as sound is so subjective - we all hear differently and have different priorities towards sound quality, so my opinion of a product is just that- an opinion.
I'm also not impressed with the majority of reviews in the audio world, as most reviewers have an appalling lack of technical knowledge, and are really quite unqualified even to broadcast an opinion.
Never the less, I've come across a product that I would like to make comment on, as the design philosophy is very close to what I consider to be state of the art in audio playback.
Regular readers of this blog will know that my reference speaker system is a hybrid active electrostatic system that consists of a Martin Logan Request , which has a large electrostatic panel with 12" bass driver in sealed box. The bass is driven by a solid state amp and the stat panels are each driven by a strong tube monoblock amplifier.
The passive crossovers are removed, crossover is by DEQX, 12dB Butterworth. Adjustment to sound done via computer USB and can be done on the fly , with levels/EQ able to be adjusted from burning your ears out with detail to warm euphonic "tube" sound.
Of course I prefer a natural, accurate sound.
The system is complex, heavy, burns a lot of watts and sounds very good.
The Whise HA1500 is also an active electrostatic speaker with built in power amps, crossovers and adjustment controls . It is relatively compact, comes in a glorious design and finish , so good that it won a Good Design Award 2007 from the The Chicago Athenaeum: Museum of Architecture and Design .
Normally a speaker with this type of looks and finish would exist in the 10-15$K price range.
The Whise HA1500 has had an interesting history; conceived and designed in Australia, it was presented to Nakamichi of Japan who decided to market the speaker under their brand and gave it the highest distinction by naming it Dragon, which is reserved for the highest echelon of their product range.
The Nakamichi Dragon tape deck is still considered to be one of the finest recording devices ever made.
Unfortunately the relationship between Nakamichi and the designer/manufacturers fell through and only around 200 pairs were built.
They've been available in Australia for a few years, and have been quietly sold through various retail outlets.
I became aware of them a few years ago, and admired them from a distance, and even came close to buying a pair in 2010.
Recently the price became even more attractive as the manufacturers wanted to quit all stock and move onto other projects and I could not resist temptation any longer.
Using the Dragons simply requires an input from a preamp, line source or amplifier terminals, although under the latter method the Dragons inbuilt power amps are still driving the speakers.
I connected a preamp , and watched as the yellow neon lights on front panel turned to blue as audio was detected, very cool, and I sat down with an iPad in my hand to remotely select some music.
The Dragons have a series of controls on the back panel, consisting of volume, and 3 tone controls: a "room brightness" control to adjust treble, a +- 6dB bass control at 80Hz and a +- 6dB control at 250Hz which is approx the crossover frequency.
I placed all controls at the 12 o'clock or midway position and played some music.
Immediately I could tell I was listening to a very good speaker, but the frequency response was not right at all, with too much bass, and too much treble.
It turned out that the 12 o'clock position is not the "flat" position for the controls , and I spent a considerable amount of time adjusting the controls to get a reasonably flat response.
The Dragons are difficult to adjust , I dont know why the designers chose this particular set of controls , but I would have much prefered to see simple level controls for the bass and stat sections of the speaker; the separate sections of the speaker are very good, and don't need such heavy handed controls imo.
I've read of people immediately disliking the Dragons, I'd suggest the tone controls were not set to advantage, it is quite easy to make the dragons sound very strange with the tone controls.
However, they do provide the means to adjust the sound to suit a wide variety of rooms and taste, it is a slow and tedious procedure but after a couple of days I was quite happy with the frequency response. Later on I moved them into a quite different and larger room and had to go through the same procedure, but again had good success at integrating them into the room.
If achieving the correct frequency response was hard work, there was certainly no problem in recognizing that the sound of the electrostatic Dragons was extra-ordinary. The music literally leaps out of the speakers in a highly defined soundstage that has excellent width and very defined depth, perhaps the best 3D effect I've heard . Detail is amazing , electrostatics are renowned for resolution, but the light membranes used in the Dragons give the best resolution and transperancy I've heard from the dozen or so electrostatics I've heard over the last 40 years. They are very, very fast, I doubt there is a speaker available that has the rise time of this electrostatic panel.
But they aren't overly bright or fatiquing - the "room brightness" control needs to be adjusted accordingly to avoid treble attenuation, but used appropriately the speakers give a very natural, organic sound.
The amazing transperancy does mean that a very good preamplifier needs to be used, I went through 5 preamps before I found one that I thought really suited the speaker and my taste.
Some will use the speaker with a direct connection to a line source, this may work well, but I'd always use a tube preamp with an active set up, or indeed any serious audio.
The ultra-quality of the sound exposes any weakness of equipment and recordings, other owners of the Dragons say the Dragons are best with certain equipment and recordings, that some recordings don't suit the Dragons.
I think it is a case of the Dragons revealing the short-comings of these recordings, a less than optimum recording may escape observation by lesser speakers, but the Dragons reveal all.
The bass of the Dragons is particulary interesting.
Now I'm not usually impressed or believing of the marketing hype that comes with audio products , but there are some aspects of the Dragon design that are innovative and clearly audible and to quote the Dragon literature:
” Balanced PAMSubwoofer technology for a powerful bass experience without any loss of punch or transparency in the low frequencies;
” Ultra-thin Electrostatic Loudspeaker (ESL) Arrays which break boundaries in physical size, dispersion, loudness (SPL) and transparency, to provide a musical experience with unsurpassed realism.
” Ultra-thin Electrostatic Loudspeaker (ESL) Arrays which break boundaries in physical size, dispersion, loudness (SPL) and transparency, to provide a musical experience with unsurpassed realism.
The advanced subwoofer technology adopts advanced acoustic measures to ensure that the bass/sub bass audio is clear from distortion and vibration. Harmonic distortion is reduced to incredibly low levels, even at full power, combined with an incredibly fast transient response"
Whise were highly regarded in the pro-audio world, and their sub-woofer technology has filtered down into the Dragons. Neither of the 2x 8" drivers are visible as they are used in a band-pass design which encloses them inside the enclosure. Output is from a single port, and frankly the definition and output from this port is hardly believable.
Those damn tone controls have to be used again to get the output reasonably flat, but once done the bass is as clean and free of overtones as you could hope for from such a reasonable sized enclosure.
Whise called this form of bass modelling P.A.M and Greg Borrowman in a review of a Whise subwoofer explained very well how it works:
A very good test of a subwoofer is to drive it with a full-range audio signal and listen to what comes out. The easiest way of doing this is to connect the line output of a CD player to the line inputs of the sub, insert a CD and press ‘play’. What you shouldn’t hear are any muffled higher-frequency sounds, particularly voices. Try this test with the Whatmough-Whise Impulse and all you hear are low frequencies…and if there are no low-frequency sounds on the CD, total and complete silence. The high-pass filtering is that good.
The bass I heard from the Impulse was immediately noticeable because it was so free from distortion that I was able to immediately detect the pitch of every note the instant it was played. In a perfect world, this is exactly what should happen, but the fact is that almost all subwoofers have such high levels of distortion that this is not possible. The mechanism that’s at work is that when a bass guitarist plays a low ‘G’, for example (49Hz), nearly all subwoofers will generate not only this ‘G’, but also another ‘G’ an octave above (at 98Hz, which is the second harmonic) as well as a ‘D’ five notes above that (at 147Hz, which is the third harmonic). So instead of hearing just the one single note, you’ll hear three notes, and it’s up to you to decide which one the composer (and musician) intended you to hear! The ear works this out automatically from the context of the music (the key the music is in lets you eliminate the false D fairly quickly while the phrasing would be the only clue to which G to choose). These decisions are made by your subconscious, in just a few moments, but the more distorted the signal (and thus the harder your ears and brain will have to work) the less ‘easy to live with’ you’ll find the quality of the bass.
Play a ‘G’ through the Impulse and all you’ll hear is the original ‘G’ at 49Hz. The difference this makes to the clarity of music being played is so unbelievable that you really have to hear it for yourself to believe it. When you do, you’ll discover it’s easiest to hear with musical examples, either from a CD or a DVD soundtrack, but the freedom from distortion is clearly audible even with movie sound effects.
The frequency response is exceptionally flat. I connected a standard synthesiser directly to the line inputs of the Impulse and played a two-octave chromatic scale starting at the lowest note on the synth (a ‘B’ at 30.87Hz) I couldn’t detect any change in volume level until I reached the ‘G’ at 98Hz. Needless to say, if the Impulse can pass such an extreme ‘live music’ test, you’ll have no worries playing back recorded music. The synth also showed the Impulse’s response dropped off very quickly above the ‘G’, being noticeably softer even just three notes above, at ‘C’ (130.81Hz). The Dragons also have this character of low distortion, but that very steep roll-off of the higher harmonics is particulary evident , and leaves the splendidly clean and resolving sound of the stat panel free of any bass overtones or "muddiness.
Bass is similarly transperant and resolving- there is never any "one note" tone and one can easily follow a bass line quite distinctly from the music.
The two technologies of PAM bass loading and the light weight, high speed electrostatic panel combine perfectly , although this is an active hybrid system, it is integrated in superb unison.
One downside is that the downward extension of bandpass designs are restricted by enclosure size. The Dragon has exceptional bass, but it does not do sub-bass, you need a real sub-woofer to get earthquake effects. Again that 80Hz tone control is of no help here, its just too high for sub-bass control.
Another of the marketing claims is for what is called NTM crossover design.
The Dragons use an analog crossover which surprisingly uses quite ancient IC chips, however they have been proven as high quality sound devices over a long period- think of them as NOS exotica!
The design is claimed to offer high order roll-offs with low order group delay, and it certainly sounds like this to me.
I've had a lot of experience with active crossovers and while it is possible to get very high order crossovers these days, they never seem to have the same "organic-ness" and natural sound of lower order crossovers.
The designers of the Dragon claim to have combined the best of high and low order crossovers and I believe them. The proof is in the splendid 3D imaging and sound-staging that extends beyond the physical boundaries of the speaker.
Internal amplification is by 100 watt class AB amps, one each for the stat panel and the dual bass drivers. They sound fine, there's no mistaking they are solid state amps, but they have good tone and good control over the drivers.
Without passive crossovers to soak up the power the Dragons can play very loud- at extreme volume levels they do strain a little, but this is at volume levels you only get to enjoy when home alone.
Once upon a time stats didn't do high volume, but the new designs available now are up there with the very best at providing clean volume, the Dragons are probably better than the majority of moving coil speakers for loud, clean and accurate sound.
So how does the Nakamichi Dragon compare to my similar Martin Logan active stats?
Firstly, my ML's are heavily modified and quite different to a stock Martin Logan Request, I dont think there is any comparism to a stock ML and the Dragons- the Dragons are clearly better in just about every way. My modified, active Martin Logans are quite a bit larger than the Dragons and do have a slightly bigger soundstage, but the stat panel technology of the Dragons, combined with the special crossover gives better imaging - that 3D presentation I keep talking about, the Dragons also have more detail and insight.
The Martin Logans have a baffle mounted 12" bass driver in a sealed box; while not as well defined as the Dragon bass in the upper bass region, it does extend further into sub bass area and moves more air than the rear mounted port of the Dragon can.
The big advantage the Martin Logans have is that external amplifiers are used, and they are powerful 100 watt tube amplifiers especially built for stats.
As good as the Dragon stat/class AB amp combination is, nothing sounds as real as a stat driven by a capable tube amp.
The ML's may lose a little detail in comparism, but they are smooth and very naturally musical.
Musical sessions are enhanced and prolonged by this rare ability to connect with the music.
I really enjoy the Dragons but after a while you realize you are listening to a very good speaker without perhaps the involvement the active tube driven ML's give.
The ML's also have the advantage of a very useful and very variable digital crossover, the DEQX can offer an option of 3 crossovers available on the fly, EQ which is very useful for extending and tightening bass well into the sub-bass area, and tuning for room effects/ taste.
But this comes at the cost of complexity and less than eco-friendly power requirements, 4 amps, DEQX, preamp, and line source. And most people don't have the ability or inclination to do a modification of this scale.
The Dragons simply need a line source, although I consider a preamp a neccessity. As a complete package the Dragons are awesome, and I consider them to be possibly the best audio product to ever come out of Australia.
If they didn't have those damn tone controls and had the ability for the stat panels be driven by a tube amp I would consider them the perfect speaker.
Hopefully the designers will one day resurrect the concept, in the meantime I'm happy to join 200 other owners in enjoying the music.
NB I'm using the Dragons with JBL active subs, and a little bit of JRiver 64 bit EQ.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Tube Legend Bob Carver
I've always respected legendary amplifier designer Bob Carver- he's been around for years, he has designed classic amp after classic amp, both in tube and solid state.
He's upset a few people over the years as he is a little too honest and forthright in the BS loaded world of audio. My kind of guy!
Years ago he had a big kerfuffle with Stereophile magazine when he claimed he could replicate the sound of any amp , regardless of price, in a relatively inexpensive SS amp.
They weren't able to prove him wrong and they held a grudge against him for a long time.
Bob retired but now he's back with a return to his true passion- high power tube amplifiers.
Dick Olsher's review tells it all, nice to read a review written intelligently for a change, by someone who understands how tube amps work.
There's far too many "reviewers" around now who dont have a clue about the technical aspects of amplifier design and how they interact with speakers and other equipment .
One peculiar problem of the internet is that people dont do an "apprenticeship" now- they absorb all the opinions from the forums and web pages , but dont actually do any hard studying or actually get their hands dirty - its all accumulated opinion rather than knowledge and it is sad thing.
I remember in my late 20's having tube audio design books brought up from the bowels of the State Library and the excitement of finding something new and enlightening, in the quest for knowledge.
Anyway, Dick's review of Bob's amp is excellent and highly recommended as a template for aspiring reviewers.
There's nothing new in Bob's design , but he sure has been innovative in bringing some interesting concepts together in this amp.
High plate voltage, pentode operation, negative and positive (current) feedback and the "dc restorer" which controls bias operation at high power.
It's expensive at over $7000 but if I was going to buy a tube amp for myself , this is what I would have.
I'm a little thrilled and a little proud to say that we've been using some of these concepts in the Monduese and Malbec amps for many years now- positive feedback is a big advantage to speaker control , and the bias control we use enables maximum power output with zero crossover distortion. Although I use pentode amps in one of my systems we have persisted with Ultra-linear operation and that has kept maximum power done to around 100 watts, however inspired by Bob I'm going to build some high plate voltage, high power pentode connected amps soon.
Enjoy the music review:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0512/bob_carver_cherry_180_tube_monoblock_amplifier.htm
Mondeuse power amp 100watt mononbloc
He's upset a few people over the years as he is a little too honest and forthright in the BS loaded world of audio. My kind of guy!
Years ago he had a big kerfuffle with Stereophile magazine when he claimed he could replicate the sound of any amp , regardless of price, in a relatively inexpensive SS amp.
They weren't able to prove him wrong and they held a grudge against him for a long time.
Bob retired but now he's back with a return to his true passion- high power tube amplifiers.
Dick Olsher's review tells it all, nice to read a review written intelligently for a change, by someone who understands how tube amps work.
There's far too many "reviewers" around now who dont have a clue about the technical aspects of amplifier design and how they interact with speakers and other equipment .
One peculiar problem of the internet is that people dont do an "apprenticeship" now- they absorb all the opinions from the forums and web pages , but dont actually do any hard studying or actually get their hands dirty - its all accumulated opinion rather than knowledge and it is sad thing.
I remember in my late 20's having tube audio design books brought up from the bowels of the State Library and the excitement of finding something new and enlightening, in the quest for knowledge.
Anyway, Dick's review of Bob's amp is excellent and highly recommended as a template for aspiring reviewers.
There's nothing new in Bob's design , but he sure has been innovative in bringing some interesting concepts together in this amp.
High plate voltage, pentode operation, negative and positive (current) feedback and the "dc restorer" which controls bias operation at high power.
It's expensive at over $7000 but if I was going to buy a tube amp for myself , this is what I would have.
I'm a little thrilled and a little proud to say that we've been using some of these concepts in the Monduese and Malbec amps for many years now- positive feedback is a big advantage to speaker control , and the bias control we use enables maximum power output with zero crossover distortion. Although I use pentode amps in one of my systems we have persisted with Ultra-linear operation and that has kept maximum power done to around 100 watts, however inspired by Bob I'm going to build some high plate voltage, high power pentode connected amps soon.
Enjoy the music review:
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/superioraudio/equipment/0512/bob_carver_cherry_180_tube_monoblock_amplifier.htm
Sunday, August 12, 2012
LowR bias preamps
I've been building preamps for over 30 years, my first preamp was a phono stage using 12AX7 and 12AU7 tubes in a SRPP configuration.
It's a little frightening that this is still considered state of the art by many manufacturers , and while it is certainly a good sounding circuit, a little imagination can definitely improve the sound by a large margin.
Over the 30 years there have been some constants that I've adhered too, as they majorly contribute to the sound I enjoy. Direct coupling, 6SN7 tubes, tube shunt regulation , silver plated solid core wire, polypropylene or oil caps in place of electrolytic caps whenever possible, "bird's nest" wiring (direct, non capacitive), copper chassis , transformer outputs, are some of the design criteria I've followed for many years. I believe Supratek was the first manufacturer to use DHT as preamp tubes in a commercial sense, the 300B, 45, PX4, 101D were all used in the Supratek range, but I also built preamps using other DHT tubes-the 801/10 series, 26, 30, 33, and the fabulous 71A were all used at some stage, but the preamp tube that has stood the test of time and is probably the most uncompromising of all is the 6SN7.
The Directly Heated Triode tubes are maybe better sound, certainly more fashionable, and definitely harder to work with as it takes a lot of engineering to get them quiet enough for high gain preamp use.
My favorite DHT for preamp use is the low gain 71A used in conjunction with a 6SN7(or 26) as input tube. Transformer coupled it has lots of drive, lots of gain (=dynamics) and suits all amplifiers and types of music.
Unfortunately they stopped making 71A's 70 years ago and they are becoming very hard to find in new condition now.
I have enough to last my lifetime , but not enough for preamp production . The 101D is in current production and with some fine tuning also sounds very good.
It may have been discovered many years ago, there's nothing really "new" in tube design, but a form of tube current setting (bias) was presented in 2004 that is unique and different in concept from the usual forms of setting current-cathode resistors, negative grid voltage,etc.
LowR bias uses a seperate power supply to set the current thought the tube and enables very low resistance values and no capacitor bypassing.
Capacitors are "bad" and minimizing them is always useful, but eliminating them in the bias circuit has very favorable advantages, particularly in regards to phase response behavior . Bass is one area where improvement is noticeable but the overall performance is enhanced. There were a few technical problems to overcome , but the gains were so significant I started to use LowR in my preamps around 2009 , after Kevin Covi brought it to my attention and we evolved the design to fit in with the anode follower 6SN7 design we were playing around with then.
The first thing I noticed about the 6SN7 circuit with the LowR bias was the similarity of the sound to my DHT preamps, indeed in some systems I even preferred the sound of 6SN7 LowR to the conventional 71A preamp.
At the price we can build the lowR 6SN7 preamp I believe it is probably the best performing preamp in the world.
Of course we incorporated the LowR concept into the DHT preamps, and after quite a lot of experimenting, and some really wild circuits that were very intriguing and interesting to build, we settled upon a DHT preamp design that I believe is unique and unlike anything else available at the moment. The bass performance is extraordinary, 3D imaging is startling, and it brings any system to life.
There is increasing talk about the role of analog preamps disappearing, I think this is rubbish, and anyone who hears a great tube preamp in a digital system will instantly recognise it as an absolute neccesity.
6SN7-71A preamp
It's a little frightening that this is still considered state of the art by many manufacturers , and while it is certainly a good sounding circuit, a little imagination can definitely improve the sound by a large margin.
Over the 30 years there have been some constants that I've adhered too, as they majorly contribute to the sound I enjoy. Direct coupling, 6SN7 tubes, tube shunt regulation , silver plated solid core wire, polypropylene or oil caps in place of electrolytic caps whenever possible, "bird's nest" wiring (direct, non capacitive), copper chassis , transformer outputs, are some of the design criteria I've followed for many years. I believe Supratek was the first manufacturer to use DHT as preamp tubes in a commercial sense, the 300B, 45, PX4, 101D were all used in the Supratek range, but I also built preamps using other DHT tubes-the 801/10 series, 26, 30, 33, and the fabulous 71A were all used at some stage, but the preamp tube that has stood the test of time and is probably the most uncompromising of all is the 6SN7.
The Directly Heated Triode tubes are maybe better sound, certainly more fashionable, and definitely harder to work with as it takes a lot of engineering to get them quiet enough for high gain preamp use.
My favorite DHT for preamp use is the low gain 71A used in conjunction with a 6SN7(or 26) as input tube. Transformer coupled it has lots of drive, lots of gain (=dynamics) and suits all amplifiers and types of music.
Unfortunately they stopped making 71A's 70 years ago and they are becoming very hard to find in new condition now.
I have enough to last my lifetime , but not enough for preamp production . The 101D is in current production and with some fine tuning also sounds very good.
It may have been discovered many years ago, there's nothing really "new" in tube design, but a form of tube current setting (bias) was presented in 2004 that is unique and different in concept from the usual forms of setting current-cathode resistors, negative grid voltage,etc.
LowR bias uses a seperate power supply to set the current thought the tube and enables very low resistance values and no capacitor bypassing.
Capacitors are "bad" and minimizing them is always useful, but eliminating them in the bias circuit has very favorable advantages, particularly in regards to phase response behavior . Bass is one area where improvement is noticeable but the overall performance is enhanced. There were a few technical problems to overcome , but the gains were so significant I started to use LowR in my preamps around 2009 , after Kevin Covi brought it to my attention and we evolved the design to fit in with the anode follower 6SN7 design we were playing around with then.
The first thing I noticed about the 6SN7 circuit with the LowR bias was the similarity of the sound to my DHT preamps, indeed in some systems I even preferred the sound of 6SN7 LowR to the conventional 71A preamp.
At the price we can build the lowR 6SN7 preamp I believe it is probably the best performing preamp in the world.
Of course we incorporated the LowR concept into the DHT preamps, and after quite a lot of experimenting, and some really wild circuits that were very intriguing and interesting to build, we settled upon a DHT preamp design that I believe is unique and unlike anything else available at the moment. The bass performance is extraordinary, 3D imaging is startling, and it brings any system to life.
There is increasing talk about the role of analog preamps disappearing, I think this is rubbish, and anyone who hears a great tube preamp in a digital system will instantly recognise it as an absolute neccesity.
6SN7-71A preamp
Tannoy 15" Gold Monitors and Malbec PP amps.
Although the last post finished on my preference for accuracy in a stereo system , this post is about one of my systems that although designed to be as accurate as possible , does tend to lean a little way towards musical rather than absolute "master tape" accuracy.
Some less experienced audiophiles listening to my main system, can find it too analytical for their own taste, which usually tends towards the "beautiful" sound they consider "correct" . Some even find the sound of absolute accuracy a little harsh , this is usually reflective of the recording, rather than the system, as the very detailed and analytical sound of an accurate system quickly reveals any flaws in the recording technique.
For myself, I must have system that is capable of revealing the very finest recordings, rather than a system that makes everything sound "nice".
One of the advantages of using the DEQX digital crossover is the ability to have 3 different settings, this makes it possible to have one absolute setting and another two settings for less than perfect recordings, all available by remote control.
If I had to live with only one system this would be it, however the fact is most recordings are not well done and songs have to be chosen for their recording quality to sound good on this system.
With the best recordings, nothing else sounds as good, but 80% of recordings are less than optimal.
What to do when one just wants to put some music on and not listen critically? Fortunately I'm able to have 4 systems, and as I build preamps and power amps its convenient to listen to new designs on a variety of speakers.
All of my speakers are designated as studio monitors, and reasonably accurate with a load tolerant amplifier.
The exception is my pair of Tannoy 15" Gold Monitor speakers- these were designed back in the early part of the 20th century, and while they were classified as monitors then, these days the requirement for accuracy is much tighter and the coloration of the big 15" co-axial speaker does not classify it as a studio monitor .
The main advantage of the big Tannoy is its ability to fill a room with sound. Mine are used in a big room, in an open plan house and they have a remarkable knack of filling the whole house with clear concise music.
Quite a lot of the Tannoy coloration comes from the conventional cabinet design, they are mostly used in big , heavy boxes, and deliberately tuned to fill in the lower midrange with some cabinet "sound".
With a compression driver and crossover at 1000hz this is normally a good thing.
In truth a Tannoy Gold will sound good in just about anything, but with my penchant for accuracy I wanted to see if I could get it accurate without taking the soul out of the sound.
Straight away I decided to use a subwoofer as I believe it is too much of a compromise trying to get sub bass from a co-axial , and relieving the Tannoy cabinet of sub bass duties let's us concentrate on getting cabinet effects to a minimum .
I use a 100 litre cabinet constructed of two layers of heavy MDF , but more importantly inside the cabinet is a large cardboard tube a little larger than the driver, and about 30 mm thick. This is attached to both the front and back of cabinet so driver is actually in a round , very rigid sub-cabinet. This takes out any form of cabinet coloration, and The Tannoy is heard as it really sounds, with out the usual cabinet effects.
The tube is filled with very dense Belguim foam which helps to give a surprisingly good bass response which sounds clear, tight and articulate down to 50Hz.
I was quite surprised by this, usually the big Tannoys go into big 200+ litre enclosures, but the bass in this unconventional 100 litre cabinet is just about perfect to mate with the JBL active subwoofers which are switched to 50Hz crossover @ 24dB. The subs contribute very little to the music and only really come into play with genuine sub-bass.
Crossovers are standard passive Tannoy, I might investigate them one day, but they sound fine as they are.
The sound of these speakers is pretty much was I was hoping for- they are reasonably accurate, maybe not studio monitor but quite close, are still very musical, without that excessive "cabinet" sound the big Tannoys sometimes have.
They fill the room with sound, and are very enjoyable to listen to over long periods.
I tried many amplifiers and really think that tube amps are a must for Tannoys. They also will work quite well with low powered amps, but do struggle if louder volume levels are required. Around 30 watts seems to be minimum and I found that one of my lower powered push pull 50 watt Malbec amps, using rare 7027 pentode output tubes (similar to 6CA7, the USA version of EL34) , 6SN7 driver stage, octal 6H30 screen regulation, a tiny bit of negative feedback, and just a bit more of positive feedback, gave the sound I was looking for, for me, preferable to the sound of much more expensive and over-engineered SE amps.
JBL SLR4312SP active subwoofer
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
10,000 Maniacs
A lot of you aren't going to like this post. Its not about Natalie Merchants old band, but the amount of time it is acknowledged it takes to become very proficient in an art or discipline, and that is roughly 10,000 hours. Its by no means definitive, but seems to be surprisingly accurate for many endeavours.
It is certainly true for the art of critical listening of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.
10,000 hours is about 13 years of 2 hours per day. Very few people get to listen for those sorts of time periods, and if you can only manage an hour a day it will take a quarter of a century to get to the 10K mark.
Just as much a skill, the art of critical listening is an evolutionary process, you cant go from begining in hi-fi and owning your first hi fi to having good analytical skills and the knowledge to listen honestly and illusion-free overnight.
That's the hard part- you might have 20Hz-20KHz hearing , but unless you can seperate objectivity from subjectivity and honestly process what you are hearing into something approaching truthfullness, you are a long way from the ability to critique the reproduction of music.
There are 10,000 maniacs on every audio forum giving their opinion on what is the "best" this and the "best" that. These opinions are pretty much based on how far along the 10,000 hour path they are, and the stages of evolution goes something like this:
Early on the hi fi path is the "loudness" stage- big bass , big treble. The bass is a dead giveaway , 100Hz boom gets mistaken for sub -bass, and more is better. The low damping factor of low feedback or SE tube amps gives a boomy , inarticulate bass that impress's the beginner. If they use subs they tune them into the >50Hz region to add even more bass boom into the mix.
Eventually it wears a bit thin (and it is despite the boom) , and 2-3 thousand hours later they discover "beautiful" music, or at least their interpretation of what it is.
They decide that this is how all music should sound , how all equipment should sound, and death to all who dont hear it the way they do.
The midrange becomes very important, and female vocals have to have a richness and warmth that is euphonic and pleasant.
Very subjective based, and many get to this stage and stay there permanentely, which is good for them, unfortunately many turn into fundamentalists who don't like to see evolution continue , and will turn to the forums to preach their gospel.
Fortunately many do come to realize that it is all subjective, that everyone hears differently, in different environments, and that their is no "best".
But this doesn't stop them from seeking and this is the dangerous and expensive era for the audiophile, with a new piece of equipment every other month.
Eventually this also becomes a bit tiring and our poor audiophile wonders whats next?
He/She reads the forums and sees a zillion opinions about why this class A amp is better than this class D amp, why flac files sound inferior to wav files, why Sabre dac chips sound better or inferior to 30 year old NOS dac chips.
Again, every opinion is subjective, every opinion is just one persons interpretation, what is the truth?
Unfortunately, in this game it is impossible to completely remove subjectivity from objectivity, just as you cannot declare a glass of wine or a painting better than another, it always comes down to it being simply opinion, it may become a consensus, or acknowledged as the rule, but it will always be open to dissent.
However, up towards the 10,000 hour mark, something clicks and they realize they are listening to a RECORDING, its just a recording of the musical event, its not the actual event itself, but a reproduction of the music played at that point of time, which includes the sound of the equipment used to record it, the ability of the recording engineers to reproduce it as accurately as possible , and the ability of the mastering engineer to accurately transfer the recording to the medium you will ultimately use in your equipment.
You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music. If you dont like an accurate reproduction and want to use equipment that is "warmer", then the music you listen to in your home is your interpretation of the event, it is less accurate. You are in the land of subjectivity, and while you will hear things as you like them to be heard, you will never hear recordings at their very best (and worst) .
Objectivity and accuracy go hand in hand, the very finest and the very worst are recognised by accurate ears, accurate equipment , and most important of all an honest and open mind that can differentiate what a recording actually is, and can hear it as the recording, not as an interpretation that suits your ideal.
The truth, or at best a near truth, is the highest level of hi-fidelity.
It is no coincidence that at the upper echelons of hi-fi gear , accuracy is the key distinguishing factor, realism can only come from accuracy.
Without fail, all the 10,000 hours+ audiophiles I've met desire accurate recordings and equipment, they've heard all the various flavours of equipment, recognise it as colouration and have the ability to filter or adapt to these colourations in order to hear the recording as it is. Although they may own coloured equipment and systems they strive for accurate equipment above all else.
They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate . They can listen to to the very latest high technology dac chip , and appreciate that the resolution of it will show up most recordings as less than ideal.
But when a musical event is played with true passion and ability and the recording is faithfully transferred to your accurate equipment, then the true beauty of the performance is revealed, and you are closer to the event.
It is certainly true for the art of critical listening of high fidelity reproduction of recorded music.
10,000 hours is about 13 years of 2 hours per day. Very few people get to listen for those sorts of time periods, and if you can only manage an hour a day it will take a quarter of a century to get to the 10K mark.
Just as much a skill, the art of critical listening is an evolutionary process, you cant go from begining in hi-fi and owning your first hi fi to having good analytical skills and the knowledge to listen honestly and illusion-free overnight.
That's the hard part- you might have 20Hz-20KHz hearing , but unless you can seperate objectivity from subjectivity and honestly process what you are hearing into something approaching truthfullness, you are a long way from the ability to critique the reproduction of music.
There are 10,000 maniacs on every audio forum giving their opinion on what is the "best" this and the "best" that. These opinions are pretty much based on how far along the 10,000 hour path they are, and the stages of evolution goes something like this:
Early on the hi fi path is the "loudness" stage- big bass , big treble. The bass is a dead giveaway , 100Hz boom gets mistaken for sub -bass, and more is better. The low damping factor of low feedback or SE tube amps gives a boomy , inarticulate bass that impress's the beginner. If they use subs they tune them into the >50Hz region to add even more bass boom into the mix.
Eventually it wears a bit thin (and it is despite the boom) , and 2-3 thousand hours later they discover "beautiful" music, or at least their interpretation of what it is.
They decide that this is how all music should sound , how all equipment should sound, and death to all who dont hear it the way they do.
The midrange becomes very important, and female vocals have to have a richness and warmth that is euphonic and pleasant.
Very subjective based, and many get to this stage and stay there permanentely, which is good for them, unfortunately many turn into fundamentalists who don't like to see evolution continue , and will turn to the forums to preach their gospel.
Fortunately many do come to realize that it is all subjective, that everyone hears differently, in different environments, and that their is no "best".
But this doesn't stop them from seeking and this is the dangerous and expensive era for the audiophile, with a new piece of equipment every other month.
Eventually this also becomes a bit tiring and our poor audiophile wonders whats next?
He/She reads the forums and sees a zillion opinions about why this class A amp is better than this class D amp, why flac files sound inferior to wav files, why Sabre dac chips sound better or inferior to 30 year old NOS dac chips.
Again, every opinion is subjective, every opinion is just one persons interpretation, what is the truth?
Unfortunately, in this game it is impossible to completely remove subjectivity from objectivity, just as you cannot declare a glass of wine or a painting better than another, it always comes down to it being simply opinion, it may become a consensus, or acknowledged as the rule, but it will always be open to dissent.
However, up towards the 10,000 hour mark, something clicks and they realize they are listening to a RECORDING, its just a recording of the musical event, its not the actual event itself, but a reproduction of the music played at that point of time, which includes the sound of the equipment used to record it, the ability of the recording engineers to reproduce it as accurately as possible , and the ability of the mastering engineer to accurately transfer the recording to the medium you will ultimately use in your equipment.
You can never hear the original and actual music, the best you can hope for is an ACCURATE reproduction of the music. If you dont like an accurate reproduction and want to use equipment that is "warmer", then the music you listen to in your home is your interpretation of the event, it is less accurate. You are in the land of subjectivity, and while you will hear things as you like them to be heard, you will never hear recordings at their very best (and worst) .
Objectivity and accuracy go hand in hand, the very finest and the very worst are recognised by accurate ears, accurate equipment , and most important of all an honest and open mind that can differentiate what a recording actually is, and can hear it as the recording, not as an interpretation that suits your ideal.
The truth, or at best a near truth, is the highest level of hi-fidelity.
It is no coincidence that at the upper echelons of hi-fi gear , accuracy is the key distinguishing factor, realism can only come from accuracy.
Without fail, all the 10,000 hours+ audiophiles I've met desire accurate recordings and equipment, they've heard all the various flavours of equipment, recognise it as colouration and have the ability to filter or adapt to these colourations in order to hear the recording as it is. Although they may own coloured equipment and systems they strive for accurate equipment above all else.
They can enjoy the sound of a SE tube amp into a high efficiency speaker but know that it is far from accurate . They can listen to to the very latest high technology dac chip , and appreciate that the resolution of it will show up most recordings as less than ideal.
But when a musical event is played with true passion and ability and the recording is faithfully transferred to your accurate equipment, then the true beauty of the performance is revealed, and you are closer to the event.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
WAV/FLAC
Recently on a forum the old argument about whether wav files sound better than flac files came up once again.
My view is that wav files DO sound better than flac, but quantifying the difference is something I can't easily do. It's not as if the bass is tighter and better defined or the treble is airier or that the sound staging is more 3D with better imaging. Wav files just simply sound better, more natural and organic , I don't know why, I just enjoy the sound of wav, all things being equal.
But the difference is minimal at least, and probably invisible to most listeners. I imagine good equipment and ears with a lot of listening experience would be required to reliably pick the difference, although I suspect it is something that is more intuitive than critically heard. Perhaps we are using some 6th sense as instruments can't seem to detect the difference easily.
My rating of digital file quality goes something like this:
(1) DSD native files played back on DSD capable equipment.(No PCM conversion)
( 2) 352Khz wav files, played back on 352khz capable equipment, natively, no down sampling.
(3) wav files, upsampled with software to 352Khz, played back on 352Khz capable equipment.
(4) flac files, processed as (3)
(5) mp3 files, processed as (3)
(we'll ignore the Mac friendly AIFF,ALAC files for the moment)
But there is a factor that determines sound quality that has a far greater influence than the type of file, and that is the quality of the recording. A properly recorded and mastered mp3 will sound a hell of a lot better than a poorly recorded DSD. I've had a few audiophiles in my listening room in raptures about the sound, not knowing they were listening to a mp3.
The majority of my digital files are flac, with a roughly equal amount of DSD,wav and mp3. A few apes and aiff,alac on my Mac system , only rarely used.
All things being equal, I would purchase digital files as wav files but the difference in sound quality is so minimal it's just not worth the effort to maintain an all wav collection and transferring a a flac or mp3 to wav won't make it sound better.
What I did find interesting about the debate on the forum was that one of the protagonists arguing that wav was superior, uses what I consider an "interesting" system. The system uses tube amps with very low damping factor and when I heard the amps and speakers I was not surprised by poorly defined, booming bass that was more typical of a boom box than an evolved hifi system.
To argue that a type of digital file is better than another when using such an inaccurate system for resolving the difference seems a bit misconstrued to me.
My view is that wav files DO sound better than flac, but quantifying the difference is something I can't easily do. It's not as if the bass is tighter and better defined or the treble is airier or that the sound staging is more 3D with better imaging. Wav files just simply sound better, more natural and organic , I don't know why, I just enjoy the sound of wav, all things being equal.
But the difference is minimal at least, and probably invisible to most listeners. I imagine good equipment and ears with a lot of listening experience would be required to reliably pick the difference, although I suspect it is something that is more intuitive than critically heard. Perhaps we are using some 6th sense as instruments can't seem to detect the difference easily.
My rating of digital file quality goes something like this:
(1) DSD native files played back on DSD capable equipment.(No PCM conversion)
( 2) 352Khz wav files, played back on 352khz capable equipment, natively, no down sampling.
(3) wav files, upsampled with software to 352Khz, played back on 352Khz capable equipment.
(4) flac files, processed as (3)
(5) mp3 files, processed as (3)
(we'll ignore the Mac friendly AIFF,ALAC files for the moment)
But there is a factor that determines sound quality that has a far greater influence than the type of file, and that is the quality of the recording. A properly recorded and mastered mp3 will sound a hell of a lot better than a poorly recorded DSD. I've had a few audiophiles in my listening room in raptures about the sound, not knowing they were listening to a mp3.
The majority of my digital files are flac, with a roughly equal amount of DSD,wav and mp3. A few apes and aiff,alac on my Mac system , only rarely used.
All things being equal, I would purchase digital files as wav files but the difference in sound quality is so minimal it's just not worth the effort to maintain an all wav collection and transferring a a flac or mp3 to wav won't make it sound better.
What I did find interesting about the debate on the forum was that one of the protagonists arguing that wav was superior, uses what I consider an "interesting" system. The system uses tube amps with very low damping factor and when I heard the amps and speakers I was not surprised by poorly defined, booming bass that was more typical of a boom box than an evolved hifi system.
To argue that a type of digital file is better than another when using such an inaccurate system for resolving the difference seems a bit misconstrued to me.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
DSD PCM
I'v finally had a chance to listen to quite a few hours of native DSD playback. By native DSD playback I mean pure DSD files played back with a DSD capable dac to produce all DSD digital to analog conversion. That means no PCM conversion or playback, which is what many dacs claiming to be DSD capable actually do- they convert the DSD stream to 352Khz PCM files which some dacs can play, or software is used to downsample to 192KHz which virtually all modern dacs can do these days.
There are only a handful of dacs which can do native, pure DSD digital to analog conversion, and that is a real shame because the DSD to PCM conversion results in a sound that sounds like PCM. Its still very good sound, but native DSD sound is a quite a big step above PCM. It has better ambience, the total recording of the musicians and the room, the equipment used , the skill of the recording engineers is just more obvious with native DSD.
The conversion to PCM installs a veil across this sound, it sounds like what we are used to, but native DSD is something new, something better.
I think it has to be acknowledged that the people using DSD to produce recordings are passionate about good sound and whether they used PCM or DSD it would still sound very good.
The determining factor of any recording is the quality of the recording and the mastering process's.
A very well recorded and engineered mp3 file will still sound a lot better than a badly recorded and engineered DSD file, but when all the care and skill of musicians and recordists is utilised with all DSD technology the result is just sensational.
It can be tricky setting up software and hardware to enable native DSD playback; JRiver and Audirvana Plus support DSD playback and PureMusic does it , but not as well.
Some of the dacs available that can play native DSD do seem to have some teething problems, but this is cutting technology and early days, and will be sorted out soon. The DSD standard is still relatively new.
Whether DSD will become accepted as the definitive recording standard is not clear. Unfortunately for audiophiles high compression, lossy recordings are still considered good enough for the public , mediocrity is todays standard.
There are only a handful of dacs which can do native, pure DSD digital to analog conversion, and that is a real shame because the DSD to PCM conversion results in a sound that sounds like PCM. Its still very good sound, but native DSD sound is a quite a big step above PCM. It has better ambience, the total recording of the musicians and the room, the equipment used , the skill of the recording engineers is just more obvious with native DSD.
The conversion to PCM installs a veil across this sound, it sounds like what we are used to, but native DSD is something new, something better.
I think it has to be acknowledged that the people using DSD to produce recordings are passionate about good sound and whether they used PCM or DSD it would still sound very good.
The determining factor of any recording is the quality of the recording and the mastering process's.
A very well recorded and engineered mp3 file will still sound a lot better than a badly recorded and engineered DSD file, but when all the care and skill of musicians and recordists is utilised with all DSD technology the result is just sensational.
It can be tricky setting up software and hardware to enable native DSD playback; JRiver and Audirvana Plus support DSD playback and PureMusic does it , but not as well.
Some of the dacs available that can play native DSD do seem to have some teething problems, but this is cutting technology and early days, and will be sorted out soon. The DSD standard is still relatively new.
Whether DSD will become accepted as the definitive recording standard is not clear. Unfortunately for audiophiles high compression, lossy recordings are still considered good enough for the public , mediocrity is todays standard.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Sitting on top of the world
After a hard weeks work, that was satisfyingly creative, I was sitting down on a Friday afternoon listening to music, with a glass of very good Cab Sav, listening to Patti Smith's new music "Banga"(which is excellent) iPad on my lap with the cover art on the screen when I noticed there is a new function on Jremote for JRiver called Bio.
Hit it and Patti Smiths bio came up, and I was amazed to see she is 66 years old, and has packed a hell of lot of life into those years and a lot of music I've unfortunately missed along the way.
So in addition to the music I gained a lot of new knowledge and respect for the artist.
I love this technology!
I feel sorry for all those flat-earthers who think that their CD players are still all they need , sorry guys - crappy sound, no interaction, if only you knew what you are missing out on. After Patti Smith I listened to the MFS new release of the Basement Tapes on 180gm vinyl, with the double LP album artwork and story of the recording on the inner sleeves. How come we spent 20 years paying $30 for a flimsy piece of plastic, artwork you couldn't see, and sound that was joyless? But things are getting better- CA sound that can be as good if not better than vinyl, and info, entertainment at our wish. Don't fear the reaper, plunge into this new world.
I love this technology!
I feel sorry for all those flat-earthers who think that their CD players are still all they need , sorry guys - crappy sound, no interaction, if only you knew what you are missing out on. After Patti Smith I listened to the MFS new release of the Basement Tapes on 180gm vinyl, with the double LP album artwork and story of the recording on the inner sleeves. How come we spent 20 years paying $30 for a flimsy piece of plastic, artwork you couldn't see, and sound that was joyless? But things are getting better- CA sound that can be as good if not better than vinyl, and info, entertainment at our wish. Don't fear the reaper, plunge into this new world.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Computer Audio/Vinyl/SACD-a perspective.
Over the last couple of years I've been a real advocate for computer audio, which I think has surprised many as my background is tube based phono preamps. Make no mistake, my true love is still vinyl, I still have over a thousand vinyl records and while I couldn't get rid of my CD's fast enough, I would NEVER sell my vinyl.
The fact is digital is the future, and when the recording industry and the playback industry get together and finally sort it out, then we will will have something that continually surpasses vinyl. At the moment, the best of digital recording techniques, combined with the best of digital playback techniques are much more accurate and transperant than vinyl, BUT it is rare to get both techniques working in unison and producing a reproduction better then what was available from a tape transferred to vinyl back in the 60's.
I've got some wonderful sounding vinyl records in my collection, a couple of really good turntables, 5 fantastic tone arms and about a dozen moving coil cartridges, and it is quite easy to pull a record out of my collection and get exceptional sound from any of my vinyl rigs. With digital, it is a different story-all my CD's have been transferred to flac and aiff , and including downloads I have many thousands of digital files, but sadly very few of them are what I would call state of the art, but there are maybe a couple of hundred where the recording technique is sota , the transfer to digital has been done properly and with good digital equipment, the result surpasses vinyl in just about every aspect, as exemplified in a 352khz wav master file of a symphony chamber orchestra I have. Previously I've blogged about the disappointment of hearing a symphonic chamber group playing live in a small church where I sat about 2 metres from the band, and then listening to the CD on my stereo. The afore mentioned 352 KHz wav digital recording is the only recording I've ever heard, digital or vinyl that comes close to re-creating the ambience and realism of such a live performance. It's just a shame that there are so very few good digital recordings and most people have never heard the real potentional of digital, WHEN IT IS DONE PROPERLY.
I have some vinyl I've had for a very long time, and they reflect periods of my life, and have great meaning and significance , and like wise there have been some great digital recordings that invoke the same emotional responses; digital or vinyl , it essentially comes comes down to how well the recording was done, I suspect it is a lot harder to do a great digital master than it is to do an analogue master.
Damien Rice's first album "0" became a cult classic, home made and recorded on tape it had an immediciacy and vibrancy that made him a reluctant superstar, and the CD had very good sound, with sales high enough for his record company to give his second CD a higher budget with "proper" recording and engineering. You can guess that the next CD had quite woeful sound with the compression so commonly used with modern engineers.
Sound quality, whether it is vinyl or digital based depends far more on the quality of the recording and engineering techniques than the actual equipment we use to play them.
It is true that a $1000 vinyl system will often sound better than a $10,000 digital system, but the simple reason is that the majority of vinyl recordings sound so much better than the majority of digital recordings.
The very few digital recordings that are done with no expense spared or compromise to sound sound far superior to vinyl, but very few artists or companies have the knowledge or desire to produce these masterpieces.
I love my music in analogue or digital form , and being an obsessive perfectionist when it comes to my playback equipment, I have the very best I can build. There is no doubt in my mind that digital is the "best" , but for the majority of recordings available at present analogue/vinyl still rules. There is a better alternative to the throne, but at the moment it doesn't have the numbers to claim the title.
Which provides a good excuse to talk about one of my tonearm/cartridge combinations.
I have owned a Dynavector DV-505 tonearm for quite a while now, you can see from the pix that it is a big bulky arm designed specifically for low compliance moving coil cartridges. The interesting thing about this arm, apart from it's sheer weight, is the use of two damping arrangements- this from the 505 manual:
In combination with the bi-axis tracking system, these design features makes for a very well damped arm, coloration is very low and the arm almost sounds "dead" . It does tend to take some of the life out of the typical moving coil cartridges used with this arm.
Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but I always struggled to find a cartridge I liked with this arm.
Another famous analogue product is the Ortofon SPU cartridge. Weighing in at up to 30 grams it is a monster MC cartridge with a scary 3.5-5.0 grams tracking weight. Finding a tonearm to suit this heavyweight is a difficult task.
I liked the SPU as soon as I heard it, but the unit I was given had unknown hours on it, and I was frightened that a worn needle at those tracking weights could be doing ir-repairable damage to my vinyl records, so I only listened to it briefly.
I have had very good results having MC cartridges re-tipped by Expert Stylus in London. They can achieve these results by replacing good tips with even better diamonds and I was very happy with the resultant increase in performance with Denon, Ortofon, Accuphase, FR and Dynavector cartridges.
They cleaned the SPU and replaced the tip with a diamond that could be played at a lower tracking weight of 2.5 grams.
When I received the cartridge back from Expert I was very keen to put it straight into the DV-505 tonearm, for if there was ever a tonearm and cartridge designed for each other, then surely this match was it. Two big bruisers, masculine and a bit punch-drunk, could they work together to overcome the lack of finesse and charm that individually they had?
Thankfully, this exactly what I got, strong tuneful bass, very accurate mids and highs, with openness and musicality, but is not coloured to the extant that so many vinyl based systems are, the similarity between the sound and very high quality digital as discussed above is pleasing.
Dynanvector DV-505 tonearm with Ortofon SPU MC cartridge.
Supratek phono preamp
The fact is digital is the future, and when the recording industry and the playback industry get together and finally sort it out, then we will will have something that continually surpasses vinyl. At the moment, the best of digital recording techniques, combined with the best of digital playback techniques are much more accurate and transperant than vinyl, BUT it is rare to get both techniques working in unison and producing a reproduction better then what was available from a tape transferred to vinyl back in the 60's.
I've got some wonderful sounding vinyl records in my collection, a couple of really good turntables, 5 fantastic tone arms and about a dozen moving coil cartridges, and it is quite easy to pull a record out of my collection and get exceptional sound from any of my vinyl rigs. With digital, it is a different story-all my CD's have been transferred to flac and aiff , and including downloads I have many thousands of digital files, but sadly very few of them are what I would call state of the art, but there are maybe a couple of hundred where the recording technique is sota , the transfer to digital has been done properly and with good digital equipment, the result surpasses vinyl in just about every aspect, as exemplified in a 352khz wav master file of a symphony chamber orchestra I have. Previously I've blogged about the disappointment of hearing a symphonic chamber group playing live in a small church where I sat about 2 metres from the band, and then listening to the CD on my stereo. The afore mentioned 352 KHz wav digital recording is the only recording I've ever heard, digital or vinyl that comes close to re-creating the ambience and realism of such a live performance. It's just a shame that there are so very few good digital recordings and most people have never heard the real potentional of digital, WHEN IT IS DONE PROPERLY.
I have some vinyl I've had for a very long time, and they reflect periods of my life, and have great meaning and significance , and like wise there have been some great digital recordings that invoke the same emotional responses; digital or vinyl , it essentially comes comes down to how well the recording was done, I suspect it is a lot harder to do a great digital master than it is to do an analogue master.
Damien Rice's first album "0" became a cult classic, home made and recorded on tape it had an immediciacy and vibrancy that made him a reluctant superstar, and the CD had very good sound, with sales high enough for his record company to give his second CD a higher budget with "proper" recording and engineering. You can guess that the next CD had quite woeful sound with the compression so commonly used with modern engineers.
Sound quality, whether it is vinyl or digital based depends far more on the quality of the recording and engineering techniques than the actual equipment we use to play them.
It is true that a $1000 vinyl system will often sound better than a $10,000 digital system, but the simple reason is that the majority of vinyl recordings sound so much better than the majority of digital recordings.
The very few digital recordings that are done with no expense spared or compromise to sound sound far superior to vinyl, but very few artists or companies have the knowledge or desire to produce these masterpieces.
I love my music in analogue or digital form , and being an obsessive perfectionist when it comes to my playback equipment, I have the very best I can build. There is no doubt in my mind that digital is the "best" , but for the majority of recordings available at present analogue/vinyl still rules. There is a better alternative to the throne, but at the moment it doesn't have the numbers to claim the title.
Which provides a good excuse to talk about one of my tonearm/cartridge combinations.
I have owned a Dynavector DV-505 tonearm for quite a while now, you can see from the pix that it is a big bulky arm designed specifically for low compliance moving coil cartridges. The interesting thing about this arm, apart from it's sheer weight, is the use of two damping arrangements- this from the 505 manual:
- electro magnetic damper
This damper applies effect of eddy current, which is generated when conductor moves in magnetic field, and which obstructs conductor in motion. It has almost no damping effect on motion of non-vibrating tone arm, but is highly effective to vibration of arm, such as arm resonance. - Inertia controlled dynamic damper
This damper, incorporated into main arm, consists of a pair of spring and mass, each of these constituents having a carefully selected constant. This spring mass oscillation system oscillates only horizontally as main arm resonance occurs, and causes resonance peak to dip.
Phase lag in one oscillation system relative to another is effectively applied in this damper, which functions only in response to arm resonance.
In combination with the bi-axis tracking system, these design features makes for a very well damped arm, coloration is very low and the arm almost sounds "dead" . It does tend to take some of the life out of the typical moving coil cartridges used with this arm.
Whether this is good or bad is subjective, but I always struggled to find a cartridge I liked with this arm.
Another famous analogue product is the Ortofon SPU cartridge. Weighing in at up to 30 grams it is a monster MC cartridge with a scary 3.5-5.0 grams tracking weight. Finding a tonearm to suit this heavyweight is a difficult task.
I liked the SPU as soon as I heard it, but the unit I was given had unknown hours on it, and I was frightened that a worn needle at those tracking weights could be doing ir-repairable damage to my vinyl records, so I only listened to it briefly.
I have had very good results having MC cartridges re-tipped by Expert Stylus in London. They can achieve these results by replacing good tips with even better diamonds and I was very happy with the resultant increase in performance with Denon, Ortofon, Accuphase, FR and Dynavector cartridges.
They cleaned the SPU and replaced the tip with a diamond that could be played at a lower tracking weight of 2.5 grams.
When I received the cartridge back from Expert I was very keen to put it straight into the DV-505 tonearm, for if there was ever a tonearm and cartridge designed for each other, then surely this match was it. Two big bruisers, masculine and a bit punch-drunk, could they work together to overcome the lack of finesse and charm that individually they had?
Thankfully, this exactly what I got, strong tuneful bass, very accurate mids and highs, with openness and musicality, but is not coloured to the extant that so many vinyl based systems are, the similarity between the sound and very high quality digital as discussed above is pleasing.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Pushing the Limit
I built 3 of the Predactor dac/preamps, one for myself, one for my collaborater in the US and one for my friend in Europe.
They said: "I haven't listened to vinyl in a while either, as digital is so good now that if you factor in the convenience there's no contest - digital wins. There was absolutely no listening fatigue after 3 hours with this DAC! It is awesome."
and " Music is so sweet Mick, nothing "digital" left in the finished product"
Both of these guys are very long term, highly respected audiophiles with much experience and very well thought out (expensive) systems, so their opinions are very gratifying and convinces me that computer audio CA (computer audio) is as good as it gets in reproducing music, as it was recorded.
But can it be pushed further? Are we at the present limit of digital refinement?
The obvious place to look for an improvement is the computer itself- I'm quite happy with the sound of my stripped down and optimised Toshiba laptop, but would a computer built solely from scratch and only built for playing computer music files be better?
The Computer Audiophiles CAPS2 is such a device and everyone who owns one or has built their own versions of it report an improvement in sound quality over a generic laptop, pc, mac etc.
However I'm not a computer expert and building a fully tricked out computer music server is beyond my knowledge.
Fortunately I met Alex Le who is both a computer "geek" and an audiophile and he proposed building a no holds barred computer with the best of everything in it for me.
I decided to go with a windows based system, rather than a mac. I believe that in "standard" form macs probably have the edge over windows, but windows based operating systems can be specifically built for music serving, whereas, as far as I know, a mac is not so easily "hot-rodded".
Also, I much prefer the JRiver Media Centre 17's windows based file integration for managing artwork etc, and macs cant easily play flac files. I think wav files sound better, but artwork is not as well supported, and a bunch of wav files can get real messy real quick. JRMC plays everything, and well.
For those that know about such things the component list for the new computer is:
Core i7 2700k
Low latency Corsair 8gb ram
Intel SSD
Sotm Sata filter
Sotm USB PCI card
Seasonic Power supply
Gigabyte z77 motherboard
3m damping and stillpoints ERS material
Case and Heatsinks are by Nofan
The first thing that was obvious when I received the final product was that it was very spartan, with nothing in it that wasn't necessary for solely playing music, and it was very fast.
It is also very quiet, with the only indication it is on a small LED on back panel.
So has does it compare to an optimised for music Toshiba laptop?
The first thing I immediately noticed was a sense of POWER, bass was more immediate and stronger, but not in a sense of loudness or amplitude- it was just more realistic and dynamic.
The next thing I noticed , and importantly for me, as I'm very enthusiastic about imaging and sound-staging, was pinpoint imaging and and a greater sense of 3D'ness.
Simply point, there's more of the recording revealed, which can make bad recordings very obvious, but when you get a good one, well it is just magnificent.You dont just hear the song, you hear the room, and all the 1 percents that make the total sum of the recording.
Like all good electronic equipment, this computer contributes no sound of its own and lets more of the recording come through- its processing and reproduction is "purer" .
Flat earthers who still think that vinyl, with its wow and flutter, tone arm resonances, inaccurate cartridges, and other colorations produces a " better" sound than state of the art CA probably wouldn't like this computer over vinyl. ( Please remember I built phono preamps for 30 years and Suprateks reputation was built on phono preamps)
There is just no coloration from this level of digital playback, indeed the optimised Toshiba laptop I was using previously does sound colored in comparism to the new computer.
The Toshiba's cost around $800, this super computer cost $2500, so is it $1700 better?
In terms of absolute sound quality, most definitely, but you are going to hear every single piece of information on the recording- there are no "tone" artifacts coming from the equipment to color the sound.
Again, bad recordings sound terrible, there is no warmth or veiling for the imperfection to hide behind, but when a good recording is played , everything comes together in a glorious burst of music- it is as good as it presently gets.
They said: "I haven't listened to vinyl in a while either, as digital is so good now that if you factor in the convenience there's no contest - digital wins. There was absolutely no listening fatigue after 3 hours with this DAC! It is awesome."
and " Music is so sweet Mick, nothing "digital" left in the finished product"
Both of these guys are very long term, highly respected audiophiles with much experience and very well thought out (expensive) systems, so their opinions are very gratifying and convinces me that computer audio CA (computer audio) is as good as it gets in reproducing music, as it was recorded.
But can it be pushed further? Are we at the present limit of digital refinement?
The obvious place to look for an improvement is the computer itself- I'm quite happy with the sound of my stripped down and optimised Toshiba laptop, but would a computer built solely from scratch and only built for playing computer music files be better?
The Computer Audiophiles CAPS2 is such a device and everyone who owns one or has built their own versions of it report an improvement in sound quality over a generic laptop, pc, mac etc.
However I'm not a computer expert and building a fully tricked out computer music server is beyond my knowledge.
Fortunately I met Alex Le who is both a computer "geek" and an audiophile and he proposed building a no holds barred computer with the best of everything in it for me.
I decided to go with a windows based system, rather than a mac. I believe that in "standard" form macs probably have the edge over windows, but windows based operating systems can be specifically built for music serving, whereas, as far as I know, a mac is not so easily "hot-rodded".
Also, I much prefer the JRiver Media Centre 17's windows based file integration for managing artwork etc, and macs cant easily play flac files. I think wav files sound better, but artwork is not as well supported, and a bunch of wav files can get real messy real quick. JRMC plays everything, and well.
For those that know about such things the component list for the new computer is:
Core i7 2700k
Low latency Corsair 8gb ram
Intel SSD
Sotm Sata filter
Sotm USB PCI card
Seasonic Power supply
Gigabyte z77 motherboard
3m damping and stillpoints ERS material
Case and Heatsinks are by Nofan
The first thing that was obvious when I received the final product was that it was very spartan, with nothing in it that wasn't necessary for solely playing music, and it was very fast.
It is also very quiet, with the only indication it is on a small LED on back panel.
So has does it compare to an optimised for music Toshiba laptop?
The first thing I immediately noticed was a sense of POWER, bass was more immediate and stronger, but not in a sense of loudness or amplitude- it was just more realistic and dynamic.
The next thing I noticed , and importantly for me, as I'm very enthusiastic about imaging and sound-staging, was pinpoint imaging and and a greater sense of 3D'ness.
Simply point, there's more of the recording revealed, which can make bad recordings very obvious, but when you get a good one, well it is just magnificent.You dont just hear the song, you hear the room, and all the 1 percents that make the total sum of the recording.
Like all good electronic equipment, this computer contributes no sound of its own and lets more of the recording come through- its processing and reproduction is "purer" .
Flat earthers who still think that vinyl, with its wow and flutter, tone arm resonances, inaccurate cartridges, and other colorations produces a " better" sound than state of the art CA probably wouldn't like this computer over vinyl. ( Please remember I built phono preamps for 30 years and Suprateks reputation was built on phono preamps)
There is just no coloration from this level of digital playback, indeed the optimised Toshiba laptop I was using previously does sound colored in comparism to the new computer.
The Toshiba's cost around $800, this super computer cost $2500, so is it $1700 better?
In terms of absolute sound quality, most definitely, but you are going to hear every single piece of information on the recording- there are no "tone" artifacts coming from the equipment to color the sound.
Again, bad recordings sound terrible, there is no warmth or veiling for the imperfection to hide behind, but when a good recording is played , everything comes together in a glorious burst of music- it is as good as it presently gets.
Recording engineers are going to have to step up to the challenge of recording for this new breed of super resolving playback equipment, rubbish in-rubbish out becomes very obvious now.
I have a www.2l.no recording done at 352Khz wav , possibly the highest technology available for recording purposes at this time. Played back on this system at native sample rate is simply the best reproduction I've ever heard. The same file is also available as a DSD and sound is also very close to perfection.
Many seem to think that SACD which also uses DSD is in the same league , but there are two extra process's in getting the 352Khz wav file to SACD analog output, it is most definitely not the same "purity" as a master file played on a computer.
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Predactor-a Reference Quality Digital to Analog Convertor/Line Stage Preamp.
click on images for detail
Finally we have put all the components together to create a purpose built, no compromise, highest quality digital to analog system.The basis of the digital conversion is the EXA/Ackodac board which features the EXA U2I USB-I2S convertor and the Ackodac Sabre dac board , 32 bit/384 KHz capable , DSD capable.
The EXA is designed in Canada, the Ackodac in Australia.
This is mounted in it's own "art form" chassis handcrafted from West Australian Jarrah wood (by Jon Thompson Designs in Busselton)
Because of the size of the dac board, the tube output stage has been included in the Supratek 71A DHT line stage preamp, with it's own independent power supply and able to be used independently of the line stage if necessary, eg with digital volume control.
There is a lot of discussion and discord about what is the best dac architecture, 16 bit, 32 bit, R2R output, current or voltage I/V , 44.1KHz or 384KHz sampling rates.
Personally I like the 32 bit Sabre dacs, but the actual implementation of the output stages is in my opinion probably the defining source of a dac sound. Any dac, regardless of it's capability can be easily ruined by a mediocre output stage, whether tube, opamps or direct output.
The majority of tube output stages for dacs are very poor, with cheap power supplies and poorly designed circuits using garden variety tubes not really suited to the application.
I've used a special circuit that uses high tech frame grid pentodes (triode connected), these high performance tubes were designed at the end of the tube era, the E280F, E810F, D3a, 6E6P can all be used without any modification and allow for slight changes in flavor, although the overall circuit design characteristic is accuracy into any load. Magnequest nickel output transformers, lowR biasing, Mundorf Supreme gold/silver/oil caps.
In this configuration the Sabre dac chips sound musical and natural, and most enjoyable for long periods of listening pleasure.
The line stage uses 6H8C input tubes , direct coupled into 71A DHT output tubes, again with output transformer, this time Lundahl amphourous cores. Power supply is in separate chassis as is too big and complex to fit in one chassis. Tube shunt regulation, tube rectification, etc.
I could have achieved the same performance using IDHT tubes, but the 30's era 71A tube has a "cool" factor I enjoy working with , and the problems of getting DHT's quiet enough for line stage use is an interesting challenge.
One unusual feature these days is a balance control, tubes,rooms,speakers rarely provide a perfect balance and being able to fine tune the balance can really snap the imaging into place.
A really well designed and constructed tube line stage will have extraordinary imaging and a 3D effect that gives deep and wide soundstaging - the speakers disappear and realism is paramount.
To get the best out of todays hi-rez recordings the dac output stage and following line stage is very accurate into any load, accuracy is the key to realism ; a warm,romantic tube sound (colouration) that is the result of poor design can sound "nice" but never realistic.
A single 6922 tacked on to a dac with a weak power supply simply can not perform at this level.
This will hopefully be my digital system for a long time, I can't see anything on the immediate horizon to replace it, but digital advances so quickly now, we shall see.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)