Re: CD players vs SD players

On 21/06/2024 2:48 am, The Running Man wrote:
 > On 20/06/2024 08:24 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
 >> On 19/06/2024 4:12 am, The Running Man wrote:
 >>> On 16/06/2024 06:20 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
 >>>> On 15/06/2024 4:28 pm, The Running Man wrote:
 >>>>> On 15/06/2024 11:00 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
 >>>>>> On 11/06/2024 10:30 pm, The Running Man wrote:
 >>>>>>> I'm personally a proponent of SD-card audio players, which have no moving parts, no lasers or servo's to break down or go out of alignment, no spindle motor, no speed deviation.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> I'm both horrified and amused with all the technical solutions manufacturers are advertising that supposedly improve "sound quality". The gist is that you're essentially trying to digital samples. And samples could be stored a variety of ways, on hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
 >>>>>>>
 >>>>>>> Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable.
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> **Indeed. However, several points:
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>> * The most critical aspects to good sound reproduction lie with the DAC
 >>>>>> and the output stages. The best DACs are generally regarded to be R2R
 >>>>>> types. These types of DACs tend to be much larger than the more popular
 >>>>>> Sigma/Delta types.
 >>>>>
 >>>>> I don't agree on this. I have a cheap delta-sigma DAC which I built myself based on a PCM5102 which sounds better than anything I heard from any CD player yet costs only $9. Also, DSD is based on delta-sigma and its sound quality far surpasses that of any CD player.
 >>>>
 >>>> **You can agree or disagree with me, if you wish. You'll still be wrong.
 >>>> A GOOD quality R2R DAC is still the best.
 >>>
 >>> I'm really amused at this statement. You're stating it as a fact when it isn't.
 >>
 >> **It is, indeed, a fact. R2R DACs allow for bit perfect reproduction.
 >> Sigma/Delta DACs can never supply a bit perfect result. Not ever.
 >
 > I see now, you're a bigot.
**Nope. I merely state fact.
 >
 >>
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> Why? You may ask.
 >>>>
 >>>> It's really simple: A sigma/delta DAC operates by successive
 >>>> APPROXIMATION. It can only ever approximate the original musical signal.
 >>>> It can never be bit perfect. OTOH, an R2R DAC is cable of reproducing
 >>>> the original musical source in a bit perfect way.
 >>>
 >>> This is pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and utter nonsense.
 >>
 >> **Umm, no. It's fact.
 >>
 >> Both Delta-sigma and R2R are producing voltages that match that of the
 >> sampled value. Delta-sigma does this by successively building up the
 >> voltage on a capacitor using multiple fixed-sized pulses, a R2R does
 >> this by turning on several resistors in a ladder network. It is much
 >> more difficult to get the resistor ladder network right because of the
 >> tolerances involved.
 >>
 >> **I already explained that fact. Building a GOOD R2R DAC is, inevitably
 >> more expensive, given the tolerance and quality of the passive
 >> components required. The result is that a good R2R DAC will always
 >> outperform a Sigma/Delta DAC.
 >>
 >>>
 >>> Delta-sigma is generally claimed to be better at reproducing quieter signals because of its better linearity. R2R is sometimes claimed to reproduce louder passages more faithfully (I don't see a scientific reason why delta-sigma would fare worse here, though).
 >>
 >> **Since only R2R DACs are capable of a bit perfect result, they will be
 >> superior. Sigma/Delta DACs (good ones) are capable of satisfactory
 >> results (I've used a few good ones and they sound quite good), but R2R
 >> will always sound more accurate.
 >>
 >
 > Again, you're stating folklore as a fact. Are you an electrical engineer? I am.
**Good for you. What area of electronics are you involved in?
For the record: I am an electronics technician with 55 years of experience in audio. I have been listening to high quality audio, since I built my first hi fi system more than 50 years ago. Since that time I've been listening and measuring all facets of audio.
So, I am not an EE, but I have a 'few runs on the board'. I know my way around the innards of most audio equipment manufactured in the past 100 years. I've serviced everything from ancient Western Electric cinema amplifiers, to the latest DACs and everything in between. I have a vast array of test equipment to verify the performance of anything that lands on my bench. AND I have a very fine audio system and educated ears, that enable me to subjectively evaluate equipment that comes my way.
 >
 > Do you really think that a companies like Sony and Philips which have been producing professional digital audio equipment for decades, would invent something like DSD, which is completely based on delta-sigma, if it were inferior to ladder-network DAC's?
**Yes. They did so, because it is WAY cheaper to release such technology and the results satisfy the vast majority of listeners, who really don't care for the finest sound quality.
 >
 >>>
 >>>>
 >>>> FWIW: I still own a Marantz CD80, mulitbit, CD player. It sounds better
 >>>> than any one of the several dozen sigma/delta DACs/players I've had in
 >>>> my system. My outboard R2R DAC is even better.
 >>>
 >>> That doesn't mean shit to me. There are many delta-sigma DAC's and CD players out there and I doubt you listened to all of them.
 >>
 >> **I sure have no listened to all of them, but I have heard quite a few.
 >>
 >
 > Not enough of them it seems. Buy a SACD player and tell me how bad delta-sigma sounds.
**I have one. A Sony SCD-777ES. When playing 'Red Book' CDs, it is not as good as my R2R DAC, nor is it as good as my Marantz CD80.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com