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.disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable.
On 11/06/2024 10:30 pm, The Running Man wrote:disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
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.
* RAM based players are not immune from failure of the RAM itself. The
type of RAM used has a finite life-span.
On 15/06/2024 11:00 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
any CD player.
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
On 15/06/2024 11:00 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
any CD player.
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
* RAM based players are not immune from failure of the RAM itself. The
type of RAM used has a finite life-span.
A defective RAM would immediately lead to distorted sound or crash the DAC or chipset. So I don't think this is an issue.
On 15/06/2024 4:28 pm, The Running Man wrote:hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
any CD player.
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
**You can agree or disagree with me, if you wish. You'll still be wrong.
A GOOD quality R2R DAC is still the best.
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.
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.
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.disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable.
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 05:30:28 -0700, The Running Man wrote:disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable.
Systems that are proprietary or further the monopolization
of music, business, manufacturing, distribution, etc.,
are obviously not best or reliable.
How about this for an out of left field proposal:
while we have compulsory licensing for songwriting,
so a published song cannot be prevented from new
recordings, how about compulsory licensing for
recordings, where the copyright owner cannot prevent
the sale of copies? Then we won't be restricted as
to what monopolistic copyright owners care to issue
and what they decide to keep off the market.
On 16/06/2024 06:20 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
of any CD player.**Indeed. However, several points:
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable. >>>>
* 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
**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.
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.
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).
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.
On 19/06/2024 4:12 am, The Running Man wrote:hard disks, flash disks, SD cards and tape if you so desire.
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
of any CD player.**Indeed. However, several points:
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most reliable. >>>>>
* 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
**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.
though).
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,
**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.
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.
On 20/06/2024 08:24 Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:no moving parts, no lasers or servo's to break down or go out of
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
The gist is that you're essentially trying to digital samples. And
I'm both horrified and amused with all the technical solutions manufacturers are advertising that supposedly improve "sound quality".
reliable.
Systems with no moving parts are obviously the best and most
the DAC
**Indeed. However, several points:
* The most critical aspects to good sound reproduction lie with
be R2Rand the output stages. The best DACs are generally regarded to
populartypes. These types of DACs tend to be much larger than the more
built myself based on a PCM5102 which sounds better than anything ISigma/Delta types.
I don't agree on this. I have a cheap delta-sigma DAC which I
wrong.
**You can agree or disagree with me, if you wish. You'll still be
when it isn't.A GOOD quality R2R DAC is still the best.
I'm really amused at this statement. You're stating it as a fact
**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.
signal.
Why? You may ask.
It's really simple: A sigma/delta DAC operates by successive
APPROXIMATION. It can only ever approximate the original musical
quieter signals because of its better linearity. R2R is sometimesIt 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
engineer? I am.
**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
Do you really think that a companies like Sony and Philips which havebeen producing professional digital audio equipment for decades, would
better
FWIW: I still own a Marantz CD80, mulitbit, CD player. It sounds
CD players out there and I doubt you listened to all of them.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
delta-sigma sounds.
**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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:22:15 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,643 |