Closer to the truth, part 3
tests and results
well, half of the day had already "gone" after having "hosted" our french guests, Raoul and Dominique, and after having finished our first three tests. Although I have to admit that listening and experimenting with music in such a sublime surrounding...
to the left: Bernd; to the right: Doede - just having prepared the next test to begin and now moving to their seats curious about that what would happen...
...never ever appears some sort of boring to me, it is just the opposite, I feel it to be downright "timeless", and indeed all participants regularly agree that time really does not seem to play any significant role during all our experiments, because it is always about gathering experiences and sharing so much fun and joy and especially delight when things finally work out that fine for us...
4. So, we started our next test, and yes, this topic is one of the most interesting if one follows the discussions in the net: Reproduction of digital stream with PC and/or MAC. There is no excuse, at least in our group we (Klaus, Bernd and me) did not care that much about that theme in the past. Although right from the beginning we were close "followers" of the corresponding results which are generated, presented and discussed in detail here in this treasure box:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/which indeed continuously and informatively reports on all things that happen within the digital scene. And the results become even more interesting because of all the single consumer reports. So I really like to recommend this page to all those people who are interested and like to deepen their knowledge within digital stream to be able to make qualified decisions on their own on the basis and experiences that others already have made. And this with special view on those products which are available for everybody on the market...
Presumably you all know about this seeming endlessly ongoing discussion all around the globe of what computer is best to use for digital music reproduction: PC or MAC? Well, we do, and we were all very lucky, that Doede finally had bought and configured a complete Mini-Mac with all necessary "ingredients" and brought it with him, ready to be tested. Against what? Against PC of course.
Well, ultimately it is not just a singular decision to use a PC or a MAC, there is quite a lot of "accessories" inevitably "welded" with this decision which all produce differences in sound and which simply can n o t be swapped against one or another: programs, drivers, apps, codecs... We have simply to face that it is always a "bundle of ingredients" more or less well harmonically (and right?) combined and adjusted that we compare here, and not just single ones so that we never ever can say, yes, this specific result is generated by that single object and not by any other, we always have an influence as a whole, although we can exchange single parts, if we are not "content"...
...even worse, in addition to that we have different digital formats and presumably different results within the ripping process: flac, ape, m4u, aiff... (at least when we have a closer look onto the amount of the generated data which are not identical but should be - at least from my understanding when ripping a single CD) that natively only play on the one or the other platform, and without further "transcodes" are just not playable on the one or the other platform.
And I tell you from my experiences within digital stream, the one fact that nerves me the most are especially these "transcodes", not only for downsampling purposes but as well to make digital "suitable" just for the other platform. I admit that I do not have much knowledge about the internal mathematical algorithms which do that and what an effect they have on our music, but I have to face that they in fact have an influence which I can clearly hear, and that I have no possibility to take any influence on.. I have to live with the fact that every change in both camps simply has an inluence on our sound, and that within the digital domain!!! I am not content with that state, and I can't get rid of the feeling that exactly that should not be the case!
Louis XIV, the sun king, once said: Gouverner moins, c'est gouverner mieux." (something like: to reign less means to reign better). And I am absolutely convinced that this sentence has become another new qualified meaning within digital music reproduction. Transcode less is better, and best is: no transcodes at all. That's what we have found out with the direct reproduction of DSD/DFF. And it proves to be just right...
So, what did we test then? Well, PC against MAC. PC with the latest foobar2000 Version 1.3 dating from 2013-12-27 with Wasapi 3.2.3 and DDDAC-Software (and later on the JRiver program which reveiled superb mids and highs but was only a little "broader" within the bass) against MAC-Mini with Audirvana Plus. See the full construction of both the MAC-Mini and the PC-Portable connected to external NAS and harddrive > DDDAC1794 with 8 decks > Sowter transformers o r Mundorf Silver Oil capacitors...
... in combination to be tested with the two Sowter transformers...
connected to the left...
for more, see here:
http://www.dddac.com/dddac1794_output.html...against...
...Mundorf Silver Oil capacitors... connected to the right
Yes, and what about the results? There were quite a lot of ameliorations in both camps, PC and MAC. They are indeed really incredible, but they are all of a different kind. On that super highest level it is hard to decide what ultimately may be better or even "the best". Anyway, you can calm down, both the PC and the MAC are really really superb. Although for months and months and months the discussion for example on the computeraudiophile-site from time to time favored PC and months later MAC, and then PC again, and then MAC again, so that one really got quite nervous to be able to keep up with being on the "right" side, both camps - at least at the moment - seem to have come very close together, and the differences tend to become neglectable indeed...
The main argument from Doede, who had followed and experienced especially that development - PC versus MAC - already at his home and much more than us here was: Foobar meanwhile with its newest driver has come close or reached or even to a certain extent surpassed the level of MAC, especially with its newest driver "foobar2000_v1.3.exe" which dates from 2013-12-27 and is available here for free:
http://www.foobar2000.org/getfile/7ae959042ce74b042c90cd5599f3ec6a/foobar2000_v1.3.exeThe final result to my own ears are as well very very close to "equal", and in both camps there is no tayloring to taste at all. The staggering of the arrangements of the instruments has really come to the forefront, the reproduction indeed is really "distingué", the whole stage has become "darker", there is more "seeing-through", there is more precision and definition, there even some "three-dimensional musical erotic elements" have developed, so that it ultimately may be a matter of personal taste or preference what to choose... personally I am not a "jumper", I do not jump to and fro, i.e. from MAC to PC, from PC to MAC and so on, and so I will stay with foobar (I am extremely content with that program, and it is not only me, I am used to it and especially "I have it in my ear" so to speak)...
But in the end we had and still have to ask ourselves: Well, if this what we listen to is all really "bit-perfect", and that in both camps, why are there (still) so many differences within the musical reproduction in our systems?
5. So, the next test was comparing DDDAC1794 with four decks against DDDAC1794 with eight decks.
The principle in further multiplying chips was exactly that what I had "urged" Doede to do already years ago in the beginning of the development of his DDDAC1543, where from mathematical point of view a "more" than 60 chips could not bring any "more" amelioration in sound ( 2 + 2 = 4, what more should you expect ? ), but revealed on my "pressure" to build 120 chips a sensational gain in sound and especially a not at all planned and not at all to be foreseen reduction in jitter which nobody could have expected and even more physically simply could not even exist. This was incredible!!! For more about Doede's "new" theory have a look here:
http://www.dddac.com/dddac1794_other.htmlAnd now with the new DDDAD1794 it was clear that right from the beginning - even against mathematical and physical "results" - Doede would try out more high resolution chips/decks as well. And so he constructed a platform on which the mounting of decks was no problem. But as it came out, there were. Unexpectedly. But those problems were exactly the poke for Doede to get rid of them. As far as I got to know him he simply cannot live with any unsolved physical problems... Doede, I really "love" you for solving exactly these "problems" and posessing the skills to do so and definitely hear the results!!!
After having realized the problems which acoustically appeared from time to time as some sort of crickling and crackling in the sound, within the last couple of months he built a completely new basic platform which now allows the stacking of more than four decks without any trouble (we still have to try out in the end how much and to what extent it goes and how much decks are "worthy" at all being stacked for our musical purposes)
Doede's complete DDDAC1794 with Sowter transformers and new twelve step sound level attenuator, Mundorf's silver oil capacitors and - to the right - eight decks, i.e. sixteen 1794 chips
And the listening results show how fantastic this stepping up is. With four decks you are already in HiFi-heaven. There is definitely no doubt about it. And this is terriffically-well. But with eight decks it is even more terriffically-well. The sound gets erotic. The bass is still quicker and cleaner (I love that the most), there is more "silver", the sound is more natural, and as Doede told: "one forgets to pay attention to the music being played", the deepest organ becomes a smoothness like in a real church, and the voices from females, for example from Diana Krall, gets a "breething" which sparkles down your spine and lets you think you are in bed doing... yes... right...
...not to drift away, but anyway the music out of the both, out of MAC and PC, is absolutely fluid, deeply relaxing and really wonderful to listen to... aaaahhh, what a joy, and what a level in music reproduction... this is genious !!!
6. The next test concentrated on the reproduction of SACD, i.e. PCM and ISO/DFF. We did that with quite an enormous and different kind of sources, MFSL UDSACD, Analogue Records SACDs from Steve Hoffman... not only the best of the best sources but all which we can lay our hands upon...
...and the result is simple: PCM is good, without a doubt, but ISO/DFF is better, without two doubts. Much more better. This is the one and only "bit-perfect" source that we can get, if we know how to create a perfect PS3-rip, which is not that easy. You will have to use different sort of programs and know "how" to use them to get it just right.
We have to keep in mind that that what we normally "get" is not the pure PCM from the master in the studio, what we "get" is in the one or other way some sort of downsampled with a cut-off data-result, and so is the music then: cut-off... but if the sources are "right", then we get the "right" sound, so we have to pay strong attention on that what we play and not only "judge" how "bad" the sound is when the source is not "right"...
...and of course Doede had some hard core test material not only with highest resolution with him, for example a collection of the favorite tunes of the members of stereoplay's testing crew, and the quality showed (really recommended)
7. I couldn't leave it out, but the next test was "my" personal reference-test: PC > Foobar2000 > RAM > DDDAC1794 with 8 decks and controlled power supply for 5 and 12 Volt with Dead Can Dance - Into The Labyrinth (1993) (2008) 4AD, MFSL SACD SAD 2711 [ISO]
The reproduction of this SACD with native ISO/DFF shows it clearly to me: the industry still does not deliver to us that what is on the master recording, they still "betray" us with more or less downsampling, hindering the existing amount of data to come to our ears. And the programs that we have to use for reproducing our music still add some "muddying" to our sound and they are not - what they ultimately should be - "identically" clear. I told already, the way to go for us is: The less influence in digital the better the sound. Then you are able to reach the purest delight. It makes much more sense and brings much better results to invest in proper controlled power supply than in USB-cables. With controlled power supply even a totally mediocre USB-cable sounds first rate, without a doubt. To feed your digital reproduction with external controlled 5 Volt supply (after 12 Volt) is the most important step of all.
8. Measurements. Of course Doede has not only "superb" ears which are regularly "educated" in life-performances, to "prove" the results further he also did some measurements, this time especially regarding the sound pressure at Klaus's. And he did this just for fun, not for showing-off. As you might know usually we are sitting in some 8-10 m distance from the opening mouths of the horns, where we are able to really "hear" some 30 cycles and even less as tones and not just as sound pressure on our stomachs. Here are the results:
Measured in ten meters distance the sound pressure is 112 dB over the whole frequency range (and then Klaus's system is still not fully pumped up), and the deepest bass measured by Doede was 16 Hertz with still some very very respectable 75 dB !!! So, an organ - I cannot help myself - sounds like that what we ever wanted: an organ !!!
9. The last test was of a different kind. As you might know, I am a very passionate and longest user of the DDDAC1543 MKII with 120 chips. As is meanwhile Jean Hiraga himself.
http://www.dddac.de/start.htmlBecause of the really dramatic gain in sound with the controlled 5 Volt power supply with the DDDAC1794 I wanted to have exactly that with my DDDAC1543 MK II with 120 chips. But this did not work. Why? Because the former entry of the DAC cannot handle the import of external 5 Volt. So I asked Doede for a solution. And - of course - he had one. And he had brought it with him here to our meeting. And it looks like this:
this is actually Klaus's DDDAC1543 with 60 chips (mine still has to be connected)
On top to the left is the new (red) entry modul for the DDDAC1543 capable of handling 5 Volt from external controlled power supply. And the DDDAC1543 is now as well capable of playing high resolution files up to 24 bit 96 kHz with the last 8 bit cut off, but it plays...
...and it is shown within foobar that and how it works, the original source with 24 bit 176 kHz played with 24 bit 88200 Hz over the 16 bit DDDAD1543 !!!
and this is the way how to install it:
.. and with what a mindblowing quality! Not only with the DDDAC1794 but as well with this 16 bit version there is a dramatic gain in sound quality, it is indeed that good, that immediately a german proverb came to my mind when you are very enthusiastic about something, perhaps "over-"enthusiastic (for which I have been already "accused" being so on a "very friendly" tracker - but exactly that really doesn't matter: it is always the result that counts) which is translated something like this (I hope you get the sense: "I threw myself into the corner"...
...and what a result that is: majestic, magic, "perfect", yes, "perfect"... although we know that there are always things to ameliorate on which we will report on when they are done...
Happy New Year to you all...
...nd don't forget: 2014 will be THE year of the "Music Computer"!