Print

Print


Hi Carl,

Would you please share more of your thoughts about the new Benchmark power
amplifier? It can boast of a new technology as well as its high price. TIA,

L. H. Kevil

On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Carl Pultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> BTW, the DAC2 is a substantial improvement on the DAC1, various versions
> of which I've owned since it came out over ten years ago. Even the analog
> path is better. Still, I hear a difference with it between Toslink and coax
> from the same Redbook source. Always have. I know, I know.... The async USB
> is also audibly better than with the standard driver, whatever the data
> rate. It was such an impressive upgrade that I splurged on their new amp.
> It replaces a Bryston, which is no toy. The combo is highly revealing, yet
> not annoyingly so, as there often is a tradeoff between transparency and
> musicality. I find it correct for whichever hat I'm wearing, mixer or
> music-lover.
>
> Another aside, regarding Boulez. I don't dismiss the work of such a
> sophisticated and accomplished musician, who has gained the respect of some
> of the most demanding orchestras out there. It can be instructive to hear
> his way with music. His old Debussy series was praised for its objectivity
> and scrupulous attention to detail, and is still valuable for it. Similarly
> his Mahler, yet it needn't displace Barbirolli, et al. Just as with audio
> arts, there is no one correct way, and we don't always see the value in
> something until time gives us perspective.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 8:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>
> Hi John:
>
> I think what you're hearing with 96k is the 24-bit word length. I am not
> convinced that the super-high sampling rates capture anything audible above
> what 44.1 or 48k capture, but I do think that the Nyquist filtering and
> other factors make the audible top end sound better. However, many DACs
> up-sample 44.1k before filtering and converting anyway. For instance, the
> Benchmark design, of which there are many variants, up-samples everything
> to three hundred and something kiloHertz, re-clocking so as to strip out
> jitter, then converts to analog.
>
> Here's a "white paper" about Benchmark's DAC1 approach:
>
> http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/white-papers/13127453-asynchronous-upsampling-to-110-khz
>
> For the DAC2 series, the describe the "improved" system this way:
> -------------------------------------------
> UltraLock2™ Jitter Attenuation System
>
> UltraLock2™ is an improved version of the UltraLock™ system used in the
> DAC1 and ADC1 product families. DSP processing is 32-bits, DSP headroom is
> 3.5 dB, sample rate is 211 kHz, and jitter-induced distortion and noise is
> at least 140 dB below the level of the music - well below the threshold of
> hearing. Benchmark's UltraLock2™ system eliminates all audible jitter
> artifacts.
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Up-sampling and over-sampling DAC designs have been around for a long
> time, but I do think modern designs are more sophisticated in how they
> strip out jitter from the source. The consumer high-end designers first got
> the jitter-rejection religion, especially when they started recognizing
> consumer demand for USB interfaces (USB is notorious for jitter due to
> inconsistent clocking built into typical computer CPUs). Companies like
> Benchmark and Mytek and Lynx, which have feet in both consumer and pro
> audio, have put out well-reviewed and good-sounding, to my ears,
> jitter-rejecting products in recent times. The other focus where I think
> some strides have been made recently is the analog stage after conversion,
> there are some super-quiet and near-transparent designs out there now. A
> modern digital system should operate so quietly that it essentially has no
> audible noise floor in even a quiet real-world room.
>
> A simple test would be to convert some well-known analog material at 96/16
> and 48/16 and see if you hear a difference. Then 96/24 and 48/24, and then
> compare the 24-bits to the 16-bits. I think that's where you'll hear the
> differences.
>
> To my ears, 24-bit makes a difference, especially with "air and space" in
> something like an orchestral recording. Just transferring in 24-bit makes a
> difference, if you've got a good dither-down conversion system to get to a
> CD master.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Haley" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2015 2:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>
>
> > CORRECTION.  When I said "catching a whole octave above 48 kHz in
> > frequency," I meant "catching a whole octave in frequency above what is
> > captured by a 48 kHz sampling rate."  Sorry about that.
> >
> > Best,
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 2:38 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for posting the NY Times Boulez article, Tom, which could have
> been
> >> entitled "A bunch of famous musicians sitting around kissing up to
> Pierre
> >> Boulez."  They remark how "influential" (i.e, famous) he is.  That he
> is.
> >> Does that make him a great conductor? Nope.  I loved the Gunther
> Schiller
> >> quote.  Obviously, Boulez has occasionally succeeded with a piece of
> >> music.  Like they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  And
> many
> >> great orchestras could occasionally deliver a great performance even
> while
> >> ignoring a monkey on the podium.
> >>
> >> If DGG digital recordings had max resolution of 48 kHz, as you know that
> >> is not an appreciable difference from 44.1 kHz.  The difference in
> >> frequencies (pitches) those sampling rates will capture is the
> difference
> >> between 22,500 and 24,000 Hz.  Way up there, that is a difference of
> only a
> >> note or two (think extended piano keyboard).  I have never been able to
> >> hear the slightest difference between a recording at 44.1 kHz and one
> at 48
> >> kHz.  Recording at 96 kHz is a whole 'nother thing, catching a whole
> octave
> >> above 48 kHz in frequency, but also seemingly able to capture more
> detail
> >> based on double the number of samples.  Or maybe I should say capture
> the
> >> detail with greater accuracy.
> >>
> >> Since we routinely make hi-def dubs (at least 96/24) from analog master
> >> tapes these days that can sound really great, I have to wonder if, all
> else
> >> being equal, those results will outshine an original digital recording
> made
> >> at only 48 kHz.
> >>
> >> I am another one who has never felt that your average DGG orchestral
> >> recording captured a lot of the sheer excitement of the sound of a great
> >> symphony orchestra.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 8:21 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Mark:
> >>>
> >>> So from what you're saying, I gather that the maximum resolution of
> that
> >>> Boulez/CSO master would be 48/24?
> >>>
> >>> -- Tom Fine
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Donahue" <
> [log in to unmask]
> >>> >
> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 6:13 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Tom Fine <
> [log in to unmask]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  I can't recall if it was Yamaha or Studer digital consoles, but I
> think
> >>>>> you are correct in your descriptions of "4D". being a true DDD
> system in
> >>>>> that the last time anything was analog was when the mic plugged into
> the
> >>>>> console and the mic preamp went to a ADC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Tom,
> >>>> The DG 4D system was comprised of a stagebox containing custom remote
> mic
> >>>> preamps and Yamaha converters that connected digitally at 24
> >>>> bits/44.1/48k
> >>>> to an RTW bit splitter that allowed them to record 24 bit 16 track on
> a
> >>>> Sony3324. The signal was also distributed to the input of a pair of
> >>>> Yamaha
> >>>> DMC-1000 digital consoles.  The normal orchestral kit that I would see
> >>>> here
> >>>> in the states was a pair or three stage boxes with a pair of machines
> for
> >>>> 32 track recording. It was basically modular and could be scaled for
> the
> >>>> job.
> >>>> All the best,
> >>>> -mark
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
>