From: runningman@writeable.com   
      
   On 16/06/2024 06:20 Trevor Wilson  wrote:   
   > On 15/06/2024 4:28 pm, The Running Man wrote:   
   >> On 15/06/2024 11:00 Trevor Wilson  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.   
      
   >   
   > 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. 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.   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)