[G Georgopoulos]

"While all modern op amps have push-pull output stages of some sort, many are still
asymmetrical, and have a greater slew rate in one direction than the other. Asymmetry
tends to introduce distortion on ac signals and generally results from the use of IC
processes with faster NPN than PNP transistors"


http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/39-06/Chapter%206%20Interfacing%20to%20Data%20Converters%20F.pdf

Steve .... 

[audioengr]

I think it would be good to address a couple of points.

1) DAC chips convert to analog. However, the analog stage in all DAC chips I know of is designed PP class B up until at least 3 years ago or so. I have not checked since. Huge amounts of global negative feedback are used. One manufacturer I contacted years ago reasoned that class A creates too much dissipation. There could be other problems as well.

My I/V-output stage is pure class-A.  Very low distortion and no crossover distortion.  The output stage does provide power, so there are power resistors mounted to a heatsink.  Gets warm/hot, but the benefits are worth it.

Steve N.

[FullRangeMan]

...

George, forget CD and vinyl, go for SACD or DSD files.
Vinyl is a mistake and CD barely works.

[werd]

DAC, digital to analog chip. Any time analog is present, one has to design for such.

Cheers
Steve

Yes, but I was just pointing out why CD sounds like a chicken plucking. 

[jsaliga]

The likelihood that someone would generally find digital playback unacceptable due to the design of a DAC seems pretty remote to me.  Likewise, satisfying vinyl playback does not hinge on perfect cartridge alignment, uber tight resonance controls, etc.  Those technical details are things that anal retentive audiophiles who are never satisfied and vendors with hardware to sell pay close attention to in the never-ending quest for perfection.  And while perfection, unattainable as it may be, is a laudable goal, it just isn't the absolute requirement that people on forums often make it out to be.  If it were I would have found something other than music to occupy my time and spend my money on a long time ago.

From where I sit things are very good, indeed excellent, in the realm of digital playback in terms of hardware and software.  I have not used an optical disc transport in years and instead have opted to use my computer workstation using J-River Media Center as a source.  My digital music library is stored on 4TB hard disk.  The computer connects to the DAC over USB 3.0.  These days you can buy a lot of DAC for not a lot of money.

Similarly, from where I sit vinyl is very good, indeed excellent, in the realm of playback.  The hardware hasn't really changed a lot over the past 30 years because it didn't need to.  It is a very mature technology that has been around a long time and whose roots go back almost 100 years.  Digital is still a baby in comparison.

Both digital and vinyl have their technical drawbacks.  Fortunately for most people they don't get in the way of the music.  Forums like this is where very small issues are made in to big problems and where very minor differences are made out to be enormous.  Good sounding music is good sounding music regardless of how it is stored and played back, and both vinyl and digital are capable of producing music that is good enough to make the equipment transparent.  The audio world seems to be overflowing with solutions in search of a problem.  When digital music sounds bad it is almost always for reasons that have little to do with op amps and feedback.  And when records sound bad it is almost always for reasons that have little to do with with tracking error or excessive wow and flutter.  This assumes well recorded and mastered content.  A crappy recording is not going to sound good on either format.  This also assumes that listeners are taking reasonable steps to set up their equipment properly.  Some don't and I have no sympathy whatsoever for them if they aren't willing to make the effort.

--Jerome

[Steve]

My I/V-output stage is pure class-A.  Very low distortion and no crossover distortion.  The output stage does provide power, so there are power resistors mounted to a heatsink.  Gets warm/hot, but the benefits are worth it.

Steve N.

Thanks Steve. Much appreciated.

Werd. Thanks, I understand your point now.

JS, you hit on a point, that the recording is approximately half the total system.

Cheers
Steve

[Steve]

"While all modern op amps have push-pull output stages of some sort, many are still
asymmetrical, and have a greater slew rate in one direction than the other. Asymmetry
tends to introduce distortion on ac signals and generally results from the use of IC
processes with faster NPN than PNP transistors"


http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/39-06/Chapter%206%20Interfacing%20to%20Data%20Converters%20F.pdf

Steve .... 

Why the witch hunt? I think it was Burr Brown who stated PP class B to keep heat down. They evidently considered class B, possibly due to size limitation for some reason. By the way, SS is temperature sensitive with junction leakage normally increasing with temperature. Maybe not a big deal in most situations, but if any bipolars, that is another consideration. Besides that there is digital circuitry in the chip that produces heat. Do we wish uniform heat distribution to prevent possible micro fractures and intermittents etc?

Steve N just stated class A is being used, at least some situations, which is good and  maybe the norm now.

Cheers and you are cool George. 
Steve

[*Scotty*]

I think Steve N is referring to the I/V stage he designed for his DAC and not the internal circuitry in the chip itself.
Scotty

[Steve]

I think Steve N is referring to the I/V stage he designed for his DAC and not the internal circuitry in the chip itself.
Scotty

Yes he did, my bad, I was too hasty. Thanks for pointing out my mistake Scotty, so the public receives good information.

Cheers
Steve

[Freo-1]

I spent some time listening to the Pentatone DSD64 recording of Tchaikovsky's 6th Symphony, with the Russian National Orchestra conducted by Mikhail Pletnev.



After listening to the first movement twice I know now why I couldn't remember much about it.  This is a completely forgettable performance featuring what I will charitably call "competently" recorded sound, and that is the nicest thing I can say about it.  I agree that it has more dynamic range than any of my favorite recordings of the 6th on Mercury Living Presence or RCA Living Stereo.  But the music as it is presented here is lifeless, lacks emotional impact, and has nowhere near the detail of the Dorati/LSO reading on Mercury Living Presence or the Pierre Monteux/BSO recording on RCA Living Stereo.  Either of those two recordings are an order of magnitude superior sounding to this uninvolving Pentatone recording and they literally stomp it into the dirt.  Given a choice I would take the Dorati on MLP because I think the performance is a little better and overall the sonics get the nod over the RCA LS recording.

To be completely fair I gave a listen to my Mercury Living Presence CD.  I also have this on a minty stereo vinyl LP.



This recording sounds like I am sitting about 10 rows back at Symphony Hall.  In terms of emotional impact, realism, detail, this recording has everything that the Pentatone recording lacks.  Ask me which recording I will listen to when I want to hear a fantastic Tchaikovsky 6th?  This one, 100% of the time.  The Monteux is good as well, and I have one on DG vinyl by Karajan/BPO that also is quite good but doesn't match the sonic performance of the Dorati MLP.

So this says a lot about my preference for older classical recordings that were made in the 1950s and 60s.  It isn't because I think that analogue is better than digital.  It is because I think the recording techniques and equipment used produced far better sounding music than modern techniques and equipment.  How the music is stored and played back is actually of very little consequence to me.

I also broke out my minty vinyl pressing and gave the first side a listen and then compared to the CD.  Hardly valid from a scientific perspective but I thought it would be an interesting exercise.  They are very close to each other.  My vinyl copy is near perfect and there is no snap, crackle, and pop on my LP.  Surface noise is very low.  If I had to judge which is better I would say that I didn't prefer one over the other.

--Jerome

While I also like the recordings you mentioned,  I believe the assessment of the Russian National Orchestra's performance is off base (IMHO).  I find the performance very moving.   The improved dynamics also helps with the re-creation of the event.   Differences of opinion regarding musical performances is both normal and healthy.   Makes sense to me that a top Russian Orchestra would re-create a major Russian composer's signature symphonies with depth, feeling, and emotion. 

Another recording I have on SACD is one I find that is excellent both from a technical and emotional perspective:


 


Great dynamics, and great performances to boot.  To me, getting the dynamics and lack of noise right with a classical performance is very important to me in order to enjoy the listening experience.

[jsaliga]

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine.  You find the recording to your liking and I find it absolutely dreadful.  My opinion isn't off base, which implies that I am wrong as a matter of fact.  You simply disagree with me and we should leave it at that.

We definitely have different value systems regarding performance and sound quality, and that's ok.  I wasn't trying to suggest that you are wrong in holding the Pentatone Tchaikovsky 6th in high esteem (and I am fairly certain I didn't imply that).  Just because I couldn't find anything nice to say about it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't, or shouldn't.  We don't agree on what makes for a good sounding recording and we don't seem to agree too much on what makes for a great performance either.  Not a big deal.  That is why I believe that choice is a wonderful thing.  I don't have to buy what you like, I get to buy what I like.  Take the freedom to choose away and at least half of all music lovers would be ex-music lovers. 

--Jerome

[Freo-1]

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine.  You find the recording to your liking and I find it absolutely dreadful.  My opinion isn't off base, which implies that I am wrong as a matter of fact.  You simply disagree with me and we should leave it at that.

We definitely have different value systems regarding performance and sound quality, and that's ok.  I wasn't trying to suggest that you are wrong in holding the Pentatone Tchaikovsky 6th in high esteem (and I am fairly certain I didn't imply that).  Just because I couldn't find anything nice to say about it doesn't mean that someone else couldn't, or shouldn't.  We don't agree on what makes for a good sounding recording and we don't seem to agree too much on what makes for a great performance either.  Not a big deal.  That is why I believe that choice is a wonderful thing.  I don't have to buy what you like, I get to buy what I like.  Take the freedom to choose away and at least half of all music lovers would be ex-music lovers. 

--Jerome

Totally agree about our freedom to choose!      I think that is why we all have such diverse opinions about gear, recordings, etc. 

The reason I responded in the manner I did was that I did infer (right or wrong) that you were saying the Russian National Orchestra was not capable as fact vs. your opinion.   From reading your latest post, I now realize that you were not inferring anything more that your personal preferences.  So, no worries.   

This gets back to your larger point of the fact that all these posts/forums are primarily for entertainment, and should not be taken too seriously.  I do enjoy your inputs, even if we do not always agree.  We should always keep an open mind (and open ears) with this hobby.   

[jsaliga]

My main point has been that the question of which is better, vinyl or digital, is irrelevant.  Well recorded and mastered music played back on a good digital or analogue system can produce sound of such high quality as to make the playback equipment more or less transparent.  People like to use worst case scenarios to make their arguments, or cite technical limitations that while correct don't manifest themselves very often in the real world.  For example, they compare records with pressing flaws to digital music with excessive brick wall limiting and dynamic range compression.  Things have gotten much better than that.  The vast majority of the 180g and 200g vinyl pressings I buy are perfect, and in many cases you would not know the music was being played back from a vinyl record just by listening to it.  While I think brick walling and dynamic range compression is still a big problem for CD music, especially rock, pop, and even some jazz, most classical music doesn't suffer from it.  And if you choose your rock/pop/jazz content carefully, you can find well recorded and mastered content in the digital realm in those genres as well.

To me the real issue is how the recordings were made and mastered.  Some people do not like analogue recordings because of tape hiss and other analogue artifacts.  I can understand that even though I am generally not bothered by it.  I personally am not particularly fond of how modern recordings are made, many of which sound veiled to me, lacking the realism and detail that I find in abundance on older recordings.  It pays to be an informed music buyer.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on these points.  But they are the result of long personal experience and I am not very likely to change my views until I perceive a compelling reason to do so.

--Jerome