| Search | Login/Register
   Home » Didital Things » Recording options: Pacific Microsonics vs. Lavry Gold. (25 posts, 2 pages)
  Print Thread | 1st Post |  
Page 1 of 2 (25 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Digital recorders: what the "big boys" use?..  Not that wild stuff...  Didital Things  Forum     13  80949  01-05-2005
  »  New  How to record FM broadcasts...  Left to center...  Off Air Audio Forum     125  785376  11-04-2005
  »  New  A littlie D-War: Bidat vs. Lavry Gold..  RE: the "New" DAC...  Didital Things  Forum     13  137292  12-18-2005
  »  New  Analog Transfer: the first draft...  What I am after in this test....  Didital Things  Forum     19  105778  04-11-2006
  »  New  Metaxas-Wolfson ADC with Sound Devices SD744T..  Misery or misunderstanding ? ...  Didital Things  Forum     2  22885  02-11-2007
  »  New  Any good sounding AES/EBU interfaces out there?..  Crossing the Same River Twice...  Didital Things  Forum     40  235032  09-17-2007
  »  New  The best practices for DAW Data Storage...  The Time Stamps Directories Synchronizer...  Didital Things  Forum     9  52094  09-24-2007
  »  New  DA architecture: True Multibit vs. anything else...  If it might…....  Didital Things  Forum     17  123325  12-09-2007
  »  New  The commercial music servers...  Touch screen remote...  Didital Things  Forum     37  234911  01-10-2008
  »  New  Reference Recordings “digital master” and Berkeley's ne..  The Berkeley Audio DAC’s processor....  Didital Things  Forum     13  138002  01-17-2008
  »  New  The Museatex Bidat pages...  An interesting article.......  Didital Things  Forum     54  362744  02-11-2008
  »  New  The Lavry Gold DA924 ++..  A new Lavry Gold?...  Didital Things  Forum     25  202340  03-28-2008
  »  New  Tuners and digital noise from DAW, A/D and D/A..  Beter installation + more ferrete...  Off Air Audio Forum     10  78426  07-20-2008
  »  New  DC offset for A/D converters...  DC offset for A/D converters....  Didital Things  Forum     0  12367  03-13-2009
  »  New  The LavryBlack DA11 Stereo DA Converter..  The Lavry DA10 and Berkeley DAC...  Didital Things  Forum     10  77092  04-07-2009
  »  New  Pacific Microsonics Model 2..  This is very typical....  Didital Things  Forum     85  500695  05-28-2009
09-27-2007 Post mapped to 2 branches of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 1
Post ID: 5428
Reply to: 5428
Recording options: Pacific Microsonics vs. Lavry Gold.

As a new concert season is coming up with BSO opening night next week I was sprucing up my recording studio. The machine is 3MHz with 2G memory – plenty run SoundLab5. The SoundLab just record and play, I do absolutely nothing else in this software, no editing of any kind. The machine is completely fan-less with external power supply. It has no sound card but juts Lynx-16 digits interface that is high quality 110Ohm digital in and out. I changed the stock Linx-16’s proprietary AES/EBU cable to a custom –way more convenient to use cable, though I did not detect sonic differences between them.

The major consideration this time was (and still is) about the AD and DA processors. I use external possessors: analog-to-digital is Lavry Gold AD-122 and digital-to-analog is Lavry’s multibit Gold DA-924

http://www.lavryengineering.com/index_html.html

The objectives were to have play a FM broadcast directly from tuner and do not hear any differences when AD-DA chains is introduced in a signal path. Larry Gold processors do it. I would not make the same claim if I use tape, microphones or records as sources (I did not do it at the level as I would accept it convincing and methodologically correct) but in the context of somehow restricted FM broadcasters Lavry Gold converters chain are absolutely transparent.

Over the course of the last 8-9 years I was searching an opportunity to play with sound of Pacific Microsonics converters. I would not go into details – whoever know what the Pacifics were would know what I’m talking about. Recently I found a very good unit - a very last Model One production of 1998 and software update in 2000. I was contemplating to get Model Two but since I am not going to go higher then 88/24 I decided do not spend more money then I will be able to use. The Model Two has 96kHz and 192kHz, single wire operation option, extras post-production DD operation modes and more sophisticated choices for extra external clocking. Pretty much anything that that Model Two does is unnecessary (for me) except a theoretical ability to subordinate D/A clock from the A/D clock. From another side I think that Model two, since it has multibit AD (!!!) and runs 192kHz then it would have more powerful processing power and theoretically more opportunities for different noises. Why would I need if I stay with 88 kHz?

The Pacific Microsonics (Euphonix) unit is huge with externals power supply. Lavry Gold are small but they run hot like hell and need a LOT of room around then – so both converters take a LOT of room in my rack. I was considering putting both Lavrys right next to each other in a small pro rack-type box with forced air cooling – I did not do it yet.

I run both Lavry Gold tandem and Pacific Microsonics processor in parallel (Linx-16 is 8 channels card and allow to map the channel is any way I wish) and Pacific is truly stands to it’s reputation. It is also absolutely transparent during the injection test. (Live FM vs. AD-DA). The Pacific is also remarkably good with my CD transport (it is where Lavry slips) but unfortunately it has no such a wonderful Lavry’s flexibility to detect and reset own sampling rate. So, the major question that I ask myself and possible will be asking during next few mohth would be which AD/DA combination is better: Lavry Gold or Pacific.

As now it is very obvious that the  both of the converters options are good but there are also some tiny differences between them. They are very-very small and more like “touches of sonic inflections” then truly sonic differences. It is like Lavry Gold chain has different lower bass but Pacific has different type of HF all together. They are not necessary better or worth but different – both very good quality. I would not try to make a final observation and a conclusions what “should go” until I will finish remodeling my playback and have the second 6-Chennals Super Mils done. Then it would be possible to look at fine moments of imaging, space presentation, accentuation, musical colorations and overall musicality. I need also my tweeters finalized with new dedicated amps as Pacific Microsonics has some very interesting options to inject custom dithers – something that I very much look forward to play with when my playback will be properly finished and calibrated. I will be posting my thoughts about it in a future and perhaps I should upload some files from Lavry and Pacific for others to compare and to see difference….

From Pacific Microsonics’ manual:

DAC-Monitoring System Performance Optimization

Unit has advanced DAC optimization capabilities designed to provide the highest possible fidelity with different types of monitoring electronics and power amplifiers. While DAC dither greatly improves the linearity of D/A conversion, it also adds supersonic energy to the analog output signal, which will interact differently with various types of line amplifiers and power amplifiers. Higher levels of dither generally improve DAC linearity, but also can stress electronics that have limited high frequency slewing capabilities.

This can manifest as audible Transient Intermediation Distortion, or a smearing of detail. To allow the best possible match of dither to amplifier performance, three selectable dither levels are provided for 1X conversion, and four levels are provided for 2X conversion.

The best way to determine the optimum DAC dither for a specific monitoring system is by listening to various types of source material while selecting different DAC dither curves. Optimum settings should be determined separately for 1X and 2X material. Generally, the “wider-band” or “faster” the monitoring electronics, the higher the optimum dither level will be.

Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
09-29-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 2
Post ID: 5467
Reply to: 5428
The Pacific AD and DA in "fight".
Quite sensational, truly. I can’t not at this point to say that it is better of worth: Lavry Gold AD and DA chain of the Pacific. The Pacific has own “softness” twist and some extra futures making it difficult to “compare” with Lavrys. Much higher input sensitivity is one for instance, allowing me to record at -1/5 dB. Also there is an ability to play with custom dithering. At 44kHz and 16Bit Pacific way more capable then Lavry, measurements and sound-vise. At 88kHz and 24 bit I do not know (and I made a number of interning measurements at -90dB). Pacific tosses much more radio noise according to measurements but at the same time the auditable noise after Pacific sounds very-very slightly more pleasant. Both Pacific AD/DA and Lavry AD/DA are very close, both VERY acceptable, very neutral and none-abusive sounding. I will record the comparative files from both of them and you will see. As for now I will live with both Pacific and Lavry Gold for a while, see how different they “live” in a long ran. A properly set up Pacific (it tock me for a while to do it) is truly single-button operation processor. Cruelly it feeds 4 channels of my Lynx-16 card (in dual-wire mode), no HDCD encoding; also Lynx use the Pacific’s clock as master-clock. I juts wish the Pacific had one more digital input, allowing me to add a stream from my transport… Anyhow, I'm ready for the new season…




"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-01-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 3
Post ID: 5486
Reply to: 5467
The big digital time…
I spend a couple days playing with my digital, listening, measuring, trying to realize how to use it, trying to take advantage (if it exists) of my new Pacific processor. It is a true remarkable machine but the Pacific processor also highlighted to me how good in fact Lavry Gold are, and particularly the Lavry’s analog to digital processor. Both of the machines Lavry and Pacific are obviously overqualified to record FM and both would perfectly could do what I need from them. It kind of shame on one side and a real joy from other side – I would need to do some LF transfers – not that I need them but juts for fan – to see if it is possible to make digital “the same” as analog. I presume that without putting it on DVD and playing the row 88.24 it might be very possible. Anyhow, unfortunately Lavvy DA does not do too well with CEC TL0 transport....

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-13-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 4
Post ID: 5598
Reply to: 5486
The time to throw stone and the time to collect stones....

OK, after much consideration, recording and listening I made a number a final concussion about the flavors of Pacific Microsonics and Lavry Gold and now I have selected which AD/DA will be serving my FM recording. I offer for you an opportunity to see yourself the difference between the processors and I would like to hear your vote.

Below are two 88/24 fragments (~33Meg and 44Meg), one recorded with Pacific another with Lavry. Both broadcasts were identically slightly compressed by FM station.  As you can hear they are different orchestras and in different halls but I still feel that those fragments do portray the deferens between the processors. Download them and play on your 88/24 playback.

You might not have bandwidth to run then from web, so right-click them “Save As” and play off you machine.

<< File # 1 was here. >>

<< File # 2 was here. >>

Let me know what you think…. Then I will let you know what I think  and where is the file from which processor…
Rgs, Romy the caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 5
Post ID: 5602
Reply to: 5598
Comparing Microsonics and Lavry
When I listened to DAC1, I felt like I was in a very clean lunchroom as part of a taste test experiment with German scientists to try different crackers.  Everything is so clean and tidy.  The crackers are tasty, but they are spending an obsessive amount of time to ensure that each and every cracker is the same size and shape.

When I listened to DAC2, I visited some different Germans.  Now in a Biergarten, I have a bowl of tasty crackers.  The woman with me is a bit drunk, and she is gaily spreading jam thickly on the crackers, which adds to their delicious flavor.  I am also slightly drunk and relaxing and enjoying myself quite a bit.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 6
Post ID: 5603
Reply to: 5598
A preference for...
I listened to the samples letting them loop several times, both directly from my computer (via a pretty good set of headphones), and then on my main system (Mac computer > external drive > Cosecant USB DAC > pre amp > power amps > horns)... I drew the same conclusions regardless of the playback hardware.



DAC 1 :

• Upper mid range is going "white" (both before and after the audible click and subsequent shift in the file)

• Lower mid correct but without texture (like a very nice blond lady)

• LF heavy and thick (touch of reverb?)

• Though I'm not sure, I am inclined to say something like "I am annoyed by a lack of coherency in timing between the upper and lower frequencies ranges".



DAC 2 :

• The terms "Cozy" and "wooly" come to mind.

• Centered on mid frequencies - I would even say very centered - A sort of inoffensive "old radio" sound.



Conclusion :

To be certain, I would want to hear the same material processed via both DACs. However, with the given samples, there is no question that I prefer DAC 2... If its sound could be "opened up" a bit, I would like it even more.



jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Paul S
San Diego, California, USA
Posts 2,157
Joined on 10-12-2006

Post #: 7
Post ID: 5609
Reply to: 5603
So, less is more and more is less?
Jessie, that about sums up my basic impression of digital sound in general for many years, until very recently.  Just add thin, disjointed and arbitrary "harmonics" and noise that makes your skin crawl, and so far the more elaborate the system, the more this stuff comes to the fore, leaving any music behind in its wake.

Conversely, a friend has some reel tapes he made from late night FM broadcasts many years ago and they still sound great.

I'm still undecided whether to go analog or digital for gathering the free stuff.

Best regards,
Paul S
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Antonio J.
Madrid, Spain
Posts 272
Joined on 08-15-2004

Post #: 8
Post ID: 5610
Reply to: 5609
Within my handicapped PC system context

which has no low frequencies to speak of, very small room, very insensitive speakers, SS amp... but is the only one that can play 24/88 files, DAC1 file sounds kind of "dated", as if it were recorded in a huge concert hall with tubed electronics and vintage microphones. Bass is very woolly, spreads all over the hall and the orchestra has some kind of "linking" which creates a decent illusion of musicians playing together, though there's something about the harmonics that I don't feel completely right.
On DAC2 things are cleaner, more "a la mode", so less linking between the members of the orchestra, less sense of togeterness, tighter bass, the harmonics sound righter to me in their proportion, but probably not in the way the spread over the image of the hall.

It's very difficult to me to make any valuable judgment and even more deciding which of two AD is keeping better the TU-X1's sound. If both performances were broadcasted from the very same venue and using the same equipment, then for tone and harmonic structure maybe I'd choose the DAC2, but for the capacity to portray a believable sense of space, then DAC1. Knowing the TU-X1 qualities and what makes it a very special piece of gear, in my opinion DAC1 preserves them better.
It will be very illustrative knowing Romy's take.

Regards,
A.

10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 9
Post ID: 5611
Reply to: 5610
Perceptions
Antonio,

Reading your comments, I would like to ask if you did not possibly confuse the names of the two files, assiciating your comments to the other file in each case? (I just checked to make sure that I did not make this same mistake, as it would be just like me to do this sort of thing... but not this time).

It seems that the what you wrote about the bass and woolyness, vintage mic, and tubed electronics is more what I find in listening to "DAC2". And inversly, the "cleaner" nature you found is what I would associate with the "DAC1" file.

If not, then I would have to attribute the difference in perceptions to a difference in our hardware (have you tried using a pair of headphones with the computer... even a cheap pair of walkman type headphones).

jd*

PS... Though I have a nice TU 9900, I'm still kicking myself for having let what looked like a really mint, one-owner TUX-1 get away for a ridiculous price (something like $900) on eBay about a week ago (discovered it after the sale).


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Antonio J.
Madrid, Spain
Posts 272
Joined on 08-15-2004

Post #: 10
Post ID: 5613
Reply to: 5611
System? Room?
I don't know Jessie, but I also have listened to the files several times and I stand on my comments. The file DAC 1 is the one that I find more "loose" with more room defining bass, and DAC2 the one with some sort of better harmonic definition. The only way I have to listen to these files in the same system the TU-X1 sits, is converting them to 16/44, which will kill a lot of the sound quality. I will listen with headphones and see what happens.

Regards,

A.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
jessie.dazzle


Paris, France
Posts 456
Joined on 04-23-2006

Post #: 11
Post ID: 5614
Reply to: 5613
Space and harmonics
Antonio wrote:

"...The file DAC 1 is the one that I find more "loose" with more room defining bass, and DAC2 the one with some sort of better harmonic definition..."

Stated as you have here, I would agree.

jd*


How to short-circuit evolution: Enshrine mediocrity.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
op.9
Planet Earth
Posts 68
Joined on 01-26-2007

Post #: 12
Post ID: 5616
Reply to: 5614
Problem?
Romy, is there a problem with the DAC1 file? After 16' there is an audible click then a lowering of level and a much more bleached out sound. (Also the channels are reversed)..
Maybe your could check this out..
cheers
op.9


everybody used to call me James in my past other-worldly life.
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 13
Post ID: 5617
Reply to: 5616
Everything is illuminated.
 op.9 wrote:
Romy, is there a problem with the DAC1 file? After 16' there is an audible click then a lowering of level and a much more bleached out sound.
Nope, it was how it was broadcasted. I did nothing with that file. I know that defect but the selection of the tracks are not accidentals and from my point of view is indicative to demonstrate the different in converters. They are not the files that portray frequencies, harmonics  and the rest audio things but they are rather my comments about the performance of both possessors, just expressed in different language. If I need audio evaluation then I would present the same material with two processors. In the presented tracks, however, everything is important and illustrative, including the orchestra play.
 op.9 wrote:
(Also the channels are reversed)… 
Thanks God you noticed it. I was waiting who would comment on it. Since I plagged AD and DA processors many times during that recording I have double-crossed the cables: first time at AD and second time at DA. That made the file itself with reversed channels.

The Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-14-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 14
Post ID: 5620
Reply to: 5611
Addendum
If it was not clear from my oblique comments before, I agree with what all have said, DAC1 seems to be techinically more correct but at the expense of some information loss.  DAC2, which I prefer, has more distortions but also has more complete musical information.

 jessie.dazzle wrote:
Though I have a nice TU 9900, I'm still kicking myself for having let what looked like a really mint, one-owner TUX-1 get away for a ridiculous price (something like $900) on eBay about a week ago (discovered it after the sale).
JD, I would not worry too much about that one.  I saw that, but I am very cautious about sellers of this tuner as their first ever sale on EBay, as most of the time it is a scam.  This tuner seems to be a very popular item to scam people for money.  Caveat emptor!
10-15-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 15
Post ID: 5621
Reply to: 5620
How real reviews should be written

 drdna wrote:
If it was not clear from my oblique comments before, I agree with what all have said, DAC1 seems to be techinically more correct but at the expense of some information loss.  DAC2, which I prefer, has more distortions but also has more complete musical information.
Actually, drdna, your initial associative feedback I found was the most illustrative. I did not provide those files as a competition between the A/D processors but rather as have chosen from the music that I recorded with those processors the fragments that the most characterize the performance of both machines. This is my view how the real audio reviews should be written.

I do not really know if it is necessary to divulge what file belong each A/D processor, as no one cares anyhow to buy them. This is not really the competition between the processors but rather the competition between the views: superb, overlay-articulate, technical execution of American dry halls with their direct-sound in the Eroica vs. blurred, moisture and harmonic sound in the Pathetique. Still, pay attention that in Eroica (it was MMT and SF) the very high level of orchestral rendering creates a new awareness of confidence and coolness.  In Pathetique, the orchestra is "wobbling" and full of doubts (Robert Spano and BSO). It is not that one processor is better – they are different and I intend to use them both – how to use them – this is a different, much bigger, subject.

What I found very interesting is the Antonio’s comments:
 Antonio J. wrote:
…to make any valuable judgment and even more deciding which of two AD is keeping better the TU-X1's sound.
I kind of did not think about it in this way but he might have a point. Although, I have my decision; I would spend more time to think about it….

Rgs, the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-15-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 16
Post ID: 5626
Reply to: 5598
Pacific Microsonics vs. Lavry Gold without ego.

For whatever reason people expressed a lot of interest to Pacific vs. Lavry A/D and I recently got an relatively a large number of emails, including from the people I do not even know, asking me to compare identical analog tracjs and post the founding.

I could do better than this. Below are two files of the same music converted by Pacific Microsonics A/D and Lavry Gold AD122 MkIII. The files are 88.2/24 around 90Meg each. No processing of any kind was used, no dithers, no noise redaction, no EQ or gain change.  The regular commercial PHIL L5137 4-track tape at 7.5 IPS was played on Stellavox SU-8 and then via Purist Proteus cable was outputted in one AD processor and then to another. The Stella’s heads were cleaned and demagnetized. Stella run from batteries, the AD and DAW right from the wall (Screw you the lazy PurePower APS people, where are you???!!!!)

I picked music that has relatively diverted combination of low lever passages and high level passages, good instrumentation and combination of groups and solo. It is opening thyme of the last movement of Brahms’ Double Concerto recorded in 1972 with Haitink and Royal Concertgebouw. The leads played by two giants: Henryk Szeryng and Janos Starker. Unfortunately the entire performance is not up to the lever that might be expected from those participants – something did not “clicked” in there – I think it was the Bernard Haitink… Still, it is a good pieces of music played by the maters who do know own business.

Peter Foster. If you read it can you processes one of tracks (that you like better  - they do sound differently) with your magic “K-Stereo” machine and send me the file. I will repost it.

Other falks, if you feel to comment on the differences between the Pacific Microsonics vs. Lavry Gold then be my guests… To those of you who have well-imaging installations I would be specifically interested to hear your thoughts about the difference in imaging between A/D processors. (I have compromised one channel as now and my view on nowadays are very handicapped)

88.2/24 arond 90Meg each file:

<< File # 1 was here. >>

<< File # 2 was here. >>

Rgs, the Cat

PS: People if you can’t play 88.24 then do not download the files – they would be worthless to you.


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
drdna
San Francisco, California
Posts 498
Joined on 10-29-2005

Post #: 17
Post ID: 5640
Reply to: 5626
Two identical tracks
Well,

It is funny since they are identical digitally recorded tracks you would think they are the same.  I would very much be interested to know if the binary code is identical or not for the two tracks.

I listened to DAC3, which sounds like a really great stereo.  The imaging is very precise and the soundstage is so well defined.  But, my mind keeps drifting off and I keep looking over my shoulder because the music makes me very nervous.

I listened to DAC4.  How sweet the violins and the wonderful juxtaposition of soloist and orchestra.  The last bit reminds me very much for some reason of the performance of Tubby the Tuba I just saw performed live this last weekend.  The imaging?  Well, I remember thinking the string section is very solid and then I kind of forgot to listen for imaging.  I was wrapped up in the music.
10-17-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 18
Post ID: 5646
Reply to: 5640
Do not even open this Pandora box!
 drdna wrote:
It is funny since they are identical digitally recorded tracks you would think they are the same.  I would very much be interested to know if the binary code is identical or not for the two tracks.
Drdna,

Do not even start to talk about it. The binary code is so different that it is not even funny! I have built a 3D oscilloscogram of the recordings and looking at the differences I found it insulting. There is an opinion that it should be this way as Della-Sigma ads a much of garbage that should not be there (Pacific Microsonics is a true multi-bit AD) but I do not know if it is true.

I do feel that one of the ADC (I have no idea why I called them DAC) has more “bite”, more articulation and better pronunciation of lower bass. Another one has less “technical” tone with better upper-bass and richer lower midrange – the factors that makes it harmonically “larger”. Although I personally do prefers this “anti-gipsy sound" (in term of colors) of that “larger” processor but I found that the slightly overly contrasty and overly impactful qualities of the other ADC serve very well when I deal with “tend to be compressed” FM broadcasts.

I actually keep both AD and will use one for FM recording and another for LP/Tape recordings.
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-23-2007 Post does not mapped to Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 19
Post ID: 5715
Reply to: 5467
The Pacific turned out to be a marvelous 16-bit DAC.
To my big surprise the Pacific tuned out to be an absolutely wonderful 16-bit DAC - the only one that migh compete with by Bidat. It does not go into max weigh of lowest end as some other best converters do but it has such an interesting and reach “everything else” that I am contemplating with lucrative idea to use it as a perm converter for my CD transport. Yes, the “contrasty” Lavry will be sitting with my DAW and Pacific will be running off my preamp output. Still it would be so great if I employ Pacific as my 16-bit DAC.

The problem is that I afraid that I will kill this processor kipping it on all time. I never shoot down my DAC (Bidat is up for years) and I am not convinced that Pacific meant to be running all time on. It is huge, it has 200W-consuming separate power supply, it has cooling fans inside and it look more like a mashie that should be activate only during studio production work, not to be on all time… It cumbersome and it need to have 3 buttons to punish in order to power itself down. It stars for a half-minute; go over loadings of DSP packages, calibration and so on… Manual suggest running Pacific for 30 minutes before starting any critical production work – does not sound too optimistic for my home dally use. From a different perspective my Melquiades does not sound right for a first 30-40 minutes as well…

Well, I do not know what to do. I will try to find somehow who repair them and will try to learn if the processor be OK to run all time…. I really would like to have Pacific running as my 16Bit DAC – extremity pleasant result with TL0 transport…
 
The caT


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
10-28-2007 Post mapped to one branch of Knowledge Tree
Romy the Cat


Boston, MA
Posts 9,545
Joined on 05-27-2004

Post #: 20
Post ID: 5749
Reply to: 5715
The digital dynamic protuberances

I do suggest to re-read my post above where I stated that Pacific has remarkably similar sound to Bidat. In Bidat there is one quality that sets it apart from any other converters out there – the Bidat’s dynamic bursts are orders of magnitude less annoying then in any other DACs I have  heard – they kind of blossoming with a completely different lisening feeling – the one that I very much appreciate and cherish…

So, how big my surprise was that Pacific have absolutely the same type of dynamic bursts – and I never have seen any DAC besides Bidat ever did it!!!

“At the heart of the Museatex Bidat is a unique and proprietary digital filter algorithm …. this algorithm examines the digital audio data and makes an intelligent determination on how best to up sample this data …. The Bidat algorithm analyzes the digital audio samples for relative accelerations and then chooses the type of filter most appropriate for that segment of data... More important, it produces a uniquely pure impulse response without Gibb's ringing. For example, a square wave will have clean rectangular transitions and no ringing. The Museatex Bidat can claim transient response demonstrably MORE faithful to the recorded signal than the best analog playback systems for vinyl LP's and open-reel tapes. The undistorted transient response of the Bidat means the algorithm contributes no coloration of its own to the processed audio. This performance eliminates the "digital washout" of sonic subtleties and the harshness heard in listening to a conventional interpolating algorithm. “

I was under impression the Bidat is the only DAC that has the adoptive filters. However, here is from one of the designers of the Pacific Microsonics:

“…We slightly delay …. signal, not enough to cause any sync problems but enough that we can do a continuous Fast Fourier Transform. The resultant information is digitally analyzed in real time by an algorithm that determines, based upon a model of the mechanics of hearing and psychoacoustics, what is perceptually dominant in the signal from instant to instant. And that information is used to optimize the decimation filter. One moment you might have a sudden sharp transient, so it uses a filter with minimum time dispersion to pass the transient cleanly. The next instant, there might be a cymbal crash, so it uses a filter that minimizes alias distortion. All the filters are the same length, so you are not getting a phase shift as this is going on."

Invigorating?
Romy the Cat


"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Page 1 of 2 (25 items) Select Pages:  1 2 »
   Target    Threads for related reading   Most recent post in related threads   Forum  Replies   Views   Started 
  »  New  Digital recorders: what the "big boys" use?..  Not that wild stuff...  Didital Things  Forum     13  80949  01-05-2005
  »  New  How to record FM broadcasts...  Left to center...  Off Air Audio Forum     125  785376  11-04-2005
  »  New  A littlie D-War: Bidat vs. Lavry Gold..  RE: the "New" DAC...  Didital Things  Forum     13  137292  12-18-2005
  »  New  Analog Transfer: the first draft...  What I am after in this test....  Didital Things  Forum     19  105778  04-11-2006
  »  New  Metaxas-Wolfson ADC with Sound Devices SD744T..  Misery or misunderstanding ? ...  Didital Things  Forum     2  22885  02-11-2007
  »  New  Any good sounding AES/EBU interfaces out there?..  Crossing the Same River Twice...  Didital Things  Forum     40  235032  09-17-2007
  »  New  The best practices for DAW Data Storage...  The Time Stamps Directories Synchronizer...  Didital Things  Forum     9  52094  09-24-2007
  »  New  DA architecture: True Multibit vs. anything else...  If it might…....  Didital Things  Forum     17  123325  12-09-2007
  »  New  The commercial music servers...  Touch screen remote...  Didital Things  Forum     37  234911  01-10-2008
  »  New  Reference Recordings “digital master” and Berkeley's ne..  The Berkeley Audio DAC’s processor....  Didital Things  Forum     13  138002  01-17-2008
  »  New  The Museatex Bidat pages...  An interesting article.......  Didital Things  Forum     54  362744  02-11-2008
  »  New  The Lavry Gold DA924 ++..  A new Lavry Gold?...  Didital Things  Forum     25  202340  03-28-2008
  »  New  Tuners and digital noise from DAW, A/D and D/A..  Beter installation + more ferrete...  Off Air Audio Forum     10  78426  07-20-2008
  »  New  DC offset for A/D converters...  DC offset for A/D converters....  Didital Things  Forum     0  12367  03-13-2009
  »  New  The LavryBlack DA11 Stereo DA Converter..  The Lavry DA10 and Berkeley DAC...  Didital Things  Forum     10  77092  04-07-2009
  »  New  Pacific Microsonics Model 2..  This is very typical....  Didital Things  Forum     85  500695  05-28-2009
Home Page  |  Last 24Hours  | Search  |  SiteMap  | Questions or Problems | Copyright Note
The content of all messages within the Forums Copyright © by authors of the posts