Anticipation builds...

[Chuck Elliot]

Keith,

I need to think about what you've said here.

I probably misnamed this stage as it should have been an I/V-Gain Stage.

Regardless if SS(Op Amp) or Tube the DAC will feed a differential amplifier. If SS the current will need to sink through the tied emitters and V- supply eventually.

Since X amount of gain is desired from this stage, I don't completely understand why a SS(current driven) is better than a Tube(voltage driven) and need to think about it.

I don't want to muck up this post any more so I'll terminate here.

Thanks,
Chuck

Jun 9, 2013 20:29:12 GMT -5 KeithL said:

What you've shown is *not* a tube-based I/V stage. It is a passive I/V stage (the two 60 ohm resistors to ground) followed by a high gain differential tube preamp.

The optimum output termination for a current-output DAC is a current-to-voltage converter input at virtual ground potential. Typically, this is achieved by connecting the current output(s) to the inverting input of an op-amp (or a pair of op-amps for differential) connected in an inverting configuration. The current output "sees" a virtual ground, and the op-amp output is a voltage that is directly proportional to this input current. The 60 ohm resistors in this circuit are a rather severe compromise on that goal - the voltage they generate from the current outputs of the DACs will be very low, which will result in an overall signal-to-noise ratio comparable to a decent tube phono preamp (which is far inferior to even a mediocre DAC). Since they are not really at virtual ground potential, they will also introduce offsets and other problems which will have to be addressed as well. As a "proof of concept" for "using more tubes" the circuit is interesting, but, if you want to get the best audio quality from a DAC, yet impart some "tube sound" (the characteristic coloration added by tube amplification circuits) to the results, it makes much more sense to do the I/V conversion optimally (with a solid state I/V stage), and then add a tube buffer to the output.

[ocezam]

Jun 9, 2013 13:26:49 GMT -5 DYohn said:

Agree. People who are interested in tubes for more than the pretty glow want amazing sounding analog line stages. Period. When I need a DAC I'll use one, and I want the flexibility to use the one I like. Don't put one in my 2-channel preamp, thanks.

Well put. Agreed.


...

[emovac]

Love my tube buffer. Can use my integrated direct from the solid state DAC, or through the tube buffer linked between the DAC and integrated, as well as analog sources directly connected to the integrated. The tubes only get lit for yhe longer listening sessions. In my system, the tube buffer makes a clear difference in richness and warmth.

[TUGA Audiophile]

THE NEW AGE NEED INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS.?

The pré-amplifier with tube's and great DAC's like the same philosophy of XMC-1 and XSP-1 is a GREAT INNOVATION and great value for money.?
- Of course everything will be designed with inputs and outputs analog audio XLR / RCA according to EMOTIVA already uses.
These days it makes sense to create a product that satisfies all tastes, after all we are in the age DIGITAL.?

[boomzilla]

Jun 19, 2013 2:48:16 GMT -5 TUGA Audiophile said:

THE NEW AGE NEED INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS.?

The pré-amplifier with tube's and great DAC's like the same philosophy of XMC-1 and XSP-1 is a GREAT INNOVATION and great value for money.?
- Of course everything will be designed with inputs and outputs analog audio XLR / RCA according to EMOTIVA already uses.
These days it makes sense to create a product that satisfies all tastes, after all we are in the age DIGITAL.?

Well, thanks, CFS -

At least SOMEONE agrees with me. I doubt that we'll win this debate, but I feel, as you apparently do, that the "old design" of analog-only just isn't what's needed in this day & age. My daughter & her friends aren't in the market for analog components, period. We're the past, my daughter and her friends are the future. Build what they want and they'll come (although it goes without saying that they may not KNOW what they want until they see and hear it).

To the remainder of posters on this thread:

Yes, there's an "analog revival" in progress just now of young'uns discovering vinyl, but it is a VERY small renaissance, and one doomed when the fad dies out. The vast majority of young people seem to be firmly and permanently tethered to their digital devices. Like it or not, the future of audio is digital. Whine long enough and loudly enough (as you're currently doing on this lounge and this thread), and you risk having Emotiva actually listen to you. If Emotiva ties its future to analog products, then Emotiva dies. It's as simple as that.

Want Emotiva to continue to flourish in the 21st century? Then encourage them to begin the transition to excellent-sounding, reasonably-priced products ALL OF WHICH embrace digital sources and technologies. There's a market for separates, but the majority of future sales will probably be in more integrated products. There's a market (but a continually shrinking one as we baby-boomers die off) for traditional analog components, but I say again (clearly and with certainty): THE FUTURE IS DIGITAL. Get with the program or, like the dinosaurs, your time is past. Might you resemble that remark???

Boomzilla

[yves]

Jun 19, 2013 6:04:06 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

Yes, there's an "analog revival" in progress just now of young'uns discovering vinyl, but it is a VERY small renaissance, and one doomed when the fad dies out.

I think even the best sounding Redbook CD that I have heard (and I have heard thousands), in direct comparison with half decent vinyl, sounds like perfect poo in a blender forever. Unfortunately on top of that, I think more than half of all the Hi Res albums available from HDTracks.com (which, compared to how many are available on half decent vinyl, still aren't at all many, to begin with) suffer from piss poor mastering.

As for tube gear and built-in DACs, I like to throw away my separate DAC and buy a new one every four or five years because that's what I do with my flatscreen TV also, and for a similar reason at that... (it's called tech evolution). However, that doesn't also mean I want to, at an equally fast rate, throw away perfectly good tube gear.

[boomzilla]

Hi Yves -

I won't argue with you about quality. The best phono systems I've heard DO sound better than the best digital systems I've heard. My post isn't about sound quality - it's about market share.

I also won't argue with you about built-in-obsolescence - Nothing, however, keeps manufacturers from putting the DAC section of their components on a replaceable card ala computer buss cards. Just because tube gear contains a DAC doesn't HAVE to make the unit disposable.

Thanks (again) for an above-average and thought-provoking post!

Boomzilla

[yves]

Jun 19, 2013 6:04:06 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

There's a market (but a continually shrinking one as we baby-boomers die off) for traditional analog components, but I say again (clearly and with certainty): THE FUTURE IS DIGITAL. Get with the program or, like the dinosaurs, your time is past.

Just for the sake of being clear re my previous reply, I wanted to add that I am generation X (i.e., I was born in 1973, but I am not deaf lol ).

[boomzilla]

Then you're FAR outside the norm for a Lounge Lizard, Yves - The majority of us are old, male, and extremely grouchy. I envy your youth, your ears, and your obvious intelligence - all of which I unfortunately lack.

That said, I strongly think that I've got the right in this discussion. Like it or not, for better sound or worse, and for the VAST majority of consumers who follow - Digital IS the preferred music medium.

That being the case, the new Emotiva turntable is a paean to the past without much future relevance. You may get in on a temporary fad with a turntable, but you won't stay in business with that kind of thinking. Read my lips, Dan, Lonnie, Keith, & Mr. Carver - DIGITAL products sell. Adapt or die.

[mshump]

Boomzilla
I hate to have to agree with you, digital is here to stay and we are going to have to eventually grasp this concept. The lush sound of vinyl and tubes is great, getting up every 15 mins and flipping the vinyl over and dusting it off and ensuring you don't touch the grooves is the inconvenient art of it. Sticking an IPOD into the dock and hitting play is mighty convenient and with today's technology the sound is getting closer to good.

I have a 15 yr old Son, and he gets all excited when we go pick up a new album and crank up the turntable. He understands and hears the difference in SQ. He has made the statement a few times "Dad, before I move out in a few years I want to get a turntable cause the music sounds beast on there ! (I guess that's 15 yr old terminology for good) I am hopping that with some spending time with him this hobby/art stays alive.

Just Imagine 40 yrs from now when our kids are posting on these forums they will post "man nothing sounded better that putting that IPOD into the dock and listening to the sweet sound of ITunes " LOL. Hopefully training them early, they will grasp true SQ and keep it going !

[Deleted]

Well, I'd like to offer a contradictory view - surprise, surprise! <g> I have heard some *very* good vinyl systems and very good digital systems. IMHO, it is no contest, the digital systems are superior. The freq. resp., S/N ratio, dynamic range, background noise, "quickness" are all in favor of digital. And it's not even close. Vinyl suffers from some unavoidable faults: tracing error, bleed-thru, degradation of media, deformation of the groove, very limited playing time, "fussiness" in care and handling, and on and on.

I think a lot of folks are wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to vinyl. Most of them grew up with vinyl and are used to its inherent distortion and sound coloration. Digital sounds "bad" because it doesn't mimic these faults. But these things can be quantified and measured. And when they are, digital beats vinyl hands-down...

-RW-

[Tenzo]

Think of photography: you can do lots of things in Photoshop to make picture look differently, or even 'better'. In fact, many people start from a poor photo they took, and proceed with photoshopping it to their liking. If only end result matters to you - it is fine. But if you want to feel you did things properly, and did not cheat in photoshop, you'd better take a great photo to start with so you don't have to edit it for 3 hours.

Same with digital music - you can use digital filters to achieve a different sound, but, to many people it would not give the same feeling as having it done 'right' from the start.

Think of ceremonial arts: tea ceremony, smoking sigars, playing vynil... You might gulp a cup of tea, but, you can take time and do it right. In that case, not only it provides a doze of coffeine, but also bring certain satisfaction. Art and convenience do not mix Nothing replaces the effect of a good ceremony.

[Deleted]

If by "ceremony" you mean the endless futzing about when playing vinyl, I respectfully decline to participate. Give me the convenience of popping a disc in player and settling back for an hour's worth or more of great music. If I need ceremony to get my mind in-tune for the sonic fireworks that are to ensue, rolling up a phat bone always seems to work for me...<g>

[yves]

I think the real "ceremony" is in the fact some folks use dismissive descriptions like "rose-colored glasses" when it comes to vinyl, yet, at the same time also, those same folks appear to be blind as a bat when shown evidence to support that the human hearing system is extremely sensitive to some types of faults, and very tolerant of others. Anyway, though, I never disputed that digital Hi Res done right is vastly sonically superior to vinyl. It is. Redbook CD, or standard resolution digital, is a different story entirely IMO, though. And, like I said, availability of the music is the culprit.

[chaosrv]

I was born in 1978 and my girlfriend was born in 1975.
She is very definitely a proponent of convenience over quality while I am the exact opposite.

She thinks Netflix is good enough while I buy more blurays than I probably should.
She's content to listen to lower quality mp3's her ipod in a dock while I have my XDA-2, XSP-1, XPA-2 and Martin Logan speakers.
She agrees that every vinyl album I own is far superior to the high-quality digital files on the server.
The thing is, she can't be bothered to use the equipment while I'll put the minimal effort in to listen to my music the way I believe it should be enjoyed.
I'll admit, it does drive her nuts if I get up more than once to adjust the speakers but damn it, it is her fault for moving them when cleaning!

Of course, if I'm home she'll "suggest" we listen to vinyl or something via the XDA-2.

[Deleted]

Yves, Redbook done properly can sound fantastic. Yes, hi-res is (or should be) better, but properly done Redbook offers excellent sound quality and, of course, unbeatable convenience...

-RW-

[jmilton]

Well said Yves. Paul McGowan of PS Audio posted this excerpt today on his blog that correlates with this topic:

"My favorite track so far is from Reference Recordings HRX series. The Tempest, track 8, where obviously the waves are getting pretty wild. Mastered directly off the master digital recording at 176kHz/24 bits and played on the PWT Memory Player, the sound is breathtaking beyond words. It leaves anything I’ve heard on vinyl in the dirt. Wall to wall imaging – no, actually the sound field goes beyond the walls of the music room – and the depth goes out into the parking lot. You’re enveloped in the music in a way that is just uncanny and just when you think it can’t get any louder, the dynamics wash over you and you have to just grin. Imagine a system without any dynamic restrictions whatsoever, finally showing off what’s truly in the music.

Sorry, I don’t mean to squash any cherished emotional ties to vinyl – and please don’t shoot the messenger I am just reporting what I hear – but there’s no question in my mind that on the right recordings with the right equipment, high resolution digital just stomps anything on vinyl."


Click this link to see his newly completed state-of-the-art audio room with the Infinity IRS system:

link      <<<<
_________________________________

Watch Part 6 and prepare to DIE!!

[ocezam]

Jun 19, 2013 6:04:06 GMT -5 boomzilla said:

Yes, there's an "analog revival" in progress just now of young'uns discovering vinyl, but it is a VERY small renaissance, and one doomed when the fad dies out. The vast majority of young people seem to be firmly and permanently tethered to their digital devices. Like it or not, the future of audio is digital.

I gave up vinyl and acetate (tape) three decades ago. Who misses the clicks, pops, ticks and hiss? Not me!

But I don't want my DAC built in. Just as I like to keep my preamp, amp, tuner separate. I'd like the same with my DAC, thanks. Easier to change/upgrade a single component.

...

[ocezam]

Jun 19, 2013 8:53:36 GMT -5 @rlw said:

IMHO, it is no contest, the digital systems are superior. The freq. resp., S/N ratio, dynamic range, background noise, "quickness" are all in favor of digital. And it's not even close. Vinyl suffers from some unavoidable faults: tracing error, bleed-thru, degradation of media, deformation of the groove, very limited playing time, "fussiness" in care and handling, and on and on. I think a lot of folks are wearing rose-colored glasses when it comes to vinyl.
-RW-

Jun 19, 2013 10:27:23 GMT -5 @rlw said:

If by "ceremony" you mean the endless futzing about when playing vinyl, I respectfully decline to participate. If I need ceremony to get my mind in-tune for the sonic fireworks that are to ensue, rolling up a phat bone always seems to work for me...<g>

Agree with it all.

...

[ocezam]

Jun 19, 2013 11:41:43 GMT -5 yves said:

at the same time also, those same folks appear to be blind as a bat when shown evidence to support that the human hearing system is extremely sensitive to some types of faults, and very tolerant of others.

Your "tolerance" may be completely different from mine. If "good" sound has to be accompanied with typical analog noise, I'll pass thanks. Back in the day, before digital sound, analog noise extremely irritated me. In 1984, the CD to me, was a godsend. To this day, I can't listen to analog music without being distracted by the noise. It's irrelevant to me if the signal is warmer, fuller, more romantic, or any other adjective you choose to use. If I'm listening to a digital source, and analog noise is present in a particular recording, I'll skip to the next recording.

Conversely, I love the sound of tubes. But tubes don't come with the the clicks and pops.


...