APL Denon 3910

[Augsburger]

Ahhh ok. Mine wasn't like that but a quick google search turned up the instructions manual for the Sony.

It seems to me that HFN is the only mag handing out real reviews these days. Something like 6moons and the other online mags are just acting as a showcase for gear.

Now I do like the PS1 for the essentially free CDP it is but claiming it is a giant killer shows an utter lack of experience. I guess these are the same people that liked those horrible MF tube buffers...

Ouch! Strike two.

I bought one of those tube buffers based upon the reco from a High End audio retailer close buy, needless to say I found no improvement, perhaps a degrading of the sound I like.

But that was years ago and hopefully THAT won't be repeated again either. I seem to be the poster child for audio fails but I think I am recovered.

[spritzer]

Ouch! Strike two.

I bought one of those tube buffers based upon the reco from a High End audio retailer close buy, needless to say I found no improvement, perhaps a degrading of the sound I like.

But that was years ago and hopefully THAT won't be repeated again either. I seem to be the poster child for audio fails but I think I am recovered.

My only regret about those damned things is that I could have picked up a whole lot of them (NIB) locally for next to nothing but didn't as I cringe every time I see the MF logo. That would have made me a pretty penny on eBay.

[deepak]

As for reviews they are worthless now as the experience level of the reviewers continues to plummet and it all sounds great, even a stock Sony PS1...

There are a few PS1 fanatics at the SH forums, the endless back and forth arguments that player spawns is just

[kevin gilmore]

I'd love for someone to explain to me why they would mod the hell out of

something like this instead of just buying something better, and certainly more

reliable for the same amount of money.

Or why apl doesn't stick all that crap in an external box and then run whatever

data lines are necessary in an appropriate manner.

[spritzer]

There are a few PS1 fanatics at the SH forums, the endless back and forth arguments that player spawns is just

indeed. I do like to use mine from time to time and it's not half bad for the 30$ spent.

I'd love for someone to explain to me why they would mod the hell out of

something like this instead of just buying something better, and certainly more

reliable for the same amount of money.

Or why apl doesn't stick all that crap in an external box and then run whatever

data lines are necessary in an appropriate manner.

This is the cheapest way of doing it really the same way it was for EMM in the beginning to mutilate SACD1000 units for transport duty. These Denon units were also beta testers in a way and many other players before them. The players are reliable as far as I know since the basic machine is very good. There have been some issues with the new 32bit players but they have all been bad tubes so a faulty batch of ECC99's could be the cause.

APL has been working on a DAC which would do just that and use a Esoteric player as a transport but after 2.5years it still isn't ready.

[Filburt]

What '32 bit mod'? The AK4397? All that means is it'll take a 32 bit word input. Other than that, it's pretty much just a run of the mill AK SCF output dac.

[HiWire]

Congrats on your new source, tkam.

Regarding the PS1 phenomenon - because some people want something for nothing, and are unable to count the accumulated costs of shipping, modding, etc. and are then biased when comparing their source investment to other sources.

I was hoping that the Oppo players were going to be something like that, but the weight of evidence indicates that they are good for the money, but no giant killers. I ended up investing in something that I enjoyed and could afford, after hearing the highest-end system available for my auditioning (dCS Paganini).

[spritzer]

What '32 bit mod'? The AK4397? All that means is it'll take a 32 bit word input. Other than that, it's pretty much just a run of the mill AK SCF output dac.

There is a new upsampler as well (211k/32bit) along with a new output stage and thus new transformers. This is much closer to being 32bit then that joke the Memory Player or what the fuck its called.

Congrats on your new source, tkam.

Regarding the PS1 phenomenon - because some people want something for nothing, and are unable to count the accumulated costs of shipping, modding, etc. and are then biased when comparing their source investment to other sources.

I was hoping that the Oppo players were going to be something like that, but the weight of evidence indicates that they are good for the money, but no giant killers. I ended up investing in something that I enjoyed and could afford, after hearing the highest-end system available for my auditioning (dCS Paganini).

You sure can spend a lot modding the PS1 but most will just relocate the PSU and go direct to the dac. I shielded the PSU and bypassed (and removed) the output stage with some Vishay PP caps and Cardas rca jacks. It does have great synergy with the Stax Lambdas but my old Rotel RCD-971 is a better player once I tinkered with it. It's also full of Black Gates for that extra audiophile flare...

[Filburt]

There is a new upsampler as well (211k/32bit) along with a new output stage and thus new transformers. This is much closer to being 32bit then that joke the Memory Player or what the fuck its called.

Upsampling isn't going to bring forth that which was not there to begin with, plus you get to trade jitter for AM distortion in the process. The 4397 doesn't even have the dynamic performance for 24 bits; I don't see much point in feeding it 32. Plus you're stuck with that switched capacitor output instead of being able to do a high performance i/v + buffer. So, in some sense I suppose, there is a bit of irony to swapping a PCM1796 (that's what the 3910 has stock) for AK4396s or AK4397s as an 'upgrade' when it is the higher end part, especially when considering the output options.

I'm not trying to be a total buzzkill on this. Rather, I am just a bit perplexed by some of the design decisions and this seems like an appropriate place to discuss it

[luvdunhill]

Upsampling isn't going to bring forth that which was not there to begin with

I think this will fall on deaf ears here

[Jon L]

Upsampling isn't going to bring forth that which was not there to begin with

So true yet seems like a concept most designers and consumers seem determined to ignore, almost subconsciously.

I wish more effort was put into doing straight, simple 16bit/44.1kHz superbly instead of putting that effort into upsampling, number-crunching, marketing (32 bit, right..)..

[luvdunhill]

obviously upsampling won't replace what was never there, but it can make what is there sound better.

by changing what was there, based on stuff that wasn't there?

[Filburt]

obviously upsampling won't replace what was never there, but it can make what is there sound better.

How, specifically?

You're already going to get interpolation, noise shaping, filtering, etc. out of the internal oversampling filter on the converter. Delta-sigma converters like the AK4397 already have an abundance of this as they don't function without it. Upsampling just gives the filter less headroom; it just pushes the passband edge up unnecessarily and you can end up with garbage in the pass or transition band that would have otherwise been past the stopband edge. On top of that, it takes more processing power, so it can't use as many taps (which just lowers the resolution of the filter).

[luvdunhill]

wells guise, backs when i had dat dere north star, da sound was bettar when ize hits dat dere upsamplin' button. alls da DACs i heared sounds bettar wit dat dere upsamplin' button pushed.

[deepak]

wells guise, backs when i had dat dere north star, da sound was bettar when ize hits dat dere upsamplin' button. alls da DACs i heared sounds bettar wit dat dere upsamplin' button pushed.

I can't hear a difference when I blind test.

[n_maher]

I can't hear a difference when I blind test.

You must haz speakerz.

[deepak]

You must haz speakerz.

I think Jacob still had the HP-2 when he sold it to me.

[spritzer]

I think Jacob still had the HP-2 when he sold it to me.

Then it iz better then da speakerz

[Dusty Chalk]

Upsampling isn't going to bring forth that which was not there to begin with...

Actually, that's not true -- that's exactly what it does -- it adds information. Now, this isn't necessarily the same information that was there before it was digitized, but all the same, that's what it's doing. So it's like adding made-up details to stories when retelling them.

Here's the thing -- sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's good. The trick is to pick the good ones most of the time. It's not entirely fictional bits that it's adding -- they're interpolating, not extrapolating -- so my hyperbole is a bit overstated...but you get the idea.

As to making a good 16/44.1 DAC -- I agree, that is more important. But that's a different kind of engineering. Someone like me with a background in DSP would feel more at home trying to do a good job of upsampling in the digital realm, and then making it easier on the analog realm, whereas a good I/V -oriented engineer is going to concentrate on the analog stage.

The best DACs are going to have a bit of both.

[Filburt]

wells guise, backs when i had dat dere north star, da sound was bettar when ize hits dat dere upsamplin' button. alls da DACs i heared sounds bettar wit dat dere upsamplin' button pushed.

Aside from possible problems of expectation bias (e.g. did you blind test it?), I do wonder which order you tested it in. I've been trying to refine my testing procedures lately and I'm finding, as two compared things get closer to one another in character, I find the second one has a higher probability of sounding better, irrespective of the actual order in which the two things are played back. I'm pretty sure the reason, at this point, is that I'm already primed to some degree to pay attention to certain aspects of the music by the time I've finished the first sample, and so the second sample ends up sounding better by virtue of my having a greater degree of acuity thanks to already having heard the sample.

Aside from the issue of upsampling and of limitations in the output stage (e.g. I'm not a fan of switched capacitor filters), I do wonder about the wisdom of paralleling dacs together that probably aren't matched. Instead of getting error cancellation, you could just end up with error intermodulation.

[n_maher]

I do wonder about the wisdom of paralleling dacs together that probably aren't matched. Instead of getting error cancellation, you could just end up with error intermodulation.

I wonder about the wisdom of making assumptions that lead to more assumptions.

[luvdunhill]

I do wonder about the wisdom of paralleling dacs together that probably aren't matched. Instead of getting error cancellation, you could just end up with error intermodulation.

I agree with this. What do you think of using multiple DACs in a moving-average type of configuration, similar to what Accuphase does here:

http://www.accuphase.com/model/pdf/dp-700_e.pdf

[deepak]

i double blinded it (with my MPX3 and HP-2s) and i could hear a difference. it was smoother and seemingly more extended enabled.

Interesting, I think I'll give it a go with the Stax. I tried it with the HP-2/SHA.

If there is any difference it is extremely subtle IMO.

[Filburt]

Actually, that's not true -- that's exactly what it does -- it adds information. Now, this isn't necessarily the same information that was there before it was digitized, but all the same, that's what it's doing. So it's like adding made-up details to stories when retelling them.

Here's the thing -- sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's good. The trick is to pick the good ones most of the time. It's not entirely fictional bits that it's adding -- they're interpolating, not extrapolating -- so my hyperbole is a bit overstated...but you get the idea.

As to making a good 16/44.1 DAC -- I agree, that is more important. But that's a different kind of engineering. Someone like me with a background in DSP would feel more at home trying to do a good job of upsampling in the digital realm, and then making it easier on the analog realm, whereas a good I/V -oriented engineer is going to concentrate on the analog stage.

The best DACs are going to have a bit of both.

Interpolation isn't the same as something like a feedforward from the higher resolution master. Secondly, the interpolation is of course dependent upon sampling precision, and the problem is that both limitations in the interpolator as well as in the signal (e.g. jitter) end up creating substantial error. After all that, much of the error will probably sit right in the passband and whatever is out of it is greeted by lower precision in the filter.

I'm not saying interpolation of any sort if an absolutely poor idea in all situations, but I think it's better handled at the filter and in much more tightly controlled environment with an eye towards improving filter performance rather than giving pretty numbers for the spec sheet.

[Filburt]

I wonder about the wisdom of making assumptions that lead to more assumptions.

I don't see any mention whatsoever about matching in the APL specs, and it's not exactly like they hold back on mentioning just about everything they possibly can about their work. I'm not even sure how you could effectively match something like an AK4397, actually.

luvdunhill - I'll have to read over it and try to make sure I understand what they're doing before really commenting on it.