Apodizing Filters
default -- Mon, 09/07/2009 - 10:46
Much has been made of these new filters for CD players with RH declaring the Meridian 808 the most significant product in the CD era in large part because of this new filter. As of now, I am aware of only three high-end players with this new filter (Ayre C-5xeMP, Meridian 808 & Esoteric SA-50). If this filter is as significant as RH, and others, espouse do I conclude that any player without it is technologically dated?
JLeeMD
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Finally, I offer this piece written by two bright chaps at Apogee. Keith Johnson is not the only authority on digital. If anything, he seems to be in the minority with his views.
I would concentrate on the "Why Record Ultrasonics ?" paragraph as it explains what RH doesn't understand concerning distant-miked capture, which is what audiophiles are concerned with !!
http://www.digitalprosound.com/htm/soapbox/soap2_apogee.htm
The link above isn't loading from this page. Google-type "48 vs 96khz apogee" and click on the first link it provides. It's article at digitalprosound.com and written by Julio Alvarez and Richard Elen. Enjoy.....
To JR-1:
If you cannot hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96, that's a shame. You have no idea what you're missing! Please don't take offense, but understand that to those of us who can hear these differences VERY clearly, your perceptions don't have much value. I don't think anyone here is intent on changing your mind. But if you can't even see the elephant in the room, please don't tell us we're foolish to discuss what shade of grey it is.
To RH and others:
This is exactly the sort of audiophile 'fundamentalism' we should all avoid. If someone's opinion makes no sense to you, or their perceptions are wildly different from your own, that does not mean they are 'wrong'. It simply means that they (i.e. their opinions/perceptions, not the people themselves) are not useful to you, and perhaps, not worth your time. Just smile, and move on.
From what he wrote, one can deduce that JR-1 is severely hearing challenged. And a stubborn flat earther at the same time. What an obnoxious combination.
This forum is truly an unprecented opportunity to access the opinions of leading authorities (and I don't mean JR-12)...this is very much appreciated. Where else can one have Robert Harley ruminate over your dilemma over dinner?
Based on the above, I am best off at this time purchasing a SACD/CD player...NG's review of the Esoteric X-05 had me sold until I began to suspect that the new digital filters will prove to be "game changers." I'm keenly interested in knowing RH's opinion on how the apodizing filter impacts the basic sound and musicality of an Esoteric digital source.
Good for you jleemd! I think you will be amazed with the x05. And even if the player RH is reviewing with the new filter I don't think that it will make the x05 outdated anytime soon. However I would be curious to know how we will learn about esoterics Older filter vs newer filter player differences. Is RH getting 2 players for review from esoteric? Or will it be compared by memory? I don't know. My guess is that Robert may compare the esoteric with the Sony on sacd and get the psaudio players and Berkeley for cd comparisons. I'm my self excited to find out what he does and what we see in the next upcoming issues of TAS. JleeMD what other associted equipment is yor system? Enjoy your esoteric xo5!
I sent an e-mail to Hiroyuki Machida who is in charge of Product Planning for Esoteric Japan and asked him specifically if the new SA50 with better DAC's would sound superior to the X-05 and his response was:
" The SA-50 has superior D/A converter (32 bit resolution), but disc drive mechanism does not have VRDS implementation.
The X-05 has much more robust and higher precision disc drive mechanism, and we believe Esoteric is highly acclaimed by many customers for this feature.
We believe the X-05 has higher sound quality.
In our listening room, we set up both players and can directly compare these units.
This is my subjective impression, but the X-05 has wider sound stage, deeper, controlled bass, but each instrument in the music source has tighter focus.
Sometimes we invite our domestic customers or dealers, and they seems to have similar impression as mine.
Product Planning Section
Product Planning & Marketing Dept.
Strong work Greg!
Greg,
Can you ask Mr. Machida when the X-05 will get the superior D/A converter and apodizing filter the cheaper SA-50 has?
I asked the question below:
I am curious what you feel are the main differences in sound quality considering the SA50 has superior DACS? Is it the transport only or the dual mono configuration layout? It seems to be very controversial how much impact a transport has on sound with most people saying the DACS are what make the big difference.
Is there any plans on putting the better DACS from the SA50 in the X-05?
Here is the response:
The SA-50 also features dual mono layout, so the main difference in sound should come from transport.
We believe the transport mechanism is a very critical part in designing good sounding disc player.
Optical disc player in general has extensive servo and feedback loop for error correction.
Although these circuits are neccessory for data reading, complecated signal path can make sound worse.
Esoteric VRDS mechanism is designed to reduce such servo control and error correction, and the result is the sound quality the X-05 has.
Currently we have no plan to introduce the X-05 with up-graded DAC in the near future because X-05 is still new and it is very good player as it is. :-)
Best regards,
Hiroyuki Machida
I asked the question below:
I am curious what you feel are the main differences in sound quality considering the SA50 has superior DACS? Is it the transport only or the dual mono configuration layout? It seems to be very controversial how much impact a transport has on sound with most people saying the DACS are what make the big difference.
Is there any plans on putting the better DACS from the SA50 in the X-05?
Here is the response:
The SA-50 also features dual mono layout, so the main difference in sound should come from transport.
We believe the transport mechanism is a very critical part in designing good sounding disc player.
Optical disc player in general has extensive servo and feedback loop for error correction.
Although these circuits are neccessory for data reading, complecated signal path can make sound worse.
Esoteric VRDS mechanism is designed to reduce such servo control and error correction, and the result is the sound quality the X-05 has.
Currently we have no plan to introduce the X-05 with up-graded DAC in the near future because X-05 is still new and it is very good player as it is. :-)
Best regards,
Hiroyuki Machida
Mark Levinson integrated, B&W 805 Signatures, and Sony SCD-777ES (SE version of SCD-1). Sony was a SOA SACD player 9 years ago but is now outdated, especially for CD playback.
I never heard the X-05, but I lived with the Esoteric P-03/D-03 combination for quite some time and have a good feel for how it compares with the Berkeley, which I still have.
Robert, So how does the Berkeley compare with the esoteric po3/d03? Or will you be discussing it in an upcoming review in TAS? I already have the Berkeley so can't change anytime soon but am still curious to know the differences. From what I understand the esoteric pair is the state of the art therefore a wonderful reference point.
If you are going to review the SA50 it would be interesting to have Neil Grader comment on this since he reviewed the X-05 for comparison or have him send to you the X-05 so you can compare. The SA50 and the X-05 are at similar price points and that would be a more interesting comparison versus the P-03/D-03 combo.
happy owner of a P03 D03 I use exclusively the option of converting the c d pcm signal to dsd do you think its the best way for having the best c d sound what do you think of bettering the clocking by using an external clock as a french audiophile I appreciate greatly your work on the net nothing could be compared to what you do in europe a very big thank for that
The Esoteric rubidium clock vaults the P-03/D-03 performance to another level. The PCM-to-DSD conversion feature is a great benefit; DSD is much easier to convert to analog than is PCM. Thanks so much for your comment about our forum.
The comparison between the X-05 and SA-50 indeed makes more sense given that they are of similar price but different in orientation. The SA-50 is meant to be more of a future-looking product with multiple digital inputs (including USB), source switching, volume control, and the ability to drive a power amplifier.
very interrested by your opinion on esoteric atomic clock but price seems extremely high have you ever heard anything about a similar product from a british compagnie :antelope audio With a very friendly h ello from france
RH,
i made a comment in the meridan thread regarding the lack of dynamics/bass impact of the meridan and basically was wonderung that maybe the issue was not really one of reduced dynamics/bass impact but more one of a truer sound due to minimization of error and cleaning of for a better word (OVERTONES) and thus what might be happening is a fight between our being accustomed to jitter/distortion -which we have accepted as the standard in the bass....and maybe this is one of those areas where we do need to re-address or reference.....what do you think
Do apodising filters also affect SACD playback?
I'll address the last three posts one at a time:
1) I have not heard of Antelope audio clock. It would have to be quite good to better the clocking system in the D-03/P-03.
2) The bass softness in the 808.2 is likely the result of moving the pre-ringing energy from before the transient to after the transient. The 808.2's filter doesn't remove pre-ringing, it just shifts it in time so that it is more sonically benign. I suspect that this is why the 808.2's bass sounds a little soft.
3) A minimum-phase filter would have advantages in SACD playback only if the DSD bitstream were converted to PCM before the DACs. Decoding DSD doesn't require the same type of filtering necessary for converting PCM to analog. Converting DSD to PCM defeats one of the advantages of DSD, which is the very simple conversion to analog. In fact, some of the Esoteric players offer the option of converting PCM to DSD, and then converting the DSD signal to analog. That approach yields some sonic benefits, in my experience.
was very interested by your review of the G O R Bclock of esoteric .the only problem is the price15000 $ in france the same amount but in euros (present parity around I $50 for 1 euro )So I was very motivated by finding another possibility ;Ifound a clock from a company named GRIMM AUDIO you could find any information on their webb site.Igot their c c I clock and began an intense series of listening sessions .From the first minute I known that someting very special was happening .the gain in transparency was so evident that my system sounded differently .after a week spent to listen alarge variety of music my conclusion recoup exactly what you have written about the g o r b esoteric Obviously I cant tell if the grimm clock compare to the esoteric rubidium modele .So I decided to make a comparison with my reference on my system :my vynile set :koetsu onyx platinum cartridge s m e 5 arm with the harm cable from esoteric and a micro seiki tuntable ; RESULT :on regular p c m c d the sound was near impossible to find a difference even on comparing the same record on c d and vynil .On S A C D with thoses recorded in D S D the quality surpasse every thing I heard before on my system ; I am sure you understand I am very happy because the price in europe is 2200 euros I will say 'only ' and represent the most interesting cost price acquisition I have ever done .
Thanks for the explanation
What I am a little surprised about, is that nobody seems to take into account that the final sound quality might also be determined by the analog electronics around and after the filtering, like power supplies and output buffering/amplification. Even brand and model of resistors and capacitors have their specific impact on sound quality.
Evidently all contenders have their own analog solutions that bear their specific sonic signatures, and these might very well obscure or highlight a part of the features of the preceding filtering.
Interesting thread, but it got a little off track here and there. JR-1 really should inform himself better, he is hopelessly behind in his knowledge of high resolution audio as well as the human hearing, to the point that he cannot be taken seriously.
Simply read the articles I listed in my "Red Book Riddle Solved" post...then read the link I provided above as a starting point. (The link above isn't loading from this page but you can type in the address I gave right after).
Then ask yourself "what does an (audiophile) CD contain as far as dynamic range & signal to noise ratio go ?" These can be easily measured. Finally, ask what the limit of human hearing is, in frequency response. Index all of *this* to what a symphony orchestra produces.
Finally, go hear the Meridian 808.2 for an extended audition. Try to compare it to high-res material. You'll be amazed.......
A symphony orchestra measureably produces spl of 105-110 db at typical listening positions with some material.
So, a standard CD isn't actually a perfect format if you want realistic dynamics in your system.
In addition, as RH pointed out (and you ignored), listening to music has elements other than frequency response that can be shown to be easily heard by typical humans.
Since you didn't answer the question - I will. Audiophile CDs contain at least 95db of dynamic range/SN. Many contain much more with dither-noise shaping. This is *far beyond* what an actual symphony produces. I think your gripe comes from what your speakers are doing (or not doing). Most audiophile speakers (with all their expense) start compressing at 95db - far below an orchestra's peak. Actually, it's about *half* as loud !! Every 10db in reduction is half the volume. That's why I advocate horns.
RH's points (which are really Keith Johnson's points) are not accepted by many researchers, as the article I linked above shows. If you want to believe in an unproven claim, like Robert, then be my guest. It seems that many are willing to do this - inc. believing that "apodising" filters remove audible ringing from the ADC...when there was never a shread of evidence to prove there is any......
Imagine JR1 type as your relative. Lol you keep running into them, they keep anoying the hell out of you, keep spreading wrong information, act like know it alls, there's nothing you can do to change their mind. The only option left would be to ignore them or move far far away. Lol obviously here it's much easier to deal with these things.
Marcel,
I agree with you. In an earlier post, it was noted that the Esoteric SA-50 ($5000) with the new apodizing filter did not sound as good (per the folks at Esoteric) than the Esoteric X-05 ($6000) which does not have the new filter. I am coming to conclude that either:
a) Meridian's apodising filter is a different beast altogether, or
b) the apodising filter is an incremental advance and the Meridian 808.2 is merely a singular achievement and, with all due respect to Mr. Harley, not a landmark product of the CD era.
I don't know if maridian alone or the new filters are land mark. I've been following this stuff for 20 years now as a hardcore audiophile and can say this much that the digital players in this last year are the landmark era for digital audio. I would recommend anyone to test/audition a few of these and see the difference. I cannot say enough about how many times my jaw drops in awe and disbelief that digital could sound this good. Thanks RH in pointing us in the right direction with the recent reviews! The critics should just audition one and no explainations will be needed.
I agree that the recent batch of digital players have gotten very good indeed, and at reasonable prices to boot (Cambridge Audio 840c, Bryston BCD-1, Benchmark DAC), but I think these recent generation players have taken a big leap fowrd as the result of attention to low jitter and improved DACs (please correct me if I am wrong). I was all set to purchase an Esoteric X-05 which NG felt closed the "familiar sonic gap" between digital and analog sources. Then I read in TAS that the new apodizing filters, which the X-05 does not have, are a seminal advance in digital playback. This made me stop and reconsider my $6000 purchase, which is where I am now...
I hear you jlee. Ther are only 3 options for you.
1. Audition and choose(best way but you said you can't.
2. Bite the bullet and choose between 2-3 top players in your price.
3. Wait it out and see where all this is going(could take a while).
It's really a bummer that you can't audition. That alone would have helped you a lot. Good luck and let us know here what you buy and how it sounds.
First time posting here. I want to ask a question and not sure if this is the right place but here it goes. With all the intricacies of modern technology and various iterations, how sensitive are the instruments we use to consume the auditory input? All the banter that goes into describing processes and functions and it's never mentioned how different our ears function and how those deviations shape our perception. I know this plot may have been plowed before but I have not come across an explanation in almost 5 years of following this industry. Can someone briefly enlighten me?
Cosme:
I think your question is about how discerning our ears and brains are, and then how differences in hearing might affect perception. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
First, I'd say the general view is that human hearing acuity far exceeds what is necessary to perceive differences between components at the current state of the art.
Second, we would say that while it is often said that some people don't hear differences that others do, this isn't always or even often a result of the former lacking the hearing system that would allow them to hear such things. It is quite often a) they have a conceptual framework that causes them to overlook certain differences, b) they aren't listening to music that triggers the different behavior or c) they hear the difference but the don't care about it (don't value it).
Third, we would say that by using the absolute sound (live music) as a reference, we eliminate some of the problem with differences in hearing mechanisms. For example, we know that most people have hearing losses/insensitivities at some frequencies. But our experience is that if a speaker is bright relative to the absolute sound, a listener with certain hearing sensitivities and a listener with different sensitivities will both hear the speaker as bright. It is surprising when TAS and AVG editors listen to the same system how often they independently come away with the same list of sonic attributes. This experience leads to the hypothesis that hearing differences are not the main source of perception differences.
That said, there are perception differences between individuals. A simple model is the notion of "realism triggers/inhibitors". The idea is that music is a very complex event. Two different pieces of music will likely have different qualities, when viewed over the huge range of music people listen to. With this in mind, some listeners will systematically focus on certain sonic parameters (you can't listen to everything). That focus will lead each listener to have realism triggers and inhibitors, meaning that a system that best reproduces the sonic parameters that the listener focuses on will tend to trigger a sense of realism; conversely, the system that least creates distracting distortions will not inhibit a sense of realism. The sonic fabric or palette that seems most realistic to one listener may not seem most realistic to another. Note: this happens not because the listeners hear different sounds, this happens because they focus on different sounds and value distortions differently. That's slightly oversimplified, but useful enough.
For more on this, visit the forum on Evaluation, Testing, Measurement and Perception.
CEO and Editorial Director, Nextscreen LLC
The Meridian filter is unique both in its technical performance, and in my experience, its sonic quality. Perhaps JR-1 would like to provide a technical refutation of Dr. Peter Craven's AES papers describing the filter. Of course, many more factors affect CD sound than the filter, but the filter is a signficant component. It doesn't hurt the 808.2 the Meridian has been designing CD players since 1983.
As for Cosme's question, instrumentation cannot begin to measure or quantify how human beings hear, process, or experience music.
I just note no-one has proven that ADC-ringing is audible. This is technical hype . Charlie Hansen is dead sure that filters that *don't* remove the alleged ringing sound better than ones that "do" - in his new player. The 808.2 is in a virtual tie with high-res, in my experience...and I am hardly alone in my impressions.....
Will TAS look at the Meridian G08.2 which also has this new filter. Paul Messenger was not all that taken by the G08.2 (4/5 stars for sound)...I know this is pretty shaky logic, but if the G08.1, which was well reviewed by SK, gets upgraded with a new filter which is considered a seminal advance (remove pre-ringing in the CD and in the original recording), I would have expected a little more enthusiam for the G08.2.
We should review the G08.2 and compare it with the 808.2. Remember that the 808.2 is Meridian's best effort without regard for cost.
JLeeMD
re the SA-50 with 32 bit dacs and the new filter, vs the X-05 without the new filter.
In concluding (a) Meridians apodizing filter is a different beast altogether or (b) the apodizing filter is an incremental advance >
vital info is being overlooked. Hiroyuki Machida / Esoteric in response to Greg Gale's question 9/16/09 states (edited for brevity)
Normal
0
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
"The X-05 has a much more robust and higher precision disc drive mechanism
We believe the transport mechanism is a very critical part in designing good sounding disc player.
Esoteric VRDS mechanism is designed to reduce such servo control and error correction, and the result is the sound quality the X-05 has."
Mr Machida clearly tells us the drive/transport is the crucial aspect of an optical player, and why.
That the X-05 sounds better even without the new filter suggests the new filter is deireable, but not a prerequisite.
So who do you trust? One individual is an expert that has spent a life time in audio and who has heard thousands of components or someone who has a product line that incrementally changes every other year, with components made to sound different, not necessarily better (not that there is anything wrong with that!)? Wait for the magazine buzz and a shiny big Esoteric on the cover when they come out with their own apodizing filter model (not that there is anything wrong with that either!)!
stat_lover corporate scepticism is a healthy thing and shouln't be discarded, but the man from Esoteric is to be given the benefit of the doubt I think - he spells it out : that the SA-50 with superior DACs and new apodizing filter doesn't sound as good as the X-05 without those features because the X-05 has a HIGHER PRECISION DRIVE MECHANISM.
Skepticism might conclude there will be a glossy review of the newer spec machine, but we won't hear that the X-05 with older tecnology sounds better ie you me and a few others will carry this secret ?
JD,
Not sure what your price point is, but why not find a player that has both the new filter and a superior transport? When it comes to my hard earned money, I would never buy an estoric because of their product line finagling. They do have a great marketing strategy from a business perspective, I just don't play their game.
Also, not sure if you are aware, but when Boulder was looking for a transport for their new cd player (look at the cover of Stereophile in one of the summer issues), they tested transports from various companies. They found that the Teac (Esoteric) transport had the most errors! Another reason not to believe the marketing hype.
Esoteric's look sexy for sure. The metal work, the glass window, the robust built. sometimes I wonder if a lot of the cost goes into the box/looks rather than sound features. They surely are like jewelry and would look real nice in a rack. I have not seen any other company with this many similarly priced, similarly looking, similarly performing products that keep changing models so quickly as well. Its like a shoe shop. Lots of selection of similar stuff, and you can buy the style that looks good, and you can buy a new style in a year or so as a new looking product becomes available with a different model number. I don't doubt that the sound is superior on Esoterics but there is definately heavy marketing based on the esthetics of the product. Esoteric should start leasing their products on a 12 month or 24 month lease like cars. Trade it in for a new one every few years....that would be nice. (Again no doubt it sounds good).
Sam,
I am not sure I agree with you on the Esoteric stuff, but these are personal choices and there is not point arguing about that.
I do agree that the industry should move toward the lease model. It would eliminate the used market and bring pricess WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY down. Folks can try the stuff on a 30-45 day trial period.
_stat_lover
maybe I should've just said where did you read that?
JR1: Bob is deaf and so are you.
Just bought the Esoteric X-05 despite some concerns about it not having the latest filter technology. All I can say this: the X-05 is proving to be everything Neil Gader said it was! The new filters don't affect SACD playback and, based on what I've read here, I've come to the conclusion that Meridian's filter is unique. Even then it is not a magic bullet as their G08.2 was less than enthusiastically reviewed by Paul Messenger (4/5 stars).
_stat_lover (I hope you are still tuned in)
Re your post 10/11/2009 >> " why not find a player with both the new filter and a superior transport."
I've been thinking it might be the Denon DVD-A1UDCi (32 bit DACs and 32 bit DSP.)
" when Boulder was looking for a transport for their new cd player they tested transports from various companies. They found the Teac (Esoteric) transport had the most errors! "
Please tell where oh where did you get that info - I'd really like the source plse ! (presumeably they tested the non VRDS Esoteric drive?)
Whats the drive in the Boulder cdp then?
JD,
I want to assure you and everyone I am not spreading false rumors on the net. I attended a Boulder CD player coming out party at a local dealer a few months ago. Rich Mays (or Maize or Maez), the VP or Sales of Boulder was presenting, and I got it right out of his mouth. Although I don't remember what transport they settled on, as I am more into sound quality via my ears rather than these "trivial" things, I was kind of dumbfounded by his comments because of the supposed hype that the Teac transports are the "best". Boulder definitely has a very good player, and I don't think meeting a certain price point was their objective.
Give Boulder a call for details. Rich Maze can yap about that thing for hours.
_stat_lover thanks V MUCH for replying - it sure would be most interesting to talk to Rich Maez. You might have gathered from my posts I have become rather interested in "trivial" transport thingys and really wondering if those ubiquitous flimsy plastic drives can give optimum results - in the back of my mind Ive been trying to figure if the impression that a cheap drive and computer audio can give one sonic nirvanna. Recently I saw most interesting comment in a Stereophile interview with Steve Nugent (Empirical Audio) " The CD/DVD drive used for ripping does make a monumental difference in sound quality and the ability to get a bit perfect rip ........... Also, the drives used in Mac Books are generally poor for ripping, and do not handle the stress of re-reading sectors that bit perfect ripping requires." I'm thinking such a requirement applies equally to CD replay.