Sparkler Audio states that a 16-bit resolution should go far beyond the resolution of the human ear and that therefore CD sound should be approaching live sound in front of the microphone. But somehow sound does not “stand” like a live musical instrument and it is not truly a lucid sound. They surmised that the reason for this might be a phase shift of the (super) high frequency harmonics during the analogue to digital recording conversion. “As a result of forcibly rounding the position on the time axis at the sampling frequency of 44.1 kHz, the phase is not correctly recorded, and the phase may already be shifted from the original analog signal.” In this case you can have the best DAC and upsampling, but you will only perfectly restore an already altered signal. So, they experimented with a “phase corrector and and phase generator (“After converting back to an analog signal with a standard 16-bit NOS-DAC, we first passed a filter that gradually advanced the phase in proportion to the frequency in the audible band where the human ear is sensitive. Next, in order to generate a missing (very high frequency) harmonic component, a circuit that emulates a triode vacuum tube with a relatively high harmonic distortion was assembled with a semiconductor. As a result of repeating the audition with various parameters changed, it became a very realistic and pleasant sound with a certain correction value. “). Their Sparkler Audio S512 D/A processor is now for sale for 750$. Well, I am looking already for while to improve my CD sound and this might be a cost effective way. What do you think? Has anyone tried this gizmo?
Hard to say. Have they discovered something that has alluded all others? Just a few short years ago, we had another company that claimed they had the solution. Maybe they did and maybe not... What I have personally observed was that both CD's and records could be amazing. What I also observed was that not really that many, as a percentage, actually were. The thing is, that if the top 20% in both media are able to achieve this, then both the source media itself and the playback system is capable of reproducing realistic sounding music. Meaning that the other 80%'s shortcomings can be attributed to other factors than the media or recording/playback process.
Wise words, SandAndGlass! Is this something new after almost 40 years of digital technology? I have read about phase shift of upper harmonics when digitizing before. It is possible that (high end) manufacturers are addressing this in the digital domain already. However, many do not share their proprietary digital technology. I know of at least one who adds upper harmonics by digital processing. All of these high tech CDP designers have one thing in common, they are costly (>10k$). What could be different about Sparkler, n.b. also a high end manufacturer, is that they addressing phase shift of harmonics in the analogue domain and have a reasonable price tag, at least, if compared to companies like the Esoteric, Aesthetix or Accuphase.
Carver's "Digital Time Lens" claimed to solve this alleged problem all the way back in the 1980s: http://www.cieri.net/Documenti/Cata...al Time Lens Technology and Compact Discs.pdf
Bob Carver, no small name in audio history! In some ways it sounds similar to what Sparkler is doing! Here is Sparklers technical explanation:Sparkler Audio | Technology Page (English)
Me too, but I am afraid that Sparkler does not have a (big) advertising budget. This makes it less attractive for professional reviewers. I think the same fate happened to Bob Carver products; they were not exactly mainstream.
Once again, the gizmo industry charges forward with the one product guaranteed...to totally sidestep the issues that plague most audiophiles, to distract from the real problems with fancy numbers. Most CD's one could run through this fancy-dancy box, don't even have the challenges this item addresses. Why? Because the main problem is, the public hasn't gotten the message yet: it's not the medium, it's in the mastering! Any given audiophile has in his posession, perhaps 12 discs that may benefit from the newest $800 doohickey that cleans your throughput, accurately unbamboozles your dither, and shortens the pathway between imagination and credit account. Most of their other CD's are actually dealing with other problems, primarily caused by mastering engineers taking orders from coke-addled label executives who must have been frustrated bass players at some time, back when they couldn't get laid because chicks couldn't hear them play on the records. (In laymans' terms, BRICKWALLING). I'm not a real fan of the overzealous sloganeering that brought us, "Perfect Sound Forever", but it would have been a lot easier sell, if they had only tried harder on the "Perfect Sound" part, instead of screwing that up first for the Mastered For iTunes generation.
I believe “part time audiophile” reviewed a sparkler CD player.I would consider this a professional review.
Mastering is very important, but phase shifting of harmonics would effect all CD’s, particularly the ones still recorded in 16bit/44.1 kHz. In other words a poorly mastered recording would get better with a phase shift correction, but may still sound poorer than excellent mastering.
The question is, does this problem actually exist? The main problem with digital is and has always been the conversion from analog to digital and from digital back to analog. Once audio is in the digital domain you can literally process it and do anything you want to it. If there are issues with phase, you can fix them. Here we are 35-years later and there is this revelation about out of phase issues? I'm with the school that says that my good CD's sound excellent and the ones that I am less than impressed with have issues with less than optimum recordings, masterings and production.
Not on the subject of time lens but back around 1980 I heard a demonstration of Carver's, Sonic Holography processor. I have to say that I was very impressed with the technology that produced a real 3D sound image around my head. I do remember that you had to perfectly position your head, like in a vise, but the resulting sound field was in 3D. I thought this was going to be a big thing, but it just quietly went away. I never saw another demonstration after that. Some years later, I had a H.P. computer with Windows 98, a 17" monitor with speakers that attached to either side of the monitor. When Windows 98 started up, there was the short theme that played through the speakers in a way that created a 3D soundfield effect. I have been curious why we never see this kind of effect applied to home stereo? I thought it was interesting and it worked quite well. I am assuming that it had all to do with the phasing.
It is possible that some manufacturers are already addressing this in their digital processing. I have heard a mediocre CD of mine on an Aesthetix Romulus Signature CDP versus my own brand CDP and it sounded so much better. Soundstage came away from the speakers and Billy Joel became alive. Unfortunately it costs about 10x as much as my own CDP. So, I am still hoping someone will come up with a similar sound quality for a reasonable price.
If u guys r interested in "phase shifting" u ought to check into or talk to the guys who have knowledge like chucky over at QQ...the surround master man Also @fredblue owns one he might know more about how it works
Can't say you're wrong here (in fact I already said most audiophiles probably have about 12 discs for which this device might make a positive difference). 12 X $15 = "a heck of a lot less than this thing is probably going to soak you for". In the mean time, if you want a real, universally-noticeable, widely-accepted improvement to the sound of a CD...stop with the excessive digital compression and level-jacking to fool idiots that "louder=better". This tool is the equivalent of putting out a forest fire by driving a fire engine onto it. It might solve the problem directly over the area the fire engine is parked - particularly if you let all the reserve access water out of it - but...ya still gotcha all that fire elsewhere...rampant brickwalling is the "fire" that makes your initial problem the device addresses, more irrelevant.
I have one coming today from Victor. The owner of Sparkler was an engineer at 47 Labs and left to open this one man shop. Years ago I had a 47 Labs Flatfish transport and Progression DAC. That was the best digital I ever heard. I use and prefer NOS DAC's. I have a MHDT Labs Orchid but had to give this one a try. A post from another owner. ALLO Shanti Power Supply One more: Happy Sparkler S504 owner - diyAudio
There is a lot of surmising and speculating in this thread. It's a $750 DAC, right? Pretty reasonable for a NOS DAC in 2021. So why not just try it? I think the skepticism is valid but on the other hand I think it is possible that someone might figure out how to build a better DAC. Doesn't seem impossible. All I hear nowadays is how DAC technology keeps constantly improving at a rapid pace. If I was in the market for a DAC at the moment I would certainly consider this one.
The DAC arrived. I'm listening to The Persuasions Knockin' on Bob's Door, acapella Bob Dylan via Qoubuz. I have goosebumps. Right out of the box this is a keeper. It simply sounds amazing and is untouchable for the money. I have a MHDT Labs Orchid DAC that I've had for a couple of years. This DAC is similar, its NOS with a 1543 chip the Orchid has a 1541 chip and is tube buffered. They are similar but different. I'll be keeping both and rotating them. If you are OK with a Redbook only DAC this one will perk up your ears. The tonality is spot on. Get one and it will make you smile. Seriously, it's a fine DAC and you may just forget about high rez. This is how Red Book CD's are supposed to sound and there are more Red Book recordings than any other format. My 2 cents.
It is a DAC with a twist, the “correction” of harmonics is done in the analog domain as far as I understand. Therefore a NOS DAC is required to avoid “oversampling artifacts”. It is true that it is just a matter of trying, but so far there were no tests/reviews and then spending some 800$ becomes a bit of a gamble.
Understood, I'm just kind of surprised at all the doubters that replied. I mean, I wouldn't just outright believe what Sparkler is saying either, but at $750 this is a reasonably priced NOS DAC that most people can afford, and only lose at most a few hundred bucks if they don't like it. Not like it's a $20,000 DAC that would be out of reach for 90% of us.
