Jump to content
IGNORED

Do all DACs sound more or less the same?


Do DACS all sound the same?  

153 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Is the concept of simple fidelity to the source that lost now?

 

No I do not think so. But you have to know what the source is- fidelity to what? For a DAC, whose whole purpose is to transform one representation of music to another representation, how can you define fidelity?

 

Lets say I have a Super Duper Recording (SDR). I use it as a reference.

 

I play SDR with a very old low quality tube amp. Restricted bandwidth, audible distortion on peaks. I then play SDR on an old SS amp like the first SS Dynaco with lots of nasty TIM distortion. I then play SDR on a modern very good SS amp. Those three instances will sound obviously and very different. Next I play SDR on a second good modern amp. It may still differ a little bit, but would be pretty close to the other good modern amp as both have higher fidelity to the source. As there is some perfect manner of reproducing SDR as equipment improves it would converge on the same sound. It would not diverge as quality improves when reproducing the same source SDR.

[/Quote]

 

Yes, but amps are fairly easy to compare, you have an analog signal in, and you should have the same signal come out with some added gain. Same idea applies for preamps or any analog gear. When you introduce digital however, what goes in is in no respect like that which comes out! :)

 

Note this is very different than saying better equipment shows greater differences between recordings.

 

The idea that as playback equipment improves the resulting sound diverges more is brain damaged. It would be an indication that the more expensive equiment is not higher fidelity, but is being designed toward a sound preference away from fidelity. That actually is fine and valid enough. What will mislead one is confusing the preference for better actual fidelity.

[/Quote]

 

I rather disagree. I don't think that high end DACs have gone nearly as far as they can to produce good sound, with "fidelity" - whatever that may actually mean n this case - to the input.

 

Part of that is also of course, a matter of perspective. If you grant that the differences in DACs are small compared to say, speakers, then when someone says "*this* DAC sounds *enormously* different than that DAC!" you can know that the change or difference you are talking about has a small, perhaps tiny, absolute value. Perspective of course.

 

In other words, once you rid your room of the elephant (speaker) issues, you might still have to squash a cockroach (DAC) issue or two before you deal with the mosquito (cable) issues. (grin)

 

-Paul

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
Do low cost DACs sound the same because they have become truly hifi? That is one possibility. I would not say I quite have that opinion though it isn't far off with the better DACs in the few hundred dollar range. It would be most refreshing and beneficial if we had an agreed upon standard so that at some point we could say this given piece of gear is audibly full fidelity to source.

 

We can't have a standard for reproduction by a DAC as a matter of measured response because of the digital filter problem I've mentioned previously. So the next question is, do we want to look for some agreed upon measure of audibility of any measured differences with a view toward creating an agreed upon uniform audible response?

 

I think for me at least the answer would be no. As I've noted before, I have a preference for linear phase filters, while filters that many other folks like (those in the Ayre QB-9 and also available with Miska's HQPlayer) are minimum phase. So where there really is no good technical reason to establish a single standard, I would let folk's preferences have free rein.

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
No I do not think so. But you have to know what the source is- fidelity to what? For a DAC, whose whole purpose is to transform one representation of music to another representation, how can you define fidelity?

 

 

 

Yes, but amps are fairly easy to compare, you have an analog signal in, and you should have the same signal come out with some added gain. Same idea applies for preamps or any analog gear. When you introduce digital however, what goes in is in no respect like that which comes out! :)

 

 

 

I rather disagree. I don't think that high end DACs have gone nearly as far as they can to produce good sound, with "fidelity" - whatever that may actually mean n this case - to the input.

 

Part of that is also of course, a matter of perspective. If you grant that the differences in DACs are small compared to say, speakers, then when someone says "*this* DAC sounds *enormously* different than that DAC!" you can know that the change or difference you are talking about has a small, perhaps tiny, absolute value. Perspective of course.

 

In other words, once you rid your room of the elephant (speaker) issues, you might still have to squash a cockroach (DAC) issue or two before you deal with the mosquito (cable) issues. (grin)

 

-Paul

 

You can know with precision what analog waveform is supposed to come out of a DAC. Given an audio file one can get exactly what the waveform should be for a theoretically perfect DAC. There are no perfect DAC's to my knowledge. Be some can get pretty close. There also are no perfect amps with gain and no other change in signal, but again some get pretty close. A good DAC will with fidelity output the analog waveform represented in the bitstream. Very simple idea. Only slightly different and more complex than the idea of what an analog amp is supposed to do.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
We can't have a standard for reproduction by a DAC as a matter of measured response because of the digital filter problem I've mentioned previously. So the next question is, do we want to look for some agreed upon measure of audibility of any measured differences with a view toward creating an agreed upon uniform audible response?

 

I think for me at least the answer would be no. As I've noted before, I have a preference for linear phase filters, while filters that many other folks like (those in the Ayre QB-9 and also available with Miska's HQPlayer) are minimum phase. So where there really is no good technical reason to establish a single standard, I would let folk's preferences have free rein.

 

 

 

As I said above, we know what exact waveform should result from a bitstream fed to a DAC. One can compare that and see how they differ. Yes, different filtering may change how close they come. And different filtering may have more or less objectionable effects depending upon the particulars. This is still no different in principle than the analog world. No amp is totally distortionless. Some get close enough they likely are so close as to be indistinguishable by humans even if distinguishable by measuring instruments.

 

None of this changes the idea as DAC's perform closer to the ideal they will of necessity converge onto a similar sound, possibly even an indistinguishable sound (though I don't know we are there with DAC's yet).

 

And I disagree about establishing a single standard. The standard would be in how accurately a DAC reproduces the wave it is supposed to. You properly characterize that and improve it, if you then have preferences then sure exercise them whether it be for a less correct, but more pleasing filter or other aspects. One filter vs another either does a better or worse job reconstructing the waveform encoded in a bitstream. They could both be off in different ways, or one could simply be better though both are audibly different. It is a spec that might be good to use.

 

I think the problem with DAC's is people simply don't believe the Shannon/Nyquist parameters.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Thoughts? Criticisms?

 

George

I don't find too much to disagree with there. A well thought out post as far as I am concerned.

Alex

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
You can know with precision what analog waveform is supposed to come out of a DAC. Given an audio file one can get exactly what the waveform should be for a theoretically perfect DAC. There are no perfect DAC's to my knowledge. Be some can get pretty close. There also are no perfect amps with gain and no other change in signal, but again some get pretty close. A good DAC will with fidelity output the analog waveform represented in the bitstream. Very simple idea. Only slightly different and more complex than the idea of what an analog amp is supposed to do.

 

Simple idea, exceedingly difficult in practice though. Besides moderately complex software for filters, there is also a lot of software needed for the I/O control, as well as very good timing, error detection/correction, and of course, an analog section that has to produce and transmit that waveform. A DAC is a lot like a TV in that if you understand a DAC very well, I think you understand almost every concept in audio.

 

Also, the digital data allows for, in theory, a perfect reproduction. In practice, with quantization error, timing issues, and varied response times, we tend to get a bit of mess in the output. That of course, gets amplified down the rest of the chain... and so on.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

I think the problem with DAC's is people simply don't believe the Shannon/Nyquist parameters.

 

I agree. But mostly I think people don't understand the engineering in going from a theory to practical application. What you get from the digital data is not a perfect reproduction.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment

 

None of this changes the idea as DAC's perform closer to the ideal they will of necessity converge onto a similar sound, possibly even an indistinguishable sound (though I don't know we are there with DAC's yet).

 

 

In theory, yes, I think that you are right Elsdude (that eventually high end dacs may converge on the same 'sound'), but I think about it from a different angle, that you may or may not agree with. Every electronic component has a sound whether we like it or not; a flavour or colour. Like you I think that the job of a good dac is to as effectively as possible get out of the way and just convert what is there and put out an analogue signal that is an accurate representation of what it is sent. Not everyone thinks this way of course: some think that the job of a good dac is to make things sound as realistic as possible, which is not necessarily faithful to the digital input (think pure NOS or valves that obviously colour). Also the dac has to deal with channel separation, noise-floor, phase-alignment, I/V transient speed, ringing in digital filters, analogue filters and a struggle to keep jitter at its output under control as well as a host of other things that are more than simply 'converting digital to analogue'.

 

Of course this is all done with electronics that are going to impart a certain level of noise (the flavour or colour if you like) into both the digital and analogue stages of the dac, as well as receive some level of influence from other components in the electrical system.

 

To me, the idea of a dac as a standalone component is very outdated and not beneficial. For me the dac is _part_ of the source which also includes the computer/transport and to an extent the amplifiers (input sensitivity etc.). I think that both parts of the source are very important, which, based on your previous posts on this site is the part that I think you will not agree with me about Elsdude.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

 

EDIT: line break

Link to comment
As I said above, we know what exact waveform should result from a bitstream fed to a DAC. One can compare that and see how they differ. Yes, different filtering may change how close they come. And different filtering may have more or less objectionable effects depending upon the particulars. This is still no different in principle than the analog world. No amp is totally distortionless. Some get close enough they likely are so close as to be indistinguishable by humans even if distinguishable by measuring instruments.

 

I'm very surprised, because usually even when we are on opposite "sides" of an issue, I don't find myself disagreeing with your basic thinking like this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and you can let me know; or maybe we really are disagreeing, and you can disagree right back. :)

 

So first: Yes, I think this really is in principle different than the analog world. DACs can certainly have distortion just like an amp. But the results of different types of digital filtering are at bottom not a question of one type of filter having more distortion and another less, so you just pick the one with less. Rather, it is a matter of unavoidably having different *kinds* of distortion, and how much of each you will decide to have in your particular design compromise. There is also the fact that some people - both designers and regular listeners - are more sensitive to one kind of distortion, while other people - both designers and regular listeners - are more sensitive to another kind. So everyone will seek to minimize the forms of distortion that bother him or her the most, meaning those forms of distortion that are least bothersome will be unavoidably increased. You are not getting closer to perfection. You are choosing what to you is the lesser of the various evils, a choice others will not agree with.

 

None of this changes the idea as DAC's perform closer to the ideal they will of necessity converge onto a similar sound, possibly even an indistinguishable sound (though I don't know we are there with DAC's yet).

 

No. The ideal in this case is mathematically impossible. It isn't just a matter of not being able to achieve perfection. It is attempting to climb Everest to a height of 50,000 feet. So you have a choice. You can climb Everest, or you can attain an altitude of 50,000 feet in an aircraft. But not both. And you can maximize time domain performance or frequency domain performance of the digital filtering associated with your DAC - but not both.

 

And I disagree about establishing a single standard. The standard would be in how accurately a DAC reproduces the wave it is supposed to. You properly characterize that and improve it, if you then have preferences then sure exercise them whether it be for a less correct, but more pleasing filter or other aspects. One filter vs another either does a better or worse job reconstructing the waveform encoded in a bitstream. They could both be off in different ways, or one could simply be better though both are audibly different. It is a spec that might be good to use.

 

Let's have a look at a couple of good DACs attempting to reproduce the same waveform. The first is the Benchmark; the latter two are the Ayre, the middle graph with the filtering set to Measure, the bottom with the filtering set to Listen:

 

Benchmark.jpg

AyreMeasure.jpg

AyreListen.jpg

 

So which one did the best job? Well, let's see: The Benchmark is linear phase, or at least much closer than the Ayre. For people like me who are very sensitive to phase being non-linear, that's a good thing. But look at the pre-ringing. People like Charles Hansen and Miska are very sensitive to that. So in the middle graph we see the Ayre has eliminated pre-ringing, but at two costs: First, the filter is minimum phase, something I tend not to like. And there is unavoidably more post-ringing because that's where the pre-ringing energy has had to be pushed in accordance with math and physics. Some people will hear this as a pleasant sense of openness, resonance and depth; others will dislike it as blurring transients and precise imaging. The third graph looks really nice, with virtually no ringing. But what the impulse graph doesn't show you is the unavoidable tradeoff that had to be made to achieve that, a designed cut at the highest audible frequencies. Even those of us for whom these frequencies themselves are no longer audible will hear a change (whether from a loss of harmonics or a slight rolloff in the highest frequencies still audible to us I don't know, but I've configured such a filter at home using iZotope SRC, and even setting the cut to .99 or .98 of the Nyquist frequency versus 1.00 can be heard). This third type of filter will help recordings made with A/D filter settings that ring - which is lots and lots of recordings - sound better. But on recordings made with really fine A/D conversion, their ability to stop ringing "baked into" the recording isn't needed, and there's that high frequency cut the other filters don't have.

 

So what we have in the real world of DACs is not a bunch of engineers who somehow just can't manage to reproduce an input waveform correctly. Rather, there are lots of very smart people who understand extremely well the tradeoffs imposed by mathematics and the laws of physics; who understand extremely well the psychoacoustics involved; and who are mixing art with science in trying like heck to marry the former with the latter.

 

I think the problem with DAC's is people simply don't believe the Shannon/Nyquist parameters.

 

As I think you may be able to tell from the above, we are way beyond whether people believe in the mathematical proof of Shannon/Nyquist here. Digital audio wouldn't exist without Shannon/Nyquist as a basis. But what filter designers must deal with are the mathematical and physical constraints imposed on the Shannon/Nyquist ideal here in the real world where we do not have infinite time and instantaneous response.

 

Edit: Oh, by the way - with regard to the original question, do you think the latter two graphs, made by the same DAC with different filter settings, are closer to each other than, e.g., the bottom graph is to the top graph, where because these are two different DACs there's a difference in analog hardware?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
In theory, yes, I think that you are right Elsdude (that eventually high end dacs may converge on the same 'sound'), but I think about it from a different angle, that you may or may not agree with. Every electronic component has a sound whether we like it or not; a flavour or colour. Like you I think that the job of a good dac is to as effectively as possible get out of the way and just convert what is there and put out an analogue signal that is an accurate representation of what it is sent. Not everyone thinks this way of course: some think that the job of a good dac is to make things sound as realistic as possible, which is not necessarily faithful to the digital input (think pure NOS or valves that obviously colour). Also the dac has to deal with channel separation, noise-floor, phase-alignment, I/V transient speed, ringing in digital filters, analogue filters and a struggle to keep jitter at its output under control as well as a host of other things that are more than simply 'converting digital to analogue'.

 

Of course this is all done with electronics that are going to impart a certain level of noise (the flavour or colour if you like) into both the digital and analogue stages of the dac, as well as receive some level of influence from other components in the electrical system.

 

To me, the idea of a dac as a standalone component is very outdated and not beneficial. For me the dac is _part_ of the source which also includes the computer/transport and to an extent the amplifiers (input sensitivity etc.). I think that both parts of the source are very important, which, based on your previous posts on this site is the part that I think you will not agree with me about Elsdude.

 

Cheers,

 

Anthony

 

EDIT: line break

 

Anthony,

 

A good post, and I agree with more than I disagree. I have used a direct digital power DAC of sorts. The Tact M2150. Everything is completely digital up until the power stage where it gets converted to PWM. That has lots of advantages. Though there are some minor differences, the Wadia PowerDac and Nad M2 as well as the CD990DD are similar. I think that is the future of quality audio. Great price to performance ratio, convenient, does away with almost all other components.

 

I of course disagree with some of your post. I think most PC based sources are simply not a problem. Don't gild the lily when you don't gain from it.

 

If you have read other of my posts, I think speaker/room interaction is the frontier where gains are there to be made. Big ones, important ones. Much better chances to clearly improve playback quality compared to wires, minor jitter reduction and playback software tweaks.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
I'm very surprised, because usually even when we are on opposite "sides" of an issue, I don't find myself disagreeing with your basic thinking like this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and you can let me know; or maybe we really are disagreeing, and you can disagree right back. :)

 

So first: Yes, I think this really is in principle different than the analog world. DACs can certainly have distortion just like an amp. But the results of different types of digital filtering are at bottom not a question of one type of filter having more distortion and another less, so you just pick the one with less. Rather, it is a matter of unavoidably having different *kinds* of distortion, and how much of each you will decide to have in your particular design compromise. There is also the fact that some people - both designers and regular listeners - are more sensitive to one kind of distortion, while other people - both designers and regular listeners - are more sensitive to another kind. So everyone will seek to minimize the forms of distortion that bother him or her the most, meaning those forms of distortion that are least bothersome will be unavoidably increased. You are not getting closer to perfection. You are choosing what to you is the lesser of the various evils, a choice others will not agree with.

 

 

 

No. The ideal in this case is mathematically impossible. It isn't just a matter of not being able to achieve perfection. It is attempting to climb Everest to a height of 50,000 feet. So you have a choice. You can climb Everest, or you can attain an altitude of 50,000 feet in an aircraft. But not both. And you can maximize time domain performance or frequency domain performance of the digital filtering associated with your DAC - but not both.

 

 

 

Let's have a look at a couple of good DACs attempting to reproduce the same waveform. The first is the Benchmark; the latter two are the Ayre, the middle graph with the filtering set to Measure, the bottom with the filtering set to Listen:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9943[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9944[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]9945[/ATTACH]

 

So which one did the best job? Well, let's see: The Benchmark is linear phase, or at least much closer than the Ayre. For people like me who are very sensitive to phase being non-linear, that's a good thing. But look at the pre-ringing. People like Charles Hansen and Miska are very sensitive to that. So in the middle graph we see the Ayre has eliminated pre-ringing, but at two costs: First, the filter is minimum phase, something I tend not to like. And there is unavoidably more post-ringing because that's where the pre-ringing energy has had to be pushed in accordance with math and physics. Some people will hear this as a pleasant sense of openness, resonance and depth; others will dislike it as blurring transients and precise imaging. The third graph looks really nice, with virtually no ringing. But what the impulse graph doesn't show you is the unavoidable tradeoff that had to be made to achieve that, a designed cut at the highest audible frequencies. Even those of us for whom these frequencies themselves are no longer audible will hear a change (whether from a loss of harmonics or a slight rolloff in the highest frequencies still audible to us I don't know, but I've configured such a filter at home using iZotope SRC, and even setting the cut to .99 or .98 of the Nyquist frequency versus 1.00 can be heard). This third type of filter will help recordings made with A/D filter settings that ring - which is lots and lots of recordings - sound better. But on recordings made with really fine A/D conversion, their ability to stop ringing "baked into" the recording isn't needed, and there's that high frequency cut the other filters don't have.

 

So what we have in the real world of DACs is not a bunch of engineers who somehow just can't manage to reproduce an input waveform correctly. Rather, there are lots of very smart people who understand extremely well the tradeoffs imposed by mathematics and the laws of physics; who understand extremely well the psychoacoustics involved; and who are mixing art with science in trying like heck to marry the former with the latter.

 

 

 

As I think you may be able to tell from the above, we are way beyond whether people believe in the mathematical proof of Shannon/Nyquist here. Digital audio wouldn't exist without Shannon/Nyquist as a basis. But what filter designers must deal with are the mathematical and physical constraints imposed on the Shannon/Nyquist ideal here in the real world where we do not have infinite time and instantaneous response.

 

Edit: Oh, by the way - with regard to the original question, do you think the latter two graphs, made by the same DAC with different filter settings, are closer to each other than, e.g., the bottom graph is to the top graph, where because these are two different DACs there's a difference in analog hardware?

 

You might try this little article from Stereophile no less.

Ringing False: Digital Audio's Ubiquitous Filter Filter Listening Impressions | Stereophile.com

 

Your examples are all from single impulse responses which would represent a frequency at the edges of the sample rate. You aren't getting that in music recordings. Theoretically shannon-nyquist allows one to get perfect waveform reconstruction to half the sample rate. But that is with perfect brickwall filters and infinite samples etc. In practical form you cannot get full reconstruction to 24 khz with 48 khz sampling for one instance. Some credible info says good quality converters can do full waveform reconstruction to 92-95% of half the sample rate. Above that you won't get proper waveform reconstruction. And generally the filtering will mean the level at or very near the max frequency will be severely attenuated.

 

Try doing 20 khz at 48 khz sampling. Look at it on an o-scope, it won't look messed up. It will be fine. Your music has little going on there. Nor could you hear it actually due to your age I am assuming. The impulse responses are showing you something real, but they are also somewhat deceptive. Music almost never has such signals in it. And those few that are there are fleeting and not effecting playback accuracy in general. Your graphs while accurate, also have no bearing on listening to music up to 20 khz or so.

 

You might try this video:

 

Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell

 

Watch just before 5 minutes in on the video. A quality analog signal generator will be used to generate high frequencies eventually up to 20 khz. It will be sent through a digital leg, AD to DA and monitored with a high quality analog scope. You will see the 20 khz waveform accurately reconstructed in this case with some really, really low end converters.

 

Just past 18 minutes is some pertinent info too. The digital filter would look differently with 22.05 hz for 44.1 or 24 khz for 48 khz sample rates. But you aren't getting that in your recordings. So the waveforms you do have are properly reconstructed within the parameters specified. No magic. It really works that way. Mr. Shannon and Nyquist knew what they were doing.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Anthony,

 

<snip>

 

I of course disagree with some of your post. I think most PC based sources are simply not a problem. Don't gild the lily when you don't gain from it.

 

If you have read other of my posts, I think speaker/room interaction is the frontier where gains are there to be made. Big ones, important ones. Much better chances to clearly improve playback quality compared to wires, minor jitter reduction and playback software tweaks.

 

Can you see your arrogance in the bold sentence above Elsdude? I am not sure if you meant to be dismissive or whether you were simply quoting mantra and not considering how you were saying it, but that was not the best way to phrase that sentence. I can assure you that in my circumstance that there is no 'gilding the lily' where the computer as transport is concerned.

 

Although I listen in the near-field (room interactions minimised) I have heard room effects and concur with your viewpoint here...but I simply say do everything, not just the room.

 

I recently owned a C390DD and it was nice to have a 'one box' solution, but I am so far ahead of that with my current electronics it is not funny. All dacs most certainly do not sound the same, and for my listening pleasure I rate the source as important as the speakers.

 

Anthony

Link to comment
Can you see your arrogance in the bold sentence above Elsdude? I am not sure if you meant to be dismissive or whether you were simply quoting mantra and not considering how you were saying it, but that was not the best way to phrase that sentence. I can assure you that in my circumstance that there is no 'gilding the lily' where the computer as transport is concerned.

 

Although I listen in the near-field (room interactions minimised) I have heard room effects and concur with your viewpoint here...but I simply say do everything, not just the room.

 

I recently owned a C390DD and it was nice to have a 'one box' solution, but I am so far ahead of that with my current electronics it is not funny. All dacs most certainly do not sound the same, and for my listening pleasure I rate the source as important as the speakers.

 

Anthony

 

One man's arrogance is another man's truth. Sorry there. I will admit that my patience has grown thin.

 

How is the source as important as speakers when the response of one is measured in tenths of a decibel and the other is lucky to be in tens of decibels?

 

DAC's should sound the same or close to it. If not, someone is doing something wrong, very wrong.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
One man's arrogance is another man's truth. Sorry there. I will admit that my patience has grown thin.

 

How is the source as important as speakers when the response of one is measured in tenths of a decibel and the other is lucky to be in tens of decibels?

 

DAC's should sound the same or close to it. If not, someone is doing something wrong, very wrong.

 

Dennis

Have you had a recent look at those pretty coloured lines at the top of the page ?

Yet once again, your voice is in the minority.

Sooner or later, (hopefully sooner) , you must surely come to the disappointing (to you) conclusion that once again a large percentage of members do not agree with you. You really do need to find some other nearby members for listening and equipment comparisons if that is possible.

I find it disappointing that in such a highly populated nation, that we don't appear to have too many members who are willing to put in their location the city they live in. I have made several very good friends with similar interests in Sydney because most Aussies aren't paranoid about stating the city they live in. Whether you are an audiophile or of an Objective bent, there is always something to learn from other music lovers, even if it only comes down to hearing different artists that you may have never heard , or considered listening to before.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
One man's arrogance is another man's truth. Sorry there. I will admit that my patience has grown thin.

 

How is the source as important as speakers when the response of one is measured in tenths of a decibel and the other is lucky to be in tens of decibels?

 

DAC's should sound the same or close to it. If not, someone is doing something wrong, very wrong.

 

No offence taken Elsdude.

 

To your question about why I think the source is so important, all that I can say (read 'feel like saying') is that in the past 12 months I have had several dacs and several audio computers in my system and they sound different whether I like it or not. If my statement is true (that dacs/computers sound different) and your theory that they _should_ all sound the same if well designed is also true then one logical conclusion is that in general the technology is not mature enough yet. Is the technology mature? That may be the proper question to be asking (in my opinion).

 

Anthony

Link to comment

You need to put it all in perspective. The Source is very important once you have the stuff one considers more important handled.

 

So, yes, the relatively minor differences in DACs take on a much larger importance depending upon good one feels one's system is.

 

My opinion? If you cannot hear the difference between DACs and form a preference for one, then your particular system, while well suited to you, is not capable of revealing the difference in DACs. For whatever reason. In this case, it is much easier to pick the lowest cost DAC that satisfies you, is it not?

 

 

One man's arrogance is another man's truth. Sorry there. I will admit that my patience has grown thin.

 

How is the source as important as speakers when the response of one is measured in tenths of a decibel and the other is lucky to be in tens of decibels?

 

DAC's should sound the same or close to it. If not, someone is doing something wrong, very wrong.

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
You need to put it all in perspective. The Source is very important once you have the stuff one considers more important handled.

 

So, yes, the relatively minor differences in DACs take on a much larger importance depending upon good one feels one's system is.

 

My opinion? If you cannot hear the difference between DACs and form a preference for one, then your particular system, while well suited to you, is not capable of revealing the difference in DACs. For whatever reason. In this case, it is much easier to pick the lowest cost DAC that satisfies you, is it not?

 

You know I was thinking about this source importance whereby it would be garbage in but then again that falls to the recording of the music. A poor recording is just that and your source will just provide the transport of that garbage out to the amp and then to the speakers. Hey it's all important, the music, the source be it a TT, music server, cd , etc. regarding Dacs sounding the same well I had a Mytek DSD and a Teac 501 and they do sound different in my system using the same supporting equipment. Now I have a exaSound and there is a difference between the Teac and the mkiii.

The Truth Is Out There

Link to comment

How is the source as important as speakers when the response of one is measured in tenths of a decibel and the other is lucky to be in tens of decibels?

 

Because garbage in, garbage out. And if there is garbage, it will be amplified by the amplifier (redundancy apart) and clearly noticed at your speaker output, if they are good transducers.

 

Please forget about "tenths of decibels" since I believe our ears/brain system are very capable to notice this, even to you, who like to measure everything.

 

Other of my beliefs, after a lot of tests, is that the server, feeding the DAC is so important, or as important that the DAC itself. With an almost perfect server could be hard to listen to differences between different DACs, but still they are. It could be denominated huge, depending your exigencies. BTW, I'm very exigent.

 

Roch

Link to comment
No I do not think so. But you have to know what the source is- fidelity to what? For a DAC, whose whole purpose is to transform one representation of music to another representation, how can you define fidelity?

 

 

 

Yes, but amps are fairly easy to compare, you have an analog signal in, and you should have the same signal come out with some added gain. Same idea applies for preamps or any analog gear. When you introduce digital however, what goes in is in no respect like that which comes out! :)

 

 

 

I rather disagree. I don't think that high end DACs have gone nearly as far as they can to produce good sound, with "fidelity" - whatever that may actually mean n this case - to the input.

 

Part of that is also of course, a matter of perspective. If you grant that the differences in DACs are small compared to say, speakers, then when someone says "*this* DAC sounds *enormously* different than that DAC!" you can know that the change or difference you are talking about has a small, perhaps tiny, absolute value. Perspective of course.

 

In other words, once you rid your room of the elephant (speaker) issues, you might still have to squash a cockroach (DAC) issue or two before you deal with the mosquito (cable) issues. (grin)

 

-Paul

 

I like this!.....PERSPECTIVE !.....yes Paul yes....some more of that please!

 

Such a simple common word can explain SO much of what goes on in the head of audiophiles!

Link to comment
I like this!.....PERSPECTIVE !.....yes Paul yes....some more of that please!

 

Such a simple common word can explain SO much of what goes on in the head of audiophiles!

 

mayhem, I've got a question, since you do a lot of DIY speaker design and building: Looking at my post #85 above, do you think impulse response tests for three full range speakers you'd consider well-designed and of good sound quality would differ more, less, or to about the same degree as the three impulse response graphs there?

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment

I find it disappointing that in such a highly populated nation, that we don't appear to have too many members who are willing to put in their location the city they live in. I have made several very good friends with similar interests in Sydney because most Aussies aren't paranoid about stating the city they live in. Whether you are an audiophile or of an Objective bent, there is always something to learn from other music lovers, even if it only comes down to hearing different artists that you may have never heard , or considered listening to before.

 

 

 

+1. I am glad that finally, someone agrees with me. Although after my last post on the subject of listing locations, someone complained I listed "Tucson, AZ, and did not list "USA".

 

You cannot make everyone happy.

In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake ~ Sayre's Law

Link to comment
mayhem, I've got a question, since you do a lot of DIY speaker design and building: Looking at my post #85 above, do you think impulse response tests for three full range speakers you'd consider well-designed and of good sound quality would differ more, less, or to about the same degree as the three impulse response graphs there?

 

When applying impulse response to speakers, Linear phase is an aspiration, but physically impossible with mechanical devices. Option three looks far better than one or two when measuring a driver......the transducers motion starts immediately and stops almost as fast. Something to consider particularly when considering bass drivers and your examples in 85 of tradeoffs. Nearly all speaker systems today are ported designs. The designer chose low freq extension over the quality of the lower octaves. Why?

No suspension. For the brief moment that air is passing through the resonant port, the compliance or air spring of the enclosure is comromised and as such, the cone studders and rings. Sealed systems don't exhibit this behavior as the box is pressurized which helps to bring the cone to rest much faster. But sealed systems for bass require far more power and drivers with far greater motor strength to extend as low. For a DIY builder, the sonic difference is obvious when compared side by side. Bass is far snappier or 'faster' than the lumbering hemholtz resonator. Passive radiators are a very strange compromise. They reduce the enclosure size and help the drive unit respond faster BUT the radiator has about the worst impulse response you could measure in a speaker. It has no motor but instead relies on adjusted mass in relationship to the suspension of the radiator and the volume of the enclosure. Thankfully its usually on the rear of the enclosure and therefor less audible. A 'strange' compromise not often used in speakers throughout history. Big vs smaller enclosure vs impulse response vs inefficiency.

Link to comment
I'm very surprised, because usually even when we are on opposite "sides" of an issue, I don't find myself disagreeing with your basic thinking like this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and you can let me know; or maybe we really are disagreeing, and you can disagree right back. :)

...

 

+1 from me. A most excellent post!

System (i): Stack Audio Link > 2Qute+MCRU psu; Gyrodec/SME V/Hana SL/EAT E-Glo Petit/Magnum Dynalab FT101A) > PrimaLuna Evo 100 amp > Klipsch RP-600M/REL T5x subs

System (ii): Allo USB Signature > Bel Canto uLink+AQVOX psu > Chord Hugo > APPJ EL34 > Tandy LX5/REL Tzero v3 subs

System (iii) KEF LS50W/KEF R400b subs

 

Link to comment

New here but I was blown away by a change of dacs. Short version, new Arcam FMJ dac, sounds really nice, blows the USB channel, warrantied with a new Cary Audio DAC100T and man it rocked my system unbelievably. So much more bass actually felt like it added a whole new dimension. Same everything else.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...