Do all DACs sound more or less the same?

[gmgraves]

As I recall an article of his in Stereo Review many years ago, he played a number of different amplifiers for a group of people and wrote that they could not tell one from another. He is also well known for stating - wrongly - that all amplifiers with similar specs sound the same. He also loved Bose 901 speakers.

 

Yes, I remember that article, but that's not what I was talking about. I was referring solely to his "testing" and equipment reviewing procedures. To my knowledge, he never did DBTs as a part of his reviews. He may have written articles in which he commented on DBT procedures or results, but those aren't reviews.

[christopher3393]

I wasn't going to respond but after the negative response to your great post by some objectivists I feel I must take the time to say BRAVO, WAY TO GO, GREAT POST!

 

Yes, the reductionists are everywhere and it is a real problem at Computer Audiophile.

 

Actually the objectivist's head guru, the late Julian Hirsch with his infamous DBT's pretty much proved that every electronic device except speakers sound statistically the same and Mr. Hirsch advised purchasing stereo equipment based not on sound quality but on features.

 

After Julian Hirsch's death objectivists carried on proving that MP3s sound statistically the same as CDs and CDs sound statistically the same as high resolution digital, and pretty much everything else they could touch in their quest to destroy audiophiles and high-end audio and take us to the mediocrity of the lowest common denominator of everything sounding the same. It is ALL at steaming pile of crap and stinks to high heaven as does their blind devotion to science and their complete rejection of what they hear with their own f**king ears. It is the saddest thing I have ever witnessed on the internet.

 

Objectivist = My audio system is the best sounding and I can prove it with DBTs since everything statistically sounds the same. Never mind that their public ABX DBTs are not conducted in the same manner as how normal people listen to music for pleasure, they still cling to the null results anyway.

 

Subjectivist = My audio system while not the best is the best sounding for the money I was willing to invest using the best tools available to me, my ears.

 

 

 

Don't back down, it sounds like you have chosen wisely to be a subjectivist. Stand proud.

 

Esldude's retorts to your rant and quotes from Carl Sagan fall flat and don't diminish your post in the least little bit.

 

Don't listen to Mayhem13 who really is unique in a bad way, he's the one going about everything the wrong way and Mayhem13 should take his own advise and try something else.

 

I am trying very hard not to post because of my ill health and if Esldude and Mayhem13 hadn't responded negatively to your very righteous indignation I would have not posted but I feel it is my duty as I love music and am a 100% pure subjectivist until the day I die and even to whatever is beyond death!

 

pardon the interruption, I just wanted to offer a heartfelt thanks to Teresa for her response, as well as to sbgk and a few others that followed. And to Dennis and Mayhem, I did find your responses problematic, perhaps based on presumptions that I don't think are accurate, but might be better to invite follow up via pm. Carry on.

[gmgraves]

Are you referring to the infamous 1987 blind listening test conducted by Stereo Review that concluded that a pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks, an output-transformerless tubed amplifier, and a $220 Pioneer receiver were all sonically identical?

 

 

I believe that's the one. But keep in mind Stereo Review's avowed equipment policy when weighing Mr. Hirsch's conclusion in that article. If all the amps compared in that article ended-up sounding the same, then it put no one's products at a disadvantage, thus continuing the magazine's long held policy of "yes, we have no opinion", and "no amplifiers were harmed during the writing of this article".

[Allan F]

I believe that's the one. But keep in mind Stereo Review's avowed equipment policy when weighing Mr. Hirsch's conclusion in that article. If all the amps compared in that article ended-up sounding the same, then it put no one's products at a disadvantage, thus continuing the magazine's long held policy of "yes, we have no opinion", and "no amplifiers were harmed during the writing of this article".

 

How can you say that no product was put at a disadvantage when the conclusion was that a multi-thousand dollar pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks sounds no better than a $220 Pioneer receiver? Your logic, or lack of it, confuses me. Perhaps what you meant to say, equally tongue in cheek, is that none of the products was judged to be inferior.

[gmgraves]

How can you say that no product was put at a disadvantage when the conclusion was that a multi-thousand dollar pair of Mark Levinson monoblocks sounds no better than a $220 Pioneer receiver? Your logic, or lack of it, confuses me. Perhaps what you meant to say, equally tongue in cheek, is that none of the products was judged to be inferior.

 

Yes that's what I said. Another way to put it is that if they are all the same, then all amps are created equal. I see no ambiguity whatsoever in my statement that in a world where all amps sound the same, then none are at a disadvantage when it comes to performance. That seems to be a reasonable statement. By context (I did say that Hirsch asserted that all the amps in the article SOUNDED the same. That should have been your first clue to context), you should have been able to infer that I certainly wasn't talking about bling, build quality, price or any other non-performance related issues that might account for a Mark Levinson amp costing many times that of a Pioneer.

 

We seem to have a perennial communication problem. To paraphrase part of an old "Amos 'n Andy" radio show script. "Either you ain't hearing' what I is saying' or I ain't saying' what you is hearing'!"

[Allan F]

Yes that's what I said.

 

Sorry, but no it's not.

 

By context (I did say that Hirsch asserted that all the amps in the article SOUNDED the same. That should have been your first clue to context), you should have been able to infer that I certainly wasn't talking about bling, build quality, price or any other non-performance related issues that might account for a Mark Levinson amp costing many times that of a Pioneer.

 

We seem to have a perennial communication problem. To paraphrase part of an old "Amos 'n Andy" radio show script. "Either you ain't hearing' what I is saying' or I ain't saying' what you is hearing'!"

 

 

Again, sorry, but I have to reiterate that there was no logical reason to infer that price should not be included as an issue when considering the statement that 'no one's products were placed at a disadvantage'.

 

"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".

[Bunny]

Some argue there are no audible differences; others differ. What do you think?

 

You can select more than one answer.

All in your pole list are correct except for the first two.

 

 

• There are readily audible differences between DACS of the same make and model
  

 

Yes there are audible difference between DAC's of the same make and model. For example, if one of them is placed in a room where it has more humidity, it's gonna sound smoother / softer. The other one with lack of humidity, will sound rough / distorting. Another example, one is burned in, the other not.

 

Sound can change very very easily throughout the day depending on the warm-up of the device, humidity levels, any change in the rest of the system, such as cables, adapters, etc, but they are temporary. Once all components are settled and both have same climate environment they should sound equal. Sometimes you will still hear different because your ability to hear impacts depending on the condition of body working state.

 

 

Bunny

[gmgraves]

Sorry, but no it's not.

 

 

Equally sorry, but yes, it is exactly what I said.

 

Again, sorry, but I have to reiterate that there was no logical reason to infer that price should not be included as an issue when considering the statement that 'no one's products were placed at a disadvantage'.

 

"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant".

 

 

I too am sorry, but again, my whole point here is that if (as Stereo Review used to assert) all amps sounded the same, then there would be NO performance related reason to buy a $12,000 amplifier when a $200 receiver of similar power would perform identically and that $200 receiver would not be at a sound disadvantage to the expensive amp. Of course, since all amps definitely do NOT sound the same, SR's and Julian Hirsch's assertion was, and remains, false.

[Allan F]

I too am sorry, but again, my whole point here is that if (as Stereo Review used to assert) all amps sounded the same, then there would be NO performance related reason to buy a $12,000 amplifier when a $200 receiver of similar power would perform identically and that $200 receiver would not be at a sound disadvantage to the expensive amp.

 

And since there would be no performance related reason to buy a $12,000 amplifier when a $200 receiver of similar power sounded the same, the report clearly put the $12,000 amplifier at a disadvantage for the obvious reason that nobody would buy it if that were true.

 

Of course, since all amps definitely do NOT sound the same, SR's and Julian Hirsch's assertion was, and remains, false.

 

Hopefully putting an end to this silly 'debate' - probably an insult to that term - I totally agree with you that Julian Hirsch's assertion that all amps sound the same was absolute nonsense. One cannot help but wonder whether the man suffered from a hearing impairment.

[James1776]

If all Dac's sounded the same then the DAC in a phone would sound the same, into good speakers, as the system DAC, which they most assuredly do not.

[gmgraves]

If all Dac's sounded the same then the DAC in a phone would sound the same, into good speakers, as the system DAC, which they most assuredly do not.

 

I think you misunderstand the point here. While you are correct when you say that all DACs do not sound the same, your example is comparing apples and cumquats.

 

When people on this forum say DAC, mostly they mean the whole box: Power supply, I/O, analog stages, etc., not the integrated circuit chip inside the box. When I refer to the chip itself in my contributions, I usually say DAC-chip or maybe D/A converter chip. On the other hand, the DAC chip used in a telephone system is usually a 4-bit (and sometimes a 3-bit) DAC. Music DACs usually refer to 16-bit DACs, 24-bit DACs, and even 32-bit DACs. Of course, it is possible to use single-bit (or Bitstream) DACs for music, but in that case, the DAC is used in a different way. The point being, that even if all music DACs did sound the same, that still wouldn't apply to telephone-based DACs which are designed only for voice frequencies.

[gmgraves]

And since there would be no performance related reason to buy a $12,000 amplifier when a $200 receiver of similar power sounded the same, the report clearly put the $12,000 amplifier at a disadvantage for the obvious reason that nobody would buy it if that were true.

 

Sigh! I'm talking performance related issues, not price related. I thought I had made that abundantly clear! SR and High-Fidelity had a policy that no advertiser's or potential advertiser's products were to be shown to be inferior to any other advertiser's or potential advertiser's products and that policy is all that I was referring to. But you are right, there's no sense continuing this "debate". especially since one of us seems to be bent on being extremely pedantic about it.

 

 

Hopefully putting an end to this silly 'debate' - probably an insult to that term - I totally agree with you that Julian Hirsch's assertion that all amps sound the same was absolute nonsense. One cannot help but wonder whether the man suffered from a hearing impairment.

 

Well, I met the man once at an AES convention in NYC (he was a HUGE man - not fat, but just big. I'm 6'2" and he towered over me with his bullet-shaped bald head). I wanted to ask him about the "everything sounds the same" policy and if he really believed that, but we were interrupted by someone to whom Julian obviously wanted to speak more than he wanted to speak to me, so he excused himself in my mid-sentence, and that was that.

 

Two very good friends of mine told me about the editorial policies of both magazines. Larry Zide (the editor/owner of dB Magazine) told me about this policy at SR, and J. Gordon Holt (who was one of my closest friends, and whom I miss greatly) told me about this policy at High-Fidelity - where he worked for a number of years before starting Stereophile. So I believed both of them.

 

On the other hand, I suspect that Julian Hirsch probably knew better as he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man. But editorial policies are editorial policies and if one wants to continue working, one does and writes what the editor(s) tell you to do and write. But it would be nice to know for sure, wouldn't it?

[Allan F]

On the other hand, I suspect that Julian Hirsch probably knew better as he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man. But editorial policies are editorial policies and if one wants to continue working, one does and writes what the editor(s) tell you to do and write. But it would be nice to know for sure, wouldn't it?

 

It would be nice to know if he, in fact, knew better. Intelligence, however, does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to hear differences that exist. I'll leave it at that rather than open Pandora's box. It is sad when editorial policies of this kind may force writers to be disingenuous, thereby compromising their credibility as reviewers. Arguably, Julian Hirsch went further than merely abiding by editorial policy in that he appeared to be an advocate of the notion that all amplifiers with similar specs sound the same.

[Paul R]

[quote [email protected];297960

Well' date=' I met the man once at an AES convention in NYC (he was a HUGE man - not fat, but just big. I'm 6'2" and he towered over me with his bullet-shaped bald head). I wanted to ask him about the "everything sounds the same" policy and if he really believed that, but we were interrupted by someone to whom Julian obviously wanted to speak more than he wanted to speak to me, so he excused himself in my mid-sentence, and that was that.

[/quote]

 

I met Julian on a half dozen occasions, and new people who associated with him quite often. He did not buy into half of what is credited to him.

 

Indeed, he was very humble and took pains to word his findings in such as way as to not offend. Often those pains became wasted effort, but that wasn't his fault. He quite definitely was of the opinion that one needed to use one's ears to choose stereo gear, as he did for his own gear.

 

But he was also of the opinion that if the specifications were all identical, the only possible way to tell a difference was with your ears - the measurements could not provide a guide.

 

He did get frustrated and upon occasion spout nonsense. But who wouldn't with that kind of frustration? The man was a saint not to hunt some people up with a baseball bat in hand.

 

-Paul

[gmgraves]

It would be nice to know if he, in fact, knew better. Intelligence, however, does not necessarily have anything to do with the ability to hear differences that exist. I'll leave it at that rather than open Pandora's box. It is sad when editorial policies of this kind may force writers to be disingenuous, thereby compromising their credibility as reviewers. Arguably, Julian Hirsch went further than merely abiding by editorial policy in that he appeared to be an advocate of the notion that all amplifiers with similar specs sound the same.

 

Well, I guess I was just giving the man the benefit of a doubt. One thing is pretty clear, he seemed to fully embrace the idea that the classic, "standard" suite of audio measurements (frequency response deviation from flat, signal-to-noise measurements, harmonic and I.M. distortion measurements) told all there was to know about how a piece of gear like an amplifier performed - at least in print. And remember, like all modern amplifiers, this Dynaco ST120 has no sound of it's own!

[gmgraves]

I met Julian on a half dozen occasions, and new people who associated with him quite often. He did not buy into half of what is credited to him.

 

Indeed, he was very humble and took pains to word his findings in such as way as to not offend. Often those pains became wasted effort, but that wasn't his fault. He quite definitely was of the opinion that one needed to use one's ears to choose stereo gear, as he did for his own gear.

 

But he was also of the opinion that if the specifications were all identical, the only possible way to tell a difference was with your ears - the measurements could not provide a guide.

 

He did get frustrated and upon occasion spout nonsense. But who wouldn't with that kind of frustration? The man was a saint not to hunt some people up with a baseball bat in hand.

 

-Paul

 

 

Thanks for that Paul. I'm glad to hear it. Too bad he was forced to couch his opinions in "Editorial Policy Speak" and couldn't come right out and say what he really heard wrt the sound of the components he tested.

[Paul R]

Thanks for that Paul. I'm glad to hear it. Too bad he was forced to couch his opinions in "Editorial Policy Speak" and couldn't come right out and say what he really heard wrt the sound of the components he tested.

 

I believe that it was not the editorial policy that held him back, but his perception of what his job was. He did not think it was his job to provide the subjective analysis that the other people could do. I seem to remember occasions in print where he did come out and say what he liked better, or what he though sounded better, but I could easily be mistaken. (I am thinking about some AR9s in particular...)

 

I know he was not terribly reserved about what he did and did not like when he was talking audio enthusiast to audio enthusiast.

 

-Paul

[Allan F]

I believe that it was not the editorial policy that held him back, but his perception of what his job was. He did not think it was his job to provide the subjective analysis that the other people could do. I seem to remember occasions in print where he did come out and say what he liked better, or what he though sounded better, but I could easily be mistaken. (I am thinking about some AR9s in particular...)

 

I know he was not terribly reserved about what he did and did not like when he was talking audio enthusiast to audio enthusiast.

 

-Paul

 

I don't mean to twist your words but, if what you say is correct, it's hard not to see a certain hypocrisy in the approach he chose to adopt.

[Paul R]

All I can say is I never picked up on any hypocrisy from him, but then, I was not a close associate.

-Paul

 

 

I don't mean to twist your words but, if what you say is correct, it's hard not to see a certain hypocrisy in the approach he chose to adopt.

[esldude]

If his stated, employment required stance, differed that much from his actual opinions, then hypocrisy is the kind term. The more appropriate one is media whore.

 

Read "confessions" if you will of a long time editor of a major car mag. The specially prepped examples they knew of but didn't mention. The policy of touting positives and ignoring negatives of advertisers. Etc. etc. He was telling it as a come clean kind of a deal. Great, wonderful, and I lost all respect whatsoever at that time. There is nothing he could say of any interest. He was a paid liar and whore. A long career as one. Don't expect any sympathy from me for such people.

 

If he was as intelligent as you mention, a little integrity would have had him leave that job and find another honorable way to make a living. I won't judge him exactly though as we don't exactly have solid proof of what his true feelings were.

[Paul R]

Way out of line Dennis, if you are talking about Julian Hirsch.

 

-Paul

 

 

If his stated, employment required stance, differed that much from his actual opinions, then hypocrisy is the kind term. The more appropriate one is media whore.

 

Read "confessions" if you will of a long time editor of a major car mag. The specially prepped examples they knew of but didn't mention. The policy of touting positives and ignoring negatives of advertisers. Etc. etc. He was telling it as a come clean kind of a deal. Great, wonderful, and I lost all respect whatsoever at that time. There is nothing he could say of any interest. He was a paid liar and whore. A long career as one. Don't expect any sympathy from me for such people.

 

If he was as intelligent as you mention, a little integrity would have had him leave that job and find another honorable way to make a living. I won't judge him exactly though as we don't exactly have solid proof of what his true feelings were.

[James1776]

I think you misunderstand the point here. While you are correct when you say that all DACs do not sound the same, your example is comparing apples and cumquats.

 

When people on this forum say DAC, mostly they mean the whole box: Power supply, I/O, analog stages, etc., not the integrated circuit chip inside the box. When I refer to the chip itself in my contributions, I usually say DAC-chip or maybe D/A converter chip. On the other hand, the DAC chip used in a telephone system is usually a 4-bit (and sometimes a 3-bit) DAC. Music DACs usually refer to 16-bit DACs, 24-bit DACs, and even 32-bit DACs. Of course, it is possible to use single-bit (or Bitstream) DACs for music, but in that case, the DAC is used in a different way. The point being, that even if all music DACs did sound the same, that still wouldn't apply to telephone-based DACs which are designed only for voice frequencies.

 

I understand all that but the issue seemed to be more basic...do all DACs with identical specs sound the same. Does the 16/44.1 DAC in the phone sound the same as the 16/44.1 DAC in an iPOD, or a CD player. I simply do not think so....Using your argument, every dac would sound different because every dac is played back through a different audio chain, which really means that Chain is responsible for most of the differences in sound. I believe DACs also sound differently due to the different decisions made in manufacturing it. How susceptible to RFI or jitter is the chip? Just how well manufactured and installed is the thing. The $5 DAC in a phone is not as well executed as th far more expensive chip in a serious audio device.

 

I do not want to disparage your post as I am very late to this discussion and simply do not have the time to read nearly 200 old posts. I simply believe the real changes to how we listen to music are being found in the phone and tablet world with apps like USB Audio Player Pro and Neutron and not in tech found in Estate priced gear that 99.99999% of us will never hear much less own.

[Jud]

Just how well manufactured and installed is the thing. The $5 DAC in a phone is not as well executed as th far more expensive chip in a serious audio device.

 

 

I think you might be surprised at the prices of the chips in many audio DACs. Other than something quite specialized, like the chips in the Phasure, I think the delta-sigma chips found in most DACs are fairly close to that $5 figure you named, if my recollection of looking at price sheets a year or two ago is reasonably accurate. (I would expect the DAC chip in a smartphone to either be less than that, or if it is the same or more than the $5 you mentioned, it might be due to size or other specialty considerations.)

[gmgraves]

If his stated, employment required stance, differed that much from his actual opinions, then hypocrisy is the kind term. The more appropriate one is media whore.

 

Media whore? A bit strong wording wouldn't you say? Ostensibly, you work for someone, right? You need that paycheck to pay your bills and put food on the table. So, don't you do what your employer tells you to do whether you want to do it or not? That makes you wage slave (like most of the rest of us) not a whore . I suspect, in Julian Hirsch's case, he needed that paycheck too and did what he had to do to get it. If you, under similar circumstances, would stick to your convictions and quit rather than be hypocritical, then, more power to you, and I admire you for it. But, I think you'll find, that in this modern world, your strong sense of morality WRT this subject, makes you a rare individual.

[gmgraves]

I understand all that but the issue seemed to be more basic...do all DACs with identical specs sound the same. Does the 16/44.1 DAC in the phone sound the same as the 16/44.1 DAC in an iPOD, or a CD player.

 

 

OK, I think you missed my point here. The telephone system does not use 16-bit/44.1 DACs. They use 3 or 4 bit DACs at about a 4 KHz sampling rate. So, comparing a telephone DAC with one in a pad or iPod or a CD player is like comparing the amp/speaker in a speaker phone with a pair of Krell mono-blocks with a pair of Wilson Alexandria XLF speakers. In other words it's not just an apples-to-oranges comparison, you're trying to make here, It's an apples-to-brussles sprouts comparison. Except for the fact that both DACs in question convert some form of digital audio to analog audio, they have nothing in common.