Which DAC do you prefer?

[Paul R]

Of the more than 2000 who viewed this thread, can a few of you explain why you didn't bother to vote in the poll or respond with a post? As Mani said, and with responses like MrSprout it could have been a very fun interesting discussion. This would in some ways have been a bit more trouble and effort than the other listening polls I put up recently, but also could have been the most fun.

 

So was this simply of no interest at all? Or what was holding people back from participating?

 

Hi Dennis -

 

No, this is very very interesting, and fun too.

 

The differences I think I hear are too small for me to be absolutely certain I really do hear them. I have my notes on them, and by my notes, there is a clear preference. But it also changes between the two different samples I listened to. Add to that, that over 6 listens, every time I thought I identified something, it of course, became identifiable on all the other recordings as well.

 

I will listen one more time tonight, and then put in a vote. I hope that does not make me look silly, but dang...

 

-Paul

[esldude]

Hi Dennis -

 

No, this is very very interesting, and fun too.

 

The differences I think I hear are too small for me to be absolutely certain I really do hear them. I have my notes on them, and by my notes, there is a clear preference. But it also changes between the two different samples I listened to. Add to that, that over 6 listens, every time I thought I identified something, it of course, became identifiable on all the other recordings as well.

 

I will listen one more time tonight, and then put in a vote. I hope that does not make me look silly, but dang...

 

-Paul

 

Thanks for taking part Paul. I had originally intended to include a third quality DAC. I found them too similar and decided on a whim to include the laptop. Then thought heck why not the smartphone. Upon measuring the smartphone I thought, "well one of them will be easy to hear". Yet it isn't all that easy to hear which was surprising. I was awaiting other's votes to see if they heard it more easily than did I.

 

I don't think it makes you look silly either. I hope that isn't what holds other people back. Are we to the point "credible audiophiles" shy away from real listening in order to spare themselves possible embarrassment?

 

I thought at least the 8th generation test would get some activity. I mean, three 30 second segments. Two are originals. You can literally do the whole test in 5 minutes. Yet some have said they "don't have the time". If it takes repeated intense listening over time to hear a difference 8 generations away that tells us something very good about modest modern gear.

[Rock Bottom]

Elsdude, I respectfully and politely opinion that most (the great majority imo) audiophiles and/or enthusiasts would view listening, auditioning, and reviewing hifi equipment “remotely” via recordings as the antithesis of the listening experience.

 

...might explain the low voter turnout. David

[esldude]

Elsdude, I respectfully and politely opinion that most (the great majority imo) audiophiles and/or enthusiasts would view listening, auditioning, and reviewing hifi equipment “remotely” via recordings as the antithesis of the listening experience.

 

...might explain the low voter turnout. David

Why the antitheses? Different yes, but not anti that I can see. The idea was to remotely allow something like the listening experience. You get to hear the sound signature of a few pieces of gear via the recording. With a few pieces of music. I had to keep the music to thirty seconds for copyright concerns.

 

Or would you say this because of the lack of hands on the gear?

[Paul R]

Thanks for taking part Paul. I had originally intended to include a third quality DAC. I found them too similar and decided on a whim to include the laptop. Then thought heck why not the smartphone. Upon measuring the smartphone I thought, "well one of them will be easy to hear". Yet it isn't all that easy to hear which was surprising. I was awaiting other's votes to see if they heard it more easily than did I.

 

I don't think it makes you look silly either. I hope that isn't what holds other people back. Are we to the point "credible audiophiles" shy away from real listening in order to spare themselves possible embarrassment?

 

I thought at least the 8th generation test would get some activity. I mean, three 30 second segments. Two are originals. You can literally do the whole test in 5 minutes. Yet some have said they "don't have the time". If it takes repeated intense listening over time to hear a difference 8 generations away that tells us something very good about modest modern gear.

 

(grin) well, listening on HiFiMan 400is, driven by iTunes, JRMC, and A+ On an iMac Retina W/i7, thru the Wavelength Proton connected via a Kimber USB cable, I choose D and C. But really, C was not at all bad and D wasn't that much - if any - better. It was decidedly difficult to tell better from worse, and I am depending upon listening notes for that choice.

 

In other words, I could easily be wrong. No Way I could pick one from a single listening session with any confidence.

[esldude]

Alright a few votes in at least. If we take out maelob who voted the same for best and worst as he thought they were indistinguishable (something a handful of other people have let me know), we have almost an even split with choices for each one as most and least preferred. What does this mean?

 

That no one can really hear good from bad (I mean one is a smartphone with specs closer to LP than CD)?

That everyone has different preferences in sound quality parameters?

That synergy with the rest of one's system determines which sounds best to you?

 

I think it shines a light on giving advice to others when they post asking for opinions on gear sound. One fellow (or Eloise hi Elf ) might be describing why item A is better than B and telling what they hear. Another fellow might explain why B has the better sound and also telling it like it is. While the poor person asking the question might have a system or preferences that mean neither is really right for him.

 

Of course still very few votes and lots of what ifs and questions. I think everyone who really listened has found it interesting from reports I am getting. The poll will be up quite awhile so maybe we can yet get some good levels of participation.

 

I think I have sent identities of the gear to everyone who voted, if not PM me and I will do so.

 

Thanks to you all.

[sbank]

That everyone has different preferences in sound quality parameters?

That synergy with the rest of one's system determines which sounds best to you?

 

I think it shines a light on giving advice to others when they post asking for opinions on gear sound. One fellow (or Eloise hi Elf ) might be describing why item A is better than B and telling what they hear. Another fellow might explain why B has the better sound and also telling it like it is. While the poor person asking the question might have a system or preferences that mean neither is really right for him.

Yes, IMHO, this is a key point, and often not accepted by many posters here. That's one reason we'd all be better served if everyone detailed their system in their signatures.

Also, until someone comes up with a measurement that explains & calculates system synergy, listening has to be the final arbiter.

[esldude]

Yes, IMHO, this is a key point, and often not accepted by many posters here. That's one reason we'd all be better served if everyone detailed their system in their signatures.

Also, until someone comes up with a measurement that explains & calculates system synergy, listening has to be the final arbiter.

 

You know I used to detail my system in my signature. But I have seen too many with more expensive gear use that as a bludgeon to disparage comments by those with lesser gear. Not so much here on CA thankfully, but it is rife on some other forums. I also admit at least twice some satisfaction when someone was particularly nasty in disagreeing with me putting up their imagined quality of what I was listening to and claiming I had to have a garbage system to be able to tell them what I actually had. One of those two people persisting in saying I must be making it up not to look foolish even then. That is why I leave off my particulars now.

[STC]

Something is different with DAC C (the best). I only listened to Ana Caram track. I suspect the sequence of the tracks affects the choice because when I rearrange the tracks I was unsure anymore.

 

Earphones over PC. I was just listening to the music and not paying any attention to the background noise. I am not sure if I could hear any difference there.

[JohnSwenson]

I finally had some time to listen to these today. I did it with both headphones and speakers, I tended to focus on different things with the two.

 

With the speakers I could hear significant differences in how the decay of the reverberant field sounded (whether acoustic or artificially added didn't seem to matter) With the headphones I wound up listening more to the subtleties of expression in voice.

 

B was by far my favorite on all selections on both headphone and speakers. There seemed to far more subtleties of expression and the reverberant field seemed integrated and just naturally part of the music.

 

Determining a worst was much harder. I eventually chose E, the reverberant field just sounded unnatural, kind of hanging around everything all the time like some aural mist.

 

The rest just kind of seemed sort of flat, and the reverberant field again didn't gel with main music but not as bad as E.

 

John S.

[Sal1950]

Also, until someone comes up with a measurement that explains & calculates system synergy, listening has to be the final arbiter.

 

IMHO Listening is the worst arbiter. It can only highlight the listeners preference and has nothing to do with the reality of accuracy.

The ear-eye-brain interface are notoriously susceptible to illusion and humans have been played games with do to these weaknesses since the first magic act.

Also expectation bias and personal desires can and do lead the most learned listener afoul.

It is only through measurements combined with strictly controled DBT's that listening impressions can ever become anything more than one persons opinion.

[sbank]

IMHO Listening is the worst arbiter. It can only highlight the listeners preference and has nothing to do with the reality of accuracy.

The ear-eye-brain interface are notoriously susceptible to illusion and humans have been played games with do to these weaknesses since the first magic act.

Also expectation bias and personal desires can and do lead the most learned listener afoul.

It is only through measurements combined with strictly controled DBT's that listening impressions can ever become anything more than one persons opinion.

It's true, desire has led the most learned listener afoul.

[Sal1950]

It's true, desire has led the most learned listener afoul.

 

Have you had opportunity to run a DBT there? :-)

[esldude]

It's true, desire has led the most learned listener afoul.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]25914[/ATTACH]

 

If that is afoul, then I am a for it. Just need a little hands on experience.

[sbank]

Have you had opportunity to run a DBT there? :-)

 

It was no test.

 

But seriously, I attempted to use humor to deflect stirring up the age old DBT topic. We are highly unlikely to move anyone's opinions about DBT, so let's stay civil and walk around the rabbit hole instead of tumbling into it.

[kdubious]

I'll do my best to avoid the rabbit hole.... but there are many.

 

Let's assume "Tweak A" changes the sound of our system. Is it likely that it changes the sound in one hyper-specific way? Or is it likely that it changes it in many different ways?

 

In the case of multiple subtle changes, what do we say when one is more accurate and one less accurate? Does it sound better? Just different? A little better and a little worse?

 

What about the Escher Staircase effect?

 

I like tweak A better than tweak B (or it's more accurate).

I like tweak B better than tweak C.

I like tweak C better than tweak A.

 

Again, ignoring the double-blind test, it still *really* helps to have a numeric rating and an entire set of criteria upon which to assign those numbers.

 

I can recall a few humorous times when a few of us were hyper focused on improving the realism of highs. We had a few reference tracks we would use (with cymbals, bells, flutes, etc.). And we had a few tweaks that were quite impressive. But when we took off the blinders, and again evaluated the musicality of the sound as a whole (across a ton of parameters), our tweaks had to be tossed out in favor of overall sound.

 

--

 

In a test like this, if DAC A has harsh highs, and the ADC tends to soften highs, then DAC A may appear more accurate. DAC E, with it's wonderfully accurate reproduction of highs is ruined by the ADC. (in my fictitious example). Or assume the ADC is totally neutral, but my DAC trashes highs (ok, please don't assume that my DAC trashes highs, that would hurt my feelings, but you get the point). I may still pick A over E if I'm focused on highs. Now, let's assume the ADC and my DAC are neutral... but my room, and all it's gloriously shiny windows, is a little bit bright (sonically, not visually).

 

You see where I'm going.

 

--

 

So why didn't I vote? On the one hand, I love this type of thing, in general. But in this case, there are too many variables that make the results not very meaningful.

 

Invite me to sit down (blind folded or not) and listen to a few pieces of gear and evaluate them on a numeric scale with a well thought out checklist: I'm there.

[esldude]

I'll do my best to avoid the rabbit hole.... but there are many.

 

Let's assume "Tweak A" changes the sound of our system. Is it likely that it changes the sound in one hyper-specific way? Or is it likely that it changes it in many different ways?

 

In the case of multiple subtle changes, what do we say when one is more accurate and one less accurate? Does it sound better? Just different? A little better and a little worse?

 

What about the Escher Staircase effect?

 

I like tweak A better than tweak B (or it's more accurate).

I like tweak B better than tweak C.

I like tweak C better than tweak A.

 

Again, ignoring the double-blind test, it still *really* helps to have a numeric rating and an entire set of criteria upon which to assign those numbers.

 

I can recall a few humorous times when a few of us were hyper focused on improving the realism of highs. We had a few reference tracks we would use (with cymbals, bells, flutes, etc.). And we had a few tweaks that were quite impressive. But when we took off the blinders, and again evaluated the musicality of the sound as a whole (across a ton of parameters), our tweaks had to be tossed out in favor of overall sound.

 

--

 

In a test like this, if DAC A has harsh highs, and the ADC tends to soften highs, then DAC A may appear more accurate. DAC E, with it's wonderfully accurate reproduction of highs is ruined by the ADC. (in my fictitious example). Or assume the ADC is totally neutral, but my DAC trashes highs (ok, please don't assume that my DAC trashes highs, that would hurt my feelings, but you get the point). I may still pick A over E if I'm focused on highs. Now, let's assume the ADC and my DAC are neutral... but my room, and all it's gloriously shiny windows, is a little bit bright (sonically, not visually).

 

You see where I'm going.

 

--

 

So why didn't I vote? On the one hand, I love this type of thing, in general. But in this case, there are too many variables that make the results not very meaningful.

 

Invite me to sit down (blind folded or not) and listen to a few pieces of gear and evaluate them on a numeric scale with a well thought out checklist: I'm there.

 

Well, the ADC didn't change. So at least relative differences should be the same. Sure maybe the ADC softens a slightly bright DAC, but that DAC will appear brighter vs less bright DACs. Might make you choose differently versus live hands on, but still useful info to be gained with choosing. And for that matter one of the tracks was actually an original digital file. Something of a hidden reference.

 

So you said you didn't vote, did you download and listen to the files?

 

PS_ I would think your Quad speakers would sound terrific with those Quad amps you have there.

[Sal1950]

It was no test.

 

But seriously, I attempted to use humor to deflect stirring up the age old DBT topic. We are highly unlikely to move anyone's opinions about DBT, so let's stay civil and walk around the rabbit hole instead of tumbling into it.

 

I guess you didn't get my joke. No humor, Just like a subjectivist. LOL

[kdubious]

I agree, the ADC, whatever effect it has, should be mostly consistent. (that thread about playback software break-in has me re-thinking everything I know about everything!) What I was hoping to convey is this: If the ADC "softens", then a wonderfully neutral DAC will sound soft. And a bright / harsh DAC may end up sounding wonderful.

 

 

did you download and listen to the files?

 

Not yet, but I'm curious, so I will when I get a chunk of time. I'll give it a serious listen, too.

 

your Quad speakers would sound terrific with those Quad amps you have there?

 

I've had an issue or two along the way. But in general, yes, it's a wonderful set up. Not the only thing I ever listen to, but definitely my go-to system. I've learned to live without the ultra-low end. I can't get myself to use a sub.

 

And the "esl" in "esl"dude refers to?

[esldude]

snip.....

 

 

I've had an issue or two along the way. But in general, yes, it's a wonderful set up. Not the only thing I ever listen to, but definitely my go-to system. I've learned to live without the ultra-low end. I can't get myself to use a sub.

 

And the "esl" in "esl"dude refers to?

 

Well I have had a few terrible, mean spirited and awful interactions on non-audio forums where people assume it means English Second Language. It is of course electrostatic loudspeaker-dude.

 

I owned Quad ESL63s for a decade or so. Mostly powered by VTL amps. I currently use Soundlab ESLs. In the past I have had some Magnepans which aren't ESL's though panels. And a pair of original Quads, Acoustat Two's, known people with M-L's, Acoustat Three's, 2+2's and other Soundlabs. So way back when the monicker seemed reasonable for audio forum use.

 

I also eschew the use of subs with panels. I will say I have helped others setup subs for panels and subs are about 10 times better than was the case 20 or more years ago. Now it is possible with DSP and better design to make a subwoofer integrate with a panel very well. Maybe not perfectly, but enough it is worth doing for many people. I am only starting to investigate source and sink use of multiple subs. That may cause me to add some to my panels if things pan out like it looks they will. In source and sink subs you have two or more at one end of the room and at the other end another set that have a time delay for the distance and are out of phase. So it prevents excessive bass buildup without having low frequency absorption as well as greatly reducing the excitation of primary room modes. Basically one set of subs send bass into the room and once at the other end you (mostly) cancel it out so it doesn't create problems in response and damping.

[NOMBEDES]

Wait,... you have 5 DACs?

[esldude]

Wait,... you have 5 DACs?

Yes so I cheated. One was a 44 to 48 kHz upsample of the original file. Leaving 4 DACs and a ringer or hidden reference take your pick.

 

Or did you mean you have FIVE DACs? I have a couple in a couple systems. I have some recording boxes with DACs which normally are used for recording or mixing of music. And my laptop's, desktop and phone have DACs in them.

[kdubious]

It is of course electrostatic loudspeaker-dude.

 

I knew what you meant, I was asking which ones.

 

I haven't played with source and sink. My philosophical view is "you don't have to filter noise you don't create." and a powered sub to suck out bass feels like a filter. Have you heard this done really well?

[esldude]

I knew what you meant, I was asking which ones.

 

I haven't played with source and sink. My philosophical view is "you don't have to filter noise you don't create." and a powered sub to suck out bass feels like a filter. Have you heard this done really well?

 

Haven't heard it at all. Have experimented just a little and could tell at least the principal is good and does work. How well can it work? I will have to try it further and see. Haven't had time recently to go further with it, but plan to investigate in more depth.

[NOMBEDES]

Yes so I cheated. One was a 44 to 48 kHz upsample of the original file. Leaving 4 DACs and a ringer or hidden reference take your pick.

 

Or did you mean you have FIVE DACs? I have a couple in a couple systems. I have some recording boxes with DACs which normally are used for recording or mixing of music. And my laptop's, desktop and phone have DACs in them.[/quote

 

I don't know what a "recording box" is, and as they used to say about Japanese bicycle parts, " the Japanese don't make bicycle parts, they make parts that look like bicycle parts." In short, a DAC in a cell phone is a DAC, but not worthy of critical investigation.