DACs better than the DacMagic?

[sandyk]

Listening is not the only evaluative method. In my opinion it isn't even a good method though it may be all most people have.

 

lol !

 

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=listening+to+music+with+a+TV+screen&biw=1280&bih=607&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZrNjF6I3QAhUKmpQKHbegALMQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=listening+to+music+with+your+eyes&imgrc=Gaoekkw7vUv3SM%3A

[plissken]

"Since all the ringing occurs above 20 khz it really shouldn't be surprising that it isn't heard."

 

It can't be heard because neither one of you listened to it.

 

If we take single fundamental tones in a range our ears are receptive to most people should be able to be trained to hear pre/post ringing. Once we are into multi-tonals then it becomes fundamentally a moot point. There are various filters available to designers. It's interesting that the vast majority go with linear phase.

 

As we age our threshold for hearing goes down. I'm maxed out at 15,200. I'm never going to hear ringing at 22Khz.

[Panelhead]

I've heard plenty of minimum phase filters while playing around during implementation of products by Lake Processing, BSS Audio, Xilica etc...

 

As a matter of fact I get control over the shaping of the audio that is second to none and why I am a proponent of Pro-Audio gear. Most of it only supports up to 24/96 but even in audiophile circles it's more than enough bit depth. Considering the knee is pushed up to 48Khz that you have to filter for you are pristine at 24Khz especially considering the quality of Mic's and we are doing the ADA live.

 

Agree that you have to listen. Play with the settings, try things that did not work out on your previous dacs. One might sound better at 96/24 than higher sampling. Another better at 44.1/16. Another at the limit of the devise. Direct integer, upsampling, USB, AES, glas toslink, a lot of options.

Of the five models of dacs I have, four are pro interfaces. My single "audiophile" dac is no better than two of the pro dacs, most likely not as good sounding.

Sound quality or transparency is the primary qualifier of a pro interface. Feed analog in, get digital out. Feed the digital in and get analog out. The closer the output analog is to the input the "better" it is as an interface. This is after two conversions. Use as a dac is child's play.

The pro models deliver a lot of value and features. This is a result from the volume of sales. Every town big enough for a Walmart has a Guitar Center or other large music store. The shelves are stacked with interfaces. And they do not get a high percentage of lookers or customers wanting to just talk. People walk in, play with something for a few minutes and leave with equipment purchases. Stand in lines at the register.

Different market.

[Ralf11]

lol !

 

 

I think he's right:

 

1. Listening is not the only evaluative method.

- that is certainly true

 

2. In my opinion it isn't even a good method though it may be all most people have.

- It is fundamental for the consumer (except for those who simply buy based on bragging rights or confirmation bias).

- But, for an engineer, listening alone will never allow the partitioning of effects - test equip. is essential

 

but I prefer my purchases be listened to by the designers as part of product development ;]

[Mechnutt]

My issue with measurements and specs is that they don't necessarily mean a product will sound good. I own a Pass Labs X250 amp and a Parasound A21 amp. The Parasound on paper, if you go by the spec's should sound better than the Pass. It has less distortion, a better slew rate and dampening factor by a wide margin. It also has higher peak amps. But there is no way in hell that it sounds any where near as good as the Pass. It is midfi in comparison.

 

Certainly specs are a starting point.

 

My take on pre and post ringing is that I prefer my Luxman DAC with some post ringing. It has 3 settings for this and a couple of other filters. My old ears can hear the difference.

[Juanjo]

Well, well, well... my hard lesson about electronic and music was in the University, after my first record in the studio... the sound had all the effects, ambient, space, was wonderful. Then, when I ended the mix, I put my recording in a CD to listen it in my house, in my "magnificent hifi system".

But... surprise!!!

What happen with my mix? Where it is?...

Well, I can hear the music, but the magic I do in the recording studio disappeared.

I took my CD back to the studio, because I believed something wrong happened when I record the CD, BUT surprise again, the CD in the studio sounded with all the magic I did.

Lesson, a big lesson...

Then I went with my CD, listening every system I could, almost every designer in the market, and I learn 85% is trash, including popular designers and hi end designers.

What happen in the market? Why so poor systems can be sold?

The answer is easy, the sound is like the colors, if you never see a color you can't imagine it... with sound is the same, you can't.

The the most of the people think they are listening the best sound in the world... well until they discover the opposite... and most people never do it.

The sad part of this is: we need a lot of money to listen the music like it was recorded and not only part of this....

Then you have to listen and listen a lot to discover what are you looking for...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[sandyk]

I think he's right:

 

1. Listening is not the only evaluative method.

- that is certainly true

 

2. In my opinion it isn't even a good method though it may be all most people have.

- It is fundamental for the consumer (except for those who simply buy based on bragging rights or confirmation bias).

- But, for an engineer, listening alone will never allow the partitioning of effects - test equip. is essential

 

but I prefer my purchases be listened to by the designers as part of product development ;]

 

Listening is the only tool normally available to the consumer.

 

Other than perhaps seeing clipped waveforms, level problems ,dynamic range and noise floor, or excessive compression, it is NOT possible to tell how a digital music file will sound by looking at a simple waveform's statistics, Spectrum analysis etc. , as much as you may wish to believe it !

Neither is it possible to tell the emotional impact a recording will have on the listener by such methods.

[Ralf11]

no one limited the discussion to consumers tho

[semente]

My issue with measurements and specs is that they don't necessarily mean a product will sound good. I own a Pass Labs X250 amp and a Parasound A21 amp. The Parasound on paper, if you go by the spec's should sound better than the Pass. It has less distortion, a better slew rate and dampening factor by a wide margin. It also has higher peak amps. But there is no way in hell that it sounds any where near as good as the Pass. It is midfi in comparison.

 

Certainly specs are a starting point.

 

My take on pre and post ringing is that I prefer my Luxman DAC with some post ringing. It has 3 settings for this and a couple of other filters. My old ears can hear the difference.

One should not confuse specifications with measurements.

Many specs are insufficient and some are misleading.

 

R

[semente]

Listening is the only tool normally available to the consumer.

 

Other than perhaps seeing clipped waveforms, level problems ,dynamic range and noise floor, or excessive compression, it is NOT possible to tell how a digital music file will sound by looking at a simple waveform's statistics, Spectrum analysis etc. , as much as you may wish to believe it !

Neither is it possible to tell the emotional impact a recording will have on the listener by such methods.

 

We are not discussing music, only reproduction.

But since you have brought it up, there is one thing that is common to both and that is each measurement focuses on a single characteristic and is not enough to qualify the overall sound of a recording or the performance of a piece of equipment.

Dynamic range measurements will not describe anything more than the dynamic range of a particular track or usable range of an equipment and even then it will be useless until you compare it to a benchmark.

 

As for emotional impact, it depends mostly on the musical programme and on how each individual listener relates to it (and even on his state of mind at the time).

 

R

[Jud]

We are not discussing music, only reproduction.

But since you have brought it up, there is one thing that is common to both and that is each measurement focuses on a single characteristic and is not enough to qualify the overall sound of a recording or the performance of a piece of equipment.

Dynamic range measurements will not describe anything more than the dynamic range of a particular track or usable range of an equipment and even then it will be useless until you compare it to a benchmark.

 

As for emotional impact, it depends mostly on the musical programme and on how each individual listener relates to it (and even on his state of mind at the time).

 

R

 

If the same album has two masterings and one has much lower dynamic range measurements than the other, it's been reasonably safe for me to conclude the much lower dynamic range master is not the one I want to select.

[semente]

If the same album has two masterings and one has much lower dynamic range measurements than the other, it's been reasonably safe for me to conclude the much lower dynamic range master is not the one I want to select.

 

 

Like I said, one needs to have a benchmark to know the significance of a low DR value.

 

I would agree in principle with your comments but many remastered CD editions of classical music such as DG The Originals or Sony Classical Masters which have slightly narrower dynamic range than the first editions also show a better/more natural tonal balance and a cleaner, smoother top end.

 

Nowadays I buy very little rock and not much jazz either but I understand that the former is very much affected by bad mastering but I still think that one should listen just in case.

 

R

[Jud]

If the same album has two masterings and one has much lower dynamic range measurements than the other, it's been reasonably safe for me to conclude the much lower dynamic range master is not the one I want to select.

 

Like I said, one needs to have a benchmark to know the significance of a low DR value.

 

I would agree in principle with your comments but many remastered CD editions of classical music such as DG The Originals or Sony Classical Masters which have slightly narrower dynamic range than the first editions also show a better/more natural tonal balance and a cleaner, smoother top end.

 

Nowadays I buy very little rock and not much jazz either but I understand that the former is very much affected by bad mastering but I still think that one should listen just in case.

 

R

 

I don't think we're disagreeing.

[Mechnutt]

Since we are off the OP's topic. I received my used Emotiva Big Ego DAC today and I am impressed. I bought it for my son to replace his Dragonfly 1.0 that he was using in his 2 channel rig. It is very smooth and analog sounding. There is no grain or edginess to it like the DF. It leans to the warm side. It has an very nice liquid mid range. It has more detail and is more musical than the DF. The textures are more palpable. It is clearly a nice step up. It sounds even better with the AQ Jitterbug. I am going to try it with my Regen later in the week. We are using the crappy usb cable that came with it. I am going to order an AQ Cinnamon mini usb to usb cable along with a Cinnamon mini RCA to RCA cable.

 

The rest of the system is my old Parasound A21, Pass Labs B-1 passive preamp/buffer that I built and PSB B6 speakers. Music Player is Bug Head Infinity Blade version 6.88.

[Jud]

Back to the OP - I think you can get quite a bit better sound way cheaper than $2000.

 

Conceptually there are three things that go into the sound of your DAC: parts quality, hardware (circuit) design, and software (filter) design. The first two, especially the first one, cost a lot of money. A way to save on these is for a designer to take advantage of things like surface mount parts. A way to save on the third is to move the filtering from the DAC to software running on a computer you likely already own.

 

This software will allow reasonably close to state of the art filtering for $75-$150, and will allow you to save much more than that on hardware. Some people like to go to town on computers for this stuff, but I happily use my 2009 laptop and 2010 desktop.

 

What you need on the DAC side is something that will accept the high resolution digital bitstream from the software. This could be the TEAC that has already been mentioned, or my iFi (see sig) that I got on sale for $375.

[17629v2]

If we take single fundamental tones in a range our ears are receptive to most people should be able to be trained to hear pre/post ringing. Once we are into multi-tonals then it becomes fundamentally a moot point. There are various filters available to designers. It's interesting that the vast majority go with linear phase.

 

As we age our threshold for hearing goes down. I'm maxed out at 15,200. I'm never going to hear ringing at 22Khz.

 

So? Did it ever occur to you that you can hear differences in whatever frequency range you do hear? If you're color blind, can you adjust the resolution on your computer monitor up and down, and still see differences, even though your eyesight is compromised?

 

At this point, arguing with you and esldude is a complete waste of time. You're comparing 2 products that you've never heard. All you can do is guess. Even if you look at the specs, you're still guessing. If you want conformation on how a component sounds, you have to listen to it. Its not negotiable. Every single successful designer on the planet conducts extensive listening tests on their own products. If you spoke to any one of them and told them you can make a determination on how one of their products sounds just by looking at the specs, they would laugh in your face. And rightly so. What makes you and esldude so special that you can bypass the same methods of evaluation used by the entire industry; up to and including the most gifted minds in the field? You can't, and no amount of talking can change that.

 

One last point and then I'm done with this thread. If you gave me the Ayre and Cambridge dacs to test, and I put them in a system that is capable of a decent amount of resolution, I couldn't get them to sound 99% similar, no matter how hard I tried. And that goes for any 2 dacs made by different companies. If you took the time to listen, you would know this for yourself.

[ctsooner]

Great post and so well put. We are all having a wonder thread on this board dealing with the Ayre QX5 and a few PS Audio Directstream owners have been listening and noticing the Ayre sounds much better to them. Not incremental either. Different and better in all areas. You can find plenty of threads where we all listen to real music in systems to compare components. Haven't seen any measurements talked about. Lol.

 

So? Did it ever occur to you that you can hear differences in whatever frequency range you do hear? If you're color blind, can you adjust the resolution on your computer monitor up and down, and still see differences, even though your eyesight is compromised?

 

At this point, arguing with you and esldude is a complete waste of time. You're comparing 2 products that you've never heard. All you can do is guess. Even if you look at the specs, you're still guessing. If you want conformation on how a component sounds, you have to listen to it. Its not negotiable. Every single successful designer on the planet conducts extensive listening tests on their own products. If you spoke to any one of them and told them you can make a determination on how one of their products sounds just by looking at the specs, they would laugh in your face. And rightly so. What makes you and esldude so special that you can bypass the same methods of evaluation used by the entire industry; up to and including the most gifted minds in the field? You can't, and no amount of talking can change that.

 

One last point and then I'm done with this thread. If you gave me the Ayre and Cambridge dacs to test, and I put them in a system that is capable of a decent amount of resolution, I couldn't get them to sound 99% similar, no matter how hard I tried. And that goes for any 2 dacs made by different companies. If you took the time to listen, you would know this for yourself.

[sandyk]

I would agree in principle with your comments but many remastered CD editions of classical music such as DG The Originals or Sony Classical Masters which have slightly narrower dynamic range than the first editions also show a better/more natural tonal balance and a cleaner, smoother top end.

 

Is it really a cleaner , smoother top end, or are you highlighting system deficiencies/limitations in that area ?

I recently revisited an old Roberta Flack album (Killing Me Softly With His Song) and was surprised how much better it sounds as my PC's PSU and noise floor is further improved. There is a lot of low level "delicate" sounding stuff on some older ADD CDs which have a much lower overall level than most modern recordings.

[sandyk]

If the same album has two masterings and one has much lower dynamic range measurements than the other, it's been reasonably safe for me to conclude the much lower dynamic range master is not the one I want to select.

 

Likewise !

[plissken]

So? Did it ever occur to you that you can hear differences in whatever frequency range you do hear? If you're color blind, can you adjust the resolution on your computer monitor up and down, and still see differences, even though your eyesight is compromised?

 

Not sure what point you are striving to make here. If we are going to use your analogy then Beethoven shouldn't have been able to compose when he became deaf because he couldn't hear the music of the orchestra.

 

Even a color blind person can run a spectroradiometer

 

At this point, arguing with you and esldude is a complete waste of time. You're comparing 2 products that you've never heard. All you can do is guess.

Measurements are being compared. They are what they are. I've asked prior about what you can answer in counterpoint to those but that has yet to be forthcoming.

 

Even if you look at the specs

 

We aren't guessing anything w/regards to spec.

 

If you want conformation on how a component sounds, you have to listen to it. Its not negotiable.

 

The OP should try to get ears on anything they are interested in. ESLDude even showed the filtering mechanism is functionally different. The OP may or may no like the filter employed.

 

Every single successful designer on the planet conducts extensive listening tests on their own products. If you spoke to any one of them and told them you can make a determination on how one of their products sounds just by looking at the specs, they would laugh in your face.

 

No one is in disagreement with you. What I said is that something like the Dac Magic Plus that seems to do very well on paper may make it extremely difficult to listen to a $2K DAC blinded and just assume the extra money is going to make it the winner.

 

 

What makes you and esldude so special that you can bypass the same methods of evaluation used by the entire industry; up to and including the most gifted minds in the field? You can't, and no amount of talking can change that.

 

I guess the same 'specialness' that allows for audiophiles to perform sighted testing and declare the emperor has new cloths?

 

One last point and then I'm done with this thread. If you gave me the Ayre and Cambridge dacs to test, and I put them in a system that is capable of a decent amount of resolution, I couldn't get them to sound 99% similar, no matter how hard I tried. And that goes for any 2 dacs made by different companies. If you took the time to listen, you would know this for yourself.

 

IMHO a DAC's job is to disappear. I don't care for NOS DAC's in particular. I want all the noise pushed up high and then filtered out.

 

The OP may like other filter methods. I would hope the Codex like the Teac UD-501 would support several filter methods. I've certainly recommended the UD-301 and 501 in the past. They are stellar units.

 

If the Codex and TEAC UD-501 measured about the same using the same style of filter I think you personally would most likely fail when sighted bias is controlled for. Just getting a pre-amp with multiple balanced analog inputs and going at this SBT should do the trick.

[Ralf11]

While it may be time for a different thread, I don't understand Jud's comment re:

 

"move the filtering from the DAC to software running on a computer"

 

as the computer is upstream of the DAC. The Dacmagic is connected to the analog pre-amp.

[davide256]

While it may be time for a different thread, I don't understand Jud's comment re:

 

"move the filtering from the DAC to software running on a computer"

 

as the computer is upstream of the DAC. The Dacmagic is connected to the analog pre-amp.

Sounds suspiciously like Jud is an HQPlayer user.

[esldude]

While it may be time for a different thread, I don't understand Jud's comment re:

 

"move the filtering from the DAC to software running on a computer"

 

as the computer is upstream of the DAC. The Dacmagic is connected to the analog pre-amp.

 

Yes what davide256 said. Jud uses HQPlayer where you send an upsampled signal at the highest rate your DAC will do. Usually minimizing or in some cases bypassing any filtering in your DAC. HQ player does the digital filtering with much more powerful DSP than DAC chips have. Resulting in some control over filtering (HQ Player lets you choose from among several types) and in better behaved filters which can be closer to theoretical perfection.

[esldude]

So? Did it ever occur to you that you can hear differences in whatever frequency range you do hear? If you're color blind, can you adjust the resolution on your computer monitor up and down, and still see differences, even though your eyesight is compromised?

 

At this point, arguing with you and esldude is a complete waste of time. You're comparing 2 products that you've never heard. All you can do is guess. Even if you look at the specs, you're still guessing. If you want conformation on how a component sounds, you have to listen to it. Its not negotiable. Every single successful designer on the planet conducts extensive listening tests on their own products. If you spoke to any one of them and told them you can make a determination on how one of their products sounds just by looking at the specs, they would laugh in your face. And rightly so. What makes you and esldude so special that you can bypass the same methods of evaluation used by the entire industry; up to and including the most gifted minds in the field? You can't, and no amount of talking can change that.

 

One last point and then I'm done with this thread. If you gave me the Ayre and Cambridge dacs to test, and I put them in a system that is capable of a decent amount of resolution, I couldn't get them to sound 99% similar, no matter how hard I tried. And that goes for any 2 dacs made by different companies. If you took the time to listen, you would know this for yourself.

 

plissken has already covered most of it. Including that I already show test results indicating the Codex will alter the noise floor and frequency in the audible range.

 

Also there are the odd designer or two that don't listen. Bruno Putzey at one time did this. He is in the high end business now though. There are others.

 

So firstly you agree with plissken and myself in this post anyway, and your statement about listening being necessary by designers isn't universally true.

[sandyk]

If we are going to use your analogy then Beethoven shouldn't have been able to compose when he became deaf because he couldn't hear the music of the orchestra.

 

Perhaps he could rely on previous experience as well as feel the music of the orchestra ?