DACs better than the DacMagic?

[Jud]

HQPlayer, Audirvana Plus on Mac, Audiophile Inventory offline. Ralf, the idea is that the digital filtering that takes place in nearly all DACs can very likely be done better in a computer. Then if you have particular DACs, those DACs won't monkey with this better digital bitstream before the final filter that performs the digital to analog conversion. I named a couple such DACs in my previous post.

[mac_and_dac]

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.

 

I'm blessed. I can't hear frequencies above 12Khz. Luckily most of the good things seem to happen below that. Might also be why I enjoy Leonard Cohen more than the Bee Gees.

[plissken]

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.

 

This is what I get to do with BSS, Lake Processing, MiniDSP on the consumer end, Xilica....

[plissken]

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

 

Ask that of 17629v2. He's the one bringing handicaps into the thread.

[Jud]

 

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.

 

My recollection of an interview with Putzeys was that he was very much against *just* listening and hugely in favor of measurement, measurement, measurement - but he does confirm by listening.

[semente]

My recollection of an interview with Putzeys was that he was very much against *just* listening and hugely in favor of measurement, measurement, measurement - but he does confirm by listening.

Andrew Jones:

 

First comes the measurement.

There are a lot of parameters in speakers that can be measured that are known to correlate well with listening.

The problem that I see so often from those who doubt such correlation exists is that they don't know how to measure accurately!

I see their curves and I see the artifacts in the curves that are the result of measurement errors and nothing to do with the behaviour of the speaker itself!

Accurate measurements and a sufficient set of measurements go a long way to revealing the performance, and allow us to get towards the final result very much quicker than with just listening alone.

My approach is to set a design goal for the measured performance, meet this as close as possible, then evaluate the result by listening, but ONLY once I believe I have met the initial design objective.

Then I try and honestly evaluate the result, and if (when……) I hear something wrong I go back and see if I can correlate this to the measurements.

Maybe I was too enthusiastic in my evaluation of having met my target.

Maybe my target is just wrong.

I go back and make changes based on the re-evaluation, then re-listen.

But I am always cross referring to the measurements.

 

I am not implying that we can measure everything that we hear.

But we can measure a lot so we can shorten the design process.

We can also however hear a lot of what isn't actually there!

We can be easily misled in our hearing evaluation and attribute things that don't really exist.

With too many variables during the design process we can also become confused.

So we have to be as careful in our listening as we have to be in our measuring.

[semente]

Peter Walker (Quad)

 

"We designed our valve (tube) amplifier, manufactured it, and put it on the market, and never actually listened to it. In fact, the same applies to the 303 and the 405.

 

People say, 'Well that's disgusting, you ought to have listened to it.'

 

However, we do a certain amount of listening tests, but they are for specific things.

 

We listen to the differential distortion - does a certain thing matter?

 

You've got to have a listening test to sort out whether it matters.

 

You've got to do tests to sort out whether rumble is likely to overload pickup inputs, or whether very high frequency stuff coming out of the pickup due to record scratch is going to disturb the control unit.

 

But we aren't sitting down listening to Beethoven's Fifth and saying, 'That amplifier sounds better, let's change a resistor or two. Oh yes, that's now better still.'

 

We never sit down and listen to a music record through an amplifier in the design stage.

 

We listen to funny noises, funny distortions, and see whether these things are going to matter, to get a subjective assessment.

 

But we don't actually listen to program material at all.

[plissken]

 

But we aren't sitting down listening to Beethoven's Fifth and saying, 'That amplifier sounds better, let's change a resistor or two. Oh yes, that's now better still.'

 

I've always gotten a kick where someone lists what is in their music collection and then asks what hardware to get based upon that.

 

My only hail Mary answer is to add an EQ.

[17629v2]

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

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

I said I was done arguing with you over this. Although, I was kind of hoping your last post had some decent points in it that we could discuss, and not argue. Instead, your replies are so silly that I wouldn't know where to begin. I was a fool for losing my temper over some of your earlier posts. I have better things to do with my time. Think whatever you like.

[plissken]

I said I was done arguing with you over this. Although, I was kind of hoping your last post had some decent points in it that we could discuss, and not argue. Instead, your replies are so silly that I wouldn't know where to begin. I was a fool for losing my temper over some of your earlier posts. I have better things to do with my time. Think whatever you like.

 

I even agreed with some points you've made. You're the only one that thinks there is an 'argument' going on between us. I just happen to have a difference of opinion.

[Mechnutt]

Here is a good deal for the OP on a A. Vega for $2150 used.

 

FS: Auralic Vega DAC

[marksas3]

HQPlayer, Audirvana Plus on Mac, Audiophile Inventory offline. Ralf, the idea is that the digital filtering that takes place in nearly all DACs can very likely be done better in a computer. Then if you have particular DACs, those DACs won't monkey with this better digital bitstream before the final filter that performs the digital to analog conversion. I named a couple such DACs in my previous post.

Jud, will any of these programs add filters and/or upsample Tidal streaming? I listen to a lot of Tidal through Roon over my network to a microrendu and then to a micromega mydac, always being controlled either by the Roon iOS app or the Android app on a tablet.

[Ralf11]

Here is a good deal for the OP on a A. Vega for $2150 used.

 

FS: Auralic Vega DAC

 

Thanks!

 

I think I am going to stick to something I can evaluate and return if there is not a significant SQ increase.

[plissken]

Thanks!

 

I think I am going to stick to something I can evaluate and return if there is not a significant SQ increase.

 

You may want to post what major metropolitan area your are close to. See if any one has something you want to get ears on.

[Ralf11]

None - it would have to be by mail order.

[Bowmore]

Any DACs I should look at that are, or are likely to be, significantly better than the Cambridge DacMagic?

 

In your position, would not miss any opportunity to check out the Crane Song Solaris - $1,899 USD at Vintage King (free shipping to US addresses) - before deciding. One reviewer on gearslutz did an extensive comparison with the Dangerous Music Convert-2 - $2,499 at Sweetwater - and much preferred the perceived superior resolution of the Solaris. As I own a Convert-2, which I think has staggeringly good sound, I'm planning to check out the Solaris for myself.