Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting

[sandyk]

Yes, I object to the way this conversation has morphed into an acceptance of the idea that some of us prefer a "smooth" sound because we can live with purportedly audible distortion

 

I certainly couldn't live with that, as unlike most members I use my main DAC even for listening to DTV audio in conjunction with my 40" LED backlighted TV.

I want to hear the accurate sounds of natural ambience etc. that are present in many TV shows and some local soapies, as well as some of the superb multi channel DTV .ts streams from the Late Night USA TV shows with top musical guests.

With a very good DAC and system, many of these DTV shows have a fabulous surround sound quality, even when down converted to Stereo, WITHOUT needing a Dolby Decoder..

Alex

[semente]

he already said his webzine uses a technique to isolate ads from his opinions - similar to what a newspaper does between its reporting and ad divisions

 

or, if you mean in general, then you have a very valid point; tho I think a refusal to do blind testing on products is more important, not to mention failure to describe any of the testing methodology

 

as to the coloration issue - consider the Maggie speakers: they often have problems when tested, but do some other things so well that they enjoy a very high reputation

 

when Peter Aczel (Audio Cryptic) tested some he said something along the lines of: they have no right to sound this good based on the test measurements, but they do...

It's a general trend, yes, and it doesn't matter whether the reviewers know which manufacturers are sponsoring the magazine (that particular number or some other).

The manufacturers sponsor magazines (through advertising, extended loans and dealer prices) because they provide a very effective marketing service and the magazines repay them by providing rave reviews: its the audio industry.

 

R

[semente]

What do you mean by "taste it"?

You can describe performance through observation (using your senses instead of the measuring equipment) or by "tasting" (driven by personal liking and enjoyment).

 

R

[mmerrill99]

You can describe performance through observation (using your senses instead of the measuring equipment) or by "tasting" (driven by personal liking and enjoyment).

R

Yes, this is what I thought you meant - it's an interesting & common turning of logic on it's head

 

The goal of this audio hobby is the enjoyment of the music. Music can be enjoyed at lots of different levels of reproduction quality from AM radio upwards. A lot of people find that better reproduction enhances their enjoyment although many couldn't care less.

 

Your post is another perfect example of the circular logic that mansr already demonstrated - the disbelief that auditory perception can perceive superior realism & quality of reproduction & yet the typical current measurements don't reflect this superiority.

 

Unfortunately your & mansr's (& many others) attitude is indicative of just how deeply people can get lost in the forest of measurements without realising what the hobby is about.

 

Listening in a non-analytic way with the intent of determining how the reproduction captures attention or allows it to drift, excites or dulls interest, stirs one to listen further or to look for something else to do, pushes one towards listening to other disks or not - are all good ways to initially analyse the worth or not of listening more analytically to the sound. If not stirred I'm not interested in the measurements or even analysing what I'm hearing unless it is for research purposes, to discover what's best to avoid.

[semente]

Yes, this is what I thought you meant - it's an interesting & common turning of logic on it's head

 

The goal of this audio is the enjoyment of the music. Music can be enjoyed at lots of different levels of reproduction quality from AM radio upwards. A lot of people find that better reproduction enhances their enjoyment although many couldn't care less.

 

This is another perfect example of the circular logic that mansr already demonstrated - the disbelief that auditory perception can perceive superior realism & quality of reproduction & yet measurements don't reflect this superiority.

 

Unfortunately your & mansr's (& many others) attitude is indicative of just how deeply people can get lost in the forest of measurements without realising what the hobby is about.

 

Listening in a non-analytic way with the intent of determining how the reproduction captures attention or allows it to drift, excites or dulls interest, stirs one to listen further or to look for something else to do, pushes one towards listening to other disks or not - are all good ways to initially analyse the worth or not of listening more analytically to the sound. If not stirred I'm not interested in the measurements or even analysing what I'm hearing unless it is for research purposes, to discover what's best to avoid.

 

 

I think all you can say is that we don't realise what the hobby is about to you.

Some people like vintage equipment, other vinyl, others still measurements and technical excellence, there's pride of ownership, DIY'ing, gear swappers and collectors...the reasons, expectations and objectives are endless.

 

Yes, I agree that the ultimate goal of one's system is to provide enjoyment.

But we still have to compare different equipment and if critical listening is to be of any use it'll have to be effective at evaluating sound.

In my opinion this has to be done in a "selfless", observational manner and described using reasonably objective language.

If reviewers don't do that (and instead comment on how much they enjoy this or that particular aspect of performance or how a certain song brought them to tears) their comments will be of no use to anyone besides themselves.

 

 

I listen mostly to classical music and have found that a system which can reproduce the signal in a reasonably faithful manner is the one that will provide the most enjoyment to me.

 

R

[YashN]

I don't have a native DSD DAC, neither do I feel the need for one, especially as very little material available in DSD is of interest to me.

It is still well worth a try for anyone willing to experience potentially something new with regards to SQ:

 

1. First, listening to high-rate native DSD material on a native DSD is something to be experienced regarding SQ

 

2. Even with PCM-based material, doing either offline up-conversion or real-time up-conversion to then send the DSD stream to a native DAC is also worth well worth it (#1 above is to me, much better, but it is still very, very good).

[semente]

Unfortunately your & mansr's (& many others) attitude is indicative of just how deeply people can get lost in the forest of measurements without realising what the hobby is about.

 

Your post is another perfect example of the circular logic that mansr already demonstrated - the disbelief that auditory perception can perceive superior realism & quality of reproduction & yet the typical current measurements don't reflect this superiority.

First of all I would like to point out that (unlike those others) I find listening as valuable as measurements, although I believe that it can only be effective if performed in an observational fashion and using proper methodology.

 

But you seem to be implying that measurements have no correlation with listening whilst that has not been my experience, as I've mentioned in my previous message.

 

 

On the other hand I have realised, in over a decade of participating in forums, that because some people don't like ("taste") the sound of some technically superior equipment the chose to dismiss the efficacy of measurements instead of trying to use measurements in their favour; after all measurements merely describe a specific aspect of performance.

I don't know if this has been your experience, though...

 

R

[YashN]

Still need to tune up your reasoning.

 

mmerill89's reasoning is finely tuned already...

[mmerrill99]

I listen mostly to classical music and have found that a system which can reproduce the signal in a reasonably faithful manner is the one that will provide the most enjoyment to me.

R

As mansr before you - the measurements determine what you hear

[mansr]

As mansr before you - the measurements determine what you hear

Measurements reflect the sound, not necessarily what you hear.

[sandyk]

It is still well worth a try for anyone willing to experience potentially something new with regards to SQ:

 

Hi Yash

Potentially something new, but not necessarily better, especially if exporting via USB without a lot of further improvements made.

You can't generalise with things like this, as not all systems are equal, or perhaps as well implemented as others.

Some members have also mentioned a little smoothing of HF detail after conversion to DSD.

I have been experiencing SQ for some time, at least as good as some are now reporting when using the Uptone Ultracap PSU. For somebody my age (almost 78) to so readily hear these improvements suggests that my system is already well above average.

 

Regards

Alex

[YashN]

What I do find puzzling about digital recording, and I think some folks here are trying to get at this idea, is if we know how to register detail "properly" in the recording process, how can we not translate that consistently at the reproduction end? Do all recording engineers understand what's going into their digital envelopes when they're making recordings, I.e., do they know everything their instruments are grabbing from the event? I've never sat behind a recording desk so I ask this in all curiosity, not being at all sarcastic.

Some good questions there: I'd separate the reproduction question from the recording/production one.

 

Assuming the recording/production is well-made (not always the case for sure), what I have found is that the advantages of digital are sometimes accompanied by EMC issues for what is at the end of the chain an analogue reproduction.

 

And worse than that, sometimes the very advantage of 'digital' is actually rather casually destroyed by 'analogue-encoding', for instance what occurs within a normal USB cable.

 

I've also found that in a digital audiophile chain, there are several D/A conversions occurring throughout the chain (also A/D afterwards and so on) and when that occurs, the analogue portion is susceptible to all types of interference that the 'digital' version should be immune to. The 'Beyond Bit-Perfect' thread has more info on this.

 

This is why it is important to always know the SQ cost of treating a bit throughout the chain, this maps to the Energy cost, especially in systems which are not perfectly isolated (and which ones are?).

 

Every digital circuit has its own noise profile and the robustness of 'digital' for transmission is lost with something like async USB (no re-send) using a normal USB cable over a certain length threshold.

 

Add to that that some new forms of audio recording and reproduction require high-speed circuit design as compared to most of what we were doing previously.

 

EMC issues for different pieces of gear across manufacturers is a problem of combinatorial explosion in complexity as well.

 

Making a great system requires end-to-end thinking, among several knowledge domains. Few individuals are capable of that.

 

There would be a lot to say about the production side as well.

[YashN]

Potentially something new, but not necessarily better

 

You won't know until you try though.

 

I'm glad I did.

[semente]

As mansr before you - the measurements determine what you hear

I don't know about mansr but in my case you are just plain wrong.

 

 

Many years ago I listened to a system that consisted of an extensively modified/optimised CD player and a custom-designed amplifier.

This was an earth-shattering listening experience.

I became friends with this advanced DIY and have learnt a lot from him; my amplifier and soon to be delivered NOS filterless USB DAC were designed by him.

His equipment has superb measured performance.

 

 

I still judge through listening but use measurements to help me identify shortcomings that I have identified through listening.

 

R

[mmerrill99]

On the other hand I have realised, in over a decade of participating in forums, that because some people don't like ("taste") the sound of some technically superior equipment the chose to dismiss the efficacy of measurements instead of trying to use measurements in their favour; after all measurements merely describe a specific aspect of performance.

I don't know if this has been your experience, though...R

 

And the text I highlighted is exactly the point "after all measurements merely describe a specific aspect of performance." whereas auditory perception is a much more integrative methodology. So that aspect of performance may have no significance to auditory perception, it may be picking up all it's realism cues from completely different factors in the sound stream. Why not admit that - firstly you don't know what these factors are & as a result you don't know what's important to measure. All that the current purveyor's of the measurement approach try to do is bluff & bully - bluff that they have a scientific approach & bully that there opinion is fact, all in an effort in trying to persuade others that the limited set of current measurements are sufficient or have a larger meaning than your highlighted text " describe a specific aspect of performance"

[YashN]

Some members have also mentioned a little smoothing of HF detail after conversion to DSD.

 

Yes, I've heard people say that, to which was reply has been: are you sure you're not addicted or accustomed to an artificial emphasis on the transients in your usual system. This has to be explored for sure. People who actually play instruments might be the best people to ask for their views on this.

 

One guy reported on a FB Group that he hated DSD because "there's no bass". Turns out he was turning DSD into PCM (one piece of gear), then sending that to another one which was taking the PCM and turning it again into SDM, so two lossy processes in a badly set up system, and he concluded that 'DSD was bass-less'.

 

Evaluation of just frequency reproduction is not enough for me: I'm much more concerned with attack transients, timbre, localisation/soundstage, reverb tails, dynamics, revelation of artists performances. I may accept losing a little on the frequency side if all the rest is far better.

[mmerrill99]

I don't know about mansr but in my case you are just plain wrong.

Many years ago I listened to a system that consisted of an extensively modified/optimised CD player and a custom-designed amplifier.

This was an earth-shattering listening experience.

I became friends with this advanced DIY and have learnt a lot from him; my amplifier and soon to be delivered NOS filterless USB DAC were designed by him.

His equipment has superb measured performance.

I still judge through listening but use measurements to help me identify shortcomings that I have identified through listening.

 

R

OK, I'm happy to be wrong in this case & if I have read your message wrong, then accept my apologies.

 

My message is fairly clear, I hope & I thought you were disagreeing with it in your posts but I accept if I'm wrong!

[semente]

And the text I highlighted is exactly the point "after all measurements merely describe a specific aspect of performance." whereas auditory perception is a much more integrative methodology. So that aspect of performance may have no significance to auditory perception, it may be picking up all it's realism cues from completely different factors in the sound stream. Why not admit that - firstly you don't know what these factors are & as a result you don't know what's important to measure. All that the current purveyor's of the measurement approach try to do is bluff & bully - bluff that they have a scientific approach & bully that there opinion is fact, all in an effort in trying to persuade others that the limited set of current measurements are sufficient or have a larger meaning than your highlighted text " describe a specific aspect of performance"

You keep talking about "realism cues" but they could mean many different things to different people.

Anyway, if they exist in the recording, the higher the fidelity with which the system reads, amplifies and transduces the signal the more of those cues will be reproduced.

But, and this is probably another reason why subjectivists are so "suspicious" of measurements, some types of equipment generate distortions which enhance certain aspects of perception and enjoyment, as does speaker positioning and room acoustics.

Some examples could be low even-order harmonic distortion, floor-bounce, cone resonance, exaggerated presence or BBC dip, even dynamic compression.

 

Ultimately whether one likes it and wishes to accept such "effects" is a personal call but a reviewer should try to identify the cause and report it as it is: a shortcoming.

 

That for me is the difference between evaluating and "tasting".

 

R

[mmerrill99]

I don't know about mansr but in my case you are just plain wrong.

 

Many years ago I listened to a system that consisted of an extensively modified/optimised CD player and a custom-designed amplifier.

This was an earth-shattering listening experience.

I became friends with this advanced DIY and have learnt a lot from him; my amplifier and soon to be delivered NOS filterless USB DAC were designed by him.

His equipment has superb measured performance.

I still judge through listening but use measurements to help me identify shortcomings that I have identified through listening.

 

R

 

Can you tell us some of the techniques & measurements that separated this amplifier from your previous? I would guess that the PS played a large role in this?

 

I presume he is compensating for the usual NOS droop & how is he dealing with the aliasing which can wreak audible havoc with subsequent stages?

[sandyk]

You won't know until you try though.

 

I'm glad I did.

 

I don't believe in any more additional software processing in an electrically noisy general purpose PC.

I have found that even using Sound Forge 9 to remove incorrect header info in a.wav file, and saving the resulting file again, causes a minor SQ degradation

As far as I am concerned, my own experiments have confirmed this, and have been corroborated by quite a few others.

If I was using a well designed, purpose built A/V Server with adequate "horsepower", and a good Linear PSU to power it, that may be a different matter.

[mmerrill99]

You keep talking about "realism cues" but they could mean many different things to different people.

Anyway, if they exist in the recording, the higher the fidelity with which the system reads, amplifies and transduces the signal the more of those cues will be reproduced.

Yes, "realism cues" & no "they could NOT mean many different things to different people." We can perceive the difference between live sound & played back sound. These aren't different things to different people. They are not judgements about realism. Auditory perception works at a fundamental level that makes sense of the sound stream.

 

But, and this is probably another reason why subjectivists are so "suspicious" of measurements, some types of equipment generate distortions which enhance certain aspects of perception and enjoyment, as does speaker positioning and room acoustics.

Subs are suspicious of measurements because they know from experience that the measurements bear little relationship to what is heard.

Some examples could be low even-order harmonic distortion, floor-bounce, cone resonance, exaggerated presence or BBC dip, even dynamic compression.

Ultimately whether one likes it and wishes to accept such "effects" is a personal call but a reviewer should try to identify the cause and report it as it is: a shortcoming.

That for me is the difference between evaluating and "tasting".

R

Ultimately such distortions become tiring & unsatisfying over the longer term, I believe. However it is possible for some people to follow a "belief" or fixed formula about the "correct" approach to audio & get caught in self-delusion for years. I find many of the objectivists confess that they were once these people. But what they don't realise is that they are caught in just another "belief" in their belief in measurements as the full & accurate picture of audio

[YashN]

I don't believe in any more additional software processing in an electrically noisy general purpose PC.

 

Using an NAA resolves this.

[mansr]

Using an NAA resolves this.

Not if you believe digital bits can be permanently tainted by a noisy power supply.

[mmerrill99]

Some good questions there: I'd separate the reproduction question from the recording/production one.

 

Assuming the recording/production is well-made (not always the case for sure), what I have found is that the advantages of digital are sometimes accompanied by EMC issues for what is at the end of the chain an analogue reproduction.

 

And worse than that, sometimes the very advantage of 'digital' is actually rather casually destroyed by 'analogue-encoding', for instance what occurs within a normal USB cable.

 

I've also found that in a digital audiophile chain, there are several D/A conversions occurring throughout the chain (also A/D afterwards and so on) and when that occurs, the analogue portion is susceptible to all types of interference that the 'digital' version should be immune to. The 'Beyond Bit-Perfect' thread has more info on this.

 

This is why it is important to always know the SQ cost of treating a bit throughout the chain, this maps to the Energy cost, especially in systems which are not perfectly isolated (and which ones are?).

 

Every digital circuit has its own noise profile and the robustness of 'digital' for transmission is lost with something like async USB (no re-send) using a normal USB cable over a certain length threshold.

 

Add to that that some new forms of audio recording and reproduction require high-speed circuit design as compared to most of what we were doing previously.

 

EMC issues for different pieces of gear across manufacturers is a problem of combinatorial explosion in complexity as well.

 

Making a great system requires end-to-end thinking, among several knowledge domains. Few individuals are capable of that.

 

There would be a lot to say about the production side as well.

 

+ 1

[sandyk]

Not if you believe digital bits can be permanently tainted by a noisy power supply.

 

Why, do you ?

You recently guessed correctly about what I did with a file that I sent back to Dennis, where he heard differences 2 days in a row between it and his own original .wav file.

For somebody with such a huge dose of Expectation Bias, that's bordering on miraculous, despite him being unable to confirm this via the pathetic Foobar ABX. Foobar 2000 is yet another instance of patchwork pieces cobbled together by a committee.

Did you have a hand in that ?