Jump to content
IGNORED

Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting


Recommended Posts

Apologies for moving things back on my topic, but I think we're in agreement that your claim that I'm "making it up" was nonsense.

Not at all. Even if you don't know it that's what is happening in large measure.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
If you spend $500 on a DAC with basic good engineering, and using conventional filters you have a fully transparent DAC. No higher audible fidelity is possible.

 

 

This is an interesting thread, made even more interesting by the claims above.

 

@esldude - Please name some $500 DACs that are transparent. I hope I have one or two for testing purposes.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
I'm sorry, but as you can see some people here is more interested in "data" than musicality. It doesn't matter to them if the DAC (or any piece of gear) sounds like sh*t if the "data" match standard "scientific" parameters :)

 

Roch

 

You are completely mis-construing my post, perhaps deliberately. The data involved is obtained from testing whether someone or a group can hear a difference in a controlled environment.

Link to comment
This is an interesting thread, made even more interesting by the claims above.

 

@esldude - Please name some $500 DACs that are transparent. I hope I have one or two for testing purposes.

The Emotiva Stealth is one for your list.

 

The Focusrite Scarlett interfaces would fit as well at the upper couple models. Not targeted at audiophiles though.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
The Emotiva Stealth is one for your list.

 

The Focusrite Scarlett interfaces would fit as well at the upper couple models. Not targeted at audiophiles though.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

Thanks Dennis. I'll have to round one or both of them up.

 

I disagree with your opinion about this, but I respect it and you personally.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment

I have never ever understood why measurers are so damn sure that what they're measuring is all there is to measure. If something measures "transparent" but sounds wrong I'm not gonna distrust my ears I'm going to assume that what I'm hearing is either not being measured properly or not being measured at all. Either that or transparency itself is not a pleasant aesthetic sensation, which makes audiophilia pretty perverse.

 

I've owned two DACs that are renowned for transparency (Benchmark DAC2 and exaSound e22) but sounded wrong to me. The only DAC I've ever owned that sounds "right" to me is this Metrum that I'm using, that a significant number of people believe is NOT transparent (rolled-off treble, for example.) I'm prepared to believe that this manufacturer's offerings get more transparent as you move up the line, but whatever it is that they get right allows me to accept less than total transparency without feeling the loss, or the immediate need to upgrade -- for a change.

Mac Mini (+Tidal +Roon) -> WiFi -> Lyngdorf TDAI1120 ->JM Reynaud Lucia (Tellurium Q Black v2)

Link to comment
I have never ever understood why measurers are so damn sure that what they're measuring is all there is to measure. If something measures "transparent" but sounds wrong I'm not gonna distrust my ears I'm going to assume that what I'm hearing is either not being measured properly or not being measured at all. Either that or transparency itself is not a pleasant aesthetic sensation, which makes audiophilia pretty perverse.

 

I've owned two DACs that are renowned for transparency (Benchmark DAC2 and exaSound e22) but sounded wrong to me. The only DAC I've ever owned that sounds "right" to me is this Metrum that I'm using, that a significant number of people believe is NOT transparent (rolled-off treble, for example.) I'm prepared to believe that this manufacturer's offerings get more transparent as you move up the line, but whatever it is that they get right allows me to accept less than total transparency without feeling the loss, or the immediate need to upgrade -- for a change.

I'll offer a thought on this interesting topic -- we are not all working toward the same goal. For most listeners, we are striving toward an emotionally engaging musical experience. For others, there is an objective goal.

 

I would say that neither is right or wrong. The problems arise when someone from one side tries to suggest that someone from the other side is wrong. When it comes to listening to music, and its enjoyment, right and wrong have no relevance.

Link to comment

"Where does D/A occur with DSD?".

Dedicated Line DSD/DXD | Audirvana+ | iFi iDSD Nano | SET Tube Amp | Totem Mites

Surround: VLC | M-Audio FastTrack Pro | Mac Opt | Panasonic SA-HE100 | Logitech Z623

DIY: SET Tube Amp | Low-Noise Linear Regulated Power Supply | USB, Power, Speaker Cables | Speaker Stands | Acoustic Panels

Link to comment
I'll offer a thought on this interesting topic -- we are not all working toward the same goal. For most listeners, we are striving toward an emotionally engaging musical experience. For others, there is an objective goal.

 

I would say that neither is right or wrong. The problems arise when someone from one side tries to suggest that someone from the other side is wrong. When it comes to listening to music, and its enjoyment, right and wrong have no relevance.

 

 

Great to have your input Michael but I take a slightly different view, I believe all audiophiles should be working towards the same goal - recreating the reality of the original recording session in their own homes.

The DAC's that sound more 'real' (hate the term musical) can be those that are less transparent to a poor master....

Link to comment
I have never ever understood why measurers are so damn sure that what they're measuring is all there is to measure. If something measures "transparent" but sounds wrong I'm not gonna distrust my ears I'm going to assume that what I'm hearing is either not being measured properly or not being measured at all. Either that or transparency itself is not a pleasant aesthetic sensation, which makes audiophilia pretty perverse.

 

I've owned two DACs that are renowned for transparency (Benchmark DAC2 and exaSound e22) but sounded wrong to me. The only DAC I've ever owned that sounds "right" to me is this Metrum that I'm using, that a significant number of people believe is NOT transparent (rolled-off treble, for example.) I'm prepared to believe that this manufacturer's offerings get more transparent as you move up the line, but whatever it is that they get right allows me to accept less than total transparency without feeling the loss, or the immediate need to upgrade -- for a change.

 

Again this idea of transparency must have become an alien concept in some circles. It does appear to me that with certain measurement thresholds and good equipment interaction (in the technical sense not magical) you get transparency. The final convincing however came about from listening without sight. Differences you think you hear are gone. Present them to people with no expectations because you didn't tell them what was what and no differences either. When you do have measurement deficiencies you do sometimes get audible differences as well. So I don't distrust my ears. I distrust them when they are interfered with by my eyes.

 

Now transparency is not necessarily pleasant. It is about fidelity to source. If history is any guide, each move toward transparency has caused listeners to complain of sterile sound, and to move toward softer edges, rolled off treble and similar things to make music 'nice' again. The problem is confusing pleasing sound for high fidelity sound. The two are not automatically the same.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
The DAC's that sound more 'real' (hate the term musical) can be those that are less transparent to a poor master....

 

How can a DAC that is less transparent to a poor master, be completely transparent to a good master ?

There is no such thing as an automatic "niceness" switch.

In fact, a genuinely transparent DAC may even sound less objectionable with a poor recording with severe clipping , for example.

 

If history is any guide, each move toward transparency has caused listeners to complain of sterile sound, and to move toward softer edges, rolled off treble and similar things to make music 'nice' again. The problem is confusing pleasing sound for high fidelity sound. The two are not automatically the same.

 

That I can agree with, which is why I just mentioned a " niceness" switch.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Either recreating the reality of the original recording session in their own homes, or making it a bit better sounding with ARC tubey-ness

 

You can't perfectly correlate objective measurements with the above. But looking at an impressive piece of gear can trick your ears and brain.

Link to comment
Thanks Dennis. I'll have to round one or both of them up.

 

I disagree with your opinion about this, but I respect it and you personally.

 

Well, give these a try along with some pricier options. I don't know what you have in mind for a method, but getting rid of you knowing what you are listening to is important. It is then you will get surprised I think. It need not be quick switching and short term A/B. Though I believe those are most telling as you can keep matched levels (keeping meticulously matched levels is very, very important). If you want to somehow put DACs in a black box and use as you wish for a normal review that might be a good approach. Maybe someone has some ideas on a good way to manage this.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment
Again this idea of transparency must have become an alien concept in some circles. It does appear to me that with certain measurement thresholds and good equipment interaction (in the technical sense not magical) you get transparency. The final convincing however came about from listening without sight. Differences you think you hear are gone. Present them to people with no expectations because you didn't tell them what was what and no differences either. When you do have measurement deficiencies you do sometimes get audible differences as well. So I don't distrust my ears. I distrust them when they are interfered with by my eyes.

 

Now transparency is not necessarily pleasant. It is about fidelity to source. If history is any guide, each move toward transparency has caused listeners to complain of sterile sound, and to move toward softer edges, rolled off treble and similar things to make music 'nice' again. The problem is confusing pleasing sound for high fidelity sound. The two are not automatically the same.

 

Well that's certainly the reply I expected you to make. And you should thank me, because I handed you the argument, albeit ironically.

 

The alternative might be that it's in fact NOT transparent to source, but in a way not properly caught by what measures transparency. Or turned another way, what some regard as constitutive of transparency is not so regarded by everyone (what Michael L. is getting at, diplomatically.)

 

I don't at all accept double blind tests precisely BECAUSE they are not normal listening conditions., and because differences are often not noticed in short sessions. I'd have no objection to objectivity if I thought it had been reached, but it hasn't.

Mac Mini (+Tidal +Roon) -> WiFi -> Lyngdorf TDAI1120 ->JM Reynaud Lucia (Tellurium Q Black v2)

Link to comment
The DAC's that sound more 'real' (hate the term musical) can be those that are less transparent to a poor master.... /QUOTE]

 

How can a DAC that is less transparent to a poor master, be completely transparent to a good master ?

There is no such thing as an automatic "niceness" switch.

In fact, a genuinely transparent DAC may even sound less objectionable with a poor recording with severe clipping , for example.

 

 

 

That I can agree with, which is why I just mentioned a " niceness" switch.

 

Say a recording has 'noise' embedded within it, a transparent DAC would let the noise through, whereas a less transparent DAC that filtered out the noise might sound better.

 

A good master might have less noise so the 'less transparent DAC' would be transparent to a good master.

Link to comment

 

I don't at all accept double blind tests precisely ...because differences are often not noticed in short sessions. I'd have no objection to objectivity if I thought it had been reached, but it hasn't.

 

 

did anybody say to NOT do extended listening sessions?

Link to comment
Have you had someone blind test ten for ten with level matched DACs? Which DACs did you use to compare?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

Yes, definitely. I believe that 10 ABXs is very interesting. I was told early on that 10 ABXs, if all positive, indicated a definite difference, and still believe that. I am also open to longer term testing to bring out differences, so I would say it isn't exhaustive (i.e., you can't use it in reverse) but if you *can* pass 10 ABXs, then you have identified a difference. My favourite example, is if you have milk and slightly spoiled milk, you will indeed get 10 ABXs right.

 

So I've had different DACs in my stable and from stores/friends I borrowed on ocassion, not necessarily worth listing all the comparisons I've done, but including a bunch from Beresford, a couple from Muscial Fidelity, Oppo 105d, 3 Chords, some others.

 

I've had DACs where the op amp could be switched out, and there were subtle but existing differences there, let alone between well built solid DACs and ones that are much less so.

 

 

To everyone else - I watched a few videos from the link on his signature and I think that really does explain where he is coming from. I think many of the items in isolation, if not all, of the specific things said are true, but then one adds in driving an amp or pre, the whole system, and much more complex music, and I think that changes things.

 

The main point is that you've identified some DACs at the 500 level that you recommend. So some of us should compare those to some of the Comp Audio stables like Schiit, Berkeley, Lampizator, Chord, Auralic, etc. I don't think the 500 ones will stand up, but I think the process is great. We should be able to identify exactly why.

 

I actually think there is another level of measurement that can be done that hasn't been done. Stereo mic's placed at the listener ear level may one day, combined with sophisticated software be able to measure things like attack intensity, decay, sound staging, etc. Then we can have measurements for things that right now are considered subjective. I think the science is there, but it will take much time and perhaps there is no revenue, so no one may do it, but I feel like the science/engineering already exists to detect a lot of what we consider subjective cues about music and even PRAT.

 

Remember I'm in agreement to something relatively close to what you are saying. That is more than most here! But you've got to have those couple of extra elements right imo, and today that can't be done at 500. Maybe in 15 more years, or even 10, I'm not sure. And I would still leave a 2% improvement possible, i.e., that the 'transparent DAC' at 1500 still isn't 100% transparent, it is 98% transparent. And so instead of saying there is no difference I would say that the difference that is there isn't worth the extra 5k or 8k or 20k or whatever.

 

Okay, so let's get some people to borrow or buy (if your system is over 50k and you are hot under the collar over this, then just buy the two darn things :) ) one or both of the DACs he mentions and let's compare away.

 

I'm lucky that I've convinced my wife that doing ABX testing with audio is advancing science, so she is willing to help and run around and change things while I listen for quite some time. It's quite a racket I've got going there! :)

Link to comment

 

Say a recording has 'noise' embedded within it, a transparent DAC would let the noise through, whereas a less transparent DAC that filtered out the noise might sound better.

 

A good master might have less noise so the 'less transparent DAC' would be transparent to a good master.

 

These days there should be very few recordings, if any, that have a residual noise level that is annoying.

Old ADD recordings such as "Roberta Flack-Killing Me Softly With His Song" may sound noisy through a poorer DAC, but sound fabulous when through a very good DAC . This is mainly because they were recorded at much lower peak levels when CD first arrived, and you may need to turn the volume up several dB to compensate.

You have far more to worry about with modern recordings painted with the " Loudness Brush" which may show up shortcomings in the analogue output stage, than residual noise levels which may manifest as a gentle hiss with earlier AAD recordings.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment

Btw, the last test we did was quite interesting. I went to an audio store, I have a car with a very expensive stereo, and thought 'let's use a real DAC in the car, power in glove box, etc., it will be great, and DACs are sooooo different that surely I'll be able to hear a difference'. I try to be very objective/scientific about these things, so I was open to anything. I ended up playing with the Chord Mojo compared to the ****inbuilt DAC in an iPhone****. So it was all those cords getting digital out to Chord then RCA to 1/8th inch to car input, vs just 1/8th iPhone straight to 1/8th car input.

 

And I was shocked. We now keep hearing about taps this and taps that and 1 million taps, and how could 1 million or 1 million billion taps not sound amazing, but..... Alas..... I could not hear a difference. I went in hoping to buy the thing. But I didn't. I think the car system, however good for a car system, was not revealing enough. I asked the guy at the store what he thought about my test and he said they mostly sell those to drive headphones that the iPhone can't drive, but the 1/8th car input is obviously not making it hard to drive. (Also, note he is saying Chord Mojo is great for output stage, so we are back on that again.)

 

So I'm quite ready to not hear a difference. That was just 3 or 4 months ago, and I was really excited to get the device on the way in. My wife also couldn't hear a difference. Actually, I should say, on some music I thought I could hear a very small difference, and she couldn't hear a difference at all.

Link to comment

Very briefly, if fed high quality USB, better power cord, XLR out if possible, use 'Pure Audio' mode, and it can be quite good. Not special, but quite good. Very respectable, even in a high end system. It is a great bridge device, gives the option to play with DSD, etc. and then can upgrade from there and keep it as it is a great BluRay Player. Can also amazingly be an AVR, spits out 5.1/7.1 with no AV Pre. So versatile, can't hurt to have one.

 

Esldude - if we are going to play with yours, can you get a hold of an Aries Mini + upgraded PS, Concero HD or Schiit Gunginir? let us know how transparent or not these are? While not 500 those are a lot closer than what most of us are used to (800-1200) and will help level set the discussion.

Link to comment
Very briefly, if fed high quality USB, better power cord, XLR out if possible, use 'Pure Audio' mode, and it can be quite good. Not special, but quite good. Very respectable, even in a high end system. It is a great bridge device, gives the option to play with DSD, etc.

 

Esldude - if we are going to play with yours, can you get a hold of an Aries Mini + upgraded PS, Concero HD or Schiit Gunginir? let us know how transparent or not these are? While not 500 those are a lot closer than what most of us are used to (800-1200) and will help level set the discussion.

 

Don't have access to any of those. Should I, then I would use them to setup a comparison of course. It isn't that I haven't been around more expensive DACs, they just aren't as necessary as they once were. I have owned a couple Wadia's and similar in the past.

 

Also, if you haven't, then download the two files in my 16 times the jitter thread I linked earlier. Each clip is only 30 seconds due to copyright concerns. Two songs. Three tracks for each song. One track is 8th generation. Two are digital originals which should sound the same over your gear as if you had the original there yourself. Listen to the difference between that and an 8th gen copy. I think you will be surprised at how little it differs. No need to post here. Just do it for your own curiosity.

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to comment

BTW, you'll notice in post 66 of this thread:

 

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f6-dac-digital-analog-conversion/playback-designs-mpd-5-vs-emm-dac2x-vs-msb-platinum-digital-analogue-converter-iv-plus-14519/index3.html

 

I talk about how a recording engineer told me once he doesn't understand our hobby as he can do 3 or 4 DAC ADC conversions and is certain no one can tell the difference before or after. And that is what he defines as transparent ADC/DACs. There is some interesting conversation about that over there.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...