Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting

[r_w]

Very well put... and I would pose the notion that those who do not seek an emotionally engaging musical experience have chosen the wrong hobby - they are not necessarily wrong however, just unlikely to ever be satisfied.

 

If I heard a system that was so good it gave goosebumps on every tune... I wouldn't care at all if I was then told it measured poorly.

 

I still love the VEGA DAC... there are lots of tweaks in my system that are helping it but I think it does communicate the emotion... apparently it measures well too, but that's not why I bought it.

 

I note your review of it was also very positive, but some others have described its sound as being completely at odds with my experience, maybe just system synergy?

 

:-)

 

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.

[esldude]

Very well put... and I would pose the notion that those who do not seek an emotionally engaging musical experience have chosen the wrong hobby - they are not necessarily wrong however, just unlikely to ever be satisfied.

 

If I heard a system that was so good it gave goosebumps on every tune... I wouldn't care at all if I was then told it measured poorly.

 

See I in time did care. If one wished to get that result again, knowing why or how or what gives that result is not going to be magic, but knowledge. Many, myself included, assume that kind of result indicates better performance. And that lacking that result indicates something not done well. While in fact, tasteful colorations give that result and actual fidelity fails to do so. Doesn't mean you don't want the goosebumps, only that once you know this you don't follow fidelity in search of what it can never give.

[esldude]

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.

 

I did go read that part of that thread.

 

I couldn't say no one can tell. I can say many cannot, and telling is not at all easy. I would think such a result would be surprising information, and makes one wonder about these flowery descriptions of the character of DACs if multiple trips through DACs and ADCs isn't something clearly heard. However, most are not in the least interested in this news.

[r_w]

I think goosebumps can happen either way as you say and it's probably not so important what method (fidelity or colouration) makes them happen (for each person) as much as increasing the frequency of them happening.

 

Agree that taking measurements helps to recreate a certain sound however.

 

The things is... you don't get goosebumps and then say I wish I could hear a bit more of that stick on the cymbal, you just get washed in the emotion of the music... if you do get goosebumps and then immediately start complaining it's time to book yourself in for therapy.

 

 

;-)

 

 

 

See I in time did care. If one wished to get that result again, knowing why or how or what gives that result is not going to be magic, but knowledge. Many, myself included, assume that kind of result indicates better performance. And that lacking that result indicates something not done well. While in fact, tasteful colorations give that result and actual fidelity fails to do so. Doesn't mean you don't want the goosebumps, only that once you know this you don't follow fidelity in search of what it can never give.

[Jud]

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.

 

Many Metrums have measurable harmonic and intermodulation distortion with RedBook input. It is possible this may be perceived as a warmer or more energetic sound. Or there may have been something in the filtering used with the other DACs that struck you as not "real," while you are relatively insensitive to any distortion from the Metrum.

 

We all hear differently (though there are obviously great areas of commonality), so listen to what you like.

[YashN]

"If circuit simplicity is a prime goal for audiophile music reproduction, then a DAC chip-less DAC might be best."

[The Computer Audiophile]

"If circuit simplicity is a prime goal for audiophile music reproduction, then a DAC chip-less DAC might be best."

 

Or not.

[Michael Lavorgna]

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....

Thanks. This idea of the "reality of the original recording session" is also interesting. Have you read any of the books by Daniel J. Levintin? "This Is Your Brain On Music" and "The World In Six Songs" are two I recommend. In the latter, he talks about this topic to some extent. Here's a relevant quote:

 

"And recordings have become their own distinct aesthetic objects, with a sound and auditory sensuality all their own."

 

The reason I bring this up is because I am in agreement with Levintin, which suggests to me that our reactions to recordings are deeply personal so there's no way we'll all have the same reaction to their reproduction. This matches up nicely with reality when we see people talking about the same experience yet with different reactions to it (show reports, group listening sessions, etc.).

[Michael Lavorgna]

I note your review of it was also very positive, but some others have described its sound as being completely at odds with my experience, maybe just system synergy?

Yes, I enjoyed the Vega for a number of years. Again, I think we have to focus on what *our* goal is with hi-fi. I'm looking for unending musical engagement coupled with the desire to discover more music. The only "test" for this is listening over time.

 

But as I said, we do not all share the same goal.

[elcorso]

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.

 

Hi Ralf,

 

"Deliberately"? Of course, Corsicans are the inventors of the conspiracy theory (no data about, even it's true)

 

The only "controlled environment" that I can accept is my listening room, playing the music I know and like and with my ears / brain system. If not, what's the point?

 

If in a group on controlled environment and with gear that are not, or it is exactly as yours, 7 over 10 says DAC C is the best. Is this one the best? Maybe it's not for you.

 

Even the statistics are wrong these days...!

 

Roch

[r_w]

You've just described the ideal goal about perfect from my perspective.

 

;-)

 

I'm looking for unending musical engagement coupled with the desire to discover more music.

[trappy]

Or there may have been something in the filtering used with the other DACs that struck you as not "real," while you are relatively insensitive to any distortion from the Metrum.

 

This, I suspect, is the case.

[plissken]

For 500 total, when you talk about the transparent analogue output section, you mean the output section will be made of see-through parts?

 

Yes. The same parts in Wonder Woman's jet.

[Ralf11]

I bet I can make any $500 DAC get better reviews.

 

 

Just take it and put it in a case that looks like it was for a $20,000 DAC.

[esldude]

I bet I can make any $500 DAC get better reviews.

 

 

Just take it and put it in a case that looks like it was for a $20,000 DAC.

 

Like this $7800 DAC (a favorite of Alex I believe) which uses the same number of DA converter chips in the same configuration as the $500 Emotiva Stealth.

 

Bricasti Design M1 D/A converter | Stereophile.com

[sandyk]

Like this $7800 DAC (a favorite of Alex I believe) which uses the same number of DA converter chips in the same configuration as the $500 Emotiva Stealth.

 

Bricasti Design M1 D/A converter | Stereophile.com

 

I never said it was a favourite of mine, although many people find it a way better than average DAC, as can be seen by many posts about it in this forum. I did however much prefer it over the DSD capable W4S that many members appear to like.

Look inside a DAC like this and you will find far greater attention to detail in various areas than your typical $500 DAC

For example, it has 3 separate toroidal transformers, compared with a crappy SMPS supplying the whole of the DAC as in many cheaper offerings.

However, most of us already know that you don't believe that much more effort put into the PSU area results in a vastly improved DAC or whatever !

 

 

Bricasti M1 Upgrade.

[Ralf11]

what is the PSU area ?

 

I'd love it if a $500 DAC performed as well as all the $2,000 ones - much less $10k or more.

 

Even better if it would solve all my room interface issues.

 

Anyway, I look forward to hearing the comparison.

[sandyk]

what is the PSU area ?

 

Judging by the photo I posted, the Bricasti M1 appears to have completely separate Linear power supplies for both L and R analogue channels, and a separate linear PSU for the Transport and Digital areas.

[esldude]

Actually I do believe PS is highly critical. I do also believe once requirements for performance are met, gilding the lily of PS won't improve audible performance. The Stealth doesn't have an SMPS, it has multiple stages of linear regulated supplies coming from the toroid in the middle.

 

Here is the inside of the cheapo $500 model. Wish I had one of each to record and send out files to people.

 

[davide256]

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.

I empathize with trappy... system interactions sometimes make it a crap shoot on how a new piece of gear will perform in what matters for personal enjoyment. Even if a piece of gear is better in your system, it may disappoint in mine

[trappy]

Also true, and.hard for the average person to specify. I do think I have fairly good synergy right now; no doubt that helps my benevolent perception of the Metrum. But it has worked well with other components too.

[YashN]

Or not.

Worth discussing if you believe in "circuit simplicity" first.

 

Which would you rather have in your signal path, a dozen opamps chained or a single Tube?

[YashN]

But as I said, we do not all share the same goal.

 

I like the way you keep the DUTs for a good while and listen, and then remove then and listen again for changes in your reviews.

 

I like Audiostream generally as well, often recommending the John Swenson Q & A. Thorsten's was great too.

[mansr]

Worth discussing if you believe in "circuit simplicity" first.

 

Which would you rather have in your signal path, a dozen opamps chained or a single Tube?

Whichever performs best. There's nothing inherently superior in having fewer parts.

[YashN]

There's nothing inherently superior in having fewer parts.

 

Really? Why not?