Someone say something about DACs that is so interesting

[Blake]

-dac's can and do sound different

 

-some (perhaps many) dac's sound so similar as to be indistinguishable to most listeners

 

-some people are much better than others at detecting these sonic differences

 

-some people love to dish out back-handed 'golden ear' compliments when a user reports a difference they can't hear

 

-why is that? some people are smarter, some can run faster, some have better vision, some are more creative... some people can hear better than you.. get over it

 

-we audiophiles are anal retentive about sound

 

-therefore small differences in sound to an audiophile can be deemed to be mind-blowingly important, whereas to the normal human, the small differences would be a non-event

 

-objective/subjective viewpoints, both have merit and I don't mean that in a peace-loving hippie sense.

 

-measurements should absolutely be used to measure those variable that are capable of measurement, why wouldn't we do that?

 

-unfortunately, the technology does not currently exist to measure all aspects of sound that humans are capable of detecting/perceiving (this is not debatable). if this is wrong, please be sure to notify people like Sean Olive of Harman International, because apparently you know more than he does.

 

-if you want to debate the above, please provide the brand/model number of the measuring device that can measure all aspects of sound

 

-also, provide a definitive listing of all aspects of sound, and I don't think there is a definitive list. without a definitive list, how can we develop a measuring device that measures all aspects of sound?

 

-unfortunately we don't have sufficient knowledge to determine why combinations of parts impact sound the way the do, at least on a consistent, scientifically verifiable basis

 

-for example, vacuum tubes of the same type can sound very different

 

-why is that? literally, how do the various physical structures and parts of a particular tube combine to create that tube's unique sound?

 

-because we can't measure everything, and we don't know everything about sound reproduction, we cannot manufacture perfect components and nobody can truly know whether a component or complete system is transparent or otherwise provides the mystical 'absolute sound'

 

-if we could measure all aspects of sound, we would need data from the original recording and compare that to the data from the sound as it leaves the particular listener's speaker

 

-this is because once the sound leaves the speaker, the listener's room kicks in an anarchy results

 

-not even the musicians or the recording engineer can really tell us whether the sound that leaves the speaker is true to the recorded event

 

-in case someone mentions "hey, I attended that concert and listened to the recording on my system and I can tell you the sound was accurate", well, what seat were you sitting in at the concert? what seat position was the recording intended to re-create? and by the way, congrats because your aural memory is superhuman

 

-ergo, at this moment in time, achieving the absolute sound is a futile goal, particularly in light of the anarchy resulting from the listener's room- good luck creating the perfect listening environment. in other words, even if you did have a perfect audio system, and had the measurement data to prove it, once that sound leaves your speakers, you are screwed...

 

-what to do?

 

-compile a collection of gear and equally important, create a listening room that sounds most pleasing to you/brings you aural satisfaction, or a system/room that you 'guess' to be most accurate in a clinical sense.

 

-both approaches are fine, whatever floats your boat- be happy and live a great life

[esldude]

And not one whit of logic or evidence to support your curt statement. Any reader can see who has the threadbare argument here.

 

One way to embellish the sound to many is a device that has maybe a tenth or so percent distortion at -30 db. which rises to maybe 3% at max level. A vivid, dense, dimensional sound results. It isn't in the recording. It can be pleasing. We don't need any new measures, nothing is missing to measure this. So where do you go from there once your subjective impression has preferred this to clean sound? You can take such a device, perhaps an SET amp, and improve it. Beef up the power supply or clean up the circuitry, but as you clean things up the effect goes away. You can say if some is good more is better thereby taking the other direction, but the result is an audio equivalent of a funhouse mirror. A mirror so distorted it isn't fun anymore.

 

I tend to think people prefer a bit of aliasing with their DACs. The presumption is pre-ringing filters are bad, post ringing filters okay. In neither case can you hear the ringing as it is too high in frequency. What you can hear is aliasing which results from the more common post ringing filters. If you prefer it, you get a softer more dimensional sound instead of sterile 2D, at least going by descriptions of it. Same situation as above however. Clean it up and the effect goes away. Add more and it can be too much. The aliasing varies with level and frequency.

 

In neither case do we really need new measurements. I would prefer clean high fidelity rigs all the way thru and DSP to choose such effects as preference dictates. At least in DACs we now have software and affordable DACs letting you select from a few filters. You can pick 44 khz with a certain filter or upsample and a different one which gives a different mix of aliasing. Mix and match to suit your particular preference.

[mmerrill99]

One way to embellish the sound to many is a device that has maybe a tenth or so percent distortion at -30 db. which rises to maybe 3% at max level. A vivid, dense, dimensional sound results. It isn't in the recording. It can be pleasing. We don't need any new measures, nothing is missing to measure this. So where do you go from there once your subjective impression has preferred this to clean sound? You can take such a device, perhaps an SET amp, and improve it. Beef up the power supply or clean up the circuitry, but as you clean things up the effect goes away. You can say if some is good more is better thereby taking the other direction, but the result is an audio equivalent of a funhouse mirror. A mirror so distorted it isn't fun anymore.

You are talking in generalities - you need to give specifics to illustrate what you are claiming.

 

I tend to think people prefer a bit of aliasing with their DACs. The presumption is pre-ringing filters are bad, post ringing filters okay. In neither case can you hear the ringing as it is too high in frequency. What you can hear is aliasing which results from the more common post ringing filters. If you prefer it, you get a softer more dimensional sound instead of sterile 2D, at least going by descriptions of it. Same situation as above however. Clean it up and the effect goes away. Add more and it can be too much. The aliasing varies with level and frequency.

I doubt this qualifies as anything more than loose supposition & guesswork - can you provide any evidence?

 

In neither case do we really need new measurements. I would prefer clean high fidelity rigs all the way thru and DSP to choose such effects as preference dictates. At least in DACs we now have software and affordable DACs letting you select from a few filters. You can pick 44 khz with a certain filter or upsample and a different one which gives a different mix of aliasing. Mix and match to suit your particular preference.

Can you show the change in measurements which you consider audible when using these filters/upsampling?

[esldude]

 

I doubt this qualifies as anything more than loose supposition & guesswork - can you provide any evidence?

 

Can you show the change in measurements which you consider audible when using these filters/upsampling?

 

No, which is why I started that paragraph with 'I tend to think'. It might equally or partly be due to people seeing the pre vs post ringing graphes and hearing what they expect to hear.

 

The aliasing is measureable. Easy to see in the test Stereophile now uses where they show wideband response with -4 db white noise superimposed over a full value 19.1 khz tone. The test was suggested by one of the MSB guys. Exact audibility of aliasing hasn't been well documented to my knowledge. The proper thing to do is prevent it in the first place. If it is true people like it, well whatever.

[mmerrill99]

No, which is why I started that paragraph with 'I tend to think'. It might equally or partly be due to people seeing the pre vs post ringing graphes and hearing what they expect to hear.

The aliasing is measureable. Easy to see in the test Stereophile now uses where they show wideband response with -4 db white noise superimposed over a full value 19.1 khz tone. The test was suggested by one of the MSB guys. Exact audibility of aliasing hasn't been well documented to my knowledge. The proper thing to do is prevent it in the first place. If it is true people like it, well whatever.

Your posts make no logical sense to me, containing so many tautologies - maybe others will have more success?

[lightminer]

He either said things that are true, things that are half true and half not true, or things that are not true.

[lightminer]

I've tried to hear pre/post ringing in real life and can't quite figure out what it is. I think some of what he is saying could be tested with different filters in HQ Player?

 

Basically, if we really wanted to 'go there' we'd have to have a reference/basic DAC with expected/known filters and some files with the distortions he is talking about and we could test.

 

From my perspective, if a "vivid, dense, dimensional sound" results from something then I'm not sure that is a bad thing even if at first blush it presents through a medium that may be considered distortion. I know my tube pre creates a much larger soundstage than not using it, and to me that brings me loser to live symphonic music, so for me it is more accurate, not less, regardless of how it gets me closer to live symphonic recreation.

 

Agreed with much of the poster above with the bullet points. People compare MSB, Playback Designs, DCS, EmmLabs and say 'this one is a bit darker' and I've got to be honest, with the gear I'm familiar with (great stuff but not megabuck) I just in the end don't really know what that is. They are all great DACs and I think at some point it is personal preference.

[sandyk]

One way to embellish the sound to many is a device that has maybe a tenth or so percent distortion at -30 db. which rises to maybe 3% at max level. A vivid, dense, dimensional sound results.

 

I think it's far more likely to sound fatiguing and annoying, and sound more like a simple 6V6GT based design from >60 years ago after having listened to modern amplifiers.

 

It might equally or partly be due to people seeing the pre vs post ringing graphes and hearing what they expect to hear.

 

That is only likely to happen to people like yourself who tend to listen with their eyes before turning on the amplifier .

[mmerrill99]

He either said things that are true, things that are half true and half not true, or things that are not true.

You mean he is focussed on the known knowns, not the known unknowns or even the unknown unknowns?

[mansr]

You mean all he knows is the known knowns, not the known unknowns or even the unknown unknowns?

What about the unknown knowns?

[mmerrill99]

What about the unknown knowns?

Indeed, that tautology would seem to be appealing to some

[esldude]

What about the unknown knowns?

 

I think you both left out unacceptable knowns.

[esldude]

I think it's far more likely to sound fatiguing and annoying, and sound more like a simple 6V6GT based design from >60 years ago after having listened to modern amplifiers.

 

 

 

Stereophile has a different opinion.

 

 

Whenever I measure one of Vladimir Lamm's amplifiers, I am always impressed by the quality of the engineering. Yes, the ML2.2 has a bent transfer function, which means that it produces higher-than-usual levels of second-harmonic distortion—but this is not accompanied by high levels of high-order intermodulation. And you have that low output impedance and very wide bandwidth!—John Atkinson

Read more at Lamm ML2.2 monoblock power amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

Look at the unusual distortion curves for this amp. And notice the distortion with frequency and load. That is a design goal for Lamm. They get universal praise. Other tube amps roughly approximate that kind of performance. Vladimir Lamm thinks it key to how they sound. Distortion should rise surely and evenly with level, and at any given power level it should be the same across the entire frequency band. Notice it smoothly rises to nearly 5 % before max output levels.

 

You can read the subjective impression of their sound here:

Lamm ML2.2 monoblock power amplifier Page 2 | Stereophile.com

[esldude]

Line Magnetic Audio LM-518IA integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

Notice the very similar distortion and distortion with frequency curves for this SET here. It isn't as well engineered as the LAMM. But very similar.

 

Here is the reviewer's reasons for liking SETs.

 

To my ears, a properly designed amplifier using directly heated thoriated-tungsten tubes always sounds more vivid, elegant, direct, and brilliant than its indirectly heated dull-emitter counterpart—especially when excessive amounts of feedback aren't masking the tube's essential character.

Read more at Line Magnetic Audio LM-518IA integrated amplifier | Stereophile.com

 

 

Any of that sound similar to my description earlier?

 

You could find a half dozen or more examples they have reviewed. You will find them similarly described as vivid, 3D, densely layered sound etc etc. You also will see the very similar distortion curves going from .1% more or less to 3 or 4 or so percent near max.

 

You could look here:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/primaluna-dialogue-premium-power-amplifier-measurements#ckb462qFBkAWfGs7.97

 

And see a push-pull triode that approximates the same distortion with level curve. In Ultra-linear it comes close to the same with a bit more uneveness in the distortion vs level output.

[semente]

Line Magnetic Audio LM-518IA integrated amplifier Measurements | Stereophile.com

 

Notice the very similar distortion and distortion with frequency curves for this SET here. It isn't as well engineered as the LAMM. But very similar.

 

Here is the reviewer's reasons for liking SETs.

 

To my ears, a properly designed amplifier using directly heated thoriated-tungsten tubes always sounds more vivid, elegant, direct, and brilliant than its indirectly heated dull-emitter counterpart—especially when excessive amounts of feedback aren't masking the tube's essential character.

Read more at Line Magnetic Audio LM-518IA integrated amplifier | Stereophile.com

 

 

Any of that sound similar to my description earlier?

 

Some people just fall in love with concepts like SET, single-driver, NOS DACs w/ Redbook and they all use the same insane drivel to describe how good it all sounds...

R

 

 

P.S.: I forgot to add vinyl.

[esldude]

Some people just fall in love with concepts like SET, single-driver, NOS DACs w/ Redbook and they all use the same insane drivel to describe how good it all sounds...

R

 

 

P.S.: I forgot to add vinyl.

 

While true, they do indeed have that sound in an audible way. It isn't just their idea of it. If you don't believe me, anyone who wants this sound (but needs more power) could send the signal thru such an amp and then feed the output taps into their low distortion SS amp. You will get the sound they described.

 

Wish I still had such an amp on hand, I would do a before and after recording so people could hear it for themselves.

 

With some kinds of music it sounds less than pristine. With other kinds of music like simple jazz or large recordings done with few mics it sounds quite beguiling.

[sandyk]

Dennis

I have Zilch interest in Stereophile's subjective interpretation of the distortion measurements of equipment that can no longer claim to be transparent or true High Fidelity, no matter how pleasing it may sound to some.

Neither do I trust ANY magazine which depends on advertiser revenue for it's existence to be fully honest when reviewing products from their advertisers that could cause them to lose that advertising support.

Neither do I have any time for equipment where they deliberately use tailored distortion products to "enhance" their sound, like some do to make their products sound more like valve amplification.

Note that I am NOT saying that valve amplification is incapable of being up there with the best Solid Ste amplifiers.

Nothing you can say will ever convince me otherwise.

End of story !

 

Alex

[esldude]

Dennis

I have Zilch interest in Stereophile's subjective interpretation of the distortion measurements of equipment that can no longer claim to be transparent or true High Fidelity, no matter how pleasing it may sound to some.

Neither do I trust ANY magazine which depends on advertiser revenue for it's existence to be fully honest when reviewing products from their advertisers that could cause them to lose that advertising support.

Neither do I have any time for equipment where they deliberately use tailored distortion products to "enhance" their sound, like some do to make their products sound more like valve amplification.

Note that I am NOT saying that valve amplification is incapable of being up there with the best Solid Ste amplifiers.

Nothing you can say will ever convince me otherwise.

End of story !

 

Alex

 

Not trying to convince you Alex. I put forth the idea some distortion of just the right type is preferred by many. It was claimed I provided no evidence. Well there is some evidence in those reviews and measurements of that gear, and testimonials from thousands who like those designs that what I said has some validity. That measurably lower fidelity can get praise as it is subjectively perceived as higher fidelity instead. For some large number of people that is true.

[esldude]

I've tried to hear pre/post ringing in real life and can't quite figure out what it is. I think some of what he is saying could be tested with different filters in HQ Player?

 

Pre and post ringing occurs between 20khz and 22.05 khz for CD. That is why you can't hear it. For 96 khz it occurs between 40 khz and 48khz so definitely won't be heard.

 

Filters that create only post ringing typically will droop the frequency response of the top couple octaves. So between 5 khz and 20 khz response is different. That you can hear. In addition such filters will allow high frequency content to alias down into the below 20 khz range. Signals related to content will show up as a series of low level noise spikes that vary with level of the music. Those might be low, but also could be audible. The droop might sound a bit smoother, calmer and maybe darker. The aliasing might create a sense of dense spaciousness. So a smoother more spacious sound.

 

Basically, if we really wanted to 'go there' we'd have to have a reference/basic DAC with expected/known filters and some files with the distortions he is talking about and we could test.

 

There are DACs with multiple filter types to choose between.

[esldude]

For those who didn't bother to look here is a graph of the LAMM distortion vs power curve. The others from triode based designs (both push-pull and SET) are nearly the same. From John Atkinson's measurements at Stereophile.

 

[Michael Lavorgna]

Neither do I trust ANY magazine which depends on advertiser revenue for it's existence to be fully honest when reviewing products from their advertisers that could cause them to lose that advertising support.

...

Nothing you can say will ever convince me otherwise.

End of story !

 

Alex

While I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, since you said there's no point, I just want to point out that your assumption re. advertising influencing editorial is wrong. I'll only speak to AudioStream, which relies on ad revenue, and point out that as the Editor I only know who is an advertiser when I see their ads pop up on the site. I do not not how long their ads will run, what new ads are going to show up, etc. We have staff devoted to this task who have nothing to do with what I do.

 

Also, if you look at our reviews and compare them to ads, you'll see there is zero correlation.

[sandyk]

Michael

Sorry, but the only magazine that I fully trust these days is HiFi Critic which doesn't have any paid advertisements, but unfortunately, is not normally able to provide in-depth measurements.

Neither will most publications even get too far into the Computer Audio area. Very recently I offered to send John Atkinson some comparison CD-Rs that esldude (Dennis) currently has, that show that checksums alone do not guarantee that 2 "bit for bit" identical files necessarily sound exactly the same, and can in fact sound quite different. John wasn't interested, despite the ramifications it has even at the recording and duplication stages, and could also explain why people prefer CDs from certain pressing plants. The tracks on the comparison CD-Rs are adjoining tracks on the SAME MAM Gold CD-R

Martin Colloms has also confirmed this from CD-Rs that I sent him recently, but did not publish the results this time around.

 

Alex

 

P.S.

The last part of my comment that you quoted has nothing to do with the part about fully trusting reviews in advertiser supported magazines.

 

N.B.

This reply was directed to Michael ONLY, and my reply was NOT an invitation for others to get involved in that discussion.'

Chris

Please do not remove my reply before Michael has a chance to read it.

Thanks

Alex

[mmerrill99]

Not trying to convince you Alex. I put forth the idea some distortion of just the right type is preferred by many. It was claimed I provided no evidence. Well there is some evidence in those reviews and measurements of that gear, and testimonials from thousands who like those designs that what I said has some validity. That measurably lower fidelity can get praise as it is subjectively perceived as higher fidelity instead. For some large number of people that is true.

 

You're trying to convince someone!

You posted links to the Lamm & another SET trying to convince us of this statement:

One way to embellish the sound to many is a device that has maybe a tenth or so percent distortion at -30 db. which rises to maybe 3% at max level. A vivid, dense, dimensional sound results. It isn't in the recording. It can be pleasing. We don't need any new measures, nothing is missing to measure this. So where do you go from there once your subjective impression has preferred this to clean sound? You can take such a device, perhaps an SET amp, and improve it. Beef up the power supply or clean up the circuitry, but as you clean things up the effect goes away. You can say if some is good more is better thereby taking the other direction, but the result is an audio equivalent of a funhouse mirror. A mirror so distorted it isn't fun anymore.

 

Some huge logical disconnects here. To support your statement you need to show this part of your claim "You can take such a device, perhaps an SET amp, and improve it. Beef up the power supply or clean up the circuitry, but as you clean things up the effect goes away." - show the distortion is plotted lower & that the sound is perceived as inferior

 

Otherwise, all you have done is show some SET measurements & claimed that the distortion graph is the reason it is perceived to sound good without any proof or justification for this statement - no attempt to show that improving this distortion plot results in the "effect" going away.

 

As far as I can see, you continually make unsubstantiated claims in this thread - your post filter claims are again without evidence of audibility

[sandyk]

Dennis

Since when did you believe in any kind of subjective report that hasn't been verified by stringent Double Blind testing ?

 

You appear to use selected Subjective reports ONLY when they appear to confirm your own impressions as a result of verified measurements. You are also well aware that I also prefer to have good pertinent measurements as well as good subjective reports.

 

Alex

[Michael Lavorgna]

Michael

Sorry, but the only magazine that I fully trust these days is HiFi Critic which doesn't have any paid advertisements, but unfortunately, is not normally able to provide in-depth measurements.

Neither will most publications even get too far into the Computer Audio area. Very recently I offered to send John Atkinson some comparison CD-Rs that esldude (Dennis) currently has, that show that checksums alone do not guarantee that 2 "bit for bit" identical files necessarily sound exactly the same, and can in fact sound quite different. John wasn't interested, despite the ramifications it has even at the recording and duplication stages, and could also explain why people prefer CDs from certain pressing plants. The tracks on the comparison CD-Rs are adjoining tracks on the SAME MAM Gold CD-R

Martin Colloms has also confirmed this from CD-Rs that I sent him recently, but did not publish the results this time around.

 

Alex

 

P.S.

The last part of my comment that you quoted has nothing to do with the part about fully trusting reviews in advertiser supported magazines.

 

N.B.

This reply was directed to Michael ONLY, and my reply was NOT an invitation for others to get involved in that discussion.

But there is a need to right when making false accusations.