HOW DOES A PERFECT DAC ANALOG SIGNAL LOOK DIFFERENT THAN A CHEAP DAC

[esldude]

What you are describing seems to fit pretty well with the idea modern DACs are audibly transparent and therefore equivalent or very close to being equivalent.  If you are having such difficulty hearing the difference it must necessarily be small assuming your gear otherwise is pretty decent.  People so badly want to believe.  I wonder what it would take to convince them there isn't anything going on of great significance.  Does everyone truly believe there is simply no limit to what humans can hear?  Do they not believe at least in principle it would be possible to make something perform with enough fidelity it can't sound more accurate?  It can sound different, but not more accurate. 

[esldude]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

As long as I can hear a vast difference between live music and even the very best audiophile systems, I would suggest that the human ear/brain system is quite capable of discerning differences.

You are simply confusing the point.  That live music sounds different than audiophile stereo systems in no way invalidates my point about DACs.  They could be (and I believe are) transparent to the input signal.  Two speakers still aren't going to recreate the live sound field.  So no your experience says nothing about your ability to discern DACs.

[esldude]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

The point is that elsdude seemed to be suggesting that audio systems are already so good that the human ear/brain system cannot discern any differences.  This is absurd as the delta of performance between even the best systems and live music is still quite large and easily to discern.

I did not suggest audio is so good you can't tell the difference between live and reproduced.  Nice way to change the subject and pretend you win.  Speakers obviously sound different from each other.  Amps some though much less so.  Otherwise unless someone intentionally designs a sound character or designs incompetent gear there isn't much there to hear. 

[esldude]

https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/dac3-introducing-the-new-es9028pro-converter

 

You seem sold on these DAC chips.  Read this paper about things it brings to the table like THD compensation.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, barrows said:

Els, please go back and read your previous post, you made no distinctions there.  But, hahaha, it appears that you may be a lower awareness type human, As you presuppose there is some kind of competition here?  Just pushing your buttons a bit, no real need to name call, sorry.

Anyway, indeed I can easily hear differences between DACs, but I do agree that those differences can be minute, in comparisons to the differences between say, speakers (or microphones on the other side of the recording chain).  Even the very best speakers are highly compromised devices.

In fact, right now I am listen testing a handful of different USB cables for use in Sonore's demo system at RMAF.  This experience reinforces for me the simple fact that even with USB cables there are easily noticeable differences in sonic performance, anyone who could not hear these things is not a discerning listener at all.  This is a long process as I will only compare two at a time (of course), and although the differences are (often) easy to hear, determining which cable is better is much more difficult.

Sorry to digress guys... and no, we do not need to get into (another) cable debate here!

No competition here.  You have let everyone know about low class behaviour plus a lack of reading comprehension on your part.  You definitively win on those fronts. I'll conjecture your USB cable acumen is of equally high quality. 

[esldude]

16 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

can you find a used one for $1500?  Does a "usb toy" for this dac improve SQ?

 

The Benchmark can be had used for $1500, is very, very good at isolating itself from the USB input.  Uses the ESS DAC.  Does DSD.  And has near SOTA performance.  Uses balanced pairs of the DACs like you have been going on about.  Seems right up your alley.

 

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/da-converters-benchmark-dac2-hgc-dac-d-a-converter-black-2892-2017-08-14-digital

 

Summing up the Benchmark DAC2 HGC's measured performance is easy: It's simply superb.—John Atkinson
 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/benchmark-dac2-hgc-da-processorheadphone-amplifier-measurements

 

https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-dac2-hgc-digital-to-analog-audio-converter

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Charles Hansen said:

 

Hi Mansr,

 

Sorry, but ten or fifteen years ago, that is not what any dictionary would say. However, they are letting words change their meaning due to massive misuse by the general population.

 

"Comprise" means "wholly inclusive" So the following sentences would be correct:

 

French bread comprises flour, water, yeast, and salt. (Where every single ingredient must be listed.)

French bread includes flour and water.

French bread includes flour, water, yeast, and salt. (Where the list may or may not be wholly inclusive.)

French bread is composed of flour, water, yeast, and salt.

French bread is composed of flour and water. (Where the list may or may not be wholly inclusive.)

 

In contrast:

French bread is comprised of (anything people want to say or write) is just nonsense with no meaning. It is no different than saying "French bread is included of flour and water." One would overlook this kind of misuse from a non-native speaker, but in my opinion it is a big mistake to do this for native speakers, especially for a word with no direct replacement.

 

But for too many people, the words "comprise" and "compose" sound so similar that they simply substitute one for the other. Apparently they think that the less common word "comprise" makes them sound "more educated" than the common word "compose". So they make fools of themselves by misusing "comprise". After many decades of this, the dictionaries begin to accept the new usage, one-by-one. And eventually the word "comprise" loses its original unique meaning, with no other word to replace it. The typical race to the bottom, simply because people tend to be too lazy to educate themselves.

 

Hope this helps,

Charles Hansen

Or maybe you need a little language feedback. Only dead languages are static.