Ralf11 Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 What set of measurements can a consumer look at to judge the SQ they will get when they buy a DAC? and by DAC, I mean the box - i.e. including the analog amplification (like a pre-amp) not just a D>A chip If there is no such set of measurements, feel free to post that and explain why (or how you reached that conclusion). This is NOT a question about whether there must exist or may exist such a possible set of measurements, but a practical one. Link to comment
emcdade Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 The ones that follow Herb Reicherts review of the DAC in stereophile. miguelito 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 please list them & state which DAC Link to comment
sandyk Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 56 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: What set of measurements can a consumer look at to judge the SQ they will get when they buy a DAC? and by DAC, I mean the box - i.e. including the analog amplification (like a pre-amp) not just a D>A chip If there is no such set of measurements, feel free to post that and explain why (or how you reached that conclusion). This is NOT a question about whether there must exist or may exist such a possible set of measurements, but a practical one. I doubt that there are any that can be any more than a rough guide. In May 2005,John Atkinson in Stereophile posted this summing up of their review of the Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 " Considered overall,Musical Fidelity's X-DAC V3 offers stunningly good measured performance that is even more commendable when you consider it's very affordable price - John Atkinson" ( I have a copy of that review , complete with measurements) A couple of friends and myself purchased them, and found they were quite lacklustre, but did respond well to extensive modifications in the power supply area especially , the addition of a couple of voltage regulators for the analogue section which was unregulated, and an improved Xtal Oscillator section. 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
Popular Post mansr Posted December 10, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2019 53 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: What set of measurements can a consumer look at to judge the SQ they will get when they buy a DAC? Frequency response, noise level, and distortion go a long way. If all of them are sufficiently close to perfect, the DAC will be audibly transparent. When the imperfections rise to the level of audibility, things get hairier. The measurements may tell us that there is an audible difference, but how this difference will be perceived is much more difficult to judge. Some may even find the distortion pleasing. Thankfully, with DACs there are many transparent choices available, so we can simply pick one of those and use a dedicated distortion box (equaliser, tube amp, or whatever) if we so desire. tmtomh, DuckToller and esldude 1 2 Link to comment
sandyk Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 7 minutes ago, mansr said: so we can simply pick one of those and use a dedicated distortion box (equaliser, tube amp, or whatever) if we so desire. LOL ! 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
Ralf11 Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 distortion as in THD? or IM? or TIM, slew rate...? Link to comment
semente Posted December 10, 2019 Share Posted December 10, 2019 22 minutes ago, Ralf11 said: distortion as in THD? or IM? or TIM, slew rate...? I think the first two, usually go hand in hand. "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted December 10, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2019 Apart from the already listed standard ones, shape of the oversampling filter and analog filter roll-offs, correlated and non-correlated in- and out-of-band distortion and noise components, phase response, TIM, step overshoot, modulator behavior, etc. tmtomh and The Computer Audiophile 2 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted December 10, 2019 Author Share Posted December 10, 2019 Miska - is there any subset of the 9 you listed such that if X is below some level then you would not need to look at Y? Link to comment
Popular Post firedog Posted December 10, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2019 2 hours ago, mansr said: Frequency response, noise level, and distortion go a long way. If all of them are sufficiently close to perfect, the DAC will be audibly transparent. When the imperfections rise to the level of audibility, things get hairier. The measurements may tell us that there is an audible difference, but how this difference will be perceived is much more difficult to judge. Some may even find the distortion pleasing. Thankfully, with DACs there are many transparent choices available, so we can simply pick one of those and use a dedicated distortion box (equaliser, tube amp, or whatever) if we so desire. Does "audibly transparent" mean all DACs that fit the criteria sound the same? If so, then is the position that there's pretty much no reason to spend more than about $500 on a DAC - as there are full featured DACs at that price that are considered "audibly transparent". tmtomh and Ralf11 2 Main listening (small home office): Main setup: Surge protector +>Isol-8 Mini sub Axis Power Strip/Isolation>QuietPC Low Noise Server>Roon (Audiolense DRC)>Stack Audio Link II>Kii Control>Kii Three (on their own electric circuit) >GIK Room Treatments. Secondary Path: Server with Audiolense RC>RPi4 or analog>Cayin iDAC6 MKII (tube mode) (XLR)>Kii Three . Bedroom: SBTouch to Cambridge Soundworks Desktop Setup. Living Room/Kitchen: Ropieee (RPi3b+ with touchscreen) + Schiit Modi3E to a pair of Morel Hogtalare. All absolute statements about audio are false Link to comment
mansr Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 8 minutes ago, firedog said: Does "audibly transparent" mean all DACs that fit the criteria sound the same? If so, then is the position that there's pretty much no reason to spend more than about $500 on a DAC - as there are full featured DACs at that price that are considered "audibly transparent". The only reasons to pay more are for additional features or aesthetics. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 18 minutes ago, firedog said: 1. Does "audibly transparent" mean all DACs that fit the criteria sound the same? 2. If so, then is the position that there's pretty much no reason to spend more than about $500 on a DAC - as there are full featured DACs at that price that are considered "audibly transparent". 1. Yes 2. As it so happens... that is about what I paid for each of my DACs (one ESS; one R2R). BUT, are we certain that there is no SQ increment? Or that a blind test would show no detectable differences between say a $600 DAC and a $6,000 DAC? The claims are not based on blind tests are they? Only on listening impressions, or maybe listening comparisons? Link to comment
Popular Post Miska Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, firedog said: Does "audibly transparent" mean all DACs that fit the criteria sound the same? If so, then is the position that there's pretty much no reason to spend more than about $500 on a DAC - as there are full featured DACs at that price that are considered "audibly transparent". For some reason, these "audibly transparent" DACs sound different. Even the ones that use same DAC chip. No problem finding measurable differences, but of course some people keep claiming something is inaudible based on narrow subset of measurements. Like on typical ASR style set most DAC chip digital filter choices would be stated to be "audibly transparent", yet they sound different and are easy to measure to be different too, they just don't affect SINAD figure... TheWallsHaveEars, 4est, tmtomh and 8 others 8 3 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Miska Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 1 hour ago, Ralf11 said: Miska - is there any subset of the 9 you listed such that if X is below some level then you would not need to look at Y? No, they are pretty independent... miguelito 1 Signalyst - Developer of HQPlayer Pulse & Fidelity - Software Defined Amplifiers Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 5 hours ago, Ralf11 said: What set of measurements can a consumer look at to judge the SQ they will get when they buy a DAC? and by DAC, I mean the box - i.e. including the analog amplification (like a pre-amp) not just a D>A chip If there is no such set of measurements, feel free to post that and explain why (or how you reached that conclusion). No set of measurements that I'm aware of will tell the consumer how the DAC's going to sound in their system. One reason for this is that measurements are about the DAC in isolation. In a real system the DAC (being not an ideal DAC) is affected to some degree by its environment. emcdade and fas42 1 1 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 19 minutes ago, opus101 said: No set of measurements that I'm aware of will tell the consumer how the DAC's going to sound in their system. One reason for this is that measurements are about the DAC in isolation. In a real system the DAC (being not an ideal DAC) is affected to some degree by its environment. I've had an engineer, who designed some of the tests currently used to measure components, tell me the exact same thing. miguelito 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 13 hours ago, Ralf11 said: distortion as in THD? or IM? or TIM, slew rate...? Try Paul's (pkane) neat software. Distort. It lets you set distortion profiles to process a file and see if you can hear it. https://distortaudio.org/ My broad guidelines would be if THD is less than -60 db, IMD is less than -70 db, and noise is low enough you don't hear it with your gear, then you'll find it transparent. Oh, and if frequency response is +/- .1 db to 20 khz. Most often real differences heard in audio are FR differences. Plenty of gear doesn't quite meet the FR spec, and nearly any serious stuff meets the other guidelines. pkane2001 and tmtomh 2 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
semente Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 I am somewhat suspicious of the established or convetionally accepted thresholds of audibility for different types of distortion... And I don't think that short A/B comparisons are effective either, except for determining crude differences. I also truly believe that listeners should be trained. This talk is an interesting starting point for a discussion on the subject: "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Popular Post esldude Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 7 minutes ago, semente said: I am somewhat suspicious of the established or convetionally accepted thresholds of audibility for different types of distortion... And I don't think that short A/B comparisons are effective either, except for determining crude differences. I also truly believe that listeners should be trained. This talk is an interesting starting point for a discussion on the subject: I'll point out for the millionth time A/B comparisons don't have to be short. If you try it, I think you'll find short works better. But you can do such things for any length of time you wish. And try Pkane's Distort it is educational. Ralf11, pkane2001, Arpiben and 1 other 3 1 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
mansr Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 9 hours ago, opus101 said: No set of measurements that I'm aware of will tell the consumer how the DAC's going to sound in their system. One reason for this is that measurements are about the DAC in isolation. In a real system the DAC (being not an ideal DAC) is affected to some degree by its environment. When I measure a DAC, I do it with a realistic load. If nothing else, the ADC is close enough to a typical (pre)amp input that it should behave about the same. I'll also check if it does something funny driving an unrealistic load. Unless the DAC is unusually sensitive to the load or your preamp is unusually difficult to drive, standard measurements should be representative. One thing that might differ between the test bench and your system is ground loops. If you have problem with those, you'll get hum or elevated noise levels. Frequency response and distortion are not affected. tmtomh 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, mansr said: One thing that might differ between the test bench and your system is ground loops. If you have problem with those, you'll get hum or elevated noise levels. Frequency response and distortion are not affected. I was thinking of ground loops there - the elevated noise levels won't necessarily be apparent without music playing because the noise is likely ultrasonic, originating (likely, not exclusively) from SMPSUs. Having ultrasonic noise in a system most certainly is going to cause increased intermodulation distortion with music playing. Link to comment
semente Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 29 minutes ago, esldude said: I'll point out for the millionth time A/B comparisons don't have to be short. If you try it, I think you'll find short works better. But you can do such things for any length of time you wish. And try Pkane's Distort it is educational. In my opinion and experience long listening is better for more aspects of performance. Hardly anyone uses pink noise instead of music... I don't mean long duration A/B'ing, just evaluating different aspects of performance over a long period of time. You are comparing your reference (the system you habitually listen to) with a change to one of the elements which compose that system. I don't think that doing it in a different system/room is as effective. This: http://matrixhifi.com/ "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
esldude Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, semente said: In my opinion and experience long listening is better for more aspects of performance. Hardly anyone uses pink noise instead of music... I don't mean long duration A/B'ing, just evaluating different aspects of performance over a long period of time. You are comparing your reference (the system you habitually listen to) with a change to one of the elements which compose that system. I don't think that doing it in a different system/room is as effective. This: http://matrixhifi.com/ You can do this as long as you want wherever you prefer with your own system. Your just saying you aren't going to do it that way. You are going to listen along as you please in an uncontrolled manner and see how you feel about it over time. That is fine, but it is poor methodology. 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
semente Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, esldude said: You can do this as long as you want wherever you prefer with your own system. Your just saying you aren't going to do it that way. You are going to listen along as you please in an uncontrolled manner and see how you feel about it over time. That is fine, but it is poor methodology. No, I will use particular recordings to identify particular shortcomings (frequency response and extension, low-level detail retrieval and compression at loud levels, harmonic and intermodulation distortion, cabinet/driver resonances and transient response of sub-base for speakers). Observation can be performed in an acceptably controlled manner, like measuring with one's ears. And I try to correlate my listening impression with measureements when they're available. I don't go about tasting how my favourite music sounds with this or that particular DAC or pair of speakers... "Wow, the soundstage is much wider with this one". Superdad 1 "Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256) Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now