Jump to content
IGNORED

What Measurements Allow You to Judge SQ in a DAC??


Recommended Posts

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
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
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
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
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.

Link to comment
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
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. 

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

Link to comment

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
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.

Link to comment
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
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
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
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".

"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

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...