OBJECTIVELY, is there any sound improvement ??

[beerandmusic]

 

Objectively, is there any sound improvement using one of the high priced DAC over the many dozens of inexpensive network streamer dacs that are on the market today?

Not looking for any subjective opinions out there, only objective.  I know I have seen objective reviews of RME and PROJECT (sub 1K dacs) as good as (for sake of argument say "almost as good as") DACS costing 5 times the price.  And there has been speculation that ethernet is "as good as" (if not better) than using USB, and ethernet is just preferred by me (for reasons I also want to avoid), so my question is, OBJECTIVELY is there any "proof" that a low priced streamer (any of multiple dozens on the market today) cannot perform as good as (for sake of argument, lets just say "nearly as good as") a usb only dac costing multiple times more?

 

I have been out of the picture now for a few years with a move to our retirement home, and wish to scrub the market again.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

And for further clarification, I understand the subjective side, and fully appreciate the subjective side...e.g. although a SCHIIT dac may not measure well, it does sound VERY GOOD (yes, i have owned a couple), and I could hear a difference.  For the purpose of this thread, I am not looking for any subjective input, just objective input.  I just know my budget and i want ethernet (without having to daisy chain usb toys).   I will decide on an ethernet dac at some point after using my own subjective ears.....at this point I AM only looking for OBJECTIVE input.

[davide256]

@The Computer Audiophile.... Chris, can you move this to the objective forum where it belongs?

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

Done. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

28 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

Objectively, is there any sound improvement

You will first need to determine the level of audibility for your own ears. The you can look at measurements to see if they are below your own audible threshold. 
 

What do you mean by “sound improvement?”

 

That seems subjective but given your interest only in objective, I’m a bit confused. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

You will also need to find measurements of DACs using their different filters and external filters from an app like HQPlayer. 
 

Of course, after you determine what you can hear. None of these measurements may matter if they are dealing with stuff bellow your level of audibility. 

[beerandmusic]

10 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You will first need to determine the level of audibility for your own ears. The you can look at measurements to see if they are below your own audible threshold. 
 

What do you mean by “sound improvement?”

 

That seems subjective but given your interest only in objective, I’m a bit confused. 

 

I can hear differences in sound, but cannot say i like one sound more than another for all types of music.  Just one example, I may like Schiit more for rock, but i may like a DSD dac more for jazz.  I will ultimately have to decide which network dac i prefer overall better within my budget, but before i go down that path, i was just wondering if there was any objective improvements of one over another.  Miska and another gentleman on this site (i can't believe i forgot his name...someone that has his own site that caters to objective opinions), have been most instrumental in this area.

 

I just know that network dacs have exploded (as i susepcted would be the case) since i last looked at the market.

[The Computer Audiophile]

8 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

I can hear differences in sound, but cannot say i like one sound more than another for all types of music.  Just one example, I may like Schiit more for rock, but i may like a DSD dac more for jazz.  I will ultimately have to decide which network dac i prefer overall better within my budget, but before i go down that path, i was just wondering if there was any objective improvements of one over another.  Miska and another gentleman on this site (i can't believe i forgot his name...someone that has his own site that caters to objective opinions), have been most instrumental in this area.

 

I just know that network dacs have exploded (as i susepcted would be the case) since i last looked at the market.

My point was that you need to know your level of audibility. Without this, measurements don’t matter. For example, a DAC with -140 dB SNR looks better than a DAC with a score of -135 dB. But, if you can’t hear the difference, the measurements may do you a disservice.
 

If an amp goes to 11, it isn’t automatically better than an amp that goes to 10. 

[beerandmusic]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My point was that you need to know your level of audibility. Without this, measurements don’t matter. For example, a DAC with -140 dB SNR looks better than a DAC with a score of -135 dB. But, if you can’t hear the difference, the measurements may do you a disservice.
 

If an amp goes to 11, it isn’t automatically better than an amp that goes to 10. 

 

To who does a DAC with a -140db SNR look better than a DAC with a score of -135dB?

Which is why in my initial post i said "for sake of argument, lets just say "nearly as good as".

 

This goes back to my question about what would a perfect "analog output look like" as compared to one that is "nearly as good as".

 

Ultimately, the speakers are your interface to your ears., and everything before the input to the speakers doesn't matter provided that the analog input to the speakers is "nearly as good" as a "perfect" analog input to the speakers.

 

And where "nearly as good as" doesn't necessary mean more money spent, and there is no such thing as a "perfect" analog signal to the speakers.

 

It seems there isn't a way to accurately measure the input to the speaker that could justify one cost over another cost, that only subjective opinions can be made and not argued.

 

[One and a half]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

My point was that you need to know your level of audibility. Without this, measurements don’t matter. For example, a DAC with -140 dB SNR looks better than a DAC with a score of -135 dB. But, if you can’t hear the difference, the measurements may do you a disservice.
 

If an amp goes to 11, it isn’t automatically better than an amp that goes to 10. 

That's why looking at numbers only does not show the whole picture as all DACs which show their noise figures are posted 'in isolation' and not connected to anything. If both DACs were connected to a computer that emitted 30db (or more) of known noise, the end result would be very different indeed, dependent on how the DAC rejected that noise. It could be that the -135db SNR DAC could sound better than the other since its rejection (of noise) has a better implementation.

By noise, I mean common mode noise frequencies (SMPS stuff 100kHz-220kHz) that's coupled mainly with raw and un-decrappified (if that's a word??) USB signals.

[The Computer Audiophile]

34 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

To who does a DAC with a -140db SNR look better than a DAC with a score of -135dB?

Which is why in my initial post i said "for sake of argument, lets just say "nearly as good as".

 

This goes back to my question about what would a perfect "analog output look like" as compared to one that is "nearly as good as".

 

Ultimately, the speakers are your interface to your ears., and everything before the input to the speakers doesn't matter provided that the analog input to the speakers is "nearly as good" as a "perfect" analog input to the speakers.

 

And where "nearly as good as" doesn't necessary mean more money spent, and there is no such thing as a "perfect" analog signal to the speakers.

 

It seems there isn't a way to accurately measure the input to the speaker that could justify one cost over another cost, that only subjective opinions can be made and not argued.

 

OK, I’m out. I hope someone else can help. 

[AudioDoctor]

yes, but I don't have any objective data to show you, but boy was it obvious immediately...

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, One and a half said:

That's why looking at numbers only does not show the whole picture as all DACs which show their noise figures are posted 'in isolation' and not connected to anything. If both DACs were connected to a computer that emitted 30db (or more) of known noise, the end result would be very different indeed, dependent on how the DAC rejected that noise. It could be that the -135db SNR DAC could sound better than the other since its rejection (of noise) has a better implementation.

By noise, I mean common mode noise frequencies (SMPS stuff 100kHz-220kHz) that's coupled mainly with raw and un-decrappified (if that's a word??) USB signals.

 

Aren't most modern day DACS capable of isolating PC noise (to an audible extent), especially in the case where I am suggesting a network dac?

[AudioDoctor]

3 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

 

Aren't most modern day DACS capable of isolating PC noise (to an audible extent), especially in the case where I am suggesting a network dac?

 

If that were true there wouldn't be a need for the USB De-Crapifiers and Optical Network Players...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

Objectively, is there any sound improvement using one of the high priced DAC over the many dozens of inexpensive network streamer dacs that are on the market today?

 

If you mean measurements, then nobody knows, until such time as objective measurements correlate meaningfully with perceived sound improvement.

[beerandmusic]

27 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

If you mean measurements, then nobody knows, until such time as objective measurements  correlate meaningfully with perceived sound improvement.

 

well noise on the output could be meaningful,...is there any other measurement besides noise that could be peformed that could measure accuracy of the analog output compared to the digital input?

 

Even if we started with a VERY simple digital input, i would think we would know what a "perfectly accurate" analog output should look like? And how different dacs output would have better/worse output signals?

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, beerandmusic said:

 

well noise on the output could be meaningful,...is there any other measurement besides noise that could be peformed that could measure accuracy of the analog output compared to the digital input?

 

Even if we started with a VERY simple digital input, i would think we would know what a "perfectly accurate" analog output should look like? And how different dacs output would have better/worse output signals?

 

 

Well yes, that's the theory, but no-one seems to be able to do it yet, as in meaningfully correlate it with what we hear

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well yes, that's the theory, but no-one seems to be able to do it yet, as in meaningfully correlate it with what we hear

 

I guess another important measurement would be THD, but "everyone" advertises near perfect THD, and noise would be easy to see, so there must be something that could be easily seen on the audio output signal that would explain differences of the output when our ears think they hear big diffences by swapping out a piece of gear on the input chain, leaving the amplificaiton, speakers, and the media/digital source the same? (again, think network dac forgetting usb and toys and think NO upsampling or software upsampling to eliminate that from an argument point as well).

[mfsoa]

For the objective numerical value you are looking for, what are the units?

Like, "frequency response in Hz" or "THD in percent" or "detected by X percent of listeners"...

 

Maybe you have this information already. Seems to me that if one doesn't know beforehand which objective measures relate to audible results then one is asking for objective information that therefore does not exist.

 

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

I found this very good related article worth a read.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-which-measurements-matter.html

 

who suggests as i suspected that given amplification and room are in order that measurements of "modern day gear" are somewhat a non-issue...so i might as well just get something that checks my functionality boxes within my budget that sounds "good enough".   To my ears, besides amplifier and speakers, i rarely heard significant differences using ethernet, provided i was n the sweet spot and did room eq.

[pkane2001]

 

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I found this very good related article worth a read.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-which-measurements-matter.html

 

who suggests as i suspected that given amplification and room are in order that measurements of "modern day gear" are somewhat a non-issue...so i might as well just get something that checks my functionality boxes within my budget that sounds "good enough".   To my ears, besides amplifier and speakers, i rarely heard significant differences using ethernet, provided i was n the sweet spot and did room eq.

 

I know ASR is a dirty word around here, but there is a good thread there that tried to address something similar.

 

 

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I found this very good related article worth a read.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-which-measurements-matter.html

 

who suggests as i suspected that given amplification and room are in order that measurements of "modern day gear" are somewhat a non-issue...so i might as well just get something that checks my functionality boxes within my budget that sounds "good enough".   To my ears, besides amplifier and speakers, i rarely heard significant differences using ethernet, provided i was n the sweet spot and did room eq.

 

The measurements that count are those that provide information about how well low level information is reproduced; effectively, the resolution of fine detail in the waveform, amidst large scale excursions of the signal.

 

"Modern day gear" is intrinsically capable of working to a very high standard, even that on the extreme budget end of the spectrum - what I'm currently playing with shows this in spades; only requiring a very short warm up time before the initial relatively small, lacking in depth, but still pleasant presentation develops many of the characteristics of Big Sound. Now, it would be quite interesting to be able to capture what's happening in the output from the speaker drivers, that's changing, that correlates to that subjective behaviour. Unfortunately, I suspect none of what @Archimago points to plays any role here - finding out what matters in this sense is still largely unexplored territory; in the ToDo basket, 😉.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 

I know ASR is a dirty word around here, but there is a good thread there that tried to address something similar.

 

 

 

 

I didn't 'study' the thread but from what I read it is a somewhat arbitrary set of guidelines. I say somewhat because the guy making the offerings acknowledges certain assumptions and the site owner also appears to endorse these as only guidelines. All of which is fine and a basis for further research.

 

Certainly, as I have also posited, things like DR measurement should be able to be correlated with perceived listening experience. Many other measurements do not have an established correlation, as yet, but I am open to further education.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

I found this very good related article worth a read.

 

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2020/03/musings-which-measurements-matter.html

 

who suggests as i suspected that given amplification and room are in order that measurements of "modern day gear" are somewhat a non-issue...so i might as well just get something that checks my functionality boxes within my budget that sounds "good enough".   To my ears, besides amplifier and speakers, i rarely heard significant differences using ethernet, provided i was n the sweet spot and did room eq.

 

Well, for me, this is an opinion piece. It really doesn't establish how any particulate measurement correlates with a perceived listening experience.

 

After a lengthy pre-amble the author chooses soundstage to address measurements and  its perception.The guts of it are...

 

<Quote> "Finally then, when it comes to REPRODUCTION equipment and a higher level phenomenon like "soundstage", then we have to think about whether the source device is "bit perfect" and distortion-free, whether the amplifier is accurate with precise channel balance, and if the speakers are likewise well-balanced across the audible spectrum, able to reproduce the dynamics without distortion, and have adequate time-domain performance (ideally precisely time-aligned). Furthermore, we do need to consider the room quality, plus choices made like how far apart the speakers are and details like tilt and toe-in appropriate for the device. Of course, the audiophile then should be seated in the "sweet spot". If we do all these things, then we will simply recover (REPRODUCE) the "soundstage" that was embedded in the PRODUTION, hopefully PERCEIVED with high quality ears and mind!
In summary... My experience has been that measurements correlate nicely with sound quality already once you appreciate and account for the production quality, have your gear and room reasonably sorted out, and appreciate the perceptual limitations of one's own ears and mind."</Quote>

 

So, apparently the "measurements that matter" for soundstage is everything. I get that there are multiple influences and that all those factors matter. It still doesn't inform me what specific measurement in the audio signal influences the perception of soundstage. As often touted, if its not in the evoking stimulus in the first place, how can it be perceived (excluding for the moment central neurological modulation disorders etc).From a neurobiological perspective equating the audio signal with evoking stimulus is probably not valid but for the purposes of the exercise i am running with it.  If it is in the audio signal, what is it?

 

The real answer appears to be we don't know. I'm okay with that. What I find dubious is the assumption that provided that the known test parameters that have been chosen and measured, like distortion, cross talk, whatever are all okay then all else is also good (and specifically soundstage is good in this case). It may be as close as we can get at this stage but IMO it remains an unscientific extrapolation IF one asserts that it directly correlates meaningfully with perceived soundstage. The corollary is that, all other things being equal, these offered measurements will not tell us which component is a better soundstage performer.

 

 

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Well, for me, this is an opinion piece. It really doesn't establish how any particulate measurement correlates with a perceived listening experience.

 

After a lengthy pre-amble the author chooses soundstage to address measurements and  its perception.The guts of it are...

 

<Quote> "Finally then, when it comes to REPRODUCTION equipment and a higher level phenomenon like "soundstage", then we have to think about whether the source device is "bit perfect" and distortion-free, whether the amplifier is accurate with precise channel balance, and if the speakers are likewise well-balanced across the audible spectrum, able to reproduce the dynamics without distortion, and have adequate time-domain performance (ideally precisely time-aligned). Furthermore, we do need to consider the room quality, plus choices made like how far apart the speakers are and details like tilt and toe-in appropriate for the device. Of course, the audiophile then should be seated in the "sweet spot". If we do all these things, then we will simply recover (REPRODUCE) the "soundstage" that was embedded in the PRODUTION, hopefully PERCEIVED with high quality ears and mind!
In summary... My experience has been that measurements correlate nicely with sound quality already once you appreciate and account for the production quality, have your gear and room reasonably sorted out, and appreciate the perceptual limitations of one's own ears and mind."</Quote>

 

So, apparently the "measurements that matter" for soundstage is everything. I get that there are multiple influences and that all those factors matter. It still doesn't inform me what specific measurement in the audio signal influences the perception of soundstage. As often touted, if its not in the evoking stimulus in the first place, how can it be perceived (excluding for the moment central neurological modulation disorders etc).From a neurobiological perspective equating the audio signal with evoking stimulus is probably not valid but for the purposes of the exercise i am running with it.  If it is in the audio signal, what is it?

 

The real answer appears to be we don't know. I'm okay with that. What I find dubious is the assumption that provided that the known test parameters that have been chosen and measured, like distortion, cross talk, whatever are all okay then all else is also good (and specifically soundstage is good in this case). It may be as close as we can get at this stage but IMO it remains an unscientific extrapolation IF one asserts that it directly correlates meaningfully with perceived soundstage. The corollary is that, all other things being equal, these offered measurements will not tell us which component is a better soundstage performer.

 

 

i have read about soundstage before and it is more dependent on the original recording, speakers, and room corrections than "good enough" measurements of modern day dacs...