Worlds Greatest DAC and what it does differently

[beerandmusic]

Another thought popped into my head...i wish it would stop...I have sleeping disorders.

 

Anyway...

 

Ok so barrows conceded that if electronics were perfect a 44.1K dac would be sufficient.

I want to take it up a notch to 24bit 96K DAC just to be safe...so moving forward, this i what the worlds greatest dac will be.

 

Now we have to compensate for "imperfect electronics"...

 

but wait...it is already conceded that the dac already recieves the bits perfectly, and the only inputs to a dac are

 

A) perfect bits

B) reference voltage

C) noise

 

hmmmm....

ok since i don't like using DLNA (quirky, ff/rew and a few other idiosyncracies) and will NEVER consider subscription based software), instead of a streamer, couldnt we have a usb->enet->usb interface or some other way to isolate "imperfect electronics" of the pc since spdif supposedly has it's own issues?

 

using a usb->enet->usb, it probably would not be possible to control it then though with existing software? ughghg...

 

i just want the functionality of usb, but with the SQ of streaming...

also, why is it that you don't have quick ff/rew functionality with enet like you do with usb?

 

Just a random thought...back to bed...

 

[beerandmusic]

^^^^i am awake now....boy i think of a lot of stupid stuff when i am half awake...next time i will be smarter to post than when i am half awake (grin)

[beerandmusic]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I'm pretty sure even in THD frequency distribution figure within audible spectrum differences are well over 10 dB. And then when you take into account things like different digital and analog filter roll-offs and differences in phase responses within audible spectrum.

 

this is pretty greek to me...

 

question again is, assuming

 

1) original 1khz sine wave recorded at 44.1k

2) all hardware is the same but the dac

3) would there be any measurable differences (within the audible spectrum) between 2 different competent dacs one being pcm 192K and the other upsampled to quad rate dsd at the "analog out"

 

edited I meant to include within the audible spectrum.

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

96k is not enough for proper reconstruction with analog filters. Even very early CD players from Philips used 4x upsampling filters to play at 176.4k rate. And these are still far from perfect.

 

96k may be OK'ish for delivery format, but not for running conversion section. These are two different things.

 

ok...lets go with 24bit PCM 192K then?  That's really what i am considering anyway.

[beerandmusic]

25 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Of course yes. If you look close enough, you can find differences between two DACs of same model, thanks to component tolerances.

 

within the audible spectrum that can be heard?

[beerandmusic]

3 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

Yes

pkane seemed to disagree in one of the first posts?  Is he incorrect or misunderstanding what you or I are saying/asking?  If I understood him correctly He suggested you are "vastly exaggerating" ?

[beerandmusic]

It doesn't sound like dacs do their job very well if they cannot reproduce the analog out with consistency and relative accuracy, especially for a simple 1k sine wave?

[beerandmusic]

22 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

As I said earlier, when you get PCM sampling rate at about 1.5 MHz, then R2R ladders with typical analog section begin to look decent. But that is not easy thing to get working properly in first place due to settling time problems at high precision. But luckily there are digital domain tricks that you can do to help the DAC perform better.

 

PCM at 1.5mhz?

when you say digital domain tricks, that sounds like you are referring to within the dac?

I am talking about measurements at the analog output of the DAC, after all digital to analog conversion is done

 

[beerandmusic]

ok thanks for taking the time to share.

 

When i first questioned you, i said for comparative purposes, i wanted to use a schiit for pcm and a rme adi-2 for dsd (because those are 2 dacs that I am considering), and wanted to know if there would be anything that is audible between the 2 assuming most of what i listen to is 44.1k.

 

I used to think that higher resolution would mean "more music", but recently i read that the upsampling is only to push reconstruction noise out of the hearing spectrum.  (maybe i am not phrasing this correctly but that is what i recall). 

And even barrows suggested that a 44.1K dac would be sufficient if not for "imperfect electronics".  I also believed that i read that by upsampling to 192K would be sufficient enough to push this reconstruction noise out of the hearing spectrum (again, i may be using wrong verbiage).  I am sure I will never understand this stuff enough to make a "logical" decision, but i am trying.

 

I keep going back to the purpose of a dac is nothing more than to reconstruct the original analog signal that was converted to digital, and that if a DAC does it's job, they should sound the same....

 

 

 

 

 

[beerandmusic]

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

True, and that's why I said 'excluding some NOS R2R types'. I wasn't aware that we were discussing a specific DAC here, but DACs in general. Maybe I missed this part. 

 

34 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

True, and that's why I said 'excluding some NOS R2R types'. I wasn't aware that we were discussing a specific DAC here, but DACs in general. Maybe I missed this part. 

 

so to clarify pkane, are you saying and confirming with MISKA that schiit bifrost mb DAC does have problems and that there are audible differences at the analog output (even with a 1k sine wave)?

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

To me, a 1kHz that looks like an obvious staircase isn't a proper reproduction of a sinewave. 

I would have to agree with that, and wouldn't want a schiit DAC if it isnt capable of producing even a simple sine wave...i am just surprised that I have never heard this before...even if it does sound better than anything else i have hooked up to my pc...the hunt will continue.

[beerandmusic]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:51 AM, barrows said:

My feeling is that there is some "magic" with DSD 256 (and perhaps above).  But of course this is not really "magic" at all.  High sample rates, including high rates of PCM-like quality allow for relatively simple actual conversion paths.  This is how most Sigma Delta style DACs work.  Tthese high rates also allow for even discrete (non chip based) converters, which give designers additional freedom (if they are clever enough) to develop a unique converter topology which may offer advantages over standard chips.

For chips, when one looks at, say, ESS-it oversamples to a very high rate (similar to DSD rates) and 5, 6, or 7 bits, and then converts to analog from this very high rate.  dCS uses a similar approach, but they do the final conversion into analog using a discrete converter.  Chord, again uses a similar approach, again using a (similar to dCS) discrete final converter stage.

Jussi's (AKA miska) DSC-1 DAC design, now adopted in various different iterations by Holo Audio, Denafrips, T+A, among others, is a DSD based discrete converter stage designed to be fed by a very high rate single bit signal, generally DSD 256 and above.

Mola Mola, in the excellent Tambaqui DAC, uses a variation on the discrete converter theme as well, with the final converter stage being a multi-element switch and resistor set up, similar to DSC-1.  Same with Playback Designs, and I suppose Emm Labs...

I am listening as I type to Bricasti M3 DAC, which uses a different, discrete converter stage design of their own, essentially also based on a high speed switch and filter, for single bit DSD input only.

 

Most of these different DACs sound different, but I have experience now with 4 different single bit based DACs, all of which have used some variation on a discrete converter stage.  All of them have seemed to share, in differing degrees, a quality of conversion which sounds more natural, and easy going to me.  I do not mean that they are rolled off, or "soft" sounding, but that they sound more like music, and less like an electronic representation thereof.

 

There are a lot of really good DACs out there these days, but for me, I do seem to prefer the DAC which use discrete conversion approaches, with high rate DSD input.  This can be done on a chip as well, as with AKM DAC chips' "direct DSD" path option.  But, when a designer goes discrete, they have control of the performance, and they may be able to do better than what is available on a generic DAC chip (or not, as the case may be).  

 

Can you expand more on what "discrete" conversion is, and what the other solution is besides discrete? And how would we know if it uses discrete or "non-discrete"?  Does pro-ject, rme, teac, mojo, or any dac below $1K use discrete? 

[beerandmusic]

On 6/12/2020 at 2:14 PM, Miska said:

 

Of course yes. If you look close enough, you can find differences between two DACs of same model, thanks to component tolerances.

 

Ok, thanks for sharing...i think i understand a "little better" now....is this correct::

 

I guess this is where i was going with this thread, that from a "logical" perspective, 24bit/192k should be MORE than sufficient to fully capture and accurately reproduce all recorded music that we can possibly hear.  Unfortunately, as Barrows points out, that whereas logically that may be true, but because of "imperfect electronics" that it is not true, and that higher sampling rates don't give you more music, but it helps creating the analog output with less noise than would be possible at lower rates.

 

Ok this brings me to another question...can HQP play directly to a DLNA renderer without NAA? (not sure I am using the right terms...i know i can play music from DLNA music server on qnap from jriver to my marantz streamer...can i play from hqplayer to marantz streamer?

 

[beerandmusic]

2 hours ago, Miska said:

 

(DLNA is sort of obsolete specification for high quality audio, it just specifies bunch of mandatory and optional formats, mandatory ones being such as 128 kbps MP3)

 

MISKA>> mandatory ones being such as 128 kbps MP3

huh?  i dont get this statement?

I can stream DSD256 via dlna..i have been doing so for over 5 years...or are you just saying you can only do somethings with mp3 files?  I have replaced all my mp3's with wav or dsd.

[beerandmusic]

On 6/10/2020 at 11:31 AM, pkane2001 said:

 

If you are looking at the differences in the human-audible range, these "VAST" differences would be a VAST exaggeration. A 1kHz sine wave reproduced by most competently designed DACs (possibly excluding some NOS R2R types) will look like a 1kHz analog sine wave. You'll need to zoom in with a magnification of 10,000x times or more to start to see some minor differences, and that would be with some of the poorer performing DACs.

Just out of curiosity, you said vast differences would be a vast exaggeration except for certain pcm dacs....What pcm dacs would be more accurate?  I really don't want to have to build a fancy computer with fancy power supply to handle high rate dsd if pcm 192k would be sufficient...is there a PCM dac that would do better at accuracy that you could recommend or are you in the DSD camp?

[beerandmusic]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I find DSD and PCM pretty much interchangeable, although PCM is much simpler to use in my application since I use various plugins and convolution filters as part of my audio chain. R2R NOS DACs with no software oversampling/filtering are not the correct (mathematically) way to reproduce sound. They introduce significant distortions and a stair-case waveforms, especially at lower levels, that look nothing like the original signal. This can all be fixed with proper filtering and oversampling in the DAC or in software, such as HQP. Of course, there are those who find the poorly reproduced R2R NOS audio to sound better. But it's not because it's more 'natural' or more 'accurate', quite the opposite.

Don't schiit multibit oversample/upsample? Or they just don't upsample high enough?  I was wondering if you had a recommendation for a "non-diy" PCM dac....or DSD dac that does both PCM and DSD equally well? Many seem to like RME adi-2 and Topping D90?  Would it possibly be beneficial to get an older higher end used pcm dac like ayre or emm?  As you know, it seems everyone on ASR believe all dacs that measure well sound exactly the same...do you fall in that same camp?

[beerandmusic]

24 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 I include my own DeltaWave null-type comparison that allows me to judge how close the reproduced musical waveform is to the original source. One of the main reasons I wrote DW was that I wanted an unbiased way to judge things like DACs, DDCs, amps, power supplies, software, and even cables. 

So what have you discovered using this DW software regarding what dacs came close to reproducing to the original source?

Also, any surprises in all your testing of anything?

 

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I found that some inexpensive devices are often not very good, while others are really excellent. I've also found that pro devices are often a much better quality than some high-end audiophile ones, and at a lower price. Lately, I've been buying most audio equipment on the used pro market.

 

I found no obvious differences between audiophile and generic USB cables. I found very little difference between interconnects. I found some of the audiophile power-supplies to generate more noise than non-audiophile, stock versions. I found some of my older (high-end) DACs to be OK, but not anywhere near the performance of many modern, inexpensive DACs.

 

One finding that I didn't expect: I found many ground loops between devices. In my testing, ground loops are the norm. Rarely do I see a device that's fully immune to them, even with balanced interconnects, etc. It's really important to make sure these do not exist in your system before deciding to upgrade any of the components. Sometimes these manifest themselves in a low-level noise, sometimes rise to an audible hum. This is also an area where pro equipment seems to perform better.

 

Thanks for all of this very valuable information.  Firstly....how does one ensure they have no ground loops between devices?   Do any inexpensive DACS do this well?  I don't ever notice any "hum" but maybe it is at such a high level that I don't hear it...but i still swear when i use anything (spdif, hdmi, network), they always sound better than usb, and what I struggle with, when there seems to be such competing opinions.  Also why would a usb thumb drive from my marantz on same ac circuit sound better.

[beerandmusic]

35 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

My testing usually focuses on the audible range. I let DAC do what it would normally do to reproduce the source file, then do a null-compare of the recorded result to the original file. DeltaWave allows me to apply an arbitrary low pass filter, so I usually do that to limit the result of the comparison to, say, under 20kHz. 

I personally would rather have a solution that recreates as accurately as possible than one that just focuses on what is percieved as the "audible range" if it can be done relatively inexpensively. 

[beerandmusic]

6 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

 Lately, I've been buying most audio equipment on the used pro market.

Can you provide some examples models, especially if they isolate well?

 

Quote

I found no obvious differences between audiophile and generic USB cables. I found very little difference between interconnects.

 I am surprised there would be any difference in interconnects unless they were just "loose"? 

 

Quote

I found some of the audiophile power-supplies to generate more noise than non-audiophile, stock versions. I found some of my older (high-end) DACs to be OK, but not anywhere near the performance of many modern, inexpensive DACs.

What inexpensive modern dacs do you have first hand knowledge with that you are comfortable making this statement?

 

 

[beerandmusic]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Didn't keep track of this. I just found that I needed to fix ground loops nearly every time I tested by using separate power supplies (one being battery powered) or by using Toslink.

 

I routinely use toslink as it always sounds better than USB "to me", so perhaps i have ground loops (but i don't hear any hum or constant noise, that is typically suggested regarding them, but maybe it is above my hearing level but still affects the overall sound).

Since toslink isn't an option if i want to play native DSD files, i continue to look for different usb solutions.  When you say you use differeent power supplies, do you use them with the source or the dac? And are there any inexpensive power supplies that you have found that consistently improve this issue?

[beerandmusic]

PKANE>>

Quote

I found some of the audiophile power-supplies to generate more noise than non-audiophile, stock versions. I found some of my older (high-end) DACs to be OK, but not anywhere near the performance of many modern, inexpensive DACs.

 

2 hours ago, beerandmusic said:

What inexpensive modern dacs do you have first hand knowledge with that you are comfortable making this statement?

 

16 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

Nearly every one that's been measured on Gearslutz, since most posted a captured audio file that I could run through DeltaWave. At one point, I was planning to construct my own measurements list for all of these captures, so I downloaded and processed them all through DW. Had a recent disk

crash and lost the files and the results. Maybe when I have a little more free time in the future, I'll try to do this again. Oh, and about 15 or so DACs that I have in my physical possession, from cheap SoundBlaster and Behringer interfaces to higher-end but still inexpensive Focusrite, UAD, and Apogee models.

 

 

WHen you use one of those models on Gearslutz, did you still have to use a "better" power supply?