To quote from 'Oklahoma,' have dacs reached the end of their development , vanishingly low distortion, huge dynamic range , it appears that manufacturers bring out flavours rather than genuine improvements?
Keith.
Keith.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
DACS Have they gone about as far as they can go?
- Thread starter Purité Audio
- Start date
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
"Listeners" who go stone deaf without peeking, fondling, knowing, etc, etc.
Unless of course you can cite reliable listening tests where the "discerning" were able to tell? No?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #5
Ten years ago, differences between some dacs were obvious, for example there were poor USB implementations,
but when I compared unsighted the first Weiss DAC ( dac2 with FireWire) to our extremely expensive DAC I couldn't tell them apart.
Now I tend to advise customers to purchase on facilities , some dacs still have IMO questionable design, no galvanic isolation, extremely high output etc but most 'properly engineered' dacs appear to sound pretty similar .
Keith.
but when I compared unsighted the first Weiss DAC ( dac2 with FireWire) to our extremely expensive DAC I couldn't tell them apart.
Now I tend to advise customers to purchase on facilities , some dacs still have IMO questionable design, no galvanic isolation, extremely high output etc but most 'properly engineered' dacs appear to sound pretty similar .
Keith.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Oh the comedy movie never ends. The gift that keeps on giving
I don't find 'telling apart' a particularly sensitive way to evaluate the different qualities of DACs. IOW, side-by-side listening isn't particularly revealing. Living with the box over a length of time is required. Poor USB implementations still exist incidentally, where 'poor' means lack of isolation (particularly at ultrasonic frequencies) between noisy PCs and audio equipment. Galvanic isolation only ensures isolation at LF (DC in particular).
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Nonsense. That is by far the most revealing of real audio differences and why it is used scientifically. Aural memory is far more reliable short term. This is supposed to be a science forum if you recall.
For purely subjective satisfaction, sure. Yes, time is often needed for audiophile psychogenic melodrama to manifest (So called "Long term viewing"), so I don't disagree with you there. But in terms of actual sound, no.
cheers,
AJ
Certainly that's a claim. But is there any support that its 'by far the most revealing' ? What does 'real' mean here btw?
Well there's short term aural memory and I would agree that degrades very quickly over a few seconds. But short term aural memory isn't what I use to evaluate DACs, so your claim is irrelevant.
Its not 'supposed to be' - it even has science in the name. No surprises though that it attracts some more at home with claiming and asserting in absence of evidence than explaining and testing falsifiable hypotheses.
Any explanation on offer for what 'psychogenic melodrama' means in practice?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #10
Step one for me is to determine if there is any difference whatsoever between two components , unsighted and level matched.
If there is a clear and repeatably selected difference then I can think about why there is a difference and finally which is my subjective preference.
Keith.
If there is a clear and repeatably selected difference then I can think about why there is a difference and finally which is my subjective preference.
Keith.
AJ Soundfield
Major Contributor
Not to the scientifically literate https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1116/en
Not due to your vision, beliefs, etc, etc.
Right, you stare at it, fondle it, etc, "long term". Using a 12w TDA home brew amp and Chinese cone 'n dome ported box speakers. IOW, zero science.
The various things that crop up during your long term viewing, touching, conjuring, etc of the DUT.
Best left for your imaginative description.
cheers,
AJ
Mivera
Major Contributor
If we look at the top DAC's out there available today, I think it's safe to say that what really needs the most attention is the ADC's that the mainstream studio's use. This is the biggest bottleneck in the chain. So much talent is being wasted by using crap gear to convert the mic feeds into digital.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,766
- Likes
- 37,624
Biggest bottleneck is poor mastering followed by speakers. ADCs are mostly a solved problem.
It's easy to build a DAC from parts that measure conventionally to have sufficient performance. However, the reality is that the assembled unit is usually not engineered well enough to yield competent performance under all circumstances - a combination of the same basic parts will behave subjectively very differently from one design to the next - CH Precision is an example of a manufacturer who uses extremely conventional audio design, but then applies OTT engineering to the actual product - result is a unit that easily outperforms the garden variety components.
The downside is that such audio gear is very expensive, for all the usual reasons. It requires a higher level of competence in the engineering yet again to get equivalent capability just by using low cost solutions; meaning that competence can be bought for ordinary money.
This is totally, totally wrong. All the recordings that currently exist are good enough in their raw state to produce an extremely satisfying experience on playback - why this doesn't happen is that defects of the replay chain, combined with those "failings" of the recording itself, equals unlistenable, or unpleasant sound. Simple solution: remove those playback chain defects ... Result: convincing recreation of the musical event.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #16
I use a DAC designed by the guys at CH Precision , it is included in my Illusonic IAP processor and it does sound good , I agree that the design and implementation is absolutely key.
I also believe that it is often difficult for non technical listener to pick a really good design from the mediocre.
Keith.
I also believe that it is often difficult for non technical listener to pick a really good design from the mediocre.
Keith.
Mivera
Major Contributor
Well when you talk to the top studio engineers who produce the best sounding recordings available today, their opinion is different. So I think I'll just take their advice on this manner. However if I ever open up a studio one day and gain the same level of experience as them, I will offer a valid opinion based on my personal experience.
Last edited:
Mivera
Major Contributor
You have to be careful Keith and not forget that you sell expensive DAC's as well. Make sure to keep your opinion in line with the gear you sell. Otherwise it could affect your credibility.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #19
What does credibility mean, I really believe there isn't a huge difference between well engineered oversampling designs .
I believe that far greater gains in sound quality can be found from loudspeakers and your room.
Keith.
Although having said that Bruno's and Sonny's dacs are the best in the world and everyone should buy one!
I believe that far greater gains in sound quality can be found from loudspeakers and your room.
Keith.
Although having said that Bruno's and Sonny's dacs are the best in the world and everyone should buy one!
Mivera
Major Contributor
Yes but speakers don't sound that great without any electronics connected to them. My thought's are that DAC's have been the limiting factor in my system in the past. I had speakers figured out years ago.
You tried Sonny's DAC already?
Similar threads
- Poll
