• 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!

Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
The Schiit people (and others in blind testing) have shown results where they can tell DACs apart, for instance the 3 models of the Yggy DAC. Schitt claims they do tune the DACs with various parts. For instance to alter the sound of an ESS DAC so it fits the sound they want better than it would otherwise.
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
I think it is converting FROM 32 bit, to 24 bit, to fit into the 24 bits of the DAC chip.
I dunno though, it is still a question, but the spec sheet suggests that it is a 24 bit chip.

As my reply was moved...

No, it does not convert from 32 Bit to 24 Bit, You can put an oscilloscope onto the datapins and observe 32 Bit data present.

I commented on the datasheet. When it was written, 32 Bit DAC's and anything above 192kHz did not exist and even DSD and 192kHz/24Bit was thought of as rare and exotic. Which realistically it still is in 2022.

Thor
 

Reynaldo

Active Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
232
Likes
97
Location
Brazil, Blumenau SC
@Thorsten Loesch
Before buying this iFi I was using Musical Fidelity's M1SDAC.
It has almost the same chip as the iFi, DSD1796 a little newer.
I don't know why Musical Fidelity didn't enable DSD on it, only 192Khz.
As the vast majority of my files are DSD I ended up buying the iFi, even though I still have the Oppo 205 that plays DSD.
In summary, listening to the DSD files had no difference in quality for me.

new_0.jpg
 

Thorsten Loesch

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2022
Messages
460
Likes
530
Location
Germany, now South East Asia (not China or SAR's)
@Thorsten Loesch
Before buying this iFi I was using Musical Fidelity's M1SDAC.
It has almost the same chip as the iFi, DSD1796 a little newer.
I don't know why Musical Fidelity didn't enable DSD on it, only 192Khz.
As the vast majority of my files are DSD I ended up buying the iFi, even though I still have the Oppo 205 that plays DSD.
In summary, listening to the DSD files had no difference in quality for me.

new_0.jpg

I might have an idea why.

The various TI PCM/DSD labelled DAC's that can process both DSD and PCM dramatically reconfigure the way they work internally and this takes a little time and needs explicit software intervention via I2C control of the DAC IC, PLUS analogue domain muting, lest the DAC goes Rickey Martin (she bangs).

Unlike for example ESS DAC Chip's that accept DSD and PCM on the same pins and handle this transparently.

So first you need to place the DAC Chip into software controlled mode and correctly configure it, you need to get sequencing of the process right between USB interface and DAC Chip by outputting enough zeros for PCM to clear the buffers and DAC registers down to zero or by sending DSD silence instead if playing DSD.

Then the Analogue output must mute, the DAC chip's output stage must be turned off (this is not mentioned in the datasheet BTW), the chip must receive the command to switch between DSD/PCM and then the Chip output must be re-enabled and and the analogue side unmuted.

This requires typically programming on the USB Input Chip side if it is XMOS, as XMOS's reference code does not do this "send XX clock cycles of zero" and secondly, as the USB chip kinda works on it's own timing with the PC, it must be made sure that the whole changes on the DAC side are completed by the time the USB Chip starts the new stream or the beginning of the song is cut off.

This means using an interrupt-driven system on the MCU. As usually the person programming the MCU knows nothing of what happens on the USB Bridge side and visa versa and both tend be ignorant of how the DAC Chip actually works, this is not the easiest thing to achieve.

This is one of the reasons why few manufacturers use BB/TI Chip's of "advanced segment dac" type with high sample rates and DSD (even though it can be done) and instead prefer a Chip like ESS where non of this has to be done. Not everyone wants to get their product "just so".

Many Chinese outfits just want to copy/pasta from datasheets, do no extra programming work and then shift boxes to make money, what the result sounds like is of no consequence to them. This is much easier if using ESS (ideally one with 2V line out), just use XMOS reference code with ID's and Vendor name adjusted (or not even that) and an ESS Chip, voila, you have a "world leading DAC". It will even measure better than something using BB/TI in most cases. perfect for box shifters and objectivists.

Thor
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
The Schiit people (and others in blind testing) have shown results where they can tell DACs apart, for instance the 3 models of the Yggy DAC. Schitt claims they do tune the DACs with various parts. For instance to alter the sound of an ESS DAC so it fits the sound they want better than it would otherwise.
It is a nice story. Does it belong in fiction or nonfiction?
 

Mr. Widget

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2022
Messages
1,146
Likes
1,697
Location
SF Bay Area
DACs all sound the same... NO. All decent modern DACs sound imperceptibly similar. OK.

There is no reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on DACs unless you are on a mission to keep the economy going. Agreed.

We have had DACs in our systems for about forty years now. A twenty year old DAC can be excellent, but it can also be measurably and sonically inferior to a modern DAC. The digital and analog circuitry in a USB stick DAC is measurably and audibly inferior to a typical high quality DAC so when people say all DACs sound the same, there should be some qualifiers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Els

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,408
Likes
12,291
Location
UK/Cheshire
DACs all sound the same... NO. All decent modern DACs sound imperceptibly similar. OK.

There is no reason to spend tens of thousands of dollars on DACs unless you are on a mission to keep the economy going. Agreed.

We have had DACs in our systems for about forty years now. A twenty year old DAC can be excellent, but it can also be measurably and sonically inferior to a modern DAC. The digital and analog circuitry in a USB stick DAC is measurably and audibly inferior to a typical high quality DAC so when people say all DACs sound the same, there should be some qualifiers.
No one says all dacs sound the same - there already is a qualifier.

All dacs (here is the qualifier) that measure as audibly transparent - sound the same.

That is pretty much all of them in the blue and green sections of the chart here.
 

firedog

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2016
Messages
378
Likes
642
That's not the way it works here. To make a statement without providing proof, and then expect someone else to provide for you is not good form ..... not at all. If you make an assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the proof (or link).

Jim
I didn't make an assertion about the DACs. Schiit did. I don't have anything to prove. I think they link to the listening test in question at their website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Els

BDWoody

Chief Cat Herder
Moderator
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
6,948
Likes
22,625
Location
Mid-Atlantic, USA. (Maryland)
I didn't make an assertion about the DACs. Schiit did. I don't have anything to prove. I think they link to the listening test in question at their website.

It looks like there was no actual testing of the impressions to see if they tied to anything real. They lined up three DACs and had people switch between them and make notes. I don't see the part where they then mixed them up again to see if the careful notes actually followed the DACs.

They weren't set up to actually test anything as far as I can tell, beyond whether people thought they heard differences.

Is there more to it? Providing the 'evidence' you
refer to around here is just considered good manners. So much nonsense to sift through, it helps to know what we are starting with.

 

Mr. Widget

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 11, 2022
Messages
1,146
Likes
1,697
Location
SF Bay Area
No one says all dacs sound the same - there already is a qualifier.

All dacs (here is the qualifier) that measure as audibly transparent - sound the same.

That is pretty much all of them in the blue and green sections of the chart here.
What I was suggesting was that too often it is only the headline that is remembered. Leaving some with the incorrect idea that there is no difference.

I totally agree that there is no audible difference after a point... and that the listener and the listening conditions will determine where that point is.
 

mocenigo

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
1,274
Likes
1,034
No one says all dacs sound the same - there already is a qualifier.

All dacs (here is the qualifier) that measure as audibly transparent - sound the same.

To be more precise: Two DACs that measure as audibly transparent will produce the same result in an audio chain if they are both used within optimal parameters. For instance, if one has a significantly higher output impedance than the other, and they are both fed to a preamp or a poweramp with a relatively low input impedance, then the overall chain may still produce audibly different sound.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,950
Likes
8,695
Location
New York City
They do this because, for some reason, people think audio engineering is a craft, like making wooden ships in bottles or savile row suits.
 

pablolie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 8, 2021
Messages
2,022
Likes
3,320
Location
bay area, ca
I don't think anyone can argue with the premise that "all DACs that are competently measured as completely transparent sound the same". At which SINAD/THD value one can declare transparency however is often debated even in this forum. :-D

But we also need to understand that -clearly- many audio engineers out there try to instill a certain signature sound (or even signature sound choices with configurable filters etc) in their designs. The "A" in DAC allows one to tailor sound to a desired outcome, whether we personally appreciate it or not.

It's a bit like watching Monet's Water Lillies or watching a photograph thereof... are you entertained by strict realism or do you want to inject some personal interpretation into it? We can argue endlessly whether we personally approve of any abstractions in listening to music - but you can't argue there isn't a large market for it. We have all seen things that allows you to "distort" sound to your liking... concert hall effects, cathedral sounds, etc etc... and if we're honest we might have even enjoyed it for a while at some point in time (Bach's organ stuff sounds pretty good with Cathedral effects on :-D).

What's deceiving is for someone to claim ultimate sonic accuracy/realism when that wasn't their goal in designing an audio product.

And we should also keep in mind that the much thrown-around "live performance is the ultimate accuracy" is a fallacy of big proportions in itself: first of all, no live performance will be exactly like the other: So which one is the "true" embodiment of the artist's or composer's intent? I once saw my GF perform (she's a classical piano player) as we happened to coincide in the same city. I loved it, the whole audience loved it... and when we went for dinner afterwards and had a quiet moment, I told her "you were phenomenal!" she went "Oh shut up, I sucked, I had a champagne hangover, I am running on Tylenol". (In her defense, she is the ultimate professional, but the concert was organized by a high end champagne brand and it would have been very bad form to not be seen with a champagne glass in the reception, and she metabolizes even half a glass of champagne very poorly). On top of that, the venue itself may suck, the amplified instruments may be totally overdriven etc etc. But that's out of scope for this discussion - it's just to prove we can live with and even enjoy distortion in heavy doses... :)
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,950
Likes
8,695
Location
New York City
And we should also keep in mind that the much thrown-around "live performance is the ultimate accuracy" is a fallacy of big proportions in itself
I know what you mean, but having the music at least plausibly sound like actual instruments in an actual space seems like a reasonable goal.
 

Els

Active Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2022
Messages
123
Likes
51
That's not the way it works here. To make a statement without providing proof, and then expect someone else to provide for you is not good form ..... not at all. If you make an assertion, it is incumbent on you to provide the proof (or link).

Jim
That is not the way it works here. I have noted that many members take on this strict attitude of requiring proof for any passing statement; Regarding this thread on Dacs, how about you providing proof that 100 Dollar Dac sounds exactly the same as a 15,000 Dollar Dac.
 

Palladium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Aug 4, 2017
Messages
630
Likes
769
They do this because, for some reason, people think audio engineering is a craft, like making wooden ships in bottles or savile row suits.

It always boil down to justifying poor engineering for $$$.
 
Top Bottom