• 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 that better compensate for noise

OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
It's statements like the above first post that show you trying to come at the same position from the side. Your post attempts to devalue blind testing because you have read other subjectivists doing the same, claiming blind testing is fallible. Hell anything is fallible but when done under scientifically controlled conditions, blind testing will give completely accurate and repeatable results dispite some things you may have read.
you are wrong...i am basing purely on my own logic, and what i would think would be common sense to most people...but then again, i don't think like most people...so i have no clue, other than to suggest to you that you are wrong in your own thinking. The subject is only being discussed because someone else brought it up, and i simply responded with what my thinking is....if no one wants to discuss it anymore, i am perfectly ok with that, but don't be upset with me, because I share my own views, when the topic was subjected to me.
 

gvl

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 16, 2018
Messages
3,495
Likes
4,081
Location
SoCal
have no desire to. I am sure i couldn't tell the difference.

You earlier said that

"but I know I can hear differences (for the better) when comparing music played from the network vs from usb."

So you hear differences when there aren't any, but you're sure you can't tell the differences when there are actually some present? This defies common sense.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,054
Likes
36,441
Location
The Neitherlands
green yellow red charts for the dacs

Those charts do not tell the whole story. That's what I have been trying to explain.
I would never base any purchases on those charts. They can be helpful in guiding someone to the whole review and its discussion.
SINAD is not equal to SQ !

I have owned the Mojo and extensively and correctly compared it to other DACs using 44.1/16 files and cannot distinguish it from my other DACs.
Not necesarilly with the ones I do not own beacuse I don't buy crap.
 
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
you are wrong...i am basing purely on my own logic, and what i would think would be common sense to most people...but then again, i don't think like most people...so i have no clue, other than to suggest to you that you are wrong in your thinking.
Those charts do not tell the whole story. That's what I have been trying to explain.
I would never base any purchases on those charts. They can be helpful in guiding someone to the whole review and its discussion.
SINAD is not equal to SQ !

I have owned the Mojo and extensively and correctly compared it to other DACs using 44.1/16 files and cannot distinguish it from my other DACs.
Not necesarilly with the ones I do not own beacuse I don't buy crap.

Again, thanks for sharing...i didn't base it on the green/yellow/red charts, i based my decision on your statement that you didn't believe there would be any appreciable difference. Since I have already witnessed similarly trying about 15 other dacs, I had no reason to doubt you...plus you do appear to be knowledgable...the charts didn't hurt, but that was not my deciding factor. That is why i told you i was seriously wanting to know your opinion. Do i believe that I "may" find the qutest to sound slightly better...i believe it is a possibility, but based on your opinion, i don't think it would be an appreciable difference to justify the cost....anyway, thanks for sharing your knowledge and opinions.
 
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
You earlier said that

"but I know I can hear differences (for the better) when comparing music played from the network vs from usb."

So you hear differences when there aren't any, but you're sure you can't tell the differences when there are actually some present? This defies common sense.
If you read through the thread, I did state that I would do more comparative testing, with the thought that they sound exactly alike, and see if i can pinpoint any differences...and I even acknowledged that it is possible I do not....My thinking is still that i can hear differences, but i could be wrong....

Not to open another can of worms, but tonite, i just plugged my hdmi in from my computer to my 4K 65" TCL and then took spdif out to my marantz, and it sounds better than my usb dac also (grin).....maybe it is the video being paired with the audio and it gives me a more "lively bias" or maybe it is has more distortions because of hdmi and I just prefer added distortion. I really don't know...but at the moment, i like it more (smile)
 
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
I have owned the Mojo and extensively and correctly compared it to other DACs using 44.1/16 files and cannot distinguish it from my other DACs.
Not necesarilly with the ones I do not own beacuse I don't buy crap.

Just curious, have you ever tried upsampling to 705K first before going into the mojo? I know davide256 on AS swears by it....supposedly that is similar to what the mscaler does.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,054
Likes
36,441
Location
The Neitherlands
Upsampling cannot possibly add any info.
The only thing it does is move the digital filter of the DAC upwards.
It doesn't remove any 'ringing' (be it pre/post) because this will be there anyway due to the obligated low pass filtering in the upsampler.
That's what is funny to me reading about the supposed benefits. They clearly all are sighted observations or involve filterless DACs.

Of course there is an exception. This is when a filterless DAC (flawed to begin with) is used with 44.1 or 48 kHz music files.
In this particular case, when upsampling, a proper reconstruction filter is used (they just don't realize this) and the roll-off these DACs have is pushed outpside of the audible range. In this case there can be audible benefits.

Given my hearing tops at 14kHz this is inconsequential as the DACs I own all have proper filters anyway.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,054
Likes
36,441
Location
The Neitherlands
Dat is niet zo aardig om dat tegen mij te zeggen Willem...:D
Een quote had dit misverstand kunnen besparen. :cool:
 
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
Upsampling cannot possibly add any info.
The only thing it does is move the digital filter of the DAC upwards.
It doesn't remove any 'ringing' (be it pre/post) because this will be there anyway due to the obligated low pass filtering in the upsampler.
That's what is funny to me reading about the supposed benefits. They clearly all are sighted observations or involve filterless DACs.

Of course there is an exception. This is when a filterless DAC (flawed to begin with) is used with 44.1 or 48 kHz music files.
In this particular case, when upsampling, a proper reconstruction filter is used (they just don't realize this) and the roll-off these DACs have is pushed outpside of the audible range. In this case there can be audible benefits.

Given my hearing tops at 14kHz this is inconsequential as the DACs I own all have proper filters anyway.

I never said it adds any info....I won't try to repeat how Miska Explains it, and I am only going to assume he knows more about DSD than you do, but I believe he suggests that it allows the DAC to be more accurate. Of course he explains it using a bunch of mumbo jumbo and charts and verbiage that is beyond my understanding, but I tend to believe everything he says.

I may be mistaken, but i believe it was suggested that it also allows more processing (maybe dsp or?) to be done without adding distortion in "the audible range"... again, I may be mistaken, but supposedly besides making the signal more accurate, it provides additional benefits. I don't believe his science is "dope", and i have a great respect for him....As for this site, you have gained the most respect from me...not that it means anything to you...just saying....there seem to be a lot of "clowns" here, and you seem to at least try to keep it mature and respectful.
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,054
Likes
36,441
Location
The Neitherlands
I know how Miska explains it.
His filters and upsampling are top quality !
As I already mentioned there are circumstances where it could improve things.
From a technical and practical P.O.V. some of his ramblings are hard to swallow as are some of his sighted findings.

I don't have any DSD recordings and I don't see any benefits to convert PCM to it either unless your DAC can only reproduce DSD or has a very poor performance at 44.1/48 kHz.
 
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
I know how Miska explains it.
His filters and upsampling are top quality !
As I already mentioned there are circumstances where it could improve things.
From a technical and practical P.O.V. some of his ramblings are hard to swallow as are some of his sighted findings.

I don't have any DSD recordings and I don't see any benefits to convert PCM to it either unless your DAC can only reproduce DSD or has a very poor performance at 44.1/48 kHz.

That is my opinion too (inre no need to upsample pcm to DSD, but again, i remain open). I however do have a decent collection of native DSD music after buying a music player 2nd hand (much to my surprise). For some reason which i have no idea why, i think it would be ideal to upsample 44.1k to 24bit/192k. I have no idea why, but it is just my thought process based on different things I have read....even though i believe our hearing is bound to 20 bit/44k (call it 48k to be safe, besides i recall that is more ideal for video). None of this is based on any knowledge..that is just my current "belief" but am again open to anything inre audio.
 
Last edited:
OP
W

wineandmusic

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2020
Messages
248
Likes
59
Below is a posting made today in a thread I started awhile back ago. Note, I don't know this poster, or if it is valid or not....just sharing in case anyone is interested... I will not respond to any comments about it, because it is beyond my knowledge. I just thought maybe someone here may find it interesting to read.

=============
Bit error of 10^12 would do the job for sure...."if" you can get to this performance in a real life implementation. Personally I think there is a lot that needs to be taken care of in PC to DAC system set-up approach this.

As I mention above the USB transmission eye detection margin is quite small for the receiver (DAC) at ~ 0.4v. Differential noise between the power supplies of the USB link's transmitter (eg the PC, packed with noisy buck convectors, high transient loads and even an SMPS if your unlucky) and the receiver (the DAC probably on a low noise linear supply) really have the potential to impact eye detection margins.

Although the USB cable is shielded, there is also generally a GND loop between the PC and DAC via mains safety earth connections. The PC switching supply noise and ground leakage currents can pollute the safety earth and appear at the USB receiver circuit in the DAC (even though there "should" be a good ground reference established by the USB lead's shield).

Then there is EMI coupling into the D+ D- pairs as they traverse the motherboard, if motherboard is used, or from a PCIE card if used. EMI can also be coupled into the USB cable. I have much frustrating experience of "good" quality coaxial cable being insufficiently shielded for low jitter HF signalling. Interesting here is that there are so many reports in forums about improvements in sound from multi shielded USB cables, something I use here too.

Final area I think is very important is transmission timing both phase noise and clock speed. The differential noise above may or may not be enough to cause data errors due to eye detection errors. Even if errors are not being caused by detection errors, the differential power noise in the transmitter's & receiver's supplies will cause threshold detection jitter in the USB data stream and this does matter to sound quality (although I would agree this is not data error). I mentioned in my earlier post above I have developed the ability to accurately set the relative frequency of the individual USB clock domains governing the transmitter and receiver. I have been working on this stuff for many years, and know that as little as an 0.000005% difference in the speed of the USB transmitter and receives clock domains can be heard. USB timing really matters if you are aiming for truly high end sound quality.

The point of the diagrams below is not to highlight that using a 3 or 5m cable could be a bad move (most people just don't go that long for audio :) ), rather my point is something as simple as the cable length alone can really degrade the eye detection margins. The issues listed above I think have far greater potential to harm eye margin performance than these example cable lengths.



sample USB transmission eye 9 inch cable


eye 3m cable



eye 5m cable

I don't have USB test equipment (way too expensive) but I have been modifying USB interfaces and audio servers at board level for > 14 years. I just can't say beyond doubt that the above issues cause actual errors but I have come across lots of evidence that the areas above really matter for quality.

I happened to be working up that board I posted about above prior to seeing this thread.I though it would be fun to post about this. It is able to do much more than condition power and make or break shield links etc. I felt its worth the time to see if anything useful can be pinned down.

Best regards,
OAudio.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,454
Likes
15,808
Location
Oxfordshire

Jimbob54

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
11,112
Likes
14,777
analog before digitized obviously...i never said the dac had an analog input...

What would be the point in that- the device under test wasnt used to do the digitizing in the recording process. If it was poorly done with poorly performing equiipment, guess what a well performing DAC will do? Reproduce it well and it will sound poor. No DAC can repair or restore information lost in the ADC or any subsequent manipulations.
 
Top Bottom