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

[JustJones]

The point is, with the Modi to vinyl comparison, we're talking subtleties. With the e50 we're talking glaring differences, not only against the frame of reference but of actual instruments.

No, the point is unless this comparison was done with proper controls it's worthless as far as anyone here giving any sort of an answer as to what is going on.

 

[AdamG]

Just merged 4 more pages of DAC nonsense here. Enjoy the mud.

 

[AdamG]

You're missing the point. First, no question vinyl is imperfect. The point of the test however is to determine what is closest to the original master recording (i.e. the defacto frame of reference). By comparing a vinyl and CD, presumably sourced from the same master tape, that's as close as you can get, barring getting the musicians in the room exactly duplicating their original performance. As far as the Modi sounding a bit soft in comparison. Of course, that's possible if the cartridge is a bit bright, which is certainly possible. The point is, with the Modi to vinyl comparison, we're talking subtleties. With the e50 we're talking glaring differences, not only against the frame of reference but of actual instruments. Regardless of measurements, the E50 is either inaccurate in general, or my particular example is defective, which was the point of my original question (is my E50 typical or defective). If the sound of my E50 is typical, it is a flawed product regardless of test results.

And you can make these grand proclamations with just your ears? Do you happen to have any measurements or controls in your comparisons?

 

[Deleted member 72099]

And you can make these grand proclamations with just your ears? Do you happen to have any measurements or controls in your comparisons?

Uh yeah, just my ears. Simple test. Everything in the system remains the same. The only variable is the DAC. No grand proclamations. Simple logic. Big difference with one, subtle difference with the other. If you need charts and graphs to validate your hearing, my sympathies. My ES50 is flawed the only question is, is it typical, or is it defective outlier.

 

[p.trianon]

I recently got an Eversolo A8 which I am told has a very nice dac chip. I can't hear any difference between it and a much cheaper SMSL dac I have.

 

[AdamG]

Uh yeah, just my ears. Simple test. Everything in the system remains the same. The only variable is the DAC. No grand proclamations. Simple logic. Big difference with one, subtle difference with the other. If you need charts and graphs to validate your hearing, my sympathies. My ES50 is flawed the only question is, is it typical, or is it defective outlier.

Maybe helpful to watch these short Video’s put together by our Host Amir. Short version we can’t trust our ears and our brains.

 

[antcollinet]

Uh yeah, just my ears. Simple test. Everything in the system remains the same. The only variable is the DAC. No grand proclamations. Simple logic. Big difference with one, subtle difference with the other. If you need charts and graphs to validate your hearing, my sympathies. My ES50 is flawed the only question is, is it typical, or is it defective outlier.

We know both from engineering/physics/psychoacoustics, and from numerous measurements, that DACS (once of sufficient performance - and most are) have no audible impact on the sound

Yet on the other hand we know that our hearing is subject to cognitive/perception biases (call it placebo effect, or expectation bias if you like). What we hear is impacted by what we know, what we believe, how we feel, our life experiences, what we see etc etc. No-one is immune to this if they are human - it is how we are built. In fact we would be unable to function if our senses were not filtered by our subconscious brain.

So when we see someone state that they hear differences between DACs where the engineering, science and measurements all tell us that is massively unlikely to the point of impossibility - do we just take the statement at face value - or do we attribute it to the fact that the listener is being fooled by his (humanities) very fallible auditory system?

 

[AdamG]

We know both from engineering/physics/phschoacoustics, and from numerous measurements, that DACS (once of sufficient performance - and most are) have no audible impact on the sound

Yet on the other hand we know that our hearing is subject to cognitive/perception biases (call it placebo effect, or expectation bias if you like). What we hear is impacted by what we know, what we believe, how we feel, our life experiences, what we see etc etc. No-one is immune to this if they are human - it is how we are built. In fact we would be unable to function if our senses were not filtered by our subconscious brain.

So when we see someone state that they hear differences between DACs where the engineering, science and measurements all tell us that is massively unlikely to the point of impossibility - do we just take the statement at face value - or do we attribute it to the fact that the listener is being fooled by his (humanities) very fallible auditory system?

Spoiler: Spoiler

That is really well written. Just a suggestion to save that to your signature in a tighter font hidden behind the Spoiler function

 

[Blumlein 88]

Master tape has to be heavily modified to cut LPs. The bass below 50 Hz is absolutely nothing like the original recording. The top end is a bunch of distortion and resonance. It's a terrible reference to compare anything else to.

Yes. Where do you think the Mastering thing comes from? It was a necessity when they started pressing LPs. You cannot put tape on the discs due to many issues. So mastering was altering the original sound to allow it to fit on the pressed MASTER for making the LPs. By definition and physical reality mastering guarantees that an LP does not sound like the master tape and the master tape was a modification of the original recording on the tape. LPs were essentially the analog version of MP3 files. Cheap to produce and altered to work within their limitations well enough. Reference quality they never were, never are, and can never be.

I know MaxwellsEQ knows all this already.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Uh yeah, just my ears. Simple test.

A simple test we know to be flawed inherently and deceptive.

 

[SIY]

I would bet dollars to pesos that he's not.

dBFS =/= dBSPL. But often are conflated to make an invalid argument.

I prefer clean crisp bills in bundles.

 

[Deleted member 72099]

A simple test we know to be flawed inherently and deceptive.

Yes, ears are flawed and emotions deceptive. But if you can't hear differences essentially equivalent to the difference between a JBL and a Magnepan, stick to a Walmart AM radio.

 

[DMill]

Yes, ears are flawed and emotions deceptive. But if you can't hear differences essentially equivalent to the difference between a JBL and a Magnepan, stick to a Walmart AM radio.

I still think something is defective in the Topping you have or in how it is set up. One could certainly make arguments about its ergonomics or parts or whatever…. But it should measure flat. You should not be hearing variations in FR like you are describing.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

The point of the test however is to determine what is closest to the original master recording (i.e. the defacto frame of reference). By comparing a vinyl and CD, presumably sourced from the same master tape, that's as close as you can get, barring getting the musicians in the room exactly duplicating their original performance

The thing you are not aware of is that some of us have heard things recorded in a studio that ended up released. I can tell you that LPs are a poor reflection of what music in a studio sounds like.

 

[oleg87]

Yes, ears are flawed and emotions deceptive. But if you can't hear differences essentially equivalent to the difference between a JBL and a Magnepan, stick to a Walmart AM radio.

If that's the difference you hear, something in your setup is screwy.
Any chance CD pre-emphasis and how each DAC handles it could have something to do with it? I don't know too much about it except that it's a thing for some older discs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, ears are flawed and emotions deceptive. But if you can't hear differences essentially equivalent to the difference between a JBL and a Magnepan, stick to a Walmart AM radio.

Reminds me of my first bit of audio gear. 12 transistor pocket radio. Not the cheap 8 transistor model. I've have upgraded a time or two since then. I've also owned JBLs and several Magnepans.

 

[Deleted member 72099]

We know both from engineering/physics/phschoacoustics, and from numerous measurements, that DACS (once of sufficient performance - and most are) have no audible impact on the sound

Yet on the other hand we know that our hearing is subject to cognitive/perception biases (call it placebo effect, or expectation bias if you like). What we hear is impacted by what we know, what we believe, how we feel, our life experiences, what we see etc etc. No-one is immune to this if they are human - it is how we are built. In fact we would be unable to function if our senses were not filtered by our subconscious brain.

So when we see someone state that they hear differences between DACs where the engineering, science and measurements all tell us that is massively unlikely to the point of impossibility - do we just take the statement at face value - or do we attribute it to the fact that the listener is being fooled by his (humanities) very fallible auditory system?

True. If you look at the results of Amir's tests, I'd guess everything from top to bottom exceeds the limits of my (or anyone's) hearing. So, why bother to rank at all? If, in the final analysis, it's all limited by our physiology and biases why does anyone ever buy anything above a PROZOR 192kHz DAC ($13.99 on Amazon). It's spec's put it well beyond human limits. Silly statement? OK, then exactly where between the PROZOR and the $115,000 MSB SELECT DAC do audible differences end?

 

[AdamG]

Yes, ears are flawed and emotions deceptive. But if you can't hear differences essentially equivalent to the difference between a JBL and a Magnepan, stick to a Walmart AM radio.

OK that pretty much proves to me that you are not here with good intentions. So bye bye…

 

[signalpath]

Except it reaches the limit of what is possible with the analogue stage of the dac, which tops out around 22 bits (130dB). So more in the digital realm becomes pretty pointless.

And this is quite apart from the pointlessness of spending money to make the noise “even more“ inaudible.

Yes, 130dB is roughly today's limit of single-path DACs (all DACs today). We're experimenting with multi-path. The low-path has a 40nVrms quiescent BB/UW noise floor, while the high path has +29dBu headroom. That's a dynamic range and linearity of 175dB. It's somewhat analogous to HDR photography, perhaps we could call it "HDR-A". Multi-path architecture can be applied to every link in the audio signal path, from microphones to power amplifiers, improving today's best systemic dynamic range from 120dB to 160dB. We're less interested in commercial viability (applicability?) and more interested in proving to ourselves that it can be done. It's probably more practical is areas of seismology, medical imaging, and test equipment. You can read more about multi-path architecture in various patents,

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/ef/7b/aa66c2a13634c3/US9871530.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c9/97/6a/003abcd65746e2/US9590648.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3b/c2/17/a72b56f9159d6d/US10256782.pdf

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, 130dB is roughly today's limit of single-path DACs (all DACs today). We're experimenting with multi-path. The low-path has a 40nVrms quiescent BB/UW noise floor, while the high path has +29dBu headroom. That's a dynamic range and linearity of 175dB. It's somewhat analogous to HDR photography, perhaps we could call it "HDR-A". Multi-path architecture can be applied to every link in the audio signal path, from microphones to power amplifiers, improving today's best systemic dynamic range from 120dB to 160dB. We're less interested in commercial viability (applicability?) and more interested in proving to ourselves that it can be done. It's probably more practical is areas of seismology, medical imaging, and test equipment. You can read more about multi-path architecture in various patents,

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/ef/7b/aa66c2a13634c3/US9871530.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c9/97/6a/003abcd65746e2/US9590648.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3b/c2/17/a72b56f9159d6d/US10256782.pdf

Interesting - thanks.

As you/we suggest, utterly pointless for audio. But for other measurement applications requiring very high dynamic range…. Who knows.