Another Variation on the DAC Question

[Mr. Widget]

I believe it is the overwhelming consensus at ASR that all properly operating DACs are audibly indistinguishable from one another when compared in a blind, level matched comparison. Let's not debate that here. There are numerous active threads where that discussion is ongoing.

With that understanding I have a couple of questions about digital audio/DAC sound quality.

1. What is the consensus on the audible sound quality comparing a brand new or refurbished 1985 $200 CD player when compared with modern digital gear? (Same disc via a high quality transport and modern DAC)

2. If you feel that there is an audible difference between the 1985 CD player and modern digital gear, when did all quality digital become "a solved problem" and essentially have no sound quality of its own?

 

[kemmler3D]

What is the consensus on the audible sound quality comparing a brand new or refurbished 1985 $200 CD player when compared with modern digital gear? (Same disc via a high quality transport and modern DAC)

Some VERY early CD players (1985 would count) had improperly designed filters which could cause foldover, and/or the effective bit depth might not have been good (noise). This is where the reputation for digital sounding a certain (bad, metallic, harsh) way came from, supposedly.

Modern cheap DACs put expensive 1985 DACs to absolute shame, I think that's uncontroversial.

If you feel that there is an audible difference between the 1985 CD player and modern digital gear, when did all quality digital become "a solved problem" and essentially have no sound quality of its own?

~$120 "prosumer" DACs were transparent for normal listening about 15-20 years ago, and in the past 5-10 years have reached "audibly transparent even in really extreme scenarios, with really high gain".

A high-end DAC or CD player was probably just as transparent by the early 90s.

Digital recording has been superior to analog recording in the studio for (depending on who you ask and what their priorities are) for 15-30 years. Today there is no reason to use tape unless you are after a certain type of distortion, which is valid, but impractical.

As for digital audio formats - good quality (320kbps) MP3 was indistinguishable from CD for most people for most recordings about 15 years ago. Streaming quality is close to this or superior in many cases.

As for "sound quality of its own" - this is an interesting question. For a long time, the only discernible difference between the actual DAC section of a given piece of gear would be in the noise floor or jitter noise if it was somehow extremely bad. The FR should be flat. Whether the analog amplification after the DAC itself is also flat and low-distortion is another question. I generally don't think of noise as having character or "a sound", so if you agree with that, DACs have all sounded essentially the same for decades.

This is really part of the nature of a DAC. It turns a series of numbers into a continuous signal. It doesn't have resonances or anything, and the filters used are not very exciting or complex, and mostly operate outside of the audible band, again by nature. So a DAC should not be expected to have much of "a sound" in the first place.

It is like saying a DVD player might have "a look of its own". Like what, exactly? A bit too red? "Gritty"? How would a DVD player even do that? It's not how the format works. DACs are just like this. There may be some analog shenanigans happening after the DAC to create character, but not within it.

 

[MacCali]

I believe it is the overwhelming consensus at ASR that all properly operating DACs are audibly indistinguishable from one another when compared in a blind, level matched comparison. Let's not debate that here. There are numerous active threads where that discussion is ongoing.

With that understanding I have a couple of questions about digital audio/DAC sound quality.

1. What is the consensus on the audible sound quality comparing a brand new or refurbished 1985 $200 CD player when compared with modern digital gear? (Same disc via a high quality transport and modern DAC)

2. If you feel that there is an audible difference between the 1985 CD player and modern digital gear, when did all quality digital become "a solved problem" and essentially have no sound quality of its own?

You can always feed digital out to a new dac and avoid all that. So far 2 state of the art dacs did not improve a new bdp. Would assume a bdp can’t be super far off from a standalone CD player.

This includes the ub820 and 9000. 9000 being a solid player with the internal dac being utilized or external

 

[GPJ]

FWIW, I still use a Pioneer BDP-05FD from 2008 to play Bluray Pure Audio stereo layer using the analog out. It has a Wolfson DAC and the signals it transports is excellent.

I also have a Squeezebox Touch that streams DSD and high rez FLAC to a Topping E50 in the same system. The ripped stereo tracks from the Pure Audio Bluray that are streamed through the E50 are indistinguishable from the optical disc. I am completely content with what I have and happy to know quality gains are absolutely not worth continuously upgrading gear. Sure it's probably my mid level gear, but diminishing returns is clearly in play with my setup. My wallet stays happy.

 

[Mr. Widget]

You can always feed digital out to a new dac and avoid all that. So far 2 state of the art dacs did not improve a new bdp. Would assume a bdp can’t be super far off from a standalone CD player.

This includes the ub820 and 9000. 9000 being a solid player with the internal dac being utilized or external

FWIW, I still use a Pioneer BDP-05FD from 2008 to play Bluray Pure Audio stereo layer using the analog out. It has a Wolfson DAC and the signals it transports is excellent.

I also have a Squeezebox Touch that streams DSD and high rez FLAC to a Topping E50 in the same system. The ripped stereo tracks from the Pure Audio Bluray that are streamed through the E50 are indistinguishable from the optical disc. I am completely content with what I have and happy to know quality gains are absolutely not worth continuously upgrading gear. Sure it's probably my mid level gear, but diminishing returns is clearly in play with my setup. My wallet stays happy.

Understood and before I ripped my CD collection onto a NAS drive I used the digital outs of a CD player into a quality DAC myself, but my question is still; were early DACs and digital playback less accurate, transparent, or whatever the term you choose than digital playback today, and if so, when did we reach audio nirvana?

A high-end DAC or CD player was probably just as transparent by the early 90s.

Thank you! So we have one vote for "high end" digital by the early 90s was "solved"... is there a consensus?

I suppose the follow up to that would be; when were mainstream commodity DACs audibly "solved"... no doubt there are examples of exquisite engineering where the numbers are off the charts and this may have continually evolved and may still be evolving. To me this is interesting, but not as interesting as what is audible.

 

[Mnyb]

Remember those times . some old CD player a friend owned had a kind of swirling sound in the treble on some discs !! I also remember hearing closer to 19k way back....

Noise it was still better than analog sources of the time and we had preamps

Now you can drive power amps directly with a DAC if you whish and are familiar with its pros and cons (also another tread ) .
Btw digital volume control vs analog volume control is usually also a solved problem .

 

[MacCali]

Understood and before I ripped my CD collection onto a NAS drive I used the digital outs of a CD player into a quality DAC myself, but my question is still; were early DACs and digital playback less accurate, transparent, or whatever the term you choose than digital playback today, and if so, when did we reach audio nirvana?

Thank you! So we have one vote for "high end" digital by the early 90s was "solved"... is there a consensus?

I suppose the follow up to that would be; when were mainstream commodity DACs audibly "solved"... no doubt there are examples of exquisite engineering where the numbers are off the charts and this may have continually evolved and may still be evolving. To me this is interesting, but not as interesting as what is audible.

When legit streamers dropped or legit DDC’s.

I’ve been told nothing can beat a CD. I think CD’s are best for jazz and classical as the only improvement I notice with a regular cd is dynamic range being more palpable.

I’ve never heard SACD’s and would assume they would be a touch better.

Another thing which helped us reach audio nirvana is DSD.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Maybe @restorer-john could respond. He has quite the collection of vintage CD players, and many of those had stellar specifications. If he wishes to bother, maybe he could play some bits of music and record with a good ADC so we could hear a modern DAC vs some vintage players.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Remember those times . some old CD player a friend owned had a kind of swirling sound in the treble on some discs !! I also remember hearing closer to 19k way back....

Noise it was still better than analog sources of the time and we had preamps

The frequency response of my first CD player back in the mid 80s was essentially ruler flat and the signal to noise ratio was better than that of the mid level recording studios I had spent time in back in those days. Those aspects of digital was truly a miracle to behold... but even with that, to my ears there were sonic "differences" that those CD players imparted.

On a side note, at the time we blamed the CDs for any perceived lack of fidelity, however those same CDs sound pretty damned fine on today's gear.

 

[fpitas]

I agree, if you're going vintage, a CD player is a poor place to start,

 

[BDWoody]

1. What is the consensus on the audible sound quality comparing a brand new or refurbished 1985 $200 CD player when compared with modern digital gear? (Same disc via a high quality transport and modern DAC)

2. If you feel that there is an audible difference between the 1985 CD player and modern digital gear, when did all quality digital become "a solved problem" and essentially have no sound quality of its own?

I always appreciate @restorer-john 's perspective on this stuff, and here is a recent comment he made:

"I have several first generation CD players in my collection and I would be prepared to bet nobody here would be able to pick them from any flavour of the month DAC they want to name in a genuine, blind, real-time, level matched comparison. It's a fantastic reality check to pull out the world's first CD player (CDP-101) and A-B it with some ASR approved DAC and hear absolutely zero difference, 41 years on."
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...bsolutely zero difference, 41 years on.,-Like

 

[fpitas]

I always appreciate @restorer-john 's perspective on this stuff, and here is a recent comment he made:

"I have several first generation CD players in my collection and I would be prepared to bet nobody here would be able to pick them from any flavour of the month DAC they want to name in a genuine, blind, real-time, level matched comparison. It's a fantastic reality check to pull out the world's first CD player (CDP-101) and A-B it with some ASR approved DAC and hear absolutely zero difference, 41 years on."
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/serious-question-how-can-dacs-have-a-sound-signature-if-they-measure-as-transparent-are-that-many-confused.9245/page-215#:~:text=Sigma etc etc.-,I have several first generation CD players in my collection and,ASR approved DAC and hear absolutely zero difference, 41 years on.,-Like

Sounds like a good test for Amir

 

[Mr. Widget]

I always appreciate @restorer-john 's perspective on this stuff, and here is a recent comment he made:

"I have several first generation CD players in my collection and I would be prepared to bet nobody here would be able to pick them from any flavour of the month DAC they want to name in a genuine, blind, real-time, level matched comparison. It's a fantastic reality check to pull out the world's first CD player (CDP-101) and A-B it with some ASR approved DAC and hear absolutely zero difference, 41 years on."
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/serious-question-how-can-dacs-have-a-sound-signature-if-they-measure-as-transparent-are-that-many-confused.9245/page-215#:~:text=Sigma etc etc.-,I have several first generation CD players in my collection and,ASR approved DAC and hear absolutely zero difference, 41 years on.,-Like

That is exactly the point of my post and what I am curious about.

If it turns out that even an early generation digital source is indistinguishable from a modern DAC, then we have 40 years of people fooling themselves... an interesting possibility.

In my personal journey without the benefit of proper controlled tests, I felt that digital was getting better over the decades and for about the last ten years found I couldn't hear audible differences between quality digital products. So this past decade or so even without the benefit of a controlled test my anecdotal perception is in alignment with the general consensus here at ASR.

 

[ahofer]

then we have 40 years of people fooling themselves... an interesting possibility.

But not at all unprecedented.

 

[Mr. Widget]

But not at all unprecedented.

But in answer to my question, would you say that you are in the camp that CD playback and subsequently all manner of 16 bit 44.1KHz or better digital playback has essentially sounded unchanged since the early to mid 80s?

 

[ahofer]

But in answer to my question, would you say that you are in the camp that CD playback and subsequently all manner of 16 bit 44.1KHz or better digital playback has essentially sounded unchanged since the early to mid 80s?

To human ears, yeah probably. Most of the issues were with crap recordings in the beginning, I think.

 

[kemmler3D]

So we have one vote for "high end" digital by the early 90s was "solved"... is there a consensus?

I suppose the follow up to that would be; when were mainstream commodity DACs audibly "solved"

So, there is "solved" from a practical point of view and "solved" as in "no further work in this area even makes sense". Today, we are at the latter stage. There are several DACs reviewed by Amir that have such low noise and distortion that no audible improvement is possible even in theory.

In the 1990s we were at the stage where the noise and distortion was very unlikely to be audible in normal listening use cases, but still possible to hear in certain circumstances. So for an average joe, it's been "solved" for a long time, as DACs have been the least likely to be the fidelity-limiting factor in their system since then. Potentially audible improvements have happened since then, but the number of people who have actually heard real differences between (properly functioning) DACs with their own ears, in normal listening, has been very, very small.

DACs do have some room for progress - consolidation with preamps, additional connectivity, better UI, etc. It's not like we can all buy our final DAC and pack it up. But as far as simply converting numbers to continuous voltages for listening, that's very much solved.

There are still people who argue that DACs have lower fidelity than certain analog formats, but those people have been wrong in almost all cases for at least 20 years.

 

[Mr. Widget]

To human ears, yeah probably.

My question was to your ears.

Beyond that I think human ears are the only ears that matter. For most of us, audio gear is to be listened to as opposed to being measured. Sure measurements are an interesting sidebar, but only that. That said, I have seen photography sites where people geek out on the technical merits of an uninteresting crap image, so I guess if one's hobby is measuring audio gear, there is nothing wrong with that, but that isn't my area of interest.

Most of the issues were with crap recordings in the beginning, I think.

I have heard this a lot over the years. Crap recordings are available in every format.

But as many others said back in the day and many still do, "those early CDs were horrible." I no longer think that is true at all. When I play my oldest CDs on contemporary gear they sound just fine. Heck, some of them are even of music I still like.

 

[Mr. Widget]

In the 1990s we were at the stage where the noise and distortion was very unlikely to be audible in normal listening use cases, but still possible to hear in certain circumstances. So for an average joe, it's been "solved" for a long time, as DACs have been the least likely to be the fidelity-limiting factor in their system since then. Potentially audible improvements have happened since then, but the number of people who have actually heard real differences between (properly functioning) DACs with their own ears, in normal listening, has been very, very small.

My issue with digital has never been with noise or distortion. I have never found any audible fault there. My issue was with the stereophonic imaging and to a lesser extent to the "liveliness" of the sound.

To the first point, in my experience listening to digital recordings on earlier digital gear the stereo image was narrowed horizontally collapsing to a heavily center weighted almost monophonic sound laterally and in terms of stage depth or the Y axis, the sound stage had also collapsed with a very shallow stage depth in the plane of the speakers. Subjectively as digital got better I felt the X axis improved more initially and eventually the Y axis improved to the point that today I hear no degradation in digital playback. This is not limited to digital playback. Some of the earliest digital recordings (say from Deutsche Grammophone) have these characteristics even if playing the vinyl records.

To the second point, "liveliness"; this is much harder to express in words and may be related to the lack of background noise. This could be entirely due to having started the journey in audio playback expecting some degree of noise and the lack of this seems unnatural? I have no idea.

Lastly, FWIW: for those who can't wrap their heads around the last several sentences, no I am not a drug user or heavy drinker.

 

[ahofer]

My question was to your ears.

My ears are human. I claim no exceptional skills.

liveliness of sound

The constant sense that the needle might leap from its groove in response to some low frequency information certainly added a “liveliness”. Forgive me, but I think your criticisms of digital are more likely a fondness for analogue artifacts or simply imagined. But you could always devise some tests to figure it out. Let us know if you do.