Benefits of using expensive DACs

[voodooless]

If someone owns a 2000 euro DAC for two years while someone else changes eight (or more as it seems,based on user's posts here) 300-400 euro ones at the same time with absolutely none audible benefit then the cost is exactly the same

I guess this is a rare occurrence, but hey, crazy people are everywhere. Besides, the argument is rarely that they bought it because the 2k over multiple years isn't that much of a deal. The argument is that it sounds so much better than the € 100 one. I'm sure you can also find someone who bought multiple 2k+ DACs in two years for the exact same reasons...

 

[Sokel]

I guess this is a rare occurrence, but hey, crazy people are everywhere. Besides, the argument is rarely that they bought it because the 2k over multiple years isn't that much of a deal. The argument is that it sounds so much better than the € 100 one. I'm sure you can also find someone who bought multiple 2k+ DACs in two years for the exact same reasons...

I'm sure I can find some too,but rarely about the sound,that's a usual conversation we have and laugh with my friends.
And far more expensive ones and the main reason is built quality,looks,support and the "feel like a king" treatment you get by you dealer in such buys.

When it comes to sources in general though,nothing can outperform my Avid turntable at the time/cost ratio.
(it will probably outperform me as well )

 

[dshreter]

The first part most probably is true, but we don't know and never will know that for sure so hence no, actually it is unproven and will remain so.

It won’t remain unproven. The thresholds of human hearing are studied and known, rigorous blind comparison of DACs (within certain performance parameters) has been completed and humans can’t detect the differences.

 

[Holmz]

If it changes the impulse response, it changes the frequency response (magnitude and/or phase), no?

Yeah it changes the phase, but it does not need to change the magnitude,
And most people look only at the magnitude of FR.

 

[ahofer]

It won’t remain unproven

I don't think you can prove it, any more than you can prove any negative. But there is zero evidence to reject it as a null hypothesis, specious Fremer anecdotes notwithstanding.

 

[little-endian]

It won’t remain unproven.

I will, systematically. Evolution could improve the hearing, there could eventually come out that we missed something, etc.

The thresholds of human hearing are studied and known, rigorous blind comparison of DACs (within certain performance parameters) has been completed and humans can’t detect the differences.

Yes, which asymptomatically more and more strengthens the righteous assumption that it simply exceeds our abilities to detect any further improvement. However that is not a proof, at least not in the strict mathematical sense.

 

[dshreter]

I will, systematically. Evolution could improve the hearing, there could eventually come out that we missed something, etc.


Yes, which asymptomatically more and more strengthens the righteous assumption that it simply exceeds our abilities to detect any further improvement. However that is not a proof, at least not in the strict mathematical sense.

I understand what you are saying now. It cannot be proven definitively that all individuals for all time could not possibly detect differences between DACs. However, prior tests have supported (not proven) the null hypothesis that there is no audible difference between well performing DACs.

Is this accurate?

 

[krabapple]

Yes. I am well aware of the trap that is expectation bias. I have written much about on a defunct hifi forum. I realize that EB can't be turned off, ever. It's always there at work. The best one can do is to be aware of it. I am all too aware of my own expectation bias. That is why I ask the question of myself. I remember very well all the time wasted thinking I could hear a difference in a sighted listen.

Your stance on DAC differences you claim to have heard is inexplicable, then.

What do you think Amir would say?

 

[little-endian]

@dshreter

Exactly that I was trying to say. Ultimately proof is a big one and should not be taken lightly.

But I'm definitely one of those who believe that the ears are probably one of the most overrated sense organs. As

Back then in the CD era, it was boldly claimed "perfect sound forever". While "forever" is also a tough one when it comes to any storage media, in terms of the provided sample rate and bit depth, the reconstructability thereofand hearing capabilities, it seems to hold up pretty well so far.

At least, I am always astonished how good the quality was already in 1982 when I put some Japanese first release into the player and it just runs like no time has passed. I consider it one of the greatest formats ever invented as it closely matches what is ultimately required.

 

[Skeptical_Aus]

It's worthwhile to remember that science does not prove hypotheses, we fail to disprove them when alternative models cannot explain the data.

 

[Killingbeans]

Yes, it's all about probability in the light of what we know. Anybody can speculate about just about anything, since nothing can have a probability of zero. But it takes hard work and tons of research to transform a miniscule probability into something that's worth spending time on.

I sort of get it when audiophiles try to justify their unreliable impressions with "science doesn't know everything!", because yeah, sometimes a big new discovery comes along.

For instance, I saw an article this morning talking about how a 100 year old rule of thumb (Bredt's rule) in organic chemistry has lately been shown to be much more of a guideline than an actual rule, and it gives the potential for big breakthroughs in the field.

But just because some probabilities can be shifted, doesn't mean all of them can. And the more well understood a field of science is, the less likely these shifts are to happen. Audio is very well understood, so when the "science doesn't know everything!" argument shows up, it does unfortunately seem very much like a grasp at straws.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, it's all about probability in the light of what we know.

Bingo!

Anybody can speculate about just about anything, since nothing can have a probability of zero.

Except the probability of something having a probability of zero?

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, it's all about probability in the light of what we know. Anybody can speculate about just about anything, since nothing can have a probability of zero. But it takes hard work and tons of research to transform a miniscule probability into something that's worth spending time on.

I sort of get it when audiophiles try to justify their unreliable impressions with "science doesn't know everything!", because yeah, sometimes a big new discovery comes along.

For instance, I saw an article this morning talking about how a 100 year old rule of thumb (Bredt's rule) in organic chemistry has lately been shown to be much more of a guideline than an actual rule, and it gives the potential for big breakthroughs in the field.

But just because some probabilities can be shifted, doesn't mean all of them can. And the more well understood a field of science is, the less likely these shifts are to happen. Audio is very well understood, so when the "science doesn't know everything!" argument shows up, it does unfortunately seem very much like a grasp at straws.

Furthermore.

If we learn something new and vast in a field of science, it is not going to change what is already observed, nor what those observations tell us. For example, we know what gravity does, even if we don't fully understand in detail all the physical mechanisms that make it happen. If we sometime disover the grand unified theory that fully explains it all, it is not going to change the fact that it hurts when you drop an anvil on your foot.

Similarly - if we discover something new and amazing in the field of audio - (as you point out, unlikely since we have been doing it so long and the physics is not that complicated) it is not going to change (for example) the limits of human hearing. We are not suddenly going to be able to hear stuff we could not hear before. Crystals placed on amplifiers are not suddenly going to start making a difference to the way those amps work, or to the fidelity of their output.

And so on...

 

[ex audiophile]

Benefits of using expensive DACs are mainly:

• Placebo effect is real and works really well so you might perceive a better SQ where there is none knowing something is recommended in luxury (web)magazines/sites.
• Looks may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (feelgood effect)
• Knowing something expensive may be important for the owner to get enjoyment (pride of ownership,feelgood effect).
• Owning something 'special' may work wonders for someone (pride of ownership, feelgood effect).
• Most benefits go to the manufacturers, importers and retailers and are financial in nature.
• Very few manufacturers actually produce something that measures/performs objectively better. That does not mean it will objectively sound better too but maybe a reason to buy a product.

Feeling good about a product (knowing it is among 'the best' according to [insert reviewers/individuals one trusts] is an important part of enjoyment as is pride of ownership to some.
One gets some 'insurance' it does not get 'better' than that (within or even above their budget).
In a similar way as owning 'objectively good' and 'ASR recommended' gear kind of works (people buying on recommendations and SINAD for instance and buying something new the moment a device has a slightly higher SINAD or a good number one aspires but suddenly falls within budget.

In the end it is a 'dream' one buys. A dream our eyes/brains are perfectly willing to believe.

When I asked Rory at Benchmark about the benefit of using one of their DACs vs an equally well measuring competitor he said their DACs output a substantially greater vRMS than non professional DACs and this allowed their DACs to operate in their most efficient (highest SNR) zone. I may be mis-stating his comments but is this a factor in our decisions (vRMS output), esp in relation to matching with our preamp/amps?

 

[solderdude]

That, however, is not related to the DAC being more expensive (as in many k$) but rather an engineering option in order to get a technical higher S/N ratio. The noise floor is a given. To improve S/N ratio an option is to increase output voltage for 0dBFS. They are not the only ones.

 

[Descartes]

This thread is funny, glad I am
listening to music while entertaining myself on my average DAC!

 

[knownothing]

Well, except for that very last part:

If you have normal, generally healthy hearing, chances are you'll have one hell of a time discerning lossy audio of a half-decent bitrate and the uncompressed originals. (There are people with specific forms of hearing loss who can basically always tell the difference because their hearing's frequency response is way off from the psymodels employed by lossy codecs and masking doesn't work as expected. The same can also happen when transducers have a super wonky frequency response.)

But recordings and mastering, boy do those ever matter.

So audiophiles are just people with particularly bad hearing?

 

[BDWoody]

So audiophiles are just people with particularly bad hearing?

Is that really what you got from his post? If so, that's a real shame. If not, maybe try interacting in good faith.

 

[atomek]

I borrowed the Calyx Femto DAC and compared it to the Popcorn Hour (on Pass INT-150, Dynaudio Contour) - the Calyx is about 20 times more expensive. At first I thought there was a difference (power of suggestion), but after adjusting the volume I really couldn't tell. My friends couldn't tell the difference either in blind tests.

Then something struck me - you can't hear differences with a DAC for a very simple reason - the distortion produced by a DAC is several orders of magnitude lower than that of the best amplifier. Any amplifier distortion will overwhelm any DAC distortion, so even if you have 'golden' ears, you won't be able to tell the difference by swapping DACs.

Knowing how susceptible listening is to suggestion, I'm still looking for the best performing DAC (by measurement). Audiophilia is a very expensive condition to have and hard to cure, even if you convinced yourself with scientific methods.

 

[knownothing]

Is that really what you got from his post? If so, that's a real shame. If not, maybe try interacting in good faith.

There was a deeper message embedded in my sarcasm. I am a senior citizen, so very likely have some hearing impediments. The “company line” of the music lovers I run with (more like walk now) is that the only people we should trust to test our audio set ups by ear after using meters, dirac, etc. are females below the age of 25 who have unimpaired hearing, as they are more likely to have the greatest sensitivity to high frequencies. At least in theory. Based on the post I responded to, anyone with properly functioning hearing is also the most likely to be fooled by data reduction algorithms. Interesting.

As I have aged in this hobby I have become less enamored by tinkly treble and chest pounding bass and much more focused on tone, timbre and drive in the music - is the beat coherent, easy to follow, and does it maintain my attention. Believable representation of transients and decay also matters to me. Soundstage and depth are less important, but I find in both analog and digital reproduction when those previously mentioned factors are addressed in playback, soundstage is usually well defined.

My current DAC is the most competent I have had in my system at playing lower resolution files, but I find listening to MP3s and redbook recordings generally less compelling than listening to 24/44.1, 48, 88.2, 96, 176.4 or 192 files through the same DAC. Is the lossy music designed to fool better ears, and are my old ears/brain disinterested due to physiological limitations or psychological bias?

YMMV,

kn