• 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!

Benefits of using expensive DACs

And how do you know that those perceived differences are not due to small level differences and/or purely psychological factors due to you knowing the brand, price, and aesthetic of what you are listening to?
I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
 
Or just your mood even.
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
 
I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
How do you know it's more fatiguing? You're unaware of which DAC is playing or is this sighted? If the latter then we can dismiss it until actual evidence emerges.
 
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
This is exactly the reason why blind testing protocols have been developed.
 
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
But what it all had in common was peeking. You just can't wave your hands to get around that.

If you can't hear it without peeking, you can't hear it. That's the simple reality.
 
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
1732801842015.png
 
I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
There may be - but it is vanishingly unlikely. So until you bring actual evidence of your ability to hear actual differences, don't be surprised if the rest of us just assume there is not.
 
Yes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).


In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.

kn
 
Straw man argument, I compare level matched and unsighted so that I can determine whether I can discern a difference, you should try it revelatory.
Keith
 
Yes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).


In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.

kn
well ...

I don't feel the need to drop feathers and cannonballs to check that gravity behaves as I've read it should ... I've read the science and I can accept that.

Every explanation I have ever seen for why audio electronics (and cables) sound different is contra-science or is not proven. I include the affects of cognitive bias / perception bias in that.
Why on earth would I need to check that?

Show me a theory for why something sounds different, that stacks up, and I'll consider it ("because I heard it" doesn't cut it for me, and shouldn't for you)
 
Yes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).


In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.

kn
You’re right. It’s everyone else that is wrong
 
After reading through the 14 pages can someone recommend me some DAC-s to consider for my first every hifi system?

I got fond of the Goldenear T66 speaker, I listend to it twice, this half active solution is good imho, since I love bass and don't have the ability to fine tune a subwoofer into it.

Thanks!
 
Choose a unit that has the features you require and the aesthetic you enjoy.
You don’t have to spend that much but some features EQ for example are really worthwhile.
Keith
 
After reading through the 14 pages can someone recommend me some DAC-s to consider for my first every hifi system?

I got fond of the Goldenear T66 speaker, I listend to it twice, this half active solution is good imho, since I love bass and don't have the ability to fine tune a subwoofer into it.

Thanks!
Probably worth starting a new thread for this since it always starts with more questions than answers!

What else do you have in your system (or plan to have), what features do you need (inputs, balanced etc) ... what's your budget?
 
After reading through the 14 pages can someone recommend me some DAC-s to consider for my first every hifi system?

I got fond of the Goldenear T66 speaker, I listend to it twice, this half active solution is good imho, since I love bass and don't have the ability to fine tune a subwoofer into it.

Thanks!
1)Audibly Transparent - lots of cheap DACs reviewed on this site, and most should have the connections you need (doesn't really matter)
2)EQ incorporated - more limiting, but Wiim and Fiio have it, as well as others
3)Dynamic Loudness incorporated - Now there's only one DAC left, for like $1100, tho.

The last part is important to me, but YMMV.
 
Yes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).


In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.

kn
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/05/high-end-dac-blind-listening-results.html
Statistically significant difference in preference between the Apple dongle and a couple of Linn streamers, following price and measured performance, for a subset of participants. The proposed follow-up is to try again with low cost equipment that matches or exceeds the measured performance of the most expensive Linn.
 
I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
Yes, there probably is, but it's going on in you, not the DAC.

And I see you've now pivoted to the classic "BUT TELL ME, WHO HAS DONE SUCH BLIND TESTS?"

Tiresome.
 
It's a matter of what you want. You can get something pretty darned cheap that has distortion and noise well below the human audibility threshold. Expensive DACs may have features that lower priced DACs don't have. Then there's the satisfaction some people get from having the best possible performance. Also there's appearance. You may prefer a certain look to go with other components or need a specific size.

I'm annoyingly utilitarian and want performance that is better than I can hear. It's function over form for me. I don't think people who have different criteria are wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom