Benefits of using expensive DACs

[Holmz]

It is possible that two DACS with identical performance against tones could sound different with music, as there are also a variety of filter schemes used for high end that could affect transient response.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It is possible that two DACS with identical performance against tones could sound different with music, as there are also a variety of filter schemes used for high end that could affect transient response.

Frequency response is the opposite side of the impulse coin. So I would say no. If the filter effects the FR, then maybe, but mostly due to FR.

 

[Beave]

It is possible that two DACS with identical performance against tones could sound different with music, as there are also a variety of filter schemes used for high end that could affect transient response.

No. If the "filter schemes used for high end" affect transient response in an audible way, then they will also affect frequency response in an audible way (no longer "identical performance against tones," to use your words).

 

[solderdude]

'transients' in music are mostly in the 2-8kHz range and none of the filters is 'active' in that band.
Perceived 'transients' in music is not the same as 'transient' response as it is known in electronics.

 

[antcollinet]

'transients' in music are mostly in the 2-8kHz range and none of the filters is 'active' in that band.
Perceived 'transients' in music is not the same as 'transient' response as it is known in electronics.

Further, our perception of the musical 'transient', is based on the ramp up of the envelope (volume) of the frequency. I looked in detail at the "transient" of a cymbal. The strike section had a fundamental of around 8kHz, and the envelope ramps up over about 1ms (so about 8 to 10 cycles of that frequency).

 

[BDWoody]

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.

No, the best one can do is control for it with level and sight controls as a starter.

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.

Then why do you not bother with some basic controls? We occasionally have members who actually want to put their ears to the test as in the thread linked below, but most can't be bothered.

Post in thread 'Blind testing two DACs - Proper Process' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ng-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/post-2118881

Too much trouble?

 

[Killingbeans]

So a $10 DAC that isn't broken, measures sufficiently well, and is level-matched will sound the same as one costing thousands.

The one who made the assertion didn't say anything about measuring sufficiently well, nor be level-matched. But I can go along with it as added qualifications. So if your qualifications are met, do all DACs sound the same in your opinion?

In all likelihood, yes. Assuming you compare them in a way that minimizes the influence of cognitive bias.

However, when simply listening to them in a normal fashion, one or the other is also likely to sound better. Either because it's seen as a "giant killer", or because the price tag itself makes it seem like something that performs better. In fact, one them could be audibly broken to some degree, and you'd still hear no difference because you were biased in that direction. Cognitive bias is a mess.

DACs are not like cars. They don't have equivalents to acceleration, handling and all the other things that make cars fun and enjoyable.

They are more like artillery cannons. If they are within range, are sufficiently precise and fire a sufficiently large shell, they'll both destroy the target as thoroughly as needed. And although the hobby is centered arould the idea, that the target (human hearing) is fast nimble and nearly impossible to pin down, in reality it's rather huge, slow and painted with flashy colors.

 

[SIY]

We occasionally have members who actually want to put their ears to the test

...and some who run away when their beliefs are put to the test. I'm thinking of a recent one in particular...

 

[BDWoody]

...and some who run away when their beliefs are put to the test. I'm thinking of a recent one in particular...

Even when the hard part is done for them.

"We've got those files set up for you to download at your convenience."

 

[solderdude]

Further, our perception of the musical 'transient', is based on the ramp up of the envelope (volume) of the frequency. I looked in detail at the "transient" of a cymbal. The strike section had a fundamental of around 8kHz, and the envelope ramps up over about 1ms (so about 8 to 10 cycles of that frequency).

Yep, there is nothing 'instant' or 'fast' about it.
It is just perceived that way.

 

[Old_School_Brad]

No. You hear it. Maybe im using the wrong term but the center was never the clear, resolved center with the topping but with the denafrips the center of the image is solid. You hear the sound clearly right in the center.

And it wasnt a matter of immediate comparison for this problem. It was always there and bugged me with the topping no matter what i did with my speakers. Bought the denafrips for a good price locally and the problem was gone.

Using a Chromecast Audio, I experienced a clear and well-defined center image, identical to what I get with the Wiim Pro Plus and my low to mid-priced Sony CD player from the nineties.
That's odd..

 

[ahofer]

Too much trouble?

It kind of is, though. As you know, someone raised the ante on my $10k challenge and I started thinking about a bulletproof way to test his Chord against my Topping (although he wanted the cheapest dongle in our review section). Level-matching and blind instant switching are a bit of a challenge*, and I realized I would have to make investments I didn't want to make.

Also, it's too much trouble because this is well-established. I mean, we can do the feather and stone in a vacuum experiment again, but do we NEED to? No.


*I'm fairly convinced the high output of Chord devices is a deliberate strategy for uncontrolled comparison testing.

 

[danadam]

...and some who run away when their beliefs are put to the test. I'm thinking of a recent one in particular...

Can I ask for a link? I think I missed and it sounds like it could be entertaining

 

[SIY]

It spanned a couple of threads and posts scattered within them, but here's a link for the actual test.

Are tubes more musical?

True enough, if we use the term "music" as it is traditionally used. That's why I wrote that a musical instrument is a technical device for creating sound/music. As far as I know this is how "musical instrument" is usually defined (ref. Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia etc...). Nowadays, a...

www.audiosciencereview.com

And disappointingly, he then disappeared.

 

[BDWoody]

It kind of is, though. As you know, someone raised the ante on my $10k challenge and I started thinking about a bulletproof way to test his Chord against my Topping (although he wanted the cheapest dongle in our review section). Level-matching and blind instant switching are a bit of a challenge*, and I realized I would have to make investments I didn't want to make.

For a test with enough rigor to pass a peer review process, as would be needed if something truly exceptional is to be claimed and supported, that is definitely a pain. With a non-trivial amount on the line, you certainly wouldn't want to do it half-assed.

The question is how many of those who come in without that level of bluster, where the only thing on the line is their own ego, might actually be convinced by doing the kind of boiled down version as set up in that thread. That's pretty much what I did, and I think many of us have done, and never really needed to go through it again. I looked at the entire industry differently afterwards.

 

[ahofer]

That's pretty much what I did, and I think many of us have done, and never really needed to go through it again. I looked at the entire industry differently afterwards.

Same. Had my son swap cords on amps, compared DACs carefully. Did some online tests, read some of the tests and literature online, and that was it.

 

[Holmz]

No. If the "filter schemes used for high end" affect transient response in an audible way, then they will also affect frequency response in an audible way (no longer "identical performance against tones," to use your words).

One can have a FIR filter that only does “a DIRAC like” operation to sharpen impulse response, and not change the FR.

 

[akamatsu]

No, the best one can do is control for it with level and sight controls as a starter.



Then why do you not bother with some basic controls? We occasionally have members who actually want to put their ears to the test as in the thread linked below, but most can't be bothered.

Post in thread 'Blind testing two DACs - Proper Process' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ng-two-dacs-proper-process.57890/post-2118881

Too much trouble?

It is too much trouble and not needed in my case. I'm not a hobbyist. I just like listening to music. I've bought what I consider to be the best kit available (almost), and set it up very precisely. That's good enough for me. I'm very satisfied with my hifi system, and I listen practically every day.

 

[ahofer]

It is too much trouble and not needed in my case. I'm not a hobbyist. I just like listening to music. I've bought what I consider to be the best kit available (almost), and set it up very precisely. That's good enough for me. I'm very satisfied with my hifi system, and I listen practically every day.

I do too, but that is different from asserting, improbably, that one can hear differences between electronics that measure as audibly transparent.

 

[krabapple]

I don't read nor participate in the discussions much. I mostly enjoy Amir's reviews.

Even from those, you should have been able to pick up the idea that beyond a rather basic level of performance, DACs sound alike.

I've heard a $5k system that I preferred over a $100k+ system. How would one measure performance objectively?

By the very definition of objectively, it would be done with measurements , including not just of the device, but an accumulated knowledge of what humans can hear, which ahs also been been derived from 'measurements', i.e., controlled testing.

This is not new science.

If one likes the sound of the expensive kit more than a less expensive piece of kit, then they may be willing to pay the extra to get the sound that they prefer.

That is called preference. It is influenced by things beyond just what you hear.

Which is fine, but just acknowledge it.

There may very well be an expensive DAC that can't be matched by a cheaper DAC. I don't know. I just enjoy listening to music at home. This is where the hifi system performs.

So? Maybe stop making fact claims beyond that simple statement of preference.