Do you hear a difference with DAC filters?

[Basic Channel]

Please remember that WTC turned the European music into the 'false'.

I was doing a play on the word "temper" in case you are maybe not a native speaker.

Do you know why bells sound like bells? Or what octave stretching is?

 

[chord]

I was doing a play on the word "temper" in case you are maybe not a native speaker.

Do you know why bells sound like bells? Or what octave stretching is?

Yes, of course.

I know hifiers whos never disturbed by a pre-ringing effect; I know hardcore NOS belivers too. If you listen non-acoustic music you may prefer the 'Sharp' filters as well.
That's why AKM gives these filter-possibilities.

 

[Basic Channel]

Yes, of course.

I know hifiers whos never disturbed by a pre-ringing effect; I know hardcore NOS belivers too. If you listen non-acoustic music you may prefer the 'Sharp' filters as well.
That's why AKM gives these filter-possibilities.

It's an incredible amount of effort to put into small differences in high frequency "air" imo.

Do you have acoustic treatment or calibrated measurement microphone?

I suppose you'd be appalled by my ECM8000 or the Freq response above 200hz being about +/- 3 or 4db.

 

[chord]

He prefers 'sharp' filters:

How to pick the best filter setting for your dac

I think it's a technically correct text. Maybe help to understand what's happening.
But I think the opposite nowadays.

 

[SIY]

I think it's a technically correct text.

Mostly. But... he falls into the trap of using an illegal signal for the impulse, i.e., not band-limited.

 

[chord]

At first I didn't understand it:

(sharp filter)
How can it be possible?
That echo overtakes the signal itself?
Then experts explained that digital conversion is not a true real-time conversion what steps ns by ns after each other. Digital signal is going to the chip then the conversion is producing the analogue signal even the above way - the two 'times' are different; similar to the procedure when picture is realized on the paper after shooting by a camera.

 

[amirm]

How can it be possible?

Don't know what you are asking. @SIY gave you the correct answer. To get graphs like what you have post, you need to feed the DAC an "illegal" signal with infinite bandwidth, i.e. an impulse. Music is encoded at sampling rates that far limit its bandwidth and hence, you are not going to see that kind of ringing.

 

[KSTR]

Don't know what you are asking. @SIY gave you the correct answer. To get graphs like what you have post, you need to feed the DAC an "illegal" signal with infinite bandwidth, i.e. an impulse. Music is encoded at sampling rates that far limit its bandwidth and hence, you are not going to see that kind of ringing.

Any signal that reaches the DAC is legal by definition. What you and @SIY mean is that microphone recordings of natural instruments/voices made with an ADC and then played back without any processing -- except proper downsampling maybe -- cannot and do not contain signals that provoke extensive DAC filter ringing.

The moment electronic instruments are used or heavy nonlinear processing is applied (like compression and hard limiting, but even simple editing without crossfades) the signal *will* contain "edges" that provoke DAC filter ringing.
Same story with intersample overs.

 

[Basic Channel]

The moment electronic instruments are used or heavy nonlinear processing is applied (like compression and hard limiting, but even simple editing without crossfades) the signal *will* contain "edges" that provoke DAC filter ringing.
Same story with intersample overs.

Can you elaborate on what you mean here? Do you mean in real time, because once its made into a WAV file at 44.1k it cannot contain "illegal" frequencies above nyquist.

 

[SIY]

What you and @SIY mean is that microphone recordings of natural instruments/voices made with an ADC and then played back without any processing -- except proper downsampling maybe -- cannot and do not contain signals that provoke extensive DAC filter ringing.

That is far more restrictive than what Amir and I are saying- ANY impulse, including electrical, MUST be bandlimited to fulfill the Shannon-Nyquist conditions. If you create a file (this is not a signal, this is a created file!) and bypass the antialiasing filter, that violates Nyquist-Shannon. So you're removing an essential component of the ADC-DAC process.

A legal signal for evaluating impulse response MUST be bandlimited to 1/2 the sampling frequency.

 

[Raketenpubs]

i came here because i was googling „can you here dac filter“…because, funfact: i got a zmf atrium recently and had to decide wether or not i kkep my 50 bucks dac dongle (only listening via iphone lossless stream) or get an expensive one. since there seemed to be two sides, techs and audiophiles and a lot of money is made with stupifity i thought i order one „expensive“ one (given my budget) and just try, if it’s the same i send it back. since i cant properly control volume i always tested obviously (but still small) different volume settings. i always prefered the cheaper dongle. then i found the filter option of the expensive one (fiio q15). and well, they made a difference and one of them (mid slow, whatever that means, i am no techi) sounded audibly and consistently better, no matter if the device was louder or quieter. i do only listen to classical, and say artsypartsy electro.
and the feeling was exactly as chord described it. so to me this is really funny.

 

[unpluggged]

i came here because i was googling „can you here dac filter“…because, funfact: i got a zmf atrium recently and had to decide wether or not i kkep my 50 bucks dac dongle (only listening via iphone lossless stream) or get an expensive one. since there seemed to be two sides, techs and audiophiles and a lot of money is made with stupifity i thought i order one „expensive“ one (given my budget) and just try, if it’s the same i send it back. since i cant properly control volume i always tested obviously (but still small) different volume settings. i always prefered the cheaper dongle. then i found the filter option of the expensive one (fiio q15). and well, they made a difference and one of them (mid slow, whatever that means, i am no techi) sounded audibly and consistently better, no matter if the device was louder or quieter. i do only listen to classical, and say artsypartsy electro.
and the feeling was exactly as chord described it. so to me this is really funny.

 

[SIY]

the feeling was exactly as chord described it

Coaching successful.

 

[MaxBuck]

Do you hear a difference with DAC filters?

I think I do.

I'm probably wrong.

 

[Barry_Sound]

i came here because i was googling „can you here dac filter“…because, funfact: i got a zmf atrium recently and had to decide wether or not i kkep my 50 bucks dac dongle (only listening via iphone lossless stream) or get an expensive one. since there seemed to be two sides, techs and audiophiles and a lot of money is made with stupifity i thought i order one „expensive“ one (given my budget) and just try, if it’s the same i send it back. since i cant properly control volume i always tested obviously (but still small) different volume settings. i always prefered the cheaper dongle. then i found the filter option of the expensive one (fiio q15). and well, they made a difference and one of them (mid slow, whatever that means, i am no techi) sounded audibly and consistently better, no matter if the device was louder or quieter. i do only listen to classical, and say artsypartsy electro.
and the feeling was exactly as chord described it. so to me this is really funny.

Well, the point of filters is to make things sound a little different. So if you have very transparent headphones and a good ear, you should hear something. The idea isnt all new. I remember Marantz and Sony CD players had (or still have) filter settings.

I'm not in the camp that thinks all DACs sound the same. From the conversion onwards, every DAC is analog and for power supply, component quality and output stage all the rules for analog hi-fi apply.

 

[Raketenpubs]

Coaching successful.

not really. i came to this site AFTER the experience, because i was so baffled. i would not have thought that there should be an audible difference. and then it is still funny to find a matching description of what i experienced. that is usually an indicator of smth going on.
but whatev.

 

[SIY]

that is usually an indicator of smth going on.

Yes it is. Just not what you think.

 

[mcdn]

Be careful. The selected filter / difference is almost unhearable but it can overwrite your listening habits.
The first 'sharp roll off' is excellent for measuring and at first sight seems 'the best' but has strong pre-ringing effect; means some echoes overdrive the sound what causes the echo itself.
Try a clavichord music, it will be incorrect sound.
The opposit, the last 'super slow' or 'NOS like' has early roll-off from 10 kHz - exactly as the acoustic instrument sound.
Personally, I prefer the 'Super Slow'.
When listening other filters, sound seems the same but there is a light bad feeling in the background.

I don’t like to play the bullshit card often, but you’ve made me do it. Any reconstruction filter other than the one used to generate the samples is just wrong. Do what you want afterwards, but start with the right signal.

 

[Killingbeans]

From the conversion onwards, every DAC is analog and for power supply, component quality and output stage all the rules for analog hi-fi apply.

And so does the limitations of human hearing.

Yes, some really, really dirt cheap DACs mess up the analog part audibly by clipping the signal or doing other gross cutting of corners, but it doesn't take much to reach a point of quality in DAC design where any notion of a "sound signature" has become preposterous. Black box tests don't lie. All the fancy PSUs and components in the world don't matter if they aren't implemented in a way that actually gives audible benefits.

I'm somewhat open to the idea of the most nonsensical reconstuction filters used in DACs being able to change the frequency response to an audible degree, but even then it's very hard to see that as anything other than a seriously dumb way of applying EQ to your signal chain.

not really. i came to this site AFTER the experience, because i was so baffled. i would not have thought that there should be an audible difference. and then it is still funny to find a matching description of what i experienced. that is usually an indicator of smth going on.

That's pretty much the blueprint for all of the snake-oil reviews out there.

Find some of the most ridiculous ones (magical stickers, cable lifters etc.) and you'll see.

It's always something in the line of: "I was hugely sceptical, but this blew my mind! I did some more research, and my experience does indeed match what the manufacturer tells me to expect! And there's tons of other people reporting the exact same experience! This must mean that this product does something special!"

We have practically zero conscious control of our biases. Just a sad fact of life.

 

[Raketenpubs]

yeah, well, i don’t see me as a troll, nor do i want to sell smth…and i could use the moneyy spent on the q15 for other things….but i am a bit ocd as well….so…it’s a tradeoff…my daily business is to deal with ppls biases….but nonetheless: most of these filters did not do any difference for me but the slow versions did. i wouldn’t hear it on speakers and i would not be able to detect it blinded (btw it’s a huge mistake of ppl not trained in evaluative methods to think that if some sort of proper abx isn’t giving results to conclude that there is no difference but that is another story). so i would not be able to discern these systematically. but this one filter made a systematic difference in some pieces of music (i tried for 5 hours and found 3 pieces that sounded systematically different) mostly in the impression of space. there has been an alteration in sound too, butthat i would not be able to spot systematically….for the systematic differece itwould be a difference smaller than 0.5 on a subjective 0-10 scale.