FIIO Warmer R2R DAC (with tube buffer)

[voodooless]

Not everyone has the same capabilities to ear the difference,

That’s just a variation of “your equipment is not resolving enough”. While true that people have different hearing, all hearing is inherently limited by how it evolved. There a physical limits to consider, and these limits have been studied for decades, and by now, it is very clear what humans can hear, and what the cannot. And this is true for all humans!

 

[Ropeburn]

Everyone loves tube saturation simulators, acoustic, electronic, everything inbetween musicians. The clou: it's exactly as "bad" and noisy as you want. Funnily enough, noise isn't half as popular as the distortion itself. Not even close.

 

[solid12345]

And there are hundreds of forums committed to these illusions. I specifically joined ASR to get away from the crazies elsewhere ! But they keep signing up here ? Why ? As I said ad naseum it’s a parallel to astrologist bashing astronomy forums or homeopaths bashing a medical forum ?


If the same anecdotes show up again agian afterwards, it’s a job for social or physical and physiological sciences , but the audio part is solved.

As a subjectivist what I don’t get is if why even engage in the hobby at all. If 99% of DACs measure/ sound the same why keep buying more? What new features do they bring to the table? If we went by objectivist views it’s been a mostly glacial industry for decades now. The one you bought 10 years is good enough. Why discuss something that many here believe can bring nothing different or new to your life? It’s like measuring fungible nails and deciding which will hang a picture all the same. I know there are users here who still faithfully upgrade their Topping to the next model when the last one measured perfect. Just…why.

 

[solderdude]

As a subjectivist what I don’t get is if why even engage in the hobby at all. If 99% of DACs measure/ sound the same why keep buying more? What new features do they bring to the table? If we went by objectivist views it’s been a mostly glacial industry for decades now. The one you bought 10 years is good enough. Why discuss something that many here believe can bring nothing different or new to your life? It’s like measuring fungible nails and deciding which will hang a picture all the same. I know there are users here who still faithfully upgrade their Topping to the next model when the last one measured perfect. Just…why.

A: They are discussed because some people are interested in how it performs, measures, what features it has, looks like.
B: There are people who believe a slightly higher SINAD is audible (they are wrong) but it keeps nagging.
C: equipment (especially the cheap ones) are throw-away items and sometimes fail after a few years and need to be replaced.
D: 99% of DACs measure differently but fortunately the differences are far below audible levels.
E: Some DACs have 1 or more issues, people like to avoid them.
F: Almost all people hear differences in DACs but not for the reasons they think (technical performance) and some want to know why.
G: DACs are a 'magical component' and that piques the interest of both objectivists and subjectivists.
H: Not all objectivists are educated and understand electronics and may want to know a bit more.
I: Some people like to own gear with 'the best performance there is within their budget'.
J: Most people believe there is a hard link between (DAC) measurements and sound.

So... there you have a few reasons.

 

[oleg87]

I know there are users here who still faithfully upgrade their Topping to the next model when the last one measured perfect. Just…why.

I doubt that describes most regulars on ASR.

But there is plenty of variation in feature set, usability, form factor (see: big VU meters on this thing), software quality, pricepoint, etc. For example, PEQ is an increasingly common (and extremely useful) feature moving downmarket from products like the RME ADI-2.

 

[Mnyb]

Differences is that you wont buy this years color you can buy new good gear more seldom and not suffer constant "upgradeitis" .

You can be very interested in audio equipment and want to follow the development the hobby is not called "buying new stuff constantly".

I had the same main speakers for 17 years for example before i changed them .

I recently changed my computer speakers had the previous ones for 15 years too .

My kitchen speakers had quality issues ( they where meant to be my computer speakers one was constantly having gain problems ) I got tired of them and bought something else

circumstance's change .

lightning killed my DAC i had connected to the computer , the DAC i bought because I built a new PC and bought no dedicated soundcard .
it's replaced with a combined DAC HP amp .

I buy stuff and want to be well informed .
In the field of loudspeakers there's a lot going on and it makes real difference's , the speakers so keep my ears perked for new development here

Being objective and informed makes for better decisions .
Your DAC is probably the best performing equipment you own , no point wasting money and time on those unless it misses a feature or connector or is broken .

Now what ? I'm goin to buy a new streamer the same ligthning took out that one too .
A modern streamer is an interesting product it includes a DAC among other things it has subwoofer crosover and PEQ and room EQ far more important things for the sound than this weeks best DAC .

DAC is a commodity component that are inside more interesting products . I have no idea what's inside my active speakers , probably sufficient for the task .

It is actually fashinating why people change DAC's all the time ? when it's the top performer in your whole system .

It's also a historical interest and you can collect stuff

I bought a turntable the other day that i intend to upkeep for nostalgic reasons and play some records on now and then , just for the fun .


Oh and being objektive you don't have the extra 30% idiot tax buying fancy cables with every piece of equipment or even more silly change them all the time thinking it's an upgrade .

A root cause of the problems is that people actually believe that constant improvement forever is possible it does not work that way .
next years new amplifier can not sound radically better for 40 years in row it's logically impossible it probably could between 1930 and 1960 got a bit harder later on in the late 70's plateaued in the 80's-90's when the whole hobby turned to fantasies instead , a lessons in marketing how to sell new stuff anyway ?

 

[RexrothPigeon]

People don't buy dax to measure them. They buy dax to listen to music through them

DACs have no idea what music is. They exist to convert digital into analog. We have zero difficulty identifying the accuracy (fidelity) of that conversion, and it has no influence from the room, the speakers, the listener's position, what they ate for breakfast that day, their astrological sign, etc.

A DAC is not a musical device. It has one job: to convert digital to analog. If it converts accurately, then the signal it outputs is identical to the signal it receives. If its output signal diverges from its input signal in audible ways, it is bad at its job and interfering with the audio before it reaches the listener: essentially, it is an effects box.

 

[JSmith]

peaks

A good summary post... however that is meant to be piques. 'tis a weird word.


JSmith

 

[sucramhabib]

Are you a shill?


JSmith

Why does someone have to be a shill to like and report on what they hear?

 

[JSmith]

Why does someone have to be a shill to like and report on what they hear?

I didn't say the member is, I asked if they are, based on their recent post history and what products (type/brand etc.) they consistently refer to. No one is interested in what someone hears when it comes to a DAC, unless some form of comparison controls are used. Constantly posting useless subjective opinions across the forum tends to create that atmosphere about any given member, hence the query.

A DAC has one simple job, converting digital to analog... simples.

This is ASR, not audio subjective review.... plenty of other forums for that kind of nonsense. Many members come here to escape all that audiophoolery.


JSmith

 

[SMen]

As a subjectivist what I don’t get is if why even engage in the hobby at all. If 99% of DACs measure/ sound the same why keep buying more? What new features do they bring to the table? If we went by objectivist views it’s been a mostly glacial industry for decades now. The one you bought 10 years is good enough. Why discuss something that many here believe can bring nothing different or new to your life? It’s like measuring fungible nails and deciding which will hang a picture all the same. I know there are users here who still faithfully upgrade their Topping to the next model when the last one measured perfect. Just…why.

Nice! ... this why this warmer r2r thread is interesting...

Just pointing out that I think you were referring to this line in particular:

"If the same anecdotes show up again agian afterwards, it’s a job for social or physical and physiological sciences , but the audio part is solved."

If I just zero in on that bit I have to empathize! I come here because I like to have my subjective listening verified by the objective tests - this has happened to me a few times now with items I have bought ... the humble Aiyima A07 brought be here originally - more recently the 3e A7 and the AIyima T20.

I recently went the other way round and bought an SMSL Raw DAC and said to myself that this measures so well I must surely love it. For whatever reason it just doesn't move me except on a few tracks ... which impress more than move.

But the argument that everything is down to bias is an obstacle to progress even if we must be aware of our biases ... and I for one believe that there has been an enormous amount of progress in DACs over the last 10 / 15 years ... and indeed those 3255 based class D's are amazing value ...

Maybe it is something in the SMSL's output circuits ... so not the DAC itself.

 

[Mnyb]

I would suggest an experimental error of some kind , or a broken test objekt * just guessing from pure probability .
This is hard to do properly I'm quite sure ill botch it if i tried .

The probabilities are so stacked against us that a positive most likely indicates an experimental error , not real difference's .

* Quite possible , because you can built perfect products for peanuts does not mean everyone does this . Amir find a dud now and then PS Audio and TotalDAC for example

 

[mhardy6647]

Everyone loves tube saturation simulators, acoustic, electronic, everything inbetween musicians. The clou: it's exactly as "bad" and noisy as you want. Funnily enough, noise isn't half as popular as the distortion itself. Not even close.

I won't argue the noise point, but I will offer three observations.
1) Maybe it's just me, but I think of dither as replacing non-random noise (is that an oxymoron?) with random noise. Is dither still a thing in signal processing?
2) In the 90s, there seemed to be a faddish popularity to adding some LP-record-style surface noise to pristine CD tracks - e.g., Sheryl Crow's Riverwide.
3) The best-ever evocation of old-school noise, arguably, dates back to the analog era... and... the Monkees.

Magnolia Simms, in case the video isn't available in everybody's neck of the woods.

Only in recent years have I stopped to think how this 'effect' (noise + lo fi) was achieved. I am guessing the basic track was recorded and cut on an acetate, and then the acetate was played a number of times, with some physical abuse in between. Needless to say, I've never tried to unleash the power of the interent -- I reckon there're probably making of essays, videos, and podcasts. Heck, Rick Beato's probably interviewed the cutting lathe!

 

[Ropeburn]

I won't argue the noise point, but I will offer three observations.
1) Maybe it's just me, but I think of dither as replacing non-random noise (is that an oxymoron?) with random noise. Is dither still a thing in signal processing?
2) In the 90s, there seemed to be a faddish popularity to adding some LP-record-style surface noise to pristine CD tracks - e.g., Sheryl Crow's Riverwide.
3) The best-ever evocation of old-school noise, arguably, dates back to the analog era... and... the Monkees.

Magnolia Simms, in case the video isn't available in everybody's neck of the woods.

Only in recent years have I stopped to think how this 'effect' (noise + lo fi) was achieved. I am guessing the basic track was recorded and cut on an acetate, and then the acetate was played a number of times, with some physical abuse in between. Needless to say, I've never tried to unleash the power of the interent -- I reckon there're probably making of essays, videos, and podcasts. Heck, Rick Beato's probably interviewed the cutting lathe!

Haha, nice observations!

1) Dither/extra noise is definitely still a thing. There's the FLAC trick for example: you take a 24bit source file, add a certain amount of low level noise, et voilà, the encoder can now compress much better. You save filesize without audible noise because it's still only in the least significant bits you don't hear anyway. A funny cheat that's quite effective.

2) Still highly popular to add noise and crackle, not just for "LoFi" styles. Tape and vinyl simulator plugins are legion and just as popular as tube saturation. There's even gear specifically bought for its "nice" noise generator FX like the Roland SP series samplers. Gear nerds can't even agree which model has the "best" one and buy old, impractical models just because the effect is better on there. Lol.

3) And yes, there's still hilarious lunatics (don't mean it in a bad way) who use age old gear for getting all the lofi effects. Expensive and wildly impractical, but "authentic" lol.

Generally, it caters to something typically human: too perfect is suspicious. Seems cold, clinical, boring, unreal, whatever. Uncanny valley. Modern music production makes it very easy to get that perfection, and then you go and carefully add noise and dirt again. Makes things interesting and seem much less "empty" and more "natural". Nature is noisy and dirty.

 

[SMen]

Haha, nice observations!

1) Dither/extra noise is definitely still a thing. There's the FLAC trick for example: you take a 24bit source file, add a certain amount of low level noise, et voilà, the encoder can now compress much better. You save filesize without audible noise because it's still only in the least significant bits you don't hear anyway. A funny cheat that's quite effective.

2) Still highly popular to add noise and crackle, not just for "LoFi" styles. Tape and vinyl simulator plugins are legion and just as popular as tube saturation. There's even gear specifically bought for its "nice" noise generator FX like the Roland SP series samplers. Gear nerds can't even agree which model has the "best" one and buy old, impractical models just because the effect is better on there. Lol.

3) And yes, there's still hilarious lunatics (don't mean it in a bad way) who use age old gear for getting all the lofi effects. Expensive and wildly impractical, but "authentic" lol.

Generally, it caters to something typically human: too perfect is suspicious. Seems cold, clinical, boring, unreal, whatever. Uncanny valley. Modern music production makes it very easy to get that perfection, and then you go and carefully add noise and dirt again. Makes things interesting and seem much less "empty" and more "natural". Nature is noisy and dirty.

Yes - agree on all of this, but you need to factor in bad production. Loudness wars and excessive peak limiting immediately springs to mind. It was actually an insult in my view to the production values of the best producers ... which is probably why Quincy Jones sued and won (Michael Jackson's album "Bad"). For many of these I could quite legitimately not want a DAC that perfectly reproduced the 'original', and might find myself scrambling around for some kind of pre-amp processing.
Also, a lot of classic albums were massacred with processing for digital perfection ... everyone is talking about adding noise etc here, but clumsy removal played a part also ...

I think the dither you refer to is also a bit like tape noise ... some direct original transfers sounded great so long as you did not mind a little tape noise!!

I am heartened by many of the more recent masters I am hearing I have to say.

 

[mhardy6647]

Generally, it caters to something typically human: too perfect is suspicious. Seems cold, clinical, boring, unreal, whatever. Uncanny valley. Modern music production makes it very easy to get that perfection, and then you go and carefully add noise and dirt again. Makes things interesting and seem much less "empty" and more "natural". Nature is noisy and dirty.

I call it the "Navajo rug effect" (I am sure there's a more erudite term for the same concept).

Deliberate Imperfection? You bet!

Intentional Flaw? Deliberate Mistake? Perfectly Imperfect? Recently a new collector inquired about how much would a weavings value and collectability be diminished if the weaver made a mistake in the mirror image of the design. The answer is zero. Navajo are deeply religious. They believe...

www.navajorug.com

Re: vintage noise: John Mellencamp recorded an album on a very vintage Ampex 601 (portable) tape recorder "a few" years back*.

EDIT: I've seen photos of the Ampex in use for that album (maybe in Stereophile?) but the internet's holdin' back on me?! Did see this photo of the Ampex's monitor loudspeaker (apparently) in use in the official music video (source:

If memory serves, Ampex used a JBL 8 inch driver (D208, maybe?) in this "powered monitor" (Ampex 620)

source:

My father, who used these things in his broadcast engineer days in the mid-late 1950s, swore that the driver was an EV LS-8... maybe his had an LS-8 -- but most folks' had JBL drivers.

PS This gives me an excuse to trot out one of my favorite photos of my old man, runnin' an Ampex at Baltimore's City Hall in 1957...


___________
* No Better Than This, in 2010, per Wiki-p.

 

[mhardy6647]

source: https://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/images/R2R/vinAmpex600620.jpg

On topic: Don't need no R2R DAC when you're rockin' a reel real R2R in the signal chain for analog hiss, noise, and warmth!

 

[Sliphorn]

I call it the "Navajo rug effect" (I am sure there's a more erudite term for the same concept).

Deliberate Imperfection? You bet!

Intentional Flaw? Deliberate Mistake? Perfectly Imperfect? Recently a new collector inquired about how much would a weavings value and collectability be diminished if the weaver made a mistake in the mirror image of the design. The answer is zero. Navajo are deeply religious. They believe...

www.navajorug.com

Re: vintage noise: John Mellencamp recorded an album on a very vintage Ampex 601 (portable) tape recorder "a few" years back*.

View attachment 496134

EDIT: I've seen photos of the Ampex in use for that album (maybe in Stereophile?) but the internet's holdin' back on me?! Did see this photo of the Ampex's monitor loudspeaker (apparently) in use in the official music video (source:

If memory serves, Ampex used a JBL 8 inch driver (D208, maybe?) in this "powered monitor" (Ampex 620)

View attachment 496135
source:

My father, who used these things in his broadcast engineer days in the mid-late 1950s, swore that the driver was an EV LS-8... maybe his had an LS-8 -- but most folks' had JBL drivers.

PS This gives me an excuse to trot out one of my favorite photos of my old man, runnin' an Ampex at Baltimore's City Hall in 1957...


___________
* No Better Than This, in 2010, per Wiki-p.

.
The guy on the right in the last photo looks like Ricky Ricardo!
.

 

[JSmith]

I am considering starting to make tea cosy's for DAC's... "DaxCosy", which should make them much warmer.

Unsure which design to put into production;




JSmith

 

[mhardy6647]

.
The guy on the right in the last photo looks like Ricky Ricardo!
.

It's the jacket! That is DJ Jack Gale. He was receiving the keys to the city from mayor Thomas D'Alesandro Jr.

REELRADIO - The Jack Gale Collection!