How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

You can argue about taste... The manufacturer has obviously tried to visually differentiate itself from the competition. I don't like the gold accents at all. But what bothers me even more is the lack of symmetry and the use of 3 feet.

At least it's not another square black/silver box that is just boring AF.

 

[Purité Audio]

I have yet to get an answer when I ask if DAC's have improved since they were introduced in 1983?...also do all DAC chips sound the same?

It is the implementation of the whole which is important, expressed by the units measurements.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

I have yet to get an answer when I ask if DAC's have improved since they were introduced in 1983?...also do all DAC chips sound the same?

Technically yes. In real world listening for most people, audible improvement is an edge case at best.

Audio electronics are not musical instruments, so good equipment should not have its own tone, like a piano or a guitar does. We want to hear the tone of the instrument on the recording, not that plus the 'sound' of the DAC or other electronics.

The standard question asked of audio electronics 'How does it sound?' is a bit daft if you look at it from that perspective.

I'd suggest it makes zero real-world difference what DAC chip is used provided the implementation is competent.

 

[Robbo99999]

Any truth to this ? Not that it would matter, there is no relevant content above 20kHz, but still?

Dunno. In one of the screenshots of the frequency response, one of the files had significanlty higher noise floor above 20kHz, but it was not possible to see the scale.

He did seem to answer all the questions we'd normally ask about controls, and we know that filters can impact FR at 20kHz and above.

If your hearing extends up or beyond that level then perhaps it is audible - and if his test has been correctly carried out as described, he has proven that he can hear it.

However his video contradicts his clickbait title.

1 : Even under the test conditions the result doesn't matter.


2 : He's not testing a difference between DACs, but between filters. It is often been pointed out that if you use a filter which impacts the FR in the audible range that this will be .... audible. In this case the filters are making changes in (his) audible range - which would not be the case for the vast majority of people. We normally (often unspoken) mean that DACs are indistinguishable when they are using similar performing filters. Most Dacs default filters are of similar performance.

So here he has two edge cases combined. One is a person whose hearing extends above the range of the vast majority of people. Second - he is comparing two filters - one of which is not used in the vast majority of DACS which creates a difference in his higher than normal frequency range.

I'm not sure it is a result that has any significant impact for the premise of this thread.

People that are so worried with content above 20kHz should not be using 44.1kHz files but only use 88.1kHz or higher files.
In those cases even a slow filter would not be audible detectable by Goldenears.

As a lot of content is 44.1kHz with who knows what type of anti-alias filter on the ADC side or downsampler used in the production phase, Goldenears should just use his 'ideal' upsampling filter in that case while audiophiles (usually over 40 y.o.) would not be bothered anyway.

Indeed ... spend most funds on quality transducers...
That said... there can be little correlation between price and performance of transducers.

I think it's good that he did the testing, it seems to be valid albeit I didn't delve into the detail of downloading and comparing his samples, but the controls he implemented seemed to be valid for an ABX test. Ultimately though as some of you say, this isn't important for almost everyone because very few can hear at 20kHz. I'm surprised he heard a difference even if he can hear test tones at 20kHz, because music normally wouldn't have significant content up there, and I'd think that even if GoldenSound can hear 20kHz I'd imagine his sensitivity of hearing up there is low, so you'd think differences between DAC's reconstruction filters would be audibly masked by the rest of the music content. But like he said it was only a very small difference and is not something that people need to chase in order to truly get better sound, so for all intents & purposes it doesn't matter what's going on up there and people needn't be concerned about the question of "do well measuring DACS sound different" because on a practical level the answer is still "no, and it doesn't matter", and it wouldn't really matter for the people that can still hear 20kHz, it's not a big difference to chase.

 

[BDWoody]

More posts moved in.

 

[Jim Taylor]

but until you've measured them all, you can't say that for certain i.e, a confidence level of 1.0.

That statement, while technically true, is a misrepresentation of the use of both statistics and probabilities.

Statistics vs. Probability: What’s the Difference?

This tutorial explains the difference between statistics and probability, including several examples.

www.statology.org

Jim

 

[tmtomh]

Jim,

Sorry, not a troll. I have been a lurker for five years. My screen name is as a result of my admiration for Richard Feynman whom I considered to be the best physicist of the 20th century. As an engineer of long standing I was trained on scientific principles and statistical evidence. That's one reason why I agree with you that double blind testing is the gold standard.

Again, I have no wish to offend anyone.

I'm just pointing out once again that prejudgement of the equivalence of different samples without measurement of them is not very reliable. The underlying fallacy in your analogies is the implied condition that any given Dac being tested will measure no better than a $100 Dac in each case i.e., all Dacs over $100 dollars in cost will perform equivalently. From a statistical standpoint you can't say that for certain until you've measured all Dacs or at least all Dacs with the same components and software. Look, you may be right that they are all equivalent and that spending over $100 is a giant waste of money but until you've measured them all, you can't say that for certain i.e, a confidence level of 1.0.

No one, least of all me, is trying to contest scientific principles. I adhere to them rigorously. There is no scientific principle which states that you can measure some products in a marketplace and guarantee that there is nothing better now nor will there be anything better in the future. We often used to talk about the fact that the patent office was going to be shut down in the late 1890's because everything of importance had been invented. You write about fixed designs with tolerances being the only variable. What you are implying is that there is really only one design for a Dac and the only variable is component tolerances. I've spent years working on wavelets. That data sampling approach would make a fantastic Dac by focusing on sampling areas having the greatest rate of change in a given time period and wouldn't be limited by the current design approaches. Still, I'm open to being proven wrong. New and unforeseen designs and approaches do come along that upend prior knowledge all the time.
I think we've beaten this dead horse enough or as Mark Twain once said "There is little to be learned from the second kick of the mule." I had no idea that I would engender such controversy. This is my last post on the subject.

PS I was in high school as well when Sputnik was launched. As for nuclear reactors and water coolant, what about thorium based pebble reactors- no water coolant only graphite-moderated, gas coolant.

Appreciate the detailed reply and civil tone, but I'm sorry, this is ridiculous: if you are familiar with and respect scientific principles then you know that a confidence level of 1.0 is not possible, aspired to, or necessary - and you also know that your own subjective, uncontrolled listening impressions offer a confidence level of either 0, 0.5, or undefined/invalid, depending on how you want to look at it.

What you're doing is what folks in this hobby - and many science deniers across a depressingly wide range of subjects far more important than this hobby - routinely do: artificially holding open a space for the allegedly "unknown" so that you can smuggle in your own improbable (and I would say implausible) unscientific impressions and claim that you're being scientific because "anything is possible."

To be clear, I'm not accusing you personally of being a science denier, or a troll for that matter. Honestly, I don't care what your intention is or what you think your intention is. I don't know you, and all I have to go on is the words you write here and the logic of the reasoning and arguments those words create. And that logic is nonexistent.

That's fine for enjoying a hobby and getting pleasure out of tinkering, personal exploration, and so on. It's not at all fine for making scientific and statistical claims, especially when you don the garb of being a scientist yourself. Richard Feynman would call your argument here quackery.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I don't know you, and all I have to go on is the words you write here and the logic of the reasoning and arguments those words create. And that logic is nonexistent.

Hear, hear!

Jim

[edited to remove content potentially seen as a personal attack.]

 

[StandardModel]

I said I wouldn't post and I'm breaking my own declaration. Please review your posts and ask yourselves if those comments are personal attacks or are about the subject matter.

 

[antcollinet]

The underlying fallacy in your analogies is the implied condition that any given Dac being tested will measure no better than a $100 Dac in each case

I'm sorry, where was that stated (or even implied) again?

On the plus side, your faulty premise was right at the start of your post, which saved me from feeling the need to bother with the rest.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Sorry, not a troll. I have been a lurker for five years.

IF you have been a lurker here for 5 years, how could you possibly not understand the ethos and aims of this site? Yet you post a video chock-full of unscientific, unfounded and misleading subjectivist drivel. When members here have called you on it, you have doubled-down on your defense of the emotion-based, marketing-based, anti-scientific content.
You claim to be grounded in the sciences, yet you have misapplied scientific principles to defend your claims.
You have said that you are not a troll, yet you exhibit, time and time again, the very characteristics that identify someone as being a troll. Protestations of innocence are, after all, common devices employed by trolls.

Even though your tone is civil, it seems that you are employing a tactic known as "sealioning". People who employ this tactic hide behind the false wall of taking offense.

If your intentions are to game us, we are not amused.
If your intentions are to aggrandize yourself to the subjectivist crowd, please ... just don't. This site does not exist as a playground for subjectivists.

It would be best if you were to use your mental faculties for constructive purposes, not destructive purposes.

Jim

 

[StandardModel]

I'm sorry, where was that stated (or even implied) again?

On the plus side, your faulty premise was right at the start of your post, which saved me from feeling the need to bother with the rest

No it doesn't.

This doesn't mean anything in French. Or somehow it does, in an incorrect way. I guess you would mean "À chacun son goût", or more "Chacun ses goûts", or perhaps "Chacun a son goût", that is not grammatically incorrect but sounds terrible...

My mistake. You are clearly a true Parisian. Let me guess..16th or 17th?

 

[ads_cft222]

So many manufacturers produce equipment in vain … It almost seems like a conspiracy theory

 

[voodooless]

So many manufacturers produce equipment in vain … It almost seems like a conspiracy theory

If making money is “in vain”, then yes..

 

[VintageFlanker]

More posts moved in.

Hey Brad,

And now I have to unwatch this interminable thread. Again.

Still, while the conversation predictably went into the "measurements VS listening" territory, I do think that original post #1 from @StandardModel deserves to remain in its original thread, which was about the Laiv Harmony DAC as a new and specific product. Despite the relevancy of reviewers quoted there being highly questionable, it was initially a thread about the DAC itself :

How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

Regardless of my biological classification (troll or uneducated idiot), I’m making some philosophical digressions, not mines unfortunately, culturally existed before me… in Descartes “Discourse de la Méthode” Non cogitas, ergo non es

www.audiosciencereview.com

You are clearly a true Parisian.

I clearly ain't. Authentic banlieusard instead.

Let me guess..16th or 17th?

Quite the opposite, indeed : South East suburb.

 

[IAtaman]

So many manufacturers produce equipment in vain … It almost seems like a conspiracy theory

Right. Large groups of people doing something that has no basis in reality is virtually unheard-of in our history.

 

[allmanfan]

Audio D/A converters have been around long before 1983. And yes, they have improved immensely. No, not all D/A converters (and their implementation) sound the same.

Generally, any digital consumer product from the very first CD players sounded truly amazing. Those 1st generaton machines still sound excellent in 2024.

Have a look here at the PDF I attached:

Emotiva ERC-4 CD Player (DAC) Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the DAC portion of the Emotiva ERC-4 CD player. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $649. The display lights up in classic, intense dark blue colors of Emotiva. I am not a fan of it as it is old fashioned. Not much functionality is here...

www.audiosciencereview.com

really?..the first CD players and DAC's were uniformly terrible..they were harsh and tough to listen to for any period of time...I remember it well...dac's have improved just as DAC's sound different today and chips have different sound signatures and even the same chip in a different DAC can sound entirely different..perfect sound forever,remember that advertisement when the first DAC's came out...well it wasnt perfect and improved dramatically as the years past and are still improving

 

[danadam]

really?..the first CD players and DAC's were uniformly terrible..they were harsh and tough to listen to for any period of time...

Archimago has captured analog output from Technics SL-P110 (1986) and Sony CDP-690 (1990). They sound fine to me.

RETRO: Technics SL-P110 (1986) & Sony CDP-690 (1990) CD Players. Did early CD players sound bad?

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[Jim Taylor]

really?..the first CD players and DAC's were uniformly terrible..they were harsh and tough to listen to for any period of time...I remember it well...dac's have improved just as DAC's sound different today and chips have different sound signatures and even the same chip in a different DAC can sound entirely different..perfect sound forever,remember that advertisement when the first DAC's came out...well it wasnt perfect and improved dramatically as the years past and are still improving

You may want to consider that the sound was not due to the DAC (or CD player). The people who recorded music and mastered recordings in the first days of digital were schooled and steeped in the "art" of recording for the RIAA vinyl characteristics. Many were not yet accustomed to working with digital, with its flat response and wide dynamic range. Many CDs, therefore, sounded abysmal. (I had an early digital recording of Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D minor. I forget the artist. The CD ended up being used by my young son for the entertainment of digging in the garden.)

As time progressed, more and more was understood by the "Old Guard", and more new blood, who had fewer preconceptions, entered the industry . Recordings gradually became better.

This had absolutely nothing to do with DACs or digital technology per se.

To prove this to yourself (if you should so desire), take a very early digital recording and a very recent digital recording. Play both on an old 1st-generation CD player, and then play both on a new CD player. You will find out that both CD players sound the same. It is the recordings that sound different.

Jim

 

[solderdude]

really?..the first CD players and DAC's were uniformly terrible..they were harsh and tough to listen to for any period of time...I remember it well...dac's have improved just as DAC's sound different today and chips have different sound signatures and even the same chip in a different DAC can sound entirely different..perfect sound forever,remember that advertisement when the first DAC's came out...well it wasnt perfect and improved dramatically as the years past and are still improving

hmmm I actually agree with @restorer-john

Have been around since the first Philips CDP. The biggest issue back then was the recording quality of CD's rather than the CDP istelf.