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

[Mnyb]

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

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.

I sometimes think it also was myself so very used to my vinyl player and MC cart that the right sound sounded wrong to me ?

one had also chosen speakers and speaker placement accordingly . I used to laugh at “digital ready” that was a tagline some speaker manufacturers used in the 80’s in hindsight there was some truth. It was most speakers back then that was not “digital ready” at all . Many sins in the treble ? ( not that the digital ready speakears where any better … )

but yes I remember some CD releases that never sounded right, to this day there still are some vinyl releases sounding better than digital even with the formats very real shortcomings due to “mastering“ a practice funny enough necessary with older formats to make them work at all ? Not at all necessary with a digital format ?

There are some things you can’t cut on vinyl ? I reckon you make the bass mono for example and don’t let it go to deep to much treble is not really possible either so some EQ was needed to not make the needle jump out of the track .

 

[Mnyb]

.. thinking about it it was mostly myself and my biases my girlfriend dragged a CD player over the doorstep in 1991 before that I only listened to vinyl I’ve even sold my cassette player .

 

[Mart68]

I don't think it has anything to do with the players or the recordings.

I have 1980s CD players, they sound fine and I deliberately buy original CD releases because they sound better (mostly, not all the time).

I don't listen to classical music but wasn't the initial take up on CD by the classical fans? Would that have happened if classical music on CD sounded bad?

I also don't go along with the idea that the engineers didn't know what they were doing initially. It isn't rocket science. Many amateurs have recorded their records to digital with no problems, seems unlikely that professionals couldn't get it right.

I use a Sony DAC from 1989 - sounds fine and no different to the modern SOTA DACs I have.

 

[Mnyb]

I don't think it has anything to do with the players or the recordings.

I have 1980s CD players, they sound fine and I deliberately buy original CD releases because they sound better (mostly, not all the time).

I don't listen to classical music but wasn't the initial take up on CD by the classical fans? Would that have happened if classical music on CD sounded bad?

I also don't go along with the idea that the engineers didn't know what they were doing initially. It isn't rocket science. Many amateurs have recorded their records to digital with no problems, seems unlikely that professionals couldn't get it right.

I use a Sony DAC from 1989 - sounds fine and no different to the modern SOTA DACs I have.

Thank you you are correct . In my case then write it down to 90% bias then and the 1% to those rare cases where the CD release actualy was bad , maybe not as common as i remembered them ( bias ) .

And the rest 9% my kit was not as god as i thougth when i heard what it realy sounded like without euphonic colors

 

[ahofer]

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

The dawn of CDs corresponded with the nadir of Deutsche Grammaphone recording quality, especially rapid remastering. I still have some of those old recordings. But Telarc, Delos and Chandos came along and I quickly realized what was going on.

 

[Mart68]

Thank you you are correct . In my case then write it down to 90% bias then and the 1% to those rare cases where the CD release actualy was bad , maybe not as common as i remembered them ( bias ) .

And the rest 9% my kit was not as god as i thougth when i heard what it realy sounded like without euphonic colors

My 1980s experience with CD was not positive either, it was 1996 before I bought a player.

In retrospect the systems I had been able to compare CD with vinyl on back then had the deck stacked against digital. Vinyl is so much more forgiving. But I did not know that then.

 

[Egoist]

If our bias make us prefer the sound of a specific DAC, isn't that the DAC that we should buy, regardless if in reality it sounds exactly the same as another cheaper one? I mean, we are not going to listen to our DACs blindly forever!

 

[IPunchCholla]

If our bias make us prefer the sound of a specific DAC, isn't that the DAC that we should buy, regardless if in reality it sounds exactly the same as another cheaper one? I mean, we are not going to listen to our DACs blindly forever!

The bias doesn’t last/isn’t stable, often leading to upgraditus. Which is fine, as long as you can afford it.

Personally, I’d rather follow the science and spend my money on other things, like instruments, lessons, and concerts.

 

[Purité Audio]

First you have to determine if there is any difference between the two dacs, and that can only be done unsighted level matched.
Keith

 

[Egoist]

First you have to determine if there is any difference between the two dacs, and that can only be done unsighted level matched.
Keith

Or maybe your bias makes you prefer the sound of the cheaper DAC, regardless of sounding the same, worst or better than the most expensive one?

PS: replied to the wrong post

 

[ahofer]

If our bias make us prefer the sound of a specific DAC, isn't that the DAC that we should buy, regardless if in reality it sounds exactly the same as another cheaper one? I mean, we are not going to listen to our DACs blindly forever!

It’s a good question. I think bias is unstable, and I suspect that is a big reason for the “upgrade treadmill”. Unlike our claims about audible differences, I’m not aware of strong scientific evidence to support my hypothesis of the upgrade treadmill. I think you could make a strong case for bias instability based simply on the enormous list of unstable variables shown to cause bias.

 

[oleg87]

If our bias make us prefer the sound of a specific DAC, isn't that the DAC that we should buy, regardless if in reality it sounds exactly the same as another cheaper one? I mean, we are not going to listen to our DACs blindly forever!

I think most of us knowingly indulge some degree of placebo effect. But once you know you’re likely just listening to auditory illusions as opposed to the gold plated capacitors or whatever, spending unreasonable amounts of money for whatever the high end audio hucksters are selling becomes a much less interesting proposition.

 

[DarkKoala]

Ducks and Cats are all animals, and as earthy creatures we should all love each other.

 

[AdrianusG]

Ducks and Cats are all animals, and as earthy creatures we should all love each other.

True, although i don't see a lot of relevance to the topic.

 

[Soria Moria]

If our bias make us prefer the sound of a specific DAC, isn't that the DAC that we should buy, regardless if in reality it sounds exactly the same as another cheaper one? I mean, we are not going to listen to our DACs blindly forever!

Because it's probably not going to stop for a long time. If you buy one DAC because it sounds better than another one (with that being purely placebo) then what will stop you from doing that again and again and again? I don't think bad and illogical financial decisions should be encouraged. If you care so much for the 'high' of getting gear that doesn't actually change the sound then you might as well also buy a bunch of fancy cables, power filters, fuses etc. too.

 

[Basic Channel]

True, although i don't see a lot of relevance to the topic.

If you pay more for an audiophile duck you get a quack with more dynamic range and less distortion. Plus you can claim to hear a difference.

 

[Egoist]

Because it's probably not going to stop for a long time. If you buy one DAC because it sounds better than another one (with that being purely placebo) then what will stop you from doing that again and again and again? I don't think bad and illogical financial decisions should be encouraged. If you care so much for the 'high' of getting gear that doesn't actually change the sound then you might as well also buy a bunch of fancy cables, power filters, fuses etc. too.

The bias works both ways - it's not implied that it makes you prefer the sound of the most expensive gear.

 

[JustJones]

The bias works both ways - it's not implied that it makes you prefer the sound of the most expensive gear.

You're still chasing rainbows, expensive or inexpensive.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

If you pay more for an audiophile duck you get a quack with more dynamic range and less distortion. Plus you can claim to hear a difference.

I see... all this confusion could have been avoided if we'd realised the topic was ducks.
All ducks sound the same - very easy to mishear that word

 

[DarkKoala]

I see... all this confusion could have been avoided if we'd realised the topic was ducks.
All ducks sound the same - very easy to mishear that word

I was thinking this is the duck subforum in our village community. We discuss ducks all the time