How much SINAD is enough

[Kosta]

So been getting upgrade envy lately with some of the latest products returning amazing results - but it had me wondering is it worth it - is there a baseline acceptable performance a product should meet and anything else is just chasing numbers ?

Two things :
1) the sound from my average scoring SINAD desktop dac/amp is much better than my higher rated portable dac/amp for both IEMS and on ears.
2) aside from sound signature, is there any audible difference between last years 90s SINAD products to this years 100s SINAD products ?

Seems to me that the measurement reports should be compared to baselines rather than other products . And @amirm recommendations are really saying " there is nothing technically wrong with this product" after that consider its design , features and warranty, read the subjective reviews or listen to it to decide if its right for you.

 

[garbulky]

The vast majority of dacs on the list should be inaudible during music listening in blind tests. If there is a difference, the difference may be teeny tiny. If you are hearing a difference, it's probably not because of SINAD scores. Having said that, I do hear differences in DACs (in non-blind listening) and yes I do choose my products based on what I think sounds good during use. But that's what works for me. So yeah I would efinitely look at its other features, design etc and preferrably listen to it. See if it's something you want.

 

[MZKM]

I’d rather upgrade speakers/headphones/room treatment/EQ/amps before upgrading a decent DAC.

 

[SimpleTheater]

So been getting upgrade envy lately with some of the latest products returning amazing results - but it had me wondering is it worth it - is there a baseline acceptable performance a product should meet and anything else is just chasing numbers ?

Two things :
1) the sound from my average scoring SINAD desktop dac/amp is much better than my higher rated portable dac/amp for both IEMS and on ears.
2) aside from sound signature, is there any audible difference between last years 90s SINAD products to this years 100s SINAD products ?

My preference is for products with > 105 SINAD. Not because I can hear distortion or other issues introduced by the product, but because if I perceive that I hear those issues, I know it's just my mind playing tricks. Less than 105 and I start to believe I'm a golden eared super audiophile that can pick up the slightest errors in a product. So > 105 just keeps me grounded.

 

[daftcombo]

My preference is for products with > 105 SINAD. Not because I can hear distortion or other issues introduced by the product, but because if I perceive that I hear those issues, I know it's just my mind playing tricks. Less than 105 and I start to believe I'm a golden eared super audiophile that can pick up the slightest errors in a product. So > 105 just keeps me grounded.

Can you hear them, or think to hear them, even (if it happens) when you listen less loud than 105dB ?

 

[abdo123]

I'm gonna make cut it short for you.

50% of members here think 96 dB SINAD (16 bit / CD quality) is really all what a person would realistically need, I'm one of those people.

the other 50% think the higher the SINAD the better, Why be small and simple if you can be big and extravagant?

 

[solderdude]

It depends on whether or not the SINAD is noise or distortion dominated and its harmonic spread.
How loud the max. achievable SPL is and if distortion is substantially different at frequencies other than 1kHz.
It also matters how high distortion is at lower levels than 0dB.

When SINAD is hum dominated it differs from noise dominated. People are afraid of the tiniest amount of distortion but feel totally fine playing vinyl which is magnitudes larger in all kinds of distortions.

What SINAD kind of shows is how the original waveform is reproduced. It says something about the technical performance under max. output at 1 frequency. It is important to realize that is the ONLY thing it shows. It is NO measure of audio quality unless it is really really poor in numbers.

Just look at tube amps with lots of ' tube goodness' and how poor these measure at near full power.

SINAD is just a number, people should learn to understand what it shows/represents instead of getting hung up on differences like 110 and 115 dB.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ob-how-much-sinad-do-you-actually-need.10685/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...derstanding-digital-audio-measurements.10523/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...mic-range-vs-human-hearing-limitations.21316/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/sinad.20276/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...d-imd-dynamic-range-frequency-repsonse.24516/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-all-dacs-have-technical-issues.24209/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ow-big-of-a-difference-can-an-amp-make.18029/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-quiet-is-60db.20442/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...et-of-measurements-can-equate-two-dacs.23106/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...eater-the-sinad-the-better.22909/#post-767704
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-sound-quality-of-dsd.14773/

 

[USER]

So been getting upgrade envy lately with some of the latest products returning amazing results - but it had me wondering is it worth it - is there a baseline acceptable performance a product should meet and anything else is just chasing numbers ?

Two things :
1) the sound from my average scoring SINAD desktop dac/amp is much better than my higher rated portable dac/amp for both IEMS and on ears.
2) aside from sound signature, is there any audible difference between last years 90s SINAD products to this years 100s SINAD products ?

Seems to me that the measurement reports should be compared to baselines rather than other products . And @amirm recommendations are really saying " there is nothing technically wrong with this product" after that consider its design , features and warranty, read the subjective reviews or listen to it to decide if its right for you.

Here's the ASR position, a fabulous guide to this and related questions: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

 

[abdo123]

Here's the ASR position, a fabulous guide to this and related questions: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

that thread is grossly inaccurate as it does not separate between noise and distortion and literally offers zero substantiation.

This post by @ctrl probably reflects reality the most. As with noise if you hear it you hear it if you don't you don't. no need for audibility thresholds.

 

[USER]

that thread is grossly inaccurate as it does not separate between noise and distortion and literally offers zero substantiation.

This post by @ctrl probably reflects reality the most. As with noise if you hear it you hear it if you don't you don't. no need for audibility thresholds.

Thanks for this, but please explain as you make a big claim ("grossly inaccurate") and don't offer any real analysis us laymen can use. I thought they did separate noise and distortion here in the section where 3 thresholds are presented:

"NwAvGuy says that "noise needs to be -85dB below the signal to be inaudible which works out to only 0.005% THD+N. But music masks distortion so 0.01% (-80dB) is considered acceptable." Since I make no assumptions about the listener or listening material, I'll disregard the -80 dB threshold and go with -85 dB.
His guideline for distortion is <0.05% equivalent to -66 dBFS. "

 

[Offler]

I prefer to keep SNR, THD+N and THD as a three separate values.

My preferred SNR is 96dB + having 5-10 extra dB just to be sure is fine.

THD and THD+N in percentage basically say how much input got changed/distorted while As long as its 0,01% or less, i doubt its possible to hear it, while harmonic tones are below 96dB its probably not audible.

 

[abdo123]

Thanks for this, but please explain as you make a big claim ("grossly inaccurate") and don't offer any real analysis us laymen can use.

Did you miss my last sentence in which I quote a full fledged analysis?

:

"NwAvGuy says that "noise needs to be -85dB below the signal to be inaudible which works out to only 0.005% THD+N.

This is the scientific equivalent of 'you need to drink 2 liters of water everyday' and the bottled water industry.

I rather stick with the 'Drink water when you're thirsty' approach, in other words, if I'm not hearing noise when the signal is absent, then there is no way in hell i will hear noise when the signal is present.

 

[restorer-john]

The issue of course, is lumping noise and distortion into one metric and then holding that metric up as the ultimate arbiter.

 

[Ron Texas]

There are some around here who think 72 to 78 db is good enough. Remember, the noise floor of the room and distortion from the speaker total about 1%. That's a sinad of 40 db. However, it's nice that DAC's with a SINAD better than 100 db can be had for about $100 and amplifiers with an 85db SINAD dont cost any more than those which don't measure nearly as well.

 

[USER]

Did you miss my last sentence in which I quote a full fledged analysis?




This is the scientific equivalent of 'you need to drink 2 liters of water everyday' and the bottled water industry.

I rather stick with the 'Drink water when you're thirsty' approach, in other words, if I'm not hearing noise when the signal is absent, then there is no way in hell i will hear noise when the signal is present.

OK, with that I am taking another look at the post you linked to and it is becoming more clear. Please don't think I was being critical, it's just that as posted (due to the nature of message board format and in the ASR context) "if you hear it you hear it..." seemed more like a flippant response at the time (again from the position as a layman). But, thanks again.

 

[Blumlein 88]

SINAD of 120 db is fine. 110 db is almost surely fine. Other than that hard to say because as others point out you need to separate out noise and distortion at a minimum. You also need to weight the noise on top of that. A-weighting goes a ways in that direction. Other weightings are more sophisticated and would be better, but aren't seen as commonly.

THD of -60 db with music is fine. Noise values need to be less than this. I'd say you probably want A-wtd noise levels of at least -90 db, and -100 db is more like it.

 

[restorer-john]

I'd say you probably want A-wtd noise levels of at least -90 db, and -100 db is more like it.

With respect to common and sensible reference figures, in order to allow useful comparisons to be made.

We've been saying this for years...

And residual noise in uV, A-WTD.

 

[Inner Space]

SINAD is like money. All you need is enough to get by, but having more is comforting and relaxing. I think anything better than 110dB is electronically unnecessary, but I like the kind of attitude that makes a designer aim for it.

 

[restorer-john]

SINAD is like money. All you need is enough to get by, but having more is comforting and relaxing. I think anything better than 110dB is electronically unnecessary, but I like the kind of attitude that makes a designer aim for it.

But as we have seen, shooting for a 1kHz "headline" 2ch SINAD number doesn't mean much at all if there are issues at either end of the spectrum or issues between channels.

1kHz is just one spot frequency. We have designers focusing on that one frequency to an obsession. Having a super low THD 1kHz source, along with deep notch filters up front of analyzers to dig into the weeds for an extra zero. Silly stuff. But what is happening at 10k, 20k or 10Hz? Or everywhere in between?

Back in the day, anything that was rated at 1kHz was just not taken seriously as real HiFi. It was cheating, essentially.

20Hz-20kHz THD is what matters. Look at the THD vs frequency plots, that's where the detail lies.

 

[Inner Space]

1kHz is just one spot frequency. We have designers focusing on that one frequency to an obsession.

Designers or testers? You know more about it than me, but my hope is that designers at the top level focus on everything. That testers use only 1kHz ain't their fault. E.g., Benchmark's 1kHz happens to be great, but so is the whole 20 - 20k. Are other manufacturers gaming the tests, by knowing the testers focus only on 1kHz? Is it a VW-style thing?