In DAC, Anything audible but unable to be measured(so far)?

[onion]

The thing is for something to measure differently at the ears, if all you changed was the DAC, it had to measure differently at the output of the DAC. It had to measure differently at the output of the amp. It had to measure differently at the speaker as it went to your ears. We don't have to measure past the DAC.

So if we measure the DAC, and find very nearly identical performance, and yet someone says, "this one has a wider soundstage than the other one", you first need to see if that person is really hearing an identifiable difference. Or just thinking so for other reasons. Most of the time the answer is there is no such difference.

Sound stage width is channel difference in intensity and phase. That is all it can be. We can measure those at the DAC very, very precisely.

I agree with most of this. However, it is only measuring at the ears that allows one to compare measurements between live performance and stereo playback of that live performance. During the live performance, there is no DAC/ speaker/ amplifier; just the room, the ears and the sound emitters. If the measurements at the ears under these conditions are considered the gold standard for spatial imaging, then subsequent measurements using any combination of hifi equipment can be compared to that gold standard.

 

[solderdude]

You can NOT compare a live performance to a stereo reproduction.
The differences are immense between those 2 situations on all fronts.

The goal is to reproduce the captured file as accurately as possible. This is measurable. The biggest elephant in the room here is the speaker and the room. NOT the DAC, nor the amplifier.
The other big elephant is the recording itself (in all its aspects)

Audio reproduction is not meant as an exact 'copy' of the event that happened.
It is merely a limited registration of the event.
Still when reproduced accurately can sound really good and convincing.
An exact copy of the musicians being recorded it is definitely not.

Besides measurements at the ears only works with headphones.
When reproducing this with speakers it just isn't correct.
And I should add that binaural recordings don't give the 'sense of depth' effect in all people.
It depends on that individual's brain.
The only binaural recording that brings me some sense of depth is 'the haircut', but that's most likely not true for everyone.

 

[BDWoody]

Many high-end DACs market themselves as being able to replicate this spatial resolution with high fidelity. I'm not convinced - I think loudspeakers and room treatments have a role to play, but they are not the full picture.

People will say the same thing about their power and USB cables.

A DAC should be a perfectly clear window, not a corrective lens.

 

[onion]

You can NOT compare a live performance to a stereo reproduction.
The differences are immense between those 2 situations on all fronts.

The goal is to reproduce the captured file as accurately as possible. This is measurable. The biggest elephant in the room here is the speaker and the room. NOT the DAC, nor the amplifier.
The other big elephant is the recording itself (in all its aspects)

Audio reproduction is not meant as an exact 'copy' of the event that happened.
It is merely a limited registration of the event.
Still when reproduced accurately can sound really good and convincing.
An exact copy of the musicians being recorded it is definitely not.

Besides measurements at the ears only works with headphones.
When reproducing this with speakers it just isn't correct.
And I should add that binaural recordings don't give the 'sense of depth' effect in all people.
It depends on that individual's brain.
The only binaural recording that brings me some sense of depth is 'the haircut', but that's most likely not true for everyone.

Under test conditions, you can compare the measurements for sounds heard at the left and right ear for a set of sound emitters placed in specified locations in the room (which would constitute the 'live' performance); and then the same for the stereo recording of those same sound emitters played through the audio device (which would constitute the recording). And you do want one to match the other as close as possible. It does not have to be a musical performance - it can be a set of frequency sweeps or tones at different locations.

Measurements at the ear are simply measuring the sound waves at the left and right ear at the same moment in time. This contains spatial information about the origin(s) of the sound that a point location recording will not possess.

Otherwise I agree, particular your remarks on the speaker, the room and the recording (including choices made by the sound engineer).

 

[solderdude]

Under test conditions, you can compare the measurements for sounds heard at the left and right ear for a set of sound emitters placed in specified locations in the room (which would constitute the 'live' performance); and then the same for the stereo recording of those same sound emitters played through the audio device (which would constitute the recording). And you do want one to match the other as close as possible. It does not have to be a musical performance - it can be a set of frequency sweeps or tones at different locations.

Did you ever wonder why nobody tested this way ?
And more importantly why no one tested a DAC this way.
There are many, many reasons why this does not and can not work.
Your idea is flawed and won't yield the very thing you are hoping it will prove.

Like SIY said in post #29: it's like trying to measure the width of a hair using a wooden yardstick.

 

[FireLion]

For instance I am sure my Topping D30 measures better than my xduoo TA-10 but the topping sound is lacking in comparison.

 

[SIY]

For instance I am sure my Topping D30 measures better than my xduoo TA-10 but the topping sound is lacking in comparison.

Have you done the comparison blind and level-matched so that you can honestly say something about the sound?

 

[FireLion]

Have you done the comparison blind and level-matched so that you can honestly say something about the sound?

No but the xduoo perhaps due to the ak4490 has better sense of space and the imaging has more articulation.

I do use some rare NOS tubes so they might be helping. Right now I have a Japanese built tube that used Mullard tooling from the Blackburn factory.

Topping has same traits as the other CS4398 DAC I had but is cleaner.

 

[SIY]

No

Stop right there.

THAT is what you need to do before drawing any conclusions about the sound.

 

[FireLion]

Stop right there.

THAT is what you need to do before drawing any conclusions about the sound.

OK I'll do a comparison for the sake of science, I actually have a D10 on the way as I enjoyed the Khadas ESS sound but mine was faulty and it had static noises.

 

[BDWoody]

Stop right there.

THAT is what you need to do before drawing any conclusions about the sound.

Yeah...Maybe a 'Recovering Audiophool' thread.

"My name is Woody and I am a recovering audiophool... It all started innocently enough when I replaced my last power cable with one that was $4,000 and I never heard my Bose sound so good!

Maybe a 12 step program involving blind level matched testing being step 1...

 

[FireLion]

Yeah...Maybe a 'Recovering Audiophool' thread.

"My name is Woody and I am a recovering audiophool... It all started innocently enough when I replaced my last power cable with one that was $4,000 and I never heard my Bose sound so good!

Maybe a 12 step program involving blind level matched testing being step 1...

It's not about having the most expensive gear, it's about having stuff that was designed properly. I actually got $11 RCA cables from China and they are the mutts nutz.

Hell my $90 amp beats the Jotunheim for clarity, power and impact.

 

[SIY]

It's not about having the most expensive gear, it's about...

...not doing evaluation ears-only.

 

[solderdude]

FireLion said:


It's not about having the most expensive gear, it's about...

...not doing evaluation ears-only.

unless you don't know what is playing and it is level matched and with a statistically relevant amount of attempts.

 

[LaLaLard]

Hmm, it isn't that simple. A human does have a pair of ears floating in 3d. As I understood the original point: why are we so worried about 0.0001% THD vs 0.0002% THD of a DAC, when we can easily tell, without any double blind testing, that no matter the DAC, the music played through the audio delivery system used in the DAC testing doesn't sound like real music performance at all?

Consider the following classes of audio delivery systems:
(A) Stereo
(B) Multi-channel (e.g 5.1, 7.2, 22.2)
(C) Binaural with generic Head-Related Transfer Function
(D) Binaural with personalized Head-Related Transfer Function
(E) Binaural with personalized Head-Related Transfer Function and Head Tracking

Maybe I'm extending the original point here, or maybe that's what the OP meant: Wouldn't it make even more sense to test the DACs with the (B) through (E) systems, in addition to (A)?

Another way to ask the question: Perhaps the relative crudeness of (A) overrides the fine effects caused by DAC differences that could be otherwise noticed on (B) through (E)? For instance, hypothetically: the listening room's reflections, which in (A) are layered over, let's say, concert hall reflections, may dwarf the subtle differences in echoes reproduction that could - hypothetically - be heard even with (C), more definitively with (D), and beyond doubt with (E).

Partly agree. The points you just raised are not relevant to the original post but I have also considered this before.

Theoretically a pair of headphones would be able to reproduce 3D dimension perfectly. Traditionally it had been done with a dummy head binaural recording. However each of our ears and faces are different and they do distort the sound differently. Nowadays technology has made DSP version of this processing possible - such as Dolby Atmos Headphone.

If you are interested in this tech try to find some movie with Dolby Atmos sound (which is different from 5.1, 7.1 or 11.2... since Atmos actually records the coordinates of the source) and USE Dolby DOLBY ATMOS HEADPHONE TECHNOLOGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(Available for purchase on windows 10) DO NOT HAVE YOUR MEDIA PLAYER DOWNMIXING SURROUNDING SOUND TO STEREO AND PLAY THROUGH HEADPHONE AND COME BACK SWEAR AT ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose everyone here would have a pair of good headphone and an headphone amp. IF DONE RIGHT The result should be stunning to anyone who hasn't looked into this before.

Now if in some years, or decades, this technology further advances and is eventually able to reproduce exactly what you would hear in real life, for example based on YOUR OWN HEAD AND EAR MEASUREMENT, then it should be one of the ultimate solution. It is much easier to be done on headphone than speakers because you would be able to feed your ears EXACTLY the signal that you would be hearing in real life. It's like the current 3D movie solution --- make your left eye see what the left camera sees, and your right eye see what the right camera sees.

As for speakers, it is much more complicated because of crossfeed. YOU WONT BE ABLE TO FEED YOUR LEFT AND RIGHT EARS EXACTLY WHAT THE LEFT MIC AND RIGHT MIC RECORDED, BASED ON THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY.

Thats why I used the word "theoretically", because it is not impossible that in the future, with advanced acoustic technology, you might be able to make your left and right ear hear different signal, the way they are different in real life performance. Cuz after all, it's just left and right eardrums.

At the moment, it Is not yet possible. but Headphones are getting closer on that.

 

[LaLaLard]

OK I'll do a comparison for the sake of science, I actually have a D10 on the way as I enjoyed the Khadas ESS sound but mine was faulty and it had static noises.

I have a good friend who used lots of good old day equipments such as Dynaco ST-70 and Krell KSA-100 .etc. This "elite audiophile" friend one day kept telling me that the belkins 3.5 to RCA cable I carry around just to test equipments would badly affect the sound, after he saw me using it. He suggest me to try his Khadas.

I tried switching a few times and couldn't tell any difference. He switched a few times and swore the sound was with much more clarity and warmth on the Khadas.

I asked to do a double blind test with his Khadas 3.5 to RCA. I let him tried 20 times, with short break between each 10 tests.

The price was $15 for Belkins and $750 for Khadas.

Results was 4/6 and 5/5 respectively. Thus the difference, if any, are completely inaudible.

Since then he swore this kind of difference much less than before.

We are still good friends, and I guess I made friend with him in the first place because he is the type of audiophile/person that although he does not like reading technical documents/test result, he can happily accept to take a blind test.

What I'm trying to say is, I do find people who are older and who prefer to use tubes more likely to have unreal perception about the sound some equipments produced. I do politely suggest you to get someone to help you carry out the test.

 

[solderdude]

....
Thats why I used the word "theoretically", because it is not impossible that in the future, with advanced acoustic technology, you might be able to make your left and right ear hear different signal, the way they are different in real life performance. Cuz after all, it's just left and right eardrums.

At the moment, it Is not yet possible. but Headphones are getting closer on that.

I think one can only get an approximation this way... an illusion.

With true dolby Atmos sounds originate from specific points and thus reach the ears under a certain direction.
The brain can do something with that.
With headphones the sound comes in a planar way from the side as if originated from a large wall.
There will be no different directions the ear can do something with... its one direction and software giving the illusion due to time, frequency and amplitude manipulation.
Seems to work for games, don't know if music can do a similar thing.

 

[LaLaLard]

I think one can only get an approximation this way... an illusion.

With true dolby Atmos sounds originate from specific points and thus reach the ears under a certain direction.
The brain can do something with that.
With headphones the sound comes in a planar way from the side as if originated from a large wall.
There will be no different directions the ear can do something with... its one direction and software giving the illusion due to time, frequency and amplitude manipulation.
Seems to work for games, don't know if music can do a similar thing.

Yes, but our eardrums did not receive signal saying "I'm coming from above!" This kind of thing.

Our eardrums are just planar drums after all.

I'm not an expert or professional but I did know from reading professional papers that our brain learnt how to tell the direction of sound by comparing the distorted sound from our experience.

For example (just an example), when we are hearing a 60db car horn beeping from 10m behind, our brain told us something like "1.The sound is 60db. 2. Compared to your memory, some frequency had rolled-off more than other frequencies thus my judgement is it's a louder beep 10m away, not a quieter beep from 1m away (if 60db in both cases, just to give an idea) 3. Compared to your memory, some frequency had distorted in the way that I think the sound was distorted by going around your whole auricle, thus my judgement is the sound is coming from behind you, not in front of you."

Anyone with acoustic expertise please explain this in more professional way. I'm doing my best although I'm sure I did learn this some years ago, from some acoustic textbook.

Headphone could reproduce this directional distortion in either of the 2 ways:
1. The sound in the original recording already went through a dummy head, its auricles and ear canals. I suggest you try out dummy head recording first. You could precisely hear sound coming from above, below, in front or behind you. It's 80%~90% like in real life, if the recording is good.
2. The first way is good and readily available on internet but a dummy head is always different to your own head and sound can be distorted by your face/hair/head and ears very differently to a dummy head. So we got the second way, is DSP processing SURROUNDING RECORDING and for example, makes the back channels distorted in the same way that how sound from behind differs to sound from in front. So originally you have loudspeakers really playing back channels behind you, now you have HEADPHONES PLAYING BACK CHANNELS, DISTORTED WITH ATMOS HEADPHONE DSP TO MIMIC THE DISTORTION WHEN THE SOUND IS REALLY FROM BEHIND INSTEAD, AND PLAYING IT STRAIGHT INTO YOUR EAR (thus dummy head/atmos headphone plays slightly differently on earphones and headphones because of the auricle and canals, but we won't go into this further).

Currently the best dummy head recording still produces the best simulated 3d sound (much better than surrounding loudspeakers). But method 2 has made movies, or surrounding music designed to be played on speakers, now possible to be playedback on headphones.

And method 2 is the one I think got most potential, because any surrounding music, recorded for loudspeakers, would be able to processed in a better and better way, and one day, in the way that's 100% measured/based on your own head and ears, thus to make sound 100% identical to real life experience (theoretically).

I am already very shocked with the current progress these guys in Dolby have made.

Oh and just a suggestion, really really go and try some dummy head recording fist if you haven't before. It would change your mind completely.

 

[solderdude]

Yes, but our eardrums did not receive signal saying "I'm coming from above!" This kind of thing.

Our eardrums are just planar drums after all.

That's not the point, the directivity we perceive comes from the angle the sounds hit the head and above all Pinnae (Concha mostly) and the phase and amplitude differences that causes is what the brain uses. The brain knows from experiences how to interpret the (altered in a specific way) sound waves,

It is a known fact that not everyone listening to binaural recordings can recreate an around the head experience. A bit more 'spatial' yes, but not anything remotely like you get with speakers.

DSP can do a lot of things but miracles are not one of them

And yes, I really, really listened to quite a few binaural recordings and for me they did not work. Only 'the haircut' gave me some surround sensation. I hear the 'space' in the recordings but it does not come from meters in front of me.

 

[FireLion]

My new pairing for under $200, and yes I am swapping opamps XD.