Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[Thorsten Loesch]

As said before... the inquisitive mind in me would have looked into what caused this found preference and learn from that and end the 'never ending debate'.

This mind had to deliver a product ready to ship on schedule, so I did not have such luxuries.

Hence no claims or theories, just observations.

I have more observations from followup products that switched to multiloop Amplifiers instead. But that's another story.

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Thor

 

[bboris77]

Again, NO CLAIMS. Observations.

Background. A new "Flagship" product is designed. For whatever reasons extremely low THD & N (way beyond those necessary to avoid audible distortion of any kind covered by standard tests) is part of the requirements.

Meeting these requirements proved a challenge and took a lot of effort and fine tuning the circuit. It used single loop feedback, and a mix of increasing open loop gain and interstage distortion cancellation to get very low THD & N (aka a big SINAD number).

Later after modifications were made the SINAD number remained "respectable" and way below any possible audibility, but it ended up around 20dB worse than the original configuration. Measures included greater amount degeneration in individual stages, single pole output stage inclusive compensation instead of more "interesting" compensation schemes and removal of cancellation based distortion reduction.

Observation 1:

After this very low THD Headphone Amplifiers had multiple prototypes circulating, experienced listeners do not "like" the Headphone amplifier when listening. The reactions are universally negative. These are not blind tests, however consistent. Much less expensive and smaller, less well build headphone amplifiers including competitors products are ranked as superior in "good sound" by those listeners.

Observation 2:

Following the feedback in 1) a number further test units are build up and and different modifications of the circuit are realised. Externally these units look identical. A number of further tests suggests the unit with the highest THD & N was preferred to all others. This test unit is also preferred to all other "contenders". These are still informal listening tests, but they are blind insofar that listeners do not know by sight which unit is which. They just listen and make their own judgements and state preferences, additional comments on subjective sonics welcome. Again, a strong consusu was found as to which unit is PREFERRED across multiple independent listeners not in contact with each other, in the same room etc.

I'd like to add that this test is what in HiFi claim should be how reviewers should perform their tests, multiple identical boxes that may or may not be different inside and that they can play with however they want to their liking and report back, without knowing what they test.

Observation 3:

Once 1) and 2) suggested a correlation, a formal listening test was organised, multi-choice, blind, preference. This too again returned the same preference with overwhelming majority and statistic significance.

Result:

The preferred product was put into production.

Claim:

No claim is made.

Theory:

No theory or hypothesis is presented.

All of that has been covered repeatedly.

And that, to quote Forest Gump, is all I have to say about that.

Thor

After reading this, my only question is why has nobody been able to precisely define and quantify this "je ne sais quoi" x factor that makes people prefer one nominally transparent amp over the other? Had I designed this amp, it would have bothered me to no end that I did not understand why this was the case.

 

[solderdude]

This mind had to deliver a product ready to ship on schedule, so I did not have such luxuries.

Hence no claims or theories, just observations.

I have more observations from followup products that switched to multiloop Amplifiers instead. But that's another story.

Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Thor

When food tastes 'better' when prepared in a different way (same ingredients) I don't try to find out why that is but just prepare it so it tastes the best.

In electronics it would bug the hell out of me and would look into it when appeared to be a recurring theme.
Not just look at SINAD or FR but expand measurements.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

After reading this, my only question is why has nobody been able to precisely define and quantify this "je ne sais quoi" x factor

Because nobody is really looking.

One group is busy waving around ABX tests that "prove" that everything sounds the same. They will not look.

The other group rather disdains and kind of testing and will not test. They will not look either.

Had I designed this amp, it would have bothered me to no end that I did not understand why this was the case.

It bothered me and still bothers me. But as they say, life's too short and all that.

Thor

 

[solderdude]

Because nobody is really looking.

One group is busy waving around ABX tests that "prove" that everything sounds the same. They will not look.

The other group rather disdains and kind of testing and will not test. They will not look either.

Not quite...

 

[Mulder]

I did not say anything about how Topping sounds etc.

I stated that if the poster liked the way the Topping he had tried sounded, he was unlikely to like the iFi product he mentioned.

Implied by the context, however, is that Topping sounds different (and worse) than Ifi Zen.

I am saying that I designed the Zen DAC (V1) upon which the Zen DAC V2 is largely based to provide "good sound".

And I designed it to measure adequately well, so that normally it's noise and distortion are not the limiting factor in an audio system.

I am implying in this that there is actually no reliable correlation between "good sound" and "good measurements", but I am not explicitly saying this.

Some other DAC's are also designed for "good sound" as priority (they often have unhappy panthers in Amirs tests) and tend to be very expensive.

Most cheaper DAC's from the far east tend now to be designed to get happy panthers. If that makes you happy when listening, so be it, but it cannot be reliably be expected.

 

[pma]

Or it's just one more meaningless anecdote which gets more attention than it merits.

Yeah, it is not much more.

 

[ahofer]

It’s amazing how often you can refer to this article (in particular the Tech Section) and see that there are no new arguments under the sun:

What We Hear

FIRST SOME UPDATES: This is a promising sign. I’ve managed to publish another article in less than a week and it’s a big one! Since last wee...

nwavguy.blogspot.com

 

[bboris77]

It’s amazing how often you can refer to this article (in particular the Tech Section) and see that there are no new arguments under the sun:

What We Hear

FIRST SOME UPDATES: This is a promising sign. I’ve managed to publish another article in less than a week and it’s a big one! Since last wee...

nwavguy.blogspot.com

I love how he refers to the McGurk Effect Video...it really blew my mind when I saw that the first time. Humbled me in a way.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Implied by the context, however, is that Topping sounds different (and worse) than Ifi Zen.

I implied that the Zen sounded different from Topping. In fact I'd suggest that the two "sounds" are diametrally opposed.

I did not imply either one was sounding better than the other. Indeed, to someone who likes how ESS Chip based DAC's sound with music these will "sound better".

 

[lateralous]

I implied that the Zen sounded different from Topping. In fact I'd suggest that the two "sounds" are diametrally opposed.

It's getting really tiring reading your statements of making no claims, implying nothing, etc over and over again. What was your point in telling the story about how the iteration of the Zen was chosen?

 

[SIY]

It's getting really tiring reading your statements of making no claims, implying nothing, etc over and over again.

There's a famous, maybe apocryphal quote from Abraham Lincoln.

“If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five,” his audience would invariably answer. “No,” he would politely respond,” the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.”

 

[Mnyb]

I have a friend who has gone through a lot of gear and probably ten DACs. Many very expensive. He likes the iFi Zen DAC II the best. I do not have such golden ears but I suspect that there is something to his preferences. I love the analysis here at ASR but the hardcore objectivist viewpoint based on what we can measure today will ultimately be debunked just as the ‘academy’ always is seen to be stuffy and conservative in science itself with resistance to new and ground breaking discoveries.

Hmm not really? It’s based on what humans can hear , we can measure way more than we can hear already. It’s a case of perfecting perfection. The actual limitation of fidelity is usually the recording, your room , your speakers, you . Rarely the electronics. So if we found the human limitations and can surpass them easily in small signal electronics ? Better understanding of electronics would not change that ?

Similar to why we still design stuff using Newton’s hundreds of years old “incorrect” equations and not trying to apply quantum dynamics or relativistic effects ? It’s good enough for purpose ? Even if we know better.

 

[jkasch]

Hmm not really? It’s based on what humans can hear , we can measure way more than we can hear already. It’s a case of perfecting perfection. The actual limitation of fidelity is usually the recording, your room , your speakers, you . Rarely the electronics. So if we found the human limitations and can surpass them easily in small signal electronics ? Better understanding of electronics would not change that ?

Similar to why we still design stuff using Newton’s hundreds of years old “incorrect” equations and not trying to apply quantum dynamics or relativistic effects ? It’s good enough for purpose ? Even if we know better.

Can’t say I understand the second paragraph, but I certainly agree with the first.

 

[Music2]

What a great thread guys.

This is the first time (AFAIK) that some of the root views and concepts in this community have been challenged and the following discussion has centred around arguments, without personal attacks. Please keep the good read.

Thorsten Loesch​

You have put some arguments in the finest way I have ever seen and gave me some food for thought. Thank you for that.

 

[lateralous]

What a great thread guys.

This is the first time (AFAIK) that some of the root views and concepts in this community have been challenged and the following discussion has centred around arguments, without personal attacks. Please keep the good read.

The sarcasm is palpable of course, but I think you clearly misjudge the nature of many (hopefully most) here. We are begging for MORE information. I think the hobby would necessarily be more interesting if there was some as-of-yet unknown parameter of DACs that correlates directly with listener preference - think of the explosion in product design, forum discussion, etc. that would happen. Somehow, no-one who claims such a parameter exists can ever tell us what it is. Why do you think that is?

 

[Blumlein 88]

The sarcasm is palpable of course, but I think you clearly misjudge the nature of many (hopefully most) here. We are begging for MORE information. I think the hobby would necessarily be more interesting if there was some as-of-yet unknown parameter of DACs that correlates directly with listener preference - think of the explosion in product design, forum discussion, etc. that would happen. Somehow, no-one who claims such a parameter exists can ever tell us what it is. Why do you think that is?

+10 to this.

 

[Reynaldo]

The sarcasm is palpable of course, but I think you clearly misjudge the nature of many (hopefully most) here. We are begging for MORE information. I think the hobby would necessarily be more interesting if there was some as-of-yet unknown parameter of DACs that correlates directly with listener preference - think of the explosion in product design, forum discussion, etc. that would happen. Somehow, no-one who claims such a parameter exists can ever tell us what it is. Why do you think that is?

How many highly rated DACs that people later disliked?
What science explains this?

I, for example, and practically ten people at the time it came out, bought the Gustard X16, with the exception of one, all the others sold. What science explains this?

In your life, everything you do first looks for a scientific explanation, or do you do something because you simply like it?

I respect amirm's work, but for me it's just a parameter.

I also thank Thorsten Loesch for his ideas. Nobody is forced to agree.
He clarified many doubts that I had.

 

[SIY]

What science explains this?

Psychology.

 

[Reynaldo]

Psychology.

It's always the same answer.