Based on that, no.
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/audiophile-myth-260-detestable-digital.htmlI heard an opinion that there is no pre-ringing in NOS DACs. And that for our ears / brain the lack of pre-ringing is more important than 10x higher distortion figures.
Can it be true?
Also, the distortion of nos DACs lies mostly in the higher frequencies (correct me if I am wrong). This is where our hearing is least sensitive.
So can it be that distortion is overrated as a sq criteria?
IMHO it is always important to discuss measurements in connection with psychoacoustics.
I used to have a cd which had the same track recorded with added even harmonics. 0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%.
The purpose of the cd was to demonstrate how our hearing system works.
I could only reliably identify a track with added 10% harmonic distortion!
All other tracks sounded the same to me.
I own a nos and a well measured delta-sigma dac. The nos dac (metrum octave) is definitely more pleasant to listen to, especially in the midrange.
Delta-sigma designs tend to handle impulses more poorly than more conventional architectures so are not well-suited for some applications (or require special design techniques). For audio there are noise modulation and transient issues that delta-sigma designs are more susceptible to, but there are modulation-like and transient issues conventional designs also exhibit, so I am not sure there is a clear winner.
Sorry to revive an old post Don. I'm just wondering, what measurements would show up the noise modulation and transient issues that DS DACs are more susceptible to? And are these issues that you would expect to cause audible problems in well-designed DS DACs?
That's my opinion too. I swear reviewers plot those impulses and square waves to impress the readers that they know something the reader doesn't know!While an interesting metric that can provide some insight on the implementation I don't see if there's a good way to draw conclusions on the merits of a particular device through comparing their impulse responses.
Impulse response depends on the type of digital and maybe analog filter, if any, and not necessarily on the DAC type. All oversampling DACs will show some type of ringing with less than perfect impulse response and NOS R2R DACs will show none or minimal ringing and near perfect impulse response. This behavior is expected and well understood. While an interesting metric that can provide some insight on the implementation I don't see if there's a good way to draw conclusions on the merits of a particular device through comparing their impulse responses.
Correct on LPF, but even with analog LPF there will only be post-ringing which is said to be less noticeable as it is masked by the signal. Recent NOS R2R designs avoid the LPF altogether for this same reason and also to not change frequency/phase response, or use a very gentle LPF filter, so ringing is minimal. Technically ringing is ultrasonic so should not be audible, but dome disagree. There was a relevant discussion here:
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...log-reconstruction-filter-is-it-a-thing.2634/
The unfortunate reality is that designs with perfect transients create all sorts of issues in the frequency domain. Pick your poison.
The (one) problem with no output filter is that images are now large, adding ultrasonic energy that was not present in the original signal and that you likely do not want to send to your tweeters now. See e.g. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/digital-audio-jitter-fundamentals.1922/ for a brief explanation. These images also stress the output buffers and input stages of the rest of the components in the chain, adding distortion and such. I would not want a DAC with no imaging (low-pass) filter at the output. - Don