PS Audio DirectStream DAC mk2 hilarious ad copy

[voodooless]

I see. I saw Yamaha and my mind went to AVR immediately.

It’s an AVP, and generally they aren’t that much better. In this case all but the center channel are quite serviceable, but definitely not SOTA.

 

[ahofer]

Having a system that sounds subjectively great to everyone that comes in contact with it (including myself)

VS

Having a system that measures great and may or may not sound subjectively as great.

False binary. First part is meaningless (with respect to supporting sound quality), second concept has yet to be shown.

 

[Jmart]

False binary. First part is meaningless (with respect to supporting sound quality), second concept has yet to be shown.

What would you suggest as a 'true binary?'

 

[MaxBuck]

What is the preference:
Having a system that sounds subjectively great to everyone that comes in contact with it (including myself)

VS

Having a system that measures great and may or may not sound subjectively as great.

If you have a great-measuring system that doesn't sound great, your components aren't the problem.

 

[Jmart]

If you have a great-measuring system that doesn't sound great, your components aren't the problem.

You're excluding the possibility that there is a better sounding system without as good of measurements.

 

[ahofer]

What would you suggest as a 'true binary?'

Either the difference between your cable is audible (under certain conditions), or it isn’t.

But the point of a false binary is that there are more than two choices, not to identify a “true binary”.

 

[ahofer]

You're excluding the possibility that there is a better sounding system without as good of measurements.

You are including that possibility without any particular evidence to justify it.

Of course “better sounding”, is subjective, so suit yourself. We are more interested in whether your impressions of sound quality could be replicated, or even if you could tell the difference at all, if you didn’t know which components you were using.

 

[Jmart]

Either the difference between your cable is audible (under certain conditions), or it isn’t.

But the point of a false binary is that there are more than two choices, not to identify a “true binary”.

Wouldn't this by definition also be non-binary? Since you are comparing something subjective vs objective. The subjection portion will always have the possibility that someone can just not tell that difference (my wife LOL).

I'm starting to understand what you guys do here. I do see the interest, but I think I just value what I (as well as other audiophile friends' opinions) consider subjectively better rather than what measures best. However trying to determine if there is a correlation between my 'subjectively better' and some sort of measurement is interesting in its own right.

I spent a good amount of time in REW tuning my dual SVS SB16s for both Hifi & for my home theater. The more flat I made it, the more it appealed to me.

 

[ahofer]

I think I just value what I (as well as other audiophile friends' opinions) consider subjectively better rather than what measures best.

Which is fine, of course. You might be interested in separating what is strictly audible from what is not, but that’s your choice. I am fascinated by it. You might also consider the true correlation between what *measures* to the theoretical idea and what sounds better—ears only. I think most people would be surprised. This is what Toole’s research sought to reveal.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Wouldn't this by definition also be non-binary? Since you are comparing something subjective vs objective. The subjection portion will always have the possibility that someone can just not tell that difference (my wife LOL).

I'm starting to understand what you guys do here. I do see the interest, but I think I just value what I (as well as other audiophile friends' opinions) consider subjectively better rather than what measures best. However trying to determine if there is a correlation between my 'subjectively better' and some sort of measurement is interesting in its own right.

I spent a good amount of time in REW tuning my dual SVS SB16s for both Hifi & for my home theater. The more flat I made it, the more it appealed to me.

There is a maxim that in at least the macro world must be true: (I am not opining whether this is true on the quantum mechanical level)

All things heard can be measured, but not all things measured can be heard.

In other words, everything that a person perceives as sound has a measurement associated with it. Sound waves can be measured in frequency and amplitude and if the laws of physics are true, then these frequency-domain measurements along with time-domain measurements describe the entirety of what we hear.

However, some things that can be measured are beyond the scope of human hearing.

 

[Jmart]

There is a maxim that in at least the macro world must be true: (I am not opining whether this is true on the quantum mechanical level)

All things heard can be measured, but not all things measured can be heard.

In other words, everything that a person perceives as sound has a measurement associated with it. Sound waves can be measured in frequency and amplitude and if the laws of physics are true, then these frequency-domain measurements along with time-domain measurements describe the entirety of what we hear.

However, some things that can be measured are beyond the scope of human hearing.

I would argue that this is only half of the equation. There is a whole realm of 'heard' things that are not clearly understood, therefore not measurable. For example pretty much all aural processing is done in the auditory cortex. Thats about all we know. While one could argue that these changes are theoretically measurable, we cannot measure what we don't understand, ie what changes cause the processing center to recognize more soundstage than not. We can only make theories at but I have not identified a fully elucidated mechanism.

 

[ahofer]

we cannot measure what we don't understand, ie what changes cause the processing center to recognize more soundstage than not.

But we can figure out if it arises from the sounds (re)produced by the equipment.

 

[solderdude]

I spent a good amount of time in REW tuning my dual SVS SB16s for both Hifi & for my home theater. The more flat I made it, the more it appealed to me.

This is what most folks on here either also found out or find interesting. It has nothing to do with the gear (0.1% THD or 0.0001% THD) but with signal fidelity in tonal aspects {frequency response) and staying away from clipping levels.

You're excluding the possibility that there is a better sounding system without as good of measurements.

Perhaps change the statement to:
You're excluding the possibility that some people prefer a more pleasant sounding system without as good of measurements.

Music reproduction is about enjoyment, measurements are for checking signal fidelity.
There can be a relation but there may not be for preference.

I have a full set of PS audio gear and expensive cables. People come over and are blown away at the sound. Seems like they are doing something right.

Seems like you have good speakers, well equalized and fortunate enough to have good acoustics.
There is no doubt that a lot of the gear is transparent enough to sound good.
The amount of money spent on electronics and cables has no relation to sound quality (when not clipping and of decent quality).
Acoustics, speaker choice and placement, recording quality determine how much people are blown away as well as the amount of deep lows.

 

[pinpoint_oxford]

Seems like you have good speakers, well equalized and fortunate enough to have good acoustics.
There is no doubt that a lot of the gear is transparent enough to sound good.
The amount of money spent on electronics and cables has no relation to sound quality (when not clipping and of decent quality).
Acoustics, speaker choice and placement, recording quality determine how much people are blown away as well as the amount of deep lows.

Before I knew what I was doing and relied mostly on Stereophile for guidance, I thought gear would help. After upgrading a few things and not noticing such an improvement I was promised, I spent some time trying to figure out what I wanted and what was missing. I ended up selling a few things, getting some much better speakers and some acoustic treatments for my room. I've never been more satisfied.

The good news is that expensive mistakes in terms of useless gear is pretty easy to unload without a huge loss in this hobby.

 

[Billy Budapest]

I would argue that this is only half of the equation. There is a whole realm of 'heard' things that are not clearly understood, therefore not measurable. For example pretty much all aural processing is done in the auditory cortex. Thats about all we know. While one could argue that these changes are theoretically measurable, we cannot measure what we don't understand, ie what changes cause the processing center to recognize more soundstage than not. We can only make theories at but I have not identified a fully elucidated mechanism.

We do know what causes the height and depth of soundstage imaging—it’s the varying mixture of in-phase and out-of-phase signals arriving at the ear and their timing differences. This information is contained in the recording and produced by the interaction of the audio transducer (ie, loudspeaker) and the listening room, and also the position of the listener’s head and ears in the listening room. There is no “magic” to it, and to say that any modern DAC “images better” than another is preposterous.

There has been tons of research in this area, and some consumer products perform DSP to create wider and deeper soundstages and simulated surround effects. For example, certain settings in receivers, sound bars, and Bluetooth headphones. But I’ve never heard of a stand-alone DAC that performs this sort of DSP.

Onto another topic in DAC performance:

There is the possibility of a DAC performing so badly in regard to frequency roll off that sounds at the upper limits of human hearing might be reproduced at a level enough dB’s down that it would be audible. In that case, an argument could be made that the DAC is “missing” information that is contained in a recording. However, a DAC cannot “uncover” additional information from a bitstream that was somehow “hiding” in the data. The only information it could add would be frequencies that are not contained in the data. There is a name for this: harmonic distortion. That’s something you don’t want. However, harmonic distortion is rarely high enough in level to be audible.

 

[JP]

(Litchfield County, CT)

Hi, neighbor.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Acoustics, speaker choice and placement, recording quality determine how much people are blown away as well as the amount of deep lows.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[kevin1969]

I haven't heard it yet I still have the MK1. What I like about the MK1 is the sound sounds natural. I listen to a a lot of female vocals and my previous DACs vocals would take on an almost mechanical artifact, almost like autotune. It was most noticeable when the voice when from soft to loud, like when they were going for "the note". It really sounded unnatural not at all like a real voice. This relates to other instruments also. I hear more of the wood in string instruments. Violins can be screechy, bass notes just blunt. I get a lot more of the feel of the instruments. My hope is the MKII has the same attributes of reproduction but an even more musical presentation. Reading the PSAudio Beta reviews that is just what it does. They talk about a blacker background making the instrument and vocal locations even more pronounced. Galvanically isolating the inputs and outputs should improve the audio signal. I believe this should be an improvement as just simply removing the powerline from the USB output and injecting power back in from a different source improved the presentation. A lot of sound based reviewers use terms liked etched, veiled and sibilance when reviewing DACs, Compared to my other DACs the MKI presents an open, natural, fatigueless sound which I find worth the outlay whiteout what I think veiled, etched and sibilance would sound like.

Nelson Pass felt that the 1st watt was the most important as if it wasn't the best it could be you would be amplifying the distortion. My belief is that the signal entering into the amp is as important as the first watt and if it isn't as "musical" as it can be you'll be amplifying all the artifacts you find objectual. Most music is amplified at the performance, the instruments amplifiers themselves produce a specific sound. Recordings are made close miced and mixed using layers of individual performances. Stereo imaging is really a trick of the ears perpetrated by the recording engineer but I like it. When I feel that MKI isn't revealing all the hidden information the engineer snuck in there I'll take the MKII for a test run. I'm still educating myself as where those hidden details reside.

Curious. When your system is idle do you hear a constant high frequency hiss coming out of the speakers ?

 

[DanaGer]

if you max the volume and put your ear next to the tweeter there is a slight hiss. Not detectable at one meter or the listening position. I am a 68 year old ex rock and roll, construction worker and still shoots sometimes so I don't have the hearing of a 12 year old girl but it's safe to say from the listening position the hiss is undatable.

 

[Billy Budapest]

Sure there is a little hyperbole about a new product they are seem to be excited about but at least it's not poorly translated Chinese.

It’s not just the hyperbole that makes the ad copy funny.