R2R vs Delta Sigma DACs - same results?

[melomane13]

Often encountered, is that even true? You may be right, but I don't recall seeing such blanket statement ever made by serious ASR members though. Some DACs in the below $35 may not sound the same as DACs in the $100-$200 range. Such "blanket" statements, if ever made about DACs, should not be taken seriously.

somes 10$ dac are perfects...

 

[cay-uwe]

Level matched?

I am in the HiFi business since 1990 and one of the essentials is to level match in case of a comparision.

Of course you have to. Being blind does not absolve you from bias.

My experience is that one of the most distracting BIAS is the optical influence that defenitely was not the case in this comparision.

Actually I even did not said anything about a switching, but when I switched I was asked what I did

 

[KSTR]

While the optical bias might be strong, there are many other ways a person's bias can be affected by another person, some of them being very subtle and happening unconsciously, like how you breathe, timbral changes in how you speak, any talk you had before, etc.

This is one of the reasons why double blind testing became the gold standard, the presenter (or anyone else in the room) must also not know what is playing. Best is using a hardware standalone ABX switch box in such situations.

I'm not saying that there was no actual difference but the kind of evidence provided is not too reliable, but of course it also is not completely worthless, it is still is one data point.

 

[Svend P]

I am in the HiFi business since 1990 and one of the essentials is to level match in case of a comparision.

You have to do it with a digital multi-meter within 1% tolerance. It can't be done by ear. You do realize science says there can't be a difference, right?

 

[melomane13]

You do realize science says there can't be a difference, right?

Maybe, but saying that science claims there can’t be a difference is already a conclusion, not a premise.
Generally, it says that no difference has been demonstrated in an ABX test using equipment of at least a reasonable quality level.
Since the test that was conducted is biased, the only thing left for our friend to do is to run it again.
But it’s possible that, given the technology being used, a difference could be audible — which does not mean it’s better.

 

[Agdan]

The Denon DCD-3560 with one of the best ancient R2R conversion I've encountered:

20 bit R2R DAC to 20 bit SAR ADС + some "cheat" AKA DPD:

 

[AndyBell]

Maybe someone with super-acute hearing might hear something that most of us wouldn’t. I’m probably wrong here, but I’ve heard that sometimes a blind person has ‘compensation’ in the form of better hearing. When I was at school, the piano tuner was a blind man…

That said, to prove there’s an audible difference requires a strictly controlled blind trial. Anything less doesn’t provide evidence of anything.

That doesn’t mean someone cannot hear a difference. And my tests at most prove I couldn’t hear a difference. Someone else might have picked up on something.

One thing seems certain to me - if there was an audible difference between competently built DACs that people with average hearing could hear, then properly controlled tests would prove it and manufacturers would actively publish them, especially if favourable.

The same goes for cables/power supplies etc.

Marketing departments don’t miss a trick - their lack of published *data* is all you need to know - it means there’s no proof of their claims.

It really is that simple.

 

[Agdan]

Both did not measure very good

The Audio Precision x555 measurement system has a "blind" in the time domain, cheap sigma-delta ADCs.
Measurements should be taken without sine waves and FFTs using something like https://www.ni.com/en-in/shop/model/pxi-5922.html
See also https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=16981151

Df-measurements of DA/AD loops from Gearslutz forum - Articles - SoundExpert

Artifact signatures of DA/AD converters in similarity space.. SoundExpert news and articles

soundexpert.org

E1DA 9038D performance according to df-metric

We’re a bit late to this party, but that’s mainly because we spent a lot of time exploring this device from various angles. We ultimately reached the same conclusion and so figured at this point we may as well share what we’ve found. We ended up testing two of these devices. We tried tweaking...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[cay-uwe]

It can't be done by ear.

Somehow interesting that you know how I level my setup ...

 

[oleg87]

Somehow interesting that you know how I level my setup ...

Trivially audible differences between reasonably linear DACs point to basic test setup problems.
Of course, even with perfect controls you'd need a statistically meaningful number of trials to determine whether the thing you're hearing is real.

 

[NTTY]

20 bit R2R DAC to 20 bit SAR ADС + some "cheat" AKA DPD:
View attachment 501324

View attachment 501323

Not an ancient DAC
Thanks for the link.

 

[somebodyelse]

Best is using a hardware standalone ABX switch box in such situations.

And even then you have to be careful - one paper reported having to rework their test process when one of the participants reported a 'tell' from the sound of the relays doing the switching being different depending on which device was being selected.

 

[KSTR]

And even then you have to be careful - one paper reported having to rework their test process when one of the participants reported a 'tell' from the sound of the relays doing the switching being different depending on which device was being selected.

Definitely. There are ways to conceal the relay clicks, by using two equal cross-operated dual-throw relays, by acoustic isolation, or by a masking noise.

 

[peng]

Maybe someone with super-acute hearing might hear something that most of us wouldn’t. I’m probably wrong here, but I’ve heard that sometimes a blind person has ‘compensation’ in the form of better hearing. When I was at school, the piano tuner was a blind man…

That said, to prove there’s an audible difference requires a strictly controlled blind trial. Anything less doesn’t provide evidence of anything.

That doesn’t mean someone cannot hear a difference. And my tests at most prove I couldn’t hear a difference. Someone else might have picked up on something.

One thing seems certain to me - if there was an audible difference between competently built DACs that people with average hearing could hear, then properly controlled tests would prove it and manufacturers would actively publish them, especially if favourable.

The same goes for cables/power supplies etc.

Marketing departments don’t miss a trick - their lack of published *data* is all you need to know - it means there’s no proof of their claims.

It really is that simple.

I have no reason to question the validity of differences heard as reported on hobby forums including ASR, but I have no reason to believe those reports when they claim "night and day", " so different that even "my wife, young daughter" (why they aways used females for examples?...), or even ridiculously "my dog" could notice the differences, or "you just have to listen....". Also, just because Marantz (I like, have owned, still own their Marantz devices) had given many well written marketing articles, their fans frequently reported hearing what they were told, expected to hear, yet, no level matched blind listening comparison listening could be found (may be I missed in my searches) on the internet.

So to me, yes there could well be audible differences between audio devices that seemingly have similarly good measurements indicating they should be transparent, but there's no reasons, not even logical for me to believe those not provable reports were creditable and I can only assume such perceived differences might have been mainly biases driven, or not based on apples to apples comparisons, and most likely not due to "super-acute hearing" because it that's the reason, it should have been proven and documented by someone (I can think of someone like Archimago) by now.

 

[melomane13]

So to me, yes there could well be audible differences between audio devices that seemingly have similarly good measurements indicating their should be transparent...

"Devices that measure transparent cannot sound different — transparency ensures frequency response, noise, and distortion stay inaudible (the exact transparency limits are, of course, debatable). Devices that do not measure transparent may sound different, but different does not mean better.

"In practice, measurements tell us whether two devices are indistinguishable in a test without cognitive bias. On the other hand, only a properly conducted listening test can tell us whether the objective differences are also subjectively perceived. Funny enough, this is the opposite of what many 'audiophiles' claim."

"The purple and yellow curves are likely to be audible."

 

[solderdude]

Indeed filters, default or not, is usually the reason for actual (demonstrable) differences in sound .

R2R (when done well) or other technical methods for conversion from digital representation of sample values to analog voltage is not the reason for demonstrable differences.
The filter type and response can be.
Another technical reason can be output level.

Of course in most cases found differences are not caused by technical difference but stem from perception.

 

[jareinertson]

I have tested some DACs in blind testing of vastly different prices and designs. I had trouble hearing a clear, better sound above, say, around $130. Sometimes I could hear a difference but not be able to describe or have a preference for it. We did find at one point that the preamp we used swayed us much more than the DACs behind it. There have been DAC's over the years that allow you to swap the op amps on the outputs to change the sound of the DAC. I haven't had two with just the op amps changed to be able to test, but I assume that the amplification change could change the interaction with the downstream amps and have an effect. Of course you would expect to see a change in level or of frequency to show it.

I wonder if we end up in this crazy space because we are constantly trying to use metaphors to describe some aspects of our systems and then mistakenly take that to areas where there should be negligible effects. Any valid DAC should be good enough. And then just features and style remain. I could not hear a clear difference between a high end R2R and a $200 desktop DAC. But I certainly can hear the difference between the DACs in computers and crapy TVs and my $100 DACs or even my Qudelix. Again, I am probably hearing the difference in the analog amp circuits. I should redo my test between the DAC in my receiver and my DAC in my headphone AMP. I do tend to prefer the external DAC's but maybe it is just me being silly.

Don’t discount the quality available at $100. The SMSL SU-1 and the new SMSL SU-2 are probably fine choices. I have the SMSL RAWMDA1 and plan to add the SU-2 as a second choice soon. Just for fun…

 

[WillBrink]

I grew up with vinyl, but instantly switched to CD and not just for the convenience.
Keith

Same, I couldn't drop LPs fast enough when the CD player came out. The CD were expensive and hard to find, and I would check the store to see if any new CDs had come out.

 

[Agdan]

Same, I couldn't drop LPs fast enough when the CD player came out.

Due to piracy, the uncopied product remained high-quality, and demo versions are now being distributed digitally.

Adele 30 – Review (Vinyl, Streaming Amazon Music, Qobuz, Youtube)

30 is the 4th album of Adele coming after 25.It is a personal album of Adele in which Adele approaches her separation while also evoking her maternity. She also realizes the analysis of the celebri…

magicvinyldigital.net

See also: https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=adele&album=25
Red colors not hi-fi.