Can you share same TIM results for Holo Spring2 and RME ADI-2?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Can you share same TIM results for Holo Spring2 and RME ADI-2?
GrimSurfer
Major Contributor
- Joined
- May 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,238
- Likes
- 1,484
Thankfully, we got all that virtue signalling (or is it Virtual SINAD?) out of our system.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...on=click&module=Editors Picks&pgtype=Homepage
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,023
Back to regular programming, there are some new posts from the designer, Ted Smith:
Once again it is disappointing to see that Ted doesn't understand how these measurements are performed. The linearity test can be affected by noise if measured wideband. However, the version I run filters all but the source tone. Now, the tone itself can have noise on it and that is poor engineering which must be resolved:
It means that it cannot resolve a simple, single tone with any accuracy.
Besides, he keeps talking like this DAC, despite its $6,000 price tag should get a pass on noise. "These is noise so it is OK for these measurements to show problems." Well, it isn't. If I am not getting accuracy, what on earth am I getting?
Here is a $9 Apple phone dongle linearity:
Notice how it is half a dB more accurate than the DS DAC!
I say again, please go back and clean up the design of this DAC instead of posting on the forum. That, will help the customers. Stories to confuse them with technical terms, will not.
Once again it is disappointing to see that Ted doesn't understand how these measurements are performed. The linearity test can be affected by noise if measured wideband. However, the version I run filters all but the source tone. Now, the tone itself can have noise on it and that is poor engineering which must be resolved:
It means that it cannot resolve a simple, single tone with any accuracy.
Besides, he keeps talking like this DAC, despite its $6,000 price tag should get a pass on noise. "These is noise so it is OK for these measurements to show problems." Well, it isn't. If I am not getting accuracy, what on earth am I getting?
Here is a $9 Apple phone dongle linearity:
Notice how it is half a dB more accurate than the DS DAC!
I say again, please go back and clean up the design of this DAC instead of posting on the forum. That, will help the customers. Stories to confuse them with technical terms, will not.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,024
He goes on:
Small amount? This is small amount?
Distortion at 20 Hz is 0.1%. I have never tested a DAC with such high distortion. The red curve is a $99 DAC and has 0.0007% distortion! The PS Audio DS DAC has 147 times more distortion than this $99 DAC.
Even in the best case frequencies of 500 Hz to 2 kHz, the distortion is hugely higher than our $99 card. Here is how a well-designed DAC performs ($1000 Okto DAC8):
And that DAC gives you 8 channels of audio, not just two. For 1/6th the price. It has this kind of linearity:
I don't know why anyone would want to defend the awful measured performance of the DS DAC. It is the worst of the worst. All of your music gets distorted through with noise and distortion. I have shown this with captured audio.
Small amount? This is small amount?
Distortion at 20 Hz is 0.1%. I have never tested a DAC with such high distortion. The red curve is a $99 DAC and has 0.0007% distortion! The PS Audio DS DAC has 147 times more distortion than this $99 DAC.
Even in the best case frequencies of 500 Hz to 2 kHz, the distortion is hugely higher than our $99 card. Here is how a well-designed DAC performs ($1000 Okto DAC8):
And that DAC gives you 8 channels of audio, not just two. For 1/6th the price. It has this kind of linearity:
I don't know why anyone would want to defend the awful measured performance of the DS DAC. It is the worst of the worst. All of your music gets distorted through with noise and distortion. I have shown this with captured audio.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,025
Next he says this:
Figure 4? This is figure 4:
It is a frequency response measurement and has nothing to do with the argument he is making. Furthermore it is showing this DAC does not have flat frequency response. What this has to do with CD, I don't know.
Figure 4? This is figure 4:
It is a frequency response measurement and has nothing to do with the argument he is making. Furthermore it is showing this DAC does not have flat frequency response. What this has to do with CD, I don't know.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,026
More of where that came from:
I pay $6000 for a DAC and then ask my brain to ignore the noise the DAC produces? How is this bring out more detail than another DAC which doesn't have noise? Which would let you hear more low level detail: one with or one without noise?
Here is the dynamic range of DS DAC:
And Okto DAC8 I referenced:
Was there any measurements were made prior to release of DS DAC on noise? Any competitive analysis against the competitors to see where they need to be?
Clearly he is not making an argument that noise is good for you. So why is it there in this DAC?
And you will fix it in the next one? Why if the ear ignores the noise?
I pay $6000 for a DAC and then ask my brain to ignore the noise the DAC produces? How is this bring out more detail than another DAC which doesn't have noise? Which would let you hear more low level detail: one with or one without noise?
Here is the dynamic range of DS DAC:
And Okto DAC8 I referenced:
Was there any measurements were made prior to release of DS DAC on noise? Any competitive analysis against the competitors to see where they need to be?
Clearly he is not making an argument that noise is good for you. So why is it there in this DAC?
And you will fix it in the next one? Why if the ear ignores the noise?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,027
He keeps repeating the old arguments that I have addressed:
Averaging? No one's ear is averaging. An instrument making measurements can do that, misleading the person into thinking the device is actually cleaner than it is. That has no resemblance to what the ear is doing which hears the sound only once and cannot average it.
And who says the smallest change has the correct change in the output? My linearity tests show that the output jumps all over the place, and is polluted with distortion to boot:
The signal is lost in sea of distortion and power supply noise. By his definition, a DAC, no matter how noise, how distorted, is still capable of resolving 20 bits.
He forgets there is a thing called analog voltage that the DAC outputs. He confuses internal digital resolution to what the DAC actually creates on its output. We only hear what comes out of the DAC, not the intermediate processing. That, needs to be perfectly good to -120 dB for it to have 20 bits of resolution. The DS DAC does not, either in measurements or in audio I have captured from it.
Averaging? No one's ear is averaging. An instrument making measurements can do that, misleading the person into thinking the device is actually cleaner than it is. That has no resemblance to what the ear is doing which hears the sound only once and cannot average it.
And who says the smallest change has the correct change in the output? My linearity tests show that the output jumps all over the place, and is polluted with distortion to boot:
The signal is lost in sea of distortion and power supply noise. By his definition, a DAC, no matter how noise, how distorted, is still capable of resolving 20 bits.
He forgets there is a thing called analog voltage that the DAC outputs. He confuses internal digital resolution to what the DAC actually creates on its output. We only hear what comes out of the DAC, not the intermediate processing. That, needs to be perfectly good to -120 dB for it to have 20 bits of resolution. The DS DAC does not, either in measurements or in audio I have captured from it.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,028
Finally:
No, the whole thread is an example of what spin looks like when a DAC fails at some of the most basic tasks of producing clean and undistorted output. It has a story written in text that has no resemblance to any technical measurements of the device. Not in my review, not in Stereophile review. Not in Paul Miller's Hifi News review. All three sets of reviews/measurements point to one of the worse measuring DACs in the market.
Most damning is that so many days later, we have not seen one measurement posted by Ted performed using an audio analyzer. Not one. He keeps referencing Stereophile and Miller's reviews as if they save him. They do not.
At this point, the only valid conclusion is that they did not measure this device. They had no target for either noise or distortion. They built it, liked the distortions that the transformer was creating and thought they had a great DAC. They do not. Neither measurably nor audibly.
No, the whole thread is an example of what spin looks like when a DAC fails at some of the most basic tasks of producing clean and undistorted output. It has a story written in text that has no resemblance to any technical measurements of the device. Not in my review, not in Stereophile review. Not in Paul Miller's Hifi News review. All three sets of reviews/measurements point to one of the worse measuring DACs in the market.
Most damning is that so many days later, we have not seen one measurement posted by Ted performed using an audio analyzer. Not one. He keeps referencing Stereophile and Miller's reviews as if they save him. They do not.
At this point, the only valid conclusion is that they did not measure this device. They had no target for either noise or distortion. They built it, liked the distortions that the transformer was creating and thought they had a great DAC. They do not. Neither measurably nor audibly.
solderdude
Grand Contributor
I did not hear Ted say anything about the noise floor that is raised by music content (worse than the SINAD).
How will he comment on a noise floor that is raised to approximately vinyl levels when music is played ?
How will he comment on a noise floor that is raised to approximately vinyl levels when music is played ?
Last edited:
OP
- Thread Starter
- #1,030
With whatever technical words that will confuse his readers there...
That it sounds like analog of course, and vinyl livers will buy it for exactly this reason.I did not hear Ted say anything about the noise floor that is raised by music content (worse than the SINAD).
How will he comment on a noise floor that is raised to approximately vinyl levels when music is played ?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,771
- Likes
- 37,637
This is a very nice video.
However, it reminded me of something I had not thought about in years. When I was in college (late 1970's) there was a totally blind girl who was very militant in not taking assistance. I knew her name, and she mine though we weren't friends by any means. One Friday night she was obviously rather drunk and now lost. I happened upon her. From a distance called out her name, and told her mine. Offered to guide her as we lived in the same building. The response was expletive filled and angry. I offered in other terms by telling her where she was, and what she was close to physically. The response was even worse. I drew back quietly by 50 feet and stood around for more than 30 minutes until she did find her way. She did use the info I gave her about where she was as she could obviously be seen confirming that mental map she had.
On another occasion on a Saturday night around 1 am she was even more messed up. She had lost the sidewalks, and was wandering around clearly in distress. I called to her, and offered assistance with an equally angry response for me to stay away. I stuck around silently. Some other people came by laughing at her and being very unkind. She was meandering toward a trash bin area with a steep set of steps she wouldn't have been aware of. I rushed over and stopped her falling down them. She smacked me a few times with her metal cane. She was small maybe only a 100 lbs. I basically just grabbed her and took her to a safe place she would know right in front of her dorm building. She was screaming bloody murder. Fortunately no one else was near. I put her down, still holding her while telling her where she was. She eventually realized I was telling her right and went inside.
I later tried to talk to her about it, and got nothing except venom. I'm not able to know what it was like for her, but it didn't leave a good taste in my mouth so to speak. Yet I felt it simply immoral not to look out for her when I happened across her.
Last edited:
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
The ear may not be averaging but the brain surely is. All the time. Tell me how we interpret a note or pitch or a sound- it's not sample by sample is it? Can you audibly pick 1% THD with a single cycle 1KHz sine? Or does it take a second or two's worth- maybe 2000 cycles before you can hear that THD. How is that not a continuous averaging which ultimately results in perception?
No different to looking at a really grainy TV broadcast signal back in the day- a single frame is meaningless. It's only when our eyes/brain average and pattern match over a period of several seconds where we can see through the fuzz and grain and perceive a picture.
And who hasn't listened to shortwave radio where the background noise is massive but you can lock into the broadcast and hear it all. Then someone else walks in the room and only hears the noise.
Last edited:
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Brings new meaning to "blind drunk".
That it sounds like analog of course, and vinyl livers will buy it for exactly this reason.
Stupid vinyl livers!
Sadly, a handicap provides no assurances that you won’t be an alcoholic or an asshole, or both. Self-sufficiency is obviously a big issue in the BVI (blind and visually impaired) community, so it isn’t a surprise that, with inebriation, it could become an axe to grind for a few people. In addition, as the video suggests, BVI people get a little sensitive (or get conflicting signals) when grabbed or touched unexpectedly.
The American Federation for the Blind (AFB) developed a reputation for being hardliners for self-sufficiency. A colleague told me the old head of the AFB would have cook-outs. Allegedly, he’d hand BVI guests a burger at the door and tell them to go cook it on the grill.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Well vinyl is a plastic and the liver apparently has a significant degree of plasticity, so, not so wrong after all.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348964/
These days there is probably a lot of plastic in our livers too.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
Very true, I was just reading a link my (tea loving) Dad sent me on micro plastics in tea due to the plastic teabags they are using these days.
https://www.cairnspost.com.au/lifes...c/news-story/e0f9c202cebaee3d482c0d91eb861b2c
I have basically put DACs in the same basket as cables. That may seem a bit unfair as a DAC does need to be well designed and it is a lot more involved than cable, but if I look at the things that influence SQ, and the audible transparency of DACs, even the really cheap or device DACs, I just don't see DACs as being something that is a real issue in audio. I think the following are the three key determinants of SQ (I'm assuming of course it is something you actually want to listen it, there is plenty that I'd not be interested in listening to regardless of how wonderfully reproduced):
1. The quality of recording and mastering, the dominant consideration and the area which has become the most problematic as a result of the loudness wars, mastering for car audio and BT speakers and just plain bad mastering. It doesn't matter how marvellous your hifi is, rubbish in = rubbish out;
2. Speakers (or headphones if you use headphones); and
3. Speaker set up in room.
Get a really good recording played on good and well set up speakers and all you need is a competently designed amplifier and DAC as whatever distortion and degradation introduced by the amp and DAC tends to be almost irrelevant next to the three elements above (assuming that the amp and DAC have been competently designed).
You can access really good DAC performance with a $9 dongle. Most of my devices have perfectly adequate DACs. My CD player which is almost 30 years old has a perfectly good DAC. If I consider what I can do to improve the sound I enjoy I just don't see changing DACs as being worthwhile. If people want luxury build, exclusivity or advanced functionality then I can understand why some of these higher end DACs will be attractive and I'm an advocate of "buy what you like, like what you buy" so if people just want an expensive DAC it's not my business to interfere. However, as stated, I've arrived at a point where I look at DACs as being like cables. In the same way that cables do matter (the gauge needs to be appropriate, the connectors matter and you won't get very far without them as even a wireless system generally needs a power cable somewhere in the chain) but as long as you get cable which is appropriate for the intended duty it will be transparent, so I think as long as you get a competently designed DAC it's basically now a commodity.
1. The quality of recording and mastering, the dominant consideration and the area which has become the most problematic as a result of the loudness wars, mastering for car audio and BT speakers and just plain bad mastering. It doesn't matter how marvellous your hifi is, rubbish in = rubbish out;
2. Speakers (or headphones if you use headphones); and
3. Speaker set up in room.
Get a really good recording played on good and well set up speakers and all you need is a competently designed amplifier and DAC as whatever distortion and degradation introduced by the amp and DAC tends to be almost irrelevant next to the three elements above (assuming that the amp and DAC have been competently designed).
You can access really good DAC performance with a $9 dongle. Most of my devices have perfectly adequate DACs. My CD player which is almost 30 years old has a perfectly good DAC. If I consider what I can do to improve the sound I enjoy I just don't see changing DACs as being worthwhile. If people want luxury build, exclusivity or advanced functionality then I can understand why some of these higher end DACs will be attractive and I'm an advocate of "buy what you like, like what you buy" so if people just want an expensive DAC it's not my business to interfere. However, as stated, I've arrived at a point where I look at DACs as being like cables. In the same way that cables do matter (the gauge needs to be appropriate, the connectors matter and you won't get very far without them as even a wireless system generally needs a power cable somewhere in the chain) but as long as you get cable which is appropriate for the intended duty it will be transparent, so I think as long as you get a competently designed DAC it's basically now a commodity.
Similar threads
