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

[MDAguy]

Ironic that he should mention Stradivaris:

right but that totally discounts the psychological effects of something like that ... there is a reason the first violin players of all the major symphonies play one (or something similar)... and these are the people making the music we all listen to.

 

[andreasmaaan]

right but that totally discounts the psychological effects of something like that ... there is a reason the first violin players of all the major symphonies play one (or something similar)... and these are the people making the music we all listen to.

Yes, just like most DAC preferences, the reasons apparently have no relationship to the performance or quality of the device

 

[MDAguy]

I don't think he understands sampling theory.

I listed to all 29 minutes of his video, as did thousands (his like to dislike ratio is pretty impressive)... I heard nothing in his video that lead me to think this is the case.

Listen to the entire video .. then poke holes in his arguments.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I listed to all 29 minutes of his video, as did thousands (his like to dislike ratio is pretty impressive)... I heard nothing in his video that lead me to think this is the case.

Listen to the entire video .. then poke holes in his arguments.

All his misunderstandings of digital audio sampling are laid bare in the first three and a half minutes though

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

I don't think he understands sampling theory.

Can draw celestial objects well though.

 

[BDWoody]

I listed to all 29 minutes of his video, as did thousands (his like to dislike ratio is pretty impressive)... I heard nothing in his video that lead me to think this is the case.

Listen to the entire video .. then poke holes in his arguments.

He doesn't explain sampling theory in a way that reflects how it works. Not sure what else to say... He should watch Monty's Vid a few times.

The analogie about the picture resolution is just wrong.

The analog waveform is recreated with zero loss of information within it's bandwidth limit. It's not like connect the dots.

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

I listed to all 29 minutes of his video, as did thousands (his like to dislike ratio is pretty impressive)... I heard nothing in his video that lead me to think this is the case.

Listen to the entire video .. then poke holes in his arguments.

I'm fairly sure a man farting the national anthem would get a high like to dislike ratio. This is not a sound basis for assessing someone's credibility.

 

[MDAguy]

He doesn't explain sampling theory in a way that reflects how it works. Not sure what else to say... He should watch Monty's Vid a few times.

The analogie about the picture resolution is just wrong.

The analog waveform is recreated with zero loss of information within it's bandwidth limit. It's not like connect the dots.

I think he was trying to simplify and paint a picture... this isn't a video for engineers, it's a video for end users.

Frankly this is the closet thing to a reasonably objective video on DAC'S I've come across on YouTube...

 

[andreasmaaan]

I think he was trying to simplify and paint a picture... this isn't a video for engineers, it's a video for end users.

Ok, but then why not simply explain to end users that the waveform that comes out is not "jagged" or "pixelated" for all frequencies up to half the sampling rate?

You don't need any kind of technical background to understand that.

 

[MDAguy]

Ok, but then why not simply explain to end users that the waveform that comes out is not "jagged" or "pixelated" for all frequencies up to half the sampling rate?

You don't need any kind of technical background to understand that.

I think he pretty much put to bed that the reconstruction of a sine wave isn't rocket science and that any off the shelf DAC chip can do this...

I can see how you might feel that some would read his diagram as implying that the reconstruction of the wave is why some DAC's sound differently, but that's not what he says... moreover, even a $75 Dongle DAC as you all love to contrasts things with can sample at similar rates to $100,000 DACs.. so the point isn't the digital convention, but the rest of the "DAC" ..

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

I think he pretty much put to bed that the reconstruction of a sine wave isn't rocket science and that any off the shelf DAC chip can do this...

I can see how you might feel that some would read his diagram as implying that the reconstruction of the wave is why some DAC's sound differently, but that's not what he says... moreover, even a $75 Dongle DAC as you all love to contrasts things with can sample at similar rates to $100,000 DACs.. so the point isn't the digital convention, but the rest of the "DAC" ..

OK. Let's roll with that thinking. So if I have £100,000 to spend on a DAC, what am I looking for in the rest of the DAC?

Let's not say "high quality components". If I was to hook it up to an analyser, what attributes should I be looking to see for my £99,930 extra?

 

[BDWoody]

I think he was trying to simplify and paint a picture... this isn't a video for engineers, it's a video for end users.

Frankly this is the closet thing to a reasonably objective video on DAC'S I've come across on YouTube...

Because it's completely misleading

More accurate would be something like...

Here's the magic of sampling theory. See this circle I've drawn? I can take a single measurement of it with my ruler or compass (turning it into a digital measurement), send that measurement to you and you will have an exact recreation of my circle, with no loss of information.

It's a more complicated version of that process that means you can rely on your digital music to be an accurate representation of what it is supposed to be, and not think these boxes are creating music...

 

[MDAguy]

OK. Let's roll with that thinking. So if I have £100,000 to spend on a DAC, what am I looking for in the rest of the DAC?

It's all going to be in the engineering and build.. this is like comparing building a Toyota Corolla with a Mercedes Maybach .. both have roughly the same major systems, but how one is built and implemented (the features) are night and day.

Country of origin (manufacture of all components, not just final assembly)
Galvanic isolation
Power supply (number of them, and are they also well isolated)
Quality (and musicality) of the capacitors (especially those used in filtering during analogue stages)
Digital section completely isolated from analogue section
Chassis build quality.

and I'm sure I'm missing something ,but these are just some things I'd want in my "hi-fi" system from ANY components, even a DAC.

 

[threni]

OK. Let's roll with that thinking. So if I have £100,000 to spend on a DAC, what am I looking for in the rest of the DAC?

Let's not say "high quality components". If I was to hook it up to an analyser, what attributes should I be looking to see for my £99,930 extra?

I'd say "why do you think d to a conversion is so difficult you need to spend that sort of money on it" and "how badly do you think the actual DAC chip does it's job that you need the other £99,930 to compensate".

 

[MDAguy]

Because it's completely misleading

More accurate would be something like...

Here's the magic of sampling theory. See this circle I've drawn? I can take a single measurement of it with my ruler or compass (turning it into a digital measurement), send that measurement to you and you will have an exact recreation of my circle, with no loss of information.

It's a more complicated version of that process that means you can rely on your digital music to be an accurate representation of what it is supposed to be, and not think these boxes are creating music...

that's all fair enough, but I doubt anyone is watching this video and going out to find a perfect digital to sine wave conversion ... as one doesn't exist anyway...

 

[MDAguy]

I'd say "why do you think d to a conversion is so difficult you need to spend that sort of money on it" and "how badly do you think the actual DAC chip does it's job that you need the other £99,930 to compensate".

see my answer above... there's far more to a purchase of a piece of audio equipment than it's sound for me... the sound is a "given" and should be absolutely the best possible sound (scientifically) ... but there's much much more.

 

[Julf]

that's all fair enough, but I doubt anyone is watching this video and going out to find a perfect digital to sine wave conversion ... as one doesn't exist anyway...

Eh? Ever heard of Shannon and Nyquist?

 

[threni]

see my answer above... there's far more to a purchase of a piece of audio equipment than it's sound for me... the sound is a "given" and should be absolutely the best possible sound (scientifically) ... but there's much much more.

No. It's a DAC. You plug it in and then forget about it and listen to the music.

 

[wasnotwasnotwas]

see my answer above... there's far more to a purchase of a piece of audio equipment than it's sound for me... the sound is a "given" and should be absolutely the best possible sound (scientifically) ... but there's much much more.

Such as? Looks? OK but good design and build is £00 not £00,000. Fixtures? Same. So what is the £00,000 magic?

 

[threni]

Such as? Looks? OK but good design and build is £00 not £00,000. Fixtures? Same. So what is the £00,000 magic?

If he's got £100,000 to waste on a £100 solved problem and has to get rid of a lot of money and he can't bear the idea of saving lives by giving to charity then there's always commissioning/buying some art.

I'd love to see what happens to a Topping E30 if you have to spend £100,000 pimping it up. It probably ends up looking like that car Homer Simpson designed.