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

[Pdxwayne]

Not a problem if you're only using one channel.

I see. That should be easy for me to setup. How would I do the capture via Windows OS? Thanks!

Edit:. REW could work, am I correct?

 

[solderdude]

Next is to do blind listening test with speakers to see if I can consistently identify that very small over 5Khz differences between KTB and voltage matched (at 120Hz) e30 with filter 1.

3kHz difference is 0.04dB
5kHz difference is 0 dB
6kHz difference is 0.09dB
7kHz difference is 0.12dB
8kHz difference is 0.16dB
9kHz difference is 0.22dB
10kHz difference is 0.4dB
The E30 seems to be the more linear one and the KTB rolling off slightly in the upper treble.

These seem to be normal differences between different DACs
Alas, Amir hasn't measured the filter response nor frequency response of the ToneBoard

 

[Pdxwayne]

3kHz difference is 0.04dB
5kHz difference is 0 dB
6kHz difference is 0.09dB
7kHz difference is 0.12dB
8kHz difference is 0.16dB
9kHz difference is 0.22dB
10kHz difference is 0.4dB
The E30 seems to be the more linear one and the KTB rolling off slightly in the upper treble.

These seem to be normal differences between different DACs

Thanks for checking!

Many here would claim both DAC (which supposed to be transparent per amir's measurements) would sound absolutely no difference....Which is the point of this thread.

Are they correct in my case?

 

[solderdude]

Well your previous comments (test with kids) state:

They said KTB is the sharper sounding one.

Where the measurements show the opposite, The E30 should be the sharper sounding one.
So the test with the kids and measurements do not seem to have a relation.
It makes sense as you also wrote:
With voltage match at 120 Hz in normal listening level, my kids can't differentiate e30 with filter 1 (sharp) vs KTB.
So looks like guessing more than anything else and would mean indiscernible.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Well your previous comments (test with kids) state:

Where the measurements show the opposite, The E30 should be the sharper sounding one.
So the test with the kids and measurements do not seem to have a relation.
It makes sense as you also wrote:
With voltage match at 120 Hz in normal listening level, my kids can't differentiate e30 with filter 1 (sharp) vs KTB.
So looks like guessing more than anything else and would mean indiscernible.

Please read the chart in
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-e30-listening-tests.17988/post-609611


When my kids said KTB is sharper, it was in comparison to e30 without volume match, and with filter 5. My chart clearly shows e30 in that case is not the sharper one.

That is why I want to do further blind tests. Else people here would claim the differences in the highs when doing voltage match and filter 1 are not perceivable......

 

[David James]

Whenever i read threads like this, of which there are many, I always want to tell people to watch the series "Brain Games". A whole series about how our brains trick us. I watched it with my kids who were around 7 and 11 at the time, and I will probably insist that we watch it once a year until they wont anymore.

As I watched I kept thinking that when i become an omnipotent cosmic entity, i will require all humans to watch this before they are allowed to purchase any hifi gear. Or use words.

Seriously though, I suppose that threads like this are useful for those of us who are open to reason (oh, my poor poor mojo dac. I respected you once), but when you consider that religion is still rampant despite the state of scientific knowledge, and that people are refusing vaccines based on goofball theories off the internet, despite the absence of a pile of diseases that have plagued humanity, it does seem par for the course that some people believe their audio devices are imbued with the ability to alter the laws of physics. Having said that, i do think its probably a good thing to reveal the BS factor of so many audio reviewers.

If anyone does come up with a way to get the unenlightened to accept science and abandon their belief in magical thinking, even though universal education, modern healthcare, and virtually unlimited access to information have failed, then please let us all know so we can get the Covid vaccination rates up.

 

[Xulonn]

If anyone does come up with a way to get the unenlightened to accept science and abandon their belief in magical thinking, even though universal education, modern healthcare, and virtually unlimited access to information have failed, then please let us all know so we can get the Covid vaccination rates up.

Such an accomplishment would be assured to win a Nobel prize!

 

[Sal1950]

If anyone does come up with a way to get the unenlightened to accept science and abandon their belief in magical thinking, even though universal education, modern healthcare, and virtually unlimited access to information have failed, then please let us all know so we can get the Covid vaccination rates up.

From you lips to God's ear.

 

[A Surfer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a DAC section being SOTA, it is actually not very difficult for a DAC to have a coloured sound. Would the design of the analogue stage not provide the designers an opportunity to colour the sound at that stage?

 

[SIY]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a DAC section being SOTA, it is actually not very difficult for a DAC to have a coloured sound. Would the design of the analogue stage not provide the designers an opportunity to colour the sound at that stage?

EQ, maybe, but I’ve never seen that as anything other than a variable feature.

 

[Daverz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a DAC section being SOTA, it is actually not very difficult for a DAC to have a coloured sound. Would the design of the analogue stage not provide the designers an opportunity to colour the sound at that stage?

Yes, by using the old trick of making the output louder. Otherwise, with flat frequency response (into reasonable input impedances), transparent SINAD and jitter levels, there's no way to color the sound.

 

[raif71]

Yes, by using the old trick of making the output louder. Otherwise, with flat frequency response (into reasonable input impedances), transparent SINAD and jitter levels, there's no way to color the sound.

You mean by using a preamp in the chain, dac->preamp->amp. Some preamp has input gain as well as output gain for example the Gustard P26

The IGain and OGain can be +6db respectively so the dacs that connect to this preamp will be able to color the sound?

 

[Daverz]

You mean by using a preamp in the chain, dac->preamp->amp. Some preamp has input gain as well as output gain for example the Gustard P26
View attachment 156326
The IGain and OGain can be +6db respectively so the dacs that connect to this preamp will be able to color the sound?

The higher gain trick is psychoacoustic. We hear louder as better.

My comment about output impedance refers to the fact that a high output impedance into a low input impedance can result in rolled off bass and highs. But it would have to be an unusually high output impedance/input impedance ratio to make an audible difference. I think most pre-amps have high enough input impedance that this would never be an issue for them. But perhaps a DAC with tube output stage feeding an amp with low input impedance might be affected.

 

[Jimbob54]

The higher gain trick is psychoacoustic. We hear louder as better.

My comment about output impedance refers to the fact that a high output impedance into a low input impedance can result in rolled off bass and highs. But it would have to be an unusually high output impedance/input impedance ratio to make an audible difference. I think most pre-amps have high enough input impedance that this would never be an issue for them. But perhaps a DAC with tube output stage feeding an amp with low input impedance might be affected.

I've seen this reasoning used to explain why the Denafrips Ares ii has a preferable sound. High OI. I've no idea if it does have and what kind of II the amp would need to have to make any such impact.

 

[Daverz]

I've seen this reasoning used to explain why the Denafrips Ares ii has a preferable sound. High OI. I've no idea if it does have and what kind of II the amp would need to have to make any such impact.

The high-end seems to prefer the most awkward ways to EQ frequency response possible.

The usual rule of thumb is input impedance at least 10 times output impedance. But even at 10:1 you are only likely to lose a couple dB at 20 and 20kHz.

Google says the Denafrips is "2.4k ohms, balanced, and 1.2k ohms, unbalanced". That's not going to be a problem for most active pre-amps.

 

[DSJR]

Many popular CD players used to slightly boost max output over 2V (Arcam was one back in the day) to fool listeners in a quick A-B dem (sighted or otherwise) but as few buy such players new now, it's probably a non issue...

To return to the first few pages here -

I've not read all of this, but an early post (#6) by Solderdude really summed it up so well, at least for me. Being almost certainly Aspergic in nature, I find it very difficult dealing with arch-subjectivists with strong opinions based on sighted A-B dem comparisons with no proper reference to base said strong opinions on, who claim differences in audio gear but never with a known 'good' reference let alone unsighted level matching. My direct ways of challenging their opinions rather than 'live-and-let-live' has dropped me in hot water yet again recently on a tiny forum which is more a 'pub group round a table' kind of place. Since I find it difficult to back down when I feel *I know* that I'm right yet not in a position to try to show these people, let alone learn again myself, my only option is to walk away as further discussion only causes more pain all round (or a threat of a ban).

Do you think things might be slowly changing back to a more rational point of view now? This site gets a fair old bashing here and there, but I suspect some of it is decades-old rigid subjective ideas being challenged if not disproven. There's also a bashing of the almost tribal worship at the altar of SINAD as well (hell, I couldn't tell a bloody difference now in the couple of A-B tests of distortion as played on my headphones) and maybe some caution is advised when a new dac with 1dB better SINAD is deemed 'better' then the previous favourite (I'm generalising here and it IS good to see so much tech progress being made, especially at the lower cost end).

 

[LTig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even with a DAC section being SOTA, it is actually not very difficult for a DAC to have a coloured sound. Would the design of the analogue stage not provide the designers an opportunity to colour the sound at that stage?

Yes, and I think the analogue stage is where boutique DACs differ the most. Use tubes or discrete solid state instead of opamps, add an audio transformer, ...

 

[Julf]

Do you think things might be slowly changing back to a more rational point of view now?

Looking around me, I don have much hope. Seems there is less and less respect and understanding for science, and more and more "my opinion is just as valuable as that of some guy in a lab coat"....

 

[A Surfer]

@DSJR In answer to one of your points, I personally believe that people misconstrue the importance placed on SINAD here believing that past audible transparency, the membership here is saying from a listening stand-point, each new threshold breaking crowns a new king. That has never been my understanding.

Past audible transparency these advances are celebrated as evidence of a high-level commitment to better engineering and implementation. It also stands to reason and stands up to scrutiny that when companies are so dedicated to getting the very best measurements possible they are paying attention to detail and following the science on best circuit design and implementation, and up to the point of audible transparency, that matters. Beyond that, it is essentially academic, but nonetheless valid. IMO.

 

[A Surfer]

Looking around me, I don have much hope. Seems there is less and less respect and understanding for science, and more and more "my opinion is just as valuable as that of some guy in a lab coat"....

Absolutely, I have over 12000 posts at head-fi and it is extremely challenging in that environment. The subjectivists have made it a moral and ethical issue to even point out where science may be of benefit to the discussions at hand. I understand to an extent; in the end, it is their money and hobby, and if people chose to enjoy it from a purely subjective position, they most certainly do have that right, and along with that, the right to discuss their point of view.

For example the rules of joining at head-fi are pretty clear that it is a subjectivist community first and foremost so joining means that you acknowledge that point and are obliged to either respect it or leave the community. Hence why I have switched to spending much more time here in the last few years. I do find it extremely disturbing though how easily and openly false information is propagated there (and in other similar communities) and becomes enshrined as truth. Truth as we know it to once have been has been coopted and has now seemingly become truth by popularity and insulation from scientific scrutiny.

Not trying to be unkind, but look at the richest nation in the world, the US with all of the advantages in knowledge production and dissemination that it's population enjoys. Even there a substantial number of the public believe that the vaccines are actually used so that the government can track them, and that the current administration is run by a group of evil genius, power hungry pedophiles.