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

[Katji]

But.. we are not speaking only about DAC with the same measurements.
For this reason I write about the TDA1541 and the Sabre becouse they are really different both in terms of project and measurements.
Has anyone ever compared these two types of DACs with the same audio components?

"Type of DAC" is more than whichever DAC chip is used in the design. For a start, the DAC chip provides various programmable features.
"The Sabre" is really several DAC chips, a succession produced over several years, and those various Sabre/ESS chips are different from each other.

 

[DanielT]

See the positive. You do not have to spend a lot of money on DAC anymore. With that, you have money left over for things that can really make a difference: Speakers, fix with the acoustics in the listening room, set FR via EQ as you want it and like.

The above mentioned can to the highest degree make an audible difference.

 

[Beave]

Can't crosstalk affect soundstage? Or imbalanced stereo levels? Though, IMO, a DAC should be nailing those to the point where it's beyond human hearing.

Yes, yes, and agree.

 

[voodooless]

For this reason I write about the TDA1541 and the Sabre becouse they are really different both in terms of project and measurements.

Yes, and one is almost 3 decades newer. Nobody in their right mind would buy a TDA1541 based DAC and expect SOTA performance.

Having said that, I’m pretty sure, a well implemented TDA1541 will do very well in a double blind ABX test against a Sabre, or any SOTA DAC for that matter.

 

[solderdude]

There are now at least a few forum threads on ASR basically saying it's extremely difficult if not impossible to hear audio differences between different DACs when properly set up for a fair comparison. If that is the case, does that mean every single professional reviewer out there is wrong? Do they just have better hearing than most of us?

This is an honest/sincere question, not trying to troll here at all.

Some DACs do sound different (also easy to see in measurements), most won't under equal circumstances but could under not equal circumstances (depending on certain circumstances/parameters).
It also depends on DAC settings (filters), age of the 'reviewers' and the transducers they could be using.
In most cases they either simply believe what they are saying or (think) they are hearing or have some form of financial gain.
That could be receiving free samples they can keep (and sell later on), get more views (advertising income) or popularity.
Could also be they simply write what their customers are looking for or the vendors kind of want them to write about it.

So there is no simple answer here alas.

 

[Beave]

But.. we are not speaking only about DAC with the same measurements.
For this reason I write about the TDA1541 and the Sabre becouse they are really different both in terms of project and measurements.
Has anyone ever compared these two types of DACs with the same audio components?

Two different DACs may (and usually do) measure differently. But if both measure so well that neither is introducing any audible defects, then both will sound the same.

 

[JiiPee]

A professional reviewer, or influencer obviously wants people to like his media content. Telling consumers that all properly designed DACs and amplifiers sound the same for all practical purposes makes it rather difficult to create interesting reviews, unless the target audience consists of people who are happy to look at apx555 outputs and find it interesting that doohicky A has a praiseworthy SINAD of 103 dB, while doohicky B can be condemned to eternal damnation, because it has a SINAD of 89 dB. (taking cover now)

 

[voodooless]

doohicky A has a praiseworthy SINAD of 103 dB

You must be new here 103 dB will get you a “just about okay”, unless the product is an AVR.

 

[bkdc]

Psychoacoustics. They think they perceive a difference. And sound is in the ears of the beholder. But they are wrong. The human ear is severely limited, and most of these so-called experts have measurable hearing loss anyway.
As to build-quality, quality of components, reliability, feature set, and aesthetics.... well.... some people are willing to pay more for some of these things. Hard to say that a $200 DAC will be functioning flawlessly in 15 years versus a $800 DAC. Or visa versa.

 

[mcdn]

It is not a matter of "fair." They are not hearing differences, they are imagining differences - because of psychology that has already been referred to here. (Psychology that is proven/demonstrated/established for almost as long as the relevant physics of electricity and magnetism on which this audio stuff is based.)

Your senses are all “imagined”. You have no colour vision perception except for a tiny spot the size of your thumbnail at arms length. All the rest of the colour you see is filled in from memory and smart processing. They hear a difference, but that difference isn’t in the audio signal.

 

[Benedium]

So if a stereo amp has an in-built dac with all relevant inputs, it would be a waste of money adding a separate dac by say Topping?

 

[threni]

I would disagree with this. A professional is someone who follows a structured occupation that has, for example, codes of conduct, continuing education, peer review, licensing, and so forth. A job or occupation is what one does for a living. Being a professional means more than being someone with a job.

All we need to do now then is identify professional YouTubers!

 

[BDWoody]

Folded that new thread into this one.

Trying to contain this stuff a little better...

 

[Katji]

So if a stereo amp has an in-built dac with all relevant inputs, it would be a waste of money adding a separate dac by say Topping?

I would consider, does the amp DAC have a good USB input, XMOS. I would not expect to hear any difference, I would not be listening.....

 

[drmevo]

I have to admit, after getting into decent intro audio gear over the past year I was surprised to find that a standalone DAC was even a thing, and not only that, it's pretty much standard equipment among "audiophiles." Then, after reading reviews and watching videos describe how certain DACs such as those from Denafrips have a noticeably different sound, perhaps a more pleasant sound than the run-of-the mill DAC built-in to an integrated amp or receiver, I was ready to try one.

In all honestly, it's still difficult to accept the premise espoused here. I can certainly buy the argument for cables, that any decent-measuring cables will sound the same - especially power and digital cables. That makes sense to me. It's just REALLY odd, though, that so many people describe the same sorts of differences with some of these DACs- have they all really convinced each other? I know I'm about the millionth person to wonder this out loud here. I'd sure like to find out for myself without spending say $700-$800 and then having to go through a return process, and all that if it turns out I don't hear any difference.

 

[SIY]

I have to admit, after getting into decent intro audio gear over the past year I was surprised to find that a standalone DAC was even a thing, and not only that, it's pretty much standard equipment among "audiophiles." Then, after reading reviews and watching videos describe how certain DACs such as those from Denafrips have a noticeably different sound, perhaps a more pleasant sound than the run-of-the mill DAC built-in to an integrated amp or receiver, I was ready to try one.

In all honestly, it's still difficult to accept the premise espoused here. I can certainly buy the argument for cables, that any decent-measuring cables will sound the same - especially power and digital cables. That makes sense to me. It's just REALLY odd, though, that so many people describe the same sorts of differences with some of these DACs- have they all really convinced each other? I know I'm about the millionth person to wonder this out loud here. I'd sure like to find out for myself without spending say $700-$800 and then having to go through a return process, and all that if it turns out I don't hear any difference.

It’s possible for a DAC to be so awfully designed that it sounds different, but that’s pretty rare. Take no-one saying they hear a difference seriously unless they have demonstrated this using basic ears-only controls.

 

[bkdc]

If you’re not a scientist/engineer and your brain is not wired to demand evidence instead of subjective memory, you will not understand.

The only way to prove it to yourself is a scientifically rigorous level matched blinded A/B test. Otherwise, all subjective notion is worthless as your memory of the last track is flawed. But that’s what companies depend on to keep this industry running.

Your ears are only so good. Whether this is touting the benefits of high res audio 192/24bit versus CD 44.1/16bit or differences among amplifiers or DACS, your ears aren’t that good.

My ears are just as happy listening to high quality MP3 files encoded by LAME encoder in V3 setting (formerly APS, variable bit rate approximately 190kbps) as they are listening to high res 192kHz/24bit recordings. As long as the original recording was mastered at high bit rate/frequency (to maintain the raw data and headroom/dynamic range prior to compression to CD quality) and then converted to CD and then converted from CD to MP3 using a high quality encoder (LAME), it all sounds the same to me (as self-proven via ABX testing). There is “good enough” which is beyond the limits of my imperfect ears. Everything better than “good enough” sounds the same absent intentional coloration/distortion.

 

[Robin L]

If you’re not a scientist/engineer and your brain is not wired to demand evidence instead of subjective memory, you will not understand.

The only way to prove it to yourself is a scientifically rigorous level matched blinded A/B test. Otherwise, all subjective notion is worthless as your memory of the last track is flawed. But that’s what companies depend on to keep this industry running.

Your ears are only so good. Whether this is touting the benefits of high res audio 192/24bit versus CD 44.1/16bit or differences among amplifiers or DACS, your ears aren’t that good.

My ears are just as happy listening to high quality MP3 files encoded by LAME encoder in V3 setting (formerly APS, variable bit rate approximately 190kbps) as they are listening to high res 192kHz/24bit recordings. As long as the original recording was mastered at high bit rate/frequency (to maintain the raw data and headroom/dynamic range prior to compression to CD quality) and then converted to CD and then converted from CD to MP3 using a high quality encoder (LAME), it all sounds the same to me (as self-proven via ABX testing). There is “good enough” which is beyond the limits of my imperfect ears. Everything better than “good enough” sounds the same absent intentional coloration/distortion.

That's not fair, or correct. All one really needs to know is the ability of high-quality test gear to detect audible differences between components far exceeds human capabilities of the same. The first step is to understand that human hearing is not all that sophisticated, that the way we are designed has very real limits on what we can and cannot hear and that audiophile claims of the virtues of such things as ultrasonic sound simply do not correspond to reality. One does not need to be a scientist to understand that.

The beginning of wisdom comes when one realizes how little one can know or comprehend.

 

[drmevo]

If you’re not a scientist/engineer and your brain is not wired to demand evidence instead of subjective memory, you will not understand.

The only way to prove it to yourself is a scientifically rigorous level matched blinded A/B test. Otherwise, all subjective notion is worthless as your memory of the last track is flawed. But that’s what companies depend on to keep this industry running.

Your ears are only so good. Whether this is touting the benefits of high res audio 192/24bit versus CD 44.1/16bit or differences among amplifiers or DACS, your ears aren’t that good.

My ears are just as happy listening to high quality MP3 files encoded by LAME encoder in V3 setting (formerly APS, variable bit rate approximately 190kbps) as they are listening to high res 192kHz/24bit recordings. As long as the original recording was mastered at high bit rate/frequency (to maintain the raw data and headroom/dynamic range prior to compression to CD quality) and then converted to CD and then converted from CD to MP3 using a high quality encoder (LAME), it all sounds the same to me (as self-proven via ABX testing). There is “good enough” which is beyond the limits of my imperfect ears. Everything better than “good enough” sounds the same absent intentional coloration/distortion.

That's great. I mostly agree, CD quality is fine for me, I largely don't notice any difference in hi-res, etc. But, our brains are not all the same. For example, my 10-year-old can tell with certainty if our turntable is running just a fraction of a percent fast. My wife, who has very good pitch memory, perhaps what some might call perfect pitch, can't do that but she'll know right away if an instrument is out of tune or a song is being hummed in the wrong key. I have decent relative pitch but I can't touch what they can do. I know that's not exactly what we're talking about here, but it still speaks to how differently our brains process sound, and our memory of sound. And I know, I know, I'm sure you guys have heard all this before and when it comes to these equipment differences....prove it, right? Maybe it hasn't been done so much because it's not always the easiest thing to test? You need a pretty willing tester to make sure it is rigorous, do you not?

 

[BDWoody]

You need a pretty willing tester to make sure it is rigorous, do you not?

With the amount of $$$ at stake for a clear demonstrated preference between (pick your cable, DAC, whatever else that just needs to be functionally competent) and the breakthrough new nano-detail revealing thing, might there not be an incentive?

And I know, I know, I'm sure you guys have heard all this before and when it comes to these equipment differences....prove it, right? Maybe it hasn't been done so much because it's not always the easiest thing to test?

They sound like they'd make *excellent* test subjects!

It isn't trivial, but it isn't impossible to do a meaningful test with controls without expensive test equipment.