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

[antcollinet]

That is not the way it works here. I have noted that many members take on this strict attitude of requiring proof for any passing statement; Regarding this thread on Dacs, how about you providing proof that 100 Dollar Dac sounds exactly the same as a 15,000 Dollar Dac.

The proof is in the measurements. If FR is flat, and noise and distortion is below audible levels on both Dacs - then there is nothing else - they must sound the same.

I keep having to say this - but audio is pretty much the simplest ever appliction of electronics. So much so, that it was the first application over 150 years ago. We've been doing it that long, we know how to do it, we know how it works. We know how to design it, we know how to measure it and we know what those measurements mean.

 

[fpitas]

It's humorous if you know how electronics is actually designed by real engineers. Still, I like the storyline of a golden-eared guy carefully tweaking electronics to squeeze out the last drop of sonic magic.

 

[MoreWatts]

If they both measure better than what human hearing can ever be expected to appreciate, I'd say the extraordinary claim is the one saying they don't sound the same.

Does not an actual scientific experiment disprove the "null hypothesis." Which means, if you think drug A might change somethng, you disprove that nothing changes when drug A is administered. You then conclude, within statistical sampling errors, that drug A has an effect. So in our audio example, the first step is to disprove they sound the same. Which requires blind tests. And here we are...

 

[Mr. Widget]

The original post from @Els contained three questions:

1)"Is this a valid statement?"
2)"Do DACs have a signature sound?"
3)"Could DACs be viewed the same way?"

Your reply could have been a reply to any one of the three questions; you did not specify. So I asked you to which of the three questions your reply ("Of course.") was aimed.

And yes, I am happy. I am a happy person.

Jim

Jim, glad you are a happy person.

Let's ignore what is and is not measured or measurable for a minute.
Do DACs have a signature sound? Do preamps? Do amplifiers?

I think most of us will agree that high quality versions of any of these will not sound like anything. (The proverbial straight wire with gain concept... and adapted as appropriate for DACs) That goes for class A thru digital amps, opamp based or discrete line stages, and for fill in the blank types of DACs. Tube equipment for the most part are not straight wire with gain, though they can be and I have owned some that was.

I also imagine many of us have experienced different sounding versions of all of the above. Many here will write that off as sighted confirmation bias, and my personal opinion is that is often going to be the case.

All that having been said, it has only been in the last 10-15 years that I felt that digital sources and DACs were able to be in this category. They have measured ruler flat since day one and have had outstanding SN ratios, however they also tended to flatten the stereo sound stage and emphasize a center-weighted stereo image. If you are not into deep and wide soundstages when the recording offers it then I guess my original Phillips CD player would be all you would ever need... to be followed by its streaming cousin.

Yes, imaging is mostly affected by the speakers and the room, but I have heard this seemingly unexplainable flattening of the sound through earlier digital devices.

My question is, have you?

I am sure it is all in my head since this is fully in the psycho acoustic department... but I have repeated the experience numerous times over the years.

 

[SIY]

Yes, imaging is mostly affected by the speakers and the room, but I have heard this seemingly unexplainable flattening of the sound through earlier digital devices.

Controls are vital when making remarkable claims, otherwise the claim falls into the same category as alien abductions with anal probing. Given the remarkable nature of the claim you're making, could you describe in detail how you implemented basic controls?

 

[Mr. Widget]

Controls are vital when making remarkable claims, otherwise the claim falls into the same category as alien abductions with anal probing. Given the remarkable nature of the claim you're making, could you describe in detail how you implemented basic controls?

"Remarkable claim" Ok, so one vote for nope, never noticed this.

To answer your question, the comparisons were done years and years ago comparing stacks of gear, wire, connectors, analog and digital active crossovers, and just about everything else. It absolutely was not conducted to prove a point and did not follow the rigorous standards often quoted here and that I fully endorse. My opinion was formed from what I perceived to be the sonic changes in a variety of comparisons. Not all comparisons were sighted and occasionally they were double blind.

FWIW: I could never hear a difference in the various cables, most of the better preamps, power amps etc. But the first DAC that I heard that sounded "more open" for lack of a better term was the Bryston BDA-1. I am not suggesting that it was special, but it was the first DAC I encountered that stood out from the previous CD players and DACs I had experienced.

 

[JustJones]

All I recall about my first CD player was it proudly proclaimed 14 bits, whether it flattened the sound I don't remember. It must have been a positive experience, got rid of LPs and never looked back.

Edit : tossed the 8 tracks as well.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Edit : tossed the 8 tracks as well.

Now that was a mistake!

 

[JustJones]

Now that was a mistake!

Probably should have kept my Laser Discs as well.

 

[SIY]

Not all comparisons were sighted and occasionally they were double blind.

So how were the controls implemented and what were the actual results? You've made a remarkable claim and I'm trying to see if there's anything there beyond, "No, seriously, they took me on their spaceship. Then it got weirder..."

 

[thegeton]

Reading this thread through (beginning to end) for the 3rd time and concluding that the central theme is strongly trending toward that of several others for which we have completely atomized the equine.

A few anecdotal tales, backed by a cascade of passionate arguments based upon "aging experiential data" from personal stories. Followed up by a series of pseudo logical equivocal statements of sufficient ambiguity that we're no farther forward than when OP began.

Nothing herein proposed is based on solid science with readily available supporting objective evidence.

IMHO: We're wasting our time, we need to move on.

 

[mocenigo]

All my DACs sounded differently. When I knocked or tapped their cases, no two DACs ever made the same noise.

 

[Mr. Widget]

So how were the controls implemented and what were the actual results? You've made a remarkable claim and I'm trying to see if there's anything there beyond, "No, seriously, they took me on their spaceship. Then it got weirder..."

As I said earlier there were no controls that will ever satisfy a scientific inquiry.

That said, I am not one to hear improvements when someone places a black pyramid on an amp or swaps in a cable with a 72V battery pack. I find your [plural] incredulity equally stunning to your reaction to my statement.

I heard this spacial phenomenon over a number of years with numerous pieces of digital gear. I rarely heard FR changes... one late 80s NAD CD player sounded particularly rolled off and likely would have measured a less than flat FR curve, but at that time I didn't have any sophisticated test equipment and didn't even consider performing a closer examination. The spatial phenomenon that I "heard" existed through several listening rooms, speakers, and other major and minor changes.

One comparison that I do recall was comparing a borrowed Mark Levinson No. 512 SACD player, an Oppo BDP-105 and a transport via the Bryston DAC. In this absolutely unscientific comparison, (not double blind, level matched, or large statistical sampling) I was most impressed with the openness (my term) of the No.512 playing Red Book CDs.

While I don't think a majority of ASR forum members stating they never heard a similar phenomenon is statistically relevant due to likely confirmation bias, I absolutely accept the possibility that for a couple of decades I was suffering the effects of that brief time I spent abroad the spaceship.

Seriously though, if it is a fact that the spatial phenomenon that I "heard" was a unique experience, the human brain is even more interesting than I originally thought...

 

[Blumlein 88]

As I said earlier there were no controls that will ever satisfy a scientific inquiry.

That said, I am not one to hear improvements when someone places a black pyramid on an amp or swaps in a cable with a 72V battery pack. I find your [plural] incredulity equally stunning to your reaction to my statement.

I heard this spacial phenomenon over a number of years with numerous pieces of digital gear. I rarely heard FR changes... one late 80s NAD CD player sounded particularly rolled off and likely would have measured a less than flat FR curve, but at that time I didn't have any sophisticated test equipment and didn't even consider performing a closer examination. The spatial phenomenon that I "heard" existed through several listening rooms, speakers, and other major and minor changes.

One comparison that I do recall was comparing a borrowed Mark Levinson No. 512 SACD player, an Oppo BDP-105 and a transport via the Bryston DAC. In this absolutely unscientific comparison, (not double blind, level matched, or large statistical sampling) I was most impressed with the openness (my term) of the No.512 playing Red Book CDs.

While I don't think a majority of ASR forum members stating they never heard a similar phenomenon is statistically relevant due to likely confirmation bias, I absolutely accept the possibility that for a couple of decades I was suffering the effects of that brief time I spent abroad the spaceship.

Seriously though, if it is a fact that the spacial phenomenon that I "heard" was a unique experience, the human brain is even more interesting than originally thought...

I believe the human brain is much more interesting than you originally thought.

 

[Mr. Widget]

I believe the human brain is much more interesting than you originally thought.

That may be the answer. The simplest answer is usually the correct one.

 

[firedog]

It looks like there was no actual testing of the impressions to see if they tied to anything real. They lined up three DACs and had people switch between them and make notes. I don't see the part where they then mixed them up again to see if the careful notes actually followed the DACs.

They weren't set up to actually test anything as far as I can tell, beyond whether people thought they heard differences.

Is there more to it? Providing the 'evidence' you
refer to around here is just considered good manners. So much nonsense to sift through, it helps to know what we are starting with.

New Schiit Yggdrasil Blind Listening Comparison

The very first sentence on the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil web page says, "Forget everything you know about DACs." I concur in the most unequivocal way possible. Members of the Audiophile Style community are well aware that I absolutely love the Schiit Audio Yggdrasil DAC. I reviewed it back in Novemb...

audiophilestyle.com

The setup a double blind test and listeners could consistently differentiate between the DACs. The listeners switched between them (or had someone do it for them) as they felt necessary. Note in the review it was a long listening test and the writer took over 7 pages of notes on each song he heard/compared and found consistent differences between the 3 DACs.

was no actual testing of the impressions to see if they tied to anything real

Irrelevant. And what does that even mean?
You simply can't accept that hearing consistent differences is possible and look for excuses.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The setup a double blind test and listeners could consistently differentiate between the DACs. The listeners switched between them (or had someone do it for them) as they felt necessary. Note in the review it was a long listening test and the writer took over 7 pages of notes on each song he heard/compared and found consistent differences between the 3 DACs.

Irrelevant. And what does that even mean?
You simply can't accept that hearing consistent differences is possible and look for excuses.

Is this also one where they video recorded the test? It sounds familiar, and I seem to remember it had levels not matched. Maybe you have another one in mind.

 

[BDWoody]

The setup a double blind test and listeners could consistently differentiate between the DACs. The listeners switched between them (or had someone do it for them) as they felt necessary. Note in the review it was a long listening test and the writer took over 7 pages of notes on each song he heard/compared and found consistent differences between the 3 DACs.

He claimed to hear them. Big difference. There was no validation, so nothing actually tested.

Irrelevant. And what does that even mean?
You simply can't accept that hearing consistent differences is possible and look for excuses.

If there was actual evidence I'd be happy to accept it, but there isn't. People saying they heard things isn't new.

Is that the 'test' you were talking about?

 

[Els]

He claimed to hear them. Big difference. There was no validation, so nothing actually tested.



If there was actual evidence I'd be happy to accept it, but there isn't. People saying they heard things isn't new.

Is that the 'test' you were talking about?

Seems to me hearing is the ultimate test. I suggest, with caution, that members who require measurements as proof for any suggestion or passing statements don't own or have not handled a lot of hifi gear. Of course members such as Restorer-John and many others are an exception.

 

[BDWoody]

Seems to me hearing is the ultimate test.

How do you test that test? Is there any way to actually verify what people claim? What claims do you have skepticism about? Any? So, if anyone claims anything, they should be believed?

I suggest, with caution, that members who require measurements as proof for any suggestion or passing statements don't own or have not handled a lot of hifi gear.

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.