How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent?

[Aleksandar RS]

Well, CH Precision was founded in 2009, so it's not that new. The founders had over a decade of experience working for Goldmund and realised the way to make money in hifi was to satisfy those looking to buy magic for a lot of money.
I think the spell is "Expecto Aurum", but you need the right wand.

I know, that's why I wrote relatively young, and as for the experience at Goldmund is extremely useful thing. But besides that, CH Precision is not a name that has much significance in the audio world. I'm not saying that this device is bad, but as a company (of the rank you are) you have to position it where it really belongs. And that's much, much lower on the price scale. I don't know what card they are playing, if they think someone will buy something like this.

This is something that I don't think can happen with companies with big reputations (who, surely, pretty much build their name into the price), but they won't make a fool of the customer. There are examples of crazy prices from such companies as well (Nagra Reference Anniversary Turntable) with a price of around $170,000. The version is limited, I think seventy units. It's about them selling this turntable as a piece of art (sculpture) that plays records. I saw and heard it at an audio show a few months ago accompanied by Nagra amplification and Marten speakers. It sounds nice, but the sound quality has, of course, nothing to do with the price. It's true that the whole system looks like a modern piece of art, so from that point of view it's ok, but now it's a different story and a different scale of evaluation. In any case, the entire system was sold for about $450,000 on the first day of the show.

 

[Robbo99999]

Well, didn't you clarify that ten minutes earlier in the previous post. Or you forgot.

Deary deary me!

 

[Aleksandar RS]

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make?

That those 'decades of experience and great reputation' automatically gives real and verifiable superiority in audible performance?

Not automatically, I just think it won't make a complete fool of a potential buyer. If we include in the picture the appearance of devices that some may consider modern art, then everything becomes much more complicated.

 

[Spkrdctr]

And then that history of supposedly different sounding dacs, how much is related to the chip itself or the implementation, or less than ideal implementation, etc ? Or just maybe something as simple as a different/time/place/mood/gear thing that is often conflated?

Finally! Bingo! The purpose of doing fairly good testing is to delete those uncontrollable issues. This will most likely cut 99.999% of the differences in DACS. As others have suggested to just listen to the different DACs and you can hear a difference. That is precisely what you can't do as you allow so many uncontrolled variables to influence any results. The single biggest hurdle is that people "think" they have great hearing and can easily hear differences in equipment that disappear the minute they are blindfolded. The audio community has been down this road for over 60 years now. The science is pretty much settled for the moment. In other words, many newer people who post do not realize that what they don't know, they don't know. The best thing is to hang out on ASR and read and learn. You can pick up a ton of great information. You do not want to leave in a huff thinking that ASR people are rude (they can be) or ignorant (they are not). Stick around and learn is the process around here, it works!

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

You have more faith in Mr. Loesch than I think is warranted.

Lurk = off;

Faith based approach to.an engineering problem is indeed the issue.

We have the Thesis "Some times devices that in a limited set of objective tests perform identical can show more or less subtle subjective audible differences that can be detected in blind preference based listening tests".

And the Antithesis"Devices that in a limited set of objective tests perform identical cannot show any subjective audible differences and Audio ABX testing provides absolute proof that this is the fact."

The Thesis has been in my experience shown to be true, while simple logic should allow us to automatically reject the Antithesis as false.

Can different DAC's that measure comparable or near identical or "well past audibility limits" sound different?

I would suggest that yes, given the differences in such areas as order of Delta Sigma modulators, actual spectrum of remaining shaped noise in the audible range, modulator stability etc. and the possibility and existence of 'direct conversion' (aka multi-bit) DAC'S audible differences cannot be reliably excluded.

There is a lot of signal alteration practiced and the target is a clean FFT which uses massive averaging and cannot tell us anything about short term phenomena excited by pseudo -stocastic waveforms.

Yet, with enough faith even quite gross audible differences can be suppressed, so all you need is sufficient faith that everything sounds the same and it will.

Thor

Lurk = 1;

 

[Mr. Widget]

Yet, with enough faith even quite gross audible differences can be suppressed, so all you need is sufficient faith that everything sounds the same and it will.

I think this is a very valid possibility.

As is often cited by the strictly objectivists, humans and human hearing are far from infallible. That can go both ways... hearing what isn't there, but also masking what is there.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I think I need a refill my popcorn for the next round.

 

[Archon43]

This is what I do not like, I see people making comments about people's review. At the end of the day, I know not all DACS sound the same. Sighted bias? It is called you can tell unless you have hearing problems! I can provide an extensive list of DACS laying around my house now, plus many I bought and sold due to not liking them. I kept the one I heard that sounded better to me and got rid of the inferior ones (or returned them). That or gave them to my friends, parents, wife, and daughter.

If it measures differently, common sense says it can sound different. If all the graphs on every DAC were identical, that would tell you it will likely sound the same (unless one has a much beefier output compared to another). Speaking of that, they all have different output stages. If you think all DACS sound the same, I laugh and say you either need to get your ears checked out because something is wrong, or you have some really crappy equipment. That or you have great equipment and you have no idea how to do the settings.

With DACS, you have the main chip (I have always preferred ESS to AKM, especially the velvet line which I never cared for), the internal components, the output stage (cheaper DACS usually use inferior outputs compared to more expensive, naturally). Then you have the filters, which can change the sound and there is no one size fits all. All these variables change how the final sound is. Can you perceive them? Depends on how drastic but there are enough differences in the package to usually pick out a favorite. If not, go for the one that looks cooler, fits better with the rest of your stuff, do "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe", whatever!

I have a mixer which allows me to flip between sources instantly, I have DACS, built in sound on my motherboard which is actually decent, with my main DAC right now is a Topping E50 currently with a 33 watt phone charger powering it (which also changed the sound by the way). I also have both Audient ID44 Mk II and MOTU M4 audio interfaces, to compare the rest to. Some sound nearly identical, others do not. If they use a similar DAC chip and similar price range, unless one has a superior power delivery they are harder to hear the difference. The Modi Multibit sounds way better than the normal Modi 3+, yet measures much worse, so measurements do not tell the whole story, either.

You are comparing this DAC which can be had for $800-700 dollars to a RME that costs $1500.00 or the RME Pro that costs $2000. That does not automatically make the RME sound better, but there are older DACS much more expensive than either, yet they cannot compete sonically because they have outdated DAC chips and components. Those RME are made more for pro audio recording and playback, not for home audio. The FiiO K9 Pro ESS likely does sound better and measures better than the older RME, it is not rocket science to know that things keep evolving. If all DACS sound the same, why are we not all buying cheapies and calling it a day? Did you have someone hook your stuff up so you did not get "sighted bias"? I mean, come on!

The RME are amazing, but they are getting older now and they are getting outperformed by cheaper equipment in measurements now. There is a good chance the K9 Pro ESS does indeed sound better than the RME. People scoffing at the EQ at the app? At least you can customize the sound and they did not have to include that capability (most DACS do not). That is more ridiculous banter, If the RME would not offer more for almost double the money, why would you buy it then? I have heard them, they are great and sound phenomenal, but they are also intended more for professional setups than home setups (the menu on the RME is intense, to say the least!). You can also say, if they all sound the same, why would ANYONE buy the RME when I can get a cheap Chinese DAC for under $100.00 and be done with it?

You kind of have to see what you are buying when you hook it up, that sighted bias comment made me shake my head. We all do not go into professional ABX test places where a guy behind a curtain hooks everything up and you do not get "sighted bias"! I also have a huge problem with ABX tests and I am glad they have been defeated, but that is talk for another time! You are crippling one to equal the inferior instead of using both to their full capability, so of course it would be harder to hear a difference! Yet, they still have been defeated and the superior component reliably picked.

I know this site is about measurements and science, but if the person who made that review says he likes the sound better, maybe it does sound better to his tastes, his setup. There is nothing wrong with that review, the only wrong I see is people talking trash (sighted bias) without putting any work in. Buy both and test them yourself, then make a video where you compare them. Until you do that, you are just literally talking trash and going by specs and conjecture! He put in the work to do a review and make a video, meanwhile people are on here and just criticizing his experience? The burden of proof is more on you than him, because they measure indeed different and are different classes of equipment.

 

[Archon43]

It's fairly simple, the Zen is newer and technology evolves. The RME are made for pro usage, the Zen for home. The RME is getting older now, and even though it is a better piece of equipment, as stated already it is easy to screw up the settings as the menu system is pretty daunting. But people saying you messed up settings, causing the discrepancy? Well that is possible, but a lot of speculation there because oh no, everything has to sound the same unless it is malfunctioning! That is a load of nonsense, but if they feel that way, let them. You experienced the difference yourself so it is not you "messed anything up". There are too many variables for them to all sound the same, and I bet they are not buying the cheapest equipment they can afford (hey, they all sound the same so why pay more for no reason?)! Buy the cheapest DAC you can get with balanced and regular RCA plus Coax and Digital and you are set for life....or something.

DACS do not all sound the same unless you have bad ears or bad equipment/settings, that I will never agree with and with my mixer and system I can A-B-C-D with the touch of a button. I was able to pick a favorite among all the DACS and audio interfaces I have and have sold many pieces of equipment due to not being the best. If they measure differently, they cannot sound identical and I disagree with any who say otherwise. I preferred my Topping E50 to the Zen Signature DAC V2 (as one of many examples), but my Topping costs more and has an upgraded power supply. I had level matched with a voltmeter and SPL meter and still picked a favorite. I had no bias, I would have loved to sell my more expensive Topping and kept the cheaper iFi but it did not work that way in real life! The Topping sounded better, lower noise floor, more dynamics, and more of the sound that has synergy with my then setup. The Topping was also crippled because I had to drop down the level of it to match the iFi!

In any case, keep in mind that even cheap DACS have more modern technology, so a cheaper DAC now can severely outperform an older top of the line DAC which costs thousands of dollars. The RME are getting older now, so it is not unheard of that a newer DAC setup can sound better and/or measure better. Competition and evolution have caused all the manufacturers to keep offering more performance for less money and current ESS chips absolutely stomp older chips in performance potential.

 

[Spkrdctr]

And the Antithesis"Devices that in a limited set of objective tests perform identical cannot show any subjective audible differences and Audio ABX testing provides absolute proof that this is the fact."
Thor

Lurk = 1;

When did these tests happen? How were they determined to sound different? Headphones or speakers? Since this is the first time I have heard of this I'd like to know more about it. So far with speakers no one has ever been able to tell any difference in anything except speakers. For DACs to be audible it seems that they would really have to have some serious differences. Enough of a difference to overcome the speakers influence on the sound. Thanks!

 

[Archon43]

When did these tests happen? How were they determined to sound different? Headphones or speakers? Since this is the first time I have heard of this I'd like to know more about it. So far with speakers no one has ever been able to tell any difference in anything except speakers. For DACs to be audible it seems that they would really have to have some serious differences. Enough of a difference to overcome the speakers influence on the sound. Thanks!

Look at measurements, they all measure different. Maybe not drastically, but very few measure identical.

They all have different chips which makeup the whole unit. The output, the converters, the DAC itself, the voltage of the outputs, the noise floor (to name a few).

They all have different filters, some built into the DAC itself and some implemented by the manufacturer.

They all have power supplies of varying quality, most with the computer-type are going to be better than the AC adapter type.

Technology evolves, hence why even cheaper DACS are performance monsters where as before cheaper DACS measured terrible. Now you can buy $100 DACS that can outperform sound cards and older DACS by margins.

 

[zajogungster]

When did these tests happen? How were they determined to sound different? Headphones or speakers? Since this is the first time I have heard of this I'd like to know more about it. So far with speakers no one has ever been able to tell any difference in anything except speakers. For DACs to be audible it seems that they would really have to have some serious differences. Enough of a difference to overcome the speakers influence on the sound. Thanks!

I have several DAC devices.. yes, I buy based on measurements, ASR results... but there is always a difference and a huge one! but there is also a difference in who hears and how.. someone cannot distinguish a synthesizer from a piano and everything sounds like a jungle to him.
But let's be strict, SINAD doesn't talk about how it should sound, or it sounds... the same numbers and yet the whole music scene is different. DAC from DAC..
there is nothing left but an invitation home

 

[Jimbob54]

the Zen is newer and technology evolves

You know what chip ifi use? Not really "newer" there.

 

[Archon43]

You know what chip ifi use? Not really "newer" there.

You are correct, but I have no idea what I am buying (joke). It has a Burr Brown chip in it, and not newer for sure. Yet, some prefer the warmness a Burr Brown DAC chip provides, perhaps that is why he preferred the sound of it? I am not just talking of the main DAC chips, power delivery, other components have evolved also.

In my experience and not opinion based at all or what "others found":

• ESS chips are usually the best measuring, they tend to sound very clean and fairly balanced. Some dislike how clean they are though and sometimes they almost sound too clean and sterile (depends on implementation, most modern ESS sound really good!) The "dreaded" ESS hump is still present most of the time, but it is inaudible and a non-issue IMO.
• Burr Brown chips usually are very midrange strong, but do not quite hit the highs and lows like an ESS does. They would likely thrive more in a brighter system or when someone needs to tame the highs (especially) or lows. With good implementation, they can sound really good though.
• AKM chips, especially the older Velvet line, are more laid back. They are kind of in between Burr Brown and ESS, but I never cared for the Velvet line as they just do not sound as good as the ESS do. The newer AKM and higher end sound more like ESS chips, more clean and with a large range.
• The exotic chips (like Chord uses a proprietary chip, for example in the Mojo) are all over the place.

But it is not just the DAC chip which tailors the sound, so many other variables.

 

[DonR]

You are correct, but I have no idea what I am buying (joke). It has a Burr Brown chip in it, and not newer for sure. Yet, some prefer the warmness a Burr Brown DAC chip provides, perhaps that is why he preferred the sound of it? I am not just talking of the main DAC chips, power delivery, other components have evolved also.

In my experience and not opinion based at all or what "others found":

• ESS chips are usually the best measuring, they tend to sound very clean and fairly balanced. Some dislike how clean they are though and sometimes they almost sound too clean and sterile (depends on implementation, most modern ESS sound really good!) The "dreaded" ESS hump is still present most of the time, but it is inaudible and a non-issue IMO.
• Burr Brown chips usually are very midrange strong, but do not quite hit the highs and lows like an ESS does. They would likely thrive more in a brighter system or when someone needs to tame the highs (especially) or lows.
• AKM chips, especially the velvet line, are more laid back. They are kind of in between Burr Brown and ESS, but I never cared for the Velvet line as they just do not sound as good as the ESS do. The newer AKM and higher end sound more like ESS chips, more clean and with a large range.
• The exotic chips (like Chord uses a proprietary chip, for example in the Mojo) are all over the place.

But it is not just the DAC chip which tailors the sound, so many other variables.

How are we to separate what is actually happening from what your brain thinks is happening? All those differences would easily be spotted in measurements and should show up in strong blind test results.

 

[JustJones]

I found the old Wolfson chips very aggressive they could make Steppenwolf really howl.

 

[Archon43]

How are we to separate what is actually happening from what your brain thinks is happening? All those differences would easily be spotted in measurements and should show up in strong blind test results.

Quite simple, you hook it up to a mixer (instant switch) and pick the one that sounds best. Measurements, looks, and everything else is meaningless unless that is what your goal is (keep the best measuring device, even if it does not sound as good as component B). A good example of this is the Schiit Modi 3+ and the Schiit Modi Multibit. The 3+ will stomp the floor with the Multibit in measurements, but in sound the Multibit is way better!

Level matching to make it "fair" (which I have done with a voltmeter and calibrated SPL meter plus Umik-2 mic, also calibrated) is hampering one to equal the output of another. No one is going to use their component like that, so it is a waste of time and I have still heard differences (which should be impossible).

At the end of the day, I am after the best sound I can get for the money. Yes, one may look cooler than the other, but I will keep the one that sounds best and if it is ugly, it tucks under my desk just fine. Why would I have bias toward one or the other when I do not know how they sound yet? I do not buy into the ABX/blind test nonsense because at the end of the day, we are using the components to what we think are the full potential. We are not "level matching" (which could damage performance audibly and measurably) to anything and we are using it at usually max volume (or close to it). My Topping E50 has a preamp mode, but it is at pure DAC mode and is at max volume always.

There is not much more to say about that "issue". At the end of the day, we will pick the device that matches our goals, whether it be measurements, or sound quality.

 

[DonR]

Quite simple, you hook it up to a mixer (instant switch) and pick the one that sounds best. Measurements, looks, and everything else is meaningless unless that is what your goal is (keep the best measuring device, even if it does not sound as good as component B). A good example of this is the Schiit Modi 3+ and the Schiit Modi Multibit. The 3+ will stomp the floor with the Multibit in measurements, but in sound the Multibit is way better!

Level matching to make it "fair" (which I have done with a voltmeter and calibrated SPL meter plus Umik-2 mic, also calibrated) is hampering one to equal the output of another. No one is going to use their component like that, so it is a waste of time and I have still heard differences (which should be impossible).

At the end of the day, I am after the best sound I can get for the money. Yes, one may look cooler than the other, but I will keep the one that sounds best and if it is ugly, it tucks under my desk just fine. Why would I have bias toward one or the other when I do not know how they sound yet? I do not buy into the ABX/blind test nonsense because at the end of the day, we are using the components to what we think are the full potential. We are not "level matching" (which could damage performance audibly and measurably) to anything and we are using it at usually max volume (or close to it). My Topping E50 has a preamp mode, but it is at pure DAC mode and is at max volume always.

There is not much more to say about that "issue". At the end of the day, we will pick the device that matches our goals, whether it be measurements, or sound quality.

That does not answer the question. Since you think that valid scientific test methodologies like blind ABX testing is nonsense, I don't see why you think spending time on this site will be productive for you.

 

[preload]

This is what I do not like, I see people making comments about people's review. At the end of the day, I know not all DACS sound the same. Sighted bias? It is called you can tell unless you have hearing problems! I can provide an extensive list of DACS laying around my house now, plus many I bought and sold due to not liking them. I kept the one I heard that sounded better to me and got rid of the inferior ones (or returned them). That or gave them to my friends, parents, wife, and daughter.

If it measures differently, common sense says it can sound different. If all the graphs on every DAC were identical, that would tell you it will likely sound the same (unless one has a much beefier output compared to another). Speaking of that, they all have different output stages. If you think all DACS sound the same, I laugh and say you either need to get your ears checked out because something is wrong, or you have some really crappy equipment. That or you have great equipment and you have no idea how to do the settings.

With DACS, you have the main chip (I have always preferred ESS to AKM, especially the velvet line which I never cared for), the internal components, the output stage (cheaper DACS usually use inferior outputs compared to more expensive, naturally). Then you have the filters, which can change the sound and there is no one size fits all. All these variables change how the final sound is. Can you perceive them? Depends on how drastic but there are enough differences in the package to usually pick out a favorite. If not, go for the one that looks cooler, fits better with the rest of your stuff, do "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe", whatever!

I have a mixer which allows me to flip between sources instantly, I have DACS, built in sound on my motherboard which is actually decent, with my main DAC right now is a Topping E50 currently with a 33 watt phone charger powering it (which also changed the sound by the way). I also have both Audient ID44 Mk II and MOTU M4 audio interfaces, to compare the rest to. Some sound nearly identical, others do not. If they use a similar DAC chip and similar price range, unless one has a superior power delivery they are harder to hear the difference. The Modi Multibit sounds way better than the normal Modi 3+, yet measures much worse, so measurements do not tell the whole story, either.

You are comparing this DAC which can be had for $800-700 dollars to a RME that costs $1500.00 or the RME Pro that costs $2000. That does not automatically make the RME sound better, but there are older DACS much more expensive than either, yet they cannot compete sonically because they have outdated DAC chips and components. Those RME are made more for pro audio recording and playback, not for home audio. The FiiO K9 Pro ESS likely does sound better and measures better than the older RME, it is not rocket science to know that things keep evolving. If all DACS sound the same, why are we not all buying cheapies and calling it a day? Did you have someone hook your stuff up so you did not get "sighted bias"? I mean, come on!

The RME are amazing, but they are getting older now and they are getting outperformed by cheaper equipment in measurements now. There is a good chance the K9 Pro ESS does indeed sound better than the RME. People scoffing at the EQ at the app? At least you can customize the sound and they did not have to include that capability (most DACS do not). That is more ridiculous banter, If the RME would not offer more for almost double the money, why would you buy it then? I have heard them, they are great and sound phenomenal, but they are also intended more for professional setups than home setups (the menu on the RME is intense, to say the least!). You can also say, if they all sound the same, why would ANYONE buy the RME when I can get a cheap Chinese DAC for under $100.00 and be done with it?

You kind of have to see what you are buying when you hook it up, that sighted bias comment made me shake my head. We all do not go into professional ABX test places where a guy behind a curtain hooks everything up and you do not get "sighted bias"! I also have a huge problem with ABX tests and I am glad they have been defeated, but that is talk for another time! You are crippling one to equal the inferior instead of using both to their full capability, so of course it would be harder to hear a difference! Yet, they still have been defeated and the superior component reliably picked.

I know this site is about measurements and science, but if the person who made that review says he likes the sound better, maybe it does sound better to his tastes, his setup. There is nothing wrong with that review, the only wrong I see is people talking trash (sighted bias) without putting any work in. Buy both and test them yourself, then make a video where you compare them. Until you do that, you are just literally talking trash and going by specs and conjecture! He put in the work to do a review and make a video, meanwhile people are on here and just criticizing his experience? The burden of proof is more on you than him, because they measure indeed different and are different classes of equipment.

The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

 

[Archon43]

That does not answer the question. Since you think that valid scientific test methodologies like blind ABX testing is nonsense, I don't see why you think spending time on this site will be productive for you.

I will go where I choose to go and I do not have to agree with the masses to exist anywhere. You asked, I answered. ABX tests have been "beaten" before and I have "beaten" them myself. I am also on Reddit, another place where you get with the masses or get voted out, but I do not always agree with the nonsense there, either!

It is not I did not answer your question, it is that I answered your question in a way that does not align with your own thoughts/feelings! Prove me wrong then, tell me how all DACS sound the same. Why are we not all buying cheap Chinese Dacs and often spendings hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment? There is no one size fits all, in the audio realm or any other. When you can notice the difference in sound very easily, it is quite simple as I stated. At the end of the day, measurements are meaningless as like speakers, you are likely going to keep the ones that sound the best to you (and should be your goal).

Why would my "brain" "think" something is happening that is not? The device is called our ears, and we all hear different. Hence why I could think something sounds great and you would disagree. For example, my Focusrite 18i20 Gen 3 looked way better than my Topping E50, twice as expensive, had more inputs, was rackmountable, much cooler. Yet, it did not sound as good as my E50 did. Guess which one I kept and which one I sold?

My cognitive dissonance is just fine, thanks though.