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

[Spkrdctr]

Uh huh.

He forgot the "my wife heard it in the kitchen with the dishwasher running and the dog barking".

 

[levimax]

NO.

Anyone with decent sound recording experience will hear the difference blind from 24bit to 16.
It's really obvious.

Very bold claims. Can you post level matched examples of the same content @ 24 bit and @16 bit which you say have "really obvious" differences along with a ABX log of you successfully telling them apart. I think it would be very interesting to hear these "really obvious" differences which have not been my experience at all. Thanks

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

The difference is much too big.
I wonder what went wrong (intentionally, or unintentionally) with the recording,
or with the later post-processing

 

[voodooless]

The difference is much too big.
I wonder what went wrong (intentionally, or unintentionally) with the recording,
or with the later post-processing

Level matching at least.

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

I downloaded the file and will analyze it a bit. The overall tonality seems to be different

 

[voodooless]

Why do you say that?

Because I downloaded the audio and checked. It was already visible visually in the wave view. Was to lame to do any other checks. This fail is enough to dismiss it.

 

[NiagaraPete]

NO.
Fact is if you want to go to comsumer format, you already have to start at HR, so of course it's 24bit.
Not many have access to LIVE high resolution audio from source, but it's the real problem with doing everything from A-Z. (end to end).
Anyone with decent sound recording experience will hear the difference blind from 24bit to 16.
It's really obvious.

FInding a system which doesn't colour reproduction, seems to be working often in reverse, and that includes the DAC layer.

Headphones are as good as useless for getting any idea of the final result, (we were told not ot use them!) and studios are supposed to have dead dry acoustic.
Disappointment is the term when getting involved with the Hi-end audiophile mob a+ their shops and listening rooms. I haven't found a decent one yet!
Nothing ever worked out there, so I had to make my own.
That is all very well for plain vanilla stereo.

When it comes to surround it's a whole shed load of extra hassle and trouble (of course because so few have even approaching a decent surround system), and then what, most of the team say why bother?

We did a surround recording with the choir off stage in the foyer (that was a challenge), then guess what, all the audience in the front rows started talking and opening sweet papers as they sang...(nothing to see on stage eh!)
I can't remember which it was (surround DVD was done), maybe The Tsar's Bride or Iolanta.

I remember doing a Winterreise in the super acoustic of Metz Arsenal, but on that evening it was thick fog and Udo R sang poorly.
That with the rehearsals and set up was a fascinating lesson in setting up a surround recording system, and we did a Brahms Requiem in a similar way, using the (much underrated and beautiful) calrecs for the rear channels..
'nuff said, it's sliding off topic.
Just saying really, optimising any long chain is tough.
Some DAC have proven to be quite audible over the years, and now we are living in the all digi AES67/Ravenna/Dante world. hmmm.

Maybe try one of the Genelec Experience centres.

Genelec Experience Centres - Genelec.com

Our growing global network of Experience Centres are the perfect places to audition a wide range of Genelec loudspeaker systems – from stereo to immersive.

www.genelec.com

 

[valve_integrator]

Maybe try one of the Genelec Experience centres.

Genelec Experience Centres - Genelec.com

Our growing global network of Experience Centres are the perfect places to audition a wide range of Genelec loudspeaker systems – from stereo to immersive.

www.genelec.com

I don't need to be told what to do by Genelec.
They really have nothing to offer us.

For our tests, they were blind, and the (blokes as per usual), were asked to tell which was the original, and which was hi rate mp3 as well as 16bit.

In the end it looked the infamous stradivarius test, where the genuine strad got the lowest marks.
That proves equally, people judge by appearances and "bollox factor".
Having held and played various italian instruments inc Strad and Guarnerius, I can tell it's almost identical to the DAC arguments.
If it looks flash and costs several million USD then it must be good huh!
Similar stuff goes for violin bows.
Often the expensive stuff can be crap, and there's the mystery stuff like Kittel, about whom we know almost nothing.
Funny how the same old arguments go round and round, while a completely unplayable and worn out Tourte goes for 100k..
Or in this case €576,600!

 

[NiagaraPete]

I don't need to be told what to do by Genelec.
They really have nothing to offer us.

For our tests, they were blind, and the (blokes as per usual), were asked to tell which was the original, and which was hi rate mp3 as well as 16bit.

In the end it looked the infamous stradivarius test, where the genuine strad got the lowest marks.
That proves equally, people judge by appearances and "bollox factor".
Having held and played various italian instruments inc Strad and Guarnerius, I can tell it's almost identical to the DAC arguments.
If it looks flash and costs several million USD then it must be good huh!
Similar stuff goes for violin bows.
Often the expensive stuff can be crap, and there's the mystery stuff like Kittel, about whom we know almost nothing.
Funny how the same old arguments go round and round, while a completely unplayable and worn out Tourte goes for 100k..
Or in this case €576,600!

I see, no one can tell you, or suggest anything.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I don't need to be told what to do by Genelec.
They really have nothing to offer us.

For our tests, they were blind, and the (blokes as per usual), were asked to tell which was the original, and which was hi rate mp3 as well as 16bit.

In the end it looked the infamous stradivarius test, where the genuine strad got the lowest marks.
That proves equally, people judge by appearances and "bollox factor".
Having held and played various italian instruments inc Strad and Guarnerius, I can tell it's almost identical to the DAC arguments.
If it looks flash and costs several million USD then it must be good huh!
Similar stuff goes for violin bows.
Often the expensive stuff can be crap, and there's the mystery stuff like Kittel, about whom we know almost nothing.
Funny how the same old arguments go round and round, while a completely unplayable and worn out Tourte goes for 100k..
Or in this case €576,600!

Only the second paragraph is relevant to the discussion if at all. The rest is uncorrelated word salad to boost your importance - I mean what has a „worn out Tourte“ to do with a DAC?

So why don’t you provide us some facts of this alleged blind test?

So we can all be convinced because otherwise it is just another story the Internet is full of.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Only the second paragraph is relevant to the discussion if at all. The rest is uncorrelated word salad to boost your importance. So why don’t you provide us some facts of this alleged blind test?

So we can all be convinced because otherwise it is just another story the Internet is full of.

This guy may set a record for most "ignores" in one day.

 

[valve_integrator]

The rest is uncorrelated word salad to boost your importance.

So why don’t you provide us some facts of this alleged blind test?

So we can all be convinced because otherwise it is just another story the Internet is full of.

dunno why you reach those conclusions.
Did something offend you?

On one occasion, we did some mic testing for 2 OEMs. (btw one of them is used a lot at Austrian radio, you know the people that broadcast the NYC live - the Vienna phil is not just any old orchestra...).
I can give you the name and address of the manufacturer and the test dates.

I have a strong belief in certain clear principles.
When my friend at the opera fires a blind test at me it's nothing to do with ego, it's technical fascination.

That 2 microphones at identical locations LIVE could sound so incredibly differerent struck me as incredible.
The reports went to the manufacturers.
I got the test spot on - correctly identifying the mics.
So what?
We're not in that for a peeing contest.

I wouldn't be suprised to see if 2 ostensibly identical DAC in different environments and applications with OPamp v Transformer outputs sound quite radically different.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

dunno why you reach those conclusions.
Did something offend you?

On one occasion, we did some mic testing for 2 OEMs. (btw one of them is used a lot at Austrian radio, you know the people that broadcast the NYC live - the Vienna phil is not just any old orchestra...)

I have a strong belief in certain clear principles.
When my friend at the opera fires a blind test at me it's nothing to do with Ego, it's technical fascination.

That 2 microphones at identical locations LIVE could sound so incredibly differerent struck me as incredible.
The reports went to the manufacturers.
I got the test spot on - correctly identifying the mics.
So what?
We're not in that for a peeing contest.

Well the thread title is about DACs or possibly the audibility of 16 vs 24bit (not about mics nor instruments etc)

You made the claim you could differentiate between 16 vs 24bits consistently and I wondered if you have some facts?

You know I can claim all kinds of things I can allegedly do on the internet, but rightfully nobody would believe it, until I proof it. No?

 

[antcollinet]

“640K ought to be enough for anybody.”
— Bill Gates, 1981

"16 Bit sampled at 44.1kHz ought to be good enough for anybody."
— Herbert von Karajan and Akio Morita (Sony),1981

One statement is massively outdated and was (with hindsight) completely wrong.

The other is - essentially - still true.

 

[VintageFlanker]

 

[tuga]

It would have been better to have used 18 Bit's and 64kHz with a transition band of 20kHz -32kHz instead of 20kHz - 22.05kHz. Also, 16kHz "flat" response and as much as 0.5dB rolloff at 20kHz. It would have have produced a format essentially transparent.

Bob Stuart has been defending this for decades. Then he came up with that bad idea...

This article has reviewed the issues surrounding the transmission of high-resolution digital audio. It is suggested that a channel that attains audible transparency will be equivalent to a PCM channel that uses:
• 58kHz sampling rate, and
• 14-bit representation with appropriate noise shaping, or
• 20-bit representation in a flat noise floor, i.e. a ‘rectangular’ channel

'Coding High Quality Digital Audio' - J. Robert Stuart, 1998

 

[Bow_Wazoo]

The difference is much too big.
I wonder what went wrong (intentionally, or unintentionally) with the recording,
or with the later post-processing

The TPL (true peak level) of the Schiit is about 5db higher.
Moreover, the tonality is not identical either. For whatever reason.

 

[IAtaman]

24 bits of resolution squeezed between 0 and 4.2 volts requires roughly 130db dyamic range to fully resolve if I am doing the math correctly. Where did you find the amps to blind test 24bit music?

 

[voodooless]

Where did you find the amps to blind test 24bit music?

… or new ears for after the test …

 

[NiagaraPete]

… or new ears for after the test …

I may have unignore just to read his response to the last couple replies.