• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

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

Ze Frog

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 4, 2024
Messages
633
Likes
724
Without a proper blind test, you can never be sure if the differences you hear are not products of bias from your brain.
Could very well be so, despite seeming quite convincing. I've never blind tested either, so can't give any particular evidence for my leaning. With speakers using domes I can't really distinguish, I know that much.

Wonder if there's a way waiting to be found where a computer program could maybe define this at some point. I'm guessing it's kind of like speaker sound power, as in something can be flat yet have a different way of providing the same result and sound rather different.
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
21,623
Likes
21,900
Location
Canada
I prefer ESS chips over AKM, for my ears the ESS has a somehow more vivid upper midrange and treble sound that seems more etched somehow.
I appreciate the more anylitical sound, not exaggerated or glassy perse, but some nice energy going on in the upper ranges.
I too prefer a zing in the upper frequencies of my hearing range. So I use parametric EQ for that and it works great. I don't think most people would appreciate my PEQ settings but I do. LoL...
z Screenshot 2023-04-08 230137.png
 

DSJR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 2020
Messages
3,413
Likes
4,571
Location
Suffolk Coastal, UK
523-Wadax_System-600.jpg


"There were several reasons why I was extremely eager to hear this system. First and foremost, given the high price of Wadax digital gear, I wanted to get a sense of what the Wadax Atlantis Reference DAC ($166,420), Wadax Atlantis Reference Server ($68,800), Wadax Atlantis Reference Transport $115,000), and Wadax Atlantis Reference PSU ($52,700) might sound like"

Yeah , i don't see this stuff ending up at Amir's place anytime soon, but you never know;)

Oh, and there were also 4 cables used, 20.400$ each, which lifted the final veils.
Assuming that shrine was an owners rig, I'd expect them (him most probably) to offer human sacrifices to it... Gawd that rig looks awful, but can't see the grounding box...
 

gwing

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
63
Likes
74
Without a proper blind test, you can never be sure if the differences you hear are not products of bias from your brain.

A blind test would be best but not entirely essential as long as you really can eliminate bias and expectations. The only occasion I can think where that would have been the case for me though was when I bought of bunch of small cheap 'Direct Digital' desktop amps to see what all the fuss was about. - so I had four amps at vaguely similar prices, similar sizes and apparent build quality and no expectations on which (if any) would be any good or better than the others. In virtually all other circumstances I'd go along with the necessity for a truly blind test though.
 

Killingbeans

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 23, 2018
Messages
4,098
Likes
7,578
Location
Bjerringbro, Denmark.
A blind test would be best but not entirely essential as long as you really can eliminate bias and expectations.

You can't eliminate bias without a blind test, and your conscious expectations have no control over your subconscious ones.

A blind test is only non-essential when the reliability of the test results is equally non-essential.
 

DonR

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 25, 2022
Messages
3,013
Likes
5,734
Location
Vancouver(ish)
A blind test would be best but not entirely essential as long as you really can eliminate bias and expectations. The only occasion I can think where that would have been the case for me though was when I bought of bunch of small cheap 'Direct Digital' desktop amps to see what all the fuss was about. - so I had four amps at vaguely similar prices, similar sizes and apparent build quality and no expectations on which (if any) would be any good or better than the others. In virtually all other circumstances I'd go along with the necessity for a truly blind test though.
The thing about bias is that it can very well and often is subconscious. We don't even know it is there so any preconceived expectations or lack thereof may not even affect the actual bias.
 

ahofer

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
5,045
Likes
9,153
Location
New York City
A blind test would be best but not entirely essential as long as you really can eliminate bias and expectations. T
..and the only way we know how to do this for sure is a blind test.
 

CedarX

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
511
Likes
831
Location
USA
I too prefer a zing in the upper frequencies of my hearing range. So I use parametric EQ for that and it works great. I don't think most people would appreciate my PEQ settings but I do. LoL...
index.php

That's almost +30dB at 16kHz !!! :eek::eek::eek:
I am at an age where I don't hear much there anyway... which picked my curiosity: is your EQ "upper zing" the result of a measurable preference--i.e. if you were to do a controlled blind test comparison between your +29.5 dB at 16kHz and say +25dB, would your preference always go for +29.5dB? Or is it more a threshold thing--i.e. you need about ~25-30dB boost at 16kHz to hear anything there? Is the 0dB at 20kHz because it does not make any measurable difference for you?

BTW, I totally respect your EQ... But have you found a speaker, headphones, or IEM with this type of FR? ;)
I think we'll all agree that there ain't any DAC with this type of "signature"... So, although the discussions are always interesting, this thread may largely be irrelevant for you in the end as it is for me... :p
 

Doodski

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 9, 2019
Messages
21,623
Likes
21,900
Location
Canada
That's almost +30dB at 16kHz !!! :eek::eek::eek:
I am at an age where I don't hear much there anyway... which picked my curiosity: is your EQ "upper zing" the result of a measurable preference--i.e. if you were to do a controlled blind test comparison between your +29.5 dB at 16kHz and say +25dB, would your preference always go for +29.5dB? Or is it more a threshold thing--i.e. you need about ~25-30dB boost at 16kHz to hear anything there? Is the 0dB at 20kHz because it does not make any measurable difference for you?
I need that much boost to get the highs audible and interesting too. I like a live kinda sound where the cymbals and such really sound metallic. 20kHz is totally inaudible for me so no sense boosting there I think. The same at the low bass frequencies I don't boost. I negative the low frequency energy to prevent the audio amp loading and the added load on the headphones. If they can even do that stuff.
BTW, I totally respect your EQ... But have you found a speaker, headphones, or IEM with this type of FR? ;)
I think we'll all agree that there ain't any DAC with this type of "signature"... So, although the discussions are always interesting, this thread may largely be irrelevant for you in the end as it is for me... :p
I have used this type of high frequency boost since a young age and even more if my ears are full of wax. The premise of my PEQ shows that a tiny bit of upper frequency or mids can create a sense of warmth, sharpness etc.
 

gwing

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
63
Likes
74
..and the only way we know how to do this for sure is a blind test.

Or to test visually identical products, or at least products that had no known names nor design features that identified them or indicated quality or any other bias inducing variance. Clearly that isn't usually possible though.
 

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
972
Likes
2,014
Location
Melbourne, Australia
I think we all remember class mates at school who were actually brilliant in mathematics and logic, true natural talents, but always failed miserable in the tests and exams
But many, most in fact, of the brilliant mathematicians did brilliantly in exams.
Somehow, every single person ever who’s done the equivalent “audiophile” exam is so crippled by stress that they fail. Seems like there’s a better explanation for this than stress.
 

Svend P

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2022
Messages
131
Likes
254
Location
Århus, Denmark
But many, most in fact, of the brilliant mathematicians did brilliantly in exams.
Somehow, every single person ever who’s done the equivalent “audiophile” exam is so crippled by stress that they fail. Seems like there’s a better explanation for this than stress.
It is similar to Invisible Boy in the movie Mystery Men. He can turn himself invisible. But only when no one is looking.
 

Glint

Member
Joined
May 8, 2022
Messages
46
Likes
46
"Blind tests" can go to hell. Sick to death of the spectre of the blind test, the ABX, in audio. Sick of it and all the convenient ways it can be invalidated by liars. 24 years of listening, reading, to audiophile shills talking about how people in the next room could hear the difference, and then furrow their brows as if suddenly burdened by the weight of their commitment to fairness and integrity, "oh, but an ABX introduces too much, stress...stress, unnatural listening conditions, blah, blah, blah". Utter sophistry! I chopped the head off that pantomime, I do not care if you hear a difference, I wan't to know if there is one, stop hiding behind absurd rhetorical constructs, physcological get-outs, stop lying, stop contaminating a hobby with F.U.D. BS so you can sell your crap. Rememering how h**d-fi utterly fell to the endless shills and commercial interests, banishing any kind of meaningful conversation to a single sub-forum - and banning it from all others, and, literally, manufacturers posing as unrelated parties to their enterprise to bash people, selling fake products, I could post their names, I won't, but if you know, you know...and on and on. In what a ruinous state - an awful intersection of people seeking advice, and people eagre to lie to them - the internet found itself.

Sorry for the rant, but thank god for Amir and his AP analyser machine, and others, I know ASR is not without commercial considerations (madronadigital? etc), but it's pretty good.
 

KSTR

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 6, 2018
Messages
2,788
Likes
6,233
Location
Berlin, Germany
But many, most in fact, of the brilliant mathematicians did brilliantly in exams.
You see the pitfall of this argumentation, don't you? I suppose many of those talented people didn't even have a chance to make it into an academic career just because they suffered from exam paranoia, low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, etc.

Back to my original point, I truly believe in the power of a properly conducted ABX listening test (even though there seem to better protocols like ABC/HR)... but note the highlighting. "Properly" means no test stress whatsoever, besides training and preparation, because otherwise most of the resolution that could have been achieved is lost. Whenever an ABX test is setup as a challenge it has great chances to fail by design... even with tests that are normally easy to ABX for most anyone, like the simple polarity flip.
 

Sir Sanders Zingmore

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 20, 2018
Messages
972
Likes
2,014
Location
Melbourne, Australia
You see the pitfall of this argumentation, don't you?
No, not really. Sure some (probably very small) minority of great mathematicians don’t make it because of exam stress but most of them do. It’s not like there are entire classes where students do brilliantly if the answers are in front of them and then every student fails the exam.

I suppose many of those talented people didn't even have a chance to make it into an academic career just because they suffered from exam paranoia, low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, etc.

Back to my original point, I truly believe in the power of a properly conducted ABX listening test (even though there seem to better protocols like ABC/HR)... but note the highlighting. "Properly" means no test stress whatsoever, besides training and preparation, because otherwise most of the resolution that could have been achieved is lost. Whenever an ABX test is setup as a challenge it has great chances to fail by design... even with tests that are normally easy to ABX for most anyone, like the simple polarity flip.
I actually agree with you more than it might come across. I think we (as in people on ASR) might understate the effect of stress and also the fact that it’s possible that some people might be unconsciously biased against ABX tests such that they do poorly.
But the fact that not a single person ever has managed to differentiate between “good enough” DACs in properly controlled tests says pretty clearly that stress cannot be the the only (or even the primary) reason.
 

solderdude

Grand Contributor
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
16,059
Likes
36,454
Location
The Neitherlands
The stress cop-out is no excuse to disregard test results of properly done blind tests (whatever method is used that fits the test) and for that reason rather trust not controlled tests/comparisons.

Everyone who has ever done a proper blind test with audio knows how hard it is to do such as setting up the test, choosing the most suited music, fatigue and personal factors, time of day, duration of the test etc.

It is not easy to do proper listening tests.
Also... the vast majority of listeners does not care. They just have a preference and act on it which is probably the best way to go about this.

I have done a couple over the last decades and prefer to just enjoy music rather that to argue about this.
Measurements and above all correct interpretation of all relevant tests of electronics is good enough. Acoustics is another ballgame.

Interesting for actual researchers (science) or people that have something (their hearing abilities) to prove. Not so much for the average music aficionado that wants to enjoy what they hear.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom