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

[Bernard23]

I agree. I am an advocate of watching music videos on YouTube. They sound great and add the actual performance visual. Highly recommended. (I also use Qobuz with Audirvana).

However, no matter the source, I have experienced audible differences in DAC selection. It was especially noticeable in the bass. Clearly better, tighter more refined. In fact, the sound actually altered the sound enough to where I had to change the phase setting on the subwoofers (high level connection) and moved to sealed subs.

Easily detectable differences. To me the difference was enormous. I also attribute this change to the addition of the Sparkos SS2590 discrete Op-amp. The level of improvement is stunning! Probably the biggest change in sound quality of any other component I've ever made.

Slightly confusing answer, you've agreed with me that there is no audible difference (in something that can easily be quantified) and then argue that there are audible differences in something that if working correctly will measure the same.

 

[mikroid]

I have currently RME ADI-2 FS and REGA DAC (non R).

In my setup REGA is very decent sounding comparing to RME.
Had at one moment a Topping D90 which I have found too flat and sterile for my taste so I quickly returned it.
This is one of the reasons that I only trust my ears and not judge by numbers.

 

[milosz]

Did you do any blind A/B testing?

 

[mikroid]

Yes.
RME is definitely cleaner but not night and day.

For information , I use a Wireworld Electra (non Silver) power cord on Rega.
This upgrade made a big difference vs, initial stock cable

 

[whit]

Measurements are important, but for sonic claims, well-controlled tests are vital. Until then, "sharing my experience" is worse than meaningless. Sorry to be blunt, but this is science-based forum where extraordinary claims need to have actual evidence behind them to be taken as anything other than a fairy tale.

This is like where science was in discussing consciousness decades ago, when any and all observational claims about consciousness were dismissed as "fairy tale." More recently science has matured to where it has been widely recognized that at minimum observational claims should be correlated with neurological evidence (the "neural correlates of consciousness" approach). Neuroscience has come to realize that it must explain consciousness as we experience it, not just write off such experience as "fairy tale." Of course, there were a number of behaviorist-trained neuroscientists who wanted to keep consciousness as a "black box" to be left out of scientific explanation, who tried to silence those who rejected writing off conscious experience as some sort of illusion beneath the dignity of science.

Anyway, the approach over the last several decades is to work it from both sides. Francis Crick and Christof Kock published the foundational work on this approach 30 years ago. There's been much progress since. Reports from our experience of consciousness are not "extraordinary claims." This is an area of much remaining mystery, where we need to work from both sides, subjective as well as objective evidence and experimentation. That's the way science works now, concerning the capacities of consciousness. Seeing as we're all concerned with music here, which has no meaning outside of our consciousness of it, we need to design our experiments so as to meaningfully correlate with our observations of consciousness.

I get it that this forum is largely engineers and not neuroscientists. But we're talking about engineering musical equipment. The tests being reported here are immensely valuable, just as the experiments by consciousness-ignoring behaviorist psychologists were. There's yet more science to be done by taking reports from conscious experience seriously, as most modern neuroscientists do, and not base engineering claims on an outdated behaviorist paradigm.

 

[Tinker]

Slightly confusing answer, you've agreed with me that there is no audible difference (in something that can easily be quantified) and then argue that there are audible differences in something that if working correctly will measure the same.

For example... if you use Spotify, You tube or Qobuz for source material, I agree with you that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between them. Even though the difference IS measurable.

However, all three sources will be affected in some way by components used downstream. DAC, pre-amp, amp. The touchy subject here is whether DAC's sound different? Objectively, a good DAC would be transparent. I think everyone agrees with this.

This raises a question whether some DAC's are not transparent and are colored in some way. Possible? Why is this idea so far fetched? It's much more than a simple DAC chip converting ones and zeros. Inside the box there's an electric design, there are additional filters and Op-amp chips and components that could make it sound different. (I didn't say better, I said different.)

In my case it's very possible the difference I was hearing was because the new DAC was transparent and perhaps my other DAC was not?? I don't know. It was first brought to my attention in the bass region. Especially when quickly flipping the phase switch back and forth on the subwoofer (part of the setup process most people overlook) the changes became VERY apparent that it sounded different. Where one person may find the differences to be subtle, I may find the same changes to be substantial. Someone who evaluates the bass region listening to mostly classical/acoustic music may experience NO changes at all, whereas a person listening to EDM or current pop music may hear a much improved dynamic presentation. All listeners are not created equal. Some hear it and some don't or don't care. (it all sounds the same to my wife!)

Hope this helps!

 

[SIY]

This is like where science was in discussing consciousness decades ago, when any and all observational claims about consciousness were dismissed as "fairy tale." More recently science has matured to where it has been widely recognized that at minimum observational claims should be correlated with neurological evidence (the "neural correlates of consciousness" approach). Neuroscience has come to realize that it must explain consciousness as we experience it, not just write off such experience as "fairy tale." Of course, there were a number of behaviorist-trained neuroscientists who wanted to keep consciousness as a "black box" to be left out of scientific explanation, who tried to silence those who rejected writing off conscious experience as some sort of illusion beneath the dignity of science.

Anyway, the approach over the last several decades is to work it from both sides. Francis Crick and Christof Kock published the foundational work on this approach 30 years ago. There's been much progress since. Reports from our experience of consciousness are not "extraordinary claims." This is an area of much remaining mystery, where we need to work from both sides, subjective as well as objective evidence and experimentation. That's the way science works now, concerning the capacities of consciousness. Seeing as we're all concerned with music here, which has no meaning outside of our consciousness of it, we need to design our experiments so as to meaningfully correlate with our observations of consciousness.

I get it that this forum is largely engineers and not neuroscientists. But we're talking about engineering musical equipment. The tests being reported here are immensely valuable, just as the experiments by consciousness-ignoring behaviorist psychologists were. There's yet more science to be done by taking reports from conscious experience seriously, as most modern neuroscientists do, and not base engineering claims on an outdated behaviorist paradigm.

Much handwaving here, I'm afraid. Here's the problem- there is zero, none, zip, nada, rien, bupkis experimental evidence that any two pieces of electronics with "good enough" measurements can be distinguished by ear alone. So no need to delve into vague notions of neuroscience (and in fact we have several members who are world-class experts in that field) to try to explain phenomena which haven't been shown to exist.

 

[Bernard23]

For example... if you use Spotify, You tube or Qobuz for source material, I agree with you that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between them. Even though the difference IS measurable.

However, all three sources will be affected in some way by components used downstream. DAC, pre-amp, amp. The touchy subject here is whether DAC's sound different? Objectively, a good DAC would be transparent. I think everyone agrees with this.

This raises a question whether some DAC's are not transparent and are colored in some way. Possible? Why is this idea so far fetched? It's much more than a simple DAC chip converting ones and zeros. Inside the box there's an electric design, there are additional filters and Op-amp chips and components that could make it sound different. (I didn't say better, I said different.)

In my case it's very possible the difference I was hearing was because the new DAC was transparent and perhaps my other DAC was not?? I don't know. It was first brought to my attention in the bass region. Especially when quickly flipping the phase switch back and forth on the subwoofer (part of the setup process most people overlook) the changes became VERY apparent that it sounded different. Where one person may find the differences to be subtle, I may find the same changes to be substantial. Someone who evaluates the bass region listening to mostly classical/acoustic music may experience NO changes at all, whereas a person listening to EDM or current pop music may hear a much improved dynamic presentation. All listeners are not created equal. Some hear it and some don't or don't care. (it all sounds the same to my wife!)

Hope this helps!

No it still doesn't make sense. You can easily measure the difference between bit rates of the music file, and we agree you probably can't reliably tell the difference. We then take several electronic components that measure equally, and somehow you can hear a difference? Now it's true that not all DAC's measure equally well, but many do, and achieve results that are easy to demonstrate are below the limits of detection of our hearing, and much lower than the differences you might expect from file source bit rates.

 

[Blumlein 88]

This is like where science was in discussing consciousness decades ago, when any and all observational claims about consciousness were dismissed as "fairy tale." More recently science has matured to where it has been widely recognized that at minimum observational claims should be correlated with neurological evidence (the "neural correlates of consciousness" approach). Neuroscience has come to realize that it must explain consciousness as we experience it, not just write off such experience as "fairy tale." Of course, there were a number of behaviorist-trained neuroscientists who wanted to keep consciousness as a "black box" to be left out of scientific explanation, who tried to silence those who rejected writing off conscious experience as some sort of illusion beneath the dignity of science.

Anyway, the approach over the last several decades is to work it from both sides. Francis Crick and Christof Kock published the foundational work on this approach 30 years ago. There's been much progress since. Reports from our experience of consciousness are not "extraordinary claims." This is an area of much remaining mystery, where we need to work from both sides, subjective as well as objective evidence and experimentation. That's the way science works now, concerning the capacities of consciousness. Seeing as we're all concerned with music here, which has no meaning outside of our consciousness of it, we need to design our experiments so as to meaningfully correlate with our observations of consciousness.

I get it that this forum is largely engineers and not neuroscientists. But we're talking about engineering musical equipment. The tests being reported here are immensely valuable, just as the experiments by consciousness-ignoring behaviorist psychologists were. There's yet more science to be done by taking reports from conscious experience seriously, as most modern neuroscientists do, and not base engineering claims on an outdated behaviorist paradigm.

False equivalency. When some of the gear measures clean right down to the thermal noise limits or very close, then there is no where for the signal to be different. You are back to claiming a not clean, not transparent signal is preferable. It might be so, but you'll need to figure that out. What is found so far is there is nothing to any of it. All the rest is from cognitive bias. About the equivalent to making a blocky vehicle have super car performance and a car with equal performance is going to satisfy more when it looks like some of the beautiful sleek sports cars. You don't need new paradigm's of psychology to know why that is.

 

[ahofer]

There's yet more science to be done by taking reports from conscious experience seriously, as most modern neuroscientists do, and not base engineering claims on an outdated behaviorist paradigm.

But the next step to taking it seriously is designing controlled tests, isn't it?

 

[krabapple]

Yeah ... you're right. Sorry 'bout that. It seems very few new posters scan the available info.

I was being sarcastic there. Call me cynical, but I doubt a week will make a difference.

 

[oleg87]

This raises a question whether some DAC's are not transparent and are colored in some way. Possible? Why is this idea so far fetched? It's much more than a simple DAC chip converting ones and zeros. Inside the box there's an electric design, there are additional filters and Op-amp chips and components that could make it sound different. (I didn't say better, I said different.)

In my case it's very possible the difference I was hearing was because the new DAC was transparent and perhaps my other DAC was not?? I don't know. It was first brought to my attention in the bass region. Especially when quickly flipping the phase switch back and forth on the subwoofer (part of the setup process most people overlook) the changes became VERY apparent that it sounded different. Where one person may find the differences to be subtle, I may find the same changes to be substantial. Someone who evaluates the bass region listening to mostly classical/acoustic music may experience NO changes at all, whereas a person listening to EDM or current pop music may hear a much improved dynamic presentation. All listeners are not created equal. Some hear it and some don't or don't care. (it all sounds the same to my wife!)

Yes, of course there are DACs that are not transparent - even to the extent where it would be readily obvious. That's why we like to see detailed manufacturer specs and measurements.

But audio DACs being, as often said, a solved problem, you have to deliberately un-solve it by reinventing the wheel with some goofy audiophile contraption, or commit pretty gross engineering errors to make deficiencies that are obvious when inaudbile cues are controlled for. Both possible of course.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Yes.
RME is definitely cleaner but not night and day.

For information , I use a Wireworld Electra (non Silver) power cord on Rega.
This upgrade made a big difference vs, initial stock cable

Just assuming for now that this is a real, not imagined, difference, why would the Rega be designed in a way that allows this?

 

[BDWoody]

Just moved a couple of posts in from another thread.

 

[Tinker]

We then take several electronic components that measure equally, and somehow you can hear a difference?

I didn't say that. I said there's a good possibility that due to varying electrical parts Op-amps etc... that they have differences between them. Some DAC's may be colored and might not measure equally.

Now it's true that not all DAC's measure equally.

We agree!

 

[SIY]

n my case it's very possible the difference I was hearing was because the new DAC was transparent and perhaps my other DAC was not?? I don't know. It was first brought to my attention in the bass region.

I didn't say that. I said there's a good possibility that due to varying electrical parts Op-amps etc... that they have differences between them. Some DAC's may be colored and might not measure equally.

Well, you claimed to hear a difference in the bass. That is vastly unlikely since when there IS a limitation in DACs, it's almost always in the top octave. So without actual evidence of this audible difference claim, it's provisionally filed under "yet one more unsupported assertion" until evidence is presented.

 

[Tinker]

Yes, of course there are DACs that are not transparent - even to the extent where it would be readily obvious. That's why we like to see detailed manufacturer specs and measurements.

Exactly. My example was "readily obvious" to hear a difference. Not only for me but for other listeners as well.

Amir has pointed out that critical listening is 100% valid and warns that you shouldn't go to the other extreme and assume it's not a valid method. There's more to it than just measurements. Provided you know what you're listening for.

 

[SIY]

Amir has pointed out that critical listening is 100% valid and warns that you shouldn't go to the other extreme and assume it's not a valid method.

Except you leave out the most important part: controls. No controls, you're telling fairy tales.

 

[Jim Creek]

Yes.
RME is definitely cleaner but not night and day.

For information , I use a Wireworld Electra (non Silver) power cord on Rega.
This upgrade made a big difference vs, initial stock cable

Since you likely paid $200-$300 for that Wireworld power cord there is no way you will ever accept that power cords make no difference.

I know you understand that electric power is distributed through many miles of high voltage power lines, it’s voltage is dropped by multiple transformers, sent to your breaker box, then conducted by the Romex cable in your house wiring. How does the last 3’ of your Wireworld power cable ‘improve’ or change that electrical current that powers your DAC?

What factor am I missing here?

 

[Tinker]

Well, you claimed to hear a difference in the bass. That is vastly unlikely since when there IS a limitation in DACs, it's almost always in the top octave.

Could you explain this "limitation" in the top octave that makes hearing differences in bass "vastly unlikely"