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

[threni]

I caught the DAC bug about 12 months ago. I thought I had found an acceptable "bang per buck" solution with the Gustard R26, a well received R2R box. Indeed it swept the floor with a Topping DX5 and Sabage A20d that used ESS chips and both of those sounded pretty good albeit for around £400. The Gustard is four times that. I'd also add that I am using a Sugden class A amp which brings instrument separation and soundstage width and depth goodies as well.

However serious audio as we know is a demanding mistress. I have invested in a second hand Chord Hugo TT2 and M Scaler and have been listening and comparing with the R2R for about two months. The Chord combo is unambiguously superior in every respect and a big surprise was the improved depth and tonality (colour not colouration) to the bass part of the spectrum. I can live with the frankly odd and obscurest layout and controls.

I am not going to exercise myself or any reader with any cost justification but just listen to kit before you comment. I do believe that the common measurement suites employed are good but only to a point and are currently not comprehensive enough to confirm or dispute with subjective impressions. For example "timing" appears to be a bigger subject than simply measuring jitter values.

It's not just cost you shouldn't feel the need to justify; it's also your belief you're getting good separation or soundstage from an amp, or that the Chord sounds better than far cheaper DACs etc. And let's not even mention the M Scaler which is an (expensive) piece of crap which actually makes the signal worse!

Getting back to the science, though - it's great that you've discovered this site, so a big hello, and we look forward to your suggestions for improvements to the test suites so that we can finally pin down exactly why we're failing to see any benefit in expensive audiofool jewelry.

 

[oleg87]

I do believe that the common measurement suites employed are good but only to a point and are currently not comprehensive enough to confirm or dispute with subjective impressions. For example "timing" appears to be a bigger subject than simply measuring jitter values.

"I don't understand any of it, but I'm sure the people who do are wrong"
No evidence of proper controls, no validity, nothing to discuss.

 

[StewartThomson]

Steady cowboy! I'm a newbie and don't want to be scared off this forum. If you have listened to the Chord kit I have no grumble. If not and merely relying on the measurements (I have read the ASR review piece) I am suggesting (that in my humble experience) they do not tell the whole story.

 

[antcollinet]

Steady cowboy! I'm a newbie and don't want to be scared off this forum. If you have listened to the Chord kit I have no grumble. If not and merely relying on the measurements (I have read the ASR review piece) I am suggesting (that in my humble experience) they do not tell the whole story.

Does your humble experience involve controlled (accurately level matched) blind and statistically valid listening comparisons? Because if not, while the measurements employed here do tell the whole story, your auditory system** is spinning you a yarn beyond the reality of engineering and physics, and into the world of fantasy that the great writers of that genre would be proud of. (backatcha)

** as does my auditory system, and that of every other human on the planet.

Take your first step on the path to enlightenment here:

 

[JustJones]

As far as DACs go measurements tell the whole story.

 

[oleg87]

Steady cowboy! I'm a newbie and don't want to be scared off this forum. If you have listened to the Chord kit I have no grumble. If not and merely relying on the measurements (I have read the ASR review piece) I am suggesting (that in my humble experience) they do not tell the whole story.

Yes, we know that. The other huge part of the story is the squishy stuff in our heads. Unless you add sufficient controls to make a comparison strictly ears-only and remove extraneous sources of bias, it cannot be disentangled from differences in sound. Yes, it's annoying to have to keep banging on about it, but if you haven’t gotten a feel for the degree to which your brain can fool you, you are likely greatly underestimating it.

Personally I've listened to some Chord stuff (Mojo 2 and Qutest) albeit casually and I didn't hear anything obviously above what I know to be the considerable noise floor of my imagination.

And all this "the engineers don't understand everything" is such a pet peeve of mine. Sure, there are limits to anyone's knowledge and every field of knowledge, but the ASR forums have numerous contributors who have a background and decades of experience in electronics/audio research/signal processing/etc including people with some very impressive bona fides. Audio is a mature technology. People have been putting theory to practical use in all manner of applications for well over a century and a lot of the theory was worked out when they were laying translatlantic telegraph cables in ye olde days. If you are not conversant in these matters, please give some credit to people who've spent innumerable collective professional lifetimes thinking about it and consider that their skepticism is based on a much deeper consideration of the underlying mechanisms than the average tech-layman audiophile.

 

[Jimbob54]

Some more recent additions

 

[threni]

Steady cowboy! I'm a newbie and don't want to be scared off this forum. If you have listened to the Chord kit I have no grumble. If not and merely relying on the measurements (I have read the ASR review piece) I am suggesting (that in my humble experience) they do not tell the whole story.

I don't have that Chord no. I have a Topping E30 and the Apple USB to 3.5mm dongle, which do the same thing but more cheaply. You wrote: "have been listening and comparing with the R2R for about two months.". It doesn't take that long to do a double blind test. It doesn't take months to see which laptop is faster at a benchmark, or which kettle gets the water boiled first. It's the same for audio equipment. Maybe follow up on some of the links you've been given to learn more about this.

 

[donrleonard]

Well now, l this is shaping up to be an educational experience...

Firstly, thanks to antcollinet for taking the time to explain to me why they--and a preponderance of the folks on this forum, evidently--believe that the differences I am experiencing might be a) imagined by me when using my equipment, b) inaudible in the YouTube video ABC test (Doodski, Old_School_Brad), or c) audible but likely the result of imperfect testing conditions (bolo_nz).

I love a good mystery. And my brief foray into the science and psychology of digital to analog conversion has indeed proven to be an interesting one.

Educate a new guy, please. When we say that there is no audible difference between well-measuring (I presume this equates to "transparent"?) DACs such as the ones identified as "excellent" on this forum....

....is the claim that the DAC chips themselves (ESS versus AKM etc.) are indistinguishable?

Or is the claim that, by measuring as "excellent," nothing in the digital to analog sound pipeline of a well-measuring DAC (power supply, output stage implementation of signal amplification and filtration, clock jitter, etc...) could possibly color the sound, alter the perception of soundstage, or otherwise be audible to the discerning listener? (Here I'm relying mostly on this treatment of the topic to drive my intuition).

I still have much to learn about this hobby. And for the moment at least I'm still mostly impressionable and ecumenical (ie, I like the euphonic qualities of certain Schiit Audio products, as well as Amir's fabulous testing methods which sometimes claim that Schiit's euphonics are just that (shit). But on face value, the categorical claim that there is no audible difference between good DACs strikes me as just as susceptible to subjective listener qualities and confirmation bias as the claim that DACs make all the difference in the world.

 

[CedarX]

Educate a new guy, please. When we say that there is no audible difference between well-measuring (I presume this equates to "transparent"?) DACs such as the ones identified as "excellent" on this forum....

Humble advice: read, dig, research, re-read, search again… this forum
My (also humble) recommendation: start with controlled blind testing. See if you can setup one for yourself—this is enlightening!

Until then… trust the experienced folks here: they may not have time to fully “educate” you, but their words are gold.

 

[Doodski]

Well now, l this is shaping up to be an educational experience...

Firstly, thanks to antcollinet for taking the time to explain to me why they--and a preponderance of the folks on this forum, evidently--believe that the differences I am experiencing might be a) imagined by me when using my equipment, b) inaudible in the YouTube video ABC test (Doodski, Old_School_Brad), or c) audible but likely the result of imperfect testing conditions (bolo_nz).

I love a good mystery. And my brief foray into the science and psychology of digital to analog conversion has indeed proven to be an interesting one.

Educate a new guy, please. When we say that there is no audible difference between well-measuring (I presume this equates to "transparent"?) DACs such as the ones identified as "excellent" on this forum....

View attachment 431767


....is the claim that the DAC chips themselves (ESS versus AKM etc.) are indistinguishable?

Or is the claim that, by measuring as "excellent," nothing in the digital to analog sound pipeline of a well-measuring DAC (power supply, output stage implementation of signal amplification and filtration, clock jitter, etc...) could possibly color the sound, alter the perception of soundstage, or otherwise be audible to the discerning listener? (Here I'm relying mostly on this treatment of the topic to drive my intuition).

I still have much to learn about this hobby. And for the moment at least I'm still mostly impressionable and ecumenical (ie, I like the euphonic qualities of certain Schiit Audio products, as well as Amir's fabulous testing methods which sometimes claim that Schiit's euphonics are just that (shit). But on face value, the categorical claim that there is no audible difference between good DACs strikes me as just as susceptible to subjective listener qualities and confirmation bias as the claim that DACs make all the difference in the world.

All of your questions basically boil down to one thing. DACs are a digital device and they are mathematically predetermined to output analogue audio. If done well which anything from a $20 Mac/Apple DAC dongle to a sub $100 DAC can do then they are good enough and cannot be differentiated. I see you look at the Excellent category of the DAC chart as good I think you can actually include many of the Very Good category DACs too. The valuable differences in prices from a $100 DAC to a $1000 DAC are features. More connections, balanced/differential, PEQ, Loudness, memory settings, higher voltage output, pre-out etc.

 

[Bleib]

All of your questions basically boil down to one thing. DACs are a digital device and they are mathematically predetermined to output analogue audio. If done well which anything from a $20 Mac/Apple DAC dongle to a sub $100 DAC can do then they are good enough and cannot be differentiated. I see you look at the Excellent category of the DAC chart as good I think you can actually include many of the Very Good category DACs too. The valuable differences in prices from a $100 DAC to a $1000 DAC are features. More connections, balanced/differential, PEQ, Loudness, memory settings, higher voltage output, pre-out etc.

And a lot of us will say focus on room, placement, loudspeakers before constantly changing a DAC.
Same goes with headphones, no DAC will make a bad headphone sound good.

 

[somebodyelse]

@donrleonard I expect a lot of these posts are going to get moved to this thread since that's usually what happens when review threads get pulled in this direction:
Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?
As you can tell from the length, this happens quite a lot. This also means you'll find the same arguments happening over and over again.
Short version: once the distortion drops below a certain level the difference will be inaudible in a properly controlled test. The exact level is a bit fuzzy as it varies from person to person. More on that here.
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/05/high-end-dac-blind-listening-results.html should give some idea of how close a fairly good cheap dongle came to a couple of Linn DACs - indistinguishable to some, clearly different to a few.
There is an underlying assumption that the system is performing without major flaws like ground related noise issues which are a system issue, but may present differently on the different DACs under test. This is not a given, especially with single ended interconnects.

 

[donrleonard]

All of your questions basically boil down to one thing. DACs are a digital device and they are mathematically predetermined to output analogue audio. If done well which anything from a $20 Mac/Apple DAC dongle to a sub $100 DAC can do then they are good enough and cannot be differentiated. I see you look at the Excellent category of the DAC chart as good I think you can actually include many of the Very Good category DACs too. The valuable differences in prices from a $100 DAC to a $1000 DAC are features. More connections, balanced/differential, PEQ, Loudness, memory settings, higher voltage output, pre-out etc.

It's certainly possible. When I was young I worked at Best Buy, upselling folks on Monster cabling and power conditioners. For that I will burn in hell.

I've also read (and find completely plausible) that you can replace RCA cables with segments of a metal coat hanger and get good results.

But the above comment is precisely the kind of oversimplification that gives me pause. In this view, DACs--if properly constructed--are black boxes that turn 0s and 1s into uniform analog signals without audibly coloring or shaping the quality of the sound that results. The different DAC chip / RCA Opamp configurations available on the upgraded J2 are snake oil, and make as much of an audible difference to the music as whether you go with aluminum or wood case type?

Short version: once the distortion drops below a certain level the difference will be inaudible in a properly controlled test. The exact level is a bit fuzzy as it varies from person to person. More on that here.
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/05/high-end-dac-blind-listening-results.html should give some idea of how close a fairly good cheap dongle came to a couple of Linn DACs - indistinguishable to some, clearly different to a few.
There is an underlying assumption that the system is performing without major flaws like ground related noise issues which are a system issue, but may present differently on the different DACs under test. This is not a given, especially with single ended interconnects.

Wow. The performance differential (or lack thereof) between a $9 Apple dongle and the $3,000 Linn DAC is truly remarkable. I'm a big believer in the law of diminishing returns, but the headline result here suggests that this curve is insanely steep.

It is notable that most were able to correctly sort the DACs, though only 60 of the 84 responses thought the differences were "worth upgrading" for.

It is equally noticeable that headphone listeners had the easiest time hearing the differences.

As others have said, getting your room right and taking other measures to bring your loudspeaker experience in line with a quality headphone experience, as Darko Audio has recently spoken about, is an important precondition to getting to a place where differences between DACs become both audible and meaningful.

I'd love for someone to run a test on whether a $50 ifi headphone jack dongle or a $90 SMSL or $250 Jishelli is already pushing diminishing returns on that $9 Apple Dongle.

Until then, I'll just have to bask in the comfort of knowing that the positive impacts of the placebo effect has been proven by science

 

[Doodski]

It's certainly possible. When I was young I worked at Best Buy, upselling folks on Monster cabling and power conditioners. For that I will burn in hell.

I've also read (and find completely plausible) that you can replace RCA cables with segments of a metal coat hanger and get good results.

But the above comment is precisely the kind of oversimplification that gives me pause. In this view, DACs--if properly constructed--are black boxes that turn 0s and 1s into uniform analog signals without audibly coloring or shaping the quality of the sound that results. The different DAC chip / RCA Opamp configurations available on the upgraded J2 are snake oil, and make as much of an audible difference to the music as whether you go with aluminum or wood case type?

View attachment 431803





Wow. The performance differential (or lack thereof) between a $9 Apple dongle and the $3,000 Linn DAC is truly remarkable. I'm a big believer in the law of diminishing returns, but the headline result here suggests that this curve is insanely steep.

View attachment 431810

It is notable that most were able to correctly sort the DACs, though only 60 of the 84 responses thought the differences were "worth upgrading" for.

It is equally noticeable that headphone listeners had the easiest time hearing the differences.

View attachment 431806

As others have said, getting your room right and taking other measures to bring your loudspeaker experience in line with a quality headphone experience, as Darko Audio has recently spoken about, is an important precondition to getting to a place where differences between DACs become both audible and meaningful.

I'd love for someone to run a test on whether a $50 ifi headphone jack dongle or a $90 SMSL or $250 Jishelli is already pushing diminishing returns on that $9 Apple Dongle.

Until then, I'll just have to bask in the comfort of knowing that the positive impacts of the placebo effect has been proven by science

Are you using the PC as a source right now? Are you using PEQ?

 

[RandomEar]

It is notable that most were able to correctly sort the DACs, though only 60 of the 84 responses thought the differences were "worth upgrading" for.

I scanned the thread again. From my understanding, the number of listeners correctly identifying the order is actually unknown. That number would for sure have been interesting to know. There are also some additional oddities. For example, the ranking order changes for people younger than 50, speaker listeners or audio engineers. With many sub-groups showing contradicting results, I'm smelling something like the Simpson's paradox going on.

Archimago did a good job setting up this test, but there simply are limitations for such anonymous online surveys. Overall, I'm not overly confident in the results, but they are intriguing.

 

[antcollinet]

....is the claim that the DAC chips themselves (ESS versus AKM etc.) are indistinguishable?

Pretty much yes. Both manufacturers chips are capable of being built into DACs that are "audibly perfect" or "Transparent"**

Or is the claim that, by measuring as "excellent," nothing in the digital to analog sound pipeline of a well-measuring DAC (power supply, output stage implementation of signal amplification and filtration, clock jitter, etc...) could possibly color the sound, alter the perception of soundstage, or otherwise be audible to the discerning listener? (Here I'm relying mostly on this treatment of the topic to drive my intuition).

A DAC has one, and only one job, and that is to accurately convert the digital representation of music from the source into an analog representation of that music. Well measuring DACS do that with inaudible levels of noise and distortion, and with flat frequency response in the audible band. In other words the analogue output is (audibly) a perfect representation of the digitally encoded music.

If two DACS both achieve this (and well measuring DACS do) then the analog signal from both must be identical within audible limits. By definition, they must sound the same.

Or at least, assuming the amp and speakers are the same, will result in identical sound waves reaching the ear of the listener. What the listeners brain does with that sound information, and how it mixes in the environment, expectations of the listener, mood of the listener etc etc to "colour" the perception of that sound has nothing to do with the performance of the DAC.


**flat frequency response, noise and distortion below the level of
for human hearing.

 

[antcollinet]

As you can tell from the length, this happens quite a lot. This also means you'll find the same arguments happening over and over again.

And (I expect) many of these posts are going to get moved to that thread by the mods in 3.....2 ...... 1..

 

[donrleonard]

Are you using the PC as a source right now? Are you using PEQ?

PC (Mac) via usb-c into monitor, then via hdmi arc into Wiim Ultra, then to external dac via usb.

Also Apple TV into monitor via hdmi…

Also iPad into wiim ultra via usb to toslink

Source is mostly Apple Music Lossless or better.

Regarding PEQ, I tried using the Wiim’s room correction feature, which is parametric. But I wasn’t convinced that it was an improvement on the Dance EQ preset, which is non-parametric.

 

[Doodski]

Regarding PEQ, I tried using the Wiim’s room correction feature, which is parametric. But I wasn’t convinced that it was an improvement on the Dance EQ preset, which is non-parametric.

Dependent on the EQ bands available, the center frequencies and the Q settings of each band 2 PEQs may sound the same or similar. The important thing is that you are using it. It makes such a large improvement.