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

[ahofer]

Was DSD performance measured? I know some here opine that DSD is often less accurate then lossless, but I've not delved into that debate.

The sound quality of DSD?

Multiple threads here deal with DSD, but I'm yet to see a bit more depth concentrated in one place. DSD For Beginners is boring and tells very little. Based on listening to the sound quality of DSD native from Cirrus Logic chips like that in Sonata HD Pro I find: • S/N ratio of DSD at high...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[BDWoody]

I'll just listen to it for about an hour and write a short article.
I'll just write down my thoughts briefly.

Rather than have a new thread for this, I'm going to move this to a thread where this discussion is destined to go anyway.

Have you seen this video yet?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Turning off filters is misguided. A DAC without a reconstruction filter is a broken DAC. It may well cause audible differences as it alters frequency response. Use a sharp filter. I know the mainstream high end people wet themselves over this. They are simply wrong.

And if you didn't match levels your reports mean nothing. Literally nothing. I'd have to look back at reviews. It is possible these two DACs have the same output which makes them effectively matched.

 

[ahofer]

I know the mainstream high end people wet themselves over this. They are simply wrong.

There's an extent to which any difference is noted and initially perceived as in improvement because it 'reveals' something. I presume this is part of the reason "showroom treble" is a thing. My experience auditioning Paradigm Persona's was like that - "wow, I can hear the hair on the bows....<5 minutes>...wow this is annoying and has no bass"

 

[JIW]

Turning off filters is misguided. A DAC without a reconstruction filter is a broken DAC. It may well cause audible differences as it alters frequency response. Use a sharp filter. I know the mainstream high end people wet themselves over this. They are simply wrong.

And if you didn't match levels your reports mean nothing. Literally nothing. I'd have to look back at reviews. It is possible these two DACs have the same output which makes them effectively matched.

Agreed. I was getting to that but wanted to give the benefit of the doubt.

They both have the same output at the line out according to the specs. However, it seems like the comparison was using the single ended headphone outputs. The DL100 only has one gain setting which seems to be 10 dB given that single ended line out output level is 2.5 V RMS or ~8 dBV and maximum output of the headphone output seems to be just shy of 8 V RMS or 18 dBV according to Amir's review. The DL400 has high gain of 9.5 dB and likely 0 dB low gain relative to the single ended line out level of 2.5 V RMS. Thus, its simply extrapolated maximum output level is around 17.5 dBV or 7.5 V RMS on the single ended headphone output which is around 0.5 dB lower than the DL100. Thus, the same volume setting will not match levels and to get closest, the DL400 should have a 0.5 dB higher volume level in high gain or 10 dB higher volume level in low gain than the DL100 when using the single ended HP output.

However, the high tolerance in ESS chips' input/output resistors of +-11% can lead to significant output level variance. See here.

 

[ICIETDIYEUR]

Hi all .

Amir hasn't reviewed the SMSL DO100 PRO yet so I got some measurements made by another person that I watched on you tube ->

https://www.youtube.com/@syncertech/videos

Here is a comparative table to summarize ->

As I could imagine (no: i'm not a 'wizard' or a 'soothsayer'), the more circuits and elements a device has, the greater the technical constraints

As far as I'm concerned, it seems that the SMSL D6s measures better in general

Also, although it is subjective, one person claims that the SMSL DO100 PRO would be somehow more 'analytical' while the SMSL D6s is more 'musical' with some 'brightness' (not sibillance) on the tops.

It's quite 'funny' because concerning the SMSL D6s which looks very close to the SMSL PS200 (which impressed me) which doesn't have a built-in PSU and which uses OPAMPS (also from TI), but OPA1656 instead of OPA1612 in the SMSL D6s, that's what I felt but without this 'brightness'...

But as they say that OPAMPS don't change the sound so I didn't say anything

Looking at these 'comparison tables', I hope I haven't given Amir the 'wrong idea' and can make comparisons between DAC measurements on his website

 

[Harmonia]

Did you match levels and if so how?

Did you turn off the reconstruction filters? If so, why?

Why are they required for MP3s but not for lossless files?

Filter 5 on the DL100 is the closest to turning the reconstruction filter on the DL400 off.

The DSD differences may be due to different chips being used - 2 Cirrus Logic CS43131 vs. 1 ESS ES9039MSPRO. Using a cheaper DAC with an ES9039Q2M such as the SMSL D-6s or DL200, the differences to the DL400 may be much less if there are any at all.

I posted in the wrong place. I have to post again. I can't delete the previous post. To answer your question,

- I don't have any special measuring equipment. I just listened to it moderately and adjusted the volume.

- The reason I turned off the reconstruction filter is that I listen to music such as flac or dsd that I use for testing because they are of good sound quality. So I prefer to listen to these music with the filter turned off because I can more clearly check the sound characteristics of the DAC.

- The filter 5 of the DL100 is the most similar to turning it off. Thank you for your answer.

- The difference in DSD may be due to the difference in the chip. I will refer to what you said. I cannot buy a chip that uses ES9039Q2M. There were several reasons. So the cheapest DAC I could choose among the 9039 was the DL400.

Was DSD performance measured? I know some here opine that DSD is often less accurate then lossless, but I've not delved into that debate.

I'm talking about this after hearing it myself. I don't have any measuring equipment.

People who say that DSD is less accurate than lossless FLAC usually have the wrong settings. If you don't set it up to play DSD properly, there can be a few meaningless samplings and bit conversions, and these conversions make the sound less accurate.

So when listening to DSD, you should first check if the settings are correct.

In my experience, if you test the same sound source in different formats, (In the past, you could download music files for free from L2 Music to test formats. It has now been deleted.)

MP3 < FLAC < DSD64 < MQA < DSD128 < ~ < DSD512

MQA is in that position only on DACs that properly support MQA with hardware, and if it doesn't properly support software rendering, etc., it's no different from FLAC. That's why MQA files are almost gone now. Even TIDAL has given up. Since the general public doesn't buy DACs that properly support it, the format is naturally dying.

PS, Is there no way to delete something I wrote? Once I upload it, I can only edit it and I don't see a delete function? And after a certain period of time, I can't edit it either.

 

[oleg87]

- The reason I turned off the reconstruction filter is that I listen to music such as flac or dsd that I use for testing because they are of good sound quality. So I prefer to listen to these music with the filter turned off because I can more clearly check the sound characteristics of the DAC.

The reconstruction filter *is* part of the "sound characteristic" of the DAC. Turning it off (assuming the DAC in question actually lets you do so) prevents it from doing its job correctly.

 

[voodooless]

The reason I turned off the reconstruction filter is that I listen to music such as flac or dsd that I use for testing because they are of good sound quality. So I prefer to listen to these music with the filter turned off because I can more clearly check the sound characteristics of the DAC.

- The filter 5 of the DL100 is the most similar to turning it off.

Do you actually know what this filter is for and what it does?

 

[solderdude]

PS, Is there no way to delete something I wrote? Once I upload it, I can only edit it and I don't see a delete function? And after a certain period of time, I can't edit it either.

Ask one of the moderators. When you have been here long enough and made enough posts the system will allow you to edit.
There have been 'hit and run' situations where members edited their posts and claimed they never said this or that (usually insults).

I'm talking about this after hearing it myself. I don't have any measuring equipment.

That explains everything you wrote !

 

[krabapple]

I posted in the wrong place. I have to post again. I can't delete the previous post. To answer your question,

- I don't have any special measuring equipment. I just listened to it moderately and adjusted the volume.

Oh no. Not again.

I'm talking about this after hearing it myself. I don't have any measuring equipment.

People who say that DSD is less accurate than lossless FLAC usually have the wrong settings. If you don't set it up to play DSD properly, there can be a few meaningless samplings and bit conversions, and these conversions make the sound less accurate.

So when listening to DSD, you should first check if the settings are correct.

Better still, a reality check

In my experience, if you test the same sound source in different formats, (In the past, you could download music files for free from L2 Music to test formats. It has now been deleted.)

MP3 < FLAC < DSD64 < MQA < DSD128 < ~ < DSD512

MQA is in that position only on DACs that properly support MQA with hardware, and if it doesn't properly support software rendering, etc., it's no different from FLAC. That's why MQA files are almost gone now. Even TIDAL has given up. Since the general public doesn't buy DACs that properly support it, the format is naturally dying.

PS, Is there no way to delete something I wrote? Once I upload it, I can only edit it and I don't see a delete function? And after a certain period of time, I can't edit it either.

Make it all go away

 

[BDWoody]

I posted in the wrong place. I have to post again. I can't delete the previous post.

Actually I moved your post here.

Rather than have a new thread for this, I'm going to move this to a thread where this discussion is destined to go anyway.

Have you seen this video yet?

 

[JeremyFife]

I posted in the wrong place. I have to post again. I can't delete the previous post. To answer your question,

- I don't have any special measuring equipment. I just listened to it moderately and adjusted the volume.

- The reason I turned off the reconstruction filter is that I listen to music such as flac or dsd that I use for testing because they are of good sound quality. So I prefer to listen to these music with the filter turned off because I can more clearly check the sound characteristics of the DAC.

- The filter 5 of the DL100 is the most similar to turning it off. Thank you for your answer.

- The difference in DSD may be due to the difference in the chip. I will refer to what you said. I cannot buy a chip that uses ES9039Q2M. There were several reasons. So the cheapest DAC I could choose among the 9039 was the DL400.



I'm talking about this after hearing it myself. I don't have any measuring equipment.

People who say that DSD is less accurate than lossless FLAC usually have the wrong settings. If you don't set it up to play DSD properly, there can be a few meaningless samplings and bit conversions, and these conversions make the sound less accurate.

So when listening to DSD, you should first check if the settings are correct.

In my experience, if you test the same sound source in different formats, (In the past, you could download music files for free from L2 Music to test formats. It has now been deleted.)

MP3 < FLAC < DSD64 < MQA < DSD128 < ~ < DSD512

MQA is in that position only on DACs that properly support MQA with hardware, and if it doesn't properly support software rendering, etc., it's no different from FLAC. That's why MQA files are almost gone now. Even TIDAL has given up. Since the general public doesn't buy DACs that properly support it, the format is naturally dying.

PS, Is there no way to delete something I wrote? Once I upload it, I can only edit it and I don't see a delete function? And after a certain period of time, I can't edit it either.

Hi,
You are posting regularly now (which is fine) and hopefully learning as you go. Can I suggest that now is a good time to read more and learn more about the importance of listening controls, and why sighted listening without controls (level matching, blind etc) are so unreliable

 

[Mr Swing King]

If you go outside and get wet, do you instantly think you’re in the midst of a waterfight between the Aesirs, or do you think it’s raining?

 

[krabapple]

If you go outside and get wet, do you instantly think you’re in the midst of a waterfight between the Aesirs, or do you think it’s raining?

I love it.

Also may start using "what an Aesir that person is"

 

[ahofer]

People who say that DSD is less accurate than lossless FLAC usually have the wrong settings.

You didn't read a single solitary word of the thread I linked, did you? You are just asserting the same unproven baloney with no evidence again and again. On to ignore with you.

 

[Harmonia]

The reconstruction filter *is* part of the "sound characteristic" of the DAC. Turning it off (assuming the DAC in question actually lets you do so) prevents it from doing its job correctly.

Okay. Are you saying that you have to use a filter? Thanks for the feedback.

I prefer a filter that is close to linear, but I also know that this is not necessarily the right answer. And I know that filter preferences can change depending on sound taste. I first try using a filter that is as linear as possible, and then try other filters.

If I can turn off the filter, I turn it off. Then I choose a filter and listen. I test various cases.

Do you actually know what this filter is for and what it does?

I know the basic role and content of filters. Digital filters are a type of low-pass filter, and they gradually attenuate signals in the high-frequency range. They are used to reduce distortion (aliasing) according to the sampling rate in the digital signal processing process and adjust the sound quality.

I know. I know, but if I can turn off the filter, I turn it off, or if not, I use the most linear filter possible and listen first. Then I apply the filters. That's just how I usually test new products.

Filters are a matter of personal preference.

There have been 'hit and run' situations where members edited their posts and claimed they never said this or that (usually insults).

Oh, so that's why it can't be deleted. Got it. I'll be careful when I use it!

Make it all go away

I know you guys like the measurement, but I just said the result according to my taste. Don't think it means anything. I listen to it because I have a lot of DSD sources and I like listening to DSD format more than FLAC. Whether DSD is theoretically meaningless or not, I listen to it because I like DSD better with my ears.

Actually I moved your post here.

It's been moved. I thought I wrote it wrong. I didn't see the video. I'll watch it later.

Can I suggest that now is a good time to read more and learn more about the importance of listening controls, and why sighted listening without controls (level matching, blind etc) are so unreliable

Right. I think that your emphasis on objective results through "measurement" is a good tool for reaching a reasonable conclusion. As I mentioned in other articles, I unconditionally look at the measurement values of products that others have measured and tested.

I graduated from an engineering college, not a liberal arts major. I like measuring. I also like scientific theories. I also enjoy explaining things theoretically.

That's why I'm posting and reading your articles.

The "analog" content that I've experienced so far is the most important point that you guys talk about, such as human illusions and placebo effects, which are the brains that make illusions or can't distinguish.

However, just because I didn't physically measure it, my experience isn't necessarily meaningless. I've had various experiences, not just listening to music.

I've had more diverse experiences than you think, but these experiences aren't meaningless.

I'm talking to you guys right now to approach my experiences theoretically.

And I'm learning along the way.

I'm not just spending my time building my audio system right now, but I'm also writing diligently to learn more things that will help me objectively in my future audio experiences.

Anyway, I admit that you guys are right. That's why I'm going to buy an SMSL DAC and a Class D amplifier.

 

[Harmonia]

If you go outside and get wet, do you instantly think you’re in the midst of a waterfight between the Aesirs, or do you think it’s raining?

It's just raining! There's no need to talk about mythology. It depends on personal taste.

You didn't read a single solitary word of the thread I linked, did you? You are just asserting the same unproven baloney with no evidence again and again. On to ignore with you.

I read it. It's something that's been talked about since the past. But have you thought about what I'm saying below?

If DSD isn't commercially viable, it's already dead. Like Sony's MD player. But isn't it selling well now? It's being sold at a higher price than FLAC. There are many reasons, including the large capacity, but many music label companies are making DSD sound sources.

In other words, DSD survived because it was being sold. MQA died, right? Why? People who don't use it. There weren't many DACs that supported it. There are quite a DACs for Hi-Fi enthusiasts, but do ordinary people know about MQA? Many people don't know about FLAC either, but it's now becoming known as "lossless sound source."

I understand that you think DSD or FLAC are meaningless in theory. But isn't it written in the article you linked? It's a matter of people's taste. I prefer DSD music. It sounds better to my ears than FLAC. And that difference came from the DL100 and DL400. I'm not buying expensive DSD audio sources for nothing.

I don't know if it's because of the difference in the DAC chipset used, or the difference in the filter, but I'll have to find out why, but there's a difference in sound. I just told you that. That's why I wrote it down.

If you like DSD sound sources, use DL400.

And if you don't set it up well to listen to DSD music, there are many cases where the conversion is wrong and the sound doesn't come out properly, so I also talked about the settings.

You think I'm an idiot, but I'm smarter than you think.

 

[SIY]

I'm not buying expensive DSD audio sources for nothing.

No, I'd presume you're charged money for them.

You think I'm an idiot, but I'm smarter than you think.

OK, then, what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? I'll specify a European swallow.

 

[BDWoody]

The "analog" content that I've experienced so far is the most important point that you guys talk about, such as human illusions and placebo effects, which are the brains that make illusions or can't distinguish.

If you haven't had any particular reason to look into the psychoacoustics side of things, which most of us haven't, you are likely to feel like a lot of blanks get filled in when you do. The brain is a tricky beast, and plays games that good marketing and salesmen will capitalize on. We are all about subjective testing and comparisons, but only when they are controlled with enough rigor to be meaningful.