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

[fpitas]

NO! Everyone has looked between the samples. It has to be elsewhere. Not in the samples and not between the samples, but elsewhere, wherever that might be. Another dimension. One opened with the imagination.

Finally we're getting somewhere! Remember: some guy on YouTube likes one DAC better than another: I'd say that deserves the full force of science to explain.

 

[atmasphere]

Seems like we are talking past each other. I'm sure what you say is true, but what we are trying to demonstrate (I have thought all along) is a preference. This only suggests an audible/measurable potential difference. You haven't established that that specific difference translates into a preference, or even a subjective impression of more dynamics.

As I've said before, this seems plausible to me, but unproven. Your skeptics think the higher ordered harmonics in most tube amps are too small to make this difference, hence no preference would be possible.

Ah. Preference is different from human perceptual hearing rules, the latter of which is why we have things like deciBels and the like. I can't speak to preference other than my own.

Most tube amps, to my understanding, have more higher ordered harmonics than do most solid state amps. But they also have much greater 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Its well known that the 3rd can mask higher orders in loudspeaker design; I have to assume that whatever makes the harmonic isn't going to change the ear's masking principle

Since its so easy to show how sensitive the ear is to higher orders, why then does a tube amp have the property of 'smoothness' that so many audiophiles say they do? It could be confirmation bias, but I've seen such dramatic comparisons in this regard and also based on my own experience as a designer of 50 years that the logical and simpler answer (per Mr. Occam) is simply that the higher ordered harmonics of the tube amps are masked.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ah. Preference is different from human perceptual hearing rules, the latter of which is why we have things like deciBels and the like. I can't speak to preference other than my own.

Most tube amps, to my understanding, have more higher ordered harmonics than do most solid state amps. But they also have much greater 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Its well known that the 3rd can mask higher orders in loudspeaker design; I have to assume that whatever makes the harmonic isn't going to change the ear's masking principle

Since its so easy to show how sensitive the ear is to higher orders, why then does a tube amp have the property of 'smoothness' that so many audiophiles say they do? It could be confirmation bias, but I've seen such dramatic comparisons in this regard and also based on my own experience as a designer of 50 years that the logical and simpler answer (per Mr. Occam) is simply that the higher ordered harmonics of the tube amps are masked.

Maybe 2nd and 3rd order harmonics in speakers are somewhat out of phase with the 2nd and 3rd order harmonics of tube amps and make them sound like distortion is less? Easy enough to test out with REW and a good measurement mic. Wish I had a tube amp on hand or I would check it out.

 

[antcollinet]

NO! Everyone has looked between the samples. It has to be elsewhere. Not in the samples and not between the samples, but elsewhere, wherever that might be. Another dimension. One opened with the imagination.

Be carefull gazing too long into the abyss between the samples - that the abyss doen't gaze back at you... and grin a toothy grin.

 

[atmasphere]

Maybe 2nd and 3rd order harmonics in speakers are somewhat out of phase with the 2nd and 3rd order harmonics of tube amps and make them sound like distortion is less? Easy enough to test out with REW and a good measurement mic. Wish I had a tube amp on hand or I would check it out.

The phase of the harmonics in the amplifier design varies from amp to amp. This can result in 'dynamics' or 'more spacious' due to superposition.

 

[voodooless]

The phase of the harmonics in the amplifier design varies from amp to amp. This can result in 'dynamics' or 'more spacious' due to superposition.

Citation needed!

 

[Inner Space]

When I was at Berklee ...

What did you think of Berklee? I put some of my profits into scholarships, especially for music, and one of the recipients is at Berklee right now. Sure is expensive. I hope it's good.

 

[Germinal]

Hear, hear.

I agree. Nor are the Subjectivist forums a reliable source of information. Both have parts of the complete picture AND even combining both, the picture is incomplete.

Thor

It’s just baffling how much it’s clear that in audio-land there’s not even the slightest consensus… certainly in DAC’s

I guess it’s an ideal scene to sell snake-oil.. nobody can disprove you.. so anything goes..

There are also hifi companies with the mantra : We don’t care how it measures only how it sounds… at least they are honest.. on the other hand they sometimes charge outrages prices.

I also used to watch YouTube reviews of gear… but lately.. just not interested anymore… because it’s always like : this products is awesome.. the air, the separation.. the imaging.. and always the more expensive DAC.. the better it is… ofcourse… and if you can’t hear it your ears suck and/or your system sucks..

I bet if you would ask Steve huff ( he s one of the worst ) or Darko or Gutenberg to participate in a blind test they would all run away and hide somewhere…

 

[ahofer]

I bet if you would ask Steve huff ( he s one of the worst ) or Darko or Gutenberg to participate in a blind test they would all run away and hide somewhere…

Or pull a Fremer and lie about it incessantly, using feigned injustice as an excuse to never do it again.

 

[Spkrdctr]

It seems the posts are getting to the point that DACs are generally a pain the butt, a waste of money and after a certain undetermined SINEAD number not audible. Let me see, the number maybe 95? or less? I just don't see how anyone can get interested in DACS past a certain point. Now features and power power are worth getting excited about. Amir is really in the more rare area nowadays of seeing if a DAC is junk or not. That's about it, well except features and power. OK, I will leave now as I can't believe I posted on a DAC thread! I should be beaten.

 

[ahofer]

It seems the posts are getting to the point that DACs are generally a pain the butt, a waste of money and after a certain undetermined SINEAD number not audible. Let me see, the number maybe 95? or less? I just don't see how anyone can get interested in DACS past a certain point. Now features and power power are worth getting excited about. Amir is really in the more rare area nowadays of seeing if a DAC is junk or not. That's about it, well except features and power. OK, I will leave now as I can't believe I posted on a DAC thread! I should be beaten.

“A solved problem”. Streamers and amps too. Just get the features you want and the power you need. Save everything else for speakers.

For audible transparency, you can have it all with a Raspberry Pi streamer/DAC (like pi2aes or many others) and a $1200 Purifi-based amp. Maybe $1600 after cables, etc. and everything else is speakers.

Shoot, with a pi4 you can build in Camilla DSP, if you don’t already have it in Roon.

 

[ahofer]

What did you think of Berklee? I put some of my profits into scholarships, especially for music, and one of the recipients is at Berklee right now. Sure is expensive. I hope it's good.

I was there in the 1980s. At that time they accepted anyone with a pulse, and the ensembles tended to be overcrowded. If you were motivated, though, you could get a lot out of the theory and arranging classes. Most people didn’t go for a degree, but to meet other musicians and formally study contemporary music and jazz, which wasn’t available many other places.

It seems a lot more rigorous now. But I suspect just as commercial in its orientation. It has a lot more competition, but still a huge network effect.

 

[confucius_zero]

You can read the review and see if there are other audible problems.

that's exactly the data I'd want to replace "impressionistic words" and objectively prove that a Topping D90 is still "better sounding" than wtv measuring-equivalent dac of a lower price bracket.

 

[confucius_zero]

completely deluding themselves,

that's your judgement, yet discussions still exists regardless of how many words you spam and I'd want those repeated claims to be found on some new data measurements.

 

[confucius_zero]

What makes you think it isn't already being used?

because current measurements seem to provide "ability to deliver source information without adding noise" yet, no hints as to why similar sinad-scoring implementations with different parts clearly sound different to the large majority of centered and subjectivists... isn't it about time a measurements interpretation (this multitone graph = this possible subjective impressions) article be written and locked on front page?

 

[Robbo99999]

It’s just baffling how much it’s clear that in audio-land there’s not even the slightest consensus… certainly in DAC’s

I guess it’s an ideal scene to sell snake-oil.. nobody can disprove you.. so anything goes..

There are also hifi companies with the mantra : We don’t care how it measures only how it sounds… at least they are honest.. on the other hand they sometimes charge outrages prices.

I also used to watch YouTube reviews of gear… but lately.. just not interested anymore… because it’s always like : this products is awesome.. the air, the separation.. the imaging.. and always the more expensive DAC.. the better it is… ofcourse… and if you can’t hear it your ears suck and/or your system sucks..

I bet if you would ask Steve huff ( he s one of the worst ) or Darko or Gutenberg to participate in a blind test they would all run away and hide somewhere…

When you say "nobody can disprove you..so anything goes", I don't agree with that - this site basically disproves the snake oil in all types of audio products....DACs are a done deal already, so also in that little sphere. That's the only part I'm disagreeing with you on in your post though.

 

[Koeitje]

that's exactly the data I'd want to replace "impressionistic words" and objectively prove that a Topping D90 is still "better sounding" than wtv measuring-equivalent dac of a lower price bracket.

You'll have to explain this one.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

“A solved problem”. Streamers and amps too.

Do you have a citation for that?

For audible transparency, you can have it all with a Raspberry Pi streamer/DAC (like pi2aes or many others) and a $1200 Purifi-based amp. Maybe $1600 after cables, etc. and everything else is speakers.

Do you have a citation for that? What is your evidence that "Raspberry Pi streamer/DAC
pi2aes" and "Purifi-based amp" are audibly transparent?

Do Purifi amplifiers have an AES-EBU input? If not the system will sound so terrible it will be so bad some might think there is no sound at all.

Shoot, with a pi4 you can build in Camilla DSP, if you don’t already have it in Roon.

So basically you are promoting Roon and Purifi?

Thor

 

[RandomEar]

because current measurements seem to provide "ability to deliver source information without adding noise"

That is incorrect. The measurements show much more than that. SINAD alone characterizes noise plus distortion, others values deliver objective information on other characteristics of the device.

yet, no hints as to why similar sinad-scoring implementations with different parts clearly sound different to the large majority of centered and subjectivists...

[Citation needed]

1. You claim something about a "large majority", yet I don't see any statistics to support that claim
2. The burden of proof that devices "clearly sound different" is on those who claim that
   (The null hypothesis is, that things that measure identical also sound identical)

Do a solid, double blind ABX test with at least two such devices and proof that subjectivists claiming that they soud different can actually distinguish them. If the sound were so clearly different, that should be a trivial task, don't you think?

isn't it about time a measurements interpretation (this multitone graph = this possible subjective impressions) article be written and locked on front page?

There is sooo much information and experts around here, that it's difficult to not see that info. You could start here and continue with this, this, this, this, or that.

 

[BR52]

because current measurements seem to provide "ability to deliver source information without adding noise"

That is incorrect. The measurements show much more than that. SINAD alone characterizes noise plus distortion, others values deliver objective information on other characteristics of the device.