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

[Deleted member 48726]

Being incorrect generally results in polite correction. Doubling down and stubbornly refusing correction will usually result in contempt and justifiably so.

That's as biased as GR Research telling people that actives suck. Do a double blind test on threads which contain contempt and post your results, thanks.

I

First, I wouldn’t call some 20 posts back and forth “immediately purged”. Secondly, I see that the poster “occupied” quite a few experts time and goodwill trying to help and educate before they justifiably lost patience. Thirdly, the poster has shown 0 willingness to really engage in a discussion. Lastly, I haven’t seen you trying to help the poster, so it is easy for you sitting on the sidelines and judging those who tried.
Just some food for thought

I react to the way some engage. And of course it isn't just this one thread. It is really a strawman and moving of goal posts you are doing there.

 

[SIY]

That's as biased as GR Research telling people that actives suck. Do a double blind test on threads which contain contempt and post your results, thanks.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you be a bit clearer?

 

[Deleted member 48726]

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Could you be a bit clearer?

That your example is a justifyable one. Well maybe not, but for some the reaction will be contempt etc.
Many other threads it's just differing oppinions that goes the same way.

 

[earlevel]

Provide evidence that everything hearable is measurable.

That's the opposite of how science works. One would instead prove that not everything measurable is hearable—in other words, your task would require testing everything hearable until none were left, to prove the point, which is a practical impossibility. This principle is sometimes referred to as a "black swan". Positive proof that every swan is white, if that is true, would require checking each swan (as new swans are born—the task would never end); instead we try to disprove the assertion by finding a single swan that isn't white, and if we can't after seeing many swans, we have to assume they are likely all white, or that it's extremely rare if they are not.

Now, you may be right in saying that not everything hearable is measurable. But, it's on you to present a "black swan", not on someone else to count the white ones and show it's the same as the total number of swans. People are simply asking you to give an example.

I myself am open to us not knowing what or how to measure everything hearable (in other words, if we are given measurements to prove two things should sound the same, perhaps there is a difference for which a measurement is not provided). However, there's a lot of evidence the opposite situation is more common—people who are certain they can hear a difference in like-measuring devices, yet blind testing consistently refutes that they hear any difference. Some of these things (recording professionals that are certain they can hear the 24th bit, for instance) defy physics, as well, but they are no less confident (and typically refuse to be tested). So please understand this is why people are skeptical, when you make a bold blanket statement that they all sound different. It might be different if you said that you can tell the difference between a Burl B2 Bomber DAC and a Lynx Hilo. Then we might be able to talk about why that would be. But in your statement, you make it sound like they all sound different, and for the reason you say they must sound different "by definition". For DACs in general, most people on this board know that such a statement has not stood up to double blind testing.

 

[xyvyx]

Provide evidence that everything hearable is measurable.

Can we find some common ground to start from?

In the context of sound reproduction:
A) Would you agree that, in order for you to hear a sound from a speaker, that cone/panel/ribbon must physically move to induce movement in the surrounding air?
B) For that speaker to move, it requires some electrical voltage to drive it.
C) The speaker cone/ribbon/thing has some mass.

Ok, since I know you like physics, you'll like this one:
D) That if the electrical voltage driving that speaker cone is TOOOO small.... it won't move. At all.
Due to the mass of the cone & the mechanical resistance of the surround, there's a certain threshold of voltage it takes to make that it move.
In tweeters, this is usually VERY small. But can we agree that, at some point... One-thousandth of a millivolt? One-millionth? At some point, the voltage is too low to induce a magnetic field strong enough to make the cone move.

E) Engineers have crafted devices which are able to measure very tiny voltages. Smaller, in fact, than the threshold described in the prior point.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I will not post on this topic as I have posted on many others with this same statement by the OP. So, as the regulars around here know, I could wade in and start making statements and trying to educate the OP, I will instead keep my mouth shut and let you guys do it. For once I am taking the high road and not posting on the topic where I could go on and on. The mods are happier and I think our regulars are happier when I use my brain and don't come in with guns blazing. So, I'm walking on the high road and feeling pretty superior at the moment!

I now know how Mother Theresa must have felt........

 

[antcollinet]

I will not post on this topic as I have posted on many others with this same statement by the OP. So, as the regulars around here know, I could wade in and start making statements and trying to educate the OP, I will instead keep my mouth shut and let you guys do it. For once I am taking the high road and not posting on the topic where I could go on and on. The mods are happier and I think our regulars are happier when I use my brain and don't come in with guns blazing. So, I'm walking on the high road and feeling pretty superior at the moment!

I now know how Mother Theresa must have felt........

255 pages in..... you're a little late

 

[bsas]

So, this is totally a first world problem, but here I go...

Once I was able to purchase the D90se for $760ish (Apos audio "certified", aka, open box unit) mint! I loved it. I am using it as a my main DAC ever since. Got even better with a couple of FW updates.

Then I tried a lot of new/hyped DACs. All them similar or inferior to the D90se. R2R DACs, AKM DACs, FPGA DACs, you name it. All them tested and sold. I am getting to a point that I literally don't see a point on testing DACs anymore. It is just me or DACs got to a level that are just so close to perfect that literally doesn't matter?

Thanks...

 

[DVDdoug]

It is just me or DACs got to a level that are just so close to perfect that literally doesn't matter?

The ONLY time I've heard a defect from a "DAC" was a noisy soundcard. I don't have that computer anymore. So I use the DAC built-into my laptop or the one built-into my AVR. (and occasionally the one built into my CD player).

 

[Trell]

A different DAC/HP amp is the RME ADI-2 DAC FS that has DSP features like tone controls, PEQ, dynamic loudness, crossfeed and a number of others useful features.

If you disable the DSP it’ll sound the same as other well measuring DACs, of course, with the same output voltage within specs.

A major reason for me to own it is because of the DSP features.

 

[GXAlan]

Even Paul McGowan believes in null testing/“everything heard can be measured.” If the null test shows the differences are imperceptible, then the two electronics will be imperceptible audibly.

 

[bsas]

A different DAC/HP amp is the RME ADI-2 DAC FS that has DSP features like tone controls, PEQ, dynamic loudness, crossfeed and a number of others useful features.

If you disable the DSP it’ll sound the same as other well measuring DACs, of course, with the same output voltage within specs.

A major reason for me to own it is because of the DSP features.

I see it. But I prefer to make any EQ or stuff like that in the streamer/computer before sending to the DAC. What would be the benefit of doing it "in the DAC"?

 

[Purité Audio]

None.
Keith

 

[Matias]

As far as DAC go the D90SE is end game and done indeed. But if you are using its digital volume controle to attenuate before a power amplifier, then again an RME ADI-2 can make sense with the AutoRef feature that maximizes SNR specially in low volumes. But if you are using an analog volume control (pre-amp or integrated amp or headphone amp) then forget it.

 

[bsas]

As far as DAC go the D90SE is end game and done indeed. But if you are using its digital volume controle to attenuate before a power amplifier, then again an RME ADI-2 can make sense with the AutoRef feature that maximizes SNR specially in low volumes. But if you are using an analog volume control (pre-amp or integrated amp or headphone amp) then forget it.

Yep. Analog volume for me. I still can hear a lot of nuances and differences between multiple headphone and power amps, so, that is where my current try and error lives. For me, I try to keep digital source as bit-perfect as I can and let the analog realm screw it up

 

[Mr. Widget]

Null testing...

The other day there was a thread started comparing Spotify basic and premium, Tidal, and others with the original music file. Each file was run through different channels of a board, synchronized and level matched. The files were compared to the original but out of phase and the perfect clones were inaudible as expected and the less than perfect files were audible. Unfortunately I can't seem to find that thread now, but the technique would be interesting in comparing the DACs in question here.

 

[MadMaxx]

So, this is totally a first world problem, but here I go...

Once I was able to purchase the D90se for $760ish (Apos audio "certified", aka, open box unit) mint! I loved it. I am using it as a my main DAC ever since. Got even better with a couple of FW updates.

Then I tried a lot of new/hyped DACs. All them similar or inferior to the D90se. R2R DACs, AKM DACs, FPGA DACs, you name it. All them tested and sold. I am getting to a point that I literally don't see a point on testing DACs anymore. It is just me or DACs got to a level that are just so close to perfect that literally doesn't matter?

Thanks...

I've tried dacs ranging from $200 to nearly $2000 and came to the same conclusion as you. I'll use my E70V until it dies, but won't ever spend more than $500 on a dac again.

 

[Trell]

I see it. But I prefer to make any EQ or stuff like that in the streamer/computer before sending to the DAC. What would be the benefit of doing it "in the DAC"?

Sure, many have great success doing EQ on a streamer/PC but I don’t want the hassle of setting that up on my PC and I don’t use a streamer. The ADI-2 DSP works on other DAC inputs as well, and that is not the case for a PC solution in general.

When I plug in my headphones into the ADI-2 the PEQ for that output is automatically applied, as well as other settings. Quite handy and easy.

The tone controls are knobs so it’s easy to quickly adjust to my liking.

It’s convenience and ease of use for me. It always work. I’ve also a RME audio interface with monitoring done on the ADI-2 using TOSLINK.

For similar reasons I don’t do room EQ on my PC, but use Genelec monitors and subwoofer that have onboard DSP for this. It just works. Actually, I’ve two Genelec 2.1 desktop setups with such DSP.

It’s not that I’m not able to setup EQ on a PC (I’m a software developer), I just want to spend my time elsewhere.

 

[Trell]

None.
Keith

Now, now, don’t generalize from a sample of one.

 

[bsas]

Sure, many have great success doing EQ on a streamer/PC but I don’t want the hassle of setting that up on my PC and I don’t use a streamer. The ADI-2 DSP works on other DAC inputs as well, and that is not the case for a PC solution in general.

When I plug in my headphones into the ADI-2 the PEQ for that output is automatically applied, as well as other settings. Quite handy and easy.

The tone controls are knobs so it’s easy to quickly adjust to my liking.

It’s convenience and ease of use for me. It always work. I’ve also a RME audio interface with monitoring done on the ADI-2 using TOSLINK.

For similar reasons I don’t do room EQ on my PC, but use Genelec monitors and subwoofer that have onboard DSP for this. It just works. Actually, I’ve two Genelec 2.1 desktop setups with such DSP.

It’s not that I’m not able to setup EQ on a PC (I’m a software developer), I just want to spend my time elsewhere.

Got it, makes sense. Doesn't apply for my personal use case but I can see the convenience.