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

[BDWoody]

The sound is finally coming out, but this took a few weeks of use. It went from being a little edgy to what I think is its best feature, which is neutrality.

Sounds like your brain got used to it. Haven't seen evidence of these 'burning in' or whatever the kids are calling it these days.

The only venial sin lies in the three-dimensionality parameter; I would prefer a slightly more holographic and deeper sound.

That's going to be a product of your speakers/room and the source material. One DAC vs another? Not so much.

 

[Mikig]

Sounds like your brain got used to it. Haven't seen evidence of these 'burning in' or whatever the kids are calling it these days.



That's going to be a product of your speakers/room and the source material. One DAC vs another? Not so much.

Probably it could be, I have gotten used to the DO300 in my system and feel it as familiar.

It could also be a problem with other components in the chain, but like any device, the DAC also has its own character. Of course, the contribution of a DAC cannot be compared to that of a speaker or an amplifier.
However, to clarify, I use a very simple system: computer, DAC, passive attenuator, power amp.

 

[BDWoody]

It could also be a problem with other components in the chain, but like any device, the DAC also has its own character.

I moved a couple of posts into this thread where this subject is better discussed.

If a DAC has it's own character, it isn't doing it's job competently.

If you haven't ever tried a controlled test (levels matched, no peeking) you might find it enlightening.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

like any device, the DAC also has its own character.

"Character" is distinguishable. IOW, it is something we can perceive and quantify. From etymonline:

"The meaning of Greek kharaktēr was extended in Hellenistic times by metaphor to "a defining quality, individual feature." In English, the meaning "sum of qualities that define a person or thing and distinguish it from another" is from 1640s."

The electronic circuits used in DACs have no "character" because they are not audibly distinguishable by us. Their characteristics are below the threshold of our hearing. It's not that they are all the same, but simply that their effect is all the same. If we (or you) had 30 competently designed DACs in a row and played the same source material through them, we couldn't distinguish which one was which, volume being equal.
Most audio electronics are that way ... amps, DACs, streamers etc.

This situation presents a conundrum for some manufacturers. If their $5,000 amp or DAC sounds the same as one that sells for $200, how can they possibly compete? They'd be ruined! So they do what merchants have been doing since Sumerian times; they cheat adapt.

In the same way that dirty water tastes different than pure water, some designers add electronic characteristics that ARE detectable by us. That way, their product will stand out as "different" to a customer in an A/B comparison, at which point the sales personnel will opine that it's "better" because it's "different".

Pretty slick, eh? Yeah, I'd agree, except for one thing; I don't like to drink dirty water. I also don't like to deal with the problems of inferior equipment when I have superior equipment available to me. And that, by the way, is not just in audio. I much prefer MRI to exploratory surgery, I prefer modern vehicles to 1947 flathead pickups, I prefer gas furnaces to wood-burning stoves, and I prefer solid-state circuitry to tube circuitry. I know this to be true, because I'm a crusty old fart, and I've "been there and done that" for all of those things.

We have cell phone communication, SLAR, pictures (and audio!) from Mars, GPS and many more ... all electronic. Do you really think that the same people who do those things are stymied by the prospect of designing a DAC or amp that defies your ability to detect it?

Jim

 

[AdrianusG]

"Character" is distinguishable. IOW, it is something we can perceive and quantify. From etymonline:

"The meaning of Greek kharaktēr was extended in Hellenistic times by metaphor to "a defining quality, individual feature." In English, the meaning "sum of qualities that define a person or thing and distinguish it from another" is from 1640s."

The electronic circuits used in DACs have no "character" because they are not audibly distinguishable by us. Their characteristics are below the threshold of our hearing. It's not that they are all the same, but simply that their effect is all the same. If we (or you) had 30 competently designed DACs in a row and played the same source material through them, we couldn't distinguish which one was which, volume being equal.
Most audio electronics are that way ... amps, DACs, streamers etc.

This situation presents a conundrum for some manufacturers. If their $5,000 amp or DAC sounds the same as one that sells for $200, how can they possibly compete? They'd be ruined! So they do what merchants have been doing since Sumerian times; they cheat adapt.

In the same way that dirty water tastes different than pure water, some designers add electronic characteristics that ARE detectable by us. That way, their product will stand out as "different" to a customer in an A/B comparison, at which point the sales personnel will opine that it's "better" because it's "different".

Pretty slick, eh? Yeah, I'd agree, except for one thing; I don't like to drink dirty water. I also don't like to deal with the problems of inferior equipment when I have superior equipment available to me. And that, by the way, is not just in audio. I much prefer MRI to exploratory surgery, I prefer modern vehicles to 1947 flathead pickups, I prefer gas furnaces to wood-burning stoves, and I prefer solid-state circuitry to tube circuitry. I know this to be true, because I'm a crusty old fart, and I've "been there and done that" for all of those things.

We have cell phone communication, SLAR, pictures (and audio!) from Mars, GPS and many more ... all electronic. Do you really think that the same people who do those things are stymied by the prospect of designing a DAC or amp that defies your ability to detect it?

Jim

"This situation presents a conundrum for some manufacturers. If their $5,000 amp or DAC sounds the same as one that sells for $200, how can they possibly compete?"

They can still compete of course on build quality, reliability long term, warranty, extra functions or a couple of extra coax ins/outs and so on, but yeah, we have gotten to the point that audible a competent engineered 5000$ DAC should sound the same as a competent 300$ DAC, which is great for us Audiophiles. Choose which befits your taste or budget, more than enough here tested to choose from in the "competent" category, and also mentioned here (luckily enough for us) the ones to stay away from, strangely enough a lot of them in the so called "high end"category.

 

[Mikig]

"Character" is distinguishable. IOW, it is something we can perceive and quantify. From etymonline:

"The meaning of Greek kharaktēr was extended in Hellenistic times by metaphor to "a defining quality, individual feature." In English, the meaning "sum of qualities that define a person or thing and distinguish it from another" is from 1640s."

The electronic circuits used in DACs have no "character" because they are not audibly distinguishable by us. Their characteristics are below the threshold of our hearing. It's not that they are all the same, but simply that their effect is all the same. If we (or you) had 30 competently designed DACs in a row and played the same source material through them, we couldn't distinguish which one was which, volume being equal.
Most audio electronics are that way ... amps, DACs, streamers etc.

This situation presents a conundrum for some manufacturers. If their $5,000 amp or DAC sounds the same as one that sells for $200, how can they possibly compete? They'd be ruined! So they do what merchants have been doing since Sumerian times; they cheat adapt.

In the same way that dirty water tastes different than pure water, some designers add electronic characteristics that ARE detectable by us. That way, their product will stand out as "different" to a customer in an A/B comparison, at which point the sales personnel will opine that it's "better" because it's "different".

Pretty slick, eh? Yeah, I'd agree, except for one thing; I don't like to drink dirty water. I also don't like to deal with the problems of inferior equipment when I have superior equipment available to me. And that, by the way, is not just in audio. I much prefer MRI to exploratory surgery, I prefer modern vehicles to 1947 flathead pickups, I prefer gas furnaces to wood-burning stoves, and I prefer solid-state circuitry to tube circuitry. I know this to be true, because I'm a crusty old fart, and I've "been there and done that" for all of those things.

We have cell phone communication, SLAR, pictures (and audio!) from Mars, GPS and many more ... all electronic. Do you really think that the same people who do those things are stymied by the prospect of designing a DAC or amp that defies your ability to detect it?

Jim

Hi Jim,
I sent the photo I posted to show you how I listen. If you have seen the very famous DAC in question, he is not the best component of the set. In fact, I got it because I read the review here on ASR, it allows me to "play" with inputs, outputs, and better it can also adapt to the rest of my equipment. A sort of good Swiss army knife. It also seems future-proof to me. In short, I didn't focus entirely on the Converter. As already written, I own other DACs, a Meridian and a Naim, but they are still at their age and therefore do not allow me to fully enjoy modern audio standards. I'm sure it's very difficult if not impossible to distinguish two modern DACs with the same chip installed. But I'll say again that between my 263 and DO300 anyone could notice that something has changed within the chain. For better or for worse??? good question; if I have kept and still use components that are starting to have gray hairs there must be a reason….

 

[KeithPhantom]

Hi Jim,
I sent the photo I posted to show you how I listen. If you have seen the very famous DAC in question, he is not the best component of the set. In fact, I got it because I read the review here on ASR, it allows me to "play" with inputs, outputs, and better it can also adapt to the rest of my equipment. A sort of good Swiss army knife. It also seems future-proof to me. In short, I didn't focus entirely on the Converter. As already written, I own other DACs, a Meridian and a Naim, but they are still at their age and therefore do not allow me to fully enjoy modern audio standards. I'm sure it's very difficult if not impossible to distinguish two modern DACs with the same chip installed. But I'll say again that between my 263 and DO300 anyone could notice that something has changed within the chain. For better or for worse??? good question; if I have kept and still use components that are starting to have gray hairs there must be a reason….

You are very likely to not be able to hear a difference, you will be dealing with auditory power masking for THD, and that’s assuming your transducers are lower THD than the amp which it is safe to assume they’re not. For noise, please provide the noise measurements at listening levels for both DACs as you may be hearing noise from the 263. To prove your point for audibility, could you please provide a null test with signals from both DACs that shows differences -60 to -40 dBrel then an ABX with 30 attempts and a p-value critical of <0.05? Need to use the T distribution as normality cannot be assured without a mean-median comparison or a Shapiro-Wilk test for samples less or equal to 30? Also need to argue sample applicability to the population assertion you made to this method of moments for forecasting power.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

But I'll say again that between my 263 and DO300 anyone could notice that something has changed within the chain.

That may be perfectly true. If so, it will be verified in a blind test. EDIT: Please see the @BDWoody post below.

Jim

 

[BDWoody]

But I'll say again that between my 263 and DO300 anyone could notice that something has changed within the chain.

Have you had a look at this video yet? You really should give it a try.

I doubt the Meridian is bad enough that it would stand out, without crazy gain riding to bring up otherwise inaudible differences in noise levels.

 

[olieb]

The only venial sin lies in the three-dimensionality parameter;

That sounds very interesting. How is this 3D-parameter controlled/defined/measured?

 

[Mikig]

Thanks to all for the answer: everything is interesting

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

Allow me to describe the way I use to compare two components: it's not very scientific, don't insult me, in fact, let's have a laugh about it:
if I tap time with my foot or hand while listening, it means that it unconsciously involves me and therefore I like it better….I adopt it as standard

if I turn everything off after 37 minutes of uninterrupted listening it means that something is bothering me....

 

[ahofer]

Thanks to all for the answer: everything is interesting

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

Allow me to describe the way I use to compare two components: it's not very scientific, don't insult me, in fact, let's have a laugh about it:
if I tap time with my foot or hand while listening, it means that it unconsciously involves me and therefore I like it better….I adopt it as standard

if I turn everything off after 37 minutes of uninterrupted listening it means that something is bothering me....

The point is to enjoy it, that’s fine. It’s when audible (quality) differences from subjective listening are asserted as fact that you will get demands for more rigorous testing.

 

[JustJones]

Thanks to all for the answer: everything is interesting

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

Allow me to describe the way I use to compare two components: it's not very scientific, don't insult me, in fact, let's have a laugh about it:
if I tap time with my foot or hand while listening, it means that it unconsciously involves me and therefore I like it better….I adopt it as standard

if I turn everything off after 37 minutes of uninterrupted listening it means that something is bothering me....

I can see that, some days things just sound better to me than other days.

 

[El_Arte]

Thanks to all for the answer: everything is interesting

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

Allow me to describe the way I use to compare two components: it's not very scientific, don't insult me, in fact, let's have a laugh about it:
if I tap time with my foot or hand while listening, it means that it unconsciously involves me and therefore I like it better….I adopt it as standard

if I turn everything off after 37 minutes of uninterrupted listening it means that something is bothering me....

Depending on my mood, everything can be great or terrible.
Same based on the kind of day I had at work, the weather, my health, what I ate for lunch or what fine drink I am sipping.

 

[BDWoody]

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

To me, the romanticism is in the music, not the gear.

I just want my gear to get out of the way as completely as possible, so I can get the cleanest representation of the actual music signal as I can. Fortunately, these days that's easier and cheaper than ever.

 

[Platypus20]

Earlier today, I was reading the PS Audio Directstream DAC Mk II thread, and somewhat surprised by the test results, around 1998-2000 I bought a couple of PS Lambda cd transport (dismal failures), but I did buy a PS Audio Ultralink DAC, the only piece of their equipment that still works. I wonder what the test results on that would been. It’s worked perfectly, sound wise, the touch switches are a pain. It was my DAC until I got the Benchmark DAC 1, I still use the Ultralink, when I do some digital recording.

PS Audio DirectStream DAC Mk.2 measurements

-80 dB ultrasonic noise floor, amazing... For 8 k usd. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-mk2-da-processor-measurements

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[AdrianusG]

Depending on my mood, everything can be great or terrible.
Same based on the kind of day I had at work, the weather, my health, what I ate for lunch or what fine drink I am sipping.

"Depending on my mood, everything can be great or terrible.
Same based on the kind of day I had at work, the weather, my health, what I ate for lunch or what fine drink I am sipping."

These are all subjective factors, but indeed to you (and me!) they are all very real when you experience them.
sometimes i think i'm in the mood for a long evening of music listening, but turn it off after 30 minutes because something isn't "clicking" , probably happens to all of us.

 

[Purité Audio]

Thanks to all for the answer: everything is interesting

Compared to you, I'm still into Romanticism

Allow me to describe the way I use to compare two components: it's not very scientific, don't insult me, in fact, let's have a laugh about it:
if I tap time with my foot or hand while listening, it means that it unconsciously involves me and therefore I like it better….I adopt it as standard

if I turn everything off after 37 minutes of uninterrupted listening it means that something is bothering me....

I believe Linn dealers used to practise the very same method, sit quietly and sullenly when the opposition TT was being auditioned and dance manically when the LP12 was playing @DSJR ?
Keith

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I believe Linn dealers used to practise the very same method, sit quietly and sullenly when the opposition TT was being auditioned and dance manically when the LP12 was playing @DSJR ?
Keith

My LP12 still does the bizz Keith! Despite Ray Horn of Graham's telling me that the cartridge would eventually drift up into the air, if I didn't change the tone arm soon!
(Possibly, 15 years ago?)

 

[Purité Audio]

Cartridges were well known for their anti-gravity properties during the 80’s,