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

[Mikie Likes it]

Doesn't matter, you can't hear the difference anyway.

I beg to differ Sir ! Depends on your system...

 

[raindance]

I beg to differ Sir ! Depends on your system...

Hahaha hahaha hahaha!

 

[Mikie Likes it]

Hahaha hahaha hahaha!

Is that all you can say ? Wow !

 

[Mikie Likes it]

Hahaha hahaha hahaha!

With inexpensive and fewer devices and equipment, so take it with a grain of salt. Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I personally, find that different DACs, whether or not if it's the chip itself or units they go in, tend to sound a specific way, and I can only use terms I can come up with mixed with "audiophile terms" to describe them.

AKM = well-rounded, can be overly smooth in parts of the midrange, almost like there's variable peaks and dips, and while being generally weightier sounding, it can go either way when it wants to, kind of airy, bassier, very dynamic in volume, imaging and staging, literally can go almost entirely mono-sounding, to huge and 3D in different tracks, track sections or sources, captures individual instrument tone very well almost to the point of being cheesy or wonky; instrument solos really bring that out.

ESS = harsher high frequencies, almost like the vocalists in tracks with a lot of commotion are piercing my ears (AKMs do this too but it's a different kind of harsh), more detailed or revealing of very delicate sounds, lesser bass, thinner-sounding, more metallic and gritty, can be more pacey, more percussive texture from not being as smooth as AKM, consistent imaging and staging whether narrow or big, vocals have more emotion, upfront, and feel more immersive or "exciting". Overall, I tend to enjoy ESS Sabre more upon first impression, because there's something more exciting and different about how it makes tracks sound.

AKM tends to sound its best with good direct source material, while ESS tends to be highly enjoyable in multiple sources; AKM can too but is picky. Then there's the variable where some units can sound like they want to be like the other, but not quite, there's still that sense of having their typical sound but with each chip and unit having their own overall sound but stick to the general premise of their brand signature. For instance, the ES100 is dryer and harsher than the HUD100 but still have a general similarity to their signature. AKMs to me sound more refined almost too much at times without lacking too much bass even when bright, and there's a variability with enjoyment, but they tend to not be so immersive or emotionally impressive as ESS Sabre chips, at least in terms of vocals, especially upon first impression, but non-vocal instruments are a different story. Keep in mind, all are very inexpensive devices, especially my headphones, so my judgement may not be justified, and it's not like I've had everything to test out because of budget.

 

[Propheticus]

Hahahaaha

 

[antcollinet]

I beg to differ Sir ! Depends on your system...

It really doesn't. Any differences between the DAC chips are well below the level of audibility (At least for humans). Bear in mind you've come to an audio science site to ask your question - not an audio woo site.

 

[Booker]

I beg to differ Sir ! Depends on your system...

Welcome to your journey through purgatory. Start here, please.

 

[Mikie Likes it]

I did not know there would caveat for stating my opinion. All human's hearing is different. It is subjective. There is no right or wrong in describing what one hears. Maybe I should not be in this forum. I just recently joined. I was hoping to share opinions and gain further insight . Felling this is a rough club !

 

[GXAlan]

I did not know there would caveat for stating my opinion. All human's hearing is different. It is subjective. There is no right or wrong in describing what one hears. Maybe I should not be in this forum. I just recently joined. I was hoping to share opinions and gain further insight . Felling this is a rough club !

People can be rough anywhere. What you will find is that the differences between the AKM and ESS fade as you level match and do more blind testing. There may be different results from digital filters.

In any case, it’s reasonable to want a specific brand the same way we talk about “regression” of performance when the AVRs went from AKM to TI DACs even though the difference is unlikely to be audible.

What makes the most difference in sound is speakers, and fiddling between a cheap DAC and good DAC might occasionally result in audible differences some of the time, but getting a better speaker generates differences all of the time.

I do think there can be differences which I have tried to measure and document. That is where you can be helpful. Do you think there are subjective differences? Record the track using a high end ADC and use tools like DeltaWave to compare.

 

[voodooless]

All human's hearing is different.

Yes, like all shades of red are different, but still we don’t consider them blue.

It is subjective.

Sure it is, which is the problem when comparing devices. Your subject to your own biases, and you cannot shut them off, no matter how hard you try.

There is no right or wrong in describing what one hears.

You can describe all you want, and I’m sure to you the difference is real. But the question is: how much of that difference comes from the sound waves emanating for your speakers or headphones, and how much from your own mind? This is what audio science is about.

Maybe I should not be in this forum. I just recently joined. I was hoping to share opinions and gain further insight . Felling this is a rough club !

Be open, listen to what people have to say. Further insights guaranteed, but you just might not like what they have to say.

 

[DVDdoug]

Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I personally, find that different DACs, whether or not if it's the chip itself or units they go in, tend to sound a specific way,

In a proper blind, level matched, ABX Test?

and I can only use terms I can come up with mixed with "audiophile terms" to describe them.

Assuming no dropouts or gross defects there are ONLY 3 characteristics to consider - noise, distortion, and frequency response. With a DAC, the only difference you are likely to hear is noise (hum hiss or whine in the background) and that's not hard to describe. (With speakers there are additional acoustic-related effects).

See Audiophoolery.

Your subject to your own biases, and you cannot shut them off, no matter how hard you try.

Blind listening tests...

 

[BDWoody]

A few more brought in.

 

[DonR]

With inexpensive and fewer devices and equipment, so take it with a grain of salt. Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I personally, find that different DACs, whether or not if it's the chip itself or units they go in, tend to sound a specific way, and I can only use terms I can come up with mixed with "audiophile terms" to describe them.

AKM = well-rounded, can be overly smooth in parts of the midrange, almost like there's variable peaks and dips, and while being generally weightier sounding, it can go either way when it wants to, kind of airy, bassier, very dynamic in volume, imaging and staging, literally can go almost entirely mono-sounding, to huge and 3D in different tracks, track sections or sources, captures individual instrument tone very well almost to the point of being cheesy or wonky; instrument solos really bring that out.

ESS = harsher high frequencies, almost like the vocalists in tracks with a lot of commotion are piercing my ears (AKMs do this too but it's a different kind of harsh), more detailed or revealing of very delicate sounds, lesser bass, thinner-sounding, more metallic and gritty, can be more pacey, more percussive texture from not being as smooth as AKM, consistent imaging and staging whether narrow or big, vocals have more emotion, upfront, and feel more immersive or "exciting". Overall, I tend to enjoy ESS Sabre more upon first impression, because there's something more exciting and different about how it makes tracks sound.

AKM tends to sound its best with good direct source material, while ESS tends to be highly enjoyable in multiple sources; AKM can too but is picky. Then there's the variable where some units can sound like they want to be like the other, but not quite, there's still that sense of having their typical sound but with each chip and unit having their own overall sound but stick to the general premise of their brand signature. For instance, the ES100 is dryer and harsher than the HUD100 but still have a general similarity to their signature. AKMs to me sound more refined almost too much at times without lacking too much bass even when bright, and there's a variability with enjoyment, but they tend to not be so immersive or emotionally impressive as ESS Sabre chips, at least in terms of vocals, especially upon first impression, but non-vocal instruments are a different story. Keep in mind, all are very inexpensive devices, especially my headphones, so my judgement may not be justified, and it's not like I've had everything to test out because of budget.

How do you know you are not just imagining these differences in your head?

 

[antcollinet]

How do you know you are not just imagining these differences in your head?

Imagining is not the right word.

The results of cognitive biases (placebo effect if you like) are genuinely audible - they are not imagined. It is just that they come from the brain processing the sound and changing it based on other stuff (such as what we see, know - or think we know, expect, feel etc etc - all subconsciously), not the actual sound waves reaching the ears.

 

[ahofer]

With inexpensive and fewer devices and equipment, so take it with a grain of salt. Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I personally, find that different DACs, whether or not if it's the chip itself or units they go in, tend to sound a specific way, and I can only use terms I can come up with mixed with "audiophile terms" to describe them.

AKM = well-rounded, can be overly smooth in parts of the midrange, almost like there's variable peaks and dips, and while being generally weightier sounding, it can go either way when it wants to, kind of airy, bassier, very dynamic in volume, imaging and staging, literally can go almost entirely mono-sounding, to huge and 3D in different tracks, track sections or sources, captures individual instrument tone very well almost to the point of being cheesy or wonky; instrument solos really bring that out.

ESS = harsher high frequencies, almost like the vocalists in tracks with a lot of commotion are piercing my ears (AKMs do this too but it's a different kind of harsh), more detailed or revealing of very delicate sounds, lesser bass, thinner-sounding, more metallic and gritty, can be more pacey, more percussive texture from not being as smooth as AKM, consistent imaging and staging whether narrow or big, vocals have more emotion, upfront, and feel more immersive or "exciting". Overall, I tend to enjoy ESS Sabre more upon first impression, because there's something more exciting and different about how it makes tracks sound.

AKM tends to sound its best with good direct source material, while ESS tends to be highly enjoyable in multiple sources; AKM can too but is picky. Then there's the variable where some units can sound like they want to be like the other, but not quite, there's still that sense of having their typical sound but with each chip and unit having their own overall sound but stick to the general premise of their brand signature. For instance, the ES100 is dryer and harsher than the HUD100 but still have a general similarity to their signature. AKMs to me sound more refined almost too much at times without lacking too much bass even when bright, and there's a variability with enjoyment, but they tend to not be so immersive or emotionally impressive as ESS Sabre chips, at least in terms of vocals, especially upon first impression, but non-vocal instruments are a different story. Keep in mind, all are very inexpensive devices, especially my headphones, so my judgement may not be justified, and it's not like I've had everything to test out because of budget.

The worms are long since out. You need to establish that you can hear a different AT ALL under controlled conditions before characterizing that difference is of any use to anyone but you (with your own eyes and your own biases). Obviously we aren’t even convinced on the former.

 

[Keith_W]

I did not know there would caveat for stating my opinion. All human's hearing is different. It is subjective. There is no right or wrong in describing what one hears. Maybe I should not be in this forum. I just recently joined. I was hoping to share opinions and gain further insight . Felling this is a rough club !

When I joined ASR, I had to unlearn a lot of things I thought I knew. At the same time, I learnt a lot of things I never knew. Have a look around, you will see people discussing the cutting edge in audio tech and research. Many of the foremost experts in the world contribute to this forum. If they are not here themselves, you will find people who have analysed their work who can provide expert commentary. ASR is like no other audio forum in the world. Everyone else is stuck in outdated thinking, their insights blurred by marketing and audiophile myths. If you want veils to be lifted, there is no better place than ASR.

 

[antcollinet]

Felling this is a rough club !

Not really. If you went to a site about the science of spaceflight, and stated you knew that God was hiding behind the clouds - you'd expect some pushback wouldn't you? You've pretty much done the equivalent here.

Your problem is you are probably used to other forums where everything is audible and everything matters. Here, we know that it is not, and it doesn't. As has been pointed out above, there is only noise, distortion, and frequency (and phase) response. We can measure all of these well below the limits of audibility for all humans. We therefore know which kit can have audible differences, and which cannot. Different DAC chips (when correctly implemented in the DAC design) fall into the category of cannot.

I'm not a big fan of the "hahahaha" type comments - that is also not (or should not be) what we are about here, at least not until someone has shown themselves to be an outright troll rather than just misinformed. So apologies for that on behalf of the forum.

In the meantime, stick around, listen/read and learn. You can only find out stuff beneficial both to your audio journey and your wallet (you will be able to stop spending money on gear that makes no improvement).

 

[Audiofire]

With inexpensive and fewer devices and equipment, so take it with a grain of salt. Not trying to open a can of worms, but, I personally, find that different DACs, whether or not if it's the chip itself or units they go in, tend to sound a specific way, and I can only use terms I can come up with mixed with "audiophile terms" to describe them.

AKM = well-rounded, can be overly smooth in parts of the midrange, almost like there's variable peaks and dips, and while being generally weightier sounding, it can go either way when it wants to, kind of airy, bassier, very dynamic in volume, imaging and staging, literally can go almost entirely mono-sounding, to huge and 3D in different tracks, track sections or sources, captures individual instrument tone very well almost to the point of being cheesy or wonky; instrument solos really bring that out.

The way of the warrior, frugality, the land of the rising sun

 

[DonR]

Imagining is not the right word.

The results of cognitive biases (placebo effect if you like) are genuinely audible - they are not imagined. It is just that they come from the brain processing the sound and changing it based on other stuff (such as what we see, know - or think we know, expect, feel etc etc - all subconsciously), not the actual sound waves reaching the ears.

If it is audible it can be measurable. Reality altered by the subconscious is imagination, IMO.

 

[antcollinet]

If it is audible it can be measurable. Reality altered by the subconscious is imagination, IMO.

Audible might be the incorrect word - perhaps "genuinely perceived" would be more accurate.

On the other hand - Imagination is mostly a conscious and creative process, not a subconscious one. The results of cognitive bias are closer to illusion rather than imagination - eg optical illusions.