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

[SIY]

Except, I guess, if one wants to try to avoid the negative expectation bias @audiophile is concerned about. If you know what gear you are comparing, you might be biased to think "there is no difference".

Then you will not hear a difference with peeking, either.

 

[Julf]

Then you will not hear a difference with peeking, either.

Indeed. But imagine you do a double-blind ABX of two HiFi DACs while being told one is a cheap mp3 player and the other a high end DAC, so you go into the test believing there should be a difference. This is purely to address the argument of negative expectation bias.

 

[SIY]

I wouldn't be using someone as a test subject who can't distinguish between A and B with peeking. There's no shortage of people who claim (with peeking) to hear those differences, so it's not like there's a limited pool to draw from.

 

[Julf]

I wouldn't be using someone as a test subject who can't distinguish between A and B with peeking. There's no shortage of people who claim (with peeking) to hear those differences, so it's not like there's a limited pool to draw from.

True.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes it's a tricky subject to design controlled tests , but in case of DAC's we do have prior knowledge .

So it's really a case of whoever claims a diffrence have the reposibility to prove it , not the other way around .
And for audiophiles this migth seems strange counterintuitive and wrong ? Due the separate bubble audiophiledom seems to live in , it's really a small separate subculture, so if you are in that bubble where "everyone" thinks that thera are midnblowing diffrences. A more reasoned aproach can bee seen as herretic on some way (you get banned from other fora for example).

It's like alternative medicine (if it worked it would not be alternative for very long ) you don't see pharma companies defend penecilin and trying to explain why it works .

And in audio you maybe don't need the most stringet test conditions it's not 6 sigma particle physics . so complet oblivion to DUT is maybe not necessary as I claimed .

 

[Darkweb]

I can hear the difference in my DAC just by changing the digital filtering in Roon. There is a John Coltrane track where his saxophone position moves from the speaker plane to a good foot or two back just by changing the filters.

Considering how differently all the DAC's that come through here measure, and how many have a plethora of digital filtering options available on board, I have no idea how anyone could claim all DAC's sound the same. That's hogwash.

 

[solderdude]

I have no idea how anyone could claim all DAC's sound the same

Who on here made that claim ?

All competently designed DACs with proper reconstruction filters can not be told apart in a properly executed level matched blind test.
Most of them qualify though.
This is not the same as: All DACs sound the same.

It is quite clear that all sighted and not properly conducted tests show (clear) audible differences. There is no secret there. There are many reasons for this.

Not all DACs sound the same, some are constructed as effect boxes, some have poor filters or people use incorrect filters that can lead to verifiable audible differences even in properly done blind tests.

 

[SIY]

Who on here made that claim ?

The strawman over yonder.

 

[Darkweb]

Who on here made that claim ?

All competently designed DACs with proper reconstruction filters can not be told apart in a properly executed level matched blind test.
Most of them qualify though.
This is not the same as: All DACs sound the same.

It is quite clear that all sighted and not properly conducted tests show (clear) audible differences. There is no secret there. There are many reasons for this.

Not all DACs sound the same, some are constructed as effect boxes, some have poor filters or people use incorrect filters that can lead to verifiable audible differences even in properly done blind tests.

That was the impetus of the first post of this thread. The title of the thread implied DACs can’t have a sound signature. Taken as a product device, they most assuredly do.

You’re arguing from fairy tale land where all DACs have identical analog output sections and “proper reconstruction filters”. That’s the true straw man.

 

[SIY]

That was the impetus of the first post of this thread. The title of the thread implied DACs can’t have a sound signature. Taken as a product device, they most assuredly do.

So you actually set the strawman on fire. Cool!

 

[solderdude]

That was the impetus of the first post of this thread. The title of the thread implied DACs can’t have a sound signature. Taken as a product device, they most assuredly do.

Most don't but are said to have a sound signature is what is meant.
The vast majority is audibly transparent despite measurements showing differences.
This can (and has been) proven in well performed blind tests.
Such is not the same as making a claim one can hear a difference.

 

[Darkweb]

If that’s the case, what in the hell is the point of measuring and discussing them?

Bye!

 

[kneepel]

If that’s the case, what in the hell is the point of measuring and discussing them?

Bye!

To verify they have proper engineering and a well thought out design? Why would you want to pay for a DAC full of distortion products and noise from a poorly verified design when you can buy an objectively better performing device? (usually cheaper too!)

 

[Darkweb]

To verify they have proper engineering and a well thought out design? Why would you want to pay for a DAC full of distortion products and noise from a poorly verified design when you can buy an objectively better performing device? (usually cheaper too!)

If the vast majority are audibly transparent, then you should have no problem finding one doing no research whatsoever.

 

[SIY]

If the vast majority are audibly transparent, then you should have no problem finding one doing no research whatsoever.

Well, minimum research, anyway, if you're just looking for sonic transparency. Enough to avoid the fashion-audio stuff that adds layers of distortion and non-flat frequency response.

My daily DAC is a $9 iPhone dongle and I don't have any urge to replace it. That said, if I were in a different financial position, I'd buy something like an RME-2 Pro DAC, not because it sounds any different (it doesn't, unless you choose a bad filter option) but because of the feature set and user interface.

 

[kneepel]

If the vast majority are audibly transparent, then you should have no problem finding one doing no research whatsoever.

Yeah, unfortunately a LOT of gear doesn't match rated spec, and this site is here to simply be a discussion on audio engineering and to verify the design of products.

Mind you, yeah if you're picking up something for cheap (phone dongle) who cares, you just want something that doesn't sound terrible and just works. But if you're going up in $$$, it's nice to save money and buy the MEASURED $150 amp that objectively beats out the $6000 nightmare, and that's why ASR is here

 

[SIY]

Mind you, yeah if you're picking up something for cheap (phone dongle) who cares, you just want something that doesn't sound terrible and just works.

The iPhone dongle from Apple measures exceptionally well as a DAC. So yeah, "doesn't sound terrible and just works" for sure. But I'd also add, "will sound the same as high priced, well-engineered DACs.

 

[Darkweb]

Feels good knowing that Apple makes the best sounding DAC in the world.

 

[audiophile]

if you're just looking for sonic transparency. Enough to avoid the fashion-audio stuff that adds layers of distortion and non-flat frequency response.

Isn’t it true, that any listening room has its own sound signature and terribly distorts the sound, 10-100x more than any DAC? What’s the point of looking for transparency if it’s impossible to achieve outside anechoic chamber?

 

[SIY]

Isn’t it true, that any listening room has its own sound signature and terribly distorts the sound, ...

Yes, no, respectively.