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

[MissMarplesexbomb]

exactly, since that isn't it's purpose.

Purpose being all "well measuring" dacs to sound the exactly the same.

Just buy the cheapest that measures well and call it a day. No ? unless your after certain features or tell your friends you spent X amount.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Purpose being all "well measuring" dacs to sound the exactly the same.

Just buy the cheapest that measures well and call it a day. No ? unless your after certain features or tell your friends you spent X amount.

exactly. although not sure what telling my friends has to do with anything. All I want is a dac that does what a dac is supposed to do (which has nothing at all to do with adding effects) and has the features I need.

 

[Jimbob54]

Purpose being all "well measuring" dacs to sound the exactly the same.

Just buy the cheapest that measures well and call it a day. No ? unless your after certain features or tell your friends you spent X amount.

No. The purpose of a DAC is to convert a digital file into an analog set of electrical impulses. If we talk about DACs as boxes for hi-fi, we also want it to amplify that signal enough to go to an amp. Nowhere in that requirement is adding or subtracting any signals not present in the source file. The measurements on this site show the extent to which they achieve that.

So if they measure well- how can sonic characteristics be introduced?

I take your point that if you engineer it to have sonic characteristics and it does just that, it might be classed as a success within that limited goal. Just dont sell it as "the best".

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I don't know why anyone would want every component in their system to add it's own "sound signature" to the mix. Let's have a dac that has it's signature, then an amp with it's own signature, add some boutique cables that have their own signature, maybe an audio stand that has a particular signature, then on to the speakers (which really have a signature!)...but no, definitely not an EQ! lol

It's a good thing the vast majority of this sound signature stuff is utter snake-oil bs or a lot of audiophiles would get nothing but mush out of their sound systems.

 

[mansr]

I take your point that if you engineer it to have sonic characteristics and it does just that, it might be classed as a success within that limited goal.

If you build something that alters the sound (to an audibly significant extent), calling it a DAC is only a bit less inaccurate than calling it a washing machine.

 

[Jimbob54]

If you build something that alters the sound (to an audibly significant extent), calling it a DAC is only a bit less inaccurate than calling it a washing machine.

Specdacular!

 

[Colonel7]

I agree.

Best hope would be to find a PhD grad student to do it as a research project. Then they could publish on it.

Not if they want to graduate...

 

[VintageFlanker]

Sometimes I get the feeling that I've stepped inside the gates of an measuring cult

You did. Welcome to a world where people actually know something...

Article : Understanding Digital Audio Measurements

Audibility thresholds of amp and DAC measurements

 

[raistlin65]

Not if they want to graduate...

And why is that?

 

[Colonel7]

And why is that?

Because grad students are already funded for specific projects that advance knowledge through research--they're not just hanging around. What important research question is it and for what discipline?

I thought I inserted a winking emoji but guess not. When I say fail to graduate, a student or two may get a wild hair about pursuing other "research" rather than progressing on the funded research (unfortunately usually conned by a faculty member unable to fund students). The result is inevitably non-progression and funding support being transferred to another student and advisor dropping them. Unusual but it does happen.

Having been a university professor we'd get interested locals who had their own pet ideas about what research should be done and would try to meet with faculty, kind of like what is thrown around in the forums occasionally.

 

[Jimbob54]

I thought I inserted a winking emoji but guess not. .

Bane of my life- inserting emoji from your keyboard does not work. Need to add from little formatting bar above your post window. Cause of many awkward exchanges.

Or, you could just ;-)

 

[raistlin65]

Having been a university professor....

Been there. Done that (the graphical smiles in the WYSIWYG interface work)

Because grad students are already funded for specific projects that advance knowledge through research--they're not just hanging around. What important research question is it and for what discipline?

I thought I inserted a winking emoji but guess not. When I say fail to graduate, a student or two may get a wild hair about pursuing other "research" rather than progressing on the funded research (unfortunately usually conned by a faculty member unable to fund students). The result is inevitably non-progression and funding support being transferred to another student and advisor dropping them. Unusual but it does happen.

I kind of assumed that anyone would know I meant grad students who were capable of taking on such a project. There are grad students who are married and successfully contribute to raising young children while managing their research assistantship. Others work part-time jobs at the same time. And there are those who are single and unemployed who can't manage their research assistantship. And there are super grad students who accomplish various projects beyond what their research assistantship requires. Plus, this is not a big project commitment. At least it doesn't have to be designed as a large scale project.

As for the importance of the research question, that of course depends on what institution the grad student is at and where they see themselves after graduation. A student looking to teach at a regional state university or work in industry doesn't have the same CV building needs as one aiming for a top post doc, or looking for a tenure track position at a research one.

So if there is indeed no published academic research with DBT of different DACs, a graduate student interested in audio engineering or psychoacoustics might examine something related to the audiofool claim that standard measurements don't include everything that can be heard from a DAC. Not a big important question for the field, but graduate student research is really more about demonstrating the ability to research than it is about conducting groundbreaking research. Well, except at the top schools in a field.

 

[Colonel7]

As for the importance of the research question, that of course depends on what institution the grad student is at and where they see themselves after graduation.

Ahhhhhh, got it. I was thinking more along the lines of whether and what peer reviewed journal would be willing to publish it

 

[MissMarplesexbomb]

No. The purpose of a DAC is to convert a digital file into an analog set of electrical impulses. If we talk about DACs as boxes for hi-fi, we also want it to amplify that signal enough to go to an amp. Nowhere in that requirement is adding or subtracting any signals not present in the source file. The measurements on this site show the extent to which they achieve that.

So if they measure well- how can sonic characteristics be introduced?

I take your point that if you engineer it to have sonic characteristics and it does just that, it might be classed as a success within that limited goal. Just dont sell it as "the best".

No. the purpose of a dac is to help you play music into your ears.

Not everyone has flat measuring speakers in the exact same flat response room. Same for the guy who mixed the recording.

A thick sounding dac may sound better with thin sounding analytical speakers.

Conversely a "well measuring" dac may suit fat sounding dull speakers better.

I would probably not add a "well measuring ": dac into a bright system within a bright room.

 

[MissMarplesexbomb]

exactly. although not sure what telling my friends has to do with anything. All I want is a dac that does what a dac is supposed to do (which has nothing at all to do with adding effects) and has the features I need.

Some dacs can add color and/or distortion which many people prefer. Seems many folk here are scared of listening to see what they prefer or works in their own unique system.

 

[Jimbob54]

No. the purpose of a dac is to help you play music into your ears.

Not everyone has flat measuring speakers in the exact same flat response room. Same for the guy who mixed the recording.

A thick sounding dac may sound better with thin sounding analytical speakers.

Conversely a "well measuring" dac may suit fat sounding dull speakers better.

I would probably not add a "well measuring ": dac into a bright system within a bright room.

Ahhhh- here we go. The subtle alchemy. The magic. A soupcon of warmth here, a dash of increased air there. Before you know it you're buying cables to "tame" the wilder extremes of your system.

 

[MissMarplesexbomb]

I don't know why anyone would want every component in their system to add it's own "sound signature" to the mix. Let's have a dac that has it's signature, then an amp with it's own signature, add some boutique cables that have their own signature, maybe an audio stand that has a particular signature, then on to the speakers (which really have a signature!)...but no, definitely not an EQ! lol

It's a good thing the vast majority of this sound signature stuff is utter snake-oil bs or a lot of audiophiles would get nothing but mush out of their sound systems.

So you think nothing should have a sound signature ? all speakers & rooms should sound the same ?

 

[MissMarplesexbomb]

Ahhhh- here we go. The subtle alchemy. The magic. A soupcon of warmth here, a dash of increased air there. Before you know it you're buying cables to "tame" the wilder extremes of your system.

I don't believe in cable differences and personally think dac differences are overrated. A glass of wine will do more to help your system sound better, or even moving your chair a foot closer to the speakers.

 

[solderdude]

A thick sounding dac may sound better with thin sounding analytical speakers.

Can you show me measured data that shows a DAC is thick sounding and what aspect would cause this ?

I would probably not add a "well measuring ": dac into a bright system within a bright room.

The difference between a well measuring DAC and a broken one (or using a broken filter design) is seen in a roll-off in the highest frequencies.
Brightness is in the 4-10kHz range where these DACs usually measure the same.

The purpose of a DAC is to convert sample values into corresponding analog values.
It does not help to play music in ears.

 

[solderdude]

So you think nothing should have a sound signature ? all speakers & rooms should sound the same ?

That's not what he says at all. he says a DAC should not have a sonic character. Of course everyone is free to buy one that deviates from this but let's be clear, that DAC does not do a proper job and does not convert sample values to the actual values it must represent.