• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

WADAX REFERENCE DAC-$160K

I am sure Amir would measure an example if you send one in.
Keith
 
voodooless said:
You can just do this for DACs as well. You’ll end up with an equivalent result: there will be no preference, meaning people cannot tell one from another.
Click to expand...
If you do a preference test, there will be a reported preference at each trial. Because the subject will be asked to do that.
But if the DACs actually sound the same, there will be no significant pattern to whether A or B is preferred.

If the subject reports that they can't decide (A and B sound the same to them) , the preference test is over.
 
Last edited:
Audicron said:
There is no scientific reference to Hilbert Mapping in digital-audio system design?
Click to expand...
I think you've confused marketing copy for technical documentation.

This may be interesting technology, but not being an engineer, I couldn't say, especially not by reading marketing copy. As a marketer, I at least know when I'm reading marketing copy.
 
Audicron said:
Is this DSP only looking at noise related jitter or is it an amalgamation of influences in the DAC architecture that are under control...?
Click to expand...
All that matters is if the DSP has an audible effect.
If it does, that will be indicated both in measurements, and in double-blind level-matched listening tests.
Also, if it does, the DAC is not aiming for transparency: it is audibly coloring the output 'on purpose'.
 
G|force said:
Why? For what purpose would it serve you?
Click to expand...
Coax the forum members to justify some unknown and undefined technobabble.
krabapple said:
If you do a preference test, there will be a reported preference at each trial. Because the subject will be asked to do that.
But if the DACs actually sound the same, their will be no significant pattern to whether A or B is preferred.

If the subject reports that they can't decide (A and B sound the same to them) , the preference test is over.
Click to expand...
Exactly :)
 
All of this curious terminology reminded me of an old comic strip, but ironically, it seems that since 1954 "outing flannel" has actually become a thing :D
Peanuts 17 Oct 1954.jpg
 
krabapple said:
All that matters is if the DSP has an audible effect.
If it does, that will be indicated both in measurements, and in double-blind level-matched listening tests.
Also, if it does, the DAC is not aiming for transparency: it is audibly coloring the output 'on purpose'.
Click to expand...
But isn't this rationalization beholding to a construct of 'transparency' in which to rationalize a construct of 'coloring'? ...

The most salient aspect is whether or not the resulting subjective psychoacoustic interpretation is aesthetically pleasing in juxtaposition to a $200 DAC or any other DAC that implements a similar technology... Obviously given the reality, it is all speculation... So, I thank all that were a bit more professional in their responses, I've got a good feel for the atmospheric conditions...
 
Audicron said:
But isn't this rationalization beholding to a construct of 'transparency' in which to rationalize a construct of 'coloring'? ...

The most salient aspect is whether or not the resulting subjective psychoacoustic interpretation is aesthetically pleasing in juxtaposition to a $200 DAC or any other DAC that implements a similar technology... Obviously given the reality, it is all speculation... So, I thank all that were a bit more professional in their responses, I've got a good feel for the atmospheric conditions...
Click to expand...
lol wut

A dac has one job: accurately convert a digital signal into analog. Measuring its accuracy is easy and thorough and there is nothing about it that isn’t measurable. If a dac sounds different from an accurate dac, it is an effects box not a high fidelity converter.
 
RexrothPigeon said:
A dac has one job: accurately convert a digital signal into analog.
Click to expand...
Understood... However, 'accuracy' is an interpretive construct and extrapolation from a set of measurements... we only 'hear' the results of the interpolation as produced by the DAC platform, which is always beholding to subjective assesment.... So again, we come back to semantic and connotative bias... I hear the overarching rationalization... all DACs sound the same, because they do only one thing... convert digital-audio signal into analog energy....
 
Audicron said:
Understood... However, 'accuracy' is an interpretive construct and extrapolation from a set of measurements... we only 'hear' the results of the interpolation as produced by the DAC platform, which is always beholding to subjective assesment.... So again, we come back to semantic and connotative bias... I hear the overarching rationalization... all DACs sound the same, because they do only one thing... convert digital-audio signal into analog energy....
Click to expand...
If you insist on it, you may continue to believe that a focus on objective performance is a "bias," that is fine, go for it. Because it is definitely a fact that this forum is dedicated investigation of objective performance. But maybe that's not for you! The good news is that virtually every other hi-fi community and forum and publication is the opposite, focusing primarily on sighted, subjective response, so the kind of approaches you seem to be looking for can easily be found elsewhere and you can ignore ASR.
 
Audicron said:
Understood... However, 'accuracy' is an interpretive construct and extrapolation from a set of measurements... we only 'hear' the results of the interpolation as produced by the DAC platform, which is always beholding to subjective assesment.... So again, we come back to semantic and connotative bias... I hear the overarching rationalization... all DACs sound the same, because they do only one thing... convert digital-audio signal into analog energy....
Click to expand...

Using a controlled test, the output of a DAC is either 1) able to be statistically distinguished from the input, or it is 2) not able to be statistically distinguished from the input.

If it can be distinguished, the output stage needs to be examined. Some output stages are tube-based, and designed to deliberately output a signal audibly different from the input. This is presumably to pander to the subjectivist crowd. ASR doesn't support that.
I have never heard a DAC that exhibited a "different" sound unless that sound was due to the output stage. Perhaps one exists, but I haven't heard it.

OTOH, if a DAC cannot be statistically distinguished from the input in a controlled test, then whether accuracy is or is not "an interpretive construct and extrapolation from a set of measurements" is totally beside the point. The "subjective assessment" is dead in the water.

All the DACs that pass this test therefore DO, by that very fact, sound the same.

p.s. - it's "beholden", not "beholding".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cochinada
Holo Audio Cyan2 and Benchmark DAC3 measurements vs. Luxman DA-07X
Replies
11
Views
2K
RandomEar
RandomEar
G
Benchmark DAC Questions - (Pro Studio Environment)
Replies
3
Views
913
mdunjic
mdunjic
mdunjic
Question about using Benchmark DAC3 B with Benchmark LA4 together
Replies
5
Views
1K
mdunjic
mdunjic
M
Bluesound Node Icon with Dirac Live
Replies
0
Views
242
Mahesh
M
A
Dear Benchmark
Replies
3
Views
451
Audiofire
Audiofire
Back
Top Bottom