Why is audio objectivism so frequently focused on all the wrong things?

[JohnBooty]

She was part of the classically trained set who could be seen sitting around campus smiling and humming to herself while reading sheet music. I was spending my time listening to speakers, with music just a means to that end.

Surely you loved music as well, though, right? I don't know of any audiophiles/gearheads who don't also love the music.

People always make that joke about how "music lovers use gear to listen to their music, and audiophiles use music to listen to their gear." We over-obsess about the gear sometimes, but I don't think it's an either/or scenario. Music appreciation and being an unrepentant gearhead aren't in conflict with each other. I see them as two hobbies that go great together!

 

[thyname]

Because DAC's aren't part of the acoustic chain...

I respectfully disagree. DACs are part of the acoustic chain.

Needless to say, speakers, and most importantly, their interaction with the room, matter much more. No doubt

 

[JohnBooty]

Because DAC's aren't part of the acoustic chain...like the speakers and the room are. They deal with creating a pure electrical signal based on a sampled source. They should neither add nor subtract from that...they are not an instrument.

As a practical matter, I do personally treat them as more or less interchangable, but strictly speaking this "pure electrical signal" notion isn't true. The analog output that DACs produce is measurably different. Different phase filters, SINAD, etc.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html

 

[scott wurcer]

Two "well designed" DACs can sound different in the same room, depending on how they are "voiced".

If any component is "voiced" it has been deliberately made/modified to sound different. At some point in any system all the information (if stereo) is contained in two signals with only two dimensions, amplitude and time, there is no other information. There is only one output accurate to the input to within an ever decreasing set of error bars. It is my opinion some are trying to move the bars far lower than necessary, but that is the nature of needing next years model.

 

[BDWoody]

As a practical matter, I do personally treat them as more or less interchangable, but strictly speaking this "pure electrical signal" notion isn't true. The analog output that DACs produce is measurably different. Different phase filters, SINAD, etc.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/01/musings-more-fun-with-digital-filters.html

Not claiming there aren't measurable differences. I'm saying we're well beyond what's audible when you are talking about what one competent DAC will add vs another. -115 vs -120db? Certainly different. Audibly different? Not likely. That's my point.

 

[thyname]

If any component is "voiced" it has been deliberately made/modified to sound different. At some point in any system all the information (if stereo) is contained in two signals with only two dimensions, amplitude and time, there is no other information. There is only one output accurate to the input to within an ever decreasing set of error bars. It is my opinion some are trying to move the bars far lower than necessary, but that is the nature of needing next years model.

I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, as I am sensing consensus here is that all DACs "sound" the same, but there is more to a DACs implementation than simply providing a "pure electrical signal". Below is from late Charlie Hansen posted in another forum back in September 2017, before he died:

------

The thing that I see over and over and over in this thread is an irrational belief in the importance of the DAC chip itself. Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert

With discrete circuitry, the only limit is your imagination. You are free to adjust the topology of the circuit, the brands of the parts, the active devices, the bias current in each stage - anything you can think of. Think of this as going to a world-class patisserie in Paris and seeing all the different things that can be made.

2) The power supplies - 99.9% of all DACs use "3-pin" power supply regulators, which are pretty much op-amps connected to a series pass transistor. Everything in #1 applies here.

3) The master clock - jitter is a single number assigned to measure the phase noise of an oscillator over a fixed bandwidth. It is far more i important to know the spectral distribution of the timing variations and how they correlate to audible problems. 99.9% of all DACs use a strip-cut AT crystal in a Pierce gate oscillator circuit. It's pretty good for the money but the results will depend heavily on the implementation, particularly in the PCB layout and the power supplies (#2).

It's hard to rank the rest of these so I will give them a tie score.

4) The digital filter - 99.9% of all DACs use the digital filter built into the DAC chip. About a dozen companies know how to make a custom digital filter based on either FPGAs or DSP chips.

4) PCB layout - grounding and shielding, impedance-controlled traces, return currents, and return current paths are all critical. For a complex digital PCB, 8 layers is the minimum for good results.

4) The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.

4) Passive parts - the quality of these can make a large difference in overall performance, especially for analog. Not many digital engineers sit around listening to different brands of resistors to see what sounds best.

These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.

 

[LTig]

Two "well designed" DACs can sound different in the same room, depending on how they are "voiced". My opinion, from my personal experience, having owned more than a dozen DACs over the past 15-17 years. Take it for what's worth.

If a DAC is voiced it is not transparent and then it should sound different compared to a transparent one. That's the whole idea of voicing in the first place. It's not my cup of tea though.

Same identical DAC, can sound "different" in two different rooms.

You're confusing room sound with DAC sound. A well designed DAC should behave the same regardless of its location. There may be some esoteric boutique designs which are susceptible to room temperature, EMI, esoteric cable constructions, ... but they should be avoided at all costs (all often means minimal in this context).

 

[BDWoody]

I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, as I am sensing consensus here is that all DACs "sound" the same, but there is more to a DACs implementation than simply providing a "pure electrical signal". Below is from late Charlie Hansen posted in another forum back in September 2017, before he died:

------

The thing that I see over and over and over in this thread is an irrational belief in the importance of the DAC chip itself. Just about everything affect the sound of an audio product, but when it comes to DACs, I would rank (in order or sonic importance the general categories as follows:

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert

With discrete circuitry, the only limit is your imagination. You are free to adjust the topology of the circuit, the brands of the parts, the active devices, the bias current in each stage - anything you can think of. Think of this as going to a world-class patisserie in Paris and seeing all the different things that can be made.

2) The power supplies - 99.9% of all DACs use "3-pin" power supply regulators, which are pretty much op-amps connected to a series pass transistor. Everything in #1 applies here.

3) The master clock - jitter is a single number assigned to measure the phase noise of an oscillator over a fixed bandwidth. It is far more i important to know the spectral distribution of the timing variations and how they correlate to audible problems. 99.9% of all DACs use a strip-cut AT crystal in a Pierce gate oscillator circuit. It's pretty good for the money but the results will depend heavily on the implementation, particularly in the PCB layout and the power supplies (#2).

It's hard to rank the rest of these so I will give them a tie score.

4) The digital filter - 99.9% of all DACs use the digital filter built into the DAC chip. About a dozen companies know how to make a custom digital filter based on either FPGAs or DSP chips.

4) PCB layout - grounding and shielding, impedance-controlled traces, return currents, and return current paths are all critical. For a complex digital PCB, 8 layers is the minimum for good results.

4) The DAC chip - almost everything these days is delta sigma with a built-in digital filter. Differences between different chips is one of the less important aspects of D/A converter designs. Both ESS and AKM have some special tricks to reduce out-of-band noise, which can be helpful, but not dramatic.

4) Passive parts - the quality of these can make a large difference in overall performance, especially for analog. Not many digital engineers sit around listening to different brands of resistors to see what sounds best.

These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.

Right.
That's why they get measured with the best analyzer available to see how well they are implemented. If you can hear it, you can measure it. Beyond some point, you can't hear it.

That point was was reached about 20 years ago, and is now effectively a commodity.

You seem to be implying that there are special audio qualities that defy measurement?

 

[thyname]

You seem to be implying that there are special audio qualities that defy measurement?

No. I am not saying that. I am merely stating that not all DACs sound the same. That's all. We can agree to disagree.

 

[BDWoody]

No. I am not saying that. I am merely stating that not all DACs sound the same. That's all. We can agree to disagree.

On that we don't disagree. They certainly don't necessarily sound the same. If that's what you think most here are saying, you may misunderstand.

 

[Rja4000]

I can tell exactly whether they will like something or not.

And did you find some measurement that helps you knowing without need to listening?
Because that's what we're looking for...

 

[SIY]

I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, as I am sensing consensus here is that all DACs "sound" the same, but there is more to a DACs implementation than simply providing a "pure electrical signal". Below is from late Charlie Hansen posted in another forum back in September 2017, before he died:

Charlie spouted a lot of nonsense over the years and vociferously objected to backing up anything he claimed with actual data. I wouldn't take it very seriously.

 

[thyname]

I am sorry everyone. I did not mean to rock the boat.

Back to original programming ...

 

[scott wurcer]

These are just a few of the things that make differences in the way that a DAC will sound.

Since Charles Hansen used "apodizing" filters in his DAC's that allowed imaging leakage it would be safe to say he "voiced" them i.e. deliberately made them not accurate. BTW apodizing is nothing more than windowing the term borrowed from optics to appear a little more classy, like artists selling giclée's of their paintings rather than ink jet prints.

 

[LTig]

I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this, as I am sensing consensus here is that all DACs "sound" the same, but there is more to a DACs implementation than simply providing a "pure electrical signal".

This is what the highend industry has successfully planted deep into the minds of audiophiles who trust their ears more than they should.

Below is from late Charlie Hansen posted in another forum back in September 2017, before he died:

Charlie Hansen (may he rest in peace) was the owner of a highend company (Ayre). He certainly had his own stakes when he wrote:

1) The analog circuitry - 99.9% of all DACs are designed by digital engineers who don't know enough about analog. They just follow the app note. The specs on the op-amps are fabulous and digital engineers are inherently seduced by the beauty of the math story. There are minor differences in the sound quality between various op-amps, but it's kind of like the difference between a Duncan-Heinz cake mix and a Betty Crocker cake mix. 99.8% of the op-amps are used a current-to-voltage converters with the inverting input operating as a virtual ground. This is probably the worst way to use an op-amp as the input signal will cause the internal circuitry to go into slewing-limited distortion. http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/anablog/4311648/Op-amp-myths-ndash-by-Barrie-Gilbert

Allthough there is some truth in the cited article about slew limited distortion it is easy to prevent: make sure that the slewrate of the op-amp is higher than the slewrate of the incoming current change. The article more or less just repeats the TIM discussion of power amps in the 70ies, and the cure is the same. Actually the same slew limited distortion would appear in a non-inverting configuration, but with additional common mode distortion.

I'm not going into more details of the following points, I let the data speak for themselves: just compare Stereophiles measurements of the Ayre C-5xe universal disc player (especially THD/figure 7) with one of the SOTA DACs measured here. One more example showing the failure to improve the performance of op-amps with discrete designs.

 

[Rja4000]

Since Charles Hansen used "apodizing" filters in his DAC's that allowed imaging leakage it would be safe to say he "voiced" them i.e. deliberately made them not accurate. BTW apodizing is nothing more than windowing the term borrowed from optics to appear a little more classy, like artists selling giclée's of their paintings rather than ink jet prints.

So, basically, he created an effect device that, incidentally, is also acting as a DAC.

 

[BDWoody]

So, basically, he created an effect device that, incidentally, is also acting as a DAC.

That would be like a DAP...Digital Audio Perverter.

 

[Rja4000]

That would be like a DAP...Digital Audio Perverter.

There is nothing wrong with effect devices.... as long as they don't mascarade as serious DAC and are clearly labelled as such.

 

[BDWoody]

There is nothing wrong with effect devices.... as long as they don't mascarade as serious DAC and are clearly labelled as such.

I certainly didn't mean to imply perversion is bad...

But it is definitely a season to personal taste thing...so to speak...

 

[nhunt]

Shower thought: “lossless” seems like a powerful term that united the objectivists and subjectivists under a common goal. Don Draper: “nobody wants to lose something!”