You couldn’t hear the difference - Proof! Beautiful video of David Mellor (Audio Masterclass) about sound differences between DAC

[RandomEar]

Your writing is one of the most impressive text I read recently on the subject. . I would love to continue the communication on the testing part knowing that I am not into this area as a profession. The last experiment seems interesting because if we are able to go analog and back to digital and produce the same PCM data points in the original file, this will be an end game. So, I would appreciate if you share more highlights on that experience it will be great. I am sure the results will show some errors worth investigating.

I have found three examples [1, 2, 3] of forum members using DeltaWave to "null out" DACs against either the source file, others DACs, or the DAC itself. From what I can see in these examples, the DACs mostly differ due to different reconstruction filters.

For reference: It appears that the limit for the "PK metric" error calculated by DeltaWave for DACs against themselves is around -100 dB. It probably also depends on the ADC in use. Nonetheless, anything close to that (probably below -95 dB) is essentially "perfect". Anything above -50 dB can be considered "potentially audible".

I own some equipment like Chord Dave + Mscaler, Chord Hugo 1, Topping D900 and Fiio K17 AND k11 R2R. Each of those DACs sound different and it is easy for me to spot that with some accuracy. The difference is clearer when I use my Focal Utopia or speakers. When using a planner magnetic headphones the differences are trimmed. So, this is about subjective listening. As a scientist I prefer to take myself outside the equation as we people are perhaps the biggest sources of bias.

We certainly are the biggest sources of bias

Eventhough there are differences, however the music is basically also very similar except the R2R which does some coloring. The rest are very close. It seems as you mentioned it is to do more about digital filtration. And hence we bring them closer when we use external digital upsampling and filters. I conclude that a $1000 is sweet spot to buy a good DAC. Spending more is a personal choice but it will not be about batter sound but a preference. Those who put $100k on MSB DAC is a soft scam. I heard one and it sounds worse than all good R2R DACs in the 2 to 5K range.

A "slow" reconstruction filter is certainly the easiest way you can create potentially audible differences in DACs, mainly due to the drooping FR in the treble region. I still don't see the absolute need to spend 1000 $, but that's also not an outrageous amount of money. So there's little point in preventing people from "wasting" their cash. At 10k or 100k, yeah - that's SCAM-level.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

I never meant that they are pointless. If they show a difference, the difference is proven. But when they do not, there is a larger margin of error (mind you, this might be a purely theoretical one!).



ACK 99.9%.

Roberto

That is very true. An invalid experiment can be valid in another scenario. I live in one part of the world where people have spending capabilities and I can tell you most ridiculously expensive equipment are in 99% of the cases just snake oil and so not sound batter. I say not all DACs sound the same from the scientific perspective but vendors use that as means to soft scam customers and make them spend $50k on a DAC that sounds like a $1000.

 

[totti1965]

IMO people should be honest and admit that the audio hobby is not *only* about sound quality and enjoyment of music.
There's no problem with that in principle, as long as people are aware that in many case it is not really the "sound quality" that is changing when they invest more.

Yeah, my point is, that it is in fact the "sound quality" that is changing when they invest more because the brain patterns of the placebo effect [(200 Dollar transparent DAC to 100.000 Dollar transparent DAC)- even in the hearing cortex - (difference is kind of "subjective")] is at least quite similar or sometimes even "nicer" as switching from a cheap mediocre DAC with not-so-good SINAD to a let´s say "real world" perfect Topping D900 (difference is kind of "objective").

 

[dominikz]

Yeah, my point is, that it is in fact the "sound quality" that is changing when they invest more because the brain patterns of the placebo effect [(200 Dollar transparent DAC to 100.000 Dollar transparent DAC)- even in the hearing cortex - (difference is kind of "subjective")] is at least quite similar or sometimes even "nicer" as switching from a cheap mediocre DAC with not-so-good SINAD to a let´s say "real world" perfect Topping D900 (difference is kind of "objective").

In a sense yes - similar to how music sounds better after I've had a couple of beers.
Which, by the way, is much cheaper than a new DAC - and IMHO much more effective!



On a more serious note, people are free to enjoy what they enjoy - no problem with that as far as I'm concerned. But I stand by my position that it is useful to know what has a meaningful influence on the actual sound waves coming out of the system, and what doesn't.
Many people seem to conflate the two, thereby incorrectly assuming that others will either share their perceptions, or if not that they have 'tin ears'. This is the part that is problematic, IMHO.

EDIT: By the way, in my experience even very cheap DACs are audibly transparent these days. The reason to buy a more expensive DAC shouldn't be "sound", it should be features, build quality, warranty, pride of ownership, etc... If looking to optimize the sound waves one should be looking at loudspeaker performance, integration with subs, optimal placement, acoustics and DSP. There are very real gains to be had in those areas.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

In a sense yes - similar to how music sounds better after I've had a couple of beers.
Which, by the way, is much cheaper than a new DAC - and IMHO much more effective!



On a more serious note, people are free to enjoy what they enjoy - no problem with that as far as I'm concerned. But I stand by my position that it is useful to know what has a meaningful influence on the actual sound waves coming out of the system, and what doesn't.
Many people seem to conflate the two, thereby incorrectly assuming that others will either share their perceptions, or if not that they have 'tin ears'. This is the part that is problematic, IMHO.

EDIT: By the way, in my experience even very cheap DACs are audibly transparent these days. The reason to buy a more expensive DAC shouldn't be "sound", it should be features, build quality, warranty, pride of ownership, etc... If looking to optimize the sound waves one should be looking at loudspeaker performance, integration with subs, optimal placement, acoustics and DSP. There are very real gains to be had in those areas.

You sad it all and perfectly. Technology is improving and bridging the gap and in many cases the mass products are becoming batter than the niche premium brands. We call such products commodities. I am sure I am not the most experienced and knowledge person in audio technology but I learned specific methods I use when purchasing. I learned that over the years and I admit in many cases I wasted a lot of money not knowing what to purchase. Our participation is such forums is a part of our social responsibility to share knowledge with the people who seek knowledge. In brief, I purchase equipment based on what they include (parts), how they are build (design), quality of the build, and support. Then I evaluate if what is included worth the money knowing that businesses need to make profit to survive and innovate. Here we do not ignore the experience of using a product as it is also very important. There are additional factors as well.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

What always puzzled me about many hardcore objectivists is the belief that this boundary is sharp.
Yet it is evident that even with a 100% placebo effect, where "actually" no differences exist in the physical world, in the brain of the listener who has a certain expectation, whose attention is drawn to certain details in the music that they paid less attention to in the previous listening session, different neurons simply fire, and different neural connections are strengthened or modulated, than in an imaginary placebo-immune listener.
So, kind of in the "real world," namely in the brains and precisely during listening, the aforementioned difference between the $100,000 DAC and the $200 DAC actually exists!!!
Although, if the well-heeled music lover were told the exact opposite while switching channels, namely that he was listening to the $100,000 DAC when the $200 DAC was actually running, that same music lover would actually "hear" these very differences: this time in favor of the supposed €100,000 and the actual €200 DAC.
An electroencephalogram could easily prove this!

I chose the past tense ("made me suspicious") because I realized that this forum is indeed decidedly only about the devices and not about the underlying psychology.
So the boundary is kind of sharp.
And it is not easy to convince my audiophile friends here in Germany.
But thanks god there is also the 10% subjectivist in me, so there is much understanding!

Yes, from day one we know we can't study music technology in isolation of human physiology and here en entire area of study called psychoacoustics. So we see audio technology from two lenses. One is from pure science or physics and second is from the human physiology or perception which takes into account human hearing limitations and complexity.

So, yes a human brain can easily be deceived but also very true the human brain is extremely powerful. So, if we take snake oil products out of the equation DACs sound different to certain limits. Hearing such differences would depend on a number of elements such as: the quality of the various components in the system including headphones or speakers, amplifiers, source material, type of music and especially the human ears. The DAC is among most influancer of the quality of produced as its output is just amplified.

This is why arguing about how larger is the diferance between DACs will lead to different perceptions that ranges from 0% they all sound the same up to around 50% which is they sound very different. In another world, if your amplifiers and speakers/headphones do not have enough resolution, you will hear most DACs are similar. For example, I use focal Utopia with Topping A900. Then when I try various DACs, the difference is very obvious.

 

[Mart68]

This is why arguing about how larger is the diferance between DACs will lead to different perceptions that ranges from 0% they all sound the same up to around 50% which is they sound very different. In another world, if your amplifiers and speakers/headphones do not have enough resolution, you will hear most DACs are similar. For example, I use focal Utopia with Topping A900. Then when I try various DACs, the difference is very obvious.

'System not revealing enough' is generally considered a ridiculous excuse. Try doing the comparisons with controls and the obvious differences disappear. Even when there is a real difference (frequency response) it still isn't at all easy to reliably differentiate when you don't know which DAC is connected.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

What really matters are speakers or headphones or equalization curves (or analogue pick-ups) and NOT DACs:
Because you are a newbie here, I hope, you also know
the https://www.spinorama.org site from Pièrre Aubert and how to use it (filtering for only high quality measurements, filtering high quality to low, with/without subwoofer, with without equalization etc.).
I needed two month to learn the importance of this site after I found the audiosciencereview.com forum.

Hope you know also Erin’s audiocorner:

Erin's Audio Corner

The Sound of Science

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

His favourite objective and subjective so far is the KEF Blade 2 Meta:

Also the headphone guys and Crinacle are most important for equalsation suggestions for headphones in ears etc. and are science based and not voodoo people:

If you want much fun, also visit the YouTube channel of the scientific audiophile!

Scientific Audiophile

Reviews, opinions and ideas on making better sound.

m.youtube.com

A fried of mine bought the KEF blades. He used them for a month and sold them. I bought LS50 and sold them. I was talking to the distributor of KEF and we bought agreed how many people do not enjoy those speakers for pure musiclistening. The question is why? I can state my perception. Flat bright sound and less dynamic range. Perhaps they do well with tubes but most of KEF speakers need a lot of power.

 

[Purité Audio]

Perhaps you and your friend just prefer really poor measuring ( and thus sounding) loudspeakers?
Keith

 

[Svend P]

Flat bright sound and less dynamic range.

So are they flat or bright? For a computer science guy, you do not bring a lot of science to the table. You can measure dynamic range, you know?

 

[Purité Audio]

They probably just needed ‘warm’ AKM chips rather than those horrid bright ESS ones.
Keith

 

[Deleted member 90227]

Perhaps you and your friend just prefer really poor measuring ( and thus sounding) loudspeakers?
Keith

Your conclusion reflects your attitudes speaking with others or in most cases a business bias being associated with a product. The guy in the video is saying the speakers do not measure well. Next time if you do not tolerate hearing an opinion you do not like, do not reply to avoid your posts being flagged as inappropriate

 

[Purité Audio]

My conclusions based on comparing many fine measuring loudspeakers designs is that the better the measurements the more transparent the loudspeaker, you of course may not enjoy transparency.
And as to not replying to an opinion i don’t like, good luck with that.
Keith

 

[Purité Audio]

His contributions have almost filled my ‘subjectivist bingo card’, his ability to discern dacs, his expensive equipment our unresolving systems, ‘warm’ AKM chips etc etc.
Probably lauded as a wild old sage somewhere but not here.
Keith

 

[Deleted member 90227]

Which speakers? All KEF speakers measure extremely well. I'm getting a trollish vibe from you, since you never come with concrete evidence or any proof of the things you claim.

This is a nicely said question. Lets analyze the two experiences: my LS50 were not the main listening speakers as I use B&W 802 D2 for main listening. the LS50 are studio monitors and needed a lot of attention. They are very critical about how they are placed in the room. They are not forgiving like some speakers. So, to me it was not worth the efforts. I bought the LS50 and sold them after that. On the other hand, I have friends giving me a lot of speakers to try. For comparison, I once tried the Fyne Audio F1. It is crazy how those small speakers fill the room with accurate sound. I am not saying the Fyne Audio F1 are the best but out of the box they sounded fantastic. You love sitting for hours and listening.

Now we come to the blades. My fried is very picky. He first got the tower studio series ones and his room is not that large. They sounded very bright with a $25K amp. So, he upgraded to the blades and it was a similar experience. I auditioned the blades even at the distributor. I remember very wide sound sound stage but lacking details perhaps was to to the source DAC/preamp.

I was sharing those experiences but it seems people with business interest got offended

Here in the community. we need to tolerate hearing feedback. A good feedback if someone was able to get great sound is to share how they were able to do so. As I own B&W people keep asking me how did you manage to make those speakers sing because all resolving speakers are hard to be well configured.

 

[Deleted member 90227]

His contributions have almost filled my ‘subjectivist bingo card’, his ability to discern dacs, his expensive equipment our unresolving systems, ‘warm’ AKM chips etc etc.
Probably lauded as a wild old sage somewhere but not here.
Keith

Are you an promoting any brands here? Read my other posts. We do science and perceptions (Quantitative and qualitative) while being polite in how we speak to each others. This can be even more important.

I was reading in your profile. You are a retailer. It is now clear. Do you sell KEF? Then educate us as consumers how your products can sound musical while being extra polite please.

 

[JustJones]

This is a nicely said question. Lets analyze the two experiences: my LS50 were not the main listening speakers as I use B&W 802 D2 for main listening. the LS50 are studio monitors and needed a lot of attention. They are very critical about how they are placed in the room. They are not forgiving like some speakers. So, to me it was not worth the efforts. I bought the LS50 and sold them after that. On the other hand, I have friends giving me a lot of speakers to try. For comparison, I once tried the Fyne Audio F1. It is crazy how those small speakers fill the room with accurate sound. I am not saying the Fyne Audio F1 are the best but out of the box they sounded fantastic. You love sitting for hours and listening.

Now we come to the blades. My fried is very picky. He first got the tower studio series ones and his room is not that large. They sounded very bright with a $25K amp. So, he upgraded to the blades and it was a similar experience. I auditioned the blades even at the distributor. I remember very wide sound sound stage but lacking details perhaps was to to the source DAC/preamp.

I was sharing those experiences but it seems people with business interest got offended

Here in the community. we need to tolerate hearing feedback. A good feedback if someone was able to get great sound is to share how they were able to do so. As I own B&W people keep asking me how did you manage to make those speakers sing because all resolving speakers are hard to be well configured.

Here feedback is appreciated but it needs to be accompanied with measurements. The price of an amp or DAC etc... is pretty meaningless as well without measurements as a $25K componet might be a piece of junk. It's nice you enjoy your setup but nothing mentioned adds to the site other than... well you like your setup.

 

[NTK]

Are you an promoting any brands here? Read my other posts. We do science and perceptions (Quantitative and qualitative) while being polite in how we speak to each others. This can be even more important.

I was reading in your profile. You are a retailer. It is now clear. Do you sell KEF? Then educate us as consumers how your products can sound musical while being extra polite please.

You can start by reading this book. Just be aware that the 4th edition is coming out in a month or two, so you may want to wait a bit.

Sound Reproduction | The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers

This fourth edition of Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers, Rooms and Headphones explains the physical and perceptual

doi.org

[Edit] Updated the link to the 4th edition.

 

[dominikz]

You can start by reading this book. Just be aware that the 4th edition is coming out in a month or two, so you may want to wait a bit.

Sound Reproduction | The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers

Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms, Third Edition explains the physical and perceptual processes that are involved

doi.org

@Imadch This is really the best advice anyone here can give. Reading this book is well worth the time of anyone seriously interested in accurate sound reproduction!

 

[Deleted member 90227]

Which speakers? All KEF speakers measure extremely well. I'm getting a trollish vibe from you, since you never come with concrete evidence or any proof of the things you claim.

Those replies only come from retailers. The products they sell are the best and everything else is crap. People who keep buying their products are true audiophiles and those who do not are subjectivists and ignorant people. . The proof is, well, some measurements. They tweak science to their interest. One more: new products are superior to the old ones and deserve the upgrades/Payment $$$$$. Audio = Money.

If you are a retailer you are in a position to prove your unbiases in every post. Do not ask others for proves, You need to do so. It is your job.