| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
DAC Differences
I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current
USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. But using the same computer to feed all three DACs from the computer's USB ports (all three are Asynchronous USB using the same TI USB receiver chip) and carefully matching levels, I have found that they all sound different, and while all are good, the Ayre QB-9, even though it's only 24/96 KHz (as is the DragonFly) is head and shoulders above the other two. The DragonFly is an excellent product, but the Ayre simply has more "there" there. For the first time, I was able to notice that on a jazz album that I have had in vinyl form, CD, and SACD and now via a 24/96 download from HDTRacks, and have been listening to (in one form or another) for probably close to 30 years, the pianist is playing a Fender-Rhodes electric piano (or something very similar) and not the Brazilian "tinpanola" that I always assumed he was playing. I couldn't tell the difference with with the vinyl record, the CD or the SACD and couldn't tell it from any of the DACs i've had on hand until I played the 24/96 FLAC file through the Ayre Acoustics QB-9. Now I can hear quite readily and easily that the piano is a mechanical-electric one! I have heard other differences too that are either glossed over by lesser DACs or not audible on vinyl. Clearly the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 is the best DAC this audiophile has ever heard. Quite a revelation for me. Audio_Empire |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Andrew. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... -- +--------------------------------+ + Dick Pierce | + Professional Audio Development | +--------------------------------+ |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? BTW, I saw a printed ad recently for cables from a company called Shunyata Research (or something similar). I found it almost funny because the ad shows a series of three supposed oscilloscope photos. The top one shows a square-wave labeled "the source" signal (ostensibly using a low-reactance real oscilloscope probe/lead) and it is properly square. The next picture shows, ostensibly, the same signal through a "competitor's" cable and it is quite rounded on the leading edge of the square wave showing a slow rise time. The final picture shows the ad's product square wave and it is a lot less rounded off on the rising edge (having a much shorter rise time). This is real impressive UNTIL one looks closely at the oscilloscope data that is listed next to the three oscilloscope traces. The frequency at which these pictures were made was ONE-HUNDRED MEGAHERTZ! It certainly shows that the Shunyata Research cables are superior to their competition as FM lead in wire from the antenna, but I'm at a loss as to what relevance this has to either tested sample as an audio interconnect! Who do they think that they are fooling, anyway? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Andrew Haley" wrote in message
... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. This seems especially relevant, as the preferred device the Aye QB-9 has signficiant frequency response abberations in the normal audible range. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? It attracts money ... Isaac |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article , isw
wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Dick Pierce wrote: Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. And not a very good one at that, for a variety of reasons, notable drift, susceptibility to external (and often) unrelated influences, poor dynamic range, long overload recovery, high noise, poor resolution, high masking, ... Not to mention expectational bias. I have a friend who swears that an AudioQuest USB cable with a "bias" battery attached makes a big, positive difference when swapped in place of a standard computer-type USB cable, even though he KNOWS, on an intellectual level, that this is scientifically impossible. Here's a question... What the hell is a battery connected to a cable with ONE lead (not even a return lead to complete the circuit) supposed to do anyway? No wonder they say that the battery lasts "for years". with only one terminal connected to anything, battery life would be, essentially, the battery's shelf life. Now I'm only a poor electronics engineer, but I was taught at a power supply (or battery) with one lead left floating, is a disconnected battery or power supply/ Can someone please explain to me what this "bias" on a cable is supposed to accomplish? It attracts money ... Isaac That's about the best (and probably the most accurate) answer to that question that anyone could possibly give, Isaac. I can't think of any reason why this would work and the company's explanation of "polarizing the dielectric" to achieve better conductivity of the cable and to reduce dielectric absorption makes no sense. you can't polarize anything with a single battery pole. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. This seems especially relevant, as the preferred device the Aye QB-9 has signficiant frequency response abberations in the normal audible range. You consider 20+ KHz to be in the normal audible range? I didn't know that Mr. Kruger had canine hearing (I'm impressed!). Most humans over about the age of 20 can't hear 16 KHz, much less higher. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Well, yes. But of course that arrow points both ways. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". I wouldn't have thought so either. Andrew. |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. You're correct. There is no way way for me to know why someone else cannot hear the differences in DACs. That's why I only speculated about the reasons they can't hear such great differences, and did not say for sure. I don't know, for sure, honestly. I just know that DACs are all over the place with regard to the way they sound, and those differences are consistent and repeatable, even under blind and double-blind test conditions. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. Like you, I doubt if the D/A chip itself is the reason for these vast differences in DAC sound. It's the way the rest of the circuit is designed, from power supplies, to filtering, to the analog circuitry driving the output as you say. It's rare to find a cheap DAC that sounds as good as a more expensive one due to cost constraints when designing to a price. For instance, the $250 DragonFly is a great product. It raises the bar considerably on sub-$1000 DACs, but against the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 it loses out in terms of low-end impact, transient response, and detail recovery. As far as frequency response is concerned, there seems to be little difference either in listening or in measurement (compare the two tested frequency response curves between the Ayre and the DragonFly in Stereophile's archives. They are very similar until you get to things like impulse response, HF jitter spectrum plots, and the like, and it becomes clear that while the DragonFly measures very good, the Ayre with it's "apodizing" filter is better. People delude themselves about things every day in order to protect their own core values and opinions in their own minds. It's hardly a mental disorder, more likely, it's human nature. Well, yes. But of course that arrow points both ways. Of course it does. All humans are susceptible to prejudice, and different types and levels of bias, both conscious and unconscious. That's why biases must be controlled and tests need to be devised to either set those biases aside or make them apparent to all participants in the test as well as all of those who analyze the results. Oh, come on, no-one is saying that. What has been said is that if components don't sound alike there is some good reason such as gross differences of level, frequency response, noise, or distortion -- all things that can easily be seen on a spectrum analyzer. This isn't surprising: the ear is a spectrum analyzer. If there ever is a difference detected in a listening test that can't be explained in terms of such differences it'll be time for physiologists to do some new fundamental research. Maybe there's a Nobel Prize in it. Please see: http://www.stereophile.com/content/a...c-measurements It appears that the device may be up to 3.5 dB down at 20 Khz. Oh, contraire, sir! Figure 4. showing frequency response, clearly displays that the Ayre QB-9 is but a HALF of a dB down at 20 KHz at 96KHz sampling rate. (all my listening tests were done at 24-bit, 96 KHz) and doesn't reach -3.5 dB until just below 45 KHz! While at 44.1 KHz, OTOH, it looks to be about -3.5 dB (or greater) on the top end, I suspect that that cutoff frequency is a bit above 22KHz, which is as it should be with a 44.1 KHz sampling frequency per Nyquist. The chart hasn't enough resolution to tell exactly at which frequency the roll-off becomes really steep, but it would make sense that it's above 22 KHz. Even if it were 20 KHz, nobody could hear it well enough for it sound, somehow "wrong". I wouldn't have thought so either. True enough. Andrew. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. You're correct. There is no way way for me to know why someone else cannot hear the differences in DACs. Or why they can. Or if, for that matter, That's why I only speculated about the reasons they can't hear such great differences, and did not say for sure. I don't know, for sure, honestly. I just know that DACs are all over the place with regard to the way they sound, and those differences are consistent and repeatable, even under blind and double-blind test conditions. Well, you've said that before, and you've been asked to come up with something to support it, and all you've described is poorly conducted tests with little in the way of analysis. That's hardly enough to set the knowledge of the mechanism of hearing on its head. And that's the point really. If there could be just one decent gold- plated double-blind test of high-quality audio DACs that really did reveal a statistically significant difference then it'd be fascinating to find out why. In many ways I'd love it to be true. Andrew. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Doug McDonald wrote: [quoted text deleted -- deb] On 11/17/2012 3:12 PM, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Doug McDonald wrote: But except for measurable changes in frequency response, I can't hear differences in DACs these days. And those measurable differences, of course, have to be below 13.8 kHz. I bet you can because most of the audible differences in modern DACs aren't in the frequency domain. They affect other things such as low-level information retrieval, imaging, and distortion + noise. You would be betting wrong! And thus, I am a very fortunate person. I have tried and tried to hear things other people can, or claim they can. And I almost never can hear differences in electronic components (and that includes anything digital.) I can't hear differences in the phase response of anti-alias filters ... even if I make special .wav files with the brick-wall cutoff at 13.8 kHz. I'm hard put to hear them with the brick wall at 5 kHz so long as its only a phase difference. That's probably not as rare a "shortcoming" as you might think. I suspect that many audio enthusiasts are in the same boat you are. They simply cannot hear certain characteristics in reproduced music. But remember, there is no such thing as a "golden-eared" audiophile. Anyone can train themselves (I'm convinced) to have the kind of hearing acuity that some called "golden ears". But it takes years of listening and remembering what you hear. I know people who are extremely sensitive to frequency response aberrations yet are extremely insensitive to what I would consider large amounts of distortion and I know some to which the opposite is true. It depends, in large part, to what aspect of reproduction is most important to you. But ... when listening to speakers, or microphones, or actual music (comparative performances), I hear what other people hear. Like I said. You have to train your hearing to recognize those things in electronics that are not right. Nor can I hear the problems (which are of course easily measurable) in 224 or even 192 kbps mp3 files encoded by LAME. Sometimes ... but only sometimes ... I can't hear them at 128 kbps VBR encoded by LAME at its best-try setting. I can hear MP3 artifacts at 128 kbps through a good set of headphones, but not on speakers, but I can hear artifacts on speakers from MP3s encoded at 64 kbps. I cannot hear 192 kbps or higher under any circumstances. Thus, being the fortunate person I am, I proceed to spend my money on enlarging my mp3 library, and watching my bank account grow so as to be able to pop down a bundle when my current speakers eventually die. More power to you. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. You're correct. There is no way way for me to know why someone else cannot hear the differences in DACs. Or why they can. Or if, for that matter, That's why I only speculated about the reasons they can't hear such great differences, and did not say for sure. I don't know, for sure, honestly. I just know that DACs are all over the place with regard to the way they sound, and those differences are consistent and repeatable, even under blind and double-blind test conditions. Well, you've said that before, and you've been asked to come up with something to support it, and all you've described is poorly conducted tests with little in the way of analysis. That's hardly enough to set the knowledge of the mechanism of hearing on its head. Well, that's true. But I'm not trying "to set the knowledge of the mechanism of hearing on its head". I'm reporting what I hear. You can either take me at my word and be motivated enough by what I say to try listening to a bunch of different DACs yourself, or take what I say with a grain of salt and do nothing. It really doesn't matter to me. And that's the point really. If there could be just one decent gold- plated double-blind test of high-quality audio DACs that really did reveal a statistically significant difference then it'd be fascinating to find out why. In many ways I'd love it to be true. I wish there were as well, but there can't be. The reason is because no matter how carefully such a test is set up and executed, there will be people with an emotional or a commercial stake in the point of view that they are all the same (or that they are all different) who would say that the test was flawed if the results didn't support their point of view. The bottom line is that there is no scientific reason, given the many options for circuit topography and components available to the designer, why two DACs should sound the same (even if they use the same D/A chip). This is an altogether different set of circumstances from speaker cables and interconnects where there is no scientific reason why they WOULDN'T sound the same. Andrew. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote: Like you, I doubt if the D/A chip itself is the reason for these vast differences in DAC sound. It's the way the rest of the circuit is designed, from power supplies, to filtering, to the analog circuitry driving the output as you say. It's rare to find a cheap DAC that sounds as good as a more expensive one due to cost constraints when designing to a price. Unexplored is the synergy of the entire system. No DAC exists in a vacuum. It is somewhere between the source and the speakers. Each component adds its little bit of distortion and there is always some small amount of interaction between components. In my opinion, the cheaper the design the more likely are interactions to occur. That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , Andrew Haley wrote: Well, you've said that before, and you've been asked to come up with something to support it, and all you've described is poorly conducted tests with little in the way of analysis. That's hardly enough to set the knowledge of the mechanism of hearing on its head. Well, that's true. But I'm not trying "to set the knowledge of the mechanism of hearing on its head". I'm reporting what I hear. You can either take me at my word and be motivated enough by what I say to try listening to a bunch of different DACs yourself, How would that tell me anything? I'm just as prone to hearing things as anyone else. or take what I say with a grain of salt and do nothing. It really doesn't matter to me. It must matter a bit to you or you wouldn't be posting here. And that's the point really. If there could be just one decent gold- plated double-blind test of high-quality audio DACs that really did reveal a statistically significant difference then it'd be fascinating to find out why. In many ways I'd love it to be true. I wish there were as well, but there can't be. The reason is because no matter how carefully such a test is set up and executed, there will be people with an emotional or a commercial stake in the point of view that they are all the same (or that they are all different) who would say that the test was flawed if the results didn't support their point of view. If the test is repeatable then it doesn't matter if people deny it. You'll be able to say "And yet it moves" just like Galileo did to the Inquisition, and prove your point to all but the terminally stubborn. Won't that feel good? The bottom line is that there is no scientific reason, given the many options for circuit topography and components available to the designer, why two DACs should sound the same (even if they use the same D/A chip). Sure there is, and I said so a couple of posts ago. I'll repeat it: if a DAC's imperfections are below the thresholds of hearing, then those DACs are audibly perfect and therefore indistinguishable from each other. The question is the levels at which such imperfections are audible, and I believe our very own Arny Krueger has done some work in this area. Andrew. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
On 11/18/2012 7:59 AM, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article , Audio_Empire wrote: snip That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. I don't know that "...the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled," is necessarily the case. One-off or hand-build stuff is more susceptible to manufacturing defects than with automated assembly (witness the DAC chip itself). And surely cost is no judge of proper design; if it were, many of the high-end pathologically poor DAC's would never have existed. I certainly agree with your sentiment on going cheaper when it doesn't make a difference. $10K more spent on better speakers will almost always trump, IMO, whatever small difference it could buy in a CD player, DAC, or certainly cables. Keith |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: Like you, I doubt if the D/A chip itself is the reason for these vast differences in DAC sound. It's the way the rest of the circuit is designed, from power supplies, to filtering, to the analog circuitry driving the output as you say. It's rare to find a cheap DAC that sounds as good as a more expensive one due to cost constraints when designing to a price. Unexplored is the synergy of the entire system. No DAC exists in a vacuum. It is somewhere between the source and the speakers. Each component adds its little bit of distortion and there is always some small amount of interaction between components. In my opinion, the cheaper the design the more likely are interactions to occur. Agreed. Obviously, a DAC design compromised by price constraints, is not going to have the quality of components or design criteria than a unit built without such constraints. However one shouldn't mistake fancy casework (like a chassis & front panel machined from a solid billet of aircraft grade aluminum) for cost-is-no-object circuit design. pretty cosmetics are certainly nice, but beauty is as beauty does, after all. That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. That too is true, but since a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, it would make little sense to install a $3000+ DAC into a system consisting of a cheap A/V receiver and a pair of cheap "mini-monitor" style speakers. Luckily, anyone interested in an expensive DAC (and has the money to buy it) is unlikely to have such a system. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article , KH
wrote: On 11/18/2012 7:59 AM, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: snip That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. I don't know that "...the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled," is necessarily the case. One-off or hand-build stuff is more susceptible to manufacturing defects than with automated assembly (witness the DAC chip itself). Who said anything about "one-off" or "hand built"? Believe me a dCS Puccini, or an MSB DAC IV is neither, yet these are expensive components and sound it. And surely cost is no judge of proper design; if it were, many of the high-end pathologically poor DAC's would never have existed. I certainly agree with your sentiment on going cheaper when it doesn't make a difference. $10K more spent on better speakers will almost always trump, IMO, whatever small difference it could buy in a CD player, DAC, or certainly cables. Well, that's a slippery slope. Of course you need a pretty high-res system (speakers included) to appreciate the difference between a $100 DAC and a well designed one costing thousands of dollars. Expensive cables are, of course, a complete waste of money as the laws of physics and simple electronic theory say that interconnects and cables that are properly designed for their application, will have no sound, and that there is little one can do to wire to make any difference at audio frequencies; especially in the lengths that audio hobbyists are likely to employ. IOW, yes, 50 ft of 18 gauge speaker wire will likely affect the sound of one's speakers but 50 ft of 12 gauge probably won't. Keith |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. That's specious, at best. It should be understood by all reading this discussion that we are not discussing two units of the same make and model, or even two units that use the same circuit design. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. But again, anyone who believes that this discussion is about DACs which Identical measured performance, should not be wasting their time responding to this thread. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. Again, it should be obvious that no one is talking about such DACs. Your examples are reductio ad absurdum. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , You're correct. There is no way way for me to know why someone else cannot hear the differences in DACs. Given the apparent absence of proper bias controls during the evaluations described in the OP, there is no way to know which of several explanations based on listener and experimental bias apply. It seems safe to say that at least some of them apply. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. That's specious, at best. It should be understood by all reading this discussion that we are not discussing two units of the same make and model, or even two units that use the same circuit design. I see no such qualifications in the OP. If the wording of the OP is in error then it needs to be corrected. What I see is self-serving dismissal of an important critical point. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. But again, anyone who believes that this discussion is about DACs which Identical measured performance, should not be wasting their time responding to this thread. I see no such qualifications in the OP. If the wording of the OP is in error then it needs to be corrected. What I see is more self-serving dismissal of an important critical point. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. Again, it should be obvious that no one is talking about such DACs. In this case, the vast majority of DACs with reasonable pretentions to quality are included in the set of DAC products whose measured performance is such that no audible differences should be expected. Thus the OP is nullified. Your examples are reductio ad absurdum. That would be an example of a self-serving dismissal based on absolutely nothing but the say so of the writer. It can therefore be dismissed as being just the opinon of one person speaking against a vast body of generally accepted wisdom. [ We are headed towards arguments about the arguments rather than arguments about audio-related subjects. Everyone is cautioned to keep this on topic, or else take it off-list. -- dsr for r.a.h-e mods ] |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
On 11/19/2012 8:12 AM, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , KH wrote: On 11/18/2012 7:59 AM, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: snip That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. I don't know that "...the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled," is necessarily the case. One-off or hand-build stuff is more susceptible to manufacturing defects than with automated assembly (witness the DAC chip itself). Who said anything about "one-off" or "hand built"? Believe me a dCS Puccini, or an MSB DAC IV is neither, yet these are expensive components and sound it. There are many examples of "higher priced stuff" that are virtually one-off's, or are hand built. If you'll note, the comment I responded to was not limited to DACs either. And surely cost is no judge of proper design; if it were, many of the high-end pathologically poor DAC's would never have existed. I certainly agree with your sentiment on going cheaper when it doesn't make a difference. $10K more spent on better speakers will almost always trump, IMO, whatever small difference it could buy in a CD player, DAC, or certainly cables. Well, that's a slippery slope. I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Can you cite one example of any component in an audio system where a $10K upgrade would buy a greater difference in sound quality? Obviously if you have very good speakers already, trading them for a $10K more expensive pair may not be nearly as significant as going from a $1K to an $11K pair, but I still think you'd be hard pressed to hear anywhere near as much *difference* in going from a $1K DAC to a $10K DAC as you *could* hear from a speaker upgrade (given you choose speakers wisely to fit your tastes). Of course you need a pretty high-res system (speakers included) to appreciate the difference between a $100 DAC and a well designed one costing thousands of dollars. But that is the point you labeled as a "slippery slope" above. Expensive cables are, of course, a complete waste of money as the laws of physics and simple electronic theory say that interconnects and cables that are properly designed for their application, will have no sound, and that there is little one can do to wire to make any difference at audio frequencies; especially in the lengths that audio hobbyists are likely to employ. IOW, yes, 50 ft of 18 gauge speaker wire will likely affect the sound of one's speakers but 50 ft of 12 gauge probably won't. Agreed. Keith |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Andrew Haley" wrote in message ... Audio_Empire wrote: I just had an opportunity to compare, in my own system, several current USB DACs. One was the new DragonFly by Audioquest, the next was the Ayre Acoustics QB-9 and the third was the PS Audio PerfectWave II. Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I will show that above claim above is not logical: It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were as physically identical copies of the same product as is possible. One might argue for the audilbity of metaphysical differences in order to believe otherwise. Or one might argue that all copies of the same product sound different from each other in which case recommending products by make and model would be illogical. That's specious, at best. It should be understood by all reading this discussion that we are not discussing two units of the same make and model, or even two units that use the same circuit design. I see no such qualifications in the OP. If the wording of the OP is in error then it needs to be corrected. It should be common sense that nobody except those trying to justify a dissenting opinion would interpret these posts as discussing different samples of the same DACs and DAC design and or DACs that measure the same, rather than those with completely different designs selling at different price points, Of course, DACs that measure the same or are the same make and model or use a common circuit topology are going to sound alike. But why would anybody even bring that up? What I see is self-serving dismissal of an important critical point. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably identical performance, or as identical is pracdtically possible. . To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all audio measurements. But again, anyone who believes that this discussion is about DACs which Identical measured performance, should not be wasting their time responding to this thread. I see no such qualifications in the OP. If the wording of the OP is in error then it needs to be corrected. The three DACs mentioned are thousands of dollars apart in pricing. That should be plain enough. What I see is more self-serving dismissal of an important critical point. It is perfectly logical that a person would hear no differences between DACs when the DACs were products that had measurably similar performance that was within the realm of the sensitivity of human perception to measurable differences To say otherwise would represent total disbelief in the relevance of all existing knowlege of human perception. Again, it should be obvious that no one is talking about such DACs. In this case, the vast majority of DACs with reasonable pretentions to quality are included in the set of DAC products whose measured performance is such that no audible differences should be expected. Thus the OP is nullified. You've compared the DACs discussed? If so, then you may contradict me from a position of knowledge. If you haven't, then your opinion lacks even more substance than mine. Your examples are reductio ad absurdum. That would be an example of a self-serving dismissal based on absolutely nothing but the say so of the writer. It can therefore be dismissed as being just the opinon of one person speaking against a vast body of generally accepted wisdom. Well, finally you seem to grasp the reality. It is an opinion, and if there is a vast body of generally accepted wisdom that says that all DACS sound alike, there is also a vast body that says that they don't. Guess which camp in which I'm firmly ensconced ? [ We are headed towards arguments about the arguments rather than arguments about audio-related subjects. Everyone is cautioned to keep this on topic, or else take it off-list. -- dsr for r.a.h-e mods ] Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Will do |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
Trevor Wilson wrote: On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: Anybody who thinks that DACs all sound the same, is either deluding himself (or herself) or simply can't hear. I realize that there have been a number of fairly high-profile "studies" performed whereby the results of ABX tests show "conclusively" that all DACs sound alike. I question the above diagnosis of a mental disorder (delusional) in all persons who may disagree with the author's opinions. Be my guest, but anyone who cannot hear the differences between DACs must have SOMETHING wrong with them. I.E. they must be either unable to hear those differences or they have talked themselves into not hearing them (this would be the "delusional" part to which I was referring). But seriously, how can you possibly know that? Hi-fi buffs hear all kinds of things, for example the unconnected battery you mentioned earlier. None of us is immune to this kind of thing; not you, not me. An "audibly perfect" DAC chip can be had for a few dollars. All an audio manufacturer has to do is package it, provide it with a decent power supply and maybe a buffer stage, and not mess it up. That's not trivial, but neither is it something that an electronics engineer would find terribly challenging. Of course, a manufacturer might choose to make their DAC different from others by some deviation from an ideal response. **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. I have a somewhat similar story. I have a 10-year old DAC from Sonic Frontiers' kit division which was called the "Assemblage" DAC-2.6, which was highly rated in its day. It had Burr-Brown OPA134 op amps in it and I replaced them with some then new National LM49710s Which have better slew rate, symmetrical slew, and extremely low noise compared to the BBs. Both Op-amps were Mini-DIPs and socketed, so swapping them out was a cinch. I listened very closely for many hours before the swap, and then listened very carefully for many hours after the swap. No difference. I expected the new National Op-Amps to make a big difference, and they made none at all. So much for "expectational bias." Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. It is difficult to account for some of these differences. I have a Sony XA777ES SACD player circa 2004. Even though it is primarily an SACD player, I also use it as my Redbook CD player, and I have to say, of all the CD players that I have had in-house, the Sony is the best sounding CD player I've ever heard - bar none. It has a coax digital output (CD only. The output is muted during SACD playback) and I have that output connected to my current outboard DAC (which is part of my HK990 Integrated amplifier and has dual-differential stereo 24-bit, 192 KHz D/A chips - 4 Analogue Devices AD1955s) and I can instantaneously switch between them. The outputs are trimmed to match to within 0.05 dB using a digital audio voltmeter. My 8-year old Sony XA777ES sounds so much better playing CDs than does my outboard DAC, that iy is instantaneously apparent, even though the HK990 DAC section is much newer and very sophisticated. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. I hear you. It is a puzzlement. Different DACs sound "different". Sometimes the differences are subtle (more like the differences between a couple of real good amplifiers) and sometimes they are so different that a deaf person (!) could notice it. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article , KH
wrote: On 11/19/2012 8:12 AM, Audio_Empire wrote: In article , KH wrote: On 11/18/2012 7:59 AM, Robert Peirce wrote: In article , Audio_Empire wrote: snip That is why I gave up trying to evaluate individual components outside my system. If a $100 piece of equipment sounds almost as good as a $10,000 piece of equipment in my system, why on earth would I want to spend all the extra money? This applies at any price point, but I think most of the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled, and therefore, more likely to fit pretty well into any system, while more poorly designed equipment will reflect its surroundings. I don't know that "...the higher priced stuff is likely to be better controlled," is necessarily the case. One-off or hand-build stuff is more susceptible to manufacturing defects than with automated assembly (witness the DAC chip itself). Who said anything about "one-off" or "hand built"? Believe me a dCS Puccini, or an MSB DAC IV is neither, yet these are expensive components and sound it. There are many examples of "higher priced stuff" that are virtually one-off's, or are hand built. If you'll note, the comment I responded to was not limited to DACs either. And surely cost is no judge of proper design; if it were, many of the high-end pathologically poor DAC's would never have existed. I certainly agree with your sentiment on going cheaper when it doesn't make a difference. $10K more spent on better speakers will almost always trump, IMO, whatever small difference it could buy in a CD player, DAC, or certainly cables. Well, that's a slippery slope. I don't see how you reach that conclusion. Can you cite one example of any component in an audio system where a $10K upgrade would buy a greater difference in sound quality? Obviously if you have very good speakers already, trading them for a $10K more expensive pair may not be nearly as significant as going from a $1K to an $11K pair, but I still think you'd be hard pressed to hear anywhere near as much *difference* in going from a $1K DAC to a $10K DAC as you *could* hear from a speaker upgrade (given you choose speakers wisely to fit your tastes). Obviously, that above a certain quality level, one enters an area of diminishing returns (with almost anything), where large and larger expenditures yield smaller and smaller improvements. But in the case of DACs, I suspect that you are quite correct. Yes there is a difference between the sound of the AudioQuest DragonFly and the Ayre Acoustics QB9 at 10X the DragonFly's price and yes, I do prefer the sound of the Ayre, but it's not a huge difference. It's gives more dimensionality to the playback and is somewhat more resolving, but I can live with either of them. I think if I were in the market I'd probably go for the Ayre (today - unless I hear something even better in that price range tomorrow) but that doesn't mean that the DragonFly isn't a marvelous accomplishment. I have another USB DAC called a Beresford TC-7520 (it is also sold as a TEC TC-7520 and hails from Taiwan) and even though it costs a little less than the DragonFly, the difference between the two can be likened to the difference between a pair of really good speakers such as Wilson Watt/Puppies against a decent table radio like a Tivoli. And certainly the difference between the DragonFly and Ayre QB9 isn't anywhere NEAR that great, It is nonetheless just that scoche more involving. Of course you need a pretty high-res system (speakers included) to appreciate the difference between a $100 DAC and a well designed one costing thousands of dollars. But that is the point you labeled as a "slippery slope" above. You misunderstood me. What I was saying was that as we all know, more money doesn't ALWAYS result in better performance, but it does SOMETIMES. For instance, the best speakers I've ever heard are Martin-Logan CLX paired with their matching subwoofers. That combo is about $28K. Now, you can pay many times that if you like (the Wilson Alexandria XLFs at $200K or the Magico Q7s at $165K come to mind). And at that price you get great speakers, but are they, ultimately 5 to 8 times better than the M-Ls? No, and in fact in a lot of ways, they aren't as good (needless to say, they aren't as good TO ME - they don't do what I value in a speaker as well as the M-Ls. So that is my opinion. YMMV). Expensive cables are, of course, a complete waste of money as the laws of physics and simple electronic theory say that interconnects and cables that are properly designed for their application, will have no sound, and that there is little one can do to wire to make any difference at audio frequencies; especially in the lengths that audio hobbyists are likely to employ. IOW, yes, 50 ft of 18 gauge speaker wire will likely affect the sound of one's speakers but 50 ft of 12 gauge probably won't. Agreed. Keith |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: snip **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au For reasons of sanity I have stopped asking too many questions about the why. For years I have been an advocate of the if you can really hear it you can measure it camp - conditioning from 30 odd years in engineering.. However the blatant differences in things like CD players suggest either an equally blatant disregard for the basics, or a deliberate "sound" design (sic). I only listen now - not interested in the spec sheets, I can hear anything I need to and once I've chosen one, get on with enjoying the music. Just have to occasionally beat into submission the little voice that starts to say "but they should sound the same!!" Dave |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Yes, that DACs is totally magic, and all of the 100s of DACs that I have compared are in no way comparable to it. ;-) Thus we have yet another example of questionable logic. A global generalization has been made, but in the end it can't be supported until you have listened to a certain single magic DAC. And if you believe all that.... !!!!!! |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
... Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. I don't know either. To understand it, I'd (1) Run enough tech tests so that I knew what the measureable differences in the actual samples were, including tracking, error recovery and concealment. (2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening test. Until you do all of the above, its like hitting a ball out of the park in baseball, and then failing to circle the bases and physically touch every one. If you don't touch all the bases, there is no home run. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Yes, that DACs is totally magic, and all of the 100s of DACs that I have compared are in no way comparable to it. ;-) Thus we have yet another example of questionable logic. A global generalization has been made, but in the end it can't be supported until you have listened to a certain single magic DAC. And if you believe all that.... !!!!!! But still, you haven't listened to the DACs in question, have you? No? Thanks for playing. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Dave C" wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... On 11/18/2012 2:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: snip **You'd think. I sure did. Recently, I enlarged my workshop to include a listening room, using high quality speakers and amplification. For some time I've been using a Harman Kardon HD970 CD player as my main source. It is an exceptionally good player, which also happens to be quite versatile. A few weeks back a client sent a Marantz CD80 in for service and modification. After a lens clean and lube I put it in my system for a quick listen. WOW! A 23 year old player comprehensively beat my relatively recently manufactured HK player. The difference was not measurable that I could ascertain. Yet the sonic difference was certainly noticable (FR, THD, et al were all beyond the limits of audibility). I replaced the ancient 5534 OP amps with AD825 chips. No measurable improvement. Sound-wise, I couldn't reliably hear any difference either. The client claimed that there was a difference and he was happy. Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. The HK uses completely different DACs to the Marantz and a discrete transistor output stage. I certainly did not expect the Marantz to provide a superior sound to the HK. It's 23 years old! I expected that, at best, there would be no audible difference. At worst, I certainly expceted the HK to beat the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au For reasons of sanity I have stopped asking too many questions about the why. For years I have been an advocate of the if you can really hear it you can measure it camp - conditioning from 30 odd years in engineering.. And, if it measures different, it can sound different. Most DACs do measure differently. These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, jitter spectrum, impulse response, etc. If you look at the test data in Stereophile for the DragonFly vs (in the same issue Oct., 2012) the ubber-expensive MSB Diamond DAC IV, it's easy to see that the MSB measures much better (it ought to be perfect, it costs THAT much!). However the blatant differences in things like CD players suggest either an equally blatant disregard for the basics, or a deliberate "sound" design (sic). I sort of doubt the latter. Eventually, somebody is going to test it, and any chicanery applied to a DAC to purposely alter its frequency response from flat or a purposeful introduction of some kind of distortion component is going be noticed. As for the former, That too doesn't seem too likely, but could happen is very cheap players, I suppose (although I would expect that really cheap players would do the entire enchilada with a standard, off-the-shelf chip sets and "cook-book" circuit topology. I only listen now - not interested in the spec sheets, I can hear anything I need to and once I've chosen one, get on with enjoying the music. Good ploy. There's aways something better out there, and if you're the type who are always stressing over the possibility that you don't have the latest or the greatest, then I suggest that you are listening to the music, you're listening to the equipment, and that's pretty much a perversion of this hobby in my estimation. I say, buy the best you can afford and enjoy the music that equipment pumps out. Just have to occasionally beat into submission the little voice that starts to say "but they should sound the same!!" Again, a good idea. No matter how great the differences between two components - even speakers, once you have chosen one and start to listen to it, the differences that you might have noticed when comparing one against the other quickly become irrelevant and the components that you chose soon become merely your system and it sounds like it sounds and that sound becomes the right sound (unless you have purposely bought junk, in which case, you probably don't care about sound anyway). Dave |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
On 11/21/2012 1:43 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. I don't know either. To understand it, I'd (1) Run enough tech tests so that I knew what the measureable differences in the actual samples were, including tracking, error recovery and concealment. **Whilst I did not perform a comprehensive range of tests, I did perform some rudimentary ones (THD, S/N, FR, et al). No audibly significant issues were uncovered in either machine. (2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening test. **Done. Until you do all of the above, its like hitting a ball out of the park in baseball, and then failing to circle the bases and physically touch every one. If you don't touch all the bases, there is no home run. **Fair point. Nonetheless, the Marantz CD80 was a real surprise. Since that time, I've tested a few other machines in the same set-up. None have provided the superior qualities noted in the Marantz. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. I don't know either. To understand it, I'd (1) Run enough tech tests so that I knew what the measureable differences in the actual samples were, including tracking, error recovery and concealment. (2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening test. Until you do all of the above, its like hitting a ball out of the park in baseball, and then failing to circle the bases and physically touch every one. If you don't touch all the bases, there is no home run. It's too bad that double-blind or ABX tests are so difficult to arrange. A lot of personal bias could be avoided, but there is also something else at work, here. a lot of people (some being movers and shakers in the world of audio) are saying that while DBT techniques work well for drug tests, and food taste tests and the like, they really don't work well for audio. Me? I have no real opinion because I haven't enough experience with either DBT or ABX tests. I have read about enough tests of this type for audio equipment that it certainly looks like it works (for most things). But I would think that when one hears vastly different presentations that are on the order of speaker differences, and yet, in a bias controlled test, these difference seem to disappear, I have to wonder at the efficacy of such tests. Certain things in the world of physics and electronics, for instance, tell me that wire can have no sound. I've enough experience testing cables in the aerospace industry to know how different frequencies are affected by such things as resistance, capacitance and inductance, and I know that wire can have no sound because none of those three criteria as found in competently made audio cables can have any effect at audio frequencies (unless they are added to the cable by the manufacturer, then, of course, we no longer have a conductor, we have a fixed filter). So I'm never surprised when DBTs show no difference between cables. But here's the rub. Expecting there to be no difference is just as much of a bias as is expecting there to be an audible difference. So double blind and ABX tests wouldn't be bias free for such a participant. All cables sound alike is the expectation so no matter if the cables sounded different or not, the biased listener is not going to hear it. Food for thought at the very least. |
|
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
And, if it measures different, it can sound different. Most DACs do measure differently. These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, jitter spectrum, impulse response, etc. First, let's clear up a misconception. An imperfection in a DAC will be manifested as linear distortion, nonlinear distortion, or noise. Jitter is nonlinear, and will cause IMD. Different impulse responses are probably due to phase shifts. An imperfect undithered sinewave waveform shape could be due to anything, but is probably just noise. Why is the undithered sine wave interesting, anyway? It can't happen in any recording. I suppose it makes an interesting-looking picture. Andrew. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , And, if it measures different, it can sound different. That would appear to be an oversimplification. It lacks the idea that quanitification of the size of the difference is important. As stated, every measurable difference has to cause an audible difference. This is now known to be not true. The correct statement is: If it measures sufficiently different, then it may sound different. Most DACs do measure differently. Actually our test equipment is so sensitive that everything meausres differently, even the different channels of multichannel devices. These measurement differences are not so much things like frequency response and distortion + noise (which tend to be very low, and usually below the threshold of hearing. but are things like the undithered sinewave waveform shape, This is a false claim on several grounds. (1) A proper digital signal is always dithered. (2) In practice all commercial and custom recordings are dithered. (3) Presuming a recording system with 16 bits and a real world recording environment, the recording would be dithered even if someone was stupid enough to attempt to make it without dither. jitter spectrum, Jitter is the boogey man of digital audio for people who are unfamiliar with the issues related to its audibiility. A great deal of misleading information about it has been published, particular in audiophile and recording engineer contexts. In fact there are no known instances of jitter being reliably audible when equipment with minimal performance is being used. There have been attempts to do this, but they came up null. impulse response, Only poorly informed people would suggest that impulse response is unrelated to frequency and phase response, so this is another audiophile boogey man. |
|
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Yes, that DACs is totally magic, and all of the 100s of DACs that I have compared are in no way comparable to it. ;-) Thus we have yet another example of questionable logic. A global generalization has been made, but in the end it can't be supported until you have listened to a certain single magic DAC. And if you believe all that.... !!!!!! But still, you haven't listened to the DACs in question, have you? No? Despite the vain efforts to dismiss the critical point, it remains unaddressed. For the record I have auditioned a great number of "magic components" over the years and they all have failed to impress to any exceptional degree once personal bias and bad listening tests are factored out of the situation. There's a lot of very good audio gear out there, and coming up with something electronic that actually sounds excpetional is a very tall order. |
|
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
Audio_Empire wrote:
Certain things in the world of physics and electronics, for instance, tell me that wire can have no sound. I've enough experience testing cables in the aerospace industry to know how different frequencies are affected by such things as resistance, capacitance and inductance, and I know that wire can have no sound because none of those three criteria as found in competently made audio cables can have any effect at audio frequencies (unless they are added to the cable by the manufacturer, then, of course, we no longer have a conductor, we have a fixed filter). So I'm never surprised when DBTs show no difference between cables. But here's the rub. Expecting there to be no difference is just as much of a bias as is expecting there to be an audible difference. So double blind and ABX tests wouldn't be bias free for such a participant. All cables sound alike is the expectation so no matter if the cables sounded different or not, the biased listener is not going to hear it. Perhaps, but I don't have to hear differences between components myself to be a believer: I just have to know that, in tests, someone can hear the difference. These tests have to be sensitive and repeatable, that's all. So, all you need is someone with good hearing who does believe. Besides, the listener doesn't need to know what is being compared. Andrew. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... Why did the Marantz sound better than the HK? Dunno. I don't know either. To understand it, I'd (1) Run enough tech tests so that I knew what the measureable differences in the actual samples were, including tracking, error recovery and concealment. (2) Do one or more time synched, level matched, bias controlled listening test. Until you do all of the above, its like hitting a ball out of the park in baseball, and then failing to circle the bases and physically touch every one. If you don't touch all the bases, there is no home run. It's too bad that double-blind or ABX tests are so difficult to arrange. Often proper DBTs are every easy to arrange. A DBT comparing DACs would be an example of one of the easier tests to set up. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
DAC Differences
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... Agreed. But since Mr. Kruger has obviously not compared the DACs in question (had he done so, he would have mentioned it as part of his argument) I believe that it is he who has wandered off-argument. Yes, that DACs is totally magic, and all of the 100s of DACs that I have compared are in no way comparable to it. ;-) Thus we have yet another example of questionable logic. A global generalization has been made, but in the end it can't be supported until you have listened to a certain single magic DAC. And if you believe all that.... !!!!!! But still, you haven't listened to the DACs in question, have you? No? Despite the vain efforts to dismiss the critical point, it remains unaddressed. For the record I have auditioned a great number of "magic components" over the years and they all have failed to impress to any exceptional degree once personal bias and bad listening tests are factored out of the situation. You still fail to see the salient point here. This is your all MERELY your opinion. Just because you can't (or won't) hear something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. My opinion is that electronics DO differ in they way they sound. And there is no scientific reason why they shouldn't. And while many of these differences are quite small and in the end, pretty unimportant, some aren't. There's a lot of very good audio gear out there, and coming up with something electronic that actually sounds excpetional is a very tall order. I agree. Modern solid-state amps are pretty transparent. The audible differences between them are very small, but I've yet to hear two different amplifiers that sound exactly alike. The differences might be trivial, but they are differences. DACs are a different story. The difference between them can be quite profound, IME. Since frequency response (within the passband) of most DACs, even cheap ones, is pretty flat, and noise + distortion is similarly low to inaudible, the differences in DACs is down to how much information that they can retrieve. For instance, instruments that can't be identified on a cheap DAC become instantly recognizable on a better one such as the difference between a Fender-Rhodes electric piano and an acoustic piano. Through inexpensive DACs, such as the AudioQuest DragonFly, I assumed that I was hearing an acoustic piano on this one jazz recording, but through the Ayre Acoustics QB-9, it was instantly apparent that it was an electric piano, like a Fender-Rhodes. While there were differences in the measurements between the Ayre, and the DragonFly that I had been listening to these 24-bit/96 KHz computer downloads with, there was nothing that I could point to that would indicate that great of a difference in resolution. Yet there it is. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Big differences between 44.1 and 96Khz. Why? | Pro Audio | |||
| Differences between EL 84 and EL 34 ...? | Vacuum Tubes | |||
| u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
| u87 differences | Pro Audio | |||
| RME 8di Pro Vs DS.. Differences? | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
