Jump to content

Why do some audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on a DAC? Are they searching for a "sound signature" they like, or just greater "accuracy"?


Recommended Posts

This topic could prove to be a bit controversial so I decided to start it right here in The Great Audio Debate section!

 

From perusing specifications of mass produced Analogue to Digital (ADC) chips and Digital to Analogue (DAC) chips I can see that the technology is very advanced with extremely good linearity, low noise, and low levels of spurious products. And such high performance chips cost only a few dollars. (Just the integrated circuit itself, not the power supply, case and connectors.)  DACs are ubiquitous, e.g. for mobile phones with a stereo headphone socket. The mass need for these devices has resulted in good performance at very low cost.

 

This evening I came across a video produced by a DAC enthusiast who has acquired DACs costing thousands of dollars each. The video invites listeners to listen to the sounds of the different DACs as presented in the video as uploaded to, and accessible on, YouTube . One of the comments posted to the YouTube webpage is:

Quote

it will be great if you can post the original file of the record somewhere (gdrive maybe?), i can’t hear many differences because of the youtube compression. Overall, as always, great job and thank you very much for sharing your passion with us

 

The DAC enthusiast  replies:

Quote

I record it real time on the video, sorry !

 

Given that this would have involved an ADC in the video recording, lossy audio codec compression in the YouTube version of the audio, and whatever "random" DAC a listener happened to use for listening to the video, I reach these tentative conclusions:

 

  • The goal cannot have been to demonstrate supreme DAC "accuracy" as the process of recording to a video camera or other recorder, uploading to YouTube, and the fact that viewers could use whatever equipment they happened to have, would have introduced potential inaccuracies, masking the accuracy of the analogue waveforms at the outputs of the DACs being demonstrated.
  • The goal must have been to demonstrate different "sound signatures", i.e. slight colourations or other artefacts giving a particular DAC a pleasing, distinctive sound.

 

 

If my conclusions are right, and the purpose was to identify the most  pleasing distinctive sound (rather than to be satisfied with an accurate "no frills" sound) why not purchase a sound processor, especially one that offers a wide range of choices for the processing?

 

A sound processor could accept analogue or digital input, process it in the digital domain, and output it either in digital or analogue form.  Rather than a fixed colouration as a specialist DAC might provide, the sound processor could be adjusted to give a wide range of different "effects" to suit the particular recording being played, and the mood of the listener(s). 

 

___________

 

Below is the particular video I saw (53 minutes long if you're prepared to watch all of it - I wasn't!) but it's not the only example on the net of an enthusiast attempting to demonstrate DAC quality by using recordings uploaded to YouTube.

 

 

Edited by MLXXX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I wouldn’t take such video too seriously as you said due to YT compresion and most probably cheap and lossy recording but for sure I expect and understand people tend to like specific coloration made by certain DACs no matter how good or bad, expensive or cheap they are, plenty of online discussions of why and how people prefer R2R, or 1bit or whatever over the delta/sigma and opposite, 

 

also plenty of options these days to introduce specific coloration to your DAC sound via dsp plugins available for foobar and other players but most of them require tinkering and manual swapping/enabling via PC directly which might be somewhat enoying but for sure possible and easy to do

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:
  • The goal cannot have been to demonstrate supreme DAC "accuracy" as the process of recording to a video camera or other recorder, uploading to YouTube, and the fact that viewers could use whatever equipment they happened to have, would have introduced potential inaccuracies, masking the accuracy of the analogue waveforms at the outputs of the DACs being demonstrated.
  • The goal must have been to demonstrate different "sound signatures", i.e. slight colourations or other artefacts giving a particular DAC a pleasing, distinctive sound.

 

 

I don't think either can be done with a youtube video.    To be sure either thing was able to be revealed and not masked, you would need ADCs to record,  and DACs to reproduce, that were much better quality than those being demoed. 

 

 

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

If my conclusions are right, and the purpose was to identify the most  pleasing distinctive sound (rather than to be satisfied with an accurate "no frills" sound) why not purchase a sound processor, especially one that offers a wide range of choices for the processing?

 

A sound processor could accept analogue or digital input, process it in the digital domain, and output it either in digital or analogue form.  Rather than a fixed colouration as a specialist DAC might provide, the sound processor could be adjusted to give a wide range of different "effects" to suit the particular recording being played, and the mood of the listener(s). 

 

Already doing it on my raspberry Pi.   Mainly using filters and a "tube warmth" effect.  I'd welcome suggestions for other effects to try :) 

 

I agree, the "run-of-the-mill" DAC chips have reached absurd heights, all on a cheap chip.  A lot of us old hifi fossils might  find it hard to let go of notions of the past.  To accept the quality available at reasonable cost these days can even be embarrassing.  To cope we will have to go to even more extremes to have stuff that's just a bit better again.   Or maybe not.  We might also just kick back and enjoy today's "average" which is indeed yester-years high-end. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

I don't think either can be done with a youtube video.    To be sure either thing was able to be revealed and not masked, you would need ADCs to record,  and DACs to reproduce, that were much better quality than those being demoed. 

It isn't the ADC/DACs or even likely the youtube audio compression..... it's probbly all the microphone.   It doesn't hear like you do ;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davewantsmoore said:

it's probbly all the microphone. 

The guy matched output levels using white noise and had each of the DACs on for at least 24 hours to warm up.  So far so good.

 

For a live demo in the listening room, fine to use loudspeakers, but for a demo via video recording I'd have thought he'd have made a direct connection from the output of each DAC to the input of an advanced ADC and made the recordings available for download to supplement the video.  

 

As it's really obvious the sound quality would have been compromised by the use of speakers and microphones (and YouTube lossy codec compression) I can only assume the guy was hoping to demonstrate a distinctive sound signature that was so marked it would shine through despite all of the sound quality compromises in his video demonstration method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



15 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

From perusing specifications of mass produced Analogue to Digital (ADC) chips and Digital to Analogue (DAC) chips I can see that the technology is very advanced with extremely good linearity, low noise, and low levels of spurious products. And such high performance chips cost only a few dollars. (Just the integrated circuit itself, not the power supply, case and connectors.)  DACs are ubiquitous, e.g. for mobile phones with a stereo headphone socket. The mass need for these devices has resulted in good performance at very low cost.

 

 

A consumer DAC is much more than just a chip.

 

If you take the PoV that anything in a hifi system degrades the sound ... people search for components that deliver the minimum degradation in their sound.  Hence some are prepared to pay $60K for a stereo DAC - because they can hear it degrades their sound less than a $600 DAC does.

 

15 hours ago, MLXXX said:

 

This evening I came across a video produced by a DAC enthusiast who has acquired DACs costing thousands of dollars each. The video invites listeners to listen to the sounds of the different DACs as presented in the video as uploaded to, and accessible on, YouTube . 

 

 

That, to me, is a completely ridiculous concept - listening to the subtle differences between DACs on a YouTube video!

 

Andy

 

  • Like 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Hmm.... perhaps he did.

It doesn't sound like that to me. The microphone used for his voice has a tonal balance that seems to continue when the music starts.

 

 

Edit: Starting at 13 minutes into the DAC video, the first minute of "Rosanna" performed by Toto is played. The official Rosanna music video (below) has clearer stereo separation and a generally cleaner sound. There is a very slight speed disparity (the DAC video runs a little faster than the official music video).

 

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, andyr said:

A consumer DAC is much more than just a chip.

Well the setup might include an additional input buffer chip for the incoming data stream, with its own reclocking. And there could be a supplementary audio output stage to provide a high level low impedance output signal. There could be adjustable output level using analogue circuitry. 

 

And there could be premium output connectors.

 

The heart of the DAC is the conversion from digital to analogue and that function can be performed to a high standard by an IC costing just a few dollars.  For example, the Cirrus Logic 4334 chip includes these features:

  • Complete Stereo DAC System: Interpolation, D/A, Output Analog Filtering
  • 24-Bit Conversion
  • 96 dB Dynamic Range
  • -88 dB THD+N
  • Low Clock-Jitter Sensitivity
  • Single +5 V Power Supply
  • Filtered Line-Level Outputs
  • On-Chip Digital De-emphasis

 

Such chips can be obtained for a little over $4 each even in small quantities   Here is one source of supply in Australia: https://au.rs-online.com/web/p/audio-dacs/7165820/

 

21 hours ago, andyr said:

If you take the PoV that anything in a hifi system degrades the sound ... people search for components that deliver the minimum degradation in their sound.  Hence some are prepared to pay $60K for a stereo DAC - because they can hear it degrades their sound less than a $600 DAC does.

 

Thanks andyr for this response to the question raised in the thread topic, as to whether what is being sought by audiophiles is accuracy or a pleasant, distinctive sound signature. Your response suggests that at least some audiophiles are simply seeking unadulterated accuracy, without degradation.  They are not seeking a device that will impart its own distinctive "sound signature".

 

I wonder how many audiophiles might be in the other camp, i.e. they want their premium DAC to deliver a distinctive sound.

Edited by MLXXX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

I wonder how many audiophiles might be in the other camp, i.e. they want their premium DAC to deliver a distinctive sound.

I don't think it matters.

Whatever the person buying it prefers and enjoys more.

 

Just like movies, give me all the over the top explosions and special effects, & Zombies possible and I will get submerged in it all. :)

 

Edited by rocky500
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, honestly @MLXXX the whole premise of allowing YouTube viewers to judge sound quality of different DACs from a recorded video, played back on their device is massively flawed.  Others have already stated this in this thread.  The Youtuber is appealing to the masses for subscriptions.  Leave it at that.

 

As to the proposition you raise:

 

5 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Thanks andyr for this response to the question raised in the thread topic, as to whether what is being sought by audiophiles is accuracy or a pleasant, distinctive sound signature. Your response suggests that at least some audiophiles are simply seeking unadulterated accuracy, without degradation.  They are not seeking a device that will impart its own distinctive "sound signature".

 

I wonder how many audiophiles might be in the other camp, i.e. they want their premium DAC to deliver a distinctive sound


The question answers itself really... We choose what we want because we like it.  Pick any analogy - cars, sunglasses, fast food... We all have individual preferences, and we are prepared to pay to indulge those preferences, whatever they may be.  Accuracy, transparency and similar adjectives used in audiophile terminology are largely irrelevant in my view.  Such terms lack a qualifying reference.  The person writing the term has an internal reference for this, but it is entirely subjective.  Examples could include live music, a studio mastering console, a system you heard at a mates house.... often probably a mix of things.  It doesn’t really matter.  We buy what we like because we like it, not because we necessarily want “accuracy” or “transparency” or “colour”.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites



47 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

 Accuracy, transparency and similar adjectives used in audiophile terminology are largely irrelevant in my view.  Such terms lack a qualifying reference.  The person writing the term has an internal reference for this, but it is entirely subjective.

I'm not sure I agree there is no "qualifying reference". If interposing a "thing"  in the chain of reproduction makes no audible difference to a listener then the thing is "transparent" for that listener. 

 

A classic case is a lossy audio codec. At a high enough bitrate a point is reached where the use of the codec becomes undetectable for most or all listeners for listening to a particular music track. 

 

Or a short length of connecting cable when added on to an existing length of audio cable may make no audible difference.  It would be "transparent".

 

An example of something not transparent and not accurate would be a DAC that added "presence" by boosting the middle frequencies.

Edited by MLXXX
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blakey72 said:

If the only variable is the dac, you should be able 'maybe' to hear a difference between dac's but not which is better/more accurate etc.

I tend to agree with that, at least for a DAC being fed a 44.1kHz stereo PCM signal from a CD transport. There are valid alternative implementations of filtering for the highest octave (leading up to the Nyquist limit of 22.05kHz). Some DACs come with selectable filters for that critical part of the audible spectrum.  I suspect I couldn't hear a difference these days but when I was younger, with my higher frequency hearing intact, I could hear very slight differences when filters were changed and I preferred a less aggressive filter slope. The differences were very minor for my ears..

 

I suspect this matter of filter implementation would not be particularly noticeable with a 48kHz or higher sample rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

I'm not sure I agree there is no "qualifying reference". If interposing a "thing"  in the chain of reproduction makes no audible difference to a listener then the thing is "transparent" for that listener. 

What you have done above is added qualifiers to your statement of transparency...  Your points of reference are “the system” and “the listener”.   You have added a variable (a “thing”) and you observe no audible difference.  The statement is can be held to be valid for your points of reference.  To use a term, like transparency, without qualifying what it is transparent to, has virtually no significance to anyone else.

 

For example:

“The CD player had a very accurate sound”
vs 

“The CD player accurately reproduced the sound of live music in my system”

 

The qualifiers to the second statement add significance and meaning to the terminology.

 

As an aside, I suspect most audiophiles view the term “transparency” as meaning transparent to the recorded event, as opposed to transparent to the rest of the system.  This is despite the fact an experience of the recorded event is almost certainly not something the listener was privy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

As an aside, I suspect most audiophiles view the term “transparency” as meaning transparent to the recorded event,

That would be a long bow to draw!

 

I was only intending "accuracy" and "transparency" to be interpreted in a narrow electronics engineering sense of faithfully reproducing the signal as recorded, e.g. not colouring the frequency response, and not adding harmonic distortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

That would be a long bow to draw!

 

I was only intending "accuracy" and "transparency" to be interpreted in a narrow electronics engineering sense of faithfully reproducing the signal as recorded, e.g. not colouring the frequency response, and not adding harmonic distortion.


Ah well, I have no proof, and therefore I said it was a suspicion.  Having said that, this is a forum for audiophiles, and while a subset of audiophiles may also be engineers, the greater group is much more diverse.  
 

I suggest to you that while you may interpret those words in the engineering sense, they may be interpreted differently by non-engineers, and have different connotations to what you intend.  Hence my thought that adding qualification to the statements has benefit to your audience.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Why do some audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on a DAC? Are they searching for a "sound signature" they like, or just greater "accuracy"?”

The answer to your question is very simple.  For me it is neither of the above alternatives that you suggest.  It is all about the pursuit of just a better outcome.  Quality anything often does equate $$$.  If it is well chosen and in synergy with the rest of one’s system then the SQ can consequently be improved in a myriad of ways.  You seem to me to spend a lot of time with your posts trying to deny the benefits of quality.  It may be interesting for you to experience the benefit of BETTER sometime.  You may be surprised.

 

John

Edited by Assisi
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Assisi said:

If it is well chosen and in synergy with the rest of one’s system then the SQ can consequently be improved in a myriad of ways. 

I'm not a disciple of "synergy". In the early days of valve power amplifiers there did tend to be a noticeable interaction between the audio output transformer and the speaker load. Some speakers could even trigger parasitic oscillations.   But these days I'd simply use a solid state power amplifier and expect it to deliver a flat frequency response at very low harmonic distortion, and low source impedance, into any conventional speaker system it was connected to, and of course remain stable!

 

If I somehow found myself in a position of needing to choose a DAC,  I would not (for argument's sake) be inclined to look for a "bright" DAC to compensate for a "dull" speaker system. I'd simply look for a DAC with a flat frequency response and  low distortion output, i.e. a standard DAC. (If the speakers in the room sounded dull then I might consider some sort of room correction processing.)

 

With this thread I hoped to get insight into why certain audiophiles feel it is worthwhile spending thousands of dollars on an external DAC. Specifically are they looking for the very best technical performance (e.g. extremely low jitter, extremely low levels of spurious output) or are they looking for some "spice" that will deliver a distinctive sound.  Your reference to "synergy" suggests to me that you might not be looking so much for  a neutral performance by a DAC, as a performance that will prove to be be pleasing in combination with the rest of your setup, including the acoustics of the listening room.

 

If that is the goal then perhaps a sound processor would be the logical way to go. As I said in my opening post:

 

On 02/11/2020 at 1:17 AM, MLXXX said:

If my conclusions are right, and the purpose was to identify the most  pleasing distinctive sound (rather than to be satisfied with an accurate "no frills" sound) why not purchase a sound processor, especially one that offers a wide range of choices for the processing?

 

A sound processor could accept analogue or digital input, process it in the digital domain, and output it either in digital or analogue form.  Rather than a fixed colouration as a specialist DAC might provide, the sound processor could be adjusted to give a wide range of different "effects" to suit the particular recording being played, and the mood of the listener(s). 

 

Assisi, do you already use some form of adjustable advanced digital sound processing to deliver a special sound to suit the particular music being played?

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When worlds collide.

 

Some of us see more than flat frequencies and low distortion figures as the only or primary aim when pursuing good sound.

For instance some of us only see certain types of distortions as bad as just one example.

 

If you are of one persuasion you may never really understand or appreciate the other.

 

Edit: oh, and I believe there are a myriad of variations to what different folk look for, and prescribe to in their pursuit.

Edited by muon*
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MLXXX said:

With this thread I hoped to get insight into why certain audiophiles feel it is worthwhile spending thousands of dollars on an external DAC. Specifically are they looking for the very best technical performance (e.g. extremely low jitter, extremely low levels of spurious output) or are they looking for some "spice" that will deliver a distinctive sound.  Your reference to "synergy" suggests to me that you might not be looking so much for  a neutral performance by a DAC, as a performance that will prove to be be pleasing in combination with the rest of your setup, including the acoustics of the listening room.

 

If that is the goal then perhaps a sound processor would be the logical way to go. As I said in my opening post:

 

This seems ludicrous to me, You are suggesting those that spend "thousands" on a dac would be better off buying some dsp processing instead. 

 

To me this seems like a "dacs dont make any difference" thread in disguise, 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/11/2020 at 6:26 PM, MLXXX said:

The microphone used for his voice has a tonal balance that seems to continue when the music starts.

Intersting.

 

He went to all that work, and doesn't even explain whether he did or not.... and if he did (record them with a microphone) then it's a pretty daft way to compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top