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

32 minutes ago, frednork said:

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

DACs shouldn't sound "bright" vs "dull"  (cables shouldn't either)...... if people are getting all "system synergy" by balancing the "bright/dull" out with amps, DACs, cables, etc.....  then something is wrong (it coud be a number if different things).

 

"System senergy" is the problem not the solution.

 

.... and yes, if someone wants to change their sound, then some sort of EQ device is the generally the best way (assuming the system is high performance to begin with, if not, the solve the performance issue first).

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites



9 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. 

 

7 hours ago, muon* said:

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

 

 

So if it isn't flat response (so no "sound signature") and low distortion (although surely they must be part of it) , what are some of these myriad other things that do not get named?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

So if it isn't flat response (so no "sound signature") and low distortion (although surely they must be part of it) , what are some of these myriad other things that do not get named?

 

 

There's a 'Dorothy Dixer' if ever I heard one!  xD

 

Andy

 

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyr said:

 

There's a 'Dorothy Dixer' if ever I heard one!  xD

 

Andy

 

 

Huh?  That's not what I understand a DD to be.  A DD is when a question is a planted question, in order to allow them to expound on some point they wish to make.  I am CERTAINLY not doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

 

So if it isn't flat response (so no "sound signature") and low distortion (although surely they must be part of it) , what are some of these myriad other things that do not get named?

I would say for me I suspect, it is the pleasure and rewards part of the brain that does it for me with some equipment.

I get more of that when I switched to a multi thousand dollar R2R Dac.

Edited by rocky500
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Note this is nothing like changing random other electrical componentry in a system that has no known means for effecting a change in sound and has never been demonstrated to have any measurable change. All DACs measure differently, ergo they sound different. That is a fact. Whether the difference in sound is audible to human perception or not is the real debate. Crazy simplifications of "we can't hear anything below 0dB" or "we can't hear more than 90dB differences" are based on very crude and simple standalone measurements. There is not a lot of research on the effect of ultrasmall signal differences in the presence of larger signals and their subsequent audibility. Additionally all electronic components behave differently in combination with other electronic components - be it subtle earthing related noise, minute phase and amplitude differences, timing issues being carried through from one device to another in some form (it need not be jitter carried into the digital conversion process) and so on. These effects are ultra-small but can be picked up by the most sensitive of laboratory equipment. Again, whether this difference is audible or not is the real debate. I would argue that any devices that measure differently in sound output are likely to be audibly different.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aussievintage said:

So if it isn't flat response (so no "sound signature") and low distortion (although surely they must be part of it) , what are some of these myriad other things that do not get named?

 

Well they can and do look very different.

So much of the audiophile hobby is the visible presentation of the components and the room.

There I said it.

How many times do you read "What a beautiful looking this" or "What a beautiful looking that"?

A lot.

And I'm not implying this doesn't include me as I know I'm drawn to neat looking all black components. ?

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

1 hour ago, rocky500 said:

I would say for me I suspect, it is the pleasure and rewards part of the brain that does it for me with some equipment.

I get more of that when I switched to a multi thousand dollar R2R Dac.

 

19 minutes ago, Satanica said:

Well they can and do look very different.

So much of the audiophile hobby is the visible presentation of the components and the room.

 

 

OK, two replies so far.  Both valid I feel, but I note they have nothing to do with sound.   Still, sure, two cars with similar enough performance, I am going to buy the pretty one.  Same for cables, or DACs, or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

 

OK, two replies so far.  Both valid I feel, but I note they have nothing to do with sound.   Still, sure, two cars with similar enough performance, I am going to buy the pretty one.  Same for cables, or DACs, or anything.

To be clear, for me its all about the sound.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



On 02/11/2020 at 12:47 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).

 

This goes to heart of audiophile philosophy that sound processors are not "pure" and therefore must be discounted.

I remember speaking to a HiFi dealer years ago about EQ and that person referred to it as "cheating".

Well I didn't know up until that point that is was some sort of formal sporting competition. ?

 

But in practical terms what do you suggest?

I have many tools to EQ sound to taste but have never really bothered.

On my sound processor (DEQX) I can even change EQ in real time with a remote control but have never done so.

With JRiver MC (which I use) for playback one can even apply EQ down to the individual track level, but that just seems like nuts to me.

I've always thought of it as a dog chasing its own tail to EQ for taste because recordings vary in mix and quality.

 

Don't getting me wrong EQ'ing for actual equalisation to a desired target curve (flat, house, loudness fletcher-munson etc) makes sense to me and that's what I do.

Edited by Satanica
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Satanica said:

This goes to heart of audiophile philosophy that sound processors are not "pure" and therefore must be discounted.

I remember speaking to a HiFi dealer years ago about EQ and that person referred to it as "cheating".

 

 

Isn't this just the old "tone controls" argument in a digital form?    Personally, anything that makes it sound better is fine by me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MLXXX said:

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?

As for Synergy.  I have a collection of components, devices and accessories including a DAC.  I consider that there is a reasonable degree of equivalency in their respective performance and that they interact together to produce a relative quality outcome.  No weak links.  Each component has a role to play in the overall result.  That is what I mean by system synergy.  To me it is all about the total pleasure of the listening to just the recorded music.  One thing that is important to me is the reduction of the noise floor.  My system has low noise floor.   I do not want to hear resonant interference that is not in the recording.

 

 

Whilst I have two components that have DSP features, those features are not enabled at the moment.  I am pleased with how things are now. 

 

 

Your opening post mentions a YouTube video.  I cannot understand how anybody can judge the quality of what they are hearing by watching such a video.  You also mention the relative cost of a DAC chip and the performance outcomes.  There is no way that my phone or tablet could provide a play back outcome even remotely comparable to my DAC.  A quality DAC is much much more than just the chip.  As with any quality audio component quality has price. 

John

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

8 hours ago, Satanica said:

This goes to heart of audiophile philosophy that sound processors are not "pure" and therefore must be discounted.

I remember speaking to a HiFi dealer years ago about EQ and that person referred to it as "cheating".

Well I didn't know up until that point that is was some sort of formal sporting competition. ?

 

But in practical terms what do you suggest?

I have many tools to EQ sound to taste but have never really bothered.

On my sound processor (DEQX) I can even change EQ in real time with a remote control but have never done so.

With JRiver MC (which I use) for playback one can even apply EQ down to the individual track level, but that just seems like nuts to me.

I've always thought of it as a dog chasing its own tail to EQ for taste because recordings vary in mix and quality.

 

I used to record movies and sitcoms on TV at the Australian standard of 25fps and then play them back at 24fps to get the dialogue and music back to the original speed, timbre and pitch. The video quality suffered a little if I did the conversion on the fly but the sound became wonderfully solid and realistic.  Fortunately these days with Netflix the problem doesn't arise. I can watch episodes of The Big Theory, or movies,  at the proper speed, directly.

 

I find DAB+ radio very trying for listening to classical music. I find that the 80kbps (nominal) bitrate for the ABC Classic service robs the music of a lot of its vitality,  and will listen to the simulcast on FM radio instead, despite its own technical limitations.

 

I'm aware there are people on this forum not conscious at all of PAL speedup, and very tolerant of medium bitrate HE-AAC v2 as used in DAB+ broadcasting.  And I have attended weddings where other guests have remarked to me how wonderful the string quartet sounds to them; when I have been almost wincing at continual out of tune notes!  So I have to assume my hearing must be towards the "fussy" end of the spectrum.

 

However I have no great interest myself in tweaking the sound of my my hi-fi setup with equalizers. I simply accept the imperfections of the speakers, and use a room that is not all that reverberant.

 

Something like your DEQX would be a logical choice for someone with the spare funds and with the desire to experiment with tweaking the sound. And of course it has become increasingly common for people to use DSP specifically for room correction, such as different versions of Audyssey.

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

48 minutes ago, Assisi said:

There is no way that my phone or tablet could provide a play back outcome even remotely comparable to my DAC. 

Have you tried A B comparisons?

 

A few years ago I connected Sennheiser HD800 phones to the output of Samsung Galaxy S7 mobile phone and was very impressed.  It is remarkable what quality is available. 

 

I think the matter was very well put earlier in this thread:

 

On 02/11/2020 at 7:24 AM, aussievintage said:

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. 

 

 

56 minutes ago, Assisi said:

Your opening post mentions a YouTube video.  I cannot understand how anybody can judge the quality of what they are hearing by watching such a video. 

Presumably the poster of that video thought it useful, and I see that most of the comments on the YouTube page are favourable.  

I did not go to the trouble of lining up different parts of the audio I extracted from that video, for A B comparison. If I had done so I might have heard slight differences as between the different DACs despite the masking and confounding effect of loudspeakers, room reverberation, microphones, and lossy audio codec use.  And if I had heard audible differences, what would that imply?  I believe it would imply that one or more of the DACS was "exotic", rather than with a flat neutral response.  If I have time tonight I might have a go at doing an extraction and comparison for the Rosanna  excerpt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

Something like your DEQX would be a logical choice for someone with the spare funds and with the desire to experiment with tweaking the sound. And of course it has become increasingly common for people to use DSP specifically for room correction, such as different versions of Audyssey.

 

I also not so long ago acquired a mini DSP SHD with Dirac Live where you simply measure, can set up to four target curve(s) that can be switched between with the remote letting it sort the EQ and other correction required. Recommended.

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

2 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I did not go to the trouble of lining up different parts of the audio I extracted from that video, for A B comparison. If I had done so I might have heard slight differences as between the different DACs despite the masking and confounding effect of loudspeakers, room reverberation, microphones, and lossy audio codec use.  And if I had heard audible differences, what would that imply?  I believe it would imply that one or more of the DACS was "exotic", rather than with a flat neutral response.  If I have time tonight I might have a go at doing an extraction and comparison for the Rosanna  excerpt.  

 

Well a moment ago I compared these two instances of Rosanna sung by Toto:

 

1st instance

Starting at 13 min into the video embedded in my opening post

Playback designs MPD-8 Dream DAC $22K USD

 

2nd instance

Starting at 20min 24sec into the video embedded in my opening post

Rockna Wavedream Signature Balanced $16K USD

 

The second instance did sound different to my ears in a direct A B comparison. I preferred the second instance. It seemed a bit more "direct"  and a bit "clearer", somehow.

 

Using Audacity I had aligned the two instances to the nearest sample at 48k (the audio sample rate of the video) and inverted the 2nd instance. (The null between the two instances drifted a little and was not all that useful.)

 

I will attach a gif that alternates between two spectrum plots. They are slightly different at various frequencies.  I suspect this variation is likely to be more than just random "noise" but actually attributable to the use of the different DACs, but I have not tried to investigate that.

 

It is interesting, is it not, that differences can be heard despite the indirectness of a video uploaded to YouTube!

 

208892637_Rosannaat14min20min24sec.thumb.gif.dc4cdbe1d4d1cb4f0283005ef89587fe.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/11/2020 at 10:52 PM, MLXXX said:

Have you tried A B comparisons?

 

A few years ago I connected Sennheiser HD800 phones to the output of Samsung Galaxy S7 mobile phone and was very impressed.  It is remarkable what quality is available. 

I rarely do AB comparisons and do not find them particularly useful to base my decisions . 

 

It seems to me that you and I are definitely in different places in the context of the respective benefits of different quality DACS.  If you are impressed with the output of a mobile phone, then that is fine for you.  I am pleased with the outcome of the DAC that I have.  It seems to me that it is futile for me to go any further on this topic

John

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

45 minutes ago, Ittaku said:

Normal variation from the microphone between identical playbacks with identical equipment would easily account for that much variation on a recording of the output.

It is even possible that where the presenter of the video chose to stand after swapping DACs was a significant factor, if his body acted as a reflector or absorber for sound picked up by a microphone.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

It is even possible that where the presenter of the video chose to stand after swapping DACs was a significant factor, if his body acted as a reflector or absorber for sound picked up by a microphone.

Very true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 04/11/2020 at 9:23 AM, aussievintage said:

 

Huh?  That's not what I understand a DD to be.  A DD is when a question is a planted question, in order to allow them to expound on some point they wish to make.  I am CERTAINLY not doing that.

 

... but to many it seems like thta is what is happening.

Interesting, init.

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, davewantsmoore said:

 

... but to many it seems like thta is what is happening.

Interesting, init.

 

Hmmm, and annoying.  Noone has actually put words to that "myriad" of other things though.  The problem is that vagueness suits those who don't like to commit :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that prompted me to begin this thread was a test I'd had in mind of sending a PCM stream to a DAC and recording the output of an ADC connected to the output of that DAC by a short length of audio cable; but where the clocking of the ADC was synced to the clocking of the PCM stream sent to the DAC.

 

It seems very possible in that scenario to obtain 100% accuracy down to the 16th bit, over the whole audible range with the possible exception of frequencies near to the Nyquist limit, or at the bottom of the audible range.  However if the test did return a bit identical result all the way down to the 16th bit for almost the whole of the audible range, that would mean nothing to audiophiles chasing a distinctive sonic signature. To them, "mere accuracy" would not be good enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top