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



9 minutes ago, rantan said:

 

I think he means that in audio, there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.?

 

 

And in that spirit, rantan ... I know nothing about amplifiers ... but I know a good one when I hear it!  xD

 

Andy

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/11/2020 at 12:00 AM, MLXXX said:

Via Google Drive I can share with the forum the re-recordings I've made. The files are:

 

  1. The original as downloaded,  but with opening and closing tones added, and at 24 bits 44.1kHz rather than the original 16 bits 44.1kHz format.
  2. The above after a single "round trip" of being played back with a DAC and simultaneously re-recorded with an ADC.
  3. A later generation copy, involving X round trips from the original downloaded file.  Forum members are welcome to guess how many round trips were involved.  Does X equal 2, 3, even more?
  4. An even later generation copy, involving exactly twice as many round trips.  

 

The files are labelled and it is not necessary to guess which is which. Here they are: The 4 test files     The only unknown forum members are being asked to guess is how many passes through the audio interface were involved for file 3 [being half as many as for file 4].   

 

I'd be interested in forum members' subjective comments about how different (if at all) versions 2, 3 and 4 above sound compared with version 1, when listened to on their own equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, andyr said:

And in that spirit, rantan ... I know nothing about amplifiers ... but I know a good one when I hear it!  xD

Often I can tell it's going to be a good one just by picking it up.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



18 hours ago, kukynas said:

downloaded your file, played with foobar and recorded by wavepad, volume between those 2 DACs is within 0.2db, there might be slight difference in the length as I hit the record button manually in both cases

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmvxRKr_JyApij4eB3_ySosmJ5JO?e=oCIl2q

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AmvxRKr_JyApij8wxirNSDI6kMgb?e=0t9AWx 

 

I've now had a chance to listen more extensively to the above 2 files (after level-matching them to the original file to within 0.001dB in each channel, for 1kHz).*  I compared them with the original [file 1 in my last post above].

 

I used HD800 phones driven by an Essence Xonar ST audiophile sound card. Although the phones have a fairly high impedance (300 ohms) there was plenty of drive voltage available for them.

 

As I had previously noticed when using speakers, the RME ADI-2 DAC FS file would sometimes sound "better" to my ears than the original file. Subjectively it sounded a little "neater" and "more orderly". 

 

The Topping E30 version was very close in sound to the original file, subjectively. I don't think I'd have been able to tell the difference between it and the original file if I had left the room and re-entered it with without being told which version of this piece of music was being played. However in an immediate A B test, swapping between the two versions,  I could tell that the Topping version was not exactly the same as the original tonally, or as regards the stereo image.

 

______________________

 

* I found that that procedure of itself made a very slight audible difference beyond changing the level. I attribute that primarily to the filters needed for the relatively low sample rate of 44.1kHz.  Another approach would have been to resample the recordings, and also  the original, to 96kHz, before the level adjustments. 

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

I'd be interested in forum members' subjective comments about how different (if at all) versions 2, 3 and 4 above sound compared with version 1, when listened to on their own equipment.

 

I hear bugger all difference.     This is listening via a humble Topping D10, via SET amplifiers into Osborn Eclipse speakers, and also via a Fiio E10K into Sennheiser HD558 headphones.  I know, not high end but still.

 

Just comparing 1 and 4 then.  If pushed I might admit to maybe hearing a small reduction in detail in 4.   Not something I would lose sleep over.

 

Now let's see if someone embarrasses me by hearing big differences :)  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

This was my point earlier, to Andy I think.   We just don't know which of the small differences are pertinent, and in what combination they need to exist.  Andy is looking for a single thing that corresponds to an effect he hears.  I think that's the wrong approach.  I bet it will be a combination of things we are already aware of, but don't know the correct recipe for.

Hello AV,

 

First, we have to establish which of the 'small differences' are in the sound waves at all, and not just a cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

This same comment applies to a lot of posts that have been made in this thread so far.

 

cheers,

Grant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

This same comment applies to a lot of posts that have been made in this thread so far.

 

If you are commenting on a post that I made on this thread, Grant ... read on.  Otherwise ... move on.  :)

 

Quote

 

First, we have to establish which of the 'small differences' are in the sound waves at all, and not just a cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

 

If you are suggesting that the listening group that I referred to in one of my posts all knew that amp #2 would cause the singer to jump forwards of the plane of the spkrs - which thus caused us to hear this effect when we plugged it in ... I am afraid you are dead wrong.  None of us - except the amp designer - had ever heard this amp before; we had absolutely no idea how it would sound.  (And the amp designer didn't forewarn us.)

 

Andy

 

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



2 hours ago, Grant Slack said:

Hello AV,

 

First, we have to establish which of the 'small differences' are in the sound waves at all, and not just a cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

This same comment applies to a lot of posts that have been made in this thread so far.

 

cheers,

Grant

You are stating that if it doesn't appear in the wave form that it is cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

So you have a conclusion established based on a bias from the get go.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aussievintage said:

Now let's see if someone embarrasses me by hearing big differences :)  

 

 

I volunteered my wife to take the test. She listened to the D10 through the speakers but not the headphones.    She can hear no difference at all.   

 

Oh well, even if nothing else, if someone else hears the difference, it will be a point of comparison on the quality of DAC required to discern the difference.  or ...  there may truly be no audible difference, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, muon* said:

You are stating that if it doesn't appear in the wave form that it is cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

So you have a conclusion established based on a bias from the get go.

 

Measurement-focussed people always have a bias, Ian!  xD  ("If it can't be measured ... it can't be heard. ")

 

Andy

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

 

I volunteered my wife to take the test. She listened to the D10 through the speakers but not the headphones.    She can hear no difference at all.   

 

Oh well, even if nothing else, if someone else hears the difference, it will be a point of comparison on the quality of DAC required to discern the difference.  or ...  there may truly be no audible difference, of course.

 

Am obliged to you aussievintage, not only that you took the trouble to listen, and to encourage your wife to listen, but that you had the courage to report that there was  no (or extremely little) audible difference. I say "courage" because in an audiophile thread to admit to not hearing a difference can invite sneers!

 

It was probably a good move to choose file 4 for the comparison, the file most affected by the multiple re-recordings.  As it seemed the same (or almost the same) as the original, early on in your listening session while your ears were still fresh, it would probably have been a waste of your time listening to files 2 and 3 in the same listening session.  (Perhaps on another occasion when your hearing was more receptive (e.g. after a particularly good night's sleep), file 3 or even file 2 might sound slightly different to you than file 1.)

 

In my own listening tests I used software players that could be switched on the fly between two files when looping a short segment of the music (Audacity, or foobar 2000 with ABX plug-in). That made it easier for me to zero in on any apparent difference.   It was an immediate A B test of just a few seconds' worth of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

In my own listening tests I used software players that could be switched on the fly between two files when looping a short segment of the music (Audacity, or foobar 2000 with ABX plug-in). That made it easier for me to zero in on any apparent difference.   It was an immediate A B test of just a few seconds' worth of music.

 

I might mix my own file containing repeated excerpts from each file to do a quick AB between them.

 

8 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Perhaps on another occasion when your hearing was more receptive (e.g. after a particularly good night's sleep)

 

Certainly will experiment again later

Link to comment
Share on other sites



15 hours ago, aussievintage said:

I was only talking about the small measured differences.  So consider them established.

But not established as audible purely due to the sound waves.

 

14 hours ago, andyr said:

If you are suggesting that the listening group that I referred to in one of my posts all knew that amp #2 would cause the singer to jump forwards of the plane of the spkrs - which thus caused us to hear this effect when we plugged it in ... I am afraid you are dead wrong.  None of us - except the amp designer - had ever heard this amp before; we had absolutely no idea how it would sound.  (And the amp designer didn't forewarn us.)

The cognitive consequences of sighted listening would have dominated if the listeners knew which was which.

 

12 hours ago, muon* said:

You are stating that if it doesn't appear in the wave form that it is cognitive consequence of sighted listening.

 

I neither said nor meant that. I'm only saying we need to be sure that the listening test is not sighted, to avoid the cognitive consequences of sighted listening.

 

12 hours ago, muon* said:

So you have a conclusion established based on a bias from the get go.

Certainly not. Since your first statement is wrong, your second is too.

 

I am surprised and disappointed that two members immediately jumped to label me a 'measurement guy', disparagingly and wrongly. 

 

I don't see you fellows doing that to AV, who, in his quote above, says he took measurements to establish the existence of differences.

 

All I am saying is that, when you do a listening test, you have to do it well, or it will be invalid. The usual methods are quite terrible and lead to illusory perceptions and wrong conclusions. Thinking that the usual methods are perfectly fine is the real way to "have a conclusion established based on a bias from the get go."

 

My point was never about making measurements.

 

Regards

Grant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

But not established as audible purely due to the sound waves.

 

I never said it was.  You apparently only read selected parts of the conversation

 

10 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

I don't see you fellows doing that to AV, who, in his quote above, says he took measurements to establish the existence of differences.

 

 

I did NOT.  You have  not understood what I wrote.

 

 

Please, re-read the whole exchange.  I am sure it will become clearer.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

 

The cognitive consequences of sighted listening would have dominated if the listeners knew which was which.

 

 

I find that a bizarre statement, GS.  (Perhaps you need to take your head out of you know where and look around.  xD )

 

Yes, we knew which amp was being used - but, after listening to amp #1 for a couple of hours, we had no idea of how amp #2 was going to sound.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, aussievintage said:

 

I might mix my own file containing repeated excerpts from each file to do a quick AB between them.

Yes, when the audible differences between two audio files are very subtle, quick A B tests of short excerpts may be an efficient and effective way to hear them.

 

__________________________

 

I find foobar 2000 (with an ABX plug-in which can be downloaded separately) very useful in that you can hunt around in the file for a "revealing" part of it. And then just repeatedly play that segment and swap between the 2 versions of the file.

 

Also, if you want to prove to yourself that you are not just imagining the small differences you hear, you can activate the full ABX functionality and test yourself on a blind basis for that revealing part of the recording.

 

Edited by MLXXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, andyr said:

I find that a bizarre statement, GS.  (Perhaps you need to take your head out of you know where and look around.  xD )

 

Yes, we knew which amp was being used - but, after listening to amp #1 for a couple of hours, we had no idea of how amp #2 was going to sound.

 

 

To be fair Andy, with sighted testing, once one or two people, particularly if they are regarded as the gurus of the group, expresses an opinion that the soundstage is much better, or whatever, the expectation is set, and it is set on the amp they can see playing at the time.  In groups of humans, these ideas feed on each other to the point that incorrect findings can result (be heard).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



9 minutes ago, andyr said:

Yes, we knew which amp was being used - but, after listening to amp #1 for a couple of hours, we had no idea of how amp #2 was going to sound.

This line of discussion is going well off-topic, but as it is being discussed I'd note  said that when a group of people exchange comments about how something sounds subjectively, that does tend to detract from the scientific rigour of the exercise.  As human beings we like to agree with each other if we possibly can.  There are some individuals who seem to habitually go against the flow, but perhaps they wouldn't be invited to a group listening session in the first place!

 

Faced with the situation in the future of demonstrating a new amp in front of a group of people it could be more persuasive from an evidence viewpoint if the participants were asked to write down their impressions of the new amp on pieces of paper, without consulting amongst themselves first.   If all participants independently reported the same distinct and unusual change [not just a generic change such as "lower noise floor", or "more dynamic"] in writing, that would carry a fair degree of weight I would think.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I struggle to see why a DAC costing a few k would be 'that much better' than one that's a few $100. Would love to be able to demo a few in person. Then could decide for myself. 

 

That said, dedicated DAC (Topping D50s) is MUCH better than my on-board PC DAC, and better than Chromecast audio in-built DAC. Next purchase will probably be SMSL SU8 V2 which is around $350AUD. 

 

Anyone know of a place in Melbourne where you can go listen to a range of DACs (perhaps even bring your own speakers) before purchasing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

To be fair Andy, with sighted testing, once one or two people, particularly if they are regarded as the gurus of the group, expresses an opinion that the soundstage is much better, or whatever, the expectation is set, and it is set on the amp they can see playing at the time.  In groups of humans, these ideas feed on each other to the point that incorrect findings can result (be heard).

Well said.  I hadn't seen this before making my post just above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Yes, when the audible differences between two audio files are very subtle, quick A B tests of short excerpts may be an efficient and effective way to hear them.

 

__________________________

 

I find foobar 2000 (with an ABX plug-in which can be downloaded separately) very useful in that you can hunt around in the file for a "revealing" part of it. And then just repeatedly play that segment and swap between the 2 versions of the file.

 

Also, if you want to prove to yourself that you are not just imagining the small differences you hear, you can activate the full ABX functionality and test yourself on a blind basis for that revealing part of the recording.

 

 

 

I   just loaded file 1 and 4 into audacity.  I set it looping on the tinkly bit (is that a glockenspiel?) and just solo'd between each track.  There IS a difference in detail.  It is subtle but pretty much what I thought I heard yesterday just playing the files.

 

I notice that you supplied file 1 Inverted.  When I play both together, they null out, and I guess what I am then hearing are the residual differences.  If so, there is quite a lot of info that is different.    Not so easy to hear amongst the rest of the correct sound though.  I guess there's a little lesson there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

To be fair Andy, with sighted testing, once one or two people, particularly if they are regarded as the gurus of the group, expresses an opinion that the soundstage is much better, or whatever, the expectation is set, and it is set on the amp they can see playing at the time.  In groups of humans, these ideas feed on each other to the point that incorrect findings can result (be heard).

 

 

6 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

This line of discussion is going well off-topic, but as it is being discussed I'd note  said that when a group of people exchange comments about how something sounds subjectively, that does tend to detract from the scientific rigour of the exercise.  As human beings we like to agree with each other if we possibly can.  There are some individuals who seem to habitually go against the flow, but perhaps they wouldn't be invited to a group listening session in the first place!

 

 

Thank you guys - but, being a lot older than teenage, I am well aware of group dynamics.

 

And when everyone in the group simultaneously lets out a surprised 'Wow!" (when Amp #2 is plugged in ) ... no-one is doing any "influencing" of anyone else!

 

In fact, as Amp #2 was known to be Class A, SE and only 25w, all of us (except perhaps Hugh Dean, the designer) expected it would not fare well, driving the large Dalis - compared to the Bryston, with its several hundred watts.  That is why we were amazed with the forward projection of the singer's voice, relative to the Bryston.  Of course, turning the volume up, Amp #2 (Hugh's "Glass Harmony") was heard to suffer, with the Dalis - but that was expected; the unexpected thing was the forward sound stage that it delivered.

 

Andy

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top