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

[Ittaku]

They're both important, would be my view on it. However given they measure so similarly, it's hard to know just how important the direct DAC measurements are, and whether the flow on effects are all that really matters now; impedance matching, earth loops, radiated/absorbed noise, isolation, jitter, powerline noise management/worsening, etc... shrug.

[aussievintage]

29 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

It could well be making its way down the chain, but then become hard to identify and isolate amongst room reflections picked up by the microphone.

 

or our ears.   Hard to identify, hard to pick up = hard to hear probably, and not a big concern for the listener

[MLXXX]

9 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

or our ears.   Hard to identify, hard to pick up = hard to hear probably, and not a big concern for the listener

 

It may be a big concern to a buyer prepared to lay down several thousand dollars for a DAC with certain artefacts that measure a few decibels lower than competing products. The fact that these artefacts may not be demonstrably audible may not worry a purist buyer.  Such is the world of the elite purist audiophile.  Only the best will do.

 

But if particular DAC artefacts are in fact audible they are almost certainly going to be more efficiently and accurately measured at the DAC output connector or the preamp out connector than from the output of a microphone preamplifier for a microphone located somewhere in a non-anechoic room.

[Stereophilus]

55 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

It may be a big concern to a buyer prepared to lay down several thousand dollars for a DAC with certain artefacts that measure a few decibels lower than competing products. The fact that these artefacts may not be demonstrably audible may not worry a purist buyer.  Such is the world of the elite purist audiophile.  Only the best will do.

I think you are confusing the term audiophile.  Audiophiles pursue good sound quality, not necessarily good measurements (although the two things are not mutually exclusive).  There would be very few “audiophiles” who buy purely on measurements without hearing a product.  People who buy expensive audio gear purely based on wanting the best measurements, without regard for sound quality are not audiophiles.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Stereophilus
Grammar

[MLXXX]

14 minutes ago, Stereophilus said:

People who buy expensive audio gear purely based on wanting the best measurements, without regard for sound quality are not audiophiles.

I don't imagine too many people willing to spend several thousand dollars on a DAC would not have regard for sound quality.  It is in fact sound quality they would most likely be pursuing whether or not they have engaged in exhaustive level matched auditioning of all DACs they were considering.

 

And if after auditioning two DACs they find them hard to separate by ear, if one of them has better specs they might well go with it, even if it is more expensive.

 

But I think we are digressing.

Edited November 22, 2020 by MLXXX

[frednork]

3 hours ago, MLXXX said:

No offence was intended.

I honestly did not think that was your aim.

 

3 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I strongly suspect you'd not be inclined to do so, but you could if you wished play my test file 1 on both your HP laptop and your preferred DAC, recording the analogue output with a reasonable quality ADC, and uploading the recordings so that forum members could listen for the extent to which the recordings departed from file 1.

 

They might then agree with your assessment that your HP laptop degraded music appreciably, or they might say that the degradation was mild, or barely audible.

No I have no need to prove it to myself. Please fell free to try yourself if you want. just about any laptop sound card will be as crappy on the analog out.

 

Have no wish to offend anyone and in the end, the enjoyment of music is the thing that we all have in common. 

 

However

 

I think there is an elephant in the room that is not being addressed and I am fed up enough to address it.

 

Clearly some people find no difference between dacs, amplifiers, let alone cables of all sorts.  I find quite distinct differences (and no I am no Jesuslike figure and will not be crucified on my blind test cross to atone for your sins, please dont ask, I understand the difficulties of blindtesting too well) 

 

When I  try to understand peoples subjective opinion on what does and does not make a difference I look at their listening preferences and I look at their equipment. For instance I can look at @Ittaku's setup and for all his talk about how good a topping dac is he really listens to a dac which is worth the price of very nice car. Clearly he hears some benefit. I can look at @Stereophilus's setup and see that if there are differences worth hearing , that setup should show it. Then there are many variations below that and I can assess them according to my own history and personal experience. 

 

I have been listening to stereo's since my first stereo around 1975 a Kreisler multisonic stereo, all valve. I used to belt out led zeppelin santana etc out of that thing. Loved it.  Do I think I could hear differences in dacs on it? . I would say no!

 

Next came a whole plethora of low to mid range seperates , akai, technics, pioneer, running through Cerwin Vega speakers. Dac differences audible. would say not!

 

Then I inherited my brothers setup. Lux amp and Ls3/5a's, differences hearable?. Possibly but would be pretty small, even with very different dacs.

 

Then came a bunch of mid range avrs with ls3/5a's sometimes with power amps also. Hear differences? dont think so. worse than the lux setup

 

Then came audio aero amps audio aero cd player and Lls3/5a's differences? yes!

 

then Big osborns, hear a difference, yes.

 

now theres Vitus amp/dac and Duntech princesses. hear a difference? yes but probably not as much as the osborns, the Duntechs have other qualities I like.

 

There were plenty more in between. 

 

I didnt have any less passion for  music  on any of those setups. But to me , expecting to hear a difference between most things whilst running a mid range avr as the source is folly. 

 

Some here are very prolific in their passionate denial of differences in pretty much everything as far as I can tell, from dacs to amps to speaker cables and definitely anything beyond that. (I think pretty much everyone agree's speakers can be differen)t.

 

However I have no idea what they are using to determine whether these differences exist or not. I have chosen not to ask as I think that can be misconstrued as an opportunity to denigrate their setups. Everyone has different priorities and financial means in life and I would not think less of them  or their passion for music regardless of the setup used.

 

BUT

 

I would not expect them to hear differences between lots of the things discussed if it was simlar to some of the setups I have discussed in which I would expect no or little difference. 

 

I would encourage those that post a lot to share their setups so their impressions could be better understood.

 

I think we have to be a bit realistic about expectations of hearing some of these subtle changes in setups where it is unlikely to be discerned.

 

 

 

[MLXXX]

I note @frednork that you have made no comment about the sound quality of the test recordings made available in this thread. If you have superior equipment and refined listening ability your opinions would carry additional weight, compared with those making do with what is sometimes described in audiophile circles as "less resolving" equipment.

[frednork]

1 minute ago, MLXXX said:

I note @frednork that you have made no comment about the sound quality of the test recordings made available in this thread. If you have superior equipment and refined listening ability your opinions would carry additional weight, compared with those making do with what is sometimes described in audiophile circles as "less resolving" equipment.

you have posted your impressions and that is what I would expect, so no need to 

 

The other thing I would add to the above rant is that i dont equate listening on headphones with running speakers at all. Headphones for me will bring out tonal differences even more so than speakers so if you are looking for tonal differences they are great. 

 

When it comes to soundstage depth and width and the feeling of the artist "being there" I dont find headphones to accurately convey that at all. i think headphones dont capture that well and so you are only getting some of the audio "picture" available. 

[Ittaku]

16 minutes ago, frednork said:

For instance I can look at @Ittaku's setup and for all his talk about how good a topping dac is he really listens to a dac which is worth the price of very nice car. Clearly he hears some benefit.

Indeed, I recommend the Topping gear a lot because in its price range, they're worth every cent and usually that price range is where most peoples' budgets lie. I currently own two different Topping DACs of my own. But if you have a bigger budget, other DACs simply sound better to me so I wouldn't dream of using them in my reference system, or recommend them to someone who can afford a "better" DAC,  irrespective of how great they measure for the ASR fanbois.

[MLXXX]

6 minutes ago, frednork said:

The other thing I would add to the above rant is that i dont equate listening on headphones with running speakers at all. Headphones for me will bring out tonal differences even more so than speakers so if you are looking for tonal differences they are great. 

 

When it comes to soundstage depth and width and the feeling of the artist "being there" I dont find headphones to accurately convey that at all. i think headphones dont capture that well and so you are only getting some of the audio "picture" available. 

I agree with the above.  Headphones although they can reveal certain detail tend not to do well at presenting the soundstage in a way that seems realistic.

 

I will use both listening methods if attempting a careful comparison.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, frednork said:

I would encourage those that post a lot to share their setups so their impressions could be better understood.

 

I think we have to be a bit realistic about expectations of hearing some of these subtle changes in setups where it is unlikely to be discerned.

 

As previously disclosed in this thread, for headphone listening to the test files I brought out my rarely used Asus Xonar Essence ST "audiophile" sound card (still sitting in an old pc). It had plenty of grunt to drive my Sennheiser HD800 phones.  I didn't feel the headphone sound was  noticeably different compared with plugging into the headphone socket of my integrated amp (which was fed via HDMI audio from a pc).  The slight nuances of difference in the recordings that I perceived were noticeable with either way of driving the phones.

 

The integrated amplifier is a Pioneer VSX-1131 receiver (not a high tier model by any means). The front speakers are a pair of psb Imagine Ts, supplemented by a psb subwoofer.  It was with this setup that I was alerted to a certain "neatness" and "compactness" in one of kukynas's recordings. relative to the file I supplied to him, file 1. 

 

_____________

 

I notice that no one so far has taken up the challenge of estimating how many round trips through my Behringer FCA1616 audio interface were involved in the creation of file 3.

 

The test files were provided in this thread on November the 14th:

 

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].   

 

 

[Stereophilus]

45 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

As previously disclosed in this thread, for headphone listening to the test files I brought out my rarely used Asus Xonar Essence ST "audiophile" sound card (still sitting in an old pc). It had plenty of grunt to drive my Sennheiser HD800 phones.  I didn't feel the headphone sound was  noticeably different compared with plugging into the headphone socket of my integrated amp (which was fed via HDMI audio from a pc).  The slight nuances of difference in the recordings that I perceived were noticeable with either way of driving the phones.

 

The integrated amplifier is a Pioneer VSX-1131 receiver (not a high tier model by any means). The front speakers are a pair of psb Imagine Ts, supplemented by a psb subwoofer.  It was with this setup that I was alerted to a certain "neatness" and "compactness" in one of kukynas's recordings. relative to the file I supplied to him, file 1. 

 

_____________

 

I notice that no one so far has taken up the challenge of estimating how many round trips through my Behringer FCA1616 audio interface were involved in the creation of file 3.

 

The test files were provided in this thread on November the 14th:

 

 

 

I would guess 3 or 4, but it’s purely guess work.

[Grant Slack]

On 21/11/2020 at 3:28 PM, Stereophilus said:

Quote

I also get frustrated by completely wrong descriptions about digital audio like the above.  “From experience”?

Where’s the facepalm emoji.  And you wonder why people suggest you are a “measurements” guy?

 

Hi Stereophilus, can you please explain the link between someone (in this case DrSK, almost immediately after he appealed to his own authority, ) being factually wrong wrt digital technology, and you labelling me a “measurements guy” for pointing it out?   Regards, Grant

[Stereophilus]

1 hour ago, Grant Slack said:

 

Hi Stereophilus, can you please explain the link between someone (in this case DrSK, almost immediately after he appealed to his own authority, ) being factually wrong wrt digital technology, and you labelling me a “measurements guy” for pointing it out?   Regards, Grant

What i pointed out was that you dismissed the opinion of someone with experience quoting their experience.  In fact you dimissed "experience" all together!  The only thing left to base opinion on (in the absence of experience) is established theory and measurement.  Hence my rebuttal to you.

[MLXXX]

9 hours ago, Stereophilus said:

I would guess 3 or 4, but it’s purely guess work.

Thanks, guesswork is just what I was looking for!

 

[I note It would be possible to get an answer by calculation, by measuring the extent of the progressive attenuation of the 11025Hz tone with each rerecording.]

[aussievintage]

20 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I note It would be possible to get an answer by calculation, by measuring the extent of the progressive attenuation of the 11025Hz tone with each rerecording.

 

Maybe, but after the first pass the ADC is recording it's own work.  I don't think attentuation would be linear in a mid-frequency like this.

[Grant Slack]

1 hour ago, Stereophilus said:

What i pointed out was that you dismissed the opinion of someone with experience quoting their experience.  In fact you dimissed "experience" all together!  The only thing left to base opinion on (in the absence of experience) is established theory and measurement.  Hence my rebuttal to you.

Sorry, Stereophilus, I never did that. I corrected some fundamentally wrong ideas about digital audio, and I questioned how his experience can validate a wrong fact.

 

cheers

Grant

[MLXXX]

35 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

Maybe, but after the first pass the ADC is recording it's own work.  I don't think attentuation would be linear in a mid-frequency like this.

 

The scenario was:

 

1st pass:

Play file 1 on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 2.

 

2nd pass:

Play file 2 on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record the next generation file.

 

...

 

Xth pass:

Play immediate prior generation file on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 3

 

...

 

Yth pass:

Play immediate prior generation file on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 4.

 

Additional information: y = 2x

 

The question:  How many passes (round trips) through the interface were involved to create file 3?

 

 

It would be open to anyone to use suitable software (e.g. Audacity) to determine the attenuation of the 11.025kHz tone in getting from file 1 to file 2.  If exactly the same extent of attenuation occurred at each round trip through the audio interface, that would enable determination of how many round trips were involved to create file 3 [and for that matter file 4, even without using the "additional information"].

 

I have not performed such a calculation myself, but I do of course have a record of how many round trips were involved.

Edited November 22, 2020 by MLXXX

[Stereophilus]

24 minutes ago, Grant Slack said:

Sorry, Stereophilus, I never did that. I corrected some fundamentally wrong ideas about digital audio, and I questioned how his experience can validate a wrong fact.

 

cheers

Grant

"I also get frustrated by completely wrong descriptions about digital audio like the above.  “From experience”?"

 

That is the quote i rebutted.  I read it as dismissive of experience over theory.  If you intended it otherwise that is fine, but we should move on so as not to derail this thread.

[frednork]

24 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

 

The scenario was:

 

1st pass:

Play file 1 on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 2.

 

2nd pass:

Play file 2 on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record the next generation file.

 

...

 

Xth pass:

Play immediate prior generation file on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 3

 

...

 

Yth pass:

Play immediate prior generation file on interface DAC connected through an analogue balanced cable to interface ADC  to record file 4.

 

Additional information: y = 2x

 

The question:  How many passes (round trips) through the interface were involved to create file 3?

 

 

It would be open to anyone to use suitable software (e.g. Audacity) to determine the attenuation of the 11.025kHz tone in getting from file 1 to file 2.  If exactly the same extent of attenuation occurred at each round trip through the audio interface, that would enable determination of how many round trips were involved to create file 3 [and for that matter file 4, even without using the "additional information"].

 

I have not performed such a calculation myself, but I do of course have a record of how many round trips were involved.

As interesting as this may be, I fail to see how this relates to the topic under discussion. Am I missing something?

[aussievintage]

41 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

If exactly the same extent of attenuation occurred at each round trip through the audio interface,

 

That's what I am doubting.  On the first pass the ADC captures all it can, and misses some small amount.  On the subsequent passes it misses less each time.  You can't just calculate it simply unless you know the non-linear function for it's behaviour.

[MLXXX]

2 minutes ago, frednork said:

As interesting as this may be, I fail to see how this relates to the topic under discussion. Am I missing something?

 

 

If a DAC (digital to analogue conversion device) were of very poor audio quality then even a single use could be expected to result in quite noticable degradation.  Similarly, If an ADC (audio to digital conversion device) were of very poor audio quality then a single use of it could be expected to  result in quite noticeable degradation.

 

File 2 involved two conversions:  DAC followed by ADC

File 3 involved 2 times "X" conversions:  X times (DAC followed by ADC)

File 4 involve 4 times "X" conversions:  2X times (DAC followed by ADC)

 

File 4 has been reported in this thread to be only barely noticeably impaired or not noticeably impaired if played in a standalone manner (as distinct from an immediate A B comparison manner) against file 1. Even played with immediate A B switching it has been reported as only slightly degraded.

 

It is clear at this point that the DAC and ADC devices in my mid-priced audio interface in a single use of them appear to impart very mild audible degradation (if any audible degradation) at the sample rate (44.1kHz) used.

 

kukynas performed a similar exercise with his more advanced audio interface ADC and two DACs and the resulting files from a singe re-recording showed only a very mild audible change (that is my assessment; I don't think there have been too many comments on his files).

 

So we are in the rather good place of having ADCs that appear to work well, and of DACs that appear to work well.

 

The goal was to demonstrate whether we could successfully replicate all the bits on a standard CD track without any loss whatsoever. Given the high linearity of the devices (extending beyond 16 bits ) and a very close to flat frequency response apart from frequencies approaching the Nyquist limit, that seemed feasible if the phase of the ADC sampling was locked to the phase of the DAC clocking [and adjusted for any latency effects]. 

 

If that goal had been achieved it would have demonstrated that the CD track could be reproduced perfectly right down to the 16th bit, raising the question what else might be pursued beyond complete accuracy.  That presumably would be a "sound signature".

[Assisi]

2 hours ago, frednork said:

As interesting as this may be, I fail to see how this relates to the topic under discussion. Am I missing something?

I do not think that it is even interesting.  It is just a continuation of more confusion as to what the topic is ostensibly about. 

John

Edited November 23, 2020 by Assisi
word missing

[MLXXX]

25 minutes ago, aussievintage said:

 

That's what I am doubting.  On the first pass the ADC captures all it can, and misses some small amount.  On the subsequent passes it misses less each time.  You can't just calculate it simply unless you know the non-linear function for it's behaviour.

I don't think the ADC ever "misses" the continuous 11.025kHz sine wave at the start of the file The DAC or the ADC (or both of them, each to some extent)  merely attenuates that sine wave to some extent. It is still there at each re-recording, just at a progressively more and more reduced amplitude (relative to the amplitude of the 1kHz sine wave at the end of the file).

 

Anyway we shall see, if someone does the calculations. (If no one else does, I will.)

[frednork]

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

f a DAC (digital to analogue conversion device) were of very poor audio quality then even a single use could be expected to result in quite noticable degradation.  Similarly, If an ADC (audio to digital conversion device) were of very poor audio quality then a single use of it could be expected to  result in quite noticeable degradation.

Didnt think we were talking about comparing "very poor audio quality" dacs, In fact the opposite!!

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

It is clear at this point that the DAC and ADC devices in my mid-priced audio interface in a single use of them appear to impart very mild audible degradation (if any audible degradation) at the sample rate (44.1kHz) used.

Not that I see how it applies but even in this you arent separating out the effect of the dac and adc

 

1 hour ago, MLXXX said:

The goal was to demonstrate whether we could successfully replicate all the bits on a standard CD track without any loss whatsoever. Given the high linearity of the devices (extending beyond 16 bits ) and a very close to flat frequency response apart from frequencies approaching the Nyquist limit, that seemed feasible if the phase of the ADC sampling was locked to the phase of the DAC clocking [and adjusted for any latency effects]. 

 

If that goal had been achieved it would have demonstrated that the CD track could be reproduced perfectly right down to the 16th bit, raising the question what else might be pursued beyond complete accuracy.  That presumably would be a "sound signature".

To be honest I have lost track of what has and hasnt been achieved as I still dont understand the point of the exercise besides confirming what is already known which is that degradation occurs when passed through an ADDA process. How that relates to a possible sound signature is not a linear extension of this for me.

 

However this is your thread and you should take it where you wish. I truly hope you achieve your aim. I will be interested to read it.

Edited November 23, 2020 by frednork