A DAC that crushes price vs. performance ratio
rexp see below link to post teajay started on a transport not too long ago https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/if-you-still-spin-cd-s-their-is-a-reference-level-transport-f... |
As usual, this thread has at times deteriorated into a good ol' fashion school yard testosterone-fueled verbiage contest which I sometimes plod on through as I am a masochist at heart. Oh.... @gray9hound.... thanks for that frequency sweep link. I now know that my 63 year-old hearing apparatus has a fantabulous effective range of about 190 to 9000 hz. What the He!!, might as well just stick with a boom box and sell everything else. |
mzkmxcv , I, like nonoise, understood, that the people picked the one that measured the worst., as the one they liked. |
@mzkmxcv, I think you missed my point, which is that no speaker can be ideal as all speakers are a compromise due to the fact that they are the biggest generators of distortion in the audio chain. The fact that everyone picked that speaker only goes to show that despite it's drawbacks, everyone liked it due to it's flavoring and the ear of the the guy who designed it. Some designers are better at it than others. Show me one double-blind study where the listeners did not pick the best measuring device as the most preferred.Now if everyone picked the same CDP, DAC, amp or cable, you could have an argument since those would measure theoretically below what you'd argue someone could hear. A speaker can't to a trained ear. All the best, Nonoise |
@nonoise No, the speaker that measured close to ideal was picked as the winner. And this is with hundreds of test subjects over decades. So I don’t see how that’s a far cry from what I’ve been saying. While Toole has his book, it’s quite a heavy read, if you haven’t seen his lecture available on YouTube and have an hour to spare, it’s worth a watch, as are all the web articles written by him and Sean Olive (and there are others of course, like Earl Geddes for subs). |
That’s not what Floyd Toole and Sean Olive has found. Toole said people picked the more ideal speaker every single time, no exceptions.So in one test that you cite, everyone picked the same speaker, which produces the most distortion of any audio component, by a large margin. That same speaker which was designed to sound a certain way and most likely, pleasing to most, despite what it's hooked up to. That's a far cry from what you stated in the previous post about practically everyone picking the best measured device. All the best, Nonoise |
@lordcloud That’s not what Floyd Toole and Sean Olive has found. Toole said people picked the more ideal speaker every single time, no exceptions. Now, bass preference between trained and untrained individuals is like a 10dB difference, it’s still keeping with non-jagged responses, low directivity, etc. |
@lordcloud However, I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to suggest, that measurements dictate sound Uhh, how about most every single double blind study that has been conducted in regards to psychoacoustics? Show me one double-blind study where the listeners did not pick the best measuring device as the most preferred. I’ll ask again, give just 1 reason why the measurements don’t tell the whole story. What could possibly be related to the sound output of a DAC that cant be measured or deviates from what psycho-acousticians believe is ideal. |
This is like saying two cars from different manufacturers, will deliver the exact same driving experience, as long as they have the same specs, and that we can surmise exactly how a car will drive, based on those specs. I don’t care what anyone says, measurements and specs will not tell you how a piece of audio equipment sounds. They can tell you what to expect, and then expectation bias creeps in. However, I do not believe, and have seen no evidence to suggest, that measurements dictate sound. |
@cleeds That’s an extraordinary claim, and contradicts what many experienced designers of audio components think. Do you have a list of "all variables" that you would require to "accurately describe" what a component would sound like? That’s odd, as every designer Inknow aims for measured excellence. @janehamble So what exactly are the variables that actually matter in order to achieve better sonic performance It’s not something complicated, you simply want want distortion and other parameters below audible levels: * Frequency response linearity: You want the frequency response to be flat within 0.5dB. * Frequency response linearity with respect to volume: You want it to be flat regardless of what volume the content is at, with a 0.5dB tolerance most DACs top out at 16-20 Bits, there is no DAC to my knowledge that is linear down to 24Bit. * Channel matching: You want the left and right channels to have matched output within 0.5dB. * Channel separation/crosstalk: You want any bleeding to happen below audible in-room levels, so let’s say -80dB or better, even $100 DACs are around -100dB, the Benchmark and other go to -125db to -160dB. * THD; You want any even order harmonics to happen below audible in-room levels, so again let’s say -80dB. * IMD: You want any odd order harmonics to happen below audible in-room levels, IMD is more audible than THD, so let’s say -90dB, the $100 Khadas DAC is below -90dB from ~ -15dBFS. Now, this is with pure test tones, it will be further masked with music. * Jitter reduction: You want jitter to be below audible in-room levels, so again let’s say -80dB, the same Khadas DAC has a Jitter-Test result of better than -130dB. * Filter: You want the filter to cut off all frequencies higher than your Nyquest sampling rate, Chord’s filters are top notch. * Impulse: You want a clean impulse that’s <7ms (the Benchmark is ~0.7ms), the type of filter used (apodizing is standard) is debated, but most people I’ve heard from is that it’s a minuscule difference. * Undithered sine/square wave integrity: You want it to cleanly reproduce the waves, with any deviations being less than audible. * Phase: You want phase error below audibility (audibility threshold changes with frequency), but most DACs aren’t even 1° out of phase, even with amps it’s not that much of an issue, the Hypex NC400 is near 0° up until the upper treble where it’s ~20°. * Output: You want the voltage output to be able to drive any amp into its full rated wattage, most amps need about 1.5v to 1.8v, but 2Vrms is the standard for what 99.99% of the time will allow full wattage output. And as I mentioned in the IMD bullet point, these are with test tones, real music masks all this, ~ -40dB is the audibility threshold for THD with music (as high as 0dB, 100% THS for deep bass). Most people don’t listen above reference, which is typically 105dB peaks, and your average room likely doesn’t have a noise fooor lower than 35dBC, so that’s a 70dB range for dynamics. Unless the distortion, linearity errors, channel imbalances, etc. rise above that level (-70dBFS), any DAC will sound transparent, the notion of sterile, lifeless, midrange slam, wetness, dryness, airiness, etc. are all just placebo, they don’t exist other that in your own perception. When I go searching for new products to buy, I look at the price, measurements, looks, and the company (in case I need to use the warrenty), what someone else says about it’s performance is irrelevant? Just because someone works at an audio magazine doesn’t mean they have good ears, especially the people >70yr that have lost all their high frequency hearing. I only look at a combination of reviews if there are no measurements present (I likely may not buy that product, but if someone asks me if it’s a product for them to consider). |
I don't know anyone who listens to the test tones that reviewers use to determine how good, or bad, a piece of equipment performs. Those test tones are not representative of any piece of music that I know of. They're a metric that has been agreed upon as a standard to go by and are not, by any means, the last word. The final arbiter are our ears. That's why most competent manufacturers do their final tuning by ear, using the tests as a starting point. One can reverse engineer a posit that a certain piece of gear will sound good based on a test tone but it is never conclusive. Just look at all the caveats reviewers cite after learning that a lot of gear measured and tested doesn't correlate to how it sounds (or should). We've all read such reviews. All the best, Nonoise |
mzkmxcv ... if we measure all variables, we can accurately describe what it will (or won’t) sound like.That's an extraordinary claim, and contradicts what many experienced designers of audio components think. Do you have a list of "all variables" that you would require to "accurately describe" what a component would sound like? |
@mzkmxcv That's great to hear. So what exactly are the variables that actually matter in order to achieve better sonic performance? Loudspeakers? Presumably they matter The rest? Not really So rather than "everything matters" you would be proponent of "nothing matters"? (except your choice of speakers) |
Is it wrong though, to suggest that a sensory "answer" can differ from reality? Cilantro tastes like soap to some, not to others. It's how we're wired to experience that specific stimuli. So you're basically the guy telling someone with that gene - "No, it doesn't taste like that; finite element analysis says it tastes like this, so you're wrong." That you don't have the open mind to accept that, and let other people be and do as they please, is at least somewhat upsetting. Unless those other people are using your money to buy the things they want, regardless what the specs say. If that's the case, then by all means carry on. |
| Post removed |
Timbre is an inherent quality of real musical instruments, and a more correct analogy is that it’s what makes one piano sounds different than another piano. Timbre is not distortion; a piano is supposed to sound like a piano, not a pure tone from a frequency generator So, harmonics? Do you know what THD stands for? |
Hi Teajay, I also have long ago grown tired of the measurements versus listening debates. Interestingly I heard a system that used a Benchmark DAC. My listening impression matches your description. You had the added advantage of hearing it in your own system. In my case I can’t pinpoint how much I heard that could be attributed to the Benchmark DAC. Nonetheless what I heard was clinical, sterile and lifeless. If some consider this type of presentation accurate and transparent okay, that’s their call and I just leave it at that. I acknowledge we all have our specific preferences. I want to hear the full bodied tone,rich color/harmonics/overtones and vividness that’s so obviously present when listening to live musicians and vocalists. I want the life, excitement, engagement and emotion, not flat, colorless and analytical despite the stated excellent measurements. In essence I'm seeking a 'natural ' presentation/sound quality. It is certainly true, "to each their own". Charles |
Tubes be damned, I do believe the Pagoda is relatively neutral. Not completely, but it isn't warm and it isn't sterile, and I do believe that I can get more information out of a DAC that's built to extract as much information as possible. I have the standard Pagoda and I find it the same. I would say it sounds pretty balanced .. neither "tubey' nor, as you say, "sterile". |
I do agree that, in general, most people are looking for the types of colorations they like most. Which is fine. It's why I don't really want a DAC that's described as being warm or lush, but don't necessarily run from DACs that are described as being sterile. My amps (Benchmark AHB2) have been described as such, and I couldn't disagree more. However, I also don't want a DAC that makes everything sound or threadbare. Tubes be damned, I do believe the Pagoda is relatively neutral. Not completely, but it isn't warm and it isn't sterile, and I do believe that I can get more information out of a DAC that's built to extract as much information as possible. I really don't understand why anyone would say inputs don't matter, as though they're all equal. Outputs are definitely not equal, and if you're looking for transparency, you'd want the most transparent output to begin with. Which is going to be the i2s, in general. |
mzkmxcv ... timbre is just about distortion, it’s why a guitar and a piano playing the same frequency key sounds different.Timbre is an inherent quality of real musical instruments, and a more correct analogy is that it’s what makes one piano sounds different than another piano. Timbre is not distortion; a piano is supposed to sound like a piano, not a pure tone from a frequency generator. |
It's good to know we don't have to listen to anything before we purchase it, as we only need to look at measurements. Not even who measured it, under what conditions those measurements were taken, or what equipment was used to take those measurements...... just look at the measurements. I'm relieved. |
tim·bre/ˈtambər/noun tone/tōn/noun All the best, Nonoise |
@nonoise Tone: Frequency response. Timbre: Distortion. Soundstage: Channel matching and channel separation. Fullness: Frequency response. Realism: Nonsense description. The DACs I mentioned all do those well, behind human audibility. MQA you can see, using terms like sterile or lifesless causes confusion, it’s best to actually talk about what the product is doing good or doing bad, rather than make up description words that actually don’t directly describe, like calling a Samsung TV’s picture as feminine and a Sony TV as masculine. |
Sterility does not equate to transparency. Tone, timbre, sound staging, fullness and realism can most definitely point to transparency if that is in the original recording. The lack of those qualities can take a natural and pleasing production of a real event and render it lifeless, or sterile, as teajay pointed out. All the best, Nonoise |
@teajay You finding the Benchmark sterile is a compliment to its transparency. If you want to add colorations, that’s your preference (just like how there are countless reviews raving of its performance, that’s why I don’t trust reviews with measurements as back up), I am merely stating that if you want to hear how the song is mastered, no hiding any blemishes or “improving” the songs by adding coloration, the Benchmark is an excellent product. As for gear measuring good but sounding like “crap”, since you don’t prefer accurate reproduction, I wouldn’t suggest giving product endorsement unless you state that coloration is your preference. Since you recommend this product as a steal of a price, if someone favoring accurate reproduction bought it, I would imagine they may be disappointed. |
Frankly gentlemen, I did not start this thread to argue over specs or other DACS in comparison to the Lab 12. Just wanted to inform readers that the Lab12 offers reference level performance at a reasonable price point. I'm kinda tired of the same old argument regarding measurements can tell you how a piece of gear will sound. I have had in-house many pieces that had great measurements and sounded like crap. Others did not measure great but offered terrific performance. Finally, since one of you loves the Benchmark DAC performance, I had one in for review, found it so sterile and mechanical sounding, yes it was burn-in, that I refused to waste my time on listening to it. So, please this hobby boils down to synergy and personal taste, not measurements. |
@lordcloud @facten Coloration from source equipment, source material, interconnects, etc. are all identical regardless of what DAC is used, so if any inherent coloration of the DAC itself are below audible, then there is nothing else to consider. And again, none of those connections offer any benefit over coax/USB/Toslink. Benchmark set out to make the most transparent DAC without costing $10,000 like some other company’s products, if they believed it made a difference, they would have added them, as it doesn’t cost much to do so, there are DACs less than $100 that support I^2 S, it is nothing special, “bypassing conversion” offers no benefit, it is just marketing. If it were truly the best, every reputable high end DAC would have it, yet it’s a scarce feature. And yes, my claims are on measured performance, which are way more telling than human reviews. Let me ask you, did you hear Yanny or Laurel, did you see a white+gold dress or a black+blue dress? Our brains are easily fooled. There is also hard proof that people review items better if they like the looks and/or know it is expensive, it’s the same reason people think $5000 Toslink cables are better than $20 ones. Unless talking tube gear, meaning only solid state, the concept of “system synergy” does not exist, a DAC either performs well or it doesn’t, what speakers you have or what your RCA cables cost is irrelevant. |
The DAC3 B has no AES/EBU input. And while I'm sure the coax is great, I would much rather be using the best output of my transport (which is the i2s, but I'm more ok with the balanced out than I am the coax out). I'm afraid that measurements don't tell us if something is uncolored or not. Measurements aren't really the entire picture. There's no way to no if a component colors the sound, without knowing exactly what the source sounds like, and then having a completely uncolored playback system as well, in an uncolored room. I'm not i2s has no advantage over other connections. I'd much rather be able to communicate with the DAC without having to go through an extra step of conversion, if I don't have to. I prefer as little on the signal path as necessary. It also makes sense to take advantage of the source as untouched as possible. When you have empirical proof of the transparency if the Pagoda, or any DAC, versus another DAC, I'm all for it. Again, I want transparency, not "good sound". |
@lordcloud The new Benchmark DAC3 B is for you then, no volume control and no headphone out, $1700 I believe. Measurements of Topping D50: * SINAD (Signal over Noise & Distorion, more challenging that S/N) of 109dB * Channel matching within 0.1dB * Jitter-Test score of better than -125dBFS * Linear performance within 1dB down past -120dB, so better than 20Bit * THD below -107dB * IMD at or below -65dB for content down past -55dBFS, and below -90dB for content down past -15dBFS * 3rd and 5th harmonics below -115dB for a 1kHz tone Show me where it audibly colors the sound. Keep in mind even the best rooms only allow for a dynamic range (loudest sound in the music down to the room’s noise floor) of like 60dB to 70dB, which is also why 24Bit usually has no audible benefit over 16Bit (which has >95dB or dynamic range). Also, I^2 S offers no benefit over traditional connections (just like how DSD has no advantages over PCM), so it’s shouldn’t be a must have feature. I state I am 98% certain as the Pagoda as effectively no specs and is a tube DAC, so near improbable that it would be as transparent as the DACs mentioned. |
My problem with the Benchmark DACs, is all of the extra things in them. I don't need a preamp or headphone amplifier, I just want a purist's DAC that is transparent, neutral, and information rich. I also wish they had an i2s input, as I'm dying to take advantage of that output of my Jay's transport. |
I don't understand statements like this: "I am 98% certain the Pagoda is not more accurate than the Benchmark. If you have proof otherwise (as the company selling it sure doesn’t state anything meaningful), I would like to see it. I have proof that the <$300 DACs mentioned are pretty much audibly transparent." If you are this certain, you should be the one with the proof. YOU'RE the one that made the claim of one thing being more accurate or better sounding than the other, yet you think it makes sense to then ask for proof of a claim that you made. I would love to see this proof of any DAC being audibly transparent. I imagine you must have recordings you've made, along with a transport, cables, line stage, amplifiers, speakers, and a room that are also audibly transparent. It would seem to impossible without these things to say that one piece of equipment is audibly transparent. But maybe I'm incorrect. I would very much like a way to know if a component is truly transparent, as that is what I'm looking for. And I'm 98% certain that you have to no idea exactly how transparent the Pagoda is, if you have no experience with it. Not that there was a claim made of it being transparent. |
Because those two are only a hair worse then the Benchmark DAC3So many people mess this up for some reason ... Than Than is a conjunction used in comparisons: Tom is smarter than Bill. It’s warmer in Florida than in North Dakota. Is she taller than you? Yes, she is taller than I.. Then
Then has numerous meanings. At that point in time I wasn’t ready then. Will you be home at noon? I’ll call you then. Next, afterward I went to the store, and then to the bank Do your homework and then go to bed |
@facten Because those two are only a hair worse then the Benchmark DAC3, and the Benchmark is considered to be totally transparent (John Atkinson of Stereophile even said “Benchmark’s DAC3 HGC offers state-of-the-art measured performance. All I can say is "Wow!"”), and likely more accurate than the Pagoda. Also, it’s a tube DAC, so it already will be colored, by initial comment was about accuracy. The Pagoda also doesn’t list any specs except of a crappy frequency response deviation, totally a joke for a >$1000 DAC, would be even a joke at $100, Schiit even provides the whole AP report for their $100 Magni 3. Tubes don’t offer anything that can’t be done with EQ/DSP, so I’d rather have transparent gear and tune their sound to my preference rather than buy colored gear and hope it sounds good. For those that want to tune but can’t do it upstream and don’t want say a MiniDSP, the RME ADI-2 DAC has a good amount of tuning capabilities and is a good DAC. |
