Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts


@crymeanaudioriver @amir_asr You are sitting there worrying if this or that other useless tweak like a cable makes a sonic difference.

I don’t worry about my equipment unless it fails. I never worry about tweaks or cables. The last time I had to choose a cable was after I purchased my first DAC and transport in 2019.  I auditioned six and chose one, the Synergistic Research Atmosphere X Euphoria. Why would someone with as fulfilling a life as me worry about cables or tweaks and it is in YOUR mind that they are USELESS.

@prof "would it be safe to say you are not an electrical designer or electrical engineer? If so, under what authority do you make the following comment" - concerning creating a high end DAC out of a mediocre DAC.

Well, I have such a DAC, built by a manufacturer of equipment and cables for his and my use. It beat out a $9,000 COS Engineering D1v and $5,000 D2v by a longshot. It is comparable to an $23,000 Meridian Ultradac. Because I tried all the latter three in comparison I say this with some authority, the authority of a recording engineer (me), a manufacturer (friend) and many audiophiles who have heard the same and came to the same conclusion.

Another DAC with excellent design engineer and inferior execution is the Emotiva XDA-2. No new audio board but 7! audiophile quality regulators instead of the computer grade junk inside, similar high end power and filter caps, resistors, etc. to make this into a high end DAC on the very cheap ($400 new plus about the same in added parts).

@russ69 We must be neighbors. I frequented Woodland Hills Audio Center back in the 70s and 80s. I heard several of Arnie’s speakers including a the large Infinity speakers in a home.

fleschler

Showing 24 responses by djones51

if you choose to believe a cable or capacitor or resistor can make an sensory change in sound, even though technical measurements say otherwise then you’ve missed the science. It works both ways. Skepticism isn't a one way street. If I make a positive claim they don't then I should be able to show credible evidence to back it up and vise versa. If Gould was anything he was a confirmed skeptic. 

Ballpark? Bare bones  $130 Schiit Modi 3e, $140 Topping D10 balanced. There could be cheaper ones, I don't pay a lot of attention to DACs anymore. I would prefer the Topping only because it's balanced.

I use the DAC in my Rotel preamp I think it's some TI chip . It has the features I need, balanced out, 12v trigger, volume control. 

speakers usually seem to make more of a difference than the DAC for me.

IMO speakers, room treatments and EQ account for about 90% of what you hear. I don't sweat the other stuff. 

After reading Prof comments on Audiogon and MattHooper on ASR I would say they are the same person. Seems like a well rounded intelligent fellow who understands the value of measurements but not to the exclusion of what he enjoys. One can like vinyl but understand it doesn't measure as well as digital. You can like tube amps and know they can't measure better than a lot of SS amps. One can understand they are subject to human biases without assuming they are hallucinating, can understand that extraordinary claims that most tweaks advertise should provide extraordinary evidence. 

 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/speakers-that-produce-astonishing-soundstaging-imaging.29912/post-1211237

 

Perhaps I am wrong since I have no first hand knowledge just comparing writing style, but looks to me like Matt Hooper has Theil 2.7 and Joseph Perspective as does Prof. 

Take a valium. Take hours, days, weeks, the requirement you have no idea what component was changed. Speakers wouldn't be practical but DACs or cables should be easy enough. I never passed a blind test on either of those. 

Our present technology can measure way beyond human hearing but at any rate All we’re concerned with in your scenario is can it be proved whether  you can differentiate  between two cables that measure the same and the answer is absolutely.

We aren't trying to replicate what you hear with a machine. What we hear is subjective to each of us, listeners are the ultimate arbiter of preference. Whether your preferences are based on concrete objective changes of machines, active or passive,   or your inherent biases, we can determine if that person "cannot accept the truth of something because it is so far outside their personal experience or prejudices that it’s literally unbelievable." 

If it measures superbly, it is preferable to a lesser measuring DAC?

Not necessarily. It would only be preferable to me if it had a certain type of connection or function I needed and I couldn't find something that measured as well or better for less money. From looking at it it doesn't ...so. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10924/#:~:text=Humans%20can%20detect%20sounds%20in,to%2015%E2%80%9317%20kHz.

 

The human ear as a dyamic range from 0dB (threshold) to 120-130 dB. This is true for the middle frequency range (1-2 kHz). For lower or higher frequencies, the dynamic is narrowed.

http://www.cochlea.org/en/hear/human-auditory-range

 Best case Noise floor of most listening rooms 30db-40db.

SINAD will tell you if the DAC contributes any noise or distortion that's audible.  If you prefer noise and distortion or transparent is up to you.

The reason you can find listener preference for speakers is because they actually have a large significance in what you hear along with the room. DACs on the other hand are commodities anymore, something engineers can design  for bragging rights to get number chasing  gurus with money to waste buy or create some novelty that distorts like crazy and see how many nincompoops buy them.

The ranking system you're referring to isn't meant to explain listener preference, it shows DAC performance, your preferences are just that. Modern DACs for the most part come in 2 varieties,  transparent,  not transparent. If you prefer transparent then the SINAD  list shows plenty of options. If you prefer not transparent then you're on your own. Since I prefer transparent the list is very helpful to me. All I need to do is find the options I want, connection type, includes headphone amp, etc..  there are dozens I can choose from since transparent doesn't discriminate as to what chips, filters, buffers, etc.. are used if it measures beyond human audibly. Find something else to argue audiophoolery about, maybe amplifiers. 

I have no idea if there are websites that show " controlled listening tests" for DAC preferences. I haven't bothered with worrying about a DAC for  more than 5 years as SINAD and build quality tells me all I need to know. If SINAD is beyond human audibility, has balanced connections, asynchronous USB I'm good to go.  I've owned active speakers where I didn't have the slightest idea what DAC was in them distortion of the speakers would swamp any DAC SINAD anyway. Same with passive speakers. DACs are solved problems and have been for over 20 years. 

I'm not saying all DACs sound the same but only well engineered ones whose measurements show they are transparent, measure beyond the limits of human hearing and haven't been designed to have a sound signature. Is an ADC in the studio part of the audio chain? Will a $4000 DAC in your home improve the sound recorded through a $500 ADC in that studio? I know that English might be a second language, look up transparent.

For one thing it isn’t a $2 DAC it’s a $2 DAC chip if bought in bulk (maybe read the article?). I haven’t listened to the chip in question so I don’t know but I have heard inexpensive chips which were probably bought in bulk, think CD players that were transparent enough.

I did a little research. I have heard the Genelec 8351b.  One of the best speakers I've ever heard no matter the price. Purely subjective opinion. They used an AKM chip that cost around $3.50 in bulk? Not sure if they still do since the fire at AKM, so I can say a $3.50 DAC Chip is transparent enough for me and thousands of audio engineers worldwide. 

Think these guys know a thing ot two.

Really? Took me 30 minutes to get them to understand I didn’t need a network player with a DAC since I was using it with active speakers with DSP. Kept telling me their 680 would sound so much better. They eventually had a light bulb moment and agreed the Mind2 was all I needed. Waste of time anyway I returned it. 

Yes, inflation hits hard, who knows those AKM chips might have been $2.00 then. I answered the question, not about that particular chip but I am sure there have been $2.00 that were transparent enough for me since I don't know every chip used in every device. Those PCM 1704 chips audiophiles wet their pants over were about $10 in bulk. 

you only needed a streamer but bought a $10k DAC.

No they tried to sell me a $10K streamer/DAC instead of the Mind2 streamer. It took me 30 minutes of explaining basic audio conversion before they got it into their heads the $10K DAC wouldn’t do anything the $2000 streamer could do. Reading comprehension wasn’t  a priority in school?

Hmmmm….. show me YOUR room treatment and I will never argue with you again 

What would that tell you without knowing my in room FR at listening position? ? 

 

latest AKM AK4499EQ chip (2x in my DAC) cost is in-between $100-$200, depending on purchase quantity.

Yes, but that’s not the chip used in the Genelec 8351b that I referenced. The Genelec 8351b uses or at least used, not sure since fire at AKM - AK4621EF.