Audio Science Review = Rebuttal and Further Thoughts
@crymeanaudioriver@amir_asrYou 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.
I have heard several CD players with DAC chips originating in the 1980s to 2020s. I can’t tell which one is preferable because there is so much more to implementation of the DAC process and machines. JGH article was welcomed by many of my engineering friends who said digital is near or perfect whereas analog will always remain imperfect.
I did not enjoy listening to CDs at all in the 1980s due to the lesser machines I heard them on and a mixture of the quality of the CDs. I know that some of my finest jazz CDs were made/transferred in the late 1980s by the 1990s newer machines. Also, some of the worst pop CDs at the same time (and continue to now due to compression, frequency manipulation such as restricted bass and boosted highs/classical reissues and vice versa/pop, etc). Overall, the average CD in my 7,000 collection maintains a high sound quality whereas maybe 35% of the 28,500 LP collection sounds good to great. So many LPs are earlier recordings and have mastering anomalies and limitations imposed by the producers (like modern pop recordings) for cheaper analog playback (low end record players) regardless of vinyl pressing quality.
JGH did mention that cabling can make a difference back in 1985 in his test.
I think it is marketing folly to provide so many filters and adjustments to the DAC. I I just read a review of the latest Bartok DAC (compared to the Rossini and Vivaldi). They are chock full of filtering and timing adjustments, with more offered as the price and complexity of the DAC goes up. I am extremely satisfied with the Benchmark HDR-1 DAC (as modified but for the digital system). It complies with most of the modern understanding of what a DAC should do and be capable of.
As to Jitter and Digital Ringing, in none of the high end DACs (above $1000) I have encountered or been able to hear those affectations to the sound, in good quality audio systems. Maybe I did hear them in run of the mill 1980s CD players. I don't know when I've heard filter and time manipulated DACs.
I agree that you should get a flat frequency response in your room, mine is posted in my profile if anyone cares to check. There is 35 years worth of published research that listeners prefer a flat frequency response. Do I win a pink panther now? BTW, DSP is very limited in what it can correct and if you want to discuss room treatments we need to start a new thread.
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?
Yeah @djones51speakers usually seem to make more of a difference than the DAC for me.
Maybe my ears are not so good as the DACs and CD players all seem to sound similar… whereas the volume knob and the speakers do more.
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.
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.
As the folks at Simaudio say, it’s not the chip or chips in the DAC but everything around it. Think these guys know a thing ot two. Take my 680D over any of your cheap ass Topping or chi-fi DAC’s.
What is interesting is there is no published standard I am aware of in what listeners prefer in a dac. You can argue all you want for a $2 dac or a $4 dac, I know of no published studies. The links you posted @djones51are anecdotal and appreciate you at least getting something.
OK got it. We established it’s $3.50 for a DAC chip. How much one should spend maximum for a DAC “machine” to get “transparent” sound? Ballpark. Does not have to be super accurate. Plus / minus 25 cents.
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.
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.
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.
@thyname I'm not arguing with the ASR crown, that's why I'm on Audiogon. I'm offering a superior built DAC/pre-amp with unique and attractive look that for CDs (probably even better for streaming), resembles the Benchmark L4 pre-amp. 44% of retail price. Not for those who prefer a $2 DAC or a Topping.
It is possible that there are things like pre ringing that may be happening which help the SINAD, but makes transient response differ.
So if that is happening, then a different test than what is done on ASR would be needed. Or the cheap ones and costly ones are the same, but we think that they are not.
We sort of need a way to determine:
whether they output the same, or if the output differs
and then one can discuss which sounds better.
We have not seemed to pass step #1 so far.
If we believe that step #2 is true, then figuring step #1 is still of some value (IMO).
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.
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.
@fleschler: arguing about DACs with ASR crowd is a waste of time. Quit it while you are ahead. I was once told a DAC is not even part of the audio chain. Just part of the electric delivery. Just like a power cord, or any cable for that matter, which obviously makes zero difference, all sound the same, etc. A $2 DAC does the job. Or the DAC built in your laptop.
@djones51 So, if a DAC measures the same as another, it sounds the same? If it measures superbly, it is preferable to a lesser measuring DAC? Well, I have a DAC to sell to you, the COS Engineering D1v, a superbly constructed and engineered DAC/Pre-amp, https://6moons.com/audioreviews2/cos/2.html"Which leaves us with sonics. The D1 does all the usual yawn-inducing stuff very well: linearity, soundstaging, detail, bass, midrange, treble. Then it adds something that reads rather minor on paper. Even so it—and the bona fide preamplitude which otherwise would mean another box and more wires—do bridge the gap. What gap you ask? That between my ±$4'000 DACs as a personal "what else could one need?" comfort zone; and this deck's $9'000 ask. That thing is the peculiar absence of electronic grain. Here the COS for instance soundly trumped the AURALiC Vega which I'd otherwise never consider grainy at all. On temperament and virtues of timing and snap, the D1 was more akin to the Metrum Hex"
"But if neutral, grainless and not showy yet mature sounding d/a converter is needed, which also happens to be a great preamplifier, COS Engineering D1 is the one."
I'll sell mine for $4,000, in perfect condition, original packaging, et.al. It is functionally and aesthetically great!
That seems like a good compromise, check that all the basic measurements are ok and only then fine tune by ear.
For the buyer it’s a case of case of checking the measurements first, then drawing up a shortlist which you can audition and make your selection by listening.
For those of us that are sometimes forced into buying blind, YouTuber Andrew Robinson has produced a helpful 5 step guide.
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.
@djones51, I liked your post, DAC’s are commodities, if you have a link that shows there is no listener preferences among dacs great. The number chasing guru must be on a different website, maybe you can rescue the , uhhh, "ill informed" before they buy anything that is a waste.
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.
@djones51, thanks for the link about human physiology. Please find a link that shows what listeners prefer in a DAC. Here is a white paper of what listeners prefer in headphones as an example:
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.
@jtgofish, at least there is data to support what listeners like in speakers and headphones. Do you know of any data that supports what listeners prefer in DACS? ASR seems to rank DACS by SINAD. Can anyone reading this thread (calling @amir_asr ) point me to a published study that shows that both trained and casual listeners prefer DACS with low SINAD? Without that data that list is pretty much useless in guiding purchase decisions.
The more I learn about the Toole and Olive research on speakers which ASR and other objectivists quote as gospel the more I get the smell of book cooking.The selection of two speaker samples with abnormally narrow dispersion and uneven frequency response and also which just happen to sound bad seems like too much of a coincidence to be ignored.So it is as if the designers of those tests set out with an agenda to reinforce their hypothesis that speakers with even and wide off axis responses were preferred by listeners to those with narrow and uneven frequency responses.Which might be correct but the degree of skewing of the results by selecting a couple of really bad examples of the other type seems very suspect.
I highly respect Audio Science Review. I highly respect the expertise and measurement tools they have mastered to do analysis on audio equipment.
The measurements tell how well the signal propagates in then effectively the signal is amplified. Human ears are as diverse as the equipment that is tested. So are tastes in music. Audio accuracy is in the ear of the beholder. I owned Mid-Fi equipment that measured better than many audiophile Audio. It had shamelessly low THD, I’m distortion Damping factor over 400. Audiophile amps sounded so much better. One such audiophile system was Mark Levinson.
@cd318My two Golden Ear friends walk into a room, listen for 10-15 minutes to a few different recordings and can tell me exactly what is wrong with the sound, not necessarily the fix but if it is acoustic, they can point out the cause. It’s best if they are familiar with the recordings and their mastering (provence). If it were a bunch of hip hop rap or sca recordings, none of us could tell anything about the system.
Peter Comeau of IAG says that he begins with the science (flat frequency response etc) and then finishes by fine tuning by ear.
@cd318yeah I guess that is mirrored on the consumer end with me using the measurements to weed out things.
If the cabinet resonates, or the distortion is high, or it compresses, or it has a bad pattern, then there is not a great reason to seek out listening.
I liked the part where he talked about getting rid if the things that are wrong.
I don’t care how you hear, or what you hear… I just want whatever I play to sound like the recorded sound.
Doesn’t everyone?
Some may feel that they can do this by ear alone. The so called ’golden ear’ brigade who have assurance that their hearing is consistently reliable and trustworthy.
All of this without access to the original source of the recording.
Others might want some measurements as a reassurance that their system will be a well balanced one which can handle all genres, all recordings with equal aplomb.
There are some designers who like to combine the 2 approaches.
Peter Comeau of IAG says that he begins with the science (flat frequency response etc) and then finishes by fine tuning by ear.
if you need measurements to tell a piano from a flute, then I don’t know what to tell you… Maybe take on another hobby?
Sorry @thyname but I am person A in the above scenario. so I cannot speak to what the person B’s hearing.
Maybe take it up with @prof or @cd318
I think they both were responding to your posts earlier, and my comments stemmed from those.
This one of their’s was a pearler.
Now it would appear as if all of those differences were largely in our imaginations and have now become as irrelevant as the use of leeches has in healing the sick.
again - I don’t care how you hear, or what you hear… I just want whatever I play to sound like the recorded sound.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
