2. tech-talk
  3. 195729-209418

Hello Audiogon...

Hello Audiogon,

 

This is my first post.

I’m not new to the audio hobby – I’ve been interested in Hi-Fi for the last 17 years; and it’s become my go-to hobby.

I can absolutely say with full confidence that the budget gear with the crazy SINAD does not live up to its expectations on paper (measured performance). There are obviously reasons for this – which I will explain in detail.

Here’s a teaser: not enough measurements are done. And not enough considerations regarding engineering are taken when measuring.  And even if they were, we could never imagine with even a slight degree of accuracy relative to human hearing and psychoacoustics what an amplifier or source component sounds like before trying it first-hand, in our own systems.

First, Let’s backtrack to the golden days of Hi-Fi. The late 1980s and all throughout the 1990s. Modern audio equipment that is designed with few to any compromises are built today with the same sensibilities as top-notch vintage gear. These units tend to be heavy, costly, built with solid casework and parts, and give us the impression of serious engineering chops and effort. If a manufacturer back then released rubbish gear, it was completely dismissed by families, not just the individual audio enthusiast or lone audiophiles. Back then, rather than sit in front of a tv screen all day/night and vegetate, people listened to more music, together, as families. It was a wonderful time in history that I wish still existed today.

Going back to those who fall in to the “measurements only” camp:

Unfortunately, trying to convince or explain what matters in audio equipment to novice audiophiles and even those who claim to be “trained listeners” has been an impossible task for myself and my close friends, who are also serious audiophiles. The experience is akin to attempting to bring a rock garden to life by shouting at it. Nothing happens; and no information worth considering is ever accepted or exchanged.

Additionally, I have found the tone of most so-called “objectivists” to be grandiose and rude, forcing their ideas and conclusions on others whom they bare no financial burden, personally or professionally. So then, websites such as audio science review are in the business of promoting well-measuring gear and exposing “so-called” frauds to benefit the community at large, for the sake of charity? When confronted with anything that challenges their narrow world view, it becomes difficult to have a congruent discussion. It’s like trying to have a conversation with a crocodile. It’s sometimes hilarious…

 

Let’s get down to Brass Tacks!

In my experience (over the years) this is what really matters in audio equipment (amplifiers, source components):

 

1.Parts: Cheap parts such as tiny minicomputer v-chip capacitors and inexpensive, thin mainboards, switching power supplies rather than dedicated power transformers etc. The internals are the most important thing of all. It’s what we pay for when we buy high end audio equipment. It’s like trying to make a gourmet dish with canned ingredients rather than fresh/organic ingredients, on a cheap plate (plastic or thin metal casework) Any food critic (or in this audio critic) will notice. It’s not filet mignon, it’s corned beef!

 

2.Design topology: Class A, Class A/B, Class D, etc. how the stage of amplification is reached (shortness and simplicity of the signal path from the perspective of the signal) and overall implementation relative to signal integrity and the intentions of the designer.

 

3.Rise time and Slew rate:

Slew Rate: The maximum rate at which an amplifier can respond to an abrupt change of input level. 

Rise time:  Measures the time an electrical signal takes to transition from its low state to its high state.

 

4.Group Delay and Excess Group Delay: The rate of change of the total phase shift (ϕ) with respect to angular frequency (ω. The difference between the actual group delay and a reference group delay (usually a flat/ideal delay across frequency)

 

5.Damping micro-vibrations (internal and external considerations): Power transformers and other parts inside of an audio component oscillate or vibrate, creating something known as micro-vibrations. Solid casework and smart internal design choices nullify them, which improves sound quality.

 

6.Volume pots and gain stages: The volume pot and its accuracy (parts), even with stepped relays (on which it is dependent) may not be nearly as accurate as an amplifier with higher overall gain and a smooth volume knob, that might allow for a quarter of a dB increase in volume, rather than a static half decibel. Can’t always match two systems precisely in level…

 

7.Clock Drift: In digital audio systems, different devices (like audio interfaces, DACs, or digital mixers) use their own internal clocks to process audio data. If these clocks are not synchronized, clock drift can occur.

 

8.Tuning Drift:  Analog synth radio instability (the signal being poorly rendered) which can cause detuning and pitch inaccuracies because of poor calibration and neglected temperature controls internally.

 

9.DC Offset Drift (Analog & Digital): Over time, some components in analog circuits (like capacitors or op-amps) can degrade or warm up, causing a slow drift in the DC offset. Effect: This may introduce low-level hums or thumps, affect dynamic range, or lead to biasing errors in A/D and D/A conversion.

 

10.Ripple current: Ripple on power rails can leak into the audio path, especially in analog circuitry. Results in audible hum, buzz, or high-frequency noise — Additionally, causes instability with even order harmonics and how they are rendered. Causes smearing of odd order harmonics. Even small ripple voltages (in the millivolt range) can affect low-noise, high-gain audio circuits.

 

Obvious measurements are frequency response, linearity, and signal to noise ratio. SINAD, on the other hand, is not because it’s an outdated metric. I could go on…and on…

Therefore,

I want audio science review and other “objective” reviewers to measure the analog waveform from a DAC, CD Player, or amplifier with the following methodology:

  1. Measure using an ADC (analog-to-digital convertor) map out the waveform and show us the actual output.

 

  1. Compare more high-end gear with budget audio equipment designed for the same task by using an audio file comparator in WaveLab and/or Blue2Digital to determine the similarity between them expressed as a percentage. etc.

 

“Surface-Level”  Measurements are not enough. @amir_asr 

I can absolutely guarantee the following tests and measurements will result in differences that are transparent and repeatable. Additionally, the relationship between these key subjects I’ve mentioned above are some of the “unmeasurable” stuff, or grey area measurements that have not yet been considered by ASR, and others. If objective reviewers dig deeper, they will find there is more than meets the eye…

My fellow audiophiles, enjoy the music and don’t let anyone tell you not to spend money on that new stereo, upgrade, speakers, or whatever it is. It’s your money and we have this one life (as far as I’m aware) to enjoy existence. Since we found this hobby and thoroughly enjoy it, others should not be allowed to attempt to take away our joy by focusing only on numbers and metrics; especially those that are inconclusive at best. Listening is the ultimate test.

 

Let the games begin.

 

...summit

thesummit

Showing 3 responses by amir_asr

amir_asr
780 posts
 

I want audio science review and other “objective” reviewers to measure the analog waveform from a DAC, CD Player, or amplifier with the following methodology:

  1. Measure using an ADC (analog-to-digital convertor) map out the waveform and show us the actual output.

This is done at the start of almost all of reviews:

 

  1. Compare more high-end gear with budget audio equipment designed for the same task by using an audio file comparator in WaveLab and/or Blue2Digital to determine the similarity between them expressed as a percentage. etc.

???  Here is the same output as above, but for a $14,000 DAC (the one above is $89):

Clearly the "high-end" DAC is producing tons more garbage than the ultra low cost one.

Above is one tone.  With all the tones in music, the high-end DAC will add that crap for all the tones in there.

If you don't believe me, here is the cheap DAC with 32 tones to simulate music:

And the $14,000 one:

You want your music unadulterated or with a lot of rancid leftovers?

amir_asr
780 posts
 

A 32-bit test tone is a very narrow lens. It’s fine for checking raw resolution and noise floor, but it tells you nothing about how well the DAC handles real-world audio, or how solid the surrounding analog and digital infrastructure is. Power supply design, clock quality, op-amps/buffer stages, and PCB layout all affect sound but won’t show up directly in a sine wave test. The system-level engineering and real-world behavior under musical load are what truly determine how it sounds. 

I don't understand your logic.  We have an expensive DAC that can't pass a single, simple sine wave through without molesting it.  We then feed it 32 tones, and it screws up just as that single sine wave test would predict.  Is it your assertion that if I now feed it Chopin Etudes, it figures out the difference and doesn't add those power supply and general noise plus heaps of harmonic distortion???

How does a DAC know what is "real" vs not?  It just sees a series of numbers it is supposed to convert to analog values.  In that sense, all the tests represent real scenarios.  You make it sound like I ran a simulation or something.

amir_asr
780 posts
 

All it takes is some research using google or AI and typing in comparative statements with the subject manner and terms I’ve included. We must admit that the internet knows more than us.

Is that right?

So I asked the question from ChatGPT. 

-------------

do expensive dacs sound better?

Great question — and one that comes up a lot in the audio world!

Here’s the short answer: no, expensive DACs don’t necessarily sound better.

Why:

  • Measurements: Modern DACs, even inexpensive ones ($100–$200), often measure so well (very high SINAD, low noise, distortion below audibility) that they are effectively transparent. That means you can’t hear a difference under controlled conditions.

  • Price vs. performance: Once a DAC clears that “transparent” threshold (roughly ~110 dB SINAD, though lower can still be audibly transparent), paying more rarely yields audible improvements. Higher-priced models may add features, build quality, inputs/outputs, headphone amps, or aesthetics — not better audible sound.

  • Expectation bias: When someone spends more, they often expect it to sound better, which can influence perception. Blind tests usually show that differences vanish.

When expensive DACs might matter:

  • Features: Balanced outputs, volume control, DSP, streaming, headphone power, etc.

  • Build / ergonomics: Heavier cases, better knobs, displays, remote control.

  • Niche designs: Some very high-end DACs use unusual topologies (R2R ladders, tubes, proprietary filters). They may measure worse, but some listeners like their coloration.

👉 In other words: a $150 Topping or SMSL DAC can be audibly indistinguishable from a $5,000 high-end DAC, as long as you’re comparing them in a blind test and both are working within spec.

Would you like me to show you a table of the cheapest DACs on AudioScienceReview that already exceed the audibility threshold — so you can see where “good enough” starts?

-----------

That is with me logged into OpenAI.  To maximize engagement, AI models tend to want to agree with you.  So likely if you type the same question, you will get a different answer but I suspect it won't be too far from above.

More to discover