Next best exponential DAC quality level?

I think it comes down to how you define better. Better measuring or subjective enjoyment of euphonic colorations? Euphonic doesn’t have to be syrupy. 

Same with amps. Better measuring go with nCore Hypex or Benchmark ABH2. You want the sound that makes you smile and toe tap? Go with First Watt or McIntosh.

@dht4me 

I know you want to believe the Audionote is the more accurate one but it just is not. The other two will be orders of magnitude more accurate. Audionote DACs are not accurate, have never been designed to be accurate and they don't even claim they are.

The euphonic distortions, yes distortions, the less than flat frequency response, the artifacts from NOS, the interactions of the tube output with the next stage, especially if going into another tube stage, and the interaction of all those artifacts with the rest of your system and the room creates an artistic presentation that you find pleasing. 

Could Audionote achieve the same sound for much less. I expect so but that's neither here nor there.

In terms of bass and single speakers the DAC does not care single speaker or subs and your ears don't either <100Hz. The two other DACs are going to have more accurate and deeper bass. Given the CS5i, if you have the amp to drive them, compared to Audionote you may just have too much for your room. That can sound flabby where some bass rolloff will feel tighter. That high/low rolloff has been consistent across Audionote DACs.  I am at -3db at 17Hz on my bass array and  the bass is tight but I have significant acoustic controls.

The exaggerated instrument separation that audiophiles such as myself crave would also most likely be a harmonic distortion artifact. Same with the added depth, width, and texture.

Al lot of assumptions regarding image placement, soundstage and instrument separation being from extra harmonic distortion.

I want to add that I am a retired prototype engineer with 14 years in consumer and medical electronics. I have made many many amps, preamps, several turntables, 3 tonearms and a slew of speakers back when I worked in that industry so my experience level is quite extensive.

Added harmonic distortion adds a haze that thickens the soundstage which is the opposite of clearer separation. IMD can add edges that seem to define edges but it is almost always localized to coming directly from the speaker as it is not consonant with the original impulse.

When I added the Jung Super reg to the dac is when the deep soundstage really came to life as well as much clearer soundstage placement. It is extremely improbable that the Jung 5v regulator added any level of distortion as some suppose.

The ASR crowd seems to be fixated on the singular measurement that they like to rank components on and while instructive it is not the end all be all ranking of a truly great audio component.

If you look at the Linear Audio article on regulator tests you will find that the superlatives I mention are closely associated with superior power supply implementation. Great image depth requires a very fast settling and low noise supply with a low output Z. The ASR ranking has absolutely zero methodology to quantify those aspects. It’s a shame that some people are so closed minded but I suggest people have a look at the article as it is really enlightening and done by the best minds in the field. Linear Audio article

If you are are a retired electrical engineer, then you should understand the technology enough to know that it does not take that great a clock to achieve THD and IMD well below the tube output stage on your DAC and possibly other equipment.

Blanket statements about what distortion does cannot be made. It depends on the order of harmonics and the level. Tubes do tend to lend a distortion that generates pleasant higher frequencies and can result in both a slight perception of increased volume, more substantial highs, and greater "air", which helps with the perception of greater soundstage width. Not accuracy, but width. Frequency response anomalies can also give the impression of more width, and height (or less). These are not guesses. These are studied and known.

That you highlight ASR specifically, is a false premise. ASR takes measurements. The conclusions are make are all from the decades of research that has been done on how sound is perceived. ASR has no influence on interpretation in that regard.

Depth perception is almost exclusively a function of differential volume, and intentional reverb. If you are getting more that what is in the recording, then it could be pleasant, but not accurate. Nothing, absolutely nothing in your electronics takes as long to settle as your room, followed by your speakers. Again, frequency response anomalies including some reduced bass, if bass is slow to settle in your rooom or you have nodes can help.

w.r.t. the power supply, at least for the DAC, that is entirely a function of the DAC itself. If the DAC is well designed with good supply filtering, then it will achieve accurate performance well beyond the Audionote, purely by architecture. The one issue that does come into play with lower end DACs, and even higher end DACs, is ground conducted noise. That can be addressed easily for <$100.

W.r.t. the DAC and settling time, frequency response defines settling time 100%. Electrical engineers know this. Also w.r.t. the DAC, solid state DACs almost as a rule have much lower output impedance. If you were talking about speakers, settling time is measured, and if you are talking about amps, again, frequency response and phase defines settling time, and 4 ohm frequency response w.r.t. 8 ohm can tell you everything you need to know about output impedance. Invariably, for most speakers, most solid state amps are not remotely the cause of settling time, though with tube amps that can come into play. This is basic audio EE.

The article you linked only speakers to linear regulators, and though they spent much time, it is rather amateur in its process. The conclusion talks about RFI, EMI, etc. (all at frequencies well beyond what they tested), and then goes on to make a test with 1V on a 25V rail, and well beyond what would typically be experienced, and well beyond what you would see in a 5V USB wall-wort of even middling quality. 

What is above only provides crude details. My circuit, in a DAC, starts with a regulated power supply, then likely adds regulation, then adds RC or even RLC filters, with the net result that by the time you get to circuits that matter, power supply noise is near non-existent. Again basic EE stuff.

The proof is in the puddling so to speak though because the other thing that rejects power supply noise is feedback. Any test I have seen of Audionote DACs has indicated noise in the output at twice the line frequency plus harmonics, where many low cost DACs have this well under control even with low cost supplies. That tube output stage requires a whole lot more to keep it happy.

Best minds in the field? Do you truly believe that John Walton is one of the best minds in linear analog electronics? Really?

Who are you Cindyment? How do you know so much? 

Are you NW AV Guy? Amir? Archimago? 

I believe you meant bandwidth determines settling time not frequency response, but it is not 100%.

Phase angle, the load reactance and feedback also determine settling time.

I was referring to the engineers who designed the regulators and Jung, Swenson and the other companies designs represent the best minds out there.

The regulators absolutely need to have the bandwidth in digital circuits and to conflate human hearing with digital circuits is sort of disingenuous.

Possibly you have had seen base model AN units that only have RC or CLC power supplies and SRPP output stages but the upper tier models are CLC filtering into feedback regulated tube pass elements units with plate transformer opt’s.

Yes with the 44:1 opt the output z is only 30 ohms but that is more than adequate for 600 ohm balanced lines.

Yes I agree that full ground plane implementations are mandatory in high speed digital circuits but that is basic design implementations on nearly every digital circuit.

All these words help me not. 

@seanheis1 

I have just been around a long time, and as opposed to talking the talk, I have walked the walk ... but not that long. Still got another decade of work in me or so.

@dht4me 

Frequency response and phase (which I said later on). Those two incorporate bandwidth which is an inadequate descriptor. Since we are talking about DACs, somewhat in isolation, but even if we were not, it does not matter, pre-amp loads are typically 10K-100K, non-reactive, and even $10 DACs have more than enough bandwidth, phase response and drive capability, again, technically more than the Audionote.

Jung, Swenson, etc. in the field of analog electronics, linear, are so far from the best minds. Competent perhaps, but if you are using what they say to determine what you are writing, then obviously at a system level ... well they should stick to analog.

What Audionote does in there power supplies or does not, really does not matter. All that matters is results. Measurements I have seen have shown more power supply harmonics then I would expect on any modern DAC, even <$100. Insisting on simple tube based output circuits makes it pretty hard to avoid that.

The regulators absolutely need to have the bandwidth in digital circuits and to conflate human hearing with digital circuits is sort of disingenuous.

Why? Tell me why, in full detail, and please explain what sort of result, say in picoseconds of jitter will result, and how much THD/IMD will result?

With any half way proper designed DAC, the DAC is being driven by a local clock either via buffer, USB, ASRC, etc. I can get exceptionally low phase noise with just some basic sense on the power supply side. It's amazing what a resistor, a ferrite bead, and a few ceramic capacitors can do. Since I have a stable clock, now I am down to logic edge speeds, or more specific, how fast I transition through the range of uncertainty, and that is going to be a few 100 picoseconds, now power supply noise will affect that, but if I am 0.1% noise on the power supply (and I can get better) then I am down in picoseconds worst case jitter, but because the edge speed is fast, and the important transitions actually very very few in audio, the odds of a noise peak being concurrent with a critical edge are low and hence RMS jitter contribution from a half way decent power architecture will have limited impact on performance. Of course, all of this assume the DAC itself has not implemented any techniques in the analog domain to reduce jitter. Most DACs chips do. What is in the Audionote does not, so it will be more sensitive again to design implementation.

We could talk about the DAC reference, but again, it is amazing what can be done with well chosen simple parts. There is a reason why companies buy test equipment. They know if they got it right or not. Not the right sound, which is much different, but they know if there are extraneous things happening they don't want to happen.

Boy this thread went off the rails…

Again, I (mostly) agree with Cinyment on the fundamentals of what they present... (above post)

but differ slightly on what I personally understand that it means to the ear, how such interacts with the ear.

Where that is folded back into the design and execution stage, for the better result. If such is possible. Results vary. It is partly a question of understanding how sensitive the ear is to odd harmonics and dealing with that as a point in emphasis.

what they are saying comes back to the late 90’s and early 2000’s great facinstion with giant expensive speakers with low impedance and wicked impedance curves or changes. this causes an immense amount of interactive with the power supply and overall over stressing of the given amplifier design. this lead to the idea that the amplifier for working with that given speaker was really important and how the speaker would show an amplifier to be ’weak’, in it’s unsuitability. only the best amplifier would do.

Not true. If you over stress anything you’ll get some unwanted harmonics and bad phase response, noise, distortions,etc, and this will ’color’ the result. So a bad speaker design is not the arbiter of audio quality. good and correct design working in sympathetic scenarios is good design. Poor speaker design has those ugly impedance curves that some of those giant speakers tend to have. Contrary to some thinking, it is possible to have those giant speakers have a benign impedance curve AND be of extremely revealing quality. It just takes more work, properly thought out work.

It is partly a question of understanding how sensitive the ear is to odd harmonics and dealing with that as a point in emphasis.

This is Ralph from Atmosphere’s philosophy. I definitely think it holds water with power amps….but is IMD really much of an issue with a well measuring DAC from a company like Benchmark? 
 

And do R2R NOS DACs have less IMD than well measuring DACs? And if they do have more IMD, is it masked by other harmonics?

I really do not buy the thesis that an open soundstage with depth and delicate delineation is a result of some harmonic distortion from the use of tubes. I had a Goldmund 12 dac that has it in spades. I sold that to a local audiophile and hear those qualities in his system every time I go over for a listen. The Goldmund is SS gear of very wide bandwidth. No phase issues to be the cause there or tube oriented THD.  I also have a Soekris dac that is somewhere between the Gustard and the AN. There is more to it than just dismissing things as tube euphoria.  Being the DAC’s I recognize these characteristics are R2R It’s possible that R2R DAC’s have these qualities but I believe it’s implementation.
 

It doesn’t make sense to get into the effectiveness of decoupling vs dedicated regulators or sophisticated implementations as there is no control scenario here and I am a firm believer that we don’t know all of the factors that effect SQ nor do we have established tests for complex audio waveforms that have correlation to what we hear yet. 

It doesn’t make sense to get into the effectiveness of decoupling vs dedicated regulators or sophisticated implementations as there is no control scenario here and I am a firm believer that we don’t know all of the factors that effect SQ nor do we have established tests for complex audio waveforms that have correlation to what we hear yet.

But we have established tests that are quite accurate w.r.t. what a DAC can do w.r.t. THD, noise floor, frequency response, complex waveform IMD (close to real music), etc. and how those will compare to others. So yes, we can change regulators, or anything else you want and show that it does absolutely nothing, or that the change is so minimal that no one will be able to detect the difference.

I really do not buy the thesis that an open soundstage with depth and delicate delineation is a result of some harmonic distortion from the use of tubes.

Not just tubes. You can do it in solid state, or better in DSP, in which case you can still have a huge dynamic range and still provide euphonic distortion. You don't have to buy into this partial fact. I say fact, as it is both distortions, frequency response anomalies, and high frequency artifacts from inadequate filtering ... all work together to create something that is not real, but is pleasant. Whether you buy into it or not, does not change that it is true.

But we have established tests that are quite accurate w.r.t. what a DAC can do w.r.t. THD, noise floor, frequency response, complex waveform IMD (close to real music), etc. and how those will compare to others. So yes, we can change regulators, or anything else you want and show that it does absolutely nothing, or that the change is so minimal that no one will be able to detect the difference.

In my experience, and with my ears.....not true.

You are making an arbitrary decision about our hearing. This is where you step completely over the line.

We are are cross purposes, in the definition of the completeness and correctness of the complex argument.

The longer a question sits unresolved the more fundamental the mistakes in the formation of the question.

From my position, it appears in the form of a blind spot in your data set and associated reasoning.

~~~~~~~~

This is reminding me of the sign at the professors lounge in the Physics building at the local Large university. Students are, emphatically.... not allowed to enter. It matters not the intellect and reasoing power of the given student, they still lack experience, they lack tempering, they lack the lore and the life. A few are correct and beyond the professors, etc. but it is not a constant, not a norm. they lack the reflection and study of said reflection that the professors earn from the students and their compatriots. for the students, maybe in a few years, maybe in a decade, maybe never. Depends on the individual.

This is the why of the desire of having a tweak and cable area that is separated out so that others can’t crash it like an animal seeking to entrap itself in a ball of rage, while cutting itself and others to pieces.....

Perhaps some will get there, on these particular points about hearing vs the idea of purely measurement and intellectually aided number based design. Where human senses are discounted into being the slave of linear based dogmatic thinking. All for the comforts of a few who aren't making it to the next step in complex reasoning, in this particular scenario.

Something (not separated out) which is which is the opposite, or a misstep, a completely wrong headed take of why we have schools for higher thinking.

In my experience, and with my ears.....not true.

You are making an arbitrary decision about our hearing. This is where you step completely over the line.

Can you please detail exactly what measurements you have taken on what equipment and using what to measure that led you to this conclusion with your experience with your ears?

I am not making any arbitrary decisions I am basing what I stated off significant amounts of work done by people in this field and I mean real researchers who have done well thought out experiments.

A claim of audible benefit is only that a claim until shown with some level of certainty to be anything but. Sectors of this industry makes several orders of magnitude more claims of audible improvement than proofs of audible improvement. I can't be proven wrong because the proof does not exist.

Can you please detail exactly what measurements you have taken on what equipment and using what to measure that led you to this conclusion with your experience with your ears?

 

I am not making any arbitrary decisions I am basing what I stated off significant amounts of work done by people in this field and I mean real researchers who have done well thought out experiments.

 

A claim of audible benefit is only that a claim until shown with some level of certainty to be anything but. Sectors of this industry makes several orders of magnitude more claims of audible improvement than proofs of audible improvement. I can’t be proven wrong because the proof does not exist.

Thank you for making my argument for me. This is not a dig. It is business for some of us. And you come in and do harm, via your relentless blind spot. I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, no, not at all. Just not here, in this, is all.

I believe we've done this dance before and the result was the same. You crashed yourself against the given wall in your mind that you failed to understand exists.

Philosophy is the parent of science and we have to return to it when the going gets difficult. It is the parent and origin point for a reason...the most powerful of all: The essence of what moves us forward, the realization of self...

What exactly can DACs do within the audio reproduction and human hearing bandwidth that can't be measured? I'd be interested in knowing.

Thank you for making my argument for me. This is not a dig. It is business for some of us. And you come in and do harm, via your relentless blind spot. I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, no, not at all. Just not here, in this, is all.

 

If my words cause harm, it is only because they are based on factual information from decades of research by many people.

I have read some very creative interpretations of science in your posts including how you refer to your products. I would hope you would be the first to admit that all the flowery science language is really quite meaningless if you can’t show conclusive evidence that it makes a difference. My words cause no harm. If you are unable to provide conclusive evidence to support whatever claims you make about your product though that could cause you harm.

I am continuously amazed by how large a difference we can often measure and yet there are no indications that people detect the change or issue when listening to music. And yet even though that is the case we base our criteria for audibility on what has happened in a lab under controlled conditions with very simple audible stimulus that greatly enhances the ability to detect differences.

the relentlessness and a lack of resolution indicates that your are missing something.

And I've had the kindness to spend hours and hours of my time trying to help you find it.

when I leave and stop doing so, like I've done before... it does not mean you' won', as there is no winning going on here, for anyone.

There is just ...the relentless grinding power of ignorance.

additionally, we're dealing with a situation where business is involved, where financial futures are involved, for me, for you, and others who might be listening in.

and you came in, in falsehood, in disguise. With false name and cover.

And attacked relentlessly, with no regard for whom you attack as your Armour is complete and psychopathic.

Psychopathic as it has zero consequence for yourself, no matter the outcome. This much is abundantly obvious.

So, in essence, your entire posting sequence and all therein is utterly selfish and without integrity..

You come to play a game that has costs for others, then you better believe it has to have costs for you.

many people here, in the design world have the answers you seek, not just I. A place where all these things gain clarity and connectivity. On other forums, places like DIYAudio, have the same. People who do have those answers, and are designers of audio. Many more...are not on forums for the reasons of what is happening here.

But you are blind to them. And without integrity.

additionally, we’re dealing with a situation where business is involved, where financial futures are involved, for me, for you, and others who might be listening in.

and you came in, in falsehood, in disguise. With false name and cover.

And attacked relentlessly, with no regard for whom you attack as your Armour is complete and psychopathic.

My profile name is my name most of you are just not quick enough to figure it out. There is no obfuscation and certainly nothing dishonest about anything I have posted and I take offense to that.

However who I am makes no difference at all. If my profile name was Mickey mouse it would not change the words that I have written nor their veracity.

You are literally calling me a liar and claiming I am promoting falsehoods and yet I know that if that was true you would not be accusing me of falsehoods you would be proving that what I have written is false. That is what forums are for discussing similar and opposing views not for what you’ve just done.

A key aspect of psychopathy is moral depravity. Who is morally deprived the person who speaks verifiable information or the person who calls them a liar but yet provides no proof that what they’ve said is not true.

I win whether you stay or not. I win because I have integrity. I don’t hide behind misapplications of science and flowery technical language that speaks nothing to how a product behaves for the purposes of audio.

You have written many paragraphs meant only to discredit me. Imagine how effective you could have been if you wrote as many paragraphs related to this topic with verifiable repeatable evidence whether empirical or instrument based. You claim you have the answers and that others do. Well I as well as many others from what I can tell are waiting.

It's funny when I read posts that tell others what they should like. For me it sounds like this:

Person1: I like Chocolate ice-cream

Person2: What! You are wrong. You should like Strawberry ice-cream

Person1: But I like the taste of chocolate

Person 2: Your tongue is messed up. You should never like chocolate over Strawberry. We are all humans and we all should like the same flavor. Oh, that "persona; preference", is all a figment of your imagination. Science has measured the human's saliva composition. Based on that we all should like the same flavor - namely strawberry

Person1: But what about my choice

Person2: Science cannot measure that - so it is irrelevant

@milpai,

Person 1: I like this chocolate ice cream better than this other ice cream.

Person 2: It is the same ice cream, I just put it in a different bowl. (this argument does not apply to wine where the glass can have a minor difference -- for the pedantic in the crowd)

Person 1: I like the taste of this chocolate. It has to be a better chocolate, it costs 10 times as much as the other chocolate.

Person 2: They add ingredient KZW to their chocolate. It slightly masks the chocolate flavour, but gives a hint of saltiness that many people like. They use the same base chocolate as the lower cost chocolate. You like salty foods, so that is probably why you prefer it.

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

Science also can’t make people not apply bias to what they read, such that they see what they want to see, not a more accurate representation of what was written.

I am not sure there was even 1 comment in this thread that said anyone’s personal preference was wrong, nor that anything was irrelevant, but it also did not accept both easily proven false claims, and irrelevant claims as being relevant either. I don’t think anyone even said in this thread that a well measuring DAC would sound "better". In fact, it was repeated that there was every likelihood that it would not.

Your post in many ways is serendipitous. Bias can be a powerful influence on perception.

the relentlessness and a lack of resolution indicates that your are missing something.

What is he missing? Is it something metaphysical? Only explained by philosophy perhaps?

I am referring to DACs of course...converting digital to analog....nothing personal. 

The most enjoyable Dacs I have heard are the Tambaqui and the Emm Labs DA2V2, and they both cost a lot more than $99. If anyone cannot hear the difference, fine, stick with $99.00 Dacs and save yourself a lot of money. However I can hear the difference.

@loaman,

Oh, you heard these DACS in your system? You said you heard them, not that you owned them. I guess pointing out that it is impossible to pick out the characteristics of a DAC in a system you are not fully familiar with is pretty much impossible would be pointless huh?

For op, if $400 is all you can pay for a dac than your list of dac's is great. If you are curious what better dac's could sound like I think you should try a $1k dac, a $2k dac and maybe a $3-5k dac also. If you still can't hear any difference they just be happy with whatever you got. If you do hear a difference you may still choose to stay at or below $1k, it is up to you.

I personally don't think measurements are that important but for those who argues that it is the most important thing you should remember that the company dCS also thinks measurements are _very_ important. They produce dac's from about $15k and up. So they must be able to measure things that improve even in that price range.

I want to buy new speakers before trying to upgrade my dac but if I do I will probably look at the offerings from $1k - $2k there seems to be a lot of good ones in that range.

I think the op should listen critically to his $400 DAC, and then a $1000, $2K, $3K, heck even a $30K DCS. I wonder how many people have done a blind comparison side by side of a $400 modern DAC with a DCS, or maybe a Mola Mola, great engineering in both of those. I would highly encourage. I expect it will be enlightening.

Wouldn't you love to see a reviewer do a comparison unsighted of a bunch of DACs over a wide price range all with similar design outcomes? I remember that Passion For Sound guy did one. Then he spent two more videos trying to justify why he could not hear a difference. Good times.

Person1: But what about my choice

Person2: Science cannot measure that - so it is irrelevant

Preferences may be observed and measured in the context of which you talk about. Person 2 is possibly incorrect in the observation and any conclusion drawn from that can be doubted..

A fellow called Paul Samuelson proposed something about revealed preferences. It has taken on a few forms, none of which are without criticism (and that's fine), but its nevertheless illustrative.

I won’t go into details, but Wiki provides its usual barely friendly word salad.

@noske, that is really interesting. I have seem what I assume are related concepts in economic classes long ago, but don't remember this.

@cindyment yeah, and I like how its called GARP...cool.

Despite it involving fairly standard ideas (utility, indifference curves etc), it does have some issues including those mentioned in as few words as possible in the Wiki link. Whenever someone like Hal Varian becomes interested you know its graduate level complexity.

Also, it suggests issues that are being explored at a variety of levels which some correctly say diverges too far from classical economics, like the recent popularity of nudge theory in behavioral economics.

I guess what my point was that consumer preferences may be measured, analysed and squeezed at the most micro and personal of levels - AI and neural networks, eh? Ask the elites at Amazon, Facebook, and at a basic level maybe some way too close to home to even mention......

This forum could benefit from an ignore button.  If nothing else, it would give those who cannot keep from feeding the self-inflated profiles an option and are unable to just keep scrolling.  Its really very simple.

The one way streets never change.  Its a fruitless endeavor