+1
The sound quality from DACs - is it all the same?
I've been talking to my cousin brother about sound quality. He is a self-proclaimed expert audiophile. He says that Audio Science Review has all of the answers I will need regarding audio products.
In particular, he says an inexpensive DAC from any Chinese company will do better than the expensive stuff. He says fancy audio gear is a waste of money because the data is already bit-perfect. All DAC chips sound the same. Am I being mislead?
He also said that any DAC over $400 is a waste of money. Convincing marketing is at play here, he says.
He currently owns a Topping L30 headphone amplifier and D30 Pro DAC. He uses Sennheiser HD 569 headphones to listen to music. I'm not sure what to think of them. I will report my findings after listening one day! (likely soon, once I get some free time)
- Jack
232 responses Add your response
+1 Unless they can statistically prove over a larger population that it sounds better, it don't mean jack. The ultimate approach in audio so far has been Floyd and Olive's at Harman, where they can predict with 0.86 correlation coefficient which speaker listeners will prefer in blind listening tests. And when bass extension is similar, that number goes up to 0.996. Believing anything someone or some company subjectively says without going through this kind of statistical scrutiny is akin to believing in get-rich-quick schemes. Unfortunately, the human psyche is built to want to believe in these kinds of schemes. |
I highly doubt people buy their audio gear to statistically prove (satisfy) the mass population. I have a strong feeling they buy them to satisfy themselves. Not other people. There may be exception.
Again, I don’t think people blindly listen to what a company subjectively says. There may be exceptions. I have a strong feeling people buy their audio gear based on what they like and enjoy. Personal preferences. Commensurate with their budget / money outlay they can afford. Who cares about "Statistical scrutiny", and not sure whether the masses or a large group of "sample population" needs to have any impact on individual people’s decision to buy their personal audio gear.
|
I totally agree. They know what they are doing, and huge part of that is marketing their story. They know better than to try to compete in a lower cost market even if they could make products with their house sound for a significantly lower price. It would be as futile as if Ferrari tried to try to compete in the sub $30k new family car market. They don’t know how to do it. It ain’t easy at all! They could possibly team up with Toyota, but that would just tarnish their brand image, even if it turned out to be an excellent family car. The people who buy Ferraris don’t want to see the label on every low end sedan and mini van everywhere. The people who don’t typically buy Ferraris aren’t going to care much about that label. Making a car analogy is somewhat weak because a fast Ferrari easily has measurably better performance than a sub $30k family sedan. With audio equipment the "performance" as it might be measured typically doesn't correlate much with the price. So it's paying for taste, just like paying for styling on a Ferrari compared to some cheaper car someone has hot rodded so it's crazy fast. High end exotic cars typically get their special looks by having small amounts of internal usable space compared to the size of the car. Any practical design cannot look the same. |
Well, that's not the point I was making, but they should use statistical information to filter their own decision-making process. And studies like Toole and Olive's show the likelihood of what the typical human prefers. I'm first going to assume I'm a typical human before I assume I'm an atypical one and flounder around testing atypical equipment. Likewise, with electronic equipment I'd rather start from a neutral base and determine what adjustments to neutral I prefer. That's why humans use common baselines for just about everything. |
Unless they can statistically prove over a larger population that it sounds better, it don't mean jack. The ultimate approach in audio so far has been Floyd and Olive's at Harman, where they can predict with 0.86 correlation coefficient which speaker listeners will prefer in blind listening tests. And when bass extension is similar, that number goes up to 0.996. Believing anything someone or some company subjectively says without going through this kind of statistical scrutiny is akin to believing in get-rich-quick schemes. Unfortunately, the human psyche is built to want to believe in these kinds of schemes.
The exploitation of human frailty is often the marketers goal.
On the other hand folks like Floyd Toole, Sean Olive and more recently Amir Majidimehr at ASR have done some good work in ushering in a new era of measurement based "statistical scrutiny" for which an increasing number of peoplebseem to be grateful.
|
@cd318, the difficult part is getting the people who know how to implement audio reproduction to accept that "perfect" does not mean "good sound", and the people who don't implement audio (but think they do) to accept the other side actually knows what they are doing. My background is in solid state physics and material sciences. If you need someone to build a battery for you from scratch I am your guy. My background and tools I have access to could allow me to completely simulate an acoustic absorber, but I still hired an acoustic engineer to design my listening room. I could literally build a transistor from scratch, but I trusted the engineers who designed my electronics know what they are doing since that is not what I specialize in. I am an innate skeptic, but my experience and others demonstrated knowledge leads me to believe those who can demonstrate real expertise as opposed to those who claim it by virtue of simply using something. |
Precisely.... It is important to listen others and discuss... |
And Erin's Audio Corner and Audioholics. After all, when looking at performance cars which information would you rather have when starting your research, "goes fast, handles great, stops good" or "707HP@5800RPM; 0-60 in 3.8 secs; 1.3 lateral g-force; 70-0 in 128 ft."? |
"I am an innate skeptic, but my experience and others demonstrated knowledge leads me to believe those who can demonstrate real expertise as opposed to those who claim it by virtue of simply using something."
Me too, although my background in physics amounts only to a fluked O level (one of the papers was a multiple choice). A few years back, to cut a long story short, I needed to solder in a tiny capacitor, were talking 2/3 mm, on the back of my CD player’s circuit board to allow it to play CDRs. A rather unsuccessful attempt which resulted in 3 outcomes, none of which resembed what I was looking for. a) I almost wrecked the circuit board b) I almost burned a hole in my jeans due to the frustration of repeated failure. c) The iron slipped and almost burned the soldering iron’s cable.
A friend suggested I try this family owned electronics store in town, and without any other option, other than to admit abject failure, I decided to give it a go. The owner took the drive off me and disappeared. I could smell the sound of something burning as I waited a little nervously. In less than 2 minutes he returned with the capacitor safely soldered in place. From that moment on it became patently clear that, no matter what I might like to imagine, there are people out there whose skills exceed mine by far.
Anyway, do DACs all sound the same, does Bluetooth 5.1 sound any better than Bluetooth 5.0 or even 4.2? When it comes to audio and all of its myriad facets (imagery, bandwidth, dynamics, distortion, transients, coherence, timbre etc) can we ever sort out evidence from opinion? Questions, questions...too many questions. On second thoughts, just give me some meaningful data. |
The only way to put this to rest is have a level matched listening session. On that note I started my digital journey with Cambridge 851N streamer. Then added Chord Qutest, then Ares II, then Pontus II, then Musician Draco and now finally the best of the rest Musician Pegasus. Sounds closest to the real thing. If anyone wants to send me their Rockna Wavelight or Holo May Kte I will gladly give you my opinion!😃 |
Is it just me or are most of the DACs subtle in their differences? I can hear the difference between an Ares II, Merason Frerot, Border Patrol, etc but it’s not fundamentally changing that much of my experience with the music. I’ll go back to my Bluesound and I don’t mind it, so I’ve sold off those special DACs off. Maybe something in the 5k and more range would change my mind. |
Yes, and not a waste of time to drive all of them, if you can. Specs on paper does not always translate to "enjoyable to drive". Same as audio, trying it first hand matters if you care about what you are buying. Specs-only people usually miss out. Same with audio, some of the best spec'd DACs I tested were not engaging to listen to. Great on paper, sound, not always enjoyable or engaging to listen to. |
I totally agree with some here ,. Study the specifications of said component and understand any qualified test results like ASR does ,,..You will definitely get the best sounding system your money can buy at most price points however be warned up to a limit of course, anything above certain dollars is fantasy make believe in your mind ,… |
"What if there are two dozen cars that go fast, handle great, and stop good? You gonna waste your time test driving all of them? " Nope-- I read pro and user reviews to get an idea of various DACs' sonic profiles then based on that, I listen to as many as I can (within my budget, of course).I listened to 6 DACs in my system before making a choice. Music is very important to me so, no-- it's most certainly NOT a "waste if time"-- quite the opposite!!! If you regard listening to gear as a waste of time, I cannot fathom why you are even attracted to this hobby. |
I prefer to not let myself be influenced by others confirmation and cognitive biases. I don't consider gear a hobby. I consider achieving the best sound at an acceptable cost/benefit ratio a hobby. The gear itself is meaningless to me. In fact, the less gear, the better. My main source currently is Amazon Music HD via an Echo wirelessly straight into a preamp, so no CDs, LPs or hardware streamers. Knowing how to read graphs, and understanding through measurements what is audible to the human ear and what is not allows me to "filter" gear before wasting my time with it. I don't consider it time well-spent to listen to something that measurements show obviously won't sound any different to my human ears. |
The room the equipment is in and where the equipment is placed is IMHO even more of a factor than the equipment itself. ASR cannot determine, by testing one speaker of a pair, how music will sound on a pair of speakers in all users particular rooms. Thus for me, ASR is the ultimate in snake oil. Worth a quick check before buying something but more worthy of a chuckle or two. |
The most straight out admission of confirmation bias I've yet read. All the best, |
I have an Echo feeding an older amp and speakers in the bunkie at our cottage. Dead silent surprisingly and there are no obvious artifacts. @nonoise, to use the typical trope since you haven’t listened to it how would you know how it sounds? That works boh ways. I tried it after reading a review on some site that showed good performance. I was surprised. |
@jssmith I think mine is a 3rd generation. |
@nonoise Then you obviously don't understand the concept of confirmation bias, nor I suspect cognitive dissonance either. |
Where did I say everything sounds the same? As a matter of fact, in my first statement of this thread I explained how DAC manufacturers can purposefully make a DAC sound different.
Is this a put-down by status statement, or are you admitting you don't know how digital transmission works? Just a rhetorical question. |
@jjss49 ,
Maybe someone needs to put an Echo Dot in an aluminum case ship it with a special power supply and sell it for $2499.99. What do you think the response would be then? |
Gee mahgister.......if you cared to actually read what he wrote, you'd find it very insulting in it's insinuation. I used humor to deflect. What you should do is stop jumping at every chance to try to get back at me, which makes it clear what your motives are. For all the pontification you do about being above it all and being kind, you don't practice it so much. Is that not a contradiction? All the best,
|
First he stated his viewpoint without insulting YOU... Second i think you are right about biases, but why not explaining your point of view? Instead of posting an insult against his intelligence... Third, yes i admit that i answered to some of your posts...I try to be kind, i dont succeed all time, and no i am not above people, i am above political ideolologies, ... Four i always substantiated my answers to your post with arguments...for example in another thread you have denounced people turning audiogon into "facebook" wars of images and insults cartoons i only suggest here to your own reflection : why do you do it yourself ? For example explain your viewpoint about biases to this poster instead of insult... I will approve your post because i think the same about biases as you i think.... Anyway i will not answer with an insulting cartoon toward you if i am in disagreement with you for sure... I dont like image cartoon with insults associated to someone like you seems to like it... I am sorry if we differ in taste.... By the way i dont have facebook...
|
Wow mahgister, what part of
don't you seem to comprehend as insulting? (I'll make it easy for you...it's the part of the sentence after the comma). Now didn't I already point out that you're taking almost every opportunity to jump on my posts to vain attempts to get at me and that it's making you look foolish? All the best, |
| Post removed |
A two line remark of jessmith about biases and cognitive dissonance which is also a part of the analysis when we think about biases as LEARNED habits and not only simple prejudices but also cognitive resonant/dissonant mechanism is not an insult... Save for someone ego who react by a patent cartoon image insult instead of answering about the question linked to biases and the cognitive dissonance mechanism related to biases learning histories... In a word jessmith was notinsulting you but pointing to you something about what are biases in a more general way...
|
@nonoise + 1 |
Your cartoon is an insult not the two lines of jessmith...What is my mess? my observation about your habit to post cartonnish insult? 😁😊 You have probably not understood the link between biases and cognitive resonant/dissonant behaviour and take it to be an insult instead of going on with this very important point about LEARNED biases positive and negative role and function in perception... Then take a mirror....
for example this is an insult: Stupid people dont mind to look stupid because the pleasure associated by the liberation of their anger toward something they dont understand superseeded their self social control and pride... Wise people are too ashamed to systematically insult someone or about something they dont understand... I prefer to be "schyzo" instead of writing post like that... it is not a shame at all to be a schizophren, but posting this is a shame...
|
I dicuss if you remind my posts...I always give arguments, not ad hominem attacks... I ceased to discuss with someone when someone used insults and insinuations like you just did because you are unable to any rational thinking sometimes...Save to appeal to scapegoating me because i dont appreciate cartoon insult poster of any kind ...
«A wise person recognize himself with or without a mirror, a fool cannot even with a mirror»-Anonymus smith i am able to apologize when i am wrong... Imitate me... |
