How far have DACs moved on?

[mandryka]

Maybe i've not made myself clear, i'll try again.

The technology the DAC is based on is an implementation detail - the criteria to compare them on is the analog output.

If you can imagine having a check list of features you require, it might include support for a certain sampling rate, or support for a certain type of digital interface. These are perfectly fine things to have on your check list for buying a DAC. However, what the tech is that is used to implement the DAC is not important if you like the result - the analog output is the correct comparison criteria.

So, don't fixate on the tech, check whether it supports what you need as far as input, and gives you analog output that you like listening to!

What you’re saying seems to make sense to me. The problem, as ever, is the difficulty of hearing lots of equipment in your system. There are so many of them, so many DACs, where to start?

What would be really helpful is some pointers to which companies have focussed on the analogue output aspect of their equipment, that would at least narrow the field to investigate. At the moment my investigation of DACs is all a bit random, haphazard.

By the way, I’m one of the people who is convinced that a good DAC makes a very big difference.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I've owned a few and listened to many more, a number in my home system.
I'm really not a fan of the "latest and greatest" stuff, as most of it simply isn't (or at least the units I've heard).

As an example, at the last Scalford show, IMO the best sounding digitally fronted system was using what must have been a 15 year old Wadia unit, sounded fabulous. I very much believe that the chip technology is only part of the answer, and that the analogue output and power supplies for are probably a good deal more important.

 

[Yomanze]

^^^in a nutshell^^^

Sometimes the subtle differences between components are difficult to pin down, except in an overall gestalt sense - one simply enjoys one more than the other

Yes, ‘long term listening enjoyment’ is a very difficult metric to define blind, and of course the only important one.

 

[clivem2]

It does seem like the dac chip is one of the least important elements. Receiver, power supplies, analogue output all being more important.

Don't aim that at me Clive thank you very much, especially when it was your comment that triggered further response. I was stating what is frankly the bleedin obvious. An obvious reality which many won't accept. It's that ignorance that creates the cyclic argument. It's not actually something I will debate with anyone.

That's precisely where the debate becomes cyclic, ie your further response. I'll make no more DBT comments either.

Anyway....

My view about DACs is that they have differing presentations but these differences can seem small. Certainly the differences are often much less than we experience between phono stages. One area where I feel low to mid priced digital has improved is soundstage depth. There are sensibly priced DACs nowadays which give great depth which is comparable to a very good (much more expensive) vinyl setup.

 

[John Phillips]

… However if I am trying to seriously and objectively assess the performance of a piece of equipment, then of course I will introduce controls. Not doing so is a massive mistake. Its precisely why you see so many on forums like this chasing their tails looking for the next upgrade.

Simple fact is that audiophiles that audition whilst knowing what they are listening to *will* be biased. Its simple fact. Pretend all you like but it is simple and proven human psychology. …

I quite agree. But I wonder if many audiophiles enjoying their hobby are trying to be as objective. Not many I suspect.

Perhaps the real tail chasing actually happens in forums like this, and is down to people of all persuasions thinking that others enjoy the hobby in the same way as they do, rather than really understanding that we all have different preferences in unaccountable ways.

In a professional situation accounting for things and controlling for bias is very important. That's clear from my time in the research lab. However I think this is not so in the hobby.

Hearing is an ear-brain mechanism. If a part of what happens in the brain is labelled "bias" but the listener at home is nevertheless more pleased with one piece of kit than another, then they are still more pleased. It seems to me that being pleased requires no explanation, and tolerates no demand that bias gets removed in the way that would be important in the lab.

I certainly feel conflict when people account for preference in strange objective ways. But justifying the chase for better sound as part of a hobby, or any particular choice, seems to be a normal human need. So I usually just sit back and relax again.

 

[March Audio]

I quite agree. But I wonder if many audiophiles enjoying their hobby are trying to be as objective. Not many I suspect.

Perhaps the real tail chasing actually happens in forums like this, and is down to people of all persuasions thinking that others enjoy the hobby in the same way as they do, rather than really understanding that we all have different preferences in unaccountable ways.

In a professional situation accounting for things and controlling for bias is very important. That's clear from my time in the research lab. However I think this is not so in the hobby.

Hearing is an ear-brain mechanism. If a part of what happens in the brain is labelled "bias" but the listener at home is nevertheless more pleased with one piece of kit than another, then they are still more pleased. It seems to me that being pleased requires no explanation, and tolerates no demand that bias gets removed in the way that would be important in the lab.

I certainly feel conflict when people account for preference in strange objective ways. But justifying the chase for better sound as part of a hobby, or any particular choice, seems to be a normal human need. So I usually just sit back and relax again.

I dont disagree with you, I really dont care if people have a bias towards a particular product if it floats their boat. However the question in this thread wasnt a subjective one, it was an objective one.

If you answer it in purely subjective terms then the question will not be answered because you will just have a whole bunch of contradictory opinions from different people. Thats why I rarely respond to threads that ask if component X is better than Y, or which component should I buy. Its just frankly random responses from people that tend to support what they have bought.

 

[clivem2]

Was the question subjective or objective?

A few years back DACs from Weiss, the DAC2 and the DAC202 were among the most well balanced and analytical to be heard. How does a fine recent design like the Chord Qutest measure up? Has anyone actually compared these?

By "measure up" the OP may not have meant "measure" in scientific terms, it's more of a colloquialism, ie stack up, compare etc so it could well be a subjective comparison.

In objective terms the answer is surely that DACs have improved as they measure better.

Subjectively I'd say there's a greater breadth of presentation styles from DACs today, whether this means they are better is a matter of personal preference. In common with other electronics the cost of excellent performance has reduced in real terms.

 

[March Audio]

Was the question subjective or objective?



By "measure up" the OP may not have meant "measure" in scientific terms, it's more of a colloquialism, ie stack up, compare etc so it could well be a subjective comparison.

In objective terms the answer is surely that DACs have improved as they measure better.

Subjectively I'd say there's a greater breadth of presentation styles from DACs today, whether this means they are better is a matter of personal preference. In common with other electronics the cost of excellent performance has reduced in real terms.

As I explained above the question in this context has to be objective otherwise its a totally meaningless bunch of random opinions that clearly have no commonality or coherence. "Measure" can also mean in subjective terms but without the controls I talked about subjective opinions have little value, they will simply be inaccurate. Ask a dozen people and you'll probably get a dozen different answers. There is no reason or basis to accept any of those opinions as correct.

Along with their improvement in technical performance, the technical performance has become more similar with cheap dacs challenging or even exceeding revered expensive ones. This concurs with the view of myself and many others that the subjective sound is varying very little.

So sorry I really don't share your view that there is now a greater variation in presentation. It's not a view that is supported technically or subjectively. You are also contradicting what you said a few posts above.

 

[clivem2]

As I explained above the question has to be objective otherwise its a totally meaningless bunch of random opinions that clearly have no commonality or coherence.

What you seem to be saying is that because you don't like one set of answers because they are opinions you feel these views are worthless. OK but it's up to the OP to say whether the question was objective, subjective, or a mix. This reminds me of a "builders' nail", ie when you have a hammer a screw looks like a nail. There are other perspectives, a cross-section of people will have other views and I'm pretty sure that not all designers will necessarily be of one mind.

Along with their improvement in technical performance, the technical performance has become more similar with cheap dacs challenging or even exceeding revered expensive ones. This concurs with the view of myself and many others that the subjective sound is varying very little.

So sorry I really don't share your view that there is greater variation in presentation. It's not a view that is supported technically or subjectively.

One classification of DAC I had in mind re exhibiting a different sound was NOS DACs. I can't recall when they arrived of the scene but they've not always be generally available. I would say the NOS DACs differ in sound to other types of DAC.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

In the last few weeks I had a 1957 made Leak Troughline restored to its former glory - or something that would pass for its former glory as I am sure that few would remember how a quality VHF FM tuner sounded 62 years on. Needless to say it is lovely with no obvious flaw if listened to in the normal way. But if I put my ear up the ESL [also made 1957] and driven by a Quad valve amp, I can hear a tiny bit of back-ground hiss when the radio is nicely tuned.

More than once I've wondered if we tend to find a low level of 'natural sounding' background noise makes a musical performance more 'natural'. This noise may be low enough in level not to be noticed unless you deliberately try to hear it, but might still affect hearing.

This thought was prompted some years ago by noticing that I heard a brief burst of 'hum' for a second or so *after* I switched off a fluroescent light in our kitchen. When I paid more attention, yes, when I turned the light on, I heard the hum after the startup process, but then after a while stopped noticing it. So at turn-off I was hearing the brief *absense* as a *presence*.

Human sensing tends to focus on 'changes' and tends to relax about what is steady and 'normal'.

Thus it might be an *advantage* that a source like LP has a much higher 'noise level' than a modern digital recording, etc. Depends on what you get accustomed to and associate with the sound you prefer.

 

[clivem2]

More than once I've wondered if we tend to find a low level of 'natural sounding' background noise makes a musical performance more 'natural'. This noise may be low enough in level not to be noticed unless you deliberately try to hear it, but might still affect hearing.

This thought was prompted some years ago by noticing that I heard a brief burst of 'hum' for a second or so *after* I switched off a fluroescent light in our kitchen. When I paid more attention, yes, when I turned the light on, I heard the hum after the startup process, but then after a while stopped noticing it. So at turn-off I was hearing the brief *absense* as a *presence*.

Human sensing tends to focus on 'changes' and tends to relax about what is steady and 'normal'.

Thus it might be an *advantage* that a source like LP has a much higher 'noise level' than a modern digital recording, etc. Depends on what you get accustomed to and associate with the sound you prefer.

Jim, could you call you hum dither? Or is hum too obvious to be called something as subtle as dither?

 

[March Audio]

What you seem to be saying is that because you don't like one set of answers because they are opinions you feel these views are worthless. OK but it's up to the OP to say whether the question was objective, subjective, or a mix. This reminds me of a "builders' nail", ie when you have a hammer a screw looks like a nail. There are other perspectives, a cross-section of people will have other views and I'm pretty sure that not all designers will necessarily be of one mind.


One classification of DAC I had in mind re exhibiting a different sound was NOS DACs. I can't recall when they arrived of the scene but they've not always be generally available. I would say the NOS DACs differ in sound to other types of DAC.

Not at all, it's actually you that don't appear to like the answer that is borne out scientifically. It's not something I will debate with you. Without controls people will not provide accurate assessments differences between dacs.

You need to be specific about what you are referring to with NOS. If it is a variety without reconstruction filter then it's a technically very dumb idea. To allow all the spuria close to the audio band is not a clever idea WRT intermodulation and effects on the subsequent amp. If you are hearing differences with a non filtered NOS dac it's for bad reasons that are technically explainable.

R2R is another type that people claim is fundamentally different. I have spent significant time looking at the Seokris dac. Lots of controlled listening, including with other audiophiles, and it really doesn't sound fundamentally different to DS. No more different than comparing one DS dac to another. One thing for sure is that it does have more harmonic distortion than a DS dac. A fundamental problem of discrete R2R. However this is still probably below audibility.

 

[clivem2]

Not at all, it's actually you that don't appear to like the answer that is borne out scientifically. It's not something I will debate with you. Without controls people will not provide accurate assessments differences between dacs.

I'm fine with both objective and subjective views. It's good have perspective and colour in life but ok, we can leave it there.

You need to be specific about what you are referring to with NOS. If it is a variety without reconstruction filter then it's a technically dumb idea. To allow all the spuria close to the audio band us not a clever idea WRT intermodulation and effects on the subsequent amp. If you are hearing differences with a non filtered NOS dac it's for bad reasons.

NOS without a reconstruction filer is what I had in mind. It might or might not be a dumb idea but it can't be ignored as a valid example.

 

[March Audio]

I'm fine with both objective and subjective views. It's good have perspective and colour in life but ok, we can leave it there.


NOS without a reconstruction filer is what I had in mind. It might or might not be a dumb idea but it can't be ignored as a valid example.

Well if you do something technically badly, so much so that it ends up being audible, adding signals and distortion that simply isn't in the recording, then you are contradicting the definition of hifi.

I'm not sure many accept the idea that audio reproduction equipment should deliberately distort the sound, but hey I'm sure some will like an effects box and that is indeed their perogative.

 

[camverton]

I'm fine with both objective and subjective views. It's good have perspective and colour in life but ok, we can leave it there.


NOS without a reconstruction filer is what I had in mind. It might or might not be a dumb idea but it can't be ignored as a valid example.

Quite so and this is, when all is said and done, a discussion forum.

Whether some salesmen and their manufacturers like it or not, the music reproduction system is a mix of objective and subjective. How we subjectively perceive music is a combination of the actual sound and how our brain interprets it. The psychology of how we enjoy our music is at least as important as the actual sound that comes out of the equipment.

 

[radamel]

Yes, and this reminds me of this very interesting Ted Talk, "The origins of pleasure":

https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_the_origins_of_pleasure/transcript

 

[camverton]

Well if you do something technically badly, so much so that it ends up being audible, adding signals and distortion that simply isn't in the recording, then you are contradicting the definition of hifi.

I'm not sure many accept the idea that audio reproduction equipment should deliberately distort the sound, but hey I'm sure some will like an effects box and that is indeed their perogative.

Ah, “effects box”, a copy and paste of Keith’s favourite insult. You two are becoming quite a double act!

 

[tuga]

Don't aim that at me Clive thank you very much, especially when it was your comment that triggered further response. I was stating what is frankly the bleedin obvious. An obvious reality which many won't accept. It's that ignorance that creates the cyclic argument. It's not actually something I will debate with anyone.

In any case the point wasn't about blind testing, that was just an example. It was responding to the comment inferring significant differences between modern (quality) dacs. Differences that often evaporate into triviality when a bit of control is exercised

Forced control? I consider myself an objectivist and I try to learn as much of the science involved as possible. I don't read reviews and really don't care about the hype. And I don't replace any piece of equipment before I've identified its shortcomings and shortlisted a couple of replacement units that will likely address those problems. But I don''t think that A/B comparisons are useful for identifying anything other than crude (large magnitude) differences.

In my opinion and experience, performance assessment needs to be done with the listener's system in the listener's room with his music in order to be effective.
And some of the faintest differences will sometimes only be detected with a particular recording after days or even weeks. But usually once you've spotted it it becomes obvious even with other recordings.

I am talking about an observation driven assessment of an equipment's "transparency", not a tasting session to determine whether or not I like how it sounds (hi-fi equipment shouldn't have own sound).

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Jim, could you call you hum dither? Or is hum too obvious to be called something as subtle as dither?

From an Information Theory POV 'dither' is expected to be 'randomised'. However a systematic form of dither has been tried in the past. e.g. the first NICAM ADCs that the BBC designed and used applied a half-LSB step up/down between alternating samples.

But so far as human perception is concerned, just-inaudible noises like hum, rumble, etc, might do something similar by affecting the hearing process. This is just conjecture though.

 

[tuga]

One classification of DAC I had in mind re exhibiting a different sound was NOS DACs. I can't recall when they arrived of the scene but they've not always be generally available. I would say the NOS DACs differ in sound to other types of DAC.

That's not a valid example because DACs should not be run NOS.
Would you play your LPs without the RIAA EQ filter? I'm sure it would sound different.