DAC Upgrade

@georgehifi

Don’t belive everything you read, even if the ones saying so belive it. Unless by liking it better they mean they like the higher levels of IMD and aliasing. I describe better as transparent, no “colorations” added, I just want it to convert digital to analog.

If you can point to any technical benefit of R2R as it’s been implemented, I’d love to hear it. Same thing regarding DSD and MQA, there is no actual benefit over PCM in regards to a more accurate file, which I’ve also asked to be proven wrong.

One man’s recessed mids is another man’s overemphasized bass and treble. It’s the exact same thing but two people can have different take aways.

You mean R2R. If you’ve never heard one, why do you think you want one?

Holo Spring Level 3 measurements, it’s decent when in OS mode. So I assume the Level 2 is decent as well. I personally don’t see any practical benefit over a DS DACs, meaning not the theoretical benefits but the benefits from the products that exist.

@audiolouis

If both channels are inverted, they now are in-phase, and sound identical.

Or, are you talking about how balanced cables work? Or are you saying since music isn’t recorded in one session with all the vocalists/musicians on one mic, that absolute polarity isn’t preserved?

Stereophile has an article on absolute phase, and basically calls it baloney.

@cavy

If by outstanding you mean complete dog💩, then yes. I mean, look at the L3’s filter response in NOS mode, so much aliasing/images, as a reference to what is good, I present the Chord DAVE’s response, and also let’s look at the insane amounts of IMD, as a reference, I again present the Chord DAVE’s IMD.

Simply put, you are blindly believing what you read online by people who think they know what they are talking about and also likely believe in cable risers and cryo-frozen cables. I haven’t seen any R2R DAC on the market that is more transparent than an equally priced DS DAC. And yes, I did say “see” and not “heard”, if you believe you can evaluate a DAC once you know what it is, you are deluded, you have to look at measurements and/or do a scientific double-blind listening session.

Being “more musical” is a non-descript term, some people (like Paul at PS Audio) use it to mean transparent, whereas other say it’s the enjoyable audible THD and boosted bass of a tube amp, others describe it as something else.

A DAC converts digital to analog, it only controls a few things:
* Frequency response linearity
* Channel mismatch
* Channel crosstalk
* Noise floor level
* Volume linearity
* THD
* IMD
*Jitter reduction

As well as few other things, some being blown out of proportion, like phase mismatch (there is no time smearing by even good $9 DS DACs, despite what MQA proponents will lead you to believe).

@mickeyb 
 
Did you just describe a tube DAC as transparent?
🤨

@georgehifi

I couldn’t use the link as it says too many page visits.

Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that NOS mode has no benefit in regards to transparency over OS mode, all it does is reduce the treble, add IMD, and introduces aliasing. It just shows you can’t trust your ears when you know what you are listening to.

@georgehifi

In NOS mode with the Holo Spring dac playing PCM RedBook, there is more body to the sound, and the treble has more transparent and noticeable harmonic extension to it.

Making claims in regards to frequencies you can’t hear are we?
https://www.stereophile.com/content/holoaudio-spring-kitsuné-tuned-edition-level-3-da-processor-meas...

It very clearly has reduced treble in NOS mode with 44.1kHz, and with 96 or 192 it is practically identical to OS mode.

Is “harmonic extension” the new marketing description for harmonic distortion. If so, that directly contradicts your statement about transparency, as we can clearly see it has more distortion in NOS mode.

It’s like arguing a bookshelf speaker has deeper bass than a 12” sub, it just isn’t true.
 
You should really consider the possibility what you are hearing is non-existent, which is common in Hi-Fi (power cords, headphone break-in, silver sounding different than copper (when conductivity is matched), etc.).

@cleeds

The effort of others who have hundreds of international participants ranging in age/experience/sex and are pretty much always in agreement.

I don’t have the money nor the time to buy dozens of equipment and setup level matched blind listening tests.

You are the one claiming the studies don’t prove so, so the burden is mostly on your end.

Also, using common sense to not belive in things just cause I’m good by others. For instance, 24Bit has no benefit over 16Bit in a residential environment, that’s because the only difference is the noise floor, and the noise floor of 16Bit is lower than any residential environment. 
 
I like being proven wrong with facts, not someone telling me so. I don’t buy into expensive digital cables the same way I don’t buy into essential oils over medical treatment.

@cavy

I have found that great measurements don’t always produce great sounding equipment

It usually does when doing a double-blind session (and level-matched below clipping and quick switching). Measurements don’t mean squat when you have it in your home or go to a dealer’s demo room.

My main point was arguing against clearly incorrect statements that measurements can easily prove. It’s fine to say you prefer one over another, but to state that one is more transparent when more distortion/aliasing exist, just shows the flaws of sighted listening evaluations.

@cleeds

The studies/books/papers of Toole, Olive, etc. in regards to speakers/headphones.

The study by this team of people as well as others showing that no one has 70% confidence or higher is differentiating CD vs 320Kbps MP3.

The many AES papers and human trials (one done by Axiom Audio for instance) showing linear and non-linear distortion audibility.

Geddes’ work/papers for subwoofers, waveguides, etc.

Again, I welcome discussion, and have asked many times to be given points where my logic/reasoning fails. So, besides “this one sounded better to me”, I’d love to hear why the Benchmark or Chord DACs aren’t transparent enough, and not say Herb Reichert of Stereophile saying the Benchmark removed the sound of church walls in a recording.

@cleeds

How does it not address the claim? Harman has done countless double-blind sessions (started by Toole), and he states/documents the better measured speaker wins every time, even regardless of room placement. Now, ideal bass and treble levels do differ slightly, but Toole is comparing speakers being sold, and none are close enough to where a worse imaging/soundstage or audible distortion would be ignored for better bass/treble.

Their work is peer-reviewed, so I don’t see how you can claim that since I haven’t participated in such a study that me referencing their solid findings doesn’t hold water.

@chisom1 
 
To be clear, when though I would say the Yggy doesn’t perform as well as some similarly priced gear, any defects shouldn’t be easily audible. The fact is even cheap DACs nowadays are very good. 

@mlapenta 

Yep, for those like me that belive measurements correlate to sound quality, both the Qutest and the Benchmark DAC3 are $1700-$2000 and are very transparent.