And ladies and gentlemen…. welcome back our old “friend”, the one and only, the myth the legend, Audio2Design (or AtDavid, Dannad, etc. etc.). Now as Cindy 😂😂
Oh my man, you would never let up, would you
How do you determine that a DAC sounds good?
When initially searching for a new DAC and ultimately finding one that sounds good in your system, what steps do you take? How do you ultimately determine whether or not a Digital To Analog Converter sounds good in your stereo?
98 responses
Some form of critical listening counts as verifiable evidence, but most differences are too small, or our audio memory too poor to consider it reliable without some form of controls. It was listening tests all along that have tought us what is likely to heard and not heard, and those tests are far more sensitive than trying to detect differences while listening to music. You may believe they have to perform the intended function better, BUT, with the exception of products that are noticeably different and are most definitely not transparent, the evidence to support your position, not just from measurements, but empirical, i.e. listening with at least some level of controls is just not there. The problem is that expectation of a more expensive product, a new purchase, etc. being "better" is high, so even if it sounds exactly the same as what it replaces, it will be viewed as better, but not just because of expectations, but because you are now listening critically, you have better focus, you suddenly hear things you did not hear before .... admit it, that is the most common statement. Heck, I have made it myself, convinced myself, wow this is much better, I did not even notice it before, then put the old thing in, and guess what, it is there, and just as evident ... I just missed it before because listening to music, except when you are trying to detect a difference, especially one you want to hear, is a fairly passive experience. You are trying to get lost in the music, not hear the cellist shuffling his feet.
I have a personal opinion on this @sns , there are so many things that can be done that are both measurable and audible, and will absolutely create a more pleasurable experience for many people, and I am not taking about more accuracy, I am talking about less, that the "expectation" is already there. It is already in the audiophile "psych". And because most audiophiles assume that because they like it, it must be better and more accurate, they are already psychologically primed for claims of "better" whether it is or not. |
Hey @tsushima1 . I am not proposing that. Not my business. What I am saying is the same dude who has posted here under at least six previous usernames, all banned, is now back, with yet another username/ account. |
Charlie Hansen of Ayre and other fame, a true genius, gifted engineer and lover of music created a DAC with both measure and listen switch ( filter settings ) I tend to select gear from gifted engineering teams who are crazy about music. I still have an Ayre A2D… So to answer the question, which might have been humble inquiry ( a great life skills book btw… ) I listen to a DAC firstly thru a recording chain i control and where i witnessed the original event. Kinda the same way i choose microphones… i am a Decca Tree robot |
@cindyment I actually agree with much you're saying here. My only issue is, I don't presume most believe their listening preferences to be objectively valid, so personal preference all that matters to them.
Vast majority of reviews offer no measurements, why, because the vast majority of audiophiles don't demand them. I assume most audiophiles seeking pleasurable experience from their listening, certainly based on the constant change we see with average listener they are experiencing something less than perfect pleasure. So the question becomes, will measurements, listening or combo of both be most efficient way of reaching goal. I go to more objective forums like ASR and others, I don't detect any less or more efficiency in reaching the perfect pleasure goal. |
I think we agree on a lot SNS. My system is objectively very accurate, at the hardware level including the room. ASR helped me to get there as did Stereophile. I am no different from anyone else, I like distortion, I like from high frequency artifacts, I like non-flat frequency responses. The only difference is I do that with DSP. I started as objectively perfect as I could, so that when I am dialing in DSP, I know exactly what is happening. The biggest variable is the music, and one size does not fit all, some music does sound best "flat", others give me more pleasure with different enhancements, and even my mood comes into play, as does the obvious of listening volume. The only thing that interferes with the enjoyment is the desire to see if I can get it even better.
|
Recording is pure art. There is no right or wrong. Will that tube-pre be more distorted and noisy that a good SS. Probably. Does it matter? No, because a recording is art. Playback ... is what you want it to be. Subjectivies get hung up on "sounds live" even though the recording is multi-miked, close, and there is nothing like a live performance from any seat on the recording. Techies get hung up on "true to the recording" but that is meaningless since they don't have the mixing engineers ears, brain, speakers, room, etc. so there is no way to be true to what the engineer/artist intended. |
Those who said simply "by listening to it" left out many steps. Most plans start with "make your best guess and buy it"....then you listen to it....then maybe you buy some more candidates. Some of them maybe you return--although I hate to return things like this. Once you choose the one you like, you sell the others used at a loss. |
Initially I was skeptic and suspicious of the OP and it's sister OP "How do you know if your system sounds good", which I had to go back through and read to address what the possible motives were in asking the question. About the only answer from Ted seemed to be along the lines that it was an "old question" that he felt either hadn't been asked lately or that he felt somehow was going chronically under-asked. Still not sure how valid that is as a motivation, unless what you want to do is some 'image crafting 101'. An old trick maybe, but as tricks go, a fairly transparent one, I guess. People who are crazed about measurements over reasoning or common sense will, like the poor, always be with us, I'm supposing. Most of us outgrow that phase, some may never even want to...good luck to them. |
Unless you are involved with only the listening tests, you should know that "good engineering" involves a copious amount of measurement of the right things, followed by more measurements. It has to start an end with measurement otherwise the science cannot advance or sustain. People get old and die, even golden ears. A company that relies ONLY on listening opinions is quackery. Listening tests and measurements go hand in hand. That, my friend, is good engineering.
|
It is a good point @spenav ,
If @ted_denney never measures anything, and there is not a lot of indication of measuring equipment in his plant, let along anything of sophistication, then how does he know that products he is shipping even works? Even if you are intentionally altering the sound, you have to do that repeatedly from unit to unit, so you better have measurements to ensure manufacturing consistency. In a product that supposedly only the ears are sensitive enough to pick up the changes, how do you consistently manufacture? |
I sort of want take just a slightly different angle. Sorry for the long post. How do you make a DAC that sounds good? A somewhat interesting question. I don’t put all that much stock in the idea of doing things “perfectly”. I just look at that kind of thing as simply ‘eliminating the known mistakes’, one by one, until what you have left is likely pretty darn good – IF you’re thorough enough about it, that is. Like running the table in a game of pool. There might theoretically be an infinite number of ways to do that, but the important part is to leave yourself a good shot on the next ball – you don’t have to be perfect, you just have to consistently avoid making the usual sorts of mistakes. But, this is the kind of the thinking that usually becomes a casualty in ‘Hyperbole Land’. And HL is literally everywhere: in the manufacturing camp, the marketing camp, the supplier camp, the media camp and the forum camp. Almost nowhere to get away from it unless it’s underneath one’s own hat. But, anywho, the first step in not making the usual mistakes is knowing what those mistakes likely are. You often find those mistakes in areas where others have long stopped looking. Last year, I had this point driven home to me with a DAC purchase. The DAC itself is not the important thing here, it’s just that it illustrates my point. This is part of a review of this DAC I wrote elsewhere: “...chip design for example, is not what people expect. People tend to think of it as a ’learned technical skill’, that after you’ve made one nice-sounding digital chip, then your next chip design will likely sound even better, what with all the lessons you, as a chip designer, have surely learned from the prior go round, right? Actually, in reality I think nothing could be further from the truth. Successful chip design is truthfully perhaps more of a ’shot in the dark’ than anything else...something the industry (pro or high end) has never wanted to admit to or come clean about. It seems a chip can be designed in a myriad of different combinations of methods and materials, and that, evidently, has a bigger impact on sq than even circuit design. In the analog world, circuit design tends to be king and the things that may negatively influence that tend to be fairly well understood. Unfortunately for digital, those relationships between methods/materials and sq are so seemingly random as to have remained perfectly mysterious, and therefore are poorly understood, even through to today.” ”Of course, chip design is Far from the whole picture. The capacitorless signal path, discrete analog output stages, intentionally purposed design all combine to create the kind of DAC that can continue to impress over the long run. I’m amazed, every time out, as each and every musical instrument and genre is presented in its ideal and best light, without compromise. Add a "boutique" fuse (if that’s your thing) and enjoy. The [DAC] has found a permanent home in my $30k, CD-only system. No plans to change any of it.” For example, this sort of thing can help explain why a 12 year old DAC with a single, stereo DAC chip for two channels can sound better than a recent design with 8, current DAC chips per channel. We like to think that, surely, somehow, DAC chips have gotten better over the years. That’s what I tended to think...and then I run into something like this – evidently, a hit-or-miss “fortunate accident” in chip design a dozen years ago that maybe hasn’t Rilly been bested since… What can you say after that, except that maybe we don’t know as much about chip manufacturing as we’ve led ourselves, or have been led, to believe. It can also explain why so many DAC manufacturers who are initially so gung ho on selling the idea of FPGA (field programmable gate array) chips in the beginning with their customers, after a few attempts to “better” the sound with new (“scheduled”) updates, start to realize just how difficult a thing that is to implement successfully – i.e., to actually Improve the sound and not just create a sideways change – “not better, just different”. After several efforts you can see them start to panic a little, if you’re paying attention. Denefrips, for example, after launching their lineup on that very principle, has since seemingly given up on the FPGA idea basically, and has fallen back instead to the time-honored hardware changes they’ve been touting lately. And it took PS Audio a few iterations to finally get to the “Snowmass” upgrade before it seemed like the marketing team acted as though they really had something to crow about. But, I’m just thinking that behind closed doors those engineers were more likely breathing a huge sigh of relief than anything else. I think methods/materials as it relates to DAC chip sq is an under-researched area, and it looks to stay that way for some time. And I think anyone who steps forward and makes the claim for a breakthrough there will have some demonstration work that will need to be scrutinized up close. Until then, I think this is the "sleeping dog" that the industry (pro or high end) has chosen to let lie...and has since decided to bury under a mountain of "newer-is-always-better" hype. |
Effectively, every single thing written above is wrong. I really can't see anything in this statement that is correct. That you don't understand, let alone understand what aspects are digital or analog, does not mean others do not. Newer DACs, well designed, with a goal is accurate waveform recreation are, without any doubt better than they ever have been. Jitter has long since been addressed. THD, IMD are effectively inaudible. This does not ensure you will like the sound, and whether you do or not, really has nothing to do with the digital aspects at all, other than how a vendor may choose to make a design less accurate, just as people do with tubes, single ended designs, transformer outputs, etc. And, no matter what you do, not everyone will like it. One person may go oh I like that, it sounds warm and rich. Another may go it sounds unnaturally warm, and there is an edge to the instruments that is not natural. And contrary to popular lack of knowledge we know a lot about what people like and don't like and how to create those things (or eliminate them) and most boutique companies do not have people who do know this other than a cursory knowledge like tube outputs sound better ... well to some people they may. There is nothing to be researched at the DAC chip level. They do what they do and ideally recreate the waveform as accurately as possible, something they do with aplomb today. If you want less than accurate, then you can add analog features that make it less accurate, or you can learn some DSP and inject artifacts in front of the conversion knowing the DAC chip will output exactly what you tell it to.
|
If you have ROON and multiple streamers that are identical (I have 2 like this) you can GROUP a stream on ROON to compare the DACs connected to the identical streamers. Of course, you would need a preamp that connects the DACs to the system. On my preamp I can match the gain between sources. It is not that hard to play a single song and then compare the DACs to hear differences. Most DACs sound very similar, but there are slight differences that I was able to hear. |
I think basically everything you say about "tastes" in sq are basically true. And I did in fact leave out the story of what my own tastes for DAC sq actually were (mainly to shorten the length of the post...it was already too long), but nowhere above did I say that this DAC was for everyone. Since the rest of my gear is basically neutral, I was looking for a relatively neutral DAC to go with it. Tried a number of other DAC’s first, some pro, some audiophile, but they were (as you suggest) all over the map as far as "tastes" go. But, this DAC was different (evidently) in that it was designed by the pro’s, for the pro’s. Never even intended for the consumer market. So, appealing to "taste" was not an issue in this design. Instead the person developing this DAC was looking to solve a pro industry problem - how to make a DAC that will not intentionally exaggerate anything or sweep anything under the rug. And not overly romanticize and yet not leave anything behind. A DAC with the dedicated intent of giving the mix-down engineer the best possible window on the recording materials in the post production phase. And I’d be the first to tell you, that or something like it, was exactly what I was looking for. All that coincided with my tastes, essentially. And that it was proving to be a bit of a difficult find was leading me to think that A) I was reconfirming the fact that my system and ears were looking for something neutral and B) I was also (finally) getting free from the "pit" (the morass as far I was concerned) of trying to patch together a system of more disparate sounding parts and instead creating one with more like-sounding ones, as neutral as they might be. That was a revelation for me. Enough to make me wonder just how many people may be ’trapped’ or struggling with the same thing - and may not even be aware of it FTM (or that that difficulty, with a different system-building strategy might be completely overcome). And YES - I get it. Everyone’s tastes are Not my tastes. But, that doesn’t mean that Everyone will be better off dealing with components that are tilted this way or that. Some perhaps will, of course. Some will fall into that sort of thing and eventually want to grow out of it. Some may find Just the slice of heaven they’re looking for. To which I say that’s Great! More power To them! But, some like me, may want to move on after a while, as I did. I suspect that for many people, they may even spend years going from the sound of one patchwork system to the (different) sound of another patchwork system...and on and on with no end. I leave to someone else to say whether that is good thing or a bad thing. All I can tell you is that that idea just never appealed to me...I sorta wanted to definitively reach an "exit strategy" no matter how long it took (if you know what I mean). Now that I’ve moved on from it, looking back, I realize now how the odds were sorta stacked against me. I’m glad now I had decided to start with rather neutral gear as a foundation, or I might never have figured it all out as well I have, I feel I was fortunate in that regard, is all. As to the idea of any research into DAC chip manufacturing. Is there any longterm market for that? Perhaps...but, marginally, at best. If at all. Any shorterm market? Certainly not. But, I’d be curious to know more - not about circuit design, reams have already been written about that. But A) there’s a lack of test beds for evaluating various DAC chip designs. And B) I’m not as concerned about traditions of manufacturing as much as I am the truths of it. Not All elderly DAC’s stand up necessarily to the best modern DAC’s, but the fact that one guy who was trying to solve a particular audio problem (and a rather universal one, at that...in the pro world at least) created a DAC that has stood so firmly in the test of time is still rather striking to me. |
Measurements mean squat to me in audio, in buying cars and boats, in most things you buy except equities. Most of the people on this thread that claim they know how to qualify a dac by measurements use USB as the interface to their dac and this is the worst interface to use for sq. So if I see a review of a dac using usb, I skip reading it. I2S or Ethernet is far superior in sq. I use my ears when buying audio equipment and I use my senses when test driving a car to determine which car is right for me. |
Well someone just eliminated their "guess" at how things work or at least how they can if implemented properly. No one is discounting listening if, primarily if you are targeting a less than accurate DAC with a specific sound character. Do your senses tell you how what the tow rating is? The MPG? |
My response may seem off topic, but hang in there: Over two decades ago I was in the biz (Audio Tweakers) I was heavily into vibration and isolation control devices and/tried many with various levels of success. FF to about a month ago, when I found out about Nobsound spring footers (<$35/set of 4). See link below to Agon thread. It's a discussion on how to use them. I had adjusted 6 sets under; amp,preamp/dac, outboard power supply, CD player and outboard XOs. 2 things left: speakers and Core Power 1800 PLC, which had 4 Machina Dynamica HD springs under it. It is heavy, below my vertical rack and hard to get behind, but last night, in a poorly lit room, I replaced the 2 springs under the front (the other 2 I will attempt to insert today), well, the music transitioned from lacking weight to anchoring it into the ground as it should be. My point being, all components need to be tweaked to get to the bottom of their true sound. This is something manufacturers seldom do. hth
|
If I were just starting out today, surely I would embrace your approach. Unlike in years past we now have a plethora of good measuring and good sounding inexpensive options. How wonderful for the budding enthusiast! For those of us who’ve been in the game for years, decades even, the journey started in a very different way, often handicapped by the cost of entry. In a way, I envy this new starting point. On the other hand, I value the knowledge and experience I gained over the years through trial and error. Ultimately, I learned what gives me pleasure. I came to understand my taste. Still, I can’t help but wonder if it would take just as long to find the same level of satisfaction. |
@tweak1, What is the spring constant of the Nobsound, and did you weigh each piece of equipment including the loading of cables before placing the springs .... If there was a sound difference more likely you had a bad connection and simply fixed it. This thread is about how you know your DAC sounds good, not springs. |
@steakster Not really knowing it's pronoun I say she/he/shim is an agitator at best. Just ignore it. It will go away. Have a great day. |
~250 posts in 5 days on the site seems like a-gon likes the active ’participation’... rather unfortunate for the rest of us - like walking through a neighborhood park after a dogwalker forgot to pick up...
|
According to someone else, I was Millercarbon's alternate login. Then someone accused me of being mindless, but later apologized. Can you all get together and agree on the name for the boogieman? It's not high school any more. Time to grow up and put on the big boy pants .... or in forum parlance, if you don't have anything useful to say about topic, keep it shut. |
It will not go away. It will flood the Audiogon Forums with posts until kicked out. It already wrote hundreds of comments here since "joining" in less than a week. @jjss49 : Good job keeping track of this mentally unstable (if not outright sick) entity. I honestly lost track, other than Dannad, AtDavid, Roberttdid, and Audio2Design handles. Now clearly as Cindy...😁 One word of advice: stay away from this dude. Very dangerous. Last time when posting as Audio2Design, he threatened me via PM, telling me "I know where you live". And much more. On email notifications sent via Audiogon system for PMs, his name came as "Richard Richard". I have no clue about the intentions of this dude doing this over and over and over and over again, with different usernames after multiple bans. Eventually he will piss off everyone here, in every single thread. |
Is there an Audiogon moderator in the house? Weird that all these accounts come out of the woodwork all at once, or within 10 or 15 minutes of each other in a thread that none of them were in. This is either the same person with multiple accounts, exactly what I am accused of, or a concerted coordinated effort to slander, and pile on. Big shoulders here, but other people should not have to live with this level of coordinated attacks on people. |
Before you ask those questions, you need to answer this first: why do you see the need to come back here over and over with different usernames knowing you were banned multiple times? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Oh wow! You are truly sick!
Where is the very first PM in that exchange? From you. Audio2Design, or Cindy now. You started it. You are truly an unstable, scary, senile individual.
Well… the cat came off the hat for all to see. This guy. The one the same. Creating usernames here at will. A 5 year old would behave better. Shame for a grown up |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
