Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › All DAC's sound the same.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

All DAC's sound the same. - Page 8  

post #106 of 373
There are differences in sound but it's usually in clearer sonics. Things like instrument positioning, depth of field (imaging), decay weight and length, etc. are noticeable but may not be important to some. The issue is value to the buyer. Some will spend the cost to achieve that sound. Others hear the note and are satisfied.
post #107 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

To determine the amount of improvement between amped and unamped performance of an iPod using full size cans, please see my post to Nick. It isn't a huge difference, but it's greater than the difference between DACs or headphone amps. You might not notice unless you're doing a direct A/B comparison, so it probably doesn't matter to you. But for me, 2 dB is right about the range where I would begin to become concerned. It probably wouldn't make a difference in compressed rock music, but in classical or jazz it might start to cross over that line.

 

Your opinion can not be validated by DBT and only stand to prove that 1 in 6 Billion people on Earth feel a certain way about a specific product.

 

Again without proof that Apple intended its product to be used for a specific type of headphone your claims mean nothing, except to mislead those who seek good advice based on real tests.

 

How did you perform your so called tests? 

What is your hearing acuity? 

What was your control sample?

By what standard deviation did you arrive at your results?

 

Please post your complete testing procedure, we know nothing of how you arrived at your claimed results.  Nothing about your tests are scientific, they mean nothing.


Edited by Dynobot - 6/27/11 at 4:28pm
post #108 of 373

bigshot....

 

Here is a web site that should help you perform a real experiment.  It is written very simple and clear so you should be able to understand it and follow the procedures.

 

Key Elements of the Experimental Procedure

  • Description and size of all experimental and control groups, as applicable
     
  • A step-by-step list of everything you must do to perform your experiment. Think about all the steps that you will need to go through to complete your experiment, and record exactly what will need to be done in each step.
     
  • The experimental procedure must tell how you will change your one and only independent variable and how you will measure that change
     
  • The experimental procedure must explain how you will measure the resulting change in the dependent variable or variables
     
  • If applicable, the experimental procedure should explain how the controlled variables will be maintained at a constant value
     
  • The experimental procedure should specify how many times you intend to repeat your experiment, so that you can verify that your results are reproducible.
     
  • A good experimental procedure enables someone else to duplicate your experiment exactly!

 

 

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml

post #109 of 373
Ha! You're a jolly fellow, Dyno. I hope you aren't too upset.

Feel free to try to verify my results. All it takes is a line out dock, a cmoy amp matched to the volume level of the headphone out, two stereo mini to stereo minis, an iPod, a switch box and a pair of full size cans.

Happy Camper, the differences you're naming there are different colorful ways of describing lack of punch. It's an issue of headroom in the peaks.
Edited by bigshot - 6/27/11 at 4:50pm
post #110 of 373
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by monoethylene View Post




Why have you bought an amp at all? This is a special device and there are enough more practical devices with a headphone out..

 

As you can see the headphone I have in my signature, the HD650 needs an amp:


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

I have a nice little cmoy amp for when I want to use big headphones with the line out of my iPod, but I don't use it a lot because I would rather listen to speakers if I can. The little cmoy does the job as well as fancier headphone amps because amps are all fairly clean. It's not about "good for the money". It's whether it does the job or not. Either you need a headphone amp or you don't.

The measurements Nick linked to for the NFB12 wouldn't concern me too much. The difference in quality there still isn't into the range where it would make a real world audible difference. In general, charts like that are deceptive. Most folks don't know what a dB sounds like. They just look at wiggly lines and figure that better is better. In practice, however inaudible differences are inaudible.

Most modern DACs and solid state amps sound exactly the same, regardless of the mosquito hair differences that show up as mountain ranges on charts like that..


 


 

 

post #111 of 373

So you own a Galaxy S and an NFB12? I do, and the Galaxy S sounds noisy and etchy in the treble whereas the NFB12 is silent and smooth sounding. My Fuze is more tolerable than that phone. I'm pretty tired of comments and statements thrown around from people with no actual experience behind them. Same as the OP who makes blanked statements based on very little personal evidence or experience---but that seems how it's been going here.

 

Check please...
 

 


Edited by tim3320070 - 6/27/11 at 4:52pm
post #112 of 373
Does your NFB12 have a noisy volume pot, tim?
post #113 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post



2dB sounds exactly like line level matching. As for a noisy volume pot, I just have to shake my head and wonder what kind of equipment manufacturer can't even get a volume pot right.

 

OK, Asus Xonar was probably used only for output sampling, I found another test very likely by the same person which clarifies that. But then, what is the SPDIF transport that drives the NFB-12 in the test? transport quality is crucial for performance of Audio-GD DACs.

 

Actually I am pretty tired of trying to reconstruct the test linked previously and have to conclude that this is so uncontrollable and poorly described that drawing any conclusions is close to crazy. nick_charles, if you are aware of power specs for the Galaxy S headphone output please post or link them here. As things are at the moment, I am pretty far from being convinced that the Galaxy S could really outperform NFB-12 while driving 300-ohm cans. There's no valid evidence.

 

Speaking of A-GD volume pots, they aren't noisy (where did you get that?) but reduce resolution by a slight but notable margin. Actually the question is, "what kind of equipment manufacturer can get a volume pot right" in the sense of doing it transparently and without any loss?


Edited by axw - 6/27/11 at 5:14pm
post #114 of 373


Nah not upset at all, just wondering why you are trying to mislead people.

 

Most people don't have a cheap DIY cmoy.  Using such a device will likely not yield good results anyway because of the inferior parts and design.

 

Try using a decent amp and come decent headphones.

 

Again since it is YOU than ran the test, YOU need to prove its validity.  Scientists never make claims and ask expect the scientific community to prove its wrong...otherwise it is right.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Ha! You're a jolly fellow, Dyno. I hope you aren't too upset.

Feel free to try to verify my results. All it takes is a line out dock, a cmoy amp matched to the volume level of the headphone out, two stereo mini to stereo minis, an iPod, a switch box and a pair of full size cans.

Happy Camper, the differences you're naming there are different colorful ways of describing lack of punch. It's an issue of headroom in the peaks.


 

post #115 of 373
A clean volume pot is easy. Every audio product going back to the dawn of radio has had one. If we can put a man note moon, we can put a clean volume pot on a headphone amp.

Here is the interesting thing here. You look at the charts on that page and reject it because you can't believe one can rate higher than another. I look at the same charts and say to myself, "those two things sound exactly the same". How can we come to such different conclusions?

I've put the numbers behind that test into the context of human audibility. It's a waste of time to go into the minutiae of testing methodology to skew things a few points one way or the other when the scale of the distortion is so infinitesimal. Even if he's wrong by a bit and the amp you like rates a bit better, it still doesn't matter because with these numbers, you're talking about angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Inevitably, this is what happens with people who value their totally non scientific subjective opinion over one that has testing evidence behind it. They question the methodology, argue over gnat hairs' differences and totally lose sight of what is audible. They refuse to let go of their opinion that is based on no testing at all and reject a controlled test because of one meaningless variable or decimal point.

I know what the specs are for human hearing and I apply those to the specs of equipment I am interested in. Usually with digital sound reproduction, there isn't any reason to go any further because the specs of even a $25 WalMart Coby DVD player outstrip the range of human hearing.

When you go from talking about converting digital bits to electronic sound signals to arguing about volume pots, it's time to just admit it's all the same.
post #116 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Does your NFB12 have a noisy volume pot, tim?


Have you ever owned a Audiogd product?

 

More wild claims with no experience to back it up....

post #117 of 373


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Does your NFB12 have a noisy volume pot, tim?


I don't get the question (or inference) but no, utterly silent, and I have 2 of them.

 

And, my last input here, I have owned several DAC's (MD10, VDAC, D10, NFB12, Ref-1, Ref-8) and while I hear improvements in the Ref-1 and Ref-8 over the others, they are not huge (but important enough to me).

 

I have heard the best quality sound from: 1) quality recordings and good speakers/headphones (pretty much a tie), then amps, then preamp, then DAC, in that order- this is from my direct experience.


Edited by tim3320070 - 6/27/11 at 6:09pm
post #118 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
$25 WalMart Coby DVD player outstrip the range of human hearing.

When you go from talking about converting digital bits to electronic sound signals to arguing about volume pots, it's time to just admit it's all the same.


Wow you use some really crappy gear.

 

No wonder everything sounds the same to you...

 

post #119 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynobot View Post

Again since it is YOU than ran the test, YOU need to prove its validity.  Scientists never make claims and ask expect the scientific community to prove its wrong...otherwise it is right.

Your opinion = purely subjective
My opinion = basic objective listening comparison

You do the math. If you want a more rigorous testing method or more precise result, feel free to conduct your own comparison, but until then, I've done the test and you've done nothing. Whose opinion holds more weight?

It's time for you to grow up and stop acting like a horse's ass, Dino.
Edited by bigshot - 6/27/11 at 6:22pm
post #120 of 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by tim3320070 View Post

I don't get the question (or inference) but no, utterly silent, and I have 2 of them.

No inference. Someone earlier in the thread said it had a known issue with a noisy volume pot. I found that hard to believe. Thanks for the info,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › All DAC's sound the same.