[tmars78]

Quote:

 
[size=medium]

quite as anticipated in this thread, all cars drive the same.
​

[/size]



Competent Modern DACs..
 
What are they? Some examples, please, at least manufacturers or price ranges to have an idea where to look for the Wonder Land of Identically Sounding DACs...
 

 
They don't all drive the same. That is easily proven. But they can perform the same at much different price points. That is a FACT, with numbers to prove it. But when people here are shown numbers, and tests, they just get dismissed. "Those numbers don't mean anything, I know what I know." 
 
 

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

 

quite as anticipated in this thread, all cars drive the same.
​

Competent Modern DACs..
 
What are they? Some examples, please, at least manufacturers or price ranges to have an idea where to look for the Wonder Land of Identically Sounding DACs...
 

Some examples

http://www.matrixhifi.com/marco_directazul.htm - several examples
 
http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm
 
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777
 
http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/showthread.php/10141-Blind-Test-GTG-1-CD-Digital-Transports
 
http://www.cowanaudio.com/blind.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

[bigshot]

Competent Modern DACs. What are they? Some examples, please, at least manufacturers or price ranges to have an idea where to look for the Wonder Land of Identically Sounding DACs.

Well, here are the specifications for Wolfson's product line...

http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/dacs/

You'll notice that they don't list frequency response, because all of their DACs have a sampling rate of 192kHz which according to Nyquist allows for perfectly flat response quite a ways beyond the range of human hearing. (44.1kHz covers human hearing range neatly)

You'll also notice that the Signal to Noise Ratio is at worst about 80dB and the Total Harmonic Distortion is at worst -80dB. This is enough dynamic range to push the noise floor well below the range of human hearing at even excessively loud listening levels.

Specs like this are for all intents and purposes perfect sound for human ears, even on their cheapest DAC. The better DACs in their line have more features (multichannel, onboard headphone amps, etc.)

These sorts of specs are common in all digital audio devices. Some rate a bit higher, but the degree of improvement is statistical only. It's all beyond the range of human hearing.

For comparison, let's see how the response of Dynobot's best speakers compares...

The Dynaudio Audience 82 is rated from 26Hz to 21kHz +/- 3 dB

Now for speakers, those are very good specs. But the low end doesn't reach to the lower limit of human hearing, and the range of frequency imbalance at any given point in the audio spectrum is 6 dB. Humans can generally clearly hear 1dB differences, and you probably listen to your music at a volume level of 20-30 dB. +/- 3 dB is a pretty hefty amount of imbalance. Granted, the biggest imbalances are probably at the ends of the spectrum where the sound isn't all that important to the music, but these measurements were probably made in absolutely ideal conditions. The acoustics of Dynobot's living room probably precludes these speakers of operating anywhere near the published specs. And if you put the same speakers in my living room, they would sound totally different than they did in Dynobot's.

The amount of deviation from perfect sound in Dynobot's remarkably good sounding speakers is in a whole different universe than the inaudible deviation in even the cheapest DAC that Wolfson makes.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

Well, here are the specifications for Wolfson's product line...

http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/dacs/

To be fair, you can't just plop one of those chips on a board and expect to get the listed performance.  The manufacturer has to implement them properly.  Of course, the test results show that even most cheap disc players and DAPs actually do a good job at implementation.

 

[axw]

 
Quote:

Well, here are the specifications for Wolfson's product line...

 
You're mixing two different things. Here you talk about DAC chips while a bit earlier you were referring to DAC devices, as in the post about Walmart DVD players. Is that because the difference does not matter to you? 
 
Please note that the first post in this thread considers two different DAC devices (sound cards) and this is the meaning most people follow. How would you blind test DAC chips anyway, this is ridiculous..

 
Quote:

Some examples

[..]

Thank you. Some of these seem very poorly done unfortunately, the most interesting the hydrogeneaudio compilation.
 
It would be extremely funny to do a meta analysis on this, by which I mean data mining of a sheet with device types and prices, how resolving was associated gear, audience ages and experience.
 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

To be fair, you can't just plop one of those chips on a board and expect to get the listed performance.  The manufacturer has to implement them properly.  Of course, the test results show that even most cheap disc players and DAPs actually do a good job at implementation.

All Dacs sound the same = Implementation does not matter.
 
If implementation mattered then all Dacs would sound different.
 
Can't have it both ways....
 
Bigshot and his buddy are starting to make themselves look foolish..
 

 

[monoethylene]

 
Dont tear the wall

 
..
..
..

 

[tmars78]

Quote:

All Dacs sound the same = Implementation does not matter.
 
If implementation mattered then all Dacs would sound different.
 
Can't have it both ways....
 
Bigshot and his buddy are starting to make themselves look foolish..
 

Did you even bother reading what he wrote? And if you did, did you comprehend it? You're nothing more than a troll at this point.  He said they have to be implemented right for them to sound good, and then goes on to say even cheap players do a good job at implementing chips. Which to me sounds like since they both do it right, they sound the same. 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

 The acoustics of Dynobot's living room probably precludes these speakers of operating anywhere near the published specs.

 
My Listening room

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

Did you even bother reading what he wrote? And if you did, did you comprehend it? You're nothing more than a troll at this point.  He said they have to be implemented right for them to sound good, and then goes on to say even cheap players do a good job at implementing chips. Which to me sounds like since they both do it right, they sound the same. 

 
 
If you have a look inside many of todays Dacs the implementation is all different.  Audio-gd uses a totally different implementation than Cambridge audio DacMagic....and guess what??  They sound different!!!
 
Valab implements their Dac design different than Wavelength audio....Do you think both Dacs sound the same??? $4K plus Dac vs a $200 Valab ???
 
Come on now, use your brain
 
 

 

[bigshot]

You're mixing two different things. Here you talk about DAC chips while a bit earlier you were referring to DAC devices, as in the post about Walmart DVD players. Is that because the difference does not matter to you?

It really doesn't matter because most CD players, outboard DACs and DVD players- even in a budget price range- all measure as producing sound beyond the range of human hearing. The ones that don't are anomalies- remarkably poorly designed models- and they occur in all price ranges. Thankfully, those are pretty rare.

 

[bigshot]

My Listening room

Very nice. Have you installed acoustic traps under the drywall in the peak? That would help reduce the focusing of reflected sound right below the peak. That's about all you can do with such a low ceiling and tight walls. Putting diffusion panels on the rest of the roof would be pretty bad looking. Best to live with that.

 

[bigshot]

Cambridge DAC magic specs http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/specifications.php?PID=320
Audi GD http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/435290/rmaa-test-results-for-audio-gd-dac-19mk3-and-reference-1

Both measure well beyond the range of human hearing.

 

[monoethylene]

Quote:

Very nice. Have you installed acoustic traps under the drywall in the peak? That would help reduce the focusing of reflected sound right below the peak. That's about all you can do with such a low ceiling and tight walls. Putting diffusion panels on the rest of the roof would be pretty bad looking. Best to live with that.

The thread came down to ignorance..
 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

Very nice. Have you installed acoustic traps under the drywall in the peak? That would help reduce the focusing of reflected sound right below the peak. That's about all you can do with such a low ceiling and tight walls. Putting diffusion panels on the rest of the roof would be pretty bad looking. Best to live with that.

I use the Live End / Dead End method for room treatments. 
 
Indeed behind each side wall are bass traps.
 
Other unseen features include....Furutech outlets and a dedicated circuit.