[bigshot]

Sub $100 crap can sound good but there is a difference in resolution, clarity, extension, etc.

Clarity and resolution are related to distortion levels and extension is related to frequency response. There are plenty of CD players in the sub $100 price range that have distortion so low it is totally inaudible and frequency response that covers the entire range of human hearing. Not only is there no need to buy an expensive DAC, there is no reason to buy a standalone DAC at all. I don't know about PCs, but my Mac mini was capable out of the box of putting out perfectly flat, dynamic and clean sound.

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

Actually I have a nice mid-fi set-up too.
 
Marantz 2230 Receiver with a Valab Dac with a pair of Grado SR-80's
 
The sound is very pleasing, in fact I like the Valab sound connected to anything mid or high fi.
 
Same with the Marantz.
 
Sub $100 crap can sound good but there is a difference in resolution, clarity, extension, etc.
 


 

Thanks - but I'm kind of hoping someone reads this and would take the challenge at a meet some time - $100 DAC vs $800 DAC.  Set the test blind and use the head-fiers present to take the test.
 
I'm not having a crack at anyone - it just seems that all too often we get the usual dismissal of anything on a budget (DAC/amp) being a toy / not worth it.  Basically labeled as 'crap' by someone owning something in the higher brackets.  As soon as an actual test is mentioned, nobody seems to want to do it.  I can't (again location).  Anyone actually want to set this up?  It would answer a lot of questions for the wider community, and actually make the discussion far more interesting than just conjecture and biased debate.
 
Anyone?

 

[bigshot]

As soon as you compare your $100 DAC to your $800 DAC and get an answer, the people that don't like the results start questioning the details of your testing method and tell you that you should have compared a different $100 DAC and a different $800 DAC. They reject your comparison out of hand and go back to the totally subjective non-scientific bias that they started with.

Testing is great, but it has to go hand in hand with a logical analysis of why you got the results you did.

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

One more quick thing...

I'm not an electrical engineer, and if someone knows better than I do on this subject feel free to chime in, but I am told that over time capacitors can go south and cause sound to degrade. Because of this, it is better to buy a mid priced amp and replace it every 7 to 10 years than it is to buy a really expensive one with the expectation of keeping it for 20 years or more.

Its the big electrolytic caps that go with age and those are also pretty to replace if you what end of a soldering iron to hold.  I'm pretty sure the surface mount ones hold up a lot better.  You won't see many SMDs in boutique desktop amps but DACs and portables have a harder time avoiding them.  They last longer, so its not a big deal though.

 

[bigshot]

Thanks Maverick. That's reassuring. I'm happy with my stuff and I'm not eager to replace it!

 

[Brooko]

Quote:

As soon as you compare your $100 DAC to your $800 DAC and get an answer, the people that don't like the results start questioning the details of your testing method and tell you that you should have compared a different $100 DAC and a different $800 DAC. They reject your comparison out of hand and go back to the totally subjective non-scientific bias that they started with.

Testing is great, but it has to go hand in hand with a logical analysis of why you got the results you did.

Oh I have no illusions that it ends up being subjective anyway.  I'm not asking for scientific measurements - and yes I know I'm in the science forum  I'd just like someone, anyone to set up the test for those of us who would be interested in 'actual results' rather than conjecture.
 
By doing it blind with a number of different candidates, I'm sure it would at least lend some reality to the discussion.  And I'd start with the E7.  It's already been scientifically measured as having a low noise floor, and producing a really clean signal.  So I don't think there would be a lot of debate from those who are really interested in getting to the bottom of it - it is a good candidate - budget level, good circuitry, good DAC chip.
 
Then all you need is same source, same cables, same amp, same headphones - just different DACs.  Do one test with a lower end popular can (Ath AD700, Shure 840, Ath M50 etc).  Do a second with something up the chain - HD650 or above - even flagship level.
 
Who knows - maybe there is a night and day difference.  If the results point unquestionably one way or the other, then at least those of us wanting to eventually achieve audio nirvana will know the right path to go - and what to invest in to get us there.

 

[Citan]

Bigshot has the right of it.  I really thought this thread was sort of "preaching to the choir" here in the sound science forum. I didn't expect to see this many people stopping by to disagree, I guess its a bit more interesting when they do, and it might end up saving some poor sucker some money.

 

[Dynobot]

What you mean you don't know everything!!!
 
Yeah I guess it would be better to buy a mid-priced component and live with mediocre sound for 10 years than to live with superior sound.
 
Makes as much sense as buying a crappy cheap car every 5 years vs. buying a Corvette.  I mean tires, batteries and brakes will only last so long on both.  Save some cash and buy a clunker instead.
 
 

 

[maverickronin]

Quote:

What you mean you don't know everything!!!
 
Yeah I guess it would be better to buy a mid-priced component and live with mediocre sound for 10 years than to live with superior sound.
 
Makes as much sense as buying a crappy cheap car every 5 years vs. buying a Corvette.  I mean tires, batteries and brakes will only last so long on both.  Save some cash and buy a clunker instead.

With how good most modern DACs are, a better analogy would be a Corvette and a McLaren.  The curve ball is that the relentless march of technology and economies of scale has pushed the price of a Corvette-class DAC down past the price of a 25 year old Civic while the McLaren still costs about the same since its sold in such small numbers.
 
There still are differences, but if you discount intentionally colored equipment those differences are so small that in the same way the difference between the performance of a 'Vette and a F1 will rarely make a difference on public roads, you won't hear a whole lot difference between DACs which are trying to be transparent (i.e. not broken on purpose) once you've accounted for cognitive biases.  If you like the idea of owning the very best then go for the McLaren F1 of DACs but realize that as long as we're on public roads (listening for pleasure) and not a race track (conducting highly sensitive ABX tests, bench testing with the some of the best equipment available, or using it in a professional capacity where there's no such thing as overkill) the difference between your F1 and the 'Vette which now retails for the price of a used Civic doesn't actually amount to much beyond peace of mind.

 

[Markon101]

My sound card outputs a bit more volume, other than that, I can't tell much difference myself. The thing about motherboard sound, (Especially older motherboards) is that they usually have a lower signal to noise ratio, now the line is starting to blur between the two.
 
That's my two cents

 

[tmars78]

I have a question, using the car angle. Why do people use Car and Driver, Motor Trend and magazines of the sort, for numbers that will lead them to a sound car purchase, but don't do the same for audio. They just listen to whatever some "golden-eared" fella with a pen wrote in magazine or on a forum, without any factual numbers, or "real" tests behind the product he is reviewing/selling? That's akin to me telling you to buy my 1985 Chevy Citation cause I once saw it going "like 200+ mph while getting 150 MPG". If I told any of you that I had a car that did that, you'd want proof, REAL PROOF, especially if you planned on buying it. I don't get why audio is so different. 

 

[svertel]

What's next?  A Mac vs PC debate?
 

 

[Mkubota1]

It's chilly.  I'm glad I have this thread to keep me warm!
 
 
Quote:

 
To claim that iPods are comparable to $20k CDs, I'd expect real blind tests done using the same set of speakers and the same amp, repeated a few times, volumes matched, and especially not during noisy audio shows with (usually) poorly adapted rooms and distracted attention.

I'm completely behind blind testing.  But is there any other place where you need such strict controls just so you can pick out a 100x difference in cost?  I'm pretty sure I can consistently pick out a $400 Grand Cru Bordeaux over Four Buck Chuck even if I drank it through a straw from a paper cup at different times of the day.
 
Quote:

This may be interpreted in many ways. It could be an example of the power of persuasion above ones own critical abilities , if so it makes sighted listening tests seem a bit less reliable somehow. If it really is that easy to persuade folks that they are listening to a high end CD player when they are not it makes me a bit more skeptical about hifi mag reviews and so on. When just the appearance of a high end piece of kit is enough to foster the illusion that you are listening to a high end piece of kit it makes me wonder. It could indicate that the iPod is actually a decent source through high end kit.

The question this raises is:  If these audiophiles/'golden ears' actually saw that it was an iPod while they were listening to it, would they have the same (positive) reaction to the sound?
 
Quote:

I have a question, using the car angle. Why do people use Car and Driver, Motor Trend and magazines of the sort, for numbers that will lead them to a sound car purchase, but don't do the same for audio. They just listen to whatever some "golden-eared" fella with a pen wrote in magazine or on a forum, without any factual numbers, or "real" tests behind the product he is reviewing/selling? That's akin to me telling you to buy my 1985 Chevy Citation cause I once saw it going "like 200+ mph while getting 150 MPG". If I told any of you that I had a car that did that, you'd want proof, REAL PROOF, especially if you planned on buying it. I don't get why audio is so different. 

 
Been giving this one some thought- I actually think most people buy cars according to what others drive or tell them to buy.  And a whole bunch of others buy based on external appearance, brand image, and bragging right$... pretty much the same reasons around here (sometimes). 

  I think it's just mostly car nuts who care about 0-60 and skidpad numbers.
 
Quote:

All forum arguments sound the same.

Maybe you need to upgrade your monitor.  EVERYONE knows that's the most important link in the computer chain.  Or maybe try a different DVI cable... 

 

 

[bigshot]

I have a question, using the car angle. Why do people use Car and Driver, Motor Trend and magazines of the sort, for numbers that will lead them to a sound car purchase, but don't do the same for audio. They just listen to whatever some "golden-eared" fella with a pen wrote in magazine or on a forum, without any factual numbers, or "real" tests behind the product he is reviewing/selling?

The reason is that the specs measure all about the same when you factor for the range of human hearing. Manufacturers know that. They can't win on facts, so they encourage advertorial reviews in industry subsidized websites and magazines that speak of veils being removed from the sound, liquid smoothness and transparent crystalline depth of soundstage... flowery poetry that sounds wonderful and convinces buyers, but doesn't actually quantify the quality in any way that can be directly compared side by side with the competition. Then customers read this flowery sales pitch, memorize the poetry and spit it back out in Internet forums to justify all the money they've spent to themselves.

The truth is that there are three aspects that really matter... Dynamic range (loudness to quietness), frequency response (balance of the sound from low to high) and distortion (accuracy of the shape of the sound). Digital sound has achieved a level where these three things are perfectly reproduced. The part that requires attention by hifi nuts is how the electrical signals get converted into physical sound waves. Strangely enough, that gets much less discussion than the trivial details of digital technology.

 

[bigshot]

The question this raises is:  If these audiophiles/'golden ears' actually saw that it was an iPod while they were listening to it, would they have the same (positive) reaction to the sound?

There was actually a study that tested for the reactions of different types of people when they discovered they were unable to accurately discern the difference between inexpensive and expensive sound equipment. Average people laughed and shrugged their shoulders and accepted the limitations of their hearing. Golden ears audiophiles and equipment reviewers got angry and agitated and insisted that the tests be repeated. We're seeing that same reaction right here in this thread.