[wantan]

That's easily possible. I tried to find some information on these recordings but had no success.
I hope @REXNFX will tell us more and why he picked this tracks.

 

[NTTY]

Because you might want to hear a different mastering of it, maybe a cleaner version or one with better EQ or other processing. Incidentally, it has nothing to do with “a studio”, the decision to create/issue a new master can only be taken by the recording copyright holder, which is typically the record label.

That is indeed what I want if I heard something obvious I’d like someone to improve.
Who decides does not make a big difference. We are off topic though

If no one liked it, they wouldn’t have done it. A label will create a remix or remaster on the expectation that enough people will buy it to make a significant profit over the amount it cost to create, distribute and market it.

I concur, and note that it was my opinion, not that I think there’s nothing to like for someone else… as opposed to remasters that satisfy the loudness war, go clipping and with reduced DR. A lot of people tried to convince me I was death not to hear the improvements And if I can easily understand why they prefer, again louder is better for the lazy hears, it’s just not for me.

Yes, 0.7dB is considered a JND (Just Noticeable Difference) and around 0.5dB is the least difference that can generally be heard/differentiated. However, there are some conditions under which some people can hear a difference down to 0.3dB or even 0.2dB, which is why scientific validity requires 0.1dB or less.

Yep, sometimes it’s just too complex with my equipment to satisfy this requirement. And I go lazy to fix it since I know it’s unlikely to influence my final judgment. And if it does, well, sometimes I replace a device not because it makes a difference, I just want a change.

All that said, my wife is indeed more sensitive to level differences than me. We are not all the same.

 

[gregorio]

… as opposed to remasters that satisfy the loudness war, go clipping and with reduced DR. A lot of people tried to convince me I was death not to hear the improvements And if I can easily understand why they prefer, again louder is better for the lazy hears, it’s just not for me.

I’m sure there probably are some remasters which only have additional compression/limiting to satisfy the loudness war but all the remasters I recall hearing also had some additional differences, EQ, noise reduction or something else not directly related to the loudness war.

Also, I wouldn’t necessarily say “better for the lazy ears”, more highly compressed is better for those in noisy environments, say while driving or travelling, even if they don’t have “lazy ears”.

I agree with everything you said other than these two minor points though.

G

 

[REXNFX]

Thanks- I'll give it a listen!

Look forward to your impressions

 

[OnlySoMany]

Same here but haven't tried a really high-end DAC. Closest I get is Denafrips Ares II and I do think I can hear a difference between that and the rest of my stuff but barely. I still need to audition the DACs with speakers instead of HP's as well.

It's been my experience that the higher end DACs really shine only when surrounded by supporting hardware, cords, power, etc. Then you start to see what they are really capable of. I just did a full upgrade on dedicated circuits, outlets, new power cords, and power conditioners, and oh my, the sound!!!!!

For reference, I also removed the Dave and put in some of my other DACs in the chain, and it just wasn't the same to my ears.

 

[mbphotox]

It's been my experience that the higher end DACs really shine only when surrounded by supporting hardware, cords, power, etc. Then you start to see what they are really capable of. I just did a full upgrade on dedicated circuits, outlets, new power cords, and power conditioners, and oh my, the sound!!!!!

For reference, I also removed the Dave and put in some of my other DACs in the chain, and it just wasn't the same to my ears.

several contributors to expectation bias stacking will hopefully increase the expectation bias, yes..

to my knowledge, there's no scientific test to measure by how much, though.

 

[hakunamakaka]

DAC is not just a chip itself, circuit design, OP amp, power supply, even different interfaces can contribute on how it sounds. I can blindly guess between my macbooks jack and well measured desktop setup using just headphones.

In my view for a high end headphones it's worth an upgrade and I use the same stack for more than 5 years. That may not be the case for others though

 

[mbphotox]

DAC is not just a chip itself, circuit design, OP amp, power supply, even different interfaces can contribute on how it sounds. I can blindly guess between my macbooks jack and well measured desktop setup using just headphones.

In my view for a high end headphones it's worth an upgrade and I use the same stack for more than 5 years. That may not be the case for others though

DAC = digital to analog converter

this discussion is not about whether one entire chain of devices with a vast number of variables sounds different from another entirely different chain of devices.

In order to reliably differentiate between stuff, you must ensure equal conditions at any cost!


As soon as you introduce different amplifiers into the mix, you basically make it impossible to differentiate between DACs.
- Different levels of amplification by a mere 0.5 dB?

- "difficult" headphones on a "problematic" amplifier?

- different expectations? (that's true no matter what you compare.. but having a laptop compete against thousands of bucks of audiophile gear and knowing which is which!?)

 

[Ferdinando1968]

DAC = digital to analog converter

this discussion is not about whether one entire chain of devices with a vast number of variables sounds different from another entirely different chain of devices.

In order to reliably differentiate between stuff, you must ensure equal conditions at any cost!


As soon as you introduce different amplifiers into the mix, you basically make it impossible to differentiate between DACs.
- Different levels of amplification by a mere 0.5 dB?

- "difficult" headphones on a "problematic" amplifier?

- different expectations? (that's true no matter what you compare.. but having a laptop compete against thousands of bucks of audiophile gear and knowing which is which!?)

I see your point, it's rational.

But we, as users, can only compare commercial devices, which include the chain you are talking about (or not?).

How can we get a comparative idea of the DAC 'only'?

How can we isolate it from the chain?

 

[mbphotox]

I see your point, it's rational.

But we, as users, can only compare commercial devices, which include the chain you are talking about (or not?).

How can we get a comparative idea of the DAC 'only'?

How can we isolate it from the chain?

you want to compare DACs, then you leave everything else the same.

of course, if you have a DAC-AMP combo, it might get trickier. (unless you can feed that a line signal to circumvent the built-in DAC, I suppose?)



but you can always say you compare different devices or setups.
Nobody said you're not allowed to do that.
you just cannot claim to be comparing DACs if you're actually comparing a whole bunch of stuff at once. Impossible to pinpoint the cause for perceived differences there.

 

[wantan]

this discussion is not about whether one entire chain of devices with a vast number of variables sounds different from another entirely different chain of devices.

Yes, daisy chainign gear is generally a bad idea in audio, you can easily introduce any number of problems which can affect the sound. This will also result in gear sounding clearly different and it can lead to a situation that where one tries so solve errors by introducing more errors into the audio chain.

Clean audio chains that work properly sound pretty much the same.

 

[upstateguy]

As it has an “Upsample” switch, I assume that when it’s switched off it is not up/over sampling, IE. It’s a NOS DAC. Since digital audio was first proposed nearly a century ago, a fundamental requirement is to bandlimit the signal to half the sampling rate, IE. To have an anti-alias filter when converting to digital and an anti-image filter when converting back to analogue. NOS DACs made in the last 20 years or so for the audiophile market often break this fundamental requirement. This results in certain issues, including a gradual high frequency roll-off starting around 2kHz and extending to 22.05kHz (in the case of a 44.1k sample rate), plus relatively high levels of ultrasonic artefacts (“images”), which are likely to cause IMD downstream. Both of these are within the audible spectrum and therefore many NOS DACs can be differentiated (by human hearing). When some say “all DACs” they obviously don’t include broken DACs, and NOS DACs can be described as “broken”, although deliberately “broken by design” rather than because some component has failed.

<snip

Isn't there a difference between UPsampling and OVERsampling?

There will always be measurable differences between 2 DACs. In fact there will always be a measurable difference between exactly the same DAC, set identically and converting the exact same recording! The conversion process involves the application of dither (which results in white noise) and all analogue circuits introduce thermal noise (which is also a type of white noise). White noise is random amounts of all the frequencies (with certain statistical distributions) and because it has this random element it will always be different, even the same DAC set identically. This difference is minuscule and usually too low to even be resolved into sound (let alone be audible) but we can measure it.

What happened to bit-perfect?

 

[upstateguy]

Bitperfect is about delivering the signal to a specific address using a specific route without messing around along the way. Once the intended recipient gets that signal, it can and will do whatever it wants to it, anti-jitter/reclocking, oversampling, more or less digital filtering and perhaps some options turned on in the chip if the designer of the DAC wants to use them. Such as EQ or digital volume control.

I'm rusty on this. So both the regular output and the upsample to 192 output on that DAC are bitperfect?

 

[upstateguy]

Problem with using another DSP chip for resampling is that it could have internal headroom, so turning on/off could change level anywhere between 0,5-3dB.
Same for ESS chip DACs allowed to turn 'off' the oversampling/OSF filter, which causes the volume to get noticeably louder.

So not talking about Bit perfect, talking about unexpected and possibly slight volume differences making it very hard to check for 'sound difference'.

Also with regards to the high frequency difference in nulling could also be explained by a terrible OS filter. I guess. Which you can also switch to in modern DACs, yes. Switcher from Fast filter to Super Slow variant is for most people audible unless you don't hear reliably up to 15/16kHz.

Stello claims the DA100 uses an AKM4395 DAC chipset, sixth-order digital filter, and a fully discrete class-A analog output stage with "true 192kHz/24-bit upsampling….Stello also claims its ARSC , a specially designed clock circuit employing a PLL, makes for 'extremely low jitter.

Does that make any sense to you?

 

[gregorio]

Isn't there a difference between UPsampling and OVERsampling?

Technically there can be but they are often used interchangeably. Upsampling is simply increasing the sample rate, for example from 44.1kHz to 48kHz. Oversampling typically means upsampling to a multiple of the original rate, say 44.1kHz to 88.2kHz (2 x oversampling) and commonly also implies reducing the bit depth and applying noise shaped dither, especially when using the extremely high oversampling rates (several/many MHz) employed by the vast majority of DACs.

What happened to bit-perfect?

It’s largely a marketing myth, DACs have been changing the bit depth routinely since the late 1980’s. However, there can be parts of the chain before the DAC where it can be important and/or it’s implemented automatically anyway.

So both the regular output and the upsample to 192 output on that DAC are bitperfect?

It can’t be bit perfect. With 44/16 you have 44,100 samples per second each containing 16bits, if you upsample to 192kHz you now have 192,000 samples per second each containing 16 bits. Obviously that’s a lot more bits, so it can’t be “bitperfect”. The analogue signal those bits represent should be identical though.

Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, although a part of it is dodgy, an analogue stage cannot upsample, upsampling can only be done in the digital domain, and some of it is just marketing. For example, “a specially designed clock circuit employing a PLL, makes for 'extremely low jitter.” This all sounds very audiophile specific and high end but in fact pretty much all DACs have “a specially designed clock circuit employing a PLL, makes for extremely low jitter” - From the highest end professional DACs to the very cheapest consumer DACs from 30+ years ago!

G