"Colouration" of a DAP's sound - How does it work?
Jul 23, 2014 at 10:25 AM Post #61 of 95
well chipsets like sabre have a few more tricks than just the basic dac part(or at least they do it in a more complicated/optimized way), but I don't know if the manufacturer of a DAP has any say on what it does.
but even without available settings on the dap chip, how hard would it be to apply a dsp to the signal just like you would do on a computer? it would just be one more "effect" and they're just not making a button in the menu to deactivate it.
 
if you believe in ghosts maybe you could try to summon ClieOS to this topic.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM Post #62 of 95
Here's the WM8741 datasheet. 2 or 3 wire serial communication is supported, which means that a microcontroller or cpu can send commands to the DAC. Therefore, it is plausible that a DAP designer crippled the output using a poorly designed digital reconstruction filter. Quite frankly, there's no excuse for any digitally implemented filter to be anything but audibly transparent (my opinion, but math supports it).
 
Cheers
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM Post #63 of 95
It seems odd for a DAP manufacturer to go out of their way to mess up the sound, when just taking the straight output of the DAC is perfect. But never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 3:14 PM Post #64 of 95
Modern day electronic designs are highly integrated. Designers no longer do the design. Their job is to to select the chips and design the PCB. The chip makers actually provide all the design, firmware etc. There is really very little difference between design. The Wolfson chip provided some flexibility in digital filter. But if you look closely, it is really a selection of filter characteristic and not actually allowing the customers to do the actual programming. However, within the chip there are many hidden register to program the actual embedded DSP. The chip makers are not disclosing any of that information to the public. The reason is simple. If they disclosed them, they will have to support it. They will be spending hours of resource to support customers and that most likely does not increase the revenue. This is also difficult for any audio equipment manufacturer to explain why things don't work. They can't come out and say "my box is better because I used XYZ chip". I'm not saying audio manufacturers do not add value. But what I'm saying is they are limited to what they can do.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 8:45 PM Post #65 of 95
I'm sure the vast majority of products use the chip to do the D/A conversion without any input from the player software. If a software update actually did make an audible difference that people could detect, it would have to be a massive change to get around the shortness of auditory memory for similar sounds.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 9:18 PM Post #67 of 95
I doubt there is a difference at all. Thinking of reasons there might be a difference before proving one exists is putting the cart before the horse. It's simple to check with a line level matched A/B direct switched comparison like I did for all my Apple products. If someone can do that and describe the difference they're hearing, then we can start thinking of why.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 PM Post #69 of 95
Sure, but I was just checking to see if I could tell a difference at all, and I couldn't. If I had thought I could hear a difference that was very small, I would have shifted to blind testing to verify there actually was a difference, but I didn't hear any difference at all. You can't have a bias in favor of neither.
 
Blind testing is most important for verifying small subtle differences. With blatantly obvious differences or no perceptible difference at all, you just need a direct A/B switchable line level matched comparison.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 9:58 PM Post #70 of 95
You can't have a bias in favor of neither.


Of course someone can! Testing in audio is the ultimate MacGuffin. Almost no one does it and the results are almost always dismissed. It's just used as an easy way to be dogmatic without having to prove anything oneself. So it serves as the irrefutable excuse for the inexperienced, listeners with poor sonic standards, and cheap-skates (not talking about you).
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 10:21 PM Post #71 of 95
If I would have to strain to hear a difference and don't hear a difference under careful listening, I just don't care. My goal is to make significant improvements to my sound, not to diddle around on meaningless details. Maybe there is a difference, but all things being made equal, my ears can't hear it. That's where I stop. Other folks with more free time can feel free to split the atom. I have bigger fish to fry.
 
If I *did* actually hear a difference, then I would go to work. I want correct sound, not incorrect sound. If there was a difference, then one or both of them are incorrect and I want to know which one and why.
 
Jul 23, 2014 at 10:30 PM Post #72 of 95
Jul 23, 2014 at 11:21 PM Post #73 of 95
Same thoughts here. Many people describe the FiiO X3 as "warm"; it probably shouldn't be due to the headphones/iems they use in this case due to the large number of people having similar experiences.

If it really is "warm", there's a reason for it, which can be measured. Anybody doing a modification without baseline measurements and some idea of circuit configuration is just guessing. It's the same as trying to fly a plane 5.000 miles to a certain destination with no nav system and not knowing where you started from, ask me how I know! There are any number of reasons why the mod sounds "better", even though real performance hasn't changed.
 
Aug 1, 2014 at 5:17 PM Post #74 of 95
@bigshot I stopped by this thread again, and I must say, I very much enjoy your writing style. I am beginning to suspect that you're a "positive elitist" like myself!
normal_smile .gif

 
Aug 1, 2014 at 9:32 PM Post #75 of 95
I don't know about "positive elitist" but I've been described as a "pain in the ass". Is that the same thing?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top