[bigshot]

No need for you either. Twins again. They always come in pairs, ready to pipe up with a me too in a flash. Strange.

 

[gregorio]

Don’t see any issues if you can push sound towards your liking with the button press or with certain DAC.

What certain DAC?

G

 

[hakunamakaka]

What certain DAC?

G

Soekris line DAC's, Audio GD R1/R7/R8

MHDT lineup --> https://www.lineartubeaudio.com/products/mhdt-labs-dacs

there are much much more

 

[bigshot]

He's talking about a NOS DAC that has user configurable analog filters. It's basically a DAC from 1983 with fancy analog filters to roll off the top end in more and more drastic ways. The audiophile equivalent of a busy box. It's deliberately designed to not be transparent.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Soekris line DAC's, Audio GD R1/R7/R8

MHDT lineup --> https://www.lineartubeaudio.com/products/mhdt-labs-dacs

[2] there are much much more

1. Picking at random. The Soekris 1421 for example, not bad for an R2R, though relatively terrible compared to most very cheap DACs. However, as per the last example of “terrible”, it’s faults are BELOW audibility and would therefore NOT be audibly coloured!

The Audio GD could be audibly different because at least one model has a filterless NOS mode.

Looking at measurements of MHDT, the Pagoda for example, was a bit of an eye opener, I didn’t know there were any DACs that bad out there. It makes the previous quoted “terrible” DAC almost look “good” by comparison! So bad in fact that the distortion and noise are certainly within the range of audibility.

2. So again, either an example that is false, IE. Is NOT audibly different or an example of extremely rare filterless NOS or tube DACs, that have ALREADY been discussed as exceptions to the general rule!

So going back to your previous statement:

Don’t see any issues if you can push sound towards your liking with the button press or with certain DAC.

There are several issues:

1. At least some of your examples do NOT “push sound towards your liking” because they are audibly the same as pretty much every other DAC on the market.

2. It requires that the “sound of your liking” is just about the lowest fidelity conversion ever achieved in a 16bit DAC. That you particularly like very high noise and/or distortion, channel imbalances, etc. All those things the high-fi market has sought to reduce for the last 70 years. So obviously, these extremely rare exceptions you’ve mentioned do not belong in any discussion of digital hi-fi.

3. The “sound of your/thier liking” obviously seems to vary. For example, “cooler” DACs were mentioned but so far no examples have been given. A filterless NOS DAC would roll-off the middle and high freqs and could therefore be perceived by some people as “warmer” (if they don’t mind all the distortion as well) but so far nothing explains the supposedly “cool” DACs except placebo effect.

4. Using the Pagoda example again, reviews/impressions seem pretty typical: Micro-details, clean, resolving, etc. All the usual descriptions that audiophiles say is the “sound to their liking” with one obvious and massive flaw, actual measurements of the Pagoda prove that it’s about the least resolving and dirtiest DAC on the market. That sounds to me the exact opposite of choosing a DAC to “push the sound towards your/their liking”!

It's basically a DAC from 1983 with fancy analog filters to roll off the top end in more and more drastic ways.

Not really, because I don’t know of any DACs from 1983 that were anywhere near as bad as the MHDT Pagoda example!

Maybe if I made a turntable that’s worse than even the first generation of consumer turntables, audiophiles would happily pay 200 times more for it than an average TT? You’ve got to laugh!

G

 

[hakunamakaka]

Maybe if I made a turntable that’s worse than even the first generation of consumer turntables, audiophiles would happily pay 200 times more for it than an average TT? You’ve got to laugh!

G

You should start your project —->
Maybe I’ll get an upgrade



Thank me later

 

[castleofargh]

 

[bigshot]

whoops!

 

[hakunamakaka]

My introduction to LP's was through similar boombox Sadly haven't tried connecting my gf to it, maybe that boombox wasn't that bad...

 

[bigshot]

Imagine how dumb you'd have to be to read those specs and actually lay out money to buy that thing!

 

[oakparkmusicguy]

Ok I have a DAC question.
I have an RHA DacAmp L1. Handy little device even if deprecated and old.

It had gain, bass, and treble controls. The DAC *seems* to sound different (darker) than my other DACs. Would this be due to the tone controls? (Even if set to 0). Seems much more likely than attributing it to the chipset and it’s ones and zeros.

 

[bigshot]

It’s probably the tone controls. There’s no defeat on them?

 

[PhonoPhi]

Perhaps, I will dare to ask few specific questions about the Apple Dongle, to those who may know or can figure out:
1) The lower limit of the load
(Based on the impedance of 0.9 Ohm, it can be close to 8 Ohm, but I doubt it based on current limits).
2) What is the slew rate and would any specified value hold at the maximum load?

 

[OhmsClaw]

1. Picking at random. The Soekris 1421 for example, not bad for an R2R, though relatively terrible compared to most very cheap DACs. However, as per the last example of “terrible”, it’s faults are BELOW audibility and would therefore NOT be audibly coloured!

The Audio GD could be audibly different because at least one model has a filterless NOS mode.

Looking at measurements of MHDT, the Pagoda for example, was a bit of an eye opener, I didn’t know there were any DACs that bad out there. It makes the previous quoted “terrible” DAC almost look “good” by comparison! So bad in fact that the distortion and noise are certainly within the range of audibility.

2. So again, either an example that is false, IE. Is NOT audibly different or an example of extremely rare filterless NOS or tube DACs, that have ALREADY been discussed as exceptions to the general rule!

So going back to your previous statement:

There are several issues:

1. At least some of your examples do NOT “push sound towards your liking” because they are audibly the same as pretty much every other DAC on the market.

2. It requires that the “sound of your liking” is just about the lowest fidelity conversion ever achieved in a 16bit DAC. That you particularly like very high noise and/or distortion, channel imbalances, etc. All those things the high-fi market has sought to reduce for the last 70 years. So obviously, these extremely rare exceptions you’ve mentioned do not belong in any discussion of digital hi-fi.

3. The “sound of your/thier liking” obviously seems to vary. For example, “cooler” DACs were mentioned but so far no examples have been given. A filterless NOS DAC would roll-off the middle and high freqs and could therefore be perceived by some people as “warmer” (if they don’t mind all the distortion as well) but so far nothing explains the supposedly “cool” DACs except placebo effect.

4. Using the Pagoda example again, reviews/impressions seem pretty typical: Micro-details, clean, resolving, etc. All the usual descriptions that audiophiles say is the “sound to their liking” with one obvious and massive flaw, actual measurements of the Pagoda prove that it’s about the least resolving and dirtiest DAC on the market. That sounds to me the exact opposite of choosing a DAC to “push the sound towards your/their liking”!



Not really, because I don’t know of any DACs from 1983 that were anywhere near as bad as the MHDT Pagoda example!

Maybe if I made a turntable that’s worse than even the first generation of consumer turntables, audiophiles would happily pay 200 times more for it than an average TT? You’ve got to laugh!

G

This is what kills me about high end DAC'S and reviewers these days.

I spent a considerable amount of time reading up on PCM filters and the differences between linear and minimal phase in addition to impulse response and the implementation of NOS/Psuedo-NOS...

For anyone that wants the peace of mind in practice and on paper, Linear slow with a treble shelf correction will produce the best impulse response and account for roll-off sampling at 44.1 and 48Khz. Sampling above 48khz any roll off will be ABOVE audible band and any good slow or fast filter will remove ultrasonic components prior to artifacts folding back into the audible frequency (impulse and phase are the only considerations here as ultrasonic are filtered and roll-off not an issue).

Minimal phase is a SLIGHT inaccuracy for timing of transients and for accuracy sake avoided.

Linear will be the most accurate time domain reproduction.

Psuedo-NOS (super slow) appears to be a perfect impulse response but is actually crap.

NOS, true NOS, should only be used with sample rates above 48Khz to avoid roll off and will still have loads of ultrasonic artifacts folded back into the audible FR.

TLDR: People are paying thousands for inaccurate conversion for esoteric reasons.


It's even worse for amps with reviewers calling them clean or clinical or cold or warm when they're ALL digital designs with flat FR 20-20Khz with no tone control or strange output impedance.

 

[inseconds99]

I posted this on another forum. All this info, can someone recommend a true balanced Dac that supports tons of different formats for under $500? Just clean “calibrated?” sound.