[castleofargh]

This seems to be the wrong thread to ask this question

Why?

 

[surfgeorge]

Why?

So far there has not been any discussion about the sound signature and differences between DACs
I think there are other threads were people do their best to describe their experiences.
In the end everyone has to make up his own mind how to best enjoy music!

 

[bigshot]

I can describe things that I've never really perceived. A description is meaningless until you've proven the difference actually exists. A controlled test is the way to do that. Why is it that no one who claims to be able to hear a difference in normal listening has ever bothered to do a controlled listening test to prove it? I've done a controlled listening test myself and I think the belief and the lack of proof are related.

 

[castleofargh]

So far there has not been any discussion about the sound signature and differences between DACs
I think there are other threads were people do their best to describe their experiences.
In the end everyone has to make up his own mind how to best enjoy music!

Because almost nobody cares to demonstrate that the sound signature and sound differences between 2 specific DACs, under specific conditions, are real and audible. I also don't discuss the music tastes of space aliens, because that conversation doesn't make sense to me until I made sure those guys exist and they listen to music(or I'm watching the Braindead TV series).
Everything else is irrelevant. Pride, gut feelings, personal beliefs, joy, none of it matters if the topic/question is about heard sound differences and confirming them.

How to best enjoy music is a completely different conversation where audible sound is only part of the answer. Not even a necessary part. After all, it's trivial to setup an experiment where most people will enjoy "music" more, based on 100% non audio biases.

Those who only seek confirmation and are fine with empty claims about audible differences, will find a treasure trove of those in an appreciation thread. But if the question is about what is factually audible between 2 given DACs, then I'd like to believe that this place is as good as any other. TBH, if you start bringing up controlled listening tests in an appreciation thread and insist on discussing them and their results, the posts will get deleted or moved here anyway. If someone wants demonstrated facts about audibility, a listening test is the only way and the rules of the forum kind of make Sound Science the only place where it should happen.



As always I insist on what I shouldn't have to mention at all: Having the null hypothesis as a standby position on a question while waiting for supporting evidence of the contrary(that nobody seems in a hurry to provide), is not the same as constantly claiming that there exists no difference. A proper demonstration of change will typically have me accept that the change probably exists. Because that's how facts work.

 

[Deolum]

It seems to me like even for sound science people its accepted that R2R dacs sound different than D/S dacs and that digital filters like for example sharp roll off vs super slow roll of make a difference. Can anyone tell me why the classic bits is bits and everything is the same stuff doesn't apply here?

 

[Pondoro]

My opinion is that once you go "analog" things can become different. I'm not arguing that everything does sound different, but that it can. By definition a DAC has an analog output. I said before that (no blind tests) replacing the built in sound card on my PC's motherboard improved sound. The built in sound card is a DAC, and a good example of a $2-$5 part. I replaced one with a $40 sound card and another with a $99 DAC. I heard a difference (I didn't do blind tests or whatever.) I never A/B'ed the two computers since they are far apart and on different floors. I am not arguing that any other DAC's, from $101 to $15,000, sound different. I'm only arguing that if you cheap out enough you can produce a bad signal. I doubt that the designers of the $2 built in soundcard messed up the digital conversion. I learned how to do D to A in college and I am sure they know more than me. But taking shortcuts or being sloppy or pursuing unicorns on the analog side can surely mess things up.

 

[castleofargh]

It seems to me like even for sound science people its accepted that R2R dacs sound different than D/S dacs and that digital filters like for example sharp roll off vs super slow roll of make a difference. Can anyone tell me why the classic bits is bits and everything is the same stuff doesn't apply here?

Bit are not bits because the filter is applied on analog signal to finish the reconstruction. TBH on a clean filter, the only difference should be about what happens to ultrasonic content. if that makes clear audible difference, the filter isn't that clean, or we've just demonstrated that we can all easily hear ultrasounds and we should contact AES with our discovery.

R2R could sound different for a bunch of reasons, including that like tube amps, people seeking them will often expect something special(analog sounding, whatever that's supposed to mean to them) and would be disappointed if they just sounded like the rest. So the designer might make it sound different, just because. of course they could also decide that they know better than Nyquist and go filterless or some other dumb decision to prove they don't understand digital sampling. it's rare nowadays, but it sure did exist at some point...

Super slow roll off filter could either start early within the audible range and be heard as an EQ on the treble, or fail to remove a good deal of aliasing and whatever ultrasonic garbage in the signal. That might end up having more or less impact. Again, we can look at this with different eyes. The eyes of the guy who wants things to sound different, and the eyes of people who want a DAC to just cleanly reconstruct the signal. that second group might look at the designer of a DAC where everything sounds different and say; "you had one job!".

 

[bigshot]

My opinion is that once you go "analog" things can become different. I'm not arguing that everything does sound different, but that it can.

Snip

I heard a difference (I didn't do blind tests or whatever.) I never A/B'ed the two computers since they are far apart and on different floors.

A lot of things *can* exist. But DACs that sound different are uncommon enough that I’ve never run across one myself, and no one I ask can point to a controlled listening test that shows that anyone else has. A lot of people say they can hear a difference BUT... I didn’t do a blind test... it wasn’t convenient... etc. Every human on earth is subject to expectation bias and perceptual error too, so there is no reason to accept those opinions until one of these people get up off their butt and do a proper test. To date, I have only seen one person who claimed to hear a clear difference between his cheap and expensive DACs go that extra mile. We helped him conduct a fair test and he found out he couldn’t tell them apart.

Unless you’re willing to put your opinion to the test, it’s no better than any other anecdotal impression. The odds are, if you did hear a difference, it was because of the computers, not the sound cards.

 

[Pondoro]

A lot of things *can* exist. But DACs that sound different are uncommon enough that I’ve never run across one myself, and no one I ask can point to a controlled listening test that shows that anyone else has. A lot of people say they can hear a difference BUT... I didn’t do a blind test... it wasn’t convenient... etc. Every human on earth is subject to expectation bias and perceptual error too, so there is no reason to accept those opinions until one of these people get up off their butt and do a proper test. To date, I have only seen one person who claimed to hear a clear difference between his cheap and expensive DACs go that extra mile. We helped him conduct a fair test and he found out he couldn’t tell them apart.

Unless you’re willing to put your opinion to the test, it’s no better than any other anecdotal impression. The odds are, if you did hear a difference, it was because of the computers, not the sound cards.

I actually don't notice, or think I notice, that my two computers sound different from, each other. (one has the $40 sound card, the other has the $99 DAC). I think they both got better when I stopped using the built in chip on the motherboard, I put the new sound card in the first one and bought the DAC for the other one. I'm an engineer who has worked as a statistician for a few years and run some expensive tests. I value testing and data (and statistically valid testing most of all). But some things are not worth testing. Even big money-making companies sometimes say, "That test will cost more than the results are worth." I think a nearly free built in sound card on a mid-level PC is built to a low price point and I'd rather replace it than do hours of testing. I think I noticed a difference. I'm OK with no testing. I can see here that I am inconsistent. The chip on my motherboard probably cost two or three dollars. I decided based on intuition that it could be improved. I needed a set of RCA cables and saw a set for $2.50 and happily bought it! I have read some test results (measurements and blind audible testing) for cables, and what I saw of cable testing convinced me no further tests were required, I bought the cheap cables and I don't worry if the $20, or $200, or $2000 cables are better. So I am a cable denier based on what testing I have read about. I am a very mild DAC believer. I do expect some DACs sound different (not better) because of choices the designer make in the analog side. I know beyond a doubt that guitar amps sound different, because of design choices. I am not anti digital in guitar amps, I know some are. I have simply heard differences and I cannot believe humans don't make choices that affect sound when they design analog circuits. The humans will of course all say that their design sounds "right." I won't spend $10,000 dollars trying to find out.

 

[Pondoro]

I actually thought of a better explanation for spending low ($100 or so) money to replace the soundcard. Again I think humans can mess up a DAC if they don't try to get it right. I also think they can mess up if you let them chase unicorns. My estimate is that the guy or gal who designed the $2 on-board soundcard may not have tried very hard. The guy or gal who designs a $5,000 soundcard may try some weird thing based on more religion than science. We've seen the extremely high cost cables that test worse than the free ones! $40-$100 (to me) seems like a reasonable expenditure to get a designer who thought about my DAC, but was not a crackpot. It's like a hamburger. I want to pay $6 to $18 for my hamburger. I do not trust the $3 hamburger, I am convinced that the $25-40 hamburger is no better (yes I have seen them!) and if you ever offer me an $80 hamburger then you are so nuts that I do not want you cooking anything for me.

 

[bigshot]

Computers aren’t always designed for high fidelity sound. There can be interference and ground loops that have nothing to do with the DAC itself. You can buy a $5 DAC chip that produces audibly transparent sound. You can’t get better sound than perfect for human ears. More expensive DACs may measure better, but they won’t sound different. I’ve found no correlation between price and sound quality. I test every piece of gear I buy, and all my DACs and players are transparent. I’d like to find a DAC or player that sounds clearly different, but the only reports I’ve been given are subjective impressions. Everyone I’ve spoken with who have done a controlled listening test says there is no difference.

 

[Davesrose]

I have noticed one can never go by internet rumors that one DAC brand is inherently brighter or darker on the chip level. I think it makes sense, as the simplest component setup is having a device that's got a full circuit design of DAC and amp (or say op amps to a headphone stage in phone or computer). I have components that have DAC chips that are claimed to be extremely bright, but on their particular analog outs, are completely warm and seem muffled. These days, I do think computers are hi-fi as far as not introducing noise when it comes to the circuit itself.....it's just that sound characteristics can be quite different depending on software setup. Different players can introduce DSPs/EQs. Also with my HTPC, I find there's issues with trying to setup Windows audio device driver in order to get proper surround format.

 

[Laura80]

Currently using the dac in my iPad - do I need a better dac?

 

[bigshot]

Apple products have audio quality that sounds to human ears as good as any audiophile DAC.

 

[Laura80]

So my iPad dac must be tiny (just a chip?) compared to these blu-ray sized dedicated desk size dacs.

Why are these desk size dacs so big/what are they doing differently from my tiny iPad dac if the end result is audibly the same?