bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
No need for you either. Twins again. They always come in pairs, ready to pipe up with a me too in a flash. Strange.
Last edited:
Don’t see any issues if you can push sound towards your liking with the button press or with certain DAC.
Soekris line DAC's, Audio GD R1/R7/R8What certain DAC?
G
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![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
There are several issues:Don’t see any issues if you can push sound towards your liking with the button press or with certain DAC.
It's basically a DAC from 1983 with fancy analog filters to roll off the top end in more and more drastic ways.
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.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