DAC frequency response question

[hakunamakaka]

No, that's what you get with a better DAC. On your laptop, you cannot get depth perspective, but on a good DAC of say 1K you can, so the more expensive, the closer to the original.
I completely understand that you attribute everything to illusions, your ultimate audio experience is 5.1. If it were that simple, top musicians would listen to music at home via a laptop and 5.1

Nearly in all cases 5.1 system is overrated waste of money. It is already difficult to achieve good sound through 2 speaker system. Room/speaker size matters, on top of that add speaker placement, listening position and room treatment...Lived through many apartments and in only one I was able to implement good stereo sound in living room. The only easy way is lifted bookshelf monitors on working desk. These 5.1, 7.1 or 9.2 setups are used to show off by some random folks over internet, nothing to do with SQ itself

 

[T 1000]

Nearly in all cases 5.1 system is overrated waste of money. It is already difficult to achieve good sound through 2 speaker system. Room/speaker size matters, on top of that add speaker placement, listening position and room treatment...Lived through many apartments and in only one I was able to implement good stereo sound in living room. The only easy way is lifted bookshelf monitors on working desk. These 5.1, 7.1 or 9.2 setups are used to show off by some random folks over internet, nothing to do with SQ itself

I agree with you about the acoustics, but I don't agree that surround systems are used for bragging rights.
For watching movies, a well-calibrated surround sound has a infernal effect.But I threw out my surround system a long time ago and got a sound bar with an approximate impact
But, yes, it does not compete with a dedicated stereo system, for listening to music

 

[bigshot]

No, you come here and ask questions as if you haven't been here before making the same bogus claims and get us to answer you all over again. Then you slowly ramp up the insults as we get less and less patient with not being listened to.

You have your user page blocked, but it's still possible to search for posts by your username. You were the troll who got the admins pissed at everyone a month or so back. I don't bother to remember usernames of people I have no respect for, so I answered you as if you were a new visitor who honestly was looking for info. Won't make that mistake again.

You should go back to the threads where you can talk about fuses enhancing soundstage and which kind of overpriced contact magic potion to buy for optimal sound quality. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass. I'm done with being your puppet dancing to your tune. You've burned through my generosity and patience.

 

[T 1000]

No, you come here and ask questions as if you haven't been here before making the same bogus claims and get us to answer you all over again. Then you slowly ramp up the insults as we get less and less patient with not being listened to.

You have your user page blocked, but it's still possible to search for posts by your username. You were the troll who got the admins pissed at everyone a month or so back. I don't bother to remember usernames of people I have no respect for, so I answered you as if you were a new visitor who honestly was looking for info. Won't make that mistake again.

You should go back to the threads where you can talk about fuses enhancing soundstage and which kind of overpriced contact magic potion to buy for optimal sound quality. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass. I'm done with being your puppet dancing to your tune. You've burned through my generosity and patience.

All that is behind us, drink a glass of water and forget me

 

[T 1000]

No, you come here and ask questions as if you haven't been here before making the same bogus claims and get us to answer you all over again. Then you slowly ramp up the insults as we get less and less patient with not being listened to.

You have your user page blocked, but it's still possible to search for posts by your username. You were the troll who got the admins pissed at everyone a month or so back. I don't bother to remember usernames of people I have no respect for, so I answered you as if you were a new visitor who honestly was looking for info. Won't make that mistake again.

You should go back to the threads where you can talk about fuses enhancing soundstage and which kind of overpriced contact magic potion to buy for optimal sound quality. You wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass. I'm done with being your puppet dancing to your tune. You've burned through my generosity and patience.

I think and visualize Astronomy, I love Philosophy..., but music i listen, and I like to share positive experiences

 

[bigshot]

In isolation each test can yield results below a set parameter and going further can’t give any audible improvement, but what about one unit that just gets “over the bar” in all the tests vs another that clears one or more tests by a considerable margin, and is it inconceivable that combining several marginally inaudible results can’t result in something audible ?

Isn't a perfectly reconstructed waveform a perfectly reconstructed waveform? Another file with a wider bandwidth might measure "better" but all those improvements would be beyond the range of human hearing.

A threshold is like a brick wall. You can't hear beyond it. The only thing that super audible frequencies might do is create artifacts in audible frequencies if your equipment isn't designed to deal with them. And the noise floor of CD sound is far below the noise floor of your living room and would require a deafening volume to bring up to an audible level.

There's nothing in a single D/A conversion that is cumulative. It just takes a digital file and outputs a perfect waveform within the limits of the bandwidth. The only difference I can think of between two DACs is if one DAC isn't designed to decode a particular codec and another one is. But that is an all or nothing thing, and it is more a matter of features than fidelity.

It's conceivable that the amp circuitry beyond the DAC stage might add noise. But it isn't difficult to design a quiet amp stage. They do it in $35 Walmart DVD players, so it should be a given in a $100+ DAC/amp. If one does have a noisy analog output, it's due to defective manufacture or design, not because it's not possible to make an inexpensive amp that is audibly transparent.

 

[hakunamakaka]

I agree with you about the acoustics, but I don't agree that surround systems are used for bragging rights.
For watching movies, a well-calibrated surround sound has a infernal effect.But I threw out my surround system a long time ago and got a sound bar with an approximate impact
But, yes, it does not compete with a dedicated stereo system, for listening to music

Movies don't require much, a budget home theater will do the job. If interest is in music sell 5.1 and grab a decent set of speakers

 

[The Jester]

Isn't a perfectly reconstructed waveform a perfectly reconstructed waveform? Another file with a wider bandwidth might measure "better" but all those improvements would be beyond the range of human hearing.

A threshold is like a brick wall. You can't hear beyond it. The only thing that super audible frequencies might do is create artifacts in audible frequencies if your equipment isn't designed to deal with them. And the noise floor of CD sound is far below the noise floor of your living room and would require a deafening volume to bring up to an audible level.

There's nothing in a single D/A conversion that is cumulative. It just takes a digital file and outputs a perfect waveform within the limits of the bandwidth. The only difference I can think of between two DACs is if one DAC isn't designed to decode a particular codec and another one is. But that is an all or nothing thing, and it is more a matter of features than fidelity.

And all the various incarnations of filter design are just window dressing, slow roll off, fast roll off, optimal spectrum, optimal phase are all physical limitations on how an accurate limited bandwidth is achieved, the theory behind which is based on mathematical algorithms which have physical limitations…

 

[bigshot]

I threw out my surround system a long time ago and got a sound bar

https://www.wikihow.com/Bait-a-Hook-with-a-Worm

 

[bigshot]

And all the various incarnations of filter design are just window dressing, slow roll off, fast roll off, optimal spectrum, optimal phase are all physical limitations on how an accurate limited bandwidth is achieved, the theory behind which is based on mathematical algorithms which physical limitations…

A couple of those would have an audible impact, but if you use the right filter (or just use a default one) it will be audibly transparent. You have to go out of your way to color digital audio. It's designed to be a straight line from file to output.

If your goal is perfect fidelity, DACs are designed to do that. Filters to color the sound are optional features... and not necessary. High end DAC manufacturers add lots of features. Some of them might be useful, some not.

No one says all DACs and amps sound the same. What I am saying is all amps and DACs that are designed for high fidelity sound do. And that doesn't correlate at all with price. There are cheap ones that sound perfect and expensive tube amps that slather on euphonic distortion. But in sound science, we discuss fidelity. We acknowledge that someone may prefer a colored sound. In fact to one degree or another most of us prefer a certain amount of coloration ourselves. But the baseline should be clean so you can add your own personal coloration with the tone controls like salt and pepper to taste.

 

[T 1000]

Movies don't require much, a budget home theater will do the job. If interest is in music sell 5.1 and grab a decent set of speakers

A good AV receiver in stereo mode with good speakers can sound good, but not as good as if you replace the AV receiver with a stereo amplifier at the same price.
I'm thinking surround with a price of 5K+

 

[bigshot]

You already baited that hook. Go fish.

 

[T 1000]

A couple of those would have an audible impact, but if you use the right filter (or just use a default one) it will be audibly transparent. You have to go out of your way to color digital audio. It's designed to be a straight line from file to output.

If your goal is perfect fidelity, DACs are designed to do that. Filters to color the sound are optional features... and not necessary. High end DAC manufacturers add lots of features. Some of them might be useful, some not.

No one says all DACs and amps sound the same. What I am saying is all amps and DACs that are designed for high fidelity sound do. And that doesn't correlate at all with price. There are cheap ones that sound perfect and expensive tube amps that slather on euphonic distortion. But in sound science, we discuss fidelity. We acknowledge that someone may prefer a colored sound. In fact to one degree or another most of us prefer a certain amount of coloration ourselves. But the baseline should be clean so you can add your own personal coloration with the tone controls like salt and pepper to taste.

I'm pleasantly surprised, you used the term "high-end DAC manufacturers!

 

[The Jester]

A couple of those would have an audible impact, but if you use the right filter (or just use a default one) it will be audibly transparent. You have to go out of your way to color digital audio. It's designed to be a straight line from file to output.

If your goal is perfect fidelity, DACs are designed to do that. Filters to color the sound are optional features... and not necessary. High end DAC manufacturers add lots of features. Some of them might be useful, some not.

If the “default one” is the original from close to 40 years ago it’s probably not the best choice as filter algorithms have slowly improved, along with the algorithms used with noise shapers and over sampling, once it gets to that level though any differences can be subtle and dependant on the rest of the audio chain,
How far individuals push the limits is up to them and their own little world of “audio nirvana” and how deep their pockets are, and there starts the minefield, rabbit hole or whatever, once the border of accepted scientific tests is left behind we enter a fantasy world where sometimes outlandish claims are misrepresented as “fact”,
As with all measurements to be 100% factual they need parameters,
An amp spec that states “100 watts per channel” is useless, more accurate would be “100 watts per channel into 8 ohms, 20hz-20khz with less than xx% THD”
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second ?, only when you add the parameter “in a vacuum”.
Nyqvist theory is a digitally encoded signal can be perfectly recovered using 2x the highest frequency ?, only when you add the parameter “ in a perfectly limited bandwidth”
Decimation and reconstruction is the easy part, achieving a perfectly bandwidth limited signal with the filters needed having no effect on the usable bandwidth is the difficult part, and where the most research and improvements have been made in the last 40 years.

 

[castleofargh]

Not exactly a “black and white” issue …
Reading the Shannon-Nyquist theory including sync x function the math is perfect,
Transferring that to a physical application is the contentious part, so a DAC that is deemed “audibly transparent” from a suite of limited tests based on the threshold of human hearing can’t sound different to another that passes the same suite of tests ?
In isolation each test can yield results below a set parameter and going further can’t give any audible improvement, but what about one unit that just gets “over the bar” in all the tests vs another that clears one or more tests by a considerable margin, and is it inconceivable that combining several marginally inaudible results can’t result in something audible ?

Because it's all about waves, several small events can have a cumulative impact. That seems perfectly possible to me. But I don't like fishing for rationals that support unproved beliefs born out of bad testing.
TBH, I also don't see how Nyquist demonstrates anything about a lack of audible differences between 2 DACs. All that stuff is backward thinking to me. Let's have someone properly demonstrate his ability to tell 2 specific DACs apart, and then we can look into why without feeling like we're wasting our time. Wouldn't things make more sense in that order?

Sorry if deciding to say that stuff in reply to your post seems like targeting you in particular. it's actually one of the reasonable posts, which is why I got interested.

You already baited that hook. Go fish.

If he's bait and you keep replying to him, he's already got his fish.