[Head Injury]

Quote:

So we agree that hardware makes a difference.
But why do DAC's that should sound the same based on measurements, not sound the same, and use widely different designs?
The reason I'm going for measurements is because it is futile to talk about anything else with you ppl

I never said hardware didn't make a difference. Measurements prove it does.
 
I already linked you to a list of cognitive biases. Now we're just going in circles.
 
It's not futile at all to talk about something other than measurements. It's important to make sure you eliminate biases, though. So sighted subjective impressions aren't valid arguments.
 
In case it's not clear, which it apparently isn't:

1. Given two DACs that measure the same within audible limits, our ears will perceive the same sound
2. Given any number of cognitive biases, our brains will interpret those perceptions differently
3. Hence, two DACs can produce (for all intents and purposes) the exact same audible signal, but will sound different

 
This is why I made the point some time ago that the biggest variable in a system is the brain. What you think you hear changes according to mood, time of day, visual stimuli, expectation, and any number of things. The changes you hear do not always depend on the equipment you hear it from.

 

[Adda]

We disagree on a fundamental point, so this isn't going anywhere.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

We disagree on a fundamental point, so this isn't going anywhere.

You're not putting forth any effort to defend your opinions.

 

[gregorio]

But you didn't give an answer, you say that one of them must be distorting, but they both measure below what should be audible, so they should sound the same.

From page 7: "If you have a DAC which is perfectly linear within the limits of hearing and then you have a second DAC which sounds different there are only two possible explanations: 1. A perception bias or 2. The second DAC is introducing some sort of distortion within the limits of hearing."

In other words, if both DACs measure perfectly linear within the limits of audibility then the ONLY reason they can sound different would be due to "A perception bias".

G

 

[Adda]

You're not putting forth any effort to defend your opinions.

You are basing all your arguments on a questionable premise.

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

You are basing all your arguments on a questionable premise.

You have failed to demonstrate why it is questionable.

 

[leeperry]

I have always wondered why naysayers even join Audio forums, esp those who's whole purpose is to celebrate the differences in audio reproduction with various gear etc.
 
Its like an Atheist joining a church 'Just' so he can stand up and bash people about their belief in a higher power.

and yet, none of them will answer my candid simple question...maybe themselves don't even know the reason, and simply feel euphoric and galvanized as a group trying to prove ppl wrong on the intraweb.

I believe the OP was seeking real world advices from ppl who tried stuff IRL w/ their own ears, not straw men threadcrapping. I would suggest team "all DAC's sound the same, duh" to create a thread in the Science forum, and let the audiophools talk about audiophoolism quietly. The OP might also ask for assistance from the mods if he sees fit.

 

[korzena]

>Please recommend a DAC with wide soundstage, very good depth and holography (price up to $1200).

>Not possible. Need to pay significantly more to achieve your objectives. Can you at least double your budget?

Probably not, but out of curiosity, which DAC you recommend then?

 

[all300b]

Listening to some Chopin now through my Centrance DACport.  It uses very similar USB input circuitry as the Benchmark- in fact Benchmark licensed their USB code from them.  After unpacking the USB signal the DACport locks to a PLL that is coupled to very low jitter oscillators, followed by a high quality AKM DAC and a class A, ultra-low distortion op-amp output stage. 
 
Of course it measures perfectly (see multiple reviews) and therefore it sounds EXACTLY like the true event.  The near-textbook measurements indicate that- after 40-years of everybody else trying- the DACport has completely solved digital audio.  In fact, based on its design and measurements, the DACport is IDENTICAL in performance to the Benchmark DAC, yet costs only $400.  If anyone hears differences between these two units they have psychiatric issues that can only be cured by membership in an audio forum.
 
It's too bad that Gregorio and Willakam were suckered by all of that Benchmark snake oil- they could have had the same perfection for only 25% of the cost.
 
 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

It's too bad that Gregorio and Willakam were suckered by all of that Benchmark snake oil- they could have had the same perfection for only 25% of the cost.

Just think it only took 2 minutes to sucker them....lol.
 

 

[leeperry]

the DACport locks to a PLL that is coupled to very low jitter oscillators, followed by a high quality AKM DAC and a class A, ultra-low distortion op-amp output stage. 
 
Of course it measures perfectly (see multiple reviews) and therefore it sounds EXACTLY like the true event.  The near-textbook measurements indicate that- after 40-years of everybody else trying- the DACport has completely solved digital audio.  In fact, based on its design and measurements, the DACport is IDENTICAL in performance to the Benchmark DAC, yet costs only $400.

the DACPort uses the AK4396 and an OPA1612 output stage...completely different sound from the 5532/4562 opamps in the Benchmark DAC-1, and neither of those will provide what the OP wants IMHO.

 

[korzena]

>leeperry
>and yet, none of them will answer my candid simple question...maybe themselves don't even know the reason, and simply feel euphoric and galvanized as a group trying to prove ppl >wrong on the intraweb.

>I believe the OP was seeking real world advices from ppl who tried stuff IRL w/ their own ears, not straw men threadcrapping. I would suggest team "all DAC's sound the same, duh" to >create a thread in the Science forum, and let the audiophools talk about audiophoolism quietly. The OP might also ask for assistance from the mods if he sees fit.


I fully support your idea. I have asked for subjective impressions as this is also my way of choosing equipment. (BTW, honest reviews/opinions often have suspiciously similar subjective impressions on how the equipment sounds)

I also think that the extensive knowledge and big intelligence of our scientists would be of better use and benefit in the Science forum. Our basic premises here are just too different and this discussion is not going in the right direction...

 

[Mad Max]

 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dynobot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
 
...
Fact is some people just need attention and will say/do anything to get it.  They feed on this stuff.... 

You people sure love to feed them. 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

 
You people sure love to feed them. 

Yeah I need to stop.

 

[all300b]

|  the DACPort uses the AK4396 and an OPA1612 output stage...completely different sound from the 5532/4562 opamps in the Benchmark DAC-1, and neither of those will provide what the OP wants IMHO.
 
I know- and it actually sounds very different than the Benchmark (I like them both and have compared them side-by-side).  But have a look at these beautiful measurements:
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/centrance-dacport-usb-headphone-amplifier-measurements
 
Perfectly flat frequency response, 120 db channel separation, >18 bit resolution, a noise floor LOWER than their own stated spec, and essentially ZERO distortion.
 
See- they have SOLVED digital audio for only $400.  Any objections from Gregorio and Willakam are just the rantings of crazy audiophiles who like to buy expensive equipment.
 
|  You people sure love to feed them
 
But they make it so easy...