[SubseaTree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif That everyone hears differently is more or less obvious but doesnt really change the debate here, which is how two things that do the same thing using pretty much the same technology (give or take) come to sound fundamentally different, if indeed they do. This curiosity doesnt in the least bit hinder my profound enjoyment of music. If two things really do reliably sound different then this should be pretty measurable. If two things are measurably the same then "consistently" sounding different seems a bit odd. If two DAC chips really sound different then there must be a logical reason for it , it seems that looking for differences in the waveforms is a reasonable place to start ?

I don't disagree but it just remainds me of the good old days of HiFI Choice et al in the 70's when the best turntables had the lowest wow and flutter measurements but oh no, no ... turntables couldn't have an effect on the sound could they?

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordins /img/forum/go_quote.gif . . . the waveforms of different DAC chips are not the same. They would look the same on a large-scale measurement, like on an oscilloscope or a THD meter. But psychoacoustic studies have shown that human hearing system is so complex, and it is *very* sensitive. This is why people can be very picky about quality of music CDs. Your measurement instrument of choice should be human ears which can detect any subtle sonic differences. . . . BTW, I remember a documentary program taking to see inside a tomato sauce factory in Pittsburgh. Even scientists know exactly how to measure all ingredients and to how to cook ketcup right. They still need a human tounge to tell whether to add more sugar, vinegar, salt, etc. Otherwise, the customers (KFC, McDonald) will reject the sauce. You can get a high-precision pH meter or a million-dollar gas chromatograpy machine to measure different brands of ketcup. Even the fancy graphs look exactly the same, but which ketcup would you prefer ?

Bordins, it's not often, but every once in a great while someone, in the middle of a heated debate, says something that makes sense. It's as though he/she came along and turned on the lights so that everyone else could see what, exactly, they were arguing about in the dark. And this is what you've managed to do with your KISSing ketchup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dept_of_Alchemy /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'd like to see some graphs presented in this thread. If mods make a difference, it ought to be measurable. If there are no measurable differences on the electronics end, then I think it's safe to say that the 'improvement' is psychological. "It just sounds better" is not a sufficient argument for me, as phychology obviously play a role in music listening, and I'm not going to spend $500 on a new source because some guy happened to have an endorphin surge the day he got his new DAC.

DOA, I'm not exactly sure what graphs measure. But one of the problems, imo, is that we're trying to capture a 3-dimensional phenomenon (music) with a 2-dimensional image (graph). It's like saying that a wafer thin slice of so-and-so's brain is his entire brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif ..wonder if someone can come up with a graph to prove that pepsi is better than coke? I'ev listened to many source components within my system, and there are huge differences. Music is an extremely complex signal,and the perception of music and all the emotions it contains is yet more complex. Some are more sensitive than other to changes. Hence horses for courses, you need to listen for yourself before you lay your money down.

Coral, you got that right. I'll have to agree with Chesebert when he says that "its so rare for a new member to just 'GET IT'.. you will have a very rewarding journey."

Quote:

Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many member takes eons to understand that everyone hears differently and react to different things differently; many still don't get it, instead relying on their EE class/experience.

Chesebert, I agree. I guess when it comes down to it, it's a question of whether or not Bordins' ketchup is any good. We can break out all the graphs in the world and do countless studies, but the ole "taste it" test is probably the only one that matters in the end. If it doesn't taste good, folks won't eat it.

I have a bunch of CD and DVD players, and my ears tell me that two out of the lot are great. No graphs, no fuss, no bother. Yeah, at different times of the day and in different moods, they all sound different, but I take this part of my psychology into account, too, and still know the best from the worst. It's all in the ketchup.

 

[SubseaTree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awk.Pine /img/forum/go_quote.gif Er. That turned into a rant. Sorry. Cheers!

Gosh no, that was a really well thought out response and struck a couple of chords that resonated nicely with my own experiences. However, I fundamentally believe that somewhere in the chain between the recording of the original music signal and the final playback in your lounge or thru your cans, there are subtle and non-subtle degradations of information such as timing, harmonics, dynamics, spacial clues, sins of omission and addition, etc etc that all effect how the brain ultimately percieves that message the composer originally intended. Some of the differences can be measured, maybe even all of them but the sum effect cannot be fully assessed and certainly cannot be translated into a final analysis that will tell you whether your part/component/system is closer to achieving the composters intent. Good equipment can only be created by a combination of objective and subjective input, and that at a systems level and not just at component level. Yeah I know I'm talking boutique stuff here, but ultimately that is the way to achieving some sort of harmonious balance with a system. I'm afraid an MP3 player hooked up to K-1000s doesn't really cut it.

There's an old saying in Yorkshire ... if it looks reit, it is reit! Yep, I agree that you can almost tell a good cd player by looking at the build quality. If the designer has allow form to follow function and his ultimate goal is perfect sound reproduction, the chassis will be well damped, the componants will be generously spaced out to avoid emf induced distortion, the soldering will be faultless, the choice of componetary will show variety as if some thought has gone into selecting each cap. for the desired sound, it will perform slickly as this sets the listener in the right mood ... but for all of this it certainly will not be a sub $500 unit, unfortunately

 

[SubseaTree]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a bunch of CD and DVD players, and my ears tell me that two out of the lot are great. No graphs, no fuss, no bother. Yeah, at different times of the day and in different moods, they all sound different, but I take this part of my psychology into account, too, and still know the best from the worst. It's all in the ketchup.

Spot on .. I couldn't have said it better. I have had six or seven tuners laying around and depending on the mood I would pick the one I fancied. But ultimately there were a couple that I preferred the most and I don't need a million bucks worth of diagnostic equipment to tell me what I prefer. SO why did I sell one of the best ones ...!

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif There's an old saying in Yorkshire ... if it looks reit, it is reit!

That says it all! So how (when? why?) did the rest of the bloody English-speaking world transform the perfectly good "ei" to the unintelligible "igh"? Assuming that reit is right, of course.

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif there are subtle and non-subtle degradations of information such as timing, harmonics, dynamics, spacial clues, sins of omission and addition, etc etc that all effect

Timing - so some CD players run too fast or on some the drummer comes in too early

- transient rise time for DACs is about 23 microseconds -there may be some minor ringing on very brief signals but as I understand it this is at a very low level and really only affects very high frequencies. So far nobody has shown me that any differences in transient rise time between different DACs can be attributed to audible differences.

Harmonics - if a DAC really does add or drop serious amounts of harmonics then that would be a serious issue, however when you look at DACs the level of harmonic distortion is generally very very low, i.e the output signal is very very close to the input signal i.e 0.01% harmonic distortion which is not as far as I know humanly detectable.

Dynamics - well DACs have dynamic ranges of well over 90db much much better than recorded music actually requires.

Sins of omission - this is the part I am having trouble with - what is missing exactly - this comes back to the waveform question how is the output waveform different from the original signal.

Sins of addition, noise and distortion - pretty much a non-issue with half-competent digital kit.

Spatial Cues - that is what stereo is all about - the differences between one channel and another create the illusion of solidity, as I understand it this is created by having , two similar but slightly different signals - each will have different time-of-arrival (phase difference) and sound-pressure-level information. During playback, the listener's brain uses those differences in timing and sound-level to triangulate the positions of the recorded objects. The DAC doesnt worry about this as it just processes a signal. The DAC just has to make sure that the two channels come out at the same time relative to the original recording - pretty trivial I would imagine.

Quote:

If the designer has allow form to follow function and his ultimate goal is perfect sound reproduction, the chassis will be well damped, the componants will be generously spaced out to avoid emf induced distortion, the soldering will be faultless, the choice of componetary will show variety as if some thought has gone into selecting each cap. for the desired sound, it will perform slickly as this sets the listener in the right mood ... but for all of this it certainly will not be a sub $500 unit, unfortunately

I guess you dont want me to give you the URL of the Spanish website which blind tested a 12,000 euro Oracle CD player and a 200 Euro Pioneer DVD player and found them to be sonically indistinguishable. Good design need not be that expensive, components that perform to spec need not cost a fortune, if a circuit works to spec it works to spec. Okay a 12,000 euro CD player may well last longer than a $60 Philips DVP642, mine has already lost its coax output.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've listened to many source components within my system, and there are huge differences. Music is an extremely complex signal,and the perception of music and all the emotions it contains is yet more complex. Some are more sensitive than other to changes.

Sorry to let you down like this, but your ears aren't more sensitive than testing equipment.

What you are talking about has nothing to do with equipment. Emotions in music don't come from DACs or sampling rates. They come from the performance of the musicians. All a stereo system can do is reproduce sound faithfully. There are a LOT of systems out there that do that at all price points.

If it really does come down to individual perception, why pay a lot of money for mods and expensive high end equipment when the machinery really isn't providing better sound? You could spend a fraction of the money on a comfortable chair, a bottle of wine and nice lighting for your listening room and get much more of an improvement in listening pleasure than 40 grand's worth of equipment.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubseaTree /img/forum/go_quote.gif the likes of Kondo in the past and Shindo now plus one or two other "perceptive" designers are putting together system not only thru excellent engineering practices but also thru laboriously extensive selection of the capacitors/resistors/cables etc that make the sound fit what their actual perception of reality is. And the really perceptive designer will not just consider reality based on a few measurable performance indicators ... their yard stick will ultimately be communication of the message within the music.

That statement is pure and unadulterated... a clean and clear as fresh fallen snow... with the crystal clarity of a drop of Springtime rain... and it's 100% meaningless sales pitch. Stereos aren't magic boxes that emit emotions. They're devices for reproducing sound.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif when it comes down to it, it's a question of whether or not Bordins' ketchup is any good. We can break out all the graphs in the world and do countless studies, but the ole "taste it" test is probably the only one that matters in the end.

Vegetable ingredients and organic spices vary greatly by batch and freshness. For instance, an ounce of chili peppers may give you a hundred burning mouths in one batch, and a thousand the next. If it doesn't rain as much one month, the tomatoes don't taste as tomatoey, so you need to use more. Chefs need to be able to balance these inconsistencies by juggling quantities of ingredients and how they're prepared.

It isn't like that with electrical components. If they varied that much from batch to batch, we wouldn't have computers, cell phones or any other sort of complex circuitry. Each unit would have to be custom designed and tested.

Not a good analogy.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hciman77 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Timing Harmonics Dynamics Sins of omission Sins of addition Spatial Cues

Compare the performance of a DAC to the performance of the speakers in your listening room and you'll quickly find where the distortions in a system lie. Why are people spending so much money on DACs and CD players when they aren't the source of the problem?

See ya
Steve

 

[hciman77]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compare the performance of a DAC to the performance of the speakers in your listening room and you'll quickly find where the distortions in a system lie. Why are people spending so much money on DACs and CD players when they aren't the source of the problem? See ya Steve

I'm not

- my "CD" player cost $60 and my DAC cost $35 !

 

[bordins]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Compare the performance of a DAC to the performance of the speakers in your listening room and you'll quickly find where the distortions in a system lie. Why are people spending so much money on DACs and CD players when they aren't the source of the problem?

People still hear differences once they change a Rotel CDP to an Accuphase. Many prefer the one that sounds more natural and closer to analog-like performance.

Listeners can "taste" music and wine, can't they ?

 

[feifan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry to let you down like this, but your ears aren't more sensitive than testing equipment. What you are talking about has nothing to do with equipment. Emotions in music don't come from DACs or sampling rates. They come from the performance of the musicians. All a stereo system can do is reproduce sound faithfully.

Then what, Bigshot, is the sound of one hand clapping? Or more to the point, that old conundrum: If a tree falls in the middle of a thick forest and there's no one around for a thousand miles to hear it, does it make a sound? This is a nature lover's version, BTW, of the light in the closed refrigerator.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bordins /img/forum/go_quote.gif Many prefer the one that sounds more natural and closer to analog-like performance.

Analogue is a method of reproducing sound, not a sound itself. Formats don't have a sound, they have a peculiar set of artifacts. The artifacts of a reel to reel tape recorder are completely different than the ones you get with a turntable, even though both of those are analogue formats. Finding a DAC that would provide the sound signature of tape hiss, surface noise, inner groove wear or rumble isn't very likely, so saying that you want "analogue-like performance" isn't the best way to describe what you're shooting for.

If you describe the sound you're trying to achieve in more precise ways, you'll find that it's a lot easier to logically figure out how to get there... frequency response, signal to noise, harmonic distortion, dynamic range... these are all descriptions of sound reproduction that anyone who understands the terms can instantly grasp. Using terms like "musical", "veiled", "analogue" or "emotional" sound great as poetry, but they don't get any concrete idea across.

For instance, if by "analogue-like" you mean a slight degree of compression of the dynamics, a little bit of rolloff of the top end and slight boost of the mids around the vocal register, and a very tiny bed of hiss to mask the dead silence of digital recordings; there are a lot of very simple and inexpensive ways of achieving that without having to spend a lot of money on expensive CD players and DACs.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Then what, Bigshot, is the sound of one hand clapping? Or more to the point, that old conundrum: If a tree falls in the middle of a thick forest and there's no one around for a thousand miles to hear it, does it make a sound? This is a nature lover's version, BTW, of the light in the closed refrigerator.

Well, there isn't much point discussing which kind of microphone best reproduces the sound of one hand clapping or what kind of camera to use to photograph the light in a closed refrigerator!

See ya
Steve