Does It Really Sound The Same?

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

 
But on the other hand, suppose the one that sounded different actually sounded better?  Suppose the difference was that it had more resolution (cleaner, clearer sound) and a wider, deeper and more defined sound stage than your other sources?     Suppose you could identify the location of instruments better with this source? Then what?
 

 
It would be an illusion. Noise cannot increase resolution it reduces it, crosstalk does not improve stereo image it reduces it, a high frequency boost creates an artificial impression of detail but it is lower fidelity by definition.
 
All these artifacts and others can create a pleasant illusion. The defects in vinyl playback (may just possibly) do the same. If you like that sort of illusion that is fine and of course a matter of unasailable preference and you can on most parameters add these pleasant defects if you wish, not sure about adding crosstalk in speaker amps ? - but it is still lower fidelity.
 
The problem comes with the phrase "sounds better" - even hardened digital types can be woo'ed by the sound of vinyl even though rationally it is a far less accurate transfer of the master tapes (more distortion, more noise, relatively large speed variations, variability at different points in physical playback, hum, rumble, hiss, RIAA bodging) - does not mean it cannot sound very alluring. To this day I still want to get a turntable (again)  even though I know rationally it is a daft idea

 
In Psychology there is a thing caled the Halo effect - if we like something on one attribute we often also ascribe other positive attributes to it even if they are not true.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

In which case, simple 2 steps:
1. Blind test to determine the difference does actually exist. I personally can attest to hearing giant differences in bass impact, treble extension and even soundstage thanks to a combination of bias and volume mismatch. It astounded me at the time that such enormous differences would disappear so readily. Whilst anecdotal I would draw your attention to the infamous Stereo Review article on amp sound - when sighted-testing the amps even the self-proclaimed skeptics, who had declared they would sound the same, were amazed - the entire group agreed there were audible differences. These completely disappeared under blind conditions (not DBT, just not knowing what they were listening to).
 
2. If you determine the difference is real, take the superior-measuring piece of kit, so you have a more neutral base, and use source tone controls/EQ on PC/Separate hardware EQ to colour it to suit your preference.

 
I personally can attest to hearing giant differences in bass impact, treble extension and even soundstage thanks to a combination of bias and volume mismatch.
 
Me too.  Differences completely disappeared.
 
the infamous Stereo Review article on amp sound....
 
Ah, the infamous SR amp test.....  it was a historical landmark for the demonstration of placebo effect. 
 
Still, I  wonder if the $12000 Futterman monoblocks really sounded like or measured the same as a cheap Pioneer SS receiver with a slide volume control. 
 
(see below)
Quote:

It would be an illusion. Noise cannot increase resolution it reduces it, crosstalk does not improve stereo image it reduces it, a high frequency boost creates an artificial impression of detail but it is lower fidelity by definition.
 
All these artifacts and others can create a pleasant illusion. The defects in vinyl playback (may just possibly) do the same. If you like that sort of illusion that is fine and of course a matter of unasailable preference and you can on most parameters add these pleasant defects if you wish, not sure about adding crosstalk in speaker amps ? - but it is still lower fidelity.
 
The problem comes with the phrase "sounds better" - even hardened digital types can be woo'ed by the sound of vinyl even though rationally it is a far less accurate transfer of the master tapes (more distortion, more noise, relatively large speed variations, variability at different points in physical playback, hum, rumble, hiss, RIAA bodging) - does not mean it cannot sound very alluring. To this day I still want to get a turntable (again)  even though I know rationally it is a daft idea

 
In Psychology there is a thing caled the Halo effect - if we like something on one attribute we often also ascribe other positive attributes to it even if they are not true.

Nicky, Nicky, Nicky, how can I argue with anything you've said....... 

 
But placebo and illusion is not what I'm talking about.
 
Would you be ready to step forward and declare that the new generation of 32 bit ESS Sabre DACs sound no different from my DAC-AH DAC? 
 
Or, is it possible that the 32 bit chips actually sound different? Is it possible that they have, as claimed,  more resolution?  Is it possible that the sound  is actually be clearer or cleaner?  Is it possible that the stereo image be better?
 
The problem comes with the phrase "sounds better"
 
Sounding better is a very important thing.  It is arguably why the 650 superseded the 600 in the Senn. line, and the old argument of why not just EQ applies here as well.
 

---

 
I really dislike arguing against placebo et al.  But I've come to realize that everything does not sound the same.  There is too much variation in design and component selection for that to occur.  Sure, a lot of things that measure the same, might sound quite similar, but, not everything measures the same, or sounds the same (even with similar measurements). 
 
It's not enough to say "it measures badly" or Noise cannot increase resolution it reduces it, crosstalk does not improve stereo image it reduces it, a high frequency boost creates an artificial impression of detail but it is lower fidelity by definition if the sonic result "sounds better" as it did for the guys who bought the Carver amps or the guys who prefer tube equipment or the Wadia sound.
 
I'm also not convinced that everything that measures good sounds the same.  My little Fuze measures pretty well but  played through any of my amps,  it doesn't sound as good as what I can get from my computer rig.
 
Here are the measurements for the chip in the Fuze, (which btw, does volume digitally)  What do you think?
 

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

But on the other hand, suppose the one that sounded different actually sounded better?  Suppose the difference was that it had more resolution (cleaner, clearer sound) and a wider, deeper and more defined sound stage than your other sources?     Suppose you could identify the location of instruments better with this source? Then what?
 

 
Terms like "more defined sound stage" are pretty much meaningless. The soundstage is determined in the mix, not the playback. "Soundstage" is the most misused term in this forum. "Cleaner, clearer sound" is a really vague description. SNR, FR or THD all can affect clarity. It helps to use the proper terms to describe what you're hearing.
 
That said... If I knew that my other components had flat response, accurate dynamics and inaudible levels of distortion, I would determine what direction the imbalance was on the new component and incorporate that into my EQ curve, so ALL my components could sound better Then I would return the colored component as defective.
 
But it's hard enough to come up with a good EQ balance through careful listening and analysis. The odds of stumbling across the proper balance through using out of spec equipment is one in a million. Perhaps if you have never made any effort to correct your frequency response any deviation in the right direction would sound better. But once you get in the ballpark, corrections become more precise and specific to particular bands of the frequency spectrum. EQing by random selection just plain won't work.
 
As for deliberate deviations from "clean, flat, dynamic" sounding better than "clean, flat, dynamic".... well, been there done that. It isn't easy to achieve "clean, flat, dynamic" but when you do, nothing sounds better. Why should inaccurate sound better than the way things sound in the real world? It's like goldilocks and the three bears. This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge has a balanced frequency response!

 

[Willakan]

Assuming you're using the line-out on the fuze, that is just the measurements for the chip, which, whilst more important than normal (as in such small audio players large amounts of functionality are integrated into the chip/s involved) do not represent the entire story. NwAvGuy's measurements of the Clip+ (which has an identical audio implementation to the Fuze AFAIK) point to sizeable deviations (-50db crosstalk for example, still probably inaudible though if a little high). Before heading any further, you are using a LOD?
 
As to modern DAC chips, I'm not aware of the DAC you refer to, but I would be ready to say that the latest generation of DAC chips bring nothing audibly improved to 2-channel audio. The reasons they push out higher and higher spec'd things can be broken down thus IMO:
 
1. Need something to sell to audiophiles that is "better" and their integrity as engineers prevents them from changing the casing of one of their chips and doubling the price. Not really a major factor TBH.
2. Pushes price down - they find cheaper and cheaper ways to achieve better results, so the uber-budget DAC in your digital TV will be better in the next generation of TVs, at a similar price.
3. Kinda covered above, but makes quality more achievable - the innovations of doing things more elegants in the ultra-high end flagship chips gradually percolate down to the bottom-of-the-line uber-budget chips. Good for everyone.
 
I can safely say that 32-bit DACs will not bring any audible improvement, but they will make a lot of companies struggling to find stuff to put in their DAC's PR spiel (Jitter! Jitter! Erm...jitter!) very happy and as detailed above are ultimately a Very Good Thing.
 
Secondly, I still don't see how component variation can be a solid argument against stuff all sounding different. I've given several analogies to try to get across my viewpoint here, so I'll paraphrase - modern electronics is great. Because stuff behaves in essentially predictable ways and can be designed to very high standards, using completely different chips and a completely different circuit topology to design two DACs, assuming one of the designers is in fact not a lobotomised monkey or the budget for the entire DAC manufacturing process is $2.50, will both measure considerably beyond the threshold of audibility and hence sound the same. We can marvel that the EE folks manage to pull this stuff off on a regular basis, but the fact remains that they do. Of course, if they screw up or decide to sell stuff entirely using audiophile buzzwards (Low distortion? Who needs it when you have silver plated internal hookup wire!) you can get something that sounds very...interesting...but even then the designer has to really, really screw up.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

The problem comes with the phrase "sounds better" - even hardened digital types can be woo'ed by the sound of vinyl even though rationally it is a far less accurate transfer of the master tapes (more distortion, more noise, relatively large speed variations, variability at different points in physical playback, hum, rumble, hiss, RIAA bodging) - does not mean it cannot sound very alluring. To this day I still want to get a turntable (again)  even though I know rationally it is a daft idea

It isn't that crazy. One of the main problems with digital audio is the unlimited options for screwing up sound. Back in the analogue era, engineers tried to keep the path from microphone to listener as simple and direct as possible. The LP format has fine specifications... not as good as CD... but plenty of sound quality to provide a good listening experience. I've got a few RCA Living Stereo pressings from the 50s that would blow your socks off. But digital offers the temptation for engineers to "improve" the sound through post processing. They denoise, shape the sound, add ambience, and end up totally blunting the sound.
 
The specifications of the format are just the baseline. If the mix and mastering are bad, it isn't the format's fault.
 

 

[bigshot]

 
Quote:

Or, is it possible that the 32 bit chips actually sound different? Is it possible that they have, as claimed,  more resolution?  Is it possible that the sound  is actually be clearer or cleaner?  Is it possible that the stereo image be better?

On paper? Yes. But if you are listening with human ears, there is a limit to how much you can hear. Specs that extend beyond the range of human hearing don't "sound" better than specs that match the range of human hearing. Unless of course, you're a bat.\
 
By the way... The specs you posted there show almost a +/- 1dB variance in the frequency response as typical. That is within the range of human hearing. A frequency imbalance like that in the wrong part of the spectrum can create masking issues which can impact the clarity of the treble. Of course you could correct that with equalization, but it would be much simpler to try to find a unit that cuts those specs in half or a little better. I'm sure you could do that without spending any more money.

 

[Shike]

 
Quote:

 
Still, I  wonder if the $12000 Futterman monoblocks really sounded like or measured the same as a cheap Pioneer SS receiver with a slide volume control. 
 
(see below)

I imagine they measured and performed quite similarly if they were both operated within their design capability.  I have a pair of NHT SuperZero XU that has an impedance range from 8-16 ohms.  There's ribbons that operate at 2 ohms.  I imagine my NHT would work well on just about any receiver, even the cheapest ones with no clipping or stressing of the amplification section.  Surely, a 2 ohm ribbon would cause clipping and the receiver to shut down whereas a higher quality amplifier built to support the amount of current necessary won't.
 
 
Quote:

Would you be ready to step forward and declare that the new generation of 32 bit ESS Sabre DACs sound no different from my DAC-AH DAC?

 
Depending on what's been done I'd bet you would hear a difference.  NOS DACs are known for early roll-offs and other oddities.  I just searched google for a FR of a NOS DAC for example and head-fi prevailed:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/512389/mini-dac-tda1543-x-4-nos/225#post_7321746
 
The TDA is an old shoddy chip unsuitable for modern topologies with the goal of accurate reproduction.
 
 
Quote:

I'm also not convinced that everything that measures good sounds the same.  My little Fuze measures pretty well but  played through any of my amps,  it doesn't sound as good as what I can get from my computer rig.
 
Here are the measurements for the chip in the Fuze, (which btw, does volume digitally)  What do you think?

 
The second you start bringing digital volume controls into this we can start to have problems.  For example, is the Fuze at max volume?  What's the potentiometer on the amp set to?  What software are you using for your computer playback?  Are you using WASAPI output?
 
I think most people know that Sandisk makes competently measuring and sounding DAPs.
 

 

[bigshot]

Using older DACs is like using a Mac Plus. It was great for the time, but things are so much better now, there is no point.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

Terms like "more defined sound stage" are pretty much meaningless. The soundstage is determined in the mix, not the playback. "Soundstage" is the most misused term in this forum. "Cleaner, clearer sound" is a really vague description. SNR, FR or THD all can affect clarity. It helps to use the proper terms to describe what you're hearing.
 
That said... If I knew that my other components had flat response, accurate dynamics and inaudible levels of distortion, I would determine what direction the imbalance was on the new component and incorporate that into my EQ curve, so ALL my components could sound better Then I would return the colored component as defective.
 
But it's hard enough to come up with a good EQ balance through careful listening and analysis. The odds of stumbling across the proper balance through using out of spec equipment is one in a million. Perhaps if you have never made any effort to correct your frequency response any deviation in the right direction would sound better. But once you get in the ballpark, corrections become more precise and specific to particular bands of the frequency spectrum. EQing by random selection just plain won't work.
 
As for deliberate deviations from "clean, flat, dynamic" sounding better than "clean, flat, dynamic".... well, been there done that. It isn't easy to achieve "clean, flat, dynamic" but when you do, nothing sounds better. Why should inaccurate sound better than the way things sound in the real world? It's like goldilocks and the three bears. This porridge is too hot. This porridge is too cold. This porridge has a balanced frequency response!

It helps to use the proper terms to describe what you're hearing.
 
I suppose you should list the proper terms so we can be on the same page.
 
The second thing is that I think most of what you said, and I agree with, applies to speakers.
 


Quote:

Assuming you're using the line-out on the fuze, that is just the measurements for the chip, which, whilst more important than normal (as in such small audio players large amounts of functionality are integrated into the chip/s involved) do not represent the entire story. NwAvGuy's measurements of the Clip+ (which has an identical audio implementation to the Fuze AFAIK) point to sizeable deviations (-50db crosstalk for example, still probably inaudible though if a little high). Before heading any further, you are using a LOD?
 
As to modern DAC chips, I'm not aware of the DAC you refer to, but I would be ready to say that the latest generation of DAC chips bring nothing audibly improved to 2-channel audio. The reasons they push out higher and higher spec'd things can be broken down thus IMO:
 
1. Need something to sell to audiophiles that is "better" and their integrity as engineers prevents them from changing the casing of one of their chips and doubling the price. Not really a major factor TBH.
2. Pushes price down - they find cheaper and cheaper ways to achieve better results, so the uber-budget DAC in your digital TV will be better in the next generation of TVs, at a similar price.
3. Kinda covered above, but makes quality more achievable - the innovations of doing things more elegants in the ultra-high end flagship chips gradually percolate down to the bottom-of-the-line uber-budget chips. Good for everyone.
 
I can safely say that 32-bit DACs will not bring any audible improvement, but they will make a lot of companies struggling to find stuff to put in their DAC's PR spiel (Jitter! Jitter! Erm...jitter!) very happy and as detailed above are ultimately a Very Good Thing.
 
Secondly, I still don't see how component variation can be a solid argument against stuff all sounding different. I've given several analogies to try to get across my viewpoint here, so I'll paraphrase - modern electronics is great. Because stuff behaves in essentially predictable ways and can be designed to very high standards, using completely different chips and a completely different circuit topology to design two DACs, assuming one of the designers is in fact not a lobotomised monkey or the budget for the entire DAC manufacturing process is $2.50, will both measure considerably beyond the threshold of audibility and hence sound the same. We can marvel that the EE folks manage to pull this stuff off on a regular basis, but the fact remains that they do. Of course, if they screw up or decide to sell stuff entirely using audiophile buzzwards (Low distortion? Who needs it when you have silver plated internal hookup wire!) you can get something that sounds very...interesting...but even then the designer has to really, really screw up.

 
Before heading any further, you are using a LOD?   Yes, but there's not a noticeable difference between the two.
 
NwAvGuy's measurements    You believe his measurements because?????  You were there.  You saw him calibrate his equipment.  They have been replicated by someone you know.  You believe everything you read on the internet (sorry) with no verification what so ever.  Who is nwavguy and what is his agenda?
 
I can safely say that 32-bit DACs will not bring any audible improvement    That's interesting.  What have you based that statement on?

 
Quote:

It isn't that crazy. One of the main problems with digital audio is the unlimited options for screwing up sound. Back in the analogue era, engineers tried to keep the path from microphone to listener as simple and direct as possible. The LP format has fine specifications... not as good as CD... but plenty of sound quality to provide a good listening experience. I've got a few RCA Living Stereo pressings from the 50s that would blow your socks off. But digital offers the temptation for engineers to "improve" the sound through post processing. They denoise, shape the sound, add ambience, and end up totally blunting the sound.
 
The specifications of the format are just the baseline. If the mix and mastering are bad, it isn't the format's fault.
 

The LP format has fine specifications...    and surface noise.
 
I've got a few RCA Living Stereo pressings from the 50s that would blow your socks off.    Once you get past the surface noise, the 55-65 dB dynamic range and the snap, crackle and pops.  (Break out the Diskwasher kit and the zerostat and fire up your DBX118.)
 
Quote:

On paper? Yes. But if you are listening with human ears, there is a limit to how much you can hear. Specs that extend beyond the range of human hearing don't "sound" better than specs that match the range of human hearing. Unless of course, you're a bat.\
 
By the way... The specs you posted there show almost a +/- 1dB variance in the frequency response as typical. That is within the range of human hearing. A frequency imbalance like that in the wrong part of the spectrum can create masking issues which can impact the clarity of the treble. Of course you could correct that with equalization, but it would be much simpler to try to find a unit that cuts those specs in half or a little better. I'm sure you could do that without spending any more money.

 
it would be much simpler to try to find a unit that cuts those specs in half or a little better  What units did you have in mind?

 
Quote:

 

I imagine they measured and performed quite similarly if they were both operated within their design capability.  I have a pair of NHT SuperZero XU that has an impedance range from 8-16 ohms.  There's ribbons that operate at 2 ohms.  I imagine my NHT would work well on just about any receiver, even the cheapest ones with no clipping or stressing of the amplification section.  Surely, a 2 ohm ribbon would cause clipping and the receiver to shut down whereas a higher quality amplifier built to support the amount of current necessary won't.
 
 
 
Depending on what's been done I'd bet you would hear a difference.  NOS DACs are known for early roll-offs and other oddities.  I just searched google for a FR of a NOS DAC for example and head-fi prevailed:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/512389/mini-dac-tda1543-x-4-nos/225#post_7321746
 
The TDA is an old shoddy chip unsuitable for modern topologies with the goal of accurate reproduction.
 
 
 
The second you start bringing digital volume controls into this we can start to have problems.  For example, is the Fuze at max volume?  What's the potentiometer on the amp set to?  What software are you using for your computer playback?  Are you using WASAPI output?
 
I think most people know that Sandisk makes competently measuring and sounding DAPs.
 

 
I'm not sure where you're going but......
 
For example, is the Fuze at max volume? yes, but as a matter of interest, the early fuze OS allowed you to control the volume of the Line Out as well as the HPO.
 
What's the potentiometer on the amp set to? not sure what you mean here.... if it's my headphone amp, it's set to a comfortable level.  If you want to know if it's around the mid-point, it's not.

What software are you using for your computer playback? foobar
 
Are you using WASAPI output? no, either HiFace kernal streaming, or ASIO4ALL
 
Quote:

Using older DACs is like using a Mac Plus. It was great for the time, but things are so much better now, there is no point.

Isn't that a contridiction or will tomorrow's DACs be better than today's?
 

 

[bigshot]

Re: Clean Flat Dynamic
The only difference between speakers and headphones is the effect the room has on the sound and the increased difficulty of controlling larger transducers to perform to precise specs. The goal however is the same... clean, flat, dynamic. The best headphones sound that way, and so do the best speaker installations.
 
Re: LPs
50-65 dB dynamic range is plenty for all but the most dynamic music, and even then, it would probably not be pleasant for the neighbors if you use speakers. Surface noise is not a problem with a good impulse noise reduction system like the Burwen. Also, records in the 50s were pressed on high quality vinyl to very careful specifications. Some of them are better than even audiophile pressings today. The noise floor isn't objectionable with 50s vinyl. (70s and 80s vinyl is a completely different story, however.)
 
Re: Old DACs
When digital audio began, the redbook format allowed for the full range of human hearing, but compromises were made in the manufacture of certain DAC chips for practical reasons that no longer exist. Today, even inexpensive DACs cover the full audible frequency range without rolloffs. Future DACs can't get any better than fully exploiting the limits of the redbook format. Any further improvements would be beyond the range of human hearing.
 
I'm afraid I use a Mac based media server which has built in audio. I can't recommend an outboard DAC because I don't know much about them, but I can recommend the built in optical out audio on the Mac Mini. I'm sure you can find something comparable in the non-Mac world without too much effort. +/- 1 dB FR average isn't great specs. Even $50 WalMart DVD players perform better than that.

 

[endless402]

ah optical out audio on mac mini
 
now it makes sense!

 

[bigshot]

If you're interested, my Mini is loaded with 25 TB of A/V on Drobos and it drives a 5:1 system and an Epson 1080p projector with a ten foot screen. It may be a small box, but it puts out spectacular video and sound. It is beyond just good sounding. It's sweet.

 

[upstateguy]

Quote:

<snip>
 I can recommend the built in optical out audio on the Mac Mini.

<snip

I could be mistaken, but isn't the optical out of the mac mini known for having horrible jitter??
 

 

[bigshot]

I could be mistaken, but isn't the optical out of the mac mini known for having horrible jitter?

Macs have always had fine sound with flat response, a low noise floor and inaudible distortion and jitter. Any current Apple product sounds good, even the iPod. There is no reason for an external DAC with a Mac unless you're recording in high bitrates with something like Protools.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstateguy /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
NwAvGuy's measurements    You believe his measurements because?????  You were there.  You saw him calibrate his equipment.  They have been replicated by someone you know.  You believe everything you read on the internet (sorry) with no verification what so ever.  Who is nwavguy and what is his agenda?

 
Why do you assume he has an agenda?  Because he's proven that manufacturers don't always measure their gear or measure it right?
 
Quote:

I can safely say that 32-bit DACs will not bring any audible improvement    That's interesting.  What have you based that statement on?

 
Even though I didn't say it, I'll help by prefacing it for them -- "in comparison to modern DACs".  I would never say a TDA sounds the same, and this is of course assuming they haven't enforced a digital filter with roll-off ala Wadia or HiFiMan.
 
Quote:

The LP format has fine specifications...    and surface noise.

 
I've got a few RCA Living Stereo pressings from the 50s that would blow your socks off.    Once you get past the surface noise, the 55-65 dB dynamic range and the snap, crackle and pops.  (Break out the Diskwasher kit and the zerostat and fire up your DBX118.)

 
Many LPs benefit from better mastering though . . . as in they don't suffer from loudness wars.  Those that do sound terrible on all fronts though.
 
Quote:

I'm not sure where you're going but......
 
For example, is the Fuze at max volume? yes, but as a matter of interest, the early fuze OS allowed you to control the volume of the Line Out as well as the HPO.
 
What's the potentiometer on the amp set to? not sure what you mean here.... if it's my headphone amp, it's set to a comfortable level.  If you want to know if it's around the mid-point, it's not.

What software are you using for your computer playback? foobar
 
Are you using WASAPI output? no, either HiFace kernal streaming, or ASIO4ALL

 
I'm getting at a few things.  Digital volume can cause loss of resolution in terms of dynamic range (have you seen the 16-bit vs. 24-bit threads?  I'm talking about losing some of those 16-bits).  For the volume control of the amp, I want to know if it's in different positions from the Fuze compare to say your PC.  Volume controls can have channel tracking error at certain points making audible differences.  As for software, I wanted to make sure K-Mixer wasn't getting in the way.
 
I guess I should also have asked which DAC are you using with your PC.  If it's your AH-DAC then you may like the oddball FR.
 
Quote:

Isn't that a contridiction or will tomorrow's DACs be better than today's?

 
While I didn't say it I'll delve into it.  Let's say you're working on building a calculator.  A .1mhz processing speed to 10mhz will be easily discerned.  What about at 1ghz?  2, 3, 4?  It's a combination of Moore's law and Law of Diminishing Returns.  The time for discernible DACs has long past unless you're engineering a sound modification into it that's clearly audible and measurable (such as a digital filter with early roll-off -- see HM801).  The TI, AD, AKM, Wolfson, etc DACs of today should be able to produce the same audible results as the ESS should nothing to shape the sound be forced.