[leeperry]

all DAC's sound the same, all opamps sound the same...oh gawd, nðt ågåïñ

 

[oatmeal769]

Don't be swayed either way.  Using foobar and the AB-X comparison plug-in, you can test the theories yourself.  
My experience is as follows.  I had a P.S. Audio level 3 mod DAC, a Tien ZERO Dac, and a Little Dot DAC 1.  I made a series of high def recordings using them.  I posted all the results, as well as the recordings here, some time ago.  
It's safe to say that myself, and several others who listened to what I'd posted were unable to tell a reliable difference between any of them.  Some "knew" that they could hear a difference, but none were able to demonstrate this with results beyond random guessing.  
I'd say that if you buy a stand-alone DAC at a price of say $150 or more, it will convert digital to analog with an accuracy better than anyone's ear could ever discern.  Any more money is a waste on glamour and placebo.  That isn't necessarily bad, Many here enjoy the expense, and esotaric nature of high end components, and delight in believing they can hear things that they cannot.  It's their money, more power to them.

 

[tohenk2]

Quote:

So do you think you would be able to determine the components of a DAC without opening it, just by how it sounds? That would make an interesting test.
 
I'm not sure how measurements aren't indicative when all the differences are well below audibility. It doesn't matter how the frequency response deviates from one DAC to another of the deviations are on the order of 0.1 dB.

This reminds me of the salesperson who kept telling me I could not have possibly heard a high sqeak in a Yamaha SACD. Yes, he knew it was there, it was a known issue with this model (for me it was only a known issue after he told me so!). But I could not possibly have heard a noise so high ...
Point is that "well below audiblity" is very subjective, and even more so when properly amplified. But I agree that measurements alone are not indicative. (I agree with someone's tagline that says: If it sounds rotten but measures right, we've measured the wrong thing.)
 

 

[Hughkk]

as stated above, use foobar and change between your sound card and DAC for a song.
As i only have entry level dac (audinst), it will take a while to notice the difference. But u will notice that it is more smooth

 

[tomb]

Quote:

This reminds me of the salesperson who kept telling me I could not have possibly heard a high sqeak in a Yamaha SACD. Yes, he knew it was there, it was a known issue with this model (for me it was only a known issue after he told me so!). But I could not possibly have heard a noise so high ...
Point is that "well below audiblity" is very subjective, and even more so when properly amplified. But I agree that measurements alone are not indicative. (I agree with someone's tagline that says: If it sounds rotten but measures right, we've measured the wrong thing.)
 

Good post - especially that last statement.  There's a bit too much blind faith in measurements around here, IMHO.
 
Quote:

Don't be swayed either way.  Using foobar and the AB-X comparison plug-in, you can test the theories yourself.  
My experience is as follows.  I had a P.S. Audio level 3 mod DAC, a Tien ZERO Dac, and a Little Dot DAC 1.  I made a series of high def recordings using them.  I posted all the results, as well as the recordings here, some time ago.  
It's safe to say that myself, and several others who listened to what I'd posted were unable to tell a reliable difference between any of them.  Some "knew" that they could hear a difference, but none were able to demonstrate this with results beyond random guessing.  
I'd say that if you buy a stand-alone DAC at a price of say $150 or more, it will convert digital to analog with an accuracy better than anyone's ear could ever discern.  Any more money is a waste on glamour and placebo.  That isn't necessarily bad, Many here enjoy the expense, and esotaric nature of high end components, and delight in believing they can hear things that they cannot.  It's their money, more power to them.

IMHO, this may simply be an indication that commercial DACs competing in the same market tend to evolve to the same quality of sound in order to be competitive.  Or, it could simply be what I suggested earlier in this thread - similar output coupling caps (output sound will take on the majority characteristic of the capacitors, regardless of the DAC) or similar output opamps (same as output coupling caps, but not as prominent).
 
What you say about commercial DACs and their price point may be true to an extent, but I think it's more market-driven than a true result of DAC similarity.  Every DAC chip can be different and every DAC chip can vary widely in its implementation.  I'm not saying that they do at or below a certain price-point, but there's a point somewhere above that where significant differences are noticed.  Or, in a DIY-world, they can vary widely in sound characteristics even at relatively low price points.
 
Just an example, but I sell/kit two DACs that sell for less than $50.  I'm not advertising and won't mention them specifically except to say that one is based on output coupling caps and sounds very similar to two other DACs that came before it that used the same chip family (TI PCM2702).  However, another DAC below that $50 is based on a DAC chip with a charge-pump scheme (Wolfson WM8524), negating the use of output coupling caps.  It sounds totally different.  I think the hundreds of builders that have built the charge-pump DAC compared to the thousand or more that were built in the family of the other DAC, can all attest to the fact that both DACs sound quite different. 

 

 

[Willakan]

Yes, because blind faith in sighted listening is so much better.
If you cannot measure it, it isn't audible. C'est tout. Then again, half the stuff out there lacks any measurements at all, so God knows how some of it performs.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

What you say about commercial DACs and their price point may be true to an extent, but I think it's more market-driven than a true result of DAC similarity.  Every DAC chip can be different and every DAC chip can vary widely in its implementation.  I'm not saying that they do at or below a certain price-point, but there's a point somewhere above that where significant differences are noticed.  Or, in a DIY-world, they can vary widely in sound characteristics even at relatively low price points.
 
Just an example, but I sell/kit two DACs that sell for less than $50.  I'm not advertising and won't mention them specifically except to say that one is based on output coupling caps and sounds very similar to two other DACs that came before it that used the same chip family (TI PCM2702).  However, another DAC below that $50 is based on a DAC chip with a charge-pump scheme (Wolfson WM8524), negating the use of output coupling caps.  It sounds totally different.  I think the hundreds of builders that have built the charge-pump DAC compared to the thousand or more that were built in the family of the other DAC, can all attest to the fact that both DACs sound quite different. 

 

Doubt it.  Post some volume-matched recordings without saying which is which.  see if anyone else can hear a difference in what you think you hear.  
No one is saying the difference isn't there.  I'm saying no one can hear it.
 

 

[estreeter]

I dont know what some of the other people in this thread are ranting about, but given a choice between the HO on my laptop and my MSII, I'll take the USB DAC every day of the week. Could I tell the difference between the MSII and the DAC in the uHA-4 ? On some music, I believe I could - on some, I wouldnt particularly care, but I would take both over onboard sound on a laptop - YMMV. 

 

[francoamerican]

Quote:

 
 
The TC7510 is using such an obsolete DAC chip that they actually burn the top of its package w/ acid, but it's supposedly an old chip from CS. Obviously, old Delta/Sigma DAC's(that don't even reach 96dB of SNR) don't sound as soon as the newest...as you've noticed

I just want to clarify for the record this is not true.   Say what you will about beresford's forum activities, and even performance - but it has a PCM1716E.
 

 

[leeperry]

I just want to clarify for the record this is not true.   Say what you will about beresford's forum activities, and even performance - but it has a PCM1716E.

My bad! I mixed w/ the Maverick: http://www.head-fi.org/t/446764/maverick-audio-dac-amp/720#post_6333834

 

[francoamerican]

No problem.  It just means I have even more golden ears than i thought i did!

 

[glenda]

Quote:

Don't be swayed either way.  Using foobar and the AB-X comparison plug-in, you can test the theories yourself.  
My experience is as follows.  I had a P.S. Audio level 3 mod DAC, a Tien ZERO Dac, and a Little Dot DAC 1.  I made a series of high def recordings using them.  I posted all the results, as well as the recordings here, some time ago.  
It's safe to say that myself, and several others who listened to what I'd posted were unable to tell a reliable difference between any of them.  Some "knew" that they could hear a difference, but none were able to demonstrate this with results beyond random guessing.  
I'd say that if you buy a stand-alone DAC at a price of say $150 or more, it will convert digital to analog with an accuracy better than anyone's ear could ever discern.  Any more money is a waste on glamour and placebo.  That isn't necessarily bad, Many here enjoy the expense, and esotaric nature of high end components, and delight in believing they can hear things that they cannot.  It's their money, more power to them.

Don't take offense,  just healthy debate about an important subject.    Hi-def recordings  means budget computer interfaced ADC ?  So you compared three S-D DAC's recorded with a S-D ADC, no masterclocking,no studio?  I guess top studios should throw away their PM2's and other quality ADC/DAC's?   Right?  If all DAC's sound the same then all ADC's sound the same and hell recording engineers should just be using $150 sound cards?
 
 
 
Can't measure it means it is inaudible?    We can't measure an electron either,  they don't matter?   100 Years ago we couldn't measure the ozone layer,  so it didn't matter.  Today we can't measure the ear's temporal membrane response to sound,  so it doesn't matter,   only thing that matters are soundcard measurements, fancy soundcard measurements (dscope) and the subsequent FFT's,   yep we have it all figured out.  The perception of hearing is a closed book.  A few people on the internet have perception nailed it down to dsope measurements ,  hell you guys should all be awarded a collective Nobel Prize. 
 
I mean you can explain why we commonly hold conversiation with another person in a crowd who's voice is 2x lower than the noise floor and not "measureable",  oh wait a minute ,  maybe a guy with a soundcard and a few DAC's isn't a psychoacoustics scientist? 
 
Oh hell what do I know ,  but I respect the work being done,  and don't dismiss it.  Hell the earth was flat because we couldn't measure it,  ok I'll stop.

 

[Pudu]

... Hell the earth was flat because we couldn't measure it,  ok I'll stop.

No , the Earth seemed flat because our perceptions were lying to us. You might want to use a different analogy in this particular debate.

 

[oatmeal769]

Quote:

   Hi-def recordings  means budget computer interfaced ADC ?
Actually, I used the top-end E-Mu interface in a box set up solely for Soundforge and Pro-tools.  Both are industry standard recording/editing tools.

So you compared three S-D DAC's recorded with a S-D ADC, no masterclocking,no studio? 
This is incorrect.

I guess top studios should throw away their PM2's and other quality ADC/DAC's?   Right?  If all DAC's sound the same then all ADC's sound the same and hell recording engineers should just be using $150 sound cards?
Many (but not all) of the latest top recordings have done exactly that.
 
Can't measure it means it is inaudible?    We can't measure an electron either,  they don't matter?   100 Years ago we couldn't measure the ozone layer,  so it didn't matter.  Today we can't measure the ear's temporal membrane response to sound,  so it doesn't matter,   only thing that matters are soundcard measurements, fancy soundcard measurements (dscope) and the subsequent FFT's,   yep we have it all figured out.  The perception of hearing is a closed book.  A few people on the internet have perception nailed it down to dsope measurements ,  hell you guys should all be awarded a collective Nobel Prize. 
No debating whether it's measurable, or audible... One can't prove a negative.  I can't prove that you can't hear a difference.  What I can prove is that you cannot SHOW that you can hear a difference.
 

 

 

[Argo Duck]

Not sure our perceptions are lying to us. The 'flat earth' model is perfectly accurate and workable for many practical purposes., e.g. construction of a house. Within the framework that sustains the perception - to wit, that of a being about six feet tall on a very large sphere, having the eyes we do, etc - we see what we should see.
 
Similarly, Newtonian physics is a perfectly accurate model for many practical purposes, even though its theoretical foundation is "wrong".
 
The problem I think is that - as glenda suggested elsewhere - lacking a proper and complete model of whatever it is we (audiophiles) are doing, we cannot decide meaningful hypotheses to test, nor determine the relative effect of many of the things we can measure. In science, 'facts' (measurements) don't mean anything in isolation: or rather, they mean different things depending on which (supported) theory or model is being applied at the time.
 
In general, I think we have a lot of data ATM but lack a sufficient theory to account for it. We're at about the level physics was a few centuries ago. To make things worse, we have to make buying decisions based on this unsatisfactory and fragmented 'knowledge'.
 
Quote:

No , the Earth seemed flat because our perceptions were lying to us. You might want to use a different analogy in this particular debate.