[DaveBSC]

Quote:

I read in Robert Harley's "High-Performance Audio Systems" that THC, while certainly capable of being measured and is certainly a good design goal, is often a misleading piece of evidence in  the actual sound being reproduced because certain feedback designs can reduce distortion while degrading the actual sound quality. Some amp manufacturers would design for enhanced specs so their equipment could be more easily marketed, even though it didn't sound as good.
 
It's interesting to see that people in double-blind tests don't seem to be able to find improvements in individual component improvements, I wonder if they can reliably hear differences when all these improvements are lumped together in a "blueprinted" system.

I think you mean THD lol. Harmonic distortion is actually one of the ore useless specs out there, especially when it comes to amplifiers. 1% is considered clipping, and anything below 0.1% is generally considered inaudible. Even dirt cheap amps rarely rise above 0.05%, and I can't say I could hope to tell an amp that's 0.001% apart from one that's 0.005%. Low THD also definitely tells you nothing about the sound of an amp. I generally can't stand ICEpower amplifiers, and they are all low distortion. S/NR, channel separation, slew rate, and damping factor are more important measurements, but good measurements does NOT automatically equal good sound.
 

 

[Willakan]

Not sure about that - no one measurement is the be and and end all ofc, but if everything measures well, I don't honestly believe something could sound bad (due to what, stuff we aren't measuring?)

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

Not sure about that - no one measurement is the be and and end all ofc, but if everything measures well, I don't honestly believe something could sound bad (due to what, stuff we aren't measuring?)

 
Benchmark DACs have great measurements, and I do not like them a bit. Ask a speaker designer if they can model a great measuring speaker and then build it without even bothering to listen. I don't think so. 
 

 

[Willakan]

If you don't like the Benchmark, it being effectively perfect for all intents and purposes, I am led to two possible conclusions:
1. You expected to dislike the Benchmark and hence did. Gonna assume you're not that closed minded

2. You prefer some degree of colouration in the sound. Nothing wrong with that, most people do IMO (eg I think I prefer slightly toned down bass, although not completely decided on that, and if I want an absence of excessive bass I will choose my headphone, rather than my source and amp, accordingly)
 
But the thing is, if you have a Benchmark you have a completely neutral, virtually perfect base from which you can have software side 24-bit EQ and DSP (at the actual digital source) to change the signature - boost bass, add tubelike distortion ect. Start with some crappy NOS DAC that a few people said "sounded musical like vinyl" (vomit) and you have nowhere to go with your high distortion overpriced piece of junk (I'm sure there are NOS DACs that sound fine, but that's in spite of the fact they are NOS rather than due to IMO)
 
Surely the aim of a piece of hi-fi equipment is to deliver the music exactly as it is recorded (as the Benchmark DAC undoubtedly does) and then tone controls on your amp or DSPs or whatever can tweak the signature to your preference?
 
And speakers are rather more difficult to measure than cables/DACs/amps.

 

[Josey]

Quote:

 
I think you mean THD lol.
 

Well, that's embarrassing, but I did acknowledge an ill-spent youth.
 
 
 
I'm not saying this is right or that I agree with it, but Robert Harley, editor-in-chief for The Absolute Sound, writes in The Complete Guide to High End Audio that cables are major players in the SQ of a system. Excerpts:
 
"Not only is the sound of a cable partially system-dependent, but the sonic characteristics of a specific cable will work better musically in some systems than in others."
 
"...cables and interconnects need time to break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage depth."
 
"Even if a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used, it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few days."
 
"The smooth cable may lose some musical information, but the high-resolution cable can sound analytical and bright."
 
"Many cables overlay the treble with a coarse texture."
 
 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

But the thing is, if you have a Benchmark you have a completely neutral, virtually perfect base from which you can have software side 24-bit EQ and DSP (at the actual digital source) to change the signature - boost bass, add tubelike distortion ect. Start with some crappy NOS DAC that a few people said "sounded musical like vinyl" (vomit) and you have nowhere to go with your high distortion overpriced piece of junk (I'm sure there are NOS DACs that sound fine, but that's in spite of the fact they are NOS rather than due to IMO)
 
Surely the aim of a piece of hi-fi equipment is to deliver the music exactly as it is recorded (as the Benchmark DAC undoubtedly does) and then tone controls on your amp or DSPs or whatever can tweak the signature to your preference?

See when I hear a Benchmark, I hear bleached, sterile, and antiseptic sound that I do not like at all. I know some audiophiles tend to think of this type of sound as "neutral", but that's not how I hear it. That's not to say I want to run out and get a Mhdt or Red Wine DAC. That's going to the extreme in the other direction.
 
I don't have a problem with delta-sigma, and I think the engineers at Accustic Arts, Berkeley, EMM etc. can make fantastic sounding DACs. The new Meitner DAC could be a killer and is definitely on my audition list. Compared to these DACs, the Benchmark sounds like a bottle of Clorox.

 

[Willakan]

But that to me is infinitely confusing, as in the words of the Audio Critic (objectivist audio publication)
 
"It should be obvious from the above discussion, at least to those familiar with The Audio Critic, that the Benchmark DAC1 has no sound of its own, transparently passing on to its output the quality of its input. Whatever sonic peculiarities may perchance be audible are due to the input signal, not the DAC1 circuit. Even if the circuit were a lot less perfect, that would still be the case. Absolute sonic transparency is a concept innocent audiophiles are uncomfortable with, believing that all audio components—CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them—exhibit varying degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, grain, air, etc. That it isn’t so, except in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted by professional engineers but not by the high-end pundits and high-end manufacturers, who would be out of business if the truth were to sink in universally."
 
So hence if you don't like the Benchmark, I am forced to conclude you simply don't like the music as recorded. Again, it's kinda hard to word this without coming across as an attack on your listening preferences, which it really isn't meant to be - see earlier comments on colouration. But I can't see how sound that is mechanically perfect can sound off unless:
1. It's a bad recording.
2. Aforementioned variation in preferences.
3. You have decided to hate the sound in advance and are led by bias, which I already dismissed out of hand.
 
Having said that, would be intrigued if you could link a comprehensive set of measurements from some DACs you DO enjoy.

 

[jcx]

RCA cables do differ in meaningful terms - in EMI rejection and hum suppression
 
these have to do with the quality of the shield/braid and its termination to the connectors
 
the small leakage current from all line powered equipment will flow in part in the RCA shield/gnd so heavier Cu in the braid can make real difference in hum
 
good coverage and 360 degree termination of the shield braid to the the outer RCA shell also improves rejection of external RF interference
 
absolute cheapest moulded RCA IC can have literally a dozen strands in the "shield" with more open area in the braid (or even loose twist instead of braid) than covered and those too few strands can be gathered in pigtails to leave open loop area where they are soldered to the connector shell
 
 
"'Exotic cables will not stop noise. Expensive cables, even if double or triple shielded, made of 100% unobtainium, and hand woven by virgins will have no significant effect on hum or buzz. Only the resistance of the grounded conductor can make a difference.' If you have to use coax, Belden 8241F, with a low-resistance copper-braid shield, works well for audio and video."
from:
Washington June AES - SMPTE.org

 

 

[DaveBSC]

Quote:

But that to me is infinitely confusing, as in the words of the Audio Critic (objectivist audio publication)
 
"It should be obvious from the above discussion, at least to those familiar with The Audio Critic, that the Benchmark DAC1 has no sound of its own, transparently passing on to its output the quality of its input. Whatever sonic peculiarities may perchance be audible are due to the input signal, not the DAC1 circuit. Even if the circuit were a lot less perfect, that would still be the case. Absolute sonic transparency is a concept innocent audiophiles are uncomfortable with, believing that all audio components—CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them—exhibit varying degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, grain, air, etc. That it isn’t so, except in the case of loudspeakers, is a fact calmly accepted by professional engineers but not by the high-end pundits and high-end manufacturers, who would be out of business if the truth were to sink in universally."
 
So hence if you don't like the Benchmark, I am forced to conclude you simply don't like the music as recorded. Again, it's kinda hard to word this without coming across as an attack on your listening preferences, which it really isn't meant to be - see earlier comments on colouration. But I can't see how sound that is mechanically perfect can sound off unless:
1. It's a bad recording.
2. Aforementioned variation in preferences.
3. You have decided to hate the sound in advance and are led by bias, which I already dismissed out of hand.
 
Having said that, would be intrigued if you could link a comprehensive set of measurements from some DACs you DO enjoy.

The amount of respect I have for the Audio Critic and his "reviews" is nil. I've read that review before, and if I remember correctly he devoted all of one paragraph to describing the sound of the Benchmark, much of which was spent making fun of people who rely on critical listening skills, and deriding the idea that a DAC with solid measurements can even have a sound. He seems to view audio component design as some sort of sonic pass/fail system, where once your measurements achieve a certain degree, your design has "passed" and its musical output will be "perfect". Therefore, all components which have "passed" will be identical in their signature. This: "believing that all audio components—CD players, preamplifiers, amplifiers, tuners, all of them—exhibit varying degrees of soundstaging, front-to-back depth, grain, air, etc. That it isn’t so except in the case of loudspeakers" says it all. It shows just stunning levels of ignorance about the process of reproducing sound.
 
I don't think there is such a thing as perfect design or perfect sound, and certainly the idea that you can achieve perfection with a $1,000 DAC is laughable.
 
As for the measured performance of DACs that I like, two that spring to mind are the Theta Gen VIII, and Mark Levinson 360S. Both are what I would consider to be pretty neutral, and certainly not excessively bright or bleached like the Benchmark. The Gen VIII is a bit bass lean (fixed in Series 2), but otherwise these DACs despite their age can smash brand new supposedly "perfect" DACs to bits when you put down the measuring tools and actually listen to some music. Oh, and I bet you and Mr. Audio Critic will get a kick out of this little tidbit about the differences between the original Levinson 360 and the 360S:
 
• the No.360S has four 32-bit SHARC DSPs, the No.360 two;
• the No.360S has four-layer cyanate-ester printed-circuit boards; the No.360 has two-layer fiberglass-epoxy boards;
• the No.360S has separate, discrete power regulation for its two channels, with OSCON caps for local reservoirs; and
• the No.360S uses hand-selected, bulk metal-foil resistors (calibrated to a tolerance of ±0.0002%), while the No.360 uses Vishay potentiometers.
 
The result of all these enhancements? The No.360 and No.360S have absolutely identical specs!
 
Yes, the 360S's fairly considerable sonic improvements over the vanilla 360 are somehow nowhere to be found in the all conquering measurements, which by the way can be found below.
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/theta-digital-generation-viii-da-converter-measurements
http://www.stereophile.com/content/mark-levinson-no360-da-converter-measurements
 
 

 

[Willakan]

Now I suspect it would be impossible to distinguish those two DACs under DBT.
I find the idea that there is something unmeasurable in equipment whose only distinguishing feature appears to be price rather bizarre.
 
"the idea that you can achieve perfection with a $1,000 DAC is laughable"
Why? The only thing that separates the Benchmark from the DACs that the stereophile reviewers state are "surely better" is price. It seems strange that people have an expectation that good audio costs ludicrous amounts of money. Why shouldn't the Benchmark be transparent? All the numbers say so, and the puported differences in sound all disappear when testing is done in an appropriately scientific way.
 
Why are the claims of the Audio Critic so unreasonable? Sound degradation can be split into three types: frequency response deviation, standard distortion (encompassing THD and IMD) and time-based error (such as jitter). If all these factors are addressed, you have something that should by all means sound great. Why should a DAC whose only provable distinction over such pathetic cheap crap as the Benchmark is a monstrous price tag sound better? Why should amps that all measure superbly sound different - unless their sound can be attributed to some kind of pleasurable distortion, or more likely here expectations based on the price tag.
 
The problem is, this is the point where I have to come out and state my opinion that these differences are largely due to bias/placebo/whatever you want to call it on the part of the listener, at which point it seems that I am implying that the listener is an idiot and people get very offended. If I now try to justify how succumbing to these biases is only human, I just come across as a pompous, patronising twit (going for another word there, but I suspect that might break the profanity rules

)
 
I don't get a "kick" out of any of this - I don't sit at home giggling hysterically at the high end audio market and inviting audio engineers around for cocktail parties where we take turns to take cheapshots at the extremes of audiophilia. I just find the idea that something unmeasurable pervades high end audio, that can only be heard in casual listening conditions where sighted bias is very much acting upon the listener, rather difficult to believe in, to put it mildly. 
 
EDIT: Resistors calibrated to 0.0002%? What a total waste of time! 

 

[milosz]

A lot of the things people "hear" from cables, amplifiers, capacitors, DACs, etc, disappears in blind testing.  I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the "differences" people hear in various components are related to a kind of placebo effect.  
 
I really wish the Amazing Randi would offer his $1 million prize again re: hearing the difference in speaker or RCA cables- I would love to see Michael Fremer try to prove he can hear the difference between different copper wires.
 
(Of course he'd have to do the test with speakers cables that are JUST WIRE- no fair using speaker cables that have capacitors and inductors in them, as some fancy cables do.  They actually have "networks" in them- filters, really.  In other words, some cables have fixed tone controls built into them.  For that you pay extra- a GREAT DEAL extra.)
 
If you want to see what I think is some REAL snake oil, go to the Machina Dynamica site.  They have products there that I can not believe they are allowed to sell under the fraud statutes- for example, the "Teleportation Tweak" - where you pay them $60 and they call your home or cell phone and play some kind of signal over the phone.  You don't have to feed the tone into your hi fi or anything, the signal just has to be sent to your phone. Your audio or video gear doesn't even need to be turned on.
 
Here's what they claim this phone signal will do:

1. "The Teleportation Tweak has a profound effect on the sound of your system: (1) Clearer, (2) More information, (3) Greater frequency extension and (4) Lower distortion. "
2. "The Teleportation Tweak will also improve any video system in your house, including plasma, HDTV and high end projection systems -- better contrast, color saturation, color fidelity and definition."

 
Apparently, people are buy this stuff.  P.T. Barnum was right.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Quote:

Well, that's embarrassing, but I did acknowledge an ill-spent youth.
 
 
 
I'm not saying this is right or that I agree with it, but Robert Harley, editor-in-chief for The Absolute Sound, writes in The Complete Guide to High End Audio that cables are major players in the SQ of a system. Excerpts:
 
"Not only is the sound of a cable partially system-dependent, but the sonic characteristics of a specific cable will work better musically in some systems than in others."
 
"...cables and interconnects need time to break in before they sound their best. Before break-in, a cable often sounds bright, hard, fatiguing, congested, and lacking in soundstage depth."
 
"Even if a cable has had significant use, after a long period of not being used, it may not sound its best until you've put music through it for a few days."
 
"The smooth cable may lose some musical information, but the high-resolution cable can sound analytical and bright."
 
"Many cables overlay the treble with a coarse texture."
 
 

Thing is, all of the above can be explained by Robert Harley's own reaction to cables. He only suggests the difference he hears is inherant in the cable, he cannot provide any evidence to show that is the case.

 

[Josey]

Quote:

Thing is, all of the above can be explained by Robert Harley's own reaction to cables. He only suggests the difference he hears is inherant in the cable, he cannot provide any evidence to show that is the case.

Absolutely. He provided no evidence. But don't you find it mind-blowing that a person near the top of his profession, a person who reviews the best audio equipment for a living, the author of multiple technical audio books filled with the science of sound reproduction -- a person who has to be familiar with this debate -- can find such clear evidence for the performance enhancement of high-end cables?

 

[dvw]

Without claiming any difference, he will be out of business. In today's electronics, equipment manufacturers no longer do any critical design. all designs are done by semiconductor companies. And because of investment involved, (typically $5 to $10M), the have to sell it to a broad market. Without making any esoteric claims, how are "high end" audio equipment companies going to justify the large price difference?
Is it a coincidence that all these cable talks started right after CD is invented?
 
Quote:

Absolutely. He provided no evidence. But don't you find it mind-blowing that a person near the top of his profession, a person who reviews the best audio equipment for a living, the author of multiple technical audio books filled with the science of sound reproduction -- a person who has to be familiar with this debate -- can find such clear evidence for the performance enhancement of high-end cables?

 

 

[sgrossklass]

Quote:

Without making any esoteric claims, how are "high end" audio equipment companies going to justify the large price difference?

That's the old problem of product differentiation. Apparently there still are too many who can make equipment that employs state of the art engineering, performs well, is flexible in meeting the user's needs, looks and feels excellent, and is built like the proverbial tank. Besides, people seem to be hell-bent on pure sonic differences. I sure would prefer, say, a nice-looking Accuphase amp to a nondescript black box that technically does exactly the same. (Of course if it weren't visible in the first place, the nondescript black box would do the job just fine.)
 
Cables are particularly problematic - let's be honest, there's not that much to an audio cable. First of all you need the right kind of topology (usually unbalanced for us), the cable itself needs to perform well (which for coax usually means good shielding and not breaking the capacitance record, especially if it gets lengthy), and you want some mechanically and electrically solid connectors (so maybe not the el cheapo quick-tarnishing variant). And that's about it. No rocket science involved.
Of course there are several kinds of "special needs" cables with extra requirements, like ones you want to use for phono MM (total capacitance should be known and specified then), or headphone cables (these need to be thin and light without becoming too fragile or getting too much resistance). But that's quite doable, too.