[infinitesymphony]

You're trying to put across the idea that everyone hears the same and all DACs perform flawlessly under all conditions regardless of parts, quality, and external factors. Talk about oversimplification! This has not been my experience, nor has it been the experience of arguably most of Head-Fi, nor is it the experience of most people who record and produce audio.
 
I don't inherently 'believe' in anything, but do I think jitter, cables, and power conditioning can result in differences? Yes, and not always positive ones (ex. anecdotally speaking, my experience with lower-end power conditioners). One area we can both agree on is that after a certain point, it's not worth throwing more money at a problem for minimal improvements. For example, I wouldn't consider spending thousands of dollars on cables just because they might measure slightly better than a cable that costs $1/foot. I'm acutely aware of snake oil tactics, but to say that anything better than an inexpensive audio interface isn't worthwhile for anyone is presumptuous.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Double-post.

 

[cer]

Specs on the Emu page have been revised and it seems 0204 USB actually has UNBALANCED outputs (same as 0202 USB).
Quote:

Analog Line Outputs (2)
 

Type: Unbalanced, AC-coupled, 2-pole low-pass differential filter

 

[Omega17TheTrue]

Omega I think you miss the point of EddieE, if you want a certain flavor you can apply certain DSP or different transducers. The problem is supposedly you could make perfectly transparent gears, it's not always the case that you could find a suitable DSP to create the sound you want. Personally I prefer EddieE's world as to me DACoversion is a mathematically process , but for cars, women, wine,... and similar stuffs, it's another matter...

No the "problem" is that for a lot of factors we don't hear the same thing and thus the definition of "neutral" greatly differ, everything from the complete audio chain add a distortion called "flavor" even the most transparent gear, if everyone want to hear the same thing it is physically impossible unless for computers.

 

[miku39]

Quick A/B testing is really hard for me, maybe that is because my poor memory,
so when I acquired new gear I rely on my long term memory of songs, which have been printed on my mind by frequent listening,
to discern any difference.
As such volume matching is done only ear.
Suppose that any difference is due to volume difference.
Won't the result be random depending on whether I match my usual listening volume?
As ears are not accurate I can hit a bit lower or a bit higher.
Then suppose after several months I've been accustomed to my new DAC and I compared it to my old one.
Won't the result supposed to be random again?

And when I read a thread about a new DAC where majority of the poster said that it betters their current one,
can I say that those posters all listening to the new DAC at higher volume than the old one by chance?
That is assuming they do not A/B test and level matching electronically.
Also assuming that there are no broken parts and those DAC are designed to produce faithful signal.

What do you guys think?
 
@Omega
I think that is what EddiE meant. Transparent electronically. He does not say we all hear the same thing.
 
Now that leads to another question. How do one know if a DAC produce faithful signal or color it?
Since ears are not neutral, it can not be a reference. If we measure it electronically, is it enough?

 

[3X0]

Quote:

No the "problem" is that for a lot of factors we don't hear the same thing and thus the definition of "neutral" greatly differ, everything from the complete audio chain add a distortion called "flavor" even the most transparent gear, if everyone want to hear the same thing it is physically impossible unless for computers.

False. We hear the same thing, perception of what we are hearing (which is in fact the same signal) may be different. This does not change what is true.
 
The "flavor" concept only really applies to equipment that is defective or designed poorly. Why should electronic equipment -- that measure the within tolerances so infinitesimal that no human (not even a naturally hypersensitive baby with superhuman hearing capabilities) could perceive -- sound any different?

 

[miku39]

what about HRTF?

 

[3X0]

Quote:

what about HRTF?

Doesn't change the signal we're receiving, only the process of receiving. The output is the same.
 
Let's say someone says the word "dog" and you hear the word "cat." That doesn't change the fact that the person said the word "dog."

 

[seanmo]

ok, so just starting to do research on DAC's as I want to have decent audio coming out of my PC
headphones include ms1's, m50's, westone 3's and a variety of IEM's
 
would this be a good beginner dac option?
or would the e9/e7 option be better for long term flexibility since it could drive something like the dt770 or senn 650?
 
thanks for any and all info

 

[harpua]

All I can say is that the external DAC/amp I plugged into my USB port on my laptop has made a huge difference in the quality of the sound I hear.  So obviously it is significantly better than the on board DAC and amplification that are inside my computer.  If I go back and try to listen to my system without the external unit but with the same headphones, it is almost unbearable for me to listen to now.  So in my case upgrading to an external USB DAC/amp unit was money well spent, imo.  I doubt I could have gotten the same overall quality, including but not limited to unit size, features, input options, output power, and other specs, as well as perceived audio quality for much less $$, including the unit that is the subject of this thread, although it does have ADC and recording oriented features that my unit lacks.  But the E-MU unit lacks the power to adequately drive my preferred headphones, among other things, and I sincerely doubt it sounds as good as what I'm currently using.

 

[EddieE]

[size=x-small]Nobody is going to deny an external soundcard or dac and amp is going to improve soundquality from the one that comes inside your computer. Everybody on this thread, on both sides, uses an external DAC and Amp as far as I know.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Notice throughout this thread people have been saying that there is no difference between amps and dacs once they past a threshhold of quality - no one is saying bargain basement audio components are not noticably worth than those you pay a bit more for - and generally those inside computers are just that. To make matters worse they often pick up a lot of noise and interference from the internals of the computer too.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]What is being debated here is not whether the DAC section in a low cost but decent quality piece of gear like this will be audibly different to the DAC in a £1k + "boutique audiphile" DAC.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]The point is that, as has been said over and over again, there is an upper roof for how good a DAC can be - if it can produce a noise free line out signal which is faithful to the recording - flat within the audible range - then that is as good as it can possibly be.[/size]
 
You can have a DAC which has a badly designed circuit with corners cut and sounds innacurate....
 
[size=x-small].... but you can't get more accurate one you have reached the point where it is audibly accurate. [/size]
 
[size=x-small]If the signal is audibly perfect at £130 spent - you are going to gain nothing by adding a grand.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]It doesn't matter if you can measure differences, if you can't hear them then we are into trees falling in forests territory.[/size]

 

[3X0]

Quote:

[size=x-small]Nobody is going to deny an external soundcard or dac and amp is going to improve soundquality from the one that comes inside your computer. Everybody on this thread, on both sides, uses an external DAC and Amp as far as I know.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]Notice throughout this thread people have been saying that there is no difference between amps and dacs once they past a threshhold of quality - no one is saying bargain basement audio components are not noticably worth than those you pay a bit more for - and generally those inside computers are just that. To make matters worse they often pick up a lot of noise and interference from the internals of the computer too.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]What is being debated here is not whether the DAC section in a low cost but decent quality piece of gear like this will be audibly different to the DAC in a £1k + "boutique audiphile" DAC.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]The point is that, as has been said over and over again, there is an upper roof for how good a DAC can be - if it can produce a noise free line out signal which is faithful to the recording - flat within the audible range - then that is as good as it can possibly be.[/size]
 
You can have a DAC which has a badly designed circuit with corners cut and sounds innacurate....
 
[size=x-small].... but you can't get more accurate one you have reached the point where it is audibly accurate. [/size]
 
[size=x-small]If the signal is audibly perfect at £130 spent - you are going to gain nothing by adding a grand.[/size]
 
[size=x-small]It doesn't matter if you can measure differences, if you can't hear them then we are into trees falling in forests territory.[/size]

Well put, as always. I expect a lot of strawman responses, e.g. "I hear a difference", "People hear differently", et cetera.

 

[powerlifter450]

Even after sending mine back, I'm interested in what otehrs think of ths DAC. To me, no matter what headphones I used Sony xb300,700,beyerdynamic 770/80s, Ultrasone pro 900, or Denon d5k, It sounded like there was too much treble and the bass rolled off. It put the crimp on the bass without a doubt. I'm waiting on my Musiland md-10 to come in , Twice the price but very nice. 

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

 
Quote:

It sounded like there was too much treble and the bass rolled off.

 
One possible explanation for why you think that is because you have been habituated to the sound of 'audiophile' quality gear. The manufacturers tend to roll of the high frequencies to get a 'smoother' sound. They do the same with the bass but compensate by introducing a 'bump' to give the impression of low bass that either doesn't exist or is heavily rolled off to avoid problems. Works too. Gives a nice sound if only one of your components does it.
 
EMU kit is primarily geared towards the DJ and Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) market. Those users want flat and accurate. 
 
Took me a while to get used to a clean, flat sound but now I would never go back. Anyway I can always get an 'audiophile' sound if I want on poor quality recordings by using EQ, parametric filtering or other plug ins but you can never get flat from audiophile grade gear. 
 
Give it a try for a bit longer. Most people come round after a while.

 

[tlniec]

Not to drift too far OT, but it's interesting to note that similar discussions take place in video circles.  But there, the focus tends to be on the source media more so than the playback equipment.  In a nutshell, one of the more frustrating things happening in the Blu-Ray disc world is movies being transferred (process of converting photochemical/film elements or Digital Intermediates to audio/video data that can be encoded on a disc) with Digital Noise Reduction.  This process, when used carelessly/incorrectly, destroys high-frequency video detail... but it gives a "smooth" or "clean" look that is pleasing to some.
 
In those discussions, my argument is that the disc should be as faithful to the source as reasonably possible (including all that high-frequency stuff, like "noisy-looking" film grain) and DNR functions should be built into the playback/display device, defaulted to "off" but able to by toggled on by those who want it.  Kind of analagous to this, my opinion in audio is keep your source chain flat, and change your headphones to get differences in sonic character (or go for reasonably flat phones too, and spice things up/smooth them out/whatever via equalization or DSP effects).