[Dyaems]

Quote:

Yeah, and where's TS? Sure he's trolling

he is laughing while reading this thread

 

[tme110]

well, considering the ODAC can't do anything above 24/96, can't accept coax or optical, doesn't switch inputs, isn't balanced and I doubt sounds like a $1000 DAC, I'm not sure how you can compare them.

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

well, considering the ODAC can't do anything above 24/96, can't accept coax or optical, doesn't switch inputs, isn't balanced and I doubt sounds like a $1000 DAC, I'm not sure how you can compare them.

 can u explain why:
24/192 is better than 24/96
optical is better than USB
balanced is better than unbalanced?

 

[proton007]

I highly doubt this thread belongs in this section.
This topic has been debated to death. Just leave it alone already.

 

[Xaborus]

Quote:

well, considering the ODAC can't do anything above 24/96, can't accept coax or optical, doesn't switch inputs, isn't balanced and I doubt sounds like a $1000 DAC, I'm not sure how you can compare them.

NOT TROLLING. JUST SCIENCE. 192K is harmful. "
192kHz digital music files offer no benefits. They're not quite neutral either; practical fidelity is slightly worse. The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.
Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. If the same transducer reproduces ultrasonics along with audible content, any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect. The effect is very slight, but listening tests have confirmed that both effects can be audible."-- http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 
"It's worth mentioning briefly that the ear's S/N ratio is smaller than its absolute dynamic range. Within a given critical band, typical S/N is estimated to only be about 30dB. Relative S/N does not reach the full dynamic range even when considering widely spaced bands. This assures that linear 16 bit PCM offers higher resolution than is actually required.
It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear"
 
Digital is digital. USB = Optical = Coax. This argument is only valid if you cant physically use usb as an input, and only then and there i admit, you have a valid argument.
 
 
Now i will give a single case in point to subjectivists, and it is a very valid point. Placebo effect is very, very real. And if you believe something will make your audio sound better, it simply will sound better. It doesn't matter if its a $1000 bag of rocks taped to your speakers, it will work if you truely believe it does.
 
But i personally believe that scientifically proven low-distortion methods of music playback reguardless of price is the best way to obtaining the highest audio quality. My placebo effect is not my wallet, but scientific charts and graphs.

 

[olor1n]

@ Xaborus - Can you please explain the point of this thread?

 

[RonaldDumsfeld]

I cannot speak for Xaborus but I do think there is the basis of a very useful discussion here.
 
Whither audiophilea in the post modern world? How do we move on from an outdated 50 year old paradigm that now risks doing more harm than good?
 
In the late sixties and early seventies it made sense to classify devices in a broadly subjective way. Gear wasn't as good, there was less money, everything was analogue. It made sense to partner a piercing tweeter with a recessed cartridge, a weedy amplifier with boomy speakers etc etc. It was fun gradually building up a system with different parts and balancing it as you upgraded.
 
Now since we went digital it all sounds the same and for a very modest cost. It just does. The only thing that now effect sound quality within the range of human hearing are your transducers. mainly loudspeakers, the power of your amplifier and the space you listen in.
 
Why spend $2000 on a coloured DAC to 'enhance' the sound of your tube amp when for $200 you can get a transparent DAC or well designed amplifier? Speakers will always remain a personal choice. Everything else should, and can be, transparent.

 

[estreeter]

Quote:

I cannot speak for Xaborus but I do think there is the basis of a very useful discussion here.
 

 
Perhaps, but its a discussion that belongs in Sound Science. 

 

[Mrtn77]

Quote:

 can u explain why:
 
optical is better than USB
 

 
Good luck getting sound out of a Blu-ray player or game console through USB.

 

[graphidz]

IMO, placebo effect only happens after long period of listening, especially when you are used to the sound sig. And I don't think this effect happens when you hear a difference only after a few seconds of listening

 

[AKG240mkII]

Quote:

Everything is subjective, the fact that you think a $1000 dac performs the same as a $150 odac is your own bias at work. So of course you cant understand, cause everyone is with bias including yourself. It works both ways.

Including all the measurements ?
Is it also 'bias' that blind-tests time and time again show that they DO sound the same ??
Quote:

when u are testing two cars from traffic lite to traffic lite,
both the hyundai and the ferrari would perform just as well;
but......thats not the end of the story.
 

No, it sure as %&## ain't, for starters they don't SOUND the same, do they ?
More importantly : They don't measure the same either !
 
MY private theory about WHY people will waste 10x the money they need to : Because they have to much  !

 

[tme110]

Quote:

 can u explain why:
24/192 is better than 24/96
optical is better than USB
balanced is better than unbalanced?

I'm not sure why any of that even matters, the  point is that it doesn't support it.  If you have a ballanced system, this DAC wont cut it.  Never even hinted that optical is better but I still don't understand why everyone has to use usb.  Plus my AVR, apple tv, tv, stereo, HDRadio etc etc etc only use optical and my bluray player and media players only have optical and coax so how does this DAC do anything for me?  A $1000 DAC would though.  The 24/192 issue - again not too concerned about your explanation but there are higher-res files out there and maybe at some point I'd like to check them out for myself and the odac wont help me there either.  But since my current DAC has something like 4 or 5 signals going into it and this just has a usb (which I dont use) would probably explain why I wouldn't use this DAC.

 

[NOMBEDES]

Quote:

Newsflash - the AMP shouldn't sound like anything either. Any coloration should be down to your speakers/headphones, and many people claim they are looking for a 'neutral' headphone. Audiophiles amuse me. 

I wonder why they put BASS & TREBEL control  knobs on Amps?  I wonder why there are thousands of TUBE ROLLING posts on this site?  Speakers and headphones indeed.

 

[JadeEast]

Quote:

 
Perhaps, but its a discussion that belongs in Sound Science. 

The question being posed here isn't scientific, at it's core it's about values and authority- something that science doesn't do well. "I trust my ears," is a value position a person takes about their understanding of the world through their senses; "I trust measurements," is, again, a statement about a position a person takes on knowing. Sure, you can throw science at the statements and try to show objective data that counters subjective claims, but you've not addressed the differences in values held.
 
"Why do some people trust personal subjective impressions over data from an outside source?," Isn't a question of science, and that means that the answer won't be reducible to a single explanation, easily won, or have the argument resolved in a tidy way. 

 

[bellsprout]

Quote:

I'm not sure why any of that even matters, the  point is that it doesn't support it.  If you have a ballanced system, this DAC wont cut it.  Never even hinted that optical is better but I still don't understand why everyone has to use usb.  Plus my AVR, apple tv, tv, stereo, HDRadio etc etc etc only use optical and my bluray player and media players only have optical and coax so how does this DAC do anything for me?  A $1000 DAC would though.  The 24/192 issue - again not too concerned about your explanation but there are higher-res files out there and maybe at some point I'd like to check them out for myself and the odac wont help me there either.  But since my current DAC has something like 4 or 5 signals going into it and this just has a usb (which I dont use) would probably explain why I wouldn't use this DAC.

i agree optical is very useful, but it was not implemented on the ODAC because it comes at an unreasonable cost for providing nothing more than legacy compatibility. 24/192 and balanced offers nothing more than giving u more ways of getting the exact same result.
 
the point is, u get what u pay for, but only to the extent that bit of functionality comes at a cost, and mostly impractical. do u think for a $1000 DAC ur money goes towards dramatic improvements in sound quality, whereas all the things that don't improve sound quality -  multiple inputs, balanced connection, 24/192 decoding, point to point wiring, etc come free with the package?
 
in the case of the ODAC, it design metholodogy which removes cost incurring features that don't improve sound quality is why it does sound like a $1000 DAC