unclepauly
Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Posts
- 52
- Likes
- 11
I can clearly tell a difference between recent sound cards I've had, and mp3 players too. My sansa clip sounds much better and cleaner than my cheapo $10 mp3 player from 2 yrs ago.
My DAC/Amp is underwhelming - Why?
- Thread starter Ntropic
- Start date
userlander
Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Posts
- 1,745
- Likes
- 12
Has this argument actually been going on for 12 pages? I didn't even read through the entire thread to find out. Either someone is saying that changing an amp or dac will make no difference in sound, in which case that person either is an idiot or has serious hearing problems, or else someone is saying that in most cases changing headphones makes more difference in sound than amp/dac, in which case they are just stating the obvious, apparently to troll.
Drubbing
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Posts
- 783
- Likes
- 13
Not all maps sound the same. But you can't tell the difference by hopping from one to the other like you can vastly different headphones. Amps are far more subtle, and t takes decent ear time to get to know their different characteristics.
Only then can you have an idea of whether you want a 'warmer' or 'more analytical' sounding one to go with your phones. And buying on the net after only listening to others opinions (trade or user)is fraught with disappointment and disillusionment, and would only lead to a revolving door of such equipment.
Only then can you have an idea of whether you want a 'warmer' or 'more analytical' sounding one to go with your phones. And buying on the net after only listening to others opinions (trade or user)is fraught with disappointment and disillusionment, and would only lead to a revolving door of such equipment.
Shike
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Posts
- 1,888
- Likes
- 72
Quote:
The answer is: It depends whether the DACs or amps are made objectively well. There was a stipulation that you missed.
Solid state amps with below audible measurements that aren't driven to clipping will and should sound the same. DACs are a bit different, but once again if the RMAA results are within spitting distance they to will sound the same.
For example, a reclocking TDA DAC won't sound as good as my Xciter. The measurements show a good level of distortion on the TDA and it's often considered unacceptable by today's professional standards. It does sound different, but that's due to a deficiency of the DAC. On the other hand my Xciter and the DAC1USB are within the same category and you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.
Honestly, like I proposed before I'm pretty sure an EMU 0404 with a proper built PSU would sound damn close if not identical if used via SPDIF (USB adds a variable . . . EMU isn't very reliable with it IMO).
For those that don't believe measurements tell the story and that one amp/DAC will sound different "just because" then you might as well buy ten of the same amp till you find the one that sounds right.
Lastly, why was this thread revived? I mean . . . really?
| Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Either someone is saying that changing an amp or dac will make no difference in sound, in which case that person either is an idiot or has serious hearing problems, |
The answer is: It depends whether the DACs or amps are made objectively well. There was a stipulation that you missed.
Solid state amps with below audible measurements that aren't driven to clipping will and should sound the same. DACs are a bit different, but once again if the RMAA results are within spitting distance they to will sound the same.
For example, a reclocking TDA DAC won't sound as good as my Xciter. The measurements show a good level of distortion on the TDA and it's often considered unacceptable by today's professional standards. It does sound different, but that's due to a deficiency of the DAC. On the other hand my Xciter and the DAC1USB are within the same category and you'd be hard pressed to tell a difference.
Honestly, like I proposed before I'm pretty sure an EMU 0404 with a proper built PSU would sound damn close if not identical if used via SPDIF (USB adds a variable . . . EMU isn't very reliable with it IMO).
For those that don't believe measurements tell the story and that one amp/DAC will sound different "just because" then you might as well buy ten of the same amp till you find the one that sounds right.
Lastly, why was this thread revived? I mean . . . really?
adrift
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Posts
- 580
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
The truth is, seems to have been a bit of hyperbole on each side of the debate, at least, initially anyways. By the time it was all sorted out it was just a pissing mach.
Quote:
Someone linked to it from a recent thread.
| Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif Has this argument actually been going on for 12 pages? I didn't even read through the entire thread to find out. Either someone is saying that changing an amp or dac will make no difference in sound, in which case that person either is an idiot or has serious hearing problems, or else someone is saying that in most cases changing headphones makes more difference in sound than amp/dac, in which case they are just stating the obvious, apparently to troll. |
The truth is, seems to have been a bit of hyperbole on each side of the debate, at least, initially anyways. By the time it was all sorted out it was just a pissing mach.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif Lastly, why was this thread revived? I mean . . . really? |
Someone linked to it from a recent thread.
userlander
Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Posts
- 1,745
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
yes, that's how I came across it.
So let's see, to summarize: If you build any number of SS amps to the same specs, with the same components, the same power supplies, the same enclosures, and use them in the same location with the same sources and through the same headphones at the same time of day, they will sound.... the same! And if you use a different set of headphones, they will sound... (wait for it)... different!
Wow, what a discovery! who would have thought??
okay, I exaggerate. but really.
| Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif The truth is, seems to have been a bit of hyperbole on each side of the debate, at least, initially anyways. By the time it was all sorted out it was just a pissing mach. Someone linked to it from a recent thread. |
yes, that's how I came across it.
So let's see, to summarize: If you build any number of SS amps to the same specs, with the same components, the same power supplies, the same enclosures, and use them in the same location with the same sources and through the same headphones at the same time of day, they will sound.... the same! And if you use a different set of headphones, they will sound... (wait for it)... different!
Wow, what a discovery! who would have thought??
okay, I exaggerate. but really.
adrift
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Posts
- 580
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Well, more to the point the inference at the start of the thread was that all amps and dacs pretty much sound the same. Sonically there aren't any major differences between a $200 amp and a much more expensive one. That was then clarified to mean that assuming there are no deficiencies in a cheaper amp or dac then they'll sound pretty much the same, and then when pushed "pretty much the same" means that, well yes, there are maybe some slight differences, but nothing to rant and rave about. In the middle of all that some great arguments were made on both sides I thought, and I thought that some dropped the ball on answering some of those arguments. Reading between the lines, what I got out of the thread was that there are difference in amps and dacs, especially when faced with a power hungry headphone, but most sound differences are not nearly as great as hyped in some reviews and threads. The only way to get an appreciable difference in sound for many/most folks is by using different headphones.
(by the way, though some of smellygas' arguments were pretty good, I could never get over his handle during the 15 pages of reading this thread.
Sounds like the type of name a 10 year old would find hilarious, but hard to take seriously on an audiophile forum. oh and Graphicism, who also had some pretty good arguments, really really needs a spell checker or needs to take some time to reread his posts before posting them)
| Originally Posted by userlander /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, that's how I came across it. So let's see, to summarize: If you build any number of SS amps to the same specs, with the same components, the same power supplies, the same enclosures, and use them in the same location with the same sources and through the same headphones at the same time of day, they will sound.... the same! And if you use a different set of headphones, they will sound... (wait for it)... different! Wow, what a discovery! who would have thought??
okay, I exaggerate. but really. |
Well, more to the point the inference at the start of the thread was that all amps and dacs pretty much sound the same. Sonically there aren't any major differences between a $200 amp and a much more expensive one. That was then clarified to mean that assuming there are no deficiencies in a cheaper amp or dac then they'll sound pretty much the same, and then when pushed "pretty much the same" means that, well yes, there are maybe some slight differences, but nothing to rant and rave about. In the middle of all that some great arguments were made on both sides I thought, and I thought that some dropped the ball on answering some of those arguments. Reading between the lines, what I got out of the thread was that there are difference in amps and dacs, especially when faced with a power hungry headphone, but most sound differences are not nearly as great as hyped in some reviews and threads. The only way to get an appreciable difference in sound for many/most folks is by using different headphones.
(by the way, though some of smellygas' arguments were pretty good, I could never get over his handle during the 15 pages of reading this thread.
Sounds like the type of name a 10 year old would find hilarious, but hard to take seriously on an audiophile forum. oh and Graphicism, who also had some pretty good arguments, really really needs a spell checker or needs to take some time to reread his posts before posting them)
RallyMaster
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Posts
- 390
- Likes
- 11
I didn't read this thread in its entirety but I think I've gotten the gist of it. I will have to agree with several of the posters here that changing the transducer makes a distinguishable change in what I hear. Going from my HD595 to my HA-DX3 to my RX900 and my JVC FX-66 to my Westone UM1 all result in a severe change while maintaining the same sound card for my full-sized headphones and the same unamped Sansa Fuze for my earphones, I can tell which is which immediately because the sound signatures are vastly different.
I've been debating whether or not to get an amp or a DAC + amp setup ever since ourfpshero said the HA-DX3 needs an amp to shine. I will admit that I believe that it does need an amp because whenever my music gets busy, the output is messy and absolutely unbearable compared to both the RX900 and the HD595. I've concluded this is due to a lack of power. However, the thing that troubles me and keeps me away at night is the "night and day" differences in DACs and similar "classes" of amplifiers.
A DAC's purpose is to take 0s and 1s that were stored in a given pattern and then output it in analog form. It runs the recovered analog signal through a low-pass filter that will filter out most if not all high frequency (greater than the sampling frequency which is usually 44.1kHz) copies of the initially analog signal and then spit it out as something that can be taken directly to a headphone or to an amplifier (this gets into block diagrams, Fourier transforms, signal processing and frequency domain which I can explain at a later time). I've examined two DAC chip data sheets (namely the PCM1792 and PCM2702) and it appears that both of them have pretty linear although not entirely flat frequency responses with cutoff around .45 of the sampling frequency which was set at 44.1kHz. This tells me that there are stray capacitances or minor variances inside each DAC chip that contributes to significant fluctuations in the amplitude vs frequency response (dB vs Hz). I recall that their FR graphs were mirrored version of each other across the 0 dB axis. However, coupled with the rest of the circuit inside a dedicated DAC box, a sound card or other digital-to-analog conversion device, these significant FR fluctuations may translate to something that is virtually unnoticeable to some or very noticeable to others.
However, this is where the discussion begins regarding an audiophile finding satisfaction from spending his/her hard earned money, finding an improvement and relishing it or finding it to be absolutely not worth the money and having buyer's remorse. This is what I have been trying to avoid. I don't want to obtain something that may or may not give me a noticeable improvement no matter how much the cost is. If forking out $500 on a new DAC and amplifier setup will send shivers down my spine for every song I play, then shoot, I'll go for it. However, if I get that same feeling from just obtaining a $165 sound card or just adding a $170 Little Dot MKII to my aging sound card, then the entire "improve your source" argument somewhat falls apart.
A personal example: I've done AB testing on the stock X-Fi XtremeMusic and a slightly modded X-Fi XtremeMusic with the LM4562 opamp and came back with a post in the Hot-rodding X-Fi thread stating that I found no audible differences between the two using the same headphones. I still have both those sound cards and if I swapped them randomly, I still don't hear a difference. Since the Hotrodding thread stated that I need to short a couple of capacitors and replace a couple with Blackgates which I never did, my case was tossed out as "not having good enough headphones" and "you're supposed to do the whole mod." I kept the capacitors as a control and only changed one crucial part without finding a difference. Changing capacitors changes the frequency response and could bias the opamp differently. This is my explanation for why the fully modded X-Fi could sound so different from a stock one.
I always try to find what's logical and practical. I seek what costs the least money and gives me the largest benefits. However, the law of diminishing returns applies and the higher up one goes, the less of an improvement there is. The trouble is finding that equilibrium point where enjoyment and spending feasibly meet. From an engineering student's standpoint, a DAC needs only to operate at the Nyquist rate so it can fully recover up to 20kHz as a result of human hearing limitations, an amplifier should provide power to headphones, and headphones/earphones/speakers give you sound to listen to. As audiophiles, we seek what is enjoyable to listen to. However, if we're not getting proper enjoyment out of whatever piece of equipment we bought and we see a gaping hole in our checking account, then it's obvious cause for frustration.
I'm sorry for the essay, but this is the first time I feel like a thread has given me reason to tell my perspective and I hope you read it.
-RM
I've been debating whether or not to get an amp or a DAC + amp setup ever since ourfpshero said the HA-DX3 needs an amp to shine. I will admit that I believe that it does need an amp because whenever my music gets busy, the output is messy and absolutely unbearable compared to both the RX900 and the HD595. I've concluded this is due to a lack of power. However, the thing that troubles me and keeps me away at night is the "night and day" differences in DACs and similar "classes" of amplifiers.
A DAC's purpose is to take 0s and 1s that were stored in a given pattern and then output it in analog form. It runs the recovered analog signal through a low-pass filter that will filter out most if not all high frequency (greater than the sampling frequency which is usually 44.1kHz) copies of the initially analog signal and then spit it out as something that can be taken directly to a headphone or to an amplifier (this gets into block diagrams, Fourier transforms, signal processing and frequency domain which I can explain at a later time). I've examined two DAC chip data sheets (namely the PCM1792 and PCM2702) and it appears that both of them have pretty linear although not entirely flat frequency responses with cutoff around .45 of the sampling frequency which was set at 44.1kHz. This tells me that there are stray capacitances or minor variances inside each DAC chip that contributes to significant fluctuations in the amplitude vs frequency response (dB vs Hz). I recall that their FR graphs were mirrored version of each other across the 0 dB axis. However, coupled with the rest of the circuit inside a dedicated DAC box, a sound card or other digital-to-analog conversion device, these significant FR fluctuations may translate to something that is virtually unnoticeable to some or very noticeable to others.
However, this is where the discussion begins regarding an audiophile finding satisfaction from spending his/her hard earned money, finding an improvement and relishing it or finding it to be absolutely not worth the money and having buyer's remorse. This is what I have been trying to avoid. I don't want to obtain something that may or may not give me a noticeable improvement no matter how much the cost is. If forking out $500 on a new DAC and amplifier setup will send shivers down my spine for every song I play, then shoot, I'll go for it. However, if I get that same feeling from just obtaining a $165 sound card or just adding a $170 Little Dot MKII to my aging sound card, then the entire "improve your source" argument somewhat falls apart.
A personal example: I've done AB testing on the stock X-Fi XtremeMusic and a slightly modded X-Fi XtremeMusic with the LM4562 opamp and came back with a post in the Hot-rodding X-Fi thread stating that I found no audible differences between the two using the same headphones. I still have both those sound cards and if I swapped them randomly, I still don't hear a difference. Since the Hotrodding thread stated that I need to short a couple of capacitors and replace a couple with Blackgates which I never did, my case was tossed out as "not having good enough headphones" and "you're supposed to do the whole mod." I kept the capacitors as a control and only changed one crucial part without finding a difference. Changing capacitors changes the frequency response and could bias the opamp differently. This is my explanation for why the fully modded X-Fi could sound so different from a stock one.
I always try to find what's logical and practical. I seek what costs the least money and gives me the largest benefits. However, the law of diminishing returns applies and the higher up one goes, the less of an improvement there is. The trouble is finding that equilibrium point where enjoyment and spending feasibly meet. From an engineering student's standpoint, a DAC needs only to operate at the Nyquist rate so it can fully recover up to 20kHz as a result of human hearing limitations, an amplifier should provide power to headphones, and headphones/earphones/speakers give you sound to listen to. As audiophiles, we seek what is enjoyable to listen to. However, if we're not getting proper enjoyment out of whatever piece of equipment we bought and we see a gaping hole in our checking account, then it's obvious cause for frustration.
I'm sorry for the essay, but this is the first time I feel like a thread has given me reason to tell my perspective and I hope you read it.
-RM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 534
Quote:
I believe it is pissing match, unless you are trying to infer something that might be going at the speed of sound.
| Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif The truth is, seems to have been a bit of hyperbole on each side of the debate, at least, initially anyways. By the time it was all sorted out it was just a pissing mach. Someone linked to it from a recent thread. |
I believe it is pissing match, unless you are trying to infer something that might be going at the speed of sound.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 534
RallyMaster;6126169 said:I However, the thing that troubles me and keeps me away at night is the "night and day" differences in DACs and similar "classes" of amplifiers.
All in the ear of the beholder, I am afraid
A DAC's purpose is to take 0s and 1s that were stored in a given pattern and then output it in analog form. It runs the recovered analog signal through a low-pass filter that will filter out most if not all high frequency (greater than the sampling frequency which is usually 44.1kHz) copies of the initially analog signal and then spit it out as something that can be taken directly to a headphone or to an amplifier (this gets into block diagrams, Fourier transforms, signal processing and frequency domain which I can explain at a later time). I've examined two DAC chip data sheets (namely the PCM1792 and PCM2702) and it appears that both of them have pretty linear although not entirely flat frequency responses with cutoff around .45 of the sampling frequency which was set at 44.1kHz. This tells me that there are stray capacitances or minor variances inside each DAC chip that contributes to significant fluctuations in the amplitude vs frequency response (dB vs Hz). I recall that their FR graphs were mirrored version of each other across the 0 dB axis. However, coupled with the rest of the circuit inside a dedicated DAC box, a sound card or other digital-to-analog conversion device, these significant FR fluctuations may translate to something that is virtually unnoticeable to some or very noticeable to others.
There also is the overall circuit not just the dac that may contribute to what some can hear and how the analog filter is implemented. And I think you hit the nail on the head, some can discern and some cannot.
If forking out $500 on a new DAC and amplifier setup will send shivers down my spine for every song I play, then shoot, I'll go for it. However, if I get that same feeling from just obtaining a $165 sound card or just adding a $170 Little Dot MKII to my aging sound card, then the entire "improve your source" argument somewhat falls apart.
Shivers! "Not so much" in my humble opinion. We are talking subtleties. Some can live nicely with a $100 PCI soundcard. I did in my office system for over a year, yet there becomes an awareness after a while that lets you hear more than when you first put it into your system and then perhaps you move on in your quest to find something that does not have whatever flaw you may find in that piece of gear. Then it becomes a rationalization of value as to what the next piece does and how much it costs. For me it took a $1000 dac to remove any flaws I was finding in other gear I tested and lived with.
I always try to find what's logical and practical. I seek what costs the least money and gives me the largest benefits. However, the law of diminishing returns applies and the higher up one goes, the less of an improvement there is. The trouble is finding that equilibrium point where enjoyment and spending feasibly meet. From an engineering student's standpoint, a DAC needs only to operate at the Nyquist rate so it can fully recover up to 20kHz as a result of human hearing limitations, an amplifier should provide power to headphones, and headphones/earphones/speakers give you sound to listen to. As audiophiles, we seek what is enjoyable to listen to. However, if we're not getting proper enjoyment out of whatever piece of equipment we bought and we see a gaping hole in our checking account, then it's obvious cause for frustration.
Oops Nyquist rate, perhaps that is a problem. I am a believer that oversampling is necessary. I never found a no oversampled brickwall filtered DAC that did not sound like ... and this will po some folks, a slow moving or romantic version of what the music should sound like, kind of like listening to a modern recording on a Philco Radio, (with good tubes of course). There goes that hyperbole that skews us all which ways. Of course it is not that dramatic, but you get the point!
You may wish to read this piece on Nyquist and sampling, but still the differences are minor. Upsampling vs. Oversampling for Digital Audio — Reviews and News from Audioholics
Your logic is commendable and you should have no problem finding what you like for the value you determine. The journey may be frustrating at times, but life is like that. Good luck and enjoy along the way, this is after all about entertainment.
adrift
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Posts
- 580
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Es tut mir leid, Herr Bixby.
I don't think spell-checker would have been much use in this case anyways.
| Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe it is pissing match, unless you are trying to infer something that might be going at the speed of sound.
|
Es tut mir leid, Herr Bixby.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 534
Quote:
Bitte!
That is funny, trust me I am no spelling Nazi
Okay, I better stop detouring this thread.
cheers
| Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif Es tut mir leid, Herr Bixby.
|
Bitte!
That is funny, trust me I am no spelling Nazi
cheers
RallyMaster
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2009
- Posts
- 390
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
Thanks a lot for the understanding, bixby. Added that upsampling & oversampling link to my list of articles to read. It'll be an interesting read for sure. Are you an engineer by any chance? Sure seems like you've looked much deeper into this whole audio thing than most people I've met.
| Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oops Nyquist rate, perhaps that is a problem. I am a believer that oversampling is necessary. I never found a no oversampled brickwall filtered DAC that did not sound like ... and this will po some folks, a slow moving or romantic version of what the music should sound like, kind of like listening to a modern recording on a Philco Radio, (with good tubes of course). There goes that hyperbole that skews us all which ways. Of course it is not that dramatic, but you get the point! You may wish to read this piece on Nyquist and sampling, but still the differences are minor. Upsampling vs. Oversampling for Digital Audio — Reviews and News from Audioholics Your logic is commendable and you should have no problem finding what you like for the value you determine. The journey may be frustrating at times, but life is like that. Good luck and enjoy along the way, this is after all about entertainment. |
Thanks a lot for the understanding, bixby. Added that upsampling & oversampling link to my list of articles to read. It'll be an interesting read for sure. Are you an engineer by any chance? Sure seems like you've looked much deeper into this whole audio thing than most people I've met.
adrift
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Posts
- 580
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
Haha. Its cool.
| Originally Posted by bixby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bitte! That is funny, trust me I am no spelling Nazi
cheers |
Haha. Its cool.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Posts
- 2,926
- Likes
- 534
Quote:
Train engineer perhaps
Kidding!
Just a well seasoned audiophool who has been using his ears and reading to try to make sense out of what I hear or don't hear!
| Originally Posted by RallyMaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks a lot for the understanding, bixby. Added that upsampling & oversampling link to my list of articles to read. It'll be an interesting read for sure. Are you an engineer by any chance? Sure seems like you've looked much deeper into this whole audio thing than most people I've met. |
Train engineer perhaps
Kidding!
Just a well seasoned audiophool who has been using his ears and reading to try to make sense out of what I hear or don't hear!
Users who are viewing this thread
