[Lenni]

Quote:

I'd make a great suggestion... I'd suggest that you identify the problem that is limiting your system's sound quality and attack that directly instead of buying equipment that flat out doesn't matter.

Hearing is believing. Come to LA and hear my system. I'll prove to you that a standalone DAC isn't what makes a great sounding system. $400 receiver, $600 media server computer. $120 bluray player, and I'll demo the system using AAC files at the same bitrate as from the iTunes store.

The stuff audiophiles worry about are the parts that make little or no difference. The stuff they ignore or refuse to do is what separates OK sound from fantastic sound.

 
thanks for the invitation.

 
well, here's the thing... I don't think I would like it, no offence. from what I gather it looks to me like your system might have an impressive huge sound, that is possible I would be initially impressed by the BIG sound, but I guess after 20 mins tops I would have to get a rest from it.
 
I listen to music a lot. most of my disposable time is spent this way, and there're two main reasons for it:
 
1. I'm bonkers about music. 
2. the system I use to play the music with.
 
I had other budget systems before, which I enjoyed very much nevertheless, but nothing like this or how long I do now. I can listen to it the entire day, which sometimes I do, and never get tired of it. I listen to pretty much anything/everything, which I wouldn't before too.
 
I think audiophiles know exactly what their systems need - what audiophiles don't need is non-audiophiles telling them what they need 

 

[xnor]

bigshot, you're missing the unmeasurable. The physical but somehow supernatural. The quantifiable but unqualifiable. The difference special ears can pick up, but only in sighted, uncontrolled comparisons. Bias.

 

[robertsong]

Quote:

 
I think audiophiles know exactly what their systems need - what audiophiles don't need is non-audiophiles telling them what they need 

 
Yup. Particularly when their rationale is backed upped by self made psuedo-science BS. It's funny though.

 

[robertsong]

I enjoyed your original post mikeaj. Thank you.
 

 

[Greenleaf7]

Just about all currently manufactured DACs that are performing to spec sound exactly the same- 20-20 stone flat, no audible distortion, inaudibly low noise floor. Even the DACs in $60 CD players have specs that exceed our ability to hear. Older computers used to come with shoddy on board audio, but that isn't so much the case any more. Apple has raised the bar and other manufacturers are following. In most cases, external DACs don't improve sound quality for normal music listening. Specs on amps are pretty much the same. The principle difference between amps is power. Electronics are the easy part. It's all designed to have better specs than your ears can hear. If it doesn't, it's either seriously substandard or broken... most likely broken.

I suppose what you're trying to say is that all audibly transparent equipment should theoretically sound the same?

The headphone out on my laptop computer had audible hiss when no music was playing, hence my reason for getting a dac and amp that are both audibly transparent. It's safe to assume I won't be thinking of 'upgrading' my setup any time soon.

 

[robertsong]

Quote:

Just about all currently manufactured DACs that are performing to spec sound exactly the same- 20-20 stone flat, no audible distortion, inaudibly low noise floor. Even the DACs in $60 CD players have specs that exceed our ability to hear. Older computers used to come with shoddy on board audio, but that isn't so much the case any more. Apple has raised the bar and other manufacturers are following. In most cases, external DACs don't improve sound quality for normal music listening. Specs on amps are pretty much the same. The principle difference between amps is power. Electronics are the easy part. It's all designed to have better specs than your ears can hear. If it doesn't, it's either seriously substandard or broken... most likely broken.

 
 
Bigshot, cite your sources please. Your post contradicts everything I have learned on the subject.

 

[Greenleaf7]

Bigshot, cite your sources please. Your post contradicts everything I have learned on the subject.

What are your thoughts on audible differences between amps and Dacs that are made to spec? Please enlighten us.

 

[bigshot]

Bigshot, cite your sources please. Your post contradicts everything I have learned on the subject.

Here are the specs on the DAC in the lowly iPod classic...

http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/codecs/WM8758/

Compare those to thresholds of perception.

Have you ever seen a current DAC that doesn't exceed the thresholds of human perception?

 

[bigshot]

My hypothesis is that many of the people in the first category would upgrade equipment without the expectation that it was necessarily better, but just that it was different.  They would be governed more buy their own cycle of needing a purchasing-fix, and that the rationalization is secondary and less relevant to the process.

You're probably right about the real reason. But there are plenty of people who wander into this group convinced that their "upgrades" result in "night and day" audible improvements. It's what they truly believe, correct or not.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

\well, here's the thing... I don't think I would like it, no offence. from what I gather it looks to me like your system might have an impressive huge sound, that is possible I would be initially impressed by the BIG sound, but I guess after 20 mins tops I would have to get a rest from it.

 
That is a good trick! You know what my system sounds like without even hearing it!
 
...except, it isn't a huge sound unless the music I'm playing is huge. It's capable of many dynamic levels with a carefully balanced response, so there is no listening fatigue.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

I suppose what you're trying to say is that all audibly transparent equipment should theoretically sound the same? The headphone out on my laptop computer had audible hiss when no music was playing, hence my reason for getting a dac and amp that are both audibly transparent. It's safe to assume I won't be thinking of 'upgrading' my setup any time soon.

 
That has more to do with the headphone amp circuitry in your laptop's headphone output than the DAC. It's either an impedance mismatch with your headphones or interference bleeding into the audio from the computer. Recent computers are getting much better at the latter, but laptops are most apt to have a problem with that.
 
All audibly transparent components sound the same by definition.

 

[roy_jones]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to underestimate the power of their rationalization.  I still think it's important to try to trace the source of the behavior to the core motivation, though, in trying to understand the mechanics of the rationalization process. 
 
It's funny, but I was in the market for some new sunglasses recently and happened to stumble onto an Oakley sunglasses forum.  There is a whole community there that functions in many similar ways to this one, as I imagine many hobbyist/collector forums do.  There was a thread discussing replacement lenses in which members commented on getting headaches within ten minutes of using non-Oakley lenses.  The suggestion being that the inferior optical quality of the replacement lenses were such that they had an immediate physiological effect.  
 
It certainly causes one to take a different view of the audio business.  While I suspect there are some engineers out there that really believe in the value of the design of their product through self-delusion, I suspect that a much greater percentage are cynically aware of exactly what's going on.  

 

[robertsong]

Quote:

Here are the specs on the DAC in the lowly iPod classic...leading ai

http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/products/codecs/WM8758/

Compare those to thresholds of perception.
audio
Have you ever seen a current DAC that doesn't exceed the thresholds of human perception?

Show me some kind of professional study on the subject of  "thresholds of human perception" as it pertains to the subject of audio engineering. Prove to me(with a genuine scientific claim from a qualified authority) that jitter in digital audio is inaudible and that it has nothing to do with the sound quality of DACS. Thank you.

 

[bigshot]

Didn't you already talk with Nick Charles about all that?
 
Anyway... The original study is behind a pay wall, but it is cited here in section 2.2
 
http://www.nanophon.com/audio/1394_sampling_jitter.pdf
 
20ns in music
 
Here is a Stereophile test that rates the iPod's jitter if you would like that... Scroll to the bottom.
 
http://www.stereophile.com/content/apple-ipod-portable-music-player-measurements
 
220ps peak. Multiply that by a hundred and you're getting right up to the edge of audibility.

 

[robertsong]

Quote:

 
It certainly causes one to take a different view of the audio business.  While I suspect there are some engineers out there that really believe in the value of the design of their product through self-delusion, I suspect that a much greater percentage are cynically aware of exactly what's going on.  

 And what makes you suspect this? Which engineers have you spoken to?