R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible
Nov 13, 2015 at 8:26 PM Post #61 of 1,344

]eep

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Posts
761
Likes
454
If we can't put our trust in science and the scientific-method, then we may as well...

You clearly did not get what I was trying to tell. And I really do not appreciate your tone.

It's about people. The so called 'scientific method' has attained religious status and it's zealous followers it's priests that can do no wrong. But however you want to turn it around it is always about interpretation. Setting up a test, any test, requires a preconceived Idea. Preconceived by... people! And interpretation is done by... people. You put to much trust in certain people, attributing to them a total lack of bias or emotion, while especially scientists have very strong 'beliefs'. 'Science' always comes with a certain worldview because the sentience is done by people.
I'm not a hypocrite as you so finely put it, just very experienced in the human way of thinking and very pragmatic. Testing humans will never get you a 'fact', except when you dissect them. Any results will always be stochastic. You cannot say: 'Chinese are tall', or tiny. Or yellow skinned (very racist example, I know, sorry). Compared to what? And which one of the 1bln are you referring to?

The scientific method is just 1 way of getting results. And a pretty good way. The trouble starts when people start hijacking it to prove they are right.

To me you sound like an angry young man. To quote Will Smith in I robot: "You must be one of the dumbest smart people I know". But don't worry, hopefully one day you will see that there's more to the world than what you learned in school - even a scientist needs love when he comes home. It just requires a choice: do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill. It's all about the wanting part.

Oh, and FYI: I make or modify all my equipment and cables etc. myself. I don't 'believe' in audio voodoo but I'm also not that stupid that I don't try it because... "it's just impossible". Now that is stupid. And all too common in the scientific community. This whole hobby is about enjoyment. So there no reason to snap at each other.
 
Nov 13, 2015 at 9:44 PM Post #62 of 1,344

goodyfresh

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
2,340
Likes
545
You clearly did not get what I was trying to tell. And I really do not appreciate your tone.

It's about people. The so called 'scientific method' has attained religious status and it's zealous followers it's priests that can do no wrong. But however you want to turn it around it is always about interpretation. Setting up a test, any test, requires a preconceived Idea. Preconceived by... people! And interpretation is done by... people. You put to much trust in certain people, attributing to them a total lack of bias or emotion, while especially scientists have very strong 'beliefs'. 'Science' always comes with a certain worldview because the sentience is done by people.
I'm not a hypocrite as you so finely put it, just very experienced in the human way of thinking and very pragmatic. Testing humans will never get you a 'fact', except when you dissect them. Any results will always be stochastic. You cannot say: 'Chinese are tall', or tiny. Or yellow skinned (very racist example, I know, sorry). Compared to what? And which one of the 1bln are you referring to?

The scientific method is just 1 way of getting results. And a pretty good way. The trouble starts when people start hijacking it to prove they are right.

To me you sound like an angry young man. To quote Will Smith in I robot: "You must be one of the dumbest smart people I know". But don't worry, hopefully one day you will see that there's more to the world than what you learned in school - even a scientist needs love when he comes home. It just requires a choice: do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill. It's all about the wanting part.

Oh, and FYI: I make or modify all my equipment and cables etc. myself. I don't 'believe' in audio voodoo but I'm also not that stupid that I don't try it because... "it's just impossible". Now that is stupid. And all too common in the scientific community. This whole hobby is about enjoyment. So there no reason to snap at each other.


I'm not saying the scientific method is completely INFALLIBLE, or some kind of holy ritual that should always be adhered to.  However, I firmly believe that it is the MOST TRUSTWORTHY method of inquiry and of obtaining results and potential facts available to us humans today.  It's the way to remove oneself as far as POSSIBLE from subjectivity.  Trusting PURELY subjective impressions over something which has had some semblance of control placed on it to at least TRY to remove bias and give it better objectivity, is simply ridiculous.  ANd anyone who DOES do so (and I'm not saying you do, by the way) IS being a hypocrite if they do, in fact, also live in our modern society while using modern technology.  So many people are so quick to dismiss science as being "just like religion, man, scientists are basically just worshipping their faith and BLAH BLAH BLAH," making it sound like it's just as stupid and unreliable as any other method of human inquiry. That is absolute BULLCRAP.  For people to be on the INTERNET, the epitome of all modern technology and the result of our science, and say such things, is ABSOLUTELY hypocritical.

I do not believe science is the be-all-and-end-all, or that it is completely 100% reliable without fail.  However, if you want to talk about bias, scientists, while they do tend to have preconcieved notions and bias, make a point, by using the method they do, of at least trying as much as they can (while of course still failing to some extent, because they are humans and thus flawed and swayed by emotions) to REMOVE bias and preconceptions from their analyses.  In that sense, science is NOTHING like a religion or a similar faith.  It is in fact OPEN to the idea of change.  Scientists used to think everything was deterministic, man.  Now they know that is absolutely bunk, what with the advent of Quantum Mechanics.  Scientists used to think spacetime was Euclidean.  Now they have accepted the fact that it is curved.  Science is the closest we have to being able to use pure, objective logic to analyze the world, as humans.
 
You can dress up your arguments in whatever fancy wording or semantics you want, but the fact of the matter is that expectation-bias and the audio placebo-effect are VERY real.  Any attempt to identify "audible differences" between different audio components while knowing which component or source is which is bound to be biased-as-all-hell.  That is why blind testing and a scientific approach are so important.  If a guy buys a super-fancy 5000 dollar cable, he is giong to SWEAR UP AND DOWN that it sounds better to him ("oh my god there's so much more detail in the bass and treble, man!") than his old 300 dollar cable, because he KNOWS he is now listening to a "higher quality" product that he paid much more money for. 
 
That expectation-bias is what accounts for sales of those Jack Bybee "Quantum Purifying" products, which to me represent everything that is wrong with the high-end audio industry today.  They claim to use "special crystals" with "quantum proton alignment" to "purify the electron flow" in cables, and even claim to provide a form of actual ACOUSTIC ROOM TREATMENT via "quantum purification."  That is obviously technobabble-gibberish on the same level as what you often hear in Hollywood sci-fi films, and the products are obviously complete scams, because the science supposedly behind them does not even exist and the wording being used to describe their mechanism of operation does not even make sense.  The product pages even claim that they work even when placed over or under highly-shielded cables that are completely immune to outside interference, because of "quantum effects" that make them work and pervade the space around them.  That kind of technology does not actually exist yet on a macroscopic scale (i.e. there is no such thing yet as technology that can control quantum-effects to a high degree of precision on an above-microscropic scale), and yet people are dumb enough to believe the claims of the company which is scamming them by saying their products do so, and thus buy their products some of which cost as much as five-thousand dollars.  That, right there, is the kind of thing that happens when people ignore real science and rely on subjectivity and what "sounds like it must be better."  ANd of course, everyone who buys the "crystal quantum purifiers" swears that their system sounds better once they have them. . .because none of them do blind-testing.  I bet that if you told them that simply taping some quartz-crystals to their cables will "purify the signal," they'd believe you, proceed to do so, and then swear that everything sounds better.
 
The best part of all this, and the part I'll leave off with, is the fact that you accuse me of having a tone (and I'll admit I do. . .yes, I am being condescending as all-hell), but then yourself proceed to be just as condescending and demeaning in your own tone, saying things like "'You must be one of the dumbest smart people I know'. But don't worry, hopefully one day you will see that there's more to the world than what you learned in school - even a scientist needs love when he comes home. It just requires a choice: do you want to take the red pill or the blue pill. It's all about the wanting part."  That COULD NOT be more condescending, you're literally calling me an idiot.  Don't go and tell someone that it's inappropriate for them to take a condescending tone, and then yourself go and use such a tone. . .that's completely hypocritical.  You also say "there [sic] no reason to snap at each other," and yet you totally snapped at me in the paragraphs preceding that statement.
 
I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to debate you, though.  It is a fundamental fact about human psychology that neither of us will be able to do anything whatsoever to convince the other that they are wrong or to open their mind to new ideas.  Here's an interesting article about that: http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
 
Nov 13, 2015 at 10:42 PM Post #63 of 1,344

hodgjy

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Posts
4,292
Likes
1,142
After reading 5 pages in this thread, I just realized this wasn't the thread on 8-track tapes. Crap.
 
Nov 13, 2015 at 11:39 PM Post #64 of 1,344

goodyfresh

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
2,340
Likes
545
  After reading 5 pages in this thread, I just realized this wasn't the thread on 8-track tapes. Crap.


LMAO!!
biggrin.gif
  Thanks for the laugh man, I needed that tonight, hahahahaha.
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 2:37 AM Post #65 of 1,344

astrostar59

Member of the Trade: Aries Cerat Espana, Auriculares High-End
Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Posts
2,843
Likes
851
Location
Somewhere v hot
 
LMAO!!
biggrin.gif
  Thanks for the laugh man, I needed that tonight, hahahahaha.


I think the issue with 'scientific' measurements is in the case of DS development they were flawed in the first place. Check out the articles on Lampizator and TotalDAC founders, they went back to the drawing board, threw it all out and build a new DAC around the R-2R architecture, but this time using no filtering and multiple ladder resistors. These new R-2R are much more powerful than the first of their type back in the 90s.
 
Taking this back to DS and total basics, it is NOT possible to extract more detail from a digital file by adding dots (doubling up the code), the same as it can't be possible to 'increase detail' in a jpg image at 72dpi up sampling it to 300dpi. Go try this yourself in Photoshop, it goes all blurred. Adding to the up sampling aspect and the flawed reasons behind that, we have the apoziding filter issues that killed the  sound quality. That hideous mechanism was created to reduce or try and remove the 'flawed' waveforms from 16bit. Remember the process and advancement in DS technology during the formative years was done using ONLY measuring equipment, not the human ear to any extent.
 
So, we have a case here then, where the 'scientific' data actually had a negative effect on the SQ and the development of digital to analogue convertors. It is the ones who challenged this 'set in stone' idea that resulted in many great designs today (Audio Note, TotalDAC, Lampizator and others).
 
Actually, the recent models from MSB and TotalDAC with multiple resistor ladder architecture can actually handle more than 192k resolution for the first time. Beer in mind this is bit-perfect, i.e. data to current conversion, no up sampling or other crazy rubbish that wreaks the sound. I really can see an end of life for DS architecture in the audiophile sector. I mean, why use a cheap to produce and flawed DS architecture, when we now have bit-perfect conversion possible at higher resolution anyway. I makes no sense. My advice, don't go blowing cash on a high end DS player, invest in one of these R-2R bit prefect units instead.
 
Regardless of all this, just listen to a TotalDAC, Audio Note, Lampizator or MSB, use your ears, it might just surprise (and delight) you. Anyway to get closer to real music is a positive, no head to fall out over it.....
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM Post #66 of 1,344

prot

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Posts
1,324
Likes
376
One thing I don't really get about how a delta sigma works and why 24 bit material would be useless, as it only uses the top 6 bits.
It is said there that you would not be able to hear the difference between a 24 bit and a 16 bit file, with a DS DAC, because it only uses the top 6 bits. But then 16 bits would also be unnecessary. Why not truncate your music files to 8 bits for instance? That would save a lot of harddisk space. But I'm pretty convinced I can hear a difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit file even on my laptop speakers. So I don't get why 24 bit would be unnecessary for a DS DAC.


First of all your analogy is wrong. Your downconverting of the pcm files on the PC is not the same as the DS dac does. A pretty close equivalent would be converting the pcm files to dsd on the PC. And in that case you'll prolly hear no differences.

Also the 'conclusion' that a few bits are enough for DS dacs is either false or missinterpreted (depends how you look at it). Yes a DS dac only uses a few bits internally but it does eliminate the noise generated by the downconverting. However, it can only eliminate the noise generated by its own downconverting .. if you feed it noisy 5bit pcm files, that noise is not eliminated, it's played as 'normal' signal.
Hope it was clear enough.

And btw nice and interesting thread everyone .. and it's not even in the science section :). Surprinsingly little astroturfing and goldears cluelessness for this part of the forum.

P.S.
astrostar59, the Lampi dacs are not r2r. Afaik, only one model of the 6 series is using an r2r (or hybrid?) chip, the rest are DS. Oh well, it's quite usual for arguments to come bite oneself :)
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 10:40 AM Post #67 of 1,344

astrostar59

Member of the Trade: Aries Cerat Espana, Auriculares High-End
Banned
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Posts
2,843
Likes
851
Location
Somewhere v hot
First of all your analogy is wrong. Your downconverting of the pcm files on the PC is not the same as the DS dac does. A pretty close equivalent would be converting the pcm files to dsd on the PC. And in that case you'll prolly hear no differences.

Also the 'conclusion' that a few bits are enough for DS dacs is either false or missinterpreted (depends how you look at it). Yes a DS dac only uses a few bits internally but it does eliminate the noise generated by the downconverting. However, it can only eliminate the noise generated by its own downconverting .. if you feed it noisy 5bit pcm files, that noise is not eliminated, it's played as 'normal' signal.
Hope it was clear enough.

And btw nice and interesting thread everyone .. and it's not even in the science section
smily_headphones1.gif
. Surprinsingly little astroturfing and goldears cluelessness for this part of the forum.

P.S.
@astrostar59, the Lampi dacs are not r2r. Afaik, only one model of the 6 series is using an r2r (or hybrid?) chip, the rest are DS. Oh well, it's quite usual for arguments to come bite oneself
smily_headphones1.gif

The early ones I heard (and liked) were all R-2R. I think the big 7 is R-2R? Not heard it. The models going over to DS are probably to handle PCM and that growing market. Not heard them either. So my recommendation was to look at the R-2R units that Lampi still produce.
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 12:51 PM Post #68 of 1,344

preproman

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Posts
10,624
Likes
769
Here we go again with this DS vs, R2R crap.
 
It seems people like to clump all DACs in these two groups.  Like if you heard one R2R DAC you've heard them all kinda thing.  I can tell you, that's far from the truth.  All R2R DACs don't sound alike and they all don't sound good.  Same with DS DACs, all don't sound alike and all don't sound good.
 
I've heard / owned some good R2R DACs and some good DS DACs.  And also some very good home made DACs that's based on the DS technology.  There's good sounding DACs everywhere, some better sounding than others of course.  
 
I'll rank all the DACs I've owned in this order.
 
EMM Labs DAC2X (The best I've owned, Home made DACs based on the DS Technology and firmware upgradable)
TotalDac D1-Dual (The best R2R DAC I've owned)
Bricasti M1 (DS DAC and the best DAC I've owned of any kind under the 10K mark)
PS Audio DirectStream DAC Yale Final (No DAC chips but based on the DS technology "I think anyway" Firmware upgradable so has the possibility to get better and better)
Aqua La Scala MK2 (very good R2R tube DAC)
Schiit Yggdrasil (really good R2R up sampling DAC)
AMR DP-777 [Duelund VSF Black Cast Capacitors]  (Pretty good R2R tube DAC - the SE version might be even better than some I placed above it - but haven't heard it yet)
Audio GD Master 7 (good R2R DAC)
AudioNote Kit 4.1 by Digital Pete (Did not own, but heard many times and for long periods of times.  IMO this is not a good resolving DAC at all)
PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MKII (No idea what this use)
Lamizator L4 G4 (Didn't sound that good to me)
John Kenny Ciunas DAC (uses a PCM5102 BB/TI DAC chip)
NAD m51 Direct Digital DAC ( Was an ok DAC with really good volume control)
Buffalo III (PB&J) http://pbandjaudio.blogspot.com/ (DS DAC did sound good until I stared to hear better)
Schiit Audio Modi (DS DAC - sounds bad)
 
Instead of clumping DACs in two categories, name the DACs you've heard and lest talk about them from there.  All R2R DACs and all DS DACs are not made equal. 
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 2:26 PM Post #69 of 1,344

prot

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Posts
1,324
Likes
376
The early ones I heard (and liked) were all R-2R. I think the big 7 is R-2R? Not heard it. The models going over to DS are probably to handle PCM and that growing market. Not heard them either. So my recommendation was to look at the R-2R units that Lampi still produce.


If you have a link or some sort of confirmation for that info, please post.
My info says quite the opposite... there is only one lampi6 model that uses an old 16bit r2r philips chip .. all else is DS. The new entry models are ESS and all others use a Dac chip that Lampi is keeping secret but noone ever said it was r2r .. on the contrary, it is supposed to be a modern 24bit chip coming from the video processing industry and that points quite strongly to DS.
But I am not Lampi and cannot swear on this stuff .. so please post some extra info if available.
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 9:44 PM Post #70 of 1,344

]eep

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 25, 2009
Posts
761
Likes
454
...
It is the ones who challenged this 'set in stone' idea that resulted in many great designs today (Audio Note, TotalDAC, Lampizator and others).


I so agree with you. It takes vision to go against the stream. And don't forget 47-Labs. And mine (which is just a mod, but a very significant parting from standard).


Here we go again with this DS vs, R2R crap.
It seems people like to clump all DACs in these two groups.  Like if you heard one R2R DAC you've heard them all kinda thing.  I can tell you, that's far from the truth.  All R2R DACs don't sound alike and they all don't sound good.  Same with DS DACs, all don't sound alike and all don't sound good.
... [moot point]
Instead of clumping DACs in two categories, name the DACs you've heard and lest talk about them from there.  All R2R DACs and all DS DACs are not made equal. 

Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato (that doesn't come across in writing very well does it :D ). Or should I say apples and oranges?

Exactly what are we comparing here? Power supplies? Filtering? Upsampling? I/V-conversion stages? I thought we were comparing 2 kinds of decoding that take 2 different mathematical approaches. But the type of chip that is used only accounts for a very small amount of sonic differences. So all you are really describing is the sound difference in analog stages.

I've been around since long before- and heard the very first Sony and Philips cd-players (that sounded horrible, the reason why I've always stuck with vinyl), the first bitstream player (I was almost a first adopter! then called MASH system by Technics), I have had in my home (I did not say own, but tested) so many cd-players and dacs I can't even remember them all. I didn't even realize at the time what type of DAC I was listening to. Afterwards I started modifying my CD-player and started swapping out parts. That made a huge difference! Even with the same shaitti gettoblaster dac-chip. Even in virgin state it blew away my older high-end Myriad player (the first CD that sounded sort of ok to me).

Then later I swapped out that dac-chip for a decent CS chip. So that was an honest comparison. Changing out an itty bitty part did make a difference. But not in overall character. The 'sound' (as in; Phil Specter's 'wall of sound') was the same. It was a bit clearer and more defined. Later I saw I had totally forgotten about some output-caps that were ok but not great. Changing them out for better ones made about the same difference.

So, if changing out 2 caps in the output stage, how much influence do you reckon the whole output stage has in your comparison?

I use a NOS FL design. This has nothing between the R2R DAC-chips and my amplifier. Guess why this blows everything else Ive heard out of the water? Including the expensive Lampizator I've hooked up here. It didn't sound all that to me and it even failed my first (!) basic listening test with a little pianoloop. Not just failed but failed big time. This says nothing about Lukasz or his products mind you!
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 10:43 PM Post #72 of 1,344

goodyfresh

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
2,340
Likes
545
 
I think the issue with 'scientific' measurements is in the case of DS development they were flawed in the first place. Check out the articles on Lampizator and TotalDAC founders, they went back to the drawing board, threw it all out and build a new DAC around the R-2R architecture, but this time using no filtering and multiple ladder resistors. These new R-2R are much more powerful than the first of their type back in the 90s.
 
Taking this back to DS and total basics, it is NOT possible to extract more detail from a digital file by adding dots (doubling up the code), the same as it can't be possible to 'increase detail' in a jpg image at 72dpi up sampling it to 300dpi. Go try this yourself in Photoshop, it goes all blurred. Adding to the up sampling aspect and the flawed reasons behind that, we have the apoziding filter issues that killed the  sound quality. That hideous mechanism was created to reduce or try and remove the 'flawed' waveforms from 16bit. Remember the process and advancement in DS technology during the formative years was done using ONLY measuring equipment, not the human ear to any extent.
 
So, we have a case here then, where the 'scientific' data actually had a negative effect on the SQ and the development of digital to analogue convertors. It is the ones who challenged this 'set in stone' idea that resulted in many great designs today (Audio Note, TotalDAC, Lampizator and others).
 
Actually, the recent models from MSB and TotalDAC with multiple resistor ladder architecture can actually handle more than 192k resolution for the first time. Beer in mind this is bit-perfect, i.e. data to current conversion, no up sampling or other crazy rubbish that wreaks the sound. I really can see an end of life for DS architecture in the audiophile sector. I mean, why use a cheap to produce and flawed DS architecture, when we now have bit-perfect conversion possible at higher resolution anyway. I makes no sense. My advice, don't go blowing cash on a high end DS player, invest in one of these R-2R bit prefect units instead.
 
Regardless of all this, just listen to a TotalDAC, Audio Note, Lampizator or MSB, use your ears, it might just surprise (and delight) you. Anyway to get closer to real music is a positive, no head to fall out over it.....


The "scientific" measurements I was talking about are not measurements of things like THD+N and what-not, but rather scientifically controlled blind-testing (often ABX testing) of what the human ear and brain are able to perceive.
 
 
I so agree with you. It takes vision to go against the stream. And don't forget 47-Labs. And mine (which is just a mod, but a very significant parting from standard).
Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato (that doesn't come across in writing very well does it
biggrin.gif
). Or should I say apples and oranges?

Exactly what are we comparing here? Power supplies? Filtering? Upsampling? I/V-conversion stages? I thought we were comparing 2 kinds of decoding that take 2 different mathematical approaches. But the type of chip that is used only accounts for a very small amount of sonic differences. So all you are really describing is the sound difference in analog stages.

I've been around since long before- and heard the very first Sony and Philips cd-players (that sounded horrible, the reason why I've always stuck with vinyl), the first bitstream player (I was almost a first adopter! then called MASH system by Technics), I have had in my home (I did not say own, but tested) so many cd-players and dacs I can't even remember them all. I didn't even realize at the time what type of DAC I was listening to. Afterwards I started modifying my CD-player and started swapping out parts. That made a huge difference! Even with the same shaitti gettoblaster dac-chip. Even in virgin state it blew away my older high-end Myriad player (the first CD that sounded sort of ok to me).

Then later I swapped out that dac-chip for a decent CS chip. So that was an honest comparison. Changing out an itty bitty part did make a difference. But not in overall character. The 'sound' (as in; Phil Specter's 'wall of sound') was the same. It was a bit clearer and more defined. Later I saw I had totally forgotten about some output-caps that were ok but not great. Changing them out for better ones made about the same difference.

So, if changing out 2 caps in the output stage, how much influence do you reckon the whole output stage has in your comparison?

I use a NOS FL design. This has nothing between the R2R DAC-chips and my amplifier. Guess why this blows everything else Ive heard out of the water? Including the expensive Lampizator I've hooked up here. It didn't sound all that to me and it even failed my first (!) basic listening test with a little pianoloop. Not just failed but failed big time. This says nothing about Lukasz or his products mind you!


There is certainly a LOT of evidence for the claim that DAC chips make far less of a difference in sound-quality and tone than the analog/amplification stages.
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 10:46 PM Post #73 of 1,344

goodyfresh

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Posts
2,340
Likes
545
  Nice story - but uh, was there a point in there somewhere? 


Don't be a smart-aleck to him, you know as well as I do that he was making a damn good point, namely that analog/amplification stages generally make a much bigger difference for tonality and sound-quality than DAC chips do.
 
Nov 14, 2015 at 11:01 PM Post #74 of 1,344

preproman

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Posts
10,624
Likes
769
 
Don't be a smart-aleck to him, you know as well as I do that he was making a damn good point, namely that analog/amplification stages generally make a much bigger difference for tonality and sound-quality than DAC chips do.

 
If I didn't see I valid point, I didn't see a valid point (period)  
 
My point was comparing DAC implementations as a whole.  That includes everything, not just the chip and not just the stages, rather the entire implementation.  
 
Now,  why don't you stop being a smart aleck 
cool.gif

 
Nov 15, 2015 at 1:24 AM Post #75 of 1,344

castleofargh

Sound Science Forum Moderator
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Posts
9,462
Likes
4,854
@jeep, all your anti control, anti science, yet trust me I'm rational, kind of post was out of this world. you seem to justify not believing in control and repeatability because there are too many variables. a great philosophy of "better know nothing than only know 30%".
 
 
 
to make one or 2 things clear about "science":
- every time some random dude uses somebody's serious work to make an oversimplified claim(I'm sure I've done that several times myself), science has nothing to do with that and shouldn't have to take the blame for it.
- within some of the basic ideas of science, one is conditional truth. something is working well enough to be accepted as true, as long as it's within a given set of parameters. like nyquist theorem is true under some conditions, and can fail when those conditions aren't met. before dismissing a scientific paper, it would be good to make sure you or anybody else's experience was within the paper's conditions. else we end up with 2 people arguing about 2 different situations yielding 2 different results. it means nothing and get us nowhere.
 
 
 
 
judging R2R vs DS when all we have to test is a bunch of DACs vs a bunch of other DACs that happen to have one of those 2 kind of implementations along with probably 50 other differences. now that's the really futile exercise IMO. whatever sound difference we might think we heard, how do we know the actual cause? it's easy to make false assumptions for fun, but it doesn't reflect reality.
personally I couldn't care less what kind of implementation I have in my DAC. if the result measures well on all kind of fidelity tests, then it's a good DAC. I don't need marketing propaganda and fancy buzzwords to improve my music experience.
I leave non linearity, oversampling, noise modulation, low pass filter, power supply...  to the engineer who hopefully knows what he needs to be extra careful about when he picks either R2R or DS to make his DAC. if he doesn't, fidelity measurements will most likely show it.
 
from my little understanding of things, I get that R2R is be the best thing on paper, but is in practice limited if only because of how hard it is to get the exact same resistor again and again.
when delta sigma has clear known drawbacks like the noise from the rapid ups and downs trying to "draw" the analog signal. but happens to behave in practice almost exactly as well as in theory, making it a cheaper way to get linear low distortion sound. that seems to be the main reason why R2R  has been on the way out for years. I'm not even sure audibility is relevant here.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top