[RRod]

And, if I do purchase that version, I then have no particular reason to convert it to a lower sample rate afterwards (because space is cheap, converting takes effort, and the conversion just might compromise the quality).

 
Except if your playback chain has more audible distortion at 192k as opposed to 48 or 96, in which case decimation could be beneficial. And though space is cheap, cheap isn't always portable. So for someone like me who likes being able to carry his entire CD collection around on an iPod by using lossy formats, I'm lowering the rate on the hi-res albums I have bought, either due to mastering or just plain availability. So yes on *my* particular chain, blind testing hasn't revealed any issues due to resampling using SoX's high-quality settings and, besides, any effect would be small compared to what Opus is throwing away in the file, which is also not especially easy to pick up beyond 96kbps.

 

[prot]

Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlADcpbxbg

 

[sonitus mirus]

Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlADcpbxbg

 
It was discussed in this thread.  The video appears to be the same one.
 
http://www.head-fi.org/t/795435/schiit-bifrost-multibit-a-b-test-video

 

[Max Choiral]

Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlADcpbxbg

 
Well, just for fun. R2R can have similar tonality like 1-bit DAC regarding of implementation, that's why he mostly like can't hear a difference.
R2R vs Delta-Sigma are like ortho vs dynamic.

 

[KeithEmo]

The problem with that statement is that you're comparing two specific PRODUCTS that USE two different architectures - rather than making a general comparison between the architectures. So, if they sound the same, then all you will have proven is that the two architectures CAN sound the same; and, if one or the other sounds better, or they sound different but equal, then you will have proven something about those two particular products - but you haven't proven if they sound different because one is D-S and the other is R2R, or if it's due to other factors entirely, like different power supplies, or different I/V conversion stages. (It's a bit like trying to figure out if horses are faster than gazelles by racing one horse against one gazelle - and taking the results to be generally applicable to all horses and all gazelles - when the reality is that there are many different types of horses and many different types of gazelles.)
 
In technical terms, both types of DACs do in fact have weaknesses, and they have different weaknesses - but the weaknesses inherent in each topology are very small. (For examples, differences in oversampling filters can be significantly audible, so, to compare D-S to R2R DACs in terms of sound, you should try one of each - using the same oversampling filter algorithm in both - which should be possible.)
 
Quote:

Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlADcpbxbg

 

[prot]

It was discussed in this thread.  The video appears to be the same one.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/795435/schiit-bifrost-multibit-a-b-test-video

Thx for the link, missed that one.

KeithEmo. Havent said that it was a definitive test. Or particularly well done. I also doubt that the guy knows or cares much about the r2r vs. ds flamewars.

Just posted the video as an ontopic and interesting watch .. and quite fun too.

 

[castleofargh]

  The problem with that statement is that you're comparing two specific PRODUCTS that USE two different architectures - rather than making a general comparison between the architectures. So, if they sound the same, then all you will have proven is that the two architectures CAN sound the same; and, if one or the other sounds better, or they sound different but equal, then you will have proven something about those two particular products - but you haven't proven if they sound different because one is D-S and the other is R2R, or if it's due to other factors entirely, like different power supplies, or different I/V conversion stages. (It's a bit like trying to figure out if horses are faster than gazelles by racing one horse against one gazelle - and taking the results to be generally applicable to all horses and all gazelles - when the reality is that there are many different types of horses and many different types of gazelles.)
 
In technical terms, both types of DACs do in fact have weaknesses, and they have different weaknesses - but the weaknesses inherent in each topology are very small. (For examples, differences in oversampling filters can be significantly audible, so, to compare D-S to R2R DACs in terms of sound, you should try one of each - using the same oversampling filter algorithm in both - which should be possible.)

+1
  turning an anecdote into a new universal law without control to eliminate a single extra variable, leads to all the loud ways of being wrong, like racism and general xenophobia. it really doesn't offer much more than this, and certainly not an answer about R2R vs DS.
 
better have no answer than the wrong one.
scientific method > *

 

[K.I. Unlimited]

We have so much money circulating in the audiophile economy.

Why don't people take all the most well-reviewed DS and MB DACs, take them apart and ID every single part inside - the clock, chips, caps etc etc and then make a modular DAC to compare part for part?


THAT will be called scientific. Not all the brand product vs. brand product bs.

Perhaps that will scare all the audio manufacturers ****less, because we'll end up having a universal DAC design, and nobody making money would want that.

 

[KeithEmo]

It's a nice idea.....
 
However, one problem is that designing and building a DAC is complex, and there are a lot of fussy details that make a critical difference in the final performance. It's not just a matter of "using the right parts", or even "using the right parts in the right circuit"; there are very specific design details. For example, a Brand X clock could perform very well in one DAC, but very poorly in another, because the metal cover on that second DAC is 1/2" closer to the top of the clock chip, or because one of the foil traces on the board is 1/2" shorter or longer. And that 1/2" difference in spacing might make a lot of difference with that Brand X clock, but no difference at all with a Brand Y clock, and a Brand Z clock might work better with the other box.
 
Another problem is that there are lots of different criteria that people use to judge how good a DAC is.... so even deciding which DAC is better, or which one has "the best performance", isn't going to be at all consistent or perhaps even possible. A certain DAC has more accurate frequency response; another has relatively poor frequency response, but excellent time accuracy; which is better? And a third has excellent frequency response and time response, but very high levels of THD.... The answer is going to depend on who you ask. There are several objective criteria used to measure DACs, but there is no general agreement about which ones matter the most. (You can look at simple specs like THD, frequency response, and IM distortion. And you can also look at things like impulse response... which is easy to measure... but very difficult to interpret in terms of how the differences on an oscilloscope trace correlate with differences in sound, and which is subjectively better, or more important.)
 
In short, once you get past a certain level, there are no simple answers about what specific parts, or measurements, correlate with "being better".....
 
Quote:

We have so much money circulating in the audiophile economy.

Why don't people take all the most well-reviewed DS and MB DACs, take them apart and ID every single part inside - the clock, chips, caps etc etc and then make a modular DAC to compare part for part?


THAT will be called scientific. Not all the brand product vs. brand product bs.

Perhaps that will scare all the audio manufacturers ****less, because we'll end up having a universal DAC design, and nobody making money would want that.

 

[sonitus mirus]

If we use sound quality as the criteria, I can't possibly understand how building a DAC is complex. If I'm looking for transparency, it can't be challenging to come up with a solid product or it would cost a lot more and the differences between DACs would be incredibly obvious to identify, instead of the opposite.  I think that advances in technology, and the drive with the market to create portable devices, has ultimately rendered expensive DACs and the measurable differences that they provide to be obsolete to those outside the audiophile world where stubborn ignorance rules the roost.

 

[KeithEmo]

The short answer is that it isn't that hard to build a very good DAC... and there are plenty of them available (and they aren't all expensive).
However, to put it bluntly, it depends on what you're looking for, and how particular you are.
 
I can buy a car for $15k that's reliable, easily gets up to 80 mph on the freeway, and has air conditioning and heat that work just fine. But I still don't think it would be fair to say that: "you can get a car that works perfectly for $15k, so anyone who pays more for a car is only doing so because of stubborn ignorance".... and I'm guessing that a lot of car owners wouldn't agree with that statement either.... and not all of them are ignorant or stupid.
 
(And, if you want to use an analogy with "transparency", then let's try glass. Most modern window glass is what I would call "transparent"; I can see through it just fine, and stuff on the other side doesn't look funny. However, if you want a piece of glass for a picture frame that is literally so transparent you actually can't see that it's there at all, even when you squint at it at an angle, it's going to cost you several hundred dollars - it's called "museum glass", and it's perfectly clear, and has a special anti-reflective coating. And, if I want a "really clear" piece of glass to put on the front to protect my $1k Nikon lens, that absolutely positively won't make any sort of distortion or reflection when bright sunlight or a flash hits it, it's going to cost me even more. In fact, that four inch disc of special protective glass for my lens costs more than a "perfectly functional" cheap camera. It all depends on what you need - and what you're willing to pay.)
 
You most certainly can build a DAC for $100 that sounds very good, has very low noise and distortion, and has a very flat frequency response. It's not that hard. In fact, most of the DAC chip vendors will cheerfully give you the schematic and board layout you can use to build one yourself - for free. And, if you follow their instructions, you will end up with a DAC that's quite good, and I'm sure it will make 99% of "non-audiophiles" quite happy.(Just like my Nissan Versa, or an equivalent model from someone else, would make 99% of car owners happy.)
 
However, many companies, including Emotiva, make DACs with multiple different oversampling filters, and, even though all of them are flat, quiet, and have very low distortion, they sound a tiny bit different (you can see the difference if you look at the oscilloscope picture of their response to a transient pulse). And, while the difference is pretty slight, and you may not consider it important, it isn't that difficult to hear. Likewise, most DACs that are quite good still sound slightly different from each other. Some of those differences are due to tiny differences in design. Some of those are unavoidable, or incidental to the design differences; others are intentional - either because the designer prefers the slight difference, or because he thinks that the company's customers will. (And, yes, some of them are simply "product differentiation" - which is where someone says "we have to make our product sound different so people will hear that it sounds different from our competitor - so they have a reason to buy ours". And some have certain filters that sound wildly different, and obviously aren't flat or accurate - but we assume that some people like the way they sound too.)
 
And, yes, some of the purported differences probably exist mostly in the imaginations of a few audiophiles... and some of them are "different but not necessarily better".
 
So, yes, if you simply want a DAC that is very accurate by all the standard measurements, and actually sounds very good (better than any you could buy at any price twenty years ago), then you have lots of choices, costing anywhere from about $100 to about $100k. That should make it easy to choose...... and easy for someone with a limited budget, or limited interest, to still get an excellent product. They already exist... and you can buy them right now. But, if you find those tiny remaining differences important to you, then I guess you're an audiophile.
 
 
Quote:

  If we use sound quality as the criteria, I can't possibly understand how building a DAC is complex. If I'm looking for transparency, it can't be challenging to come up with a solid product or it would cost a lot more and the differences between DACs would be incredibly obvious to identify, instead of the opposite.  I think that advances in technology, and the drive with the market to create portable devices, has ultimately rendered expensive DACs and the measurable differences that they provide to be obsolete to those outside the audiophile world where stubborn ignorance rules the roost.

 

[sonitus mirus]

If you must have an analogy for my use of transparency, than it would be "invisible".  You can't make something more invisible.  A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent.  There is nothing better.  I'm thrilled that there are a cornucopia of consumer choices available that cater to practically everyone's system and ego, but I'm not convinced that any of these offer greater sonic transparency with regards to the thresholds of our hearing.  Different, perhaps, and maybe even more pleasing to some people, but not more transparent.  

 

[KeithEmo]

 
I don't disagree in the least with your definition....
 
And, because our eyes are optical, it's pretty easy to do that with a piece of glass.
I can look directly at a variety of actual objects and scenes, "switch" a piece of glass, and a blank frame, between my eyes and the scene, and see if I can tell the difference.
Windows glass is pretty clear, but you can still tell it's there, because it's never quite clear, always has a tiny bit of distortion, and always picks up reflections under some lighting conditions.
Under most conditions "museum glass" really is so clear that you might actually walk right through it, or try to put your hand through it.
 
However, since we analog humans have no way to listen to the bits directly, there's no way we can simply switch a DAC in and out of the signal path to see if it makes a difference.
But, since what we're really talking about is reproduction, taking an analog source, converting it into digital, then back to analog, will do fine.
If the result is indistinguishable from the original then we can reasonably conclude that the entire reproduction process is transparent.
(It's possible that the two conversions have complementary colorations that cancel each other out - but, as long as the entire process is transparent, that's OK.)
 
The problem there is that I'm unaware of anybody demonstrating to have been able to make a digital reproduction so perfect that nobody can tell the difference at all.........
(And, no, "most people", or "a bunch of people" doesn't count.... it has to be either everyone, or a big enough group that we can reasonably believe they represent "everyone".)
 
Now, interestingly, while proving perfection may be difficult, proving the opposite is often somewhat simpler.
If you have five DACs, and you want to claim that they're all "transparent", all I have to do to prove you wrong is to be able to hear ANY difference between ANY two of them.
(If two sound different, then they CANNOT both be "perfectly transparent".)
 
I simply don't accept your claim (without proof) that any specific DAC is "audibly transparent".
And, while there have been many attempts to make "the perfect low cost DAC", and many have turned out quite well, I'm not aware of any that has been" audibly perfect" so far.
(I haven't even heard the perfect high cost DAC - at least not that I know of - but I've certainly not heard every DAC ever made.)
However, I do tend to notice small (and sometimes not so small) differences between the various DACs that I have heard.
 
You claim: "A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent."
I eagerly await your proof.
(I'd probably buy one.)
 
Quote:

  If you must have an analogy for my use of transparency, than it would be "invisible".  You can't make something more invisible.  A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent.  There is nothing better.  I'm thrilled that there are a cornucopia of consumer choices available that cater to practically everyone's system and ego, but I'm not convinced that any of these offer greater sonic transparency with regards to the thresholds of our hearing.  Different, perhaps, and maybe even more pleasing to some people, but not more transparent.  

 

[sonitus mirus]

I agree that some people probably can hear differences between some DACs, but I haven't seen anything that would pass scientific rigors, and any differences are tiny, if they exist at all.  
 
If someone were actually hearing differences, than surely there would be some measurable data to explain it that would fall within our threshold of hearing.  I realize there are measurable differences that can be found, but these are typically orders of magnitudes below what could be heard.  I do not doubt that there are some products out there, at all price levels, with differences that can be heard by a few people in specific situations.  Has anyone been able to show with any certainty if these differences are better or worse?
 
The measurements that I have seen do not suggest that there should be any noticeable difference that humans can hear between most inexpensive DACs that cost under $100 when compared to a $2K Benchmark DAC or an MSB Technology DAC that costs tens of thousands of dollars.    Show me a measurement that we can agree on that could account for an audible difference.  One that is not an intentionally designed filter to alter the sound characteristic from the original source.  

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm a little bit confused at your statement.... you seem to be agreeing that "some people can hear differences with some DACs" - which would seem to satisfy the statement that "there are audible differences". Now it is quite another matter whether those differences are "significant" or "important".
 
I think a big part of the problem is that not everyone agrees on what to measure. For example, virtually any decent DAC is going to have THD that is really low, and frequency response that is really flat. I would even go as far as to say that those values would be so low that I wouldn't expect them to be at all audible. However, if you look at oscilloscope pictures of how different DACs respond to transients, there is a lot of quite obvious variation. However, the audibility of variations in transient performance are not at all clearly defined. Some people insist that pre-ringing is clearly more audible than post ringing; while others argue that neither is typically significant enough to be audible. However, I think it's fair to say that nobody has produced experimental data showing that those differences are NOT audible, so they might be what people are hearing (or maybe it's something else entirely).
 
Emotiva's Ego DACs each have three different filters.... each of which sounds a tiny bit different with certain program material. My Wyred4Sound DAC2 has six different ones, and I notice a difference with four of them. You only notice it with certain things, and sometimes only on certain speakers or headphones, but the difference is there. One has the least ringing overall; another has less pre-ringing, but more post-ringing. And one is somewhere in-between. Which is better? Who knows. Are any of them "perfect"? Probably not. The process of converting analog into digital isn't measurably perfect, and there's still debate about which imperfections are the most audible, or audible at all. My guess is that certain people are more sensitive to certain flaws, and don't notice or don't mind others. Some people go nuts about "perfect sound stage"; personally, I don't care much about that at all, but I find that many DACs don't seem to reproduce metallic sounds, like wire brush cymbals, that really sound like metal on metal - and that bugs me. Wolfson's top DAC chip offers 21 different filter choices. Personally I can hear the differences between some of them, but not others. (And some of them do have significant differences in frequency response or phase response...  so which of those factors accounts for the differences?)
 
To me, the bottom line is that it's still "an open topic".
I simply don't think we've reached the point yet where there are a whole bunch of DACs that sound exactly the same - and "arbitrarily perfect".
However, there are an awful lot of reasonably priced DACs that are very good......
(And, as for "better" or :worse" - well, that's always going to be a matter of opinion anyway.)
 
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sonitus mirus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I agree that some people probably can hear differences between some DACs, but I haven't seen anything that would pass scientific rigors, and any differences are tiny, if they exist at all.  
 
If someone were actually hearing differences, than surely there would be some measurable data to explain it that would fall within our threshold of hearing.  I realize there are measurable differences that can be found, but these are typically orders of magnitudes below what could be heard.  I do not doubt that there are some products out there, at all price levels, with differences that can be heard by a few people in specific situations.  Has anyone been able to show with any certainty if these differences are better or worse?
 
The measurements that I have seen do not suggest that there should be any noticeable difference that humans can hear between most inexpensive DACs that cost under $100 when compared to a $2K Benchmark DAC or an MSB Technology DAC that costs tens of thousands of dollars.    Show me a measurement that we can agree on that could account for an audible difference.  One that is not an intentionally designed filter to alter the sound characteristic from the original source.