pinnahertz
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2016
- Posts
- 2,072
- Likes
- 739
That should be "reply". Darn autocorrect.
How about you try to put effort into making comprehensible post so other people can understand? Well, you can choose to end your discussion here too.
That's what you said and I looked into here.
http://www.head-fi.org/f/15/portable-source-gear
I'm pretty sure at least 50% of DAPs in that page has digital filter options in one way or another. I don't know how you came up with conclusion that most DAPs sold today don't have digital filter options.
STILL not reading my posts carefully!
Sorry, I can replay all I want, it if you're not comprehending my posts there's really no point in continuing.
No, read my post again...accurately.Are you telling me after sending thousands on headphone gear, you're sourcing your music from a basic iPhone?
Why do you say that? And how do you know what I'm using?It's been long since this thread started but I had the same question so it made sense to me. Apart from reading your painful, cynical answers, I've learned that the OP shouldn't ask a question because you're using the worst option for a source out there.
I don't recall bashing anyone. However, the above might just qualify as "bashing".If people have nothing to offer on the subject, why the heck to bother and bash others.
it certainly looks like an unfair grudge against WindowsX, but what you're not seeing in this thread are all the other threads he started with loaded questions that made many people here expecting a trap of sort. his growing resentment toward this sub section or some idea of objectivism also doesn't help him getting a warm welcome. maybe this one thread was genuine honest curiosity and this is all just a misunderstanding? maybe sometimes we get "lost in translation" and it creates problems? maybe if our answers had been different it would have turned into yet another wild goose chase? but it's a typical case of "fool me once shame on you, fool me 5 times, shame on me".Are you telling me after sending thousands on headphone gear, you're sourcing your music from a basic iPhone? It's been long since this thread started but I had the same question so it made sense to me. Apart from reading your painful, cynical answers, I've learned that the OP shouldn't ask a question because you're using the worst option for a source out there. If people have nothing to offer on the subject, why the heck to bother and bash others.
it certainly looks like an unfair grudge against WindowsX, but what you're not seeing in this thread are all the other threads he started with loaded questions that made many people here expecting a trap of sort. his growing resentment toward this sub section or some idea of objectivism also doesn't help him getting a warm welcome. maybe this one thread was genuine honest curiosity and this is all just a misunderstanding? maybe sometimes we get "lost in translation" and it creates problems? maybe if our answers had been different it would have turned into yet another wild goose chase? but it's a typical case of "fool me once shame on you, fool me 5 times, shame on me".
as for the topic, when focused on a DAC the question has IMO fairly simple answers:
-if you can hear a difference, you select the one you like most. the end
-if you can't hear a difference, does it even matter which kind of low pass is used? no it doesn't.
from a "scientific" perspective, the signal can be defined using several variables, and it's challenging to just go and decide that one variable is more important than another one. soon enough it comes back to what is the most likely to be heard, or the more likely to please a listener and we're back into personal hearing and preferences.
because pre-ringing when it happens in the audible range can feel less "natural" than post-ringing, some decide that using a filter without pre-ringing is "obviously" better even when used at a frequency we fail to notice. this is in most applications, a laughable "inaudible that sounds better" paradox.
some people like the guys behind Pono and Meridian only know to talk about how horrible ringing is(despite where it happens), and how the time domain is what makes a great sound(their opinion!). to the point that they don't mind degrading other variables and introducing a lot more aliasing just to marginally improve timing. on the other hand most of the industry when making albums will decide to go with brick wall filters that will ring in the area where the filter is applied(logically outside the audible range). in exchange it keeps the audible range with as little roll off as possible. and by better fitting the Nyquist theorem, will also result in as little aliasing as possible. so it's the method that probably agrees most with the guys who made digital audio possible. but in any case, we're mostly talking about small stuff and it should concern people the way small stuff do.
now is ringing worst than aliasing or the other way around? hard to give an objective answer when dealing with an apple and oranges kind of question.
it certainly looks like an unfair grudge against WindowsX, but what you're not seeing in this thread are all the other threads he started with loaded questions that made many people here expecting a trap of sort. his growing resentment toward this sub section or some idea of objectivism also doesn't help him getting a warm welcome. maybe this one thread was genuine honest curiosity and this is all just a misunderstanding? maybe sometimes we get "lost in translation" and it creates problems? maybe if our answers had been different it would have turned into yet another wild goose chase? but it's a typical case of "fool me once shame on you, fool me 5 times, shame on me".
as for the topic, when focused on a DAC the question has IMO fairly simple answers:
-if you can hear a difference, you select the one you like most. the end
-if you can't hear a difference, does it even matter which kind of low pass is used? no it doesn't.
from a "scientific" perspective, the signal can be defined using several variables, and it's challenging to just go and decide that one variable is more important than another one. soon enough it comes back to what is the most likely to be heard, or the more likely to please a listener and we're back into personal hearing and preferences.
because pre-ringing when it happens in the audible range can feel less "natural" than post-ringing, some decide that using a filter without pre-ringing is "obviously" better even when used at a frequency we fail to notice. this is in most applications, a laughable "inaudible that sounds better" paradox.
some people like the guys behind Pono and Meridian only know to talk about how horrible ringing is(despite where it happens), and how the time domain is what makes a great sound(their opinion!). to the point that they don't mind degrading other variables and introducing a lot more aliasing just to marginally improve timing. on the other hand most of the industry when making albums will decide to go with brick wall filters that will ring in the area where the filter is applied(logically outside the audible range). in exchange it keeps the audible range with as little roll off as possible. and by better fitting the Nyquist theorem, will also result in as little aliasing as possible. so it's the method that probably agrees most with the guys who made digital audio possible. but in any case, we're mostly talking about small stuff and it should concern people the way small stuff do.
now is ringing worst than aliasing or the other way around? hard to give an objective answer when dealing with an apple and oranges kind of question.
Thanks for your respective. I wasn't aware of the situation here. I have a good quality dap, which actually never mentioned digital filters as a thing. Dx200 but still has the options Windows X asked. I know Windows X from that sub. He didn't seem impolite or pushing. I think he was asking this question to figure out the setting to use for his rom. To me brick wall is the neutral one, reference or high freq heavy, I can't tell the difference between other filters always and when I can it is subtle that my brain could accept both as a signature of the headphone I am using.
Minimum phase and NOS analog filters produce noticeable errors in stereo separation as they are uneven in the time domain, which is why they typically aren't used.What is the size of the phase error you're talking about? If it's audible, it must be pretty large- over 1-3ms. Also what do you mean by staging? You mean the channel separation? I've never found channel separation to be a problem, even on cheap equipment. How can phase error show up more on speakers than headphones when the speakers and room are introducing much larger timing errors themselves? I'm no expert on all this stuff, but I do know what humans can and can't hear. If it's audible, it's a large error. We're talking the millisecond range right?
I use a Sony blu-ray player, Yamaha AVR, iMac, Mac Mini, a recent iPhone, iPod Classics, an Oppo BDP103D and an Oppo HA1. I've compared them all, and they all sound exactly the same. I would expect any DAC to be transparent, but I only know the ones I have. I guess I've been lucky and haven't ever run across a bum DAC. I know I've had several Apple branded DACs, Wolfson (iPod) and Sabre (Oppo). I don't know what's in the Sony or Yamaha, but they sound exactly like the Apples and Oppos. I know there used to be lousy DACs in PCs, but I've been told that isn't the case any more because DACs are well designed now and mass produced inexpensively to much higher standards than in the past. Maybe they're still using crappy DACs in brands I haven't tried.