[pibroch]

While I fully agree with the thrust of your post Bigshot, when buying a new piece of playback equipment we can’t all afford to buy multiple products for side by side comparison at home (or in the recording studio) over an extended period of weeks or months.

This is where I think measurements can be useful given that various changing environmental and psychological factors affect our sound perception.

Suppose two components are similarly priced and otherwise acceptable and you could measure both. Even though you may not be able to tell the difference in time-limited listening tests, if one consistently measures better than another wouldn’t it be prudent to choose that one? (I’m not referring to meaningless “snake oil” figures such as, for example, sub picosecond jitter specs in DACs.)

 

[bigshot]

While I fully agree with the thrust of your post Bigshot, when buying a new piece of playback equipment we can’t all afford to buy multiple products for side by side comparison at home (or in the recording studio) over an extended period of weeks or months.

It isn't difficult at all. All you need is a reference known to be transparent. Then you compare the new component to that with a A/B switched, line level matched blind comparison. It takes about a half hour to set up and perform a test like this, and the equipment costs around $50. We have had people here in Sound Science who do these kinds of tests regularly. It isn't hard. People just try to make it sound hard to avoid the truth. I've done tests on everything I've owned for the past couple of decades and it all sounds exactly the same. Looking at specs shows that even cheap players perform beyond the ability of human ears to hear. I do a test and hear no difference. I look at the specs and there is no reason to think there is a difference. Why then should I believe someone who comes in and says "I have only anecdotal stories to base this on, I haven't done any controlled tests to verify it, but I believe... x, y and z."?

There is absolutely no practical reason to spend more money for specs you can't hear. The purpose of home audio equipment is to listen to music in the home. It's not being used to set a standard or to record a performance for all time. If a simple side by side controlled comparison doesn't reveal a difference, you're never going to get any benefit from theoretical differences while you're drinking a glass of wine and listening to Beethoven in your living room.

As for measuring psychological factors... Measuring bias and placebo I would imagine is much more difficult than just comparing two sounds head to head. I've found that bias scratches and claws to maintain itself... that is clear when people come into a science forum and force themselves through mental and logical calisthenics to avoid just doing a simple blind comparison.

 

[Isloo]

This "issue" is the same as point #1 below.

In answer to SoundAndMotion: Under normal listening conditions, at any reasonable playback level level, there is NO relationship between good/bad measurements and listening tests! Even the bad measurements of modern DACs are outside audibility. However, it's of course entirely possible that bias could play a role. Outside of a controlled test, knowing that one DAC (for example) has peak jitter atrefects at -100dB, while another is at -130dB, may cause a biased listener to believe/perceive the latter as sounding better.

2. The limits of measurements are typically thousands to many millions of times beyond audibility, so that's not an issue and hasn't been for several decades. The other problem is that although "nothing is perfect", the "issues" which exist, even with cheap modern consumer DACs, are all below audibility (under normal listening conditions), so why do we "need to fix them"? The PSAudio DAC is an interesting example though, some of the measurements are by far the worst I've seen, even if it were only a $100 DAC! The balanced output voltage is effectively faulty and I've never seen intermodulation distortion that bad, even on 25 year old DACs but even given this atrocious measurement and faulty output voltage, still the differences would probably only be audible under normal listening conditions with certain amp/transducer combinations, specific recordings and good/trained listening skills!

G

For someone trying to get a basic understanding of the science behind audio gear, this is really interesting, and from what I have read so far, not entirely surprising. So there is literally no point in paying any attention to the measurements provided by manufacturers, as if there are any "issues" they will very likely be inaudible anyway?

 

[gregorio]

So there is literally no point in paying any attention to the measurements provided by manufacturers, as if there are any "issues" they will very likely be inaudible anyway?

As far as DACs are concerned, correct "there is literally no point" except in the following cases:
A. You're interested in DAC measurements themselves, rather than in audible performance, or
B. There maybe a very few esoteric DACs out there that deliberately avoid accurate reconstruction, in favour of some marketing gimmick and with some music could be audibly different. Filterless NOS DACs come to mind as an example, although I don't know if such DACs are still available.

G

 

[Isloo]

As far as DACs are concerned, correct "there is literally no point" except in the following cases:
A. You're interested in DAC measurements themselves, rather than in audible performance, or
B. There maybe a very few esoteric DACs out there that deliberately avoid accurate reconstruction, in favour of some marketing gimmick and with some music could be audibly different. Filterless NOS DACs come to mind as an example, although I don't know if such DACs are still available.

G

Thank you for your reply. As neither of the two exceptions you mention apply to me, thankfully I can ignore them!

 

[Redcarmoose]

To be fair to Amir, he says exactly this. His listening tests are DBT and the PS is one if the few I’ve seen him claim to be able to identify the poor performance of in these tests. Usually he says despite the poor measurements I was unable to identify the difference. Which, as you say, begs the question of why one might spend all that money for no audible gain (or indeed loss)

Absolutely maybe loss of signal. Many audiophile DACs seem to offer different color personalities. Some close to neutral with a splash of warmth. Some actually have a bass and treble spike which can make the response more “dynamic” sounding. Some are reserved with a black deep background and a treble roll off. If this is created due to the decoder or amplifier section something is up. Soundstage can vary as well as an almost abstract way of wrangling the imaging around. Due to tone emphasis frequencies get pushed forward or back creating a mental focus on different elements.

Much is absolutely a degradation in resolving and reality though in the end this distortion can come off musical. Folks can be looking for personality aside from transparency. And we all know of the clinical treble boost which when added to subdued midrange and lower frequencies gives the feeling of even more detail. My top 5 DACs are all different with some boring and some engaging.

There are many claims to audiophile success though I like to think transparency is not at the top of the list. Close to transparency but with added romance and distortion.

 

[bigshot]

Color variations are much more likely to be the result of incorrect comparison procedures. Just doing a blind test yourself isn't enough sometimes. Some people have such an investment in their bias they should have the test administered by a third party.

No distortion please, and I get my romance from somewhere other than a black box with a plug on it.

 

[pibroch]

Absolutely maybe loss of signal. Many audiophile DACs seem to offer different color personalities. Some close to neutral with a splash of warmth. Some actually have a bass and treble spike which can make the response more “dynamic” sounding. Some are reserved with a black deep background and a treble roll off. If this is created due to the decoder or amplifier section something is up. Soundstage can vary as well as an almost abstract way of wrangling the imaging around. Due to tone emphasis frequencies get pushed forward or back creating a mental focus on different elements.

Much is absolutely a degradation in resolving and reality though in the end this distortion can come off musical. Folks can be looking for personality aside from transparency. And we all know of the clinical treble boost which when added to subdued midrange and lower frequencies gives the feeling of even more detail. My top 5 DACs are all different with some boring and some engaging.

There are many claims to audiophile success though I like to think transparency is not at the top of the list. Close to transparency but with added romance and distortion.

There is also the deliberate removal of the lower mid energy which in real life muddies the mid-mid and upper-mid frequencies: this gives the naive the idea that the increased “clarity” in the midrange means a more transparent DAC. This is of course an old trick which is used by recording engineers to give vocals more “presence”.

 

[bigshot]

Do you have any measurements that show a DAC doesn't have a flat response?

 

[gregorio]

[1] Many audiophile DACs seem to offer different color personalities. Some close to neutral with a splash of warmth. Some actually have a bass and treble spike which can make the response more “dynamic” sounding.
[2] Much is absolutely a degradation in resolving and reality though in the end this distortion can come off musical.
[3] There are many claims to audiophile success though I like to think transparency is not at the top of the list. Close to transparency but with added romance and distortion.

1. Sure, some of the marketing materials seem to offer different colour properties but do they in reality? As bigshot requested, do you have any DAC measurements which demonstrate the bass and treble spikes you mention or indeed any audible deviation from a flat response? And: What is "warmth" and how would a DAC achieve it? What happens if I want to play a piece of music that has been specifically designed not to be "warm" (to be "cold"/'harsh" or whatever the opposite of "warmth" is), do I need to buy another DAC for those types of music or just accept that the DAC is doing the exact opposite of the musical intent?

2. Yes it can BUT it's entirely down to the individual piece of music/genre. Except in specific circumstances, distortion will not "come off as musical" but the exact opposite. Again, unless I only listen to those specific pieces/genres, how many different DACs should I buy?

3. Again, same with "romance". There's lots of different types of romance and ways of achieving it, how does a DAC know which is which and what the appropriate distortion/colouration should be? And, what happens if I want to listen to music which deliberately isn't romantic?

There is also the deliberate removal of the lower mid energy which in real life muddies the mid-mid and upper-mid frequencies: this gives the naive the idea that the increased “clarity” in the midrange means a more transparent DAC. This is of course an old trick which is used by recording engineers to give vocals more “presence”.

But isn't this an argument AGAINST a DAC applying a colouration? If, as you say, it's an old engineering trick, then why haven't the engineers already done it (and it's therefore already in the recording/mix)? Contrary to audiophile myth, "more" isn't always better, in fact typically it's "worse": Music typically has a specific amount of something; romance, warmth, presence or whatever. For example, reducing low-mids and increasing the mids (around 2.5 - 3.5kHz) is as you say very common to increase vocal clarity and presence but it depends on the mic/recording and just a little too much doesn't increase clarity and presence more, it just makes it sound harsh. So why would you want your DAC to add "more" to the correct amount that's already been applied?

G

 

[pibroch]

1. Sure, some of the marketing materials seem to offer different colour properties but do they in reality? As bigshot requested, do you have any DAC measurements which demonstrate the bass and treble spikes you mention or indeed any audible deviation from a flat response? And: What is "warmth" and how would a DAC achieve it? What happens if I want to play a piece of music that has been specifically designed not to be "warm" (to be "cold"/'harsh" or whatever the opposite of "warmth" is), do I need to buy another DAC for those types of music or just accept that the DAC is doing the exact opposite of the musical intent?

2. Yes it can BUT it's entirely down to the individual piece of music/genre. Except in specific circumstances, distortion will not "come off as musical" but the exact opposite. Again, unless I only listen to those specific pieces/genres, how many different DACs should I buy?

3. Again, same with "romance". There's lots of different types of romance and ways of achieving it, how does a DAC know which is which and what the appropriate distortion/colouration should be? And, what happens if I want to listen to music which deliberately isn't romantic?



But isn't this an argument AGAINST a DAC applying a colouration? If, as you say, it's an old engineering trick, then why haven't the engineers already done it (and it's therefore already in the recording/mix)? Contrary to audiophile myth, "more" isn't always better, in fact typically it's "worse": Music typically has a specific amount of something; romance, warmth, presence or whatever. For example, reducing low-mids and increasing the mids (around 2.5 - 3.5kHz) is as you say very common to increase vocal clarity and presence but it depends on the mic/recording and just a little too much doesn't increase clarity and presence more, it just makes it sound harsh. So why would you want your DAC to add "more" to the correct amount that's already been applied?

G

Agree with all of the above Gregorio.The reason why this is done? I don’t know but can only hypothesise.

Product differentiation maybe: for example at AES in New York in 2017 one manufacturer claimed that, regarding their new DAC’s sub 1 picosecond jitter measurement, “.. the interesting thing that happens with ultra low jitter is music’s more relaxed, it’s more pleasant to listen to: you could actually go so far as saying jitter in converters affects the feel of music.” This DAC has garnered a following among some recording engineers who follow comments on the website “Gearslutz”, some of whom have been vociferous in their online praise: “ the next level in clarity” etc.. Sales of this DAC have at times been so high that buyers have had to wait months for their unit to be made.

I was quite curious as I owned the more established recording-studio DAC it was pitted against on the Gearslutz mastering forum. So I purchased the new product to do a side by side comparison and found it to be as I described, extremely low mid shy: and it did sound horribly harsh.

 

[bigshot]

Do you have any measurements that show response imbalances? That would be easy to measure.

If a DAC sounds harsh and imbalanced, I would assume there was a manufacturing defect. Did you return it and try another copy?

 

[gregorio]

[1] for example at AES in New York in 2017 one manufacturer claimed that, regarding their new DAC’s sub 1 picosecond jitter measurement, “.. the interesting thing that happens with ultra low jitter is music’s more relaxed, it’s more pleasant to listen to: you could actually go so far as saying jitter in converters affects the feel of music.”
[2] This DAC has garnered a following among some recording engineers who follow comments on the website “Gearslutz”, some of whom have been vociferous in their online praise: “ the next level in clarity” etc.. Sales of this DAC have at times been so high that buyers have had to wait months for their unit to be made.
[3] So I purchased the new product to do a side by side comparison and found it to be as I described, extremely low mid shy: and it did sound horribly harsh.

1. That marketing line clearly contradicts all the relevant science/studies! Even in the pro audio world manufacturers will "try it on", much more so in the last 15-20 years, as falling costs have brought musicians and many other poorly or completely untrained hobbyists/amateurs into the pro audio recording world.

2. You have to be careful of Gearslutz, it's largely overrun by musicians, semi-pros and amateurs pretending to be something they're not (knowledgeable engineers) and who're subject to many of the same audiophile myths we see here on head-fi. One or two of the forums aren't completely overrun and I do very occasionally check them but even then there's usually at least a fair amount of "the blind leading the blind".

3. Like bigshot: I'd like to see actual objective measurements of such a skewed freq response. I haven't come across a pro audio ADC/DAC like you describe for nearly 20 years or so.

G

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Agree with all of the above Gregorio.The reason why this is done? I don’t know but can only hypothesise.


I was quite curious as I owned the more established recording-studio DAC it was pitted against on the Gearslutz mastering forum. So I purchased the new product to do a side by side comparison and found it to be as I described, extremely low mid shy: and it did sound horribly harsh.

was that side by side comparison a blind comparison?

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I like ASR and Amirm's reviews. I just pretty much assume with dacs that he's measuring stuff that isn't audible. I know the deal with dacs anyway and I'm not even in the market for a $600 one let alone $6000. I do however find it interesting (satisfying? lol) that a dac costing $6000 measures (in any sense audible or not) worse than others at pretty much any cost. I wouldn't mind however if there was a disclaimer printed at the end of the reviews stating unequivocably that the measured differences in a given review will not be audible under any normal real-world circumstances or something to that effect. The audiophool crowd will always see any measured difference as an explanation for/proof of their special, golden-eared perceptions of SQ differences...