1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

The Hopelessly Derailed ODAC/Objective DAC Anticipation/Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by maverickronin, Apr 29, 2012.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
  1. estreeter
    This thread seems to be humming along nicely - hifi voodoo ******** and all.   [​IMG]
    I look forward to its imminent closure. Just as Voldemort seems to have bought out the worst in us, it seems that we cant even wait for one of his designs to restart these never-ending battles. I enjoy food, and I have no interest in being a nutritionist/gourmand/chef - enough said. 
    estreeter, blissfully ignorant music lover and anti-audiophile
  2. juantendo8
    Perhaps Voldemort has just unearthed those small, uncomfortable doubts in the back of some of our minds. Naturally, some just choose to rebel against it with body and soul in order to validate their musical existence.
  3. .Sup
    is the ESS Sabre ES9023 newer or better than 9018?
  4. juantendo8
    The ES9018 is both more expensive and contains the potential to reach better specs. I would worry more about the implementation though, as both can easily reach the realm of audible transparency.
  5. .Sup
    Thanks for the reply! I don't listen to hi-res files so the difference wouldn't be too big for me probably.
  6. khaos974

    IF my memory's correct, the 9018 is a top of the line DAC chip costing $65/piece, the 9023 is an entry level chip costing $2/piece.
  7. Tronz
    Which doesn't mean the top of the line DAC is better than the entry level chip. It's all about implementation.
  8. Sapientiam
    Its about chip and implementation in reality.
    Specs for the ODAC only cite measurements (based on Ethan Winer's criteria for transparency) but not listening tests. So claims of 'audible transparency' are just that - claims.
  9. kiteki
    Studios use $XX,XXX microphones and $X,XXX A/DC's, audio lovers use $XXX D/AC's and $X,XXX speakers, IEM's or headphones.  You have been in the industry for 30+ years and chose a $200 heaphone as your username.  Not implying anything, just sayin'.
    First of all transparency isn't audible, that's like visual darkness?
    Second, no one has proven any DAC is transparent.
    Third, Wikipedia says that 256kbps MP2 is 100% transparent, they cite four sources for this, peer-reviewed etc., ...should I delete all my MP3's?
    In my personal view ABX is overkill.  Someone should make a Foobar component so you can connect two USB DAC's at once, it plays one of them randomly, and you have to identify which one it is.
    You connect both DAC's to the same amp, with some kind of Y cable.
    Edit:  With a cable like this, (90 cents)
  10. khaos974

    Yes, of course it depends on implementation, however, a well implemented ES9018 also has objectively superior measured performances compared to a well implemented ES9023: greater dynamic range, lower noise, lower THD, greater linearity...
  11. estreeter
    I'd prefer to ABX the Pro community - 40 years and you still cant produce anything on the level of DSOTM ? What does a Physics degree cost, and do you really need one to twiddle some knobs on a mixing desk ? Why churn out compressed crap for the tween iTunes market when you could actually be creatiing something that music lovers might want to hear ...... there might not be any 2K cables in your studio, but I'm willing to bet that you accrue gear like its going out of style. Tax deductible, of course.  
    I happen to agree on the cable issue, but  its an unwinnable argument, If a zealot tells me that he is going to spend eternity with 20 virgins, absolutely no logic will sway him from that belief. 
  12. juantendo8
    1. So you caught me with a small misuse of one word. My apologies, i meant audio* transparency.
    2. As long as all meaningful measurements fall below the human hearing threshold, the DAC is transparent. This is science, not a guessing game.
    3. Just because your music files are transparent doesn't mean that there can't be a problem elsewhere along the chain. I cannot see the relevancy of your argument about MP2 files.   
  13. Warpkitty
    Oh the AKGs are OK for studio work and they are quite common in fact. Also, in lots of studios you'll find all kinds of low fi transducers. It helps to create a mix that will sound OK across a lot of systems.

    I think the newer 240 versions have gone out of favour, however.

    Just saying' :)
  14. kiteki
    juantendo8, 'science' oftens draws a very vague line in the air, in this case for what total transparency is.
    Where the line is crossed into total transparency is inherently impossible to determine until speakers are 100% transparent, like you said in point 3 there could be a heavy filter elsewhere in the chain.
    Likewise, I see no reason to believe that 256kbps MP2 is 100% transparent, despite the usual corners of science holding it up, Wikipedia, Audio journal, peer-reviewed paper, extensive testing with 'experts' over two years, perhaps some university, some magazine.
    All this talk, it's all theoretical transparency, there is no legit science to hold it up.
    Nevertheless, I suspect the ODAC will be a really good product.
    I just think there should be less hype, and more open-mindedness.  Connect two USB DAC's to the same headphone amp or stereo receiver, do a blind test if you can, talk about the sound, I think that's pretty much it, at least in my view.
    Hopefully someone can make a Foobar component to blind test DAC's.
  15. Sapientiam
    Winer's collection of measurements doesn't fulfill 'all meaningful' ones. So the claims remain just claims.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Share This Page