Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)

Sep 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM Post #1,576 of 6,500
  I welcome debate/airing of views.  My sense is that there should be measureable differences between DACs that correspond at least somewhat to real perceptions if you measured the right things, but that's speculation with not enough experience and research, probably with some wishful thinking mixed in as well.

 
Here lies the real issue. I shall find that answer and finally re-conciliate the subjectivists and objectivists and bring peace to this world!
 
 
Wish me luck...
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM Post #1,577 of 6,500
All I know is that I've subjectively compared DACs that measure similarly, excellently on pretty much all grounds, and outside of what many would claim to be beyond human audibility (which I believe is less understood and absolute than some make it off to be, plus some do actually hear "better" than others, and they often have trained ears), and I have found subjective differences between these DACs. It was around that time I realized that while measurements are useful in some regards, especially to filter out the total crap or study very specific characteristics such as filter implementations, they won't tell the whole story. Either they never will, we don't have good enough gear to really dig deep enough into measurements that show differences, and/or there are still tests we aren't running that may explain these subjective differences.
 
Could it all be placebo or some sort of mental trickery on my end? Sure. Still, I believe there have been cases I heard a genuine difference, and anyone is welcome to disagree with that and go about their business. If a DAC looks great on paper, that's fine and preferred, but I'm at the point where I'm more interested in how it sounds to my ears and how it matches my tastes. I think it's fair to assume no one has an absolute understanding of human hearing abilities and DAC measurements, especially when it comes to correlating this stuff together, thus it does no good to leave out subjective analysis and rely only on unfinished and not entirely understood objective analysis.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 2:23 PM Post #1,578 of 6,500
 
[angry rant for who knows what reason]

 
Based on your condescending and "confused" rant you seem to have a problem with terminology. Here is a book that may help you get un-confused:
 
http://tvr.vejas.lt/uploads/Literatura/High%20Performance%20Audio%20Power%20Amplifiers%201.pdf
 
Refer to 1.10.4 for a description of dynamics (including microdynamics). There is also a definition for detail (or space) in 1.10.3 which is described in more depth in 1.10.5.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 3:04 PM Post #1,579 of 6,500
I still want purrin to test a NAIM DAC V1.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 3:21 PM Post #1,580 of 6,500
  did you try to put 2 wyrds in series for even more of the more stuff?
 
 
 
aren't microdetails and microdynamics just a fancy way to look at linearity? if the above graph is real, does it mean you were using words to talk about something else? did you dream it all? or did you really hear something meaning that maybe it's the gungnir that doesn't have good linearity?
I clearly didn't learn much with this post(DA8= bad depth), but it surely made me very curious.

 
We need a thumbs down button on head-fi. It should be red (for rage).
 
What I like about most of Purrin's reviews is that even though he sometimes delves into the more technical side of things most of what he says is easily understood, even by laymen.

I'm glad you tried to sound knowledgeable even though you got the smackdown two posts later, but in the passage you quoted Purrin clearly describes what microdynamics encompasses and how the DA8 is flawed in this department. But I guess in this case that would only apply to him, since his definition is a "pure subjective dream".
 
 
Originally Posted by purrin 
However, more important is microdynamics, especially toward the softer range. The DA8 has this bad tendency of compressing soft sounds, that it makes soft and medium level sounds closer in terms of volume. On the surface, it may initially sound better or more detailed, but after a few minutes, it gets somewhat annoying.

 
Sep 30, 2014 at 4:41 PM Post #1,581 of 6,500
  The Caiman looks SUPER interesting.  Barring any threads about a product, regardless of whether you choose to ban an individual or vendor from posting, is absolute B.S.  That's plain heavy handedness so I hope I'm reading this wrong.  I'd love to hear impressions about a DAC I'm seriously considering before I spend my hard earned money on it.  That's what I love about this place....great posts from experienced audiophiles that help me avoid bad choices.  
 
I'll move on now...
 
 
HS

The thread should be monitored so I suppose if anything out of order was posted we should already have been notified by now. Maybe some pirate will find interest on these energetic gian killers and give it an ear. This thread sure needs some european made DAC love anyway 
biggrin.gif

 
@ultrabike : thanks for the link. Should be an interesting read over some nice tunes.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 4:48 PM Post #1,582 of 6,500
  Conspiracy!!!! lol

 
I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but, no, there's no conspiracy.
 
Unfortunately, I won't. I PMed moderators to ask the question about deleted or locked threads about Beresford stuff. Right now they prefer to avoid any new Beresford thread on HF.

 
There have been issues in the past. This link may help explain my concerns on the matter.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 4:52 PM Post #1,583 of 6,500
   
I know you were being tongue-in-cheek, but, no, there's no conspiracy.
 
 
There have been issues in the past. This link may help explain my concerns on the matter.

 
HI Jude.
 
Its a bit  old now. Maybe we can consider to Give to Beresford Products a new chance to shine here on HF.  We're many owners ( not affiliated to Beresford) who like to share impressions and news about Beresford DACs.
beerchug.gif

 
Sep 30, 2014 at 5:11 PM Post #1,585 of 6,500
  Does this mean we can't have threads regarding Beresford equipment?  That's the only thing I find really odd and I'm hoping that was mistakenly posted.  
 
HS

 
What it means is that, even years later, we have a cautious eye.
 
It's easy to say it was a long time ago, so relax already. However, it was a situation that wasn't confined to Head-Fi, and with one of the profiles in question making 1173 posts here, many about Beresford's products. Both outside and inside Head-Fi, the moderators here were being accused of all sorts of ridiculousness on the matter, until I posted that post--at which point, it pretty much (not surprisingly) stopped.
 
Here's another link with my response then about some of these questions, as well as some follow-up community discussion.
 
For now, this isn't the thread for it, so let's get it back on topic. What I am saying is that discussions regarding at least one of the brands in question do come under greater scrutiny from our moderators here--yes, even this many years later.
 
If you want to discuss it with me, PM me, and let this thread get back on topic.
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 5:33 PM Post #1,586 of 6,500
   
What it means is that, even years later, we have a cautious eye.
 
It's easy to say it was a long time ago, so relax already. However, it was a situation that wasn't confined to Head-Fi, and with one of the profiles in question making 1173 posts here, many about Beresford's products. Both outside and inside Head-Fi, the moderators here were being accused of all sorts of ridiculousness on the matter, until I posted that post--at which point, it pretty much (not surprisingly) stopped.
 
Here's another link with my response then about some of these questions, as well as some follow-up community discussion.
 
For now, this isn't the thread for it, so let's get it back on topic. What I am saying is that discussions regarding at least one of the brands in question do come under greater scrutiny from our moderators here--yes, even this many years later.
 
If you want to discuss it with me, PM me, and let this thread get back on topic.

 
Thank you for the response.  Cautious seems reasonable.
 
I enjoy the open exchange of DAC info on this thread and was hoping if someone (meaning a customer) had real life feedback on the Caiman, I'd like to see it as it's in the top 3 for my next DAC purchase...maybe the top 2.
 
HS
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 5:40 PM Post #1,587 of 6,500
 
 
blah blah blah

 
dScope doesn't have sufficient resolution to measure linearity in that way. The internal ADC of the dScope is probably only 8 bits. There's a way to do it, but it's much more involved where you can't just bring up a few config screens and press a button on the dScope.
 
Here are some real DAC linearity plots (integral and differential):
 

 

ok I'm really not experienced with those types of measurements but they do seem straightforward and counting in LSB does make lot of sense(if I got something wrong, plz let me know as again I discover those kind of measurements).
so here is my reasoning:
2^16= 65536 least significant values available. at least in theory for "perfect 16bit".
what we usually accept as being around 6*16=96db of usable range.
making going from one least significant bit to the next a jump of about 96/65536 = 0.0015db (I doubt it's exactly this, but surely somewhere around that order of magnitude).
 I don't know if what you posted are usual values for audio DACs or not. still I'll use what's offered to me, if I understand that right, it would say that some errors in this example can be as big as jumping maybe 4values of least significant bit. so a good deal bigger than quantization error, yet still ludicrously small.
something not too far away from 0.0015*4=0.006db error.
 
 so here is my problem: are you trying to say that you heard that kind level of amplitude differences from the dynamic of 2DACs? seriously?
even if it was 0.05db I wouldn't believe it while listening to music.
see why irony was my first thought? "oh the guitar was 0.006db quieter than it should, a few times for 1/44000th of a second. I should mention microdynamic for this DAC and explain it."  that's pretty much how I understood the post and how impossibru it seemed to me.
 
 
 
[angry rant for who knows what reason]

 
Based on your condescending and "confused" rant you seem to have a problem with terminology. Here is a book that may help you get un-confused:
 
http://tvr.vejas.lt/uploads/Literatura/High%20Performance%20Audio%20Power%20Amplifiers%201.pdf
 
Refer to 1.10.4 for a description of dynamics (including microdynamics). There is also a definition for detail (or space) in 1.10.3 which is described in more depth in 1.10.5.

I have no problem with the words, I have a problem with what they're used for.
talking about microdynamic or microdetail for a song doesn't trouble me that much if it's with the idea that the composition makes use of such characteristics. microdetail and microcontrast sure go perfectly when talking about picture treatment, and how increasing microcontrast can improve the subjective sharpness up to a point, and how it is DSP abused on cheap cameras inside phones. so I'm not sure I have a problem with the terms themselves.
but read his post again, with your rational thinking and tell me there is nothing wrong with it plz. those words were clearly used and surrounded with explainations of how one DAC was pretty much acting as a DSP and compressing the dynamic of certain loudness levels. as I said imagine the nightmarish measurements we would get from such a DAC.
those modifications of the signal would read as distortions or at least noise right? when looking at some usual DAC specs like THD+noise and SNR it's not hard to see how small the actual micro variations described can be and how they are unrelated to actual music perception. plz tell me you don't believe he actually heard changes of microdynamic between 2 DACs. being purrin's buddy shouldn't forbid you from having an objective opinion on the matter.
if I'm wrong or really missed something plz explain me where. I do usually trust your judgement and have no problem telling how stupid and sorry I am when I'm shown to be wrong. (the perk of having no self esteem).
 
Sep 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM Post #1,589 of 6,500

 
I have French corporate clients like this ... Firstly if you read your own posting again, does it make sense to you?
Hopefully without any undue surprise science is based on empirical evidence, to which it grows to clarify.
 
My perception is you both did not hear nor study enough.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top