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

[frenchbat]

  there is a treatment for nwavguy syndrome: enjoy the music and stop obsessing about gear. 

We already suggested that, but it didn't seem to be satisfying unfortunately.

 

[KeithEmo]

   
Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?
 
And this:

 

   
Again, I wouldn't disagree with the review. The amping issue is a legitimate one. I know they were using built-in amps on the Xonar and DAC2, but that fact remains, they still are using different amps. Having owned the Xonar a while back, I know the headamp on that card sucks. The Xonar's LOs into a good headamp sounds much better. I would also assume the same for the DAC2: I'm sure the head-amp was more of an afterthought than the DAC circuitry. The OBJ2 amp: that amp is well known. So basically the comparison is this when you break things down:
 
1) Motherboard DAC/amp out
2) Xonar DAC | Xonar headout (with crappy headphone chip)
3) BM DAC2 DAC | DAC2 headout (probably not as much attention paid to it compared to DAC section so likely a bottleneck)
4) ODAC | Objective 2 headamp
 
Of the tests, the only consistently identifiable setup was the motherboard out. I am not surprised. Basically you are comparing three mediocre / low-end setups and one really crappy one (which was easily identified.) It was a good test, but the conclusions are flawed. Also, it's obvious there was a huge confirmation bias thing going in (the photo of the Mcintosh tube amp which had nothing to do with the test is huge red flag of nwavuy syndrome) 
 
Even they admitted they were amateurs. It would be like me comparing 5x7 prints from $3000 Nikons and $150 point-and-shoot cameras. Probably look all the same to me.

 
You've also got the fact that different headphones are more or less sensitive to things like the output impedance of the amplifier, so it is to be expected that differences of various types will be more or less audible on different headphones. (In fact, it's even worse that that, because different amplifiers with different output impedances are going to interact with the impedance of different headphones, potentially producing different frequency response anomalies. And, since headphones tend to vary even more than speakers, these anomalies may actually end up making a particular headphone sound better to a different listener. (You may like headphone X whe it's tightly controlled by an amplifier with a low output impedance, while I may prefer that same headphone when it's connected to an amp with a higher output impedance, which causes a slight bump in its bass response.)
 
Because of all this, it's only really fair to control headphone amps with specific (and identical) headphones (and an amp that sounds best with one may well not sound best with another).

 

[prot]

Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?

And this:

The theory sounds good to me. Also sounds like that guy has the math skills needed to design such a device. Wondering though why isnt he implementing that million-taps thing ... should be ok with 2015 tech

 

[evillamer]

 

Looks like Rob Watts is claiming that his WTA Filter is better than filters that preserve the original data(aka Schiit Closed form filter)?

And this:

The theory sounds good to me. Also sounds like that guy has the math skills needed to design such a device. Wondering though why isnt he implementing that million-taps thing ... should be ok with 2015 tech

 
Yeah, especially you have 3072 cuda cores from a Single Nvidia Titan X (Maxwell). If you do a 4x SLI setup, and you will have 12288 cores to design your billion tap filters.

 

[judmarc]

More taps != better filter.
 
Think of taps as the number of points at which the filter operates on the signal.  This means that, all else being equal, the more taps the steeper the cut.  The steeper the cut - again, all else being equal - the more ringing, which is one of the distortions filter designers generally try to avoid.
 
So good filter design must take into account this potential disadvantage of an increased number of taps.

 

[evillamer]

My criticism of the Tomshardware test is that they are using WASAPI output instead of ASIO.
 
We don't know if they have set to WASAPI sharing mode or WASAPI exclusive mode/bit exact mode. Which the sharing mode does have impact on sound quality, especially if the sampling rate is set to default 16bit 48Khz on the sound driver in windows control panel end(which could mean some form of software or driver/hardware sampling rate conversion could have taken place during the test). I recall Foobar does allow for exclusive/bit perfect mode for wasapi output but it is NOT enabled by default and have to be explicitly set in the foobar settings.
 
They should have used ASIO, which bypasses all the issues all together.
 

 Obvious using WASAPI in exclusive mode doesn’t guarantee bit perfect playback.
It is up to the developer of the media player using WASAPI to see to it that the playback is bit perfect.
Bit perfect playback is impossible by design if de properties of the audio file e.g. sample rate are not supported by the hardware.

http://www.thewelltemperedcomputer.com/SW/Windows/Win7/AudioPanel.htm

 

[evillamer]

Anyone compared the Lynx Hilo against the Schitt Yggdrasil? Their prices are comparable.

 

[purrin]

Yes.

 

[Currawong]

It amazes me these days how many people do deeply flawed tests and pass off the results as massive generalisations. They don't realise that they are doing practicing "science" at all. The results of a test only apply to the equipment tested under the conditions of the test! I think schools these days should teach kids how not to be duped by everything from fancy packaging, statistics and BS arguments based on flawed tests. Alongside that, they should be taught not to take anything they are told for granted, even if it comes from an "expert", whether it be an experience or a test.

 

[LingLing1337]

^tell that to the guys on AVS who spend $2k+ on speakers without hearing them, only based on hype

 

[Currawong]

^tell that to the guys on AVS who spend $2k+ on speakers without hearing them, only based on hype

 
Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.
 
Edit: My wording is confusing. What I meant to say in the first sentence is, how a person feels about product after they've actually listened with it wont change because of the marketing or hype. Ie: if they like it or hate it, the marketing blurb wont change that.

 

[yfei]

I have no reason to doubt the people who wrote that article. Tom's is a well known PC hardware-test site.. one of the oldest and most respected. Also, it is not the only report to say that the $2 MB sound chips are really good nowadays.

 
Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed,   but it is just an exception. 
All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good.    Either noisy, or blurred.     Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred.  They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
 
Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.
 
I guess the reason is the same for desktop DACs as well: more components, larger the board => harder to make it transparent.     All DACs from $100 to $1xxx I have tried, are not as clear and detailed as the $2 simple sound system.   Small, less components => easy to make it transparent.   Only after > $2000 level, desktop DAC start to be able to compete with this $2 system.

 

[abartels]

   
Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.

 
I do NOT agree.
 
 
A few years ago I ordered a Korsun V8i, nowadays called Dussun V8i.
http://www.dussun.com/english/v8.html
 
 
It looked like a very good amplifier, many reviewers said it was same like RedRoseMusic amplifier (Marc Levinson)
 
It weighs 41Kg / 90 Lbs, very sturdy build.
 
 
When it arrived at my home I thought it would have to be a perfect amplifier, but, after burn-in time of 1 week i could cry, that bad it sounded.
 
So, everybody said it was a very good amplifier, and that it sounded perfect. Very good reviews.
 
 
 
NOT ME.

 

[Currawong]

 

   
Different situation there I think. They have chosen to take a chance. What they think and feel about the product isn't going to change because of that once the speakers arrive in their home (or any other product for that matter). What I'm talking about, while not entirely unrelated, is the manipulation of beliefs through the presentation of information, which fools people into thinking they know everything that there is about a subject, when clearly they do not. For example, the idea that all "competently made" DACs sound the same because they all measure flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and other gross over-generalisations, or that the THD+N @1 kHz figure written on the box has any meaning, which goes back to those computer sound cards that have factory measurements that far exceed how they perform in most computers.

 
I do NOT agree.
 
 
A few years ago I ordered a Korsun V8i, nowadays called Dussun V8i.
http://www.dussun.com/english/v8.html
 
 
It looked like a very good amplifier, many reviewers said it was same like RedRoseMusic amplifier (Marc Levinson)
 
It weighs 41Kg / 90 Lbs, very sturdy build.
 
 
When it arrived at my home I thought it would have to be a perfect amplifier, but, after burn-in time of 1 week i could cry, that bad it sounded.
 
So, everybody said it was a very good amplifier, and that it sounded perfect. Very good reviews.
 
 
 
NOT ME.

Hurriedly written post bad wording fail on my part -- we're actually in agreement. What I mean to say is, the marketing of a product isn't going to change whether they like it or not after it has arrived home and they've listened with it. If they listen and think it is great or it sucks, nothing will change that, except maybe different accompanying equipment, or a different room arrangement if speakers.

 

[BassDigger]

   
Although I found out the $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is extremely clear and detailed,   but it is just an exception. 
All OTHER PC's sound card I have tried are not good.    Either noisy, or blurred.     Like the Creative chips, it is very blurred.  They charged a premium for loaded features, but loaded leads to less transparency.
 
Only talking about clearness and transparency. The $2 MB chip inside Dell XPS 9100 is nothing musical or enjoyable.
 
I guess the reason is the same for desktop DACs as well: more components, larger the board => harder to make it transparent.     All DACs from $100 to $1xxx I have tried, are not as clear and detailed as the $2 simple sound system.   Small, less components => easy to make it transparent.   Only after > $2000 level, desktop DAC start to be able to compete with this $2 system.

 
Sorry; I'm a little confused as to whether you're positive or negative, regarding computer audio. What kind of DAC do you find musical and enjoyable?