Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why delta-sigma kinda sucks, just to get you to think about stuff)
post-11745214
Post #6,196 of 6,423

jimvibe

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Posts
22
Likes
12
 
Details and ambiance cues are not a coloration, but regardless, if you consider there's a coloration, how would it be possible to not see a difference ?

The soundstage and level of detail will improve if you increase the brightness slightly because you will hear the reverb better and most of so perceived "details" are in treble anyway. That doesn't mean this level of treble was in the original recording though. Increased mid-upper bass will make it sound fuller and richer (for example hd800 + any tube amp), increased compression or worse channel separation will make it punchier. There is nothing bad about this coloration, but it's not transparent. It could have been added at the recording stage.
 
The main point that's being dicussed here is whether Delta-Sigma modulation based DACs are inferior or not. I think I propose a very reasonable thing to do — throw a high-end S-D modulation based analog-digital-analog conversion (precisely volume matched) in your favorite signal chain and see if it changes the sound (ABX, double blinded, being honest with yourself, whatever). If S-D cripples the sound it should obviously result in some kind of audible difference. If it's transparent there will be no difference and you will still hear the coloration you like.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745224
Post #6,197 of 6,423

frenchbat

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
536
Reaction score
30
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Posts
536
Likes
30
 
The soundstage and level of detail will improve if you increase the brightness slightly because you will hear the reverb better and most of so perceived "details" are in treble anyway. That doesn't mean this level of treble was in the original recording though. Increased mid-upper bass will make it sound fuller and richer (for example hd800 + any tube amp), increased compression or worse channel separation will make it punchier. There is nothing bad about this coloration, but it's not transparent. It could have been added at the recording stage.
 
The main point that's being dicussed here is whether Delta-Sigma modulation based DACs are inferior or not. I think I propose a very reasonable thing to do — throw a high-end S-D modulation based analog-digital-analog conversion (precisely volume matched) in your favorite signal chain and see if it changes the sound (ABX, double blinded, being honest with yourself, whatever). If S-D cripples the sound it should obviously result in some kind of audible difference. If it's transparent there will be no difference and you will still hear the coloration you like.

Funny, because the details are there, but the treble is definitely not emphasized compared to the DAC1. As to the test, it's your claim, not mine. I personally don't need it. 
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: skeptic and negura
post-11745386
Post #6,198 of 6,423

DreamKing

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
982
Reaction score
215
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Posts
982
Likes
215
tbf...
 
how much money are you willing to bet ? Set the test, I'll take it.
 
Hint, I have a Dac1 hdr and a theta dspro genV
 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745397
Post #6,199 of 6,423

skeptic

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
1,539
Reaction score
333
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Posts
1,539
Likes
333
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: negura
post-11745471
Post #6,200 of 6,423

miceblue

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
16,354
Reaction score
2,671
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Posts
16,354
Likes
2,671
^ Yup, it's totally the DACs that make recordings sound bad. It's for sure not the Loudness War at all, no way Jose. That would be silly.

Do you think it could be a combination of both MiceB? Probably, and the "applefication" of creating musical pablum for the "masses".
It could be both, but the mastering process would make far more of a difference than any ADC/DAC technology would unless it was severely flawed from the start.

Apple's Mastered for iTunes tools are actually pretty good in today's era. They let the mastering engineers keep the music at a high sound quality and iTunes distributes those masters as high bitrate AAC files.

Daft Punk's RAM album for example sounds nearly as good as the master from HD Tracks at a fraction of the price, in which both sound much better and more dynamic than the CD master.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745486
Post #6,201 of 6,423

jacal01

You've just been blocked by Mr. Conviviality!
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
540
Location
Slightly left of bubble
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Location
Slightly left of bubble
Posts
1,459
Likes
540
  Gosh, why does this thread have 400+ pages of comments?
 
Post padding run amok, obviously.  Why are you adding to the chaos?
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745625
Post #6,202 of 6,423

bixby

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Messages
2,794
Reaction score
229
Joined
Nov 11, 2004
Posts
2,794
Likes
229
   
Have the same question. Can you guys please suggest some warm sounding DACs in that price range (closer to $300). I tried the iDSD micro but still doesn't feel as "blended" enough as I imagined it would be.
slightly on the warm side and very good is the hrt music streamer II+ and sounds best if you have a clean source and decent usb cable.  I prefer it to the modi 2 uber in my system.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745641
Post #6,203 of 6,423

jimvibe

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Posts
22
Likes
12
   
Post padding run amok, obviously.  Why are you adding to the chaos?

Because the title is the thread is very misleading. People tend to believe everything they read and will plop $2k+ thinking they got something vastly superior.
 
     Share This Post       
post-11745684
Post #6,204 of 6,423

jacal01

You've just been blocked by Mr. Conviviality!
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
540
Location
Slightly left of bubble
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Location
Slightly left of bubble
Posts
1,459
Likes
540
Don't know about 'vastly', but there was enough of a potential differential in my mind to upgrade to the Yggy from yet another R2R DAC, the AGD M7, much less a DS DAC.
 
Also, being an audiophile means that  a 'vast' difference is not required to upgrade one's equipment to mythical 'endgame' status.  Subtle differences are more than enough in a lot of cases, and 'endgame' is more defined by personal economics than delivered ideal state musical fidelity.
 
Read the whole thread for total context, already, before weighing in with your own opinion, please.
 
post-11746081
Post #6,205 of 6,423

hans030390

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,372
Reaction score
603
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Posts
1,372
Likes
603
 
My point is that ADC1/DAC1 will not add any coloration to the sound. And if you prefer the coloration your theta does, you will still have it regardless of analog-digital-analog conversion in your chain.
 
What makes you think the Theta is adding coloration? Do you think the Yggy applies as well? What's not to say it's more true to the source and that the DAC1 is the more colored DAC?
 
I've tested enough DACs that measure near perfectly on static measurements (i.e. an objectivist would tell you they'd all be colorless or have inaudible imperfections), yet sound noticeably different in back-to-back tests. Some more detailed than others, some more fleshed-out sounding than others, some more 3D, some with better decay and reverb. I get it, the DAC1 measures great on paper, but so do many other DACs that sound different. The Yggy and even the Theta, both measure excellently (you might be surprised that some TOTL DACs from the mid-90s still measure as, well, TOTL DACs even today). So if they all look colorless per objective criteria in measurements, what explains the sonic differences? And if you think it's just placebo, then why did you get the DAC1 instead of the ODAC?
 
     Share This Post       
post-11746240
Post #6,206 of 6,423

jimvibe

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Posts
22
Likes
12
   
What makes you think the Theta is adding coloration? Do you think the Yggy applies as well? What's not to say it's more true to the source and that the DAC1 is the more colored DAC?
 
I've tested enough DACs that measure near perfectly on static measurements (i.e. an objectivist would tell you they'd all be colorless or have inaudible imperfections), yet sound noticeably different in back-to-back tests. Some more detailed than others, some more fleshed-out sounding than others, some more 3D, some with better decay and reverb. I get it, the DAC1 measures great on paper, but so do many other DACs that sound different. The Yggy and even the Theta, both measure excellently (you might be surprised that some TOTL DACs from the mid-90s still measure as, well, TOTL DACs even today). So if they all look colorless per objective criteria in measurements, what explains the sonic differences? And if you think it's just placebo, then why did you get the DAC1 instead of the ODAC?
 
If it sounds different from DAC1 then either DAC1 has some coloration or Theta has. I don't know what else to call these differences. Let's say DAC1 is not transparent and Theta is (or both of them are not transparent but different). I propose a very specific test to show that DAC1 is not adding any coloration to the sound and therefore is transparent: run digital-analog-digital conversion on your favorite digital recording with DAC1/ADC1 (maybe even several times - 10x) and ABX that with an original track using Theta or Yggdrasil. Then you can do the same with ADC1/Yggdrasil and compare that too. Unless ADC and DAC cancel each others imperfections somehow (highly unlikely) you will hear the amplified ten-fold difference clearly.
 
DAC1 measures better than ODAC and has better "objective" specs than Yggdrasil actually too. I own it for different reasons though. 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11746490
Post #6,207 of 6,423

BassDigger

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
530
Reaction score
93
Location
In at the deep end.
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Location
In at the deep end.
Posts
530
Likes
93
 
If it sounds different from DAC1 then either DAC1 has some coloration or Theta has. I don't know what else to call these differences. Let's say DAC1 is not transparent and Theta is (or both of them are not transparent but different). I propose a very specific test to show that DAC1 is not adding any coloration to the sound and therefore is transparent: run digital-analog-digital conversion on your favorite digital recording with DAC1/ADC1 (maybe even several times - 10x) and ABX that with an original track using Theta or Yggdrasil. Then you can do the same with ADC1/Yggdrasil and compare that too. Unless ADC and DAC cancel each others imperfections somehow (highly unlikely) you will hear the amplified ten-fold difference clearly.
 
DAC1 measures better than ODAC and has better "objective" specs than Yggdrasil actually too. I own it for different reasons though. 
 
I think that your 'rose-tinted glasses' may be affecting your ears; even the (very) best dacs will do something that changes the sound; they all have their particular sound signature, so are not transparent. All of them.
 
Your apparent belief that your DAC1 is the exception, does nothing to boost your credibility. Sorry. 

 
     Share This Post       
post-11746540
Post #6,208 of 6,423

jimvibe

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Posts
22
Likes
12
   
I think that your 'rose-tinted glasses' may be affecting your ears; even the (very) best dacs will do something that changes the sound; they all have their particular sound signature, so are not transparent. All of them.
 
Your apparent belief that your DAC1 is the exception, does nothing to boost your credibility. Sorry. 

Of course they do. Even air pressure changes all the time, so every playback is not the same (not even mentioning the more prominent psychological perception changes). The only important question is whether you can hear that difference. Again — I proposed a very specific test. 
 
     Share This Post       
post-11747449
Post #6,209 of 6,423

Solude

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
218
Location
Ontario, Canada
Joined
Apr 25, 2002
Location
Ontario, Canada
Posts
6,817
Likes
218
  Again — I proposed a very specific test. 
 
No need.  Benchmark already ran this test as part of their DAC1/ADC1 development.  They ran the DAC1 into an ADC1 looped over and over 20? times I believe and in the end... absolutely no change to the data.  Meaning yes the DAC1 is literally bit perfect.  Which is not to say that it is pleasant.  Also not to suggest that bit perfect relates to stage focus, smoothness, dynamics or any other none numerical, measured performance.
 
     Share This Post       
  • Like
Reactions: frenchbat
post-11747527
Post #6,210 of 6,423

jimvibe

New Head-Fier
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
22
Reaction score
12
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Posts
22
Likes
12
   
No need.  Benchmark already ran this test as part of their DAC1/ADC1 development.  They ran the DAC1 into an ADC1 looped over and over 20? times I believe and in the end... absolutely no change to the data.  Meaning yes the DAC1 is literally bit perfect.  Which is not to say that it is pleasant.  Also not to suggest that bit perfect relates to stage focus, smoothness, dynamics or any other none numerical, measured performance.

It's wouldn't be bit perfect at least because some (inaudible) noise would be injected into the recording at every conversion stage. But it would be audibly indistinguishable from the analog source the digital recording was made from. Which in turn means that DAC1/ADC1 didn't detract "stage focus, smoothness, dynamics" from the analog source.
 
     Share This Post       

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top