Understanding the Role of DACs in a Simple Audio Setup

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

You must be new here.

Relatively speaking I am new here but what do you mean?

 

[bigshot]

So, is your goal to eternally be unhappy or do you also have a secondary goal of ruining the fun of the hobby for other people?

But what if your fun is based on a lie? He’s doing you a favor by offering you a clue. He’s pointing out a direct route to fun that isn’t expensive and complicated. You should thank him for that.

By the way, a non oversampling DAC doesn’t “take more snapshots of samples”. It just uses a less accurate low pass filter at the top end of human hearing. It rolls off high frequencies.

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

But what if your fun is based on a lie? He’s doing you a favor by offering you a clue. He’s pointing out a direct route to fun that isn’t expensive and complicated. You should thank him for that.

Fun is probably the most subjective term in the english language. Is skiing fun? For some people. I don't like it. I also don't like golf, or soccer, or most videogames, or pinball, or tennis, or arts and crafts, or stamp collecting etc etc but millions of people would argue that all of these things are fun. A totally flat uncolored hyper-analytical sound is very dry and unpleasant for me. Is it fun for someone else? Probably is. I've been into quality headphones for over a decade though and I know what I like. Audio is so subjective there's no such thing as pointing someone in the "objectively right direction" you can only point them in a subjective direction based on your own subjective bias and preferences. Case in point, I totally hated my DT770 and I gave them to my buddy. He loves them. Which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong? The answer is neither of us AND both of us . There are 10,000 flavours of audio because there are 10,000 flavours of audiophiles.

 

[bigshot]

Sound isn’t subjective. It can be measured and calibrated. Your perception of sound might be all over the place, but that doesn’t mean that sound is all over the place too.

An understanding of how sound reproduction works can help you optimize fidelity and achieve optimal reproduction of sound. How your brain chooses to interpret that is up to you.

 

[2leftears]

Relatively speaking I am new here but what do you mean?

I mean that anyone who knows even a bit about the professional background of @gregorio wouldn't suggest to him that he doesn't know what a NOS mode on a DAC is...

 

[gregorio]

As this is the Sound Science discussion forum, you are new here and don’t appear to have much knowledge of the science/facts that underlie what you see as a hobby, I’ll try to be more diplomatic in response to your (apparently inadvertent) contradiction of the facts and address as many of your points as practical.

So, is your goal to eternally be unhappy or do you also have a secondary goal of ruining the fun of the hobby for other people?

Neither, I’m not sure how you arrived at that false dichotomy?

Please don't tell me what I can and cannot hear, or what I want to hear.

I’m not telling you what you can or want to hear but I can of course tell you what you cannot hear. I assume you’re a human being? In which case, what you can’t hear is dictated by the limitations of human physiology. If you’re a human, it is not possible to hear inaudible sounds, sounds that are way below the threshold of human hearing and, it is obviously absolutely certain that you cannot hear audio signals that are so low level they cannot even exist as sound waves.

If R2R didn't sound different than Sigma Delta, people wouldn't spend big bucks on R2R.

Why wouldn’t they? People spend big bucks on Rolex and other watch brands that do not tell the time any better than watches costing a tiny fraction of the price and this is just one of countless examples, why should the audiophile community be any different? The response to your assertion is that if audiophiles had a better understanding of the DAC process instead of relying on false marketing, then relatively few people would spend big bucks on R2R. This is the case in the pro-audio community, no one at all spends big bucks on R2R DACs because there aren’t any professional R2R DACs! The reason for this is that not only are R2R DACs less accurate (lower fidelity) and less reliable but also more expensive and professionals cannot easily be convinced by the false marketing that works on audiophiles.

Yes, Hi-Fi means high fidelity, and when that term was coined there was no such thing as high fidelity to speak of. People were listening to records that wowed and fluttered and had hideous noise floors, cracks and pops, etc. So that's kind of a non-argument.

“High Fidelity” as a term was coined in the early 1950’s in response to a number of innovations after WWII, the use of tape recording and the introduction of micro-groove records for example, all of which resulted in noticeably higher fidelity than previous vinyl recordings. “High Fidelity” is a relative term, “high” is only “high” relative to something that is lower. I’m not sure how this fact is a non-argument?

Honestly, and respectfully, I think you're being disrespectful, spiteful, and dismissive towards your fellow audiophiles.

You think that stating the facts, especially in a science discussion forum, is “disrespectful, spiteful and dismissive” but making false assertions and further disseminating false/misleading marketing (albeit unwittingly) isn’t? Sorry, but it’s the other way around.

Any decent DAC will have a NOS mode, an OS mode, and possibly several filter options.

No they won’t. Any decent DAC and indeed the very highest fidelity DACs will not have a NOS mode and will not have several filter options. They are OS DACs and only employ one filter, an audibly ideal filter. NOS is a relatively old technology that was superceeded in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s, why would “any decent DAC” have to include a superceeded/inferior technology?

NOS just means non oversampling. It's playing back the same sample rate it's being fed.

Technically it does just mean “non-oversampling” but in the modern audiophile market it also seems to mean “filterless”.

In oversampling mode the dac takes several "snapshots" of each sample similar to how old 600Hz plasma TV's worked

I don’t have any particular knowledge of how old plasma TV’s worked but an oversampling DAC does not take “snapshots”.

There's no such thing as a "NOS DAC" it’s not a product category that exists.

I didn’t say it was a product category, I just stated an obvious fact, that a DAC that doesn’t oversample is a non-oversampling DAC (NOS DAC).

Calm down please and stop being so aggressive.

I am calm and I wasn’t being aggressive. I’m not sure how you arrived at these false conclusions, maybe you’re misinterpreting my forthright writing style, maybe you just don’t like being refuted/challenged or maybe some other reason?

This is not conducive to pleasant conversation and this is a silly hobby for arguments.

I don’t know what you personally consider to be conducive or pleasant but in a science discussion forum it’s discussing the science/facts, not asserting falsehoods. In addition, it’s only a hobby from your personal perspective of course, it’s not a hobby for the hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists who invented and develop the technology, those who use it to create commercial content or the numerous companies which manufacture, distribute and market the equipment and content. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry, so of course there will be arguments.

Audio is so subjective there's no such thing as pointing someone in the "objectively right direction" you can only point them in a subjective direction based on your own subjective bias and preferences.

Ah, another very common audiophile falsehood/misunderstanding. Audio is not subjective in the slightest, there is nothing subjective about digital data or an electrical (analogue) signal. Both digital and analogue recording/reproduction are human inventions that are based entirely on objective science (proven physics and maths). Therefore, not only is there “such a thing as pointing someone in the objectively right direction”, it is in fact the ONLY honest and factually correct direction! You seem to be confusing “audio” with the human response (which is almost entirely subjective) to the resultant sound but I haven’t pointed anyone in any direction of how they should respond to sound (except for the obvious, that by definition they can’t respond to sound that is inaudible or doesn’t exist), I only pointed to the objective science/facts of audio itself.

If you’re going to make assertions of facts/science/history in this subforum, then it would be wise to fact check them first if you’re not certain (with a reliable source, such as Wikipedia) or better still, phrase them as a question rather than an assertion. Otherwise they are likely to be refuted, which is likely to deteriorate the discussion if you don’t like being refuted.

G

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

As this is the Sound Science discussion forum, you are new here and don’t appear to have much knowledge of the science/facts that underlie what you see as a hobby, I’ll try to be more diplomatic in response to your (apparently inadvertent) contradiction of the facts and address as many of your points as practical.

Neither, I’m not sure how you arrived at that false dichotomy?

I’m not telling you what you can or want to hear but I can of course tell you what you cannot hear. I assume you’re a human being? In which case, what you can’t hear is dictated by the limitations of human physiology. If you’re a human, it is not possible to hear inaudible sounds, sounds that are way below the threshold of human hearing and, it is obviously absolutely certain that you cannot hear audio signals that are so low level they cannot even exist as sound waves.

Why wouldn’t they? People spend big bucks on Rolex and other watch brands that do not tell the time any better than watches costing a tiny fraction of the price and this is just one of countless examples, why should the audiophile community be any different? The response to your assertion is that if audiophiles had a better understanding of the DAC process instead of relying on false marketing, then relatively few people would spend big bucks on R2R. This is the case in the pro-audio community, no one at all spends big bucks on R2R DACs because there aren’t any professional R2R DACs! The reason for this is that not only are R2R DACs less accurate (lower fidelity) and less reliable but also more expensive and professionals cannot easily be convinced by the false marketing that works on audiophiles.

“High Fidelity” as a term was coined in the early 1950’s in response to a number of innovations after WWII, the use of tape recording and the introduction of micro-groove records for example, all of which resulted in noticeably higher fidelity than previous vinyl recordings. “High Fidelity” is a relative term, “high” is only “high” relative to something that is lower. I’m not sure how this fact is a non-argument?

You think that stating the facts, especially in a science discussion forum, is “disrespectful, spiteful and dismissive” but making false assertions and further disseminating false/misleading marketing (albeit unwittingly) isn’t? Sorry, but it’s the other way around.

No they won’t. Any decent DAC and indeed the very highest fidelity DACs will not have a NOS mode and will not have several filter options. They are OS DACs and only employ one filter, an audibly ideal filter. NOS is a relatively old technology that was superceeded in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s, why would “any decent DAC” have to include a superceeded/inferior technology?

Technically it does just mean “non-oversampling” but in the modern audiophile market it also seems to mean “filterless”.

I don’t have any particular knowledge of how old plasma TV’s worked but an oversampling DAC does not take “snapshots”.

I didn’t say it was a product category, I just stated an obvious fact, that a DAC that doesn’t oversample is a non-oversampling DAC (NOS DAC).

I am calm and I wasn’t being aggressive. I’m not sure how you arrived at these false conclusions, maybe you’re misinterpreting my forthright writing style, maybe you just don’t like being refuted/challenged or maybe some other reason?

I don’t know what you personally consider to be conducive or pleasant but in a science discussion forum it’s discussing the science/facts, not asserting falsehoods. In addition, it’s only a hobby from your personal perspective of course, it’s not a hobby for the hundreds of thousands of engineers and scientists who invented and develop the technology, those who use it to create commercial content or the numerous companies which manufacture, distribute and market the equipment and content. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry, so of course there will be arguments.

Ah, another very common audiophile falsehood/misunderstanding. Audio is not subjective in the slightest, there is nothing subjective about digital data or an electrical (analogue) signal. Both digital and analogue recording/reproduction are human inventions that are based entirely on objective science (proven physics and maths). Therefore, not only is there “such a thing as pointing someone in the objectively right direction”, it is in fact the ONLY honest and factually correct direction! You seem to be confusing “audio” with the human response (which is almost entirely subjective) to the resultant sound but I haven’t pointed anyone in any direction of how they should respond to sound (except for the obvious, that by definition they can’t respond to sound that is inaudible or doesn’t exist), I only pointed to the objective science/facts of audio itself.

If you’re going to make assertions of facts/science/history in this subforum, then it would be wise to fact check them first if you’re not certain (with a reliable source, such as Wikipedia) or better still, phrase them as a question rather than an assertion. Otherwise they are likely to be refuted, which is likely to deteriorate the discussion if you don’t like being refuted.

G

I feel like I should apologize, so I will. I'm sorry. Clearly your knowledge level is higher than mine and I may have been led astray by several falsehoods that I took to be true. I will have to do some reading about some of the things you mentioned and try to correct the misconceptions that I have been allowing to dictate my purchases these past few years. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that I mis interepreted your directness as aggression. I hope you have a good afternoon. Clearly I need to do some reading tonight.

 

[BS5711]

I feel like I should apologize, so I will. I'm sorry. Clearly your knowledge level is higher than mine and I may have been led astray by several falsehoods that I took to be true. I will have to do some reading about some of the things you mentioned and try to correct the misconceptions that I have been allowing to dictate my purchases these past few years. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that I mis interepreted your directness as aggression. I hope you have a good afternoon. Clearly I need to do some reading tonight.

Good on you.

I believe you would be literally the first person I have ever seen who comes here debating and actually indicate that perhaps they have been wrong.

Most double down and defend their position because “they know what they hear”.

 

[gregorio]

I feel like I should apologize, so I will. I'm sorry.

That is very magnanimous and I thank you for it!

Clearly your knowledge level is higher than mine and I may have been led astray by several falsehoods that I took to be true.

I’ve been a professional music and sound engineer for 30 years, before that I was a professional orchestral musician and for about 6 years I was a senior lecturer and course designer for a UK university. So I would certainly hope that my knowledge was higher than a hobbyist, even a serious one, I wouldn’t be very good at my job if I weren’t. I’m certain you know way more about your profession than I do! Unfortunately, the audiophile community is rife with false marketing, it actually relies on it to a great extent, so unless you’ve formally studied the subject or have been especially skeptical and diligent there’s almost no way to avoid being led astray by the marketing and myths.

I will have to do some reading about some of the things you mentioned and try to correct the misconceptions that I have been allowing to dictate my purchases these past few years.

Audio, music and how humans perceive sound unfortunately covers a lot of disciplines, so you’ll probably struggle at some point (and it will probably be quite early on), so don’t hesitate to ask. In addition to me, there’s a number of others here who have a good enough understanding of audio to help you out.

G

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

That is very magnanimous and I thank you for it!

I’ve been a professional music and sound engineer for 30 years, before that I was a professional orchestral musician and for about 6 years I was a senior lecturer and course designer for a UK university. So I would certainly hope that my knowledge was higher than a hobbyist, even a serious one, I wouldn’t be very good at my job if I weren’t. I’m certain you know way more about your profession than I do! Unfortunately, the audiophile community is rife with false marketing, it actually relies on it to a great extent, so unless you’ve formally studied the subject or have been especially skeptical and diligent there’s almost no way to avoid being led astray by the marketing and myths.

Audio, music and how humans perceive sound unfortunately covers a lot of disciplines, so you’ll probably struggle at some point (and it will probably be quite early on), so don’t hesitate to ask. In addition to me, there’s a number of others here who have a good enough understanding of audio to help you out.

G

Thank you for accepting my apology. I hadn't realized what your background was.
I'm curious why the things I mentioned earlier in the thread are so commonly mentioned by audiophiles if there's no truth to them? I actually bought an R2R DAC because everyone was going crazy about their soft organic presentation and now I'm wondering if I was led astray by misconceptions that the general audiophile community has. I'm going to have to do some reading. Do you have any suggestions for unbiased resources that are more science based so I can make better informed purchases from now on?
Thanks!

 

[gregorio]

I hadn't realized what your background was.

No problem. I don’t rely on my background when discussing or refuting assertions because that would be an “appeal to authority” which is a fallacy. My assertions are based on the facts/science and therefore stand on their own merit and can be fact checked with reliable sources.

I'm curious why the things I mentioned earlier in the thread are so commonly mentioned by audiophiles if there's no truth to them? I actually bought an R2R DAC because everyone was going crazy about their soft organic presentation and now I'm wondering if I was led astray by misconceptions that the general audiophile community has.

You’ve partially answered your question yourself. People buy an R2R DAC (and other audiophile products) based on the marketing, which includes shills and incentivised reviews, and then as customers they’re typically going to defend and/or promote their purchase to others. Put all that together and you have an “audiophile myth”. If it’s any consolation, your DAC probably isn’t audibly inferior to OS DACs, only certain NOS/filterless DACs and even then, not by much.

I'm going to have to do some reading. Do you have any suggestions for unbiased resources that are more science based so I can make better informed purchases from now on?

That’s awkward because as I mentioned, audio covers quite a few disciplines, the physics of electromagnetic signals, the maths of binary data and computer science in general, acoustics, psychoacoustics. Each of those on their own is a rabbit hole and that’s before we get into the practical, subjective and artistic sides of creating the recordings you’re reproducing, which is another bunch of disciplines. A general knowledge repository such as Wikipedia is a good place but that can get very deep, depending on what you’re looking up. Audiophile and Audio publications and websites are usually very poor sources, with the possible exception of Sound On Sound (soundonsound.com) which can be both accurate and reliable but it’s aimed more at those making recordings (amateurs and professionals) than consumers, although the link will take you to a section where you’ll find some useful articles and there are many others in their archives. There are of course a number of seminal text books for each of the disciplines but I’m not sure you want to go that far.

G

 

[BrokeAudiophileMan]

No problem. I don’t rely on my background when discussing or refuting assertions because that would be an “appeal to authority” which is a fallacy. My assertions are based on the facts/science and therefore stand on their own merit and can be fact checked with reliable sources.

You’ve partially answered your question yourself. People buy an R2R DAC (and other audiophile products) based on the marketing, which includes shills and incentivised reviews, and then as customers they’re typically going to defend and/or promote their purchase to others. Put all that together and you have an “audiophile myth”. If it’s any consolation, your DAC probably isn’t audibly inferior to OS DACs, only certain NOS/filterless DACs and even then, not by much.

That’s awkward because as I mentioned, audio covers quite a few disciplines, the physics of electromagnetic signals, the maths of binary data and computer science in general, acoustics, psychoacoustics. Each of those on their own is a rabbit hole and that’s before we get into the practical, subjective and artistic sides of creating the recordings you’re reproducing, which is another bunch of disciplines. A general knowledge repository such as Wikipedia is a good place but that can get very deep, depending on what you’re looking up. Audiophile and Audio publications and websites are usually very poor sources, with the possible exception of Sound On Sound (soundonsound.com) which can be both accurate and reliable but it’s aimed more at those making recordings (amateurs and professionals) than consumers, although the link will take you to a section where you’ll find some useful articles and there are many others in their archives. There are of course a number of seminal text books for each of the disciplines but I’m not sure you want to go that far.

G

I'll check out sound on sound. I can only fit so much information in my brain for any given hobby but hopefully I can be more objective with my purchases in the future, as well as information I parrot to others. I've already learned quite a bit just from this conversation. Thanks again!
Sorry for not writing a longer message I'm a bit tied up right now.

 

[bigshot]

Learning about the hobby is the point of any hobby.

 

[gregorio]

I can only fit so much information in my brain for any given hobby but hopefully I can be more objective with my purchases in the future, as well as information I parrot to others. I've already learned quite a bit just from this conversation. Thanks again!

Obviously, as it’s just a hobby then you’ll be limited in the time and effort you want to put in and what I was trying to get across is “fitting so much information in my brain” is an issue for everyone, including those who actually do it for a living. I obviously had to have a pretty good knowledge/understanding to be appointed a senior lecturer but even so, my knowledge/understanding is still very limited. I am a sound engineer, not a professional mathematician, I only understand in layman’s terms some of the complex math underlying digital signal processing, the same is true of the software programming. Obviously a doctoral scientific researcher in psychoacoustics is going to know a lot more about psychoacoustics than me but I’m likely to know a lot more than them about recording musicians. There’s simply too many fields involved for any one person to have a full understanding, even if you dedicated your whole life to it, let alone just the time available for a hobby!

The easiest way would be just to ask questions here (and then fact check the responses), because we’ve been through your journey and can maybe help you navigate some of the highly technical information you’ll encounter if you search on say Wikipedia, which can be quite daunting!

G

 

[2leftears]

I'll check out sound on sound. I can only fit so much information in my brain for any given hobby but hopefully I can be more objective with my purchases in the future, as well as information I parrot to others. I've already learned quite a bit just from this conversation. Thanks again!
Sorry for not writing a longer message I'm a bit tied up right now.

Obviously, as it’s just a hobby then you’ll be limited in the time and effort you want to put in and what I was trying to get across is “fitting so much information in my brain” is an issue for everyone, including those who actually do it for a living. I obviously had to have a pretty good knowledge/understanding to be appointed a senior lecturer but even so, my knowledge/understanding is still very limited. I am a sound engineer, not a professional mathematician, I only understand in layman’s terms some of the complex math underlying digital signal processing, the same is true of the software programming. Obviously a doctoral scientific researcher in psychoacoustics is going to know a lot more about psychoacoustics than me but I’m likely to know a lot more than them about recording musicians. There’s simply too many fields involved for any one person to have a full understanding, even if you dedicated your whole life to it, let alone just the time available for a hobby!

The easiest way would be just to ask questions here (and then fact check the responses), because we’ve been through your journey and can maybe help you navigate some of the highly technical information you’ll encounter if you search on say Wikipedia, which can be quite daunting!

G

Yes, Audio engineering is far too large and interdisciplinary a field of interest to become an expert in all aspects of it.

As @gregorio suggested, as a hobbyist one just has to dive in (anywhere; this sound science forum isn't a bad place to start), and whenever something mentioned grabs one's interest, start reading about it in more detail using reputable sources (Wikipedia, books, etc.).

And when it comes to decoders, digital filters and DAC chips, don't overlook the product data sheets. Data sheets for older decoders, filters and DAC chips can be found on-line relatively easily, and whilst to someone without a background in electronic engineering most of it will be gobbledegook at first, they often contain simplified functional diagrams and terminology that can help even a novice guide their further research into understanding the broad outline of how DACs and filters work.

There are books that go beyond the usual practical consumer marketing level and dive into the more technical detail, doing part of the hard work for you in terms of tracking down all the relevant technical and theoretical information that can be found on-line. Unfortunately, in this field of interest (as in others like photography and associated optics design & manufacturing) the reputable books that are well-edited and have been peer-reviewed can be a bit on the pricey side.

Having said that, I do wonder about people being more than happy to spend thousands of dollars on trying out all sorts of bizarre tweaks of which they haven't a clue how they are supposed to work (and, often, don't work at all!), but baulk at spending $100 on a science/engineering book that teaches them how the technology they are messing with actually works.