[gregorio]

[1] Well, anyone here is entitled to their own experiences and definitions of loosely termed words like "analog" for example. [2] I've listened to a couple of brickwalled songs from a really crappy circa 2007 realtek laptop against the newest 2017 laptop with the latest realtek chips and to my experience, the newest one sounds less fatiguing and more what music sounds like closer to real life sans accurate volume matching. Probably confirmation bias from sighted test played a large role too

1. Analogue isn't a loosely termed word, it's very clearly defined and I gave you that definition. The fact that it's often incorrectly used by some/many audiophiles is a different issue.
2. Possibly but its also very possible that the 2007 laptop had some fairly serious shielding/isolation weaknesss, used very poor quality analogue components or likely had both of these problems, neither of which has anything to do with the DAC chips performance. Audio quality in laptops in 2007 was very low on the list of priorities for the vast majority of laptops.

G

 

[FastAndClean]

My dragonfly 1.2 sound the same as chord dave, deal with it

 

[castleofargh]

analog already has a clear technical meaning in audio. I'm very fine with that one and also very fine thinking that other uses are abuses.

 

[EnsisTheSlayer]

Okay, so what I'm gathering from this is that since everybody all has different experiences with DACs, is that it's nearly impossible for people like me to get any sort of reliable impression on how other more expensive DACs relate to each other through online forums alone, and the only way for me to get any sort impression on the difference between dedicated DACs is to A) See if I can attend any sort of audio gathering so I can do a blind test of different DACs from different price tags, or B) Buy my own cheap ~$100 DAC down the line anyways (since the general consensus is that dedicated DACs usually sound better than built in DACs) and either be content with what I have, or upgrade down the line from that too to something more expensive and compare the two in a volume matched cheap custom blind test rig my cousin can help out with (where I'm thinking he can switch and cover the DAC and replug the headphones while I wait outside the room, since it's my opinion that a difference that I can't tell by waiting for a little bit isn't worth the extra money) so I too can contribute in the DAC wars discussion.

 

[mindbomb]

I don't know precisely when diminishing returns starts on dacs, but personally, I try to look for a good quality digital inputs with good clocks, good pcb and components, at least .005% thd across the audible spectrum at full scale and similarly good imd (it's arguably overkill, but it's also not hard to achieve), and 18 bits of dynamic range, and a modern dac chip with relatively low jitter sensitivity and noise modulation. I think there are some things that are interesting flourishes but not strictly speaking, necessary, like a current out dac with good transimpedance stage, or custom filters with many taps.

Practically speaking atm, I am skeptical of the quality of two things: the integrated realtek codecs, especially on low end motherboards with poor pcb quality. The other thing is low end R2R dacs that are simply cashing in on the hype, and have high distortion. I feel it is plausible that these products will be audibly colored.

 

[pinnahertz]

Ok, so it's a hardware advertising site which sells advertising, so my argument still stands.

Then your "argument" has just negated every single review source, except forum opinion which is based on the least amount of study of all, even though forum sites like this one also advertise hardware.

 

[pinnahertz]

You obviously don't know much about recording studios - lots use stand alone dacs. Why not try going to a few of their websites to quickly disabuse yourself of the notion that they don't. They use them for tracking, as pitching dacs, and as mastering dacs.

Danger Will Robinson!!!

 

[pinnahertz]

The definition of analog in the digital age is how non-fatiguing the system sounds at high SPL, and it doesn't matter if the bass is rolled off or not, treble rolled off or accentuated, etc.

Anyone can make up their own definition of a word, but to have it work in communication it must be generally accepted by others.

Yours will never be.

 

[pinnahertz]

It's an opinion which I forgot to add to my post earlier. I don't even like to use that word too and would rather use the term smoother or less straining to listen to over time compared to "analog". IMO, that term analog probably stemmed from the early digital age where the clarity of the music increased due to imperceptible noise floor, but over time, it sounded more fatiguing compared to the traditional record player.

Looks like you also have developed your own definition of "definition". Yours seems to be "definition=opinion". Have fun getting general acceptance with that one.

 

[pinnahertz]

I'm not saying analog sounds bad, it can sound great but to my ears and to any measurement of fidelity it is inferior to digital. I own more records than digital albums and over the years have invested quite a bit into my T/T, cart and phono circuit. What I found is that the better my analog playback equipment the more my records sounded like good digital. This is what puzzles me with the use of the term. It makes far more sense to describe good sounding analog as digital like than good sounding digital as analog like.

This is a confusion of the performance of the tools with the performance of the tool users. Better performing tools in the hands of a skilled user produce better results, but the same is not true of the unskilled or misdirected user.

Analog recording and reproduction always adds something audible to the original, thus corrupting it. Always. That addition would be noise, distortion, and time-base problems. It's unavoidable, only minimizable. Digital recording doesn't add anything to the original unless that addition is intentional. Digital recording is a better performing tool. That's not saying there aren't analog recordings that sound better than some digital recordings, or the inverse. But those are the results of the tools in the hands of tool users, not the results of the technology itself.

Making any other generalization about the technology and the resulting sound is meaningless, naive and misleading, just as is highlighting exceptions.

 

[gregorio]

Okay, so what I'm gathering from this is that since everybody all has different experiences with DACs,

This is the science forum, not really a forum about different people's experiences. What pinnahertz said is basically true, that well designed DACs all sound the same. However, that statement does not cover DACs that are not well designed but look like they are very good quality and are marketed as audiophile DACs. What castleofargh said is therefore also true, there are DACs and DAPs out there which are effectively poorly designed, IE. Not designed for fidelity but deliberately designed away from fidelity, to sound different and therefore provide a marketing angle, which in turn is designed to affect consumers perception of fidelity. Think about it, if you're a DAC manufacturer/retailer and want to differentiate yourself from say the essentially free DAC built into say an iPhone, then you've got to make a DAC which sounds different to an iPhone or at least is perceived to sound different to an iPhone. The problem is that the DAC in an iPhone is essentially linear within the limits of human hearing and therefore just about as high fidelity as a DAC can get (for a human being), so making something which sounds different necessarily means something which is lower fidelity than an iPhone! So the question is, what are you looking for? Are you really looking for the highest fidelity/linear response or are you looking for something many/most audiophiles have been led to (and fervently) believe is high fidelity?

G

 

[Strangelove424]

Okay, so what I'm gathering from this is that since everybody all has different experiences with DACs, is that it's nearly impossible for people like me to get any sort of reliable impression on how other more expensive DACs relate to each other through online forums alone, and the only way for me to get any sort impression on the difference between dedicated DACs is to A) See if I can attend any sort of audio gathering so I can do a blind test of different DACs from different price tags, or B) Buy my own cheap ~$100 DAC down the line anyways (since the general consensus is that dedicated DACs usually sound better than built in DACs) and either be content with what I have, or upgrade down the line from that too to something more expensive and compare the two in a volume matched cheap custom blind test rig my cousin can help out with (where I'm thinking he can switch and cover the DAC and replug the headphones while I wait outside the room, since it's my opinion that a difference that I can't tell by waiting for a little bit isn't worth the extra money) so I too can contribute in the DAC wars discussion.

If you went shopping for a car, you would probably start by looking at the specs of cars that were in your price range, maybe read some magazine articles that do performance evaluation and testing to confirm the manufacturers numbers. Sure, the reviewer might subjectively appreciate the ride/handling balance, but if the car gets 12mpg it's probably a veto anyway. And people talking about how fast their car is on forums (i.e., it pushes me back against the seat so hard) would not be a major factor due to the subjectively and bias involved. The shopping experience for something as technical as a DAC should not be too far from this, it should also involve narrowing down a price range, and then comparing measurements. Sure, subjective impressions and auditioning (test driving) might also be a part of your final decision, but the measurements are a guide. How some DACs are sold without measurement is astounding to me. It would be like turning up to a car dealer, asking how much horsepower a certain car has, and having the salesman shrug and say "alot of them". 0-60? "Really fast". No matter how good your subjective impressions were, you would want those impressions to be reinforced with data. I recommend you to do DAC shopping in a similarly logistical manner. I'm not saying your subjective impressions should not be taken into account, surely you should have a chance to hear the DAC and return it if it doesn't sound good, but if the measurements are good, I just don't see that happening.

It's not about going to war at all, I hope you are not getting that impression. It's about value, and enjoying the music. I have a DAC I am happy with. I post here in an attempt to help other people achieve happiness with their setups too. Ultimately it's about enjoying the music. The forums should be here to dispel confusion and help listeners achieve content. We are all here to enjoy the music, after all. At least I hope we are.

 

[RollsDownWindowsManually]

I would like to know examples of these kinds of audiophile dacs which degrade fidelity rather than enhancing it. I'm not doubting their existence at all, I would just like to avoid the risk of ever making a foolish purchase of one.

I have a dac/amplifier (LH Labs Geek Out 2 Pro Infinity) which has 3 different kind of DAC "filters", TCM, FRM, SSM . I have tried and tried to hear a difference between the 3 filters and cannot, yet every single audiophile type person that has this dac/amp rants and raves about the huge differences between them.

I ABX'd myself using this DAC/Amp and a level matched cellphone headphone jack; did 11 trials and only got 4 correct before I stopped because it was obviously sounding the same to me.

 

[pinnahertz]

If you went shopping for a car, you would probably start by looking at the specs of cars that were in your price range, maybe read some magazine articles that do performance evaluation and testing to confirm the manufacturers numbers. Sure, the reviewer might subjectively appreciate the ride/handling balance, but if the car gets 12mpg it's probably a veto anyway. And people talking about how fast their car is on forums (i.e., it pushes me back against the seat so hard) would not be a major factor due to the subjectively and bias involved. The shopping experience for something as technical as a DAC should not be too far from this, it should also involve narrowing down a price range, and then comparing measurements. Sure, subjective impressions and auditioning (test driving) might also be a part of your final decision, but the measurements are a guide.

That's now how people shop for cars. They see one they like, find out it's in their price range, but if not, they are introduced to one that is. Then it's about color, options and payments. It's the minority that do any sort of actual research. If that weren't true the many relatively poor designs out there wouldn't exist.

How some DACs are sold without measurement is astounding to me. It would be like turning up to a car dealer, asking how much horsepower a certain car has, and having the salesman shrug and say "alot of them". 0-60? "Really fast". No matter how good your subjective impressions were, you would want those impressions to be reinforced with data. I recommend you to do DAC shopping in a similarly logistical manner. I'm not saying your subjective impressions should not be taken into account, surely you should have a chance to hear the DAC and return it if it doesn't sound good, but if the measurements are good, I just don't see that happening.

There are some pretty radical differences in car specs. The differences in DAC specs, as measured, are miniscule and inaudible (unless they are of poor design or deliberately modify the signal...(read that at quad speed, it's the "legal line")).

What's the range of 0-60 specs? A quick check turns up a general range from 2 sec. to nearly 8 sec. There isn't a single measured spec in the DAC world that varies even 25% of that range. Most car specs are easily understood, and don't need to be tested.

It's not about going to war at all, I hope you are not getting that impression. It's about value, and enjoying the music. I have a DAC I am happy with. I post here in an attempt to help other people achieve happiness with their setups too. Ultimately it's about enjoying the music. The forums should be here to dispel confusion and help listeners achieve content. We are all here to enjoy the music, after all. At least I hope we are.

The other issue is that specs are not written well, and measurements are difficult to understand. Acceleration time is pretty easy to understand, but put a THD curve family in front of the average buyer, they'll just move on to something they do understand, like cost, appearance, or someone lesses opinion. So we dumb down a spec like THD to a single figure, which is a meaningless spec.

Car:audio analogies always have trouble.

 

[EnsisTheSlayer]

If you went shopping for a car, you would probably start by looking at the specs of cars that were in your price range, maybe read some magazine articles that do performance evaluation and testing to confirm the manufacturers numbers. Sure, the reviewer might subjectively appreciate the ride/handling balance, but if the car gets 12mpg it's probably a veto anyway. And people talking about how fast their car is on forums (i.e., it pushes me back against the seat so hard) would not be a major factor due to the subjectively and bias involved. The shopping experience for something as technical as a DAC should not be too far from this, it should also involve narrowing down a price range, and then comparing measurements. Sure, subjective impressions and auditioning (test driving) might also be a part of your final decision, but the measurements are a guide. How some DACs are sold without measurement is astounding to me. It would be like turning up to a car dealer, asking how much horsepower a certain car has, and having the salesman shrug and say "alot of them". 0-60? "Really fast". No matter how good your subjective impressions were, you would want those impressions to be reinforced with data. I recommend you to do DAC shopping in a similarly logistical manner. I'm not saying your subjective impressions should not be taken into account, surely you should have a chance to hear the DAC and return it if it doesn't sound good, but if the measurements are good, I just don't see that happening.

It's not about going to war at all, I hope you are not getting that impression. It's about value, and enjoying the music. I have a DAC I am happy with. I post here in an attempt to help other people achieve happiness with their setups too. Ultimately it's about enjoying the music. The forums should be here to dispel confusion and help listeners achieve content. We are all here to enjoy the music, after all. At least I hope we are.

I meant more like that I could put in my two cents in when people are talking about experiences with DACs, and I guess "war" wasn't the best choice of words on my part. I don't think of this as a war, I think of it as a bunch of people who are passionate about audio coming together and trying to find the best way to enjoy it.