Expensive DAC waste of money?

[venkatcr]

What "missing" information? How does the DAC know what is missing and by extension what to fill in and how much to fill in?

I am not sure whether you want me or Music4MHall to answer. I am not going into the details of how a DAC fills the missing information. But essentially this is what happens explained in very simple terms.

A DAC takes the digital data and creates a analogous voltage from that. This voltage is sent to the amp and speakers.

Nyquist had defined that analog signal, if sampled at twice the highest analog frequency component, is enough to cover the complete range of sound the human ear can understand. By various factors, the sampling rate arrived at for standard audio is 44,100 samples per second. This is what the bulk of us use. Thus, if a DAC can take this sample, and convert it back to analog, you get back bulk of the original analog signal.

But the fact is that you can never recreate the original analog signal. When you sample at any frequency, you are dumping data points along the curve. What DAC designers try to do is to recreate that dumped (or missing) data.

They use digital filters to fill the missing data. And this is where the 'art' part of a DAC creeps in. This is what separates DAC X from DAC Y. The way the filter is designed and implemented. This is where subjectiveness comes in.

Cheers

But the statement in quotes above is a rather broad generalization with no technical or intellectual basis. Do not agree at all. What is 10 % ? How did you arrive at it ?

This is what the arguments are all about, are they not. ADCs and DACs use predefined mathematical techniques based on Nyquist sampling theorem. Most modern DACs use silicon from companies such as TI and others. So they have very little control over the actual DAC conversion. What they play around is with the digital filters. How much can they fool around there. They cannot take the sound of a guitar and convert that into something else, can they? All they can do is to remove the noise, jitter, slew rate and other factors. If they try to change the signals too much, they will lose the essence of the music.

If you read through a lot of documents on DACs and how they work, you will understand that even 10% is too much. As Keith put it, the changes you make have to be subtle and concluded after multiple listening sessions where you 'think' the music is as close to the original as possible.

Cheers

 

[square_wave]

This is what the arguments are all about, are they not. ADCs and DACs use predefined mathematical techniques based on Nyquist sampling theorem. Most modern DACs use silicon from companies such as TI and others. So they have very little control over the actual DAC conversion. What they play around is with the digital filters. How much can they fool around there. They cannot take the sound of a guitar and convert that into something else, can they. All they can do is to remove the noise, jitter, slew rate and other factors. If they try to change the signals too much, they will lose the essence of the music.

If you read through a lot of documents on DACs and how they work, you will understand that even 10% is too much. As Keith put it, the changes you make have to be subtle and concluded after multiple listening sessions where you 'think' the music is as close to the original as possible.

Cheers

As I said before, the difference between these systems can never be more than 10%, assuming the first system does work well.

Ok, you said;

$250 DAC connected to a $1000 system as we all a $2500 DAC connected to a $10,000 system The difference between these two is only 10 %

OR

The difference between a $ 250 dac and a $ 2500 dac is only 10 %


Your post reads like the first statement. See the quote above.

If it is the below one, it is fine as long as you know what that 10 % or whatever % translates to musically and how it is important to all listeners. Which is never the case because how will you know ?

 

[afj]

This is what the arguments are all about, are they not. ADCs and DACs use predefined mathematical techniques based on Nyquist sampling theorem. Most modern DACs use silicon from companies such as TI and others. So they have very little control over the actual DAC conversion. What they play around is with the digital filters. How much can they fool around there. They cannot take the sound of a guitar and convert that into something else, can they. All they can do is to remove the noise, jitter, slew rate and other factors. If they try to change the signals too much, they will lose the essence of the music.

If you read through a lot of documents on DACs and how they work, you will understand that even 10% is too much. As Keith put it, the changes you make have to be subtle and concluded after multiple listening sessions where you 'think' the music is as close to the original as possible.

Cheers

This is assuming the DAC chip is constant. But different dacs will be using different chips

 

[venkatcr]

This is assuming the DAC chip is constant. But different dacs will be using different chips

You can go on introducing unknown variables :lol:. Let me clarify - DAC X and DAC Y, both using the same identical DAC chip, both designed and manufactured well.

Cheers

If it is the below one, it is fine as long as you know what that 10 % or whatever % translates to musically and how it is important to all listeners. Which is never the case because how will you know ?

As I replied to AFJ, you can go on extending the discussions by introducing subjective variables. "All listeners', 'golden ears', and terms like those are all subjective elements.

You can never create a set of electronics that is universally 'wow' to every user. Listening tastes differ and what you hear from a system will be liked or disliked depending upon your tastes. If a man comes to me and says, 'I know exactly how this piece should sound', I can only shake my head in dismay. Even the original artist will not know that. Every artist takes a piece and experiments with it to see if he can make it sound 'better'.

Yes, you take a recorded song - you will know how it is played. That does not change. But, that is not how the original song or music sounded before the recording. As I said before, the minute the recording starts, the song has lost it originality.

The area where the arguments start is how you or I like the song. On how you think your ears are better suited to judge the musicality of what you are hearing. These arguments have no base line because I can never measure how you hear the sound, and vice versa. For all practical purposes I could be bluffing, and you will never know. This is the perpetual 'I know better' we have in all walks of life.

Let me just say this - if you take a high end DAC chip, and design a decent DAC around that - two designers can only introduce subjective elements to the sound. They can never change the base mathematical capability of the DAC chip in terms of how it converts digital samples. If you take scientific measurement of both DACs, you will, in all probability, find that they both deliver nearly identical results. If there is a vast difference in measured outputs, then one of the DACs has been designed badly, and should be taken out of the comparison.

Once you introduce subjectivity, we can continue arguing till we are dead and reborn a 100 times with no conclusion.

That is all.

Cheers

I want people do something interesting.

Take a song from a movie. Listen to it from the (original) DVD using whatever equipment you have including a DAC. Rip an audio CD of the same song (again original) into a wave file, and listen to it through the same equipment.

You will hear a vast difference in sound. Why? Simply because audio CD conversion from analog to digital (ACD) is sampled at 44.1KHz, while DVD audio is sampled at 96KHz. One of the simplest ways to experience this is to use a laptop and a pair of good headphones.

You will understand that the DAC has only a limited role here. The song will sound better because the source has been digitized using a higher sampling rate. The result? - lesser holes to fill.

Cheers

 

[regeHA]

I am pretty sure that everyone else have got my point except you, regeHA, and that's because you don't want to understand what I said. If you revisit my post, the very first line was -
"And which component is supposed to change the signal in the chain?"

You chose not to answer that because that would have end your conversation and argument.

Care to answer that?

Could you for one second think I'm only trying to learn and asking questions in that regard? There is really no need to launch an all-out nuclear attack on me for asking questions maybe because I don't know and maybe because I want to learn?

Anyway to answer your question (that everyone else got except me), I don't know. If you do know, then please do share.

Believe me, we are in real world and nothing sounds same. You are talking about ideal world - Utopia.
And if everything must sound that same, what is the fuss about the over here?

In the real world I live in 1 + 1 is always 2. Just because the calculator is in a PC, a laptop, a watch, a smartphone, or even a calculator itself does not change the outcome.

So tell me how can things be different when it comes to music? In the digital domain (at least) it is the same. 99% of music is digital and has been for a long time since the advent of the audio CD. Right from where it is recorded, mastered, converted into multiple formats, made ready for human consumption, sent our way either via streaming or physical CDs, it is all 100% digital. It is the 1% of converting the digital to analog that people cannot seem to replicate either accurately or faithfully. When music does not change 99% of the way, why so much difference in the 1% in our homes where the actual digital to analog conversion takes place?

I don't have a fuss about anything, I'm only trying to learn and/or comprehend and further my education with regards to audiophile equipment.

I don't know which Harbeth you use but this is insult to that otherwise great brand. Quad is wonderful little thing in my system and every single change in my system gets properly reflected by Quad. A minor change in the system and I can pick the difference. So, please don't insult legend like Quad by saying all these.

I am using Harbeth SHL5 (on loan before I make the decision to purchase it). This review is very much accurate with my own experience with the speaker (6moons audioreviews: Harbeth Super HL5+). Let me just share a few lines that describe my experience (yours may obviously be different, but why would be my question).

The Super HL5 Plus worked well no matter where I placed it. I simply dropped it into the spot reserved for my Compact 7 and it worked. Listening at my desk, about three feet to the left of the sweet spot, I dont lose very much of the soundstage. The Supers throw a massive stage and disappear in the room.

This is very true, performs the same no matter where I place it.

Alan Shaw has always maintained that Harbeth are unfussy about amplification.

How could the Super HL5 Plus sound so rich, so full, with no apparent loss of detail, at such low volumes and with such indifference to amplification?

Again the same experience, pretty much similar performance across the board with all the amps and AVRs I tried, granted I have only mid hi-fi equipment for the most part (Roksan K3, Onkyo AVR, Marantz AVR that a friend loaned me).

Changing the source (PC, laptop, wireless streaming from NAS, Raspberry Pi, a couple of DVD players from Philips and Sony, OPPO BDP-105) also sound the same for the most part, though best results have been with wireless streaming and moOde Audio Player on the Raspberry Pi. This has been the same with other speakers and equipment too.

The Quad's I'm referring to are speakers, an older model ESL. Now your experience may be different, but mine was a speaker that performed the same no matter what you threw at it. Obviously, at a budget though, and way beyond anything I could afford back then. Also, a brand I respect instead of insulting like you have insinuated (again flying off the handle for no reason).

A mirror should reflect the surrounding exactly the way it is. If the light changes from white to green and the mirror still shows the white light, it is time to break the hacking mirror and get a better one.

Don't you think you are contradicting yourself here? End of the day everybody's trying to reflect the same image right? The Michael Jackson CD that I have should have the same color light that yours has. So how can the color change and by that logic will Michael Jackson sing differently in your bedroom than in mine?

 

[music4mhell]

https://youtu.be/grzoqEb2KMk

Watch and learn ...

 

[keith_correa]

End of the day everybody's trying to reflect the same image right? The Michael Jackson CD that I have should have the same color light that yours has. So how can the color change and by that logic will Michael Jackson sing differently in your bedroom than in mine?

This slays the analogy about the "mirror". Someone's got to throw away their mirror now.

 

[raghupb]

@music4mhell

Nice presentation by Hans Beekhuyzen.
But some things have been way oversimplified or exaggerated.
- square ware to saw tooth wave segment; you need some exceptionally naughty (ghouls and goblins type) head end equipment + cables to make that happen
- jitter and emi; if what is says is true all audio electronics must be designed in a zero gravity, faraday cage bubble

His review of the Mojo is more detailed; with a brief explanation of FIR filters and all.
To get so many taps in an FIR filter they have to use custom silicon or FPGAs (both of which will drive up prices astronomically)

As I said before, it comes back to what one wants to hear in a review and eventually a system.

Cheers,
Raghu

 

[keith_correa]

As I said before, it comes back to what one wants to hear in a review and eventually a system.

And more often than not we hear what we want to hear if if we actually don't.
Speaking for myself, in 99% of gear that I hear, the earth doesn't move at all. Lead ears? Maybe. Do I not hear because I don't want to hear? Maybe. That's why the total cost of my system is less than 15k. The 8 yr old laptop is the most expensive in the chain. Even that was salvaged by me on its way to the junkyard. There's a Bambaiya word for people like me - "gutter chor".

Now, back to the regular entertainment.

 

[square_wave]

As I replied to AFJ, you can go on extending the discussions by introducing subjective variables. "All listeners', 'golden ears', and terms like those are all subjective elements.

You can never create a set of electronics that is universally 'wow' to every user. Listening tastes differ and what you hear from a system will be liked or disliked depending upon your tastes. If a man comes to me and says, 'I know exactly how this piece should sound', I can only shake my head in dismay. Even the original artist will not know that. Every artist takes a piece and experiments with it to see if he can make it sound 'better'.

Yes, you take a recorded song - you will know how it is played. That does not change. But, that is not how the original song or music sounded before the recording. As I said before, the minute the recording starts, the song has lost it originality.

The area where the arguments start is how you or I like the song. On how you think your ears are better suited to judge the musicality of what you are hearing. These arguments have no base line because I can never measure how you hear the sound, and vice versa. For all practical purposes I could be bluffing, and you will never know. This is the perpetual 'I know better' we have in all walks of life.

Let me just say this - if you take a high end DAC chip, and design a decent DAC around that - two designers can only introduce subjective elements to the sound. They can never change the base mathematical capability of the DAC chip in terms of how it converts digital samples. If you take scientific measurement of both DACs, you will, in all probability, find that they both deliver nearly identical results. If there is a vast difference in measured outputs, then one of the DACs has been designed badly, and should be taken out of the comparison.

Once you introduce subjectivity, we can continue arguing till we are dead and reborn a 100 times with no conclusion.

That is all.

Cheers

Subjectivity ? If one cannot buy a gear based on reading the white paper or spec sheet, then it pretty much moves into the subjective realm. So audio is a very subjective hobby.

The results someone hears in their preferred music system and its effect on him / her cannot be judged by another person nor can you allocate percentages to it.

To give you can example of a predicament if we keep this completely in the objective realm;

- What is that base level dac beyond which everything is pretty much subjective ? How do you arrive at this dac model? What methodology will you use to arrive at it so that it is acceptable to the entire demographic of audiophiles?

In the audio hobby, there is of course a base level objectivity that is needed as a foundation. I do not have any argument with that. I am also aware that there are charlatans out there who take advantage of the subjective nature of the audio hobby. Hence I understand the good intentions behind your posts

 

[raghupb]

And more often than not we hear what we want to hear if if we actually don't.
Speaking for myself, in 99% of gear that I hear, the earth doesn't move at all. Lead ears? Maybe. Do I not hear because I don't want to hear? Maybe. That's why the total cost of my system is less than 15k. The 8 yr old laptop is the most expensive in the chain. Even that was salvaged by me on its way to the junkyard. There's a Bambaiya word for people like me - "gutter chor".

Now, back to the regular entertainment.

Nice one!!

I think all professional reviewers of audio equipment should do 2 reviews.
Subjective review (some suggestions below)
- open a bottle of "fine" french wine or that "elusive" scotsman; have a couple of sips
- slip in the your tune set into the audio chain and listen for a few hours
- hit the kitchen for chips and salsa, fried chicken or something else with high cholesterol (be careful with the remotes and knobs; they don't like grease)
- hit the bathroom a few times (you know why)
- after the listening session; go on the internet and write a two page review and/or make a 15 min video

Objective review (some suggestions below)
- make a date with Mary Jane
- slip in one tune (yes one 5-10 min tune is enough; it will last the entire review session; auto repeat suggested)
- keep raiding the fridge for rasogulla/pastries/chocolates (if you don't find any, sugar will do)
- forgot how to operate the sound system; forgot how to operate the remote; forgot which tune is playing; only remember that you are a ant with a terrible weakness for sucrose
- the review (can only be a hand written one) and will have three words with misplaced punctuation and spelling mistakes
- next day go to the pharmacy and ask what's written on the piece of paper (only he or she can read it); They will read ...
"Tha'ts gret Mu!sic ...." (sorry no video review; forgot how to operate electronics)

Cheers
Raghu

 

[panditji]

My 2 cents if I may : Most of the expensive products be it Whiskeys/Wines, Cars, Audio products, Suits, Clothes, Cigars are a waste if the person buying them is not interested or is unable/does not care to find out the difference between the less expensive ones in today's world... We humans are swayed by marketing, peers and media and perceive things as better if they are expensive more often than not...

I personally find most of the whiskeys/wines to be almost the same since I do not care much about their taste and I drink just to enjoy the after effects which is the same (a state of drunkenness) and hence find it a waste although people who are fond of whiskey/wine and have too much money do mock me.. It is the same with audio as well ...

Expensive DACs are like high end supercars... Of course you need to have money to buy them and stand out from the regular folks but to enjoy them you need to have better roads for a Ferrari and better loudspeakers/well recorded music for DACs...

No point having an expensive DAC if your other equipment is average because your taste of music/amps/speakers will not let you hear the extra 10% SQ your DAC is capable of... If you have to listen to Justin Bieber then no point in buying expensive equipment because all systems will make him sound like shit (no offence to any Beliebers) ... So to conclude, expensive DACs are a waste of money if you have limited money and limited audio equipment but are wonderful products if you have very good equipment/room and listen to Stockfish/Chesky/Diana Krall CDs...

 

[square_wave]

My 2 cents if I may : Most of the expensive products be it Whiskeys/Wines, Cars, Audio products, Suits, Clothes, Cigars are a waste if the person buying them is not interested or is unable/does not care to find out the difference between the less expensive ones in today's world... We humans are swayed by marketing, peers and media and perceive things as better if they are expensive more often than not...

I personally find most of the whiskeys/wines to be almost the same since I do not care much about their taste and I drink just to enjoy the after effects which is the same (a state of drunkenness) and hence find it a waste although people who are fond of whiskey/wine and have too much money do mock me.. It is the same with audio as well ...

Expensive DACs are like high end supercars... Of course you need to have money to buy them and stand out from the regular folks but to enjoy them you need to have better roads for a Ferrari and better loudspeakers/well recorded music for DACs...

No point having an expensive DAC if your other equipment is average because your taste of music/amps/speakers will not let you hear the extra 10% SQ your DAC is capable of... If you have to listen to Justin Bieber then no point in buying expensive equipment because all systems will make him sound like shit (no offence to any Beliebers) ... So to conclude, expensive DACs are a waste of money if you have limited money and limited audio equipment but are wonderful products if you have very good equipment/room and listen to Stockfish/Chesky/Diana Krall CDs...

Agree. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned musical priorities ..

From a theoretical perspective, it is possible to arrive at a generally applicable point of diminishing returns but for all practical purposes, the point of diminishing returns is not the same for everyone.. This principle applies for pretty much everything in life..

 

[dheerajin]

different people different experience..

After selling Schiit Gungnir..i bought Audio-GD DAC
for a stop gap arrangement, till I can buy Dac with budget 1lakh..
So was seraching for the same and in between came BUGHEAD Player...
and it changed the whole game...I forgot about new DAC...started enjoying music like never before
opted for work from Home.. and glued to the system at least 10 hors a day from past one month...

I think I dont need new DAC for a while...I got my sound that was reference for me , that I heard in 80s....

And one more thing..I was scrapping my laptop and wanted to buy new one ..and requirement of 64 bit system for bughead player
again saved money as old laptop was 64 bit. I just apgraded the ram thats it...and it became million dollar transport..

so its your perspective what is waste of money and what is not...but saying all DACs are same, is saying like..all ears are same..

 

[keith_correa]

Whenever I am anal about audio (or equipment), an inner voice sometimes tells me: "Keith, you pretentious hick, all you listen to is Indie and Classic rock and Country muzak! Why do you need "good" and expensive equipment for that? A 1000W PMPO shiny (with big knobs) boom box will do very well". That's when I play the sophisticate and put on some Johann Strauss. 5 minutes later it's back to Iron Maiden. So yes, you're right Panditji! :lol:

OTOH, my wife took a course in music appreciation a while ago and since then she's hooked on western classical music and she often listens to it playing on her iPhone speaker (shudder!). I often offer to play the tunes she's listening to on my "system" but she always declines. I explain about the soundstage and imaging she will experience and instrument definition et al. but she always looks at me as if I'm demented and she's in rapture just listening to her phone. My point? To each their own!

opted for work from Home.. and glued to the system at least 10 hors a day from past one month...

Uh! Oh!

but saying all DACs are same, is saying like..all ears are same..

No one is saying all DAC's are the same (sound the same).

 

[dheerajin]

Uh! Oh!

No one is saying all DAC's are the same (sound the same).

You are the best interpreter I can have..because there is some problem with my english..

 

[keith_correa]

You are the best interpreter I can have..because there is some problem with my english..

No problem with your English. Samajdar ko ishaara kafi hai. And I'm samajdar. At least I think so.

 

[shanmune]

So to conclude, expensive DACs are a waste of money if you have limited money and limited audio equipment but are wonderful products if you have very good equipment/room and listen to Stockfish/Chesky/Diana Krall CDs...

Panditji - Adding a point here. While one can pick up an expensive DAC based on his subjective analysis, it may still not be a true high fidelity one if objective analysis is done. I am not saying all expensive DACs are a waste of money, but in this world where marketing ploys play too an important role in having an impact on the minds of audiophiles, one must be very careful in spending their money if he/she is looking ONLY for high fidelity (and not the subjective part). Again, if subjective alone matters, price of the DAC becomes irrelevant.

I remember a post (two years back I guess) where a couple of our forum members compared ODAC with an exotic DAC. According to them, they found very little difference between them (with the exotic DAC slightly better). Based on this, one can simply prefer the exotic DAC over ODAC. At the same time, I am not sure if they did the comparison test in a truly controlled environment. I won't be surprised if people cannot hear difference between ODAC and the exotic DAC in ABX double blind testing. This part of testing gets partly into the objective way of testing a gear.

My whole point is if an audiophile is looking ONLY for true high fidelity, then the ONLY way for him to proceed is using objective tests. I do also agree that not all prefer this path. I am also afraid to say that if all audiophiles decide to go with the objective way of doing things, the hi-fi audio industry will not like it. Some may even end up shutting down their business

 

[afj]

Let me just say this - if you take a high end DAC chip, and design a decent DAC around that - two designers can only introduce subjective elements to the sound. They can never change the base mathematical capability of the DAC chip in terms of how it converts digital samples. If you take scientific measurement of both DACs, you will, in all probability, find that they both deliver nearly identical results. If there is a vast difference in measured outputs, then one of the DACs has been designed badly, and should be taken out of the comparison.

Cheers

agree.

and now i have to increase the length of my message to make up 10 characters. wait, ive done it...

 

[panditji]

I agree... but then high fidelity should be defined on the basis of clarity only for it to be objective.. when you start using words like warm, cold, musical etc then it becomes subjective which is how most reviews describe products....

Also the exotic DACs will sound similar to the ODAC if using average speakers and amps as well as music... An expensive DAC really shines vis a vis an ODAC on really high end equipment and on very well recorded music... Now it's for each individual to check the capability of their speakers, choice of music they listen to and other associated equipment and room (most important) before they invest in an expensive DAC..

You can buy a very good DAC objectively but if your system and music are not able to bring out it's best, then the money is wasted...

Panditji - Adding a point here. While one can pick up an expensive DAC based on his subjective analysis, it may still not be a true high fidelity one if objective analysis is done. I am not saying all expensive DACs are a waste of money, but in this world where marketing ploys play too an important role in having an impact on the minds of audiophiles, one must be very careful in spending their money if he/she is looking ONLY for high fidelity (and not the subjective part). Again, if subjective alone matters, price of the DAC becomes irrelevant.

I remember a post (two years back I guess) where a couple of our forum members compared ODAC with an exotic DAC. According to them, they found very little difference between them (with the exotic DAC slightly better). Based on this, one can simply prefer the exotic DAC over ODAC. At the same time, I am not sure if they did the comparison test in a truly controlled environment. I won't be surprised if people cannot hear difference between ODAC and the exotic DAC in ABX double blind testing. This part of testing gets partly into the objective way of testing a gear.

My whole point is if an audiophile is looking ONLY for true high fidelity, then the ONLY way for him to proceed is using objective tests. I do also agree that not all prefer this path. I am also afraid to say that if all audiophiles decide to go with the objective way of doing things, the hi-fi audio industry will not like it. Some may even end up shutting down their business