The DAC Scam?

[arunvenkats]

what do you mean by similar conditions?
I’m from mixing background and has always taught not to mix with what’s on the screen but to mix with what we hear.

By similar conditions I mean - Same source and same sink (either test equipment or downstream amplifier + speaker)

Why do you think two different dacs with two different output stage sound the same? Im just curious.

They cannot sound similar. In the context of the thread we are talking about quality measured in objective terms. For example you can measure the THD (total harmonic distortion) and SINAD (signal to noise ratio) of the two DACs. Not just the chip. The entire package including the output stage. I am sure which one of the two comes out as the winner is not controlled by the cost of purchase, but the quality of the design and manufacturing. I am not saying hight cost DACs are bad, but I would be surprised as to how many cheaper DACs can come close or even beat them when quality is objectively measured and not subjectively by the human ear.

 

[mbhangui]

By similar conditions I mean - Same source and same sink (either test equipment or downstream amplifier + speaker)



They cannot sound similar. In the context of the thread we are talking about quality measured in objective terms. For example you can measure the THD (total harmonic distortion) and SINAD (signal to noise ratio) of the two DACs. Not just the chip. The entire package including the output stage. I am sure which one of the two comes out as the winner is not controlled by the cost of purchase, but the quality of the design and manufacturing. I am not saying hight cost DACs are bad, but I would be surprised as to how many cheaper DACs can come close or even beat them when quality is objectively measured and not subjectively by the human ear.

The ear is an unreliable instrument to judge the quality of sound just like tongue is an unreliable instrument to measure taste. Both these senses are modified by our brain when you do sighted tests and read the marketing that goes behind the device. If someone says a dac is good without DBT, take it with a pinch of salt. What appeals to one person may not appeal to another person.

 

[square_wave]

Understood both side of the arguments. However a question remains.

Sound is consumed by the Ear-Brain mechanism. So the consumer is the Ear-Brain mechanism of each individual. Does the consumer not decide what is best quality for them selves ? Like food etc. ? In the case of food, do you look at the objective measurements before you decide what is tasty for yourself ?

I have always maintained that basic objective measurements ( scientific facts ) form the bedrock of all audio products. Once that basic level is achieved, the "Art" then builds on top of it.

The "Art" aspect of audio design has taken some vile forms in recent times due to the subjective nature of audio experience. One needs some experience to wade through this wilderness and survive.

However, it is the "Art" that differentiates the men from the children in audio design. Ability to combine creativity with technology is king there.

I chose my current dac by spending atleast 5 days with 3 different dacs on demo from dealers before I bought the current one. I had zero personal attachment to any of them. I used a curated list of music that represents my music taste while listening to these dacs. I simply bought the one that brought maximum musical satisfaction to me. The one that made me want to switch on my system with a smile of anticipation for the good things to come.

Recently I auditioned a Topping D90 dac in my system. Supposed to be a giant killer. It sounded clean and extended but it took away almost everything that makes the Aqua special. There is a "reach out and touch me" feel to the aqua when I play jazz etc. That is the first thing that got diminished when I put the Topping in. Connection is the key word here. My Chord dac does better there although I dont use it much these days. But I want to say that the Topping is very high value.

Many digital filterless dacs from the likes of audionote can make a man playing a guitar turn into an organic 3d human and you literally feel he is playing for you as compared to the almost inhuman machine like measurement based audio that comes out of typical "greatest chip in a box" dacs that are popular these days. I don't want to comment on the price of many such dacs though.

So, I don't believe that anything that is beyond the objective measurement is a scam.

 

[arj]

The ear is an unreliable instrument to judge the quality of sound just like tongue is an unreliable instrument to measure taste. Both these senses are modified by our brain when you do sighted tests and read the marketing that goes behind the device. If someone says a dac is good without DBT, take it with a pinch of salt. What appeals to one person may not appeal to another person.

Human beings are by themselves/ourselves flawed. ears, nose, tongue, eyes all are flawed senses to some extent which are refined by genetics ( so many frequencies we dont hear/see/smell etc). each of this is quite individually different as well.

And to add to it emotions /experiences make it even more unique and special. hence each sound/taste/image etc can also trigger emotional responses which add to their experience.

Measurement is the basis of engineering and as @square_wave mentioned is the basis for design and has to be fundamentally sound and if not meeting those its a fail. But have we yet reached a stage where we are able to measure sound exactly? personally I am not sure as areas like tone/timbre, Feeling of Rhythm/Timing are even measurable despite not being measured today but they influence our hearing experience so much

2 different people might again Experience this differently not just due to different emotional expectations but also how much the ear is '"trained"..almost like a prof athlete being faster than a fit amateur runner etc etc.

Point is a DBT itself has its own flaws especially the psychological pressure of performing it where the act of experimentations itself impacts the result. we can blame it on Hawthorne effect or Heisenbergs uncertainty but we all experience it

But the summary is what you wrote in bold , in the end its all very personal , just like a painting which can make one person emotional and staring for hours while another might be completely unaffected !..an mostly it would be a painter who is fundamentally sound with a solid technique

 

[reignofchaos]

By similar conditions I mean - Same source and same sink (either test equipment or downstream amplifier + speaker)



They cannot sound similar. In the context of the thread we are talking about quality measured in objective terms. For example you can measure the THD (total harmonic distortion) and SINAD (signal to noise ratio) of the two DACs. Not just the chip. The entire package including the output stage. I am sure which one of the two comes out as the winner is not controlled by the cost of purchase, but the quality of the design and manufacturing. I am not saying hight cost DACs are bad, but I would be surprised as to how many cheaper DACs can come close or even beat them when quality is objectively measured and not subjectively by the human ear.

You need to watch this:

 

[Analogous]

Any views on the comments made in the video on the NoS type DACs?

 

[powerslave]

Farming for views by using a sensationalist claim, that is the short summary of the video.