To DAC or not to DAC - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 181 Old 08-05-2013, 12:58 PM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,934
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 304 Post(s)
Liked: 725
Quote:
All those "averaged" tests can show only that - average population hearing performance. It mean nothing for "the best" 10-20% of people who really trained to hear better.
It's like saying that Stephan Hawking cannot solve his physics equations just because "average" Joe can't.

Our testing involved self proclaimed "golden ears" just like you. They were all members of our local audiophile society. It doesn't matter how well you can hear. Those things that are audible seem to be audible to everyone with normal hearing and those things that are not, appear not to be. My recommendation, try some bias controlled testing yourself. Then you debate from a position of strength. Go ahead. Let me know if you need some advice on how to conduct a proper test.
FMW is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 181 Old 08-05-2013, 01:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,193
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1597 Post(s)
Liked: 1812
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balthazar2k4 View Post

You sir are a very obtuse individual. This circular discussion is going nowhere. I have explained my testing through my posts that followed my initial and have nothing further to say on the matter. Good day.

One down, 500,000 to go.

 

LOL. The problem is, they say they're going, but they keep coming back :)



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kbarnes701 is online now  
post #93 of 181 Old 08-05-2013, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Everything you say makes sense. But only to those who fail to understand, or fail to apply, the science behind audio and acoustics. To deny the level matching criterion is ludicrous. Even people who don't really subscribe to the whole blind ABX test schtick accept the impact of almost imperceptible level differences. You sound like someone who puts forward a perfectly formed view as to why the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. I mean, it's obvious isn't it?  I can see it with my own senses. 

+2. The level-matching is so critical that denying it shows a complete lack of understanding.

I've used this example before: In a product I worked on, the output levels were spec'd to be as follows: 2.0V rms, into 10kOhm load, +/-10%, when fed with a 1kHz tone at 0dBFS. That means we could have product being built, and tested in the factory, passed and shipped, that had an output of 1.8V rms, and another that had an output of 2.2V rms.

In a listening test not controlled for levels, those two would sound different to almost everybody. But they were the same DAC chip, the same op amps, etc.

Without level matching, even the very same DAC chip will sound different. I could adjust a couple of the resistors to change the level, and that would change the "sound" in an uncontrolled listening test.
kbarnes701 likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #94 of 181 Old 08-05-2013, 03:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Sounds pretty strange to me! ;-)

Since I long ago determined the facts related to that, for the last 10 or more years I've only bought as many DACs as I needed to enjoy music, which turned out to be zero since just about everything worthwhile comes with any necessary DACs or ADCs built in.

Somehow this post (post 85) must have gotten mangled. I'm not sure how my name got associated with SoNic's quote?!?! eek.gif

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #95 of 181 Old 08-05-2013, 04:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I found a blog about ABX testing: http://hephaestusaudio.com/delphi/
Not mine, I am not really agreeing with all his words, but I strongly agree with those:
Quote:
Physicist Richard Feynman had a term for this, he called it “Cargo Cult Science“. It is the sort of science you do when you appear to go though all the right motions, but are missing the big picture. You are doing everything you are “supposed to”, but you’re not getting useful results.
...............
The two computers are then given to somebody to use as he pleases over the next couple of weeks. He scratches his head as he quickly realizes that one of the machines is more user-friendly than the other. What’s going on here? Well, first off everybody knows the way this test was conducted is silly. How are you supposed to notice subtle differences when you’re jumping from one machine to the other every few seconds? I should clarify that statement: Everybody outside of the audio industry realizes that this test is silly. However, in the audio industry it is considered the most somber science to conduct a double-blind (ABX) test that flips back and forth between two units under test every few seconds.
Enjoy. Or not.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #96 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 01:26 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I found a blog about ABX testing: http://hephaestusaudio.com/delphi/
Not mine, I am not really agreeing with all his words, but I strongly agree with those:
Quote:
Physicist Richard Feynman had a term for this, he called it “Cargo Cult Science“. It is the sort of science you do when you appear to go though all the right motions, but are missing the big picture. You are doing everything you are “supposed to”, but you’re not getting useful results.
...............
The two computers are then given to somebody to use as he pleases over the next couple of weeks. He scratches his head as he quickly realizes that one of the machines is more user-friendly than the other. What’s going on here? Well, first off everybody knows the way this test was conducted is silly. How are you supposed to notice subtle differences when you’re jumping from one machine to the other every few seconds? I should clarify that statement: Everybody outside of the audio industry realizes that this test is silly. However, in the audio industry it is considered the most somber science to conduct a double-blind (ABX) test that flips back and forth between two units under test every few seconds.
Enjoy. Or not.

The guy doesn't get it. He's repeating the oft-told lie that ABX tests are done by flipping back and forth randomly every few seconds. In fact the switching is done by the listener or his proxy, the switching times are strategically chosen, and we train people to know when to switch. We also give people prefab comparisons that are edited to facilitate switching at the best time.

Figuring out which are the musical selections that make differences easiest to hear is almost a science unto itself, and its one that we got in touch with long, long ago. We share lists of them! I think I made some comments about how to fabricate them just lately.

Of course you rarely if ever hear about this from sighted listeners.

In a previous post I pointed out unless you have a test that will give you failing results unless you are doing things right, you won't learn to listen very well. Sighted evaluations fail that test, except in very gross ways.
arnyk is offline  
post #97 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 03:43 AM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I choose my songs based on their high frequency content and fast dynamics. I have different things that I listen for, derived from my... EE experience and reading.
No point in doing a test with something that has a bandwidth of only 12-15 kHz and/or slow tempo. Jazz or classical are examples that would fail to reveal faults in signal processing.

Example: The in-band noise modulation due to fast transients (found in most delta-sigma chips and even DSD recordings). You need to know what to "look" for. How many of your
"experimented" listeners pick up on that? Some would say that "something is wrong" but they won't know why and how to listen for. EE that are in business of designing the DAC chips know about that and reading some white papers would show that they are not so clueless like some people here think. One quote from many on this issue:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf
Quote:
certain ΣΔ modulators when provided with a rapidly changing input signal will exhibit non-linear noise behavior as they process the transient. This is because all noise shaping modulators are feedback systems and the usual design process (supported by commonly available design tools) operates to minimize in-band noise suppression while maintaining stability. This noise-optimized stable loop configuration will lead to an output that matches the input to the required degree within the requested bandwidth as expected. However this typical design process neglects the dynamic response of each state variable: there are choices of Q (and relative gain) that minimize noise but result in relatively large lightly damped resonances of the internal state variables. The consequence of this is that in a quiet passage of music the state variables of the modulator are all operating within a certain “state space” and the quantization noise shaping is described by the noise characteristics in this “volume” of the space. After a large music transient has passed, the output traces its dynamic response back to the quiescent operating point as we expect, but every state variable is also following its transient response back to its quiescent point. During this multi-dimensional excursion back to the lower signal level the operating point traverses different volumes of the space, each of which has its own noise characteristic. Hence a very perceptive listener can hear something “anomalous” related to the transient response. We have designed our HyperStream modulators to exhibit strongly damped responses in all state variables. This means that a low level signal processed just prior to a transient and just after a transient, is processed in the same corner of the state space of the modulator and hence in the same quantization noise environment, thereby eliminating the anomalous errors in the music reproduction.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #98 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 03:57 AM
Moderator
 
PooperScooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Leominster MA
Posts: 19,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Some people can hear better than you, learn to live with it. 


How do you know he can't hear better than you? Not that it makes any difference, as Arny's 'golden ears' blind test results demonstrate. 


Sighted evaluations are very susceptible to end up crowning the biggest optimist (or liar) as the chief golden ear.


Think of a race where we don't time the participants or look at some other boring simplistic objective measure such as who crosses the finish line first.


Instead we interview the runners and ask them who they think ran the fastest. To simulate how audiophiles do it, we would have all of the runners run the course separately, maybe 5 minutes apart.


This is obviously balderdash, but it is a good representation of how most audiopiles and subjective reviewers work their magic. ;-)

In fact, I think that is a terrific analogy. Very apt.
Also, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world that are still "around" because big pharma doesn't use audiophile methods or procedures when testing their drugs during trials.

larry
CruelInventions likes this.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. -- Thomas Alva Edison
PooperScooper is offline  
post #99 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 05:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I choose my songs based on their high frequency content and fast dynamics.

That's good for detecting certain kinds of equipment faults, and not so good for others.
Quote:
No point in doing a test with something that has a bandwidth of only 12-15 kHz and/or slow tempo. Jazz or classical are examples that would fail to reveal faults in signal processing.

Except that's wrong. Many audio faults happen in the midrange and even deep bass.
Quote:
Example: The in-band noise modulation due to fast transients (found in most delta-sigma chips and even DSD recordings). You need to know what to "look" for. How many of your
"experimented" listeners pick up on that? Some would say that "something is wrong" but they won't know why and how to listen for.

...lacking any reliable evidence of those kinds of faults being audible with real world recordings and systems...

You do need to know what to look for, which is one of the benefits of listener training sometimes with music that has been *enhanced* to facilitate the easy audibility of the problem preparatory to actually hearing it (or not) in a real world context.

The noise floor due to the format, as well as in good DACs and DSD decoders is so low that it is completely washed out by noise that is inherent in the source material. A quick recitation of real world noise floors (which I challenge you to provide) makes this clear.
Quote:
EE that are in business of designing the DAC chips know about that and reading some white papers would show that they are not so clueless like some people here think.

EEs that are in the business of designing DAC chips are either chasing rainbows, stoking the marketing machine, or looking for costs to save. The white papers you mention would be an example of the second situation.
Quote:
One quote from many on this issue:
http://www.esstech.com/PDF/sabrewp.pdf
Quote:
certain ΣΔ modulators when provided with a rapidly changing input signal will exhibit non-linear noise behavior as they process the transient. This is because all noise shaping modulators are feedback systems and the usual design process (supported by commonly available design tools) operates to minimize in-band noise suppression while maintaining stability. This noise-optimized stable loop configuration will lead to an output that matches the input to the required degree within the requested bandwidth as expected. However this typical design process neglects the dynamic response of each state variable: there are choices of Q (and relative gain) that minimize noise but result in relatively large lightly damped resonances of the internal state variables. The consequence of this is that in a quiet passage of music the state variables of the modulator are all operating within a certain “state space” and the quantization noise shaping is described by the noise characteristics in this “volume” of the space. After a large music transient has passed, the output traces its dynamic response back to the quiescent operating point as we expect, but every state variable is also following its transient response back to its quiescent point. During this multi-dimensional excursion back to the lower signal level the operating point traverses different volumes of the space, each of which has its own noise characteristic. Hence a very perceptive listener can hear something “anomalous” related to the transient response. We have designed our HyperStream modulators to exhibit strongly damped responses in all state variables. This means that a low level signal processed just prior to a transient and just after a transient, is processed in the same corner of the state space of the modulator and hence in the same quantization noise environment, thereby eliminating the anomalous errors in the music reproduction.

The above claim completely fails on the grounds of quantification. Sure there are all sorts of things happening in modern DACs, but the real question is how their magnitude stacks up compared to other noise sources in the system from musical instrument to ear. Since you seem to have your head turned by this kind of marketing-oriented blather, you must not know what the noise budget looks like in a real-world audio system. ESS is obviously not helping you out. If you really do have EE skills you can work this out for yourself and present it to us. I've done it here many times so you can look it up. But if you haven't done this yourself and/or can't do this yourself many here will write you off as being another wannbe. ;-)

The statement above also fails on the grounds of applicability. It starts out with the phrase "Certain ΣΔ modulators..." Could it be more vague? Does it relate to the DACs in $9.95 portable digital players or does it relate to DACs built in 1987? Or, does it relate to the main DAC in my AVR which if it were true and audibly signficiant, could justify actually choosing one of the high priced players or AVRs or stand-alone DACs containing the products that ESS wants to sell.
arnyk is offline  
post #100 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 06:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Also, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world that are still "around" because big pharma doesn't use audiophile methods or procedures when testing their drugs during trials.

There were "bad old days" when medical methods and materials weren't judged using the best bias controls possible. They ended around the 1950s. Medical trials still have biases but they are far more subtle. People died due to human bais.
arnyk is offline  
post #101 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 09:28 AM
Advanced Member
 
The_Nephilim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Wish this thread would just die.. Seems we have a few camps of thought here heck what does anyone really care is there a prize to be won for being right..

I am in the camp if the End user heres a difference or not that is fine basically it just boils down to what an enduser of said equipment thinks it sounds like or if there are any noticeable differences..

I am jusy glad I have a decent sub and like most I madea DIY deal.. Now my system may be what some others would cringe at the though of listening to but heck it sounds good to me.. IF someone says they hear a diffeeence so be it if you don't well again so be it just pointless going back and forth like this..

Heck I think most of it is just snake oil anyhow..I am just glad Im alive and able to enjoy a Hometheater of sorts even on my low budget sytem.. wink.gif

The_Nephilim1 is offline  
post #102 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 09:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Nephilim1 View Post

Wish this thread would just die.. Seems we have a few camps of thought here heck what does anyone really care is there a prize to be won for being right..

There is a prize to be won for being right.

If all DACs sound different, and you manage your system like they sound the same, then you lose sound quality.

If all DACs sound the same, and you manage your system like they all sound different, then you lose time and money.

So I ask you, is sound quality a prize to be sought after?

So I ask you, is properly managing time and money a prize to be sought after?
Quote:
I am in the camp if the End user heres a difference or not that is fine basically it just boils down to what an enduser of said equipment thinks it sounds like or if there are any noticeable differences..

So I can quote you as believing that neither sound quality, nor time nor money are of any value?

Quote:
I am jusy glad I have a decent sub and like most I made a DIY deal.. Now my system may be what some others would cringe at the though of listening to but heck it sounds good to me.. IF someone says they hear a diffeeence so be it if you don't well again so be it just pointless going back and forth like this..

Does it matter at all to you whether the differences we spend time and money to obtain are real or imaginary?
Quote:
Heck I think most of it is just snake oil anyhow..

Wouldn't you like to have reliable knowlege as to which is snake oil and which is real?
Quote:
I am just glad Im alive and able to enjoy a Hometheater of sorts even on my low budget sytem.. wink.gif

Don't you think that your system will perform far more poorly if you invest your money in snake oil?
arnyk is offline  
post #103 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 10:19 AM
Advanced Member
 
The_Nephilim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Look Im not going to be your next victim I am neither agreeing or disagreeing these are ALL just opinions and like well you know the saying everybody got one..

"Roger Out"

The_Nephilim1 is offline  
post #104 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 10:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Nephilim1 View Post

Look I'm not going to be your next victim

Victim or beneficiary? ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #105 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 10:47 AM
Advanced Member
 
The_Nephilim1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I prefer to be a beneficiary as probally do we all. I as well as others look for Others Opinions, Facts what have you and then we try to make an educated decision on what we learned read..

are these DACS Only built into a reciever or can they be bought as an separate addon?? What are the DACS out there that are offered, I have heard of Burr Brown what others are out there.. I know they are usually built into a reciever and it is a chip and it convers the digital signal to analog..

oh and back the OP Question would you prefer to dac or not??

The_Nephilim1 is offline  
post #106 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 10:57 AM
FMW
AVS Special Member
 
FMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,934
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 304 Post(s)
Liked: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Nephilim1 View Post

Well I prefer to be a beneficiary as probally do we all. I as well as others look for Others Opinions, Facts what have you and then we try to make an educated decision on what we learned read..

are these DACS Only built into a reciever or can they be bought as an separate addon?? What are the DACS out there that are offered, I have heard of Burr Brown what others are out there.. I know they are usually built into a reciever and it is a chip and it convers the digital signal to analog..

oh and back the OP Question would you prefer to dac or not??

All DACs are built around available DAC chips. Burr Brown is one of the brands of those DAC chips.
FMW is online now  
post #107 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 11:58 AM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Since you seem to have your head turned by this kind of marketing-oriented blather, you must not know what the noise budget looks like in a real-world audio system. ESS is obviously not helping you out. If you really do have EE skills you can work this out for yourself and present it to us. I've done it here many times so you can look it up. But if you haven't done this yourself and/or can't do this yourself many here will write you off as being another wannbe. ;-)
So all those EE people from AD, TI, ESS, WM, CS, Philips, Sony are together in a big conspiracy? Or they are clueless? I need to re-write their papers to prove that I am not a wannabe? Why, did you re-write the multiplication tables or trig formulas?
Basically, only you can help us see clear the truth behind this conspiracy, with your science, based solely on hearing trials?
Isn't that assumption a bit... megalomania?
SoNic67 is offline  
post #108 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 12:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Sonic icons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

So all those EE people from AD, TI, ESS, WM, CS, Philips, Sony are together in a big conspiracy? Or they are clueless? I need to re-write their papers to prove that I am not a wannabe? Why, did you re-write the multiplication tables or trig formulas?

From your comment, I take it that you know of papers published in refereed scientific or engineering journals that demonstrate Arnyk's arguments are wrong (and even evidence of "megalomania"). In particular, you must know of papers that show the following:
DACs currently used in "mass market" AVRs from companies such as Denon/Marantz, Onkyo, Pioneer, Sony, Yamaha produce audible noise and distortion, as revealed in well-designed and controlled listening tests, and are thus demonstrably inferior, for use in a home audio system, to "higher end" DACs from a manufacturer such as ESS Technology.

Awaiting the citations of these papers ...

Or, if you think such papers exist, but can't provide specifics, what "keywords" would you use to search for the papers in a large database of technical publications such as Web of Knowledge (http://apps.webofknowledge.com) ?
beaveav likes this.
Sonic icons is offline  
post #109 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 01:04 PM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Why, you couldn't read the ESS quote from above, or even better the whole white paper? You need personalized service? You can look up AD, TI, Philips (Bruno Putzeys) whitepapers that tell the story of DAC chips problems and their evolution in time... I'm in no business to further educate you.
I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them. And manufacturers know that too, since they keep changing their chips. They are competing for money, that have to improve their products. Otherwise they would still use the 1990 chips...

Only you think that there is no difference between them, because you can't hear it and Arnyk either. Thinking that you two know better than all the EE used by the above companies since 90's (two decades) is proof of what I said.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #110 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 01:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Sonic icons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Lafayette, Colorado
Posts: 358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 21
SoNic67:

Thank you for the list of publications in refereed scientific and engineering journals.

I did a quick search in the Web of Knowledge database using this search field:
audio and (dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*)
Only two papers turned up, both about the use of DACs in hearing aid design. Probably someone else could design a better search.

edit, additional search:
(dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*) not heart*
10 results, none appear relevant to "hearing differences between DACs".

You wrote: "I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them" Great, hope you continue to enjoy your system wink.gif
Sonic icons is offline  
post #111 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 03:20 PM
Member
 
clpetersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 173
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic icons View Post

SoNic67:

Thank you for the list of publications in refereed scientific and engineering journals.

I did a quick search in the Web of Knowledge database using this search field:
audio and (dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*)
Only two papers turned up, both about the use of DACs in hearing aid design. Probably someone else could design a better search.

edit, additional search:
(dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*) not heart*
10 results, none appear relevant to "hearing differences between DACs".

You wrote: "I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them" Great, hope you continue to enjoy your system wink.gif


Here you go:
http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/documents/uploads/misc/en/Design_Eval_AudioDAC_Whitepaper.pdf
clpetersen is offline  
post #112 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 03:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

So all those EE people from AD, TI, ESS, WM, CS, Philips, Sony are together in a big conspiracy? Or they are clueless? I need to re-write their papers to prove that I am not a wannabe? Why, did you re-write the multiplication tables or trig formulas?
Basically, only you can help us see clear the truth behind this conspiracy, with your science, based solely on hearing trials?
Isn't that assumption a bit... megalomania?

Having held meetings with and worked with several of those companies, I know they love to tout their latest DAC IC's for some parameter they improved. But when you ask whether that parametric improvement is audible in controlled listening tests, you get a big "Huh?" in response.

The biggest, and most important, advancements that they tout are in power supply noise rejection, reduced current consumption, smaller package size, and lower price.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #113 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Why, you couldn't read the ESS quote from above, or even better the whole white paper? You need personalized service? You can look up AD, TI, Philips (Bruno Putzeys) whitepapers that tell the story of DAC chips problems and their evolution in time... I'm in no business to further educate you.
I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them. And manufacturers know that too, since they keep changing their chips. They are competing for money, that have to improve their products. Otherwise they would still use the 1990 chips...

Only you think that there is no difference between them, because you can't hear it and Arnyk either. Thinking that you two know better than all the EE used by the above companies since 90's (two decades) is proof of what I said.

White papers are just another form of marketing. They are not peer-reviewed science. I've seen and read white papers from every single chip vendor I ever met. Every single one has a white paper telling why their technology is better than their competitors or why their new chip is better than their old one. It's business, not science.
CruelInventions likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #114 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 04:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by clpetersen View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic icons View Post

SoNic67:

Thank you for the list of publications in refereed scientific and engineering journals.

I did a quick search in the Web of Knowledge database using this search field:
audio and (dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*)
Only two papers turned up, both about the use of DACs in hearing aid design. Probably someone else could design a better search.

edit, additional search:
(dac or "digital to analog convertor*" or "digital analog convertor*") and (hear* or listen*) not heart*
10 results, none appear relevant to "hearing differences between DACs".

You wrote: "I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them" Great, hope you continue to enjoy your system wink.gif


Here you go:
http://www.wolfsonmicro.com/documents/uploads/misc/en/Design_Eval_AudioDAC_Whitepaper.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Why, you couldn't read the ESS quote from above, or even better the whole white paper? You need personalized service? You can look up AD, TI, Philips (Bruno Putzeys) whitepapers that tell the story of DAC chips problems and their evolution in time... I'm in no business to further educate you.

I think you have nothing to actually point to along the lines requested, and are just sending us on wild goose chases.
Quote:
I know that there are differences between DAC's because I heard them.

Two words: sighted evaluation.
Quote:
And manufacturers know that too, since they keep changing their chips.

That way they can say that they have something new. Below I show that they generally make no claims about audibility.
Quote:
They are competing for money, that have to improve their products. Otherwise they would still use the 1990 chips...

It is possible that the improvements have nothing to do with audible benefits. reduced cost, improved numerical specs, simpler interfacing, additional functions are all salable improvements but have nothing to do with improved sound quality.
Quote:
Only you think that there is no difference between them,

I never ever said that there are no differences. Please stop misrepresenting my viewpoint!
Quote:
because you can't hear it and Arnyk either.

Nobody can, provided they do proper listening tests. Obviously not even the manufacturers can, or else they would be touting them.
Quote:
Thinking that you two know better than all the EE used by the above companies since 90's (two decades) is proof of what I said.

I never ever said that I know better than all EEs. In face many EEs know what I know. Please stop misrepresenting my viewpoint!

A little searching shows that the paper mentioned above has no instances of ABX. audible, DBT, ABC/hr, blind, listening or test. They are just tossing abstract concepts and meaningless numbers around.

If you can do better searching than I, be my guest!
arnyk is offline  
post #115 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ambesolman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,369
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Arnyk,
Out of curiosity, what kind of setup do you listen to music on?
ambesolman is online now  
post #116 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 05:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
SoNic67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 722
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I never ever said that there are no differences. Please stop misrepresenting my viewpoint!
Should I find the post that you said that a $1 DAC sounds the same as the most expensive one? Isn't that saying that there are no differences? I remember that because you "arranged" a warn for me somewhere else when I disagreed with that statement...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I never ever said that I know better than all EEs. In face many EEs know what I know. Please stop misrepresenting my viewpoint!
Then what's your point? That they are ALL a bunch of liars? I asked that too - it implies a world-wide conspiracy network. Tell straight-up your point.
SoNic67 is offline  
post #117 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,761
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
Liked: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Should I find the post that you said that a $1 DAC sounds the same as the most expensive one? Isn't that saying that there are no differences? I remember that because you "arranged" a warn for me somewhere else when I disagreed with that statement...
Then what's your point? That they are ALL a bunch of liars? I asked that too - it implies a world-wide conspiracy network. Tell straight-up your point.

First you need to learn/understand that price is closely tied to volume purchased, among many other factors (dye size, the popularity of the 'package' the guts will be placed in, what marketing deems the chip to be worth, etc). Price does not mean a chip sounds better.

And these days, the D/A functionality is built-in to the main audio/video IC and plays little role in how much those cost. Only with boutique audio brands, stand-alone DACs, and CD players it is even a separate chip.

Sure, there are differences, they are measureable. But are they audible in controlled testing? That's the whole point.

Whether marketing equates to lying, well, there's a whole world of grey area there.

I once called out a poster on a forum back in the 90s for making false claims about how great a product was that I had designed. I got royally chewed out at work later on, because that poster was our marketing person! eek.gif
bo130 likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #118 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 05:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,126
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 93 Post(s)
Liked: 308
Quote:
Then what's your point? That they are ALL a bunch of liars?
Who says anyone is lying?

Here's a little exercise for you: Assume for the sake of argument that all competently designed DAC chips, no matter the price, are audibly indistinguishable. Now, find us an example of a statement by a DAC manufacturer that flat-out contradicts this statement.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is online now  
post #119 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 06:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
chalugadp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 4,991
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 882 Post(s)
Liked: 1009
Yeah arnyk , what is your system . Curious about your speaker choice
chalugadp is online now  
post #120 of 181 Old 08-06-2013, 07:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,381
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 748 Post(s)
Liked: 1162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambesolman View Post

Arnyk,
Out of curiosity, what kind of setup do you listen to music on?

My main AV system:

Panasonic DMP BD75 Blu Ray player
Denon 1913 AVR
3 Infinity Primus 351 speakers
Paradigm 12" Subwoofer with the 12" driver replaced by a Hsu 12" driver (I have 2 Stereo Integrity 15" subwoofer drivers waiting in the wings)
Mitsubishi 60" DLP TV display
Sennheiser RS 170 headphones driven by a Technics SHAC 500 surround decoder and a Rane MQ 302 equalizer from same TV digital audio output as the AVR
arnyk is offline  
Reply CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off