Low vs mid vs high priced DACs? - Page 5

I have tested a few DACs in the < $700 category. my subjective impressions led me to conclude that on a cheap system the differences are almost indiscernible. for what it's worth, the list price (meaning that's not what I paid for it) of my system is a bit below $10000. the difference between a $100 DAC and a $700 one wasn't night and day on it. discernible but not major.
if I were you, for a PC system I'd get something like the FiiO Taishan. around 40 in US dollars I think. don't get impressed by the overpriced crap like NuForce of Audioquest, they're just the most basic implementations from an application note with a nice case and a lot of marketing surrounding them.
just my opinion.
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 8:51am

diomania seems to be implying that you should ignore his opinions. interesting paradox.
he also fails to realize (I think it's something relating to one's fundamental inner structure) that a blind belief in anything at all, be it expensive cables or ABX is just that: a blind, unsubstantiated, belief. DBT or ABX is a false God just like some people's false God is multi kilodollar cables.
if you want a bit of amusement, watch the South Park episode where Eric travels to a future where religion is gone and replaced by an absolute belief in science they say "oh my science" instead of "oh my God". really funny but exposes a very profound issue which many people are unaware of.
to complete the curriculum, maybe consider reading a bit on philosophy (yes, not a mistake) of science

sorry, I was under the impression that the Taishan has USB input.
the Behringer UCA202 should be perfect, it has USB input and RCA outputs. there's a mod somewhere on the web to make the headphone output more usable, it involves changing a resistor I think.

and related to the DAC debate, here's an anecdote for you.
I think I mentioned that I used to own the Arcam rDAC. there are numerous "subjective" reviews on the web mentioning that the coax input sounds significantly worse compared to the USB one. including a guy on a local forum that said he did not expect such a large difference. I never tested it because I did not own a device with S/PDIF out at the time.
there was a guy on a Chinese forum or something that thought about measuring the jitter of the two inputs. guess what? the S/PDIF in turned to be significantly worse.
yes, maybe that is a case of a bad implementation but I guess some people are able to tell if a bad implementation is present in a DAC just by looking at its case, without listening to it?
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 9:52am

yes. are you sure you aren't repeating the myth that anytime a DBT renders a null result, the difference is non existent?
if I were to try and understand your point of view, I'd blame it on the extremist audiofool. precisely the type that gushes over "extraordinary" (usually more colorful vernacular is used) differences, but as soon as he is subjected to ABX or any sort of DBT, no difference is revealed. those are idiots that do no good to the community and I think they are just trying to justify a purchase to themselves. I'd suggest to those types to look into other hobbies or alternatively to get a life.
this doesn't mean that some differences don't actually exist.
in the past I thought that I found differences that (even in non blind tests) proved to be imagined. other differences proved to be real.
want more anecdotes? I personally know a guy who owns a $60k system. he told me about the cables he uses. he tested many expensive speaker and interconnect cables and in the end he chose the cheapest speaker cable from the department store. the interconnect he chose was also of the most basic type. he also tested a few power cords. he ended up spending many hundreds on his choice.
now, why would anyone spending 60k on a system skimp on speaker cables and ICs and spend a lot on power chords? especially when he tested them?

I remember someone writing in this thread that I probably own a poor system, compared to other posters.
that was absolute speculation as I hadn't mentioned anything about my current DAC, amp and speakers. yet, some people have the nerve to write that one shouldn't take advice from random strangers on the net how's that for double standard?
Edited by gn77b - 2/3/13 at 1:43pm

this topic started with sweeping statements like that so I'm not exactly surprised it continues.
what is the relevant science? what goof-ups?
let me give you an example. the Fletcher-Munson curves have been determined a long time ago, I think in the 30s. by looking at them one would assume there is a huge variation of tonality with SPL. of course there is some variance but it doesn't seem as high as the plots would indicate. why is that? because they used sines to determine them and (likely at neural level) the perception changes depending on program material. my ears tell me that and one of the papers I linked above confirms it.
having said that, my BS detectors tend to become alert whenever people claim that "all the relevant science is known".
that may be true but IMO expectation bias is not less of a problem than the noise introduced by DBT. what I don't get is... how come expectation bias is taken from granted while the problems of DBTs are ignored off-hand?
that is an assertion if I understand it correctly. are you saying that a power cable can't affect the sound in ways different than an IC or speaker cable? I disagree and have enough reasons to think the contrary. this doesn't in any way mean that a good power cable must be expensive.

the problem with DBT (I don't know if said it before and I don't care to reread the topic) is the way such tests are usually organized. a proper test is hard (expensive) to set up. the usual tests are botched. in my view a proper DBT should use experienced listeners with good hearing (not too old), the best equipment available in well-treated rooms, the music should be familiar and pre-exposure to the "DUT" should be allowed. also, the listening sessions should be long-enough but not too long so that fatigue doesn't set-in, the switching from A to B should be at the listeners altitude. and maybe most importantly, no outside pressure "c'mon, decide already" and a quiet room, not filled with people.
I think you agree that such a test would be very hard to set-up, not to mention tedious for both the listener and the test organizers.
what a "regular" DBT eliminates is obvious differences and that's all. with audio as well as with everything else the law of diminishing returns applies and with expensive gear the differences aren't exactly obvious. generally the 20/80 rule applies, as in you pay 20% of the price to get 80% of the results. if you want to get the remaining 1/4 of quality you need to pay 4 times more. of course, the question is, how does one measure perception to such a precise degree?

having read a number of scientific studies on psychoacoustics, one thing I can tell is that some don't seem to be properly set-up. many are done at universities, either by teachers or as part of PhDs etc. when did the average university gain access to good audio reproduction equipment? how does one assess differences when $10 PC speakers are used? and, sorry to be blunt, but if students are used for evaluating those differences, well... I think the average iPod listener is not exactly qualified. IME, on first exposure to a good stereo, most people seem rather confused and don't know exactly what to listen for. listening is partially an acquired skill.

of course there is another side to it. for instance pressure occurs when dealer borrows equipment to potential buyer, agreeing for a week of evaluation. after a couple of days dealer calls and say, you know, that's the last I have on stock and another guy showed interest, better make up your mind fast. maybe potential buyer came late from work and wasn't able to properly audition at revelant SPLs? so potential buyer either takes a rash decision and buys. or he refrains from buying and dealer says you know I lost another potential customer because I borrowed this to you. meaning that "next time there'll be no borrowing". yes, those guys are actually out to get your money and they know how, that's why they started the distribution business in the first place
of course I'm aware that such things happen but it's not always the case. for instance, I bought my current speakers after a week of evaluation in my home with no pressure involved.

but what's funny is that generally, and this likely includes most posters here, irrespective of the side they take and the price involved, the buying decision is not a result of a DBT, not even a botched one, but of short, sighted evaluation

what I'm trying to say is that one must be aware that there's always another side to the coin.

all this will likely be solved the moment we reach a thorough understanding of how our brain and hearing work. that'll be the moment when we know to what extent expectation bias influences our perception. also to what extend DBT introduces errors. it's obvious to me that in the year 2013 our understanding is primitive and there are more important things for science to determine. until that happens we'll continue having lots of Internet debates based on speculation.

I generally expect such sweeping statements from a presentation like that. I never said it was rigorous science, neither quoted it as proof.
I conjecture that this applies to many of the wanna-be scientists here. out of mere curiosity, I searched for some of their previous posts. some (not all) seem to be just repeating vague statements over and over again. you accuse me of wrong doings, while ignoring yours. like I said, I don't expect that we ever break this vicious circle, not in the near future
the way I see it, for you "supported" equals "renowned scientist said it". renowned scientists said a lot of wrong things and the examples are so common I won't repeat them.
I am not faulting them. the Fletcher-Munson thing was an example for the fallacy that it's very easy to think that all the relevant science is known and that it applies wherever one feels it should. F-M is viewed by some as the supreme indication of variance of perceived tonality with SPL but it's not. it's, like you said, just a curve that shows how we perceive isolated tones. it is my belief that the same goes for other phenomena that apply to hearing, because it's comfortable to oversimplify.
remember, I was the one asking a question in the OP.
yes, and broad statements don't apply as such. all I ever saw from the responders to my original question was sweeping statements, followed by demands. I conjecture again and speculate that the level of understanding of some people here is at the "quickly browsed through Wiki article" level.
interesting. some member here sent me a message which said he thinks that of you. well, I guess it depends on who's looking at it.


here's a deal for you. the second you point me to some relevant, credible literature proving that the problems of double blind testing in audio which I mentioned are non-existent and that expectation bias is indeed a bigger problem, I'll write with bold, large and red characters that I'm full of ****. "credible" excludes "renowned scientist of arnyk's preference thinks so but doesn't care to prove it" or stuff like that. until then, I'll continue using your own weapons.
Edited by gn77b - 2/4/13 at 8:07am

I don't need a license. but there's a high degree of probability that some of the posters here (I'm not talking about you) don't know the relevant science and are just blind followers of a concept they once fell in love with.
you are misinterpreting my example. we'll leave it like that.
but maybe there's still some hope for me...
I tend to think the same. but I also constantly seem to remember that there's a lot of funny, very non-linear stuff going on inside our brains and who knows... it is comfortable to assume that the above is true, after all, most of the systems theory is based on the assumption of superposition so that it can easily manipulate something based on a relatively simple mathematical model but OTOH what it does is bend reality to fit a certain model. in certain cases it's good enough, in others, not.
one can devise a computer program such that certain input is completely ignored in certain situations but absolutely detected and accounted for in others. and as far as I'm concerned our brain is a complex computer program.


the offer stands.

same goes for you too. we'll let the audience decide.
quick analysis times the number the topic showed up amounts to a greater effort than linking to the places you proved that in the past.
I agree. it is my view on a large portion of the audiophile community.
I'll try to do it when I build an instant switching box with an attenuator for level matching. I think my skills are adequate to do it properly.

maybe. OTOH, personal experiments in the past (hard to DBT that so we'll have to leave it like that) showed that room treatment has a great effect on the sound. even if I'm not able to tell a difference in my system in my room, does it prove that the differences are non-existent with any system, in any room?

it's no surprise that the Lynx is a good SC. it is pro-oriented and the pro audio domain has lower profit margins and those guys are hard to fool because they are spending money in order to make money. normally I'd only buy pro gear, I personally don't care much for heavy aluminum cases which cost thousands to make and are ugly 99% of the time, like those usually made for the audiofool community. give me a raw looking rack mount case any time, I'll even have fun of the snobs that try to pick on its looks.

note that I ignored the ad-hominems, although I found that the forum has an ignore feature. I might decide to use it eventually.