or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Low vs mid vs high priced DACs?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Low vs mid vs high priced DACs? - Page 6

post #151 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

I think you are confusing the method of science with why we do science.
very, very good point. congrats, I missed that. that's why I mentioned philosophy of science earlier. many people simply don't know what science is, although they are perfectly capable of using the results it gives in some specific manner.
post #152 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Galileo and Einstein both thought the existing textbooks were wrong and speculated. The beauty of science is that it is open to the possibility that we have it wrong and that it can make complete U-turns if need be. It is the complete opposite of absolutes and "we know everything".
So, this has what to do with the current understanding of reproduced sound technology? Specifically, what of DAC do you think would fall into such possibility?
post #153 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I currently own what would be considered an entry-level DAC made by a local company. I compared it with the similarly priced Arcam rDAC and the former won by a small margin, I'd say that it was a matter of preference which one was better - better focus but narrower sound stage and a bit more presence. otherwise I'd say they were identical.
while I had the luck to listed to few high-end systems in the past, what I always missed were actual comparisons ("let's try this amp now and see what it does to the sound").
I know what even a $150 DAC can do to the sound compared to lesser sources (enough to quality as a "WOW" kind of difference) and since I believe that sound can be textually described to a point, I was wondering what kind of differences the higher priced DACs bring.
real, first-hand experience and examples would be much appreciated, thanks.


Interesting thread...I would have suggested gn77b throw in the towel days ago but hey, your holding your own. A moderator chimed in on post #41 to chill the crowd but not until post #43 did anyone suggest trying another website for support. Then zoom zoom posted that he is interested "an education on DACs", post #85. Brian B made a suggestion and was then asked a smart ass question. Zoom zoom must have gone else where for his education.

No wonder this thread isn't very active.
post #154 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Actually, the idea of science is to obtain reliable information and apply it correctly. Believe it or not, many of the frontiers have been visited many times and are nicely mapped out.

I think you are confusing the method of science with why we do science. You seem to be looking at things more like an engineer or an IT systems analyst.

Actually the confusion is yours. I covered both topics.
Quote:
Galileo and Einstein both thought the existing textbooks were wrong and speculated. The beauty of science is that it is open to the possibility that we have it wrong and that it can make complete U-turns if need be. It is the complete opposite of absolutes and "we know everything".

If you want a certain answer you have to ask the right question. If you don't ask the right question and get an answer other than the one you want, then the fault is yours.

I think the direction you are now headed is better covered by the statement that "...all findings of science are provisional until we find something better". That is a parephrase of a well known and utterly correct statement. BTW if you search diligently, you will find that I've posted that statement here a number of times in the past.

I might have been studying the Philosophy of Science when your father was in square pants, and I've kept up. ;-)
post #155 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post


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

You have an excuse for ignoring the ad-hominems but you have no excuse for your ongoing habit of ignoring questions you apparently can't answer or would mortally affect your position or maybe just make you have to think uncomfortable thoughts. ;-)
post #156 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post


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.

Since I haven't seen any well-formed information from you about any problems with double blind testing, you seem to be suggesting mission impossible.

Your biggest problem with DBTs are probably:

(1) You've never personally given it a serious try

(2) If you did any good ones, you would have to give up some tightly held beliefs

Meanwhile you are skipping over what are probably uncomfortable questions for you, like there is no tomorrow.

Yawn!
post #157 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Can you or anyone confirm or deny that in a pc using the usb is better than onboard audio out and / or TOSLink?

This post calls into question audible quality, I think thats what better means. You won't find members suggesting a "better" output connection from a computer because that would imply the ability to decipher in a listening test the USB connection from the Toslink.

If you read this thread you should come to the conclusion that all DAC's sound the same. So the choice of a DAC comes down to input choice, how you're using the DAC, and what you're willing to pay. But as this thread has taught us, purchase the least expensive DAC that fits your application. And for you it's the Behringer at $30.
post #158 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post


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.

Are you talking about reality or your vague imaginings?

I'd like to see you cite a scholarly paper about how DBTs "are usually orgainzed" Remember, you've made a generalization so you need a world-wide survey of present and past (going back to 1975) methodologies for setting up audio DBTs, probably reviewed and certified by a major accounting firm.
Quote:
A proper test is hard (expensive) to set up.

When you get geared up to do them, they are pretty doable of course, depending on what you are comparing/

Quote:
the usual tests are botched.

Please cite real world examples.
Quote:
in my view a proper DBT should use experienced listeners with good hearing (not too old),

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
the best equipment available in well-treated rooms,

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
the music should be familiar and pre-exposure to the "DUT" should be allowed.

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
also, the listening sessions should be long-enough but not too long so that fatigue doesn't set-in,

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
the switching from A to B should be at the listeners altitude.

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
and maybe most importantly, no outside pressure "c'mon, decide already"

Been there, done that and so have many others.
Quote:
and a quiet room, not filled with people.

Been there, done that and so have many others.

The fact that you seem to think these are relevant unresolved issues speaks to your probable lack of familiarity with the extant literature of double blind testing.

Since you seem to know it all, I obviously need not cite any sources. You must have already read them to make the sort of global statements that you have made.

Therefore your next logical move is to provide a scholarly review of the relevant papers and explain why the tests and methodologies they have documented are inadequate. And no, I won't do your research or write your bibliography for you! ;-)
post #159 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

This post calls into question audible quality, I think thats what better means. You won't find members suggesting a "better" output connection from a computer because that would imply the ability to decipher in a listening test the USB connection from the Toslink.

If you read this thread you should come to the conclusion that all DAC's sound the same. So the choice of a DAC comes down to input choice, how you're using the DAC, and what you're willing to pay. But as this thread has taught us, purchase the least expensive DAC that fits your application. And for you it's the Behringer at $30.

Thanks I thought I saw the S in AVS being for school yard somewhere. I'll give a try and hopefully my ears and mind can hear a huge difference for the "better" for $30 what could possibly go wrong? No I will not attempt a DBT even if it is now legal in CO and WA. I can't even do a proper measurement. Really though a week ago I might have spent 300-700 on one. Thanks
post #160 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

I was wondering what kind of differences the higher priced DACs bring.
real, first-hand experience and examples would be much appreciated, thanks.


gn, I just placed an order for this:



Look, no power cord. The DAC is powered over the USB cable. It was $99 + shipping and it utilizes asynchronous technology. I will try for a controlled blind/level matched listening test between this new unit and the 2 other DAC's I own.
post #161 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Thanks I thought I saw the S in AVS being for school yard somewhere. I'll give a try and hopefully my ears and mind can hear a huge difference for the "better" for $30 what could possibly go wrong? No I will not attempt a DBT even if it is now legal in CO and WA. I can't even do a proper measurement. Really though a week ago I might have spent 300-700 on one. Thanks


Read my post above I just purchased the MODI.

Audio is a hobby for me so I enjoy trying new gear, I don't mind spending money on equipment that I can move in and out of the 2 systems I own. Well I'm sure you'll be stoked with the Beringer I'm sure it'll sound exactly like my Bryston BDA-1.

:^)
post #162 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

Thanks I thought I saw the S in AVS being for school yard somewhere. I'll give a try and hopefully my ears and mind can hear a huge difference for the "better" for $30 what could possibly go wrong? No I will not attempt a DBT even if it is now legal in CO and WA. I can't even do a proper measurement. Really though a week ago I might have spent 300-700 on one. Thanks

Are you able to use either USB or Tosllink? I'd like to understand the use of the 3.5mm stereo to RCA cable, is that the output from your computer soundcard, sorry Apple guy here using USB out.
post #163 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Therefore your next logical move is to provide a scholarly review of the relevant papers and explain why the tests and methodologies they have documented are inadequate. And no, I won't do your research or write your bibliography for you! ;-)
logical? what was ever logical about this thread? it was you and your friends that set the rules smile.gif
and, it's not about me. there are more people reading this than you think. maybe you should help them.
apart from the tests at H&K, most I've heard of seem to be botched. but, something tells me that the guys at H&K don't exactly use $500 receivers and DACs for those.
I remember reading a paper about distortion audibility a while back. I had expected that the test procedure would be described. but no. not even one mention of speakers used, room treatment, types of subjects. the overall format of the paper suggested a scientific approach but the methods not.
I also remember reading some paper on spatial perception and the mention that young subjects (iPod users) were used and the audio samples were short (10 seconds). I tend to not archive such crap so I can't cite it and I have no intention to search for it so you can say "nah, I don't feel in the mood to read it" or something like that. your behavioral patterns are too obvious for me to expect otherwise.
meanwhile, no-one (including you and the other "opponents") posted hard data. just "the science of that has long been established", "that guy is full of it" etc.
any logical person would stop and mind his own business. but I don't expect that to happen because I know what motivates you, but I won't post that.
have you wondered why it's mostly your friends that post here? because most people know better and have long realized that discussing anything at all with you types is a complete waste of time. I'm very close to that realization too. you could've changed that by posting a link to a serious study contradicting my "anecdotal" evidence.


remember, there are a lot of people reading this and believe me, some are intelligent enough to understand what you're about.
Edited by gn77b - 2/4/13 at 2:24pm
post #164 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Therefore your next logical move is to provide a scholarly review of the relevant papers and explain why the tests and methodologies they have documented are inadequate. And no, I won't do your research or write your bibliography for you! ;-)
logical? what was ever logical about this thread? it was you and your friends that set the rules smile.gif

Fine.

You are just running away from all of the questions I asked.

Obviously, you have no clue about the existence of this document:

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

I believe it rebuts every claim you have made and a few you didn't mention. If memory serves, the first edition of it dates back to 1996.

Google says that there are about 84,400 references to it on the web. Obviously, you are aware of none them them. Speaks to your lack of familiarity with the topic that you have appointed yourself a world expert of.
post #165 of 232
Thread Starter 
and one more thing you should consider. I and some other poster linked to some papers and a presentation. biased or not, good or not, but we have. you, on the other hand, never posted anything except "that's BS" etc. mind one thing: there is the argument of authority involved (a logical fallacy, yes). people tend to believe the most reputable person. Bob Stuart IS reputable. the ESS guy IS reputable. excuse me, but AFAIK, you are no-one. yes, maybe I'm wrong and maybe you're some obscure but nevertheless good scientist. but, to MOST of the people reading this is the founder of Meridian, Malcolm Hawksword (both AES members with many publications), a guy from a company making DACs, and you are...? get my point?
post #166 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


Have you wondered why it's mostly your friends that post here?

I didn't know that I had that many friends. Seriously, if you do a count, the pro and con posts are in some kind of reasonble balance.
Quote:
..most people know better and have long realized that discussing anything at all with you types is a complete waste of time. I'm very close to that realization too.

You say that after you whined about ad hominem comments? LOL!
Quote:
you could've changed that by posting a link to a serious study contradicting my "anecdotal" evidence.

If you understood science as well as you seem to think, you would know why I would never attempt to do such a thing.

You could have lowered yourself to actually research the topic a little before posting all of the ludicrous claims.

The shame is not that all DACs sound the same but that all proponents of magic DACs seem to sound the same.
post #167 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Fine.

You are just running away from all of the questions I asked.

Obviously, you have no clue about the existence of this document:

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

I believe it rebuts every claim you have made and a few you didn't mention. If memory serves, the first edition of it dates back to 1996.

Google says that there are about 84,400 references to it on the web. Obviously, you are aware of none them them. Speaks to your lack of familiarity with the topic that you have appointed yourself a world expert of.
arny, thanks for making me laugh. I had a nice evening with some friends and now you are humoring me, thank you.
the title of the document contains the word "recommendation". I'm not aware of any commission or anything like that which has the responsibility of evaluating every DAC in existence according to those recommendations, or of any published results. also, I'm not aware of any law that forces any DBT to follow those recommendations. some links to real world tests would be more useful. link to a number of tests which confirm that statistically all DACs are the same, and you're on to something.

me? self-appointed world expert? there must be something wrong with the forum software because I'm almost sure you're not reading my posts the way I write them.
post #168 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If you understood science as well as you seem to think, you would know why I would never attempt to do such a thing.
I know why you would not do it and it doesn't have anything to do with my understanding of science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

You say that after you whined about ad hominem comments? LOL!
yes. you gave me that right the moment you did it. I never whined, it's different from "exposed", "pointed out", "made people aware of".

really, I can go on forever or actually get bored and use the ignore feature. you know there's a way to stop it and that is to post the real science you pretend to have.
post #169 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Fine.

You are just running away from all of the questions I asked.

Obviously, you have no clue about the existence of this document:

http://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-1-199710-I!!PDF-E.pdf

I believe it rebuts every claim you have made and a few you didn't mention. If memory serves, the first edition of it dates back to 1996.

Google says that there are about 84,400 references to it on the web. Obviously, you are aware of none them them. Speaks to your lack of familiarity with the topic that you have appointed yourself a world expert of.

Arny, thanks for making me laugh.

Hyenas are said to laugh, I wouldn't be proud of it if I were you.
Quote:
the title of the document contains the word "recommendation".

It says a lot more than that. Here is the rest of the title:

"METHODS FOR THE SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF SMALL IMPAIRMENTS IN AUDIO SYSTEMS INCLUDING MULTICHANNEL SOUND SYSTEMS"
Quote:
I'm not aware of any commission or anything like that which has the responsibility of evaluating every DAC in existence according to those recommendations, or of any published results.

You obviously have no clue about the meaning and application of international standards. Let me see if I can break it down to your mental level. This is a voluntary standard, as most are. The idea is that if one wishes to evaluate something in a way that would be respected by many people, they would do it in accordance with this standard.

You also have changed the topic of discussion for the purpose of avoiding dealing with your recent errors in fact. Last time I looked we were talking about methods for doing DBTs. You claimed that nobody did DBTs that met certain requirements and I pointed out an international standard that may date back almost 20 years and that has been referenced thousands of times as an indication of the method used in some listening test that they did. That pretty well puts your claim that no DBTs are ever done well enough into perspective.
Quote:
also, I'm not aware of any law that forces any DBT to follow those recommendations.

I never said that there was any such law. You seem to like to argue with yourself.
Quote:
some links to real world tests would be more useful. link to a number of tests which confirm that statistically all DACs are the same, and you're on to something.

I never made any such claim, so again you are arguing with yourself.

Since you seem to have a very short memory, I'll remind you of what I do claim.

I claim that there are readily-available, inexpensive DACs that are sonically transparent. That is, if they are introduced into the highest quality audio chain imaginable, they do not detract from its operation in a way that is audible in normal or reasonble critical use. Yes, I suppose that you can amplify their residual noise by a jillion dB and listen to it, but that isn't exactly reasonable or normal, is it? I'm talking about listening to music and drama from commercial recordings.

I have confirmed this with bench tests and DBT listening tests that I have done of certain products that I have named here, make and model.

AFAIK all contrary indications that have been mentioned on this thread were obtained with sighted evaluations with questionable or non-existent level matching, time synchronization, and etc. They are thus invalid for very obvious reasons.

Got any valid relevant evidence?

And while I'm doing your homework for you, entertain yourself with this:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
post #170 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post


really, I can go on forever or actually get bored and use the ignore feature. you know there's a way to stop it and that is to post the real science you pretend to have.

I have already posted two pieces of real science and you showed yourself to be incapable of recognizing it for what it is.

Why should I continue to humor your whining?
post #171 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Are you able to use either USB or Tosllink? I'd like to understand the use of the 3.5mm stereo to RCA cable, is that the output from your computer soundcard, sorry Apple guy here using USB out.

My office PC only has the motherboard integrated Realtek HD audio it has a panel of like 6 analog outs and a SPDIF TOSLink i have never used. What I use now on board sound output 3.5mm adapter that splits into a L/R (red and white) RCA cable run into the CD input of a 1990 something Yamaha receiver (no digital inputs). I have a pretty decent library of music in bit rates of 192-320 and was thinking that using USB to a DAC might be 'better' electronically, theoretically, audibly or only mystically I don't have an answer but... Hope your new unit exceeds your expectations!
post #172 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

And while I'm doing your homework for you, entertain yourself with this:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Take a look at the system Meyer and Moran used in their test, that is not a very resolving setup no wonder they couldn't hear a difference!

eek.gif
post #173 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

And while I'm doing your homework for you, entertain yourself with this:

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

Take a look at the system Meyer and Moran used in their test, that is not a very resolving setup no wonder they couldn't hear a difference!

Please prove that the Meyer and Moran system lacked "resolving power" by any means other than opinion stated as if it were divinely appointed fact.

If you can't do that, then simply assemble a system with enough resolving power to obtain positive results given that adequate experimental procedures and controls are used.

You may use BS 1116-1 (also provided) as a guide in case the Meyer and Moran JAES paper lacks sufficient details.

You also find more comments from Meyers and Moran here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
post #174 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by colohtpc View Post

My office PC only has the motherboard integrated Realtek HD audio it has a panel of like 6 analog outs and a SPDIF TOSLink i have never used. What I use now on board sound output 3.5mm adapter that splits into a L/R (red and white) RCA cable run into the CD input of a 1990 something Yamaha receiver (no digital inputs). I have a pretty decent library of music in bit rates of 192-320 and was thinking that using USB to a DAC might be 'better' electronically, theoretically, audibly or only mystically I don't have an answer but... Hope your new unit exceeds your expectations!

I would be surprised if you'll hear a difference with the Behringer UCA 202 and your current setup. But for $30 it'll be nice to add to your office system.
post #175 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Please prove that the Meyer and Moran system lacked "resolving power" by any means other than opinion stated as if it were divinely appointed fact.

If you can't do that, then simply assemble a system with enough resolving power to obtain positive results given that adequate experimental procedures and controls are used.

You may use BS 1116-1 (also provided) as a guide in case the Meyer and Moran JAES paper lacks sufficient details.

You also find more comments from Meyers and Moran here:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm



As stated before, the internet is a difficult place to attempt humor. Thanks for all of the reading material...really.
post #176 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

So, this has what to do with the current understanding of reproduced sound technology? Specifically, what of DAC do you think would fall into such possibility?

Never assume we know everything there is to know in any particular field. You can bet that in 100 years time they will look back at us now and think how little we knew and how ignorant we were... just like when we look back 100 years.

Until your sound system in your room sounds exactly like real life or a real orchestra in front of you... then there is still scope for improvement.
post #177 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Never assume we know everything there is to know in any particular field. You can bet that in 100 years time they will look back at us now and think how little we knew and how ignorant we were... just like when we look back 100 years.

Until your sound system in your room sounds exactly like real life or a real orchestra in front of you... then there is still scope for improvement.
You are dodging my question via strawman argument. I asked you what not knowing everything has to do with DACs being discussed, low vs mid vs high priced DACs to be more specific. Are you trying to say that people heard a difference between DACs with different price tags in a properly conducted DBT and the existing science couldn't explain why?
post #178 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

I asked you what not knowing everything has to do with DACs being discussed, low vs mid vs high priced DACs to be more specific. Are you trying to say that people heard a difference between DACs with different price tags in a properly conducted DBT and the existing science couldn't explain why?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1438570/low-vs-mid-vs-high-priced-dacs/90#post_22915967
post #179 of 232
That's your answer to my question? If so, you've got a serious reading problem.
post #180 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

That's your answer to my question? If so, you've got a serious reading problem.


Why should I bother. You've obviously already made up your mind on the matter.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Low vs mid vs high priced DACs?