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 8

post #211 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

funny? hm.
it would be funny, had I not received two infractions for the mention of the word penis, without it being used as a derogative smile.gif
in a perfect world, the guy would receive at least an infraction.

I was penalized a few years ago for name calling. I let someone get to me. Today I understand that there are members on this site that attempt to ridicule others. I was reading a thread and this person kept interjecting with "how did you measure", "was it level matched" and the posts just kept going and going with no reply. The 3 members in the conversation must have had the interjector on ignore because they never acknowledge him.

I think it's funny to post "idiot", some of us try so hard to explain and others ask for scientific proof of a post and this guy drives by with a comment like "if they don't sound the same one of 'ems broken" an active member replies and the drive guy just says "idiot" it made me laugh out loud.
post #212 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

All nonlinear distortion and noise 100 dB or more down.

0.1 dB frequency response over the audible range with phase response to match.


Since most outboard DACs are purchased for the use of getting computer audio to a hi-fi system, how about the importance of its USB or SPDIF interface? Does the DAC have its own purpose built ASIO driver or does it need to use a generic software interface? This alone can make a world of difference.

I don't know of any DACs that don't have one or the other (or both), unless you count audio interfaces with PCI or PCI-E interfaces. Seems like non-issue to me.


Or how about if it is USB powered or has its own power supply? If it is USB powered, then how clean and stable is the 5v on anyone's particular USB port?
[/quote]

Since I don't do sighed evaluations of DACs I can evaluate them more objectively. I've never had any problems using a DAC as supplied, whether there's an external power supply or not.
Quote:
How many other USB devices is your computer needing to power at the same time?

I think you are reaching for something to complain about. This is an audio forum and SQ should be the most important thing.
Quote:
So what exactly is the definition of a "competently designed" DAC?

Obviously, you can use it without straining yourself, and you can use it with what comes in the box.
post #213 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

funny? hm.
it would be funny, had I not received two infractions for the mention of the word penis, without it being used as a derogative smile.gif
in a perfect world, the guy would receive at least an infraction.

I was penalized a few years ago for name calling. I let someone get to me. Today I understand that there are members on this site that attempt to ridicule others. I was reading a thread and this person kept interjecting with "how did you measure", "was it level matched" and the posts just kept going and going with no reply. The 3 members in the conversation must have had the interjector on ignore because they never acknowledge him.

No, he was making a valid point that many people just ignore.

Pointing out the use of sighted evaluations, which are well known for their ability to conform to the proponent's needs and expectations is not ridicule.
Quote:
I think it's funny to post "idiot", some of us try so hard to explain and others ask for scientific proof of a post and this guy drives by with a comment like "if they don't sound the same one of 'ems broken" an active member replies and the drive guy just says "idiot" it made me laugh out loud.

The above looks very much like an attempt to ridicule someone. Don't you find it ironic that you are complaining about ridicule and then doing it again and again in your own post?
post #214 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No, he was making a valid point that many people just ignore.

Pointing out the use of sighted evaluations, which are well known for their ability to conform to the proponent's needs and expectations is not ridicule.
The above looks very much like an attempt to ridicule someone. Don't you find it ironic that you are complaining about ridicule and then doing it again and again in your own post?



You Sir are one that ridicules those who don't believe in what you preach. I am right down the center on what I call the 2 sides of audio.

But I also know not to get in a urinating match with you. So you win Arny.
post #215 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

I am right down the center on what I call the 2 sides of audio.
What about audio facts, do you favor them or do you stand at half way between facts and fiction?
post #216 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

I am right down the center on what I call the 2 sides of audio.
stands for me too.
post #217 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

No, he was making a valid point that many people just ignore.

Pointing out the use of sighted evaluations, which are well known for their ability to conform to the proponent's needs and expectations is not ridicule.
The above looks very much like an attempt to ridicule someone. Don't you find it ironic that you are complaining about ridicule and then doing it again and again in your own post?

You Sir are one that ridicules those who don't believe in what you preach.

I admit that sometimes the lack of reason and knowledge of relevant facts evidenced in some post affects my emotions, particularly when people claim that truth is false and false is truth.

However, most of what I post is a simple rendition of generally accepted technical facts, and their application to the sitaution at hand. Many people take correction as redicule, but that is their perception. Let's face it, few people wants to be shown how wrong they are when they are wrong. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Quote:
I am right down the center on what I call the 2 sides of audio.

Please define what you think the 2 sides of audio are.

I hope that doesn't surprise you or make you think that it qualifies you for some award. In my experience most people think that their beliefs are factually correct no matter how poorly founded they are. Most audiophiles lack formal education related to audio. Their beliefs are heavily based on the writings of journalists and advertising copywriters (often indistinguishable from each other), not practicing engineers or university professors.
Quote:
But I also know not to get in a urinating match with you. So you win Arny.

That looks like an example of passive-aggressive behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

"
Passive-aggressive behavior is a category of interpersonal interactions characterized by an obstructionist or hostile manner that indicates aggression, or, in more general terms, expressing aggression in non-assertive, subtle (that is, passive or indirect) ways. It can be seen in some cases as a personality trait or disorder marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed, resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.

Passive-aggressive behavior can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, hostility masquerading as jokes, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.[2]
"
Edited by arnyk - 2/11/13 at 8:53am
post #218 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

I am right down the center on what I call the 2 sides of audio.
What about audio facts, do you favor them or do you stand at half way between facts and fiction?

I suspect that these guys think they know the true facts relating to the situations that they comment on.

The obvious flaw in their belief system is that they think that truth about science and technology can always be found in a broad grey area between differing opinions.

This sort of thinking is hard to sustain if one has a good technical education.

People who are familiar with actually performing scientific tests are acutely aware of the absence of gray areas, particularly in areas of mature science, such as audio. So much of it either is or is not, with fairly sharp borders.
post #219 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I admit it that sometimes the lack of reason and knowledge of relevant facts evidenced in some post affects my emotions, particularly when people claim that truth is false and false is truth.

However, most of what I post is a simple rendition of generally accepted technical facts, and their application to the sitaution at hand. Many people take correction as redicule, but that is their perception. Let's face it, few people wants to be shown how wrong they are when they are wrong. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.
Please define what you think the 2 sides of audio are.



I appreciate what you've written above ^^^ admiting that some posts affect your emotions. I think that happens to some of us, I know you've made a lifes work of audio and I respect your dedication. I don't agree with all of what you believe but in contrast I don't believe what is written in audio publications either.
post #220 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post


I hope that doesn't surprise you or make you think that it qualifies you for some award. In my experience most people think that their beliefs are factually correct no matter how poorly founded they are. Most audiophiles lack formal education related to audio. Their beliefs are heavily based on the writings of journalists and advertising copywriters (often indistinguishable from each other), not practicing engineers or university professors.

No award necessary. It has been my experience that audio enthusiasts enjoy listening to music and comparing equipment in an unscientific environment. I like to say "it sounds like this" not "it sounds better than this".

If you stand back and read what you've written above it is contemptuous, you may not see it but I do.
post #221 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I suspect that these guys think they know the true facts relating to the situations that they comment on.

The obvious flaw in their belief system is that they think that truth about science and technology can always be found in a broad grey area between differing opinions.

This sort of thinking is hard to sustain if one has a good technical education.

People who are familiar with actually performing scientific tests are acutely aware of the absence of gray areas, particularly in areas of mature science, such as audio. So much of it either is or is not, with fairly sharp borders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

post #1 of 220

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.



These guys would like to share their facts relating to DAC assessment.
post #222 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I suspect that these guys think they know the true facts relating to the situations that they comment on.

The obvious flaw in their belief system is that they think that truth about science and technology can always be found in a broad grey area between differing opinions.

This sort of thinking is hard to sustain if one has a good technical education.

People who are familiar with actually performing scientific tests are acutely aware of the absence of gray areas, particularly in areas of mature science, such as audio. So much of it either is or is not, with fairly sharp borders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gn77b View Post

post #1 of 220

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.



These guys would like to share their facts relating to DAC assessment.


If they are typical:

No level matching
No quick (less than 1 second switch over delay) comparisons
No bias controls.

Their catch phrase is "Trust me, I'm perfectly unbiased".


Rather than giving the other view point a chance, they name-call those of us who use proper controls during our listening evaluations.
post #223 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If they are typical:

No level matching
No quick (less than 1 second switch over delay) comparisons
No bias controls.

Their catch phrase is "Trust me, I'm perfectly unbiased".


Rather than giving the other view point a chance, they name-call those of us who use proper controls during our listening evaluations.


You seemed to have lumped me into this box you call "they". And if you are pointing to me for name calling you're incorrect, describing a post as ridicule isn't name calling, nor describing one as contemptuous.

My friend and I listened to 3 of my DAC's on Saturday, Bryston, Parasound and the new Schiit MODI. I didn't hop on AVS and post how they all sound different and how much better the 25X Bryston is compared to the $99 MODI. The reason I didn't express my "findings" is I have no means of a controlled test. Everything I heard is opinion, subjective listening.

Just because I oppose some of what you write on this site doesn't mean I don't agree with some of it.
post #224 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't know of any DACs that don't have one or the other (or both), unless you count audio interfaces with PCI or PCI-E interfaces. Seems like non-issue to me.

Yet those that do have both inputs - one quite often performs better than the other. An a example was given here the other day (link) where many people had claimed the USB input sounded better compared to the SPDIF input on one particular DAC. Then someone got around to measuring both inputs and found jittre was higher on the SPDIF input.

You seem to conveniently brush this aside with your usual "So what? it was a sighted evaluation"

Quote:
Since I don't do sighed evaluations of DACs I can evaluate them more objectively. I've never had any problems using a DAC as supplied, whether there's an external power supply or not... ...I think you are reaching for something to complain about. This is an audio forum and SQ should be the most important thing.

I'm not talking about a problem running a DAC on either USB power or its own power supply... I am talking about SQ. One of the biggest complaints about computer audio, is that computers are electronically noisy environments. It is advised that if you are running a USB DAC, that the DAC is the only thing connected to a USB port on your computer. This isn't such a problem if your computer is dedicated as an audio server, but it is more of a problem if your PC is for general purpose use as well. A DAC with its own power supply may be a better option in that case.

Quote:
Obviously, you can use it without straining yourself, and you can use it with what comes in the box.

So long as it works and sound comes out? But what about SQ that you claimed "should be the most important thing" just a minute ago?
post #225 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post


I am talking about SQ. One of the biggest complaints about computer audio, is that computers are electronically noisy environments.

So are AVRs, stand alone DACs, CD players, etc. In the US they are generally required to have FCC Part 15 testing and approval for this reason.

DACs require careful mixed signal design because they inherently work with both analog and digital signals. That's true regardless of how they are interfaced or implemented.

Some of the quietest audio interfaces on the market today are implemented as PCI computer cards, as customers of high end audio interface producers such as RME and Lynx know for sure. I am in the latter category.
Quote:
It is advised that if you are running a USB DAC, that the DAC is the only thing connected to a USB port on your computer.

Noise has nothing to do with that.

The some fact that DACs tend to be relatively high current loads might have something to do with it.

More likely, the above recommendation is due to the fact that DACs generally run in isosynchronous mode which tends to make the USB port they are on very busy.
post #226 of 232
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Some of the quietest audio interfaces on the market today are implemented as PCI computer cards, as customers of high end audio interface producers such as RME and Lynx know for sure. I am in the latter category.
Noise has nothing to do with that.
well I agree with that one. those cards are extremely low noise and are inside the PC.
USB is viewed as some sort of evil interface that produces the nastiest noise. IMO it's the result of marketing, generalization, incomplete or absolutely lacking understanding of what's going on etc.
post #227 of 232
I subscribe to the science and studies that prove there is no discernible difference is true. The power of "psychoacoustics" is strong. So I am curious to understand the motivation for review sites to rate various products as better than other products. Take a DAC for instance (how I came to this entertaining thread). Certain DACs seem to unanimously rate higher than others across a multitude of sites. If they are selling things on said sites that is one thing, but if they are not, are they just reading others reviews and drinking the kool aid so to speak?

Is it just feel good chatter to get page clicks and stay employed? How many believe versus plan what they write? I also noticed in Magnolia, the salesmen desire to run speakers through specific "go to" amps. (Typically the most expensive McIntosh of course). But ive heard amps have no discernible difference as well in blind tests. I just find all this amazing and rather offputting. If indeed little is true, then there sure are a large number of people who believe otherwise. Probably why this thread also reminded me of the arguments about religion, which never end. Whearas I can at least be swayed in the audio world because its there or it isnt, i cant possibly comprehend..well... nevermind, i wont go there.
post #228 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by rghost View Post

I subscribe to the science and studies that prove there is no discernible difference is true. The power of "psychoacoustics" is strong. So I am curious to understand the motivation for review sites to rate various products as better than other products. Take a DAC for instance (how I came to this entertaining thread). Certain DACs seem to unanimously rate higher than others across a multitude of sites. If they are selling things on said sites that is one thing, but if they are not, are they just reading others reviews and drinking the kool aid so to speak?

Is it just feel good chatter to get page clicks and stay employed? How many believe versus plan what they write? I also noticed in Magnolia, the salesmen desire to run speakers through specific "go to" amps. (Typically the most expensive McIntosh of course). But ive heard amps have no discernible difference as well in blind tests. I just find all this amazing and rather offputting. If indeed little is true, then there sure are a large number of people who believe otherwise. Probably why this thread also reminded me of the arguments about religion, which never end. Whearas I can at least be swayed in the audio world because its there or it isnt, i cant possibly comprehend..well... nevermind, i wont go there.


You're describing what many on this site conclude. The fact that you are unable to hear a difference between Dac's and amp's should make your purchasing decisions easy, chose the equipment with the functions that best fit your personal requirments. That certainly shouldn't be offputting, it's simple.
post #229 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

If they are typical:

No level matching
No quick (less than 1 second switch over delay) comparisons
No bias controls.

My friend and I listened to 3 of my DAC's on Saturday, Bryston, Parasound and the new Schiit MODI. I didn't hop on AVS and post how they all sound different and how much better the 25X Bryston is compared to the $99 MODI. The reason I didn't express my "findings" is I have no means of a controlled test. Everything I heard is opinion, subjective listening.


Thank you!
post #230 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post


The fact that you are unable to hear a difference between Dac's and amp's should make your purchasing decisions easy, chose the equipment with the functions that best fit your personal requirments. That certainly shouldn't be offputting, it's simple.

The above statement contains some wording that may not convey the impression that you desire.

The statement "The fact that you are unable to hear a difference between Dac's and amp's." makes it sound like not hearing differences is peculiar to a small group of people.

The way most people casually compare these devices is guaranteed to present the listeners with sounds that are surely different. However, the most audible differences are due to a lack of care in doing the comparison. They are not inherent in the equipment being compared. All of us, regardless of our beliefs or preferences, will hear those particular differences unless we do the comparison far more carefully than most.
post #231 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The above statement contains some wording that may not convey the impression that you desire.

The statement "The fact that you are unable to hear a difference between Dac's and amp's." makes it sound like not hearing differences is peculiar to a small group of people.

Is that the way you read it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The way most people casually compare these devices is guaranteed to present the listeners with sounds that are surely different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K Shep View Post

It has been my experience that audio enthusiasts enjoy listening to music and comparing equipment in an unscientific environment.

Just as I stated earlier in the thread (copied above) but I don't dare say "devices is guaranteed to present the listeners with sounds that are surely different", that would imply that I think 2 devices sound different.
post #232 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Thank you!

No thank you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › Low vs mid vs high priced DACs?