Low vs mid vs high priced DACs? - Page 8

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.

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.

I think you are reaching for something to complain about. This is an audio forum and SQ should be the most important thing.

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

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.

What about audio facts, do you favor them or do you stand at half way between facts and fiction?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"


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.


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?

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.

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.

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.

Thank you!

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.

Is that the way you read it?


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.

No thank you.