Low vs mid vs high priced DACs? - Page 4

So source components generally measure very well. Have a flat response and low noise.

I've heard the argument going around that distortion measurements don't consider factors like the phase response of digital filters or the result of phase shifts after the low pass filters at the upper octaves, and how this impacts on perceived quality.

Does this argument have any merit?

It doesn't have any merit as it would be revealed in DBT and it's not.

What is the best method of level matching source components? I'm having an interesting discussion with one EE who is a believer in source components and his reply, after I asked him whether he level matches components is :

"All digital source components are level matched, using a 1kHz sine wave, to 1V RMS analogue. The reference WAV test tone is created to be at a level of -1dB from absolute, sampled at 96kHz with 24 bit depth. Not trying to be funny but I've been doing this for a while"

A good modern CD player easily outperforms the signal generators that were used to test amplifiers and preamps back in the 1970s.


I've heard the argument going around that distortion measurements don't consider factors like the phase response of digital filters or the result of phase shifts after the low pass filters at the upper octaves, and how this impacts on perceived quality.

Does this argument have any merit?[/quote]

It has no merit because what we usually call distortion measurements are tests for nonlinear distortion which does not relate to filter response.

Frequency response, phase and group delay measurements are a different thing but are also commonly done at the same time.

Saying that distortion measurements are erroneous because they don't condsider other factors that are commonly measured in other ways is like faulting blue for not being red. ;-)

That would be level matching at one frequency which is highly incomplete if you are doing listening tests or technical tests using test equipment.

Back in the day when we were first doing ABX tests we measured at 20, 30, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000, 10000, 15000 and 20000 Hz. We used a lab signal generator for testing amps and preamps, a test record for testing cartridges, a test CD for testing CD players, and so on.

Today with computers I can burn a CD with a test tone suite automatically generated by a freeware program called RMAA, play it back and capture the out with a PC that has a very high qualtiy audio interface in it, analyze the capture file with RMAA, and have a complete suite of technical tests done in maybe 5 minutes and no out-of-pocket expense.

I sure didn't.
I asked Brian a simple "yes" or "no" question because he appears to be lost in audiophile jungle.

I'm not sure I understand your question. What are "audio facts?" In any case it seems a bit off topic. If you want to start a thread entitled "What is important when shopping for a DAC?" then you all can post your opinions on that topic in that thread and leave this one alone.

B.

If level matching at one frequency is incomplete then how are you supposed to level match?

Hope this helps: (Merriam-Webster dictionary)

audio: "of or relating to acoustic, mechanical, or electrical frequencies corresponding to normally audible sound waves which are of frequencies approximately from 15 to 20,000 hertz "

fact: "a thing done", "he quality of being actual", "something that has actual existence", "a piece of information presented as having objective reality"
You sound like a moderator but it doesn't say so under your forum name. I don't know if English is your second language or not but it's becoming clear that you are unable to grasp what's going on here, in which case your posts should be ignored.

Asked and answered. You run multiple frequencies spaced over the audio band so that you have some kind of assurance that 1 KHz is not the only frequency that the devices are matched.

English is my first and only language which is why I was questioning you and giving you the benefit of the doubt. I thought there were just facts. Didn't know there were special "audio facts." Are there "green" and "yellow" facts too? <--You can ignore sarcastic comment if you like.

I think I grasp what is going on here: you and a few others think they know more than other people and rather than presenting your information in a civil manner you like to intimidate, accuse and insult. And, you continue to do so. Isn't your point concise enough to be understood the first time? Why say it over and over again in 101 posts? Do you think the OP is stupid as well as ignorant?

Again, not sure why you continue to post without adding anything useful to the OP's question. I am now guilty of this too. If you have something additional and useful to say that will help the poster then why not say it instead of trying to attack other posters?

Of course you are welcome to put me on "ignore" or just ignore me the ole fashioned way.

Good luck and hope the OP is on his way with some information he found helpful.

If you are interested in my background, my interests, my sex and all sorts of other things that have nothing to do with this thread you are welcome to PM me and I will do my best to be polite and respectful in my reply. I would only hope as a user of this forum you can do the same and treat others whom you don't know with a modicum of respect in the public arena.

B.

You thought wrong and here's why: Quoting would help to validate your accusation about me but you haven't done so.

Speaking of civil manner, you have no problem with these replies, do you?
You be the judge.
Did you see any dancing around and dodging of my questions by OP?

Facts, usually scientific facts, related to audio.

I suspect that the audio facts that are being referred to are indeed scientific facts related to equipment performance versus the sensitivity of the human ear to the effects of differences in technical performance.

The traditional holy grail of audio gear particularly amplifiers and DACs is "The straight wire with gain". It is possible to set this comparison up. Many moderately priced modern amplifiers and DACs can pass this test if and only if the listening phase is done as a bias-controlled listening test.

If the test is done casually and sighted, as most audiophiles and reviewers do such tests if they even take that much trouble at all, then everything known to man is likely to fail. And that explains the contradiction between science and just about everything you read in all of the ragazines and online.

Speaking of DBT's, there were some published in these:

Masters, Ian G 'Do All CD Players Sound the Same?' Stereo review, Jan 1986, pg 50-57.

Pohlmann, Ken C. '6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.

Pohlmann, Ken C. 'The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?' Stereo Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.


Some of these players are OLD, but according to the DBT results the differences were audible to a statistically significant degree. And one test not published in a magazine but in a club newsletter discovered a broken digit in a 14 bit player. Today's players are much more difficult to differentiate if not impossible.

Speaking of DACs, here is an "objective" DAC : http://www.headnhifi.com/dac/odac-35mm

For the OP, I understand that this is hard to believe that all DACs sound the same, but there has been conferences and workshops about it. For example : audio myths workshop.
Audio is just a pure business. Look at the descriptions made by so called audiophile experts, they use the words they want to for anything : warm, cold, .... There is no ontology in audio so you can more or less say whatever you like to without being criticized ! I've never seen that in any of my other "hobbies" !

Welcome to AVS

What conclusions do you find in these papers?

How do they relate to the OP?

Cool, links and opinions from manufacturers. You've convinced me.

Now if you just put up a few links to cable manufacturer white papers, there will be no more debate on that either. Peace at last.

I suppose you've read all of them. Did you understand what you've read?

Those links have been discussed & dissected many times before, particularly the first. You're not dropping some new information here. I'll agree it's up to each person to decide for themselves what constitutes good evidence and relevancy of argument.

I appears that you are not happy with this forum.

22:00 minutes and on in this talk is quite interesting...

http://youtu.be/1CkyrDIGzOE

This paper has been discussed on another forum I visit.

I had heard quite enough science fiction by the time I got about 10 minutes in. ;-)

This video should have a description that says something about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.

However, I decided to take your comment seriously, and found that in the 20:00-22:00 range he is actually making some sense.

However, he starts inventing science again right around 22:50.

Oh, well!

Hey rough playground here. The headline brought me in. So can I ask a question since all DAC's are the same, except for the ones that have something wrong with them. Can some one direct me to ones that are least expensive and have been proven not to have something wrong with them? I'll worry about aesthetics, cool case materials, fit and finish after I have a short list. Thanks, Or is the list of those to avoid shorter?