DACs; quality and sound

[fmw]

Well, you may have proven something. Now I can't keep track of all the "everything sounds the same" guys around here, and that may not be you. If your claim is for your test, with that system, and those constraints, then fine. But there are those that will say "I can't hear a difference between X and Y, therefore no differences exist between X and Y or A and B and C" etc. That's the thing that you can't prove...

For me it depends on how one tested for the audible difference. If a properly conducted bias controlled test was the methodology, then I consider the results valid. In these tests, we do a number of iterations - say 20 - with random substitutions in a manner that doesn't reveal the products to the listener other than by sound. In some cases we ask for an ID of the product. Sometimes we just want to know is this A or B? We score the results. 100% right or wrong is a gross audible difference. 50% right or wrong is purely random - no different than guessing. No audible difference. Sometimes there are scores in between - a subtle audible difference. If someone says. This "rocks" or sounds better than something else, I normally ignore it unless proper testing procedures were used. Unfortunately, people's opinions of sound quality without proper testing procedures are extremely unreliable because of bias. Extrenely with a capital E.

Digital front end just means that I'm going to use some digital source (probably a PC with an optical output) to feed my preamp. The "comparison" feed to the preamp would be the portable CD player (or perhaps the analog output of the sound card). In either case -- and I won't put words on your screen -- I'm sure there are those around here that would say they should sound exactly the same. I mean, it's only cables, digital interfaces, DACs and line level manipulation that are different between the two. And we all know those sound the same, right?

Another place where we could never find an audible difference was in the area of digital "jitter." We figured out how to measure it but never figured out how to hear it. So, based on that experience, I would say the same data from two different digital sources should sound the same through the same system. I would be dumfounded if that were not the case.

 

[OttoMatic]

I think you misunderstood my potential test. Sound card analog out vs sound card digital out. Both run through the same preamp.

 

[no. 5]

Wouldn't you guys leave a tiny bit of room open for slight sonic differences? I would still submit that pretty much any device can have minor, minor differences.

Too many "me tooers" eh?

I think it's curious that the consensus on this forum usually is "everything sounds the same", given paragraphs like the last one on this page of AH's Marantz PM-11S1 review.

I guess it's my sometimes pedantic nature that I bring it up, but you're right, there is a big difference between "everything" sounds the same, and "things of similar design...", or "the things I have tested...", or "things that have been competently designd...", after all to rightly say "everything sounds the same" one would have had to tested everything - now there have been enough ABX and DB tests that one can say with confidence that generally, most will sound the same, but certainly, even speaker wire can sound different in particular situations. But when there is a real audible difference, it is for known electrical reasons, not because of leprechaun mucus or snake oil.

 

[PENG]

No it doesn't.


Not "hardly" ... it's not at all! None, zero, never has there been a proven example of an ABX that suggests you can tell the difference between any two modern DACs. Start the reading here:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/pruebasciegas.htm
http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx.htm

Regarding the number of DAC I got it right from the Denon site. If you think you know better than them say what you want but people can simply visit the Denon site to get the facts.

Regarding ABX etc., etc., I don't know what your point (by now I really don't care) is, I don't believe you can hear the difference between any of those DAC neither.

Thanks

 

[PENG]

The Denon 3930CI has more than 3 DAC's. Check Audioholics' review.

-------------------------
Audio Features
Advanced AL24 processing
24-bit/192kHz Burr Brown PCM-1796 DACs for front channels, 3 additional DACs for 5.1 surround.
-------------------------

I am sure Audioholics is right, but people can also visit the Denon site if they want to see it directly from the manufacturer.

http://usa.denon.com/DVD-3930CILit.pdf

 

[tparmer]

Geez, I am on the road for a day and the number of posts on this thread more than doubles! The discussion is interesting and I am glad to have asked such an innocent question!

I will say this, I was at a nice small boutique A/V store where I buy a lot of gear (for myself and others) and I did a -well, what would you call a non-blind test?- where we listened to really well recorded jazz with vocals running through a Conrad Johnson pre-amp/ tube amp rig with Dali Helicon floorstanders feed by either a reference Marantz CD player or Nottingham turn-table. The LP on the turn-table beat the CD hands down from a pure listening perspective. The sound was much more dynamic, vocals more lush, drums sounds warm and round, bass strings were punchy when plucked and the soundstage simply opened up.

My point is this; there are many mediums which to access music these days and whether one piece of equipment, or a piece in the pieces of equipment, has a significant impact on our experience or not, the source material does.

My desire is so deep and complex its simple; the LP remained in the analog domain through the whole process in the scenario above and the sound that came out of the Helicons was about as pure as you can find short of the original studio tape. Will we get to a point with class D amplifiers and digitally recorded uncompressed formats, such as BD, that we can have that same experience from a disc? There wouldn't be a digital to analog conversion, it would remain in its "native" format to use a video term.

Did I just say something really cool or make a fool of myself because I misunderstand how he formats are processed???

I just want great sound for the average Joe's budget, like mine.

Trevor

 

[OttoMatic]

The LP Will we get to a point with class D amplifiers and digitally recorded uncompressed formats, such as BD, that we can have that same experience from a disc? There wouldn't be a digital to analog conversion, it would remain in its "native" format to use a video term.

Did I just say something really cool or make a fool of myself because I misunderstand how he formats are processed???

Hey Trevor,

Well, the native format of music is analog (well, yeah, there are fully digital instruments), so to store it in a digital medium, there will always have to be the conversion from analog to digital (the recording process) as well as the conversion from digital to analog (for speaker playback). I think it has to be that way, unless there's some revolutionary new method where your ears work differently!

I also have a (very) limited selection of vinyl and a "vintage" turntable, so I kinda know where you're coming from with your enjoyment of LPs. It's definitely different than digital, and both are fun.

 

[edmcanuck]

Regarding ABX etc., etc., I don't know what your point (by now I really don't care) is, I don't believe you can hear the difference between any of those DAC neither.

And yet you state:

I do agree the audible differences will be hardly distinguisable if at all, between the 1791, 1792 and 1796.

Perhaps you need to figure out if they can't be heard or if they can be "hardly" heard. When you change your mind in the same thread people will quickly cease caring what you have to say as well.

 

[fmw]

I will say this, I was at a nice small boutique A/V store where I buy a lot of gear (for myself and others) and I did a -well, what would you call a non-blind test?- where we listened to really well recorded jazz with vocals running through a Conrad Johnson pre-amp/ tube amp rig with Dali Helicon floorstanders feed by either a reference Marantz CD player or Nottingham turn-table. The LP on the turn-table beat the CD hands down from a pure listening perspective. The sound was much more dynamic, vocals more lush, drums sounds warm and round, bass strings were punchy when plucked and the soundstage simply opened up.

Were they the same recording? If not then the comparison doesn't mean anything. If they were then it's possible - and even likely - that the digitally mastered version has a noticeably different sound for a lot of reasons I won't bore you with here.

My point is this; there are many mediums which to access music these days and whether one piece of equipment, or a piece in the pieces of equipment, has a significant impact on our experience or not, the source material does.

No doubt about that.

My desire is so deep and complex its simple; the LP remained in the analog domain through the whole process in the scenario above and the sound that came out of the Helicons was about as pure as you can find short of the original studio tape. Will we get to a point with class D amplifiers and digitally recorded uncompressed formats, such as BD, that we can have that same experience from a disc? There wouldn't be a digital to analog conversion, it would remain in its "native" format to use a video term.

Yes, of course, digital recordings have always had more dynamic range and less noise than analog ones. It isn't the medium that appealed to you in the shop. It was the recording.

Class D amplification refers to the way in which the output transistors are biased. It doesn't mean "digital." We generally refer to class D amps as "switching amps."

If you want to make a CD sound like a vinyl record, you just need to equalize out some of the high frequency content and compress it until it does. You can do that anytime and could always have done that ever since the CD was introduced in the 1980's. CD's are noticeably more accurate than vinyl records are capable of being. It is a superior technology. There are poor recordings and excellent ones available on either format. You choose as you like and adjust as you like.

 

[fredk]

It is my understanding that both digital and analog have all the dynamic range to faithfully record the most demanding music with all the precision we can hear, so which one has more dynamic range is not relevant.

There are well recorded/engineered and poorly recorded/engineered tracks on both mediums..

If you want to make a CD sound like a vinyl record, you just need to equalize out some of the high frequency content and compress it until it does

Nope. Still gotta edit in those snaps, crackles and pops otherwise it will NEVER sound like a record!

Fred

Support national rant against bad grammer day

 

[TLS Guy]

It is my understanding that both digital and analog have all the dynamic range to faithfully record the most demanding music with all the precision we can hear, so which one has more dynamic range is not relevant.

There are well recorded/engineered and poorly recorded/engineered tracks on both mediums..


Nope. Still gotta edit in those snaps, crackles and pops otherwise it will NEVER sound like a record!

Fred

Support national rant against bad grammer day

The LP before the introduction of noise reduction to analog tape had a dynamic range of 60 db max. After the introduction of noise reduction like Dolby A and dbx 1 70 db was possible. That is not enough for a lot of classical music, especially large forces with deep organ under pinning. The CD wins hands down. The CD just has enough dynamic range most of the time. The SACD has adequate headroom.

Now an awful lot of turntable cartridges have have some HF lift, which is mistakenly called "air" by certain audiophiles. It is however aberration. Some people seemto like the effect I don't.

Now over the years I made a lot of recordings using some of the world's finest microphones. I can tell you my digital archives are indistinguishable from the masters. Those that were made into LPs show significant differences from the analog masters to the LP.

I have tried quite a number of cartridges over the years, and I can tell you which cartridge reproduced the LPs closest to the master tape. It is the Shure V 15 xmr by a mile. Now sadly discontinued. Now the audiophile set have largely rejected that cartridge with a lot of phony descriptions, such as "too warm" "lacks air", and other dappy epithets. I can assure you it is the most accurate cartridge I know and beloved by many music lovers.

Now I have some LPs in my collection, that I have on CD also. I can tell you that unless playing a block buster with high dynamic range, the LP played back with a Shure V 15 xmr in an SME arm is virtually indistinguishable from the CD.

Most turntables will sound different, but they are not right. I can tell you that from having excellent master tapes from my own recordings. and having them pressed as LPs. those Masters later made to CD show the CD identical to the master tape.

 

[fmw]

I think you misunderstood my potential test. Sound card analog out vs sound card digital out. Both run through the same preamp.

Same answer. Shouldn't sound different unless one of the DAC's has an analog stage that distorts the waveforms.

 

[fmw]

Too many "me tooers" eh?

I think it's curious that the consensus on this forum usually is "everything sounds the same", given paragraphs like the last one on this page of AH's Marantz PM-11S1 review.

I guess it's my sometimes pedantic nature that I bring it up, but you're right, there is a big difference between "everything" sounds the same, and "things of similar design...", or "the things I have tested...", or "things that have been competently designd...", after all to rightly say "everything sounds the same" one would have had to tested everything - now there have been enough ABX and DB tests that one can say with confidence that generally, most will sound the same, but certainly, even speaker wire can sound different in particular situations. But when there is a real audible difference, it is for known electrical reasons, not because of leprechaun mucus or snake oil.

Since the goal is to reproduce the sound as closely as possible to the original performance, why do so many people want there to be so many audible differences in electronic gear. I'm pleased that most of the gear is competently designed and made so that it is accurate. Why would we want some of the gear to be incompetently designed and made? Honestly, I don't understand it. The fact that DAC's and amplifiers don't distort the waveforms is good news, isn't it? Why do so many people fight it?

 

[no. 5]

Since the goal is to reproduce the sound as closely as possible to the original performance, why do so many people want there to be so many audible differences in electronic gear. I'm pleased that most of the gear is competently designed and made so that it is accurate. Why would we want some of the gear to be incompetently designed and made? Honestly, I don't understand it. The fact that DAC's and amplifiers don't distort the waveforms is good news, isn't it? Why do so many people fight it?

Perhaps they enjoy a certain level of distortion, consider TLS Guy's above post.

I do not want there to be many audible differences between different electronics, that was not the point. The point was for "all electronics" to sound the same they would all need to sound the same. But as you know that's not true, some sound different, be it from incompetence, intent, or because it was designed by accountants.

 

[PENG]

Now I have some LPs in my collection, that I have on CD also. I can tell you that unless playing a block buster with high dynamic range, the LP played back with a Shure V 15 xmr in an SME arm is virtually indistinguishable from the CD.

Have you heard of the Stanton 681EE and the 881S? I went with the Stanton instead of the V15 at the time based on reviews but I always wonder if I should have picked the Shure instead.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, just to be clear, I didn't write what's in the "quote" above...

Does your #2 imply that there will be a sound degradation due to the A/D/A stages? What's the official Audioholics stance on A/D/A? I would suspect it to be that there's no difference after A/D/A and that, if implemented properly, there is absolutely no reason one couldn't recover the original analog signal. No?

As to #1 and #3 being the same, does that still stand if I'm using a PC sound card as the source?

After reading some reviews regarding the process of Analog-to-Digital-to-Analog conversion, my conclusion is that it adds distortion (Increase THD) & noise (Decrease SNR). Now whether we can actually HEAR the Difference is another matter. But the numbers/specs do show that adding another step in the chain adversely affects the signal.

I don't know about PC sound cards.

I'm a "purist" kind of guy, so I don't mix PC with Audio. Not that there is anything wrong with PC sound, but I just don't mix them.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The fact that DAC's and amplifiers don't distort the waveforms is good news, isn't it? Why do so many people fight it?

Well, when I get my $100,000 Mark Levinson amps, preamps, and media player, I will come back and claim that they sound 1000 times better than all the other DACs and amps out there!

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, when I get my $100,000 Mark Levinson amps, preamps, and media player, I will come back and claim that they sound 1000 times better than all the other DACs and amps out there!

Yes, please do that. Make sure this is the first place you stop in and tell all about it. Will I live that long to enjoy?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I think it's curious that the consensus on this forum usually is "everything sounds the same", given paragraphs like the last one on this page of AH's Marantz PM-11S1 review.

But everything does not sound the same. Perhaps the components discussed here at AH are as we don't discuss all the high end tone controllers out there We leave that to AA

I guess it's my sometimes pedantic nature that I bring it up, but you're right, there is a big difference between "everything" sounds the same, and "things of similar design...", or "the things I have tested...", or "things that have been competently designd...", after all to rightly say "everything sounds the same" one would have had to tested everything - now there have been enough ABX and DB tests that one can say with confidence that generally, most will sound the same, but certainly, even speaker wire can sound different in particular situations. But when there is a real audible difference, it is for known electrical reasons, not because of leprechaun mucus or snake oil.

 

[tparmer]

...and I always thought that CDs were a compressed medium vs. LPs. Guess I was mistaking. The Jazz recordings were the same, can't recall who it was. There certainly wasn't any popping and scratching!

On another note, I think I'll sit tight for the time being and watch for when Onkyo/Integra comes out with receivers that have high quality audio and video reproduction (as their current ones do) that don't run so hot. Of maybe buy Emotiva LPA-7/UMC-1 combo!

Peace.