Transparent dac

[Ken Newton]

Transparency is not a troubled concept. Subjective transparency is not some different variant. If you can't hear it's effect the gear is transparent...

You're actually making half my point for me. When you speak of hearing differences you are, by definition, speaking about subjective differences. So, we agree on that. My full point, however, is a bit different than what you've suggested. I've had two components, each with unimpeachable measurements (FR, THD, noise, etc.), yet one subjectively sounded more transparent, for lack of a better word, than the other. Why?

I have an electrical engineering background, and I do not believe in audio magic. It's my belief that if the subjective sound is different then the signal is also measurably different - if we know what, how, under what operational conditions and how to interpret those measurements psychacoutically. If that were not so, then traditional specifications alone, indeed, would have uniformly blessed all of us with perfect sound forever since 1983.

 

[RayDunzl]

I suppose that test is useful for when I start modulating DC to my DAC or wouldn't that make it very low frequency AC?

Only if you can drive the + rail negative and the - rail positive.

di·rect cur·rent
noun

1. an electric current flowing in one direction only.

 

[Ken Newton]

Ken why wouldnt a digital to analogue converter which has excellent measurements not provide musical enjoyment ,what am I paying for to gain musical enjoyment?
Keith.

Hi, Keith,

Ask yourself the following question. Why don't mass market A/V recievers, having excellent specifications, all provide musical enjoyment (that, being a relative term, of course)? My point is that components all having excellent specifications SHOULD all sound the same, yet they often don't seem to. I wish that subjectvely satisfying component selection were simply a matter of reading the specification sheet, but there seems to be something more than readily meets the eye on a list of traditional parameter measurements.

 

[Blumlein 88]

You're actually making half my point for me. When you speak of hearing differences you are, by definition, speaking about subjective differences. So, we agree on that. My full point, however, is a bit different than what you've suggested. I've had two components, each with unimpeachable measurements (FR, THD, noise, etc.), yet one subjectively sounded more transparent, for lack of a better word, than the other. Why?

I have an electrical engineering background and I do not believe in audio magic. It's my belief that if the subjective sound is different then the signal is also measurably different - if we know what, how, under what operational conditions amd how to interpret those measurements. If that were not so, then traditional specifications alone, indeed, would have uniformly blessed all of us with perfect sound forever since 1983.

I'll ask anyway. Was this carefully level matched? Was this difference in transparency determined blind or sighted? What kind of component are we talking about, DAC, amp, what?

 

[Ken Newton]

What do you mean by this term?

"Transparent" is a pretty straightforward concept (at least I thought it was). A device can be said to be either audibly transparent or not, right? Of course, a listener may still prefer the sound of a non-transparent (audibly colored) device, but that's down to aesthetic preference.

Personally, I'd rather the DAC do its job with as little audible coloration as possible, and I can always tweak recordings with EQ/other DSP later.

What I mean is that excellent specifications don't always seem to produce subjectively the most transparent result. If it did, not only would we all own far east manufactured low cost A/V receivers, but all equipment (of a given function, of course) would subjectively sound exactly the same. I ask you, do they sound that way in your experience?

 

[dallasjustice]

The TEAC 503 is a good choice.

I have used previous Emotiva DACs which also were good. A friend has their XMC1. This is a multi-channel DAC/Pre which includes Dirac room correction as part of the package. Even in bypass as a DAC/pre it is very good. Same fellow has one of their less costly multi-channel pre's and one of their 5 channel amps. All of their gear I have heard/used performs at a high level despite the modest cost.

As for active speakers, the JBL LSR305's are quite something. Depending on your particular use scenario you might want a sub with them. Still doable in your stated budget even with sub. Focals studio monitors are good too though I think the good ones from them are over your budget. With active speakers you have a bit of a gap in low priced and high priced speakers where there isn't an outstanding candidate (at least to my knowledge/experience).

Here is a link to the Teac I wouldn't be afraid to try.
http://www.teac.com/product/ud-301/

Below $500 and does DSD too if you like. You can also find the UD501 on closeout for not much over $500. If you could go a bit more the various NT503 DACs have some nifty network streaming options. Though it will cost you near a $1000 for those.

http://www.teac.com/product/nt-503/

 

[Ken Newton]

I'll ask anyway. Was this carefully level matched? Was this difference in transparency determined blind or sighted? What kind of component are we talking about, DAC, amp, what?

Level matched, yes. Not double blind, nor even blind. Most of us are not running an audio lab, nor submitting AES papers for peer review. We experiment in our garages or basements with a few instruments, if we're that lucky. Our experiments are not well controlled, and our observations are anecdotal, not scientific. This is the nature of being a hobbyist, even should we otherwise be degreed engineers. The practical experimental limitations are what they are.

All of that said, it doesn't necessarily disprove what may have been reported. Reports simply have not been scientifically verified, and remain an open question until either scientifically verified or disproven. In the meanwhile, nearly all hobbyist reports are naturally anecdotal. Everyone has the prerogative to accept, dismiss, or simply remain skeptically open minded about anecdotal reports.

 

[fas42]

I will go off the deep end, here, (mixing more metaphors while at it), and cite the old cliche about "veils being lifted". I actually like that, because I think it happens in audio and it is fairly descriptive of an increased sense of "transparency" and/or a greater sense of detail, lower noise and artifacts, fewer colorations, etc. In DACs, part of that effect might be due to the analog output stage, as well as the digital processing.

Yes. Digital replay is beset with its set of issues, quite different in subjective impact from analogue, and far harder to measure - it's always about the implementation, and always has been: a CDP back in 1986 using some of the better parts around gave me "transparent" replay, and made obvious the deficiencies of the normal setups - the specs of that machine are the same as the current gear, and likewise the DACs of the yucky sounding rigs in between have had all the 'right measurements'. Of course, they're not measuring the right things - so everyone is fumbling around in the dark, trying to work out what this elephant is all about .

Mostly, almost no attention is paid to power supply qualities, interference effects, vibration, static, poor quality connections - it's quite a list, and does all the damage that's needed to dirty up the sound to the point where differences are obvious.

 

[NorthSky]

The TEAC 503 is a good choice.

Yaman! → http://everythingaudionetwork.blogspot.ca/2016/01/audiophile-dac-review-teac-ud-503-da.html

This, its predecessor; the TEAC UD-501 (Initial Impressions) → http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/initial-impressions-teac-ud-501-usb-dac.html
- Part 2 (PCM Evaluation...with Measurements) http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-teac-ud-501-pcm-performance.html
- Part 3 (DSD Performance...with Measurements): http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/05/measurements-teac-ud-501-dsd-performance.html

 

[hvbias]

http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/odac-released.html

$100-150 depending on the amount of bling you want

 

[fas42]

A palm sized media player like Cowon, or some of the others specifically done for music quality get one a long way there - a friend has been using these as the sole source and DAC for a number of years now, into a decent rest of system - and is able to achieve far better quality then the majority of pretentious, high end systems out there. So, it can be done on a dirt cheap budget - just be prepared to have to do a bit of fine tuning of the environment to get the best from this type of solution.

 

[Mivera]

You may be interested to read Bruno Putzeys' thoughts on DAC's:

"I very often have to invent new measurements on the fly when I suspect there might be something going on that doesn’t show up clearly on standard measurements. To give one example, you could take a DAC and do something very classical, like sweep the level of a sinusoidal signal from full scale to nothing, and then look to see how distortion changes with signal level. You might find some minuscule squiggles at lower levels and shrug them off as measurement errors, like, “OK, that is just the machine not correctly measuring noise.” But I got suspicious at some point and said, “Hang on, let me try to find explicitly whether something happens in the noise floor with the signal modulation, but then I have to do so without a signal present. How do you do that?” Well, you sweep a DC input to a DAC. You feed it a constant code, some small value, and measure the noise. Increase that code and repeat. Suddenly you’ll find that some of these D-to-A converters will do these frightening things, like the noise floor suddenly shooting up or an audible whistle actually just walking through the audioband as you sweep, going from supersonic down to zero and then back up. You have to be creative when you measure, not just do the standardized battery."

http://www.soundstageultra.com/inde...s-of-mola-mola-hypex-and-grimm-audio-part-one

Unfortunately, his Mola-Mola DAC is a bit over your budget.

Rubbish! The J-test is king!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Level matched, yes. Not double blind, nor even blind. Most of us are not running an co audio lab, nor submitting AES papers for peer review. We experiment in our garages or basements with a few instruments, if we're that lucky. Our experiments are not well contolled, and our reports are anecdotal, not scientific. This is the nature of being a hobbyist, even should we otherwise be degreed engineers. The practical experimental limitations are what they are.

All of that said, it doesn't necessarily disprove what may have been reported. Reports simply have not been scientifically verified, and remain an open question until either scientifically verified or disproven. In the meanwhile, nearly all hobbyist reports are naturally anecdotal. Everyone has the prerogative to accept, dismiss, or simply remain skeptically open minded about anecdotal reports.

I once thought differently. Having done some bothersome inconvenient testing I put close to zero credence in anecdotal reports. I would give some credence to level matched sighted comparison assuming we aren't talking about level matching by ear.

As for AVRs I think the power amp speaker interactions are where most real difference lies. Assuming some modicum of quality above real junk.

 

[Ken Newton]

I once thought differently. Having done some bothersome inconvenient testing I put close to zero credence in anecdotal reports. I would give some credence to level matched sighted comparison assuming we aren't talking about level matching by ear.

Levels matched via test tones burned to a CD, measured with an A.C. voltmeter.

As for AVRs I think the power amp speaker interactions are where most real difference lies. Assuming some modicum of quality above real junk.

Yes, the speaker speaker interface can be problematic. I wonder, which specification tells us how the amplifier speaker interface will sound? Is it simply an output impedence/ damping factor spec.? High negative feedback easily produces an sub-ohm output impedance. Does high NFB produce a sound any different than would an identical output impedance produced without high negative feedback? Seems that simple specifications don't necessarily tell the whole tale of the objective interactions, let alone the subjective experience.

 

[Sal1950]

Emotiva Stealth is one.

What the Barrowmaster said is true.

When I was looking I compared the specs, features, and some online subjective reviews and purchased the Emotiva Stealth DC-1. Have been perfectly satisfied and see no reason to update for the foreseeable future.

The Teac's and the Marantz were also ran's in the price class. If DSD is important to you the Marantz HD-DAC1 at $799 might be a serious contender.
http://us.marantz.com/us/products/pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=hificomponents&ProductId=HDDAC1

 

[Thomas savage]

Thanks guys

 

[Keith_W]

Rubbish! The J-test is king!

Is that you, Blizzard? So nice to see you here!

What's a J-test?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hi, Keith,

Ask yourself the following question. Why don't mass market A/V recievers, having excellent specifications, all provide musical enjoyment (that, being a relative term, of course)? My point is that components all having excellent specifications SHOULD all sound the same, yet they often don't seem to. I wish that subjectvely satisfying component selection were simply a matter of reading the specification sheet, but there seems to be something more than readily meets the eye on a list of traditional parameter measurements.

This is a question, not an answer, but couldn't it be because the AV receivers include amplifiers, the performance of which can vary audibly when interacting with different speakers/loads? And isn't that very different from a DAC, or even a DAC/pre with output impedance well integrated with any properly designed ss amp? I would think there would still be differences, but I'd expect them to be driven down into pretty insignificant territory. What am I not understanding?

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Plug in and it works.. Plug into active speakers and it works, plug into amp and it works...

Plug CD player into it and... It works.

Err... Did I mention it had to work?

With all of its input/output options, the Emotiva will plug into about anything and work. And you get a good headphone amp as a bonus. I don't know about all these audible but immeasurable differences people talk about, but based on features, specs, build quality, flexibility and price, I don't think the Emotiva is likely to be beat. Plus it's got one of those super-cool copper donuts inside, so you know it's audiophile.

Tim

 

[ceedee]

What I mean is that excellent specifications don't always seem to produce subjectively the most transparent result. If it did, not only would we all own far east manufactured low cost A/V receivers, but all equipment (of a given function, of course) would subjectively sound exactly the same. I ask you, do they sound that way in your experience?

I have never compared "Far East manufactured low cost A/V receivers." Since the topic here is DACs, I will say that over the years I have heard many 'veils lifted', until I started testing blind.

When DACs which measure the same (or both in the realm that they should he "transparent"), I think double blind testing is in order. I'd say that it's just as likely, if not more so, that the differences heard are an artifact of uncontrolled subjective testing rather than an indication that the measurements are missing something.

I'm not at all saying it's impossible that there's something else we should be measuring, and that current measurements are not telling the whole story. It's just that the degree of error with anecdotal reports is so high. As you know, preferences are formed based on many factors other than SQ during sighted comparisons.

If the differences remain during blind testing, then at least one of the components being compared is not audibly transparent, wouldn't you agree?