General debate thread about audio measurements

[dc655321]

Why is anyone therefore interested in very expensive dacs that don't?

1) Herd mentality: a kind of peer pressure.
2) Spending $$$ == right to have opinion taken seriously

Neither of which make sense, but both of which seem really prevalent in this hobby :-(

 

[garbulky]

Sorry, no. I provide the full measurements for anyone to analyze with any criteria which is exactly what you did. If I were just providing the number of bits as the only piece of data, you could complain but not when the entire measurement spectrum is provided in a graph. You can use any criteria you want, 1 db, 10 db, etc.

This is a good thing asnd I appreciate it. That's why I subscribed on. You could provide an SNR ENOB alongside as well.

What you can't do is to have me adopt your standards for excellence in engineering.

You definitely shouldn't adopt my standard! But you should adopt a standard and not use arbitary values to state bits. That's my main issue.

My Audio Precision analyzer is nearly 20 years old. Yet its DAC has no problem almost getting a perfect response to 120 dB. It needs no relaxing of standards to get there. If you are going to sell me a luxury DAC in this day and age, for thousands of dollars, you better believe I am going to demand that it at least match the DAC in my 20 year old instrument.

Nothing wrong with this! You should expect good results.

And it is not like other products fail that. We have DACs as cheap as $200 that ace that test. And it is no accident because they were designed with care and importantly, performance verified using instrumentation prior to product release.

Or this.

There is no way, no how I am going to reward companies that charge large sums of money in this day and age for DACs yet we need to make excuses for them left and right why they did not wash their dishes before serving us food on them.

We have to keep in mind how a DAC was made or at least have some context. You can't complain that a car does not fly* . But also that your bike doesn't go 70 mph. They both do get you to where you are going though.
*Well technically, I forgot about the terrafugia

But again, nothing is foreclosed from you as readers. Read the full graph, apply whatever criteria you want.

That's your main critic of Bob's measurements. That he doesn't interpret things well and simply display a bunch of graphs. I am talking about perhaps expanding the interpretations a bit.

But please don't tell me that as a design engineer and manager who strives for excellence, I have to reward those who lack the same sense of responsibility.

You don't have to reward anybody. I like it when you are tough on products. But perhaps provide some documentation regarding your 0.1 db standard that you use to declare bits in a linearity test. And if you can get significantly better results by simply increasing the value slightly (which imo is still an arbitary thing) then there is an issue here. At least imo.
I appreciate you reading my post. I think I've hammered on this drum a lot. I just felt I had additional feedback because Jude did a linearity test and showed the difference changing the arbitary value slightly made. So I'm off my soap box... I think.

 

[mindbomb]

I was originally with @Blumlein 88, concerned about 0.1db being too small, and that it doesn't correspond to a practical problem. But I'm coming around because I'm seeing it can help in differentiating results that could otherwise be a draw if the values were bigger.

I think the problem with linearity testing atm is the reporting in bits. This jargon I think is confusing lay people into putting too much stock into the linearity metric, which I think is not as important as thd+n x frequency and -90db sine wave quality. Reporting in decibels may thus result in a better understanding of dac performance.

I don't get agree with what @garbulky is saying. Any value is basically arbitrary. I know this is a meme on sbaf, but I don't understand what is so hard to understand about testing with greater granularity to provide greater detail. This is like a school going from a pass fail system to a letter grade system and people freaking about how the letter grade system is an arbitrary way to classify grades - both ways are arbitrary, one just results in a lot more D students complaining.

We had a similar debate with determining power for headphone amplifiers - I petitioned for a value lower than the typical 1% thd+n. Does it mean the power in watts is wrong if I use .1% instead of 1% and clearly state what I'm doing?

 

[garbulky]

I'm not sure what the quality of -90db reproduction has to do with our listening either. I doubt we can hear that either in music. And if we could, I doubt we could differentiate the "quality" of it.

 

[Wombat]

I'm not sure what the quality of -90db reproduction has to do with our listening either. I doubt we can hear that either in music. And if we could, I doubt we could differentiate the "quality" of it.

There are those who doggedly claim they can, though.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I'm not sure what the quality of -90db reproduction has to do with our listening either. I doubt we can hear that either in music. And if we could, I doubt we could differentiate the "quality" of it.

I may be putting words in Amir's mouth. So he can say if I am.

A simple picture of a -90db sine wave captures two things (and maybe a couple others) worth knowing. Basically whether the noise level is a bit high for the device, and if at a low level it operates with decent linearity by not having any glitches frequency tilts or other issues. Amir is striving to have his tests easy to understand by those not highly technical. And to use just a few tests which show us plenty. He doesn't want his testing to become a huge treatise with a blizzard of graphs which cause most people's eyes to glaze over and skip most of it. Like Atomic bob's test threads become. As a technical guy I love complete reams of measures like bob's, but I recognize that isn't reaching those who aren't already up to speed on such matters. I think the -90 db sine wave which is easy to see as a good sine or not fulfills that goal.

 

[March Audio]

I'm not sure what the quality of -90db reproduction has to do with our listening either. I doubt we can hear that either in music. And if we could, I doubt we could differentiate the "quality" of it.

Problem here is that on one hand you argue that Amirs chosen limit for linearity is arbitary, yet you keep questioning how "audible" any of these low level measures may be without any definitive evidence or measures of that either.

You seem to be conflating two different arguments. The question of audibility is a different one altogether. Youare implying that you cant hear any of this so its irrelevant. You know, we cant hear how poorly the Schitt kit technically performs, so we shouldnt "beat it up". Until you come along with some evidence yourself regarding levels of audibility we are going to stick with technical performance as a guide.

 

[March Audio]

T

We have to keep in mind how a DAC was made or at least have some context. You can't complain that a car does not fly* . But also that your bike doesn't go 70 mph. They both do get you to where you are going though.
*Well technically, I forgot about the terrafugia
.

No thats dumb. All that matters is the quality of the signal that comes out of the audio sockets on the unit and its price V performance. whats inside is of no relevance at all.

Its dumb audiophillia at play otherwise. You know, "i dont like sigma delta, R2R is more organic"......even if it has a load more distortion, .....

 

[amirm]

That's your main critic of Bob's measurements. That he doesn't interpret things well and simply display a bunch of graphs. I am talking about perhaps expanding the interpretations a bit.

Ignoring one indicator on a graph does not make my presentation the same as his. Reading through all of his graphs is pure torture. He likes to produce data. I like to produce insight.

 

[Beherit]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. Almost all of the big boy stuff measures well enough to resolve a CD and the recordings on them. Notice I said measures, not that it actually does. Most of this cheap stuff, including the Topping, falls far far behind. Pretending that 120 db snr vs 110 db snr actually matters and you can hear the difference versus say "How dynamic the DAC actually sounds" is ludicrous. The "sound" or timbre of the unit matters a lot more than meaningless specs. Yes all this stuff has a sound and some stuff sounds much clearer than others.

For example:
1) The new RME has a sound and isn't as good/neutral/clear as some gear that doesn't measure nearly as highly (but still is competent) as it due to its sound. Pretending that it's perfect due to the measurements will get you nowhere. Clearly the measurements are not validating human perception of the units' faults. The increased jitter and noise on the original Pro version don't really matter either compared to the human perceivable faults of the thing and gear used in recordings it just isn't very good at reproducing compared to other interfaces.
2) The Schiit Yggdrasil version 1 has respectible enough specs but then power supply bleed, jitter, clock issues, usb interface woes but none of that matters nearly as much as how opaque the unit actually sounds. Even if you feed it over AES from something with a great clock, the Yggdrasil still has the same issues even if you improve stereo separation and transients a tiny bit. The unit measures pretty much okay but just sounds far from neutral. You can't say that's due to the measurements being slightly lower as stuff that measures even worse also sounds more normal than it! The perceptions aren't supporting each other so the conception that they do and that they alone make it worse than gear you like, is a flawed one.

Sure you will come across totally awful sounding (Mytek) or totally incompetent (Mytek) gear sometime that pretty much anyone can hear or measure but that's rare as preference is preference. Most people do not want to hear how incompetent their recordings are, that bass dynamics and extension vary wildly, that the vocals really had no dynamics or body so they were run through some transformer gear. Most gear, especially cheap and insanely priced hi-fi gear, is designed to be euphonic due to this. Measurements won't really tell you this most of the time, only your ears. People should buy what they like the sound of personally (actual clarity or color of their choice) when compared to other gear and not what has the highest numbers in a meaningless race. This of course being if they have appropriate transducers and rooms to do this. Most people don't and most don't pay close attention to music or recordings anyway.

Amir, you should try to qualify the differences yourself as otherwise you're just another internet talking head with an audio analyzer like Nwavguy, Atomicbob, Jude, or randos on reddit just telling people to buy what they like themselves, what makes them the most money, or their own incompetent gear that clips itself during normal use. Yeah people will talk about your measurements but they're just measurements. You have written that you do notice some stuff (the Mytek Brooklyn review and others) and you should spend more time listening to the gear and expanding on it as clearly the typical round of measurements (even the .1 linearity one) aren't really synching up with human perceptions at all. If all you want to is measure stuff, you shouldn't pretend that something with minutely better measurements is actually better or worse than something else that also measurements competently enough and should be bought over the other thing. The actual sound might be worse, more compressed, too diffuse, have a strange timbre, hard to navigate menus or any other sort of problem. Only that it measures competently enough so that it should be able to playback CD quality audio in a good system based on it's measurements. But then that's a "should", not a "does" so it really isn't saying anything at all.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. Almost all of the big boy stuff measures well enough to resolve a CD and the recordings on them. Notice I said measures, not that it actually does. Most of this cheap stuff, including the Topping, falls far far behind. Pretending that 120 db snr vs 110 db snr actually matters and you can hear the difference versus say "How dynamic the DAC actually sounds" is ludicrous. The "sound" or timbre of the unit matters a lot more than meaningless specs. Yes all this stuff has a sound and some stuff sounds much clearer than others.

For example:
1) The new RME has a sound and isn't as good/neutral/clear as some gear that doesn't measure nearly as highly (but still is competent) as it due to its sound. Pretending that it's perfect due to the measurements will get you nowhere. Clearly the measurements are not validating human perception of the units' faults. The increased jitter and noise on the original Pro version don't really matter either compared to the human perceivable faults of the thing and gear used in recordings it just isn't very good at reproducing compared to other interfaces.
2) The Schiit Yggdrasil version 1 has respectible enough specs but then power supply bleed, jitter, clock issues, usb interface woes but none of that matters nearly as much as how opaque the unit actually sounds. Even if you feed it over AES from something with a great clock, the Yggdrasil still has the same issues even if you improve stereo separation and transients a tiny bit. The unit measures pretty much okay but just sounds far from neutral. You can't say that's due to the measurements being slightly lower as stuff that measures even worse also sounds more normal than it! The perceptions aren't supporting each other so the conception that they do and that they alone make it worse than gear you like, is a flawed one.

Sure you will come across totally awful sounding (Mytek) or totally incompetent (Mytek) gear sometime that pretty much anyone can hear or measure but that's rare as preference is preference. Most people do not want to hear how incompetent their recordings are, that bass dynamics and extension vary wildly, that the vocals really had no dynamics or body so they were run through some transformer gear. Most gear, especially cheap and insanely priced hi-fi gear, is designed to be euphonic due to this. Measurements won't really tell you this most of the time, only your ears. People should buy what they like the sound of personally (actual clarity or color of their choice) when compared to other gear and not what has the highest numbers in a meaningless race. This of course being if they have appropriate transducers and rooms to do this. Most people don't and most don't pay close attention to music or recordings anyway.

Amir, you should try to qualify the differences yourself as otherwise you're just another internet talking head with an audio analyzer like Nwavguy, Atomicbob, Jude, or randos on reddit just telling people to buy what they like themselves, what makes them the most money, or their own incompetent gear that clips itself during normal use. Yeah people will talk about your measurements but they're just measurements. You have written that you do notice some stuff (the Mytek Brooklyn review and others) and you should spend more time listening to the gear and expanding on it as clearly the typical round of measurements (even the .1 linearity one) aren't really synching up with human perceptions at all. If all you want to is measure stuff, you shouldn't pretend that something with minutely better measurements is actually better or worse than something else that also measurements competently enough and should be bought over the other thing. The actual sound might be worse, more compressed, too diffuse, have a strange timbre, hard to navigate menus or any other sort of problem. Only that it measures competently enough so that it should be able to playback CD quality audio in a good system based on it's measurements. But then that's a "should", not a "does" so it really isn't saying anything at all.

Ha! HaHA! HaHaHaHa! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frank Dernie]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. Almost all of the big boy stuff measures well enough to resolve a CD and the recordings on them. Notice I said measures, not that it actually does. Most of this cheap stuff, including the Topping, falls far far behind. Pretending that 120 db snr vs 110 db snr actually matters and you can hear the difference versus say "How dynamic the DAC actually sounds" is ludicrous. The "sound" or timbre of the unit matters a lot more than meaningless specs. Yes all this stuff has a sound and some stuff sounds much clearer than others.

For example:
1) The new RME has a sound and isn't as good/neutral/clear as some gear that doesn't measure nearly as highly (but still is competent) as it due to its sound. Pretending that it's perfect due to the measurements will get you nowhere. Clearly the measurements are not validating human perception of the units' faults. The increased jitter and noise on the original Pro version don't really matter either compared to the human perceivable faults of the thing and gear used in recordings it just isn't very good at reproducing compared to other interfaces.
2) The Schiit Yggdrasil version 1 has respectible enough specs but then power supply bleed, jitter, clock issues, usb interface woes but none of that matters nearly as much as how opaque the unit actually sounds. Even if you feed it over AES from something with a great clock, the Yggdrasil still has the same issues even if you improve stereo separation and transients a tiny bit. The unit measures pretty much okay but just sounds far from neutral. You can't say that's due to the measurements being slightly lower as stuff that measures even worse also sounds more normal than it! The perceptions aren't supporting each other so the conception that they do and that they alone make it worse than gear you like, is a flawed one.

Sure you will come across totally awful sounding (Mytek) or totally incompetent (Mytek) gear sometime that pretty much anyone can hear or measure but that's rare as preference is preference. Most people do not want to hear how incompetent their recordings are, that bass dynamics and extension vary wildly, that the vocals really had no dynamics or body so they were run through some transformer gear. Most gear, especially cheap and insanely priced hi-fi gear, is designed to be euphonic due to this. Measurements won't really tell you this most of the time, only your ears. People should buy what they like the sound of personally (actual clarity or color of their choice) when compared to other gear and not what has the highest numbers in a meaningless race. This of course being if they have appropriate transducers and rooms to do this. Most people don't and most don't pay close attention to music or recordings anyway.

Amir, you should try to qualify the differences yourself as otherwise you're just another internet talking head with an audio analyzer like Nwavguy, Atomicbob, Jude, or randos on reddit just telling people to buy what they like themselves, what makes them the most money, or their own incompetent gear that clips itself during normal use. Yeah people will talk about your measurements but they're just measurements. You have written that you do notice some stuff (the Mytek Brooklyn review and others) and you should spend more time listening to the gear and expanding on it as clearly the typical round of measurements (even the .1 linearity one) aren't really synching up with human perceptions at all. If all you want to is measure stuff, you shouldn't pretend that something with minutely better measurements is actually better or worse than something else that also measurements competently enough and should be bought over the other thing. The actual sound might be worse, more compressed, too diffuse, have a strange timbre, hard to navigate menus or any other sort of problem. Only that it measures competently enough so that it should be able to playback CD quality audio in a good system based on it's measurements. But then that's a "should", not a "does" so it really isn't saying anything at all.

Anout 8 years ago I decided that maybe I should update my kit to make it capable of the higher sample rates that people were going on about. Having read loads of eulogies in magazines and on the internet about how fabulous certain very expensive DACs sounded I arranged to listen to several, all competent traditionally engineered, not the silly deliberately coloured ones.
The variation in price was £1400 to £14000 but in carefully level matched comparisons any differences were minute and I am quite sure I could not reliably tell which I was listening to. I had not realised this level of accuracy would probably have been available for much less money, but I was still being gullible and believing the bollox in the press before doing that comparison for myself.
I am satisfied that in reality there is no audible difference between properly engineered DACs, other than any placebo effect one may be susceptible to.
I did not compare deliberately coloured devices because, whilst I know they may well sound different they are definitely worse as I view things.
I know that several reviewers like deliberately coloured "hifi" but IMO it isn't high fidelity, it is a sound effect generator. Personally I do not want one of those.

 

[March Audio]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. Almost all of the big boy stuff measures well enough to resolve a CD and the recordings on them. Notice I said measures, not that it actually does. Most of this cheap stuff, including the Topping, falls far far behind. Pretending that 120 db snr vs 110 db snr actually matters and you can hear the difference versus say "How dynamic the DAC actually sounds" is ludicrous. The "sound" or timbre of the unit matters a lot more than meaningless specs. Yes all this stuff has a sound and some stuff sounds much clearer than others.
For example:
1) The new RME has a sound and isn't as good/neutral/clear as some gear that doesn't measure nearly as highly (but still is competent) as it due to its sound. Pretending that it's perfect due to the measurements will get you nowhere. Clearly the measurements are not validating human perception of the units' faults. The increased jitter and noise on the original Pro version don't really matter either compared to the human perceivable faults of the thing and gear used in recordings it just isn't very good at reproducing compared to other interfaces.
2) The Schiit Yggdrasil version 1 has respectible enough specs but then power supply bleed, jitter, clock issues, usb interface woes but none of that matters nearly as much as how opaque the unit actually sounds. Even if you feed it over AES from something with a great clock, the Yggdrasil still has the same issues even if you improve stereo separation and transients a tiny bit. The unit measures pretty much okay but just sounds far from neutral. You can't say that's due to the measurements being slightly lower as stuff that measures even worse also sounds more normal than it! The perceptions aren't supporting each other so the conception that they do and that they alone make it worse than gear you like, is a flawed one.

Sure you will come across totally awful sounding (Mytek) or totally incompetent (Mytek) gear sometime that pretty much anyone can hear or measure but that's rare as preference is preference. Most people do not want to hear how incompetent their recordings are, that bass dynamics and extension vary wildly, that the vocals really had no dynamics or body so they were run through some transformer gear. Most gear, especially cheap and insanely priced hi-fi gear, is designed to be euphonic due to this. Measurements won't really tell you this most of the time, only your ears. People should buy what they like the sound of personally (actual clarity or color of their choice) when compared to other gear and not what has the highest numbers in a meaningless race. This of course being if they have appropriate transducers and rooms to do this. Most people don't and most don't pay close attention to music or recordings anyway.

Amir, you should try to qualify the differences yourself as otherwise you're just another internet talking head with an audio analyzer like Nwavguy, Atomicbob, Jude, or randos on reddit just telling people to buy what they like themselves, what makes them the most money, or their own incompetent gear that clips itself during normal use. Yeah people will talk about your measurements but they're just measurements. You have written that you do notice some stuff (the Mytek Brooklyn review and others) and you should spend more time listening to the gear and expanding on it as clearly the typical round of measurements (even the .1 linearity one) aren't really synching up with human perceptions at all. If all you want to is measure stuff, you shouldn't pretend that something with minutely better measurements is actually better or worse than something else that also measurements competently enough and should be bought over the other thing. The actual sound might be worse, more compressed, too diffuse, have a strange timbre, hard to navigate menus or any other sort of problem. Only that it measures competently enough so that it should be able to playback CD quality audio in a good system based on it's measurements. But then that's a "should", not a "does" so it really isn't saying anything at all.

Are you a comedian? On what basis do you draw the highlighted conclusion, and please explain how does that basis have any more validity than objective measurements?

Personal uncontrolled subjective statements/conclusions have no credibility here.

 

[March Audio]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. .

eeerrrrmmm........yes that is the point. Not sure what else you are looking for.

Competently designed DACs sound excellent.

 

[garbulky]

The problem with most of these measurements is they just don't matter beyond showing the gear was at least partially competently designed. Almost all of the big boy stuff measures well enough to resolve a CD and the recordings on them. Notice I said measures, not that it actually does. Most of this cheap stuff, including the Topping, falls far far behind. Pretending that 120 db snr vs 110 db snr actually matters and you can hear the difference versus say "How dynamic the DAC actually sounds" is ludicrous. The "sound" or timbre of the unit matters a lot more than meaningless specs. Yes all this stuff has a sound and some stuff sounds much clearer than others.

For example:
1) The new RME has a sound and isn't as good/neutral/clear as some gear that doesn't measure nearly as highly (but still is competent) as it due to its sound. Pretending that it's perfect due to the measurements will get you nowhere. Clearly the measurements are not validating human perception of the units' faults. The increased jitter and noise on the original Pro version don't really matter either compared to the human perceivable faults of the thing and gear used in recordings it just isn't very good at reproducing compared to other interfaces.
2) The Schiit Yggdrasil version 1 has respectible enough specs but then power supply bleed, jitter, clock issues, usb interface woes but none of that matters nearly as much as how opaque the unit actually sounds. Even if you feed it over AES from something with a great clock, the Yggdrasil still has the same issues even if you improve stereo separation and transients a tiny bit. The unit measures pretty much okay but just sounds far from neutral. You can't say that's due to the measurements being slightly lower as stuff that measures even worse also sounds more normal than it! The perceptions aren't supporting each other so the conception that they do and that they alone make it worse than gear you like, is a flawed one.

Sure you will come across totally awful sounding (Mytek) or totally incompetent (Mytek) gear sometime that pretty much anyone can hear or measure but that's rare as preference is preference. Most people do not want to hear how incompetent their recordings are, that bass dynamics and extension vary wildly, that the vocals really had no dynamics or body so they were run through some transformer gear. Most gear, especially cheap and insanely priced hi-fi gear, is designed to be euphonic due to this. Measurements won't really tell you this most of the time, only your ears. People should buy what they like the sound of personally (actual clarity or color of their choice) when compared to other gear and not what has the highest numbers in a meaningless race. This of course being if they have appropriate transducers and rooms to do this. Most people don't and most don't pay close attention to music or recordings anyway.

Amir, you should try to qualify the differences yourself as otherwise you're just another internet talking head with an audio analyzer like Nwavguy, Atomicbob, Jude, or randos on reddit just telling people to buy what they like themselves, what makes them the most money, or their own incompetent gear that clips itself during normal use. Yeah people will talk about your measurements but they're just measurements. You have written that you do notice some stuff (the Mytek Brooklyn review and others) and you should spend more time listening to the gear and expanding on it as clearly the typical round of measurements (even the .1 linearity one) aren't really synching up with human perceptions at all. If all you want to is measure stuff, you shouldn't pretend that something with minutely better measurements is actually better or worse than something else that also measurements competently enough and should be bought over the other thing. The actual sound might be worse, more compressed, too diffuse, have a strange timbre, hard to navigate menus or any other sort of problem. Only that it measures competently enough so that it should be able to playback CD quality audio in a good system based on it's measurements. But then that's a "should", not a "does" so it really isn't saying anything at all.

I agree with you about timbre. I have heard different dacs and they do sound different in tone. (Subjective impressions, non blind). I'm probably the only other person with that kind of opinion though, so don't think the forum shares your opinion.

 

[GearMe]

eeerrrrmmm........yes that is the point. Not sure what else you are looking for.

Competently designed DACs sound excellent.

Now......we're getting somewhere!

And.......incompetently designed DACs sound _________?

 

[Rod]

Anout 8 years ago I decided that maybe I should update my kit to make it capable of the higher sample rates that people were going on about. Having read loads of eulogies in magazines and on the internet about how fabulous certain very expensive DACs sounded I arranged to listen to several, all competent traditionally engineered, not the silly deliberately coloured ones.
The variation in price was £1400 to £14000 but in carefully level matched comparisons any differences were minute and I am quite sure I could not reliably tell which I was listening to. I had not realised this level of accuracy would probably have been available for much less money, but I was still being gullible and believing the bollox in the press before doing that comparison for myself.
I am satisfied that in reality there is no audible difference between properly engineered DACs, other than any placebo effect one may be susceptible to.
I did not compare deliberately coloured devices because, whilst I know they may well sound different they are definitely worse as I view things.
I know that several reviewers like deliberately coloured "hifi" but IMO it isn't high fidelity, it is a sound effect generator. Personally I do not want one of those.

I went for "opinions' years ago and ended up with gear that sounded not up to what I was expecting. All that gear is gone and left such a bad opinion of "Audiophile" that I got out of it. This time I went for measurements and dont feel cheated. So give me measurements so I can tell a well planned engineered product instead of the "opinions" of others. Colored sucks.

 

[mindbomb]

I'm not sure what the quality of -90db reproduction has to do with our listening either. I doubt we can hear that either in music. And if we could, I doubt we could differentiate the "quality" of it.

yes, but it's a visual representation of how well resolving the dac is, which is arguably the main attribute that all high end dacs are chasing. Even when looking at just schiit multibit dacs, you can see the huge difference between the yggdrasil and bifrost multibit in their -90db sine waves, and understand why one would cost much more than the other.

 

[Dialectic]

I agree with you about timbre. I have heard different dacs and they do sound different in tone. (Subjective impressions, non blind). I'm probably the only other person with that kind of opinion though, so don't think the forum shares your opinion.

Not everyone on the forum has the same opinion about this. But I suspect most of us here would be more receptive to a claim to hear differences in tone among reasonably engineered solid-state DACs if one could do it without seeing which DAC one is listening to. (Yes, I've fooled myself before, too.)

If you're talking about differences in timbre between solid-state and tube gear, that's real. The tube gear will have substantial even-order harmonic distortion that some folks prefer. Those folks do not care about accurate sound reproduction, however.

 

[GearMe]

Like Schiit.

Clever!...but, at best, this response exhibits part of the problem of the whole objectivist vs the subjectivist 'debate'; at worst, it might indicate a preconceived bias?

You tell me which it is. Since you're able to differentiate...how would you characterize the sonic differences between, say, Schiit gear and pick a favorite 'Top' performing DAC?