How much one has to spend on a dac to get the true analog sound

[bobbooo]

Well then read it again. It is a duble blind A-B test. I will submit my result there.

Read my comment again. I know it's a blind AB test, but that's not good enough to be scientifically valid - you need to do an ABX test with 16 trials for that. As I said the survey is flawed methodologically and statistically - it's open to cheating by (as you have seen is easy to do) looking at the waveforms, and it does not factor in the required number of trials for each comparison in order to be statistically valid and rule out lucky guesses. Your unwillingness to do a proper ABX test and post the results here speaks volumes about the credibility of your claims (or rather lack thereof).

 

[solderdude]

To get back on topic...

I thought the question was:
How much one has to spend on a dac to get the true analog sound ?

The answer of course is simple as it was a trick question.
No money should be spent on a DAC.
To get true analog sound one should have to buy a vinyl rig or spend cash on tape (R2R or cassette) or other analog media + amplifier.
Otherwise you will end up with a 'digital' sound.

 

[ZolaIII]

@bobbooo I certainly won't do it more than once but be my guest & do it as many times you want. What I hear first time I will continue to hear. It is methodologically incoherent but for other reasons & it falls scientifically because it's not conducted in strictly controlled environment.

 

[ZolaIII]

To get back on topic...

I thought the question was:
How much one has to spend on a dac to get the true analog sound ?

The answer of course is simple as it was a trick question.
No money should be spent on a DAC.
To get true analog sound one should have to buy a vinyl rig or spend cash on tape (R2R or cassette) or other analog media + amplifier.
Otherwise you will end up with a 'digital' sound.

Just play with this on what ever DAC you want.

https://www.kvraudio.com/product/pteq-x-by-ignite-amps

 

[Sal1950]

& then there are those who don't do anything at all because they aren't capable of it.

Or the government pays them to just sit on their a-esses.

 

[Xulonn]

Just play with this on what ever DAC you want.

I guess that is useful for toying with music playback if you don't like the way the engineers produced a recording, because it is a recording/production tool. However, it is designed to be used on individual tracks, not finished two-channel recordings where the individual tracks have been "mised and merged."

Such recording studio toys are irrelevant to the accurate reproduction of recorded music - and can be considered another set of "tube-like" flavorings for recorded music. Just more digital stuff to convert and blend into to the final analog product - sound.

 

[Count Arthur]

To get back on topic...

I thought the question was:
How much one has to spend on a dac to get the true analog sound ?

The answer of course is simple as it was a trick question.
No money should be spent on a DAC.
To get true analog sound one should have to buy a vinyl rig or spend cash on tape (R2R or cassette) or other analog media + amplifier.
Otherwise you will end up with a 'digital' sound.

... and of course your all analogue "AAA" recording, be it on vinyl or tape.

 

[ZolaIII]

I guess that is useful for toying with music playback if you don't like the way the engineers produced a recording, because it is a recording/production tool. However, it is designed to be used on individual tracks, not finished two-channel recordings where the individual tracks have been "mised and merged."

Such recording studio toys are irrelevant to the accurate reproduction of recorded music - and can be considered another set of "tube-like" flavorings for recorded music. Just more digital stuff to convert and blend into to the final analog product - sound.

First off all that's a great equaliser & quite serious one based on actual vintage analogue one, you have separate optional tube stage with four different tubes to choose from. It's pasive if you really don't want otherwise & it won't mess with your signal (up sampling) if you don't want it to. One of the best emulation peaces ever made. This way you can experiment with tube sound even with sensitive EMI's & of course it's totally free.

 

[Jsingh4]

I think this makes more sense to me and I found it on Quora - https://www.quora.com/Will-digital-...Lam-Seng-Fatt?ch=10&share=c993c9ee&srid=hrxe6

 

[ZolaIII]

I think this makes more sense to me and I found it on Quora - https://www.quora.com/Will-digital-...Lam-Seng-Fatt?ch=10&share=c993c9ee&srid=hrxe6
View attachment 53505

That's just a bunch of crap.
Do you want that we finish this?
With what exactly (impedance, efficiency, max power in mV required for headphones/earphones) & how (portable/desktop) you want to use it?

 

[Xulonn]

First off all that's a great equaliser & quite serious one based on actual vintage analogue one, you have separate optional tube stage with four different tubes to choose from. It's pasive if you really don't want otherwise & it won't mess with your signal (up sampling) if you don't want it to. One of the best emulation peaces ever made. This way you can experiment with tube sound even with sensitive EMI's & of course it's totally free.

Like I said - it looks like a great "toy" for adding "flavors" to your music playback - and it's free - my favorite kind of software. There is nothing "wrong" with that form of enjoyment. It's kind of like an audio version of Baskin-Robbins in the USA - 32 flavors of ice cream when you get tired of vanilla or the six flavors at the corner store. The only science you need is computer science to write programs. Far easier than the pursuit of transparency and accuracy in the playback of recorded music. Enjoy it for what it is!

However, most people come to this science-based forum seeking information, data and ideas, and to participate in discussions about how to attain accurate, transparent sound (music) reproduction with great dynamics and maximum frequency response range. And how to do that within their budgets and the limitations of their listening space. That is where science and engineering are challenged - especially when that accurate and transparent audio signal enters a transducer and tries to move ther air throughout your room "accurately."

We all do some of both - playing with our audio toys, and seeking to maximize our enjoyment of recorded music. In the first case, we shouldn't really care if our ear-to-brain path is tricking us, but in the latter, because we know that our brain can fool us, we take up the challenge with science. We know that we will likely enjoy the most "accurate" reproduction, but can also enjoy "flavored" reproduction. In reality, we shouldn't care about accuracy if we enjoy what we hear, but there is an intellectual challenge to testing whether or not we are actually hearing what we think we hear. It is that challenge that makes some of us very finicky about how and when the words "accuracy" and "transparency" are used. And often philosophy and psychology can become entangled in some very nasty and contentious discussions when one or the other tweaks male egos - and most of here are males. It's the nature of this "hobby."

 

[ZolaIII]

Like I said - it looks like a great "toy" for adding "flavors" to your music playback - and it's free - my favorite kind of software. There is nothing "wrong" with that form of enjoyment. It's kind of like an audio version of Baskin-Robbins in the USA - 32 flavors of ice cream when you get tired of vanilla or the six flavors at the corner store. The only science you need is computer science to write programs. Far easier than the pursuit of transparency and accuracy in the playback of recorded music. Enjoy it for what it is!

However, most people come to this science-based forum seeking information, data and ideas, and to participate in discussions about how to attain accurate, transparent sound (music) reproduction with great dynamics and maximum frequency response range. And how to do that within their budgets and the limitations of their listening space. That is where science and engineering are challenged - especially when that accurate and transparent audio signal enters a transducer and tries to move ther air throughout your room "accurately."

We all do some of both - playing with our audio toys, and seeking to maximize our enjoyment of recorded music. In the first case, we shouldn't really care if our ear-to-brain path is tricking us, but in the latter, because we know that our brain can fool us, we take up the challenge with science. We know that we will likely enjoy the most "accurate" reproduction, but can also enjoy "flavored" reproduction. In reality, we shouldn't care about accuracy if we enjoy what we hear, but there is an intellectual challenge to testing whether or not we are actually hearing what we think we hear. It is that challenge that makes some of us very finicky about how and when the words "accuracy" and "transparency" are used. And often philosophy and psychology can become entangled in some very nasty and contentious discussions when one or the other tweaks male egos - and most of here are males. It's the nature of this "hobby."

View attachment 53519

Do you use EQ? This is EQ, four component one (vocal, general, tube and limiter) you switch off what ever you don't want to use. It's pasive (no added amplification) & it won't charge signal if you don't tell him otherwise.

Digital software... Do you think your DAC doesn't use software, software algorithms for filters and cetera? What do you think it's written on EPROM or FPGA?

Methodology is part of Philosophy including scientific method and scientific experiment. It actually isn't quite a lot to understand and yes you need particular tools to conduct particular experiments. Scientist isn't a free thinker (actually all great one's whose & philosopher's) it's a researcher & usually nothing more. What accuracy & transparency? You can get such DAC & amp even but everything else won't be like that. So it's a flavour and shades of grey.

 

[Xulonn]

What accuracy & transparency?

If you don't know what that means in scientific terms, you have not done your homework here at ASR. Do your homework, and then ask intelligent and informed questions. There are probably thousands of comments on the subject here posted by an array of ASR members ranging from novices to experts, including audio engineers, recording and mastering engineers, audio software engineers, sound and psychoacoustics experts, HT installation and DSP professionals, etc. Basic science explores, and applied science and engineering solves problems and is the foundation for designing "transparent and accurate" audio components and systems.

By charging into a science-based (physics, acoustics, testing and measurement) community with rigid and poorly organized subjectivist and philosophical statements, you appear to be way out of sync with the scientific and practical side of audio. Such "thoughts and ideas" can be interesting, but because of the way you present your "opinions", the role science seems to be down on the list of perspectives. And, of course, this is a science-based internet forum.

Many of us here "play" with audio like you do, but not exclusively - and many of us understand the science and engineering behind "accuracy and transparency" in audio electronics - and the complexities and difficulties of achieving "transparency and accuracy" at the sound-wave to transducer (microphones) level is quite difficult. And at the "transparent audio signal" to air via transducers (loudspeakers) - and the interaction of loudspeakers with rooms and spaces - "tuning" is also very complex and difficult.

From the ones and zeroes in a digital music file to the speaker outputs of an amplifier, based on current SOTA audio engineering, "accuracy and transparency" can and should be at a very high level - and that is true even with many budget components. Engineering in the studio - with its many subjective possibilities - and DSP and/or treatment in the listening room - are now the biggest variables in recording and reproducing recorded music. Today, however, modern audio hardware and software can achieve a very high level of "tansparency and accuracy" at the consumer level compared to what was avilable a few decades ago.

 

[ZolaIII]

@Xulonn OK then. Now show me a totally accurate (not more or less with this or that characteristic) & therefore transparent speaker or headaphones.

 

[Thomas savage]

This is kinda dull and a waste of everyone's time imo .

I suggest you all move on.

 

[Xulonn]

@Xulonn OK then. Now show me a totally accurate (not more or less with this or that characteristic) & therefore transparent speaker or headphones.

Classic strawman statement. Or perhaps the difference between an idealistic goal and a practical achievement, or the character of an asymptotic function, are not being understood.

And with that comment, since people are actually wasting time reading this thread (I'm retired with too much time on my hands), I will heed Thomas' advice and move on - and perhaps donate a bit more to ASR to compensate for the bits and bandwidth wasted.

 

[RayDunzl]

google knows all, again...

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...&ved=0ahUKEwiXuNH0sI7oAhWlc98KHV_NB6MQ4dUDCAs

 

[ZolaIII]

Classic strawman statement. Or perhaps the difference between an idealistic goal and a practical achievement, or the character of an asymptotic function, are not being understood.

And with that comment, since people are actually wasting time reading this thread (I'm retired with too much time on my hands), I will heed Thomas' advice and move on - and perhaps donate a bit more to ASR to compensate for the bits and bandwidth wasted.

You mean yours answer is that? Well fur sure it is. A classic reduction to absurd.

 

[SIY]

Guys, don’t feed. Please.

 

[VMAT4]

True analogue sound with wow & Flutter, snaps, crackles, & pops? Is that what audiophiles lust for?