Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[Music1969]

Just like how the purpose of a luxury mechanical watch is not to tell time as accurately as possible.

Standards for COSC chronometer certification = +6/-4 seconds per day

Many luxury models battle it out (in marketing anyway - like DAC manufacturers like the Chord example I linked above, although Chord share APx555 measurements) to better this standard

One marketing example:

Zenith unveils Defy Lab, the world’s most accurate mechanical watch - LVMH

www.lvmh.com

 

[flz]

Standards for COSC chronometer certification = +6/-4 seconds per day

Many luxury models battle it out (in marketing anyway - like DAC manufacturers like the Chord example I linked above, although Chord share APx555 measurements) to better this standard

One marketing example:

Zenith unveils Defy Lab, the world’s most accurate mechanical watch - LVMH

www.lvmh.com

And a cheap quartz watch will be much more accurate than any much more expensive COSC certified chronometer. People buying luxury watches aren't buying them for time accuracy but for other reasons (craftsmanship, ingenuity of a mechanical movement, etc). Just like people buying the "best" DACs aren't necessarily buying them because they can hear an audible difference. They may think they can but it may not stand up to scrutiny. But if they appreciate the craftsmanship, the beauty of the case, the feel of the buttons/dials, the attention to detail, etc - then those are valid reasons for them. Which is fine IMO.

 

[Miska]

@Miska how do you best measuring DACs perform with this simple measurement like below?

Best DACs are limited by analog noise floor and digital noise floor is well below the analog one, so the noise floor is purely defined by the analog output section. In such cases the analog section would need to have something wrong to have noise floor modulation. Sometimes it can happen though, but in those cases it is primarily problem in the analog output section.

One thing to note about such measurements though, is that you may accidentally trigger "noise floor modulation" that is not actually noise floor modulation. This is because DACs usually have output mute. And most DACs also have zero signal detection, so for example sending all 0's PCM input, or any of the simple DSD silence patterns triggers this. For example ESS specifies (IIRC) that the output is muted when there are 256 consecutive bytes of same input data. This also makes it DC-block.

So in order to correctly measure this, you need to use properly dithered silence for PCM and properly modulated silence for DSD. This avoids DAC engaging it's output mute function.

 

[SIY]

Best DACs are limited by analog noise floor and digital noise floor is well below the analog one, so the noise floor is purely defined by the analog output section. In such cases the analog section would need to have something wrong to have noise floor modulation. Sometimes it can happen though, but in those cases it is primarily problem in the analog output section.

One thing to note about such measurements though, is that you may accidentally trigger "noise floor modulation" that is not actually noise floor modulation. This is because DACs usually have output mute. And most DACs also have zero signal detection, so for example sending all 0's PCM input, or any of the simple DSD silence patterns triggers this. For example ESS specifies (IIRC) that the output is muted when there are 256 consecutive bytes of same input data. This also makes it DC-block.

So in order to correctly measure this, you need to use properly dithered silence for PCM and properly modulated silence for DSD. This avoids DAC engaging it's output mute function.

Or compare noise floor at (say) -95dBFS to 0 dBFS.

 

[Miska]

Or compare noise floor at (say) -95dBFS to 0 dBFS.

Yes, that too. I use -120 dBFS vs -3 dBFS signal usually. But I was referring to the "zero signal" part in the picture.

 

[SIY]

Yes, that too. I use -120 dBFS vs -3 dBFS signal usually. But I was referring to the "zero signal" part in the picture.

Same idea. Basic point being that their specific test is not the only one possible, presence or absence of noise floor modulation only requires a change in signal level.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Also the noise floor is not -176 db. It is higher than that. FFT gain should be considered.

I've done this like Miska describes using -120 dbFS.

 

[Music1969]

Best DACs are limited by analog noise floor and digital noise floor is well below the analog one, so the noise floor is purely defined by the analog output section. In such cases the analog section would need to have something wrong to have noise floor modulation. Sometimes it can happen though, but in those cases it is primarily problem in the analog output section.

One thing to note about such measurements though, is that you may accidentally trigger "noise floor modulation" that is not actually noise floor modulation. This is because DACs usually have output mute. And most DACs also have zero signal detection, so for example sending all 0's PCM input, or any of the simple DSD silence patterns triggers this. For example ESS specifies (IIRC) that the output is muted when there are 256 consecutive bytes of same input data. This also makes it DC-block.

So in order to correctly measure this, you need to use properly dithered silence for PCM and properly modulated silence for DSD. This avoids DAC engaging it's output mute function.

This is how Rob Watts does it, including for the Mojo 2 I shared on previous page

 

[Music1969]

I recall I discussed with @KSTR in RME ADI-2 thread

Curious if results are better with DSD256 @Miska ?

RME ADI-2 FS Version 2 DAC and Headphone Amp Review

Hi @MC_RME or @amirm Can you do the same measurement as per the slide below, with your ADI-2 DAC ? Rob Watts says his current DACs are the only ones in the world with no measurable noise floor modulation (below is his Hugo TT2 measured with his own APx555b) Would be really nice to show him he...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Music1969]

Btw I'm not claiming the ADI-2 noise floor modulation above, is audible...

Just discussing the claim of Rob Watts (with his measurement on previous page) about his DACs being the only in the world that don't have any measurable noise floor modulation and whether there are really any others or not.

 

[Miska]

This is how Rob Watts does it, including for the Mojo 2 I shared on previous page

View attachment 190582

Funny part is how he always ignores problems in the source content data. In my opinion it is important part of reconstruction design to consider all the shortcomings in the data sourced from production chain.

In practice, you cannot assume source data to be perfect digital signal...

 

[billyjoebob]

No doubt DACs in the future will have even better measurements than the best ones today. But I think many would agree that most people won't be able to hear the difference. But I guess that's not the point. Just like how the purpose of a luxury mechanical watch is not to tell time as accurately as possible.

Luxury watches are about jewels, not telling time. No one buys audio equipment simply to look at.
Totally irrelevant comparison.

 

[flz]

Luxury watches are about jewels, not telling time. No one buys audio equipment simply to look at.
Totally irrelevant comparison.

Yes, I agree luxury watches are NOT about telling time. But some people do buy audio equipment for the looks and other attributes that have nothing to do with sound quality (such as better measurements that aren't audible). So expensive watches aren't necessarily about telling time better and expensive DACs aren't necessarily about better (audible) sound quality. I think the comparison is somewhat relevant, but respect that you disagree.

 

[Miska]

Luxury watches are about jewels, not telling time. No one buys audio equipment simply to look at.
Totally irrelevant comparison.

In my opinion best comparison are sports/rally cars. You have various numbers like power, torque, etc. But you don't have easy simple number for things like "how it drives". Especially on different surfaces.

Which one is fastest around the Nürburgring? Which ones is fastest around a rally gravel track? How to determine this objectively by measuring without involving human factors?

Still these days, old records are being broken as technology proceeds. So the technology has not yet reached human limits. Not all cars go round all tracks in same time.

Sports car can still have a lot of bling inside. Aston Martin, Bugatti, Pagani, Koenigsegg...

 

[billyjoebob]

Yes, I agree luxury watches are NOT about telling time. But some people do buy audio equipment for the looks and other attributes that have nothing to do with sound quality (such as better measurements that aren't audible). So expensive watches aren't necessarily about telling time better and expensive DACs aren't necessarily about better (audible) sound quality. I think the comparison is somewhat relevant, but respect that you disagree.

I agree that if one buys a piece of audio equipment ONLY as eye candy, it is akin to a luxury watch purchase, I just can't fathom that concept.

But I can't get on board with the all DACs are the same train.

 

[SIY]

In my opinion best comparison are sports/rally cars. You have various numbers like power, torque, etc. But you don't have easy simple number for things like "how it drives". Especially on different surfaces.

Which one is fastest around the Nürburgring? Which ones is fastest around a rally gravel track? How to determine this objectively by measuring without involving human factors?

Still these days, old records are being broken as technology proceeds. So the technology has not yet reached human limits. Not all cars go round all tracks in same time.

Sports car can still have a lot of bling inside. Aston Martin, Bugatti, Pagani, Koenigsegg...

@Frank Dernie cleanup needed on Aisle 8.

 

[Killingbeans]

Still these days, old records are being broken as technology proceeds. So the technology has not yet reached human limits. Not all cars go round all tracks in same time.

I think it largely depends on how complex you believe the job of a DAC is.

To you (correct me if I'm wrong) it's like competing at Le Mans and setting a new record.

To me it's like doing a drag strip in a reasonable time. Not something that requires cutting edge tech or anything approaching human limits.

But I can't get on board with the all DACs are the same train.

It's been said before: There's no passengers on that train.

All DACs do not sound the same. But above a certain level of performance they most likely will be indistinguishable. Below that you'd might be able to hear differences when doing specific tests, but the masking effect of real music will hide most of those crimes. The differences will most likely be subtle. Not enough to be classified as "color", and definitely not something that stands out enough to be offensive.

If you go really low in performance, there will of course be audible differences.

 

[billyjoebob]

I think it largely depends on how complex you believe the job of a DAC is.

To you (correct me if I'm wrong) it's like competing at Le Mans and setting a new record.

To me it's like doing a drag strip in a reasonable time. Not something that requires cutting edge tech or anything approaching human limits.



It's been said before: There's no passengers on that train.

All DACs do not sound the same. But above a certain level of performance they most likely will be indistinguishable. Below that you'd might be able to hear differences when doing specific tests, but the masking effect of real music will hide most of those crimes. The differences will most likely be subtle. Not enough to be classified as "color", and definitely not something that stands out enough to be offensive.

If you go really low in performance, there will of course be audible differences.

Apparently you are on that train.
Your own words put you on it.
I do agree with you on the car analogy though...

 

[storing]

My hope is that at some point ASR addicts will finally notice that it is the low-level time-domain behavior of a DAC that is relevant, not the high level frequency domain behavior.

Do you really mean the latter is not relevant at all, or rather that the former is also relevant but not considered enough here?

In any case: can you elaborate (i.e. what levels do you mean with low/high, and what kind of tests would show problems, and an example perhaps of good and worse devices)?

 

[Killingbeans]

Apparently you are on that train.
Your own words put you on it.
I do agree with you on the car analogy though...

To me they are two sides of the same coin, so I'm rather confused now...

You agree that DACs don't need to be especially sophisticated in order to reach the limits of human hearing, but you disagree on them being indistinguishable when they exceeded that limit?

Just to make it clear, I don't want to put words in your mouth. Just trying to clarify what I meant with post #3418.