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

[antcollinet]

See, proof.

 

[krabapple]

Well randomized is the key. If you only use college students, or only use volunteers at an AES conference, or even if you only use people from the US, it is unlikely they are sufficiently well randomized to represent the population of the world.

Actually the problem is more difficult that it may first seem. A famous and well regarded paper on medical research, although not without some criticism too (and medical research is what this would be): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Ah, the inevitable Ionnidis citation.

He seems to have gone somewhat emeritus since then

You're 'just asking questions', I know, I know.

 

[antcollinet]

Ah, the inevitable Ionnidis citation.

He seems to have gone somewhat emeritus since then

You're 'just asking questions', I know, I know.

I mean - it's amazing we've been able to develop any technology at all with how crap science is. Yet here we are with smartphones with the computing power of a 1000 Apollo missions (including the ground stations). Oh, and even then,we managed to put a few people on the moon wiht 1960s tech.

It must be magic. It can't be science or engineering, cos we just don't understand how stuff works..

 

[ahofer]

Ah, the inevitable Ionnidis citation.

He seems to have gone somewhat emeritus since then

You're 'just asking questions', I know, I know.

Some attempts at replication here would indeed be helpful. But there seems to be a limited appetite for that, blind testing’ s detractors want to throw away the results without attempting replication.

 

[Baudrillard_J]

Mr. Loesch, I have a question regarding the Neo idsd if you care to enlighten me. It is very difficult from the manual and the published specs (and I quote" First DAC to support all Hi-Res: DSD512, PCM768, MQA384kHz and Bluetooth 96kHz.") for the Neo to understand what format and resolution is accepted at each input. For example, USB input will accept PCM768 (I assume, haven't tested above 384 I think). But how about coax which will of course not be able to accept that high a resolution? How about DSD? From coax? Can the coax cable quality for example, affect the accepted resolution on the coax input? Reason I am asking is I am trying to figure out a way to decode SACDs (or DSD) and see if the way it can be done is something I want to involve myself with.

For example, I like vinyl, I like the material/physical aspect of it, same for CDs. I have streaming audio services (Apple music and Qobuz) but only as a means to sample new music or play an album that I don't currently own a copy of or am looking to buy. Many forums recommend ripping the SACDs but I literally detest streaming music from a computer, it really defeats the whole purpose of the experience of listening to music, as far as my personal aesthetics are concerned. So anyway, back to the Neo idsd, if you could elaborate a bit -if you care to, this is Ifi's job to make a clearer manual- on the different inputs and the accepted formats, with a pivot on the DSD/DXD and SACD formats. Thanks in advance.

 

[Ogunya]

IFI tests - Google Drive

drive.google.com

Here are some recordings through the iFi dac. They are in mono but you will get the idea how the dac sound compared to the original song via usb, toslink and single end. The dac is powered via lps and the audio is recorded with prism sound lyra 2 professional interface, if that matters for you.

 

[Enstip]

Like many of us do, I‘ve been watching a number of reviews of different gear and at the moment I’m looking at DACs. The better reviews always give food for thought.

For example a couple of months ago ‘iiwi Reviews’ did an excellent review comparing the ‘RME ADI-2 DAC FS’ (which is what I’ve got) with some similarly priced alternatives. He made a point I’ve heard in a number of similar reviews, that these DACs are excellent at detail retrieval but some reveal a wider, more expansive or 3D sound stage.

So, my question from an audio science perspective is, if two devices can retrieve a very similar depth of detail, perhaps even as much audible detail as exists, what is it that one is doing that the other isn’t, to produce a better (or maybe just different) soundstage?

 

[sarumbear]

How do you know what they wrote is not due to their imagination and the difference is not caused by test errors?

 

[Doodski]

I’ve heard in a number of similar reviews, that these DACs are excellent at detail retrieval but some reveal a wider, more expansive or 3D sound stage.

So, my question from an audio science perspective is, if two devices can retrieve a very similar depth of detail, perhaps even as much audible detail as exists, what is it that one is doing that the other isn’t, to produce a better (or maybe just different) soundstage?

Firstly most all better DACs sound the same and people use their imaginations too much and believe all sorts of stuff is happening so be careful with other peoples' DAC sound quality opinions. If there is a difference in sound quality and imaging and we are using the same DAC ICs then the only thing remaining that could affect the sound quality is the balanced/single ended input circuitry or the audio out circuitry which is basically the reversal of the input circuitry.

 

[VintageFlanker]

what is it that one is doing that the other isn’t, to produce a better (or maybe just different) soundstage?

Imagination/lies of subjective reviewers, contaminating audiofools on forums, then this gimmick is supposed to be a real thing... However, it never has been a thing to begin with.

Stop wonder and just enjoy your ADI-2 DAC FS. It is one of the best Audio gear ever made.

 

[DVDdoug]

There's no logical reason for a DAC to affect soundstage. Speakers, room acoustics, and headphones... maybe... Or some headphone amps have left & right "blending".

See Audiophoolery

 

[Enstip]

Thanks for the responses so far.

To address a few points :

I know reviewers may be biased, may have different imaginations, pre-conceptions etc. not that they are necessarily out to con anybody - many of these reviews are superbly done, for what they are, and I’m grateful for them. Food for thought makes life interesting!

I know I could just ‘enjoy the music’, which I do, but this forum is about understanding why, isnt’t it? Even if the answer is that there is no ‘why’ in this case.

I’m an engineer but not an audio scientist. So I’d love to be educated by audio scientists, as to whether there is a measurable or scientific reason why one DAC may sound different to the other if they are equally resolving.

More comments welcome.

 

[Doodski]

I’m an engineer but not an audio scientist. So I’d love to be educated by audio scientists, as to whether there is a measurable or scientific reason why one DAC may sound different to the other if they are equally resolving.

Those are rare. We do have them here @ ASR though.

 

[Enstip]

Those are rare. We do have them here @ ASR though.

Yeh - determining what is authoritative science and what is hear-say or belief is always a challenge. That said, all opinions are worth hearing, so long as you know which camp they are in.

 

[Doodski]

Yeh - determining what is authoritative science and what is hear-say or belief is always a challenge. That said, all opinions are worth hearing, so long as you know which camp they are in.

I think that people need to do more blind testing to alleviate this stress and strain of what does actually sound better. That requires very basic test gear and a sine wave generator on average.

 

[threni]

Thanks for the responses so far.

To address a few points :

I know reviewers may be biased, may have different imaginations, pre-conceptions etc. not that they are necessarily out to con anybody - many of these reviews are superbly done, for what they are, and I’m grateful for them. Food for thought makes life interesting!

I know I could just ‘enjoy the music’, which I do, but this forum is about understanding why, isnt’t it? Even if the answer is that there is no ‘why’ in this case.

I’m an engineer but not an audio scientist. So I’d love to be educated by audio scientists, as to whether there is a measurable or scientific reason why one DAC may sound different to the other if they are equally resolving.

More comments welcome.

I'd say:
1) there's no reason to believe they'd sound different in theory
2) there's no evidence they sound different in practice
and therefore
3) no reason to speculate as to why they might sound different.

Nobody's going to say "just enjoy the music" to shut you up if there's something to investigate here. It's just that....well, there isn't anything to investigate. It's perfectly well understood why people make such claims.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

"Soundstage" can be understood to mean a lot of different things. But if we take the components that may affect it, we can consider:

Crosstalk - in theory, if you have poor left and right separation,, the soundstage suffers. But pretty much all DACs have phenomenal separation. Cartridges on turntables can have only 20 to 30dB of separation, yet people like the soundstage from LPs.

"Linearity" or more precisely, how accurately the DAC plays different signal levels. Theoretically, the depth cues need accurate signal tracking. Again, modern DACs can be pretty flawless in this regard.

Phase. The stereo image is a combination of intensity (see above) and phase differences. DACs often offer different reconstruction filters which can have different phase impacts, so it's theoretically possible that DAC1 with filterX may have a different soundstage than DAC2 with filterY. However, if they both use the same filter I would expect the differences to be vanishingly small.

Distortion - there seems to be some evidence that increased distortion creates enhanced soundstages. But these are therefore fake soundstages, since they are creating something that is not in the recording. A very accurate DAC with low levels of distortion may have a different soundstage than one with lots of distortion.

 

[Keith_W]

Distortion - there seems to be some evidence that increased distortion creates enhanced soundstages. But these are therefore fake soundstages, since they are creating something that is not in the recording. A very accurate DAC with low levels of distortion may have a different soundstage than one with lots of distortion.

What kind of distortion is that? Can it be added by VST?

 

[solderdude]

Distortion - there seems to be some evidence that increased distortion creates enhanced soundstages. But these are therefore fake soundstages, since they are creating something that is not in the recording. A very accurate DAC with low levels of distortion may have a different soundstage than one with lots of distortion.

A question that pops up is where is the 'some evidence' and what kind of distortion would that be (HD comes with IMD) and what levels is the 'some evidence' about ?
Is that in the range of 0.1%, 1% ?
Certainly not in the 0.01 to 0.0001% range where all DACs (except some weird tube or transformer output stage) DACs would fall into.

Soundstage is a personal thing (brain thingy combined with ear geometry and acoustics) as well as FR related transducer deviations.

 

[antcollinet]

Thanks for the responses so far.

To address a few points :

I know reviewers may be biased, may have different imaginations, pre-conceptions etc. not that they are necessarily out to con anybody - many of these reviews are superbly done, for what they are, and I’m grateful for them. Food for thought makes life interesting!

I know I could just ‘enjoy the music’, which I do, but this forum is about understanding why, isnt’t it? Even if the answer is that there is no ‘why’ in this case.

I’m an engineer but not an audio scientist. So I’d love to be educated by audio scientists, as to whether there is a measurable or scientific reason why one DAC may sound different to the other if they are equally resolving.

More comments welcome.

As an engineer - what do you mean by equally resolving?