What is the most MUSICAL DAC? DAC for Music Lovers vs. Geeks and Analytic Listeners

[Phelonious Ponk]

Reduction of fidelity,distortion or coloration is NOT musicality.

Agreed.

I get the feeling you like to go on that coloration and distortion is what those who do not want a system that matches your view on natural/neutral/transparent reproduced sound

Not at all. I do tend to go on when people are implying some kind of objective superiority (more "transparent," "natural," "musical"...) for entire
classes or reproduction technology (vinyl, tubes, tape generations away from the masters) without an objective leg to stand on. If they simply like it better, good for them.

Problem is this is not as simple as you would think

This is exactly as simple as I think; high fidelity refers to high levels of fidelity to the recording. In context, neutral and transparent mean the same thing. It hasn't anything to do with my, or your idea of what is more "natural" or "musical."

Being cheeky, when are you buying your Devialet then Tim

Perhaps when they begin building them into active speaker systems at a price point that makes sense.

Tim

 

[Orb]

Agreed.


Not at all. I do tend to go on when people are implying some kind of objective superiority (more "transparent," "natural," "musical"...) for entire
classes or reproduction technology (vinyl, tubes, tape generations away from the masters) without an objective leg to stand on. If they simply like it better, good for them.



This is exactly as simple as I think; high fidelity refers to high levels of fidelity to the recording. In context, neutral and transparent mean the same thing. It hasn't anything to do with my, or your idea of what is more "natural" or "musical."


Perhaps when they begin building them into active speaker systems at a price point that makes sense.

Tim

I cannot see how you think it is that simple when there is still no agreement to what is the ideal digital filter co-efficients in term of linear and minimum phase; my current DAC actually sounds warmer and more analogue-rich than another DAC I heard and yet measures better, for me it is a bit of a head scratcher.
If you heard the system you would say the CD player-DAC is colouring the system, but measurements would tell you otherwise.
Listen to the MBL C31 (-0.4db down at 20khz and excellent measurements) and then the older Noble model (this has -3db rolloff at 20khz and worst measurements) it makes it a bit obvious where I am coming from as ironically the C31 sounds just as warm-organic.
So please make the effort to listen to those products or at least the C31 before you insist on what is transparent-coloured-high resolution/fidelity.
Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

Tim.
Here is a review with the measurements of the MBL C31, the reviewers subjective comments match mine, and indeed has been re-iterated by other reviewers.
http://www.audioemotion.co.uk/ekmps/shops/audioemotion/resources/Other/hfn-mbl-corona-c31.pdf

Edit:
And just to say IMO it sounds different and better in several ways than the Devialet (appreciate the fact this also has integrated amplifier functionality but the Dartzeel 8550 I own is not too far removed from neutral-detailed resolution comparison with the Devialet)

Cheers
Orb

 

[KeithR]

It will come as no surprise, Jack, that I disagree with the premise as well. Very specifically, I disagree with the inaccurate use of the word "extract." If the "analytical" component extracts more, the "musical" component doesn't "extract" its musicality, it adds it, unless it somehow knows how to extract the musical part and leave the other parts behind. You're going to have to tell me how that works...

And by the way, I think a valve in a DAC is about as serious as a paper flower sticking out of a clown's bum. But I'm sure that shocks no one here either.

Tim

I actually think "analytical" gear these days strips real harmonics as a function of negative feedback and odd-order harmonics. doesn't matter tube nor solid state either.

 

[FrantzM]

I actually think "analytical" gear these days strips real harmonics as a function of negative feedback and odd-order harmonics. doesn't matter tube nor solid state either.

What are "real harmonics" ? And as opposed to ??? If a gear were to "strip" harmonics it would be creating serious and audible distortion.

We could summarize this:For those that absolutely wants to use those terms ... Musical is any gear they like ... Analytical those they don't ...

 

[JackD201]

For those that absolutely wants to use those terms ... Musical is any gear they like ... Analytical those they don't ...

IMO that really has become the prevalent use and understanding of the terms. In my mind musical and analytical is a function of the user's state of focus and not that of the equipment. If one were to be in trouble shooting mode aka practicing analytical listening then he should be able to discern things usually missed. To me a system is singing when you can zoom in if you will and find little amiss and little to complain about while also being able to be listened to (alert, I'm allergic to this word) holistically. In other words, I do not believe that they are diametrically opposed.

If one wants to mask shortcomings upstream all the way back to the source material itself then there really are many ways to do it and I condemn none of them. Like an overexposed photo however, you're never going to get lost detail back. In the end we all must choose which compromises we need to make to be able to enjoy as wide a selection of music as we can. I start out as close to ruler flat as I can manage and then proceed to contour the system to be somewhat more forgiving later. When I get my hands on the Goldilock's just right porridge. I take a deep breath and leave things alone. Obviously "just right" is a personal call. Visitors may want the system's tonal balance to lean one way or another to find what they consider just right. That's perfectly normal.

As for Caesar finding a player that can both be stunning with great recordings and forgiving of bad ones, well, I know of none. There are players and DACs out there with features such as selectable DSP algorithms and filters or some with output stages that can be configurable but none I know of that will do what caesar asked without any intervention on the part of the user.

 

[KeithR]

What are "real harmonics" ? And as opposed to ??? If a gear were to "strip" harmonics it would be creating serious and audible distortion.

We could summarize this:For those that absolutely wants to use those terms ... Musical is any gear they like ... Analytical those they don't ...

negative feedback adds a picket of odd-order harmonics that overshadows the more benign, even ordered ones. maybe strip is the wrong word. i think analytical and musical could mean transparent or colored depending on your point of view

some amps have adjustable feedback, such as Lamm, so its easy to hear the difference.

 

[the sound of Tao]

IMO that really has become the prevalent use and understanding of the terms. In my mind musical and analytical is a function of the user's state of focus and not that of the equipment. If one were to be in trouble shooting mode aka practicing analytical listening then he should be able to discern things usually missed. To me a system is singing when you can zoom in if you will and find little amiss and little to complain about while also being able to be listened to (alert, I'm allergic to this word) holistically. In other words, I do not believe that they are diametrically opposed.

If one wants to mask shortcomings upstream all the way back to the source material itself then there really are many ways to do it and I condemn none of them. Like an overexposed photo however, you're never going to get lost detail back. In the end we all must choose which compromises we need to make to be able to enjoy as wide a selection of music as we can. I start out as close to ruler flat as I can manage and then proceed to contour the system to be somewhat more forgiving later. When I get my hands on the Goldilock's just right porridge. I take a deep breath and leave things alone. Obviously "just right" is a personal call. Visitors may want the system's tonal balance to lean one way or another to find what they consider just right. That's perfectly normal.

As for Caesar finding a player that can both be stunning with great recordings and forgiving of bad ones, well, I know of none. There are players and DACs out there with features such as selectable DSP algorithms and filters or some with output stages that can be configurable but none I know of that will do what caesar asked without any intervention on the part of the user.

+1 to all of the above.

Getting our heads around why we perceive some systems and components as inherently musical is critical in terms of the successful performance of a music system.

My understanding is that it is primarily a higher order perception that isn't necessarily captured in terms of measurements unless we are measuring cohesiveness.

As Jack points out it seems it is related to where we perceive the sounds within the mind. When we are comfortably seated in the stillness of the passive listening parts of the brain in the limbic system (where we also experience triggers for dopamine release and pleasure and coordinate spatial clues in the soundfield) and also for me perhaps the place of perception that best equates with the notion of a listening nirvana or an emotive and heightened holistic listening.

Analysis and active focus up in the cerebellum and away from the limbic is triggered when something is perceived as not quite right about the soundfield (and therefore recognised as potentially threatening and abnormal in the surrounding noises by our instinctual self.

As I attempt to write this I am in a busy glass and hard surface coffee shop in a fairly analytical frame of mind as the sound busily bounces around in a great example of the state of awareness not applicable to the pleasures of relaxed states that relate to deeper listening... there's music playing but ain't nothing musical about it and noise happening here at all.

 

[JackD201]

Cohesiveness is like musical it doesn't mean anything, there is always a reason why something sounds different.
Keith.

Lack of cohesion is typically caused by time domain issues and/or amplitude errors. Your point Keith?

 

[FrantzM]

+1 to all of the above.

Getting our heads around why we perceive some systems and components as inherently musical is critical in terms of the successful performance of a music system.

My understanding is that it is primarily a higher order perception that isn't necessarily captured in terms of measurements unless we are measuring cohesiveness.

As Jack points out it seems it is related to where we perceive the sounds within the mind. When we are comfortably seated in the stillness of the passive listening parts of the brain in the limbic system (where we also experience triggers for dopamine release and pleasure and coordinate spatial clues in the soundfield) and also for me perhaps the place of perception that best equates with the notion of a listening nirvana or an emotive and heightened holistic listening.

Analysis and active focus up in the cerebellum and away from the limbic is triggered when something is perceived as not quite right about the soundfield (and therefore recognised as potentially threatening and abnormal in the surrounding noises by our instinctual self.

As I attempt to write this I am in a busy glass and hard surface coffee shop in a fairly analytical frame of mind as the sound busily bounces around in a great example of the state of awareness not applicable to the pleasures of relaxed states that relate to deeper listening... there's music playing but ain't nothing musical about it and noise happening here at all.

I am certain this discussion would get to that point where we are fishing in very deep water for explanations.

I cannot dismiss the value of our perceptions. Nor I am able to dismiss the value of our emotions in what we perceive and how we perceive them. Liking a component is very subjective. What will sound right to you may not be so for me under similar sighted conditions. Removing the sources of biases may equalize the results to a certain degree but not entirely. Thus we may need to accept that such terms as "cohesiveness", "fluid" , "organic" , "musical" "analytical" , and a whole lot more depend on a myriad of subjective factors. They are not objective. It varies with the individual and his/her current state of mind, moods, at the moment of evaluation, prior experience with such gears ( Prejudices ?) etc. thus going on the tangent of assigning the value of musical (or not) to a DAC and contrasting it to the love of music is for the least comical...

 

[JackD201]

I am certain this discussion would get to that point where we are fishing in very deep water for explanations.

I cannot dismiss the value of our perceptions. Nor I am able to dismiss the value of our emotions in what we perceive and how we perceive them. Liking a component is very subjective. What will sound right to you may not be so for me under similar sighted conditions. Removing the sources of biases may equalize the results to a certain degree but not entirely. Thus we may need to accept that such terms as "cohesiveness", "fluid" , "organic" , "musical" "analytical" , and a whole lot more depend on a myriad of subjective factors. They are not objective. It varies with the individual and his/her current state of mind, moods, at the moment of evaluation, prior experience with such gears ( Prejudices ?) etc. thus going on the tangent of assigning the value of musical (or not) to a DAC and contrasting it to the love of music is for the least comical...

That holds a lot of water in the selection phase Frantz but what if the selections have been made and we now move to the optimisation phase of things? We already know what's in the system.

 

[Orb]

I am with Jack and Tao on this, and also as I mentioned the Uncanny Valley effect.
Musical can have several different meanings to describe what a listener is trying to achieve or hears, along with the classical definition as applied by those with high academic musicology and performing background.
Some may describe musical to be that similar to the Uncanny Valley, in other words does it come across as natural or artificial.
It could also be how systems seem to influence how we listen; for some analytical in this sense would be they find their listening behaviour focuses specifically on timbre-tones-attack-decay-etc but they are not able to do all this at same time so their perception and critical listening keeps shifting-jumping to a different variable in the music or more importantly the recording that has more individual mics to pick up extra detail than when further back listening in a concert hall.
Musical in that context would be they take a step back from that type of critical listening and use behaviour similar for them when at a performance where they see the whole band-orchestra further back and so listen to it more as a "whole" while also focusing on at the same time the rythms-beats-"flow".

Lets be honest; how many of us can really critically listen to all aspects-variables of a recording in the minutest detail and all variables at the same time without having to shift their listening behaviour-focus?
I know I cannot, and I know some friends who are adept musicians (with academic backgrounds in music) who also do not, but I am sure there are those with very high academic musicology and performance backgrounds that probably can.

Cheers
Orb

 

[the sound of Tao]

There is the experience of music, this is musicality. To say more than this is to lose the essence of it. But to identify and analyse music we have a need to fracture it into parts so that we can name and quantify the contextual elements and consciously qualify the spirit of the sound. This allows us to name and evaluate it. But this separation is ultimately an injury to the full truth of the whole. I believe the whole experience of music is in some ways also numinous and perhaps as the Sufis would say that about which nought can truly be said. We can't experience at-one-ment with music while we are pointedly focussed on any of the individual parts of the sound. To be completely within the music we also need to experience it in it's wholeness... cohesiveness is the quality to recombine and repair and then make our connective experience whole again. We all have our own perception of music. But truth in art and music can be intrinsic, absolute and timeless.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I cannot see how you think it is that simple when there is still no agreement to what is the ideal digital filter co-efficients in term of linear and minimum phase;

Because at this point, we're talking about fidelity to recordings vs audiophile terms like "musicality," that can mean almost anything the individual audiophile imagines they mean, not the performance of DACs.

my current DAC actually sounds warmer and more analogue-rich than another DAC I heard and yet measures better, for me it is a bit of a head scratcher.

If you're talking about warm recordings, that doesn't surprise me at all. What would surprise me is a DAC that measures extremely well, yet renders all recordings with the same kind of warmth and/or detail; then I would question the measurements.

If you heard the system you would say the CD player-DAC is colouring the system, but measurements would tell you otherwise.

No, I wouldn't, because I'd be listening to the system, not the CD player. If I wanted to ascertain your system's neutrality without comprehensive measurements of every component in the signal chain (and a trusted engineer on hand to help me interpret them ), I would listen to a variety of recordings I'm very familiar with, noting how it renders the known differences between those recordings and watching out for any systematic sound or character that cut across all recordings. And if I heard one, frankly, I would begin with the most likely offender - the speakers. If I wanted to evaluate a DAC for neutrality, I would put one in the chain that I know is of high quality, built with the goal of the highest levels of fidelity, and switch the DAC under evaluation in and out. If your CD player added a consistent character to all recordings, or sounded "warm" compared to the reference DAC, then I would think it is coloring the system.

None of this, by the way, is right or wrong. The right thing to do is build a system that pleases you and enjoy listening to music. If it rounds the edges off of 70s rock recordings (that probably need that), and softens Cannonball & Coltrane (which doesn't need it) and it still pleases you, good. Enjoy. But stick to "warm" and "musical." Neutral, transparent and accurate have real meaning in this context.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

There is the experience of music, this is musicality. To say more than this is to lose the essence of it. But to identify and analyse music we have a need to fracture it into parts so that we can name and quantify the contextual elements and consciously qualify the spirit of the sound. This allows us to name and evaluate it. But this separation is ultimately an injury to the full truth of the whole. I believe the whole experience of music is in some ways also numinous and perhaps as the Sufis would say that about which nought can truly be said. We can't experience at-one-ment with music while we are pointedly focussed on any of the individual parts of the sound. To be completely within the music we also need to experience it in it's wholeness... cohesiveness is the quality to recombine and repair and then make our connective experience whole again. We all have our own perception of music. But truth in art and music can be intrinsic, absolute and timeless.

Now this conversation is getting interesting. I agree, Tao, I think listening to music is layered and complex -- we listen to the whole; we zoom in and address our attention to the parts. We pay attention to the emotion of the performance and the mastery of the instruments. We do it all. I only disagree that "We can't experience at-one-ment with music while we are pointedly focussed on any of the individual parts of the sound." I think we do this all the time, that it is very much part of being one with the music, as long as the "sound" we're talking about is the sound of the music. Where we lose the plot is when we are pointedly focused on the sound of our systems. Nothing wrong with it it's just a different activity than listening to music. When anyone reaches the point where that's what they're doing with most of their listening time, they should shut it down and listen to a Bose radio until they're listening to music again, not music reproduction. If anyone believes that they couldn't stand to listen to their favorite music on a Bose radio, they'll need some deeper form of therapy.

Tim

 

[bonzo75]

I think we are discussing two different hobbies, and this thread is going astray. Audiophilia is setting up systems and OCDing over system sounds. Music is playing, listening to live concerts, listening to ipod etc. There is some overlap. But as different as cooking and eating.

 

[bonzo75]

More and more modern systems are as easy to set up as an iPod, and because they are using sophisticated technology it is easier and easier to get a really first rate sound in any room, just look at the new Kii speaker with its cardioid bass.
Keith.

Yes, but that is a different hobby from someone who wants to go separates or wants to go vintage and play with gear. You can listen to music either way. The hobby, interest, forum chatting, community, develops through an OCD, which is the hobby.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think we are discussing two different hobbies, and this thread is going astray. Audiophilia is setting up systems and OCDing over system sounds. Music is playing, listening to live concerts, listening to ipod etc. There is some overlap. But as different as cooking and eating.

This. Though I must add that threads "going astray" is often what makes the dialogue more like a real conversation, and more interesting.

Tim

 

[joaovieira]

Listening to details and focusing on parts is necessary when I am adjusting my system. When I think it plays as I like, listening to the music and get all the emotion with it is usually what I do.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, but that is a different hobby from someone who wants to go separates or wants to go vintage and play with gear. You can listen to music either way. The hobby, interest, forum chatting, community, develops through an OCD, which is the hobby.

Yes, optimizing your listening experience within budget is quite different from playing with gear, but while I haven't heard them, I certainly wouldn't write off the Kii, even when compared to "high end." Designed as they are, for even response on and off axis, horizontally and vertically, they could sound better in-room than many speakers at many multiples of their price.

Tim