YouTuber Says DACs Don't Sound Different

[shawnf]

@Ron Resnick If you can find time for a bit of humour, this is a great counter article from Twittering Machines, written by Michael Lavorgna.

Via a friend of mine but pretty sure some folks here might have read it before

The Great Violin Scam

 

[Al M.]

@Ron Resnick If you can find time for a bit of humour, this is a great counter article from Twittering Machines, written by Michael Lavorgna.

Via a friend of mine but pretty sure some folks here might have read it before

The Great Violin Scam

LOL

 

[Ron Resnick]

I personally like R2R. Others will disagree vehemently. It is what it is......

Tom

I ask in all seriousness: does anybody who has heard reel-to-reel not like reel-to-reel?

 

[COF]

Obviously, his one single blind test does not prove that “all DACs sound the same.”

But it does provide some more evidence that even the cheap DACs can be audibly transparent. Which is quite true. Digital is essentially a solved problem in that regard.

And that proves problematic for many of the claims made by high-end manufactures for their DACs. Is it possible to make a DAC sound different from another DAC?

Sure. Depending on the filters and/or some shenanigans with the analogue output design.

But the thing is high priced DACs are generally not sold to audiophiles on the basis “ we found a way to add a colouration you might like.” Instead, just like cables and so many other products they are sold on the idea that you are “ getting more of the sonic information out of the signal than ever before.”

And THOSE type of claims tend to be quite dubious and often full of pseudoscience or wonky claims.

And of course, audiophiles will always be able to imagine differences, and attribute this to “ they must be right! I’m hearing more of the music that was buried by other DACs!”

The response many audiophiles who have been convinced some ultra expensive DAC or music server has uncovered more musical information is usually to say “ look, I can hear it and that’s that… if you can’t, then it’s a problem with your own hearing or your system isn’t resolving enough.” In other words, more unfalsifiable claims. Because somebody can always believe or claim to hear something.

I’ m not writing everyone’s claims off as impossible. But I reserve judgement on many of the more extravagant claims for DACs or music servers until people demonstrate they can tell these differences without peeking (blind test… where are the rubber hits the road where you are truly only “trusting your ears.”)

 

[PYP]

Obviously, his one single blind test does not prove that “all DACs sound the same.”

But it does provide some more evidence that even the cheap DACs can be audibly transparent. Which is quite true. Digital is essentially a solved problem in that regard.

And that proves problematic for many of the claims made by high-end manufactures for their DACs. Is it possible to make a DAC sound different from another DAC?

Sure. Depending on the filters and/or some shenanigans with the analogue output design.

But the thing is high priced DACs are generally not sold to audiophiles on the basis “ we found a way to add a colouration you might like.” Instead, just like cables and so many other products they are sold on the idea that you are “ getting more of the sonic information out of the signal than ever before.”

And THOSE type of claims tend to be quite dubious and often full of pseudoscience or wonky claims.

And of course, audiophiles will always be able to imagine differences, and attribute this to “ they must be right! I’m hearing more of the music that was buried by other DACs!”

The response many audiophiles who have been convinced some ultra expensive DAC or music server has uncovered more musical information is usually to say “ look, I can hear it and that’s that… if you can’t, then it’s a problem with your own hearing or your system isn’t resolving enough.” In other words, more unfalsifiable claims. Because somebody can always believe or claim to hear something.

I’ m not writing everyone’s claims off as impossible. But I reserve judgement on many of the more extravagant claims for DACs or music servers until people demonstrate they can tell these differences without peeking (blind test… where are the rubber hits the road where you are truly only “trusting your ears.”)

I had my previous DAC (Mola Mola Tambaqui) for five years. Previous DACs included Lampizator and PS Audio. Current streamer/DAC is Grimm MU2. They all sound quite different (all very good). A quick A/B doesn't help me hear differences. Living with a piece of gear for years does.

 

[thedudeabides]

Simple question? Who cares what any of these guys write on both sides? Any idiot with a key board can become the new guru. See it for what it is and just move on. More importantly lead by not giving them the exposure they want. Don't feed the troll.

Rob

Exactly. I really don't understand why Ron posted this thread and what he expects to learn from it. Posting this utube merely provides oxygen to this ignorance.

 

[Argonaut]

I ask in all seriousness: does anybody who has heard reel-to-reel not like reel-to-reel?

Resistor ladder - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tuckia]

Obviously, his one single blind test does not prove that “all DACs sound the same.”

But it does provide some more evidence that even the cheap DACs can be audibly transparent. Which is quite true. Digital is essentially a solved problem in that regard.

And that proves problematic for many of the claims made by high-end manufactures for their DACs. Is it possible to make a DAC sound different from another DAC?

Sure. Depending on the filters and/or some shenanigans with the analogue output design.

But the thing is high priced DACs are generally not sold to audiophiles on the basis “ we found a way to add a colouration you might like.” Instead, just like cables and so many other products they are sold on the idea that you are “ getting more of the sonic information out of the signal than ever before.”

And THOSE type of claims tend to be quite dubious and often full of pseudoscience or wonky claims.

And of course, audiophiles will always be able to imagine differences, and attribute this to “ they must be right! I’m hearing more of the music that was buried by other DACs!”

The response many audiophiles who have been convinced some ultra expensive DAC or music server has uncovered more musical information is usually to say “ look, I can hear it and that’s that… if you can’t, then it’s a problem with your own hearing or your system isn’t resolving enough.” In other words, more unfalsifiable claims. Because somebody can always believe or claim to hear something.

I’ m not writing everyone’s claims off as impossible. But I reserve judgement on many of the more extravagant claims for DACs or music servers until people demonstrate they can tell these differences without peeking (blind test… where are the rubber hits the road where you are truly only “trusting your ears.”)

Transparency is merely a sound in itself, usually the result of a flat frequency response, and not a grand achievement. You need to expand your vocabulary way beyond that descriptor to begin to explain the differences in the sonic capabilities of individual dacs. I have found great differences between the dacs I’ve owned from $1k to $50k. True, you can’t escape your biases and preferences in trying to qualify the performance of each, but I just can’t believe the differences can’t be heard in a proper setting within a capable system. A capable system is a requirement here. Use a cheap transport and system performance takes on its sound no matter what. Any underperforming component ruins the sound, bringing the result down to its level. A power cord, an interconnect, a footer. But once you have it, it’s obvious. Been there, done that. Most here have this level of experience. YouTube? No.

Superior resolution and timing performance are attributes of top dacs. Timing is so many things - harmonic completeness and decay, spatial cues, precision, nuance, inflection, for example. Can’t get this in budget dacs without good clocks. The best they do is smooth things over to make it sound “musical”. Not a grand achievement. Dynamics require a good power supply for the analog section. Micro dynamics require an exceptionally clean power supply. There is nothing inexpensive about the parts and design required to pull this off. On and on. The cheap converter chip -$5 to $25 - has a minor role in absolute performance, but certainly not meaningless.

All dacs sound the same? Pure silliness, or more likely wanton ignorance. Never been a fan of deceivers looking to exploit the ignorance of others, no matter the topic.

Is the cost worth it? Of course that’s a completely different question.

 

[Al M.]

All dacs sound the same? Pure silliness, or more likely wanton ignorance. Never been a fan of deceivers looking to exploit the ignorance of others, no matter the topic.

Some people intentionally deceive, some people truly believe their own BS.

Humans really have a unique capability of being blind to reality and of deceiving themselves.

 

[cjfrbw]

LOL! All objectivists sound the same!

 

[surfing_dude]

@Ron Resnick If you can find time for a bit of humour, this is a great counter article from Twittering Machines, written by Michael Lavorgna.

Via a friend of mine but pretty sure some folks here might have read it before

The Great Violin Scam

- which reminds me of the following anecdote (From wikipedia)

Stradivarius theft​

Before 1936, Huberman's principal instrument for his concerts was a 1713-vintage Stradivarius "Gibson," which was named after one of its early owners, the English violinist George Alfred Gibson. It was stolen twice. In 1919, it was taken from Huberman's Vienna hotel room but recovered by the police within 3 days. The second time was in New York City. On 28 February 1936, while giving a concert at Carnegie Hall, Huberman switched the Stradivarius "Gibson" with his newly acquired Guarnerius violin, leaving the Stradivarius in his dressing room during intermission. It was stolen either by New York City nightclub musician Julian Altman or a friend of his.[9] Altman kept the violin for the next half-century. Huberman's insurance company, Lloyd's of London, paid him US$30,000 for the loss in 1936.

Altman went on to become a violinist with the National Symphony Orchestra in Washington, D.C., and performed with the stolen Stradivarius for many years. In 1985, Altman made a deathbed confession to his wife, Marcelle Hall, that he had stolen the violin. Two years later, she returned it to Lloyd's and collected a finder's fee of $263,000. The instrument underwent a 9-month restoration by J & A Beare Ltd., in London. In 1988, Lloyd's sold it for $1.2 million to British violinist Norbert Brainin. In October 2001, the American violinist Joshua Bell purchased it for just under $4,000,000.


I really recommend listening live to Joshua Bell with this legendary Stradivarius. Electrifying experience!

 

[COF]

Transparency is merely a sound in itself, usually the result of a flat frequency response, and not a grand achievement.

Correct, at this point flat, accurate performance from a DAC is no grand achievement, and does not require the type of money being demanded by many high-end manufacturers.

You need to expand your vocabulary way beyond that descriptor to begin to explain the differences in the sonic capabilities of individual dacs.

I have no problem with using vocabulary to describe the possible different colorations a manufacturer may have introduced into their DAC.

I have found great differences between the dacs I’ve owned from $1k to $50k.

I have heard Sonic differences between some CDPs and DACs I’ve owned (eg Sony, Meridian, Mietner Museatex). And in fact, I validated these differences in blind listening tests. This is why I’m not saying that “all DACs sound the same per se.” But accuracy and transparency to the signal are basically solved problems, and if there’s going to be audible differences it’s most likely going to be due to colorations designed into the equipment. Rather than “ recovering higher levels of Sonic information in the recording that other decks are somehow unable resolve.”

A capable system is a requirement here.

Yes, as I indicated, this is the predictable reply. “ if you’re not hearing differences, your system isn’t resolving enough.” (I find this reply often to be bogus.)

Use a cheap transport and system performance takes on its sound no matter what.

Simply not true. It is suggestive of imagination more than technical knowledge. Any decent DAC can re-clock the incoming data to make all the incoming bits make it across intact and timed properly.
And it’s not that expensive to make a decent DAC.

A power cord, an interconnect, a footer.

That seems to be in the “ everything makes an audible difference” camp, which does not reflect reality, but is much better explained via the fact people can imagine anything to make a difference.

This is why as I say, when it comes to claims about things like DACS (and music streamers, and cables etc) I prefer to see results of listening tests where somebody can’t peek.

And again my main point isn’t that I would deny that you could be hearing differences between the DACs you happen to try.

I am rather very sceptical - justifiably so - about the type of claims often associated with very high priced DACs, servers etc, that they are uncovering and delivering more Sonic information hidden in the recorded signal, that plenty of cheaper competently built DACs can’t deliver. If you want to pay for a particular coloration built into the DAC…. feel free to pay any amount do you like of course.

 

[hopkins]

I have heard Sonic differences between some CDPs and DACs I’ve owned (eg Sony, Meridian, Mietner Museatex). And in fact, I validated these differences in blind listening tests. This is why I’m not saying that “all DACs sound the same per se.” But accuracy and transparency to the signal are basically solved problems, and if there’s going to be audible differences it’s most likely going to be due to colorations designed into the equipment. Rather than “ recovering higher levels of Sonic information in the recording that other decks are somehow unable resolve.”

You seem to equate transparency and accuracy to "recovering higher levels of sonic information". I believe that accuracy basically impacts all aspects of sound. It's not only a question of hearing "more" but of hearing "better"...

 

[COF]

You seem to equate transparency and accuracy to "recovering higher levels of sonic information". I believe that accuracy basically impacts all aspects of sound. It's not only a question of hearing "more" but of hearing "better"...

I’m not sure I disagree, though I think you’d have to elaborate in order to know if I agree.

In many cases, you can find that you have sonic accuracy, and transparency by comparing the input to the output.

In terms of revealing information about a recording, it’s possible, of course, to take precisely the same signal and alter it in a way that makes certain aspects of the recording more pronounced or easier to hear (a classic example is boosting the upper frequencies, making certain details, stand out better).

So there are certainly various colorations that can influence our perception of what we hear in a recording. Nothing wrong with playing around with that. I certainly do it.

It’s a different claim though, to say that one is not just adjusting the available information in a recorded signal, but actually reproducing MORE information from the recorded signal.

And lots of high end gear is sold not based on “ we are providing some pleasing colorations” but rather on the basis of “ our technology is able to recover more of the Recorded signal.”

It’s the latter case where I believe things to get more dubious.

 

[Tuckia]

Correct, at this point flat, accurate performance from a DAC is no grand achievement, and does not require the type of money being demanded by many high-end manufacturers.



I have no problem with using vocabulary to describe the possible different colorations a manufacturer may have introduced into their DAC.




I have heard Sonic differences between some CDPs and DACs I’ve owned (eg Sony, Meridian, Mietner Museatex). And in fact, I validated these differences in blind listening tests. This is why I’m not saying that “all DACs sound the same per se.” But accuracy and transparency to the signal are basically solved problems, and if there’s going to be audible differences it’s most likely going to be due to colorations designed into the equipment. Rather than “ recovering higher levels of Sonic information in the recording that other decks are somehow unable resolve.”



Yes, as I indicated, this is the predictable reply. “ if you’re not hearing differences, your system isn’t resolving enough.” (I find this reply often to be bogus.)



Simply not true. It is suggestive of imagination more than technical knowledge. Any decent DAC can re-clock the incoming data to make all the incoming bits make it across intact and timed properly.
And it’s not that expensive to make a decent DAC.



That seems to be in the “ everything makes an audible difference” camp, which does not reflect reality, but is much better explained via the fact people can imagine anything to make a difference.

This is why as I say, when it comes to claims about things like DACS (and music streamers, and cables etc) I prefer to see results of listening tests where somebody can’t peek.

And again my main point isn’t that I would deny that you could be hearing differences between the DACs you happen to try.

I am rather very sceptical - justifiably so - about the type of claims often associated with very high priced DACs, servers etc, that they are uncovering and delivering more Sonic information hidden in the recorded signal, that plenty of cheaper competently built DACs can’t deliver. If you want to pay for a particular coloration built into the DAC…. feel free to pay any amount do you like of course.

No. I disagree with your comments. If you want to read more about digital audio playback systems, much can be learned in these forums. Often the most salient points are made by the leading edge researchers and manufacturers of the equipment, usually in layman’s terms. I don’t care to regurgitate it here. I’m not that kind of engineer so they say it better. I know what I hear and I usually know why on a technical level.

Happy listening.

 

[Steve williams]

I ask in all seriousness: does anybody who has heard reel-to-reel not like reel-to-reel?

Im pretty sure that he was talking about resistor to resistor ladder dac's and not tape after all that is the OP of this thread

 

[treitz3]

Without a doubt.

Tom

 

[Folsom]

I ask in all seriousness: does anybody who has heard reel-to-reel not like reel-to-reel?

Believe it or not but I have never had a good experience. My experiences are very limited but they were not good. I'm a believer in tape however given that all the best music comes off of them.

 

[hopkins]

I’m not sure I disagree, though I think you’d have to elaborate in order to know if I agree.

In many cases, you can find that you have sonic accuracy, and transparency by comparing the input to the output.

In terms of revealing information about a recording, it’s possible, of course, to take precisely the same signal and alter it in a way that makes certain aspects of the recording more pronounced or easier to hear (a classic example is boosting the upper frequencies, making certain details, stand out better).

So there are certainly various colorations that can influence our perception of what we hear in a recording. Nothing wrong with playing around with that. I certainly do it.

It’s a different claim though, to say that one is not just adjusting the available information in a recorded signal, but actually reproducing MORE information from the recorded signal.

And lots of high end gear is sold not based on “ we are providing some pleasing colorations” but rather on the basis of “ our technology is able to recover more of the Recorded signal.”

It’s the latter case where I believe things to get more dubious.

Manufacturer's claims are sufficiently vague that they are open to interpretation. On the other hand, it's not easy to translate sound into words. And I'll leave it at that

 

[Gregm]

Even as someone who appreciates digital but is not a big enthusiast I am 100% comfortable that DACs sound different. And if I can hear those DAC differences then I have to assume almost every audiophile can hear those DAC differences.

I can offer a situation where many* DACs can sound the same: it;s where differences are not discernible. If you take a low resolution system, where losses begin at the source and continue, unabated, by the time you get to the actual reproduction, the actual resolution can be low enough to mask differences between DACs. In which case, it make sense to purchase the cheapest evaluation board and stick it in the cheapest case -- or use your phone as a DAC.

*let's not push it to all DACs -