Just as well. Any analysis results would be subject to an inevitable barrage of derision.
Id suggest a smart move for you will be to promptly leave this thread. You have a clear and indefensible bias so will just attract negativity.
Maybe start a new thread in the Vendor section?
What is "the reality"?
Meanwhile, for some piano lovers, DACs that perform with extraordinary measurement results feeding a low distortion system make pianos sound fake with a disappointing listening experience, while relatively poorly measuring DACs eg TDA1541A or vinyl can create perceived timbral fidelity and a sublime musical enjoyment.
What a fun hobby
Distortions and e.g. NOS can indeed create artefacts that can be perceived as timbre thus creating an illusion of more real sound. Many may prefer this type of sound. However if this is suggested as the reason for preference many here will go into denial mode and start inventing mumbo jumbo explanations.
Are you referring to artifacts that make the low midrange frequencies sound rich and full, easy to listen to, instead of the true sound which is thin in the low midrange and bright (even though measured FR response in that region is the essentially same for both dacs, notwithstanding a little zero order hold droop at HF)? If so, I wonder if you could explain the nature of those 'artifacts?' Regarding thin and bright sound, it has been postulated but not proven that the effect may be an artifact of signal-correlated noise (one type of which ESS has described as 'noise floor modulation').
Last edited:
If there is a member who has access to recording facilities, he might provide two short piano recordings from the same mic preamp feed, one passing through opamp stage and one trough a discrete NGFB stage (that's a wish
)If there is no other explanation, I will go into acceptance mode.
I have checked the DACs that I have here using this methodology https://www.stereophile.com/reference/292noise/index.html.
What I saw is that the 'noise floor modulation' is directly related to the gain linearity of the DACs at those low level signals (below -50dBFS)
That is, 'low noise floor modulation' relates to high (gain) linearity.
George
Last edited:
Regarding the ESS noise floor modulation presentation, and IIRC also a technique used by Bruno Puzeys, a method is used which feeds the dac a digital signal consisting of a DC offset. Noise plots are then taken for multiple DC offsets so as to map out the noise level across the dac's analog output range.
However, its possible there could be mechanisms that do not show up fully in this type of test. It would presumably depend on exactly how the modulator is designed.
Regarding the test itself, seems to me it suggests that, say, for a small HF signal riding on a large LF signal, the small signal would be modulated differently by noise depending on relative level of the LF signal at the time.
However, its possible there could be mechanisms that do not show up fully in this type of test. It would presumably depend on exactly how the modulator is designed.
Regarding the test itself, seems to me it suggests that, say, for a small HF signal riding on a large LF signal, the small signal would be modulated differently by noise depending on relative level of the LF signal at the time.
Last edited:
As I've said before all later diyaudio threads about audibility follow the same path with Markw4 repeating one or more of these:
1. ESS marketing slides about "noise floor modulation" (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...quality-between-some-dacs.386815/post-7046917)
2. Samuel Groner's measurement of ES9018 IMD hump (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...quality-between-some-dacs.386815/post-7044375)
3. How he passed PMA's ultimate opamp distortion AXB hearing test with ease (this is still missing)
1. ESS marketing slides about "noise floor modulation" (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...quality-between-some-dacs.386815/post-7046917)
2. Samuel Groner's measurement of ES9018 IMD hump (https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...quality-between-some-dacs.386815/post-7044375)
3. How he passed PMA's ultimate opamp distortion AXB hearing test with ease (this is still missing)
There has to be some explanation for the characteristic sound of Sabre dacs (which has caused some people to complain). I am not convinced that mass hallucination is the only possible explanation. Some known artifact that isn't so easy to see on a typical FFT could be a much more plausible explanation.
One plausible explanation was given here. Sabre dacs seem to have elevated higher order harmonics (even beyond 10HD). This is amplified by too high MCK. Another issue may be the THD compensation which apparently is used mainly to get good looking numbers at ASR. But it only affects 2nd and 3rd harmonics which may further accentuate the high order harmonics. IME Sabre THD compensation is dependent on frequency and level so it is not totally linear.
Excellent point about the pleasure of distortion thanks. Ive heard the NOS tubed R IV type DAC that thickens up the sound. Its quite seductive for a minute or two but I prefer a palette with more clarity myself.
The PCM63 / PCM 1704 / R2R discrete DACs that Ived liked for piano listening measure respectably, have good Vreg, SS IV and are always oversampled with bespoke filters. Can be sublime. Detail with timbre that fools me into recognising an acoustic instrument.
Its weird how many DS DACs cant do that. It should be a trivial task in this era.
It would be fascinating if a brilliant team of EE's and research perceptual neurophysiologists could team up and analyse the piano and R2R output to correlate measurements with that sense of musical fidelity. No grants in that though.
Yes, I was a bit disappointed when I listened to this record. I was expecting to hear classic Steinway signature but all I could hear was just some Bösendorfer. Must be something wrong with my DS dac
D
Deleted member 537459
The Well Audio published objective measurements of the most part of its designs and will continue measuring new devices in the traditional FFT way. But the designers have not found any correlation between the FFT measurements and the realism of the reproduction, that’s the reason they are developing their own DAC measurement tool.Just as well. Any analysis results would be subject to an inevitable barrage of derision.
Id suggest a smart move for you will be to promptly leave this thread. You have a clear and indefensible bias so will just attract negativity.
Maybe start a new thread in the Vendor section?
What is "the reality"?
Meanwhile, for some piano lovers, DACs that perform with extraordinary measurement results feeding a low distortion system make pianos sound fake with a disappointing listening experience, while relatively poorly measuring DACs eg TDA1541A or vinyl can create perceived timbral fidelity and a sublime musical enjoyment.
What a fun hobby
As suggested The Well Audio leaves the thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
CD images are always above 22.05kHz due to Nyquist, and above 24.1kHz in practice due to a baseband cut-off of 20kHz (44.1 - 20 = 24.1). Both of those limits are ultrasonic, and most music content produces images which are much, much further in to the ultrasonic..
Who wants to settle for less....I was listening to some multi-hundred thousand system on the internet the other day. I wanted to own them... they sounded amazing through my crappy computer DAC and speakers.Yes, I was a bit disappointed when I listened to this record. I was expecting to hear classic Steinway signature but all I could hear was just some Bösendorfer. Must be something wrong with my DS dac
Since there are always non-linearities IMD products of ultrasonic components will appear below 20kHz.
I guess you missed my joke: the piano used in the recording was actually a Bösendorfer
- Status
- Not open for further replies.