That makes sense. As long as customers don't ask for it, it is quite unnecessary.
Sorry, you got that totally wrong. I have absolutely no reason to praise any Topping product.
My only reason for mentioning Topping D90 is that Markw4 brought it up himself and later touted his own presumably much improved version.
As I said, I’m not intending to offend anyone, just maybe have a bit of a philosophical conversation. No cliches were intended either. So, if the particular words I’ve casually chosen causes offense, then I apologize.
I am curious, however, as to which of the hypothetical systems you would prefer to have in my thought experiment. The experiment forces you to choose one of the two extremes, with no in between option. Also, what determines that particular choice for you?
Last edited:
Attached is a simple test for something else that most DAC manufacturers don't report: the behaviour on intersample overshoots. They usually have the common sense to ensure that a DAC clips rather than folds during intersample overshoots, though - folding would be far worse than hard clipping. I already mentioned the intersample overshoot issue in post #18 ( https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...uality-between-some-dacs.386815/#post-7037040 ) because I think there is a good chance that numbers 6 and 7 of the original test were affected by it.
Last edited:
Thanks. Instead of listening to the files is it possible to make assessment based on repeating the 11025Hz measurement shown in https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/intersample-overs-in-cd-recordings?
I think its a loaded question that logically has no answer. I cant answer that question because it simply would never happen.
You say you dont mean to offend anyone, but then you bring up this fictional group of people that is a bit offensive IMO, given i'd say the majority of us are driven by a love/enjoyment, to bring a particular set of skills to bare on the problem and amp up that enjoyment. funnily enough they arent mutually exclusive skills, or past-times. The only way they could cause inner conflict is perhaps if you allow a measurement that tells you something was wrong with your circuit, to dictate your enjoyment satisfaction, or even somehow that all previous enjoyment is rendered void, because you now have information that distortion or noise was higher than ideal. That would be a very strange view, but I suppose its possible. Some of the best gigs of my life have been in terrible venues, with ear bleeding sound systems, so it certainly isnt happening to me. I hang with people that you would typically call objectivists for the most part. I have never met anyone, ever, that enjoys the intellectual pursuit first and foremost, let alone one that doesnt even like music. Its a fictional character that 'subjectivists' talk about regularly. in fact I get the impression that you think its not even uncommon?
For this to happen, The measurements you took are either flawed (you measured the wrong thing), or you simply have a preference for some kind of non-linearity and without it, it is deemed 'unnatural'. Examples of systems that measure perfectly, beyond human limits, yet sound 'in no way believable' while playing back the same well recorded live music; do not occur in reality. They can sound that way to someone afflicted with bias though.
As written, this example 'B' is exaggerated to the point of absurdity. (A. is also not believable without bias, but isnt worded as an extreme an example)
What do I prefer? Give me the truth. Not the harsh truth, just the truth. Playback with added flavor becomes too much for me when playing back content that already has added flavour in the form of mic and instrument pres and production techniques. You can always add a bit of flavour with inline effects and I sometimes do, but you cant take away that which is embedded in the playback.
Last edited:
They will accept the claim of audible difference if it's backed up by supporting evidence.
Sound different in what kind of listening session?
Given that these are sound reproducing equipment, what criteria is used for judging the quality?
What is often omitted by the boutique audio shills is that the measurements are to be compared with that of other device being compared just like listening comparison of components.
Last edited by a moderator:
When you do, you get different results depending on what measurement you look at. For example, 6 and 7 of the test that this thread started with will probably fail the intersample overshoot test, while NOS DACs with zero-order hold reconstruction filter will not. Conversely, when you look at the ultrasonic images, NOS DACs with zero-order hold reconstruction filter will perform very poorly.
Attached is a zip with two wav files of 10 seconds each, one peak sample normalized and one not.
A disadvantage of testing with just one 11025 Hz sine wave is that the distortion products are all ultrasonic; with symmetrical clipping, the first distorion product will be 33075 Hz. That could lead to wrong conclusions when you have a DAC comprised of something that clips followed by a 20 kHz low-pass filter. The first distortion product is also on top of the first image, so the poor image rejection of NOS DACs with just a zero-order hold as reconstruction filter could be mistaken for clipping on intersample overshoots. All in all, I much prefer the test of post #127.
Last edited:
OP say :
7) SABER the first of the participants - ES9038PRO sigma-delta driven in true sync. The worst we heard that day, flattened, lack of dynamics, grainy and veiled midrange, tight and shallow soundstage, lack of focus
Wow, that sounds too lapidary! Before buying my Oppo Sonic DAC I was browsing the web and came to the conclusion - that was a few years ago - that the ES9038PRO was an excellent chip, but reading this "report", it seems that all the information I found was just a bunch of rubbish !? So now I searched again, and found something updated to 2021, which has lifted my spirits again!
P.S:
What I can't understand is why I hear the sound delivered by the ES9038PRO as very analog - like when I listen to vinyl - very natural and extended FR, but I guess that's attributable to the rest of my system, and not to the quality of the chip. DAC. It also seems that it does not have enough dynamic range ? So I'm making up for that by using a tube amp and high-sensitivity speakers. Surely that's why. Also, a tube amp has a lot of distortion, my amp is rated at less than 1% THD at full power. I would have to change this thing and also find very low distortion speakers, because as we know it is the worst of the whole chain... maybe electrostatic? Maybe then I could enjoy the virtues of a "modern" DAC chip!
https://headfonics.com/little-dot-dac-vii-review/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/distortion-in-loudspeakers.1297/
7) SABER the first of the participants - ES9038PRO sigma-delta driven in true sync. The worst we heard that day, flattened, lack of dynamics, grainy and veiled midrange, tight and shallow soundstage, lack of focus
Wow, that sounds too lapidary! Before buying my Oppo Sonic DAC I was browsing the web and came to the conclusion - that was a few years ago - that the ES9038PRO was an excellent chip, but reading this "report", it seems that all the information I found was just a bunch of rubbish !? So now I searched again, and found something updated to 2021, which has lifted my spirits again!
P.S:
What I can't understand is why I hear the sound delivered by the ES9038PRO as very analog - like when I listen to vinyl - very natural and extended FR, but I guess that's attributable to the rest of my system, and not to the quality of the chip. DAC. It also seems that it does not have enough dynamic range ? So I'm making up for that by using a tube amp and high-sensitivity speakers. Surely that's why. Also, a tube amp has a lot of distortion, my amp is rated at less than 1% THD at full power. I would have to change this thing and also find very low distortion speakers, because as we know it is the worst of the whole chain... maybe electrostatic? Maybe then I could enjoy the virtues of a "modern" DAC chip!
https://headfonics.com/little-dot-dac-vii-review/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/distortion-in-loudspeakers.1297/
I was going to accuse Ken of derailing the thread with this particularly common incendiary device, but then realised that this thread was never really on rails to start with
usually when a thread swerves this way it has limited time to live but my concern over the whole black and white and nearly everyone is deluded by their mantra strawman is when it gets rolled out on a thread about DACs and is in fact talking about whole system performance (and has been pointed out by several that the system used may be flawed for the purposes of the test).
But I would love to see some examples of systems that are 'essentially perfect' but are uninteresting. Usually when you pull at the loose threads of comments like that you find engineering answers to the questions posed.
Then again I would note that I don't give much credence to the close in phase noise audibility argument. It's of course great fun as a DIY'er with the right tools to chase things down that far and that is a laudable goal, but I have never seen a coherent argument as to why it would be audible in a complete system.
My question wasn't about by whom. It was what criteria is used for judging the quality. Since you won't answer (I know why), it's the faithfulness of the reproduced sound to the original that determines the quality of reproduced sound, not some listener's personal preference.
I rather think that this question is rather easy to answer, being posed in polar opposite extremes, as it is. It just that it forces one to recognize the beliefs underlying their system building priorities. Perhaps, you feel that it is loaded because you are uncomfortable with the logical implications of your answer?
I’ll leave this as my final response, as I feel that we are not pointed towards a productive discussion.
I see the issue with being open to recognizing those measurements which tell you something is wrong with your circuit, then necessarily means that you are also checking a number of measurements in general, to also tell you what’s ‘right’ with your circuit.
My thought experiment is constructed only to help one recognize what truly is their primary system building objective/goal. I suggest that this, therefore, reflects a person’s primary objective/goal in a home audio system component selection. What it is that’s actually the primary source of their enjoyment or satisfaction in their system. This is bit of a controversial notion, I realize. Real world component selection, of course, is usually not an extreme binary endeavor. I’ve no doubt, that most objectivists also have emotional reactions to reproduced music, while most subjectivists also value decent technical specifications. So long as their primary objective is not compromised on much. The key differentiator, of whether an emotion, or instead an intellectual system building priority is what’s primarily valued becomes more apparent when a person is forced in to the binary choice presented by the thought experiment. Related to this, it seems to me, is that objectivist often intellectually presume that superior specifications, must provide a superior sounding reproduction. While I offer no authoritative answers on that, I do question the basis of that presumption. You get to have the last word.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.