DAC importance
- Thread starter punprankster
- Start date
I only use them to make an educated guess as to the direction I may need to go for my end goal.
onanysunday
Listen carefully
Specs are there to move product and give engineers a job and something to 'work towards to'. There is unquenchable need to constantly innovate and progress. This is great! It's just that the trajectory they've taken is over-reliant on the numbers game. If this is the case, we could engineer the world's most advanced miniature DAC the size of a pinhead using nanotechnology and it would have the best specs of any DAC before it which would make it the one and only DAC worth listening to any more. To me that is very limiting. In the sense that we are all following a trend that newer is better, not just in audio but in our daily lives as well like someone has decided what should be the best for all of us and went ahead with that line of pursuit.
That is what I am finding with the M8A I have. But I also see why some people like it. It doesn't sound bad to me its just meh
onanysunday
Listen carefully
My satisfaction comes from working with old DACs found in vintage CD players to make them sound as warm and creamy smooth as the best vinyl I've ever heard.
There a lot of times especially when refurbished with the highest quality passive components, that an old DAC can breathe new life into old equipment- making it compete very favorably and often times better than modern alternatives.
There a lot of times especially when refurbished with the highest quality passive components, that an old DAC can breathe new life into old equipment- making it compete very favorably and often times better than modern alternatives.
onanysunday
Listen carefully
For instance, whoever decided that oversampling for CD players was "necessary" and a good idea? My ears tell me the older players with only 2X or 4X oversampling (in general) sound superior to their 8X and 16X equivalents.
This is is exactly what I mean. Someone, somewhere, took an idea and ran with it. At this point we don't even really question why that decision was made for all of us so long ago. We just assumed that since it's newer and has better specs it must be better.
This is is exactly what I mean. Someone, somewhere, took an idea and ran with it. At this point we don't even really question why that decision was made for all of us so long ago. We just assumed that since it's newer and has better specs it must be better.
onanysunday
Listen carefully
That 'meh' you describe is precisely what I try and avoid with the newer audio technologies. It is advanced (no doubt) but also often times the end result is surprisingly uninspired, fatiguing over long listening periods and/or non-engaging.That is what I am finding with the M8A I have. But I also see why some people like it. It doesn't sound bad to me its just meh
The less filtering and processing of an audio signal, the more 'truth' it yields. I look at the oversampling bit and all the additional filters in the modern CD players as a way to make most of the recordings sound similarly as good most of the time, consistently, in effect standardizing them to sound more similar in performance to one another.
I may be in the minority, but I'd prefer to have the least amount of digital filtering and processing of the audio signal as possible to be able to hear the difference for instance between a very good mastering and an average one. I can live with these differences, in fact I look forward to them.
Perfectly reasonable statements and a clear distinction between a truth claim (different oversampling rate in CD players affects output sound quality) and personal preference.
To evaluate the truth claim, one must know the quantitative operational differences between lightly OSd, heavily OSd, and NOS players. How do the various levels of OS and/or associated filtering techniques affect output signal fidelity, noise, transient response, etc. The personal preference statement (my ears tell me ... sound superior) is distinct from, independent of, and largely irrelevant to evaluating the truth claim. That said, your subjective impressions can and often do yield areas in which to delve into the specs and component operation to make a technical appraisal.
IMHO at this point its being over thought
Edit: I was a big time numbers chaser in the 80's, 90's thru mid 2000's. Finally got over myself and just
onanysunday
Listen carefully
I tell you I've refurbished and upgraded dozens of high-end vintage cd players and have worked intimately with the technology. It has always been and will always be just about the sound. I may be an evil-doer, but I have absolutely no hesitation tweaking things around to make them sound as best to my ears as possible without using any specialized test equipment. Is there any distortion in there? Probably. I've only recently begun to appreciate the 'evil' distortion.
That's what the GC said about all the engineers scratching their heads about "going off the paper" in moving the FIU bridge into position. What's the problem? C'mon, we got a schedule to make.
Pays to know your stuff and to think things through.
I meant this thread
onanysunday
Listen carefully
Call me a heathen and burn me at the stake, but let's take a CD laser assembly. Likely, it's going to be set at the most stable sound the laser can achieve. At the same time, does this mean it can sound any better through adjustment? Possibly, but only after marking the pot first so you can revert, and only if done ever so slightly, we are talking fractions of a millimeter here. Also, decreasing the 'gain' on a pot is generally safer than increasing it for longevity's sake.
Do you have an 80's CD player that is edgy bright and intolerable? Crack open that puppy and back off the FG or Focus Gain pot just a hair and suddenly the sound smoothes out and is not so bright, harsh, heavy and edgy. Technically it will be out of spec, but your ears will thank you for it.
Regarding the newer DACs and audio processing / filtering, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the audio signal is so heavily processed that in many instances it is broken apart, "scrubbed" for lack of a better term, and then re-integrated back together to achieve a sound similar to, but different than the original recording; I don't Need and/or want this.
Do you have an 80's CD player that is edgy bright and intolerable? Crack open that puppy and back off the FG or Focus Gain pot just a hair and suddenly the sound smoothes out and is not so bright, harsh, heavy and edgy. Technically it will be out of spec, but your ears will thank you for it.
Regarding the newer DACs and audio processing / filtering, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the audio signal is so heavily processed that in many instances it is broken apart, "scrubbed" for lack of a better term, and then re-integrated back together to achieve a sound similar to, but different than the original recording; I don't Need and/or want this.
I am mostly in your corner. I haven’t dug to deep into the new stuff after spending 23yrs working on sound processing equipment I am mostly over going that deep in the tress with digital stuff. But I have heard too much great sounding new stuff to generalize and say it makes it that different if at all.
At the end of the day play your music on what you like.
onanysunday
Listen carefully
We've gotten to a point where digital is probably 'mature technology' by now and has the sound you're after if you've got the coin. I'm a cheap bastard and relegated to mostly "consumer-level" finds, most of which are dime a dozen and sound the exact same unless you're lucky enough to find that diamond in the rough that everyone else has overlooked that is just too old to have any right to sound as good as it does.
I have heard a few of my friends really good older CD players improve going thru mid range DACs. Was the improvement enough for the $$ put out 
. That’s subjective, some where, some not so much. I would need to ask about the specifics as far was models and what not.
I can tell you that having professionally been a tech on sound processing recording gear for 23yrs everytime we got newer it did improve our capiblites, sometimes greatly sometimes not much but it was always an improvement. But that was not comsumer grade electronics.
. That’s subjective, some where, some not so much. I would need to ask about the specifics as far was models and what not.I can tell you that having professionally been a tech on sound processing recording gear for 23yrs everytime we got newer it did improve our capiblites, sometimes greatly sometimes not much but it was always an improvement. But that was not comsumer grade electronics.
I have been reading posts here at AK and elsewhere off and on for the last 2 weeks. Like many here, I am of a certain age and getting back into audio due to my older (retired) brother bugging me to get into tube amps and expensive Sennheiser headphones. Now I am getting serious about rehab of my 43 year old stereo, Pioneer, Advent, Dual and Shure components to play vinyl. All my reading has reminded me of how hard I chased "high fidelity" in the 1970s. Back then I spent the first tax refund my wife got (she was silly enough to marry me before I got out of college) on the gear, including a Phase Linear model 100, to get rid of record noise.
Back then there was always "something" that was better. That hasn't changed.
But, the engineers need to remind themselves that the "machine" that ultimately matters has 2 ears and several billion processing neurons. And everyone needs to reacquaint themselves with how often human beings can be proven incorrect when they participate in double blind experiments concerning what they think they "know." Sight, taste and SOUND are the culmination of human perception. Humans fool themselves into thinking ... if I pay more for it, it must be better. Confirmation bias means a payer of a higher a high price will convince themselves "I can hear the improvement." This is also true in the following form: if _________ has a more linear sound wave reproduction relative to signal I will be able to pick it out over something less linear.
I last read serious psychology papers many years ago, but I am very confident human perception hasn't changed much in that time-span.
Of course specs are important, objective measurements are very useful information, why else would I have spent weeks reading here?
Take what is useful to you from the numbers. And to those who think they can distinguish between good and bad by gut and ear, better think again, because you too have biases and will be "fooled" if you have to make choices in an experimental setting that requires you to pick a winner unseen. I bet you.
CRein980
Back then there was always "something" that was better. That hasn't changed.
But, the engineers need to remind themselves that the "machine" that ultimately matters has 2 ears and several billion processing neurons. And everyone needs to reacquaint themselves with how often human beings can be proven incorrect when they participate in double blind experiments concerning what they think they "know." Sight, taste and SOUND are the culmination of human perception. Humans fool themselves into thinking ... if I pay more for it, it must be better. Confirmation bias means a payer of a higher a high price will convince themselves "I can hear the improvement." This is also true in the following form: if _________ has a more linear sound wave reproduction relative to signal I will be able to pick it out over something less linear.
I last read serious psychology papers many years ago, but I am very confident human perception hasn't changed much in that time-span.
Of course specs are important, objective measurements are very useful information, why else would I have spent weeks reading here?
Take what is useful to you from the numbers. And to those who think they can distinguish between good and bad by gut and ear, better think again, because you too have biases and will be "fooled" if you have to make choices in an experimental setting that requires you to pick a winner unseen. I bet you.
CRein980
RGA
Super Member
One of the fun thing about Audio as a hobby is seeing all the various camps be it Solid State versus Tube or Analog versus digital or Push Pull Tube versus Single Ended Triode or narrow baffle versus wide baffle or horns versus electrostatic to dynamic drivers.
So it had to eventually come to RedBook CD via upsampling VS oversampling to Non-Oversampling/Upsampling.
All of the above is worthless poo. Why? Because most companies actually have hired university degree holding engineers who will make various scientific claims that whatever approach they employ is the one that yields the best sound. And these engineers can go right down to the parts level arguing why they use a C-Core transformer over an EI Transformer over a Torroid transformer. Or to the Capacitors chosen.
The best way and the hardest way is to listen to gear without any preconceived judgments about the technology. If you say "that can't sound good" because you read some article that said "that can't sound good" then you have a preconceived bias if you should ever happen upon listening to the gear.
Most everyone does this to some degree. I met a Magnepan lover who refused to listen to a boxed speaker I liked - and we were both in the dealer - he simply could have taken 8 steps and listened to 1 minuted - NOPE all boxed speakers suck compared to Magnepan. Yes they certainly do if you never try any.
And we draw conclusions over time. I grew up on CD and Solid State so tubes and vinyl have absolutely ZERO nostalgia factor. And I am not into fiddling with gear so again vinyl and tubes hold negative value attraction for me because I don't like fiddling with turntables and I detest dealing with tubes. Now they both lead my system.
And of all the various CD players, DACs that I have experienced from dedicated computers and transports playing the highest bit recordings and SACD and DVD Audio before that - I am constantly amused that the very best CD players playing Redbook CD sound the best and from Non Oversampling, no jitter reduction, no error correction CD players and DACs.
I do like the idea of the blind or double blind listening session because there is a bias against older technology like this and yet when blind - it usually always gets chosen - same for no/low feedback tube amps.
So it had to eventually come to RedBook CD via upsampling VS oversampling to Non-Oversampling/Upsampling.
All of the above is worthless poo. Why? Because most companies actually have hired university degree holding engineers who will make various scientific claims that whatever approach they employ is the one that yields the best sound. And these engineers can go right down to the parts level arguing why they use a C-Core transformer over an EI Transformer over a Torroid transformer. Or to the Capacitors chosen.
The best way and the hardest way is to listen to gear without any preconceived judgments about the technology. If you say "that can't sound good" because you read some article that said "that can't sound good" then you have a preconceived bias if you should ever happen upon listening to the gear.
Most everyone does this to some degree. I met a Magnepan lover who refused to listen to a boxed speaker I liked - and we were both in the dealer - he simply could have taken 8 steps and listened to 1 minuted - NOPE all boxed speakers suck compared to Magnepan. Yes they certainly do if you never try any.
And we draw conclusions over time. I grew up on CD and Solid State so tubes and vinyl have absolutely ZERO nostalgia factor. And I am not into fiddling with gear so again vinyl and tubes hold negative value attraction for me because I don't like fiddling with turntables and I detest dealing with tubes. Now they both lead my system.
And of all the various CD players, DACs that I have experienced from dedicated computers and transports playing the highest bit recordings and SACD and DVD Audio before that - I am constantly amused that the very best CD players playing Redbook CD sound the best and from Non Oversampling, no jitter reduction, no error correction CD players and DACs.
I do like the idea of the blind or double blind listening session because there is a bias against older technology like this and yet when blind - it usually always gets chosen - same for no/low feedback tube amps.
