Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/te.../a-sound-syste
m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp -------- By ROY FURCHGOTT Chances are, your sound system isn¹t very good at math. It would sound a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can. You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But digital music ‹ CDs or MP3s on a music player ‹ stores only bits of information taken at intervals along those sound waves. Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well the system turns digital dots back into the original wave. That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) ‹ and here is a little secret of the audio industry ‹ to keep prices down, manufacturers often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math. But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more as if it were live, and it doesn¹t take any soldering. Just plug an undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector cable.) It does better math to make better sound. --------------- The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs. Comments? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
Port119 wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/te.../a-sound-syste m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp -------- By ROY FURCHGOTT Chances are, your sound system isn't very good at math. It would sound a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can. You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But digital music -- CDs or MP3s on a music player -- stores only bits of information taken at intervals along those sound waves. Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well the system turns digital dots back into the original wave. That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) -- and here is a little secret of the audio industry -- to keep prices down, manufacturers often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math. But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more as if it were live, and it doesn't take any soldering. Just plug an undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector cable.) It does better math to make better sound. --------------- The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs. Comments? Whatever article you're quoting is oversimplified at best and fallacious at worst. Put simply and accurately, most all DACs, whether they're installed in a $50 CD player, or in an outboard processor purchased as a separate component, contain "computer chip" or I.C. digital to analog converters - often the same ones*. So telling people that they can improve their sound simply by buying some nebulous stand-alone outboard DAC, is an absolutely worthless piece of advice. * There are stand-alone DACs that don't use off-the-shelf IC converter chips (notably, MSB and dCS) but these DACs are not the kind of thing that a reader of articles like this one would be likely to buy. They cost as much as a fairly decent car. The MSB DAC-IV, for instance can cost more than $40K when properly configured. Any stand-alone DAC box that most of us can afford would likely use the same (or very similar) IC converters as do the CD player player converter that they're circumventing. The only IC converter that seems to stand head and shoulders, above the Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments, Wolfson, Analog Devices, AKM, etc chips is the 32-bit, so-called "SabreDAC" from ESS. Most of these IC DAC chips are very similar and most of them are pretty cheap. Mass production and large-scale integration sees to that. Some DAC-box makers build their own DACs out of discrete components, and while that methodology might seem counterintuitive (In theory, it's easier to make a more consistent product with an IC because you build one that has the specs you want, and then like a cookie-cutter you replicate it thousands of times. Barring any errors in processing the wafers, each individual chip on that wafer should be like every other chip on that wafer), the fact is that there is some variation even in individual IC chips and discrete-component DACs can be more tightly controlled. Of course, you pay dearly for that. Some semiconductor companies "bin" their chips. That is to say, that they test each chip using automated testing equipment and separate the chips with the best specs from the rest. There may be several bins for these finished chips. Those that excel in some parameters, those that come out a little better than the original spec for that part, those that equal the spec, and some that are below spec, but still work acceptably. Then of course, some chips fail completely and they are discarded. The chips that excel are usually priced higher than those that test merely adequate, and some of the better DAC makers (like Weiss, for instance) might buy those. But believe me, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference by listening. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
ScottW wrote: On Sep 13, 8:30�m, Port119 wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/te.../a-sound-syste m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp -------- By ROY FURCHGOTT Chances are, your sound system isn¹t very good at math. It would sound a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can. You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But digital music €¹ CDs or MP3s on a music player €¹ stores only bits of information taken at intervals along those sound waves. Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well the system turns digital dots back into the original wave. That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) €¹ and here is a little secret of the audio industry €¹ to keep prices down, manufacturers often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math. But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more as if it were live, and it doesn¹t take any soldering. Just plug an undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector cable.) It does better math to make better sound. --------------- The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs. Comments? Whats the range of the cost of DAC chips in manufacturing quantities of 1000? I'm guessing from as little as .25 to maybe $5. Here's an article claiming the price of DAC chips matter. http://www.pcworld.com/article/18672..._dacmagic.html "There are a wide range of DAC chips, ranging from very low-cost to very expensive. At the low end, a DAC chip may be used in a cheap PC soundcard or throw-away MP3 player. At the high end, expensive DAC chips are found inside top-of-the-line CD players, amps, and other devices. For a DAC chip, price does matter. The DacMagic is a standalone device that lets you bypass the built-in DAC chip in a computer or digital streaming device, using top-quality DAC chips (two Wolfson WM8740 24bit DACs in dual differential mode) that upsample the digital stream to provide output that you then connect to an amplifier or amplified speakers. (The DacMagic doesn't amplify the output, so you can't use it directly with headphones or un- amplified speakers.)" I checked the price of the Wolfson chips from Newark....$3.57 ea from 1 to 5000. (no price break for qty). So the idea that DAC manufacturers can save much money by scrimping on the DAC chip is hogwash and has no significant impact on the market price of high end DACs where the markup from BOM cost to retail price is where all the consumer cost is. ScottW You are correct about the price of most DAC chips in the quantities that manufacturers are likely to buy. But, there are exceptions. The last time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so! That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo, dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many DAC boxes cost retail! Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not. It does result in a more expensive product, however. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , The last time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so! Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit performance. That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo, dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many DAC boxes cost retail! The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling already. Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not. It does result in a more expensive product, however. Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986: Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) .....and repeated thousands of tine since then. The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-) |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , The only IC converter that seems to stand head and shoulders, above the Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments, Wolfson, Analog Devices, AKM, etc chips is the 32-bit, so-called "SabreDAC" from ESS. I would say not so much. The SabreDAC has 8 converters in it, and so they hook 4 of them up in parallel to get an approximate 6 dB dynamic range improvement\ on the noise performance of the basic chip from the 2 doublings of the number of DACs in parallel. There is nothing new about this, people have been doing this for decades. The individual DACs in the Sabre chip are not all that wonderful as compared to the best chips from say Burr Brown. http://www.stereophile.com/ces2008/011008ess/ (Note, the above is a 4 year old article) "It can provide eight channels of high-quaity surround sound or two channels of exceptionally high quality stereo sound. "Each time you double-up the channels, you drop S/N," Mallinson said. "So you gain a 6dB drop in noise running this in stereo mode, giving us a measured 134dB dynamic range, -118dB THD from 44.1kHz to 192kHz sample rates." So right up front, there is a big disparity in performance because while the noise performance is OK (but still 10 dB off of true 24 bit performance -144 dB ), the spurious responses are 16 dB worse. Compare that to the Burr Brown PCM 1794 (one chip dynamic range 132 dB using only 2 converters in parallel) @ $15 each. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , The last time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so! Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit performance. While true, it's irrelevant. ESS calls it a 32-bit DAC, and since that's how they describe that particular product, that's what I refer to it as. And while you are right again that it STILL only has 24-bits of resolution, other so-called "24-bit" DACs struggle to give 18 or 19 bits of actual resolution, so the SabreDAC is still ahead of the game. That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo, dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many DAC boxes cost retail! The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling already. Yes, it's mostly a marketing ploy to "justify" ridiculously high prices. I mean seven to more than forty-thousand dollars for a stand-alone DAC is obscene. They have to justify such prices somehow. Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not. It does result in a more expensive product, however. Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986: Well if their conclusion was that all digital to analog converters sound the same, they're wrong. Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Well, that explains everything! Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer. I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200 amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader. ....and repeated thousands of tine since then. The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-) Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were back in Stereo Review''s heyday). |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , The last time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so! Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit performance. While true, it's irrelevant. ESS calls it a 32-bit DAC, and since that's how they describe that particular product, that's what I refer to it as. And while you are right again that it STILL only has 24-bits of resolution, other so-called "24-bit" DACs struggle to give 18 or 19 bits of actual resolution, so the SabreDAC is still ahead of the game. That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo, dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many DAC boxes cost retail! The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling already. Yes, it's mostly a marketing ploy to "justify" ridiculously high prices. I mean seven to more than forty-thousand dollars for a stand-alone DAC is obscene. They have to justify such prices somehow. Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not. It does result in a more expensive product, however. Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986: Well if their conclusion was that all digital to analog converters sound the same, they're wrong. Of course it wasn't. I'm unsure why this extraneous comment was even made. Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Well, that explains everything! Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer. I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200 amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader. The report had nothing to do with Julian Hirsch. It would seem that the fact that the article's authors were someone else would be a big tip-off. ....and repeated thousands of tine since then. The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-) Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were back in Stereo Review''s heyday). Again, nobody is saying that all CD players sound the same. However there appear to be many seem to be unable to do proper listening tests. They publish accounts that feature listening evaluations done of different players, different days, different listening levels, different media, different associated components, and different rooms. Bias controls = null. Of course they find that everything sounds different. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Audio_Empire" wrote in message ... In article , The last time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so! Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit performance. While true, it's irrelevant. ESS calls it a 32-bit DAC, and since that's how they describe that particular product, that's what I refer to it as. And while you are right again that it STILL only has 24-bits of resolution, other so-called "24-bit" DACs struggle to give 18 or 19 bits of actual resolution, so the SabreDAC is still ahead of the game. That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo, dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many DAC boxes cost retail! The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling already. Yes, it's mostly a marketing ploy to "justify" ridiculously high prices. I mean seven to more than forty-thousand dollars for a stand-alone DAC is obscene. They have to justify such prices somehow. Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not. It does result in a more expensive product, however. Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986: Well if their conclusion was that all digital to analog converters sound the same, they're wrong. Of course it wasn't. I'm unsure why this extraneous comment was even made. Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986) Well, that explains everything! Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer. I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200 amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader. The report had nothing to do with Julian Hirsch. It would seem that the fact that the article's authors were someone else would be a big tip-off. You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was self-serving to the magazine's advertisers. Frankly, you'd likely be telling ME that very same thing were I were to quote an SR or H-F article (or even a Stereophile or TAS article for that matter). Really the only articles that can be taken seriously are peer reviewed articles published in the JAES. Even then, some of those are suspect. ....and repeated thousands of tine since then. The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-) Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were back in Stereo Review''s heyday). Again, nobody is saying that all CD players sound the same. Are you trying to say that the Ian Masters and D.L. Clark article titled "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V! However there appear to be many seem to be unable to do proper listening tests. They publish accounts that feature listening evaluations done of different players, different days, different listening levels, different media, different associated components, and different rooms. Bias controls = null. Of course they find that everything sounds different. While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to question). |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
Audio_Empire wrote:
While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to question). I seem to remember that the last time you claimed this you were challenged and your response was were there any statistics to back this up? There are. I don't know what the statistical results actually are - we weren't told. We were just told the tallied results. I didn't run the tests, and don't personally know the people who did. I was invited to attend by a friend. I do know what MY results were (and ostensibly the results of other 11 people who participated). The controls on that test seem to have been hopeless; it was thought remarkable that the listeners agreed about their preferences, but they weren't separated during the tests. We don't even know if the levels were properly matched. I don't suppose you have any results since then? I'll repeat what lots of others have said he differences between hi-fi audio DACs (that haven't been screwed up in some way) are at the threshold of hearing or some way below it. Any claim that it is possible to tell the difference between such DACs requires well-conducted tests, preferably conducted by a disinterested third party rather than a hi-fi seller. Andrew. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:46:29 PM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was self-serving to the magazine's advertisers. I think you haven't got a clue about either SR or its advertisers. Do you really think the makers of amps liked it when Hirsch said they all sound the same? Are you trying to say that the Ian Masters and D.L. Clark article titled "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V! This is cluelessness squared. In fact, Masters and Clark did not so conclude. Which says you are dead wrong about SR's editorial POV. While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to question). No, they aren't. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable. This is such a commonplace that it can be found in college textbooks, for heaven's sake. bob |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to question). I seem to remember that the last time you claimed this you were challenged and your response was were there any statistics to back this up? There are. I don't know what the statistical results actually are - we weren't told. We were just told the tallied results. I didn't run the tests, and don't personally know the people who did. I was invited to attend by a friend. I do know what MY results were (and ostensibly the results of other 11 people who participated). The controls on that test seem to have been hopeless; it was thought remarkable that the listeners agreed about their preferences, but they weren't separated during the tests. We don't even know if the levels were properly matched. I don't suppose you have any results since then? I'll repeat what lots of others have said he differences between hi-fi audio DACs (that haven't been screwed up in some way) are at the threshold of hearing or some way below it. Any claim that it is possible to tell the difference between such DACs requires well-conducted tests, preferably conducted by a disinterested third party rather than a hi-fi seller. Andrew. I'm glad you brought this up. I wasn't talking about any specific test, above, but the one to which I was privy certainly seemed to me at the time to be a decent example. It was carefully performed (so it seemed to my observations). Levels were set using a test-tone CD and both an AVM and an SPL meter, so they were closely matched. But as for the statistics. As I said, I wasn't told. We were merely told the results of each "heat" between pairs of DACs and then the overall winner was announced. The interesting part was that the 12 assembled listeners were not just asked to tell if they could hear any differences, but which one they preferred. Of course, if no differences were heard, then there could be no preference, then could there? DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and without any of us knowing how the other was "voting". In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held in Germany, where no differences were heard. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
Audio_Empire wrote:
DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and without any of us knowing how the other was "voting". How come? Were you physically separated? In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held in Germany, where no differences were heard. I don't want to labour a point, but if this is true, then scientific knowledge about thresholds of hearing and maybe even the physiology of the ear is itself wrong. The distortion products of high-quality audio DACs are so low that they are at or below the threshold of hearing in silence; they certainly would be masked by the rest of the signal. I greatly regret that these people testing audio DACs don't get together with hearing researchers to overturn completely current theories about the working of the ear. I suspect, however, that these researchers would point out what the audio enthusiasts are doing wrong. Andrew. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:57:01 AM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article , bob wrote: No, they aren't. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable. Now you are contradicting yourself. In one statement you say that they all sound the same, in the next you say that there are exceptions to that "rule." Clearly if they all sounded the same there wouldn't be any exceptions. This is inexcusable. I have not said anywhere that all DACs sound the same. (Once upon a time, you would have been required to quote the post in which I'd said such a thing. It would have saved you some embarrassment.) Or is it that you do not understand the difference between "an overwhelming number" and "all"? snip In college textbooks it MIGHT be, but it's wrong. Ah, I see. The experts who study and measure the thresholds of human hearing are wrong, and you, whoever you are, are right. Yeah. Like we're going to take seriously the word of someone who can't present a single shred of published evidence that DACs are routinely distinguishable. bob |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
In article ,
Andrew Haley wrote: Audio_Empire wrote: DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and without any of us knowing how the other was "voting". How come? Were you physically separated? No. we were marking paper forms and were encouraged not to look at anyone else's paper. In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held in Germany, where no differences were heard. I don't want to labour a point, but if this is true, then scientific knowledge about thresholds of hearing and maybe even the physiology of the ear is itself wrong. The distortion products of high-quality audio DACs are so low that they are at or below the threshold of hearing in silence; they certainly would be masked by the rest of the signal. I suggest that something else is happening. I don't know what it is. it could be different amounts of jitter in different DAC brands. Could be quantization error, could be poor vs good error correction, etc. I don't claim to know. I greatly regret that these people testing audio DACs don't get together with hearing researchers to overturn completely current theories about the working of the ear. I suspect, however, that these researchers would point out what the audio enthusiasts are doing wrong. While it's possible, It would seem to me that once levels are matched to less than a DB or so, there's not much "wrong" that a correctly set-up DBT or ABX test can do. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
New concert hall | Pro Audio | |||
Why do most opera/concert DVD's sound like shit on my system? | High End Audio | |||
America has a great new concert hall | Audio Opinions | |||
America has a great new concert hall | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Yamaha A2 "Concert Hall" DSP Programs | General |