I know DACs can sound different - I noticed an improvement from the Oppo 103 to the 105, it was pretty major too. I attribute this improvement to the DACs used only.
I Can Hear The Difference Between Some DACs
- Thread starter markshan
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Itās making sure both audio programs are playing at the same level, so comparisons can be done fairly.
Soundfield
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
DACs have to be kept physically level otherwise all of the ones (which are heavier than the zeros of course) will accumulate at one end of the box. You will find a spirit level and a theodolite invaluable in ameliorating this condition.
For claiming audible DAC difference, either you have measurements showing a difference large enough that it is likely to be audible, or you have listening test results where you carefully used:
level matching
controls for sighted bias
If so, you have a strong case to make, from a scientific POV.
Everything else is h.......earsay.
level matching
controls for sighted bias
If so, you have a strong case to make, from a scientific POV.
Everything else is h.......earsay.
And, of course the analog aficionados will prefer this good ole' Zeiss theodolite:
While the digital people will rather opt for this one:
I agree with ssully. In all honesty, I have to say I am actually quite surprised that this thread hasn't been deleted as yet, like the discussion on cables that was completely expunged, for inexplicable reasons to me.
From the folk's observations above, I can see why they are "hearing" differences in DAC. Amongst the cases though, I think very few are actually legitimate differences in the DAC and not attributable to differences in levels, biases, hidden agendas etc.
That said, while I havent much experience tinkering with HTPC/desktop PC internal sound cards, I can see a potential for bigger differences in the sound from these sound cards. The PC chassis can be an exceedingly variable and harsh/electrically noisy environment. It is also difficult to refute every case due to the possibilities that some might be different especailly when comparing old versus new equipment. Some of the olders DACs may simply have not performed very well or possibly the same same system is not performing as well as when new. Most of our is commercial grade after all.
What I am going to say might be a bit blunt and hurt certain people's sensibilities, but the truth is sometimes cold and hard.
If an external DAC or system measures flat across the frequency response ( which is not hard to do at all ), has an SNR in the 100 dB + range ( heck I might even argue far lower numbers) I fail to see how any differences are anything other than imagination or one of the other causes mentioned before. For that matter, the distortion levels on even the best high end headphones , let alone loud speakers are orders of magnitude higher than the DACs. Their goes your system's SNR/THD/Crosstalk !
Having worked and dealt with engineers that actually design ADC/DACs, I can say this: Electrical engineers who actually design these ADC/DAC ICs focus on electrically relatable properties like frequency response, SNR, SFDR, SINAD, pass band ripple/variation etc. They couldn't care less about any of these bull shit audiophile terms (warm, airy analog, or whatever) that you hear from the purveyor of "high end" equipment and magazines.
From the folk's observations above, I can see why they are "hearing" differences in DAC. Amongst the cases though, I think very few are actually legitimate differences in the DAC and not attributable to differences in levels, biases, hidden agendas etc.
That said, while I havent much experience tinkering with HTPC/desktop PC internal sound cards, I can see a potential for bigger differences in the sound from these sound cards. The PC chassis can be an exceedingly variable and harsh/electrically noisy environment. It is also difficult to refute every case due to the possibilities that some might be different especailly when comparing old versus new equipment. Some of the olders DACs may simply have not performed very well or possibly the same same system is not performing as well as when new. Most of our is commercial grade after all.
What I am going to say might be a bit blunt and hurt certain people's sensibilities, but the truth is sometimes cold and hard.
If an external DAC or system measures flat across the frequency response ( which is not hard to do at all ), has an SNR in the 100 dB + range ( heck I might even argue far lower numbers) I fail to see how any differences are anything other than imagination or one of the other causes mentioned before. For that matter, the distortion levels on even the best high end headphones , let alone loud speakers are orders of magnitude higher than the DACs. Their goes your system's SNR/THD/Crosstalk !
Having worked and dealt with engineers that actually design ADC/DACs, I can say this: Electrical engineers who actually design these ADC/DAC ICs focus on electrically relatable properties like frequency response, SNR, SFDR, SINAD, pass band ripple/variation etc. They couldn't care less about any of these bull shit audiophile terms (warm, airy analog, or whatever) that you hear from the purveyor of "high end" equipment and magazines.
Last edited:
One more thing to say before I shut up. I am seeing newer DACs touting 32 bits etc They are useful for internal computations, but at the end in reality it is impossible to actually get anything more than 22 or so effective bits due to thermal noise, unless you want to cool it way way down
. Ok now 
. Ok now
1) I would like someone to speculate as to why SACD sounds much better when played through my Oppo 205 than my circa 2006 Marantz DV9600. (The latter which has two transformers would cost $2600 in today's dollars, so it was by no means cheap.) The difference is not subtle. It was so brutally obvious that it wasn't even necessary to A/B the units. If it's not the DAC's then is it the transport, the laser, other electronics?
2) If a person does indeed prefer DAC "A" to DAC "B," is it possible that the builders have incorporated tweaks somewhere in the electronics chain that give a certain sound to their product?
Why do we need to speculate for (1)? The likeliest reasons have already been given. They do not include 'the transport, the laser'. As for (2), that hypothetical manufacturer isn't interested in high fidelity/transparency. But in any case, any such 'tweak' , and certainly one that produced a 'brutally obvious' difference, would show up in measurements of output. Which takes us back to the two ways of really demonstrating audible difference: measurements, and/or controlled listening comparisons (ideally both, because A. we can easily measure differences that are inaudible, and B. if a difference is audible in a listening test, measurements can tell us what's causing it).
I could speculate a few reasons, assuming it is not one of the things already mentioned earlier ( I would need proof to be convinced otherwise, but lets go along, just in case it is true)
Before I start,
I have no experience what the aforesaid Marantz measures like especially with SACD/DSD (or otherwise), it could very well be different. Please let's not have another "I can hear the difference in transports " thread
.1) You are dealing with an older piece of equipment. It is possible, it doesn't perform as it did brand new due to long term aging. Something in the output stage may well be off.
2) You specifically mentioned SACD, it could be that their is something off in the DSD to PCM translation process Marantz or their ADC vendor does. Do you find the same difference when listening to a CD or DVD-A ? If the difference is only noticeable with SACDs, I would highly suspect something along this chain.
3) If Marantz is claiming certain audiophile sound qualities (warm or airy or whatever) perhaps their equipment doesn't actually measure flat across the band ?
Could you possibly provide more details on how you thought they were different ? Was one more noisy ?
To answer your second question:
The builder's could do whatever they want at the end of the chain, but at the end of the day, if that output is what you are measuring /comparing, then the same physics/measurements/rules apply. A flat frequency response is a flat frequency response. Sure if you add filtering to roll off highs or accentuate lows, then the measurements will show it, far more effectively than our ears can hear it.( most certainly mine, no golden ears here)
.
To answer your questions:
Highly unlikely because I don't detect the same difference between the Oppo 205 and the Marantz DV9600 when listening to CD or DVD-A. (See 2 below.)
I don't find the same difference when listening to CD. For CD, it's six-and-one-half-dozen the other as to my preference between the Oppo and the Marantz.
With regard to DVD-A, I actually prefer the Marantz. My reference track is Hotel California DVD-A. During the first minute of that track, the highs sound more realistic and smoother on the Marantz while they are a bit more emphasized and analytical on the Oppo. Having used the beginning of that track for reference a gazillion times, I could tell the difference between the Oppo and Marantz immediately.
The obvious difference between the Marantz and the Oppo is on stereo SACD playback. The Oppo has more definition in the high end, and the high end is also cleaner. My reference disc for this test is the SHM SACD Dire Straits. Prior to getting the Oppo, I thought that a stereo SACD was no better than a well mastered CD. So much so that I sold off several of my stereo SACDs, which I now regret doing.
When it comes to 5.1 SACD, the units sound very much alike. Unlike SACD or DVD-A, there are no obvious differences. (My processor has two sets of 5.1 inputs, so I can level match and do an A/B comparison.) In one of the reviews of the Marantz DV9600 (which of course I can no longer find), the reviewer stated that he preferred stereo SACD played through the unit's 5.1 outputs rather than the stereo outputs. So, perhaps the Marantz incorporates some filtering for those stereo outputs?
So in summary, the two units pan out this way:
- Redbook CD: Tie
- Stereo SACD: Oppo 205
- 5.1 SACD: Tie
- DVD-A: Marantz DV9600
You know, there are so many variables involved in these jack-of-all-trades universal players that there must be something other than the DACs that contribute to what we are hearing. No?
Anyway, the Marantz goes out of multichannel service within the next two weeks when that second set of 5.1 inputs gets allocated to the new Surround Master.
Highly unlikely because I don't detect the same difference between the Oppo 205 and the Marantz DV9600 when listening to CD or DVD-A. (See 2 below.)
I don't find the same difference when listening to CD. For CD, it's six-and-one-half-dozen the other as to my preference between the Oppo and the Marantz.
With regard to DVD-A, I actually prefer the Marantz. My reference track is Hotel California DVD-A. During the first minute of that track, the highs sound more realistic and smoother on the Marantz while they are a bit more emphasized and analytical on the Oppo. Having used the beginning of that track for reference a gazillion times, I could tell the difference between the Oppo and Marantz immediately.
The obvious difference between the Marantz and the Oppo is on stereo SACD playback. The Oppo has more definition in the high end, and the high end is also cleaner. My reference disc for this test is the SHM SACD Dire Straits. Prior to getting the Oppo, I thought that a stereo SACD was no better than a well mastered CD. So much so that I sold off several of my stereo SACDs, which I now regret doing.
When it comes to 5.1 SACD, the units sound very much alike. Unlike SACD or DVD-A, there are no obvious differences. (My processor has two sets of 5.1 inputs, so I can level match and do an A/B comparison.) In one of the reviews of the Marantz DV9600 (which of course I can no longer find), the reviewer stated that he preferred stereo SACD played through the unit's 5.1 outputs rather than the stereo outputs. So, perhaps the Marantz incorporates some filtering for those stereo outputs?
So in summary, the two units pan out this way:
- Redbook CD: Tie
- Stereo SACD: Oppo 205
- 5.1 SACD: Tie
- DVD-A: Marantz DV9600
You know, there are so many variables involved in these jack-of-all-trades universal players that there must be something other than the DACs that contribute to what we are hearing. No?
Anyway, the Marantz goes out of multichannel service within the next two weeks when that second set of 5.1 inputs gets allocated to the new Surround Master.
Very true. The DAC itself is only one part of the puzzle. After that is the line level analog circuits than the DAC feeds.
I have also heard differences in DACs. Several years ago my pre/pro was a B&K reference 30. Also in the system was a 5 disc Marantz CD changer with digital coax out (I still have that unit in storage) and an Oppo BDP-80 SE (which is still my main BR player). I initially used the DAC in the B&K (a Motorola based device) for CD playback from the Marantz, but I could also choose to use the Marantz's standard analog outs into the analog section of the B&K. The Oppo used its internal DAC and analog output into the B&K.
One day while checking something on the system I noticed that the Marantz was significantly brighter when using its integrated analog outputs than when I fed its digital signal to the B&K to decode. This was not a subtle, need to strain to hear kind of difference. In fact it was pretty obvious. Thinking I must have had something set wrong, I started to investigate it further. With all EQ and bass management defeated, and levels matched by ear as closely as I could manage (the B&K allowed presets to be saved which included volume level), the difference was still there and easy to spot. With the same CD playing in the Marantz, I could instantly A/B the digital and analog output streams through the B&K by selecting the proper preset. The B&K DAC was rolled off (in comparison to both the Marantz and Oppo analog outputs). It sounded dull and less detailed. The difference between the Marantz and Oppo were much less noticeable, and were of the type that I had to strain to hear. The Oppo sounded a bit better in terms of openness. (to determine this I had to set both machines up to play identical CDs with identical masterings).
So was the difference in the B&K DAC? (remember, once the signal is beyond the DAC, it is the same analog preamp being used in the B&K). Was it something different in the post analog circuits of the Marantz? I guess I cant really say. My suspicion is that it was the DAC itself. From then on, I never used the internal DAC of the B&K again.
markshan
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
So every piece of electronic equipment sounds the same as every other piece. That makes life easy. Thanks.
markshan
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Yes. This. It happens all the time. Manufacturers sell a certain tonal character. How it is achieved is on them.
Last edited:
markshan
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Are you using analog outs for the stereo but HDMI for the surround?
Stereo: Analog outs for both decks. No bass management or speaker distances set in either deck. Input on the processor set for "Analog Bypass" so no possible influence whatsoever from the processor's DACs.
Surround: Analog outs for both decks. No bass management or speaker distances set in either deck. Input on the processor set for "5.1 Standard" with speaker distances established but no bass management or any sort of EQ.
You guys persist in offering evidence gathered by highly flawed methods, no matter how many times it's explained why they are flawed. And then you jump to dubious conclusions.
Sighted A/B : inherently flawed
Level matching 'by ear": not sufficient
Sighted A/B : inherently flawed
Level matching 'by ear": not sufficient
That's not what he wrote.
Not surprised, though. Such willful misreading/strawman is typical of subjectivist 'argument'.
Last edited:
Sorry dude... say what you will about the method, but what I heard was not a difference that was as simple as a level mismatch or a sighted AB comparison. It wasn't anywhere near that close.
So, you believe everything manufacturers claim in their sales pitches. That makes life easy for them, and you. Congrats.
See, I can do it too!
Similar threads
