A 2 dollars DAC can be indistinguishable from a 2000 dollars one

[indialogue]

Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Toms Hardware

A very interesting blindtest of different PC audio options at different price points - I read it mainly to see their methodology and how the Nwavguy O2 fared against the Benchmark 2

 

[arj]

Thanks for sharing this !
Am glad he used a headphone for the tests as that takes the room out of the equation and IMHO the best way to evaluate sources.
If were to poke holes a lot can be thought of but such if a dac costing 1000 times more cannot stand out obviously there is something very much to be said in the favor of the newer chips/designs coming out.

 

[theironhorse]

good one.....

 

[sound_cycle]

Audiophile PC Sound - The Real Cost of Hi-Fi - Toms Hardware

TFS !

ciao
gr

 

[hifiramr]

Great one really true findings

 

[Nikhil]

Having gone through this exercise personally over the past 6 months let me the first to say that this article is a bit ... short on the truth. Setting up a computer transport is anything but straight forward.

 

[koushik]

Having gone through this exercise personally over the past 6 months let me the first to say that this article is a bit ... short on the truth. Setting up a computer transport is anything but straight forward.

Absolutely. +1 to that.

 

[jls001]

Thanks for the link.

I appreciate the length they have gone to to make the test rigorous and unbiased.

One tiny problem, though - sample size of two is way too small.

 

[Santy]

I wonder if we can conclude that the $2 DAC is indistinguishable from others when 7 out of 8 times, it was identified so certainly.

Just copied all data and sorted in excel:
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (very certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (very certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (very certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (very certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (uncertain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (absolutely certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Realtek ALC889 (absolutely certain) Correct*
Realtek ALC889* Benchmark DAC2 HGC or JDS Labs O2+ODAC (uncertain) Not*Correct*

A good experiment, though not many will agree with the findings. The capability of the listener to distinguish the nuances of the music plays too big a role in such tests.

One interesting observation is the Daft Punk track seems to be ideal for gauging a system's capabilities as the DACs used were precisely identified each time when Get lucky was playing. Truly a groovy & mesmerising song.

 

[indialogue]

Having gone through this exercise personally over the past 6 months let me the first to say that this article is a bit ... short on the truth. Setting up a computer transport is anything but straight forward.

I agree with you slightly there, but the reason why I think this is still a relevant source for such a comparison is because Tom's Hardware does very rigorous testing of computer equipment - in fact, they and Anandtech can teach many AV magazines the ABCs of testing

Thanks for the link.

I appreciate the length they have gone to to make the test rigorous and unbiased.

One tiny problem, though - sample size of two is way too small.

I agree with you, but as the article says, the point they were trying to make was that on-board computer audio has progressed significantly and that IMO stands irrespective of the sample size.

I hope sites like Toms and Anandtech really get involved in computer audio - we need and deserve something better than Computer Audiophile and Part-time Audiophile

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Correction, right at the beginning --- but it is a widely held misunderstanding, even among audiophiles...

Hi-fi stands for high-fidelity. Specifically, the high fidelity of a reproduced audio signal compared to its original source.

Wrong.

Hi-fi stands for high-fidelity. Specifically, the high fidelity of a reproduced audio signal compared to the recording


(Now I'll read on to the interesting bits...)



~

 

[square_wave]

Four identical Hosa 10-foot TRS female-to-TRS male extension cables were used. For the O2+ODAC and Realtek ALC889 codec, which do not have TRS jacks, a Hosa TRS female-to-3.5 mm RCA male adapter was used. These are not exotic components; the cables are $7 each and the adapters are $3 each.

Here's an important question, though. Why use extension cables at all? Why not plug headphones directly into device jacks?

The reason has to do with our blind listening process. Extension cables essentially render interconnect noise the same (when the headphones are switched from one device to another) and require no moving around on the part of the test assistant performing the switch.

A question; Does introducing the cheap adapters and resultant interconnect noise mean adding something which will help everything sound the same ? He is also saying that all cables sound the same so does not matter !

 

[BLASTO]

"A 2 dollars DAC can be indistinguishable from a 2000 dollars one"

... To the deaf.

 

[greenhorn]

erm, the results and the conclusion don't seem to make sense. most of the time, they were able to spot the ALC 889, and then they find out it had lesser gain. Makes the whole thing flawed in my opinion.

If they're saying the realtek chip is good, the proof would be when I find someone implement it in a good DAC. their earlier offerings were atrocious

 

[cyber_cat]

I don't know about you guys, but I have to agree with the article. Actually, I wanted to post about this article.

I had recently brought an O2, this when paired with REALTEK sounds very good. Mind you I also have paired the following with O2: STX, C400, and CD7300. These obviously sound different since I have not gain matched them.

I was initially reluctant to pair the O2 with REALTEK but was surprised to find it sounding so good through O2. You will be wondering if it is the same sound card you have been listening to.

Also, there was a calibration error initially, and that was the reason the REALTEK was being identified so accurately. After it was gain matched, it was pretty indistinguishable. All those unmatched results are indicated by *.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Maybe I've got too used to reading hifi writers :lol:

I didn't find it easy to follow through the article and all the tests.

The only thing I can say about Realtech built-ins is that they (well, at least the [unknown model] one that I have, and same on previous PC) are vastly better than an ancient soundblaster (truly named) or the early built-ins. Things really have moved on since base-level computer audio was not really capable of more than saying "beep."

It's interesting to read the experience with the O2. I remain to be convinced that an ODAC or better is not going to beat a built in (but I'm a bit lazy to try ), but I am easily convinced that we should be more willing to give stuff a chance, even if it is only to know what we are upgrading from.

 

[kanwar]

Thad,

Your signature says everything......

 

[cyber_cat]

Let me add some fuel to the fire

https://teksyndicate.com/videos/aud...mp3-vs-flac-cables-sample-rates-tube-amps-etc

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Not allowed! This is a wooden block argument. Cables only got in because they sometimes get put on wooden blocks! File formats not allowed! :lol:

(and anyway, the whole MP3 test thing has become so unfair. With variable bit rate, it is quite possible that some music may be indistinguishable from uncompressed, and most people cannot tell 32kbs from uncompressed. But still, I'll take FLAC, please )

 

[Nikhil]

...
(and anyway, the whole MP3 test thing has become so unfair. With variable bit rate, it is quite possible that some music may be indistinguishable from uncompressed, and most people cannot tell 32kbs from uncompressed. But still, I'll take FLAC, please )

Bit Rate doesn't make much of a difference. Bit Depth does.
File formats like FLAC are used by many because they support tagging apart from the obvious compression features.