Myths in Digital Music...

[subhobh]

Found couple if interesting Myths in Digital Music. Well posting the link not to make the website popular but to distribute the facts.

Let me know your opinion on this.

Common Myths in Digital : LessLoss high end audio power cables, audiophile power cables, audiophile cables

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Is this a myth?

how about $1,000 power cables: mythical?

 

[spirovious]

The link says BB PCM1704 is the best DAC,even stereophile has an article-
Burr-Brown Breaks New DAC Ground with PCM1704 | Stereophile.com

 

[venkatcr]

The site is really funny. It talks about a reasonable cost and then sells a DAC for Euro 2995? It has been accepted that the DAC1 from Benchmark is technically the closest to perfection and that sell for less than 1500$.

This site, to me, seems to be pushing pure marketing gobbledygook to sell their own products.

And Spiro, the Stereophile article is dated 1998!! I am sure DAC circuitry has progressed quite a lot in the last 13 odd years.

Cheers

 

[spirovious]

And Spiro, the Stereophile article is dated 1998!! I am sure DAC circuitry has progressed quite a lot in the last 13 odd years.

Cheers

Yes,but price of this DAC(final)is still very high-
Jundac Two, High-End NOS DAC Kit with PCM1704 - eBay (item 130443837725 end time Feb-11-11 00:39:49 PST)

This one is OK(but chinese)
LITE Hi End Balanced CD DAC Processor,BB PCM1704/DAC-38 - eBay (item 290375496447 end time Feb-22-11 01:58:57 PST)

 

[spirovious]

There are few other as Budget DAC with PCM 1704-
PCM1704K 24-Bit 96KHz Balance DAC Module_USB DAC/DAC Kit_Analog Metric Limited - DIY Audio Kit
YULONG 1704 DAC [301] - US$520.00 : Hifi Diy--Amplifier,dac kits,hifi audio products and parts online shop, shipping to worldwide

 

[anm]

we need to invite actual users of these devices to the forum and hear them out.

 

[square_wave]

I do not think this manufacturer is any different from many out there. He just uses a different technique to market his gear

What is over priced and what is not is very subjective in hi fidelity gear. Other wise all audiophiles would be using the same Dac, Amp and so on. People hear differences with different gear hence buy different gear. Paper specs is just "one thing" in audio. How the paper specs is implemented and what are considered as important to be included in the list for the specs are aspects which are ignored many a times. What is "hidden" and "proprietary" in the design is sometimes even more important than what is published.

Saying that one particular "gear" is the benchmark for quality and price against which all others should be compared against is complete nonsense !

 

[anm]

when? how? Where did this happen? Who all accepted this? Do you mean it is the closest possible theoretically, or is closest comparing all the dacs of the world till date, but a future dac may come closure, or go beyond perfection (perfection as defined today).

It has been accepted that the DAC1 from Benchmark is technically the closest to perfection

 

[Shahrukh]

Humbug! "we don't advertise" they say. These guys are regulars ob Stereophile. What a load of bs.

 

[venkatcr]

when? how? Where did this happen? Who all accepted this? Do you mean it is the closest possible theoretically, or is closest comparing all the dacs of the world till date, but a future dac may come closure, or go beyond perfection (perfection as defined today).

When you start comparing DACs, you move into the subjective domain. So what some of the reviewers do is to measure the DAC output in terms of frequency response, channel separation, clock jitter and a host of other features. It is in these measurements that the DAC1 has consistently scored high marks. The same reviewers have also said that they do not like the sound of DAC1 - there is your subjectivity!!

All measurements always refer to products available today. What happens in the future - well at least we simple human beings have no idea of.

Cheers

 

[square_wave]

When you start comparing DACs, you move into the subjective domain. So what some of the reviewers do is to measure the DAC output in terms of frequency response, channel separation, clock jitter and a host of other features. It is in these measurements that the DAC1 has consistently scored high marks. The same reviewers have also said that they do not like the sound of DAC1 - there is your subjectivity!!

All measurements always refer to products available today. What happens in the future - well at least we simple human beings have no idea of.

Cheers

Without listening and subjective evaluation using the ears, what is the point of having or evaluating a DAC or any audio equipment ? We do listening to our music using our ears, don't we ? I cannot think of any other use for a DAC apart from listening.

 

[spirovious]

I got a link which has stated a mini comparison of chips used in well known DACs-
Heard the same DAC chips in different equipment? - Head-Fi.org Community

Second page of this link has following mini comparison(by member)-
"Here is how I would rate them sonically (I have heard them all in many different DAC's, both stock and modded):

PCM1704/DF1704 - [most musical, yet good detail. Very 3D. Best overall.

AD1853 - [ a bit analytical, not too smooth, excellent detail, very quiet.

CS4396/7 - [ very musical and smooth, not very detailed, somewhat noisy

AK4396 - [ extremely detailed and 3-D, but very analytical and cold sounding. Not musical IMO. I think it is because of the switched capacitor filters in the conversion.

TDA1545 - [ medium detailed, better than CS4396. Not 3D.

This is assuming that the power and board layout are optimum. Poor designs can compromise any of these."

 

[square_wave]

Even when it comes to design protocols, agreement about the pertinent measured parameters and chip choice there are no unanimous agreement among leading dac designers.

There you have subjectivity in the technical domain!

 

[spirovious]

This card has AK4396 & cheaper too-
AUDIOTRAK Prodigy HD2 ADVANCE DE Sound Card 2-Channel - eBay (item 120671639006 end time Feb-12-11 17:09:23 PST)

 

[square_wave]

I got a link which has stated a mini comparison of chips used in well known DACs-
Heard the same DAC chips in different equipment? - Head-Fi.org Community

Second page of this link has following mini comparison(by member)-
"Here is how I would rate them sonically (I have heard them all in many different DAC's, both stock and modded):

PCM1704/DF1704 - [most musical, yet good detail. Very 3D. Best overall.

AD1853 - [ a bit analytical, not too smooth, excellent detail, very quiet.

CS4396/7 - [ very musical and smooth, not very detailed, somewhat noisy

AK4396 - [ extremely detailed and 3-D, but very analytical and cold sounding. Not musical IMO. I think it is because of the switched capacitor filters in the conversion.

TDA1545 - [ medium detailed, better than CS4396. Not 3D.

This is assuming that the power and board layout are optimum. Poor designs can compromise any of these."

Interesting observations by the members of the headfi community.

This again points to the fact that the same DAC in different implementations will sound vastly different.

Last week I was having this chat with an Indian DAC implementer/designer who moved up from a well-known 5000$ dac to his own designs. He was talking endlessly about the implementation aspect of DACs and the importance of identifying the precise pertinent parameters" which needs attention in the designs depending on what one is looking for in the final sound.

Getting the right measurements is where a focused designer with a vision begins. The journey from there is long and tough. Sadly most audio equipment designed by college kids ends at measurements. This is where you separate the chaff from the wheat.

 

[venkatcr]

Without listening and subjective evaluation using the ears, what is the point of having or evaluating a DAC or any audio equipment ? We do listening to our music using our ears, don't we ? I cannot think of any other use for a DAC apart from listening.

A good evaluation is a combination of measurements as well as hearing.

This is a discussion that has been going on for ages here and in many other forums. ADC and DAC processes have been there from the day digital data processing was invented. Whether you agree to it or not, the fact remains that it is possible to measure quite well the accuracy of conversion both ways.

I do agree that the primary utility of an audio DAC us for listening. At the same time, if the DAC does not fulfill some minimal measurable norms, however good it sounds, it is not doing it's job properly. You can always say - 'So what? It sounds good and that is all I care'. In my mind a good designer should ensure basic norms should be met, and after that play around with the subjectivity of human hearing. The human ear has limitations, and the brain is even more limited in terms of interpreting what the ears are hearing. Unless you hear something new and better, you would not know what you have been missing all your life.

As I said, if a DAC has been measured as being good in conversion, it can be tuned to suit individual tastes. As a corollary, if a DAC has been measured as being good and has been set at a particular price bracket, any other DAC that is priced at 2x, 3x or more of that - I feel it is just snake oil. You have just half a dozen DAC chips to work with and these manufacturers specify the circuitry to build around the chip. You can only do so much with design elements (however much you disagree on measurements and measurement methodology). After that what you do is controlled more by what you want to charge your customers and how you justify that than anything else.

That is the point I was trying to make.

Cheers

 

[spirovious]

Its really a lot confusion when buying ideal DAC/setup(budget)without listening.

 

[square_wave]

At the same time, if the DAC does not fulfill some minimal measurable norms, however good it sounds, it is not doing it's job properly. You can always say - 'So what? It sounds good and that is all I care'. In my mind a good designer should ensure basic norms should be met, and after that play around with the subjectivity of human hearing.

I said;
Getting the right measurements is where a focused designer with a vision begins. The journey from there is long and tough. Sadly most audio equipment designed by college kids ends at measurements. This is where you separate the chaff from the wheat.

As a corollary, if a DAC has been measured as being good and has been set at a particular price bracket, any other DAC that is priced at 2x, 3x or more of that - I feel it is just snake oil.

I do not want to get into the price discussion because what is expensive for different folks is a very subjective thing. To know this you need to do a comparison of a DAC1 or something against a DCS or something of that caliber in a controlled listening environment. Unless you do that how can you say it is snake oil ? Have you done such a comparison? What associated gear did you use for such a comparison?

 

[malvai]

I do not want to get into the price discussion because what is expensive for different folks is a very subjective thing. To know this you need to do a comparison of a DAC1 or something against a DCS or something of that caliber in a controlled listening environment. Unless you do that how can you say it is snake oil ? Have you done such a comparison? What associated gear did you use for such a comparison?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct... we could diss a product as snake oil, or we could hear it for ourselves and then decide... while there is a whole lot of 'snake oil' out there and one must avoid it, one must also look, listen and judge before making blanket statements. especially on a forum of this calibre. There are a lot of people who read this and half truths can influence (wrongly) a lot of budding audiophiles.

I have a heard a lot of DAC's and I believe NO ONE can diss the DCS stuff as snake oil.

The DAC1 is mighty good product no doubt, and it would be even be quite accurate to say that the DCS is about 20x the price of the DAC1 and yet is not 20x better... but it commands respect for being clearly way better in its implementation. but one has to hear it for oneself. also, look at the tech sheets for both the products.