You can only get out what is on the CD. Room acoustics are important of course to hear what you get out, but no DAC will do more than retrieve the signal on the CD or digital file. If it does, then it is a coloration.
You keep saying there are dynamic noise effects, but don't provide much detail. There are DACs with noise modulation issues, but I don't get the idea that is what you have in mind.
The paper is talking about RF circuits. While there are some commonalities I don't know those issues with phase noise are pertinent to audio.
These things have been discussed before, but here goes again. Every dac needs two analog reference signals: (1) a voltage reference, and (2) a time reference.
In the frequency domain the reference signals are convolved with the audio signal. Noise on the voltage reference is amplitude noise; noise in the time reference is phase noise (and yes, its RF). If there is noise on either reference it becomes intermodulated with the audio signal. There are also noise sidebands produced as part of the intermodulation process. Amplitude noise on the voltage reference and phase noise on the time reference are now embedded as part of the audio signal.
Say, for example, the audio signal consists of a large amplitude signal with some low level details signals riding on the large signal. Noise that has now become embedded in the large audio signal may blot out and obscure the low level audio signals that were riding on the large signal. The noise sidebands from many large level audio signals at once (an orchestra playing loud, for example), may spray all over the audio band covering low level frequencies far from the loud level signals.
Dac chip manufacturers know all about these kinds of effects, and there are some common techniques for measuring some effects. Other effects are harder to measure. Since there is no fix for some of these things and since an AP analyzer can't measure them quantitatively, the dac manufacturers think there is nothing to be gained by admitting that such problems exist. Their business is to sell dac chips today. They will tout the measurements that will help sell more chips. Nobody feels obligated to tell you about shortcomings of their products. They need to sell stuff, not tell you why you shouldn't buy their stuff.
The noise products, BTW, are not really noise. They are complex constantly changing intermodulation products, but they look like spectral line noise skirts on a very hi res FFT (because their power is spread over multiple bins in the time it takes to acquire and FFT), so we loosely refer to them as noise.
If I got any of the above wrong, maybe @MarcelvdG can chime in and correct me.
Last edited:
That's a problem isn't it, since the effects hard to measure? We're still working on that as the previously attached paper showed
So is the correct response to pretend none of it exists and ignore it?
I would say not, since it is in some way distorting the sound of all the dacs you have.
Seems to me like there are two choices: (1) ignore it for now and wait a decade or two to see how consumer dacs continue to advance over time, or (2) with some time, effort, and money, build a better dac than you can buy today in the consumer market. It might cost you $1k-$2.5k or so for a diy dac that might cost $10k -$20, or more to buy now in the high end commercial market. Bruno Putzeys sells his pretty similar dacs for around $12k. He does a few things differently, but they are DSD dacs using sigma-delta PWM modulation (the latter feature our present modulator doesn't have, although we can use the one in HQ Player).
So is the correct response to pretend none of it exists and ignore it?
I would say not, since it is in some way distorting the sound of all the dacs you have.
Seems to me like there are two choices: (1) ignore it for now and wait a decade or two to see how consumer dacs continue to advance over time, or (2) with some time, effort, and money, build a better dac than you can buy today in the consumer market. It might cost you $1k-$2.5k or so for a diy dac that might cost $10k -$20, or more to buy now in the high end commercial market. Bruno Putzeys sells his pretty similar dacs for around $12k. He does a few things differently, but they are DSD dacs using sigma-delta PWM modulation (the latter feature our present modulator doesn't have, although we can use the one in HQ Player).
Last edited:
Yes, let’s feed both outputs to a differential amplifier and verify the results is null or well below the auditory threshold, by at least 1 order of magnitude.
If that is met, would you say they sound the same?
I am trying to clarify if the claim is that no instrument whatsoever can prove this.
If one use a DAC which is very sensitive to clocks of course clocks matter. If you have a DAC that isn't, clocks don't matter that much. Some are too worked up on their own particular situation and gospel their circumstances which isn't valid for others. Some thinks they hear more than others - this can safely be ignored - you yourself is the arbiter - the preachers are very often very vocal and wants followers - like a cult (an other one) - they thrive on thinking that they are a top most insightful dog in audio - one that knows and hear more that others - and will come up with lots of strange mystical aspects in order to keep their wanted position. Their game is to always claim there is a difference - between everything - it makes them special - they like to be special.
Be sure that it is possible to build a stellar system, surely as good as any DSD DAC, with DACs based on e.g. AKM chips. It comes around a lot of what one is listening to - is it acoustically recorded music or artificial studio recordings - the latter can only sound nice but never claim to be "correct" - the former has a chance to be true to the original acoustical event on the right system. If you visit acoustical musical events, you know when it's right.
I think there are differences between DACs - if a pair these might measure the same - whatever that means - is unclear - and will probably never be sorted out. Because there is always a little difference....
//
Be sure that it is possible to build a stellar system, surely as good as any DSD DAC, with DACs based on e.g. AKM chips. It comes around a lot of what one is listening to - is it acoustically recorded music or artificial studio recordings - the latter can only sound nice but never claim to be "correct" - the former has a chance to be true to the original acoustical event on the right system. If you visit acoustical musical events, you know when it's right.
I think there are differences between DACs - if a pair these might measure the same - whatever that means - is unclear - and will probably never be sorted out. Because there is always a little difference....
//
Nothing top secret about my dac. I have presented it quite thoroughly at DAC gallery. Even given details to people asking about it in PMs.
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/dac-gallery.166807/post-7761366
Regarding the sound stage only thing I can say is that soundwise it is not different from RTZ dac. Noise skirts are quite a bit lower indeed.
Attachments
So they sound the same but measure differently? That seems to answer the thread title/question:"Can DACs sound different if they both measure well?"
🙂
🙂
I was referring to sound stage only. But yes, I have stated earlier that audible differences between well measuring dacs are quite small. And if I can't reliably identify them in ABx then I should not claim preferences based on sound either. But preference may come from other properties such as versatility, size, price, ease of implementation or even measurements.
And to add: I consider my RTZ to be a well measuring dac as well.
And to add: I consider my RTZ to be a well measuring dac as well.
Tried to keep up with that one but I almost drowned in the fragmented information, versions, suggestions and possibilities. How it was, how it is, how it should be, how it could be and how it can be. A bit like the nonoiser, dienoiser, denoiser thread where no head and tail seem to exist.
Probably all well meant and a fine device if one picks out the correct information but not appealing to read at all and no additional supportive pictures either.
Probably all well meant and a fine device if one picks out the correct information but not appealing to read at all and no additional supportive pictures either.
Last edited:
Thanks!
Mine has a similar spec, so that gives me some ammunition against upgrading!
I like to buy at the level I understand to be “just good enough”.
I’d love to hear an outstanding DAC on my system just out of curiosity!
Jeff.
I thought I've answered that already in the post you quoted. Not same but differences are quite small if RTZ is fed with a good modulator (e.g. HQPlayer instead of PCM2DSD). But I can't justify using HQPlayer due to HW requirements and cost.
Same as in there may be differences but reliably identifying them in AB with random music would be difficult.
But I'm not talking about ES9039Q2M in general as it is quite possible to make different sounding dacs based on it.
But I'm not talking about ES9039Q2M in general as it is quite possible to make different sounding dacs based on it.
The D50III which is around $200 would be the end of the story then.
Best measured 9039q2m DAC.
Best measured 9039q2m DAC.
I should think that any residual signal indicates some relatively gross test methodology error, such as signal level or FR differences. Less gross, but still easily measurable, would be signal distortion (harmonic, IM) differences. As far as ‘noise’, however, what appears to be inconsequential residual noise may not, in fact be, perceptually inconsequential. A DAC’s noise floor is complex, incorporating both analog circuit noise, DSM noise-shaping, and dithered digital quantization noise, but also correlated noise such as from jitter, and quantizer slew-rate limiting.
Maybe even more intriguing than measuring the residual, you could also listen to the output of the differential amplifier via a pair of quality headphones to see whether whatever residual signal/noise remains is audible, or not. IIRC, David Hafler used to perform such a comparison with his Transnova power amplifier, back in the day. I’m not familiar enough with the testing methodology, and its faults, to agree that it would prove whether two similar components sound exactly the same. I concede that, logically, it seems like it could, though.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.