I posted quotes of your own words. Would you care to do the same when claiming that I wasn't able to?
Once again, you accuse some forum members of engaging in actions that don't exist outside of your own mind.
Do you think this type of exaggeration enhances the credibility of your observations? Years ago I won an iPod Nano as a door prize and loaded a favorite blues LP rip on to it and plugged my Sennheisers into it. Everything running off a coin cell and I would never call it "very poor" sound quality.
People around here buy things like:
Decoder Board ES9038Q2M I2S Input ES9038 Asynchronous USB Module(2* 5532 OP AMP) | eBay
Assembled ES9038 Q2M I2S DSD Optical + Coax Input Decoder Board / DAC L9-48 | eBay
ES9038 Q2M DAC decoder board IIS dsd fiber coaxial input 384k dop128+TFT display | eBay
And the people expect them to sound good because they have ES9038Q2M, a high quality dac chip. They even have 100Mhz clocks allowing playback of the best sounding sample rates!!!
And, yes, people believe they are buying something good at a discount because they buy it direct without a case and a power supply.
Those pieces of junk sound awful, Scott. Unlistenably bad, to me at least. I have a drawer full of them I buy so I can tell people what each one sounds like before they place an order.
Apple knows what they are doing. Ipod products are pretty good. Not junk. Not DAC-3 either, but definitely not junk. Okay?
It was a general logical statement using me as an example. IF 'one' has built many highest quality amps AND 'he/she' has good ears, THEN (instead of thinking that all great amps sound the same) he/she will find that it is impossible to get one amp that excels or the best at everything.
You can calm down now. Whatever is in my Samsung TV, Envy laptop, or my Scarlet 2i2 also do not qualify as bad IMO of course, I could listen to any of them all day.
EDIT - Through my headphones
Last edited:
Have you measured those to see what made them sound so bad?
Did someone claim that one amp can excel or the best at everything?
The question is, are those so poorly designed that they exhibit pathological behavior? It is possible. I'm not sure it's likely, but I will concede it's possible. Looks like Evenharmonics beat me to that question
. We'd have to see some measurements. That would be the only reason for them to be unlistenably bad. If they measure up to datasheet levels, then it's most likely inherent bias against cheap Chinese products. I admit I would never buy these because I don't like cobbled together systems consisting of a bunch of off-the-shelf PCBs connected via a mess of wires. I'd rather DIY it completely or buy something finished, but just personal preference.
Last edited:
Not every post is an objection to anyone's claim/post, but I have heard people claimed that all (well measured) amps sound the same. If so, it means my statement (one amp can be best at several aspects of quality but not all) was wrong.
Understood. They are listenable for casual listening purposes, but don't stand up to closer scrutiny from my listening perspective. Most people probably wouldn't notice or care, IME.
I now believe Earl Geddes may have been right about the 95% thing. I used to believe a greater percentage of people could hear small aberrations in sound reproduction (at a conscious level), but I have reluctantly come to doubt it. I do think we probably have more than a random share of five percent'ers (or whatever the actual number is) here at diyaudio. Many or most appear to be looking for better sound quality on a limited or even very limited budget (I have poor people in India for example, trying to make better dacs, and I am trying to help them diy it). Unfortunately, most of the people here wanting better sound quality don't understand enough about electronics to know how to figure out what is actually causing their small-ish but audible (to some) SQ problems. There are a few real engineers around here willing to help constructively, but not enough, and most seem to have the good sense to avoid Blowtorch. I should probably try harder to ignore the bait myself, but the intolerance for perceptive listeners can be hard to let stand.
Anyway, I'm am feeling better today now recovering from what was likely a little food poisoning. Even better, I have been told I should have an AK4499 board here in about a week
We will see if it happens on time or not.I would say they are carefully designed to meet a low price point, and to look good with pictures and claims that can help persuade buyers who can't compare by listening first.
Most of the Chinese ES9038Q2M boards use a voltage mode output stage design that they all copy. It only takes one dual opamp instead of usual three. Those that use three opamps usually do something else bad, like implement a poorly filtered SMPS that produces ugly audible artifacts. They all use cheap very piezoelectric bypass caps, cheap everything. But, they use a good quality dac chip!
There is another, better class of Chinese dac boards besides the ones I linked to. They are also carefully designed, but to a higher price point, maybe a $150 or a little less. It is common for people around diyaudio to buy one and fix it up to sound better with some better parts, put it in a case, and sell it close to home in Eastern Europe where people don't have better options they can afford. Some of the people doing that are actually pretty knowledgeable, they aren't just stupid like some here seem to assume.
Does anyone anywhere? We are talking about the 5% that can hear the differences I presume? No need to jump all over what I'm saying with pedantry.
Mark4, I'm running an Ebay CM6631A/ES9023 fully built board and the pcb and components and assembly is first class, no different to 'major' manufacturers.
With some of my kind of tweaking it sounds good, especially good, dead clean, dead clear and very nicely musical and without any hardness, bloom or embellishments.
What complaints do you have with subjective sound of ESS DAC's ?.
Dan.
With some of my kind of tweaking it sounds good, especially good, dead clean, dead clear and very nicely musical and without any hardness, bloom or embellishments.
What complaints do you have with subjective sound of ESS DAC's ?.
Dan.
Last edited:
I’m sure it does sound good. Nothing wrong with the CM6631A or the ES9023. The more integrated parts like the 9023 are probably harder to mess up.
To those around here who believe there is some sort of consensus on sound quality across devices or topologies - please take note that Max very much likes what some around here have scoffed at and would consider a mid-fi or worse converter chip - sigma delta voltage out, low power, built in ASRC, short filters, integrated charge pump. Might even have some 8-legs in the box. How could that be? I thought digital, negative feedback, and switching power supplies are the devil according to some prominent posters on this thread?
Last edited:
In stock implementations it to my ears lacks dynamics, particularly in the bass. Higher frequencies seem to me to be less than pristine clean. Could be expectation bias though as I know the OPS is fed from a charge pump which won't exactly have low impedance. What tweaks have you implemented?
Bonsai,
Been at a trade show for most of the week so a bit late responding to your issue of what measurement to use to see why the amplifiers are perceived differently.
Folks do like to use multitone testing and then look between the test signal at the change in noise floor. As it is low frequencies that tend to mask higher frequencies a slightly different look may be of interest to you.
Try a 190 hertz four or more pole (or synthesized equivalent) pink noise source very slowly swept n level as the test signal. Then look below 10 hertz for what appears as the change in 1/f noise. I think that may show you inteedting results.
I used to have a nice test file for the source but am pretty sure I lost it in a crash. I suspect many of the folks here can quickly produce a test file.
Scott,
As usual the closest to a transparent circuit would be the cordwood style of construction and even that isn't completely transparent. (Gotcha!)
Now at the show there were two bits of interest. One was the Community showed a moderately large horn driven by four compression drivers. Using DSP they could change the vertical pattern. Very useful in the pro world to get the exact coverage required without feeding the reverberant field monster.
The other was the leading concert loudspeaker folks have sufficiently automated the tuning process so that all of their loudspeaker systems match and follow their design intent. That includes level vs frequency variations of tenish dB. Smile curves still sell well!
Pretty much a the major pro manufacturers had demonstration rooms where they played music through their systems. Now the really bad systems of course were played the loudest. Most of the demonstration systems made it to adequate. In pro use uniform coverage is a major issue. Many demonstrations were in monaural! Although some folks are now producing acoustic space simulation surround systems.
Other interesting bit was the video displays. LED panel displays now make projected ones look about as modern as a 16mm black and white movie projector. Screen to screen matching was for some displays so good even on swirling color wheels I could see no seams.
Been at a trade show for most of the week so a bit late responding to your issue of what measurement to use to see why the amplifiers are perceived differently.
Folks do like to use multitone testing and then look between the test signal at the change in noise floor. As it is low frequencies that tend to mask higher frequencies a slightly different look may be of interest to you.
Try a 190 hertz four or more pole (or synthesized equivalent) pink noise source very slowly swept n level as the test signal. Then look below 10 hertz for what appears as the change in 1/f noise. I think that may show you inteedting results.
I used to have a nice test file for the source but am pretty sure I lost it in a crash. I suspect many of the folks here can quickly produce a test file.
Scott,
As usual the closest to a transparent circuit would be the cordwood style of construction and even that isn't completely transparent. (Gotcha!)
Now at the show there were two bits of interest. One was the Community showed a moderately large horn driven by four compression drivers. Using DSP they could change the vertical pattern. Very useful in the pro world to get the exact coverage required without feeding the reverberant field monster.
The other was the leading concert loudspeaker folks have sufficiently automated the tuning process so that all of their loudspeaker systems match and follow their design intent. That includes level vs frequency variations of tenish dB. Smile curves still sell well!
Pretty much a the major pro manufacturers had demonstration rooms where they played music through their systems. Now the really bad systems of course were played the loudest. Most of the demonstration systems made it to adequate. In pro use uniform coverage is a major issue. Many demonstrations were in monaural! Although some folks are now producing acoustic space simulation surround systems.
Other interesting bit was the video displays. LED panel displays now make projected ones look about as modern as a 16mm black and white movie projector. Screen to screen matching was for some displays so good even on swirling color wheels I could see no seams.
Fair enough Mark. To all intents and purposes he said words to the effect of words to the effect of what I said
You are mistaken; there is a profound difference between "can't be measured" and "wasn't measured" or "wasn't examined" .
Regarding the "emotional response issue" , unfortunately I don't understand what you're asking for, please rephrase.
Semantics, hardly profound. The inference is clear to most.
I don't understand, can you state which part of the issue you don't understand?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.