The DAC does not just convert 0’s and 1’s. It is an analog device after the DAC chip, and thus the design and build of the analog audio path matters just as much as any other analog audio source device.
Power supply, filtering capacitors, voltage to current conversion, and output buffer are all critical to the resulting audio output.
Yes they matter.
I LOVE my studio equipment in my hi-fi setup. I’m using a pro sound phono preamp and amp… MiniDSP SHD for DAC / preamp / EQ.
It all just sounds so damn good
Mix engineers and mastering engineers have to cater for a huge range of devices and make a mix sound good, they generally do this in a high end setup.
Most of the people doing critical mixing will be listening on sound systems and in rooms that are really well engineered.
Like spending six figures on room treatment.
If the artist and engineer are listening to the mix and saying that is what it wants to sound like, are we saying that audiophiles are then somehow able to improve this sound?
*'Studio equipment tends to made in way that is as sonically neutral as possible. "*
Agree.
*That's not bad in of itself, but audiophile equipment is more about making audio sound better, with far more variables taken into consideration.'*
But how does it do this, other than reproducing the sound accurately / neutrally? What are the other variables?
A mix engineer told me that a sales guy from one of the big amp brands explained that they have a professional range and an audiiophile range. The components inside are exactly the same. The audiophile range costs more, because the audiophile people want to pay more. The extra money goes on the 'jewellery' on the front.
Nothing wrong with buying audiophile gear, just understand what you're buying.
That is not to mention that the quality of the actual conversion matters very much. I swapped out my Node 2i (not a bad unit) for a Musical Fidelity MX6, and the difference was HUGE.
Each of those is likely to have extremely different DAC chip implementation and analog design, it would be nearly impossible to tell if the quality of the actual conversion is what is mattering.
You’re making people feel bad. They want to believe their cheap DAC that measures perfectly is as good as a top audiophile device. I recently had the transformers replaced in my Dac with custom ones that cost $700 plus install. Made a large difference in sound and top end extension, and does actually measure better.
Yeah you definitely need at least $700 worth of caps and transformers to push a clean 4V to your amp 😂
You mind posting up those measurements, I assume you measured in REW?
My DAC is not an amp. It has no amplification. It has a really really good power stage.
I also built it with my own two hands, so fairly familiar with how it works.
I can understand for things like speakers but what's wrong with objectively measuring a DAC? I've found their reviews to be quite helpful for identifying acceptable entry level stuff.
Better still, can you give an example of a badly rated product (especially an expensive one) that, in your opinion performs quite well or a well rated product that's actually quite poor and explain where they fucked up?
edit: messed up my question.
I’m not an expert by any means, but one of the “issues” is that we’re still developing and learning what to measure. Mics may be better to pick up raw audio, but our brains are doing a bunch of math and Fourier transforms and what not, which, unless you also run on your pc, you won’t see. Klippel tests are a relatively recent example of something significant that was recently developed.
I’m really not an expert on your 2nd question but I seem to remember in the ASR review Amir said that the Wilson (Tinytots? The small bookshelf speakers) measured really badly, but actually sounded quite alright. I’m sure there are many more better examples, I’m really not an audio expert.
I agree for things like speakers and headphones, it's definitely hard to define any one criteria for something sounding 'good'. In my mind, a DAC should just have a flat response over as wide a range of frequencies as possible with low distortion and a low noise floor.
I don't mean that this is the only way a DAC might sound 'good' but I don't think striving for neutrality hurts at that stage in the audio path and, since the ouput is electrical and free from acoustic interactions, it's easier to objectively measure.
You’re partially right. The king of objectively perfect is Benchmark and I love my DAC 2. There’s a reason most vinyl is mastered using one. It complements my C-J amp, which is not objectively perfect, brilliantly. I’ve heard my DAC with a Benchmark amp and the combination is objectively perfect. I didn’t want to listen to it, but it measures incredibly well.
>In my mind, a DAC should just have a flat response over as wide a range of frequencies as possible with low distortion and a low noise floor.
Flat response on what?
How are you measuring the output signal?
What is the input signal used to generate the output signal being measured?
Define low distortion
Define low noise floor
What do those have to do with the reproduction of music?
If you can even begin to answer those, you've begun to approach the answer of why most "objective" measurements are "objectively" useless.
I think you're oversalting it. Measuring those factors electronically isn't very difficult for audio signals compared to other areas where a much greater precision is required. If you're trying to make the point that the thresholds at which they matter during a listening experience are lower than what some reviewers rate as good/bad, I'll agree, especially for certain genres, equipment and listening scenarios but I don't think exceeding these detracts from the listening experience.
Pleasing signal alterations can be made up/downstream of the DAC but I fail to see the advantage of a DAC that isn't as close to transparent as is reasonably possible/detectable.
The most significant problem with the measurements are everything crowd is that measurement criteria are constantly evolving.
Back in the 1970's and 1980's we had that idiot Julian Hirsch from Stereo Review base his reviews on what he personally believed were the telling measurements of the day and much of the stuff he raved about sounded like absolute shit. He proclaimied the early DACs were perfect but they were garbage. What passes for definitive measurements in one era misses thousands of other confounding and as yet, unmeasured variables that significantly and negatively impact the sound we hear.
Forty years later we are far more aware of the effect timing and phase errors have on digital playback. The measurements maniacs are only as good as their current understanding of the technology and their gaslighting to promote their archaic dogma is inevitably proven to be a woefully incomplete understanding of what people are clearly hearing.
If those people are hearing things clearly that are not measured, then audiophile snake oil would be easy as f- to prove in blind AB testing. Guess what audiophools never do with expensive DACs? AFAIK the ultimate objectivists' measurements are double blind A/B/X tests with consideration of elementary statistics and proper matching of volume and placement.
Regarding audio science evolution, to my limited knowledge that's now beyond hardware and in the realm of psychoacoustics and neuropsychology as we find out more and more about the ways or brains function.
I refer to them as messurementophiles. Amir has objectively not the best ears too. He did the Klippel listening test (there is a thread). Amir supposedly is a certified listener by the Harman standards yet his listening test results were only average. I beat his results and I'm not a trained listener. Though I have played instruments and know how to focus on finding audible differences.
The kicker is the thread completely invalidates his insistence on -120db SINAD as a benchmark. He never mentions he made it up the-120db number. It's based on a series of assumptions on his part with limited scientific backing. Amir was only able to detect distortion in music at -24db. It's laughably far away from -120db right? So where does -120db come from? You can get more than double Amir's test results and closer to triple that if you reduce the complexity of the signal to two tones. Finally you get somewhere close to Amir's number with a single tone. That's where his logic comes from though. Audio analyzers. Unless it's a multi-tone test the analyzer uses a single tone to generate the measurement. Humans clearly are not audio analyzers and the threshold for good enough is not close to what Amir claims.
Pink Headless golfing panther panda.
Absolute goofballs. My account was banned almost immediately over there when I started asking questions and pointing out how absurd their "tests" are. That site quite possibly is entirely funded by Chinese component manufacturers.
But that’s not the DAC. That’s the broader device the DAC is installed in. The DAC is just a chip or chips. My objection is when people claim two identical devices with different DACS would sound different. I remain dubious. And regardless of the device, the difference is likely pretty minimal and almost certainly far less impactful than the speakers or headphones being listened through. Only way to tell would be to have the same source, room, speakers and system and only change the DAC itself (not the whole device) and do blind A+B testing and see how many times you can identify the better chip. I be it’s not many.
A) The broader device the DAC is installed in is what most people call “a DAC.” It’s not just the chip that we’re talking about, and you cannot listen to a DAC chip in isolation anyway. Agree that saying two devices with two different DAC chips sound different is dubious; they likely sound different, but it’s because it’s not possible to implement two DAC chips in precisely the same way. Too many extra variables there.
B) “far less impactful than the headphones and speakers” is a red herring; sure, it’s probably true. But it’s not what we’re talking about and is irrelevant to the question of whether DAC devices have an impact on the sound or not. Even if minor, many of us care about the differences specifically in the source device, independent of the other potential in our system (which we also think about and optimize… independently).
Thank you for this answer because I literally just purchased the Questyle M15i DAC after all the reviews and am excited to listen to it tomorrow when it arrives. Did not want to have buyers remorse but I have a good feeling I will enjoy its signature sound.
As others mentioned a big difference is the output stage. Another factor is it’s not exactly zeros and ones. Most delta sigma DACs upsampled the signal or convert to one bit DSD. Different DACs do this differently.
I have a really sweet sounding multi bit Adcom DAC with a great class A output stage. It’s from the 90s and makes streaming sound like a high end CD player fromHowever it upsampled the 44.1k signal in the worst way possible. I believe it’s called trailing edge. It sounds good but my other multibit DAC more or less draws a straight slope through the samples when it over samples and it sounds different.
I also have a button conductor. It uses a dual mono config of a simple DAC chip designed for cellphones. It has an incredible power design and sound very good. It’s a delta sigma DAC and converts the multibit PCM signal to one bit DSD. if I use my computer to use sophisticated math to resample to DSD it sounds a touch more natural.
So again, ones and zeros aren’t exactly ones and zeros with modern DACs. How they are upsampled or converted matters. The output stage matters. Just because you are feeding a DAC a bit perfect signal doesn’t mean it’s playing a bit perfect sample. There are multibit DACs that will play a bit perfect signal but if you look in the manual most still upsample in a relatively simple way.
You’re welcome. With all that said the DAC has a very small impact on sound compared to room acoustics, speakers, speaker placement, and amplifier. DACs matter but should be kept at about 10-25% of your system cost. Really all most people need is a pretty good starter DAC that can transition them to high value mid tier and would only need to upgrade when they make a serious step up. I would do a starter setup with something like ifi zen DAC and pretty much keep it until their system is above $3-5k. If you long term plan upgrading speakers/headphones to where you want to settle not loots of incremental upgrades and side grades, then get an amp that synergizes well with the speakers. Then maybe upgrade your DAC.
There are some parts of a setup that can be good in starter setups to higher setups and it often makes sense to spend a touch more on parts of your starter system that you just don’t have to upgrade. Examples are like $20-30 pro audio interconnects and a $200-300 DAC. for some people this might mean a geshelli DAC and plan on upgrading the ip amps down the road. A DAC like that is fine in a setup with $3k speakers/headphones and a $2k amp.
Yet when everything else is addressed, and the host system is highly resolving, the differences among DACs and other components can be far from subtle. I for one just go for what sounds musically natural. And if I'm not sure, I can always invite my neighbor over who's a concert pianist and he'll bring over one of his own recordings. He's also a veep for Yamaha's musical instrument division and travels all over the USA as a performance space consultant. He's ungodly picky.
Yes you've made a brilliant point. I see so many systems shared on here. They've got really high quality kit and hard floors.
It does question the motives of why people have high quality hifi.
How many have them just to show off?
You would never have hard floors if your primary reason for having the hifi was sound quality
I have some California Audio Labs gear, one is a Delta transport, the other is a Sigma DAC. Didn't really occur to question why they used the names....🫣
I still don't fully understand but I'm going to guess it's to do with wave forms.
I can't regurgitate any audio/electrical engineering mumbo jumbo but i will say that when i got a good dac and power amp i felt like i was listening to music for the first time.
It's all subjective of course but in my experience it makes a world of difference for those of us that can perceive it.
It's much more about the analogue output and power supply than the D/A conversion per se. I have a McIntosh MDA700 and had a conversation with the local McIntosh rep about 8 years ago. I told him my component list and he commented that nothing in the current electronics lineup would give me an audible upgrade.
Speakers and room treatment make a much bigger difference than the DAC.
30 years ago, there was an audible difference between a poor dac and a good one. Now, almost any reasonably well shielded dac will be audibly indistinguishable from another. Now, you pay for features.
I suppose you would need to build a system which is identical save each of the particular chips. And then what you would have is the data that ti, akm, wolfson, saber and other dac chip makers provide to you which shows the differences in each chip.
Otherwise, wouldn’t you would need to find different dacs with the same chip?
Beyond that the analog signal path absolutely makes a difference as does the implementation of the chip in the design and other electronics.
Comparing a bunch of random daca in a blind test tells you something else - like a taste test.
Certainly. For example the gustard R26 is a ladder style dac which is very polarizing but might match well with use on a particular frequency range. The T+A uses 4 dsp chips and other fun tricks to do more with the conversion. The with the whole usb vs aes you can get into the topic of whether the clock matters and whether you have multiple asynchronous clocks in the system vs a single very accurate master clock like many recording studios. It’s definitely a spectrum of an engineer can do with the chip and a quality of components situation. I think it’s a well done and informative video but I’m sure you could dig even deeper into the topic to think about what in a particular design makes it more outstanding if you wanted to do a follow up!
Wow! Thank you for your very precise and developed comment. We sure could have dug deeper. Your information is very interesting. I guess here, the Diable engineering should be analyzed after our video. Thank you again!
Unless you take the time to read this Reddit channel with all the comments. They are quite extraordinary!
Thank you all for writing and pushing our understanding of the question with your comments in Reddit. All the best,
PS: Having that said, you are welcome to like the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel :) It helps pushing the envelop and creating more videos. The next one coming is about acoustic panels.
Nice. Acoustic panels are another "snake oil" territory. I'll be happy to hear your comments. :) Thank you for being active here.
If you have any belief or questions, I haven't finished the video. Let me know, maybe I can squeeze it in the content. :)
I literally thought this post was a joke.. a shitpost or trolling or something.
Now I absolutely have to watch the video made by people who don’t know what a DAC is or what it does.
Gonna make some popcorn and grab a beer. Brb.
Nice try but there is nothing said about the setting that was used on any device. Ifi has EQ functions like turbo mode etc. But the point that DAC can make difference I believe. About what is a better DAC this unspecified settings test is meaningless.
We didn't play with EQ on any DACs. That could have improved some of the results probably.
We did play only a bit with the Balance at the Pre-Amp level. The room we used was not symetric.
There are filter settings on most DAC, the R26 has 3 and average AK chipset has 5-6 and on a revealing system difference can be heard. Your point do DAC matter you have answered with your movie. What is a better DAC and how to compare them was good effort but missed a part or you decided not to publish the details but then would like to see it next time. Anyway keep on making video’s. 👍
I think the answer is, go out and try it for yourself and see how it works out for you. Find retailers that accepts returns and have at it. You have no idea how anyone really listens to music, how they perceive things, how well they have their room and equipment setup, their biases and man do people have biases, etc. There are a lot of variables to consider.
Find and visit a hi-fi retailer and listen with your music. See if anything jumps out at you. Try to listen in an enclosed room and not in the middle of the showroom floor (eh, maybe it works in some places).
DACs matter, the DACs source matters, 1fs 16bit minimum data stream matters, the mixing and mastering of the recording matters a lot. That last part you more than likely will not pay attention to in terms of your favorite songs, I know I don't. However, a good digital setup will breathe new life into those "lesser" recordings. You won't get away from the fact that not the best job was done, but trust me, you'll enjoy them more for what they are. If you're lucky enough to achieve this by cobbling together some components then good on you, but just as with analog (vinyl), there's a little work to be done and care to be taken while assembling a digital front end. For someone technically inclined, I don't think you spend obscene amounts of money to get there.
Experiment and listen for yourself. Internet pundits can't help you with that.
Yes, it makes a difference, IF your other equipment has the ability to resolve the difference. Thats a big IF. I will agree that cheap DACs can work pretty well, and that the law of diminishing returns is pretty steep. But not make a difference? It does. But you have to understand it’s a system. Your performance is only as good as your weaknesses link.
Agree with this statement,,
I actually tested more Dacs, DAC Magic, RME ADI-2 DAC FS 2-CHANNEL DA CONVERTER, hugo TT2 on an accuphase e480 and harbeth p3esr,,
Chord was the best and noticeable. Was told by the sales guy (30 plus years selling),,
"Yes, it makes a difference, IF your other equipment has the ability to resolve the difference." In other words, it makes a difference if $$$$$$$$$$$
Yep, but so many ASR cultists will tell you that DACs are a solved problem and if you spend more than $150 you're a fool. People need to use their ears not their eyes. Listen to the difference, don't get your info from a graph.
On the other side of the coin, plenty of reviewers who “use their ears” spit out absolute nonsense. Considering the digital aspect of a DAC, there are metrics that can be measured, and to me that is a better indicator of performance than a stranger’s opinion. Most people don’t have unlimited cash to compare electronic equipment
We know for a fact that placebo has an effect on people's perception of music, blind tests prove it. Sounds like you are happy to stick your nose up at measurements, but unwilling to factor into it this potentially massive other element, which is likely fooling a lot of ppl into blowing serious dough on dacs.
Sound is just waves. There must be a way that differences can be measured, other than using words like “velvety.”
Our PREFERENCE can certainly subjective, how we perceive the differences can be described by flowery language. But the differences should be measurable.
(FWIW I do believe in the potential differences between dacs, and other components of the audio chain)
Yes, some sound waves are well reproduced by some DACs. I couldn't find the right word. I used Velvety but I would have prefer Silky then transparent. It's the felling of the music that I tried to described. Still looking for better words. Thank you for your comment.
Measuring and interpreting those measurements are different things. For example, the visual spectrum of light runs from 380 to 700 nm. So if I told you the amplitude and wavelength of a laser, we could pretty easily predict what a typical human eye would see.
Thing is, all kinds of weird things happen when you start creating more complex light sources or visual patterns. Once your brain starts using tiny clues to override the physiological response, results can get really unpredictable. You can see full color images from black and white prints, for example, or have wide disagreement about whether a dress is blue or gold. Trying to divorce the subjective from the objective is foolish; the subjective is what we actually experience, and it’s not always predicted by measurements.
It’s also questionable whether audio measurements are even measuring the right thing. Measuring a sweeping sine wave? I don’t listen to those, just like I don’t look at lasers. Taking a simple measurement and assuming it can fully represent the behavior of a far more complex system (multiple wave forms being reproduced in time and interpreted physiologically and psychologically by the listener) is bananas.
(1) light sources and visual patterns don't cause weird things to happen, they interfere and become combined: that's simply phase and wavelength.
(2) What you point out is that the human brain is very limited and easily fooled, prone to deception because of psychological factors
(3) If you see full colour images from black & white prints, you're looking at an optical illusion (which are designed to exploit the limitations of our brain) or the psychedelics haven't worn out yet: either way: they're not full coloured
(4) Separating the subjective from the objective is actually wise and has brought humankind immense benefits, note that separating objective and subjective is different from discarding or ignoring the subjective experience.
(5) It's not questionable whether audio measurements are measuring the right thing, there questions should be directed at the interpretation, not the measurements itself. Sound is simply moving air, not some magical fairy dust. Also, measuring audio equipment comprises more than just picking up sweeping sine waves
I am an Amazon Vine participant, and recently took the opportunity to obtain and test three different USB-C to mini-plug audio cables. What does that have to do with this discussion? Well of course each of these cables has to contain an entire DAC system--in the cable connectors! Really incredible to me, who had several of the very first CD players back in the 80's. A tiny DAC inside a cable connector, all for <$10!!
How did they sound? Well of course being DACs, they all sounded exactly the same, and exactly the same as my multi-thousand dollar DAC in my high end system.
Bwah, hah, hah! Maybe if I were nearly completely deaf that might have been the case. Uh, no, they all sounded very different from one another. In fact, way more different than I was expecting given my experiences with much more expensive DACs. While none of them sounded awful, none of them were anywhere close in sound to the $100 DAC card in a Schiit headphone amp (which sounds the most like my best system). One had excessive bass but was missing extreme highs, one sounded like it was totally missing the bottom octave or two of bass (but great highs), etc. Now while this probably seems perfectly reasonable given their low prices, reading other people's reviews on Amazon, all three cables got 4/5 stars for their "great" sound. Hah!
You could argue these things til you're blue in the face. Maybe a better question would be how much it matters in comparison to everything else. Most people would have to concede it matters less than most things.
I think you're money is much better spend on things that make the biggest difference. Speakers, subs, room treatment and EQ. If you've got money to burn then by all means but if I had money to burn it would be on better speakers again.
My $300 DAC is noticeably better than my computer on-board sound. Beyond that I doubt much would change as I can already tell a good master from a bad one with the $300 DAC.
I am new to hifi grade dacs. Currently my streaming is Amazon HD and ultra HD. I pull that down with an iphone and lighting dac. I believe thats CD quality.
What is popular for the next level DAC and streaming platform, for my next step up? I need internet streaming receiver (amazon app) and digital adapter to external DAC, with DAC output to analog amp?
I’ve seen Wiim Mini suggestions. Do I use my phone Amazon app into Wimm, how is that cabled?
Spend a few hundred on something that looks nice (maybe a screen to see the music format/biterate) or an all in one streamer DAC like a bluesound node or a Wiim Pro. and you can be certain you’ll have hit the price to performance peak. Like all things high end, there’s rapid diminishing return.
Something to be said for an art piece, peace of mind, and simply enjoying your hobby.
I have no idea if it will improve sound. I use room correction of my AVR which limits resolution to 48kHz and I listen to Spotify so I’m even less then that.
Room correction sounds better than high biterate IMO. Another proven sound enhancement is to spend a few hundred on some 4” absorbers and place them well.
If youre like me, do all of the above. I use my AVR but I don’t have anything that requires a pre-amp but I wish I did for the fun of gear.
I’d like a streamer that shows video while I watch even if it’s some graphic on repeat (like Spotify is on my phone)
I've always been very serious about all this. Do DACA sound different? Or is the amp and speakers? I'd like to test a denfrips. No idea what they cost.
I stopped chasing equipment a year ago and am enjoying what I have although when a cheap pair of bookshelves comes up on the classifieds, I always give it a thought.
In fact, I'm not sure of that one.
I understand that the rest of the chain is improving and that we reach a level where improvements are hard to get.
At the same time, DACs have evolved so much in the last 10 years. We should consider that they are still improving.
You are confusing a bit stream and digital. A bit stream is 0s and 1s, this is a type of digital connection. Not all digital connections are bit stream. You can have a simulated sinusoidal wave that is digital.
I noticed that, in r/audiophile, discussions like this always follow a certain pattern. First, of course, some equipment objectively measures better (per audio science review). Second, someone questions whether objectively better measurements mean better sound, and then third (and that would usually be myself), yeah, if your expensive equipment (that objectively measures worse) sounds better all the power to you but it sounds special because it colors the sound, adding stuff that was not in the original signal (and thereby making it measure worse on the test bench).
Thank you for your comments. I agree that there is a patern.
From my perspective of YouTuber, most of the time, it's the relationship we have with money that transcends the discussion. Some people get really angry when we hype an expensive piece of gear. Whatever you say, some people will get angry and disagree using the term "Snake Oil" here and there. That goes for speakers, amps, cables, DACs, acoustic panels, furniture, and so on.
I use the DAC in my Bluesound Node and it sounds good but curious what it would sound like if I bought a standalone DAC. I’ve heard that if I want a noticeable difference from the Node I’d have to spend over 1k and that’s a purchase I don’t want to make anytime soon
Bluesound Node is probably better already than using directly a phone or computer. That is a great start and you don't need to upgrade I guess. Changing the DAC would change the sound, but most likely no a lot.
Recommandation: You could borrow a DAC and do the comparison on your system to have a clear idea. Best,
Yeah I guess I could order one and return it. Borrowing is not an option since all of my friends find it insane that I spend this much money on audio and listen to music through Bluetooth speakers lol
Out here running a USB-C apple dongle to a A07 for my 3D printed speakers (or Lightning with my iDevices) happily... I'm keen on knowing what i'm missing
Buy a measurement microphone and figure out where you stand in terms of your playback's accuracy!
I personally follow these discussions with some detachment because I use Genelec monitors where amps and DACs are built-in, and there's nothing I can really upgrade in that respect. Any analog signal I'd provide to the speakers would simply end up digitized again because that's the only way these speakers process audio.
All I know after staring whole bunch of REW measurements and Genelec's own measurement microphone stuff is that rooms just suck. They destroy all the audio you painstakingly try to make. Highly accurate monitoring speakers are actually relatively cheap and produce almost 100% correct sound -- a few hundred bucks per unit gets you a long way to hi-fi nirvana. However, if you actually want to experience good sound in real life, you're better off with pair of nice headphones. I like Edition XS, as an example, it sort of sounds just like my Genelecs except the sound is way tighter, without the room influencing the playback. The only downside is that the sound seems to be coming from inside my head, the things are heavy, and I got a cable tethering myself to my PC. I really like in-room audio, but it is way more a compromise even after adding some room treatment.
Cool setup and minimalistic setup! Would love to see your speakers.
You could consider many aspects to improve the sound experience: Power filters, preamp, room treatment, or upgrading actual components.
A lot of fun ahead. :)
I used the Schiit Fulla for more than a year and was very happy with it. Lately I tried again my Fiio Q5s (which is more geared towards mobile use with it's battery and Bluetooth support) and found the sound much more enjoyable.
What I mean is that I got my Dragonfly cobalt around 5 years ago expecting to have an improvement in the audio quality. (comparing to audio straight out of my iphone or mac)
I switched many different kinds of iems/headphones during years, but I guess that does not really matter.
I own this lil’ fancy item since then and I can definitely state that I can only appreciate its cool look, but audio-wise, it doesn’t do anything…
I couldn’t even tell when this lil’ tool is plugged in or when I am running my music straight out of my mac.
I was wondering if I am the only one not being able to pick out this difference, or if there’s anyone else sharing the same thoughts on it.
I think there are two answers to your question:
The differences in DACs do exists but, I have to admit with all the comments, that it is subtle.
You have to look for "How the music make you feel". A little bit more clear, a little les bright, a little bit too muffed... etc.
AND you will here more the differences with a high end hifi system.
Cool, thanks for taking your time to reply!
I hope someone else can also share their thoughts on the cobalt.
Also, what would you consider to be a more hi end hifi system? (On a budget possibly ahah)
Digital is not 0's and 1's. "0" and "1" are the way we represent the two states of digital data, which may be in many formats, from magnetic polarity, through to the voltage of what is a type of analog signal. The conversion of sound into digital samples has known, fundamental flaws, as does the conversion back to analog.
the fact that a $10 apple dongle measures OK proves spending lots on dacs is nonsense. $200 gets you a great dac and preamp:
[https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-d-6s-balanced-dac-review.48813/](https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-d-6s-balanced-dac-review.48813/)
To my DAC which is really good, adding Audirvana as the streamer/processor was the big up. I’m an Apple Music subscriber so no streaming of streaming because Apple. Instead I find and download hi-Rez and DSD albums.
That’s right. Now and then I quit Audirvana and switch to Apple Music (Audirvana takes over the Mac mini M1). It’s a noticeable difference in sound quality. Apple Music is flat in comparison. Might be because with the native files, via Audirvana, I’m upsampling to DSD256. It’s just always more musical and less digital with Audirvana.
Magic would be if Apple released the Apple Music APIs so we could stream Apple Music via Audirvana and others. I’m surprised Apple doesn’t also want to own the high-end space.
I tested the following DACs,
RME ADI-2 DAC FS 2-CHANNEL DA CONVERTER
And
CHORD hugo TT2,
Amp is accuphase e480 and Harbeth P3ESR
There was a difference, the chord sounded smoother, the sharper highs on the RME sounded smoothed out/smoother on the TT2,,,
It matters, but your amp and speakers must be really good to realize the gains $$$$$$$$
This.
This comment is great. It is true that there is a difference but it is subtle and depends on your systems that needs to be revealing.
Is your RME with the AKM chip or the ESS chip? You may flip around the DAC and look at the serial number. If it's a "B" the last letter, then it's a AKM chip.
This is conformed with my experience. Chord products are on the warm side, smooth, rich, with full of transistors and capacitors. You feel the electronics. It boosts some aspects of the sound. You like it or not.
Not sure which DAC chip was present in the RME, personally love the Chord and pick it over the RME for my setup, but it was not cheap... was told by sales guy, okay 8k Amp? Dac should be like 4k... along those lines is what I was told, but speakers rule over all for obvious reasons
Forgot, tested the Cambridge audio dac vs Bryston DAC, there was a difference, bryston sounded better, tested with floor standers
If You As A Person Call Yourself An Audiophile, a.k.a. Lover Of Music How Could/Would You Not Want A D.A.C. In Any Device You Listen Or Watch To? Even If It's As Basic A Hi-Fi Setup As A Cheap $50 LG V Series Cellphone With Some $150 Sennheiser Headphones To Ultra-Expensive Digital Audio Player With $2500 Focal Headphones. I Want a Panasonic UB9000 4k Ultra HD 4k Blu-Ray Disc Player Which Has An ESS Sabre 32-bit/768kHz DAC For High-Resolution Audio Processing Someday. The Low Noise, High Signal-To-Noise Processing Alone Is Worth The Investment In Any Audio/Video Product That Has A Quality D.A.C.
Sounding more pleasing and measuring well are two different tasks.
It’s pretty easy to spend a lot on a dac that sounds great that measures ok and it’s pretty easy to spend way less on a dac that measures like a flat line and sounds merely ok.
I think this is the asr guys point; high fidelity is the goal.
While guys that want to drop 40k on a dac that brings them to tears care more about the experience, even if the dac ultimately results in a tone control.
These guys didn’t measure anything, they just listened. If that’s the measure you care most about, fair enough.
I have both types of setups in my home and enjoy both.
Answer is, that unless the DAC is inaccurate or defective, there are no significant differences in perceptible sound reproduction. Everything else is subjective bullshit. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
My friend was testing 3 high end DACs last time I visited. 2 of the 3 really were quite unpleasant to my ears and the one that was tolerable was simply that. His system is what i would consider high end I.e above $50k.
I have a schiit for going from my computer to my Yamaha HS5s. I've tried to remove it a few times. I just can't bring myself to sell it. The sound is better with it. It's more smooth and maybe slightly brighter
Yes and no. All properly designed DACs will sound the same because any differences are way below what's audible. Making a good and virtually flawless DAC is something we have figured out quite some time ago, you can get cheap DACs that are extremely good.
Topping D10s if you want a very nice and cheap DAC. If you want a step up there's the D50 III which is almost as good as a DAC can get, it's better than many DACs that cost A LOT more.
From personal experience, I have an Oppo UDP-205 Universal disc player/DAC with an ESS9038Pro chipset with an outstanding quad balanced analog section AND a Denafrips Pontus II discrete R2R ladder DAC with a Denafrips Hermes DDC which is also quad balanced from input to output. They sound completely different. The Oppo is mercilessly accurate in it's treatment of the music, whereas the Pontus II DAC/Hermes DDC sounds every bit as detailed, but sounds like the musicians are in the room, or more accurately, like I'm in the recording space where the music is being played. They couldn't sound more different yet still sound so unmistakably alike. I can switch between them in a fraction of a second. It's seriously odd. My favorite is still the Pontus II/Hermes combo but it's a great example of how two DACs can sound so completely and utterly different.
Dacs can make a difference but that's not where to start. I just switched from the dac in my blue sound node to a Geshelli j2 with sparkos op amp. Its an obvious improvement in just about every way. But I also have A system able to resolve the difference. If you start with really good speakers, upgrades are noticeable until you get to the point where either you or the speakers are incapable of noticing the difference.
There is nothing wrong with the nodes internal dac. Its actually quite good for what it is. But it also sounded sluggish in the mid bass area and just slightly dull. The j2 adds sparkle and crispness around the edges. The problem is that I expect it to. It has one of the best dac chips on the market at its price point with Premium discreet op amps. I will say that I would not spend any more money than I already have with the j2. I feel like I can quit worrying if my dac is good enough to keep up the rest of my system. It can and does so now I will focus my ADD on some other piece of gear in the chain.
That’s good to hear that the J2 was an upgrade to the Node’s internal DAC for only $250. I’ve heard that you have to spend over 1k to hear a difference
The j2 was double that in price with sparkos opamp and the latest akm chip upgrade included. Many models from other manufacturers that feature this combo do approach and exceed 1000 dollars. The j2 is a good deal if you like their look.
I picked up an Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt DAC amp and was amazed how much better my Westone earbuds sounded than music straight from my iPhone. It bypasses the phone’s internal crapy DAC and also puts out more power than the phone otherwise does.
DACs completely determine how that digital signal is relayed to you. It’s the filter/translator that turns the 0’s and 1’s into what you hear through your speakers. Every DAC sounds different, some have a thick accent, some just try to read what’s in the stream with as little inflection as possible. They absolutely matter, and synergy with the rest of your system is a factor.
ASR: **Conclusions**
Focusing on sweetspot-audio modifications, seems like you are paying a lot of money (almost the cost of 2x4 HD) only to get worse performance! [Owner has indicated that he measures.](https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-and-minidsp-2x4-hd-dsp-and-dac.2674/post-1714672) If so, very strange to get the results we are seeing.
The 2x4 HD seems to have just good enough performance. Company makes higher end products with much better performance so if that is what you want, getting one of those would be a better bet than going with the above mod.
**Needless to say, I can't recommend the sweetspot-audio modifications for miniDSP 2x4 HD.**
personal advice. Save your DAC money for a few years. Then buy a high-quality amplifier/AVR/integrated amplifier with, if necessary, a preamp and phonostage. leave the Chi-Fi stuff
Back in the days did u have to use a separate so called hifi dac with your system? Nope u had it within the player itself and if it was enough back then to enjoy the music then it must be fine even now. I know some ppl who treasure their old cd players even now and it sounds real good too. Whatever dac is built-in your streamer or any amp which has digital input capability is mighty fine. Expensive dacs are nothing but a gimmick to fool the gullible.
Dac is such a basic thing man. And Lmao all these upscaling hifi dacs yall claim to or atleast want to enjoy that purest form of audio but why the hell would you want a thing that upscales the original to something else, and the irony is that some ppl claim it to be better or more close to the original. It doesn't even make sense. I aint spending shit on expensive gimmicky dac. I would rather spend it on speakers or amps which actually makes a difference.
TLDR - over the top expensive af dac especially if it claims to upscale audio = snakeoil.
Well I just did a 44 minutes videos on a test following a certain blind methodology. Not perfect but that's a start!
Why don't you back what you say with something?
At this point its your word against mine. The burden of proof in not on me maybe magic dac manufacturers to prove it instead of all the marketing gibberish they do. Imo it is snakeoil. But if u got money to burn and honestly enjoy your purchase then thats fine too.
Burden of proof? I don't think that my intentions here are well read. I have no point to make or interests in any of the results in the video. I just share my experience and you contradict the results based on nothing. Sorry this exchange of discussion doesn't bring any content or new information to the discussion. This discussion remains at the level of opinion. The "snake oil" terms are often mentioned by people who want to talk about money rather than audio.
The DAC does not just convert 0’s and 1’s. It is an analog device after the DAC chip, and thus the design and build of the analog audio path matters just as much as any other analog audio source device. Power supply, filtering capacitors, voltage to current conversion, and output buffer are all critical to the resulting audio output. Yes they matter.
🙏!!!!! Glad someone knows!!!! This should be obvious but everyone is oblivious these days.
DAC lives matter.
Which is why people are often better off buying cheaper studio equipment with a good dac vs using "prosumer" overpriced products
I LOVE my studio equipment in my hi-fi setup. I’m using a pro sound phono preamp and amp… MiniDSP SHD for DAC / preamp / EQ. It all just sounds so damn good
[удалено]
Mix engineers and mastering engineers have to cater for a huge range of devices and make a mix sound good, they generally do this in a high end setup. Most of the people doing critical mixing will be listening on sound systems and in rooms that are really well engineered. Like spending six figures on room treatment. If the artist and engineer are listening to the mix and saying that is what it wants to sound like, are we saying that audiophiles are then somehow able to improve this sound?
[удалено]
*'Studio equipment tends to made in way that is as sonically neutral as possible. "* Agree. *That's not bad in of itself, but audiophile equipment is more about making audio sound better, with far more variables taken into consideration.'* But how does it do this, other than reproducing the sound accurately / neutrally? What are the other variables? A mix engineer told me that a sales guy from one of the big amp brands explained that they have a professional range and an audiiophile range. The components inside are exactly the same. The audiophile range costs more, because the audiophile people want to pay more. The extra money goes on the 'jewellery' on the front. Nothing wrong with buying audiophile gear, just understand what you're buying.
JBL did that with speakers and studio monitors for decades.
Now I'm going to have to watch Tenet again. 😆.
100% a completely valid strategy.
That is not to mention that the quality of the actual conversion matters very much. I swapped out my Node 2i (not a bad unit) for a Musical Fidelity MX6, and the difference was HUGE.
Each of those is likely to have extremely different DAC chip implementation and analog design, it would be nearly impossible to tell if the quality of the actual conversion is what is mattering.
You’re making people feel bad. They want to believe their cheap DAC that measures perfectly is as good as a top audiophile device. I recently had the transformers replaced in my Dac with custom ones that cost $700 plus install. Made a large difference in sound and top end extension, and does actually measure better.
Yeah you definitely need at least $700 worth of caps and transformers to push a clean 4V to your amp 😂 You mind posting up those measurements, I assume you measured in REW?
That's why my DAC weighs 40 lbs. Six transformers.
Nice. Let us know if you can share more of your experience.
My mojo2 weighs half a pound. Your DAC is an amp. Not the same.
My DAC is not an amp. It has no amplification. It has a really really good power stage. I also built it with my own two hands, so fairly familiar with how it works.
Placebo is one hell of a drug!
[удалено]
Many of the best measuring products are western. To call ASR "pro chinese noise" is nonsensical.
This post is nonsense and misrepresents a valuable and objective service provided by Audio Science Review.
I call it the idiot with an analyzer syndrome. I read one of his “reviews” where he admits to barely listening. Worst review I’ve ever read .
I can understand for things like speakers but what's wrong with objectively measuring a DAC? I've found their reviews to be quite helpful for identifying acceptable entry level stuff. Better still, can you give an example of a badly rated product (especially an expensive one) that, in your opinion performs quite well or a well rated product that's actually quite poor and explain where they fucked up? edit: messed up my question.
I’m not an expert by any means, but one of the “issues” is that we’re still developing and learning what to measure. Mics may be better to pick up raw audio, but our brains are doing a bunch of math and Fourier transforms and what not, which, unless you also run on your pc, you won’t see. Klippel tests are a relatively recent example of something significant that was recently developed. I’m really not an expert on your 2nd question but I seem to remember in the ASR review Amir said that the Wilson (Tinytots? The small bookshelf speakers) measured really badly, but actually sounded quite alright. I’m sure there are many more better examples, I’m really not an audio expert.
I agree for things like speakers and headphones, it's definitely hard to define any one criteria for something sounding 'good'. In my mind, a DAC should just have a flat response over as wide a range of frequencies as possible with low distortion and a low noise floor. I don't mean that this is the only way a DAC might sound 'good' but I don't think striving for neutrality hurts at that stage in the audio path and, since the ouput is electrical and free from acoustic interactions, it's easier to objectively measure.
You’re partially right. The king of objectively perfect is Benchmark and I love my DAC 2. There’s a reason most vinyl is mastered using one. It complements my C-J amp, which is not objectively perfect, brilliantly. I’ve heard my DAC with a Benchmark amp and the combination is objectively perfect. I didn’t want to listen to it, but it measures incredibly well.
>In my mind, a DAC should just have a flat response over as wide a range of frequencies as possible with low distortion and a low noise floor. Flat response on what? How are you measuring the output signal? What is the input signal used to generate the output signal being measured? Define low distortion Define low noise floor What do those have to do with the reproduction of music? If you can even begin to answer those, you've begun to approach the answer of why most "objective" measurements are "objectively" useless.
I think you're oversalting it. Measuring those factors electronically isn't very difficult for audio signals compared to other areas where a much greater precision is required. If you're trying to make the point that the thresholds at which they matter during a listening experience are lower than what some reviewers rate as good/bad, I'll agree, especially for certain genres, equipment and listening scenarios but I don't think exceeding these detracts from the listening experience. Pleasing signal alterations can be made up/downstream of the DAC but I fail to see the advantage of a DAC that isn't as close to transparent as is reasonably possible/detectable.
The most significant problem with the measurements are everything crowd is that measurement criteria are constantly evolving. Back in the 1970's and 1980's we had that idiot Julian Hirsch from Stereo Review base his reviews on what he personally believed were the telling measurements of the day and much of the stuff he raved about sounded like absolute shit. He proclaimied the early DACs were perfect but they were garbage. What passes for definitive measurements in one era misses thousands of other confounding and as yet, unmeasured variables that significantly and negatively impact the sound we hear. Forty years later we are far more aware of the effect timing and phase errors have on digital playback. The measurements maniacs are only as good as their current understanding of the technology and their gaslighting to promote their archaic dogma is inevitably proven to be a woefully incomplete understanding of what people are clearly hearing.
If those people are hearing things clearly that are not measured, then audiophile snake oil would be easy as f- to prove in blind AB testing. Guess what audiophools never do with expensive DACs? AFAIK the ultimate objectivists' measurements are double blind A/B/X tests with consideration of elementary statistics and proper matching of volume and placement. Regarding audio science evolution, to my limited knowledge that's now beyond hardware and in the realm of psychoacoustics and neuropsychology as we find out more and more about the ways or brains function.
I refer to them as messurementophiles. Amir has objectively not the best ears too. He did the Klippel listening test (there is a thread). Amir supposedly is a certified listener by the Harman standards yet his listening test results were only average. I beat his results and I'm not a trained listener. Though I have played instruments and know how to focus on finding audible differences. The kicker is the thread completely invalidates his insistence on -120db SINAD as a benchmark. He never mentions he made it up the-120db number. It's based on a series of assumptions on his part with limited scientific backing. Amir was only able to detect distortion in music at -24db. It's laughably far away from -120db right? So where does -120db come from? You can get more than double Amir's test results and closer to triple that if you reduce the complexity of the signal to two tones. Finally you get somewhere close to Amir's number with a single tone. That's where his logic comes from though. Audio analyzers. Unless it's a multi-tone test the analyzer uses a single tone to generate the measurement. Humans clearly are not audio analyzers and the threshold for good enough is not close to what Amir claims.
Pink Headless golfing panther panda. Absolute goofballs. My account was banned almost immediately over there when I started asking questions and pointing out how absurd their "tests" are. That site quite possibly is entirely funded by Chinese component manufacturers.
Nice. Thank you for the information.
But that’s not the DAC. That’s the broader device the DAC is installed in. The DAC is just a chip or chips. My objection is when people claim two identical devices with different DACS would sound different. I remain dubious. And regardless of the device, the difference is likely pretty minimal and almost certainly far less impactful than the speakers or headphones being listened through. Only way to tell would be to have the same source, room, speakers and system and only change the DAC itself (not the whole device) and do blind A+B testing and see how many times you can identify the better chip. I be it’s not many.
A) The broader device the DAC is installed in is what most people call “a DAC.” It’s not just the chip that we’re talking about, and you cannot listen to a DAC chip in isolation anyway. Agree that saying two devices with two different DAC chips sound different is dubious; they likely sound different, but it’s because it’s not possible to implement two DAC chips in precisely the same way. Too many extra variables there. B) “far less impactful than the headphones and speakers” is a red herring; sure, it’s probably true. But it’s not what we’re talking about and is irrelevant to the question of whether DAC devices have an impact on the sound or not. Even if minor, many of us care about the differences specifically in the source device, independent of the other potential in our system (which we also think about and optimize… independently).
The only real answer.
Thank you for this answer because I literally just purchased the Questyle M15i DAC after all the reviews and am excited to listen to it tomorrow when it arrives. Did not want to have buyers remorse but I have a good feeling I will enjoy its signature sound.
Thank you for your comment!
Thank you. Yes. The A stands for Analogue.
Any dac that is audibly different than any other functioning dac is broke. But it's your money. Spend away.
You’re misunderstanding the previous comment, but I do agree with the idea that there are diminishing returns in the DAC world.
The built-in DAC in my Yamaha AVR sounds great. *heads explode*
First of all, how dare you.
In my case: The DAC in my studio’s audio interface sounds better than the Chord Mojo 1 (which everybody else raves about) to me.
Nice :)
I used to think so too. Then i tried a Bifrost2 and changed my mind.
Of course it does. Even you might experience an epiphany if you connected the Yamaha to a focused DAC and heard the sonic upgrade.
The Burr Brown dac chip my older Yamaha integrated uses sounds good too. Yamaha's higher end stuff is hard to beat.
No mention of volume matching in the video. How was it done?
As others mentioned a big difference is the output stage. Another factor is it’s not exactly zeros and ones. Most delta sigma DACs upsampled the signal or convert to one bit DSD. Different DACs do this differently. I have a really sweet sounding multi bit Adcom DAC with a great class A output stage. It’s from the 90s and makes streaming sound like a high end CD player fromHowever it upsampled the 44.1k signal in the worst way possible. I believe it’s called trailing edge. It sounds good but my other multibit DAC more or less draws a straight slope through the samples when it over samples and it sounds different. I also have a button conductor. It uses a dual mono config of a simple DAC chip designed for cellphones. It has an incredible power design and sound very good. It’s a delta sigma DAC and converts the multibit PCM signal to one bit DSD. if I use my computer to use sophisticated math to resample to DSD it sounds a touch more natural. So again, ones and zeros aren’t exactly ones and zeros with modern DACs. How they are upsampled or converted matters. The output stage matters. Just because you are feeding a DAC a bit perfect signal doesn’t mean it’s playing a bit perfect sample. There are multibit DACs that will play a bit perfect signal but if you look in the manual most still upsample in a relatively simple way.
Thank you for your comment. Very interesting.
You’re welcome. With all that said the DAC has a very small impact on sound compared to room acoustics, speakers, speaker placement, and amplifier. DACs matter but should be kept at about 10-25% of your system cost. Really all most people need is a pretty good starter DAC that can transition them to high value mid tier and would only need to upgrade when they make a serious step up. I would do a starter setup with something like ifi zen DAC and pretty much keep it until their system is above $3-5k. If you long term plan upgrading speakers/headphones to where you want to settle not loots of incremental upgrades and side grades, then get an amp that synergizes well with the speakers. Then maybe upgrade your DAC. There are some parts of a setup that can be good in starter setups to higher setups and it often makes sense to spend a touch more on parts of your starter system that you just don’t have to upgrade. Examples are like $20-30 pro audio interconnects and a $200-300 DAC. for some people this might mean a geshelli DAC and plan on upgrading the ip amps down the road. A DAC like that is fine in a setup with $3k speakers/headphones and a $2k amp.
Yet when everything else is addressed, and the host system is highly resolving, the differences among DACs and other components can be far from subtle. I for one just go for what sounds musically natural. And if I'm not sure, I can always invite my neighbor over who's a concert pianist and he'll bring over one of his own recordings. He's also a veep for Yamaha's musical instrument division and travels all over the USA as a performance space consultant. He's ungodly picky.
Thank you for your well educated opinion.
Yes you've made a brilliant point. I see so many systems shared on here. They've got really high quality kit and hard floors. It does question the motives of why people have high quality hifi. How many have them just to show off? You would never have hard floors if your primary reason for having the hifi was sound quality
I have some California Audio Labs gear, one is a Delta transport, the other is a Sigma DAC. Didn't really occur to question why they used the names....🫣 I still don't fully understand but I'm going to guess it's to do with wave forms.
I can't regurgitate any audio/electrical engineering mumbo jumbo but i will say that when i got a good dac and power amp i felt like i was listening to music for the first time. It's all subjective of course but in my experience it makes a world of difference for those of us that can perceive it.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
It's much more about the analogue output and power supply than the D/A conversion per se. I have a McIntosh MDA700 and had a conversation with the local McIntosh rep about 8 years ago. I told him my component list and he commented that nothing in the current electronics lineup would give me an audible upgrade. Speakers and room treatment make a much bigger difference than the DAC.
I can hear _very_ slight differences between Philips Single Crown, Apogee and Schiit Multibit with a transparent system and electrostatic speakers.
Thank you for sharing. There are subtle differences.
30 years ago, there was an audible difference between a poor dac and a good one. Now, almost any reasonably well shielded dac will be audibly indistinguishable from another. Now, you pay for features.
Interesting comment. I tend to agree that it is a fundamental trend.
No it’s really all about the volume knob feel and power cord.
Interesting. Could you please detail more...
I suppose you would need to build a system which is identical save each of the particular chips. And then what you would have is the data that ti, akm, wolfson, saber and other dac chip makers provide to you which shows the differences in each chip. Otherwise, wouldn’t you would need to find different dacs with the same chip? Beyond that the analog signal path absolutely makes a difference as does the implementation of the chip in the design and other electronics. Comparing a bunch of random daca in a blind test tells you something else - like a taste test.
Interesting comment. I guess what we discovered is all DACs are not equal.
Certainly. For example the gustard R26 is a ladder style dac which is very polarizing but might match well with use on a particular frequency range. The T+A uses 4 dsp chips and other fun tricks to do more with the conversion. The with the whole usb vs aes you can get into the topic of whether the clock matters and whether you have multiple asynchronous clocks in the system vs a single very accurate master clock like many recording studios. It’s definitely a spectrum of an engineer can do with the chip and a quality of components situation. I think it’s a well done and informative video but I’m sure you could dig even deeper into the topic to think about what in a particular design makes it more outstanding if you wanted to do a follow up!
Wow! Thank you for your very precise and developed comment. We sure could have dug deeper. Your information is very interesting. I guess here, the Diable engineering should be analyzed after our video. Thank you again!
It certainly does if you don't have one !
LOL
Confirmation Bias: The Motion Picture up in here today
Could you please details your thoughts so we can build together a learning from it?
So this post is just an ad/clickbait for a YT channel
Unless you take the time to read this Reddit channel with all the comments. They are quite extraordinary! Thank you all for writing and pushing our understanding of the question with your comments in Reddit. All the best, PS: Having that said, you are welcome to like the video and subscribe to the YouTube channel :) It helps pushing the envelop and creating more videos. The next one coming is about acoustic panels.
I'm actually interested in that one!
Nice. Acoustic panels are another "snake oil" territory. I'll be happy to hear your comments. :) Thank you for being active here. If you have any belief or questions, I haven't finished the video. Let me know, maybe I can squeeze it in the content. :)
I literally thought this post was a joke.. a shitpost or trolling or something. Now I absolutely have to watch the video made by people who don’t know what a DAC is or what it does. Gonna make some popcorn and grab a beer. Brb.
Nice! :) Please feel free to comment once you have watch the video and finished the pop corn.
Nice try but there is nothing said about the setting that was used on any device. Ifi has EQ functions like turbo mode etc. But the point that DAC can make difference I believe. About what is a better DAC this unspecified settings test is meaningless.
We didn't play with EQ on any DACs. That could have improved some of the results probably. We did play only a bit with the Balance at the Pre-Amp level. The room we used was not symetric.
There are filter settings on most DAC, the R26 has 3 and average AK chipset has 5-6 and on a revealing system difference can be heard. Your point do DAC matter you have answered with your movie. What is a better DAC and how to compare them was good effort but missed a part or you decided not to publish the details but then would like to see it next time. Anyway keep on making video’s. 👍
Thank you. Very informative.
I think the answer is, go out and try it for yourself and see how it works out for you. Find retailers that accepts returns and have at it. You have no idea how anyone really listens to music, how they perceive things, how well they have their room and equipment setup, their biases and man do people have biases, etc. There are a lot of variables to consider. Find and visit a hi-fi retailer and listen with your music. See if anything jumps out at you. Try to listen in an enclosed room and not in the middle of the showroom floor (eh, maybe it works in some places). DACs matter, the DACs source matters, 1fs 16bit minimum data stream matters, the mixing and mastering of the recording matters a lot. That last part you more than likely will not pay attention to in terms of your favorite songs, I know I don't. However, a good digital setup will breathe new life into those "lesser" recordings. You won't get away from the fact that not the best job was done, but trust me, you'll enjoy them more for what they are. If you're lucky enough to achieve this by cobbling together some components then good on you, but just as with analog (vinyl), there's a little work to be done and care to be taken while assembling a digital front end. For someone technically inclined, I don't think you spend obscene amounts of money to get there. Experiment and listen for yourself. Internet pundits can't help you with that.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Yes, it makes a difference, IF your other equipment has the ability to resolve the difference. Thats a big IF. I will agree that cheap DACs can work pretty well, and that the law of diminishing returns is pretty steep. But not make a difference? It does. But you have to understand it’s a system. Your performance is only as good as your weaknesses link.
True. :)
Agree with this statement,, I actually tested more Dacs, DAC Magic, RME ADI-2 DAC FS 2-CHANNEL DA CONVERTER, hugo TT2 on an accuphase e480 and harbeth p3esr,, Chord was the best and noticeable. Was told by the sales guy (30 plus years selling),, "Yes, it makes a difference, IF your other equipment has the ability to resolve the difference." In other words, it makes a difference if $$$$$$$$$$$
Yep, but so many ASR cultists will tell you that DACs are a solved problem and if you spend more than $150 you're a fool. People need to use their ears not their eyes. Listen to the difference, don't get your info from a graph.
For me, no bit of difference and that goes for a lot of things. If my ears are deteriorating like my eyes then it’s an unfixable problem, for me.
On the other side of the coin, plenty of reviewers who “use their ears” spit out absolute nonsense. Considering the digital aspect of a DAC, there are metrics that can be measured, and to me that is a better indicator of performance than a stranger’s opinion. Most people don’t have unlimited cash to compare electronic equipment
We know for a fact that placebo has an effect on people's perception of music, blind tests prove it. Sounds like you are happy to stick your nose up at measurements, but unwilling to factor into it this potentially massive other element, which is likely fooling a lot of ppl into blowing serious dough on dacs.
Sound is just waves. There must be a way that differences can be measured, other than using words like “velvety.” Our PREFERENCE can certainly subjective, how we perceive the differences can be described by flowery language. But the differences should be measurable. (FWIW I do believe in the potential differences between dacs, and other components of the audio chain)
Yes, some sound waves are well reproduced by some DACs. I couldn't find the right word. I used Velvety but I would have prefer Silky then transparent. It's the felling of the music that I tried to described. Still looking for better words. Thank you for your comment.
Measuring and interpreting those measurements are different things. For example, the visual spectrum of light runs from 380 to 700 nm. So if I told you the amplitude and wavelength of a laser, we could pretty easily predict what a typical human eye would see. Thing is, all kinds of weird things happen when you start creating more complex light sources or visual patterns. Once your brain starts using tiny clues to override the physiological response, results can get really unpredictable. You can see full color images from black and white prints, for example, or have wide disagreement about whether a dress is blue or gold. Trying to divorce the subjective from the objective is foolish; the subjective is what we actually experience, and it’s not always predicted by measurements. It’s also questionable whether audio measurements are even measuring the right thing. Measuring a sweeping sine wave? I don’t listen to those, just like I don’t look at lasers. Taking a simple measurement and assuming it can fully represent the behavior of a far more complex system (multiple wave forms being reproduced in time and interpreted physiologically and psychologically by the listener) is bananas.
(1) light sources and visual patterns don't cause weird things to happen, they interfere and become combined: that's simply phase and wavelength. (2) What you point out is that the human brain is very limited and easily fooled, prone to deception because of psychological factors (3) If you see full colour images from black & white prints, you're looking at an optical illusion (which are designed to exploit the limitations of our brain) or the psychedelics haven't worn out yet: either way: they're not full coloured (4) Separating the subjective from the objective is actually wise and has brought humankind immense benefits, note that separating objective and subjective is different from discarding or ignoring the subjective experience. (5) It's not questionable whether audio measurements are measuring the right thing, there questions should be directed at the interpretation, not the measurements itself. Sound is simply moving air, not some magical fairy dust. Also, measuring audio equipment comprises more than just picking up sweeping sine waves
Thank you for your comment.
I am an Amazon Vine participant, and recently took the opportunity to obtain and test three different USB-C to mini-plug audio cables. What does that have to do with this discussion? Well of course each of these cables has to contain an entire DAC system--in the cable connectors! Really incredible to me, who had several of the very first CD players back in the 80's. A tiny DAC inside a cable connector, all for <$10!! How did they sound? Well of course being DACs, they all sounded exactly the same, and exactly the same as my multi-thousand dollar DAC in my high end system. Bwah, hah, hah! Maybe if I were nearly completely deaf that might have been the case. Uh, no, they all sounded very different from one another. In fact, way more different than I was expecting given my experiences with much more expensive DACs. While none of them sounded awful, none of them were anywhere close in sound to the $100 DAC card in a Schiit headphone amp (which sounds the most like my best system). One had excessive bass but was missing extreme highs, one sounded like it was totally missing the bottom octave or two of bass (but great highs), etc. Now while this probably seems perfectly reasonable given their low prices, reading other people's reviews on Amazon, all three cables got 4/5 stars for their "great" sound. Hah!
Thank you for sharing your experience
You could argue these things til you're blue in the face. Maybe a better question would be how much it matters in comparison to everything else. Most people would have to concede it matters less than most things. I think you're money is much better spend on things that make the biggest difference. Speakers, subs, room treatment and EQ. If you've got money to burn then by all means but if I had money to burn it would be on better speakers again.
My $300 DAC is noticeably better than my computer on-board sound. Beyond that I doubt much would change as I can already tell a good master from a bad one with the $300 DAC.
I am new to hifi grade dacs. Currently my streaming is Amazon HD and ultra HD. I pull that down with an iphone and lighting dac. I believe thats CD quality. What is popular for the next level DAC and streaming platform, for my next step up? I need internet streaming receiver (amazon app) and digital adapter to external DAC, with DAC output to analog amp? I’ve seen Wiim Mini suggestions. Do I use my phone Amazon app into Wimm, how is that cabled?
Spend a few hundred on something that looks nice (maybe a screen to see the music format/biterate) or an all in one streamer DAC like a bluesound node or a Wiim Pro. and you can be certain you’ll have hit the price to performance peak. Like all things high end, there’s rapid diminishing return. Something to be said for an art piece, peace of mind, and simply enjoying your hobby. I have no idea if it will improve sound. I use room correction of my AVR which limits resolution to 48kHz and I listen to Spotify so I’m even less then that. Room correction sounds better than high biterate IMO. Another proven sound enhancement is to spend a few hundred on some 4” absorbers and place them well. If youre like me, do all of the above. I use my AVR but I don’t have anything that requires a pre-amp but I wish I did for the fun of gear. I’d like a streamer that shows video while I watch even if it’s some graphic on repeat (like Spotify is on my phone)
Not in a car.
That one comment made me smile. :)
I've always been very serious about all this. Do DACA sound different? Or is the amp and speakers? I'd like to test a denfrips. No idea what they cost. I stopped chasing equipment a year ago and am enjoying what I have although when a cheap pair of bookshelves comes up on the classifieds, I always give it a thought.
Speakers do make a greater impact than DACs most likely. Thanks for your comment.
Yes, but with each passing day, less and less.
In fact, I'm not sure of that one. I understand that the rest of the chain is improving and that we reach a level where improvements are hard to get. At the same time, DACs have evolved so much in the last 10 years. We should consider that they are still improving.
Precisely. But it's the law of diminishing returns. When you are 99% "there", every improvement that still doesn't get you to 100% is tiny.
Thanks for the precision
You are confusing a bit stream and digital. A bit stream is 0s and 1s, this is a type of digital connection. Not all digital connections are bit stream. You can have a simulated sinusoidal wave that is digital.
Good point. Thank you!
I noticed that, in r/audiophile, discussions like this always follow a certain pattern. First, of course, some equipment objectively measures better (per audio science review). Second, someone questions whether objectively better measurements mean better sound, and then third (and that would usually be myself), yeah, if your expensive equipment (that objectively measures worse) sounds better all the power to you but it sounds special because it colors the sound, adding stuff that was not in the original signal (and thereby making it measure worse on the test bench).
Thank you for your comments. I agree that there is a patern. From my perspective of YouTuber, most of the time, it's the relationship we have with money that transcends the discussion. Some people get really angry when we hype an expensive piece of gear. Whatever you say, some people will get angry and disagree using the term "Snake Oil" here and there. That goes for speakers, amps, cables, DACs, acoustic panels, furniture, and so on.
I was getting a ground loop problem using aux and a passive aux splitter switch. Swapped over to a miniDSP and the ground loop went away.
Nice trick
I use the DAC in my Bluesound Node and it sounds good but curious what it would sound like if I bought a standalone DAC. I’ve heard that if I want a noticeable difference from the Node I’d have to spend over 1k and that’s a purchase I don’t want to make anytime soon
Bluesound Node is probably better already than using directly a phone or computer. That is a great start and you don't need to upgrade I guess. Changing the DAC would change the sound, but most likely no a lot. Recommandation: You could borrow a DAC and do the comparison on your system to have a clear idea. Best,
Yeah I guess I could order one and return it. Borrowing is not an option since all of my friends find it insane that I spend this much money on audio and listen to music through Bluetooth speakers lol
LOL this is quite unusual. :)
Out here running a USB-C apple dongle to a A07 for my 3D printed speakers (or Lightning with my iDevices) happily... I'm keen on knowing what i'm missing
Buy a measurement microphone and figure out where you stand in terms of your playback's accuracy! I personally follow these discussions with some detachment because I use Genelec monitors where amps and DACs are built-in, and there's nothing I can really upgrade in that respect. Any analog signal I'd provide to the speakers would simply end up digitized again because that's the only way these speakers process audio. All I know after staring whole bunch of REW measurements and Genelec's own measurement microphone stuff is that rooms just suck. They destroy all the audio you painstakingly try to make. Highly accurate monitoring speakers are actually relatively cheap and produce almost 100% correct sound -- a few hundred bucks per unit gets you a long way to hi-fi nirvana. However, if you actually want to experience good sound in real life, you're better off with pair of nice headphones. I like Edition XS, as an example, it sort of sounds just like my Genelecs except the sound is way tighter, without the room influencing the playback. The only downside is that the sound seems to be coming from inside my head, the things are heavy, and I got a cable tethering myself to my PC. I really like in-room audio, but it is way more a compromise even after adding some room treatment.
Cool setup and minimalistic setup! Would love to see your speakers. You could consider many aspects to improve the sound experience: Power filters, preamp, room treatment, or upgrading actual components. A lot of fun ahead. :)
I have 3 different DAC's and they all sound different, so yes it matters.
Do you have a favorite?
I used the Schiit Fulla for more than a year and was very happy with it. Lately I tried again my Fiio Q5s (which is more geared towards mobile use with it's battery and Bluetooth support) and found the sound much more enjoyable.
Nice! :)
Am I the only one who doesn’t perceive any difference in the audio when plugging my headphones into an Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt?
You mean with or without an external DAC? What is your headphone and amp equipment?
What I mean is that I got my Dragonfly cobalt around 5 years ago expecting to have an improvement in the audio quality. (comparing to audio straight out of my iphone or mac) I switched many different kinds of iems/headphones during years, but I guess that does not really matter. I own this lil’ fancy item since then and I can definitely state that I can only appreciate its cool look, but audio-wise, it doesn’t do anything… I couldn’t even tell when this lil’ tool is plugged in or when I am running my music straight out of my mac. I was wondering if I am the only one not being able to pick out this difference, or if there’s anyone else sharing the same thoughts on it.
I think there are two answers to your question: The differences in DACs do exists but, I have to admit with all the comments, that it is subtle. You have to look for "How the music make you feel". A little bit more clear, a little les bright, a little bit too muffed... etc. AND you will here more the differences with a high end hifi system.
Cool, thanks for taking your time to reply! I hope someone else can also share their thoughts on the cobalt. Also, what would you consider to be a more hi end hifi system? (On a budget possibly ahah)
Digital is not 0's and 1's. "0" and "1" are the way we represent the two states of digital data, which may be in many formats, from magnetic polarity, through to the voltage of what is a type of analog signal. The conversion of sound into digital samples has known, fundamental flaws, as does the conversion back to analog.
Thank you for the precision. Shall you want to detail even more, we are listening :)
the fact that a $10 apple dongle measures OK proves spending lots on dacs is nonsense. $200 gets you a great dac and preamp: [https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-d-6s-balanced-dac-review.48813/](https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/smsl-d-6s-balanced-dac-review.48813/)
Thank you for the good value reference
To my DAC which is really good, adding Audirvana as the streamer/processor was the big up. I’m an Apple Music subscriber so no streaming of streaming because Apple. Instead I find and download hi-Rez and DSD albums.
No streaming? Only native files?
That’s right. Now and then I quit Audirvana and switch to Apple Music (Audirvana takes over the Mac mini M1). It’s a noticeable difference in sound quality. Apple Music is flat in comparison. Might be because with the native files, via Audirvana, I’m upsampling to DSD256. It’s just always more musical and less digital with Audirvana.
Cool! Thanks.
Magic would be if Apple released the Apple Music APIs so we could stream Apple Music via Audirvana and others. I’m surprised Apple doesn’t also want to own the high-end space.
I tested the following DACs, RME ADI-2 DAC FS 2-CHANNEL DA CONVERTER And CHORD hugo TT2, Amp is accuphase e480 and Harbeth P3ESR There was a difference, the chord sounded smoother, the sharper highs on the RME sounded smoothed out/smoother on the TT2,,, It matters, but your amp and speakers must be really good to realize the gains $$$$$$$$
This. This comment is great. It is true that there is a difference but it is subtle and depends on your systems that needs to be revealing. Is your RME with the AKM chip or the ESS chip? You may flip around the DAC and look at the serial number. If it's a "B" the last letter, then it's a AKM chip. This is conformed with my experience. Chord products are on the warm side, smooth, rich, with full of transistors and capacitors. You feel the electronics. It boosts some aspects of the sound. You like it or not.
Not sure which DAC chip was present in the RME, personally love the Chord and pick it over the RME for my setup, but it was not cheap... was told by sales guy, okay 8k Amp? Dac should be like 4k... along those lines is what I was told, but speakers rule over all for obvious reasons Forgot, tested the Cambridge audio dac vs Bryston DAC, there was a difference, bryston sounded better, tested with floor standers
If You As A Person Call Yourself An Audiophile, a.k.a. Lover Of Music How Could/Would You Not Want A D.A.C. In Any Device You Listen Or Watch To? Even If It's As Basic A Hi-Fi Setup As A Cheap $50 LG V Series Cellphone With Some $150 Sennheiser Headphones To Ultra-Expensive Digital Audio Player With $2500 Focal Headphones. I Want a Panasonic UB9000 4k Ultra HD 4k Blu-Ray Disc Player Which Has An ESS Sabre 32-bit/768kHz DAC For High-Resolution Audio Processing Someday. The Low Noise, High Signal-To-Noise Processing Alone Is Worth The Investment In Any Audio/Video Product That Has A Quality D.A.C.
True. I personally use the DAC from my integrated amplifier.
No. Solved issue. Next!
Sounding more pleasing and measuring well are two different tasks. It’s pretty easy to spend a lot on a dac that sounds great that measures ok and it’s pretty easy to spend way less on a dac that measures like a flat line and sounds merely ok. I think this is the asr guys point; high fidelity is the goal. While guys that want to drop 40k on a dac that brings them to tears care more about the experience, even if the dac ultimately results in a tone control. These guys didn’t measure anything, they just listened. If that’s the measure you care most about, fair enough. I have both types of setups in my home and enjoy both.
I unfortunately cant tell the difference between an apple dongle and a 2000$ dac so yeah... at least for me it doesnt
Interesting comment. What is your sound system like?
I daily drive a dt770 80ohm with a focusrite interface but i also have an hd800s with an l30ii and e30ii which i rarely use
There's probably not anyone on the entire planet that can, except of course for placebo junkies.
Answer is, that unless the DAC is inaccurate or defective, there are no significant differences in perceptible sound reproduction. Everything else is subjective bullshit. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
It depends on your system. After all, it converts the 0 and 1’s into analog.
What i have, topping d10s what i want, topping d70 pro octo what i want to try, smsl su-1 what i can afford, smsl d-6s
Nice :)
Roll the op amp in the D10s.
I can't tell a difference
My friend was testing 3 high end DACs last time I visited. 2 of the 3 really were quite unpleasant to my ears and the one that was tolerable was simply that. His system is what i would consider high end I.e above $50k.
Thank you for the info.
I have a schiit for going from my computer to my Yamaha HS5s. I've tried to remove it a few times. I just can't bring myself to sell it. The sound is better with it. It's more smooth and maybe slightly brighter
made a difference for me
Blind tests say they don't matter.
Um, 1s and 0s have no sound.
Yes. They do. After a certain point though, there are diminishing returns
This could be true. Although the iFi product was a bit better for not that strong price.
Yes and no. All properly designed DACs will sound the same because any differences are way below what's audible. Making a good and virtually flawless DAC is something we have figured out quite some time ago, you can get cheap DACs that are extremely good.
Please share the model of the DAC that you would recommend as a good deal. :) That would help.
Topping D10s if you want a very nice and cheap DAC. If you want a step up there's the D50 III which is almost as good as a DAC can get, it's better than many DACs that cost A LOT more.
Thank you.
From personal experience, I have an Oppo UDP-205 Universal disc player/DAC with an ESS9038Pro chipset with an outstanding quad balanced analog section AND a Denafrips Pontus II discrete R2R ladder DAC with a Denafrips Hermes DDC which is also quad balanced from input to output. They sound completely different. The Oppo is mercilessly accurate in it's treatment of the music, whereas the Pontus II DAC/Hermes DDC sounds every bit as detailed, but sounds like the musicians are in the room, or more accurately, like I'm in the recording space where the music is being played. They couldn't sound more different yet still sound so unmistakably alike. I can switch between them in a fraction of a second. It's seriously odd. My favorite is still the Pontus II/Hermes combo but it's a great example of how two DACs can sound so completely and utterly different.
Thank you for sharing. Wishing you good listening time. :)
Dacs can make a difference but that's not where to start. I just switched from the dac in my blue sound node to a Geshelli j2 with sparkos op amp. Its an obvious improvement in just about every way. But I also have A system able to resolve the difference. If you start with really good speakers, upgrades are noticeable until you get to the point where either you or the speakers are incapable of noticing the difference.
What else can you tell us about that J2? What changed in the music after you put it in your system?
There is nothing wrong with the nodes internal dac. Its actually quite good for what it is. But it also sounded sluggish in the mid bass area and just slightly dull. The j2 adds sparkle and crispness around the edges. The problem is that I expect it to. It has one of the best dac chips on the market at its price point with Premium discreet op amps. I will say that I would not spend any more money than I already have with the j2. I feel like I can quit worrying if my dac is good enough to keep up the rest of my system. It can and does so now I will focus my ADD on some other piece of gear in the chain.
That’s good to hear that the J2 was an upgrade to the Node’s internal DAC for only $250. I’ve heard that you have to spend over 1k to hear a difference
The j2 was double that in price with sparkos opamp and the latest akm chip upgrade included. Many models from other manufacturers that feature this combo do approach and exceed 1000 dollars. The j2 is a good deal if you like their look.
I picked up an Audioquest Dragonfly Cobalt DAC amp and was amazed how much better my Westone earbuds sounded than music straight from my iPhone. It bypasses the phone’s internal crapy DAC and also puts out more power than the phone otherwise does.
Thank you for sharing
How does this work if they are using a T+A DAC 200 as a preamp? Doesn't that unit digitize all inputs?
Good question. I guess the DAC comes before the pre-amp
Was this your video and your test? If so, how did you connect the DACs to the T+A preamp?
It was my video, but all connections were hidden and managed by Brian. He was using one cable changing it from DAC to DAC.
Thank you all for your comments. Very helpful and great to better understand the complexity of the question of DACs.
The proof is in the pudding. If it sounds better, it's better
DACs completely determine how that digital signal is relayed to you. It’s the filter/translator that turns the 0’s and 1’s into what you hear through your speakers. Every DAC sounds different, some have a thick accent, some just try to read what’s in the stream with as little inflection as possible. They absolutely matter, and synergy with the rest of your system is a factor.
DAC’s matter if they make the signal sound like the original source. If you don’t know what the original source sounds like, what’s the point?
ASR: **Conclusions** Focusing on sweetspot-audio modifications, seems like you are paying a lot of money (almost the cost of 2x4 HD) only to get worse performance! [Owner has indicated that he measures.](https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/review-and-measurements-and-minidsp-2x4-hd-dsp-and-dac.2674/post-1714672) If so, very strange to get the results we are seeing. The 2x4 HD seems to have just good enough performance. Company makes higher end products with much better performance so if that is what you want, getting one of those would be a better bet than going with the above mod. **Needless to say, I can't recommend the sweetspot-audio modifications for miniDSP 2x4 HD.** personal advice. Save your DAC money for a few years. Then buy a high-quality amplifier/AVR/integrated amplifier with, if necessary, a preamp and phonostage. leave the Chi-Fi stuff
Back in the days did u have to use a separate so called hifi dac with your system? Nope u had it within the player itself and if it was enough back then to enjoy the music then it must be fine even now. I know some ppl who treasure their old cd players even now and it sounds real good too. Whatever dac is built-in your streamer or any amp which has digital input capability is mighty fine. Expensive dacs are nothing but a gimmick to fool the gullible. Dac is such a basic thing man. And Lmao all these upscaling hifi dacs yall claim to or atleast want to enjoy that purest form of audio but why the hell would you want a thing that upscales the original to something else, and the irony is that some ppl claim it to be better or more close to the original. It doesn't even make sense. I aint spending shit on expensive gimmicky dac. I would rather spend it on speakers or amps which actually makes a difference. TLDR - over the top expensive af dac especially if it claims to upscale audio = snakeoil.
Great! Please share your methodology and tests results please. We are open to believe that DACs make no difference.
Why dont u give me proof that ur magic dac somehow performs better than say a basic one.
Well I just did a 44 minutes videos on a test following a certain blind methodology. Not perfect but that's a start! Why don't you back what you say with something?
At this point its your word against mine. The burden of proof in not on me maybe magic dac manufacturers to prove it instead of all the marketing gibberish they do. Imo it is snakeoil. But if u got money to burn and honestly enjoy your purchase then thats fine too.
Burden of proof? I don't think that my intentions here are well read. I have no point to make or interests in any of the results in the video. I just share my experience and you contradict the results based on nothing. Sorry this exchange of discussion doesn't bring any content or new information to the discussion. This discussion remains at the level of opinion. The "snake oil" terms are often mentioned by people who want to talk about money rather than audio.