Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
A Sound System as Resonant as a Concert Hall
128 views
Skip to first unread message
Port119
Sep 13, 2012, 11:30:35 AM9/13/12
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-syste
m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp
--------
By ROY FURCHGOTT
Chances are, your sound system isn�t very good at math. It would sound
a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can.
You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But
digital music � CDs or MP3s on a music player � stores only bits of
information taken at intervals along those sound waves.
Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of
connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes
math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well
the system turns digital dots back into the original wave.
That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination
called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) � and here is a little
secret of the audio industry � to keep prices down, manufacturers
often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math.
But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more
as if it were live, and it doesn�t take any soldering. Just plug an
undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music
player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The
devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector
cable.) It does better math to make better sound.
---------------
The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs.
Comments?
m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp
--------
By ROY FURCHGOTT
Chances are, your sound system isn�t very good at math. It would sound
a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can.
You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But
digital music � CDs or MP3s on a music player � stores only bits of
information taken at intervals along those sound waves.
Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of
connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes
math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well
the system turns digital dots back into the original wave.
That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination
called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) � and here is a little
secret of the audio industry � to keep prices down, manufacturers
often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math.
But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more
as if it were live, and it doesn�t take any soldering. Just plug an
undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music
player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The
devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector
cable.) It does better math to make better sound.
---------------
The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs.
Comments?
ScottW
Sep 13, 2012, 2:48:52 PM9/13/12
to
of 1000?
I'm guessing from as little as .25 to maybe $5.
Here's an article claiming the price of DAC chips matter.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/186725/cambridge_audio_dacmagic.html
"There are a wide range of DAC chips, ranging from very low-cost to
very expensive. At the low end, a DAC chip may be used in a cheap PC
soundcard or throw-away MP3 player. At the high end, expensive DAC
chips are found inside top-of-the-line CD players, amps, and other
devices. For a DAC chip, price does matter.
The DacMagic is a standalone device that lets you bypass the built-in
DAC chip in a computer or digital streaming device, using top-quality
DAC chips (two Wolfson WM8740 24bit DACs in dual differential mode)
that upsample the digital stream to provide output that you then
connect to an amplifier or amplified speakers. (The DacMagic doesn't
amplify the output, so you can't use it directly with headphones or un-
amplified speakers.)"
I checked the price of the Wolfson chips from Newark....$3.57 ea from
1 to 5000. (no price break for qty).
So the idea that DAC manufacturers can save much money by scrimping on
the DAC chip is hogwash and has no significant impact on the market
price of high end DACs where the markup from BOM cost to retail price
is where all the consumer cost is.
ScottW
Audio_Empire
Sep 13, 2012, 11:00:24 PM9/13/12
to
In article <abecgr...@mid.individual.net>,
> secret of the audio industry -- to keep prices down, manufacturers
at worst.
Put simply and accurately, most all DACs, whether they're installed in a
$50 CD player, or in an outboard processor purchased as a separate
component, contain "computer chip" or I.C. digital to analog converters
- often the same ones*. So telling people that they can improve their
sound simply by buying some nebulous stand-alone outboard DAC, is an
absolutely worthless piece of advice.
* There are stand-alone DACs that don't use off-the-shelf IC converter
chips (notably, MSB and dCS) but these DACs are not the kind of thing
that a reader of articles like this one would be likely to buy. They
cost as much as a fairly decent car. The MSB DAC-IV, for instance can
cost more than $40K when properly configured.
Any stand-alone DAC box that most of us can afford would likely use the
same (or very similar) IC converters as do the CD player player
converter that they're circumventing.
The only IC converter that seems to stand head and shoulders, above the
Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments, Wolfson, Analog Devices, AKM, etc chips
is the 32-bit, so-called "SabreDAC" from ESS. Most of these IC DAC chips
are very similar and most of them are pretty cheap. Mass production and
large-scale integration sees to that. Some DAC-box makers build their
own DACs out of discrete components, and while that methodology might
seem counterintuitive (In theory, it's easier to make a more consistent
product with an IC because you build one that has the specs you want,
and then like a cookie-cutter you replicate it thousands of times.
Barring any errors in processing the wafers, each individual chip on
that wafer should be like every other chip on that wafer), the fact is
that there is some variation even in individual IC chips and
discrete-component DACs can be more tightly controlled. Of course, you
pay dearly for that. Some semiconductor companies "bin" their chips.
That is to say, that they test each chip using automated testing
equipment and separate the chips with the best specs from the rest.
There may be several bins for these finished chips. Those that excel in
some parameters, those that come out a little better than the original
spec for that part, those that equal the spec, and some that are below
spec, but still work acceptably. Then of course, some chips fail
completely and they are discarded. The chips that excel are usually
priced higher than those that test merely adequate, and some of the
better DAC makers (like Weiss, for instance) might buy those. But
believe me, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference by
listening.
Port119 <looki...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-syste
> m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp
>
> --------
> By ROY FURCHGOTT
>
> Chances are, your sound system isn't very good at math. It would sound
> a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can.
>
> You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But
> digital music -- CDs or MP3s on a music player -- stores only bits of
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/technology/personaltech/a-sound-syste
> m-as-resonant-a-concert-hall-tool-kit.html?_r=1&src=dayp
>
> --------
> By ROY FURCHGOTT
>
> Chances are, your sound system isn't very good at math. It would sound
> a lot better if you could make it a little smarter, and you can.
>
> You see, music travels to the ear as a smooth wave of sound. But
> information taken at intervals along those sound waves.
>
> Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of
> connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes
> math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well
> the system turns digital dots back into the original wave.
>
> That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination
> called a digital-to-analog converter (or DAC) -- and here is a little
>
> Later, your sound system will play a sophisticated game of
> connect-the-dots to turn that choppy data back into a wave. That takes
> math. How authentic the playback sounds depends largely on how well
> the system turns digital dots back into the original wave.
>
> That de-digitizing is done by a computer chip and software combination
> secret of the audio industry -- to keep prices down, manufacturers
> often scrimp on that part. That means mediocre math.
>
> But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more
> as if it were live, and it doesn't take any soldering. Just plug an
> undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music
> player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The
> devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector
> cable.) It does better math to make better sound.
> ---------------
>
> The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs.
> Comments?
Whatever article you're quoting is oversimplified at best and fallacious
>
> But you can upgrade your processor to make your music sound much more
> as if it were live, and it doesn't take any soldering. Just plug an
> undistinguished box called an outboard DAC between your digital music
> player (like an iPod, CD player or computer) and an amplifier. (The
> devices use a USB, optical, 30-pin or coaxial cable or RCA connector
> cable.) It does better math to make better sound.
> ---------------
>
> The article continues, and ends with a comparison of various DACs.
> Comments?
at worst.
Put simply and accurately, most all DACs, whether they're installed in a
$50 CD player, or in an outboard processor purchased as a separate
component, contain "computer chip" or I.C. digital to analog converters
- often the same ones*. So telling people that they can improve their
sound simply by buying some nebulous stand-alone outboard DAC, is an
absolutely worthless piece of advice.
* There are stand-alone DACs that don't use off-the-shelf IC converter
chips (notably, MSB and dCS) but these DACs are not the kind of thing
that a reader of articles like this one would be likely to buy. They
cost as much as a fairly decent car. The MSB DAC-IV, for instance can
cost more than $40K when properly configured.
Any stand-alone DAC box that most of us can afford would likely use the
same (or very similar) IC converters as do the CD player player
converter that they're circumventing.
The only IC converter that seems to stand head and shoulders, above the
Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments, Wolfson, Analog Devices, AKM, etc chips
is the 32-bit, so-called "SabreDAC" from ESS. Most of these IC DAC chips
are very similar and most of them are pretty cheap. Mass production and
large-scale integration sees to that. Some DAC-box makers build their
own DACs out of discrete components, and while that methodology might
seem counterintuitive (In theory, it's easier to make a more consistent
product with an IC because you build one that has the specs you want,
and then like a cookie-cutter you replicate it thousands of times.
Barring any errors in processing the wafers, each individual chip on
that wafer should be like every other chip on that wafer), the fact is
that there is some variation even in individual IC chips and
discrete-component DACs can be more tightly controlled. Of course, you
pay dearly for that. Some semiconductor companies "bin" their chips.
That is to say, that they test each chip using automated testing
equipment and separate the chips with the best specs from the rest.
There may be several bins for these finished chips. Those that excel in
some parameters, those that come out a little better than the original
spec for that part, those that equal the spec, and some that are below
spec, but still work acceptably. Then of course, some chips fail
completely and they are discarded. The chips that excel are usually
priced higher than those that test merely adequate, and some of the
better DAC makers (like Weiss, for instance) might buy those. But
believe me, I doubt that anyone would be able to tell the difference by
listening.
Audio_Empire
Sep 13, 2012, 11:01:05 PM9/13/12
to
In article <abeo4k...@mid.individual.net>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are correct about the price of most DAC chips in the quantities that
manufacturers are likely to buy. But, there are exceptions. The last
time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so!
That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
DAC boxes cost retail! Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
It does result in a more expensive product, however.
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
manufacturers are likely to buy. But, there are exceptions. The last
time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each in quantities of 1000 or so!
That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
DAC boxes cost retail! Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
It does result in a more expensive product, however.
Arny Krueger
Sep 14, 2012, 8:12:27 AM9/14/12
to
"Audio_Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k2u6l...@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <abeo4k...@mid.individual.net>,
>The last
> time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each
> in quantities of 1000 or so!
Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit
DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit
performance.
> That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> DAC boxes cost retail!
The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic
range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips
in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is
that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling
already.
> Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> It does result in a more expensive product, however.
Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986:
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
news:k2u6l...@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <abeo4k...@mid.individual.net>,
>The last
> time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each
> in quantities of 1000 or so!
DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit
performance.
> That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> DAC boxes cost retail!
range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips
in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is
that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling
already.
> Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> It does result in a more expensive product, however.
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
ScottW
Sep 14, 2012, 5:55:54 PM9/14/12
to
On Sep 13, 8:01 pm, Audio_Empire <audio_emp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <abeo4kFp8r...@mid.individual.net>,
The 9012 (reference stereo Sabre32 is $55 for sample quantity of 2 to
10.
They don't publish qty price but diy groups mention $50 ea.
An evaluation board for $450 would be the way to go.
> That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> DAC boxes cost retail!
> Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> It does result in a more expensive product, however.
I can't see any value in that waste of silicon at all. It's silly to
think the change from 129 db DNR in 8 channel mode to 135db in mono is
audible. Going dual differential on top of mono is just going beyond
overkill.
ScottW
> In article <abeo4kFp8r...@mid.individual.net>,
10.
They don't publish qty price but diy groups mention $50 ea.
An evaluation board for $450 would be the way to go.
> That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> DAC boxes cost retail!
> Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> It does result in a more expensive product, however.
think the change from 129 db DNR in 8 channel mode to 135db in mono is
audible. Going dual differential on top of mono is just going beyond
overkill.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
Sep 14, 2012, 6:09:16 PM9/14/12
to
"Audio_Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k2u6k...@news3.newsguy.com...
> In article <abecgr...@mid.individual.net>,
> The only IC converter that seems to stand head and shoulders, above the
> Burr-Brown/Texas Instruments, Wolfson, Analog Devices, AKM, etc chips
> is the 32-bit, so-called "SabreDAC" from ESS.
The SabreDAC has 8 converters in it, and so they hook 4 of them up in
parallel to get an approximate 6 dB dynamic range improvement\ on the noise
performance of the basic chip from the 2 doublings of the number of DACs in
parallel.
There is nothing new about this, people have been doing this for decades.
The individual DACs in the Sabre chip are not all that wonderful as compared
to the best chips from say Burr Brown.
http://www.stereophile.com/ces2008/011008ess/
(Note, the above is a 4 year old article)
"It can provide eight channels of high-quaity surround sound or two channels
of exceptionally high quality stereo sound. "Each time you double-up the
channels, you drop S/N," Mallinson said. "So you gain a 6dB drop in noise
running this in stereo mode, giving us a measured 134dB dynamic
range, -118dB THD from 44.1kHz to 192kHz sample rates."
So right up front, there is a big disparity in performance because while the
noise performance is OK (but still 10 dB off of true 24 bit performance -144
dB ), the spurious responses are 16 dB worse.
Compare that to the Burr Brown PCM 1794 (one chip dynamic range 132 dB using
only 2 converters in parallel) @ < $15 each.
Audio_Empire
Sep 14, 2012, 6:10:35 PM9/14/12
to
In article <k2v6v...@news1.newsguy.com>,
how they describe that particular product, that's what I refer to it as.
And while you are right again that it STILL only has 24-bits of
resolution, other so-called "24-bit" DACs struggle to give 18 or 19 bits
of actual resolution, so the SabreDAC is still ahead of the game.
I mean seven to more than forty-thousand dollars for a stand-alone DAC
is obscene. They have to justify such prices somehow.
the same, they're wrong.
essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer.
I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200
amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of
all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even
told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's
specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving
interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader.
today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were
back in Stereo Review''s heyday).
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Audio_Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:k2u6l...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > In article <abeo4k...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> >The last
> > time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each
> > in quantities of 1000 or so!
>
> Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit
> DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit
> performance.
While true, it's irrelevant. ESS calls it a 32-bit DAC, and since that's
> "Audio_Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:k2u6l...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > In article <abeo4k...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> >The last
> > time I checked, a 32-bit SABRE32 DAC Chip from ESS was more than $100/each
> > in quantities of 1000 or so!
>
> Of course as a practical matter there is still no such thing as a 32 bit
> DAC. The best Sabre DAC is still struggling to achieve true 24 bit
> performance.
how they describe that particular product, that's what I refer to it as.
And while you are right again that it STILL only has 24-bits of
resolution, other so-called "24-bit" DACs struggle to give 18 or 19 bits
of actual resolution, so the SabreDAC is still ahead of the game.
>
> > That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> > dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> > DAC boxes cost retail!
>
> The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic
> range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips
> in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is
> that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling
> already.
Yes, it's mostly a marketing ploy to "justify" ridiculously high prices.
> > That's expensive. You use FOUR of those puppies in the discrete-stereo,
> > dual-differential mode, and you're talking more in parts cost than many
> > DAC boxes cost retail!
>
> The purpose of using 4 of these things is to squeeze a little more dynamic
> range out of the silicon by the most expensive possible way - adding chips
> in paralell for the 3 dB improvement with every doubling of chips. Thing is
> that the basic chip has 4 converters inside that they are paralelling
> already.
I mean seven to more than forty-thousand dollars for a stand-alone DAC
is obscene. They have to justify such prices somehow.
>
> > Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> > this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> > It does result in a more expensive product, however.
>
> Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986:
Well if their conclusion was that all digital to analog converters sound
> > Of course, the jury's still out on whether or not
> > this kind of design "overkill" results in any audible difference or not.
> > It does result in a more expensive product, however.
>
> Actually, the jury returned their verdict in 1986:
the same, they're wrong.
>
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Well, that explains everything! Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were
> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
> Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer.
I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200
amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of
all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even
told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's
specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving
interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader.
>
> ....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
>
> The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same
> ....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
>
> The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were
back in Stereo Review''s heyday).
Arny Krueger
Sep 17, 2012, 5:02:45 PM9/17/12
to
"Audio_Empire" <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:k30a0...@news7.newsguy.com...
>> Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?",
>> Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
> Well, that explains everything! Stereo Review and High-Fidelity were
> essentially pipelines from manufacturer's PR departments to the consumer.
> I mean just look at any Julian Hirsch review: "This Widget X4200
> amplifier, like all modern amplifiers, has no sound of it's own, and of
> all the amps I've reviewed, the Widget was one of them." Hirsch even
> told me one time that I he tested a product that DID NOT meet it's
> specs, the review was never published. How's that for self-serving
> interests? It certainly shortchanges the reader.
that the article's authors were someone else would be a big tip-off.
>> ....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
>>
>> The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
> Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same
> today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were
> back in Stereo Review''s heyday).
However there appear to be many seem to be unable to do proper listening
tests. They publish accounts that feature listening evaluations done of
different players, different days, different listening levels, different
media, different associated components, and different rooms. Bias controls =
null. Of course they find that everything sounds different.
Audio_Empire
Sep 17, 2012, 10:45:27 PM9/17/12
to
In article <k3835...@news1.newsguy.com>,
You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't
know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
Frankly, you'd likely be telling ME that very same thing were I were to
quote an SR or H-F article (or even a Stereophile or TAS article for
that matter). Really the only articles that can be taken seriously are
peer reviewed articles published in the JAES. Even then, some of those
are suspect.
"Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that
they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct
opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V!
> However there appear to be many seem to be unable to do proper listening
> tests. They publish accounts that feature listening evaluations done of
> different players, different days, different listening levels, different
> media, different associated components, and different rooms. Bias controls =
> null. Of course they find that everything sounds different.
While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been
done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
question).
know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
Frankly, you'd likely be telling ME that very same thing were I were to
quote an SR or H-F article (or even a Stereophile or TAS article for
that matter). Really the only articles that can be taken seriously are
peer reviewed articles published in the JAES. Even then, some of those
are suspect.
>
> >> ....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
> >>
> >> The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
>
> > Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same
> > today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were
> > back in Stereo Review''s heyday).
>
> Again, nobody is saying that all CD players sound the same.
Are you trying to say that the Ian Masters and D.L. Clark article titled
> >> ....and repeated thousands of tine since then.
> >>
> >> The news has just been a little slow getting out! ;-)
>
> > Possibly because it's not true. All CD players DO NOT sound the same
> > today (although they're closer together in sound today than they were
> > back in Stereo Review''s heyday).
>
> Again, nobody is saying that all CD players sound the same.
"Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that
they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct
opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V!
> However there appear to be many seem to be unable to do proper listening
> tests. They publish accounts that feature listening evaluations done of
> different players, different days, different listening levels, different
> media, different associated components, and different rooms. Bias controls =
> null. Of course they find that everything sounds different.
done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
question).
Andrew Haley
Sep 18, 2012, 10:39:31 AM9/18/12
to
Audio_Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been
> done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
> differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
> found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
> question).
I seem to remember that the last time you claimed this you were
>
> While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been
> done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
> differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
> found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
> question).
challenged and your response was
>> were there any statistics to back this up?
>
> There are. I don't know what the statistical results actually are -
> we weren't told. We were just told the tallied results. I didn't run
> the tests, and don't personally know the people who did. I was
> invited to attend by a friend. I do know what MY results were (and
> ostensibly the results of other 11 people who participated).
The controls on that test seem to have been hopeless; it was thought
remarkable that the listeners agreed about their preferences, but they
weren't separated during the tests. We don't even know if the levels
were properly matched. I don't suppose you have any results since
then?
I'll repeat what lots of others have said here: differences between
hi-fi audio DACs (that haven't been screwed up in some way) are at the
threshold of hearing or some way below it. Any claim that it is
possible to tell the difference between such DACs requires
well-conducted tests, preferably conducted by a disinterested third
party rather than a hi-fi seller.
Andrew.
nab...@hotmail.com
Sep 18, 2012, 7:05:26 PM9/18/12
to
On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:46:29 PM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
> You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't
> know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
> High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
> a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
> self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
I think you haven't got a clue about either SR or its advertisers. Do
> You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't
> know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
> High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
> a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
> self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
you really think the makers of amps liked it when Hirsch said they all
sound the same?
> Are you trying to say that the Ian Masters and D.L. Clark article titled
> "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that
> they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct
> opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V!
conclude. Which says you are dead wrong about SR's editorial POV.
> While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been
> done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
> differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
> found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
> question).
untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD
players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found
that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark
turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable.
This is such a commonplace that it can be found in college textbooks,
for heaven's sake.
bob
Audio_Empire
Sep 18, 2012, 7:06:38 PM9/18/12
to
In article <abrfd3...@mid.individual.net>,
I'm glad you brought this up. I wasn't talking about any specific test,
above, but the one to which I was privy certainly seemed to me at the
time to be a decent example. It was carefully performed (so it seemed to
my observations). Levels were set using a test-tone CD and both an AVM
and an SPL meter, so they were closely matched. But as for the
statistics. As I said, I wasn't told. We were merely told the results of
each "heat" between pairs of DACs and then the overall winner was
announced. The interesting part was that the 12 assembled listeners were
not just asked to tell if they could hear any differences, but which one
they preferred. Of course, if no differences were heard, then there
could be no preference, then could there?
DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since the
test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between the ages
and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a consensus was
independently reached by each listener separately, and without any of us
knowing how the other was "voting". In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC
shootout " was "fishy" it was that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard
of several tests of popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as
the LA Audio Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and
one held in Germany, where no differences were heard.
above, but the one to which I was privy certainly seemed to me at the
time to be a decent example. It was carefully performed (so it seemed to
my observations). Levels were set using a test-tone CD and both an AVM
and an SPL meter, so they were closely matched. But as for the
statistics. As I said, I wasn't told. We were merely told the results of
each "heat" between pairs of DACs and then the overall winner was
announced. The interesting part was that the 12 assembled listeners were
not just asked to tell if they could hear any differences, but which one
they preferred. Of course, if no differences were heard, then there
could be no preference, then could there?
DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since the
test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between the ages
and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a consensus was
independently reached by each listener separately, and without any of us
knowing how the other was "voting". In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC
shootout " was "fishy" it was that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard
of several tests of popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as
the LA Audio Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and
one held in Germany, where no differences were heard.
Audio_Empire
Sep 19, 2012, 8:55:56 AM9/19/12
to
In article <k3aun...@news6.newsguy.com>, nab...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:46:29 PM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't
> > know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
> > High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
> > a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
> > self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
>
> I think you haven't got a clue about either SR or its advertisers. Do
> you really think the makers of amps liked it when Hirsch said they all
> sound the same?
I think the naiveté is on the other foot, to mix my metaphors. 8^)
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 10:46:29 PM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
> > You seem to be purposely obtuse today. The point is (as if you don't
> > know) that NOTHING technical published in Stereo Review (or
> > High-Fidelity, for that matter) could be taken with anything other than
> > a grain of salt. It was all PR department hype and hyperbole and was
> > self-serving to the magazine's advertisers.
>
> I think you haven't got a clue about either SR or its advertisers. Do
> you really think the makers of amps liked it when Hirsch said they all
> sound the same?
What "appealed" to the booster mentality of most audio manufacturer PR
firms was the sure knowledge that they would NEVER get a bad review at
the hands of Julian Hirsch. Most Hi-fi gear makers back then weren't
selling "sound' anyway, they were selling specsmanship, features, and
price. If a $200 50 Watt/channel Pioneer receiver had similar specs to a
$1200 50 Watt/channel Audio Research tube amp, and the Pioneer, like the
Audio Research "had no sound of its own", then Pioneer's PR firm would
say "...our receiver as tested just as as good as an Audio Research
High-End amplifier, but costs 1/6 as much as has more features including
an FM tuner and a preamp!"
> > Are you trying to say that the Ian Masters and D.L. Clark article titled
> > "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?" DIDN'T come to the conclusion that
> > they DID all sound the same? That would be a conclusion in direct
> > opposition to SR's editorial P.O.V!
>
> This is cluelessness squared. In fact, Masters and Clark did not so
> conclude. Which says you are dead wrong about SR's editorial POV.
reading those slicks. They were uncritical of advertisers' products.
THAT was their editorial policy. And I have that from the horses'
mouths.
> > While that is true, there are also many listening tests that HAVE been
> > done correctly; simple double blind or ABX, and many of these have found
> > differences in CD players and stand-alone DACs (and some that haven't
> > found any differences - so I'd say the result is still open to
> > question).
>
> No, they aren't. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains
> untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD
> players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found
> that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark
> turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable.
all sound the same, in the next you say that there are exceptions to
that "rule." Clearly if they all sounded the same there wouldn't be any
exceptions.
> This is such a commonplace that it can be found in college textbooks,
> for heaven's sake.
most low-end CD players all sound pretty similar in most meaningful
ways. They should. After all, they all have largely the same chipsets in
them. But if you get up above rock bottom, differences do exist, They
are subtle, to be sure, but believe me such results are repeatable and
conclusive. This is not like "differences" that some find with regard to
speaker cables or interconnects (which all sound the same because they
ARE the same) These are quantifiable differences, small differences, but
quantifiable ones.
Andrew Haley
Sep 19, 2012, 9:00:03 AM9/19/12
to
Audio_Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
> DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
> differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
> interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since
> the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between
> the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a
> consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and
> without any of us knowing how the other was "voting".
How come? Were you physically separated?
> DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
> differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
> interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since
> the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between
> the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a
> consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and
> without any of us knowing how the other was "voting".
> In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was
> that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of
> popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio
> Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held
> in Germany, where no differences were heard.
knowledge about thresholds of hearing and maybe even the physiology of
the ear is itself wrong. The distortion products of high-quality
audio DACs are so low that they are at or below the threshold of
hearing in silence; they certainly would be masked by the rest of the
signal.
I greatly regret that these people testing audio DACs don't get
together with hearing researchers to overturn completely current
theories about the working of the ear. I suspect, however, that these
researchers would point out what the audio enthusiasts are doing
wrong.
Andrew.
nab...@hotmail.com
Sep 19, 2012, 7:12:24 PM9/19/12
to
On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:57:01 AM UTC-4, Audio_Empire wrote:
same. (Once upon a time, you would have been required to quote the
post in which I'd said such a thing. It would have saved you some
embarrassment.) Or is it that you do not understand the difference
between "an overwhelming number" and "all"?
<snip>
> In college textbooks it MIGHT be, but it's wrong.
Ah, I see. The experts who study and measure the thresholds of human
hearing are wrong, and you, whoever you are, are right. Yeah. Like
we're going to take seriously the word of someone who can't present a
single shred of published evidence that DACs are routinely
distinguishable.
bob
> In article <k3aun...@news6.newsguy.com>, bob wrote:
> > No, they aren't. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains
> > untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD
> > players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found
> > that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark
> > turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable.
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself. In one statement you say that they
> all sound the same, in the next you say that there are exceptions to
> that "rule." Clearly if they all sounded the same there wouldn't be any
> exceptions.
This is inexcusable. I have not said anywhere that all DACs sound the
> > No, they aren't. No matter how often you repeat this, it remains
> > untrue. The overwhelming number of properly controlled DBTs of CD
> > players and DACs, published either in print or online, have found
> > that, with rare and easily explained exceptions (Masters and Clark
> > turned up one of them), such devices are audibly indistinguishable.
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself. In one statement you say that they
> all sound the same, in the next you say that there are exceptions to
> that "rule." Clearly if they all sounded the same there wouldn't be any
> exceptions.
same. (Once upon a time, you would have been required to quote the
post in which I'd said such a thing. It would have saved you some
embarrassment.) Or is it that you do not understand the difference
between "an overwhelming number" and "all"?
<snip>
> In college textbooks it MIGHT be, but it's wrong.
hearing are wrong, and you, whoever you are, are right. Yeah. Like
we're going to take seriously the word of someone who can't present a
single shred of published evidence that DACs are routinely
distinguishable.
bob
Audio_Empire
Sep 19, 2012, 7:14:07 PM9/19/12
to
In article <abttuj...@mid.individual.net>,
anyone else's paper.
could be different amounts of jitter in different DAC brands. Could be
quantization error, could be poor vs good error correction, etc. I don't
claim to know.
less than a DB or so, there's not much "wrong" that a correctly set-up
DBT or ABX test can do.
Andrew Haley <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Audio_Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
> > differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
> > interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since
> > the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between
> > the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a
> > consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and
> > without any of us knowing how the other was "voting".
>
> How come? Were you physically separated?
No. we were marking paper forms and were encouraged not to look at
> Audio_Empire <audio_...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > DACs all do sound different, It's pretty subtle (kind of like the
> > differences between decent amplifiers) but definitely there. Another
> > interesting result (And I've thought about this several times since
> > the test) was the fact that in spite of a broad disparity between
> > the ages and ethnic and cultural makeup of the 12 listeners, that a
> > consensus was independently reached by each listener separately, and
> > without any of us knowing how the other was "voting".
>
> How come? Were you physically separated?
anyone else's paper.
>
> > In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was
> > that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of
> > popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio
> > Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held
> > in Germany, where no differences were heard.
>
> I don't want to labour a point, but if this is true, then scientific
> knowledge about thresholds of hearing and maybe even the physiology of
> the ear is itself wrong. The distortion products of high-quality
> audio DACs are so low that they are at or below the threshold of
> hearing in silence; they certainly would be masked by the rest of the
> signal.
I suggest that something else is happening. I don't know what it is. it
> > In fact if ANYTHING about that "DAC shootout " was "fishy" it was
> > that aspect of it. Since then, I've heard of several tests of
> > popular DACs performed by other audio groups such as the LA Audio
> > Society where clear differences were heard between DACs and one held
> > in Germany, where no differences were heard.
>
> I don't want to labour a point, but if this is true, then scientific
> knowledge about thresholds of hearing and maybe even the physiology of
> the ear is itself wrong. The distortion products of high-quality
> audio DACs are so low that they are at or below the threshold of
> hearing in silence; they certainly would be masked by the rest of the
> signal.
could be different amounts of jitter in different DAC brands. Could be
quantization error, could be poor vs good error correction, etc. I don't
claim to know.
>
> I greatly regret that these people testing audio DACs don't get
> together with hearing researchers to overturn completely current
> theories about the working of the ear. I suspect, however, that these
> researchers would point out what the audio enthusiasts are doing
> wrong.
While it's possible, It would seem to me that once levels are matched to
> I greatly regret that these people testing audio DACs don't get
> together with hearing researchers to overturn completely current
> theories about the working of the ear. I suspect, however, that these
> researchers would point out what the audio enthusiasts are doing
> wrong.
less than a DB or so, there's not much "wrong" that a correctly set-up
DBT or ABX test can do.
0 new messages