Silver Audiophile Posted March 17 Posted March 17 (edited) On 17/03/2025 at 6:18 AM, Keith_W said: The DAC market (and also amplifiers and other electronics) is split into two. The first market attempts to reproduce the original signal with no added sound or character of its own - "high fidelity" means it is true to the original signal. Modern DAC's are able to do this to below audible limits and without using exotic technology. The second market is to create "interesting" sound. These DAC's typically measure poorly because of all the extra noise and distortion. However, some people argue that they sound better. I don't disagree that a bit of noise and distortion can sound better. It is well known in photography that adding noise can make images look sharper and more appealing. Compare these two images: One of them has noise added, the other is the original image. I won't tell you which is which - study the images (in particular, look at the hair), decide which one looks sharper, then read the article to find out. To my knowledge a similar study has not been done in audio, but it would go a long way towards explaining why people prefer the sound of turntables for example. That "analog sound" from turntables, R2R has ample noise and distortion and I suspect that is why it sounds more appealing. People say that DAC's with copious distortion (e.g. any DAC with output transformers) sound more "analog", even though they tend not acknowledge the "distortion" part. IMO there is nothing wrong with a bit of noise and distortion - if it sounds better to you, then it IS better. Expand Agreed! Which group do you think I belong to? Below: one of my DACs, the Abbas 2.2SE. Edited March 17 by Silver Audiophile 3 2 1
andyr Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 6:18 AM, Keith_W said: if it sounds better to you, then it IS better. Expand Absolutely agree, Keith! I'm afraid I'm not going to read the article (life's too short for polemics!) but to me, the right-most picture looked more interesting. But I'm afraid I can't tell whether this is the one which has had some 'noise' added. On 17/03/2025 at 7:08 AM, Silver Audiophile said: Agreed! Which group do you think I belong to? Below: one of my DACs, the Abbas 2.2SE. Expand You, Dave, belong to the 2nd group (who "like a bit of noise and distortion") - given you have a tube DAC! But I have heard an Abbas DAC - and I know how wonderful they sound! 2 1
aussievintage Posted March 17 Author Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 6:18 AM, Keith_W said: IMO there is nothing wrong with a bit of noise and distortion - if it sounds better to you, then it IS better. Expand It just isn't High Fidelity, which is where this hobby started and is usually aimed. Not sure it is Audiophile either. Maybe it is Art. 2
Silver Audiophile Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:42 AM, aussievintage said: It just isn't High Fidelity, which is where this hobby started and is usually aimed. Not sure it is Audiophile either. Maybe it is Art. Expand I asked ChatGPT to define it: An audiophile is someone who is passionate about high-quality sound reproduction. They seek the best possible audio experience, often investing in high-end equipment such as amplifiers, speakers, DACs, and headphones. Audiophiles prioritise sound clarity, detail, and realism, sometimes preferring analog formats like vinyl and tube amplifiers for their perceived warmth and natural sound. 1
Martykt Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:42 AM, aussievintage said: It just isn't High Fidelity, which is where this hobby started and is usually aimed. Not sure it is Audiophile either. Maybe it is Art. Expand Tubes are not about a bit of noise and distortion, they're about the things that tubes do well that solid state don't do as well. Every audio technology has strengths and weaknesses. BTW music is art. 2 1
andyr Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:49 AM, Silver Audiophile said: Audiophiles prioritise sound clarity, detail, and realism, sometimes preferring analog formats like vinyl and tube amplifiers for their perceived warmth and natural sound. Expand But "sound clarity, detail and realism" in the same sentence ... is an oxymoron, in my view! Sound clarity and detail ... does not always deliver 'realism' or 'natural sound'. 1
aussievintage Posted March 17 Author Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:58 AM, andyr said: But "sound clarity, detail and realism" in the same sentence ... is an oxymoron, in my view! Sound clarity and detail ... does not always deliver 'realism' or 'natural sound'. Expand You need new definitions. Real sound IS clear and detailed.
aussievintage Posted March 17 Author Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:56 AM, Martykt said: Tubes are not about a bit of noise and distortion, they're about the things that tubes do well that solid state don't do as well. Every audio technology has strengths and weaknesses. Expand Where did I mention "Tubes" ? This reply would have been better against a quote from the statement that I quoted before that.
Martykt Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 8:14 AM, aussievintage said: Where did I mention "Tubes" ? This reply would have been better against a quote from the statement that I quoted before that. Expand Sorry, saw the tube dac and thought it was in reference to that.
Addicted to music Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 6:18 AM, Keith_W said: The DAC market (and also amplifiers and other electronics) is split into two. The first market attempts to reproduce the original signal with no added sound or character of its own - "high fidelity" means it is true to the original signal. Modern DAC's are able to do this to below audible limits and without using exotic technology. The second market is to create "interesting" sound. These DAC's typically measure poorly because of all the extra noise and distortion. However, some people argue that they sound better. I don't disagree that a bit of noise and distortion can sound better. It is well known in photography that adding noise can make images look sharper and more appealing. Compare these two images: One of them has noise added, the other is the original image. I won't tell you which is which - study the images (in particular, look at the hair), decide which one looks sharper, then read the article to find out. To my knowledge a similar study has not been done in audio, but it would go a long way towards explaining why people prefer the sound of turntables for example. That "analog sound" from turntables, R2R has ample noise and distortion and I suspect that is why it sounds more appealing. People say that DAC's with copious distortion (e.g. any DAC with output transformers) sound more "analog", even though they tend not acknowledge the "distortion" part. IMO there is nothing wrong with a bit of noise and distortion - if it sounds better to you, then it IS better. Expand Great analogy comparing picture resolution. The same analogy can be used when buying a TV. Usually when you go to a shop full of TV panels on displays, the average person will be looking for brightness and colour saturation. Usually and it’s natural that the set that has the brightest and saturated colours will draw the majority of people to it, this is why manufacturers have what’s called dynamic mode. However in this mode it may look better to everyone, but in this mode, it’s usually way out of specs with inaccuracy of deltaE approaching 5-10. When a display is properly calibrated with deltaE less than 2-3 which is hard for the human eye to detect it won’t be as saturated and impressive as when its in dynamic mode. However you will experience far accurate brightness and colour rendition when they are calibrated and true to what the file/picture is, calibrating the equipment also get you close to accurate colour rendition especially for signage that are trademarked and has to have a specific CMYK/RGB value. This is why measurement counts, our brain and sensors have certain expectations, unless you have a reference product, you will never know. Another example is when a relative owned a Sony Trinitron for over 10yrs decided to upgrade to a bigger TV. They settled for a Panasonic and when they brought it home, took it out of the box, they were severely disappointed in the reproduction. They got a tech from Panasonic out to check it out and were literally told that the Sony they had for a decade had worn out and wasn’t producing what the new Panasonic displaying. They were basically so convinced that the Sony produced more “natural colours” but what happen was they were so use to the Sony and never compared it to something new that they thought the new Panasonic was rubbish when it was the other way around. The point here is what people believe sounds better especially if it doesn’t measure well isn’t always accurate.
Addicted to music Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 9:00 AM, muon* said: In 1960 this was high fidelity. Expand let me guess: THD: 2-5% S/N 50db WOW and flutter 2% frequency response: 50-15khz +\-3db Amen for the digital revolution 1
Keith_W Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:37 AM, andyr said: I'm afraid I'm not going to read the article (life's too short for polemics!) but to me, the right-most picture looked more interesting. But I'm afraid I can't tell whether this is the one which has had some 'noise' added. Expand You correctly picked the image with the added noise! On 17/03/2025 at 7:42 AM, aussievintage said: It just isn't High Fidelity, which is where this hobby started and is usually aimed. Not sure it is Audiophile either. Maybe it is Art. Expand I might be the biggest proponent of measurements and an evidence-based approach on SNA. But I also think that if it's your system, you decide what you want to do. You can go for high fidelity, you can go for some coloration if you think that enhances your enjoyment. Not my place to comment on someone else's preference. 2 2
andyr Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 8:12 AM, aussievintage said: You need new definitions. Real sound IS clear and detailed. Expand Well, I'm just a 'Mexican'. So what would I know, eh? 1
Silver Audiophile Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 9:14 AM, Addicted to music said: The point here is what people believe sounds better especially if it doesn’t measure well isn’t always accurate. Expand That's all good with me.. A whooping THD of 5%, zero negative feed back, tube amp, tube pre, and tube DAC. Measures poorly, and do I care? Absolutely not!!! Do I want more, hell yeah!! My 300B pre and 300B monos below: 1 5 1
Keith_W Posted March 17 Posted March 17 All that expensive gear, and you have it sitting on milk crates. Come on, man! 3 2
pete_mac Posted March 17 Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 7:42 AM, aussievintage said: It just isn't High Fidelity, which is where this hobby started and is usually aimed. Not sure it is Audiophile either. Maybe it is Art. Expand Depends what you're after in this hobby... perfect measurements, straight-wire-with-gain, lab-grade specifications... there's plenty of gear that will achieve that for you these days. Or is it reproducing music with the goal of suspending disbelief when you listen your system? Feeling as though the performer is there with you in the room? If it's the latter, there's more than one way to skin that cat - particularly when musical engagement should occur on an emotional level. Perfect measurements and absolute fidelity do not guarantee this outcome. 6 1
Silver Audiophile Posted March 17 Posted March 17 (edited) On 17/03/2025 at 8:37 PM, pete_mac said: Depends what you're after in this hobby... perfect measurements, straight-wire-with-gain, lab-grade specifications... there's plenty of gear that will achieve that for you these days. Or is it reproducing music with the goal of suspending disbelief when you listen your system? Feeling as though the performer is there with you in the room? If it's the latter, there's more than one way to skin that cat - particularly when musical engagement should occur on an emotional level. Perfect measurements and absolute fidelity do not guarantee this outcome. Expand The old Herb Reichert (from Stereophile) quote.. "Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured." Edited March 18 by Silver Audiophile 3
aussievintage Posted March 17 Author Posted March 17 On 17/03/2025 at 8:37 PM, pete_mac said: Depends what you're after in this hobby... perfect measurements, straight-wire-with-gain, lab-grade specifications... there's plenty of gear that will achieve that for you these days. Or is it reproducing music with the goal of suspending disbelief when you listen your system? Feeling as though the performer is there with you in the room? If it's the latter, there's more than one way to skin that cat - particularly when musical engagement should occur on an emotional level. Perfect measurements and absolute fidelity do not guarantee this outcome. Expand I come from the old school where HiFi - was taken literally as meaning high fidelity, even though, as some here know, I love valve amps and mainly listen through them, I know they aren't perfect. I would never claim they are "better" however. I think it's important to aim at perfection, get as close as you can, but then it is OK to take a step back, especially when other considerations come into play. 2
Addicted to music Posted March 18 Posted March 18 On 17/03/2025 at 1:12 PM, Keith_W said: All that expensive gear, and you have it sitting on milk crates. Come on, man! Expand It sounds better tht way 1 1
Addicted to music Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) On 17/03/2025 at 9:11 PM, Silver Audiophile said: The old Steve Reicher quote.. "Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured." Expand wrong I need Linda Ronstadt to sound like linda Ronstadt, i dont want her to sound like Vin Diesel.. Edited March 18 by Addicted to music
Silver Audiophile Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) On 18/03/2025 at 11:21 AM, Addicted to music said: wrong I need Linda Ronstadt to sound like linda Ronstadt, i dont want her to sound like Vin Diesel.. Expand It is ok to take a different view. As per @Keith_W mentioned previously, rough two groups of Audiophiles: Group 1 - Measurement, objective, fidelity focused first and foremost. Group 2 - Takes a different opposing view. Focuses on subjective listening experience, joy, and believe in the essence of Herb Reichert's quoted assertion to some extent. They are esoteric and unconventional in their design approach to how a good DAC should be. Founders of Lampizator, Abbas, Audio Note UK et al, are classic examples that falls into this Group 2 camp. Knowing which group you land in, can guide which DAC is probably best suited to your musical tastes. Below: The Abbas 3.2SE DAC ( porn for the Group 2 folks). Edited March 18 by Silver Audiophile 4 1
Keith_W Posted March 18 Posted March 18 On 17/03/2025 at 9:11 PM, Silver Audiophile said: The old Herb Reichert (from Stereophile) quote.. "Not everything that can be measured matters, and not everything that matters can be measured." Expand The problem is that it is only partially true. When we are talking electronics like DAC's, ethernet switches and the like, 100% of the performance can absolutely be measured. Furthermore, if you do a null test and nothing comes out, I can guarantee that the signals are 100% identical. You can do this with any signal you wish, whether it is a test tone or real music. If it nulls, it is identical - end of story. If it doesn't null, then you can argue whether you think you can hear something which is -100dB down or >20kHz but you would be on pretty shaky territory. If we are talking about speakers and rooms, then I partially agree. Despite the objections of some people on another forum, I do not think that speakers can be completely characterised by the current suite of measurements alone, in particular not the kind of measurements that we hobbyists are able to do at home. For example, a question I have asked many times to many experts is, "why do large loudspeakers sound large, and small loudspeakers sound small?". I think it has something to do with the size of the wavefront from so many drivers. I am sure this can be measured, but we do not have a standardised measurement for it. Then there is the problem that microphones and ears hear and process sound differently. What a microphone hears is correlated to what a human ear hears, but it is not the same. This means that interpretation of those measurements needs to be done carefully and in context of psychoacoustic research. I could give dozens of examples and I would be more than happy to have a discussion about what we can measure, and what we can't. Maybe in another thread. And please don't ask me about amplifiers because I don't know very much about them. 2
Ars Paart Posted March 18 Posted March 18 On 18/03/2025 at 12:41 PM, Silver Audiophile said: It is ok to take a different view. As per @Keith_W mentioned previously, rough two groups of Audiophiles: Group 1 - Measurement, objective, fidelity focused first and foremost. Group 2 - Takes a different opposing view. Focuses on subjective listening experience, joy, and believe in the essence of Herb Reichert's quoted assertion to some extent. They are esoteric and unconventional in their design approach to how a good DAC should be. Founders of Lampizator, Abbas, Audio Note UK et al, are classic examples that falls into this Group 2 camp. Knowing which group you land in, can guide which DAC is probably best suited to your musical tastes. Expand People can belong to both groups at the same time. I don't understand why dividing people is the preferred response to any situation. 1 1
Silver Audiophile Posted March 18 Posted March 18 On 18/03/2025 at 10:42 PM, Ars Paart said: People can belong to both groups at the same time. I don't understand why dividing people is the preferred response to any situation. Expand Not absolutes of course. However, a starting point to help diagnose and treat people's desired DAC direction. If audiophile A sits in both camps but really wants a neutral and transparent DAC and leans more to group 1 (than group 2), perhaps trying a Chord or Denefrips DAC might be their preferred DAC. Rough guide only.
Recommended Posts