I guess the OP has never used a Chord Dave connected to a Chord M Scaler.
The differences between DACS are very significant unless you buy cheap dacs with the same chipsets.
2 Likes
@David_Hamby and @struts thank you for your time and contribution.
I’m still somehow convinced that regarding DAC, what I feed in as digital file I should get 1:1 exactly out. This is ultimate DAC. What you describe are general pros/cons of digital reproduction. If DAC tries to compensate/correct something coming from digital (by chip, by filters, by analog path design,…) I’m OK with it but that’s not what I’m looking for.
If we speak about transients, shouldn’t they be solved by increased sampling frequency? Today’s DACs can handle 705.6 kHz so transients can be sampled sufficiently. Indeed then recording frequency should be also higher.
You’re right, I never used so cannot compare. I believe they use one of three chip brands on market anyway. So if there is any difference in SQ, it’s intentional by design trying to improve something or tuning according theirs taste. It’s quite usual that based on research there is some preference of sound by most people which they try to achieve. And then people say it sounds excellent but it’s not 1:1 in/out which purists like me look for.
Both are FPGA.
3 Likes
Is this “differences…very significant” assessment per your subjective experience?
If the answer to the aforementioned question is affirmative, do you think that you are a capable and reliable witness for audio comparison at this point? See your own self disclosure quoted above. How would you fare in an ABX test between level matched DACs?
AJ
1 Like
As I said before, a non-aliased digital signal represents a unique analog waveform. There is nothing to improve on once the signal has been digitized. Errors introduced by improper digitization (e.g. aliasing, jitter, inadequate dither etc.) cannot be undone during D/A.
1 Like
Extremely well. Given enough volume in my left ear, i hear the entire frequency range.
Reason i use a sparkos labs aries ii amp.
Unless they want to intentionally customize/equalize SQ so it may sound “better” to some people?
Yes, unless, although that’s a futile exercise. If you have room correction or other custom DSP, the DAC should not interfere.
1 Like
I fully agree.
Objective measurements rather than ears to establish the best recording? Interesting.
2 Likes
I think that we should do away with sound engineers and have robots perfect recordings according to math.
That’s what REW, Dirac, Audissey and other equalization techniques do for specific environments.
Coool/char
Maybe. But the DRD is not a reliable source. At least to this sound engineer who was astonished to see the claims being made for the dynamic range of Vinyl and CD mistering’s of his own recordings.
1 Like
Clearly I was talking about digital masterings. Why would you think vinyl masterings are even part of the conversation.
Also, no one said the DR database was definitive for every single album out there. The best masterings do not necessarily have the most dynamic range. But, the best masterings of older digital releases are not the modern compressed masterings that are a result of the loudness wars.
So is the engineer. That’s the point.
You were clearly implying that.
That kind of comment shows you are not familiar with the work of the reviewers in question.
True. I’m not familiar with their work, if they hear difference using Etherregen. Then any other statements about what he hears or not, what is good or not, is not reliable (even if he’s increasing his reliability by sitting in his oscilloscopes museum dusty corner). I believe if there would be audiophile air humidifier to improve SQ with enough high cost and luxurious look, he will hear difference too.
2 Likes