The 2 philosophies in DAC design, hands off and hands on. Which is better?

[terryj]

I'd love to actually, thanks indeed for the offer.

But seein as how I'm in australia it is a bit undoable, for now at least.

but seriously, I'd love to.

 

[Orb]

I cannot see the point in doing a blind/dbt test as one of the critical aspects is the filtering and this can and does differ, so any test ideally should rely upon same filter implementation if wanting to test-compare os/nos/audio-analogue circuit, otherwise you may be detecting the different filter solution.
Anway regarding more or less better.
I feel more is better as some of the very best products out there use high powered DSP processors for both the DAC and filtering (consider the FPGA Xilinx processors) that can also be bespoke in many current examples using these, bespoke DAC circuity in the style of dCS, or heavy DAC architecture with many chips-DACs per channel.

Cheers
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I cannot see the point in doing a blind/dbt test as one of the critical aspects is the filtering and this can and does differ, so any test ideally should rely upon same filter implementation if wanting to test-compare os/nos/audio circuit, otherwise you may be detecting the different filter solution.
Orb

The point of blind testing is obvious - to minimize bias. If the differences between the DACs are subtle, you'll need a blind test or you'll accomplish nothing but determining the bias-fueled preferences of the participants. If the differences are obviously audible, of course that's all you'll accomplish anyway. If that's all you're looking for, never mind. But if you want to determine, A) If a difference is audible B) If a very subtle difference is preferable, even a clumsy, informal blind test will tell you much more than a sighted one.

And actually, they might be obviously audible. The few NOS DACs I've heard were pretty easy to differentiate, I just didn't prefer them.

P

 

[Orb]

I understand P, but the scope has to be understood and I was replying to a later post.
But bear in mind if differences are noticed even in blind testing, it does not explain why as there could be many reasons apart from the OS/NOS consideration that this thread is about, especially such as filter implementation that are one of the more valid reasons for differences, so there could be multiple factors all contributing to the sound difference heard.

Notice I am not against blind testing nor do I think I suggested that, however a good blind test is a pig to setup and most of us have been over this quite a few times in other threads.
Those interested in potential blind/dbt testing there is a current thread where suggestions have been put in.
Will try to find it and add:

Cheers
Edit:
Here it is:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1712-Blind-test-protocol-inquiery
Orb

 

[microstrip]

I would like to ask also what are the differences between the "Eastern" and "Western" views of Audio reproduction? And what companies or products illustrate those approaches?

This question is very interesting. In Europe you have to go back to the pioneering work of Jean Hiraga in the end of the 60's to find the first references to this type of Audio reproduction, based in old high efficiency speakers, simple low power tube amplifiers and heavy platter turntables.

Jean Hiraga is half-french, half-japanese and published in french in Nouvelle-revue du Son and l'Audiophile magazines.

For a longer answer to this question see:

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/auditorium23/23_2.html

 

[muralman1]

This question is very interesting. In Europe you have to go back to the pioneering work of Jean Hiraga in the end of the 60's to find the first references to this type of Audio reproduction, based in old high efficiency speakers, simple low power tube amplifiers and heavy platter turntables.

Jean Hiraga is half-french, half-japanese and published in french in Nouvelle-revue du Son and l'Audiophile magazines.

For a longer answer to this question see:

http://6moons.com/audioreviews/auditorium23/23_2.html

Thank you for bringing Hiraga up, microstrip. He started the zen path to audio before CDs ever got off the ground. Happily the spirit lives.

 

[muralman1]

The point of blind testing is obvious - to minimize bias. If the differences between the DACs are subtle, you'll need a blind test or you'll accomplish nothing but determining the bias-fueled preferences of the participants. If the differences are obviously audible, of course that's all you'll accomplish anyway. If that's all you're looking for, never mind. But if you want to determine, A) If a difference is audible B) If a very subtle difference is preferable, even a clumsy, informal blind test will tell you much more than a sighted one.

And actually, they might be obviously audible. The few NOS DACs I've heard were pretty easy to differentiate, I just didn't prefer them.

P

I understand your preferences. You mentioned the NOS DACs. Do you remember the transport? I have heard Audio Note transports paired with high level Audio Note DACs. The resulting sound was not my preference either. Using a foreign transport to AN, and a kicked in the pants AN DAC offers an entirely different experience.

 

[FrantzM]

microstrip

I know about him quite a bit. I did read a lot of " La nouvell Revue du Son " back in the days. I fail however to see the difference really between the Western ways of doing things and how it relates to Zen ..

 

[muralman1]

Who is going to be here?

1) Muralman

2) Steve?

 

[microstrip]

microstrip
I fail however to see the difference really between the Western ways of doing things and how it relates to Zen ..

Franz,
We also do not know how Zen relates to motorcycle maintenance. But at less single ended amplifiers are supposed to be easy to service, as they have few components ...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I understand P, but the scope has to be understood and I was replying to a later post.
But bear in mind if differences are noticed even in blind testing, it does not explain why as there could be many reasons apart from the OS/NOS consideration that this thread is about, especially such as filter implementation that are one of the more valid reasons for differences, so there could be multiple factors all contributing to the sound difference heard.

Notice I am not against blind testing nor do I think I suggested that, however a good blind test is a pig to setup and most of us have been over this quite a few times in other threads.
Those interested in potential blind/dbt testing there is a current thread where suggestions have been put in.
Will try to find it and add:

Cheers
Edit:
Here it is:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?1712-Blind-test-protocol-inquiery
Orb

Orb, I understand that a carefully controlled blind test is not easy to set up, but a sighted test accomplishes absolutely nothing, and I personally believe that even an informal blind test is better. Do it as simply as you can; Just set it up so you can switch between DACs without the listeners knowing what is playing when. If Muralman's NOS dac is as distinctive, and his system is as revealing as he believes it is, differentiation should be obvious, and preference will be unbiased. Let the listeners see what's playing when and you don't indicate anything substantive, much less prove it.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I understand your preferences. You mentioned the NOS DACs. Do you remember the transport? I have heard Audio Note transports paired with high level Audio Note DACs. The resulting sound was not my preference either. Using a foreign transport to AN, and a kicked in the pants AN DAC offers an entirely different experience.

My transport is always the same - a MacBook pro playing lossless files.

P

 

[muralman1]

My transport is always the same - a MacBook pro playing lossless files.

P

Hello P, someday, I will certainly test the Mac lossless files. I am beginning to think that 47 labs are working on the same premise. The files that it is transferring to my DAC are a lot more pure than I have heard from any other transport.

Are you coming?

 

[Orb]

Orb, I understand that a carefully controlled blind test is not easy to set up, but a sighted test accomplishes absolutely nothing, and I personally believe that even an informal blind test is better. Do it as simply as you can; Just set it up so you can switch between DACs without the listeners knowing what is playing when. If Muralman's NOS dac is as distinctive, and his system is as revealing as he believes it is, differentiation should be obvious, and preference will be unbiased. Let the listeners see what's playing when and you don't indicate anything substantive, much less prove it.

Tim

Heya Tim,
I think your misunderstanding my point.
I am not arguing against blind testing but pointing out they are hard to do and the person really should go to that link as a case in point, just look at the link I provided.
I am arguing that the blind test in this scenario is pointless unless you have a NOS/OS DAC using the same filters with comparable audio-analogue design, because if they sound different and the purpose was to compare NOS/OS DACs you cannot due to these other factors also skewing the result.
If someone says the NOS sounds better but both use different filters, how can you say it is not the filter that generating the benefit/issue?
IMO the most noticable aspect of DACs is their filter, look at those with multiple filter settings and it is easy to notice the difference.

Thanks
Orb

 

[muralman1]

Heya Tim,
I think your misunderstanding my point.
I am not arguing against blind testing but pointing out they are hard to do and the person really should go to that link as a case in point, just look at the link I provided.
I am arguing that the blind test in this scenario is pointless unless you have a NOS/OS DAC using the same filters with comparable audio-analogue design, because if they sound different and the purpose was to compare NOS/OS DACs you cannot due to these other factors also skewing the result.
If someone says the NOS sounds better but both use different filters, how can you say it is not the filter that generating the benefit/issue?
IMO the most noticable aspect of DACs is their filter, look at those with multiple filter settings and it is easy to notice the difference.

Thanks
Orb

Orb, my DAC has no filters. That is part of the source differences. The other players will have filters, and other signal attenuating chips aboard. If anyone brings a DAC and no transport, my Flatfish will aid it's sound I will wager.

 

[Orb]

Muralman,
just curious are you using something that has 1-bit digital conversion technology and what is the product?
This does change the comparison I agree
But will be tricky on deciding on how to choose an OS product.
Marantz used to have 1-bit digital conversion (PDM) combined with 8-times oversampling filter, if yours is PDM then finding something else with that combined with OS filter would possibly make sense if wanting to narrow the testing specifically to focus on NOS/OS.
Worth a thought if that is the purpose.

Edit:
This is a good techie article relating to Sigma Delta Modulation if anyone is interested:
Understanding Sigma-Delta Modulation: The Solved and Unsolved Issues By Joshua D. Reiss, AES Member
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/people/j...maDeltaModulation-SolvedandUnsolvedIssues.pdf

Thanks
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Hello P, someday, I will certainly test the Mac lossless files. I am beginning to think that 47 labs are working on the same premise. The files that it is transferring to my DAC are a lot more pure than I have heard from any other transport.

Are you coming?

It would be fun, but I'm in the other corner of the North American continent.

P

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Heya Tim,
I think your misunderstanding my point.
I am not arguing against blind testing but pointing out they are hard to do and the person really should go to that link as a case in point, just look at the link I provided.
I am arguing that the blind test in this scenario is pointless unless you have a NOS/OS DAC using the same filters with comparable audio-analogue design, because if they sound different and the purpose was to compare NOS/OS DACs you cannot due to these other factors also skewing the result.
If someone says the NOS sounds better but both use different filters, how can you say it is not the filter that generating the benefit/issue?
IMO the most noticable aspect of DACs is their filter, look at those with multiple filter settings and it is easy to notice the difference.

Thanks
Orb

I understood the point was to compare Muralman's NOS dac to some OS dacs of other members, not to compare NOS vs OS, with all other things being identical. Not even sure how you'd do that...

P

 

[Orb]

Hehe don;t mind me, I was also thinking of ADC and it came out in my posting as well doh, was also thinking back to the 1st page with the mention of studios haha.
What you say makes sense, still will be interesting what products are being compared and what conclusions are drawn from the experience.

Cheers
Orb

 

[muralman1]

Muralman,
just curious are you using something that has 1-bit digital conversion technology and what is the product?
This does change the comparison I agree
But will be tricky on deciding on how to choose an OS product.
Marantz used to have 1-bit digital conversion (PDM) combined with 8-times oversampling filter, if yours is PDM then finding something else with that combined with OS filter would possibly make sense if wanting to narrow the testing specifically to focus on NOS/OS.
Worth a thought if that is the purpose.

Edit:
This is a good techie article relating to Sigma Delta Modulation if anyone is interested:
Understanding Sigma-Delta Modulation: The Solved and Unsolved Issues By Joshua D. Reiss, AES Member
http://www.elec.qmul.ac.uk/people/j...maDeltaModulation-SolvedandUnsolvedIssues.pdf

Thanks
Orb

What are you talking about? I don't think there is anything 1 bit about my source. The 47 Labs transport spins the disc, and my juiced Audio Note works the conversion.