What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[71 dB]

I have to rephrase "disappointing DAC" the DAC of the T3 is very good for its price level Poju,

Are there really audible differences between DACS in 2023? Aren't we beyond transparency (the limits of human hearing) at this point? What can make DACS sound different? Jitter is far below what humans can hear these days. Linearity is excellent, so what gives? Frankly it is silly in 2023 to stare price tags and conclude the pricier DAC, the better the sound must be. A $8 Apple dongle performs transparently!

Are you sure you can tell apart the DACs if you don't know which one is used? People hear all kind of differences in normal listening, because of expectation bias, placebo effect and what not, but these differencis tend to go away or at least became much harder to hear in proper double blind tests because these psychological aspects are eliminated.

I have no business to tell you how to spend your money, but high-end audio business is about cashing in on snake-oil marketing. Yes, these pricy products do have better build quality, but it is build quality that rarely translates into massive sonic benefits, because digital audio in 2023 allows very transparent sound on "not so good" build quality (one of the main points of digital audio in the first place!). Now, if you like the look of pricy audio gear and you like how it feels to use them (good quality buttons etc.) and you have the money to spend then why not, but don't fall into the marketing claiming you have to spend thousands of euros for good sound. No, in 2023 thanks to matured digital audio good sound doesn't often cost much unless we talk about transducers.

but my SACD player is the best Esoteric built, thus the DAC is so much better as the one in the T3, so I am going to use that DAC instead. The U2 streamer by Lumin is just released, I was invited to the introduction of this model in the Netherlands, and impressed by it.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear a difference between the two DACs in double blind listening tests, nor would anyone else. Expectation bias probably makes you hear the Esoteric DAC better because you think it has got a better built, but the audio signal is just stupid audio signal. It doesn't know what the DACs cost nor do they care about "better built quality" which is a human concept. All they care about is the physical properties that dictate how the laws of physics apply.

[DavidW]

Decided after some listening sessions of the Lumin T3 streamer, not to take this model, because of a disappointing DAC, instead I am opting for the new U2 without a DAC, and use the DAC of my Esoteric SACD player which is far superior to the DAC of the T3. Plus the fact that I do not have to buy an extra set of interlinks, Nordost, Vahalla II. Saves an enormous amount of money. Plus after hearing the U2 I concluded it even sounded better as the T3. So its an ongoing journey.

I thought you had an external dac that you used?

[Harry]

I thought you had an external dac that you used?

Nope

[DavidW]

Are there really audible differences between DACS in 2023?

Yes there are.  Different dacs use different op-amps, different topologies and end up sounding different.  Most of what makes dacs sound different are their analog stages and not the performance of the chip or ladder themselves.

What you're discussing is diminishing returns.  Even a $100 dac has a fantastically high sinad.  That was my complaint about asr, is that those measurements make it look like a $1k dac sounds better than a $100 when they frankly do not. 

But they do indeed sound different.  But different isn't necessarily better.  It is just different.

[drogulus]

Yes there are.  Different dacs use different op-amps, different topologies and end up sounding different.  Most of what makes dacs sound different are their analog stages and not the performance of the chip or ladder themselves.

What you're discussing is diminishing returns.  Even a $100 dac has a fantastically high sinad.  That was my complaint about asr, is that those measurements make it look like a $1k dac sounds better than a $100 when they frankly do not. 

But they do indeed sound different.  But different isn't necessarily better.  It is just different.

    I think Amir makes it clear in his reviews that the difference between the top digital performers and the mid level ones is not an audible difference. If a difference exists it would be how the analog output is different when connected to listening devices.

    What I do get from Amir is his admiration for technical excellence both in absolute terms and relative to price. He says repeatedly that these difference have no audible consequences.

[Valentino]

Bought my new phono amp (Cambridge Alva Duo) based mainly on ASR measurements and the fact that both 100 pF and 100 Ohm loading is right for the cartridges I care about using. Of course the headphone amp in it is not exactly versatile but I already have one.
How it sounds? Don't get me started.

[Valentino]

^@71dB, No, I do not get a "hole in the middle" or weak center. Of course hard panned mixer constructed soundstages get wide, but that's not classical music. To me my setup sounds like I'm close to the orchestra, which i s also what I prefer in most concert halls.
I made a system presentation over on Audiokarma: https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/kjetils-audio.990898/
Low cost but effective electronics, expensive transducers.

[Fëanor]

I have no business to tell you {anyone} how to spend your money, but high-end audio business is about cashing in on snake-oil marketing. Yes, these pricy products do have better build quality, but it is build quality that rarely translates into massive sonic benefits, because digital audio in 2023 allows very transparent sound on "not so good" build quality (one of the main points of digital audio in the first place!). Now, if you like the look of pricy audio gear and you like how it feels to use them (good quality buttons etc.) and you have the money to spend then why not, but don't fall into the marketing claiming you have to spend thousands of euros for good sound. No, in 2023 thanks to matured digital audio good sound doesn't often cost much unless we talk about transducers.

Far too often even expensive gear is deficient one or another respect.  We can take as an only moderately extreme example the Devailet Expert 200 integrated amp as reviewed by ASR.  (It's US$10,000 price tag might not seem that much to Harry but it is to most of us.)

It's a fact too that a lot of higher-end equipment aimed at the audiophile market is specifically designed to deliver an agreeable sort of distortion.  We may take as an example the Pass Labs XA60.5 amplifier John Atkinson in Stereophile declared, (at the time), to be the best sounding amplifier he had ever heard;  (US$11500/pair in 2014), yet it had high 2nd/3rd order distortion per JA.

I'm pretty sure you wouldn't hear a difference between the two DACs in double blind listening tests, nor would anyone else. Expectation bias probably makes you hear the Esoteric DAC better because you think it has got a better built, but the audio signal is just stupid audio signal. It doesn't know what the DACs cost nor do they care about "better built quality" which is a human concept. All they care about is the physical properties that dictate how the laws of physics apply.

I guess most of us know that hard-core audiophile dismiss blind testing out-of-hand.  I have reservations about blind, (ABX), testing but I concede that if I can't hear a difference here, those difference are too slight to be of any significance.

[71 dB]

Just fixed my main CD player NAD C-565BEE replacing the disc tray belt. Seems to work like new! It was easier than I feared. 

^@71dB, No, I do not get a "hole in the middle" or weak center. Of course hard panned mixer constructed soundstages get wide, but that's not classical music. To me my setup sounds like I'm close to the orchestra, which i s also what I prefer in most concert halls.
I made a system presentation over on Audiokarma: https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/kjetils-audio.990898/
Low cost but effective electronics, expensive transducers.

It's crazy your system works, but if it work it works...

[71 dB]

I guess most of us know that hard-core audiophile dismiss blind testing out-of-hand.  I have reservations about blind, (ABX), testing but I concede that if I can't hear a difference here, those difference are too slight to be of any significance.

Blind tests are the only way to remove expectation bias from the equation. Expectation bias renders listening tests useless, because it is about your expectations of the sound rather than the sound itself.

[71 dB]

Yes there are.  Different dacs use different op-amps, different topologies and end up sounding different.  Most of what makes dacs sound different are their analog stages and not the performance of the chip or ladder themselves.

What you're discussing is diminishing returns.  Even a $100 dac has a fantastically high sinad.  That was my complaint about asr, is that those measurements make it look like a $1k dac sounds better than a $100 when they frankly do not. 

But they do indeed sound different.  But different isn't necessarily better.  It is just different.

Analog output buffer can affect the sound, but how much does it cost to built a proper one?

[Todd]

What can make DACS sound different?

Analog output stages, power supplies, and (especially) digital filters.  Measurable differences within the audible range may not exist even with differences in these areas.

Blind tests are the only way to remove expectation bias from the equation.

Die hard audiophiles are dishonest and/or delusional.  I've read some audiophiles claim they can distinguish audible differences in digital sources where the only measurable differences, usually in distortion or jitter, occur at -120 dB or below.  Their claims are nonsense, of course.  Die hard audiophiles eschew blind testing, and they typically offer all manner of nonsensical reasons why.  It's been at least a decade since I last read their rationalizations, but they involved things as silly as optimal operating temperature for gear, letting gear "settle" (I don't know what that means), signal degradation if using switching devices, and so on.  It's all gibberish. 

Now, if die hard audiophiles want to go on about great differences in speakers, there they have some valid claims to make, though even there they make stuff up.  Dynamic loudspeaker technology is over a century old.  Other designs are decades old.  Performance parameters and design options are well known and have been for decades.  Room interactions are known, crossover tradeoffs are known - all performance parameters are known.  Audiophile companies peddle in preferred distortions.  And that's fine.  If people truly want distortion free, "ruler-flat" listening, studio gear is the way to go, and it has been for decades.  But almost no one wants that.

Last year I attended a product premiere at a professional audio gear company.  They demoed eight speaker models ranging from simple two-way interior use designs up to stadium speakers.  (One model could generate clear sound at 100 dB+ at over 100 meters away in an open parking lot.)  The company also builds electronics to control their speakers.  They acknowledge audiophile preferences and their electronics offer pre-programmed settings to accommodate self-styled audio connoisseurs.  To that company, audiophiles represent just another niche market with identifiable preferences that deviate from measured neutrality. 

[Harry]

Well despite the bashing we audiophiles are getting by people who think expensive gear is a waste of money, and you can have Hi-res quality at a very low price and it will give the same results, due to scientifics facts that can be or not proved, I am of the opinion that my ears are a better apparatus to judge whether or not my money is well spend. To insult us by telling that what we spend in money is utter nonsense is beginning to irritate me no end. And the phrase " to Harry it may not be a big amount" I will add this. I have to work for my money as others do, and I worked hard and still do, to pay for the equipment, which in my opinion represents the truth in sound. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but stop telling people like me, that I deceive myself if I think that the gear I buy is far superior in all respects. I have four different stereo sets in my home, the office gear cost a mere 1000 euros, and sounds good to my ears, but it will come nowhere near my top set. And that's a scientific fact according to my rules. I do not tell that your gear is a pile of rubbish, and please stop telling me that mine is.

[71 dB]

I'm not calling your gear a pile of rubbish. Clearly your gear is very high quality. I was trying to help you understand what you are paying for in these products, but I am an socially awkward introvert so I may accidently insult people. What I write here is what I can contribute here based on my knowledge, education and understanding. If it is not okay, then I don't know how to participate. Sorry.

[DavidW]

I think that Harry was reacting to all of us and not just you.  It is a matter of quantity, I think he felt like we were piling on.

[drogulus]

   

Well despite the bashing we audiophiles are getting by people who think expensive gear is a waste of money, and you can have Hi-res quality at a very low price and it will give the same results, due to scientifics facts that can be or not proved, I am of the opinion that my ears are a better apparatus to judge whether or not my money is well spend. To insult us by telling that what we spend in money is utter nonsense is beginning to irritate me no end. And the phrase " to Harry it may not be a big amount" I will add this. I have to work for my money as others do, and I worked hard and still do, to pay for the equipment, which in my opinion represents the truth in sound. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but stop telling people like me, that I deceive myself if I think that the gear I buy is far superior in all respects. I have four different stereo sets in my home, the office gear cost a mere 1000 euros, and sounds good to my ears, but it will come nowhere near my top set. And that's a scientific fact according to my rules. I do not tell that your gear is a pile of rubbish, and please stop telling me that mine is.

    I don't think these questions should be construed as attacks on persons.

    Would it be a better world if we could all have personal truths, sciences and rules? I don't think so. It would be very hard to question ones own assumptions if they were "right for me". You couldn't even get an honest inquiry off the ground.

   

[Florestan]

The idea being, I suppose, that the appeal of a $50K Rolex doesn't lie solely in its ability to tell the time.  It may or may not tell the time better than the $10 Casio around my wrist (and also around the wrist of Will Smith in the movie Enemy of the State) but even if it doesn't, it's still a better watch.

Why? The sole purpose of a watch is to tell the time.

[drogulus]

     If I was in the market for an integrated amp I would be inclined to get one from NAD. I owned a 3020 way back when. If someone wanted to criticize me they could say I'm paying way too much and I should get a Yamaha or Denon for half the price. Or they could say don't buy "mid fi" and get a much better Subjectivity Z99 for only $2000 more.

     I think I could explain my choice on mostly objective grounds, with some sentimentality in the mix.

[Florestan]

Can't you afford a better watch?

The question is wrongly put. It should be: Can't you afford a more expensive watch? 

[Florestan]

Not to the people who ask it.

Oh, sure, there are lots of people who equates "more expensive" with "better". When it comes to watches, though, this is utter nonsense.

Out of curiosity, how do you reply to them?