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

[StudioGuy]

You most likely know the technical specifications of such devices far better than I do. Even so, aren't there different modules and approaches for converting digital into analogue, which may vary in cost - Delta-sigma,  R2R Ladder, Multibit, Discrete FPGA?

There aren't different approaches, there's the one approach as defined by Shannon in his paper mentioned previously, which is commonly called (Nyquist/Shannon) Sampling Theory. There have been some different topologies to achieve that math over the decades but it is the same basic math. R2R (ladder) was the first but was superceeded by Delta-Sigma when chips were developed in the latter 1980's capable of performing at the required speed. In addition to improved accuracy, Delta-Sigma also greatly reduced the analogue (anti-alias and reconstruction) filter requirements and was therefore significantly cheaper, a win, win situation, which is why the R2R topology was superseded by delta-sigma.

"Multibit" is R2R, it simply means multiple bits are converted (by a resistor ladder) rather than the single bit in Delta-Sigma. However, this is an audiophile marketing term and is a misnomer because in the mid 1990's Delta-Sigma converters evolved from using a single bit to using several/multiple bits, so all converters in the last 25 years or so are "multibit" and the term is technically meaningless.

"Discrete FPGA" is just a type of chip that effectively does the same as what a standard DAC chip does. The difference is that it's a general chip rather than a specific DAC chip and therefore requires programming in order to carry out the DAC functions. A "discrete FPGA" can therefore be programmed to convert exactly the same as any other mass produced DAC chip that costs a few bucks but are usually employed by some audiophile manufacturers to implement an atypical oversampling filter (which is not audibly different) and of course it's a good excuse to charge a lot more.

And of course, a DAC also contains other elements, such as the power supply, which can influence the outcome as well.

But as we measure the analogue output of a DAC, rather than just output of the DAC chip itself, then any effect of the other elements, "such as the power supply", op-amps, balancing circuitry, cabling, connectors, etc., must of course be contained within those measurements (EG. Noise and/or distortion), which are way below audibility in any half decent DAC, even very cheap ones.

I'd be interested to know what some of those "higher performance", measurable but non-audible, attributes would be.

Pretty much all of them! Take jitter for example, as I mentioned previously. A jitter measurement of analogue artefacts at say -140dB is significantly better than another DAC with analogue jitter artefacts at say -120dB, ten times better to be exact. But at reasonable listening levels, analogue artefacts at -120dB cannot even exist as sound, let alone be audible and obviously, analogue artefacts even lower at -140dB also cannot exist as sound. But if someone wants to pay an extra few hundred bucks for that ten times better performance ("on paper") that's up to them but they obviously can't hear that difference because it cannot exist as acoustic sound, only in the analogue domain.

Other measurements are the same or in some cases they may be able to exist as sound but transducers (speakers/headphones) cannot resolve them or they are below human hearing thresholds, hence "all of them", with the possible exception of output voltage level.

[Harry]

I am still upgrading, despite naysayers, for they no nothing. My ears are absolute truth, and all the measurements guys can go walking the desert. I have in my home the Borresen M3 speakers, costing a pitance, a measly 175.000,-euros, hell yeah, and you can not measure it, but they sound out of this world. Prtttttttttttttttt!            

[Todd]

Small dynamic driver ported enclosures with ribbon tweeters display well known and measurable sonic traits.  The lack of readily available technical specs for the drivers and the absence of third-party measurements of said drivers, along with claims made about materials and the crossover, basically just comports with the Wilson Audio approach to marketing. 

The funniest bit directly from the company is this: "Cryogenic treatment of all metal components of the loudspeaker results in a further significant improvement in conductivity – unleashing the finest and most subtle musical details."  So, Borresen is just another overpriced brand that sells snake oil.

[71 dB]

My ears are absolute truth,...             

You do know Harry that typically this type of ranting is linked to delusions and mental illness, but maybe you are just joking.

Speakers are among the audio devices which often offer better sound with higher price tag, but the correlation is still far from 1. This is because transferring electric signal into pressure changes in air with mechanical vibration is quite challenging, especially when one needs to do it well over 10 octaves from wavelengths of several meters down to a couple of centimeters or so.

[AnotherSpin]

I am still upgrading, despite naysayers, for they no nothing. My ears are absolute truth, and all the measurements guys can go walking the desert. I have in my home the Borresen M3 speakers, costing a pitance, a measly 175.000,-euros, hell yeah, and you can not measure it, but they sound out of this world. Prtttttttttttttttt!            

It will be interesting to read about your impressions

[AnotherSpin]

You do know Harry that typically this type of ranting is linked to delusions and mental illness, but maybe you are just joking.

Speakers are among the audio devices which often offer better sound with higher price tag, but the correlation is still far from 1. This is because transferring electric signal into pressure changes in air with mechanical vibration is quite challenging, especially when one needs to do it well over 10 octaves from wavelengths of several meters down to a couple of centimeters or so.

I think exactly the same, for me the truth lies only in my own ears. I can look at measurements or other people's opinions only for reference. No numbers can replace or compete with what I hear. To trust numbers and not trust your own ears is foolish, and I feel sorry for such people. But they are not to blame for their weakness and lack of self respect. It is what it is.

[Spotted Horses]

I am still upgrading, despite naysayers, for they no nothing. My ears are absolute truth, and all the measurements guys can go walking the desert. I have in my home the Borresen M3 speakers, costing a pitance, a measly 175.000,-euros, hell yeah, and you can not measure it, but they sound out of this world. Prtttttttttttttttt!            

I guess that where you live it is considered classy to boast about how much money you have to spend on frivolous luxury.

[AnotherSpin]

Funny how people treat bragging about a bargain as a virtue, but spending a bit more as almost a sin. If it's one or the other, I'll gladly take the second.

[Todd]

From Frontiers in Psychology: The link between self-uncertainty and conspicuous consumption: Tolerance of uncertainty as a moderator

From NIH: Social class, social self-esteem, and conspicuous consumption

[Fëanor]

Funny how people treat bragging about a bargain as a virtue, but spending a bit more as almost a sin. If it's one or the other, I'll gladly take the second.

One can spend as one pleases and take satisfaction in the result.  No sin in that.

Audiophilia has no upper limit when it comes to spending. Personally I've always admired Mike Lavigne's stereo system, most of all his custom-designed & built listening room -- which probably cost more and makes more difference to the sound than any other component.







Also see ... Mike Lavigne's stereo

[Todd]

Also see ... Mike Lavigne's stereo

Amir's post on the pictured system is enlightening: "I must say that experience was pretty disappointing. The sound was dull and uninteresting. Try as I might, I could not get excited or understand why people come back with superlatives to describe the sound in Mike's room. There was little soundstage, highs were muffled, bass rather dry but not blended in well, etc. On scale 1 to 10, I would give it 4.

We were taking turns to sit in the rolling center chair. I got my chance after 15 minutes or so and boy did that transform the experience. There was a precise depth to the soundstage with pretty high isolation of instruments. Highs came back to life and bass become very supportive. I did not want to hog the chair too long and gave it up to others."

[71 dB]

I think exactly the same, for me the truth lies only in my own ears. I can look at measurements or other people's opinions only for reference. No numbers can replace or compete with what I hear. To trust numbers and not trust your own ears is foolish, and I feel sorry for such people. But they are not to blame for their weakness and lack of self respect. It is what it is.

To believe your senses completely over other information isn't wise. Senses are not as reliable as you think. Magic tricks are a good example of how eyes can be fooled. Stereophonic sound reproduced with speakers creating a phantom mono sound in the middle of the speakers were there are no sound sources is a good example of how hearing can be fooled.

[Fëanor]

Amir's post on the pictured system is enlightening: "I must say that experience was pretty disappointing. The sound was dull and uninteresting. Try as I might, I could not get excited or understand why people come back with superlatives to describe the sound in Mike's room. There was little soundstage, highs were muffled, bass rather dry but not blended in well, etc. On scale 1 to 10, I would give it 4.

We were taking turns to sit in the rolling center chair. I got my chance after 15 minutes or so and boy did that transform the experience. There was a precise depth to the soundstage with pretty high isolation of instruments. Highs came back to life and bass become very supportive. I did not want to hog the chair too long and gave it up to others."

This is instructive too be sure.  Mike's room probably muffles reflections too much except in the one, primary listening position.

[Todd]

This is instructive too be sure.  Mike's room probably muffles reflections too much except in the one, primary listening position.

Sure, but even in the purportedly optimized listening spot, "pretty high isolation of instruments" is not exactly selling the experience. 

Active studio speakers will outperform the described set up, for much less money.  For those inclined to splurge, a pair of Genelec 8381As with studio gear front end electronics would handily smoke the $500K rig for a fifth of the price. 

[Fëanor]

Sure, but even in the purportedly optimized listening spot, "pretty high isolation of instruments" is not exactly selling the experience. 

Active studio speakers will outperform the described set up, for much less money.  For those inclined to splurge, a pair of Genelec 8381As with studio gear front end electronics would handily smoke the $500K rig for a fifth of the price. 

I'm very inclined to agree with you as regards the Genelecs.

But by "pretty high isolation of instruments" I'm guessing Amir means the ability to distinguish one instrument form another, which isn't a bad thing.

[Todd]

But by "pretty high isolation of instruments" I'm guessing Amir means the ability to distinguish one instrument form another, which isn't a bad thing.

It's a very good thing.  "Pretty high" is milquetoast for $500K.

[AnotherSpin]

One can spend as one pleases and take satisfaction in the result.  No sin in that.

Audiophilia has no upper limit when it comes to spending. Personally I've always admired Mike Lavigne's stereo system, most of all his custom-designed & built listening room -- which probably cost more and makes more difference to the sound than any other component.

Exactly my point. Money is simply money, smoke on the water, and should never be elevated into a cult, whether from the stingy side or the side that likes to throw it around.

I have never claimed that a higher price guarantees better sound. In my experience, upgrading from one set of speakers by brand X to a more expensive pair from the same maker, just one example among many, has sometimes proved disappointing.

For me, the only true measure is how it sounds to me, not the figures others quote.

[AnotherSpin]

To believe your senses completely over other information isn't wise. Senses are not as reliable as you think. Magic tricks are a good example of how eyes can be fooled. Stereophonic sound reproduced with speakers creating a phantom mono sound in the middle of the speakers were there are no sound sources is a good example of how hearing can be fooled.

You talk about situations imagined by the mind, I talk about myself and what matters to me. I am not my mind, before my mind I am.

The formulas you imply, did you work them out yourself? Are they based on your own experience? And the names thrown around in this thread, whose are they really?

It is quite funny if you look at it without the rose-tinted glasses of science. People trust everyone and everything before themselves. Something is wrong with this world, and has been for a while.

[StudioGuy]

I am still upgrading, despite naysayers, for they no nothing. My ears are absolute truth, and all the measurements guys can go walking the desert. I have in my home the Borresen M3 speakers, costing a pitance, a measly 175.000,-euros, hell yeah, and you can not measure it, but they sound out of this world. Prtttttttttttttttt!            

Sure, I'm a naysayer apparently and know (no, sic) nothing, which would come as a severe shock to those great artists I've met and worked with, with the panels of experts I've had to apparently fool at universities, the numerous highly skilled engineers at top studios around the world I've worked with and the hundreds of student engineers I've help educate. I can't even imagine a better example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect!

Composers, Sound Designers and engineers go to great lengths to fool your ears but none of that apparently works for you because your "ears are absolute truth"; so you can't perceive tonal music, you can't perceive the stereo effect, your ears tell you the orchestra has been recorded from 40 different positions, that there was no band performance, that the dialogue in films was recorded months after the filming, etc. Why would you spend any money at all on speakers if you can't even perceive music or any of the illusions necessary to appreciate music and audio recordings?

If the speakers cannot be measured, then you're claiming the manufacturer is lying? For example, if they didn't measure the frequency response how do they know the speakers extend to 50kHz, did they just make that figure up or did they get a bat or dolphin to test them? And, if we can't measure sound (that speakers produce) then there would be no audio recordings and no digital audio, what do you think digital audio is and what do you think microphones are?

And lastly, why do audiophiles throw around figures like €175,000 as if it's somehow superior? I've worked regularly on systems where they'd laugh in your face at such a cheap system.

[71 dB]

You talk about situations imagined by the mind, I talk about myself and what matters to me. I am not my mind, before my mind I am.

You are not your mind? Are you out of your mind!?  Your mind besides what matters to you. Your mind imagines things to interpret all the information provided by your senses.   

The formulas you imply, did you work them out yourself? Are they based on your own experience? And the names thrown around in this thread, whose are they really?

Sorry, what formulas? I have been talking about general principles, not exact formulas. These general principles are based partly on my own experiences, partly common sense and partly from the opionion of people who know what they are talking about.

It is quite funny if you look at it without the rose-tinted glasses of science. People trust everyone and everything before themselves. Something is wrong with this world, and has been for a while.

I do trust myself in some things, but I am only a human being and I have my weaknesses. As a mildly autistic and very introverted person, I struggle with social interaction for example. Many social norms are stupid nuisances to me.

What do you think science is? Just lies? Science has to prove things. Science is about testable claims. You can test those claims yourself in theory. Didn't you do science tests in school to learn this principle? Have you ever asked, if it is actually you wearing the rose-tinted glasses yourself?