The $10000 Hi-Fi

How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people with golden-ears?

This is probably the wrong group to ask. Try rec.audio.high-end.

The discussion there will mention that there is more to it than jitter -- the DAC stage includes an analog stage, the specific design and implementation of which will affect the sound, just as with any analog circuit. Even the design of the filters in the digital stage will affect the sound.

On 03/05/2015 20:02, gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people with golden-ears?
>
My $2500 CD player sounds better than my $250 CD player did. Does it 
sound $2250 better? Probably not. But it is better and is visually a 
better looking item. It's "understated bling" if that is possible!

On Sun, 3 May 2015 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT),
gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:

>How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people with golden-ears?

A huge factor is whether you can *see* the difference.  In
other words, if you know that you are listening to a
high-end system it may sound better just from that alone...
sorta like an "audio placebo effect".

As in the world of medicine, the only way to get at the
truth (which can be highly subjective here) is with a
double-blind experiment.   These are not easy to do, and are
often heavily criticized by certain segments of the
audiophile population.  Their complaints are similar to
those of "psychics" when they fail the test.  <g>

Best regards,


Bob Masta
 
              DAQARTA  v7.60
   Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
              www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
 Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI 
   FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusiq generator    
          Science with your sound card!

On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:09:23 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:

> On Sun, 3 May 2015 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT), gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> 
>>How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all
>>about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people
>>with golden-ears?
> 
> A huge factor is whether you can *see* the difference.  In other words,
> if you know that you are listening to a high-end system it may sound
> better just from that alone... sorta like an "audio placebo effect".
> 
> As in the world of medicine, the only way to get at the truth (which can
> be highly subjective here) is with a double-blind experiment.   These
> are not easy to do, and are often heavily criticized by certain segments
> of the audiophile population.  Their complaints are similar to those of
> "psychics" when they fail the test.  <g>

The one critique of the double-blind method that I made myself plow 
through was equating "double-blind" with "brief" and "unnatural", and then 
criticizing brief tests that occurred away from your own comfortable 
living quarters.

Which I thought was an excellent example of missing the point (and perhaps 
not understanding the term "double blind").

But I suspect that when you get north of $2000 or so for a sound system, a 
knowledge of the price tag and a thorough reading of the accompanying hype 
probably has a stronger effect on your listening experience than on the 
quality of the sound issuing from the speakers.

And for some of the high-end audio stuff, where you need unique speaker 
designs to accompany the unique amplifier and that sort of thing, it's 
damned near impossible to do double-blind testing.  Not as hard as, say, a 
double blind test to find the health effects of having sex every night for 
a year vs. receiving a placebo, but still difficult.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:09:23 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 May 2015 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT), gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all
>>> about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people
>>> with golden-ears?
>>
>> A huge factor is whether you can *see* the difference.  In other words,
>> if you know that you are listening to a high-end system it may sound
>> better just from that alone... sorta like an "audio placebo effect".
>>
>> As in the world of medicine, the only way to get at the truth (which can
>> be highly subjective here) is with a double-blind experiment.   These
>> are not easy to do, and are often heavily criticized by certain segments
>> of the audiophile population.  Their complaints are similar to those of
>> "psychics" when they fail the test.  <g>
>
> The one critique of the double-blind method that I made myself plow
> through was equating "double-blind" with "brief" and "unnatural", and then
> criticizing brief tests that occurred away from your own comfortable
> living quarters.
>
> Which I thought was an excellent example of missing the point (and perhaps
> not understanding the term "double blind").
>
> But I suspect that when you get north of $2000 or so for a sound system, a
> knowledge of the price tag and a thorough reading of the accompanying hype
> probably has a stronger effect on your listening experience than on the
> quality of the sound issuing from the speakers.
>
> And for some of the high-end audio stuff, where you need unique speaker
> designs to accompany the unique amplifier and that sort of thing, it's
> damned near impossible to do double-blind testing.  Not as hard as, say, a
> double blind test to find the health effects of having sex every night for
> a year vs. receiving a placebo, but still difficult.
>


And what happens to your carefully set up test when the subject 
has near normal hearing in one ear a a frequency response in 
other that resembles a picket fence [repeated ear infections 
resulting in scarred eardrum and some nerve deafness ;/ [who? me 
normal?]

On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:11:47 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>But I suspect that when you get north of $2000 or so for a sound system, a 
>knowledge of the price tag and a thorough reading of the accompanying hype 
>probably has a stronger effect on your listening experience than on the 
>quality of the sound issuing from the speakers.

Frankly, that's part of the experience. 

One can build (or, in some cases, even buy) a Mustang or a Camaro or a
Corvette that outperforms a Ferrari in just about any objective
category. But a Mustang or a Camaro or a Corvette is still not a
Ferrari. So it is, too, with exotic audio equipment.

I wish that people would just admit that they buy a Ferrari (or a
$10,000 stereo) because it makes them feel good to own a Ferrari
($10,000 stereo), not because the Ferrari ($10,000 stereo) necessarily
out-performs any other vehicle (stereo). At that level, chances are good
that performance will be exceptional. But nothing excludes well-executed
alternatives that perform just as well but are not quite as "satisfying"
to own.

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 5:58:18 AM UTC+12, Richard Owlett wrote:
> Tim Wescott wrote:
> > On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:09:23 +0000, Bob Masta wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 3 May 2015 12:02:25 -0700 (PDT), gyansorova@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> How much does it really matter that you get a decent DAC? This is all
> >>> about jitter but do we all notice the difference or just a few people
> >>> with golden-ears?
> >>
> >> A huge factor is whether you can *see* the difference.  In other words,
> >> if you know that you are listening to a high-end system it may sound
> >> better just from that alone... sorta like an "audio placebo effect".
> >>
> >> As in the world of medicine, the only way to get at the truth (which can
> >> be highly subjective here) is with a double-blind experiment.   These
> >> are not easy to do, and are often heavily criticized by certain segments
> >> of the audiophile population.  Their complaints are similar to those of
> >> "psychics" when they fail the test.  <g>
> >
> > The one critique of the double-blind method that I made myself plow
> > through was equating "double-blind" with "brief" and "unnatural", and then
> > criticizing brief tests that occurred away from your own comfortable
> > living quarters.
> >
> > Which I thought was an excellent example of missing the point (and perhaps
> > not understanding the term "double blind").
> >
> > But I suspect that when you get north of $2000 or so for a sound system, a
> > knowledge of the price tag and a thorough reading of the accompanying hype
> > probably has a stronger effect on your listening experience than on the
> > quality of the sound issuing from the speakers.
> >
> > And for some of the high-end audio stuff, where you need unique speaker
> > designs to accompany the unique amplifier and that sort of thing, it's
> > damned near impossible to do double-blind testing.  Not as hard as, say, a
> > double blind test to find the health effects of having sex every night for
> > a year vs. receiving a placebo, but still difficult.
> >
> 
> 
> And what happens to your carefully set up test when the subject 
> has near normal hearing in one ear a a frequency response in 
> other that resembles a picket fence [repeated ear infections 
> resulting in scarred eardrum and some nerve deafness ;/ [who? me 
> normal?]

That's easy, you do a hearing test first and only choose people with normal hearing. You can later do tests with impaired hearing.

On Mon, 04 May 2015 13:16:42 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:

> On Mon, 04 May 2015 12:11:47 -0500, Tim Wescott
> <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:
> 
>>But I suspect that when you get north of $2000 or so for a sound system,
>>a knowledge of the price tag and a thorough reading of the accompanying
>>hype probably has a stronger effect on your listening experience than on
>>the quality of the sound issuing from the speakers.
> 
> Frankly, that's part of the experience.
> 
> One can build (or, in some cases, even buy) a Mustang or a Camaro or a
> Corvette that outperforms a Ferrari in just about any objective
> category. But a Mustang or a Camaro or a Corvette is still not a
> Ferrari. So it is, too, with exotic audio equipment.
> 
> I wish that people would just admit that they buy a Ferrari (or a
> $10,000 stereo) because it makes them feel good to own a Ferrari
> ($10,000 stereo), not because the Ferrari ($10,000 stereo) necessarily
> out-performs any other vehicle (stereo). At that level, chances are good
> that performance will be exceptional. But nothing excludes well-executed
> alternatives that perform just as well but are not quite as "satisfying"
> to own.

Ferraris exist to make builders of hot Mustangs, etc., feel good about 
themselves in a snarky, reverse-snobbish sort of way.

Like Richard, I have tin ears (too many die grinders and screaming model 
engines in my youth, with too little ear protection).  This saves me a 
hell of a lot of money when it's time to buy a sound system -- but it does 
mean that I can't really exercise my DSP chops on high-end audio.

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 3:29:06 PM UTC-5, Tim Wescott wrote:
> 
> Ferraris exist to make builders of hot Mustangs, etc., feel good about 
> themselves in a snarky, reverse-snobbish sort of way.

Oh, I don't think that Ferrari pays any attention at all to Mustangs and Camaros ... though I understand that they've been looking over their shoulder at the latest Corvettes. But otherwise I agree with your premise.

> Like Richard, I have tin ears (too many die grinders and screaming model 
> engines in my youth, with too little ear protection).  

Fortunately, I always got to hold the model airplane while my father started and adjusted the engine. And I was smart enough to hold it from the side opposite the engine exhaust, so the sound pressure levels that I experienced were at least somewhat attenuated (as was the bath of two-stroke oil).

> This saves me a 
> hell of a lot of money when it's time to buy a sound system -- but it does 
> mean that I can't really exercise my DSP chops on high-end audio.

I do a lot of high-end audio work. It's an interesting field, because getting that last little bit of sound quality means knowing where to allow things to get a little "loose". Mathematically perfect implementations tend to sound as clinical as a hospital operating room, while allowing things to be slightly less than perfect, in an "organic" sort of way, can sound better. 

Or worse. 

Or make no difference at all.

Don't ask me for a definition of "organic", either. I don't have one.