Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: GOOD non-oversampling DAC? (Read 56233 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Ok, I asked this over in Head-Fi without much results sadly.  I probably won't see much here either, but I have to at least ask.  Oversampling DACs have always been described as trading an added harshness for more clarity and I have to agree on the harshness.  I've tried a few sound systems, including some external DACs and just recently got the E-MU 0404 PCI which uses an AKM DAC (and, I must say that of all the DACs I've heard, I do like the AKM best overall) but the result has always been the same.  It's not a HUGE difference, but I'm finding that it's enough to not sit well with my current headphones (which I will admit are a bit on the bright side.)  Even on my speakers it can be a little bit harsh at times.  When I compare with something that uses a non-oversampling DAC such as my SCPH-1001 PSX system among other things I have to say that I truly do prefer a DAC that doesn't oversample.  Unfortunately, getting truly good sound without oversampling can be a bit hard whereas oversampling is a pretty easy method to do it, so almost everything has switched over to this method.

What I would like to somehow do is find a way to listen to my music at home at least with a non-oversampling DAC.  Preferably without it costing me an arm and a leg given that I'm pretty broke ATM.  Now, it doesn't necessarily actually have to be a soundcard.  In fact, I was thinking I wouldn't mind it at all if it were some sort of receiver even.  Obviously I don't need some gigantic surround receiver or something though.  My 2.1 speakers have their own amp and work just fine for my needs (and if I were to change I'd go to 2.0, so I'd be even further away from the target of surround receivers.)  My headphone amp is just about perfect I find when I plug it into things like that PSX.  (It's known to be relatively neutral with just a hint of warmth in the mids, which suits me just fine) so I DEFINITELY don't want it to be amped since it's highly unlikely it would happen to sound quite as close to perfect as this and frankly isn't even that likely to be oriented at headphones at all.  In fact, it's not impossible that some might not be able to handle my headphones since they use a low impedance at the cost of a higher current.  (In other words, I need an unamped line output.)  Rather than having to be a soundcard, if it can take digital output (coax or optical -- either is fine as my gaming/etc soundcard can do either one as can even my onboard SPU and if worst comes to worst, I can get a converter later) it would work just fine for my needs.

The key problem, and one of the biggest reasons I can't just use any old receiver is that I'm looking for one with a good sound quality to it.  Ideally maybe even something AKM (though I realize that's probably asking a bit much -- but then again, maybe this whole thing is asking a bit much...)  Really though, it's pretty hard to find many things without an oversampling DAC.  I remember a while ago I found an external DAC+amp that didn't use oversampling, but, I really couldn't afford one that expensive now and obviously I don't need the amp section (which basically means just that more waste of money even if I were to buy that one...)

Any thoughts?

  

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #1 –
Good NOS DAC? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I recall seeing one or two DAC kits that did not cost an arm and a leg, eg $200. But NOS DACs never really were all that common to begin with. Even some first-generation CD players used 2x oversampling IIRC.

But if you asked most people on this forum (including me) they would probably tell you that an NOS DAC is going to be more harsh, not less, and that whatever preference you do have for the sound can be reproduced 100% in an oversampling design with judicious digital filtering.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #2 –
 I said it on there and I'll say it here too.  I've found the sound of things like that SCPH-1001 PSX to be nicer and less harsh compared to each oversampling DAC I've tried so far.  I would add that I even get something of a direct comparison as the SCPH-1001 uses a 1-bit non-oversampling AKM DAC and the E-MU 0404 PCI uses a 128x oversampling AKM DAC...  (Specifically, the SCPH-1001 uses the AK4309AVM and the E-MU 0404 PCI uses the AK4396.)  It's DEFINITELY not more harsh in comparison.  (Note that by harsh I primarily refer to what oversampling does -- specifically, to the highs.)

Oh, and note that I'm not asking for highest level audiophile quality or anything like that either.  It needs to be GOOD quality, but, not necessarily the best.
  

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Axon on
Good NOS DAC? Isn't that an oxymoron?


Indeed. Do we really have to discuss this? This isn't the snake oil enthusiast's resource, after all. NOS DACs either add imaging or heavy ringing, that were both not part of the original signal. That kind of distortion should be easy to add for those with a strange taste.

Isn't the PSX' non-oversampling property a false myth, anyway?

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Indeed. Do we really have to discuss this?


That's what I want to know.  I didn't ask "do you think NOS sounds better" or anything like that.

Quote
Isn't the PSX' non-oversampling property a false myth, anyway?


How so?  The AK4309 is a 1-bit DAC and doesn't oversample.  It's pretty much as simple as that.  Where is there room for myth or not myth?  Or are people saying that the CD player software itself oversamples?
  

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #5 –
1-bit DACs oversample by definition.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #6 –
 Assuming the information I read about them (which, btw, is pretty hard to find as something better than a highly technical report) was indeed wrong, then I guess I am looking for a 1-bit DAC perhaps.  Basically, a DAC without as much of that upper end harshness but enough precision at least to still enjoy.
  

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Nazo on
 Assuming the information I read about them


The bullets in the first couple lines of the datasheet you linked mention that it oversamples 256x.

Quote from: Nazo on
then I guess I am looking for a 1-bit DAC perhaps.  Basically, a DAC without as much of that upper end harshness but enough precision at least to still enjoy.


It sounds like you just want something similar to that DAC you linked.  Looking at that datasheet, its a pretty typical low end DAC.  Have you tried your system's onboard?  Its probably very similar.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #8 –
 Right, I didn't really expect to have any luck here, but I thought I'd try.  Nevermind then.

BTW, the datasheet does not say that it is 256x oversampling -- or at least not in any way that I can see.  Maybe the 8x interpolation means this, but that I didn't know about.  The only instances I see of the number 256 being mentioned is one of the two supported master clocks is 256fs.

Anyway, just forget it.  At least I've cleared up that one thing and will later be able to ask better elsewhere.
  

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #9 –
I've previously owned a Sigtone (www.sigtone.net) Nos DAC which sounded pretty much as you are describing. As I understand this was basically about the designer aiming for a certain frequency response that gave that perception.

You will probably achieve exactly the same thing by a subtle EQ.


Try something like the following:

2khz: -0,5dB
4khz: -1dB
8khz: -1.5dB
16khz: -2dB

And possibly increase the lower end slightly (maybe +3dB at 60hz?) if you feel the bass is lacking.

It ought to sound less harsh and more "easy" on the ear.
Thorbjorn

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Nazo on
BTW, the datasheet does not say that it is 256x oversampling -- or at least not in any way that I can see.  Maybe the 8x interpolation means this, but that I didn't know about.  The only instances I see of the number 256 being mentioned is one of the two supported master clocks is 256fs.


Oh you're right.  Its just 8x oversampling.  I didn't realize theres a clock divider.

But still, if the main clock is defined to be 256*sampling rate, I think its a pretty big clue the system is oversampling

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Axon on
Good NOS DAC? Isn't that an oxymoron?

I recall seeing one or two DAC kits that did not cost an arm and a leg, eg $200. But NOS DACs never really were all that common to begin with. Even some first-generation CD players used 2x oversampling IIRC.

But if you asked most people on this forum (including me) they would probably tell you that an NOS DAC is going to be more harsh, not less, and that whatever preference you do have for the sound can be reproduced 100% in an oversampling design with judicious digital filtering.


I invoke TOS 8 and ask that you prove that two different DACs sound different with a level-matched time-synched, level-matched bias-controlled listening test. Feel free to pick one that is oversampled, and the other not. The only other requirement is that the two DACs are rated "excellent" by the Audio Rightmark test. You get points but no cigar if one or both of the DACs come out "very good".

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #12 –
Yeah, uh, there's no way I can or want to do that. I plead no contest.

My point was more that if a difference does exist, it would favor oversampling from a distortion standpoint. That much does not require listening.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #13 –
I would put it ths way:  if the hypothesis being tested was " Typical CDPs will sound the same in well-controlled listening tests", I would disallow a NOS DAC CDP as one of the devices under test, as being markedly atypical.  This doesn't mean a NOS DAC might, in fact, be indistinguishable from a typical CDP, just that one has more reason to predict it wouldn't, than normal.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #14 –
Hm. The NOS dac I previously owned sounded good, and less harsh (possibly due to laidback high frequencies) than the other DACS (onboard cd player, squeezebox and onboard denon surround receiver) I had at the time.

I have no comment on wether it could be reproduced with an oversampling dac or wether a nos dac should by default sound more harsh than an oversampling dac, but that wasn't my experience.  I experienced less listening fatigue with that DAC than what I had previously.

EDIT: Small TOS#8 disclaimer, it could of course all have been in my head.
Thorbjorn

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #15 –
Quote from: krabapple on
I would put it ths way:  if the hypothesis being tested was " Typical CDPs will sound the same in well-controlled listening tests", I would disallow a NOS DAC CDP as one of the devices under test, as being markedly atypical.


My qualification about passing a Rightmark test with an excellent score eliminates that possible difference.

The CDP 101 had a non-oversampled DAC, and AFAIK it won't score excellent on a Rightmark test because there is a marginally audible high end roll-off.

I think that there were better non-oversampled DACs that had better analog brick wall filtersm and would do better on a Rightmark.

Nevertheless, if anybody tries to ABX regular music on a CDP 101 with a regular 2-channel monitoring system, I predict quick humiliation for the listner.

IME, people who say that one good DAC sounds harsh and another good DAC sounds better, are pretty much admitting that they have limited or zero experience with proper listening tests involving these kinds of differences, because it just ain't that easy.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #16 –
You're entering the world of diminishing returns.  IE solutions now become exponentially more expensive, and results decrease by the same amount.

Before I tell you what I think would be the best solution though, check a few of the very noticeable and easily fixable (free) tweeks.  First, I don't know what OS you use, but you need to  be certain the info on your drive gets to the DAC unaltered.  In the case of VISTA, do a search on WASAPI.  For XP, it's ASIO.  I never believed XP did it, in spite of my massive attempts.  Vista native-ly sounds better, and is better still using a WASAPI plug-in via Foobar2000.

Second, make sure you are using lossless (FLAC) or at least very high quality lossy compression for your files.  (320 or above).

Now, as far as non free options, the first thing to remember is audio is a chain, and the chain is as strong as the weakest link.  Spend $10K on a DAC if you want to, but put it through your $200 home receiver, and it's going to sound like $200.

Secondly, Your headphones have the single largest cost / change ratio of anything in your chain.  Get a good set used on eBay.  You can find Sennheiser HD550's and HD600's for less than 200.

So if you have a half decent set of headphones, I'd say the DAC is your next step, and you want to go outboard.  all soundcards and internals sound like garbage.  For little more than the amount you'll spend on the best Creative X-blaster or whatever, you could get  THIS    There's also a company called Audio-GD making some good value stuff.  Don't be afraid of the overseas part, both companies are well regarded.  after that, you can step up your amp(s).  Then if your tastes continue to refine, you can start the process over again. 

Ultimately for DAC's you want to get away from Op-Amps and use those which have a discrete output section.  Then comes better internals, clocking and synching, etc.  I'm using a PS audio 3 with Cullen level 3 mods. 
I can tell you that the sound produced is worth every penny, but to bring my longwinded post full circle The law of diminishing returns is nowhere more important than in audio.  It is far more apparent to step down in quality from your current level and hear incredible differences (IE "How the hell did I listen to this") than it is to step up.

I've been at it for a few years now, and I'm now several levels apart from where I started, which was wanting to get a little better sound than my gaming headphones and soundcard to listen to music.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #17 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Now, as far as non free options, the first thing to remember is audio is a chain, and the chain is as strong as the weakest link.


So far so good.

Quote
Spend $10K on a DAC if you want to, but put it through your $200 home receiver, and it's going to sound like $200.


Here's a TOS 8 challenge for you - prove via a level matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test that a $10K DAC necessarily sounds different, let alone better, than a good $200 receiver. Otherwise, cease and desist!

Quote
Secondly, Your headphones have the single largest cost / change ratio of anything in your chain.  Get a good set used on eBay.  You can find Sennheiser HD550's and HD600's for less than 200.


No problem with the idea that transducers are among the weakest links. However the room that the recording is made in, as well as the room that it is played back in if not headphones, are very significant weak links.

Quote
So if you have a half decent set of headphones, I'd say the DAC is your next step, and you want to go outboard.


Here's the same TOS-8 challenge back at you again, Cease and desist with this sort of noise unless you can properly back it up.

Quote
all soundcards and internals sound like garbage.


Now you're just talking trash. 

Aside to moderator, if this guy won't play by the rules, please ban him!

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #18 –
We won't ban him without warning him first, though that is not to say that said warning won't come without penalties.

@oatmeal769, please review the terms of service to which you agreed as a conditions on participation upon registering.  Check this one in particular:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....974#entry149481
Arny's response to you was spot on, though it should have also extended to cover your unsupported claims about Vista/XP/WASAPI/ASIO.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #19 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
You're entering the world of diminishing returns.  IE solutions now become exponentially more expensive, and results decrease by the same amount.

Before I tell you what I think would be the best solution though, check a few of the very noticeable and easily fixable (free) tweeks.  First, I don't know what OS you use, but you need to  be certain the info on your drive gets to the DAC unaltered.  In the case of VISTA, do a search on WASAPI.  For XP, it's ASIO.  I never believed XP did it, in spite of my massive attempts.  Vista native-ly sounds better, and is better still using a WASAPI plug-in via Foobar2000.


You determined that how?


Quote
all soundcards and internals sound like garbage.


You determined that how?


Code: [Select]
Ultimately for DAC's you want to get away from Op-Amps and use those which have a discrete output section.  Then comes better internals, clocking and synching, etc.


    It's a shame you mix good advice, e.g., diminishing returns, with so much that's dubious. There may be no audiophile advice more insidious than that given by people who get stuff half right .

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #20 –
Fair enough.  Apologies for assuming I knew the rules without actually reading them. A/B/X comparisons such that are accepted here are generally regarded as subjective, controversial or bogus in other forums to which I belong.  I assumed this applied here as well, and was incorrect.  Nevertheless, assuming the time is long enough,  I think any of what I posted is easily discernible as posted in the rules.  Did I actually DO IT with each and every card or DAC?  Of course not.  I will refrain from making comments and generalizations (all soundcards sound like trash, WASAPI / VISTA, going outboard, etc.) to which I have not personally witnessed.

Also, it seems to me that the second to last word, "listening" of the phrase  "level matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test" renders said test entirely subjective.  Thereby negating any objectivity of said test, and making any statement arrived upon by said means an unsubstantiated opinion.  Anyone can hear whatever they want if they really want to.  The flip-side would be if one used a pocket transistor radio to A/B two sources.  I doubt anyone could hear even the most obvious change. 

Again I mean not to buck rules, but I have questions reflecting the seeming contradictions of  TOS #1 and TOS #8:  Does not TOS #1 say that posts are the opinion of the author?  It goes without saying that my opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.  I'm sure this all has been discussed elsewhere in the forum ad-nauseum, it just seems that these objections are more semantic than legitimate.  If I did as hybris did a few posts earlier and made a "TOS#8 disclaimer",  Would I then not catch any heat?

Apologies again if I've offended, or gone outside the rules and spirit of this forum.  I'm definitely NOT here to troll or argue.   



After all this, if I'm "just not getting it", and need to be banned I would respectfully ask the moderators to simply tell me not to post anything again other than simple questions in the foobar forum.  (I'm still on the steep end of the learning curve with foobar, and need all the help I can get.)  I can be taken at my word, which would be that I won't post opinion in the forum again. 

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #21 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
I will refrain from making comments and generalizations (all soundcards sound like trash, WASAPI / VISTA, going outboard, etc.) to which I have not personally witnessed.

...and comments regarding sound quality about which you have personally witnessed shall be compliant with TOS #8 or else they are not welcome here.

Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Also, it seems to me that the second to last word, "listening" of the phrase  "level matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test" renders said test entirely subjective.

It seems that you would be completely wrong.

Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Anyone can hear whatever they want if they really want to.

If people truly "hear" whatever they want then how would taking away the ability to see or otherwise know what's creating the sound they hear beyond what is received by the ears alone make any difference?

Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Does not TOS #1 say that posts are the opinion of the author?

Yes, but it most certainly doesn't grant you the permission to say anything you wish to say; otherwise many of the rules would also be deemed invalid, not just TOS #8.

Quote from: oatmeal769 on
If I did as hybris did a few posts earlier and made a "TOS#8 disclaimer",  Would I then not catch any heat?

You would likely avoid heat, yes, though hybris should have refrained from making such a claim as well, even with the disclaimer.  Got that hybris?

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #22 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Thereby negating any objectivity of said test, and making any statement arrived upon by said means an unsubstantiated opinion.  Anyone can hear whatever they want if they really want to.


You don't seem to understand what ABX means. It's a protocol to eliminate exactly that side effect of subjective testing that you call "anyone can hear whatever they want". For example, Foobar will output a high 'probability of guessing' score when your answers don't correlate with a real audible difference and are just imagination.

ABX can't tell you which gear is better, but it is a perfect tool to evaluate if your "opinion" is even worth considering. ABX can separate imagined audible differences from actually perceived ones. HA is not an opinion petting zoo. If you don't like the TOS8 requirement, the place where you came from might suit you better.

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #23 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
A/B/X comparisons such that are accepted here are generally regarded as subjective, controversial or bogus in other forums to which I belong.  I assumed this applied here as well, and was incorrect.

ABX results are not only accepted here, but many times required. Think about it a bit though. How in the world can an ABX comparison be subjective? They're done precisely in order to remove subject bias. How can it be more bogus that someone expecting people believe them only because they heard something or read it from some audio "authority"? Especially considering that it's the same species of animal that see Jesus and the virgin mary, and Elvis, in their toasts every day.

Someone is being dishonest there. The other forums, or science?

GOOD non-oversampling DAC?

Reply #24 –
Quote from: oatmeal769 on
Also, it seems to me that the second to last word, "listening" of the phrase  "level matched, bias-controlled, time-synched listening test" renders said test entirely subjective.  Thereby negating any objectivity of said test, and making any statement arrived upon by said means an unsubstantiated opinion.


You're mistaken.  The purpose of a blind listening test is not to somehow make the listening and evaluation experience itself, objective.  It doesn't turn the listener into an infallibly accurate perceiver and recorder of reality.  What it does is test the listener's subjective experience against a very objective measure: how many times the listener correctly identified 'X'. 

That number in turn is compared with statistical probabilities, to come to conclusion as to whether the listener was likely to have been hearing a real difference , versus 'just guessing'. 

This is all quite necessary because we Homo sapiens are replete with psychological quirks and biases, conscious and not, that probably have or had some evolutionary advantage, but which keep us from being perfectly 'objective'. Recognition of this fundamental aspect of human nature, is why scientific method demands 'controls' in an experiment.