KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 12:58:43 GMT -5
Just to be clear...... nobody is claiming to hear a difference when playing a continuous 3 kHz sine wave test tone. Which would be analogous to comparing my Nissan Versa to a Lamborghini Diablo... doing a steady 55 mph on a perfectly smooth straight road. (You will find that both are quite equally capable of doing 55 mph on a straight level road, but they probably perform somewhat differently in a real-world driving situation.) These sorts of differences don't exist, or aren't audible, with pure tones, but are audible with impulses, or with certain non-continuous tones and tone combinations... like those commonly encountered in music. I can't speak for the others but that's absolutely not what I am describing. What I hear (and it seems like I am not the only one, it's quite common in fact) is that the Sabre DAC implementation reproduces the frequency accurately. Input, say, a 3khz frequency tone and it outputs a 3khz frequency tone, hence perfectly accurate within that measurement, often called "flat response". But what it also does is output what some describe as an "etchiness" or what I call a "halo" around that frequency. It doesn't change the frequency, it's still 3khz. Just because there isn't a measure for it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Currently we can hear it, hopefully some day we might have a measure for it, a test and the equipment to record it that confirms what we hear. Cheers Gary So basically what is changing based in your assessment is just how you perceive the sound. If what comes in is what comes out the only variable is what you are hearing or perceiving. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 13:04:52 GMT -5
Errrrrr.... yes and no. It is unlikely that he will be able to eliminate the actual effect. However, it's possible that, by introducing a deliberate alteration in frequency response, he might be able to "cancel out" or "compensate for" the perceived difference - at least to some degree. Honestly, however, I suspect that you are correct. I have owned one or two Sabre DACs that had a slightly rolled-off frequency response... And, at least to me, they managed to sound "dull but etched and slightly over-sharpened" - both at the same time. The slight roll-off did, however, make the negative characteristics somewhat less annoying - at least to me. Hhmmm, so KeithL , from what you're saying it sounds like Boomzilla isn't likely to be successful in trying to slightly decrease any particular frequency range because the Sabre DAC may be changing Time-Domain aspects of the signal ("impulse") rather than merely boosting a particular frequency range. Casey |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 23, 2018 13:12:20 GMT -5
Keith, For the record, which DACs with Sabre DAC chips are you referring to?
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 23, 2018 13:23:41 GMT -5
Just to be clear...... nobody is claiming to hear a difference when playing a continuous 3 kHz sine wave test tone. Which would be analogous to comparing my Nissan Versa to a Lamborghini Diablo... doing a steady 55 mph on a perfectly smooth straight road. (You will find that both are quite equally capable of doing 55 mph on a straight level road, but they probably perform somewhat differently in a real-world driving situation.) These sorts of differences don't exist, or aren't audible, with pure tones, but are audible with impulses, or with certain non-continuous tones and tone combinations... like those commonly encountered in music. So basically what is changing based in your assessment is just how you perceive the sound. If what comes in is what comes out the only variable is what you are hearing or perceiving. However, if you point a speed scanner on both cars going at the same speed one can argue that one car was going faster when in reality and in the real world it truly was not. People can argue that the Nissan seemed to be going slower but that will potentially be only a personal bias. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Feb 23, 2018 13:46:11 GMT -5
The Peachtree DAC I owned was Sabre and had a warm-ish sound so I assume it was the other components and voicing decisions in play. I had an AVR with Sabre and it had a glare that really bothered me so I sold it.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 23, 2018 13:53:13 GMT -5
The Peachtree DAC I owned was Sabre and had a warm-ish sound so I assume it was the other components and voicing decisions in play. I had an AVR with Sabre and it had a glare that really bothered me so I sold it. That sounds pretty much like my experience, it’s up to the implementation. FWIW, in general I like DACs. However, my iFi iDSD has glare as several have described DACs using Sabre chips. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 14:14:52 GMT -5
In the past I've owned (Sabre DACs).... - A Wyred4Sound DAC2 - which I originally thought sounded quite good but, when compared to the DC-1, has a major portion of that Sabre sound. - A smaller Wyred4Sound DAC with a Sabre chip in it - which sounded more or less normal to me. - An original DragonFly - which I thought sounded sort of dull but also a bit oversharpened. - An original ODAC (the original one had a Sabre DAC chip) - which I thought sounded a lot like the DragonFly (sort of detailed but dark at the same time... but not in an especially nice way) - An AudioLAB M-DAC - which sounded pretty good, but was a little bit grainy - An AudioGD DAC with a Sabre chip in it (I've always thought AudioGD's headphone amps sound sort of smooth... as did this one); I didn't notice much Sabre sound on that one Note that I did not have these all at the same time... and did NOT compare many of them directly to the DC-1. I did sell off the Wyred4Sound DAC2 recently. And I did compare it directly to the DC-1 first with several different speakers..... I was surprised at how significant the difference actually was. Keith, For the record, which DACs with Sabre DAC chips are you referring to? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 14:27:02 GMT -5
I should mention - very specifically - that Sabre DACs are designed to be used with their own internal filter - or with an external filter.
I would expect the sound with the internal filter to be similar between them - and I would expect outside filters designed by the vendor to be more different.
I've also heard that, while ESS likes to act as if using one of their Sabre DACs sort of ensures a good sounding product... they are actually quite sensitive to implementation details.
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 23, 2018 14:29:29 GMT -5
Thanks, Keith.
I’ve never heard any of them, possibly with the exception of DragonFly. I have a DF Black and while it’s not great, it’s much better than the iPhone. IMO.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 14:32:51 GMT -5
Yes, indeed.... But we would all probably agree that the Lamborghini really does perform significantly better under certain other conditions  From what I've seen, most products with Sabre DACs in them measure quite well under static conditions, and have a reasonably, or even exceptionally, flat frequency response, low THD, and low noise. I don't recall anyone suggesting otherwise. They just perform somewhat differently than other DACs under other conditions - some of which are more typical of operation with music. I should also note that, even after seeing my share of impulse response scope traces, of both Sabre and non-Sabre DACs, I have no solid idea about which measurable differences account for the AUDIBLE differences. As I mentioned in another post, no current DAC delivers "perfect performance", and the correlations between specific flaws and specific audible characteristics are far from fully understood. Just to be clear...... nobody is claiming to hear a difference when playing a continuous 3 kHz sine wave test tone. Which would be analogous to comparing my Nissan Versa to a Lamborghini Diablo... doing a steady 55 mph on a perfectly smooth straight road. (You will find that both are quite equally capable of doing 55 mph on a straight level road, but they probably perform somewhat differently in a real-world driving situation.) These sorts of differences don't exist, or aren't audible, with pure tones, but are audible with impulses, or with certain non-continuous tones and tone combinations... like those commonly encountered in music. However, if you point a speed scanner on both cars going at the same speed one can argue that one car was going faster when in reality and in the real world it truly was not. People can argue that the Nissan seemed to be going slower but that will potentially be only a personal bias. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 14:47:13 GMT -5
I had the original DragonFly - the 1.0 model. I"m told that even the 1.2 version model of the original was significantly improved (I've never personally heard one). I haven't heard any of the more recent models. Thanks, Keith. I’ve never heard any of them, possibly with the exception of DragonFly. I have a DF Black and while it’s not great, it’s much better than the iPhone. IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by kauai82 on Feb 23, 2018 15:27:26 GMT -5
There seems to be some loose consensus that the Sabre-brand DAC chipsets have a "presence range" somewhere in the upper midrange to lower treble that sounds bright, despite measuring ruler-flat. Someone here on the Lounge brilliantly described it a "Like a photo in Photoshop where the contrast is turned up too much." KelthL seemed to think it was a deliberate artifact of the filter design to make the DAC sound "more present." That all said I concur that there is a fairly narrow band where the contrast sounds excessive (to me) on Sabre DAC products. My question today is "What, in your opinion, is that frequency range where the Sabre DACs sound too dynamic?" Now if you disagree with the premise, and like the Sabre DAC sound as is, then don't muddy the waters. But if you agree that Sabres sound bright, then what's your best guess as to the frequency span? Thanks kindly - Boomzilla I agree with your opinion that the Sabre DAC chips are a bit bright. I own A SMSL M8 DAC that uses the ES9018K2 chip that is similar to the chip used in the Oppo 105. It is not quite as good and the M8 only uses one but I was going to return the unit because of brittleness (that is what it sounds like to me, some call it a glare or halo ) on the high end . That was until I found out that the M8 has three filters and the fast filter tames the high end enough for me to be fairly happy with it. I have had my hearing tested every year for the last three because of high frequency loss. My hearing tests show that I lose most of the high frequencies around 15khz so the frequency must be lower than that or I would not notice it. I have read that the new SMSL M8A that uses a Sabre ES9028Q2M chip has the same characteristics on the high end. For me I love the AK1955 chip that the PT-100 and TA-100 use. It hits the sweet spot for me. YMMV, Matthew |
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Feb 23, 2018 17:02:52 GMT -5
Hhmmm, so KeithL, from what you're saying it sounds like Boomzilla isn't likely to be successful in trying to slightly decrease any particular frequency range because the Sabre DAC may be changing Time-Domain aspects of the signal ("impulse") rather than merely boosting a particular frequency range. Casey Hi Casey Leedom - In theory, you're absolutely right. I'm trying to correct a sharpness issue with a color filter. But in practice, changing the color slightly may make the sharpness less noticeable (or not). I contend that the experiment is free, simple, and easily reversible. There's no particular reason NOT to try it. If I can make the sound of a previously bothersome DAC acceptable to better-than-acceptable with a touch of DSP, then I save (potentially) a LOT of moolah! Cheers - Boom |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 23, 2018 17:14:01 GMT -5
I had the original DragonFly - the 1.0 model. I"m told that even the 1.2 version model of the original was significantly improved (I've never personally heard one). I haven't heard any of the more recent models. The recent DF Black is not particularly good either. However, for earphone use, it's a lot better than the built in iPhone stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 23, 2018 17:25:24 GMT -5
I had the original DragonFly - the 1.0 model. I"m told that even the 1.2 version model of the original was significantly improved (I've never personally heard one). I haven't heard any of the more recent models. The recent DF Black is not particularly good either. However, for earphone use, it's a lot better than the built in iPhone stuff. I liked the Dragonfly read. Granted it's not the best out there but for the price it's pretty great! |
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 23, 2018 17:35:17 GMT -5
I liked the Dragonfly read. Granted it's not the best out there but for the price it's pretty great! I agree that price/performance is great.  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,273
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 23, 2018 17:50:39 GMT -5
Everyone has a different idea about where they think "midrange" ends and "treble" begins. However, because the effect the Sabre DACs produce is really related to transient response, you're probably NOT going to find it with a frequency sweep. (Their frequency response measures as quite flat - and you would be doing pretty much the same thing - a sweep is going to sound flat.) I think you'd probably be better of listening to actual music and fiddling around with an equalizer while it's playing until it sounds good. With a parametric EQ, I would simply set up a very low Q (wide) band, set the gain to around -2 dB, then move the center up and down until it seems to help... then tune all the settings to taste. I would probably start with a Q of 0.5 or lower, and a center frequency around 5 kHz or 7 kHz, and go from there. Thank you all kindly - I may try just using a discreet frequency sweep to see if I can roughly isolate the range. Once I do, I'm going to try a low-amplitude (¼ to ½ decibel, maybe) dip in that range to see how it sounds. I might have to go up to a 1 or 2 dB dip, but we'll see. If I can tame the halo, I'm otherwise pleased with the DAC and like its low-bass slam and its imaging. |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 23, 2018 18:13:44 GMT -5
Hhmmm, so KeithL, from what you're saying it sounds like Boomzilla isn't likely to be successful in trying to slightly decrease any particular frequency range because the Sabre DAC may be changing Time-Domain aspects of the signal ("impulse") rather than merely boosting a particular frequency range. Casey Having tried it that was my experience, tone (frequency) is not the problem. Cheers Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 23, 2018 18:21:55 GMT -5
From my ears perspective all of the Yamaha AVR's that I have heard with Sabre DAC's have the same "halo". But Yamaha AVR's with Burr Brown DAC's don't. Possibly indicating that it's not an implementation issue, but something in the Sabre DAC's themselves. Of course it could be Yamaha's implementation, but why get one type of DAC implementation "right" and one not?
Cheers
Gary
|
|
|
|
Post by qdtjni on Feb 24, 2018 4:39:00 GMT -5
Of course it could be Yamaha's implementation, but why get one type of DAC implementation "right" and one not? Possible reasons that springs to mind are different filters, different default filters, different APIs, different development toolkits, different engineers, different people listening tests and tuning of sound, etc. Then there might be a whole range of other things being different inside the AVRs themselves and in the rest of the audio chain. |
|
I can't speak for the others but that's absolutely not what I am describing. What I hear (and it seems like I am not the only one, it's quite common in fact) is that the Sabre DAC implementation reproduces the frequency accurately. Input, say, a 3khz frequency tone and it outputs a 3khz frequency tone, hence perfectly accurate within that measurement, often called "flat response". But what it also does is output what some describe as an "etchiness" or what I call a "halo" around that frequency. It doesn't change the frequency, it's still 3khz. Just because there isn't a measure for it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. 
