What Colors the Sound

Hey guys, it's time for another stupid question. Yay!

This came up in a DAC thread, but I think it's better discussed separately. So here goes.

On these forums I have read the following at various times:

• An Amp's job is to amplify the sound fed to it. As such, an amp does nothing to color the overall presentation. Essentially, all amps are the same other than some technical specs regarding power etc.

• All CD/SACD transports are the same. They all read the 1's and 0's, and pass them to the DAC. Other jitter (which honestly I've never had an issue with), all CD transports are the same. They do not color the sound.

• All DAC's are the same. A DAC does nothing to color the sound, they all do essentially the same thing, and there's no difference between a cheap implementation of an ESS chip, and an expensive implementation of an ESS chip when it comes to coloring the sound.

Now, the only other components are the speakers and cables.

So I'm left with wondering, if the above is all true, then why does one system sound different from another? Is it just the speakers or cables? When I hear a difference between my Linn setup and my Rega setup, am I just imagining it? If I upgrade my DAC (currently my player has a a pair of Burr-Brown PCM 1796's_ then, what could I possibly gain?

I guess one answer is - "if you think there's a difference, that's all that counts". But honestly, I want to be deluded, I'd rather be educated. So how about it?

Thanks guys.

 

• An Amp's job is to amplify the sound fed to it. As such, an amp does nothing to color the overall presentation. Essentially, all amps are the same other than some technical specs regarding power etc.

• All CD/SACD transports are the same. They all read the 1's and 0's, and pass them to the DAC. Other jitter (which honestly I've never had an issue with), all CD transports are the same. They do not color the sound.

All DAC's are the same. A DAC does nothing to color the sound, they all do essentially the same thing, and there's no difference between a cheap implementation of an ESS chip, and an expensive implementation of an ESS chip when it comes to coloring the sound.

• 
  
  
  All these statement are not true, though the differences can sometimes be subtle.
  

 

Well, you already know my thoughts.

I will add that I think cables are in about the same league as DACs though.
You can make DACs and Amps different by changing the gain, adding filters or tubes in the stage after, but these should be viewed as separate things I think.

Reading stuff like this just makes me skeptical you know:
Matrix HiFi --> Blind testing high end full equipments

Speakers do of course matter and will be the biggest difference maker especially in digital systems.

 

That's like saying all motorcycles are the same, their job is to get you from point A to point B in an economical manner.
In a sense but there's a big difference between a Honda 50 and a Triumph Rocket III.
Especially if it falls on you, you'll appreciate the difference right away.

 

I've not heard two different amps, or CDPs, or DACs, or speakers, or cables, or turntables, or cartridges, or turntables, or cassette machines that sound the same.

Each and every piece of equipment that I've heard has sounded different.

Personally, however, I don't use the word "colour" (or "color") to describe the differences as, in my opinion, it's too much of a broad brush, and very rarely describes the differences that I hear.

Colour is also often used in a negative way these days, e.g. "colouring opinions" and, without even meaning it, "Colors the sound" feels like a negative thing.

Also, given that there is no absolute point of reference, which equipment has coloured sound and which doesn't?

(I hear musical, or analytical, or cold, or bright, or dark, or smooth, or grainy etc.)

Perhaps I'm labouring a point, but this thread could go on forever inasmuch as anything and everything can make a difference of some kind that someone might call "colouring". Even the listening room creates differences, as does mood, time of day etc.

In the end, however, IMHO the main contributor to how any piece of equipment sounds in the design engineer, and the main contributor to the differences between any two pieces of equipment is the person who chose them for audition.

 

I think it's a sort of greenish-brown colour.

 

Cables are where I have an issue. I made my own cables, and used them for a while. Then I thought I'd try a premium cable. I didn't spend a lot, but the cost was more than 5X what I already had. The net result was..........no change. In fact, I think I preferred the cables I made myself, if anything. Of course, I don't have the opportunity to test 1K+ cables. I'll stick with what I've got.

On the other hand, different CD players do sound different to my ears. Amps do sound different. But I'm not meaning to insist I'm correct, I'm actually trying to understand what others think and learn.

It seems some people really do believe the three statements I detailed above. From what I can make out, if that's true - there's really no difference between spending $50 on a CD transport, and a player costing 5K. Same with amps. Why not buy the very cheapest you can with appropriate output levels? There's really no difference between spending $100 on it, or 10K, right?

Sure, I was trying to paint with a broad brush for the purposes of discussion. Whether it be color, sound signature, tone, details, and so on. If the three statements I wrote are true, then a total system costing $200 will sound the same as one costing $10K. Is this truly what some are saying?

 

Audio system measurements / Measurable performance - Wikipedia

 

I'm not sure where you're coming from, do you fall in line with the three points, or not? From looking at your link, I assume you believe there are differences, and the three statements are false, but I don't want to be incorrect.

 

There's no such thing as a perfect device.

 

I've had people scoff at me and insult me on a UK forum because I heard a significant difference in timing when I lifted my mains distribution block off the floor and stood it on some masking tape reels, but I know what I heard, and they don't.

Whatever a person posts, there will be those who agree and those who don't.

So, although you've started this thread, is it possible that you might already have found your own answer to the question that you've posed?

 

I started the thread as a means to get educated. I want to learn things. I can easily state my own belief - there's a difference. I believe I've experienced that CD players sound different, amps sound different. With DAC's, I only know them in the context of being part of a player. I have tried one, low cost external DAC, I hated the sound (an Audiolab M-DAC Mini).

So yes, I have a set of beliefs based on my own experience. But I'm willing to re-examine those beliefs.

You're correct that there will always be people who disagree - but if someone truly holds the beliefs in the OP, then there's several entire industries selling snakeoil, and they've been doing it for decades - CD Players, amps, etc. All a big lie...... That's worth thinking about.

 

I think thats about right and I think deminishing returns is a very real thing as well.
Even for things that do more evidently sound different like vinyl Cartridges, after a certain point you have to wonder, is something really better, or just different?
In the hunt for upgrades I believe many fall into the trap of scowering for any minutia of change but forget to evaluate if that really is an improvement or not.
Can a manufacturer really do more with the tiny component that is a cartridge for 10K$ than what another could for 1K$? Something thats unreachable at the lower pricepoint, or are they just different flavors of an EQ spectrum?

I cant speak for everyones experiences, maybe some of those were really different, but was it due to a gain or filter additive, I cant say.

Its important to remember where we are as well, this is a forum dedicated to people of certain mindsets and beliefs about audio while other forums will look completely different.

Personally, Im interested in figuring out what the actual truth of matters are. So I need to have a method by which I can reach the correct answers. Its not an easy thing a lot of times, but processes like rigorous listening tests or scientific analysis seem to be the best alternative.
Im not outright dismissing any claim, its a matter of being neutral, disbelieving a claim until sufficiently proven.
To some that is simply listening and going off of first intuition or instinct and never looking back.
I think, with enough history of these methods failing us, with things like MQA , I dont find conclusions based on them appealing.
Thus I remain unconvinced.

 

Can you explain a bit what you mean?

“I heard a significant difference in timing when I lifted my mains distribution block off the floor.”

 

Well, that's the eternal question of audio electronics -- why does one thing sound different from the other? Sometimes there's not a clear, explicable answer.

I will say as to the first item in your litany, the amps, there are issues that color the sound that aren't mentioned above:

• There's distortion which is clearly coloring the sound -- it's the reason may people like tubes, for example, and not just the amount of distortion but it's harmonic components;
• there's also the dynamic interaction between source and load since impedances and current demands are not the same or the same at all frequencies;
• there's how the amps respond to a fast dynamic demand for current -- which is different than just a bench measurement of a steady state sine wave or even a white or pink noise signal into an 8 ohm resistor.

​

Depending on the degree of difference between one amp and other and one speaker and another used together, there are sonic differences that can be explained by distortion, noise, ability to swing lots of current fast in response to a sudden demand, impedance relative to frequency, phase coherence relative to frequency, etc. Similarly designed and built amps and speakers might sound similar. One would expect that. But if you look around at the number and type of amps and speakers that people use -- from mini monitors to floor stands, horn loaded dynamics to planars, flea-watt single ended direct heated triode tube amps to megawatt class D solid state, there are pretty substantial differences that could account for differences in sound.

Of course, that doesn't explain why we hear differences between say a Teflon dielectric blocking cap and a polypropylene one of the same value. Those are the headscratching elements.

DACs and CD transports aren't really necessarily the same, though at this point they've reached a level where differences are probably very small and at the margins. But you know, if you look at some of these traces from the digital outputs from older CD players and transports, you can see, that they weren't necessarily all the same, or all good. The degree to which that might impact sound color vs. just keeping a DAC from being able to lock on to a signal, well, that's the mysterious part. Maybe not at all. And of course there are differences in DAC implementations -- is the player clock governing or the DAC clock (are you using SPDIF or ansynchrous USB to get the signal to the DAC)? What's the input interface and chipset for that? The reconstruction filters may be different from DAC to DAC, might not be audible with high res but maybe with 16/44.1.

I would say the biggest differences between sound coloring by devices are to be had at the level of transducers and mechanical parts -- speakers, phono carts, turntables and tonearms. There are pretty gross differences in noise and distortion and cabinet and tonearm resonances and other mechanical resonances (like audio frequency sidebands of subsonic arm-cart mass-spring ringing), between one speaker and another or one turntable/tonearm/cart and another. Making system changes in these components can mean pretty substantial differences in sonic color.

Then next the source-load dynamic interactions because devices, especially among amps and speakers and phono carts and phono pres.

Then, the noise (both self noise and ability to deal with environmental noise) and distortion (not just the amount but character of each) of the electronics.

After that we're into the realm of esoteric stuff that may or may not make substantial audible differences and that people have tried to find scientific ways of explaining or measuring on the bench which have sometimes remained elusive.

 

I suspect that the majority of people who buy audio products would have exposed the lie decades ago. Those who buy a brand for its status value might, however, be easier pickings.

In terms of the OP, if you ask a question in the right way then it will always pull in a number of detractors that can't accept that humans don't all hear in the same way.

I suppose that my main point is to trust in your own experiences and your own senses as these things are trusted and are what inform you every day of your life. Second guessing these things won't lead anywhere good.

 

I can't speak for others, so hopefully more will respond. I can give my impressions, though.

I think there's a big difference between audiophile concerns, and suggesting every amp/digital transport/DAC sound the same. I mean, that's quite some gulf. I also believe that every single audiophile will agree about incremental change, and even subtle changes. This, I think, is the very essence of audiophile concerns. Being an audiophile isn't so much about moving from a $500 to a $5K system, it's all about incremental differences. The higher you go up the pay scale, the smaller the difference. Audiophile are indeed all about the minutia, and proudly so.

Mal posted a link to Wikipedia which lists various things that make up an overall sound. They can be the bedrock of measurements. The only issue there is that we're unlikely to agree on a scale. For example, twice this weekend I read a post from different people saying they cannot accept any compression in their digital music because they always hear it, and it always spoils their enjoyment. To judge this they use their ears, but they hang their hat on DR numbers. Now, in theory, that's simple enough. Except, I played the same discs as one of these people (from the new Bowie set), and the disc sounded fantastic on my system. On theirs, the claim was it sounded poor. Same measurable DR, but totally different feelings about what's going in to our ears. How come? I'd say I don't want compression either - but there's clearly something going on other than a simple opinion. "Sounds bad" tells me is sounds bad. How come it doesn't sound bad on my setup?

Measurements will only get you so far, it seems.

 

This I wouldn't dip in to. I think there's a lot of room between us. "Better" is relevant only to the individual. I think we all look for a particular sound, and what I like someone else may not. That's perfectly normal.

On the other hand, that doesn't address the question of whether there is an actual difference in the sound.

 

When I first auditioned my current speakers, I believed that they didn't rock and roll as well as they should. Their timing was poor and dance music didn't make me want to dance. I queried this with the designer, Russell Kauffman, and he kindly came to my house to help me resolve the issue that I was perceiving.

One of the things that Russell did was to use his own mains block, which he stood on inverted cones. With that done, the speakers boogied.

After Russell left, I therefore lifted my own mains block off the floor onto two reels of masking tape and achieved a similar result.

As a "blind test", I asked my wife to listen. I played "This Is What You Are" by Mario Biondi and The High Five Quintet to her twice. The first time was with the mains block on the floor. The second time was with the mains block on the masking tape reels. She didn't know what I had changed, but she told me that when I played the recording the second time it sounded as though it had been sped up.

 

You're coming across a cultural phenomenon, that of the logical/experiential fallacy and are also glossing over a premise of science: that it is more or less all theoretical.

Yes, it's true that some theories have greater explanatory power than others, but humanity's definitions and concepts are intrinsically not absolute laws or wholly explanatory of the universe around us. We create working models and systems of thought to build mental scaffolds around what we experience (if we're any good). Some of these are short-lived. And some of these models last a long time - only to be updated with a better explanation or more empirical or theoretical data points or concepts.

In this sense, experience is pre-eminent. Despite the objectivity on which we rely, we can only improve our understanding of the universe around us - and our audio - by experience. Sometimes we need to develop more theories for explaining them. And that's all well and good.

Sometimes we can't explain things (gravity; love). Doesn't make them any less real. Our rush to explain things simply or only in the terms of today or those of yesterday is, I suggest, a failing and expression of our collective arrogance and (likely) fear. Working models will only get us so far. And that's fine. No one can tell you what you like. Why should you have to explain or justify it?

 

An issue I'm currently seeing is that everything has to be quantified, and a number used to mark it as such. People don't seem to trust their ears, so instead we get endless posts of DR numbers. Anything less than 12 is an arbitrary cut off. A DR9 disc "sounds bad". Yet I listen, and we're hearing the very same master, and it sounds great to me. I think this may have as much to do with our setup's, as our feelings. But if all setups are the same, that can't be the case.

But that still doesn't get to the heart of whether their actually is any difference. What we think and feel should always win out - but I don't think we can even agree on this point. I hear differences, and others do not. There either is a difference, or not. You know?

 

If the idea is that these components have a big impact I would agree that saying they dont is a gulf apart, but that seems to not be the case. Otherwise I dont know how one would explain things like the link I shared in my first post, all of them combined should make an evident difference to anyone.
To clarify, Im sure all components can sound different if you add some sort of filter or gain boost ontop.

Im an Audiophile myself, Im all for small improvements. The topic here is when is that improvement or change so small it doesnt matter?
The thing that sets me apart in that case is the method for finding that answer. I dont care so much about measurements because, as you mentioned, how do we agree on how that scale translates? What people can reliably prove they hear interests me the most.

 

In my personal experience, I’m hard pressed to tell the difference between transports when using and outboard DAC. Amps on the other hand definitely sound different and DACs can also sound different, but to a lesser extent than amps. Again, YMMV.

EDIT- If you can hear a difference, there is a difference for you and ultimately that’s what matters most. All others can do is guide you toward what they majority of us thinks sounds good.

 

Indeed, that is a separate discussion, but one that eventually ties into this one.

 

These are just the freq responses of the different filters in one DAC....so yes, people stating that all dac's sound the same are.....(fill in the blanks yourself) .
Again, Dac's are like cartridges, pick the one you like the sound of.