Subjective Listening - Arrrgh!
For audio playback, we use Foobar 2000 alongside Windows Media Player. All music is transferred first to the hard drive in WAV format using Exact Audio Copy at a 4x read speed. Before we continue with subjective listening impressions, let's take a look at the measured room response of both DACs and listen to a couple of tracks without any DRC engaged.
The lowish output voltage of the passive I/V configured TDA1543 means we have to attempt to balance volume as best we can with the 2V output of the tube/transformer output of the Opus DAC for comparison purposes. After some adjustment and re-attempted measurements, we get a close enough match to see how the room responds to the Opus. Microphone gain and placement was kept at exactly the same point throughout the course of taking measurements. Each measurement was taken a number of times to see if any drastic changes could be observed.
Doede DAC Red=Left speaker, Blue=Right. Due to furniture placement, there is a 10dB offset between the channels at around 162Hz. |
The response is of the Transparence speakers with the TDA1543 is pretty much as expected, rolling off sharply under 60Hz and over 13.5k.
Opus |
Unsurprisingly, there's little to divide the two room sweep responses. The question is how both DACs sound when compared subjectively, both with and without DRC.
Listening tests are conducted using tracks from Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite and Embrya albums. Both albums feature music containing deep articulate bass lines, with vocals and instruments that should stress every part of the Bicone Signature frequency response.
Firing up "Til The Cops Come Knocking" on the Doede DAC first, the thing that strikes me is its directness. Soundstage height and depth can be best described as compact with a focused central image. This creates the perception of the vocalist sitting a couple of feet in front of the speakers. Instruments also have a "hang in the air" factor, without any real overemphasis on the finer details or decay of sounds. If "in your face" reproduction of micro details is important to you, you'll find you'll have to concentrate on hearing them with this unit in the loop. Everything's there, but you don't get buckets of spatial information that enhances micro-detail presence. Maybe that's the way it's supposed to be?
Rendition of high frequency sounds such as cymbals is on the smooth side compared to what I can recall from the Legato DACs of the Pioneer. I guess this may be a trait of non-oversampling. Overall, I'm quite impressed by the sound, considering the uncomplicated approach of Doede's implementation of the TDA1543. Subjectively, the sound has a very neutral character yet still manages to present itself without a fatiguing nature.
Now it's time to check out how the Opus fares in comparison. Both DACs are connected to the preamp simultaneously so that I can switch over quickly between the two while memory is still fresh. I spin up the same tracks from Maxwell and I'm amazed to find the perceived difference in presentation is far more apparent than I'd expected. The vocal forwardness of the TDA1543 is gone; the same vocal rendition sits further back between the speakers but has gained the impression of extending past the height of the baffles, and background instruments seem to have shifted back by a good few feet. The compact soundstage impression that the TDA1543 gave has been replaced with something far more expansive and spatial and the focus is now on all the elements of the recording. The finer details are readily apparent with the Opus; everything is projected in its own space and draws your attention. Mid-bass does not sound as prominent as it did on the TDA1543, the notes seem to be a little leaner and perhaps more analytical. Vocals and cymbals are especially alluring, something that we can put down to the sonic traits of the 3A5s on the output of the WM8741 DACs. To confirm the perceived differences I keep switching back and forth between the two units, each time amazed that the change is so apparent.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
ccd - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
If you want to be scientific, there is no substitute for double blind testing. It's as simple as that. The human psyche is just too susceptible to suggestion.
I have been in stores and compared components. But as you should know, all sorts of games can be played with equipment. A common trick is connecting a speaker to a monster amp which makes it sound better. The other key to speakers placement. You can take a speaker that sounds great in the store and sounds crappy when you get home because the listening conditions are so different.
The most eye opening experience I ever had was taking a home made speaker into a very high end store at the end of the day because on of the salesmen wanted to listen to the transducer I was using. The speaker which also used one made speaker wires out-performed speakers costing over $20,000! The Orions that I have mentioned in previous posts are better than this speaker and the Orion uses electronics which are hardly out of the ordinary. I would put that speaker up against anything, regardless of price. Listen to a speaker like the Orion and you will realize that "high end" audio is mostly snake oil.
goshwan - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
Why should we take your 'subjective' (because that is what it is) opinion that the Orion's are that good? How is your opinion any different from when the author says his speakers or DAC's are great?Have you heard these components yourself? Have you heard any of the components used in the review?
Humans are subjective animals and purchaing decisions usually involve sprinklings of logic and subjective preferences. Audio is one of the best examples of this. Even solid state amps sound different depending on topology and operating class. Your statment about monster amps reflects this. They indeed sound different.
I have heard the TDA1543 on occasion, but I would not be foolish enough to think that every other DAC sounds the same.
Granted, the Orion's are a indeed a fine speaker based on reports, but it's also possible the ones we see used in the article are too.
To mee it seems as if everyone is forcing their own subjective opinion in reply. Some are objective, but theirs plenty of subjective, which is funny really.
I think the article could have offered some more objective stuff. but at the same time, the listening conclusions of both DAC's were pretty much spot on. The TDA1543 is known to sound soft at hf sounds, especially in nonos. The room correction stuff really was great. In fact, I wonder how many readers got that far before exploding their thoughts via the keyboard.
You have some interesting points on blind tests, arguments for and against seem to rage the web over. I wonder what people would accept though, how much evidence would be needed if something turned out to be spot on?
I'm interested to see where AT go with the audio stuff.
ccd - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Moving right along, I do not have any issues with open baffle speakers. I'm not a techie, but there are theoretical advantages to open baffle speakers. The trick is getting the baffle wide enough so that the baffle simulates the driver being in a wall. The problem with open baffle speakers has been aesthetics, as an open baffle speaker usually have to be very wide. I've seen open baffle speakers with hinged sides to the speaker need not be really wide except in use. The test speaker uses clear sides which would limit the impression of width.
Actually, my issue with the speaker is that it is full range. I have not heard this speaker, but full range speakers generally have really nice mid ranges and suffer in both the upper range and lower range. I do like that he paired his speaker with a sub. However, full range speakers usually need a crossover at a high frequency than I would like and the higher the crossover, the trickier the integration. In case you haven't guessed, I've hung around DIY circles for a number of years, though not recently.
goshwan - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
Well seeing as neither of us have heard the speaker in question it's a subjective assessment. Of course, individual drivers tailor made for the frequency range in question should be more proficient. Given that we hear little over 15Khz though, I bet they sound pretty cohesive. Yes higher range crossover integration does become an issue, but if one is not needed 'subjectively' then why bother?ccd - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
The speaker used in the article could be good, very good for all I know. Since I have not heard it, I can only talk in generalities. The tradeoff is between a full range transducer with no crossovers and a frequency response that is not nearly as flat as a multi-driver speaker with crossover points. Neither speaker is perfect.
Full range drivers, at their best, have gorgeous mid-range performance which is highly valued by those who favor them. The tradeoff is a fall off in the upper and lower ranges. The limits of human hearing help cover the failings in the upper ranges and there are tricks like the use of transmission lines to extend the lower range, but there are limits.
The multi-driver speaker has a different set of issues. One is finding drivers that complement each other. Merely matching frequency response is not enough. The other is determining the right crossover points and slopes. Not a problem for an expert, a great challenge for the amateur. From what I have personally heard and from what I know about speaker design, a well designed multi-way speaker, particularly hybrid active (passive crossover between the tweeter and mid-range and active between mid-range and woofer is just a better solution than a single full range driver. Right now, I'm sitting in front of a speaker with one of the widest frequency ranges of any driver and it is still a 3-way design.
Again, I have not heard the speaker in question. But I also know it is VERY hard to overcome the limitations that come with certain design choices.
goshwan - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
That's the beauty of audio, final choices are often based upon what you favor. There is no one speaker that will appeal to all tastes. Which is why I don't diss on people going one way or the other. The calculated final response with sub and DRC was pretty flat. Impressive.ccd - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
This gets back to my original post on this article. A lot of this is very subjective and there will never be any agreement on it. IMHO, things like DAC reviews should not be a part of this site, it would not matter whether I had heard the components or not. However, the DRC part should definitely be featured on this site and was great.BTW, I used the Orion as an example of a kit speaker which is both generally regarded as one of the best kit speakers available and one whose design runs counter to many of the assumptions made by this author. I encourage you to listen to the speaker and come to your own conclusions.
Double blind testing is the only way I know of to accurately determine whether equipment changes actually make a difference. It is opposed by many in the high end because they don't like what double blind testing tells us: much of what they tout just doesn't make an audible difference.
goshwan - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
I 'subjectively' disagree, the DAC kits are designed to run off the USB bus. Tha means a computer is involved.I don't follow your 'assumption' accusations either, like yours the opinions stated are subjective. Linkwitz backs his up on his site true, but the adoption still involves approval by human ear - not just visionary acceptance of theory. That means verbal expression in the form of words which you too have used to encourage people to listen to the Orions. I have no doubts those speakers sound great. But I have heard great things about open baffle speakers too.
I agree with you on this, in that guess we can agree to disagree.
Flyboy27 - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
How much energy do you have to put into a system before you can actually start enjoying your music. I realized many years ago that I just needed to listen to my music instead of worrying so much about sound fidelity. Since then my enjoyment of music has increased so much. I am a musician, have been trained as a recording engineer, and work in the music industry. There comes a point when you have to stop worrying about your gear and just enjoy your music.Having said that it is a shame that so many people listen to 128kbps mp3s. I'm planning on re-ripping my entire CD library in a lossless format. This is part of the reason for me why it is so important to have a physical copy of my music. I'm not "stuck" with a low bitrate crapy itunes copy.
kompulsive - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
You guys should definitely check out the M-Audio Audiophile 192 or Audiophile 2496 depending on your needs. I've been using these and similar products for years in my small studio at home and the price, quality, and value are superb. I think Creative products are grossly overrated and overpriced.