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
goinginstyle - Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - link
I agree, while I might argue about some of the conclusions or have a different opinion, the author knows what the hell he is talking about. It is obvious from a lot of the comments that people stopped reading on page two and brought out the guns. It is fine to agree to disagree but some the comments here apparently came from five year olds and not adults. Sound quality is subjective, get over it. I appreciate a different opinion than my own and found the article to be thought provoking at times. Something an article should do when covering a hot topic like audio quality. Being an old hippie myself, I still love the tubes but digital has its place now. I vote that he does another article on this subject and lets see where AnandTech takes this in the future.strikeback03 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
How do you live in a rural area and not own a car?royboy66 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
hi I have been into audio and music for many years it is my hobby, computers are my business and hobby. I commend you guys for covering this topic -i will download the software you have used and give it a try.Wastral - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Well at least he talked about SOMETHING to do with the PC!DAC talk was good if really really wordy. Nothing like breaking points down into something someone can read.
Not one review of sound cards of sending analog output out from the computer and its actual quality... You know the main component needed in a PC... What a stooge.
Most People can't even hear over 16khz and the very rare person can hear around 20khz. I tested out at 18.3khz with a wave generator when I was 16. Now? Probably no more than 14khz at the age of 30. Not to mention the dB sensitivity of the ear over 16khz is next to nothing. On top of that, as I pointed out with a little thing called age your hearing decreases to 10khz by age 60 or so.
Of course If we really want this right, it has to be decoded at the amp, which won't happen, due to there being a million and 1 codecs around. Thus, we are stuck with analog.
Its all about your speakers and amp. That part of his article I won't complain about too loudly.
Just his BS about tube amplifiers. 10 years ago that was true. Now its only because old Hippies are retiring and tube amps were top of the line then and they have too much money and time on their hands to burn, with nostalgia hot in their blood.
Try recording something and then play it back with a tube amp or a Digital amp and compare the sound. No one uses Tube amps in studios. Why? Because it CHANGES THE MUSIC and is not as PURE as one can get with Digital amplifiers. They say they like it... wonderful, its not as true of a sound though, the HYPOCRITS!!!
Everything else was typical Audiophile BS ignorance. Hell, I have even installed an outlet for an "audiophile" pointed North-South for better "power" to his amp. No joke, he whipped out a compass.
Comments like, "I only use silver 24 guage wire." DUMB shit!! Go another guage larger in copper is a hell of a lot cheeper and gets better results.... IDIOT. Not to mention its your CONNECTORS THAT COUNT.
Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Where did I sue the word 'only' in that statement about wire?Seems you've done the typical thing and read what you want to read.
My entire cable setup costs less than $40, including the interconnects and mains cables. No north-south compass in my house either.
Connections are direct soldered where they can be and if it's practical enough. No expensive connectors used.
I'll aslo refrain from using the derogatory language you seem so comfortable with.
Rajinder Gill - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
correction meant 'use'..Geraldo8022 - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Mr Gill is trying to do some of you a favor by cluing you in, but some of the denser posters come back with talk about receivers, headphones, soundcards, measurements, double blind testing, Class D, etc.
Someone once asked Satchmo what jazz was and his reply was, "if you gotta ask you don't get to know." I guess some of you here aren't gonna get to know. Just keep your head in the sand, or elsewhere.
I have been into HiFi for almost forty years and it is about things like sitting in the dark at one o'clock in the morning with Sarah Vaughn. If that doesn't make any sense to you, then you don't get to know.
Mr Gill, I thank you for this article. You keep on keepin' on.
Beefmeister - Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - link
Great choice on the Opus DAC; the Twisted Pear Audio guys do great work. I've built myself a Buffalo DAC.That being said, I would strongly suggest you look at replacing your Ballsie with IVY modules. IVY is capable of zeroing the DC offset from the DAC, thus allowing you to jumper the output coupling caps on the Opus. It also gets rid of the dual and quad OPAMPs of the Ballsie, which apparently don't measure as good as the single and dual variants.
draak13 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
Starting off with reading the article, I was getting quite pissed about how much this was going into the usual audiophile BS, where their 'prowess' of electronics goes so far as, "the resistor says 1000 ohms, but really, it TASTES like 992 ohms. There's such a huge difference." I was half expecting there to be talk of putting sandbags around the room to 'enhance the musical quality of the room setting.'Reading further, I found that this article was quite good, and was even moderately scientific as I have come to expect from Anandtech. The choice of the recording microphone was EXCELLENT; I looked up the spec sheet for that, and the response on that mic is absolutely incredible, and is a total steal for the price you pay. Kudos to anandtech for finding and using it. The very objective comparisons of two different dacs was quite excellent, as were the multiple recordings.
I absolutely loved your analysis of an addition of a subwoofer into the system to compensate for the range of the main speakers. I have always been curious about how well that would actually work. Lastly, I was blown away by your DRC analysis. That's an INCREDIBLE algorithm that you have there; I love it.
There are a few things that I could say about the choice of components, and the squabbling going on about what components "perform better", but there is an end-all test that you could do to prove what is and isn't BS. First, I can flat out GUARANTEE you that your microphone is as sensitive or more sensitive than the human ear AT LISTENING VOLUME. That is, anything that you can hear, that microphone should be able to hear as well. So, if you wanted to turn your subjective listening tests into objective listening tests, then play back those songs you were testing your setup with, but record those songs at listening position with your microphone using all of your different setups. Record them multiple times, as you have been doing in your tests. Next, using MATLAB or whatever other software, overlay the recorded waveforms and determine the differences between the two. If there truly is a difference between the different hardware setups that you were using, I guarantee that this will be sensitive enough to detect that difference, and will do so quantitatively.
DeepThought86 - Monday, December 1, 2008 - link
At the end of the day, is all this expensive tomfoolery just to listen to music? Why pay extra and turn your brain to jelly to boot?