# R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible



## goodyfresh

What it says in the title:  Could someone explain to me, in a simple-enough way, the real difference between the two, and exactly why everybody seems to think that R-2R/Multibit is so much "better?"
  
 And if delta-sigma does in fact suck so very much, why the heck are all the major manufacturers leanign towards using it in almost all their DAC chips these days?

 Finally:  Are there any CHEAP options out there for DAC's (with USB input) which use R-2R instead of delta-sigma?  Like, below 300 or 400 dollars?

 Edit:  I changed the title of the thread, at @x RELIC x's suggestion, to better reflect what I was actually trying to ask.


----------



## goodyfresh

Buuuuump! If nobody's going to respond to this, could someone at the very least point me int he direction of pre-existing threads that will answer my questions?  It's kind of disheartening that apparently 40 people have viewed this thread of mine and yet no one has responded!


----------



## obobskivich

I'm not sure if you can/should group R-2R in with "multibit" since there are multibit delta-sigma DACs (in fact, many modern designs (since 2000) are multibit), and often when I see "multibit DAC" written it is usually talking about multibit delta-sigma, as opposed to some other principle. As far as explaining the differences between them, the really short version is that R-2R (or "resistor ladder") DACs and delta-sigma DACs perform their conversion in different ways, and some people preference one over the other (some like their toast buttered up, and others like their toast buttered down). For a somewhat longer answer, see the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital-to-analog_converter#DAC_types (you only need to read the giant block starting with "Oversampling DACs or interpolating DACs" and the section on R-2R in relation to your original question; that article is not exclusively about audio either (DACs don't just exist in/for audio)). Both are ultimately seeking the same result: good quality analog output. They just mean to arrive there in different ways, informed by different design decisions and limitations. 

I would not honestly go as far as saying delta-sigma "sucks so much" but more that R-2R is seemingly the buzzword du jour. Eventually the hypetrain will move on to something else. This doesn't mean you should avoid R-2R-based products, but instead realize they're just another way to skin the same cat, and depending on your personal taste, you may like that way better than some other way, or you may not (or you may not even notice much of a difference).


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> What it says in the title:  Could someone explain to me, in a simple-enough way, the real difference between the two, and exactly why everybody seems to think that R-2R/Multibit is so much "better?"




This blog helped me understand the basics. Though it's a bit biased in its conclusions I would agree with what he states at the end based on the differences I've heard.

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm




> And if delta-sigma does in fact suck so very much, why the heck are all the major manufacturers leanign towards using it in almost all their DAC chips these days?




There's a lot of reading and learning ahead.

Delta-Sigma doesn't 'suck so much' on its own. It's just that after hearing _a good R-2R implementation_ compared to a good Delta-Sigma implementation many people prefer the R-2R DAC for its superior natural reproduction of music. Purrin's thread is a good one to read on Head Fi (it's locked now). You also may want to go over to the DAC-19, Master 11, Master 7, Schiit Yggy, and Gungnir multibit threads. I should point out that I don't hear any less detail in R-2R than Delta-Sigma. I actually hear finer detail that gives me more cues to the timbre of real instruments. In comparison Delta-Sigma sounds unnatural while missing the low level detail.

Purrin's thread:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff

The basic reason all the major manufacturers are using Delta-Sigma instead of R-2R is cost of production, implementation, and size. Plain and simple. Here's a few good articles on the differences and a bit of history on the devepment of Delta-Sigma.

http://www.mojo-audio.com/blog/dsd-vs-pcm-myth-vs-truth/

http://funwithaudio.blogspot.ca/2012/01/today-in-electronics-everything-is-made.html

http://ankaudiokits.com/DAC-RR2-Part1.pdf

http://www.craigmandigital.com/education/pcm_vs_dsd.aspx

Delta-Sigma is essentially a rough approximation (a very good one) of the original signal, and the birthing point of DSD (or is it vice versa). In my opinion DSD and is a compromise and is basically a low resolution (1 bit) format that is simply super sampled out of necessity, not for audio fidelity. Hearing the difference first hand I now 'get it'. I'm picking on DSD because R-2R can't do DSD (and for a good reason) and recreates PCM in basically a 1-1 fashion without the rough approximation. Delta-Sigma = DSD.

In the end my conclusion is that once you've heard a good R-2R implementation it's hard to go back to Delta-Sigma. To me it was similar to going from a stock iPod Classic to the X5. The iPod was great, until I heard differently. I don't use my iPod anymore.

More on the differences between R-2R and Delta-Sigma (part 1 and part 2).

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue65/dac.htm
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue66/dsd.htm


As a side note here's a very good article on when higher sampling rates help or hurt audio fidelity. I learned a lot from this one.

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/




> Finally:  Are there any CHEAP options out there for DAC's (with USB input) which use R-2R instead of delta-sigma?  Like, below 300 or 400 dollars?




Well, that's the problem. For an R-2R DAC to be 300-400 dollars it more than likely will sound like crap because of the implementation requirements.

As far as FOTM comments I feel it's more of a re-awakening than a FOTM, in no small part to the exposure Schiit has brought with the Yggy. I hope more manufacturers bring back R-2R, similar to how vinyl is making a mainstream comeback.


----------



## goodyfresh

Thanks guys!


----------



## obobskivich

x relic x said:


> Delta-Sigma is essentially a rough approximation (a very good one) of the original signal, and the birthing point of DSD (or is it vice versa). In my opinion DSD and is a compromise and is basically a low resolution (1 bit) format that is simply super sampled out of necessity, not for audio fidelity. Hearing the difference first hand I now 'get it'. I'm picking on DSD because R-2R can't do DSD (and for a good reason) and recreates PCM in basically a 1-1 fashion without the rough approximation. Delta-Sigma = DSD.


 

DSD came second; it was developed as an archival format modeled on the internal working of 1-bit delta-sigma (it essentially contains *that* digital bitstream, since that was believed to be a better choice for digital archival storage). DSD isn't fairly characterized as "low resolution" though - it's a serial data format that can achieve very high resolution (comparable or better to PCM at 16-bits), but goes about it in a different way from PCM or other formats. It also has different pros and cons, like needing low-pass filtering to remove noise at the output section (one of your sources, from Craigman Digital, explores this).




> As far as FOTM comments I feel it's more of a re-awakening than a FOTM, in no small part to the exposure Schiit has brought with the Yggy. I hope more manufacturers bring back R-2R, similar to how vinyl is making a mainstream comeback.




I'm not meaning to say FOTM/hypetrain is "evil" - it benefits consumers because it usually means new gear at lower prices, as different manufacturers try to compete with "me too" products. I think the example of vinyl is great - a few years ago there weren't many good options for new turntables, and now the market is flooded with choices. IMHO choice is a good thing for consumers. 

On your sources, I dislike the Audio-Mojo, AnkAudio, and Mother-of-Tone articles because they're heavily/overtly biased and trying to sell us stuff. The CraigmanDigital, Trust Me I'm A Scientist (as well as the Xiph.org article it links to/cites), and Positive Feedback articles are good places to start beyond Wikipedia (which also has a huge article on delta-sigma for those interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-sigma_modulation); they all address legitimate issues and all raise the $64,000,000 question of "that's nice, but can we actually HEAR it?" - which is an inherently personal/subjective debate at the end of the day (and I think PF does a great job of comparing this to the debate over feedback in amplifiers - it's never-ending and ultimately comes down to the listener). 

As far as "gearquest 2015" - you may try looking for used components based on an R2R design; not sure where you'd find a comprehensive list though. Might be easier to find a list of R2R DACs themselves and then work up from that.


----------



## x RELIC x

Ha, "gearquest 2015", I like the term. 

obobskivich I agree with you on most points, and of course we all hear differently and value sonic traits differently. The non-prefered blogs / articles you dislike I am well aware of the biases involved, however, they do simplify things to a degree. It was after reading these articles that I was better able to understand the others I linked. 

As far as my assertion that DSD is low resolution..... Well, without implementing the noise shaping for quantization errors and the multi level filtering required to bring the signal back in line with the original I feel this is what makes it fairly low resolution. It's only after extensive 'treatment' that the outgoing signal ends up representing the incoming signal. Based on my (admittedly limited) experience. When the signal is modified to the extent that it is in D-S and DSD I would doubt the theoretical bits of what reaches our ear equal the actual resolution we hear. I agree though, is it audible? What I do hear is that D-S just sounds more 'one note', more lifeless.

As for vinyl, my daughters friend bought her a turntable and a few records for her 21st birthday last year. How awesome is that? Love that it really is coming back in to focus.


----------



## obobskivich

You could test the output of a DAC's "faithfulness" with a null in theory (like craigman did, but with actual audio), but IME sometimes gear that measures badly (wrt conventional wisdom) can sound good. Look up the TDA15xx for example (for a really dramatic example, look up the Zanden 5000 on Stereophile - I've never heard that specific one but the discussion around it seems pertinent here).


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh you may want to check out this post for an inexpensive R-2R Theta DAC.

http://www.head-fi.org/t/763905/finding-a-dac-for-the-cavalli-liquid-carbon-only-four-months-to-go/1080#post_11887957


----------



## goodyfresh

x relic x said:


> @goodyfresh you may want to check out this post for an inexpensive R-2R Theta DAC.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/763905/finding-a-dac-for-the-cavalli-liquid-carbon-only-four-months-to-go/1080#post_11887957


 

 Looks interesting!  But I can't seem to find any info by searching online as to where I can buy it or exactly how much it does cost >_<


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> Looks interesting!  But I can't seem to find any info by searching online as to where I can buy it or exactly how much it does cost >_<




I found some that were sold already for $175. Like the post says, if you're _patient_ you can find them. They were made in the early 90's so you need to look out for them.


----------



## goodyfresh

x relic x said:


> I found some that were sold already for $175. Like the post says, if you're _patient_ you can find them. They were made in the early 90's so you need to look out for them.


 
 Ah yes, okay   Making them work as a USB DAC shouldn't be too hard either, I'd just need an adapter for USB-to-COAX


----------



## landroni

x relic x said:


> I found some that were sold already for $175. Like the post says, if you're _patient_ you can find them. They were made in the early 90's so you need to look out for them.


 

 Another way to get a modern and relatively inexpensive R2R device is Schiit Bifrost multibit (600$):
 http://schiit.com/products/bifrost
  
 Schiit seems to have taken great care when designing this product, to keep costs down and sound-quality on-par with good R2R implementations:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/8295#post_12031225
  
 The Schiit designers compare it precisely to the Theta Cobalt, placing them both in the historically appropriate technological and pricing context.


----------



## landroni

goodyfresh said:


> Could someone explain to me, in a simple-enough way, the real difference between the two, and exactly why everybody seems to think that R-2R/Multibit is so much "better?"


 
  
 I feel that the R2R vs DS debate is intimately related to the current cacophony over sampling rates. Higher sampling rates are either better, worse, or don't make a difference: go figure. Monty Python and Dan Lavry say that 192 kHz sampling speeds are silly, and actively damaging for playback fidelity. Neil Young and even James from FiiO say that 192 kHz and 384 kHz are useful to improve sound quality in the audible band. While this is clearly something akin to the theater of the absurd, I suspect that they're all right. They're just talking about different things.
  
 http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
 http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
 Lavry clearly talks about *multibit* converters (and probably Monty, too), those *R-2R* (aka *"ladder"*) converters that take the full samples provided by a lossless audio file and convert them at hardware level before passing the signal to the analog output phase, with *no oversampling* (*NOS*). This technology is somewhat rare nowadays (and these DAC chips are more expensive and require extreme manufacturing precision when getting into 19-20 bit territory), and has been dying a slow death before seeing somewhat of a revival lately. Some of the products using R2R converters are old Theta (e.g. DS Pro Generation V), and newer Schiit multibit (e.g. Yggdrasil) or Audio GD (e.g. Master 7 or DAC-19). R2R DAPs are even rarer, the few existing breeds being the HM801, Hifi E.T MA9 and... surprise... Tera Player.
  
 While this may be a bit of a stretch, these are apparently the _only_ DACs/DAPs around which are _bit-perfect_, and they're definitely fewer than 0.5% of the market. They use the original samples in _full depth_ (up to the hardware limitations, usually ranging from 17-18 bits up to about 21 bits max), as these are _high-bit, low-speed_ devices just like redbook PCM is a _high-bit, low-speed_ format: 16-bit/96 kHz is ALL they need for perfect retrieval of analog waveforms within the audible band, and 16-bit/44.1 kHz works very well, thank you. What's crucial here is that 16-bit/96 kHz R2R technology exists, is proven, doesn't require ever changing formats and complex digital processing, does much less aggressive filtering of the data stream/sound signal, is perfectly suited for 99.9% of available audio material (slow PCM), and the only R&D required is care in real-world device implementation.
  
 Neil Young and James however clearly have in mind *Delta-Sigma* D/A converters (e.g. the DACs in Pono or X7), low-cost 5-6 bit devices which use complex digital-feedback techniques and algorithms (e.g. noise-shaping) to approximate analog waveforms. If with R2R we are hearing the device, with DS we are hearing the _algorithm_. DS is the direct successor of 1-bit D/A converters and are thus at heart _low-bit, ultra-high-speed_ devices that rely on *oversampling* techniques (e.g. 2^8 = 256 times the sampling rate). This is probably why many report that the _low-bit, ultra-high-speed_ DSD format sounds so much better and more "natural" on them. This is also what makes them quite... err... awkward with _high-bit, low-speed_ PCM, because the two are fundamentally mismatched. This is probably why manufacturers like FiiO, Hifiman and AK are constantly seeking to support ever higher sampling rates, to infinity (which is in many ways irrelevant, as how many copies of 768 kHz PCM files do _you_ have?).
  
 What's most disconcerting with DS converters, is that they are _dropping_ original samples: since they can't handle more than 5-6 bits natively, it really doesn't seem to matter if you pass them an 8-bit or a 24-bit file, as they will still drop all the bits until they get to a 5-6 bit sample, and proceed from there to the analog conversion. (Talk about wasted space in a world awash with 16bit PCM played back almost exclusively on DS devices.) In order to operate, they need to slim down the high-bit PCM file into a low-bit version. And since they use so few bits, they produce a boatload of noise (i.e. a very high noise threshold), which is why they need to use oversampling to increase the bitrate and then use aggressive noise-shaping techniques to shift the noise just outside the audible band, a process which can go wrong in many ways. Since DS are fundamentally low-bit devices, it appears that they need ever higher sampling speeds in PCM to do their best, which along with DSD are merely cumbersome attempts to work around the fundamental limitations of the technology. I'm no engineer, but overall it looks to me that all this is hardly suited for high-fidelity applications, not least because they're not bit-perfect. But hey, they currently occupy 99.5% of the market, including "high-fidelity" flagship territory.
  
 Sometimes I get the feeling that Delta-Sigma is so attractive to manufacturers mostly for scoring marketing points: "high-resolution" support up to 768 kHz and 32 bits, DSD, DXD, DSD512... Compare this to the paltry "up to 24 bits and 96 kHz" that R2R manufacturers often whisper. But if we avoid the polemics, on a theoretical level I see two big issues with DS.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/319569/r2r-vs-s-d-dacs/15#post_11860338
 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/digital-source/15439-how-does-delta-sigma-dac-work.html#post179844
 http://positive-feedback.com/Issue65/dac.htm
 First, this is a _lossy _conversion process that uses _decimation_ to partially drop data, and then proceeds to digitally _synthesize_ high-bit performance. And after 15 years of R&D, the digital "glare" reported from the very beginning is still being reported today with top-flight DS DACs (when they playing back slow PCM). From my (approximate) understanding of DS technology, first they lose data from the original samples by downconverting each sample to 5-6 bits, then DS oversamples the data by some 2^8 or 2^10 (256 to 1024 times the sampling speed of 44100) to add an additional 8-10 bits of performance, then proceeds to using complex and obscure digital-feedback noise-shaping techniques to clean up the gargantuan levels of noise introduced by the earlier process and "sweep them under the rug" by shifting them just above 20 kHZ to where dogs and cats can hear it but not humans (so forget of using DS technology to test classical music on animals), thus adding a further ~8 bit performance. For instance ES9018 is rumoured to work at 6 bit + 8 bits + 8 bits, for a marketed headline 22.5 bits of effective performance. BTW, we should forever forget about "32 bit" DACs as neither technology is currently capable of handling it, each plateauing neatly around 21-22 bits, and apparently no standard digital audio file contains more than 24 bits worth of data...
  
 http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/HexEN.html
 http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Design%20Philosophy%20Metrum%20Acoustics.pdf
 My other theoretical concern also relates to oversampling, but from a different perspective. The Metrum document above, from another believer in R2R, focuses precisely on why so many DACs sound so differently from live performances. Ultimately this really is what we're all here for: recreate a live performance in our living room. It talks about "realism", "natural" sounding, purity of the sound, absence of digital artefacts (“rubbish”) and the like. They point among other things to _FIR filters _used in DS oversampling technology, the absence of FIR filters in old R2R chipsets like TDA1541, and _the ear acting as a naturally sharp filter_ ("like a band-pass filter") meaning that adding one such filter in the audio playback device would be an overkill.



  
_"Because our hearing naturally functions as a strong filter, our brains tend to interpret the signal from the NOS
 DAC as if it has passed through a FIR-filter. This is due to the limited bandwidth of our hearing. Looking at
 the picture on the top of this page, we can wonder how the eventual picture will look if another equivalent
 filter is added by our hearing. It is well-documented by both musicians and authorities in the field of audio,
 that especially percussion instruments suffer from this effect. It is therefore not unfounded when NOS DACs
 are claimed to sound the most natural of all the alternatives. Because at the same time the testresults for all
 NOS DACs fall short, the question can be raised wether the correct tests are being done to accurately gauge
 their quality. All measurements are, after all, performed without the benefit of any filter."_
  
 Apparently while FIR filters (> 4th order) make oversampling techniques possible in the first place, it also plays as a redundant filter given our ears' natural filtering (> 6th order). This might go some way to explain the various reports of "artificial" or "digital" or "unnatural" or "lifeless" sound from DS devices with PCM, as opposed to "realistic" and "natural" sound from R2R products.
  
 They go on with an interesting discussion of jitter testing, and conclude like this:
_"NOS DACS have been gaining in popularity for the past few years, mostly based on listening reviews.
 Especially people who regulary experience live music, appear to have a strong preference for this type of
 DAC. As Kusunoki had mentioned in his article, it is primarily the behaviour in the time domain which gives
 oversampling DACs their “unnatural” quality. This shows in the way that percussion instruments sound too
 lacklustre and a sort of “excessive detailing”, which causes certain instruments to lose their timbre and
 “warmth”. The question wether we should follow our ears or the results of tests remains on the table._

_The development of digital audiosystems has not reached its zenith yet and we will certainly be confronted
 with new developments in the future. Certain is, that due to High Definition recordings the need for
 oversampling and sharp filters has lessened. How to approach the massive variety of CD’s, with their low
 sampling rate of 44.1 kHz remains the question. To oversample or not to Oversample? Not oversampling
 seems to be the preference of musicians and audio-professionals, despite their “limitations”."_
  
 For a related discussion on R2R vs DS see this thread:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/785488/the-new-r-2r-dap-thread


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Excellent post, R2R is in my humble experience offers more musicality. I have not heard most of the extremely expensive manipulations of DS DACs, but apparently you must manipulate them greatly to attempt to approximate R2R.


----------



## obobskivich

You can't really say DS is "lossy" and it heavily alters the discussion to bring that dichotomy in - this isn't like comparing mp3 to flac or something of the sort (and talking about their 1-bit or multibit internal resolution isn't equivalent to the word size of the encoded signal; they're processing 1 (or multi) bit internally but doing it at a different rate, and in conjunction with (very complex) filtering). Don't believe it? Null it. Measurements show both to be valid methods (and designers didn't switch towards DS without good reasons), but one of them has fallen out of favor because it isn't exotic, obtuse, or obscure (which we all know is a cardinal sin). When "digital glare" is mentioned I always have to roll my eyes a bit - can anyone actually quantify or even qualify what this is supposed to be, and how it's supposed to be killing our music, kicking our dogs, and running off with our daughters? I'm not asking for some over-the-top technical discussion, I'd just prefer clarity in terminology is all. 

As far as "there are big huge differences" - again, I'd advise caution with these kinds of claims (ESPECIALLY when they come from manufacturers) - you can find numerous reviews and articles discussing just how small the differences are; look at Tyll's Big Sound comparison as a recent example (here's one of the wrap-up articles that came out of it: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-wrap-what-i-learned). I'm not saying "there are absolutely no differences whatsoever" but we're really talking about very small changes, that in some (many?) cases are probably going to be very hard to notice. 

Finally, since NOS FL is now in the discussion, I'll just throw this out there: aliasing. It's a very real thing, it's a very audible thing, it's not a good thing. It will generally affect all FL designs. Crossover ringing is also a real problem, but less audible. I am not saying *all* R2R will have this problem - many of them DO have output filtering to try and remedy these problems (e.g. Schiit talks a great bit about their proprietary filters, which exist to nip this stuff in the bud), and IME the filtered models tend to sound even closer to DS (and I suspect a large part of that is both good R2R and good DS are targeting the same thing: flat, full-range frequency response with as low distortion as possible; if you want to get into non-flat response then yes we can get into "big huge differences" quite easily). 

To throw more wrenches into the works: despite all of this, NOS FL can still sound fairly good in many circumstances, but the shortcomings outweigh any perceived benefit to the sound - "out of the box" impressions are easy to go "wow, this is different, this is therefore better!" but once you start noticing the aliasing and ringing, the switch back to a properly working DS design is like, to borrow an audiophile platitude, night and day. Filtered R2R is equally "good" in that respect, and honestly I wouldn't go as far as regarding one as significantly worse than the other - the lower resolution that many R2R systems have may be a problem though, but there are SRC chips to bridge that gap.


----------



## landroni

obobskivich said:


> You can't really say DS is "lossy" and it heavily alters the discussion to bring that dichotomy in - this isn't like comparing mp3 to flac or something of the sort


 
  
 True, DS isn't "lossy" in the sense of MP3 files. But it heavily discards data nonetheless: for a 24 bit/96 kHz file e.g. ES9018 will discard 18 bits, i.e. 75% of the data. And even if DS can work around this loss of information via oversampling, technically this still can be viewed as lossy:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_slope_delta_modulation
_"Like other delta-modulation techniques, the output of the decoder *does not exactly match* the original input to the encoder."_

  
 Whereas "does not exactly match" is defined as: 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lossy_compression
_"In information technology, lossy compression is the class of data encoding methods that uses inexact approximations (or *partial data discarding*) to represent the content."_

  
 So yes, in practical terms we can talk about "lossy" DS. But the strong choice of words was as much motivated for its instructive value: very few people in audiophilia realize just how pointless it is to get a 24/44.1 file as opposed to 16/44.1 standard redbook PCM if you don't have non-standard hardware (e.g. an R2R DAC). So partly it was to drive the point home...

  


> (and talking about their 1-bit or multibit internal resolution isn't equivalent to the word size of the encoded signal; they're processing 1 (or multi) bit internally but doing it at a different rate, and in conjunction with (very complex) filtering). Don't believe it? Null it. Measurements show both to be valid methods (and designers didn't switch towards DS without good reasons), but one of them has fallen out of favor because it isn't exotic, obtuse, or obscure (which we all know is a cardinal sin).


 
  
 At which point exactly is the high-noise levels generated in DS? Is it directly as a result of converting 6-bit PCM to analogue, or is it a direct consequence of the oversampling phase? Either way, this is a (big) price to pay for discarding so many bits in the first place...

  


> When "digital glare" is mentioned I always have to roll my eyes a bit - can anyone actually quantify or even qualify what this is supposed to be, and how it's supposed to be killing our music, kicking our dogs, and running off with our daughters? I'm not asking for some over-the-top technical discussion, I'd just prefer clarity in terminology is all.


 
  
 People were discussing digital glare in the context of DS from its very inception, e.g. Bruno Putzeys, then Chief Engineer at Philips Digital Systems Labs (i.e. NOT your average run-off-the-mill audiophile).
 http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/sacd-fundamentally-flawed.26075/page-3

  
 And people are discussing digital glare today, e.g.:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/693798/thoughts-on-a-bunch-of-dacs-and-why-delta-sigma-kinda-sucks-just-to-get-you-to-think-about-stuff/4695#post_11555961
  
  
 I hope others can chime in.

  


> As far as "there are big huge differences" - again, I'd advise caution with these kinds of claims (ESPECIALLY when they come from manufacturers) - you can find numerous reviews and articles discussing just how small the differences are; look at Tyll's Big Sound comparison as a recent example (here's one of the wrap-up articles that came out of it: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-wrap-what-i-learned). I'm not saying "there are absolutely no differences whatsoever" but we're really talking about very small changes, that in some (many?) cases are probably going to be very hard to notice.


  
 I agree. Caution from manufacturer claims is warranted, though here I attempted to compile info from disparate sources to come up with something of a picture of what is going on, from manufacturers or otherwise. For instance, I find it disheartening that it took me so much digging to realize just how few bits of the original files DS DACs were actually using, yet manufacturers hype 32-bit support as their latest and greatest achievement. It seems to me as if manufacturers of DS devices try to obscure the technology as much as possible from the end-user, whereas R2R manufacturers openly get into the nitty-gritty of their implementations.
  
 What I find most convincing though is users who report not going back to DS once they were exposed to R2R (this goes well beyond a one-off infatuation with a different sound). While others complain of how "poor", "flat" and "lifeless" PCM sounds on some DSD-focused devices, whereas DSD sounds so "natural" on them. So R2R vs DS isn't the sole point of comparison; if on the same DS device PCM playback differs hugely from DSD playback, then fair questions will arise.
  
 As for aliasing and ringing, alas my memory is a bit rusty on the details right now... 
  
  


> Finally, since NOS FL is now in the discussion, I'll just throw this out there: aliasing. It's a very real thing, it's a very audible thing, it's not a good thing. It will generally affect all FL designs. Crossover ringing is also a real problem, but less audible. I am not saying *all* R2R will have this problem - many of them DO have output filtering to try and remedy these problems (e.g. Schiit talks a great bit about their proprietary filters, which exist to nip this stuff in the bud), and IME the filtered models tend to sound even closer to DS (and I suspect a large part of that is both good R2R and good DS are targeting the same thing: flat, full-range frequency response with as low distortion as possible; if you want to get into non-flat response then yes we can get into "big huge differences" quite easily).
> 
> To throw more wrenches into the works: despite all of this, NOS FL can still sound fairly good in many circumstances, but the shortcomings outweigh any perceived benefit to the sound - "out of the box" impressions are easy to go "wow, this is different, this is therefore better!" but once you start noticing the aliasing and ringing, the switch back to a properly working DS design is like, to borrow an audiophile platitude, night and day. Filtered R2R is equally "good" in that respect, and honestly I wouldn't go as far as regarding one as significantly worse than the other - the lower resolution that many R2R systems have may be a problem though, but there are SRC chips to bridge that gap.


----------



## obobskivich

I'm not having a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions; if that's your goal, find someone else. To the rest (since most of your reply was not a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions):

DS operates on either 1-bit or multibit internally (depending on the DS implementation), but this doesn't mean you're "giving up" N bits of resolution. And to the "users who were exposed to R2R" - are we just ignoring people who have "been exposed" to R2R that don't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (e.g. me)? Seems like selection bias to me. I don't have time to read the larger links right now, but I do intend to respond more fully later (I'm not trying to brush you off at all - I do find this discussion fascinating).


----------



## goodyfresh

obobskivich said:


> I'm not having a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions; if that's your goal, find someone else. To the rest (since most of your reply was not a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions):
> 
> DS operates on either 1-bit or multibit internally (depending on the DS implementation), but this doesn't mean you're "giving up" N bits of resolution. And to the "users who were exposed to R2R" - are we just ignoring people who have "been exposed" to R2R that don't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (e.g. me)? Seems like selection bias to me. I don't have time to read the larger links right now, but I do intend to respond more fully later (I'm not trying to brush you off at all - I do find this discussion fascinating).


 

 Isn't it true that DS is fully capable of perfectly reproducing the original waveform with 100% precision???


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> Isn't it true that DS is fully capable of perfectly reproducing the original waveform with 100% precision???




To a degree yes, but mostly no in my experience. I'm talking about fine vey subtle audible differences here, but ones that have a large impact in the naturalness in the sound. Like looking at a CG recreation of an actor. The flesh and blood actor always feels 'right' because of the nuances that aren't replicated in CG. Always.

In very simple terms DS looks at the incoming information and must switch a 1bit resistor on and off very quickly to create the proper voltage output defined by the word length in the data stream. This is the one bit of information at the root of DS. On or off. This also generates a large amount of noise. The noise shaping and approximation done by DS basically means the output voltages are close to the incoming signal but most DS DACs do not take it anywhere near far enough to reproduce the signal completely accurately (Chord DACs are the exception). Now in multilevel DS (often mistakenly claimed to be multibit) they're using multiple 1bit switches to compare against in order to further get an accurate reduction in noise. These are up to 6 bits for a good multilevel DS implementation (Sabre chips for example). By using noise shaping and techniques to clean up quantization errors the resulting voltage output to the amplifier is an approximation of the original analogue waveform represented in the digital bit depth.

Now with R-2R, multibit, ladder DACs there are multiple resistors configured to switch on for the required voltage depending on the input data stream. For 16bit depth you can have a possible 65536 voltages, which is much better for reproducing the analogue voltage represented in the digital bit depth and generates much less noise than DS ever can before filtering, even multilevel DS designs. A 16 bit R-2R is actually 16bits. A 21 or 24 bit R-2R is actual bits, not equivalent bits like with DS. With R-2R it's more about precision cutting of the resistors so they match to generate as little noise and errors as possible. This is where most of the manufacturing expense in a R-2R chip comes from. It needs very precise manufacturing with very low tolerances to work well with low noise. With DS the whole game is about reducing noise generated from the simple, small and cheap 1 resistor approach itself and the result is an approximate reproduction of the incoming signal. The DS hardware can not reproduce the voltages determined by the bit depth with only one resistor without generating a ridiculous amount of noise that needs to be 'shaped' out of the audible spectrum. This noise shaping creates a lot of quantization error which also needs to be dealt with. Schiit audio says it the best when they say all the original bits of the original signal are thrown out the window with DS.

From my own listening and comparisons what I hear from R-2R is more 'nano' detail. Room reflections, cymbal texture, string vibrations, are on a whole other level over DS. From DS I would hear a hi hat as - sss, sss, sss, sss, sss, sss -. From R-2R I hear a hi hat as - TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss -. On its own DS gets the point across, but when you hear a direct comparison to R-2R then DS sounds blurred, smeared, not as accurate.... approximate. Of course you need to listen with headphones that can reproduce the fine details and you need an amp that doesn't distort or colour the incoming analogue signal from the DAC to really appreciate it. Of course, implementation is key on both sides of the fence but dollar for dollar, using equivalent prices, R-2R beats DS in my opinion for natural, realistic musical presentation. Timbre, tone and accuracy are much better on R-2R. DS sounds digital to me. 

I'm sure many will argue the semantics with what I've said and many may disagree with what I hear. Fine. This is just what I've heard as the differences and what I understand of the implementations behind them. Of course to truly get the technical point across the articles that have been linked (and more) should be read and studied.


----------



## obobskivich

obobskivich said:


> I'm not having a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions; if that's your goal, find someone else. To the rest (since most of your reply was not a semantics argument based around Wikipedia definitions):
> 
> DS operates on either 1-bit or multibit internally (depending on the DS implementation), but this doesn't mean you're "giving up" N bits of resolution. And to the "users who were exposed to R2R" - are we just ignoring people who have "been exposed" to R2R that don't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (e.g. me)? Seems like selection bias to me. I don't have time to read the larger links right now, but I do intend to respond more fully later (I'm not trying to brush you off at all - I do find this discussion fascinating).




Quoting myself to expand on what I said: 

DS isn't the same as "giving up" N bits of resolution because DS isn't the same as having a 1-bit (or 5-bit, or N-bit) ladder (R2R) DAC - it uses feedback to achieve its desired output resolution (along with complex digital filtering). It also has output filtering (all DA really should have this) to eliminate aliasing, and no the ear will not "filter that out" - you will hear it quite dramatically (again, this is not "an R2R thing" - this is "an FL thing"). Furthermore, a lot of recent hype I've heard about R2R products talks about them like they're the "solution" to DS - it's the other way around, historically. DS was the solution to the R2R, where a 1-bit DS DAC is much cheaper to mass produce, can achieve essentially perfect linearity (because you only have to get that 1-bit component, versus the ladder), and doesn't have crossover ringing (it's just not possible). Multbit allows for higher resolution (that's where you get 24-bit, 32-bit, etc) and lower noise (higher SNR). 

WRT the Steve Hoffman link, I'm not seeing what you're meaning to discuss wrt "glare" - one of the posts talks about glare briefly, but largely in the context of bad (read: ancient) output filtering (this impacts DSD and PCM conversion - bad filtering is bad filtering) and multi-generational copies that've gone through multiple ADDA chains with different filtering and noise-shaping at each step. He mentions aliasing as a specific problem, which is again related to filtering (or the lack thereof) - if you're worried about "glare" you shouldn't be going after an FL DAC. 

On the second link I'm not sure how to respond - again it could be an issue with the filter implementation, it could be entirely "in his head", there could be a level mismatch in the gear, bad recordings, etc - there's any number of explanations for causing that effect. IME that "white noise" or "speak n spell" sound is not characteristic of DS, at least uniformly - I've heard R2R FL DACs that can sound like that (), and I've heard some bright/forward/cold 1-bit implementations that can also sound like that (and when I say "sound like that" I'm painting with a big brush on a very small canvas). I've also heard R2R and DS that don't do that (most of them I would say, don't do that). I will admit that I've never heard a Sabre-based product, but I have seen quite a bit of controversy over Sabre so maybe it's also "a Sabre" thing. Who knows. 



x relic x said:


> In very simple terms DS looks at the incoming information and must switch a 1bit resistor on and off very quickly to create the proper voltage output defined by the word length in the data stream. This is the one bit of information at the root of DS. On or off. This also generates a large amount of noise. The noise shaping and approximation done by DS basically means the output voltages are close to the incoming signal but most DS DACs do not take it anywhere near far enough to reproduce the signal completely accurately (Chord DACs are the exception). Now in multilevel DS (often mistakenly claimed to be multibit) they're using multiple 1bit switches to compare against in order to further get an accurate reduction in noise. These are up to 6 bits for a good multilevel DS implementation (Sabre chips for example). By using noise shaping and techniques to clean up quantization errors the resulting voltage output to the amplifier is an approximation of the original analogue waveform represented in the digital bit depth.




That's a more concise explanation than I could've banged out in a paragraph. Bravo. 

WRT "multibit" vs "multilevel" - I get the "technically correct" part about saying multilevel, but in everything from whitepapers to textbooks I've seen it as "multibit" over the years. I'm guessing it's sort of like how we all call 8P8C jacks RJ-45, when it's really wrong, but we do it anyways because that's just what we do. 



> Now with R-2R, multibit, ladder DACs there are multiple resistors configured to switch on for the required voltage depending on the input data stream. For 16bit depth you can have a possible 65536 voltages, which is much better for reproducing the analogue voltage represented in the digital bit depth and generates much less noise than DS ever can before filtering, even multilevel DS designs. A 16 bit R-2R is actually 16bits. A 21 or 24 bit R-2R is actual bits, not equivalent bits like with DS. With R-2R it's more about precision cutting of the resistors so they match to generate as little noise and errors as possible. This is where most of the manufacturing expense in a R-2R chip comes from. It needs very precise manufacturing with very low tolerances to work well with low noise. With DS the whole game is about reducing noise generated from the simple, small and cheap 1 resistor approach itself and the result is an approximate reproduction of the incoming signal. The DS hardware can not reproduce the voltages determined by the bit depth with only one resistor without generating a ridiculous amount of noise that needs to be 'shaped' out of the audible spectrum. This noise shaping creates a lot of quantization error which also needs to be dealt with. Schiit audio says it the best when they say all the original bits of the original signal are thrown out the window with DS.




Some stuff to add: 

R2R has a crossover point when you go from negative to positive values, and there can be drift there. That's a problem that DS simply cannot have. The resistor tolerance is also a real consideration, where a 1-bit DS will have (theoretically) flawless linearity (theoretically because you can blow it all away with the output filtering and noise shaping, but that one resistor against itself is always perfect). If you don't have an output filter (which isn't possible for DS, as you've mentioned above) you will also have problems with aliasing. 



> From my own listening and comparisons what I hear from R-2R is more 'nano' detail. Room reflections, cymbal texture, string vibrations, are on a whole other level over DS. From DS I would hear a hi hat as - sss, sss, sss, sss, sss, sss -. From R-2R I hear a hi hat as - TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss, TSHSssssss -. On its own DS gets the point across, but when you hear a direct comparison to R-2R then DS sounds blurred, smeared, not as accurate.... approximate. Of course you need to listen with headphones that can reproduce the fine details and you need an amp that doesn't distort or colour the incoming analogue signal from the DAC to really appreciate it. Of course, implementation is key on both sides of the fence but dollar for dollar, using equivalent prices, R-2R beats DS in my opinion for natural, realistic musical presentation. Timbre, tone and accuracy are much better on R-2R. DS sounds digital to me.




And we'll likely have to agree to entirely disagree on this - to my ears both are capable of making a very good sounding DAC (and please I would hope nobody is taking away from my posts that I'm "anti-R2R" or anything of the sort), and both have their own strengths and weaknesses that require a manufacturer/designer to address in order to get good sound. I think it's also fair to say that, in the grand scheme of things, this is meted out in comparative reviews (e.g. Big Sound 2015). One thing I will add, is that I can absolutely agree with having heard DS DACs (especially older devices) that tend to be forward, aggressive, edgy, etc (and for the newbies: this is not like ketchup vs mayo level differences, this is like comparing two brands of ketchup level differences), and I'm thinking that's probably a result of their filtering or output sections being voiced that way ("artificial detail" or whatever you want to call it) - I've heard some older DS implementations that don't do this, and many newer devices tend to be free of this problem. I can't think of any R2R I've heard that I'd describe as "forward or edgy" though, and that may lend some credence to the overall stereotype if we're considering older hardware where this may have had some grain of truth to it. I'm not at all trying to qualify what you've heard or tell you you're wrong, just adding to the discussion.


----------



## x RELIC x

obobskivich, thanks for the response. I'm not in any way saying that DS can't sound good. I've heard some really good DS implementations. What I do hear as a difference with my admittedly narrow scope of gear, is the naturalness of R-2R that comes through, and again, a subtlety to the detail that simply sounds smeared to me from DS. I want to clarify I'm not talking about a macro or micro level. It's a low level detail that just gives those subtle cues that are glossed over from what I hear in DS.

Also some DS DACs (not all, but a lot) tend to really exaggerate detail giving what I consider a false sense of detail, but never goes in to the low level stuff. One piece of gear I've been very disappointed in is the iFi iDAC2 that I actually won in a contest on Head Fi recently. I've heard a lot of praise for the unit but it sounds insanely forced and exaggerated to me. The actual detail isn't any more than I've heard from a great R-2R, but the whole tonality and in your face presentation sounds completely wrong compared to real instruments. This is not what I consider a good implementation of a DAC. To me a DAC should reproduce the original analogue recording as best it can and if it doesn't sound life like then what's the point?


----------



## obobskivich

x relic x said:


> obobskivich, thanks for the response. I'm not in any way saying that DS can't sound good. I've heard some really good DS implementations. What I do hear as a difference with my admittedly narrow scope of gear, is the naturalness of R-2R that comes through, and again, a subtlety to the detail that simply sounds smeared to me from DS. I want to clarify I'm not talking about a macro or micro level. It's a low level detail that just gives those subtle cues that are glossed over from what I hear in DS.




Next stop, twilight zone: Every R2R implementation I've heard I would regard as more "smeared" or "lush" than *most* DS DACs I've heard - spun another way, I'd say they border on being more "musical" or "organic" sounding. This is super-subtle stuff though, and honestly I'm quite content with my DS gear since (at least on the newer stuff) its clear as a bell without being forward/edgy. OFC I've heard plenty of forward/edgy DS gear too. 



> Also some DS DACs (not all, but a lot) tend to really exaggerate detail giving what I consider a false sense of detail, but never goes in to the low level stuff. One piece of gear I've been very disappointed in is the iFi iDAC2 that I actually won in a contest on Head Fi recently. I've heard a lot of praise for the unit but it sounds insanely forced and exaggerated to me. The actual detail isn't any more than I've heard from a great R-2R, but the whole tonality and in your face presentation sounds completely wrong compared to real instruments. This is not what I consider a good implementation of a DAC. To me a DAC should reproduce the original analogue recording as best it can and if it doesn't sound life like then what's the point?




I've heard DACs (and CD players) like this in the past - I'm not a fan. I've yet to hear an R2R that does this though, and I'm guessing what it comes down to is differences in the filter implementations on DS being more dramatic than on R2R. To expand on that some, I can count among DS DACs the most neutral, most forward/edgy, and most laid-back/lush DACs I've ever heard, while among R2R I would regard them as being similarly inoffensive, if subtly different in voicing.


----------



## Wildcatsare1

Could you please share which R2R and D/S DACs you are talking about?


----------



## Punch Leez

People always said how good, how neutral and how synergy of the R2R sound, I have heard a few expensive R2R DAC, they sound good, but I hardly to tell that they sound better when I am comparing it to other high performance devices with DS DAC. To me, DS is more elegant and it should sound "better" than the R2R. The predicted noise will work better than the stepping ladder wave. But the sound of a DAC is all about the implementation. It's not about what DAC Chip using inside the products, but the implementation.
  
 Correct me if i am wrong.


----------



## landroni

obobskivich said:


> And to the "users who were exposed to R2R" - are we just ignoring people who have "been exposed" to R2R that don't find it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread (e.g. me)? Seems like selection bias to me.


 

 Selection bias is a possibility, and certainly I haven't read all the experiences there are to be read on the forums. From the little I did, from the population of the select few who have heard both DS and R2R DACs, the incoming message seems to be an overall preference for R2R as a "natural" sound reflecting (more) accurately what we hear in a concert hall (including cues like "reverberations" or "acoustics"). As @x RELIC x points out, this is possibly closely linked to combining it with a transparent amp and resolving headphones.


----------



## landroni

x relic x said:


> Now in multilevel DS (often mistakenly claimed to be multibit) they're using *multiple 1bit switches to compare against *in order to further get an accurate reduction in noise. These are up to 6 bits for a good multilevel DS implementation (Sabre chips for example).





> The DS hardware can not reproduce the voltages determined by the bit depth with *only one resistor *without generating a ridiculous amount of noise that needs to be 'shaped' out of the audible spectrum. This noise shaping creates a lot of quantization error which also needs to be dealt with. Schiit audio says it the best when they say *all the original bits of the original signal are thrown out the window *with DS.


 

 Wait, so in multilevel DS (e.g. ES9018) the converter is using a 6 bit sample? Or 6 samples of 1 bit across the 6 switches? If it's the latter, then DS is discarding even more data than I had previously thought...


----------



## x RELIC x

landroni said:


> Wait, so in multilevel DS (e.g. ES9018) the converter is using a 6 bit sample? Or 6 samples of 1 bit across the 6 switches? If it's the latter, then DS is discarding even more data than I had previously thought...




Apparently...... I'm not a EE, but that's how I understand it. The bit depth advertised is equivalent bits derived from 6bit multi level DS, as I understand it. This has been noted in some of the links I provided to you in our PM.


----------



## x RELIC x

punch leez said:


> People always said how good, how neutral and how synergy of the R2R sound, I have heard a few expensive R2R DAC, they sound good, but I hardly to tell that they sound better when I am comparing it to other high performance devices with DS DAC. To me, DS is more elegant and it should sound "better" than the R2R. The predicted noise will work better than the stepping ladder wave. But the sound of a DAC is all about the implementation. It's not about what DAC Chip using inside the products, but the implementation.
> 
> Correct me if i am wrong.




What each person hears and prefers is completely valid. For me I tend to focus on timing and resolution. The only DAC I've heard that is close to my R-2R is the Chord Mojo. Remarkable little device. But then there are R-2R DACs that I don't think would be my cup of tea. For example the Schiit Gungnir multibit is apparently tuned brighter and more edgy than the DAC-19 I own. On the other side I wouldn't want to go warmer than the Mojo, but it's a very fun device.

With regard to implementation I agree 100%. But the approach between both is so different that implementation is hard to define. R-2R implementation requires different power, oversampling, and filtering considerations from DS. Regardless, within each approach the implementation is extremely important.


----------



## Punch Leez

x relic x said:


> What each person hears and prefers is completely valid. For me I tend to focus on timing and resolution. The only DAC I've heard that is close to my R-2R is the Chord Mojo. Remarkable little device. But then there are R-2R DACs that I don't think would be my cup of tea. For example the Schiit Gungnir multibit is apparently tuned brighter and more edgy than the DAC-19 I own. On the other side I wouldn't want to go warmer than the Mojo, but it's a very fun device.
> 
> With regard to implementation I agree 100%. But the approach between both is so different that implementation is hard to define. R-2R implementation requires different power, oversampling, and filtering considerations from DS. Regardless, within each approach the implementation is extremely important.


 
  
 Yes I agree, I have not tested the mojo but I have tested the demo hugo at shop, it sounds very alike to most ess9018 DAC running in NOS mode to me.


----------



## landroni

obobskivich said:


> As far as "there are big huge differences" - again, I'd advise caution with these kinds of claims (ESPECIALLY when they come from manufacturers) - you can find numerous reviews and articles discussing just how small the differences are; look at Tyll's Big Sound comparison as a recent example (here's one of the wrap-up articles that came out of it: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-wrap-what-i-learned). I'm not saying "there are absolutely no differences whatsoever" but we're really talking about very small changes, that in some (many?) cases are probably going to be very hard to notice.


 
  
 To add some more --- selectively hand-picked  --- data-points on real-life R2R vs DS performance as perceived by users. From this thread:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/785367/bifrost-mb-technical-measurements#post_12014048


atomicbob said:


> I have spent the last 7 days listening to this DAC through my various amplifiers with great satisfaction. I am a happy owner of all three Schiit multibit DACs, could spend my time with the Ygg exclusively. But I would be missing out on the auditory experiences the other two provide. These DACs really should be heard. All the flowery prose in the world falls short of the reality presented by these Schiit multibit DACs. I would rather have 16 really good bits with excellent channel matching, than the usual mediocre 17 to 18 from the claimed 24 and 32 bit Delta-Sigma DACs.


----------



## obobskivich

landroni said:


> Wait, so in multilevel DS (e.g. ES9018) the converter is using a 6 bit sample? Or 6 samples of 1 bit across the 6 switches? If it's the latter, then DS is discarding even more data than I had previously thought...




Neither. DS uses a comparator to send the signal through multiple times (specifically the quantization error; this is a feedback loop), at something like 64x-256x fs (think DSD rates), and then puts it together with a digital filter at the other end; It is not a single pass like an R2R, and it should not be represented as such (the signal is being oversampled and decimated to produce a series of single-step pulses representing relative difference between two samples, and that then drives a voltage level (say between -1 and 1) which produces a sinusoid). Noise is filtered out at the final output (the reason for the feedback is to shift the noise into very high (inaudible) frequencies, and make it less random, so it can be filtered, leaving the (relatively) low-frequency content we want). Multi-bit DS allows for more than one quantization step, and operates basically as a "block" of parallel DS outputting unary code into an array of (equivalent) voltage elements, which is then summed (its similar to R2R at this state, but with (theoretically comparably) better integral and differential linearity). This allows for more complete decorrelation of the quanization error from the signal; this means higher dynamic range and a lower distortion ("noise") floor (relative to 1-bit DS). 

Side note:
Cherry-picking R2R-positive reviews from a thread titled "Why Delta-Sigma sucks" is not really a great way to make, or support, an argument either...this also isn't a "versus match" or "deathmatch." Nobody is arguing for or against any kind of technology.


----------



## landroni

obobskivich said:


> Side note:
> Cherry-picking R2R-positive reviews from a thread titled "Why Delta-Sigma sucks" is not really a great way to make, or support, an argument either...this also isn't a "versus match" or "deathmatch." Nobody is arguing for or against any kind of technology.


 

 This isn't quite what I did. The purrin thread is a review of various DACs, and the opinion I cherry picked came from a user who self-avowedly often disagrees with OP's pronouncements. This latest cherry-pick came from a very technical thread on Bifrost MB measurements, from someone who is very clearly a scientifically-minded person. Lumping it all into "Why Delta-Sigma sucks" thread isn't quite right either.


----------



## landroni

obobskivich said:


> As far as "there are big huge differences" - again, I'd advise caution with these kinds of claims (ESPECIALLY when they come from manufacturers) - you can find numerous reviews and articles discussing just how small the differences are; look at Tyll's Big Sound comparison as a recent example (here's one of the wrap-up articles that came out of it: http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/big-sound-2015-wrap-what-i-learned). I'm not saying "there are absolutely no differences whatsoever" but we're really talking about very small changes, that in some (many?) cases are probably going to be very hard to notice.


 

 I checked the Big Sound article, and it was a very interesting read. Thanks. It also links to this post by Mike Moffat:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/7725#post_11921090
  


baldr said:


> [...]
> Intrigued, I built a similar box with passive relays and a passive attenuator. Damn, if he wasn't right. It is really difficult to tell differences in an instantaneous blind A/B test between tube gear that I built versus some commercial gear that I was not particularly fond of. I used to bet John beers that I could tell the difference. Usually, I won at 7 out of 10 picks or so – the best I ever did was 9 out of ten. But it was really hard.
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
 My own intuitions on the subject of blind-testing audio equipment / sources go very much along the same lines: _instantaneous A/B blind-testing_ isn't a very useful measuring tool (e.g. you definitely don't want to do an A/B test on a symphony by using short 10sec samples), and as Tyll and Moffat remark it will often result in subjects not being able to easily discern much if anything. Going from there to concluding that "there are NO huge differences" is a big step. However _long-term A/B blind-testing_ is a whole different kettle of fish, and may allow for reliable and objectively measurable differences to be discerned. And since we tend to use our audio gear for long listening sessions, extending from days to years, well....


----------



## Sam Lord

I have news for all those trumpeting the superiority of R2R designs, but especially those who proclaim that DS decoding "drops bits" while R2R does not.
  
 The great majority of great-sounding digital recordings are done in DS ADCs.  The great PMD ladder ADC has been well surpassed by the best of the new devices including those from  Merging and Grimm.  The output to PCM formats from those ADCs involves far more computation than the DSD output.  So you really do love DS codecs, you just can't say it.
  
 Now, I am agnostic about DAC topologies: the Yggy, for example, has outstanding reviews and measured performance that nearly equals the best DS designs.  The Phasure DAC does very well too.  I have no clue whether my next DAC will be a DS or an R2R design.  But on the recording end there isn't a contest...for the moment.


----------



## jcx

Delta Sigma happens to have attractive properties for audio vs R-2R DAC
  
 differential linearity is important for audio - look at the GedLee Metric (highly weights "zero crossing" nonlinearity, tests well for correlation in listing tests)
  
 of course the differential linearity is "perfect" in single bit DS - but that has the other processing problems arising from the nonlinear saturation and audible patterns, "birdies" in early lower order implementations
  
 Multibit Delta Sigma does have to use clever tech to hide the linearity errors of the low (5-7?) bit count internal DAC - but it is proven and measured to work very well, gives differential linearity deep into the noise floor of practical electronics
  
 so Delta Sigma excel in low level linearity where we have evidence that our hearing cares most
  
 a ESS whitepaper has -60 dB sine fft plot showing spot noise floor ~100 dB further down from the -60 tone, any sum of distortion bins had to be less than -90 dB below the -60dB sine since there are no visible harmonic peaks in the plot, that's -150 dB THD re full scale!

 John Atkinson's Stereophile measurements of 6-7 year old DACs in universal players show -90 dB sine with just noise in several reviews
  
  
 the trade is the high oversampling, complicated digital processing to achieve the noise spreading and filtering
  
 there can be issues around noise modulation - but at the levels in current "flagship" monolithic audio DAC chips the evidence for hearing these is scant
  
 in another plot in the ESS presentation I believe the "bad competitor" DAC audio band noise floor rose ~ 10 dB from -117 dB to -106-7 dB as signal amplitude rose into the top -10 dB to 0 dB full scale of the converter - that should be Loud!

 using estimates of recording mic noise, home listening room noise floor, masking curves I simply don't see where that "bad" DAC's noise floor modulation is going to be audible with music played in the top 10 dB of the DAC, not even with 120 dB SPL peak system capability
 can you really hear noise modulation within 10 dB of our hearing threshold in quiet at the same time the music is blasting at >100 dB SPL?
  
  
  
 full bit depth R-2R DAC is pushing the tech very hard to keep the major bit carry error below desired audio DAC resolution requirements
  
 the differential nonlinearity of full bit depth DACs around zero crossing almost always are going to give correlated distortion
  
 so do you want correlated distortion that is audible or noise that may modulate at levels way below masking thresholds when the output is near full scale - and at a 10x cost differential too
  
  
 the yggy's AD5791 actually uses a segmented architecture with the top 6 bits being equal weighted instead of R-2R - its easy to see evidence of cycles of ripple in the INL and glitch vs code plots in the AD5791 datasheet
  
 I would say the full bit depth approach is "the hard way" today for "hi rez" digital audio
  
  
  
 a post of mine recycled from the "Thoughts..." thread


----------



## Sam Lord

Fascinating, thank you jcx.


----------



## landroni

jcx said:


> I would say the full bit depth approach is "the hard way" today for "hi rez" digital audio


 
  
 Very interesting take, thanks.
  
 In the context of R2R, is there _any_ need for "Hi-Res"?
  
 Reading Monty Python on *bit depth*, he insists that 16 bit is the absolute maximum that humans will ever need in terms of dynamic range:
 http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_tdro1b
_"16 bit linear PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB according to the most common definition, which calculates dynamic range as (6*bits)dB. Many believe that 16 bit audio cannot represent arbitrary sounds quieter than -96dB. This is incorrect._
_[...]_
_Our -96dB noise floor figure is effectively wrong; we're using an inappropriate definition of dynamic range. (6*bits)dB gives us the RMS noise of the entire broadband signal, but each hair cell in the ear is sensitive to only a narrow fraction of the total bandwidth. As each hair cell hears only a fraction of the total noise floor energy, the noise floor at that hair cell will be much lower than the broadband figure of -96dB._
_Thus, 16 bit audio can go considerably deeper than 96dB. With use of shaped dither, which moves quantization noise energy into frequencies where it's harder to hear, the effective dynamic range of 16 bit audio reaches 120dB in practice [13], more than fifteen times deeper than the 96dB claim."_
  
 It's clear that 24 bit files are absolutely futile in DS with its native 5-6 bits, and it doesn't seem to be necessary at all in R2R. From what I see, however you look at it 24 bit files are simply a lot of wasted space and bandwidth, especially given that the human dynamic range plateaus at ~130 dB. Looked from this perspective, 16/18/20 bit R2R D/A converters are perfectly sufficient to cover all our dynamic range needs forever and do not require the insane manufacturing precision that 22/24 bits would require...
  
  
 If we switch to *sampling speeds*, R2R seems perfectly capable of fully retrieve analog waveforms from slow speed PCM. Monty insists 44.1 kHz is sufficient, with higher sampling speeds like 192 kHz being useful for processing only but not for playback:
 http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html#toc_o
_"Sampling rates over 48kHz are irrelevant to high fidelity audio data, but they are internally essential to several modern digital audio techniques. _
_[...]_
_This means we can use low rate 44.1kHz or 48kHz audio with all the fidelity benefits of 192kHz or higher sampling (smooth frequency response, low aliasing) and none of the drawbacks (ultrasonics that cause intermodulation distortion, wasted space)."_
  
 Dan Lavry concedes ~60 kHz as an "optimal" sampling rate, which means that 96 kHz fully covers the technological needs of R2R converters:
 http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
_"While this article offers a general explanation of sampling, the author's motivation is to help
 dispel the wide spread misconceptions regarding sampling of audio at a rate of 192KHz. This
 misconception, propagated by industry salesmen, is built on false premises, contrary to the
 fundamental theories that made digital communication and processing possible._

_The notion that more is better may appeal to one's common sense. Presented with analogies
 such as more pixels for better video, or faster clock to speed computers, one may be misled to
 believe that faster sampling will yield better resolution and detail. The analogies are wrong.
 The great value offered by Nyquist's theorem is the realization that we have ALL the
 information with 100% of the detail, and no distortions, without the burden of "extra fast"
 sampling._
  
_Nyquist pointed out that the sampling rate needs only to exceed twice the signal bandwidth.
 What is the audio bandwidth? Research shows that musical instruments may produce energy
 above 20 KHz, but there is little sound energy at above 40KHz. Most microphones do not pick
 up sound at much over 20KHz. Human hearing rarely exceeds 20KHz, and certainly does not
 reach 40KHz. The above suggests that 88.2 or 96KHz would be overkill. In fact all the
 objections regarding audio sampling at 44.1KHz, (including the arguments relating to pre
 ringing of an FIR filter) are long gone by increasing sampling to about 60KHz._
_[...]_
_So if going as fast as say 88.2 or 96KHz is already faster than the optimal rate, how can we
 explain the need for 192KHz sampling? [...]"_
  
 So is there _any_ benefit to playing back files in "higher-res" than 16 bit/96 kHz on R2R D/A converters?


----------



## jcx

R-2R, or hybrid segmented, "full bit depth" multibit DACs have been developed to a very high standard - so even with my characterization of it being "the hard way" today for Audio there are a few quite good enough for the best we know of home recorded Music Audio playback requirements
  
 better differential nonlinearity is good for lower distortion - Jason correctly points out Schiit's lower cost multibit upgrade DAC has sub lsb DNL even though its only 16 bits
  
 the 20 bit linear DAC in the Yggy should deliver better distortion numbers even when fed with only 16 bits - because each of the 16 bit lsb is correct to ~6% (1/16th)
  
  
  
 and Monty of Xiph is just Monty - no snakes appended


----------



## landroni

jcx said:


> and Monty of Xiph is just Monty - no snakes appended


 

 Good point! Not sure where I got the pythons...


----------



## astrostar59

This thread is just silly.
  
 1. Listen to a great R-2R DAC, then come back here
 2. Buy the one you like the sound of, not the one that reads better in the tech pages or what the manufacturer is telling you is great
 3. IMO most R-2R have a different 'take' on the sound, it sounds more organic and real to my ears, maybe not others.
 4. R-2R done well is more expensive to do than DS which is literally cheap as chips (pun intended)
 5. Many DACs regardless of topology have poor amplifier stages and simple power supplies
 6. One big difference between some of the better R-2R is the complete removal of the 'digital filter'
 7. The use of I/V transformers in the digital to analogue stage can reap huge rewards
  
 If the R-2R world is bugging you DS guys, get a Yggy on sale/return or better, the TotalDAC. Bet you keep it.....


----------



## ]eep

Hear! hear! I have (had) several dacs of all sorts, and modified quite a few now myself. The one I use in my main system is just a measly TDA1543x8. I have another dac/cd-player with a perfectly tweaked tube-output. I have a very revealing and natural sounding system and R2R is simply closest to natural sound. The sigma-delta is very revealing and lush, sparkly and bubbly party, just trow whatever adjective you like, it's all that. But the R2R always feels like coming home. It is quiter, easier on the ears, more natural, fast, tight and even though the high do not sparkle (except when it's on the recording, never on it's own) yet, there is more details to be heard. They are cleaner and thus more discernible. 

I take mine straight (totally filterless), optimally @24/96. Yes I know 24bits has no usefull purpose other than for digital volume. My amp is always on full blast (the whole 8W!) when playing digital. 

here's a cut n paste from what I wrote last week. It's an analogy foor temporal accuracy. I really don't get why all of the discussion in DAC's is almost always focussed on frequency response where the temporal axis is just as important (or more IMHO actually). The pre-ringing is caused by the feedbackloop in sigma-delta, as written above ^^

For an R2R- or ladder-DAC there is a lot less nasty HF artifacts. With 44kHz some filtering (1st order) is useful. At 96kHz it is not required... Strictly speaking and according to the original specsheets it is, but doesn't do any good for actual listening to music. It is the cleanest music in the temporal domain you can get. Highs are natural, seemingly soft but very exact. Placement and soundstage are very lifelike, i.e. like live.

 Our human brain is very sensitive for correct phase and not just amplitude. Our brain gets very confused by pre-ringing because it's like time in reverse. It reminds me of the film Minority Report. You see the murder scene in the water with ripples moving along. You think you've seen it before so you discard it. But this is the whole plot of the movie. It isn't. It was something that wasn't, so it could happen again without consequence. Imagine throwing a stone in a pond. In real life you expect ripples expanding and dying out from where the stone drops in the water. But what if when you throw the stone the water would slowly start rippling, getting aplified and converging to the point where the stone is going to hit. And then the same thing in reverse, but now like 3 separate stones hit the water. You would not feel very 'Zen' about that would you? Very disturbing because you cannot tell actually when what stone hit the water where, causing all the ripples and interference patterns. This is not relaxing, causing hearing fatigue.

About the snakes,... 
I guess Monty without the python is the full monty.


----------



## landroni

]eep said:


> For an R2R- or ladder-DAC there is a lot less nasty HF artifacts. With 44kHz some filtering (1st order) is useful. At 96kHz it is not required... Strictly speaking and according to the original specsheets it is, but doesn't do any good for actual listening to music.


 
 For FL playback at 24/96, what devices could you recommend? I'd be very curious to try it out... (It looks like Schiit Bifrost MB avoids their filter only at 176.4/192 kHz speeds.)


----------



## misterspense

One thing I don't really get about how a delta sigma works and why 24 bit material would be useless, as it only uses the top 6 bits.
 It is said there that you would not be able to hear the difference between a 24 bit and a 16 bit file, with a DS DAC, because it only uses the top 6 bits. But then 16 bits would also be unnecessary. Why not truncate your music files to 8 bits for instance? That would save a lot of harddisk space. But I'm pretty convinced I can hear a difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit file even on my laptop speakers. So I don't get why 24 bit would be unnecessary for a DS DAC.


----------



## landroni

misterspense said:


> One thing I don't really get about how a delta sigma works and why 24 bit material would be useless, as it only uses the top 6 bits.
> It is said there that you would not be able to hear the difference between a 24 bit and a 16 bit file, with a DS DAC, because it only uses the top 6 bits. But then 16 bits would also be unnecessary. Why not truncate your music files to 8 bits for instance? That would save a lot of harddisk space. But I'm pretty convinced I can hear a difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit file even on my laptop speakers. So I don't get why 24 bit would be unnecessary for a DS DAC.


 

 Schiit has this to say on the topic, and they should know as they produce both DS and R2R DACs: 
 http://schiit.com/products/bifrost
_"I can’t get over the fact that Bifrost Multibit is only 16 bits!
 You didn’t have any problem with delta-sigma being 2 to 5 bits, did you?_
  
  
_But, 16 bits!
 Yeah, and most music is still 16 bits—99.9%+, in fact._
  
_But what happens when I use 24 bit music?
 We transform it to 16 bit, and it plays just fine. Just like the 2- to 5-bit delta-sigma DACs do. Except with a lot more bits."_


----------



## misterspense

I get that a DS DAC uses 2 to 5 bits to reconstruct a 16 bit file. It uses oversampling to generate a high frequency very noise (because of the 2 to 5 bit) representation of the original 16 file. And then something with noise shaping, shifting it to high frequenties and then filtering it out.
 I've seen a youtube video where the try to explain some audiophile myths, and one of them was about 16 vs 24 bits. The guy in the video showed that more bits lowers the noise floor. He shows that by converting a music file to very low bits, something like 6 or 8 bits, and playing it. It sounds like the same song, but with a lot on quantisation noise.
 That is also what a DS dac does, is has high amounts of quantisation noise, but through oversampling and filtering it removes that. And the analog output signal measures very good, but as the original samples of the 16 bit digital files are not used but only estimated, we think that low level detail is lost in this way. I get this.
  
 What I do not get is why 24 bits would be overkill for a DS dac, and 16 is plenty, because you use only 5 bits. Take it the other direction, and truncate all your music files to 5 bits. You will definitely hear that, not only on a DS dac, I can hear that difference on my laptop speakers. So it's nonsense that a 24 bit file is wasted on DS dacs because it throws away all but 5 bits.


----------



## landroni

AudioCheck offers several 8-bit vs 16-bit tests:
 http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php
  
 http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php
  
 If you're using your own files, then it's important to use an ABX testing tool, as well as identical sound levels, to remove possible bias.


----------



## goodvibes

obobskivich said:


> You could test the output of a DAC's "faithfulness" with a null in theory (like craigman did, but with actual audio), but IME sometimes gear that measures badly (wrt conventional wisdom) can sound good. Look up the TDA15xx for example (for a really dramatic example, look up the Zanden 5000 on Stereophile - I've never heard that specific one but the discussion around it seems pertinent here).


 
 If your kit is good enough record an analog master tape in different dig formats and compare with the best DACs on the market. I don't think ABX is always best when dealing with how well something can relate art. It's a big sticking point in discussion and what many believe to be the scientific method. there's a bit too much 'faith' put into specs. It's actually a bit of literal subjectiveness by objectivists. 
  
 Subjectively, higher bit rates are about timing and not dynamic range. Chord has some explanation on their site.http://chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp I came to this same conclusion by listening years before I knew the cause and why I was a late adopter of digital for my preferred personal use.  Subjectively, I've never been a fan of DSD compared to high bitrate PCM but it can sound more appealing on lesser kit so I get it. It takes a bit of effort and expense to get the most from R2R dacs but I find it worthwhile.


----------



## landroni

goodvibes said:


> I don't think ABX is always best when dealing with how well something can relate art.


 

 Indeed. Instantaneous AB testing won't be very helpful to discern artistic rendering. Long-term AB testing, however, could be a useful tool. If you can spend at least 30-60 mins per gear/recording in a double-blind testing setting, the results of the audio tests would be much more meaningful...
  
 This for instance is the methodology used in the Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into
 High-Resolution Audio Playback study, as discussed here:
_"As Meyer and Moran realized, setting up a test that could really be considered objective is not trivial. Even if I were the sole subject of the test, I'd still want lots of time, multiple music sources, incontrovertibly great equipment, an excellent level-matching system and a very quiet (and consistent) room."_
  
  
 Such a setting will take a lot of time, money and attention to set up:
_"There were 60 subjects, almost all of whom were people who know how to listen to recorded music: recording professionals, nonprofessional audiophiles and college students in a well-regarded recording program. In all, there were 554 trials during a period of a year. "_
  
 By comparison, blind testing a sequence of subjects within one single day is unlikely to yield objectively interesting results.


----------



## ]eep

landroni said:


> For FL playback at 24/96, what devices could you recommend? I'd be very curious to try it out... (It looks like Schiit Bifrost MB avoids their filter only at 176.4/192 kHz speeds.)




That for me is a difficult question to answer. Since I modify almost everything I get my hands on, that isn't too forbidding in size or complexity. But then again, if something is complex (lots of chips) in my experience it never any good. I've gotten very comfortable in the adagio KISS. Keep it simple, stupid! Especially in audio. The more the merrier they say, but the more you marry the less you keep.  In short, minimalism combined with common sense is my thing. 

That said: I don't think there is one you can buy because it wouldn't comply with common audio standards. Except from me, I've sold about 15 the last few years @ around $175. The thing I hate about myself: I'm stuck, I haven't touched a soldering iron in about a year now because someone thought I could mod his cheap-ass Alibaba DAC at no cost and it- or I- caused a big short like pyrotechnics at an AC/DC concert. So because this caused an lot of hassle and arguing with my 'friend' because I can modify, but I'm not an electronics engineer who can fix things. And I don't have any financial leeway. 

I know what DAC to get and how to modify it. But the output will have an offset of 3V. That is no problem for most amps since they have input capacitors. The only 'problem' is that a normal volume control will 'scrape' (static while turning because of the V). The music signal will be between this 0 <> 3V instead of between -1.5 <> 1.5V. It took me a lot of experimenting and empirical testing to find out just what to do with a little cheap-ass 4xparallel philips dac so I'm going to divulge my 'secret' but the net of it is that the signal I get is straight from the DAC-chips to the output. The only thing I need to get/keep the TDA-chips working is the output impedance/resistor. 4 pieces with the right power on them give off just a bit more than the standard req. 2.5V. No I/V required, no filter, no 5#!7, just a pure signal

So, to answer your question, a device I could recommend is the one that I use myself (see sig: Teradak). It is really easy to mod. I don't exactly remember the PCB, but if you really, really want to I can look in to it in a PM. The other one I've done several of is a Lite AH-dac, but it's a bit of an ugly, user unfriendly case.


----------



## x RELIC x

goodvibes said:


> If your kit is good enough record an analog master tape in different dig formats and compare with the best DACs on the market. I don't think ABX is always best when dealing with how well something can relate art. It's a big sticking point in discussion and what many believe to be the scientific method. there's a bit too much 'faith' put into specs. It's actually a bit of literal subjectiveness by objectivists.
> 
> Subjectively, higher bit rates are about timing and not dynamic range. Chord has some explanation on their site.http://chordelectronics.co.uk/chord-dac-technology.asp I came to this same conclusion by listening years before I knew the cause and why I was a late adopter of digital for my preferred personal use.  Subjectively, I've never been a fan of DSD compared to high bitrate PCM but it can sound more appealing on lesser kit so I get it. It takes a bit of effort and expense to get the most from R2R dacs but I find it worthwhile.




Chord specifically talks about higher Sampling Rates (not bit depth) for superior timing. Bit depth is directly associated with the voltage amplitude steps (y) and sampling rate is the frequency of the samples (x). 16 bit music files can have a possible 65536 static voltages. Both x and y plots graph the analogue waveform.


----------



## goodyfresh

x relic x said:


> Chord specifically talks about higher Sampling Rates (not bit depth) for superior timing. Bit depth is directly associated with the voltage amplitude steps (y) and sampling rate is the frequency of the samples (x). 16 bit music files can have a possible 65536 static voltages. Both x and y plots graph the analogue waveform.


 

 And FYI, 65,536 is MORE than enough for any and all purposes


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> And FYI, 65,536 is MORE than enough for any and all purposes




Who said it wasn't? :wink_face:


----------



## landroni

x relic x said:


> Chord specifically talks about higher Sampling Rates (not bit depth) for superior timing. Bit depth is directly associated with the voltage amplitude steps (y) and sampling rate is the frequency of the samples (x). 16 bit music files can have a possible 65536 static voltages. Both x and y plots graph the analogue waveform.


 

 It's important to note that for multibit R2R converters the retrieved waveform values are correct _at all times_:
 http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-sampling-theory.pdf
_"We saw 2 examples of sampling (AD) followed by reconstruction (DA).
 It is important to realize that the end result yields a waveform where the values are correct, not
 just at sample times but at all times.
 You DO NOT need more dots. There is NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION in higher sampling
 rates. As pointed out by the VERY FUNDUMENTAL Nyquist theory, we need to sample at
 above twice the audio bandwidth to contain ALL the information."_
  
 This point is also neatly explained in Monty's primers:
 http://www.xiph.org/video/


----------



## goodvibes

x relic x said:


> Chord specifically talks about higher Sampling Rates (not bit depth) for superior timing. Bit depth is directly associated with the voltage amplitude steps (y) and sampling rate is the frequency of the samples (x). 16 bit music files can have a possible 65536 static voltages. Both x and y plots graph the analogue waveform.


 
 But amplitude is part of it. It's not just the added dynamic range but more accurate volume rendering of info as well. It also significantly improves low level tracking which is not as good as most would believe in 16 bit but that's another issue.


----------



## x RELIC x

goodvibes said:


> But amplitude is part of it. It's not just the added dynamic range but more accurate volume rendering of info as well. It also significantly improves low level tracking which is not as good as most would believe in 16 bit but that's another issue.




Yes, due the the requirements of DS. R-2R doesn't have the same insane sampling rate requirements or benefits from such given its more 'native' approach to recreating voltage. Remember DS is one resistor (or up to 6 in multi level implementations) switching on and off at very high rates to recreate voltage levels defined in the bit depth. That's where sampling rate is required to be high for a better noise floor. It's a compensation for the resistor implementation design of DS.


----------



## goodyfresh

People keep mentioning the stuff which, TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, is superior about 24-bit vs. 16-bit.  But they are failing to address the point of whether those differences are actually *audible to humans* or not.  Pretty much all properly scientifically-controlled testing done on the matter has indicated that no, those differences are NOT audible.


----------



## ]eep

> But they are failing to address the point of whether those differences are actually audible to humans or not. Pretty much all properly scientifically-controlled testing done on the matter has indicated that no, those differences are NOT audible.



That would seem like a valid point. But it isn't. This is a belief, not a fact. Do not trust anyone. Trust your own ears. There are to many variables and uncertainties in the words 'Pretty much', 'all properly', 'scientifically-controlled' and 'has indicated' alone. Not to mention the bias of those doing the 'scientific testing'. Obviously all persons doing 'scientific testing' are firm believers of their method, repeatability, numbers and, oh, specifications! Ahhhh :basshead: The whole point of music is the effect on the emotional half of the brain (thought this might appeal to the scientifically minded  ). Hi-fi and music are related as engineering and art. With one caveat: the art we are talking about is not like painting but more like architecture. A painter doesn't need to be an engineer, but an architect needs to be an artist as much as an engineer to get a great building that works and stays intact. Without proper engineering the building will leak, draft and fall to a ruin in no-time. Without artistry the building will make the inhabitants miserable. What people here are often doing is keep hammering on the engineering part not realizing (because it's outside their worldview) that it often takes vision and sensitivity to get it to be great. 

That said, again: 16 or 24 bit is rather a moot discussion in livingroom use where noisefloor (really quiet) to max headroom (*really* annoying the neighbours) is hardly ever more than 75 dB. More realistically 60dB. 

On the topic of multibit sigma delta: I think the (yes, biased) story on this on Mother of Tone is really clear. He has some crazy notions, really not helping my case on the above on artistry, but on the technical part he's pretty spot on, as far as I can tell from reasoning and personal experience (I'm not an electrical engineer or specialized on digital coding, but i am really good at math -used to be anyway- and science).


----------



## goodyfresh

]eep said:


> That would seem like a valid point. But it isn't. This is a belief, not a fact. Do not trust anyone. Trust your own ears. There are to many variables and uncertainties in the words 'Pretty much', 'all properly', 'scientifically-controlled' and 'has indicated' alone. Not to mention the bias of those doing the 'scientific testing'. Obviously all persons doing 'scientific testing' are firm believers of their method, repeatability, numbers and, oh, specifications! Ahhhh
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If we can't put our trust in science and the scientific-method, then we may as well abandon modern civilization and go live in a hut in the wilderness, IMO.  Also, plenty of people doing scientific testing are NOT biased.  Except of course that yes, they believe in their method.  Guess what?  You're using the INTERNET, on a COMPUTER.  Don't be a hypocrite.  If you believe science is not truly accurate and can't be trusted, then get off the internet, otherwise you just look foolish using all this fancy-schmancy modern technology while saying that the very method by which such technology was developed is supposedly bogus.
  
 Subjective impressions are far too unreliable to determine things like audibility.  Expection-bias and placebo-effect are way too strong an influence on human hearing.  The ONLY way to figure out if there are truly audible differences between things is with *blind testing*, that is a _*fact*_, and whether or not it makes people angry and whether or not it sounds "un-artistic" is beside the frigging point here.  Of course, if you are a firm believer in things like 5000 dollar fancy audio cables with 99.99999999% pure OFC copper and silver and all that, that is going to make you angry because the results of such blind testing will prove that hey, you've been wasting your money!
  
 When people DON'T believe in blind testing and rely on SUBJECTIVE, non-blind impressions of sound, it leads to idiocy like this (everyone, please check out both of these linkes and read all therein, as the product being described PERFECTLY illustrate the fundamental problems that exist in the audio industry today):
  
 http://www.partsconnexion.com/BYBEE-79511.html
 http://stereotimes.com/post/bybee--quantum-signal-enhancer
  
 "Quantum Proton Alignment."  Don't make me laugh.  That is absolute gibberish akin to the kind of "technobabble" you hear in Hollywood sci-fi films.  I would know. . .I myself know quite a bit about quantum physics.  But the thing is, when people use such a product, they SWEAR that it makes everything sound better.  That, ladies and gentlemen, is EXPECTATION BIAS at work.


----------



## goodvibes

Scientific method related to what you can hear requires a listen. Method is always subject to limitations of setup as well. A vs b doesn't say much if variable c is more significant. This is one reason why 'facts' change over time. For instance, I think anyone comparing via a USB dac has greater limitation than the formats. You may disagree and that's fine but it's been my observation. Scientific method is not without flaws. It's key is the repeatability which is sound but it's always subject to setup parameters.
  
  
 I promised myself not to participate in prolonged discussions of this nature because it becomes heated and without resolution. I am now disappointed in myself.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm out. ​


----------



## ]eep

goodyfresh said:


> If we can't put our trust in science and the scientific-method, then we may as well...



You clearly did not get what I was trying to tell. And I really do not appreciate your tone. 

It's about *people*. The so called 'scientific method' has attained religious status and it's zealous followers it's priests that can do no wrong. But however you want to turn it around it is always about *interpretation*. Setting up a test, any test, requires a preconceived Idea. Preconceived by... people! And interpretation is done by... people. You put to much trust in certain people, attributing to them a total lack of bias or emotion, while especially scientists have very strong 'beliefs'. 'Science' always comes with a certain worldview because the sentience is done by people. 
 I'm not a hypocrite as you so finely put it, just very experienced in the human way of thinking and very pragmatic. Testing humans will never get you a 'fact', except when you dissect them. Any results will always be stochastic. You cannot say: 'Chinese are tall', or tiny. Or yellow skinned (very racist example, I know, sorry). Compared to what? And which one of the 1bln are you referring to? 

The scientific method is just 1 way of getting results. And a pretty good way. The trouble starts when people start hijacking it to prove _they_ are right. 

To me you sound like an angry young man. To quote Will Smith in I robot: "You must be one of the dumbest smart people I know". But don't worry, hopefully one day you will see that there's more to the world than what you learned in school - even a scientist needs love when he comes home. It just requires a _choice_: do you _want_ to take the red pill or the blue pill. It's all about the _wanting_ part. 

Oh, and FYI: I make or modify all my equipment and cables etc. myself. I don't 'believe' in audio voodoo but I'm also not that stupid that I don't try it because... "it's just impossible". Now _that_ is stupid. And all too common in the scientific community. This whole hobby is about enjoyment. So there no reason to snap at each other.


----------



## goodyfresh

]eep said:


> You clearly did not get what I was trying to tell. And I really do not appreciate your tone.
> 
> It's about *people*. The so called 'scientific method' has attained religious status and it's zealous followers it's priests that can do no wrong. But however you want to turn it around it is always about *interpretation*. Setting up a test, any test, requires a preconceived Idea. Preconceived by... people! And interpretation is done by... people. You put to much trust in certain people, attributing to them a total lack of bias or emotion, while especially scientists have very strong 'beliefs'. 'Science' always comes with a certain worldview because the sentience is done by people.
> I'm not a hypocrite as you so finely put it, just very experienced in the human way of thinking and very pragmatic. Testing humans will never get you a 'fact', except when you dissect them. Any results will always be stochastic. You cannot say: 'Chinese are tall', or tiny. Or yellow skinned (very racist example, I know, sorry). Compared to what? And which one of the 1bln are you referring to?
> ...


 

 I'm not saying the scientific method is completely INFALLIBLE, or some kind of holy ritual that should always be adhered to.  However, I firmly believe that it is the MOST TRUSTWORTHY method of inquiry and of obtaining results and potential facts available to us humans today.  It's the way to remove oneself as far as POSSIBLE from subjectivity.  Trusting PURELY subjective impressions over something which has had some semblance of control placed on it to at least TRY to remove bias and give it better objectivity, is simply ridiculous.  ANd anyone who DOES do so (and I'm not saying you do, by the way) IS being a hypocrite if they do, in fact, also live in our modern society while using modern technology.  So many people are so quick to dismiss science as being "just like religion, man, scientists are basically just worshipping their faith and BLAH BLAH BLAH," making it sound like it's just as stupid and unreliable as any other method of human inquiry. That is absolute BULLCRAP.  For people to be on the INTERNET, the epitome of all modern technology and the result of our science, and say such things, is _*ABSOLUTELY *_hypocritical.

 I do not believe science is the be-all-and-end-all, or that it is completely 100% reliable without fail.  However, if you want to talk about bias, scientists, while they do tend to have preconcieved notions and bias, make a point, by using the method they do, of at least _*trying *_as much as they can (while of course still failing to some extent, because they are humans and thus flawed and swayed by emotions) to REMOVE bias and preconceptions from their analyses.  In that sense, science is NOTHING like a religion or a similar faith.  It is in fact OPEN to the idea of change.  Scientists used to think everything was deterministic, man.  Now they know that is absolutely bunk, what with the advent of Quantum Mechanics.  Scientists used to think spacetime was Euclidean.  Now they have accepted the fact that it is curved.  Science is the closest we have to being able to use pure, objective logic to analyze the world, as humans.
  
 You can dress up your arguments in whatever fancy wording or semantics you want, but the fact of the matter is that expectation-bias and the audio placebo-effect are VERY real.  _*Any *_attempt to identify "audible differences" between different audio components *while knowing which component or source is which* is bound to be biased-as-all-hell.  That is why blind testing and a scientific approach are so important.  If a guy buys a super-fancy 5000 dollar cable, he is giong to SWEAR UP AND DOWN that it sounds better to him ("oh my god there's so much more detail in the bass and treble, man!") than his old 300 dollar cable, because he KNOWS he is now listening to a "higher quality" product that he paid much more money for. 
  
 That expectation-bias is what accounts for sales of those Jack Bybee "Quantum Purifying" products, which to me represent everything that is wrong with the high-end audio industry today.  They claim to use "special crystals" with "quantum proton alignment" to "purify the electron flow" in cables, and even claim to provide a form of actual ACOUSTIC ROOM TREATMENT via "quantum purification."  That is obviously technobabble-gibberish on the same level as what you often hear in Hollywood sci-fi films, and the products are obviously complete scams, because the science supposedly behind them does not even exist and the wording being used to describe their mechanism of operation does not even make sense.  The product pages even claim that they work even when placed over or under highly-shielded cables that are completely immune to outside interference, because of "quantum effects" that make them work and pervade the space around them.  That kind of technology does not actually exist yet on a macroscopic scale (i.e. there is no such thing yet as technology that can control quantum-effects to a high degree of precision on an above-microscropic scale), and yet people are dumb enough to believe the claims of the company which is scamming them by saying their products do so, and thus buy their products some of which *cost as much as five-thousand dollars*.  That, right there, is the kind of thing that happens when people ignore real science and rely on subjectivity and what "sounds like it must be better."  ANd of course, everyone who buys the "crystal quantum purifiers" swears that their system sounds better once they have them. . .because none of them do blind-testing.  I bet that if you told them that simply taping some quartz-crystals to their cables will "purify the signal," they'd believe you, proceed to do so, and then swear that everything sounds better.
  
 The best part of all this, and the part I'll leave off with, is the fact that *you *accuse _*me *_of having a tone (and I'll admit I do. . .yes, I am being condescending as all-hell), but then yourself proceed to be _*just as condescending and demeaning in your own tone,*_ saying things like "'You must be one of the dumbest smart people I know'. But don't worry, hopefully one day you will see that there's more to the world than what you learned in school - even a scientist needs love when he comes home. It just requires a _choice_: do you _want_ to take the red pill or the blue pill. It's all about the _wanting_ part."  That COULD NOT be more condescending, you're literally calling me an idiot.  Don't go and tell someone that it's inappropriate for them to take a condescending tone, and then yourself go and use such a tone. . .that's completely hypocritical.  You also say "there [sic] no reason to snap at each other," and yet you totally snapped at me in the paragraphs preceding that statement.
  
 I don't know why I'm even bothering trying to debate you, though.  It is a fundamental fact about human psychology that neither of us will be able to do anything whatsoever to convince the other that they are wrong or to open their mind to new ideas.  Here's an interesting article about that: http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html


----------



## hodgjy

After reading 5 pages in this thread, I just realized this wasn't the thread on 8-track tapes. Crap.


----------



## goodyfresh

hodgjy said:


> After reading 5 pages in this thread, I just realized this wasn't the thread on 8-track tapes. Crap.


 

 LMAO!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Thanks for the laugh man, I needed that tonight, hahahahaha.


----------



## astrostar59

goodyfresh said:


> LMAO!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I think the issue with 'scientific' measurements is in the case of DS development they were flawed in the first place. Check out the articles on Lampizator and TotalDAC founders, they went back to the drawing board, threw it all out and build a new DAC around the R-2R architecture, but this time using no filtering and multiple ladder resistors. These new R-2R are much more powerful than the first of their type back in the 90s.
  
 Taking this back to DS and total basics, it is NOT possible to extract more detail from a digital file by adding dots (doubling up the code), the same as it can't be possible to 'increase detail' in a jpg image at 72dpi up sampling it to 300dpi. Go try this yourself in Photoshop, it goes all blurred. Adding to the up sampling aspect and the flawed reasons behind that, we have the apoziding filter issues that killed the  sound quality. That hideous mechanism was created to reduce or try and remove the 'flawed' waveforms from 16bit. Remember the process and advancement in DS technology during the formative years was done using ONLY measuring equipment, not the human ear to any extent.
  
 So, we have a case here then, where the 'scientific' data actually had a negative effect on the SQ and the development of digital to analogue convertors. It is the ones who challenged this 'set in stone' idea that resulted in many great designs today (Audio Note, TotalDAC, Lampizator and others).
  
 Actually, the recent models from MSB and TotalDAC with multiple resistor ladder architecture can actually handle more than 192k resolution for the first time. Beer in mind this is bit-perfect, i.e. data to current conversion, no up sampling or other crazy rubbish that wreaks the sound. I really can see an end of life for DS architecture in the audiophile sector. I mean, why use a cheap to produce and flawed DS architecture, when we now have bit-perfect conversion possible at higher resolution anyway. I makes no sense. My advice, don't go blowing cash on a high end DS player, invest in one of these R-2R bit prefect units instead.
  
 Regardless of all this, just listen to a TotalDAC, Audio Note, Lampizator or MSB, use your ears, it might just surprise (and delight) you. Anyway to get closer to real music is a positive, no head to fall out over it.....


----------



## prot

misterspense said:


> One thing I don't really get about how a delta sigma works and why 24 bit material would be useless, as it only uses the top 6 bits.
> It is said there that you would not be able to hear the difference between a 24 bit and a 16 bit file, with a DS DAC, because it only uses the top 6 bits. But then 16 bits would also be unnecessary. Why not truncate your music files to 8 bits for instance? That would save a lot of harddisk space. But I'm pretty convinced I can hear a difference between a 8 bit and 16 bit file even on my laptop speakers. So I don't get why 24 bit would be unnecessary for a DS DAC.




First of all your analogy is wrong. Your downconverting of the pcm files on the PC is not the same as the DS dac does. A pretty close equivalent would be converting the pcm files to dsd on the PC. And in that case you'll prolly hear no differences. 

Also the 'conclusion' that a few bits are enough for DS dacs is either false or missinterpreted (depends how you look at it). Yes a DS dac only uses a few bits internally but it does eliminate the noise generated by the downconverting. However, it can only eliminate the noise generated by its own downconverting .. if you feed it noisy 5bit pcm files, that noise is not eliminated, it's played as 'normal' signal. 
Hope it was clear enough.

And btw nice and interesting thread everyone .. and it's not even in the science section . Surprinsingly little astroturfing and goldears cluelessness for this part of the forum.

P.S.
astrostar59, the Lampi dacs are not r2r. Afaik, only one model of the 6 series is using an r2r (or hybrid?) chip, the rest are DS. Oh well, it's quite usual for arguments to come bite oneself


----------



## astrostar59

prot said:


> First of all your analogy is wrong. Your downconverting of the pcm files on the PC is not the same as the DS dac does. A pretty close equivalent would be converting the pcm files to dsd on the PC. And in that case you'll prolly hear no differences.
> 
> Also the 'conclusion' that a few bits are enough for DS dacs is either false or missinterpreted (depends how you look at it). Yes a DS dac only uses a few bits internally but it does eliminate the noise generated by the downconverting. However, it can only eliminate the noise generated by its own downconverting .. if you feed it noisy 5bit pcm files, that noise is not eliminated, it's played as 'normal' signal.
> Hope it was clear enough.
> ...


 
 The early ones I heard (and liked) were all R-2R. I think the big 7 is R-2R? Not heard it. The models going over to DS are probably to handle PCM and that growing market. Not heard them either. So my recommendation was to look at the R-2R units that Lampi still produce.


----------



## preproman

Here we go again with this DS vs, R2R crap.
  
 It seems people like to clump all DACs in these two groups.  Like if you heard one R2R DAC you've heard them all kinda thing.  I can tell you, that's far from the truth.  All R2R DACs don't sound alike and they all don't sound good.  Same with DS DACs, all don't sound alike and all don't sound good.
  
 I've heard / owned some good R2R DACs and some good DS DACs.  And also some very good home made DACs that's based on the DS technology.  There's good sounding DACs everywhere, some better sounding than others of course.  
  
 I'll rank all the DACs I've owned in this order.
  
 EMM Labs DAC2X (The best I've owned, Home made DACs based on the DS Technology and firmware upgradable)
 TotalDac D1-Dual (The best R2R DAC I've owned)
 Bricasti M1 (DS DAC and the best DAC I've owned of any kind under the 10K mark)
 PS Audio DirectStream DAC Yale Final (No DAC chips but based on the DS technology "I think anyway" Firmware upgradable so has the possibility to get better and better)
 Aqua La Scala MK2 (very good R2R tube DAC)
 Schiit Yggdrasil (really good R2R up sampling DAC)
 AMR DP-777 [Duelund VSF Black Cast Capacitors]  (Pretty good R2R tube DAC - the SE version might be even better than some I placed above it - but haven't heard it yet)
 Audio GD Master 7 (good R2R DAC)
 AudioNote Kit 4.1 by Digital Pete (Did not own, but heard many times and for long periods of times.  IMO this is not a good resolving DAC at all)
 PS Audio PerfectWave DAC MKII (No idea what this use)
 Lamizator L4 G4 (Didn't sound that good to me)
 John Kenny Ciunas DAC (uses a *PCM5102 BB/TI DAC chip*)
 NAD m51 Direct Digital DAC ( Was an ok DAC with really good volume control)
 Buffalo III (PB&J) http://pbandjaudio.blogspot.com/ (DS DAC did sound good until I stared to hear better)
 Schiit Audio Modi (DS DAC - sounds bad)
  
 Instead of clumping DACs in two categories, name the DACs you've heard and lest talk about them from there.  All R2R DACs and all DS DACs are not made equal.


----------



## prot

astrostar59 said:


> The early ones I heard (and liked) were all R-2R. I think the big 7 is R-2R? Not heard it. The models going over to DS are probably to handle PCM and that growing market. Not heard them either. So my recommendation was to look at the R-2R units that Lampi still produce.




If you have a link or some sort of confirmation for that info, please post. 
My info says quite the opposite... there is only one lampi6 model that uses an old 16bit r2r philips chip .. all else is DS. The new entry models are ESS and all others use a Dac chip that Lampi is keeping secret but noone ever said it was r2r .. on the contrary, it is supposed to be a modern 24bit chip coming from the video processing industry and that points quite strongly to DS.
But I am not Lampi and cannot swear on this stuff .. so please post some extra info if available.


----------



## ]eep

astrostar59 said:


> ...
> It is the ones who challenged this 'set in stone' idea that resulted in many great designs today (Audio Note, TotalDAC, Lampizator and others).




I so agree with you. It takes vision to go against the stream. And don't forget 47-Labs. And mine (which is just a mod, but a very significant parting from standard).




preproman said:


> Here we go again with this DS vs, R2R crap.
> It seems people like to clump all DACs in these two groups.  Like if you heard one R2R DAC you've heard them all kinda thing.  I can tell you, that's far from the truth.  All R2R DACs don't sound alike and they all don't sound good.  Same with DS DACs, all don't sound alike and all don't sound good.
> ... [moot point]
> Instead of clumping DACs in two categories, name the DACs you've heard and lest talk about them from there.  All R2R DACs and all DS DACs are not made equal.



Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato (that doesn't come across in writing very well does it  ). Or should I say apples and oranges?

Exactly what are we comparing here? Power supplies? Filtering? Upsampling? I/V-conversion stages? I thought we were comparing 2 kinds of decoding that take 2 different mathematical approaches. But the type of chip that is used only accounts for a very small amount of sonic differences. So all you are really describing is the sound difference in *analog* stages.

I've been around since long before- and heard the very first Sony and Philips cd-players (that sounded horrible, *the* reason why I've always stuck with vinyl), the first bitstream player (I was almost a first adopter! then called MASH system by Technics), I have had in my home (I did not say own, but tested) so many cd-players and dacs I can't even remember them all. I didn't even realize at the time what type of DAC I was listening to. Afterwards I started modifying my CD-player and started swapping out parts. That made a *huge* difference! Even with the same shaitti gettoblaster dac-chip. Even in virgin state it blew away my older high-end Myriad player (the first CD that sounded sort of ok to me). 

Then later I swapped out that dac-chip for a decent CS chip. So *that* was an honest comparison. Changing out an itty bitty part did make a difference. But *not* in overall character. The 'sound' (as in; Phil Specter's 'wall of sound') was the same. It was a bit clearer and more defined. Later I saw I had totally forgotten about some output-caps that were ok but not great. Changing them out for better ones made about the same difference. 

So, if changing out 2 caps in the output stage, how much influence do you reckon the whole output stage has in your comparison? 

I use a NOS FL design. This has nothing between the R2R DAC-chips and my amplifier. Guess why this blows everything else Ive heard out of the water? Including the expensive Lampizator I've hooked up here. It didn't sound all that to me and it even failed my first (!) basic listening test with a little pianoloop. Not just failed but failed big time. This says nothing about Lukasz or his products mind you!


----------



## preproman

Nice story - but uh, was there a point in there somewhere?


----------



## goodyfresh

astrostar59 said:


> I think the issue with 'scientific' measurements is in the case of DS development they were flawed in the first place. Check out the articles on Lampizator and TotalDAC founders, they went back to the drawing board, threw it all out and build a new DAC around the R-2R architecture, but this time using no filtering and multiple ladder resistors. These new R-2R are much more powerful than the first of their type back in the 90s.
> 
> Taking this back to DS and total basics, it is NOT possible to extract more detail from a digital file by adding dots (doubling up the code), the same as it can't be possible to 'increase detail' in a jpg image at 72dpi up sampling it to 300dpi. Go try this yourself in Photoshop, it goes all blurred. Adding to the up sampling aspect and the flawed reasons behind that, we have the apoziding filter issues that killed the  sound quality. That hideous mechanism was created to reduce or try and remove the 'flawed' waveforms from 16bit. Remember the process and advancement in DS technology during the formative years was done using ONLY measuring equipment, not the human ear to any extent.
> 
> ...


 

 The "scientific" measurements I was talking about are not measurements of things like THD+N and what-not, but rather scientifically controlled blind-testing (often ABX testing) of what the human ear and brain are able to perceive.
  
  


]eep said:


> I so agree with you. It takes vision to go against the stream. And don't forget 47-Labs. And mine (which is just a mod, but a very significant parting from standard).
> Tomato, tomato. Potato, potato (that doesn't come across in writing very well does it
> 
> 
> ...


 

 There is certainly a LOT of evidence for the claim that DAC chips make far less of a difference in sound-quality and tone than the analog/amplification stages.


----------



## goodyfresh

preproman said:


> Nice story - but uh, was there a point in there somewhere?


 

 Don't be a smart-aleck to him, you know as well as I do that he was making a damn good point, namely that analog/amplification stages generally make a much bigger difference for tonality and sound-quality than DAC chips do.


----------



## preproman

goodyfresh said:


> Don't be a smart-aleck to him, you know as well as I do that he was making a damn good point, namely that analog/amplification stages generally make a much bigger difference for tonality and sound-quality than DAC chips do.


 
  
 If I didn't see I valid point, I didn't see a valid point (period)  
  
 My point was comparing DAC implementations as a whole.  That includes everything, not just the chip and not just the stages, rather the entire implementation.  
  
 Now,  why don't you stop being a smart aleck


----------



## castleofargh

@jeep, all your anti control, anti science, yet trust me I'm rational, kind of post was out of this world. you seem to justify not believing in control and repeatability because there are too many variables. a great philosophy of "better know nothing than only know 30%".
  
  
  
 to make one or 2 things clear about "science":
 - every time some random dude uses somebody's serious work to make an oversimplified claim(I'm sure I've done that several times myself), science has nothing to do with that and shouldn't have to take the blame for it.
 - within some of the basic ideas of science, one is conditional truth. something is working well enough to be accepted as true, as long as it's within a given set of parameters. like nyquist theorem is true under some conditions, and can fail when those conditions aren't met. before dismissing a scientific paper, it would be good to make sure you or anybody else's experience was within the paper's conditions. else we end up with 2 people arguing about 2 different situations yielding 2 different results. it means nothing and get us nowhere.
  
  
  
  
 judging R2R vs DS when all we have to test is a bunch of DACs vs a bunch of other DACs that happen to have one of those 2 kind of implementations along with probably 50 other differences. now that's the really futile exercise IMO. whatever sound difference we might think we heard, how do we know the actual cause? it's easy to make false assumptions for fun, but it doesn't reflect reality.
 personally I couldn't care less what kind of implementation I have in my DAC. if the result measures well on all kind of fidelity tests, then it's a good DAC. I don't need marketing propaganda and fancy buzzwords to improve my music experience.
 I leave non linearity, oversampling, noise modulation, low pass filter, power supply...  to the engineer who hopefully knows what he needs to be extra careful about when he picks either R2R or DS to make his DAC. if he doesn't, fidelity measurements will most likely show it.
  
 from my little understanding of things, I get that R2R is be the best thing on paper, but is in practice limited if only because of how hard it is to get the exact same resistor again and again.
 when delta sigma has clear known drawbacks like the noise from the rapid ups and downs trying to "draw" the analog signal. but happens to behave in practice almost exactly as well as in theory, making it a cheaper way to get linear low distortion sound. that seems to be the main reason why R2R  has been on the way out for years. I'm not even sure audibility is relevant here.


----------



## astrostar59

castleofargh said:


> @jeep, all your anti control, anti science, yet trust me I'm rational, kind of post was out of this world. you seem to justify not believing in control and repeatability because there are too many variables. a great philosophy of "better know nothing than only know 30%".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 If you check the list pif current R-2R (modern takes) you may see it is actually on the way up... in the Audiophile area not mass market sector that is.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> @jeep, all your anti control, anti science, yet trust me I'm rational, kind of post was out of this world. you seem to justify not believing in control and repeatability because there are too many variables. a great philosophy of "better know nothing than only know 30%".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 THANK YOU, @castleofargh, I was waiting for SOMEBODY to back me up on the rational/scientific side of things here in this thread and should have known you'd be the perfect person to do it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 The Nyquist Theorem, however btw, actually isn't a great example of "science," since in essence it is actually _*PURELY MATHEMATICAL*_, merely a theorem from Fourier Analysis/sampling theory, and any "scientific" aspects are merely those of its *applications* 
  
 You have a good point about measurements.  If something measures as having no audible levels of THD+N, nor any audible levels of IMD, nor any audible jitter, then how does it make sense for it to sound different from something else fitting that same description?  The fact is that those three factors (along with perhaps the decay of transients, meh) are ALL that determines whether a waveform is being accurately reproduced or not.  Since pretty much _*ALL *_DAC chips these days have THD, IMD, and Jitter well below audible levels, regardless of being DS or R2R, it doesn't make much sense that they would sound different.  Perhaps this is all simply due to people's expectation-bias (i.e. "R2R is better, so it sounds better to me!"), or perhaps there really is something more subtle going on with the wave-forms.  What I suspect is actually happening, however, is neither of those two things, and has to do with the filter being used and the amount of or lack of treble or sub-bass roll-off caused by that particular filter.  Also, since R2R DAC's tend to be fancier and more expensive, they often have far superior class-A amplification circuits and op-amp chips than DS DAC's.  It would be interesting to test DS vs. R2R DAC's against each other in a controlled fashion by taking JUST the DAC sections (not the amp portions) and running them via line-out into the same exact amp.
  
 I listened to the Questyle QP1R at a meet yesterday.  It uses the exact same CS4398 DAC chip as my Fiio X3ii.  But it sounds VERY NOTICABLY better than the X3ii, with far better transparency, clarity, and detail.  Obviously the analog implementation, and most notably the amplification circuitry, is far better.


----------



## x RELIC x

Interesting turn in the discussion. I for one will always go back to the human side of the equation and feel that measurements, as sophisticated as they are, still can not completely tell the full story. Issues of timing in audio come to mind as we are audibly extremely sensitive to it, but there are many ways to describe timing. There's timing in jitter, timing in pre-ringing, timing in sampling rates. Which combination hits the magic 'aha!' recipe? When there is a micro second difference in timing it's been shown to be perceptible. This is just an example and not what I consider the end all be all of better or worse audio, but the point is this... Are we considering all the factors combined that create the whole when looking at measurements. That's a much larger discussion to consider over just THD, DR, FR, timing, and the like as individual factors. How does one aspect of the resulting sound affect the others? There is always going to be that amazing computer known as the brain that will be far better at taking all of the factors in to account and assembling them in a way that makes sense and pleasurable. The trouble is we still don't know exactly what that process is so it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the reasons why one combination of qualities sounds better over the other.

It's like asking a group of people why someone is considered beautiful. There is usually concensus that the beauty is there but often it's very difficult to put in to scientific terms. When asked directly you'll never get a reply like 'because they have golden mean proportions' (DaVinci studied this extensively) but instead might say 'I like their eyes'. But what is it about their eyes? Is it the 1mm difference from one beautiful person's eyes to the average person to be the difference? Is it the distance to their nose? The distance of the eyes from each other? The colour? Or all these things combined to create a beautiful whole? Science can measure these proportions but can't say exactly why we prefer it. It could literally be a 1mm difference that can make the difference between perceived beauty and perceived ugliness. It's just that, an almost imperceptible difference that we are wired to prefer and have difficulty explaining.

So for DS and R-2R have we all considered that there just may be a quality that is preferable to our senses, or a combined implementation that 'just works' regardless of the initial approach taken. I don't think it's entirely black or white here. I love what Rob Watts has done with his DACs for Chord, but they are essentially DS on steroids. I also love what I've heard from R-2R, but admittedly I haven't heard many different implementations. All I can say personally is what I like about the results of what I've heard and try to extrapolate from there what is creating that preference. It isn't just one thing I can guarantee that, and science is simply trying to do the same thing.


----------



## goodyfresh

x relic x said:


> Interesting turn in the discussion. I for one will always go back to the human side of the equation and feel that measurements, as sophisticated as they are, still can not completely tell the full story. Issues of timing in audio come to mind as we are audibly extremely sensitive to it, but there are many ways to describe timing. There's timing in jitter, timing in pre-ringing, timing in sampling rates. Which combination hits the magic 'aha!' recipe? When there is a micro second difference in timing it's been shown to be perceptible. This is just an example and not what I consider the end all be all of better or worse audio, but the point is this... Are we considering all the factors combined that create the whole when looking at measurements. That's a much larger discussion to consider over just THD, DR, FR, timing, and the like as individual factors. How does one aspect of the resulting sound affect the others? There is always going to be that amazing computer known as the brain that will be far better at taking all of the factors in to account and assembling them in a way that makes sense and pleasurable. The trouble is we still don't know exactly what that process is so it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the reasons why one combination of qualities sounds better over the other.
> 
> It's like asking a group of people why someone is considered beautiful. There is usually concensus that the beauty is there but often it's very difficult to put in to scientific terms. When asked directly you'll never get a reply like 'because they have golden mean proportions' (DaVinci studied this extensively) but instead might say 'I like their eyes'. But what is it about their eyes? Is it the 1mm difference from one beautiful person's eyes to the average person to be the difference? Is it the distance to their nose? The distance of the eyes from each other? The colour? Or all these things combined to create a beautiful whole? Science can measure these proportions but can't say exactly why we prefer it. It could literally be a 1mm difference that can make the difference between perceived beauty and perceived ugliness. It's just that, an almost imperceptible difference that we are wired to prefer and have difficulty explaining.
> 
> So for DS and R-2R have we all considered that there just may be a quality that is preferable to our senses, or a combined implementation that 'just works' regardless of the initial approach taken. I don't think it's entirely black or white here. I love what Rob Watts has done with his DACs for Chord, but they are essentially DS on steroids. I also love what I've heard from R-2R, but admittedly I haven't heard many different implementations. All I can say personally is what I like about the results of what I've heard and try to extrapolate from there what is creating that preference. It isn't just one thing I can guarantee that, and science is simply trying to do the same thing.


 

 A good example would be that certain types of distortion can actually sound pleasant.  That's why tube-amps sound so good to a lot of folks.

 That being said, if something is reproducing the sound-waves PRECISELY to within less than 0.001% THD and IMD, has perfect transient-decay, and at the same time has jitter/timing errors no higher than a couple hundred femtoseconds (or even picoseconds), at that point the fact is that it is* not scientifically feasible* in any way for it to *actually sound different* from something else with measurements on that same kind of level.  And the fact is that pretty much ALL top-of-the-line solid-state DAC's and Amps have measurements like what I am talking about here.  That's where I start to have my doubts about claims that one amp/DAC sounds "so much better" or "has a completely different tone" than another.  It especially doesn't make sense when people say that an amp or DAC sounds "warm" or "bright," when you can very clearly look at measurements and show that it has a *PERFECTLY FLAT* frequency-response between 20Hz and 20Khz to within +/- 0.1dB or less.  It's all well and good to say it sounds warm or bright, but those two adjectives SPECIFICALLy describe a shape of frequency-response that is NOT FLAT, and therefore there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that ANY of the top-of-the-line solid-state amps or DAC's out there (ALL of which have super-flat frequency curves) have a sound which is actually anything BUT perfectly neutral.


----------



## castleofargh

x relic x said:


>


 


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






> Interesting turn in the discussion. I for one will always go back to the human side of the equation and feel that measurements, as sophisticated as they are, still can not completely tell the full story. Issues of timing in audio come to mind as we are audibly extremely sensitive to it, but there are many ways to describe timing. There's timing in jitter, timing in pre-ringing, timing in sampling rates. Which combination hits the magic 'aha!' recipe? When there is a micro second difference in timing it's been shown to be perceptible. This is just an example and not what I consider the end all be all of better or worse audio, but the point is this... Are we considering all the factors combined that create the whole when looking at measurements. That's a much larger discussion to consider over just THD, DR, FR, timing, and the like as individual factors. How does one aspect of the resulting sound affect the others? There is always going to be that amazing computer known as the brain that will be far better at taking all of the factors in to account and assembling them in a way that makes sense and pleasurable. The trouble is we still don't know exactly what that process is so it's extremely difficult to pinpoint the reasons why one combination of qualities sounds better over the other.
> 
> It's like asking a group of people why someone is considered beautiful. There is usually concensus that the beauty is there but often it's very difficult to put in to scientific terms. When asked directly you'll never get a reply like 'because they have golden mean proportions' (DaVinci studied this extensively) but instead might say 'I like their eyes'. But what is it about their eyes? Is it the 1mm difference from one beautiful person's eyes to the average person to be the difference? Is it the distance to their nose? The distance of the eyes from each other? The colour? Or all these things combined to create a beautiful whole? Science can measure these proportions but can't say exactly why we prefer it. It could literally be a 1mm difference that can make the difference between perceived beauty and perceived ugliness. It's just that, an almost imperceptible difference that we are wired to prefer and have difficulty explaining.
> 
> So for DS and R-2R have we all considered that there just may be a quality that is preferable to our senses, or a combined implementation that 'just works' regardless of the initial approach taken. I don't think it's entirely black or white here. I love what Rob Watts has done with his DACs for Chord, but they are essentially DS on steroids. I also love what I've heard from R-2R, but admittedly I haven't heard many different implementations. All I can say personally is what I like about the results of what I've heard and try to extrapolate from there what is creating that preference. It isn't just one thing I can guarantee that, and science is simply trying to do the same thing.


 
  


  
  
 but this is a whole different problem. you're talking about trying to make the most pleasing sound for most people, not about trying to make the highest fidelity signal.
 making the most pleasant sound should be the job of the band and recording engineers. not the job of a DAC.
  
  someone likes chocolate ice cream, someone prefers vanilla. cool, I hope they both can get the flavor they like(and maybe I'll get both^_^). nobody will ever argue about the other guy being free to pick his own ice cream. instead they argue to no end about who's right about taste. which is dumb. any argument should be over fidelity, and so be focused on the ways to assess fidelity. debating taste will never lead to facts.
   when the chocolate guy comes in with claims that chocolate is the one true taste of things, he clearly forgets the distinction. and I expect him to have more to say than "I prefer it, and I've been eating a lot of stuff in my life so I'm an expert"(analogy level is over 9000!!!).
 what is even more troublesome here, is that I haven't really seen any proper tests showing that people can tell a R2R from a DS implementation. at best you have people trying to pass a small short blind test between different DACs. where again, the differences if they are audible, could come from many other design choices. so not a way to be conclusive on the matter of R2R vs DS.
  
 anyway, fidelity is a matter of getting the original back with as little loss as possible. it's measurable and science does that well. as a matter of fact, my time spent in audio communities has convinced me that most people wouldn't recognize fidelity if it came to hit them in the face with a shovel. I believe vinyls and some high distortions tube amps have proved that over and over again. the errors are audible, easily measured, so it's not a matter of audibility threshold like with most DACs specs, yet you can still find many people positively sure that vinyl is closer to real music.
 that's the kind of stuff we get when we decide to trust our ears to assess fidelity(and it's only the tip of the iceberg).
  
 so it is very important to decide what we are looking to achieve. as far as I'm concerned, both R2R and DS can achieve values in signal fidelity that make me think I should concern myself with amps and headphones instead of wasting my time putting the employee of the month under scrutiny. but if for some reason one tech appeals to someone more than the other, go ahead, and get another ice cream while at it ^_^.
 in the fidelity side of things, as I said, R2R can be a pain in the neck to do right. and AFAIK, it might just be the failure to achieve perfect linearity that makes people enjoy R2R more(180% hypothetical conjecture here). it's very conceivable that an error could appeal to people sometimes. like distortions with even order often euphonic, even though they're still very much distortions. I had an epiphany about that when I was younger with photography, where some films had great success while they had massive non linearity in the over exposed parts. my rational mind couldn't get it. turns out the errors looked good, the pictures when badly exposed, didn't look as burned(kind of how tube amp deal better with clipping, it's when it's gone bad that the result feels superior), so people preferred that film. ^_^ 
  
  
  
  
  
 oh and about pretty faces, in fact it has been researched and we do know a lot. it's mostly about proportions with a huge + on symmetry(imagine the scientists getting paid for that job of looking at pretty girls all day long trying to find out the common denominator. maybe they had a few live specimen)


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> A good example would be that certain types of distortion can actually sound pleasant.  That's why tube-amps sound so good to a lot of folks.
> 
> 
> That being said, if something is reproducing the sound-waves PRECISELY to within less than 0.001% THD and IMD, has perfect transient-decay, and at the same time has jitter/timing errors no higher than a couple hundred femtoseconds (or even picoseconds), at that point the fact is that it is *not scientifically feasible* in any way for it to *actually sound different* from something else with measurements on that same kind of level.  And the fact is that pretty much ALL top-of-the-line solid-state DAC's and Amps have measurements like what I am talking about here.  That's where I start to have my doubts about claims that one amp/DAC sounds "so much better" or "has a completely different tone" than another.  It especially doesn't make sense when people say that an amp or DAC sounds "warm" or "bright," when you can very clearly look at measurements and show that it has a *PERFECTLY FLAT* frequency-response between 20Hz and 20Khz to within +/- 0.1dB or less.  It's all well and good to say it sounds warm or bright, but those two adjectives SPECIFICALLy describe a shape of frequency-response that is NOT FLAT, and therefore there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that ANY of the top-of-the-line solid-state amps or DAC's out there (ALL of which have super-flat frequency curves) have a sound which is actually anything BUT perfectly neutral.




Yes. Why are you shouting? At that level with perfectly good measurements on all fronts all gear should sound the same. I guess what I was trying to point out is that it's rare in a lot of gear to have all factors contributing to the sound playing at the same level of competence. Also, that a minor offset from 'perfection' of one spec could influence our perception of the whole when taking all the bits in to account. Not everyone can determine exactly where the difference is coming from even though the specs appear to be good enough to be considered imperceptible. If we knew what the perfect solution was to create the perfect measurements for the perfect capturing and reproduction of music we wouldn't have so many different approaches and different variations in gear. Everyone would just use the same method and call it a day. Keep in mind too that a lot of marketing for gear lists specs at theoretical or max spec which doesn't play out in third party measurements, or normal listening.

As far as categorizing gear as 'warm' or 'bright' I agree, there should be no difference, but have also heard my fair share of supposed flat frequency curves sounding different. Can't explain it, except perhaps how they play along with the transducer moving the air. It's a system as whole that has to play along nicely. So are we so superior in our measurements that we can take them blindly as the absolute truth. I'm not trying to be 'right' here. I'm just offering up a different train of thought. The Earth was in fact flat at one point, and that was a universal truth we believed infallible because we simply didn't know any better.


----------



## x RELIC x

castleofargh, I have gone too far in to the 'preference' realm in my attempt to make a point. I agree with your points by the way.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 I should have remembered to mention that last part too actually, science has done a VERY good job figuring out in precise mathematical terms what makes some faces look attractive and others not.  Now it's when it comes to what BODIES are attractive or not that preferences between different folks vary SO widely that science can't seem to get a handle on it, and honestly never SHOULD be able to, lol.
  
  


x relic x said:


> Yes. Why are you shouting? At that level with perfectly good measurements on all fronts all gear should sound the same. I guess what I was trying to point out is that it's rare in a lot of gear to have all factors contributing to the sound playing at the same level of competence. Also, that a minor offset from 'perfection' of one spec could influence our perception of the whole when taking all the bits in to account. Not everyone can determine exactly where the difference is coming from even though the specs appear to be good enough to be considered imperceptible. If we knew what the perfect solution was to create the perfect measurements for the perfect capturing and reproduction of music we wouldn't have so many different approaches and different variations in gear. Everyone would just use the same method and call it a day. Keep in mind too that a lot of marketing for gear lists specs at theoretical or max spec which doesn't play out in third party measurements, or normal listening.
> 
> As far as categorizing gear as 'warm' or 'bright' I agree, there should be no difference, but have also heard my fair share of supposed flat frequency curves sounding different. Can't explain it, except perhaps how they play along with the transducer moving the air. It's a system as whole that has to play along nicely. So are we so superior in our measurements that we can take them blindly as the absolute truth. I'm not trying to be 'right' here. I'm just offering up a different train of thought. The Earth was in fact flat at one point, and that was a universal truth we believed infallible because we simply didn't know any better.


 

 Sorry dude, I have a tendency to put things in bold, italics, or all caps.  I'm not "shouting," just "_*EMPHASIZING*_," lmao.  And I know a lot of gear lists the theoretical max/best specs.  But I've done some measurements of my own of stuff like the THD+N of my Fiio X3ii, for example, which turned out to match perfectly with the claimed specs given by Fiio.

 I believe the issue with frequency-response measurements may be transient-decay.  Just like how a headphone with a perfectly flat frequency-response curve can still SOUND warmer, or even bass-bloated, if the bass has significantly slower/poorer decay than the mids and treble, the same could be true with the signal coming from a given DAC/Amp implementation.  So, perhaps people should start making *waterfall plots* for the signals coming from Amps/DAC's just like they do with the sound coming from headphones? OH MY GOSH, WHY HAS NO ONE THOUGHT TO START DOING THAT?!?!?!?!


----------



## castleofargh

x relic x said:


> It's a system as whole that has to play along nicely.


 
 I do believe that is what matters, be it at the level of each component, or the whole audio chain. electronic is all about interactions, and what matters is end signal.


----------



## ]eep

Im starting to lose interest. I read post that are very interesting that I am willing to go along with and then you come up with total disqualifiers like


> I couldn't care less what kind of implementation I have in my DAC. if the result measures well on all kind of fidelity tests, then it's a good DAC.



 and


> A good example would be that certain types of distortion can actually sound pleasant. That's why tube-amps sound so good to a lot of folks.


 
If people actually believe this sort of stuff then they're completely off on the wrong track. Those cliches are really so worn off they're not worth paper to print on. "Captain, mental integrity down to 10%!|"


----------



## goodyfresh

]eep said:


> Im starting to lose interest. I read post that are very interesting that I am willing to go along with and then you come up with total disqualifiers like
> and
> 
> If people actually believe this sort of stuff then they're completely off on the wrong track. Those cliches are really so worn off they're not worth paper to print on. "Captain, mental integrity down to 10%!|"


 

  
 Sorry, couldn't resist!  The thing abotu tubes and tube-amps having distortion which sounds pleasant to the human ears and brain is true whether people like it or not 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 

 Also, did you miss what I said about measurements before?  I think I realized somethign that should be a revelation for all of us, namely, that the frequency-response measuremetns we often see given for DAC's and Amps are NOT ENOUGH to actually tell us their sonic character.  For headphones, what turns out to be far more important, if you want to know how they sound from looking at measurements, than the instantaneous FR-curve, is the DECAY plot provided by a CSD Waterfall Plot.  People need to start making waterfall-plots for DAC's and Amps!  I bet THAT would reveal what is really going-on in terms of different amps and DAC's having different sonic characters and tonality.

 Edit:  In other words, @]eep, I am saying you MAY BE CORRECT in discounting the idea of "fidelity tests" and measurements of such commonly taken for DAC's.  Namely, the fidelity tests which are usually carried-out probaby *ARE NOT ENOUGH*.  THe kind of test that really matters and cpuld determine  TRUE fidelity would be a test of whether the frequency-response is not only flat, but then proceeds to DECAY EVENLY AT ALL FREQUENCIES in a waterfall-plot.  Of course, it's quite likely that for solid-state amps, the waterfall-plots would need to be on a much smaller scale than those commonly used for headphones, in the microseconds-range rather than milliseconds.
  
@castleofargh and @x RELIC x and others, do any of you think _*I should start a Sound Science thread*_ about the possibility of something akin to waterfall-plots and measures of decay across the entire frequency-range being the key to potentially deciphering the "enigma" of different DAC's and Amps sounding different despite all measuring as having below-audible distortion and perfectly flat frequency-curves?


----------



## prot

goodyfresh
I find the impulse response quite fascinating https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/2les0b/reading_impulse_response_how_to_get_the_most_out/
And yes, maybe you should start that science thread


----------



## castleofargh

]eep said:


> Im starting to lose interest. I read post that are very interesting that I am willing to go along with and then you come up with total disqualifiers like
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

   if a DAC is shown to keep the signal close to the original, then it's done a fine job of converting the signal into analog without ruining it. thus it's a good DAC. or am I missing something?
  
 about tube amps, to be correct I should have said something like "that's why some high distortions tube amps sound so good to a lot of folks". because as it happens some tube amps sound just like a clean SS amp and have rather low distortion figures(still usually higher than what SS amps can do). if that was your problem, I agree I make a gross generalization. if it's about people enjoying some distortions more than the clean sound alone, I don't think I'm wrong.
  
  
  
 @goody someone heard you. (wasn't me)
 impulse responses certainly hold a great deal of information, that's why they're often used for digital work(from EQ to more general convolution to simulate a room, a pair of speakers or a gear, or all of the above). but they're not so easy to "read" with the naked eye. at least I have a hard time ^_^.
 about decay, if a DAC is a problem, I'm afraid to think about headphones.  another problem I have is about getting a clear idea of what is audible. I've had an interesting talk in the total DAC topic where I couldn't get my head around the super small timing values that were quoted to be audible(coming straight out of the Meridian MQA propaganda). turns out they are real, but they are obtained with a super special kind of sound that is not found in music. and nobody would come even remotely close to detect those timing changes in a natural sound.  kind of how you can hear the quietest sound, if you're in the absolute silence of space, but you will never ever identify the same super quiet sound in real life.
 so where do we draw the line? at the utter limit from a totally artificial experiment? or where people really notice things in music?
 of course I would tend to go back to blind testing of music as the only really meaningful test, but then decay measurements kind of lose their use outside of setting up the test itself.
  
 not that I believe it would show any kind of difference between R2R and DS tech. both are tied to the sample speed and both achieve that speed.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> if a DAC is shown to keep the signal close to the original, then it's done a fine job of converting the signal into analog without ruining it. thus it's a good DAC. or am I missing something?
> 
> about tube amps, to be correct I should have said something like "that's why some high distortions tube amps sound so good to a lot of folks". because as it happens some tube amps sound just like a clean SS amp and have rather low distortion figures(still usually higher than what SS amps can do). if that was your problem, I agree I make a gross generalization. if it's about people enjoying some distortions more than the clean sound alone, I don't think I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


 

 Note that IMD distortion can be audible at very low levels when THD is not.
  
 Hmmmmm.  Seems to me though that decay-rates varying across the frequency-range could still explain why some dac/amp combos sound "warm" while others sound "bright," despite them all having totally-flat FR curves.


----------



## ]eep

> if a DAC is shown to keep the signal close to the original, then it's done a fine job of converting the signal into analog without ruining it. thus it's a good DAC. or am I missing something?



yes you are. The whole purpose of audio is to reproduce music. Not; produce great specs. If one coincides with the other... great. But those two do not automatically mean the same thing. Like someone else already explained above. 

Never forget, the person listening is the standard by which to measure quality, never measurements. Always. 

@ Goodyfresh...
like Willy Wonka said:"I can't understand a word you're saying boy. You're mumbling"


----------



## RRod

goodyfresh said:


> Note that IMD distortion can be audible at very low levels when THD is not.
> 
> Hmmmmm.  Seems to me though that decay-rates varying across the frequency-range could still explain why some dac/amp combos sound "warm" while others sound "bright," despite them all having totally-flat FR curves.


 
  
 Before looking at a waterfall or other time-frequency plot, you can look at the phase of the impulse response and the associated group delays. If they fall within these citation-needed tolerances, then the differences (if actually audible in controlled conditions) are probably due to non-linearities rather than something we can't measure with impulse responses.


----------



## goodyfresh

]eep said:


> yes you are. The whole purpose of audio is to reproduce music. Not; produce great specs. If one coincides with the other... great. But those two do not automatically mean the same thing. Like someone else already explained above.
> 
> Never forget, the person listening is the standard by which to measure quality, never measurements. Always.
> 
> ...


 

 So I bet you think that means that purely subjective non-blind testing in which people know which equipment is which is totally A-Okay in your book, and of course there's no need for A/B testing, right?


----------



## castleofargh

]eep said:


> > if a DAC is shown to keep the signal close to the original, then it's done a fine job of converting the signal into analog without ruining it. thus it's a good DAC. or am I missing something?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 so you're talking about taste, not audio fidelity. what you call audio quality is merely you deciding you like a sound.
 as I said in a previous post, it's fine with me that you pick your gear based on your preferences. in fact we all should do just that of course when it comes to enjoying music(for a professional some needs might overpower his personal taste). but me deciding that one piece of equipment is better than another doesn't really make it so. in my own head it might, for the rest of the planet I'm just a random guy saying how I like something. that's not audio quality.
 now if I take a record, play it, record it again with a great ADC at the output of the DAC and null the 2 recordings to find out what difference is left. if the difference is small the DAC has good fidelity, if the difference is louder for a second DAC, then that DAC is of lesser fidelity. it's factual evidence of the fidelity of the DAC I would guess. and with each new measurement we can learn more about those differences and try to find out where they come from. for an engineer it will help him make a better DAC with better fidelity.
 those stuff are repeatable objective evidences that can be passed on to another person and even be tested again by another person. the results will be similar and independent of taste, mood, and the color of the box. that, to me is what matters in a DAC. because a DAC isn't an artist, it's not an EQ, it's not a piece of equipment appointed to compensate the crap that is my headphone. it's a piece of equipment responsible for turning digital data back into the original analog signal. the quality of that job isn't subjective, it's a job of fidelity. and measurements can tell us about that.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> so you're talking about taste, not audio fidelity. what you call audio quality is merely you deciding you like a sound.
> as I said in a previous post, it's fine with me that you pick your gear based on your preferences. in fact we all should do just that of course when it comes to enjoying music(for a professional some needs might overpower his personal taste). but me deciding that one piece of equipment is better than another doesn't really make it so. in my own head it might, for the rest of the planet I'm just a random guy saying how I like something. that's not audio quality.
> now if I take a record, play it, record it again with a great ADC at the output of the DAC and null the 2 recordings to find out what difference is left. if the difference is small the DAC has good fidelity, if the difference is louder for a second DAC, then that DAC is of lesser fidelity. it's factual evidence of the fidelity of the DAC I would guess. and with each new measurement we can learn more about those differences and try to find out where they come from. for an engineer it will help him make a better DAC with better fidelity.
> those stuff are repeatable objective evidences that can be passed on to another person and even be tested again by another person. the results will be similar and independent of taste, mood, and the color of the box. that, to me is what matters in a DAC. because a DAC isn't an artist, it's not an EQ, it's not a piece of equipment appointed to compensate the crap that is my headphone. it's a piece of equipment responsible for turning digital data back into the original analog signal. the quality of that job isn't subjective, it's a job of fidelity. and measurements can tell us about that.


 

 That idea you're proposing reminds me of tests and comparisons I've seen done of FLAC vs. Mp3/AAC files before.


----------



## castleofargh

well I'm not too sure it's the best way to estimate audible differences on lossy codecs(because of the masking anticipation in the codecs). but it's a very clean way to see how loud are really the differences between 2 items. it might make some people rethink the value of 2 DACs when the output voltage is matched.
 and if the differences are big, then it might be worth it to try and see which one has the highest fidelity after that ^_^.
  
 still, for us noob consumers, I can't think of a proper way to check the difference between R2R and DS. at best we will end up measuring DACs as a whole. not what we wish for.


----------



## astrostar59

castleofargh said:


> if a DAC is shown to keep the signal close to the original, then it's done a fine job of converting the signal into analog without ruining it. thus it's a good DAC. or am I missing something?
> 
> about tube amps, to be correct I should have said something like "that's why some high distortions tube amps sound so good to a lot of folks". because as it happens some tube amps sound just like a clean SS amp and have rather low distortion figures(still usually higher than what SS amps can do). if that was your problem, I agree I make a gross generalization. if it's about people enjoying some distortions more than the clean sound alone, I don't think I'm wrong.
> 
> ...


 

 I had never read such waffle. Stop talking get out there and listen to some DACs, then come back.... Think about it, even you must concede that pre-amplifiers or power amplifiers sound different right? Well there you go, DACs do too and surprise surprise, they have the same amplifying sections and power supplies, capacitors Fetts or Tube stages. Then we have the quality of those parts, the design of the various stages and circuits. Also remember it is also how the next amplifying device it driven (impedance load). Measurements tell part of the story....
  
 I admit, many years ago a typical batch of 'top end' CD players did indeed sound the same. But it turned out they WERE THE SAME, basically a philips complete unit wrapped in a fancy (other manufacturers) case. Thankfully we have moved on, and there are some great (small) manufacturers who are pushing DAC design and what is possible.


----------



## OddE

astrostar59 said:


> I had never read such waffle. Stop talking get out there and listen to some DACs, then come back.... Think about it, even you must concede that pre-amplifiers or power amplifiers sound different right? Well there you go, DACs do too and surprise surprise, they have the same amplifying sections and power supplies, capacitors Fetts or Tube stages. Then we have the quality of those parts, the design of the various stages and circuits. Also remember it is also how the next amplifying device it driven (impedance load). Measurements tell part of the story....


 
  
 -To drag out an old post of mine, making DACs and amps audibly transparent is a walk in the park. Once you're past a certain (reasonably low) threshold in parts cost and engineering prowess, additional improvement in quality and/or engineering doesn't translate into better sound quality; it may translate into better long-term reliability, more robustness when faced with unusual use cases or better measured specs, but as for sound quality in itself - nope.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> I had never read such waffle. Stop talking get out there and listen to some DACs, then come back.... Think about it, even you must concede that pre-amplifiers or power amplifiers sound different right? Well there you go, DACs do too and surprise surprise, they have the same amplifying sections and power supplies, capacitors Fetts or Tube stages. Then we have the quality of those parts, the design of the various stages and circuits. Also remember it is also how the next amplifying device it driven (impedance load). Measurements tell part of the story....
> 
> I admit, many years ago a typical batch of 'top end' CD players did indeed sound the same. But it turned out they WERE THE SAME, basically a philips complete unit wrapped in a fancy (other manufacturers) case. Thankfully we have moved on, and there are some great (small) manufacturers who are pushing DAC design and what is possible.


 
 if you think of a situation where between 2 DACs, you will notice differences that wouldn't show up on measurements, let me know. placebo and "my wife heard it in the kitchen" are non withstanding.
  
 if anything measurements will notice variations that a human will fail to notice, so why shouldn't I trust measurements to find a clean transparent DAC? of course I'm talking actual measurements, not the half baked specs we get from some manufacturers with incomplete units where we can't even find out is something is weighted or not.


----------



## goodvibes

Oops.


----------



## astrostar59

odde said:


> -To drag out an old post of mine, making DACs and amps audibly transparent is a walk in the park. Once you're past a certain (reasonably low) threshold in parts cost and engineering prowess, additional improvement in quality and/or engineering doesn't translate into better sound quality; it may translate into better long-term reliability, more robustness when faced with unusual use cases or better measured specs, but as for sound quality in itself - nope.


 

 Incredible. So you are saying, past a certain design and parts count quality (reasonably low) you can't hear, even measure a difference. Maybe stay as you are then, and stop posting. It is clearly no point in moving forward. Kinda makes the whole subject of 'search for 'audiophile' gear kinda pointless. And kinda throws mockery on anyone who has spent a bit more than reasonably low levels of cash in the search for that. Hang on, if what you say is correct, then everything out there will SOUND THE SAME beyond lets say lower to mid range budgets. Hmm, why don't they then?


----------



## OddE

astrostar59 said:


> Incredible. So you are saying, past a certain design and parts count quality (reasonably low) you can't hear, even measure a difference. Maybe stay as you are then, and stop posting. It is clearly no point in moving forward. Kinda makes the whole subject of 'search for 'audiophile' gear kinda pointless. And kinda throws mockery on anyone who has spent a bit more than reasonably low levels of cash in the search for that. Hang on, if what you say is correct, then everything out there will SOUND THE SAME beyond lets say lower to mid range budgets. Hmm, why don't they then?


 
  
 -Your reading skills apparently leave a little to be desired, as in the very post of mine you quote, I state that improved parts quality/engineering may translate into measurable differences. My point is that those differences aren't necessarily audible - and audible, IMHO, should weigh pretty heavily when evaluating an audio product.
  
 Also, I do not mean that the search for audiophile gear is kinda pointless; I just argue that excellent gear can be had surprisingly cheap, as opposed to the common misconception that it has to be prohibitively expensive in order to be any good.
  
 Besides, equipment doesn't have to sound the same just because it is relatively cheap and simple to make transparent gear; some people prefer a certain kind of sound signature which may deviate from 'transparent' - say, I really enjoy tube amps of the not-quite-transparent kind. Same goes for hi-end gear - it could be argued that when designing kit with astronomical price tags, it would make sense to develop a 'signature' or 'house sound' deviating from the 100% transparent norm - as otherwise, your gear would sound just like anything else.


----------



## OddE

goodyfresh said:


> Some people just can't handle the truth, man, and would rather drink the Kool-Aid.


 
  
 -Works for me, I sometimes find myself in the business of selling moonshine Kool-Aid. (though not in the audio business).
  
 Always makes me feel a bit dirty afterwards, though, even (or perhaps because!) as our sales people tell me I did good and stayed well inside what would be considered appropriate.
  
 To be more specific - I think it is blatantly dishonest to try to talk a customer into purchasing a more expensive or feature-laden product than he really needs, based on your professional assessment of said needs.


----------



## astrostar59

odde said:


> -Your reading skills apparently leave a little to be desired, as in the very post of mine you quote, I state that improved parts quality/engineering may translate into measurable differences. My point is that those differences aren't necessarily audible - and audible, IMHO, should weigh pretty heavily when evaluating an audio product.
> 
> Also, I do not mean that the search for audiophile gear is kinda pointless; I just argue that excellent gear can be had surprisingly cheap, as opposed to the common misconception that it has to be prohibitively expensive in order to be any good.
> 
> Besides, equipment doesn't have to sound the same just because it is relatively cheap and simple to make transparent gear; some people prefer a certain kind of sound signature which may deviate from 'transparent' - say, I really enjoy tube amps of the not-quite-transparent kind. Same goes for hi-end gear - it could be argued that when designing kit with astronomical price tags, it would make sense to develop a 'signature' or 'house sound' deviating from the 100% transparent norm - as otherwise, your gear would sound just like anything else.


 

 I would say the term '100% transparent' is misleading here. It is meaningless. The fact is a device, albeit a DAC or pre-amplifier our transducer can sort of be called 100% transparent yet still sound pretty awful, i.e. not in the least realistic. Many a 'transparent' DAC can sound very technical, very fatiguing, just plain artificial. That is why so many on this forum are still buying and selling.
  
 Most tube based amplifiers and DACs nowadays are very linear and wide band, so the old style 'warm glow' of tube sound is not as relevant as it was.
  
 The other point I make, is I CAN hear differences between mid-priced Capacitors such as Jensen PIO and Mundorf to Audio Note silvers or Duelund Copper Cast. All those caps seemed very transparent, but I found only one so far sounded (to me) to be 100% realistic.
  
 In various tweaks I have tried in DACs and pre-amplifiers, the same applies to capacitors and transformers,also in my SET 300B amps. I also upgraded the I/V transformers in my DAC and that made a big difference, it is a different animal entirely now.
  
 I agree, there are some mid-low priced DACs and amplifiers that are excellent. The biggest bargains in sonics v price IMO is the kits or full DIY. And then the smaller manufacturers that are still selling direct also offer great SQ v price such as TotalDAC for example.


----------



## preproman

astrostar59 said:


> And then the smaller manufacturers that are still selling direct also offer great SQ v price such as TotalDAC for example.


 
  
  
 I understand the point you're trying to make.  However, IMO TotalDAC is not a good example.  It's a very good DAC don't get me wrong, but at the 10K mark I don't think it will win any price per performance awards.
  
 Schiit and the Yggdrasil will most likely hold that title.  What they give you under the $3K mark is pretty awesome.
  
 None the less - great point.


----------



## goodyfresh

odde said:


> -Works for me, I sometimes find myself in the business of selling moonshine Kool-Aid. (though not in the audio business).
> 
> Always makes me feel a bit dirty afterwards, though, even (or perhaps because!) as our sales people tell me I did good and stayed well inside what would be considered appropriate.
> 
> To be more specific - I think it is blatantly dishonest to try to talk a customer into purchasing a more expensive or feature-laden product than he really needs, based on your professional assessment of said needs.


 

 Yeah that's why the entire business of "sales" has always seemed so incredibly shady to me.
  
 One thing I liked about the Head-Fi Meet I went to the other day was that all the vendors there didn't seem to be trying to "push" their more-expensive products onto anyone.  I was ESPECIALLY impressed with Mr. Speakers, what a guy!


----------



## astrostar59

preproman said:


> I understand the point you're trying to make.  However, IMO TotalDAC is not a good example.  It's a very good DAC don't get me wrong, but at the 10K mark I don't think it will win any price per performance awards.
> 
> Schiit and the Yggdrasil will most likely hold that title.  What they give you under the $3K mark is pretty awesome.
> 
> None the less - great point.


 

 Yes, you may be right, I guess 10K for the Dual is not cheap. Maybe a better example is the Yggdrasil as you say. My Audio Note is cheaper than the UK built units, but INMO benefits from tweaks and better quality parts which pushes up the cost.
  
 Preproman, how close was the Yggy you had compared to the TotalDAC D1 Dual? A big difference is prices obviously.
  
 Against a dCS, Esoteric, MSB Stack for example, I put any DAC hitting a top of the tree SQ at under 10K cost a remarkable achievement.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> odde said:
> 
> 
> > -To drag out an old post of mine, making DACs and amps audibly transparent is a walk in the park. Once you're past a certain (reasonably low) threshold in parts cost and engineering prowess, additional improvement in quality and/or engineering doesn't translate into better sound quality; it may translate into better long-term reliability, more robustness when faced with unusual use cases or better measured specs, but as for sound quality in itself - nope.
> ...


 
 what he explained is how we can obtain 2 devices with good enough fidelity so that they will audibly feel the same. he never said manufacturers were doing it. or that it was impossible to improve on that.
 in fact there is a all side of the audiophile market that desires something only if it's different/new/expensive/famous/limited/hard to drive. so of course the manufacturers go along. if enough people want something, a guy will sell it to them, even if it's utter crap.
  
 but more than that, we come from different experiences because we buy different products for different reasons. if you are signal fidelity oriented, then chances are you will be careful about buying low distortion, flat gear, and the need for a lot of specs to make sure you get that, will inevitably push you toward the few brands and models that willingly offer lot of extended measurements. while "subjectivist you", might go at a meet or in a shop, listen to something, enjoy it and buy one. right there the possibility of having a different sound is born.
 then some people like me are obsessed with negative feedback and impedance damping. I believe it makes almost everything better with rather limited and controllable drawbacks. so I would not get an amp because I like it and then a headphone because I like it, I will when I'm being reasonable(^_^) try to get the headphone I want thinking that I should avoid an extreme impedance or sensitivity so that I can then avoid putting too much pressure on the amp that would in turn become better signal fidelity. and I would never ever think of using a 10ohm source with my low impedance IEMs. however how good the combo would sound to me, it's not something I would buy. because even if that pairing somehow works and gives me something I like, what about my other headphones? so I try to get something that will be fine with everything else, and there aren't so many devices that can do that. and I will find those thanks to specs and measurements.
 in my head those stuff are like "this device needs a 4.5V battery, so I can't use a 1.5V battery or a 9V". if some specs aren't right for my use, I will give up on the device thinking I can do better. and I admit it's a bias like any other. I am convinced that I can improve the sound by doing a few of those things right. and while I may not always be right, following those electricity and specs guidelines, I will never end up with a headphone sounding different because of some poor damping ratio, I will never get a special sound out of the amp because it's struggling to drive a headphone it was never built to drive. I will always have an amp and a DAC with measurements that pretty much guaranty they will sound like the last one I had. and so on and so on.
 by following those "almost objective" rules, I remove a lot of variables from the equation that is music coming out of my headphone. in fact the headphone and some EQ are pretty much all of the variables I have left. I EQ for my headphone, the rest being as neutral and transparent as possible or so I hope.
  
 on the other side of the audiophile river, there is a guy who bought everything by ear, that may or may not end up driving a 60ohm headphone with a 120ohm amp. that may or may not have a gain problem because the DAC output 3.5V when the amp with the given headphone would be nominal with a 2V input. and then it clips slightly, it's annoying, he tries a tube amp and the sound is not annoying anymore. boom tube amps are great and SS amps sound sooo artificial.
 the same guy might not understand much about the technology used and believe in the marketing propaganda, ending up right here in sound science, telling us about how the best DAC would be NOS, R2R, without low pass filter. such a DAC would most certainly not sound like another DAC (I give this example because we did get that guy).
 and all the small things end up in situations where the resulting sound is more akin to random luck and endless attempts, than actual electronic design. when someone adds some super audiophile cable with secret tech, or plugs a regen into a jitterbug into a wyrd into an optical adapter into a DAC, I wouldn't lose my mind if we were to discover the system isn't transparent anymore. and some people do all that. and the more you go toward subjectivism and the more you will be inclined to buy something with no measurement available(but why would someone hide his measurements if they are great?), ending up much much more often than an objectivist, with fringe audio results.
 and this is why objectivists get comforted in their idea that all stuff can sound the same and that good specs= transparency. while the subjectivists get comforted in their idea that everything is different even when it isn't. and that measurements can't tell the all story. we both end up doing the very thing that justifies our opinions.
  
  
 DAC is the one element that should have us all agree, as it's the best measuring element of the chain, and it is a lot harder to mess up the pairing as pretty much all amps have several thousand ohm impedance and are ok with dealing with 2 or 3V(maybe not all portable amps). so it should happen a lot more for both sides of the audiofoolery that the DAC is audibly transparent.
  
 but the key IMO is that we create our own circumstances. sure I can find 2 DACs that don't sound alike, but I will interpret that as the new DAC being crap after I measureit and find it isn't as clean as the other. a subectivist might just see the change, or something he likes. one might fall in love while the other will run away, and that from the very same "colored" DAC. my conclusion will be to dismiss this one as a bad DAC and all good DACs will sound the same. the subjectivist's conclusion might be that this DAC is great and doesn't sound like the previous one, thus all DACs are different. ^_^
 .


----------



## prot

castleofargh said:


> another problem I have is about getting a clear idea of what is audible.




this is a good collection http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear ... maybe someone should revive that in a new thread since bigshot was banned and cannot update the post anymore 

as about handling those values, a somewhat crude but quite effective rule is to simply support the double value (or next order of magnitude) ... e.g. since we can hear 20hz-20khz, the playback devices should be linear 10hz-40khz. 
IIRC, Lavry has a paper where he concluded that in terms of music formats something like 20bit/60khz should be enough to cover everything the ear can hear (freq response, timing, etc.) and provide big enough error-margins.


----------



## RRod

prot said:


> this is a good collection http://www.head-fi.org/t/645851/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear ... maybe someone should revive that in a new thread since bigshot was banned and cannot update the post anymore
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Except we don't hear flat from 20-20k, so I'd say that's overly conservative at least in terms of the frequency response. For the bits, it's important also to separate the needs of the engineer (and thus the ADC) versus the listener. Most music actually recorded needs less than 16 bits, but getting the levels set wrong can mess up the works and thus the wiggle room of 20/24 bits is extremely useful.


----------



## prot

rrod said:


> Except we don't hear flat from 20-20k, so I'd say that's overly conservative at least in terms of the frequency response. For the bits, it's important also to separate the needs of the engineer (and thus the ADC) versus the listener. Most music actually recorded needs less than 16 bits, but getting the levels set wrong can mess up the works and thus the wiggle room of 20/24 bits is extremely useful.




well, I just included sample ballpark numbers in my post, nothing particularly precise ... as about Lavry's limits, I guess you can argue with him  .. or just make it 24/96 and forget about the whole thing once and for all. Personally I'm quite tired already of all those formats, bits and rates discussions ... especially since I dont know of any test to prove that there are audible diffs above the "lousy" 16/44.


----------



## Articnoise

preproman said:


> Here we go again with this DS vs, R2R crap.
> 
> It seems people like to clump all DACs in these two groups.  Like if you heard one R2R DAC you've heard them all kinda thing.  I can tell you, that's far from the truth.  All R2R DACs don't sound alike and they all don't sound good.  Same with DS DACs, all don't sound alike and all don't sound good.
> 
> ...


 
  

 I agree totally with preproman all R2R DACs and all D-S DACs are not made equal and don’t sound the same!

  

 I have owned two DACs that used PCM 1704 chips and they sounded very different. Hek even if we only are looking to one DAC, the Master 7, it sounded quite different if using USB, coaxial, I2S or with different jumpers to change the 2x, 4x, 8x up sampling and filter stopband. 

  

 From my experience, that sure is limited, there are some things the R2R _normally _do a little bit better than the D-S and some other things that D-S _normally_ do a little bit better than R2R. BUT the difference within the group (R2R is one group and D-S another) are as usual bigger than between the groups IMO.


----------



## RRod

There are two questions going on:
 1) Do people hear a difference?
 2) Should there be a difference?
  
 If someone isn't going to attempt to answer #1 without doing their best to remove sources of bias, then frankly I don't care a whit what they say. If someone actually takes the time to test #1 in a controlled way and does find an audible difference, then we finally get to #2, where my answer would be "NO!". There's an ideally reconstructed signal that a DAC should make from a given set of PCM samples, and any DAC that is far enough from that ideal to make audible differences isn't worth my time.


----------



## goodyfresh

rrod said:


> There are two questions going on:
> 1) Do people hear a difference?
> 2) Should there be a difference?
> 
> _*If someone isn't going to attempt to answer #1 without doing their best to remove sources of bias, then frankly I don't care a whit what they say.*_ If someone actually takes the time to test #1 in a controlled way and does find an audible difference, then we finally get to #2, where my answer would be "NO!". There's an ideally reconstructed signal that a DAC should make from a given set of PCM samples, and any DAC that is far enough from that ideal to make audible differences isn't worth my time.


 

 Exactly.  It seems like everybody everywhere who is CLAIMING to hear a difference, fails to do their tests under controlled conditions, and mostly jsut rely on their *memory *(the most notoriously unreliable thing us humans have in our mental arsenal) of what DAC's sounded like that they listened to in the past.


----------



## Audioholic123

goodyfresh said:


> Exactly. * It seems like everybody everywhere who is CLAIMING to hear a difference, fails to do their tests under controlled conditions, and mostly jsut rely on their memory *(the most notoriously unreliable thing us humans have in our mental arsenal) of what DAC's sounded like that they listened to in the past.


 
  
 You should check out What Hifi's review's then...many of the products they test are compared against previous products they recall from memory...and... they always get it right!
 Thousands of guys like you buy What Hifi based recommendations and are almost always satisfied. That is why they are so successful...and technically speaking the aforementioned devices would sound audibly different.
*Anyone who disagree's either doesn't know enough or are just being stubborn in their beliefs.*


----------



## goodyfresh

audioholic123 said:


> You should check out What Hifi's review's then...many of the products they test are compared against previous products they recall from memory...and... they always get it right!
> Thousands of guys like you buy What Hifi based recommendations and are almost always satisfied. That is why they are so successful...and technically speaking the aforementioned devices would sound audibly different.
> *Anyone who disagree's either doesn't know enough or are just being stubborn in their beliefs.*


 

 And I'm sure you have a great deal of evidence to back up your claims of how "they always get it right," don't you?


----------



## Audioholic123

goodyfresh said:


> And I'm sure you have a great deal of evidence to back up your claims of how "they always get it right," don't you?


 

 Subjective differences in audio comes and has it's roots from objective information ( in this case technical information, facts,figures and graphs. Subjective being memory based).


----------



## cjl

astrostar59 said:


> I would say the term '100% transparent' is misleading here. It is meaningless. The fact is a device, albeit a DAC or pre-amplifier our transducer can sort of be called 100% transparent yet still sound pretty awful, i.e. not in the least realistic. Many a 'transparent' DAC can sound very technical, very fatiguing, just plain artificial. That is why so many on this forum are still buying and selling.


 
 If a DAC sounds "fatiguing" or "artificial" when compared to a known good reference, then it is not transparent. If a DAC measures past the threshold of transparency, it will sound exactly the same as every other DAC that measures similarly well.


----------



## Max Choiral

audioholic123 said:


> You should check out What Hifi's review's then...many of the products they test are compared against previous products they recall from memory...and... they always get it right!
> Thousands of guys like you buy What Hifi based recommendations and are almost always satisfied. That is why they are so successful...and technically speaking the aforementioned devices would sound audibly different.
> *Anyone who disagree's either doesn't know enough or are just being stubborn in their beliefs.*


 

 Haha, you're kidding, right? Memory isn't very reliable thing for comparing DACs. Side by side listening, even better in a blind test form


----------



## astrostar59

No chance. If you care to read the many thousands of posts on DAC impressions on the web, and the many on this forum, you will see a running message through them all, they say this or that DAC does not sound real, or it sounds 'digital'. Yet I bet 99% of those same DACs 'measure' 10hz to 20Khz ruler flat and have distortion below 100db. So why do they sound different?


----------



## Audioholic123

max choiral said:


> Haha, you're kidding, right? Memory isn't very reliable thing for comparing DACs. Side by side listening, even better in a blind test form


 

 I think it depends on _how_ you listen. I had an old Yamaha receiver that sadly gave up the ghost on me 5 years ago now, but i can still _remember_ how it sounded compared to my current Pioneer one...just generally though but i remember enough to know if it was overall different to my Pioneer...


----------



## Max Choiral

audioholic123 said:


> I think it depends on _how_ you listen. I had an old Yamaha receiver that sadly gave up the ghost on me 5 years ago now, but i can still _remember_ how it sounded compared to my current Pioneer one...just generally though but i remember enough to know if it was overall different to my Pioneer...


 

 Exactly, that's what I'm talking about (*"just generally"*). You can't give a detailed comparison this way,


----------



## cjl

astrostar59 said:


> No chance. If you care to read the many thousands of posts on DAC impressions on the web, and the many on this forum, you will see a running message through them all, they say this or that DAC does not sound real, or it sounds 'digital'. Yet I bet 99% of those same DACs 'measure' 10hz to 20Khz ruler flat and have distortion below 100db. So why do they sound different?


 

 Either:
  
 1) The measurements are wrong or incomplete, and the DAC really does have a technical flaw
 or
 2) People are incorrect. It's amazing how easy it is to be influenced by public opinion, and if everyone expects a tube amp to be "warm", for example, they will overwhelmingly tend to hear that characteristic, even if the tubes aren't even in the circuit at all (and are effectively just lightbulbs on top of the amp). Similarly, if you expect a relatively inexpensive DAC to be "digital" sounding, you'll end up with that impression. It's amazing how all these reports of well-measuring devices sounding "different" go away when you do a proper blind test.


----------



## goodyfresh

audioholic123 said:


> I think it depends on _how_ you listen. I had an old Yamaha receiver that sadly gave up the ghost on me 5 years ago now, but i can still _remember_ how it sounded compared to my current Pioneer one...just generally though but i remember enough to know if it was overall different to my Pioneer...


 

 Or so you think.  You would not trust your memory to such an extent if you had actually read all the scientific research that has been done on the unreliability of human memory when it comes to sensory information.  Pretty much the most reliable of sensory memory is smell, actually, and even THAT is hugely unreliable.  Audio memory is thought by some scientists to be quite possibly the LEAST reliable sensory memory, and is HEAVILY subject to becoming foggy or altered over time.  It doesn't matter how closely or analytically you listened at the time.  That was five years ago, man.  If you want a true comparison, get another one of those old Yamaha receivers, and compare it side-by-side with your current Pioneer in A/B testing.  Even better, do BLIND testing and see if you can identify which is which.

 I do not trust my memory of sensory information.  Not at all. And I have an EXCELLENT memory.  I have SUCH a good memory that I have an INSANE vocabulary and beastly performance on standardized-tests ,to the point that that I got a perfect 2400 on the SAT in high school, and to the point that many folks who know me *mistakenly *believe I have a "photographic" memory.  But despite all that, I DO NOT TRUST MY OWN MEMORY, especially when it comes to audio or visual info. . .biases creep in over time, things become foggy, etc.
  


cjl said:


> Either:
> 
> 1) The measurements are wrong or incomplete, and the DAC really does have a technical flaw
> or
> 2) People are incorrect. It's amazing how easy it is to be influenced by public opinion, and if everyone expects a tube amp to be "warm", for example, they will overwhelmingly tend to hear that characteristic, even if the tubes aren't even in the circuit at all (and are effectively just lightbulbs on top of the amp). Similarly, if you expect a relatively inexpensive DAC to be "digital" sounding, you'll end up with that impression. _*It's amazing how all these reports of well-measuring devices sounding "different" go away when you do a proper blind test.*_


 
 YUUUUUP

 There's also a third possibility, which I have kept proposing and most people besides @castleofargh have seemed to be conveniently ignoring, that there are other aspects of how a DAC/amp reproduce sound which are not being measured, but should be.  Namely, decay-rates across teh frequency-range, like a waterfall-plot, and also possibly measurements of certain aspects of the handling of phase.
  
  
  
 So anyyyywaaaaay guys, I'm glad to see that the thread I started has become so popular and has sparked so much debate.  Such heated but well-reasoned debate on these issues is EXACTLY what I was hoping for with this thread!
  
 So, to get back to the original topic. . .does it seem like if there's one thing we've ALL come to agree on, it's that the use of R2R vs. DS dac-chips does not make nearly as much a difference in teh sound of equipment as does the actual ANALOG IMPLEMENATION of the chip?  It woudl seem taht's the general consensus we've reached in regards to the original topic.


----------



## sonitus mirus

goodyfresh said:


> There's also a third possibility, which I have kept proposing and most people besides @castleofargh have seemed to be conveniently ignoring, that there are other aspects of how a DAC/amp reproduce sound which are not being measured, but should be.  Namely, decay-rates across teh frequency-range, like a waterfall-plot, and also possibly measurements of certain aspects of the handling of phase.


 
  
 Is there any evidence available to confirm that anyone can hear a difference when the commonly measured specifications indicate that the device should be audibly transparent?  It would seem that this would have come up at some point.  I mean, if real research shows that a difference was being heard, there would have to be some measurable way to identify this difference, and possibly some of those mentioned in your post.  Unless it's synergy?  I'm only kidding about the synergy, that was just a stupid attempt at humor.


----------



## goodyfresh

sonitus mirus said:


> Is there any evidence available to confirm that anyone can hear a difference when the commonly measured specifications indicate that the device should be audibly transparent?  It would seem that this would have come up at some point.  I mean, if real research shows that a difference was being heard, there would have to be some measurable way to identify this difference, and possibly some of those mentioned in your post.  Unless it's synergy?  I'm only kidding about the synergy, that was just a stupid attempt at humor.


 

 LMAO, "synergy."

 Yeah I'm wondering the same thing.  Has anyone showed anyone can identify such differences in blind A/B testing, or is it all just a bunch of cases of "well I heard this, then I heard this, and wow the second thing sounded so much better!"


----------



## castleofargh

in fact instead of objectivist vs subjectivist, this thread(and so many others) makes me think that it's a debate between people who have been fooled enough not to take what they feel for granted to the point that they naturally distrust what their brain tells them.  vs people who only trust themselves, to the point where they don't question their experiences at all.
 one always believes he might be wrong, the other one never even stops to consider it. ^_^ how dysfunctional are we?
  
 because this is sound science, I'm 100% with RRod, science demands evidence! not faith, and not enough people to run an election, evidence! one guy who can demonstrate his claim will be acknowledged, 5000 talking in the wind will not. and it should always be that way.


rrod said:


> There are two questions going on:
> 1) Do people hear a difference?
> 2) Should there be a difference?
> 
> If someone isn't going to attempt to answer #1 without doing their best to remove sources of bias, then frankly I don't care a whit what they say. If someone actually takes the time to test #1 in a controlled way and does find an audible difference, then we finally get to #2, where my answer would be "NO!". There's an ideally reconstructed signal that a DAC should make from a given set of PCM samples, and any DAC that is far enough from that ideal to make audible differences isn't worth my time.


 
  
 the second part I also agree personally, because it is what a DAC is supposed to do. but I know a big group of audiophiles believe each piece of tech is a way to tweak the sound(ironically they usually are the very same who reject DSP and EQ). I find that it's a very hard and very inefficient way to go from point A to point B, but it's still a way so I'm ready to accept this as a hard but viable choice.
 but without 1) we go nowhere.
  
  this topic that once was about R2R vs DS 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





, did not address that paramount question of audible differences. does anybody know enough to tell if the signal (once filtered obviously) out of a resistor ladder is significantly different from delta sigma(also filtered)? looking at the reconstruction of a sine wave they can do about the same thing. from what I understand, at the origin of the digital to analog conversion, on the R2R you have to remove the staircases shape from the analog signal, with DS you have to remove the sawtooth kind of shape.
 from my small understanding of things, both ultimately go with low pass filtering, as the crazy fast ups and down around the right signal amplitude in DS can be assimilated as ultrasound noise(even more so when noise filtering pushes everything in the ultrasounds).  and almost straight lines in R2R are kind of an infinite quantity of sine waves at an infinite number of frequencies, so removing everything above the recorded content should do the trick.(did I miss something?)
 in theory both should do a pretty good job, so here is my question, is there something in that process applied in real life that could justify a mishap so big it's audible? I expect small differences like maybe lowest noise on a nice R2R but higher distortions(non linearity?). but in both cases we're talking stuff way below what is supposed to be audible right?. so what am I missing here?
  
  
  
 and on the practical side of things, who has tried making a DAC with both techs? if I get a gugnir one DS, one "multibit"(out of all the fun names @shiit it's the one that always makes me smile), will I have 2 proper implementations of 2 techs or just one stuck onto a design that was done for the other( like amps with both single ended and balanced outputs where the design was really made for the balanced output alone and SE ends up being "just in case")?
 will I be able to notice a difference in a blind test?
 are there other DACs like that where only the minimum but necessary parts are switched to make 2 models? will I be able to hear a difference?
  
 saying that 2 random DACs using 2 techs don't sound the same as a justification that R2R and DS don't sound that same, that's as clever as saying that a Nissan leaf and a formula1 are legit examples to show the differences between electric and gas car. it's silly and get us nowhere.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> in fact instead of objectivist vs subjectivist, this thread(and so many others) makes me think that it's a debate between people who have been fooled enough not to take what they feel for granted to the point that they naturally distrust what their brain tells them.  vs people who only trust themselves, to the point where they don't question their experiences at all.
> one always believes he might be wrong, the other one never even stops to consider it. ^_^ how dysfunctional are we?
> 
> because this is sound science, I'm 100% with RRod, science demands evidence! not faith, and not enough people to run an election, evidence! one guy who can demonstrate his claim will be acknowledged, 5000 talking in the wind will not. and it should always be that way.
> ...


 
 http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
  
 That article explains EVERYTHING about how people have been itneracting in this thread and others.


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> ......
> 
> YUUUUUP
> 
> ...




In bold: This is what I was alluding to earlier.

Re analogue implementation: Agree that power supply and output handling are crucial to DAC implementations. A DAC isn't just DS or R-2R. It's all about converting digital information to analogue signals. I'm amazed at how different these implementations can be. For example, as I understand it, the ESS9018 can either output the analogue signal in the current or voltage domain and each implementation has a large effect on the signal feeding the headphone amplifier. Each output mode from the DAC has different hardware requirements which can in fact alter the sound being processed. Does the analogue output stage use two opamps for I/V or just a discreet path to the I/V before the volume pot after the amp in current mode.

Again, it's the whole system. Does the designer use a global feedback system that measures well, but may not sound as pleasant to the listener? Choices, choices, choices.


----------



## x RELIC x

castleofargh, you bring up a good point about the staircases waveform from R-2R. I've always considered it a snapshot in time of the required voltage and it doesn't matter if it's stepped given that music is also played back at a certain rate. Like 24 frames per second film, when viewed at 24 frames per second, it seems good enough to our eyes because it's a snapshot of what is being reproduced at that exact moment. Outside of that snapshot, until the next snapshot, extra information is just a waste of information. What's important (IMO) is that the voltage is represented accurately when the voltage will be 'seen' (sampled?) with the most accuracy. 

The benefit of using more snapshots in film is when you start playing with playback speed. Shoot a high speed film and play it back at 24 frames per second and you get amazing slow motion footage. With audio the same luxury doesn't result in the same effect. Dddooo yyyooouuu lllliiikkkeee ssslllooowww mmmoootttiiiooonnn aaauuudddiiiooo?

I see R-2R stair stepped waveforms as the lesser of two evils, theoretically, than shaping the signal to represent the appropriate voltage without noise. However, in practice it all measures very well in most well implemented designs.


----------



## goodyfresh

x relic x said:


> @castleofargh, you bring up a good point about the staircases waveform from R-2R. I've always considered it a snapshot in time of the required voltage and it doesn't matter if it's stepped given that music is also played back at a certain rate. Like 24 frames per second film, when viewed at 24 frames per second, it seems good enough to our eyes because it's a snapshot of what is being reproduced at that exact moment. Outside of that snapshot, until the next snapshot, extra information is just a waste of information. What's important (IMO) is that the voltage is represented accurately when the voltage will be 'seen' (sampled?) with the most accuracy.
> 
> The benefit of using more snapshots in film is when you start playing with playback speed. Shoot a high speed film and play it back at 24 frames per second and you get amazing slow motion footage. With audio the same luxury doesn't result in the same effect. Dddooo yyyooouuu lllliiikkkeee ssslllooowww mmmoootttiiiooonnn aaauuudddiiiooo?
> 
> I see R-2R stair stepped waveforms as the lesser of two evils, theoretically, than shaping the signal to represent the appropriate voltage without noise. However, in practice it all measures very well in most well implemented designs.


 

 The thing is though that according to the content of the Nyquist theorem, either R-2R or DS should, at least in theory, be EQUALLY capable of reproducing any audible (i.e. between 20Hz and 20Khz) waveform with PERFECT accuracy, once the proper high/low/whatever-pass filters have been applied to get rid of the noise from the approximation method in-question.  Basically, if you're taking samples at a rate which is at least twice the top frequency (so 40Khz sample-rate or higher), then it shouldn't matter if you're using R-2R or DS, either one when well-implemented should in the end lead to perfect reproduction of soundwaves.


----------



## castleofargh

x relic x said:


> @castleofargh, you bring up a good point about the staircases waveform from R-2R. I've always considered it a snapshot in time of the required voltage and it doesn't matter if it's stepped given that music is also played back at a certain rate. Like 24 frames per second film, when viewed at 24 frames per second, it seems good enough to our eyes because it's a snapshot of what is being reproduced at that exact moment. Outside of that snapshot, until the next snapshot, extra information is just a waste of information. What's important (IMO) is that the voltage is represented accurately when the voltage will be 'seen' (sampled?) with the most accuracy.
> 
> The benefit of using more snapshots in film is when you start playing with playback speed. Shoot a high speed film and play it back at 24 frames per second and you get amazing slow motion footage. With audio the same luxury doesn't result in the same effect. Dddooo yyyooouuu lllliiikkkeee ssslllooowww mmmoootttiiiooonnn aaauuudddiiiooo?
> 
> I see R-2R stair stepped waveforms as the lesser of two evils, theoretically, than shaping the signal to represent the appropriate voltage without noise. However, in practice it all measures very well in most well implemented designs.


 

 the film anaolgy really doesn't work here, sorry. our vision is super bad at tracking changes in time and super good at making kind of snapshots. so video abuses the weakness of our eyes to pretend to be smooth. our ears are almost the opposite, they're all about how things are changing and not much about how things are at a given point. I'm a sucker for analogies, but this one is a bust.
  
 also the staircases never see the output of the DAC(at least I hope so). just like the horrible pulse modulation isn't what get's out of a DS DAC. but they are real differences in the way the music signal is created, so I was wondering if maybe in practice we might not remove the extra "noise" to reshape a nice sine signal, as efficiently on both techs? I almost get the theory(digital X order filtering is above my level TBH), but I have zero knowledge about the real life behaviour.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> the film anaolgy really doesn't work here, sorry. our vision is super bad at tracking changes in time and super good at making kind of snapshots. so video abuses the weakness of our eyes to pretend to be smooth. our ears are almost the opposite, they're all about how things are changing and not much about how things are at a given point. I'm a sucker for analogies, but this one is a bust.
> 
> also the staircases never see the output of the DAC(at least I hope so). just like the horrible pulse modulation isn't what get's out of a DS DAC. but they are real differences in the way the music signal is created, so I was wondering if maybe in practice we might not remove the extra "noise" to reshape a nice sine signal, as efficiently on both techs? I almost get the theory(digital X order filtering is above my level TBH), but I have zero knowledge about the real life behaviour.


 

 Good point, I never considered how poor an analogy vision is for hearing due to the differences in how each perceives timing.


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh said:


> Good point, I never considered how poor an analogy vision is for hearing due to the differences in how each perceives timing.




Of course adjust for each application. I don't work in kHz or MHz in film.


----------



## x RELIC x

Never mind


----------



## astrostar59

Lets go back to basics here. Forget the specs and equipment that you lot are so obsessing over. Get some DACs home, and LISTEN to them. Ha Ha, you see, you Will prefer one of them to the others. Why? Because they sound different, as do pre-amps and power amps, speakers and headphones, cables and turntables. But hang on, how can that be - the specs say.......


----------



## OddE

astrostar59 said:


> Lets go back to basics here. Forget the specs and equipment that you lot are so obsessing over. Get some DACs home, and LISTEN to them. Ha Ha, you see, you Will prefer one of them to the others. Why? Because they sound different, as do pre-amps and power amps, speakers and headphones, cables and turntables. But hang on, how can that be - the specs say.......


 
  
 -Speakers and headphones do indeed sport (very!) audible differences, though to be fair, in the case of speakers, a lot of the difference in perceived sound can be attributed to the room. (How many audiophiles treat their listening rooms for proper acoustics?)
  
 Turntables, too, will to some extent sound different - there are so many adjustments to be made which to some degree interact, (Tracking angle and force, overhead, anti-skating...) that making even two identical turntables with identical tonearms and cartridges sound exactly the same when playing back the same record can be a non-trivial exercise.
  
 As for DACs and amplifiers, though, I'll stand by my initial claim that if they are competently designed, they will sound identical. (This is not to say that gear deviating from this norm cannot be competently designed; merely that if it is competently designed yet sounds audibly different, some designer took a conscious decision to introduce 'character' to the device's sound.)
  
 And as for cables? I won't even touch that subject with a 10-foot pole.
  
 Doesn't seem very likely that we'll end up in agreement, though. :/


----------



## Sal1950

astrostar59 said:


> Lets go back to basics here. Forget the specs and equipment that you lot are so obsessing over. Get some DACs home, and LISTEN to them. Ha Ha, you see, you Will prefer one of them to the others. Why? Because they sound different, as do pre-amps and power amps, speakers and headphones, cables and turntables. But hang on, how can that be - the specs say.......


 
  
 "Peter Aczel  My Audio Legacy
 4
 Cables—that’s one subject I can’t discuss calmly. Even after all these years, I still fly into a rage when I read “$900 per foot” or “$5200 the pair.” That’s an obscenity, a despicable extortion exploiting the inability of moneyed audiophiles to deal with the laws of physics. The transmission of electrical signals through a wire is governed by resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C). That’s all, folks! (At least that’s all at audio frequencies. At radio frequencies the geometry of the cable begins to have certain effects.) An audio signal has no idea whether it is passing through expensive or inexpensive RLC. It retains its purity or impurity regardless. There may be some expensive cables that sound “different” because they have crazy RLC characteristics that cause significant changes in frequency response. That’s what you hear, not the $900 per foot. And what about the wiring inside your loudspeakers, inside your amplifiers, inside your other components? What you don’t see doesn’t count, doesn’t have to be upgraded for megabucks? What about the miles of AC wiring from the power station to your house and inside your walls? Only the six-foot length of the thousand-dollar power cord counts? The lack of common sense in the high-end audio market drives me to despair."
  
 "Peter Aczel  10 Biggest Lies
 1. The Cable Lie
 Logically this is not the lie to start with because cables are accessories, not primary audio components. But it is the hugest, dirtiest, most cynical, most intelligence-insulting and, above all, most fraudulently profitable lie in audio, and therefore must go to the head of the list.
 The lie is that high-priced speaker cables and interconnects sound better than the standard, run-of-the-mill (say, Radio Shack) ones. It is a lie that has been exposed, shamed, and refuted over and over again by every genuine authority under the sun, but the tweako audio cultists hate authority and the innocents can’t distinguish it from self-serving charlatanry.
 The simple truth is that resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C) are the only cable parameters that affect performance in the range below radio frequencies. The signal has no idea whether it is being transmitted through cheap or expensive RLC. Yes, you have to pay a little more than rock bottom for decent plugs, shielding, insulation, etc., to avoid reliability problems, and you have to pay attention to resistance in longer connections. In basic electrical performance, however, a nice pair of straightened-out wire coat hangers with the ends scraped is not a whit inferior to a $2000 gee-whiz miracle cable. Nor is 16-gauge lamp cord at 18-cents a foot. Ultrahigh-priced cables are the biggest scam in consumer electronics, and the cowardly surrender of nearly all audio publications to the pressures of the cable marketers is truly depressing to behold.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> Lets go back to basics here. Forget the specs and equipment that you lot are so obsessing over. Get some DACs home, and LISTEN to them. Ha Ha, you see, you Will prefer one of them to the others. Why? Because they sound different, as do pre-amps and power amps, speakers and headphones, cables and turntables. But hang on, how can that be - the specs say.......


 
  
 take your pick in the list of cognitive biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias#Cognitive_biases
 those are the reasons why we don't care much for your sighted evaluations of the audible differences. because they are not reliable.
  
 what you suggest is deciding how the entire experience of the DAC feels for you, it includes all you already knew about the DAC, the price, the reviews you have read, the shape and color you might or might not like. all having a direct impact on how you will listen to, and interpret the sound. and it is fine if what you try to judge is the pleasure you can take out of this device and if you want to buy it. just like how enjoyable going to the restaurant can be, will depend on more than just the food. but if you rally try to judge only the food, then you will have to remove everything else. same thing for sound.
  if we really are talking about the sound of a device, then you must test sound and only sound. that means doing a blind test to remove other senses and any form of preconception.
  
  
 I like how you seem to find us silly when you didn't understand this is what several people have been talking about for pages when asking for evidence that there is an audible difference.


----------



## prot

sal1950 said:


> "Peter Aczel  My Audio Legacy
> 4
> 
> Cables—that’s one subject I can’t discuss calmly. Even after all these years, I still fly into a rage when I read “$900 per foot” or “$5200 the pair.” That’s an obscenity, a despicable extortion exploiting the inability of moneyed audiophiles to deal with the laws of physics. The transmission of electrical signals through a wire is governed by resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C). That’s all, folks! (At least that’s all at audio frequencies. At radio frequencies the geometry of the cable begins to have certain effects.) An audio signal has no idea whether it is passing through expensive or inexpensive RLC. It retains its purity or impurity regardless. There may be some expensive cables that sound “different” because they have crazy RLC characteristics that cause significant changes in frequency response. That’s what you hear, not the $900 per foot. And what about the wiring inside your loudspeakers, inside your amplifiers, inside your other components? What you don’t see doesn’t count, doesn’t have to be upgraded for megabucks? What about the miles of AC wiring from the power station to your house and inside your walls? Only the six-foot length of the thousand-dollar power cord counts? The lack of common sense in the high-end audio market drives me to despair."
> ...




I so miss that guy ...


----------



## Sal1950

prot said:


> I so miss that guy ...


 
 Now in his 90s and retired. But one of the most honest outspoken people in High End Audio.


----------



## astrostar59

castleofargh said:


> I like how you seem to find us silly when you didn't understand this is what several people have been talking about for pages when asking for evidence that there is an audible difference.


 
 Use your ears.....


----------



## astrostar59

sal1950 said:


> "Peter Aczel  My Audio Legacy
> 4
> Cables—that’s one subject I can’t discuss calmly. Even after all these years, I still fly into a rage when I read “$900 per foot” or “$5200 the pair.” That’s an obscenity, a despicable extortion exploiting the inability of moneyed audiophiles to deal with the laws of physics. The transmission of electrical signals through a wire is governed by resistance, inductance, and capacitance (R, L, and C). That’s all, folks! (At least that’s all at audio frequencies. At radio frequencies the geometry of the cable begins to have certain effects.) An audio signal has no idea whether it is passing through expensive or inexpensive RLC. It retains its purity or impurity regardless. There may be some expensive cables that sound “different” because they have crazy RLC characteristics that cause significant changes in frequency response. That’s what you hear, not the $900 per foot. And what about the wiring inside your loudspeakers, inside your amplifiers, inside your other components? What you don’t see doesn’t count, doesn’t have to be upgraded for megabucks? What about the miles of AC wiring from the power station to your house and inside your walls? Only the six-foot length of the thousand-dollar power cord counts? The lack of common sense in the high-end audio market drives me to despair."
> 
> ...


 

 Use your ears


----------



## OddE

astrostar59 said:


> Use your ears.....


 
  
 -That is kind of, sort of, the point.
  
 As long as you can throw longing glances at the $20,000 marvel of carrera marble and gold-plated knobs standing there on the $5,000 high-end table, connected to amps using $5,000 cables &c, you'll be using more than your ears to judge its merits.
  
 A number of tests have shown that these night-and-day differences so much touted by the believers tend to disappear once the sighted part is taken out of the equation.
  
 The most famous example is probably Ivor Tiefenbrun (of Linn fame) failing to determine whether the signal from a turntable (one of his own creations, too!) passed through an AD/DA loop before being fed to the amplifiers.


----------



## astrostar59

Nope, I have ALWAYS been obsessed with the sound, never the casework or 'perceived' value, the brochure, the logo, what ever. I also have taken measurements with a pinch of salt as many tube based designs don't measure as well as SS but in some case sound much better. I have heard Krell amps that haves 1000 Watts of power but sound thin and tinny, and flea powered SET amps that sound er, kinda more real and full. I gave up on the back page to the brochure years ago. Maybe you should too. Get a home demo, try gear out, use your ears......
  
 Actually this thread thread is supposed to be about R-2R V Delta Sigma. So going back to that subject, get a batch of DACs home for a demo, and use your ears, forget the 20 years of oversampling hyperbole and up sampling snake oil, might change your life.... or it might make you love DS even more?


----------



## Audioholic123

astrostar59 said:


> Lets go back to basics here. Forget the specs and equipment that you lot are so obsessing over. Get some DACs home, and LISTEN to them. Ha Ha, you see, you Will prefer one of them to the others. Why? Because they sound different, as do pre-amps and power amps, speakers and headphones, cables and turntables. But hang on, how can that be - *the specs say*.......


 
 Yesss!!! Someone has it all worked out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  " The specs say"....THIS IS THE REASON WHY SUBJECTIVE DIFFERENCES EXIST...get a clue people!
  
 It's true...there would be no audible difference if the specs where all the same. Has that never occured to anyone...lol


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > I like how you seem to find us silly when you didn't understand this is what several people have been talking about for pages when asking for evidence that there is an audible difference.
> ...


 
  IDK if you really don't have a clue what I'm talking about or if you're trying to be funny.  did you read my previous post? the one where I care to explain to you why a sighted uncontrolled evaluation has limited accuracy? or the wiki link saying how we humans aren't fail proof(no not even you!!)?
  
  
  
  
  


astrostar59 said:


> Nope, I have ALWAYS been obsessed with the sound, never the casework or 'perceived' value, the brochure, the logo, what ever. I also have taken measurements with a pinch of salt as many tube based designs don't measure as well as SS but in some case sound much better. I have heard Krell amps that haves 1000 Watts of power but sound thin and tinny, and flea powered SET amps that sound er, kinda more real and full. I gave up on the back page to the brochure years ago. Maybe you should too. Get a home demo, try gear out, use your ears......
> 
> Actually this thread thread is supposed to be about R-2R V Delta Sigma. So going back to that subject, get a batch of DACs home for a demo, and use your ears, forget the 20 years of oversampling hyperbole and up sampling snake oil, might change your life.... or it might make you love DS even more?


 


castleofargh said:


> saying that 2 random DACs using 2 techs don't sound the same as a justification that R2R and DS don't sound that same, that's as clever as saying that a Nissan leaf and a formula1 are legit examples to show the differences between electric and gas car. it's silly and get us nowhere.


 
  from the wiki: apophenia


> : the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness". Apophenia has come to imply a universal human tendency to seek patterns in random information, such as gambling.


 
  
 the fact that there is a R2R resistor ladder in a DAC that doesn't sound like a DAC with a DS chipset does not demonstrate anything regarding R2R and DS. at best it will tell us that this one DAC is better than the other one.
 just like me seeing a black cat and falling in the stairs the same day doesn't mean black cats are bad luck.  but because you're a victim of apophenia, you will decide to see a pattern where there isn't necessarily one.


----------



## astrostar59

Have you actually listened to 2 top DS and R-2R DACs in the same system at the same time? Did they sound different? If yes, I rest my case, if no, maybe they are both good.
 BUT we all know things DO sound different, just like cars drive differently, and wine tastes different from the vineyard next door to the other one. It is nothing to worry about, just enjoy the search and hopefully listen to the music and don't get hung up on the back page spec sheet.
  
 If we look at speakers for example, hell, they sound really different, whoa what is happening here, the FR says they are all 3db at 20hz-20Khz, how can this be happening? It is a scary world....


----------



## RRod

astrostar59 said:


> Have you actually listened to 2 top DS and R-2R DACs in the same system at the same time? Did they sound different? If yes, I rest my case, if no, maybe they are both good.
> BUT we all know things DO sound different, just like cars drive differently, and wine tastes different from the vineyard next door to the other one. It is nothing to worry about, just enjoy the search and hopefully listen to the music and don't get hung up on the back page spec sheet.
> 
> If we look at speakers for example, hell, they sound really different, whoa what is happening here, the FR says they are all 3db at 20hz-20Khz, how can this be happening? It is a scary world....


 
  
 3dB is about 2.9dB more variation than I'd expect from a DAC at least up to 18k or so. But keep on comparing apples to oranges. And really, people, stop bringing up cars.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> Have you actually listened to 2 top DS and R-2R DACs in the same system at the same time? Did they sound different? If yes, I rest my case, if no, maybe they are both good.
> BUT we all know things DO sound different, just like cars drive differently, and wine tastes different from the vineyard next door to the other one. It is nothing to worry about, just enjoy the search and hopefully listen to the music and don't get hung up on the back page spec sheet.
> 
> If we look at speakers for example, hell, they sound really different, whoa what is happening here, the FR says they are all 3db at 20hz-20Khz, how can this be happening? It is a scary world....


 
  
  
 you know of many speakers that have the same frequency response than another model of speakers? how often did that happen to you? 
 and even if in your fantasy the 2 frequency responses were strictly identical(yeah right), since when is a frequency response supposed to prove identical sound? it makes for the most part of a perceived sound, but most and all are different things. I'm starting to understand why you don't trust measurements, because you have no idea what they are.
 but really using speakers, the worst measuring component of a sound system, to explain how 2 DACs sound different, that's priceless. I'm petty sure there are more differences (and measurably so) between my right and left speakers than between my 2 DACs.




  
  
 if you reject measurements, and don't want to hear about controlled listening, what is left to tell you when you're wrong?  nothing. maybe your observations are accurate, maybe you were completely fooled by the marketing guy, you will never know because you have closed yourself in a system where being right stops at having an opinion and then agreeing with yourself.
  
 at the same time, I do what you do and get my first impressions, then I try to measure what I can, or to find measurements online from guys who have a much better measurement gear than me. then I try to do a poor man version of an ABX with some other gear with matched loudness and a way to switch very rapidly. from that I know that some specs don't matter much to me but other do, I know that the actual differences are *ALWAYS* much smaller than I first thought them to be, thus my desire for other people not to limit themselves to sighted evaluation before they make a claim.  and sometimes I realize I was wrong and in fact couldn't hear a difference at all. when I was sure I could in my sighted evaluation. 
  
 if you want to keep your pretense that by being lazy, you know better, so be it. enjoy being always right in your head. I'll consider that you just don't understand much and leave it at that. I have really tried to explain myself to you. it was a waste of my time(well not totally, I have learned that I could listen to music using my ears).


----------



## Audioholic123

So guys...
 I know better than to get overly involved in heated sound science debates 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  It is just not progressive.
 But if you take 2 dac's or old analog amps or whatever, and compare them by _specification_. You can see that they are different and thus would sound audibly different...right?!
 Now take those 2 same dac's or analog amp, have someone blind test them ( bias removed). You know for a fact that one _would_ sound different to the other due to the differing specifications...but what if the tester can't differentiate?!
  
 So we shouldn't all judge based on blind testing results alone. It's not the be all and end all...and it has it's faults!


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> So guys...
> I know better than to get overly involved in heated sound science debates
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 There are false negatives and there are false positives. What you control for should be determined by the purpose of the test.
  
 Then you have the issue that, for most tests, it's trivially easy to fail them if you want. Passing them is the hard thing.


----------



## OddE

audioholic123 said:


> But if you take 2 dac's or old analog amps or whatever, and compare them by _specification_. You can see that they are different and thus would sound audibly different...right?!
> Now take those 2 same dac's or analog amp, have someone blind test them ( bias removed). You know for a fact that one _would_ sound different to the other due to the differing specifications...but what if the tester can't differentiate?!
> 
> So we shouldn't all judge based on blind testing results alone. It's not the be all and end all...and it has it's faults!


 
  
 -You missed one important point: The fact that something is measurably different does not necessarily translate into it being audibly different. Our ears are pretty poor, not to mention the processing gear they are connected to playing all sorts of tricks on us.
  
 To put it differently - when two items measure differently, there are differences which may or may not be audible.
  
 If two items sound different*, however, there are measurable differences.
  
 *)As in, can be repeatedly identified in blind tests.


----------



## Audioholic123

odde said:


> -You missed one important point: The fact that something is measurably different does not necessarily translate into it being audibly different. Our ears are pretty poor, not to mention the processing gear they are connected to playing all sorts of tricks on us.
> 
> To put it differently - when two items measure differently, there are differences which may or may not be audible.
> 
> ...


 
 If 2 amps/dac's are technically different, chances are they will be audibly different. Even if it's extremely or almost impossibly hard to differentiate.


----------



## astrostar59

rrod said:


> 3dB is about 2.9dB more variation than I'd expect from a DAC at least up to 18k or so. But keep on comparing apples to oranges. And really, people, stop bringing up cars.


 

 It is technically impossible to measure music timbre, whether it is sounding real to the original. Yes, we can measure certain aspects, FQ response, distortion etc, but many components sound confused and muddled once things get complex on certain music types. How can this be? Because components sound different. Lets get back to real basics here, can anyone measure the differences between capacitors beyond charge rates and UF rating, voltage rating? Then why do they sound different. And we also have resistors that sound different. Yes, it is incredible, they do, tantalum resistors some say sound better, I agree, on the ones I have heard do. And then we have transformers, they sound different too, even ones with well beyond the FQ band of the human ear. Then we have copper wire v silver wire, hifi fuses v standard fuses, quality of the mains supplies to your house, acoustics in your room.
  
 Yes we can cling onto the tech specs, and they give an outline, but it scratches the surface, the human ear and your OWN judgement is the last word. otherwise, you may have a a 'technically proven 'best' system that you may find you don't like and sell it a few months later as they don't synergies together. Many DS DACs are 'technically' perfect, but why do many users sell them and find they prefer an R-2R DAC, and vide-versa. It is not black and white. This hobby is all about technical basis but using the trained ear as a foremost tool. Remember some great components just don't sound good together in the whole system. You can't build a system on technical readouts.
  
 Use your ears......


----------



## Audioholic123

astrostar59 said:


> It is technically impossible to measure music timbre, whether it is sounding real to the original. Yes, we can measure certain aspects, FQ response, distortion etc, but many components sound confused and muddled once things get complex on certain music types. How can this be? *Because components sound different*. Lets get back to real basics here, can anyone measure the differences between capacitors beyond charge rates and UF rating, *voltage rating*? Then why do they sound different. And we also have *resistors that sound different*. Yes, it is incredible, they do, tantalum resistors some say sound better, I agree, on the ones I have heard do. And then we have *transformers*, they sound different too, even ones with well beyond the FQ band of the human ear. Then we have *copper wire v silver wire*, hifi fuses v standard fuses, quality of the mains supplies to your house, acoustics in your room.


 
 Astrostar59...you are enlightened!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Guys; the above paragraph is the reason why audio equipment differ's in sound quality.


----------



## RRod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHtIg-0DQLU
  
 Oh look I just proved that capacitors sound the same! Or did I? How does evidence work? What is proof? Just use your ears? Sure…


----------



## Audioholic123

rrod said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHtIg-0DQLU
> 
> Oh look I just proved that capacitors sound the same! Or did I? How does evidence work? What is proof? Just use your ears? Sure…


 

 Are you an electronic engineer? did you go through 3 - 4 years of training and earn a degree on the subject?...if you don't understand the extreme complexities of electricity then you are fighting a losing game!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 
  
 I do not wish to lower myself further, good day!


----------



## astrostar59

rrod said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHtIg-0DQLU
> 
> Oh look I just proved that capacitors sound the same! Or did I? How does evidence work? What is proof? Just use your ears? Sure…


 

 I know, it is worrying thinking the world is a scary place and everything can't be explained in a Lab. Never mind, it is also what makes this rather odd and obsessive (and expensive) hobby such an exciting journey (for some). If it gets too scary, just stick to the budget Arcam system and stay indoors, after all it measures so damb good....


----------



## OddE

audioholic123 said:


> Are you an electronic engineer? did you go through 3 - 4 years of training and earn a degree on the subject?...if you don't understand the extreme complexities of electricity then you are fighting a losing game!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 -I don't know about RRod, but I happen to be an MSc (electronics/signal processing). Fun thing is, the knowledge gained through those studies are always trumped by someone's ears - at least in other sections of Head-Fi; YMMV here in Sound Science.
  
 As for @astrostar59, I wonder whether these audible differences between various resistors, say, are still audible if he doesn't know which type of resistor is being utilized. (This is a serious question - do you feel confident you'll be able to tell the difference in a blind test, or is there some serious flaw with blind testing which will cause those obvious differences to disappear?)


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> Are you an electronic engineer? did you go through 3 - 4 years of training and earn a degree on the subject?...if you don't understand the extreme complexities of electricity then you are fighting a losing game!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 LOL, so now you want MORE science. My degrees are in math and statistics which, by the way, are the languages used by engineers and physicists to discuss the concepts of their trades. Or are there no mathematical models for how capacitors work? Lower yourself?


----------



## Audioholic123

odde said:


> -I don't know about RRod, *but I happen to be an MSc (electronics/signal processing)*. Fun thing is, the knowledge gained through those studies are always trumped by someone's ears - at least in other sections of Head-Fi; YMMV here in Sound Science.
> 
> As for @astrostar59, I wonder whether these audible differences between various resistors, say, are still audible if he doesn't know which type of resistor is being utilized. (This is a serious question - do you feel confident you'll be able to tell the difference in a blind test, or is there some serious flaw with blind testing which will cause those obvious differences to disappear?)


 
 Then _i_ know that _you_ know what i'm talking about as regards to technical differences affecting audibility. It may be "trumped" by someones ears but at the end of the day...?! what it means is correct and it doesn't matter what you say as i know i'm right


----------



## castleofargh

audioholic123 said:


> So guys...
> I know better than to get overly involved in heated sound science debates
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  "You can see that they are different and thus would sound audibly different...right?!".  is an obvious fallacy.
  
  I can output a 30khz signal once at 50db and once at 55db and measure that variation. yet people won't hear it. see how your rational can't hold a real example because you dismiss the threshold of audibility of a human.
  
 I can measure a variation of 0.1db in loudness but can I notice it? I'd like to see you try.
 same for dynamic, or some sounds psycho acoustically masked but perfectly measured.
 in short all kinds of things we can measure as being different, but cannot hear.
  
 with an axiom so false, the argument can't expect to go far.


----------



## OddE

audioholic123 said:


> Then _i_ know that _you_ know what i'm talking about as regards to technical differences affecting audibility. It may be "trumped" by someones ears but at the end of the day...?! what it means is correct and it doesn't matter what you say as i know i'm right


 
  
 -Not quite; I've said it before and I'll happily say it again: Measurable does _not necessarily _translate into audible.
  
 I don't mind at all people saying that they just trust their ears and are happy with that; after all, this is a hobby and whatever rocks your boat, etc - if people feel that placing brightly coloured rocks on their stereo kit makes it sound better, I am not going to try to deny them the right to do so, nor am I going to claim they cannot possibly enjoy the music that way - because, again, we're not wired to focus on sound and sound alone; other factors also play a part, and whatever makes you happy is fine by me.
  
 However, I will get pretty aggravated if someone tries to make his recipe for enjoying music some objective standard; doubly so if said recipe flies in the face of established science.


----------



## Audioholic123

castleofargh said:


> "You can see that they are different and thus would sound audibly different...right?!".  is an obvious fallacy.
> 
> I can output a 30khz signal once at 50db and once at 55db and measure that variation. yet people won't hear it. see how your rational can't hold a real example because you dismiss the threshold of audibility of a human.
> 
> ...


 

 Well take a faulty but still functioning amp and compare it to a properly working one. Would they sound the same? now way at all! So much fud spreading goes on in sound Science...my god what is the world coming to..


----------



## Audioholic123

odde said:


> -Not quite; I've said it before and I'll happily say it again: Measurable does _not necessarily _translate into audible.
> 
> I don't mind at all people saying that they just trust their ears and are happy with that; after all, this is a hobby and whatever rocks your boat, etc - if people feel that placing brightly coloured rocks on their stereo kit makes it sound better, I am not going to try to deny them the right to do so, nor am I going to claim they cannot possibly enjoy the music that way - because, again, we're not wired to focus on sound and sound alone; other factors also play a part, and whatever makes you happy is fine by me.
> 
> *However, I will get pretty aggravated if someone tries to make his recipe for enjoying music some objective standard*; doubly so if said recipe flies in the face of established science.


 
 That's exactly what your all doing here in Sound Science..perhaps without even realising it.


----------



## RRod

audioholic123 said:


> That's exactly what your all doing here in Sound Science..perhaps without even realising it.


 
  
 Oh look, the "sound science people are robots and don't love music" argument again.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > 3dB is about 2.9dB more variation than I'd expect from a DAC at least up to 18k or so. But keep on comparing apples to oranges. And really, people, stop bringing up cars.
> ...


 
  
 straw man argument now. it's getting better by the hour.  timbre is a series of cues that let someone recognize an instrument, it's a psycho acoustic concept. a human construct, so obviously a microphone doesn't care about it. but once again good old wikipedia says you 're wrong.


> "The physical characteristics of sound that determine the perception of timbre include spectrum and envelope."


 
 maybe you might want to look at it before posting?
  
 and what about caps and cables and stuff? getting desperate? but to defend what argument? nobody here said that all DACs or whatever sounded the same. it's not hard to fail in fidelity and end up with a "coloration"(another psycho acoustic concept). success is when fidelity is such that we fail to hear a difference.
 we're asking to prove that you can hear a difference, you answer trying to prove that there can be a difference. apples and oranges.
  
  
 also any music can be expressed in totality by 1 voltage value per channel per instant T. so voltage per time, a super basic 2 axis graph can represent all that is in a record for that audio channel.  is that supposed to be a challenge? is that the amazing complexity you decide we cannot measure in totality? and here I though recording music was exactly doing that. so we would do it in a studio, but then fail to do it again a the output of a DAC?
 the idea that we can't measure all that is sound is just another of those myths for bad kids. it's irrational from point one for anybody listening to records.


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> Oh look, the "sound science people are robots and don't love music" argument again.


 
  
 01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01101001 01100011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01111001 00100001


----------



## castleofargh

audioholic123 said:


> Well take a faulty but still functioning amp and compare it to a properly working one. Would they sound the same? now way at all! So much fud spreading goes on in sound Science...my god what is the world coming to..


 
 I have no idea what you're trying to say.


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> 01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01101001 01100011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01111001 00100001


 
  
 Generally I agree, but the devil's in the details, right?


----------



## Audioholic123

sonitus mirus said:


> 01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01101001 01100011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01111001 00100001


 

 This is classic denial. Time and time again it happens when "robots" are proved wrong. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Am i in the company of kids?


----------



## cjl

goodyfresh said:


> There's also a third possibility, which I have kept proposing and most people besides @castleofargh have seemed to be conveniently ignoring, that there are other aspects of how a DAC/amp reproduce sound which are not being measured, but should be.  Namely, decay-rates across teh frequency-range, like a waterfall-plot, and also possibly measurements of certain aspects of the handling of phase.


 
 This is why I made sure to say that the measurements are wrong _or incomplete_ (since failing to measure some parameter that could cause an audible flaw would indicate incomplete measurements), but I appreciate you explicitly pointing this out. I definitely agree with this, and I'd be curious to see the topic of exactly which measurements should be made to fully quantify amplifier and dac performance discussed further.


----------



## Sal1950

castleofargh said:


> if you reject measurements, and don't want to hear about controlled listening, what is left to tell you when you're wrong?  nothing. maybe your observations are accurate, maybe you were completely fooled by the marketing guy, you will never know because you have closed yourself in a system where being right stops at having an opinion and then agreeing with yourself.


 
 Castleogargh,  one of the best and clearest statements on the "just use your ears" crowd I've ever seen. Congrats and Thank You!


----------



## Audioholic123

sal1950 said:


> Castleogargh,  one of the best and clearest statements on the "just use your ears" crowd I've ever seen. Congrats and Thank You!


 

 What would you know about circuit boards and what they do?! that's the major problem here in Sound Science... A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING
  
 cheers


----------



## OddE

odde said:


> However, I will get pretty aggravated if someone tries to make his recipe for enjoying music some objective standard; doubly so if said recipe flies in the face of established science.


 
  


audioholic123 said:


> That's exactly what your all doing here in Sound Science..perhaps without even realising it.


 
  
 -Again (and, if I can help myself, for the last time) - not quite. I don't think you will find anyone here in Sound Science claiming that you have to enjoy music this way or that. However, most regulars here will expect that when one presents statements as fact, they are backed by verifiable data. You know, all science-y.
  
 Claiming that, say, resistors and power cables are audibly different does just that. Every time I am aware of that someone has tried to verify this claim (sighted tests do not count as 'try to verify') that I know of, they have failed miserably. Nobody says you cannot buy $5,000 power cables if that is what makes your hobby pleasurable to you. Telling others that power cables affect the sound, on the other hand, is quite likely to make people want to know more. Such requests for more info tend to quickly lead to the person making the claim saying something along the lines of 'The difference is so night-and-day that no blind testing is necessary.
  


audioholic123 said:


> What would you know about circuit boards and what they do?! that's the major problem here in Sound Science... A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING


 
  
 -Friendly suggestion: At the very least leave the ad hominems alone until you've proven your own credentials. Hint: Your posts doesn't exactly exude clues to a background in any kind of engineering, much less EE.


----------



## prot

Oh my, another thread lost into the astroholic trolling caves. Well, it was good as long as it did last. Guess I'll now use my ears to get out of here. 
Someone ping me please when you are done "arguing" with the ears brigade.


----------



## Audioholic123

odde said:


> -Again (and, if I can help myself, for the last time) - not quite. I don't think you will find anyone here in Sound Science claiming that you have to enjoy music this way or that. However, most regulars here will expect that when one presents statements as fact, they are backed by verifiable data. You know, all science-y.
> 
> Claiming that, say, resistors and power cables are audibly different does just that. Every time I am aware of that someone has tried to verify this claim (sighted tests do not count as 'try to verify') that I know of, they have failed miserably. Nobody says you cannot buy $5,000 power cables if that is what makes your hobby pleasurable to you. Telling others that power cables affect the sound, on the other hand, is quite likely to make people want to know more. Such requests for more info tend to quickly lead to the person making the claim saying something along the lines of 'The difference is so night-and-day that no blind testing is necessary.
> 
> ...


 

 In my view anyone who doesn't understand what goes on inside an amp or dac or any type of electronic audio equipment, should not be telling me that i'm wrong when i present such claims. Because they don't understand it in the first place yet demonstrate bias 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that's a bit strange IMO...
  
 PCB (Printed Circuit Board) :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printed_circuit_board
  
  Ohmm  my (pardon the pun)  what do we have hear ( pardon the pun) http://www.circuitspecialists.com/soungenkit 
 Read the first link i have here to get a better understanding, then take a look at the sound generator circuit boards in the second one. Have none of you considered that the components on PCB's vary in quality....what do they do? carry the signal - that's what! now higher quality components will be healthier for the signal's journey to our ears...ok?!


----------



## Sal1950

audioholic123 said:


> In my view anyone who doesn't understand what goes on inside an amp or dac or any type of electronic audio equipment, should not be telling me that i'm wrong when i present such claims. Because they don't understand it in the first place yet demonstrate bias
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I know more than enough to recognize snake-oil salesmen. You don't need a EE degree to know when someones trying to blowing smoke up your rear like some huckster trying to sell me a $5,000 6 foot power cable. DUH


----------



## astrostar59

Hey, this thread is all silly and off topic. I m gone.....


----------



## goodyfresh

sonitus mirus said:


> 01001100 01100101 01110100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100101 00100000 01101101 01110101 01110011 01101001 01100011 00100000 01110000 01101100 01100001 01111001 00100001


 
 You guys are aware this is actual text converted into binary and translates to "let the music play!" right?  Good going, man!
  
 Anyway, @castleofargh made pretty much the best point here so far:  we're talking about sound-SCIENCE, and the essence of any scientific argument is FALSIFIABILITY.  If one makes arguments in such a fashion that they cannot be falsified, that is not real science.


sal1950 said:


> I know more than enough to recognize snake-oil salesmen. You don't need a EE degree to know when someones trying to blowing smoke up your rear like some huckster trying to sell me a $5,000 6 foot power cable. DUH


 

 You ever seen those "Bybee Quantum-Purifier" products?  Now THEY are the best example of audio snake-oil I have seen so far.  They use "slipstream quantum purifiication" and "quantum proton alignment of the electrons" to "purify the signal" and also provide room-treatment.  Some of them cost as LITTLE as only $5000!  The guy who makes them is a "real quantum physicist" so you KNOW they must be TOTALLY LEGIT!  LMAO.
  
  


astrostar59 said:


> Hey, this thread is all silly and off topic. I m gone.....


 

 This was originally *my *thread, if I'm not mistaken doesn't that mean I'm the one who gets to say if it's a problem or not when it goes off-topic?  Personally, I don't mind the directoin it has gone in


----------



## OddE

audioholic123 said:


> In my view anyone who doesn't understand what goes on inside an amp or dac or any type of electronic audio equipment, should not be telling me that i'm wrong when i present such claims. Because they don't understand it in the first place yet demonstrate bias
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 -Sigh. I've never been very good at leaving well enough alone.
  
 a) Thank you for linking to the Wikipedia article, so that I may finally find out what a PCB is. (Fun fact: I've designed and constructed PCBs of various complexities for some 20 years, both professionally and as a hobby; heck, I got lucky once and was hired to design and build hardware which needed to be space-qualified. Now I design stuff which is supposed to work under a pressure of 500 atmospheres. (That makes for a number of interesting design choices!) I know a thing or two about PCBs. Do you?
  
 b) For the umpteenth time - nobody argues that there isn't difference in quality between different components at different price points. However: You don't need better than audibly transparent. If all noise and distortion products are down far enough relative to the signal, it will sound perfect. It doesn't need to be, say, an order of magnitude better at three orders of magnitude larger cost - because we wouldn't be able to hear any difference anyway. Or, more precisely - we wouldn't be able to hear any difference unless we were doing a sighted evaluation.
  
 So, bottom line is nobody can challenge your claims unless you are happy that they are qualified to do so, whereas the rest of us cannot challenge your (ludicrous) claims as you are not considering us qualified to do so? Troll.


----------



## OddE

prot said:


> Oh my, another thread lost into the astroholic trolling caves. Well, it was good as long as it did last. Guess I'll now use my ears to get out of here.
> Someone ping me please when you are done "arguing" with the ears brigade.


 
  
 -Hey, cut us some slack, will you? On the rest of Head-Fi, we tend to get posts deleted and warnings issued if we speak up against such looney claims...


----------



## Audioholic123

odde said:


> -Sigh. I've never been very good at leaving well enough alone.
> 
> a) Thank you for linking to the Wikipedia article, so that I may finally find out what a PCB is. (Fun fact: I've designed and constructed PCBs of various complexities for some 20 years, both professionally and as a hobby; heck, I got lucky once and was hired to design and build hardware which needed to be space-qualified. Now I design stuff which is supposed to work under a pressure of 500 atmospheres. (That makes for a number of interesting design choices!) I know a thing or two about PCBs. Do you?
> 
> ...


 
 You are contradicting yourself now. And people saying they cant hear audible differences is what brought me here to counter that claim in the first place.* I brought it to their attention that it is possible*. Otherwise i wouldn't have came here would i?!
  
 So i've had my say now.


----------



## prot

odde said:


> -Hey, cut us some slack, will you? On the rest of Head-Fi, we tend to get posts deleted and warnings issued if we speak up against such looney claims...




Hope you are having fun ... cause otherwise, trying to change ears with logic would be a seriously stupid & useless attempt wouldnt it?


----------



## OddE

prot said:


> Hope you are having fun ... cause otherwise, trying to change ears with logic would be a seriously stupid & useless attempt wouldnt it?


 
  
 -Calling it 'having fun' would be exaggerating a bit, it is more that I nourish a naïve hope that perhaps some poor soul wishing to put his money where they will give him the best bang for the buck may stumble upon threads like this one and at least see that cable-and-voodoo-sentiments are not universally accepted as Gospel.


----------



## Articnoise

I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements. 

  

 Measurements is a way of describe the technical capability in some areas one by one, sure that can be somehow useful to know, but will not tell me how it actually sound with music. To me music is much more than technicalities; it’s about soul, connection, rhythm, finesse and soundscape. If they started to measure gear with real complex music instead of sinus tones it would be more of a value to me. 

  

 IMO


----------



## cjl

Most of us "sciency types" wouldn't need measurements actually. If you could show an audible difference with a double blind test, that would work too, and the only thing that uses to tell the difference is your hearing.
  
 (Of course, if you could show an audible difference between two pieces of gear that measured identically, we'd want to start wiring them up to perform more measurements, but that's a whole separate thing...)


----------



## goodyfresh

articnoise said:


> I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  


cjl said:


> Most of us "sciency types" wouldn't need measurements actually. If you could show an audible difference with a double blind test, that would work too, and the only thing that uses to tell the difference is your hearing.
> 
> (Of course, if you could show an audible difference between two pieces of gear that measured identically, we'd want to start wiring them up to perform more measurements, but that's a whole separate thing...)


 

 I guess the ultimate point here is that if audilble differences can be shown to exist in double-blind testing, but the equipment is measuring the same, THEN FURTHER MEASUREMENTS ARE NECESSARY.  It is a simple fact of logic that if there is an audible difference, there HAS to be a measurable difference which can account for it.
  
 However, with the first poster above, we run back into teh same fallacy of sound-"science" that I and others have been pointing out. . .namely, people are relying on SUBJECTIVE impressions of "this sounds better" based on sighted, non-blind testing.  That is not scientific and does not belong in a discussion about sound-science.  I don't understand why saying so makes people so angry and defensive.  This is the sound-science forum, it is not a place for subjective impressions, it is a place for controlled testing which follows the scientific method.
  
 Moreover, with detailed enough measurements in all possible areas, it is ENTIRELY possible to know how something will sound with music solely by looking at measurements.  The issue I have been bringing up again and again is that the commonly-taken measurements often seen for DAC/amps (THD and IMD and what-not with pure-sinusoid tones) does not give a detailed-enough picture.  We need more. . .along with frequency-response curves, we also need to see impulse-response, phase variations and nonlinearities, and the actual DECAY of teh frequency-response over time like what is seen in waterfall-plots for headphones.  It is already a well known fact that two headphones with the EXACT same frequency-response, THD, and IMD measurements can sound drastically different due to having different waterfall-plots, meaning the actual decay across the frequencies differs.
  
 I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases.

 It has been shown in various tests that MANY "hardcore audiophiles" will identify a sound as "warmer, fuller, with better soundstage" and crap like that, when TOLD that they are now listening to a tube-amp rather than a solid-state amp, and then are SHOCKED when it is revealed to them that in the second listening session they were actually listening to the EXACT SAME solid-state amp, with the same file being played at the same volume, as in the first session.  That's what expectation-bias does to people.  Just one little example right there.

 When people LISTEN for more detail, they hear more detail.  WHen they listen for more bass, they hear more bass.  That is because our hearing is selective. . ,.we are never able to focus our actual CONSCIOUS mind on ALL the audio input that is coming into our brains.  Rather, we listen for certain things consciously, and our brain focuses on those.


----------



## Articnoise

articnoise said:


> I buy my hifi gear because I like the sound of the music then playing with them. If you really can’t hear the difference between gear (DAC, AMP, speakers, cables) and need some kind of proof in form of measurements to tell you the difference…. That’s the point of having “better audio gear” in the first place? Isn’t hifi and music about hearing, feeling and connect to the music by our senses? Can’t see that it can be done with measurements.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  

 FYI double blind test is difficult to preform if you want to include also the difference that is more evident after long time listening like listening fatigue, capability to sound divers, capability to play different type of music, accurate tonality etc etc.  

  

 One uses hearing yes, but the sound has to be processed by the brain.


----------



## Articnoise

goodyfresh said:


> I guess the ultimate point here is that if audilble differences can be shown to exist in double-blind testing, but the equipment is measuring the same, THEN FURTHER MEASUREMENTS ARE NECESSARY.  It is a simple fact of logic that if there is an audible difference, there HAS to be a measurable difference which can account for it.
> 
> However, with the first poster above, we run back into teh same fallacy of sound-"science" that I and others have been pointing out. . .namely, people are relying on SUBJECTIVE impressions of "this sounds better" based on sighted, non-blind testing.  That is not scientific and does not belong in a discussion about sound-science.  I don't understand why saying so makes people so angry and defensive.  This is the sound-science forum, it is not a place for subjective impressions, it is a place for controlled testing which follows the scientific method.
> 
> ...


 
  

 I have already explained that the measurements that are commonly used are not made with real music they are made in a constructed artificial way that does not mimic real use of the gear or a live performance. Music is much more complex than the tones that are used to make the measurement. 

  

 The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The picture/music is more than its parts. Synergy is impotent because 1+1 is not always 2 etc etc. 

  

 I am sure it is possible to measure everything. What I don’t think is that we are doing it now, far from it. 

  

 Sure if you aren’t interested in my view, no problem.


----------



## sonitus mirus

articnoise said:


> FYI double blind test is difficult to preform if you want to include also the difference that is more evident after long time listening like listening fatigue, capability to sound divers, capability to play different type of music, accurate tonality etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> One uses hearing yes, but the sound has to be processed by the brain.


 
  
 To me, hearing is the process that uses the ears and brain.  The goal of a double blind listening test is to attempt and remove as many biases as possible to isolate only hearing.  When claims are made to "use our ears", what they mean is "use our hearing". That is exactly what many of us want, but there is clearly a divide in what this means.  I want someone to use their hearing ability to listen for differences, and NOT their sight and any other outside influences that may introduce bias when attempting to determine if a difference can be heard.
  
 The best method that I am currently aware of to isolate hearing is with a properly implemented ABX test.


----------



## Sal1950

articnoise said:


> I have already explained that the measurements that are commonly used are not made with real music they are made in a constructed artificial way that does not mimic real use of the gear or a live performance. Music is much more complex than the tones that are used to make the measurement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 What part of the below didn't you understand? You have to prove what you claim to hear isn't a figment of your imagination inflated by the subjective medias constant reinforcement of exaggerated claims of heard differences. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, say I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME. Until anyone can PROVE they hear what they claim to hear through tightly controlled ABX-DBT tests they will forever remain exactly what they are, just someones opinion.
  
 "I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases"


----------



## Sal1950

odde said:


> -Calling it 'having fun' would be exaggerating a bit, it is more that I nourish a naïve hope that perhaps some poor soul wishing to put his money where they will give him the best bang for the buck may stumble upon threads like this one and at least see that cable-and-voodoo-sentiments are not universally accepted as Gospel.


 
 Yep. If I could get just one of the "sounds good" crowd to engage their brains and instead of spending thousands on useless expensive cables and put the money into upgrading to some true high quality, accurate speakers I'd be thrilled.


----------



## castleofargh

*the quasi-modo post:*
 there are 2 reasons why I haven't self imploded and removed most fallacy posts that don't even know what they are trying to demonstrate.
 1/ the topic moved to sound science mid way, so it's only fair not to instakill the non sciency guys.
 2/ audibility is in the end a subjective factor(as we don't all have the same hearing capabilities). so I cannot prove the guy doesn't hear a difference. but he can demonstrate that he can hear something. when he decides not to do it, I decide not to trust him. this is fair game. don't go all being offended from distrust when you make no effort whatsoever to back up your claims. "what? I'm posting on the internet and some people don't take anything I say for granted? call the internet director!!!!"
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 now 1 doesn't mean we have to accept totally irrational arguments, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to construct an argument without straw man, fallacy, and irrational claims. and 2 doesn't mean that we have to accept any claim from anybody. a human being while slightly different from one another will never be a bat, and will never run like a cheeta. extravagant claims are just that.
  
  
  
  
  
  
 @ audioholic123: you've long lost yourself in a fight to be right, where you've decided to prove stuff can sound different. the thing is, nobody ever argued the possibility, people argue that it's not because you tell them, that it's true. very different problem. and you going all "a piano doesn't sound like a giraffe" achieves nothing to demonstrate what you heard. if we're talking audibility, you have to demonstrate you really can identify 2 components or whatever by ear only. and the only way to do that is to pass a blind test. because looking at the 2 components and saying I know which one is which... duh... we can all do it, we don't even need to listen.
  we're not saying you're a liar, we're saying it doesn't matter what you say if you never make the effort to demonstrate it with methods we acknowledge.
  
  
  
  
  
  
*the castleoflol post:*
  
 no method is perfect, but sighted evaluation is the worst and it's been demonstrated soooooo many times. people who see nothing wrong with sighted evaluation are doing so by ignorance. there is no other way to say it, and no rational argument to show that adding potential biases to an audio experiment, we will be more accurate than when we remove some.
 http://seanolive.blogspot.fr/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html 
  
  
 it's ok not to care about all that in the comfort of my home. and it's ok if I buy a DAC because I believe R2R is analog and DS is bad and full of noise. or because it's pretty and Purrin said it was great. as long as it makes me happy, I'm right to do just that. this is not what anybody here is going against, nobody is trying to force another dude to change what he does for himself.
 and it's ok for me to have my opinion on everything, even the things I will never actually understand. because an opinion is personal and doesn't have to be correct. so as long as I say "I think....." it's not so bad if it's not accurate.
  
 but a claim like  "all DACs will sound different" on the other hand. it's not an opinion anymore it's someone trying to establish a fact for everybody in the world. so it better be efffffing true!!! 
  to that kind of claim of course I say "prove it". as the burden of proof is on the guy making the wild claim, it's not my job to demonstrate he's wrong. it's his job to demonstrate he's right. but he can't! because to prove it, he would need to test all the DACs in the world in a blind test and he can't possibly do that in your lifetime.
 so he's made a wild empty claim, have bitten more than he could chew, and made a fool of himself.
 and that kids, is why people should clearly express the difference between their opinions and a claim.
  
 we make a claim when we have proof. everybody should know and respect that. and everybody should know about that friend who claimed he could do something crazy and when asked to put up or shut up ended making a fool of himself. because a claim have meaning only when you can back it up. else it's foolish bravado.
  
  
 ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
 now back to R2R and DS, nobody tried to answer my questions about how we could test the acual differences instead of testing a random DAC vs another random DAC, and if getting 2 bitfrosts with both techs could give a lead on the potential sound differences?


----------



## goodyfresh

sal1950 said:


> What part of the below didn't you understand? You have to prove what you claim to hear isn't a figment of your imagination inflated by the subjective medias constant reinforcement of exaggerated claims of heard differences. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, say I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME. Until anyone can PROVE they hear what they claim to hear through tightly controlled ABX-DBT tests they will forever remain exactly what they are, just someones opinion.
> 
> "I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases"


 

 Thank you sir, I see SOMEONE understood what I was trying to say 
  
  


sal1950 said:


> Yep. If I could get just one of the "sounds good" crowd to engage their brains and instead of spending thousands on useless expensive cables and put the money into upgrading to some true high quality, accurate speakers I'd be thrilled.


 

 Nice cables MAY be a good investment, all aspects of what that may mean still have yet to be tested, although I seriously doubt that they actually are, as I believe that most LIKELY, there aren't actually audible differences between cables anywhere above the upper-mid-fi price-range/level.  What should be accepted though is that as long as one's cables are at least decent mid-fi level, at that point the actual headphones or speakers, and then after those the amp, source files (quality of master rather than lossless vs. lossy, I mean), and DAC, are the most important things to invest money in, and that beyond those things cables should be the LAST thing a person gets around to spending exhorbitant sums of cash on.
  
  


castleofargh said:


> *the quasi-modo post:*
> there are 2 reasons why I haven't self imploded and removed most fallacy posts that don't even know what they are trying to demonstrate.
> 1/ the topic moved to sound science mid way, so it's only fair not to instakill the non sciency guys.
> 2/ audibility is in the end a subjective factor(as we don't all have the same hearing capabilities). so I cannot prove the guy doesn't hear a difference. but he can demonstrate that he can hear something. when he decides not to do it, I decide not to trust him. this is fair game. don't go all being offended from distrust when you make no effort whatsoever to back up your claims. "what? I'm posting on the internet and some people don't take anything I say for granted? call the internet director!!!!"
> ...


 

 Exactly, our hearing may not be as good as the guy who claims to hear a difference.  But in that case, the burden of proof falls to him. . .if he wants to volunteer for a double-blind test in which he shows the ability to consisently identify which equipment, files, or whatever are which with significant better accuracy than random chance, THEN we can accept his claims as valid.  Also, claims about "the listening sessions aren't long enough" are bunk, too.  Some studies in the past HAVE done double-blind testing in which people sit for longer listening sessions of minutes or even an hour at a time with each piece of equpiment.
  
 People just don't seem to understand that one of the fundamental tenets of the Scientific Method is that when one person makes an extraordinary claim, the burden-of-proof to validate that claim in a controlled setting falls squarely on that person's shoulders.  And it's hilarious and also borders on hypocrisy when people DO know that, and simply choose to say "well it doesn't always apply because blah blah," becuase these same people are using ALL KINDS of high-tech doohickies (the internet, anyone?) that could never have been developed without an entire community of folks strictly adhering to that very same Scientific Method in their research.
  
 It seems to me that how to test whether R-2R vs. DS, specifically, is audibly different, is a very sticky subject, but that most likely the best means available AT THE MOMENT to test such a claim would be something like you suggested:  Blind ABX testing of units which are available in both DS and R2R versions, such as the Bifrost or Gungnir.  However, one would have to look into and make sure that the implementations being utilized are equivalent in all conceivable ways except for the obvious aspect of one having to interpret an R-2R output and the other a DS output, and the differences that would be necessary in the implementations in order to achieve that.  If one with the sufficient engineering background were to verify, "yes, the Bifrost/Gungnir multibit is essentially implemented in the same fashion as the DS version," then we could proceed to find a bunch of folks who can easily pass the Golden Ears Challenge with flying-colors and no training, and get them to see if they can consistently identify audible differences between the R-2R and DS versions of the same equipment in a blind test.
  
  
 On a more general note, I think the reason people have such a tendency to use logical fallacies and straw-man arguments and such when debating (hell, even I've been guilty of doing so plenty of times in my life) is because such fallacious arguments are the majority of what we get exposed to on a daily basis in the media, from politicians, and elsewhere.


----------



## castleofargh

yes but I mean if we were to blind test something like the 2 bitfrosts, and it happens that they don't sound different, then we can close the topic and go back to say that implementation is key(what I suspect oh so strongly), not the kind of converter used.
 on the other hand if differences are indeed audible, then we have something to start from, instead of debating electronic philosophy like we've been doing. it wouldn't be enough to draw definitive conclusions, but it would be a lead, and we could confront it to other DACs offering 2 implementations in the future, and slowly but surely end up with something significant.
 and in both cases we could record the output for people to try.
  
 while it's clearly not perfect and very objective, at least we might be going somewhere. I'm getting a little sick of having to do the all subjective vs objective crap on each and every topic, just because some people can't admit that they are not fool proof and need a proper testing method to do a proper test. shouldn't that stuff be common sens instead of the reason we argue all day long?
  
 anybody friendly and not too far from shiit's super secret headquarters to try and gently rob them of 2 models for the duration of the test? or maybe just asking them what they think on the matter? after all they might have a little idea ^_^.


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> anybody friendly and not too far from shiit's super secret headquarters to try and gently rob them of 2 models for the duration of the test? or maybe just asking them what they think on the matter? after all they might have a little idea ^_^.


 
  
 "Hey Schiitmasters, you've recently been making some extra coin off of these R2R designs; care to say they don't make a mouse-fart's difference to the sound? If not, will you give us 2 free units so we can determine this ourselves?"
  
 I'm sure that would go over great.


----------



## castleofargh

you ruined my life!!!!!!!!!!!! and next you will tell me that santa isn't real.
  
 maybe a "buy one get 2 and then send one back" program? (I feel soooo gullible right now).
  I strongly believe a DAC is the last thing I should put money into. so I'm not inclined to go and buy 2 just for the fun of trying. I'm really too poor to put close to 900euros into the "I was curious" budget.  still it would be interesting. they both seem to measure good enough to be possibly transparent.


----------



## Roly1650

castleofargh said:


> you ruined my life!!!!!!!!!!!! and next you will tell me that santa isn't real.
> 
> maybe a "buy one get 2 and then send one back" program? (I feel soooo gullible right now).
> I strongly believe a DAC is the last thing I should put money into. so I'm not inclined to go and buy 2 just for the fun of trying. I'm really too poor to put close to 900euros into the "I was curious" budget.  still it would be interesting. they both seem to measure good enough to be possibly transparent.



Santa's real, it's the tooth fairy you gotta watch, (the boobs are fake and the lips are botox'ed).

Each version of the Bifrost and each version of the Gungnir have different analog sections, so save your money. Looking at the specs for either doesn't show a busting great deal of difference between versions and if not transparent, they must be really close, (while accepting that the Schitt specs aren't a complete test suite).


----------



## goodyfresh

rrod said:


> "Hey Schiitmasters, you've recently been making some extra coin off of these R2R designs; care to say they don't make a mouse-fart's difference to the sound? If not, will you give us 2 free units so we can determine this ourselves?"
> 
> I'm sure that would go over great.


 

 Actually dude if you know much about Schiit's philosophy and demeanor as a company, you'd know that they'd actually quite possibly be open to the idea of such a study, as well as to admitting that R2R vs DS makes no real difference if that is actually the truth they have uncovered in their own labs.

 Don't believe me about how honest they are?  Just go and read their product page for their cables:  http://schiit.com/products/pyst-cables  The entire page is a tongue-in-cheek parody of the bullsh*t marketing-speak commonly used by cable manufacturers to hype their stuff. "In any case, you can get PYST, or you can save some money at Monoprice," they say.  Lmao.


roly1650 said:


> Santa's real, it's the tooth fairy you gotta watch, (the boobs are fake and the lips are botox'ed).
> 
> Each version of the Bifrost and each version of the Gungnir have different analog sections, so save your money. Looking at the specs for either doesn't show a busting great deal of difference between versions and if not transparent, they must be really close, (while accepting that the Schitt specs aren't a complete test suite).


 

 Hmmmmmmmm, so do even the NEWEST version of the Bifrost DS and Bifrost R2R have different analog-sections from one-another?  How about the Gungnir?  If so. . .then crap. . .craaaaaaaaaaaaaap.
  
 It's starting to seem like if anyone wants to test this whole R2R vs. DS thing in a truly scientific manner, we'll have to get ahold of some engineers and have them actually build one R2R dac and one DS dac from scratch, each with identical analog sections.


----------



## Sal1950

Man you guys are cynical. Doesn't anyone believe the folks at Schitt are interested in a above board test of two DACs enough to loan them to the site mods,
 all for the sake of science? I'm sure review samples come this way on a regular basis.


----------



## Baldr

Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then.  Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace  to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
  
 What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty.  What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business.  Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
  
 I choose to build a variety of digital audio products that I like, and let a free market decide.  The funny thing is - the intervening years have been enjoyable and fun beyond belief.  This is because if I want enjoy a hobby, I cannot take myself too seriously.  I have to be able to smile.  I am too old not to.
  
 Elsewhere posted but very germain:  I have a great idea for some – they could blindfold themselves, add earplugs and experiment on making love to various consenting women (or women audiophiles to consenting men – like it would be a problem to find them). They could switch midstroke, to see if they could tell them apart. Those who have never had fun in the process could start getting laid science forums to prove that it is impossible to tell any difference between partners. Those of us who love, appreciate, enjoy, and treat our lovers well would end up with the best. To say nothing of enjoying life.


----------



## x RELIC x

baldr said:


> Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then.  Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace  to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
> 
> What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty.  What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business.  Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
> 
> ...





^^ best post ever! ^^


----------



## spruce music

baldr said:


> Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then.  Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace  to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
> 
> What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty.  What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business.  Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
> 
> ...


 
 So does that mean you guys won't be loaning us two DACs to test?


----------



## castleofargh

baldr said:


> Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then.  Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace  to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
> 
> What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty.  What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business.  Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
> 
> ...


 

 can't say I disagree, but we don't need science or such a topic to experience love and emotions. I go with the premise that we're not here discussing if we like something(there are enough appreciation threads for that). but instead that a topic like this one has for purpose to, if possible, try and find out more about what is really happening. both in the DAC and at our ears.
 someone like you has been testing more things that I could probably think about, you have found some answers and have your ideas about what is good for each purpose or what you prefer.
 but to a random guy like myself with only the surface of the theoretical understanding and so little ways to test something myself, what I'm looking for online isn't audio art or audio love(I have Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder for that ^_^), but understanding and factual information. I don't think I'm dumber than the next guy, if I listen to something and really enjoy it I will want to bring it home, that's not why I want to know. I want to know because I want to know. a genuine desire not to be an ignorant fool about everything. you could say it's my second audio hobby after listening to good music.
  
 I've read about some audio product designers who thought it was silly not to use negative feedback, given all the pros vs little cons. then I've seen some other but just as serious guys going beyond themselves to try and not use that feedback, thinking it was so bad they would rather lose good FR linearity and low impedance.
 I've read about how jitter is of little audible consequences in most modern products, about listening tests agreeing to that idea, about most things being minimum phase. then I read about the Ayre guy asking the UN to intervene and put an end to the evil time smearing and phase shifting trying to murder the ears of the innocent children.
 I've seen guys cry over the horrible ringing of an IIR low pass filter for years, from guys even older than I am who couldn't ear a 16khz signal if their life depended on it.
 I've seen some R2R marketing with all the stupid staircases conspiracies, saying how pulse modulation was an all noisy process and should be avoided like a plague.  and I thought it made sense. then I've seen the ESS guy(martin something?) explain how they had a 5th order modulator and explain how noise shaping helped reach practical noise levels that are very much good enough to be considered inaudible.
 I've seen some pro R2R say how the signal is of better fidelity, then I see some other guy saying that people prefer R2R because they like some noise modulation that that is in fact not a sound that was in the original record.
 I've see so many people tell me how the soundstage was better in R2R, then maybe a month ago, Bob Katz said something about how he felt like the soundstage in R2R was slightly narrower.
  
 and I was back to square one(and that's ust a few stuff I got on the top of my head, it's much worse in reality). are all those guys living in parallel universes? I'm the first to understand that things aren't all black and white and most stuff can be true under given conditions. most stuff in electronic are a game of give and take after all. I'm cool with that.  but having to swim in this audio world where claims contradict each other all day long, saying that I should trust my feelings and enjoy the good stuff, really isn't helping me much when what I desire is a little knowledge I could trust.
 when I'm learning about optical stuff and find some information, I don't have to run all over the web to see if someone else is saying the opposite. only audio has that kind of BS going on. if it was theoretical physics I might understand, but we're talking about audio here, not string theory. so why all the mystery and all the cults about everything and the exact opposite of it? are both R2R and sigma delta good enough to get audible transparency? does audible transparency exist given how crappy our headphones are? what are the drawbacks of using either of those techs?
 those are but a few of the stuff I wish to learn in such a topic.


----------



## x RELIC x

castleofargh, I completely see your point of view. May I suggest changing the title of the thread to be something like_ 'R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?' _That way it will be crystal clear what the intended premis of the thread is and emotional preference and pleasure will be squashed immediately. Of course, the conversation is intertwined with both sides which is why there is so much mystery and contradictions in the facts.


----------



## astrostar59

x relic x said:


> @castleofargh, I completely see your point of view. May I suggest changing the title of the thread to be something like_ 'R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?' _That way it will be crystal clear what the intended premis of the thread is and emotional preference and pleasure will be squashed immediately. Of course, the conversation is intertwined with both sides which is why there is so much mystery and contradictions in the facts.


 

 I agree. Best way, pick some recommended DACs and GET THEM HOME, USE YOUR EARS. Forget the tech, the hyperbole, the theories. You find in any profession (especially scientific or medicine disciplines) the folk who know a bit will not bend, or even consider a different direction or view, even to admit a difference exists. It is best to avoid those posts, and pick the various DACs folk are buying, try those in your system, and see what your own ears are telling you.
  
 Remember, folk who have bought a dCs stack for 30K are never going to be happy to look in another direction.


----------



## castleofargh

x relic x said:


> @castleofargh, I completely see your point of view. May I suggest changing the title of the thread to be something like_ 'R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?' _That way it will be crystal clear what the intended premis of the thread is and emotional preference and pleasure will be squashed immediately. Of course, the conversation is intertwined with both sides which is why there is so much mystery and contradictions in the facts.


 
 isn't the OP explicit enough with his first post?
 if OP is OK of course I have no objection to change the title.
  


audioholic123 said:


> Guys...here's a little bit of advice;  i can tell that most of you don't have a true high end system..why? because if you did own one you wouldn't be on Sound Science debating these very strange debates. Do yourself a favour: save up some money or go spend the money you already have on a top of the line amplifier ( a real one, not a headphone amp), a classic cd player ( something like a Cyrus cd6 or a NAD), and rediscover your old record collection you have collecting dust in the corner of your living room!!
> 
> Just do it...i dare you!


 
 doesn't answer the questions of the topic at all though.
  
  


astrostar59 said:


> x relic x said:
> 
> 
> > @castleofargh, I completely see your point of view. May I suggest changing the title of the thread to be something like_ 'R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?' _That way it will be crystal clear what the intended premis of the thread is and emotional preference and pleasure will be squashed immediately. Of course, the conversation is intertwined with both sides which is why there is so much mystery and contradictions in the facts.
> ...


 
 "I agree." ??? did you even read the posts you're responding to?
 also same as above, you're not answering the questions of the topic. and I don't know if we will not bend, but you seem to have no trouble bending what we said. for the ... too many times, we're not saying there are no difference, we're asking for evidence. evidence of audible differences or evidence of absence of differences, to me it doesn't matter. I just want to know that I can trust the guy who's talking.  you're getting antagonized only because you make a claim without any will to back it up when asked to. not for the nature of your claim. a guy saying "all the DACs in the world sound the same" would receive the same treatment you did.


----------



## x RELIC x

castleofargh said:


> isn't the OP explicit enough with his first post?
> if OP is OK of course I have no objection to change the title.
> 
> ......




Apparently not given the last few pages of posts. :wink_face:


----------



## astrostar59

audioholic123 said:


> There is nothing wrong with a low budget system. But an extremely high end one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Be careful winding folk up with a 'high-end' system banner. I have not said that, but have promoted R-2R DACs and the Stax 009s, the KGSShv and even the BHSE and got shot down, there are many who like the Duck Shoot and will never shut up.
  
 Going back to this debacle of a thread, it is provable that a certain DAC sounds different to anther DAC on the same system. It could be done with microphones for example. But I am unsure what use that would be. It still comes back to A/B listening and the ears. I understand one cannot in theory 'remember' the sound of a component weeks, months or even years later. BUT we can remember details in a specific (well known) track i.e. if you see a painting in a magazine, then see that painting in a  gallery, so will see better colour and more detail,, and realise that it is NEW information not heard (or seen) in the magazine photo. Likewise if you pass someone everyday in your street, say hello but never speak to them, when you DO speak to them, you look at their face and see a mole, or something else new. It is the same thing, a sensory awareness, and a measurable thing i.e. it is new to your brain, new information.
  
 Also another measurable method is when I listen to music I have my own memory of how I think an orchestra should sound, a bass guitar, a drum kit, and if I recognise that sound in my system and I like it, and realise it is more accurate, then I give that DAC or whatever a thumbs up, or a mental score in levels.
  
 So we have our own personal reference points that we amass over time, and if the person is an audiophile or keen musician, that person will have a 'golden ear' and a good judgement of how a product sounds, how good it is. Kids may like the typical V shaped happy ear speakers response curves (explains why radios and ear speakers have a bass boost feature for example), adults may have progressed beyond that impressionistic and unrealistic view.
  
 You get my drift. I go back to listing and using your ears, try home demo's and against another unit at the same time. Some folk on this forum talk about this DAC or that Amplifier being the best they have heard, but many have changed speakers and source and other items since they sold that previous DAC, maybe that mental test is no longer accurate.... Ha Ha maybe we DO need a measurable system. Thing is there isn't one that will work or be of any use beyond the basic FR, THD and SNR. That's half the reason many bought DS DACs and are now not happy.... complicated. But the reward is it is worth the hassle, I think it is, as long as you don't bankrupt yourself in the process... My view, go DIY or Kit, best SQ v Cost IMO. Then tweak away to suit your taste and system synergy. An SS DAC in my system may be nice, but may be another buy sell merry go round. A tubed Kit allows me to tweak the sound.


----------



## RRod

baldr said:


> Elsewhere posted but very germain:  I have a great idea for some – they could blindfold themselves, add earplugs and experiment on making love to various consenting women (or women audiophiles to consenting men – like it would be a problem to find them). They could switch midstroke, to see if they could tell them apart. Those who have never had fun in the process could start getting laid science forums to prove that it is impossible to tell any difference between partners. Those of us who love, appreciate, enjoy, and treat our lovers well would end up with the best. To say nothing of enjoying life.


 
  
 Oh look, now in addition to not liking music, we don't like sex either.


----------



## Roly1650

rrod said:


> Oh look, now in addition to not liking music, we don't like sex either.



Yep, looks like Schitt have their demographic nailed......
Wonder what they paid for that "outstanding" marketing survey.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 people didn't come up with blind testing in all major industries because they were bored, or because testings were too accurate.  don't you even wonder why any serious trials are done with people not knowing what they test? doesn't that bring up any question to you? at all?  at first I thought it was simple ignorance, but even after all the people explaining this to you for pages, you stick to your narrow vision of the problem like you know what you're talking about. it's incredible! and kind of irritating.


----------



## castleofargh

roly1650 said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look, now in addition to not liking music, we don't like sex either.
> ...


 

 now now, let's not create another nwavergate incident. you know you guys wouldn't be at the right end of the stick if things were to escalate.  he had zero obligation to come here and bother to post, I can't deny that I was hoping for a little more facts and a little less artistic philosophy, but apart from that, I'm not sure he deserves the cold shoulder.


----------



## Roly1650

castleofargh said:


> now now, let's not create another nwavergate incident. you know you guys wouldn't be at the right end of the stick if things were to escalate.  he had zero obligation to come here and bother to post, I can't deny that I was hoping for a little more facts and a little less artistic philosophy, but apart from that, I'm not sure he deserves the cold shoulder.



Yes, you are 100% correct, but sometimes I can't avoid a pathetic attempt at humour, blame it on all those smutty British seaside postcards I saw growing up. No cold shoulder intended.


----------



## astrostar59

castleofargh said:


> people didn't come up with blind testing in all major industries because they were bored, or because testings were too accurate.  don't you even wonder why any serious trials are done with people not knowing what they test? doesn't that bring up any question to you? at all?  at first I thought it was simple ignorance, but even after all the people explaining this to you for pages, you stick to your narrow vision of the problem like you know what you're talking about. it's incredible! and kind of irritating.


 

 You are wanting the best piece of gear, you listen to said gear in your system in your home. You thus test that gear yourself, use your ears. It is the final word. Anything else is a 'guide' at best. Don't cling to 'tests'. If measurable, those measurements will be flawed at best. If a blind test it is done by others, you will need to use your own judgement before you buy. I never buy (or buy and keep) a component i don't like based on some review or blind test. This hobby is a personal journey, with sign posts along the way. Those sign posts don't say 'this is it' do they.....


----------



## RRod

castleofargh said:


> now now, let's not create another nwavergate incident. you know you guys wouldn't be at the right end of the stick if things were to escalate.  he had zero obligation to come here and bother to post, I can't deny that I was hoping for a little more facts and a little less artistic philosophy, but apart from that, I'm not sure he deserves the cold shoulder.


 
  
 It was all fine up until the last paragraph; I mean wth was that? But you're right, they pay da billz here.


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > people didn't come up with blind testing in all major industries because they were bored, or because testings were too accurate.  don't you even wonder why any serious trials are done with people not knowing what they test? doesn't that bring up any question to you? at all?  at first I thought it was simple ignorance, but even after all the people explaining this to you for pages, you stick to your narrow vision of the problem like you know what you're talking about. it's incredible! and kind of irritating.
> ...


 
  
 for starters we have been talking about the audibility of differences between 2 dacs for the past pages. not about wanting the best device.
  trying to find what you like and trying to prove you can hear the differences between 2 devices are completely different things.
 my mother is very sure her homeopathic sugar pills work great, that's her feedback from her "personal journey". she knows, she goes home and take the pills, just like you say. at the same time, no medical experiment have succeeded in agreeing with her, and all the controlled tests show no better than placebo results.  I guess the medical community and their experiments are wrong and my mother is right? just like you're right about not needing to remove bias to be sure of your listening experience. and all the scientific communities are wrong for doing blind tests in trials when they can't get the data themselves through more objective methods.
  
 thank you for opening my eyes to the allegory of the cave. who cares about the real world when I can make up mine in my head!
 what? that's not the right message? well obviously Plato was wrong because I'm never wrong, it's my journey!  I'm going slightly mad in front of your total and steady ignorance of the factual problems.


----------



## cjl

baldr said:


> Folks -- if this post does not get deleted -- I would gather that from reading the majority of verbiage in the forum, that my life has been a complete exercise in futility since I built the first D/A converter ever in 1983 as well as dozens since then.  Or perhaps I am unaware that I delude myself into believing that I am an audio hardware huckster lurking in these forums and the marketplace  to wrest the last money from hapless audiophiles.
> 
> What I can tell you is that I know what I like with certainty.  What I also know is that what anyone else may like or not like is absolutely none of my business.  Even more so, I have no right to nor ever tell anyone else what is right or wrong for them, whether it be based on what I think is science, opinion, or fairy tale.
> 
> ...


 
 I don't feel like addressing this whole post right now, so I'll address 2 specific points:
  
 1) You did not build the first D/A converter ever in 1983. They have been in existence and understood since at least the 1940s, possibly earlier depending on what exactly you consider to be a requirement of a DAC.
  
 2) Your sex analogy is only valid if you think the only point of sex is the tactile sensation. If people were going around swearing that they could tell two partners apart by the feel of their hand on their back, or by the rhythm of the activity (to try not to go into too much detail here...), that would be an excellent way to test it (and besides, I suspect that in most cases, people would easily tell partners apart). At the end of the day though, the analogy is broken since nobody is going around looking for a relationship or for a sexual partner purely for the purpose of the tactile sensation, and appearance is definitely an integral part of the experience.
  
 In the case of equipment whose primary and defining purpose is sound reproduction, since people claim that they can HEAR differences between audio components, asking them to tell them apart by ear makes rather a lot of sense. If people said "Sure, they don't really sound different, but I love the way that this DAC encased in marble looks on my end table, and that's worth $10k to me", I don't think anyone here in Sound Science would have a problem with that. It's when they start saying that there's a "night and day" difference, and that a $10k DAC is clearly better than a $1k DAC and anyone (including their wife in the kitchen) can hear the difference, I really don't think it's unreasonable to ask them to prove it.


----------



## astrostar59

castleofargh said:


> for starters we have been talking about the audibility of differences between 2 dacs for the past pages. not about wanting the best device.
> trying to find what you like and trying to prove you can hear the differences between 2 devices are completely different things.
> my mother is very sure her homeopathic sugar pills work great, that's her feedback from her "personal journey". she knows, she goes home and take the pills, just like you say. at the same time, no medical experiment have succeeded in agreeing with her, and all the controlled tests show no better than placebo results.  I guess the medical community and their experiments are wrong and my mother is right? just like you're right about not needing to remove bias to be sure of your listening experience. and all the scientific communities are wrong for doing blind tests in trials when they can't get the data themselves through more objective methods.
> 
> ...


 

 Ha Ha, incredible. I am talking about that as well, so we agree on something. If you can't let your own ears make a final judgement, how will you ever find a system you are happy with. Dude, there is a zillion of pages of measurements and reviews, blind tests, folk who swear blind (puin intended) etc etc. Only way is use your ears. Now, if you are saying you have heard DAC A and DAC B and you are saying something about that, say it, and it will be your opinion. Don't try and pin some measurements or hyperbole onto that statement to 'legalise it' make it as 'fact' This hobby is all about a personal journey, some go this way, others that....


----------



## Articnoise

sal1950 said:


> What part of the below didn't you understand? You have to prove what you claim to hear isn't a figment of your imagination inflated by the subjective medias constant reinforcement of exaggerated claims of heard differences. Don't drink the Kool-Aid, say I'm from Missouri, SHOW ME. Until anyone can PROVE they hear what they claim to hear through tightly controlled ABX-DBT tests they will forever remain exactly what they are, just someones opinion.
> 
> "I don't see how anyone, anywhere, could be daft/dense enough to not comprehend or admit to the fact that if there is an ACTUAL (as in, can be verified in blind a/b testing) audible difference between equipment, that there absolutely HAS to be some scientific, quantifiable means of measuring that difference.  Moreover, it just seems OBVIOUS to me (maybe because I have been learning about science my whole life and am not the kind of person to accept things based on blind faith or propaganda?) that the only way to establish ACTUALY audible differences is with blind testing, because sighted testing quite obviously causes there to be expectations and biases"


 
  

 I do understand I just don’t agree. A big different isn’t it?


----------



## Articnoise

My last post on this subject.

  

 I think that the so called science many of you here are holding as a fact is based on some fundamental assumptions that I don’t agree on. Let me explain. Many of you kind of equal the signals that are used to make the measurements to the signal of music, or at least don’t make a big difference between them. They are not equal. We cannot even talk about apples and orange in regard to this as they are far too different to each other. So it boils down to; is a DAC for example made to play complex signals there multiple notes are played in different register at the same time? I will say yes to that. Do tools for making measurement playing complex signals there multiple nots are played in different register at the same time? I will have to say no. As they can’t do this they are only showing some aspects and also only one aspect at a time. *So no real stress test that mimics playing real music in full swing*.  

  

 I repeat, measurements is a way of describe the technical capability one by one. If you listening to the tones that are used to make the measurements they don’t sound even remotely as any recorded music I have ever heard and they do not measure or have the structure even remotely like music.


----------



## sonitus mirus

articnoise said:


> I do understand I just don’t agree. A big different isn’t it?


 
  
 Then you believe any difference being heard can be attributed to what?


----------



## goodyfresh

@castleofargh
  
 I give up, dude.  Seriously.  I give up.  I started this thread in order to ask a simple question:  Are R2R DAC's really as "superior" to DS as so many people claim, and if so, how can we test that and prove it?  ANd it has turned into a debate of science-vs.-subjectivity/faith instead.  Should have known this would frigging happen.


----------



## Sal1950

articnoise said:


> My last post on this subject.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 We keep discussing LISTENING tests under controlled ABX-DBT conditions, using the EARS as you say.
 But then you respond with a post against measurements. Whether your right or wrong on measurements your just ducking the LISTENING question.
 I suspect because your scared to have your EARS put to the test so you post some BS response.


----------



## OddE

> Originally Posted by *Articnoise* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> So it boils down to; is a DAC for example made to play complex signals there multiple notes are played in different register at the same time? I will say yes to that. Do tools for making measurement playing complex signals there multiple nots are played in different register at the same time? I will have to say no. As they can’t do this they are only showing some aspects and also only one aspect at a time. *So no real stress test that mimics playing real music in full swing*.
> 
> ...


 
  
 -This was one of the subjects I struggled a bit with while in EE university, but anyway, here goes - yes, a DAC is made to play complex signals &c - yet at any given time, the output from the DAC is simply the sum of all the constituent sounds having been recorded. A voltage differential. Nothing more.
  
 Now, if one wishes to measure a complex signal like that, a most powerful tool is the fourier transform, which will translate that complex musical signal into a frequency distribution - visualize it as a chart with frequency along the x axis and amplitude along the y axis; if performed with fine enough resolution, a fourier transform will do an excellent job at showing, qualitatively, whether one complex signal is identical to another. It will also tell you at which frequencies (if any) there is a difference, and how large it is - giving you the information you need to EQ the two signals back to being identical, if need be.
  
 (Another, simple way to verify 'how equal' two signals are, is simply to subtract one signal from the other after ensuring they are of the same amplitude and sharing the same time base; the result should be absolute silence. If it is not, there's some difference which needs looking into. (Trying to do so with a pair of DACs will most often give you some residual - but it will be way, way below audible levels - say, perhaps at -90 or -100dBFS.)


----------



## goodyfresh

odde said:


> -This was one of the subjects I struggled a bit with while in EE university, but anyway, here goes - yes, a DAC is made to play complex signals &c - yet at any given time, the output from the DAC is simply the sum of all the constituent sounds having been recorded. A voltage differential. Nothing more.
> 
> Now, if one wishes to measure a complex signal like that, a most powerful tool is the fourier transform, which will translate that complex musical signal into a frequency distribution - visualize it as a chart with frequency along the x axis and amplitude along the y axis; if performed with fine enough resolution, a fourier transform will do an excellent job at showing, qualitatively, whether one complex signal is identical to another. It will also tell you at which frequencies (if any) there is a difference, and how large it is - giving you the information you need to EQ the two signals back to being identical, if need be.
> 
> (Another, simple way to verify 'how equal' two signals are, is simply to subtract one signal from the other after ensuring they are of the same amplitude and sharing the same time base; the result should be absolute silence. If it is not, there's some difference which needs looking into. (Trying to do so with a pair of DACs will most often give you some residual - but it will be way, way below audible levels - say, perhaps at -90 or -100dBFS.)


 

 And it is because of Fourier Analysis that when it comes to the digital realm, performance with pure sine-waves can give a perfect picture of how something will perform with more complex waveforms, and so there's really no reason to measure DAC performance with anything more complex than sine-waves.  But, don't expect folks who aren't really good at math to possibly comprehend what we are trying to say, buddy


----------



## Articnoise

sal1950 said:


> We keep discussing LISTENING tests under controlled ABX-DBT conditions, using the EARS as you say.
> But then you respond with a post against measurements. Whether your right or wrong on measurements your just ducking the LISTENING question.
> I suspect because your scared to have your EARS put to the test so you post some BS response.


 
  

 I am not disagreeing the use of blind tests. I agree that the goal of a double blind listening test is to remove as many biases as possible. Am with you guys on that. I only said it’s difficult to preform to detect some of the aspects that I and many others need longer time to detect.


----------



## cat6man

goodyfresh said:


> And it is because of Fourier Analysis that when it comes to the digital realm, performance with pure sine-waves can give a perfect picture of how something will perform with more complex waveforms, and so there's really no reason to measure DAC performance with anything more complex than sine-waves.  But, don't expect folks who aren't really good at math to possibly comprehend what we are trying to say, buddy


 
  
 well, i can see a problem with that statement
  
 the fourier analysis is only valid for "linear" systems and DACs are not purely linear.  if they were, we would never see products produced by two tone tests.
 other non-ideal constraints on implementation, such as jitter, are highly non-linear effects.


----------



## RRod

cat6man said:


> well, i can see a problem with that statement
> 
> the fourier analysis is only valid for "linear" systems and DACs are not purely linear.  if they were, we would never see products produced by two tone tests.
> other non-ideal constraints on implementation, such as jitter, are highly non-linear effects.


 
  
 You can still use FFT to analyse the output in the presence of non-linearities. If the DAC puts out IMD when playing tones simultaneously, an FFT of the output signal would reveal the sum/difference products. The statement we're probably going for here is that the impulse response fully describes the output only for LTI systems, and since DACs are not pefectly LTI you must look beyond the impulse response. FFT can still be useful for analysis of how they fail the criteria.
  
 The real question is: for the various manifestations of non-linearity, what are the audible thresholds?


----------



## castleofargh

astrostar59 said:


> Ha Ha, incredible. I am talking about that as well, so we agree on something. If you can't let your own ears make a final judgement, how will you ever find a system you are happy with. Dude, there is a zillion of pages of measurements and reviews, blind tests, folk who swear blind (puin intended) etc etc. Only way is use your ears. Now, if you are saying you have heard DAC A and DAC B and you are saying something about that, say it, and it will be your opinion. Don't try and pin some measurements or hyperbole onto that statement to 'legalise it' make it as 'fact' This hobby is all about a personal journey, some go this way, others that....


 
 to find a system I am happy with, I look for measurements and reviews to make a selection. and then try to listen to that selection to decide if I'm ok with one. just like anybody else I imagine. again it is not what we were discussing at all.
 the theme went to "DACs sound different" because of your posts, you said that they pretty much all do(and wires and amps and..... everything that isn't a mute carrot), me and a few others it seemed had a different experience, and while I believe that some DACs are colored, I also have failed a few blind tests with DACs(after measuring and matching the loudness!!!!!), 2 camps with different opinions on the matter. so the problem became: "how can you prove you heard a difference?" as it's impossible for me to prove the is no difference on my DACs. me failing a test only proves I failed the test, not that someone else wouldn't pass it. and I can't possibly prove that you didn't hear something on your gear. ^_^
 while you proving you hear a difference between two particular models in a blind test, would really prove there was an audible difference between the 2 DACs you have tested. that difference could later on be investigated to try and explain why, and that way we slowly advance, ask a question, get a confirmation(a factual one, not an opinion), move on to a more focused question, etc.  that way we get evidence, we confirm some stuff, rule out other stuff, and we grow and learn in the process. not with "the guy said ...", but with the fact that you coud pass a blind test, the fact that the max voltage of the DACs were matched. maybe check for the low pass filter if the music tested was 16/44. who knows one filter might be stronger and start sooner, making the trebles more recessed. etc, etc.
 slowly we grow and learn from verified facts, even if they concern only 2 particular DACs, the information we get has value and can explain and convince us. because controlled and verified facts > opinion and beliefs. 
  
 but you and audioholic who happen to be the 2 loudest to claim your heard differences, never cared to do all this, instead you came with something that felt like this:
 "we have listened and we have heard, believe us because we are right, or listen for yourself so then you will know". but you're 2 dudes on the internet, why the hell should I trust what you said when you didn't even care to control your experiment? for all I know you are 2 complete fools trying to look cool. "yeah I can ear differences in anything, I'm a golden ear bro!". that kind of stuff. ^_^
 how do you expect me to trust you if you don't do anything to try and demonstrate you are legit? skepticism is natural in science, and if I may, skepticism should be mafcontrndatory for anything on the web. so I'm suspicious and I don't trust you, then you reject the idea of controlled testing, and I trust you even less.
 and by then you went spam bot "go home and listen! go home and listen, go home and listen", and audioholic was gone into some meaningless argument about trying to show that if 2 things sounded different, then everything sounded different or something weird like that. I really don't know what his point was TBH.
 and now it's been a few pages of total waste of time, we have learned nothing concrete about R2R or sigma delta. and that is pretty stupid.  so obviously I'm not super satisfied with how those last pages have gone, and I had to really force myself not to just remove you both and move on, and that got me angry and I behave just as much as a pig headed mule as you did, which in turn didn't really lighten my mood when I realized it.
 result, zero!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  


goodyfresh said:


> @castleofargh
> 
> I give up, dude.  Seriously.  I give up.  I started this thread in order to ask a simple question:  Are R2R DAC's really as "superior" to DS as so many people claim, and if so, how can we test that and prove it?  ANd it has turned into a debate of science-vs.-subjectivity/faith instead.  Should have known this would frigging happen.


 

 are you ok with the suggestion from @ relic to change the title? and if so, do you wish for something in particular?


----------



## OddE

goodyfresh said:


> And it is because of Fourier Analysis that when it comes to the digital realm, performance with pure sine-waves can give a perfect picture of how something will perform with more complex waveforms, and so there's really no reason to measure DAC performance with anything more complex than sine-waves.  But, don't expect folks who aren't really good at math to possibly comprehend what we are trying to say, buddy


 
  
 -There is one caveat, though - we can only extrapolate from a sine test if all stages under test are 100% linear; now, for most practical purposes I agree that a DAC with its associated conversion processes, gain stages and whatnot is linear enough for your statement to be valid - especially in the case where the final arbiter is a bipedal, carbon-based lump of meat with two ears on it.


----------



## Baldr

cjl said:


> I don't feel like addressing this whole post right now, so I'll address 2 specific points:
> 
> 1) You did not build the first D/A converter ever in 1983. They have been in existence and understood since at least the 1940s, possibly earlier depending on what exactly you consider to be a requirement of a DAC.
> 
> ...


 
  
 This who have read my many other posts will realize that I have credited Bell Telephone Labs for work done 98 years ago as the time domain optimization inspiration for the filter in the DSP software based filter in first Theta, now Schiit multibit D/A converters.  A proper research completist should have uncovered the fact that the digital audio portion of information theory (and therefore a need to convert numbers to analog levels) was published before World War I, some thirty years before the 1940s.  All one has to do is peruse footnotes in DSP textbooks.
  
 Let me apologize if I have been insufficiently precise.  I did indeed build the first available audio component that was designed to convert digital audio information to analog signals suitable for playback.  I called it a D/A converter at the time.  Perhaps that will clarify and satisfy any further quibbles.
  
 The reference to making love was intended as a joke.  The prior paragraph in my post was my opinion that audio should be fun and we should not take things so seriously - perhaps you missed that as an intro to your point number 2 above.
  
 Schiit is indeed one of many sponsors of Head-Fi.  I know this forum will never compromise its integrity for the sake of any of its sponsors.  I can buy an ad, but the forum's core and purpose is not for sale.  That is why we are here.
  
 Schiit manufactures DACs from $100 to $2300.  We are quite populist.  I hereby admit that I built the $2300 DAC to please me aesthetically and sonically.  We make no claim, however to its sound compared to our other DACs.  We make even less claim with respect to how it sounds compared to other maker's D/A converters.  If you are looking for sonic claims, go to the real high end makers with their silver threads and golden faceplates.
  
 Finally, an effort to remain true to the topic of this thread:
  
 I put my money where my mouth is on DS vs. multibit.  The low end of our line is DS.  Anyone with middle school reading capabilities and a bit of DIY know how can put together a DS design by following the cookbook data sheet and reference design.  Hucksters can the put a fancy case on it, proclaim it a high end product, recommend its use with firehose size power cables, and hang out trying to look serious and important in the nosebleed areas of the towers at the shows with the other multi thousand dollar products.  In summary, DS is cheap, and has very egalitarian engineering requirements.  Heroin addicts can design them.
  
 From $600 up we have multibit.  If you use converters proper to weapons and MRI machines, and software based time and frequency domain optimization DSP as we do, it gets complex on the engineering end and takes a lot of time.  Many of our users are very pleased with them, and some are happy with the DS stuff.  YMMV.  Have it your way.  Or buy someone else's.  Support our industry.  I think it is a good one.


----------



## goodyfresh

cat6man said:


> well, i can see a problem with that statement
> 
> the fourier analysis is only valid for "linear" systems and DACs are not purely linear.  if they were, we would never see products produced by two tone tests.
> other non-ideal constraints on implementation, such as jitter, are highly non-linear effects.


 

 True, there are non-linear distortions that can occur in the fourier waveforms such as jitter and IMD.


castleofargh said:


> to find a system I am happy with, I look for measurements and reviews to make a selection. and then try to listen to that selection to decide if I'm ok with one. just like anybody else I imagine. again it is not what we were discussing at all.
> the theme went to "DACs sound different" because of your posts, you said that they pretty much all do(and wires and amps and..... everything that isn't a mute carrot), me and a few others it seemed had a different experience, and while I believe that some DACs are colored, I also have failed a few blind tests with DACs(after measuring and matching the loudness!!!!!), 2 camps with different opinions on the matter. so the problem became: "how can you prove you heard a difference?" as it's impossible for me to prove the is no difference on my DACs. me failing a test only proves I failed the test, not that someone else wouldn't pass it. and I can't possibly prove that you didn't hear something on your gear. ^_^
> while you proving you hear a difference between two particular models in a blind test, would really prove there was an audible difference between the 2 DACs you have tested. that difference could later on be investigated to try and explain why, and that way we slowly advance, ask a question, get a confirmation(a factual one, not an opinion), move on to a more focused question, etc.  that way we get evidence, we confirm some stuff, rule out other stuff, and we grow and learn in the process. not with "the guy said ...", but with the fact that you coud pass a blind test, the fact that the max voltage of the DACs were matched. maybe check for the low pass filter if the music tested was 16/44. who knows one filter might be stronger and start sooner, making the trebles more recessed. etc, etc.
> slowly we grow and learn from verified facts, even if they concern only 2 particular DACs, the information we get has value and can explain and convince us. because controlled and verified facts > opinion and beliefs.
> ...


 
  
 Thank you for explaining in reasonable detail the exact step-by-step process by which scientific inquiry works, all in one post.  Not that any of these guys will actually take it to heart 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 *facepalms again*  If these people claiming to be able to hear obvious audible differences would go and do some controlled blind-testing on the tracks and equipment where they claim to hear differences, and then show that they can identify which DAC/amp is which with a rate significantly (to within a certain statistical margin) better than random chance, THEN we could get to really talking, here!

 Ummmmm, I believe I missed the post in which he suggested changing the title.  This has gone on for so many pages and I'm sure I've missed some posts along the way.  What exactly was he proposing, could you quote it for me?


odde said:


> -There is one caveat, though - we can only extrapolate from a sine test if all stages under test are 100% linear; now, for most practical purposes I agree that a DAC with its associated conversion processes, gain stages and whatnot is linear enough for your statement to be valid - especially in the case where the final arbiter is a bipedal, carbon-based lump of meat with two ears on it.


 

 Good point.  While there CAN be non-linear effects coming from DAC's and amps, with most of the mid-to-high-end ones these days having jitter down into the pico/femtosecond range and having IMD down to as low as 0.001% or lower, which has already been proven to be below audilble levels in blind testing, we can pretty much just validly consider everything to be linear to within a reasonable degree of approximation, and work off of that assumption from a scientific/mathematical standpoint.

 However, somebody sent me an interesting PM about aspects we haven't been considering, and which are usually neglected in most measurements done by folks.  One that struck me as interesting that I'd heard of a long time ago but don't really know much about, and now need to research, is *slew-rate*, which can apparently introduce some major nonlinearities into amplification and other analog circuits in audio equipment.


----------



## goodyfresh

baldr said:


> This who have read my many other posts will realize that I have credited Bell Telephone Labs for work done 98 years ago as the time domain optimization inspiration for the filter in the DSP software based filter in first Theta, now Schiit multibit D/A converters.  A proper research completist should have uncovered the fact that the digital audio portion of information theory (and therefore a need to convert numbers to analog levels) was published before World War I, some thirty years before the 1940s.  All one has to do is peruse footnotes in DSP textbooks.
> 
> Let me apologize if I have been insufficiently precise.  I did indeed build the first available audio component that was designed to convert digital audio information to analog signals suitable for playback.  I called it a D/A converter at the time.  Perhaps that will clarify and satisfy any further quibbles.
> 
> ...


 

 That's all very reasonable actually, and I respect this post.  I've always liked how Schiit portrays things in their marketing, they don't use BS hype and certainly don't engage in the marketing of snake-oil.
  
 I specifically remembering laughing-my-ass-off for several whole minutes at your guys' product-page for your PYST cables, and its tongue-in-cheek parody of the snake-oil marketing used by high-end cable manufacturers.  Also, the little honest note you guys made at the end:  "So, you can buy PYST, or just go save some money at Monoprice."  You guys are very honest, and I appreciate that.  It's really a breath of fresh air in an industry that is so predominated by BS over-the-top claims about "quantum proton alignment with crystals" and crap like that.


----------



## RRod

BTW, @goodyfresh, be ready for a bit of Georgia O'Keeffe if you end up doing your waterfall/spectrogram plots for this stuff:


----------



## cjl

goodyfresh said:


> And it is because of Fourier Analysis that when it comes to the digital realm, performance with pure sine-waves can give a perfect picture of how something will perform with more complex waveforms, and so there's really no reason to measure DAC performance with anything more complex than sine-waves.  But, don't expect folks who aren't really good at math to possibly comprehend what we are trying to say, buddy


 
 Well, as long as you assume that the device behaves linearly. Of course, if it doesn't, it's pretty broken for use in audio...


----------



## Sal1950

audioholic123 said:


> _That is the kind of system someone own's if they believe their ears_ and not their eyes reading measurements. If you really do/did own a system consisting of monoblock's then surely you don't believe you would get the same sound quality from anything under $1,000...i mean seriously?...that's shocking if you do..and i know for a fact that it's technically impossible.


 

 I use everything in my decisions. Quick example would be the measurements (if you ever learned how to read them)  of my VTL tube amps would quickly reveal that they did not have to low end frequency response to supply clean 16hz signals to the Hsu subs, nor were they capable of delivering the needed power down low and damping factor would have become an issue. Hence a good high power solid state amp's measurements would immediately show it to more closely fit the bill for demanding subwoofer conditions. Measurements of both amps's input sensitivity was very high, the VTL with 720mV input at 1kHz giving full output, (David Manley always used Pro specs in his amp designs) allowed me to use a Steve McCormack fully passive pre-amp under it's best conditions. (no components, like a straight wire, will always sound better and measure better, than a bunch of electronic circuitry). I used a outboard PS Audio phono amp for the squashed hockey pucks.
 I could go on and on detailing to you how measurements, along with written reviews, and personal listening can and should always be combined to make the best sounding choices in equipment decisions. But if you don't get it by now you never will.
  
*castleofargh, *
 I apologize for being a major contributor to running this thread off track, there are times when I just can't help myself from responding to some of the crazy things quoted to me. First I promise not to say another word unless it's directly On Topic.  Second, If you feel it best to clean up this thread by removing all the off topic BS, I would take no offense at all if all my posts were to be deleted.
 I served as site admin for over 6 years at the PCLinuxOS website and know all too well the pressures and grief it creates.
 Thanks for all your work.
 Sal


----------



## x RELIC x

goodyfresh

I was hoping you would see it, but here it is again.



x relic x said:


> castleofargh, I completely see your point of view. May I suggest changing the title of the thread to be something like_ 'R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?' _That way it will be crystal clear what the intended premis of the thread is and emotional preference and pleasure will be squashed immediately. Of course, the conversation is intertwined with both sides which is why there is so much mystery and contradictions in the facts.


----------



## goodyfresh

rrod said:


> BTW, @goodyfresh, be ready for a bit of Georgia O'Keeffe if you end up doing your waterfall/spectrogram plots for this stuff:


 
@RRod Where oh where did you find that?  And are there more like it?  Links, please!
  
 Also, neat, just as I suspected the decay-rate is not constant across all the frequencies.  _*THIS COULD VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THE "COLORATION" THAT PEOPLE HEAR FROM DIFFERENT DAC/AMPS!!!!!!  H*_However, I do not know how to interpret that plot, exaclty.  What is teh signal being input to produce the plot?
  


x relic x said:


> @goodyfresh
> 
> I was hoping you would see it, but here it is again.


 
 Yes, changing the title to EXACTLY what you said there should be totally fine and is a good idea! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I think I'll go see if I can do it right now!


----------



## goodyfresh

Update: Okay guys so I did alter the title of the thread to better reflect my true intent in starting it, as well as the way the thread has "evolved" over time.
  
 To be honest, guys, I never expected this thread to take-off the way it did and become something so long and drawn-out with so much debate, when I first started it back at the end of August!  It has really evolved and grown beyond my expectations and my control.  Certainly interesting, to say the least


----------



## RRod

goodyfresh said:


> @RRod Where oh where did you find that?  And are there more like it?  Links, please!
> 
> Also, neat, just as I suspected the decay-rate is not constant across all the frequencies.  _*THIS COULD VERY WELL ACCOUNT FOR THE "COLORATION" THAT PEOPLE HEAR FROM DIFFERENT DAC/AMPS!!!!!!  H*_However, I do not know how to interpret that plot, exaclty.  What is teh signal being input to produce the plot?


 
  
 That's an impulse at 44.1kHz interpolated up to 2.25792MHz in SoX (rate -v), then put through a spectrogram (STFT) in R with a window length of 4096 (~0.2ms), Hanning window. If you up the window length you'll get better frequency resolution but you'll lose time resolution, so there's a give-and-take. For instance here's what doubling the window length does:

  
 Note how in this view, the content of the pre- and post-ringing is more concentrated in the higher frequencies (and indeed this is all related to the stopband characteristics of the interpolation filter). I'm far from an expert on this stuff, but if you have any measurements you want sent through these kinds of things let me know. Sure wish stv014 was still on


----------



## astrostar59

goodyfresh said:


> @castleofargh
> 
> I give up, dude.  Seriously.  I give up.  I started this thread in order to ask a simple question:  Are R2R DAC's really as "superior" to DS as so many people claim, and if so, how can we test that and prove it?  ANd it has turned into a debate of science-vs.-subjectivity/faith instead.  Should have known this would frigging happen.


 

 Ha Ha, I love this. Yes R-2R DO sound different. Get some homes for a demo, play the same track at the same volume, and you use your ears. Your brain will then tell you which sounds more accurate. If you look at the ways these 2 methods turn data to voltage, you will not be surprised by that. I can't be bothered to go into it, it is all on the web for you to find.
  
 The very reason so many folk are clinging to the technical truth, is they have bought into the over sampling con for the last 20 years. I know, I did just that. Then one day, I thought, why do I not use my 8K DAC anymore, why do I think my 3K turntable (which I sold) sounded better? I then realised the technical stories and bull I was sold was just that, BULL. I went back to the drawing board, used my EARs, and listened to various DACs in situ in my system at the same time. Then I realised I liked R-2R best. I don't care a damb if it is not 'technically correct' or has no filtering, has a 'square wave' or has a dynamic range 100 db instead of 120 db. I am satisfied and happy what my brain is telling me. I know what music sounds like and I have decided an R-2R sounds closer to that trusty than DS. I don't care what anyone else says about that, I don't give two hoots if you all buy 30K Esoteric or dCs stack, don't bother me one bit.
  
 If you really want to know more about how flawed the measuring tools are, and how the whole industry convinced itself that over-sampling was necessary, check out the story about TotalDAC. He goes into the flaws of that technology and the measuring gear everyone used as the digital bible, and and why he went back to the drawing board. Others have done that as well such, ditched the oversampling and the brick wall filter.
  
 Regardless, if you really want a technical paper to convince you what you have bought is 'great' rather than what you are listening to sounds great, you will not find it, it does not exist....


----------



## MacacoDoSom

I came here to have an answer to this question "R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?" and I think I got it...(in the middle of lot of BS.
 There are some measurable differences but they are not audible... like someone said, some people like the butter on one side of the toast, some like it on the other...
 as I suspected...
 Thank you all...


----------



## Currawong

From the *Posting Guidelines*:
  


> *DON'T reply If someone makes an off-topic, rude or otherwise inappropriate comment, or a post appears to be trolling or spam.* Report it by clicking on the red flag and filling in the box explaining what the problem is and let the moderators take care of it. *If something is inappropriate or rude, what is the point of giving it more attention by replying to it and/or quoting it?!?* _If nobody replies to or comments on a trolling or abusive post 100% of the time the person goes away!_


----------



## goodyfresh

astrostar59 said:


> Ha Ha, I love this. Yes R-2R DO sound different. Get some homes for a demo, play the same track at the same volume, and you use your ears. Your brain will then tell you which sounds more accurate. If you look at the ways these 2 methods turn data to voltage, you will not be surprised by that. I can't be bothered to go into it, it is all on the web for you to find.
> 
> The very reason so many folk are clinging to the technical truth, is they have bought into the over sampling con for the last 20 years. I know, I did just that. Then one day, I thought, why do I not use my 8K DAC anymore, why do I think my 3K turntable (which I sold) sounded better? I then realised the technical stories and bull I was sold was just that, BULL. I went back to the drawing board, used my EARs, and listened to various DACs in situ in my system at the same time. Then I realised I liked R-2R best. I don't care a damb if it is not 'technically correct' or has no filtering, has a 'square wave' or has a dynamic range 100 db instead of 120 db. I am satisfied and happy what my brain is telling me. I know what music sounds like and I have decided an R-2R sounds closer to that trusty than DS. I don't care what anyone else says about that, I don't give two hoots if you all buy 30K Esoteric or dCs stack, don't bother me one bit.
> 
> ...


 

 This is. . .wow. . .you're really not understanding the point.  Can you identify which is R-2R and which is DS in blind AB/X testing with better than random-chance rates of accuracy?  If so, how do you know the differences aren't just due to the different analog implementations between two DAC/amps?  Once again, somebody is giong off of subjective impression rather than actual scientific methods of testing, and then try8ing to dress-up their claims in the guise of science in order to seem like they are making a valid point.

 You also completely do not understand the theory behind DS, that is obvious to me.  In-theory it is JUST AS CAPABLE AS R-2R of completely and 100% accurately reproducing the original wave-form.  But I guess that for people who don't have a Master's Degree in math (or similar qualitfications) like myself, it is hard to wrap their minds around all those technical details, and so they read that DS "is only approximating the signal by rapidly switching on-and-off one or six bits via upsampling, rather than doing things directly, therefore it is only a crude approximation at best" and just took that at face-value.  Tell me, do you also take the talk of "quantum spirituality" from Deepak Chopra at face-value, as well?  *facepalms, again*  Learn to ACTUALLY understand what the Nyquist Sampling Theorem is saying in the language of Fourier-Analysis, then come back and talk.


----------



## ]eep

goodyfresh said:


> @castleofargh
> 
> 
> I give up, dude.  Seriously.  I give up.  I started this thread in order to ask a simple question:  Are R2R DAC's really as "superior" to DS as so many people claim, and if so, how can we test that and prove it?  ANd it has turned into a debate of science-vs.-subjectivity/faith instead.  Should have known this would frigging happen.




Well, DUDE, you threw in quite a few quarters yourself. Dude. 

I mean posting a video of Jack Nicholson shouting: "You can't handle the truth". The real truth, or better irony, is that this gifted actor was playing an arrogant beyond belief SOB killer who was lying through his teeth and was proud of it. By this attitude this whole thread became an invitation to flame and troll. Or in the common language: it became a peeing contest. Or a contest on the longest member. 

The answer has come by several times. No pun intended. Or is it? Oh, yeah, time domain. Loops. Pre-ringing, caused by feedbackloops. Or fruit loops. Whatever you prefer to believe. 

I haven't even read the last two days worth of reactions, just such a waste of time. I'd rather play Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony. Oh, there's another clue...


----------



## goodyfresh

]eep said:


> Well, DUDE, you threw in quite a few quarters yourself. Dude.
> 
> I mean posting a video of Jack Nicholson shouting: "You can't handle the truth". The real truth, or better irony, is that this gifted actor was playing an arrogant beyond belief SOB killer who was lying through his teeth and was proud of it. By this attitude this whole thread became an invitation to flame and troll. Or in the common language: it became a peeing contest. Or a contest on the longest member.
> 
> ...


 

 Me posting that clip was uncalled-for, I acknowledge that, which is why I was totally fine with it when Castleofargh deleted the post.
  
 You, on the other hand, are coming in here *blatantly trolling* despite at the same exact time *criticizing the act of trolling*; if there's one thing I really can't stand, it's _*hypocrisy*_ like what you are exhibiting here.  You also seem to forget that this was a thread meant to ask a question and one *that I started*, and as such, I just want some answers from people which *I myself can accept.*  I am a scientific person who puts my money on the scientific-method 100% of the time in life, whenever I can, and as such the answers I have been hoping for from people to the question I started this thread with are ones that are backed-up sufficiently by *actual scientific methods of some kind* (blind testing, measurements, etc.) rather than just subjective impressions of "well so-and-so DAC sounds more transparent to me and the bass is tighter, *believe my subjective evaluation and statement of that as being a fact despite me just being some random stranger on the internet who is making no actual effort to back up his claims with evidence other than 'this is what I hear.'"*  This is the sound-SCIENCE forum, buddy, and as such, it is to be expected that people remain scientific and maintain proper skepticism without ever taking people at-their-word "just because."
  
 As such, I have flagged your post as trolling, so that it will probably be removed soon by someone like @castleofargh, as was suggested in a previous post by @Currawong.  I do realize that in that same post he suggested that we_ not actually respond_ to trolls.  The only reason I *am *responding to your bogus post which mocks the pursuit of scientific truth with your mocking tone and your mention of "fruit loops," is to inform you that in the future, I will no longer *be* the least bit tolerant of blatant trolling in this here thread of mine, nor of posts that attempt to drag the discussion off-topic or derail it by being blatantly non-scientific.  I didn't want to have to do that, because as someone who tries to be scientific I also like to keep an open mind, but this is all seriously starting to drive me nuts and it is becoming a huge waste of my time as well as that of others who just want to actually discuss what real science might be able to do to address these issues.  Any posts in the future that attempt to derail this discussion with claims of "my subjective impressions that so-and-so sounds better than whatchamahoosit trump whatever controlled scientific tests you can perform, because my ears and brain and audio-memory are somehow so much better than an actual controlled experiment of some kind" as well as any which are simply blatant trolling, will be immediately flagged by me for what they are.  This includes, of course, posts like yours here which includes blatantly mocking and sarcastic language, as well as an *oh-so-eloquent-and-sophisticated* reference to contests involving the size of certain male-specific anatomical features.
  
 THe _*specific original *_question *still has not been definitively answered*, nor has a definite means of addressing the question been proposed, despite what you are saying to the contrary.  The stuff you are bringing up (the pre-ringing, decay, whatever) can possibly explain the reported audible differences that exist beteween different DACs/amps which seem to all measure just as "transparent" as one another, and such things should certainly be tested in blind-testing to see if such audible differences really do exist, and if so, measurements need to be developed for quantifying that.  But we have NOT reached a definite consensus on the SPECIFIC question of whether R-2R vs. DS are audibly different *when implemented in an identical fashion* (nor the issue of HOW one could test that question given the equpiment available today, eg. a Bifrost Multibit vs. a DS Bifrost) and if so (as-in, once again, if that can be demonstrated via blind testing of some sort) what kinds of measurements of the DAC component, specifically, could be used to quantify those audible differences.  Finally, at the end of the day, if such differences can actually be conclusively demonstrated to exist, and measurements can be found that quanitfy those differences, the question finally becomes "which is truly capable of the best transparency and most natural sound reproduction: R2R or DS?"
  
 Again:  My own trolling post from a few pages back which you mentioned, is one which I am fine with ahving been deleted, because I realize it was uncalled-for and petty.  And, again, I am the one who started this discussion and want it to be a valid scientific forum to discuss a very real question which *can *be addressed in a well-controlled scientific fashion, and as such, any more off-topic posts which I see along the lines of "subjective impressions are better" will be flagged as off-topic, and any trolling posts will obviously be flagged as well.

 P.S.  You know damn-well how much of a smartass you are being by actually giong ahead and pointing out the technicalities of who Jack Nicholson's character was in that movie and what that quote actually meant in the context of the film.  Seriously.  What the heck, man?  It's just a clip/quote that is often used on the internet to jokingly tell people what it is saying, that "they can't handle the truth."  And here you go getting all technical just to try to prove a point and be a smart-aleck.


----------



## Articnoise

goodyfresh said:


>


 
  

 I understand that you are looking for a simple answer like it is 42 – case closed. But I have to tell you ones again that not all R2R are equally and the same goes for D-S. Even if we only use measurements (which you seems to hold as the truth) all R2R DACs or dac chips do NOT measures equally, very far from it. The same goes for S-D DACs and their dac chips, they do NOT measures equally. 

  

 The fact is that the better R2R DACs are more similar in measurements (meaning lower crosstalk, lover THD, lower jitter, better squarewaves, better DNR etc.) to modern good DACs that are using hybrid D-S dac chips than older ones that uses older R2R chips. 

  

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1704.pdf 

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm63.pdf 

http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/pcm1792a.pdf 

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/products/dac/


----------



## astrostar59

goodyfresh said:


> This is. . .wow. . .you're really not understanding the point.  Can you identify which is R-2R and which is DS in blind AB/X testing with better than random-chance rates of accuracy?  If so, how do you know the differences aren't just due to the different analog implementations between two DAC/amps?  Once again, somebody is giong off of subjective impression rather than actual scientific methods of testing, and then try8ing to dress-up their claims in the guise of science in order to seem like they are making a valid point.
> 
> You also completely do not understand the theory behind DS, that is obvious to me.  In-theory it is JUST AS CAPABLE AS R-2R of completely and 100% accurately reproducing the original wave-form.  But I guess that for people who don't have a Master's Degree in math (or similar qualitfications) like myself, it is hard to wrap their minds around all those technical details, and so they read that DS "is only approximating the signal by rapidly switching on-and-off one or six bits via upsampling, rather than doing things directly, therefore it is only a crude approximation at best" and just took that at face-value.  Tell me, do you also take the talk of "quantum spirituality" from Deepak Chopra at face-value, as well?  *facepalms, again*  Learn to ACTUALLY understand what the Nyquist Sampling Theorem is saying in the language of Fourier-Analysis, then come back and talk.


 
  
*redacted by the FBYofargh, let's try and respect each other so that I don't have to just delete entire posts.*
 I DO understand the theory of DS, and spent shed loads of money over 20 years because of that (in part). I didn't stop there, i moved forward, and as in medicine there are new advances, even re-visited routes where some question the original theories. Read the TotalDAC story, the Audio Note papers, there are tons of stuff on the web challenging the DS theories. Your best bet, and the only way you will calm down, is to demo some good R-2R DACs against your current DS DAC, and YOU decide. Forget the theories, the measurements, they were flawed anyway.
  
 I have something for you to think about. In DS we have a 16 bit signal that is up sampled in the chip to be 18 bit, 24 bit even 32 bit. Now consider, where is this 'new' information coming from? Is it embedded in the original? Is is in a new sub layer. No, it does not exist. 
 Now consider the real reason they up sampled in the first place. It was to make it easier to implement a brick wall filter that removed 'artefacts' or 'ringing' in the data. The original 22.05khz of space (half of the 44.1hz) left to do that they say, was close to the human hearing limit. So they only had lets say for an example, 2Khz of space to filter out the 'artefact'. This is where the problems began, and why the whole DS oversampling ethos began and magnified. The better DACs remover there artefacts by other methods, mostly in the analogue domain.
  
 There are many building ladder DACs which have NO filtering, and no apodizing or 'guessing' what the gaps in the waveform should be. These ladder DACs convert digital to voltage or 'bit perfect' as many call it with no processing. Some don't even have a c
  
 So, we can see there is an 'issue' with DS architecture from day one. Yes, it is cheaper to implement, but that does not stop some manufacturers charging 30K for a top tier DS DAC. There are very good DS DASs about, I have heard some, but i made my choice to go R-2R. You make your choice, I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is you are clinging to the technical theories to justify that. I try to put that to one side, and mark performance on what I hear, and how it makes me real about the music. It is a personal thing, thus we will never agree..... you read the tech specs, I will stick to what I hear.


----------



## OddE

astrostar59 said:


> You are a fool my friend. I DO understand the theory of DS, and spent shed loads of money over 20 years because of that (in part).
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...


 
  
 -So, as you DO understand the theory, you DO understand that 'upsampling' does not increase the bit depth, and also that increasing the bit depth as you are alluding to does not add new information, it simply provides more headroom for you to manipulate the data stream? (Now, oversampling, on the other hand, leaves the bit depth intact but interpolates new values inbetween the existing ones.)
  
 Besides, this is getting old. This forum more or less in unison suggest that you use your ears - not your other senses. Still you manage to make it appear that you are the one using your ears, not the rest of us...


----------



## castleofargh

I take a small 11hours nap(^_^) an here is what I come back to. I believe most of us can agree currawong did the right thing that I failed to do.
 ok castleofargh sucks at diplomacy could be the other title of this thread. but my now ancient life as moderator on gaming forums showed that I can be a very realistic dictator. I'm counting on you all to tell me when one should become the other. the line is still blurred in my mind.
  
  
  
 Quote:


articnoise said:


> goodyfresh said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
 you're very right, clearly one of the voices of reason in the topic.
 measurements are the very best, I have no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean all measurements give real life values, and that's why knowing how the measures are done is as important as knowing how to read them. when I see the measurement of an amplifier into 10kohm and nominal output, it would be silly to expect the same when I plug a 16ohm IEM in it to listen at comfortable loudness. almost every specs will fall.
 but a DAC measured with 10kohm, that's very close from real life usage. all amps will have a several thousand ohm input. and about the max output, well as long as we don't attenuate the volume digitally on the computer, we'll also be very close. so I do trust measurements for a DAC to give a pret realistic vision of the signal in real life usage.
  
 but as you say, we do get DACs with pretty great measurements for both techs(thanks to the engineers doing a nice implementation job). as Baldr said, usually the way to get the best signal out of a sigma delta chip is to follow the manufacturer's guideline to the letter. does that mean it's bad? I don't think so, just that it's cheap and require less R&D.
 but still, we didn't answer much. can we make using both techs, 2 DACs that exceed human thresholds in resolution? my own experience would push me to say yes, but then you get Astrostar saying no and that R2R is better(at least to his ears without serious controls).
  
 unless we can get a clear answer, a demonstrated one, the rest is a futile exercise sadly. "I got better distortions thanks to linearity", "yes but I get lower noise". nobody knows how audible are those differences, so we become religions, thinking the phase is super important while being unable to pass a blind test. or we decide that noise is always audible and should be at -200db when we actually fail to notice a dithered sound at -90db.  if it's science just to use a rocks to fight our cult wars, it's a sad waste of science. too often that's exactly what happens and most likely one of the reasons why headfi went all "no blind test talks" on the rest of the forum.
 what I would like to know is if we can get transparency with both techs? or if, as many people seem to believe, R2R sounds different. not in general, but with some of the best measuring DACs of both kinds. the question being really to know if we can achieve transparency. not at all to say that all DACs are transparent, or that any crap with a R2R resistor ladder will have those characteristics. I'm sure some people will interpret it as such because audiophiles love nothing more than to turn a "it happened once" into a godly rule. but the more informed and reasonable people, could take the information for what it is. and that would be something like:
 1/ we can get transparent at the DAC with both techs
 or 2/ one behaves better because the hard limit of the component is this and that and so the very ultimate DAC should use XXXXX tech.
 or 3/ the limiting factor of the DAC is the analog part and R2R or SD don't really matter on their own.
 I would be ok with any of the answers for that matter.
  
 on a money per performance standpoint we already very much have our answer, sigma delta gives the best value. that is a manufacturing fact. so we're not totally in the dark. but I sure would love to know if investing in a great R2R is more than just deciding to use the expensive stuff for the sake of it being expensive and becoming rare.
  on a personal level, I would take any and all factual information, be it anecdotal on a given model, or about the technology or the difficulties of implementation. I like to learn, that's science for me.
  
 for the ESS chips, I find the 2 videos done at RMAF to be full of interesting information. probably not all it to take at face value because the guy is still there to tell how great his chip is, but I learned a lot when those vids came out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mn5PrnZV-k  and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ
  of course it doesn't tell much about what R2R can do. having so little choice in the chips does simplify the questions about products variations.


----------



## arnyk

astrostar59 said:


> I have something for you to think about. In DS we have a 16 bit signal that is up sampled in the chip to be 18 bit, 24 bit even 32 bit. Now consider, where is this 'new' information coming from? Is it embedded in the original? Is is in a new sub layer. No, it does not exist.
> Now consider the real reason they up sampled in the first place. It was to make it easier to implement a brick wall filter that removed 'artefacts' or 'ringing' in the data. The original 22.05khz of space (half of the 44.1hz) left to do that they say, was close to the human hearing limit. So they only had lets say for an example, 2Khz of space to filter out the 'artefact'. This is where the problems began, and why the whole DS oversampling ethos began and magnified. The better DACs remover there artefacts by other methods, mostly in the analogue domain.


 
 Wow, what a collection of misapprehensions!
  
 When data is upsampled, no new data is added. Well obviously samples are added, but the added samples are zeroes, so no new data as such is added.
  
 Why is the signal upsampled? Yes, it is upsampled to facilitate digital filtering, but the digital filtering is not gratuitous. It is part of the design of a proper DAC. A proper DAC has a brick wall filter, and any DAC that lacks one is improper or broken. Call it what you want, but it is not a proper DAC. It is a broken DAC. Its like a 4 wheel automobile with the rear wheels missing. The back bumper is dragging on the ground.
  
 The brick wall filter is not there to remove ringing. In fact it is usually the cause of ringiing.  So why add something that causes ringing?  The reason the brick wall filter is there is that a larger more important purpose needs to be served.  The purpose that needs to be served is that the DAC is supposed to only output signals in its defined band of operation, such as 20-20 KHz. Without the brick wall filter, the incomplete DAC will produce signals that are outside that defined band, and that may or may not cause other problems. Do it right and there are in general no problems no matter what. 
  
 Does it matter whether these spurious signals are removed in the analog domain or the digital domain? If you are a fan of removing spurious signals in the analog domain, take heart because proper DACs with digital filters still have analog filters that remove spurious responses in the analog domain. It is just that the analog filters operate at a far high frequency where their design and operation is vastly less critical so they can be relatively simple.
  
 The removal of spurious responses in the digital domain is just a refinement to the process that allows us to further exploit the benefits of being in the digital domain in the first place. If you like throwing away benefits for no reason, then by all means avoid digital filtering!  But, it will cost lots of money and provide no audible benefit.  You pays your money and you makes your choice.
  
 well enough explaining the true story for now!


----------



## astrostar59

Quote:


arnyk said:


> Wow, what a collection of misapprehensions!
> 
> When data is upsampled, no new data is added. Well obviously samples are added, but the added samples are zeroes, so no new data as such is added.
> 
> ...


 
 http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/DAC-5_June_2000.pdf


----------



## arnyk

astrostar59 said:


> http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/DAC-5_June_2000.pdf


 
  
 That was 15 years ago, and its a whole article not a reasoned response to my post.  The guy had some hardware to sell and said whatever he thinks he must. Next!
  
 What is *your* response to a thoughtful response to your post?


----------



## arnyk

goodyfresh said:


> What it says in the title:  Could someone explain to me, in a simple-enough way, the real difference between the two, and exactly why everybody seems to think that R-2R/Multibit is so much "better?"
> 
> And if delta-sigma does in fact suck so very much, why the heck are all the major manufacturers leanign towards using it in almost all their DAC chips these days?
> 
> ...


 
  
 Most current R2R DACs appear to be composed of half of a Philips chipset that was designed in the early 1980s.  If they sound different from complete DACs you can probably explain the difference based on the missing pieces.


----------



## goodyfresh

astrostar59 said:


> *redacted by the FBYofargh, let's try and respect each other so that I don't have to just delete entire posts.*
> I DO understand the theory of DS, and spent shed loads of money over 20 years because of that (in part). I didn't stop there, i moved forward, and as in medicine there are new advances, even re-visited routes where some question the original theories. Read the TotalDAC story, the Audio Note papers, there are tons of stuff on the web challenging the DS theories. Your best bet, and the only way you will calm down, is to demo some good R-2R DACs against your current DS DAC, and YOU decide. Forget the theories, the measurements, they were flawed anyway.
> 
> I have something for you to think about. In DS we have a 16 bit signal that is up sampled in the chip to be 18 bit, 24 bit even 32 bit. Now consider, where is this 'new' information coming from? Is it embedded in the original? Is is in a new sub layer. No, it does not exist.
> ...


 

 Ummmmm. . . .you are blatantly confusing bit-depth with sample-rate here. . .bit-depth has nothing to do with oversampling. . .so. . .ummm. . .I don't really know what you're trying to say.

 Again, what you are talking about are *subjective* impressions of the supposed audible improvements of R2R vs. DS.  Where is the blind AB/X testing where you show that you can identify the difference between the two consistently?  Let me guess. . .it doesn't exist.  Also, I bet when you are comparing "R2R vs. DS" you do not take into consideration the different analog implementation.
  


arnyk said:


> Most current R2R DACs appear to be composed of half of a Philips chipset that was designed in the early 1980s.  If they sound different from complete DACs you can probably explain the difference based on the missing pieces.


 

 THAT is intriguing.  Seems to support my one possible theory that maybe most R2R DAC's around these days are actually *less* hi-fi than most DS ones, but the reason people think they sound better is because a lot of audiophiles are old and think that "old fashioned" sound "like what stuff sounded like back in the 80s" sounds "more natural."


castleofargh said:


> you're very right, clearly one of the voices of reason in the topic.
> measurements are the very best, I have no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean all measurements give real life values, and that's why knowing how the measures are done is as important as knowing how to read them. when I see the measurement of an amplifier into 10kohm and nominal output, it would be silly to expect the same when I plug a 16ohm IEM in it to listen at comfortable loudness. almost every specs will fall.
> but a DAC measured with 10kohm, that's very close from real life usage. all amps will have a several thousand ohm input. and about the max output, well as long as we don't attenuate the volume digitally on the computer, we'll also be very close. so I do trust measurements for a DAC to give a pret realistic vision of the signal in real life usage.
> 
> ...


 

 Honestly man as the one who started this thread, lemme just say that at this point I am _*totally cool with you becoming a "dictator" or whatever else you want in this thread*_, LMAO.
  
 "At least to his ears without serious controls."  Yes, my point above exactly.  Ugh.
  
  


arnyk said:


> Wow, what a collection of misapprehensions!
> 
> When data is upsampled, no new data is added. Well obviously samples are added, but the added samples are zeroes, so no new data as such is added.
> 
> ...


 

 You explained this better than I could, thanks!


arnyk said:


> That was 15 years ago, and its a whole article not a reasoned response to my post.  The guy had some hardware to sell and said whatever he thinks he must. Next!
> 
> What is *your* response to a thoughtful response to your post?


 

 Apparently people can't seem to understand that when marketing/an agenda to sell something is involved, companies and individuals involed with those companies can *GASP* be _*DISHONEST*_!!!!  That's why folks will buy "quantum crystal purifiers using proton-alignment" (yes, that's a real thing that a company sells to audiophiles using blatant Hollywood-style technobabble gibberish for marketing, for up to $5000 a pop) and the like.  "It's expensive and the guys who make it say I need it, so I'll get one!"


----------



## MacacoDoSom

currawong said:


> From the *Posting Guidelines*:
> 
> 
> 
> > *DON'T reply If someone makes an off-topic, rude or otherwise inappropriate comment, or a post appears to be trolling or spam.* Report it by clicking on the red flag and filling in the box explaining what the problem is and let the moderators take care of it. *If something is inappropriate or rude, what is the point of giving it more attention by replying to it and/or quoting it?!?* _If nobody replies to or comments on a trolling or abusive post 100% of the time the person goes away!_


----------



## Sal1950

goodyfresh,
 Chill out bro, that's exactly what the subjective trolls are trying to accomplish, get you all worked up while posting one nonsense post after the other and grinding a good, well meaning investigative thread into unreadable dust.
 But your right and I've also asked castleofargh to step up the moderation of this forum header.
 There is no reason we should be have to be treated like this. We are even banned from mentioning ABX-DBT or any scientific testing methods on the Cable forum when shining some light there could only help to save honest people from being taken by dishonest hardware retailers.
 What's fair is fair.
 Cheers


----------



## RRod

The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.


----------



## Roly1650

goodyfresh said:


> Speaking of getting back on track with actually trying to test this:  So do we know anybody with both a DS and a R2R Bifrost?  Or do we have any confirmation yet that the analog sections fo the two are even similar enough for us to validly compare R2R vs. DS by using the Bifrost as an example?
> 
> 
> Edit:  You know what I think the guy's issue might be?  I think he might believe he knows better than the rest of us becauase he has a really high-end Summit-Fi system with a SR-009.  Ugh.



As I've already posted, Schitts' website indicates that both versions of the Bifrost and both versions of the Gungnir have different analog sections. The specs indicate that performance of either iteration is pretty damn close and allowing for the fact that the measurements aren't complete, could be approaching transparency.

However all isn't lost, because the multi bit version could be null tested against the SD version, this would reveal the *realistic likelyhood of there being any audible differences. If, for example, there was a null at -75/80 dB or so, then you could conclude, with a high level of confidence that somebody claiming audible differences would be seriously taking the p@ss.

As for your "buddy", I think there's a fair chance he's left, I think @arnyk scared the cr@p out of him, so best advice, let it go, anything else is counterproductive, (and I'm not claiming to be any paragon in that department, having had a post deleted by mods yesterday). As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.*


----------



## prot

May e a stupid Q... why do u guys have to write so much? It's clear for anyone with some brains that astrothings dont get it .. so, why the verbose 'answers'? why trying logic again and again against 'ears'? It never worked, never will...


----------



## Sal1950

roly1650 said:


> *As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.*


 
 There are rules that work both ways.


rrod said:


> The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.


 
 Something is obviously bad wrong here when a member posts an honest technical question and 18 pages later very little has been learned accept that many will come here and disrupt the flow in any way than can with impunity?


----------



## castleofargh

removed goodyfresh's post, there was just too much to edit even if some of it was kind of legitimate. but we can't get too personal, the law of the forum says so. it's like obeying the host rules under his roof, we don't have to agree or like it, but as long as we stay under headfi's roof, we must accept headfi's rules. 
 I'm sure now that astrostar could learn a great deal about himself, should he decide to learn about the human brain a little, but I don't believe he's a troll. he just knows too little about bias to even fathom the idea that a sighted listening could give a false impression of the sound. but by now I admit that we have more than explained, and if he is not willing to make any effort to learn anything or accept that scientific method is the currency for facts in here, I will now be much less lenient.
 I tried the talking thing, it clearly didn't work.
  
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.


 

 exactly, I mentioned TOS 8 to Sal a few hours back ^_^. this is headfi and the right to talk about blind test and all sciency stuff in sound science doesn't mean we have the right to reject everything else and create a "my god vs your god" situation.  our job should be to make the subjectivist want to come here to learn that there might be useful stuff in the objective approach. not to reject them like we often feel rejected outside(something I really hate TBH).
 we supposedly are the better informed, let's show we also can behave with more reason.
 I asked to come find me when you think you're ready to blow a fuse, goodyfresh did come and currawong actions were the result. I'm sorry it wasn't enough to relax you, here let me massage your shoulders and whisper in your ear that I went into defcon 2(if my army doesn't come in action in less than 6 hours, the next army is free).


----------



## goodyfresh

sal1950 said:


> There are rules that work both ways.
> Something is obviously bad wrong here when a member posts an honest technical question and 18 pages later very little has been learned accept that many will come here and disrupt the flow in any way than can with impunity?


 




  


sal1950 said:


> goodyfresh,
> Chill out bro, that's exactly what the subjective trolls are trying to accomplish, get you all worked up while posting one nonsense post after the other and grinding a good, well meaning investigative thread into unreadable dust.
> But your right and I've also asked castleofargh to step up the moderation of this forum header.
> There is no reason we should be have to be treated like this. We are even banned from mentioning ABX-DBT or any scientific testing methods on the Cable forum when shining some light there could only help to save honest people from being taken by dishonest hardware retailers.
> ...


 
  
 Yeahhhh, it really upsets me when people waste a lot of money on snake-oil and we aren't even allowed to go and tell them about the objective scientific proof of the fact that they are being scammed 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





rrod said:


> The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.


 
  
 Yeahhhhh, I suppose that IS a bit unfair, isn't it? *sighs*

 Btw, NICE job correctly using "fora" as the plural of "forum."  Did you take Latin in school, bro? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   Them second-declension nouns!
  


prot said:


> May e a stupid Q... why do u guys have to write so much? It's clear for anyone with some brains that astrothings dont get it .. so, why the verbose 'answers'? why trying logic again and again against 'ears'? It never worked, never will...


 
  
 I guess. . .because we're human and humans have a tendency where most of us can't stand it when we know that people are wrong about something?  Lol.  Yeah, it's a real problem.


castleofargh said:


> removed goodyfresh's post, there was just too much to edit even if some of it was kind of legitimate. but we can't get too personal, the law of the forum says so. it's like obeying the host rules under his roof, we don't have to agree or like it, but as long as we stay under headfi's roof, we must accept headfi's rules.
> I'm sure now that astrostar could learn a great deal about himself, should he decide to learn about the human brain a little, but I don't believe he's a troll. he just knows too little about bias to even fathom the idea that a sighted listening could give a false impression of the sound. but by now I admit that we have more than explained, and if he is not willing to make any effort to learn anything or accept that scientific method is the currency for facts in here, I will now be much less lenient.
> I tried the talking thing, it clearly didn't work.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I completely agree with you about deleting my post, and that there was too much anger mixed in with the rationality for it to simply be edited easily.  I shouldn't have blown my top like that, my bad guys.  It's too bad I got like that in that post, too, because the parts where I was actually making rational scientifically-backed points were, IMO, pretty darn good 

 And you know what man?  I didnt' think of it that way.  You're right.  Totally right.  We shouldn't respond to having our views rejected elsewhere (even if we know our views are the true correct ones, LMAO 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) by rejecting and getting all butthurt (that's directed at myself, of course, I'm the one who got butthurt, lol) about the views of people who say we're wrong.  And yeah, perhaps if I was a little bit *nicer *at explaining to people about things like how bias clouds the evaluation of audio, and thus blind testing is needed, and the evidence for just how pervasive and powerful bias can be, rather than just getting all angry and *YELLING AT THEM, GRRRRRRRRR *about it, then maybe they'd open their minds a little and hear me out.  I mean. . .well. . .probably not, let's be honest here they'd probably still reject the idea of blind ABX testing but still, being nicer about would still *be worth a shot *and at least not be counterproductive the way that yelling is.
  
 I mean, yeah, what you said. . .if we're going to claim to be the ones with the voice of reason on our side, then I guess it's hypocritical to allow our emotions to get the better of us, huh? *embarassed* 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


roly1650 said:


> As I've already posted, Schitts' website indicates that both versions of the Bifrost and both versions of the Gungnir have different analog sections. The specs indicate that performance of either iteration is pretty damn close and allowing for the fact that the measurements aren't complete, could be approaching transparency.
> 
> However all isn't lost, because the multi bit version could be null tested against the SD version, this would reveal the *realistic likelyhood of there being any audible differences. If, for example, there was a null at -75/80 dB or so, then you could conclude, with a high level of confidence that somebody claiming audible differences would be seriously taking the p@ss.
> 
> As for your "buddy", I think there's a fair chance he's left, I think @arnyk scared the cr@p out of him, so best advice, let it go, anything else is counterproductive, (and I'm not claiming to be any paragon in that department, having had a post deleted by mods yesterday). As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.*


 
 I'm addressing this one last since it's the post that can really get us back on-track with what we're trying to accomplish here 
  
 Okay, so. . .yes, it does seem like analyzing the newest DS version of Bifrost alongside the new multibit version (paired with as high-end and transparent an amp as possible, of course) in blind ABX testing, or, even better if we could find someone with the equipment, a DS vs a Multibit Gungnir (because I feel that being higher-end, the Gungnir is more likely than the Bifrost to reveal audible differences between R2R and DS), would be the way to go.  At the very least, if we find that all the different folks in the test, including those with VERY good hearing (Golden Ears, anyone?) simply _*CANNOT *_identify which is which in double-blind testing, then we can at least reasonably conclude that much. . .that for equipment at the level of the Bifrost, or the Gungnir (so high-mid-fi in the former case, bordering-on true-hi-fi in the latter case), an audible difference cannot be found.  Or well, not conclusively of course, but we could proceed to make such a statement at least tentatively.  On the other hand, if we find that audible differences CAN be established, the next step would be to take things further and try to find out if the audible differences are due to the DAC chips themselves (the R2R vs. the DS), or rather are due to the analog sections.  Of course, THAT would be the _*hard part!*_
  
 Here's another idea that could even *potentially *remove the human-element entirely, but on the other hand would _still not rule out_ the potential utility of trying some blind tests with humans. . .how about directly comparing the output of the two DAC's via line-in to another device?  As in, input the very same audio files from the same computer into each of the DAC's with a line-in to an ADC (yes, an ADC) but of course, the same ADC being used both times, then running thhe output of the ADC back into the computer, recording the resulting waveforms in each case.   Or, would the step involving the ADC not even be necessary, and we could somehow just get the analog output directly from the DAC's back into the computer and then record it?  Anyway, I'm not too familiar with audio analysis software and equipment so I'm not sure exactly how one would get this to work, but shouldn't it at least in-theory be possible to do so, get wav or FLAC files of the output of the DAC's in both cases, and then "subtract" the two files from one-another in order to get the "difference," if there is any, between the outputs?  Then, we could analyze the difference-file and see if it is at-or-above audible level compared to the dynamics of the original file being played.  I know that similar tests (albeit requiring a lot less legwork) have been performed in order to measure the differences between lossy and lossless versions of the same track.
  
 Anyway yeah, I think @arnyk may have scared at leats one or two people away with his no-nonsense (but non-abrasive) attitude and his extensive knowledge


----------



## castleofargh

I think I was the one suggesting the bifrost, but maybe others exist with some kind of modularity too? I'm not big on DAC models(as I never look for one^_^).  if we have the power source, the usb tech and a few other stuff identical, it's still better than just trying random DACs.


----------



## Roly1650

goodyfresh said:


> :rolleyes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Being naturally bone idle and finding abx testing a bloody boring excercise, my feelings are that null or difference testing is way too neglected, (imo, deliberately by the high end, they avoid it like the plague).

There's a couple of ways of doing it, record into an audio editor like Audacity or use software like AudioDiffMaker which also has a recording function, both are free software.

A few advantages of doing it this way, a) you don't need any ancilliary equipment, dac to pc, forget the amp and speakers/headphones, b) you get a numerical value of the differences, that reduces the guess work on whether it is or isn't audible, human hearing has finite limits and we, (the scientific amongst us at least) know what those limits are, c) it's a mathematical excercise, unemotional, none fatiguing, didn't test long enough, tested too long, blah, blah, so less chance of bullcrap baffling brains, d) you get the difference track as a playable audio file and e) no arguments about the ancilliary equipment not being good enough. There may be more I've forgotten.

At the end of the day, if it's shown that the Bifrosts or Gungnirs are so close to identical, it matters not what the underlying topology is, or am I missing something?

Screw abx testing, (for the right reasons) ha, ha......if it was good enough for Bob Carver to dumbfound Stereophile, it's good enough for me.


----------



## ]eep

goodyfresh said:


> beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep



I am one of the only, if not _the_ only person who actually answered your question. It took me more than an hour of my time (even more in subsequent efforts to be heard with said answer) to give a simple explanation for it. I even alluded to it in my previous - I admit, very cynical- post. But again, you didn't pick up on it. I am just reading this (or not, in your case, I just skip abuse) to be able to help someone else. Some people are worth helping. In my personal taste, you are not. 

All it takes to stand out as a smart person is for others to make total fools of themselves. So sorry for me trying anything of the kind. I should be wise and just shut up.


----------



## arnyk

roly1650 said:


> Being naturally bone idle and finding abx testing a bloody boring excercise, my feelings are that null or difference testing is way too neglected, (imo, deliberately by the high end, they avoid it like the plague).
> 
> There's a couple of ways of doing it, record into an audio editor like Audacity or use software like AudioDiffMaker which also has a recording function, both are free software.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Audio difference testing has its place. It's a great way to enhance the sensitivity of some other means that are used to to do the  final evaluation of the difference signal. For example if my difference processor amplifies any errors that the UUT creates by 10, than the effective sensitivity of any means I use to analyze the amplified error has been increased by 10 which can be very worthwhile. 
  
 In the case of listening tests, listening to the amplified error signal is a valid way to train my ears to better hear the errors  the UUT makes as it is normally operated.  
  
 Of course there is a real world situation where the error is amplified by 10 and its still inaudible. This is actually pretty common with good DACs.  
  
 Well, so now we amplify it by 100, and may be that is sufficient to make the errors audible.


----------



## Sal1950

]eep said:


> I am one of the only, if not _the_ only person who actually answered your question. It took me more than an hour of my time (even more in subsequent efforts to be heard with said answer) to give a simple explanation for it. I even alluded to it in my previous - I admit, very cynical- post. But again, you didn't pick up on it. I am just reading this (or not, in your case, I just skip abuse) to be able to help someone else. Some people are worth helping. In my personal taste, you are not.
> 
> All it takes to stand out as a smart person is for others to make total fools of themselves. So sorry for me trying anything of the kind. I should be wise and just shut up.


 
 What positive effect was this post supposed to have?
 I knew it couldn't stay civil here for long.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> I think I was the one suggesting the bifrost, but maybe others exist with some kind of modularity too? I'm not big on DAC models(as I never look for one^_^). _* if we have the power source, the usb tech and a few other stuff identical*_, it's still better than just trying random DACs.


 
 Those were my thoughts on the subject, as well.


roly1650 said:


> Being naturally bone idle and finding abx testing a bloody boring excercise, my feelings are that null or difference testing is way too neglected, (imo, deliberately by the high end, they avoid it like the plague).
> 
> There's a couple of ways of doing it, record into an audio editor like Audacity or use software like AudioDiffMaker which also has a recording function, both are free software.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I'd say e) is probably the best one of the bunch!  So many people will say things like "the only reason you can't hear a difference is because you aren't using a Ragnarok as your amp with a pair of HD-800's" or "if you used a SR-009 like me, you'd hear the difference clear as day!"  Perhaps they're right!  But most people can't find equipment like that readily just so they can carry out an experiment.  If we can difference-test the output from two different DAC's without need for an amp or headphones, THEN we are seriously in the money.

 I'm not too familiar though with how such a test would actually be carried out.  Can you please elaborate, for those ignorant of such stuff like myself, as to exactly what would be needed in terms of ANY hardware other than the DAC itself, as well as in terms of what would actually be DONE with the software in order to create the difference-file?


----------



## goodyfresh

arnyk said:


> Audio difference testing has its place. It's a great way to enhance the sensitivity of some other means that are used to to do the  final evaluation of the difference signal. For example if my difference processor amplifies any errors that the UUT creates by 10, than the effective sensitivity of any means I use to analyze the amplified error has been increased by 10 which can be very worthwhile.
> 
> In the case of listening tests, listening to the amplified error signal is a valid way to train my ears to better hear the errors  the UUT makes as it is normally operated.
> 
> ...


 

 Okay so are us science-minded folks on here in agreement, at this point, that difference-testing might be "where it's at" in terms of getting a start as to checking whether DS vs. R2R actually even produce noticably different output at all to begin with?


----------



## Articnoise

arnyk said:


> *Wow, what a collection of misapprehensions*!
> 
> When data is upsampled, no new data is added. Well obviously samples are added, but the added samples are zeroes, so no new data as such is added.
> 
> ...


 
  

 A thing that’s broken is not functioning as it is design to. A NOS DAC is designed to work with no oversampling, period. If you like it or not from a technical/design or listening perspective is a totally different story. But it is not broken. I have listened and looked at some measurements from some NOS DACs and they can do both good. Some are naturally better than others, as usual.  

  

 The higher the oversampling the steeper filtering need to be used. The advantages of NOS is that less step filtering is needed. Don’t confuse this with less good quality filters. NOS, R2R and D-S have all some advantages and disadvantages. For me the question if one is always better than the other is like asking which cars are the best the European or the American or the Asian. Just too many variations within the group to compeer them to another group IMO.

  

 R2R and D-S is two different technique for convert a digital signal to an analog. One fundamental difference between this two techniques is the chosen frequency that the conversion is made at. A R2R dac chip do this normally at (much) lower frequency than D-S.


----------



## Don Hills

articnoise said:


> ....
> 
> The higher the oversampling the steeper filtering need to be used. The advantages of NOS is that less step filtering is needed. ...
> 
> ...


 
 I believe you have this backwards - a NOS DAC requires steep filtering. An oversampled DAC does not. The whole point of oversampling is to provide more space between the highest audio frequency and the sampling frequency in which to implement the filter.


----------



## arnyk

articnoise said:


> A thing that’s broken is not functioning as it is design to. A NOS DAC is designed to work with no oversampling, period. If you like it or not from a technical/design or listening perspective is a totally different story. But it is not broken. I have listened and looked at some measurements from some NOS DACs and they can do both good. Some are naturally better than others, as usual.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 The first paragraph is a collection of misapprehensions about my post.  I never said that a NOS DAC is broken because it does not oversample. In fact I never mentioned NOS DAC's at all in my post so the response is totally irrelevant to my post.  My post related to certain implementations of R-2R DAC that unskilled designers have foisted on the marketplace. 
  
 Let me be clear about my position on DACs. Based on a fairly extensive technical education both formal and informal, as well as decades of using and testing DACs both technically and subjectively, I am persuaded that all well-designed DACs are difficult or impossible to distinguish from each other by means of listening. Of course fine audio DACs can be built using R-2R technology. Of course fine audio DACs can be built using Sigrma-Delta (oversampling) technology. History shows that the differences between the two are specific implementations, costs and benefits.
  
 The second paragraph is an easily demonstrable false claim - yet another misapprehension. Higher oversampling most certainly does not require steeper filtering. In fact the opposite is true if you are talking about the high frequency analog filter that oversampling DACs use to clean up their outputs. The design of the digital filter is based on the needs of the basic DAC design.


----------



## Articnoise

arnyk said:


> The first paragraph is a collection of misapprehensions about my post.  I never said that a NOS DAC is broken because it does not oversample. In fact I never mentioned NOS DAC's at all in my post so the response is totally irrelevant to my post.  My post related to certain implementations of R-2R DAC that unskilled designers have foisted on the marketplace.
> 
> Let me be clear about my position on DACs. Based on a fairly extensive technical education both formal and informal, as well as decades of using and testing DACs both technically and subjectively, I am persuaded that all well-designed DACs are difficult or impossible to distinguish from each other by means of listening. Of course fine audio DACs can be built using R-2R technology. Of course fine audio DACs can be built using Sigrma-Delta (oversampling) technology. History shows that the differences between the two are specific implementations, costs and benefits.
> 
> The second paragraph is an easily demonstrable false claim - yet another misapprehension. Higher oversampling most certainly does not require steeper filtering. In fact the opposite is true if you are talking about the high frequency analog filter that oversampling DACs use to clean up their outputs. The design of the digital filter is based on the needs of the basic DAC design.


 
  

 You seems to like to say that people that doesn’t agree with you are misapprehensions. You either don’t understand how a NOS DAC work or are not standing by your own statements. Let my quote you:

  

_*“Why is the signal upsampled? Yes, it is upsampled to facilitate digital filtering, but the digital filtering is not gratuitous. It is part of the design of a proper DAC. A proper DAC has a brick wall filter, and any DAC that lacks one is improper or broken*. *Call it what you want, but it is not a proper DAC. It is a broken DAC.* Its like a 4 wheel automobile with the rear wheels missing. The back bumper is dragging on the ground.”_

  

 With oversampling you need a digital filters that make oversampling techniques possible. It is impossible to make an oversampling DAC that not use them. With a NOS it is possible. FYI Astrostar has an Audio note kit that is based on the design of Audio note.

  

 Many NOS DACs don’t use digital filters only analog. Audio note for example use output transformers as analog filters. That’s one real advantages of NOS DACs as it is difficult and expansive (but not impossible) to build a digital filter that doesn’t infect negatively.

  

 From Metrum Acoustics:

  

 “Both hobbyists and professionals who are convinced of the NOS-principle have to make do with old DACchips, that were once developed by Philips and which hit the market in the 80’s. For the time, they were truly amazing DAC-chips. Companies such as 47 Labs, Zanden, Audio Note and Abbington Music Research, who are all convinced of the validity of the NOS-principle, are, due to the lack of more modern components, forced to use old chips such as the TDA1543 or the TDA1541. *They are right in doing so, for the more modern chips on the market have grown increasingly complicated and are burdened in most cases with FIR-filters that, though they make oversampling techniques possible, make it impossible not to use them.”  *

* *

 For more example and explanations please read this:

  

http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Design%20Philosophy%20Metrum%20Acoustics.pdf 

http://www.ankaudiokits.com/agrovedac.html 

http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/DAC-5_June_2000.pdf 

http://www.totaldac.com/principles.htm


----------



## Articnoise

don hills said:


> I believe you have this backwards - a NOS DAC requires steep filtering. An oversampled DAC does not. The whole point of oversampling is to provide more space between the highest audio frequency and the sampling frequency in which to implement the filter.


 
  
 No and yes!


----------



## Roly1650

articnoise said:


> For more example and explanations please read this:
> 
> 
> http://www.metrum-acoustics.com/Design%20Philosophy%20Metrum%20Acoustics.pdf
> ...



All your doing is linking to articles written by and for those with vested interests in what's written within. However, as you're now the second poster who's linked to this: http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/DAC-5_June_2000.pdf, here goes:

You do realise that that document contains errors in fact before it even gets out of the introduction, don't you?

Here's a sample from the text of the article:

"Audio Note is good to argue that their products have "high distortion but excellent sound". Peter* said "Power amplifiers from Audio Note could have 8% of THD. But what, we have the best sound!". How much is the THD of the Audio Note DAC-5? God knows."

* Peter Qvortrup, head honcho at Audio Note.

I have no idea what anybody thinks they are listening to when they listen to an amp with 8% THD, but the word "fidelity" shouldn't be anywhere in their vocabulary, the weakest link in the chain, the transducers, routinely manage better. And "the best sound"? Some boast from a guy who couldn't possibly have heard everything under the sun, but if you're happy to think this is sota, then good on you. Linking to the articles you have is the antithesis of what this thread is about, the thread title is a dead giveaway.


----------



## Sal1950

roly1650 said:


> All your doing is linking to articles written by and for those with vested interests in what's written within. However, as you're now the second poster who's linked to this: http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/DAC-5_June_2000.pdf, here goes:
> 
> You do realise that that document contains errors in fact before it even gets out of the introduction, don't you?
> 
> ...


 
 8% THD??   You got to be kidding.  I'm sure they sound different, but excellent? I highly doubt it.


----------



## goodyfresh

sal1950 said:


> 8% THD??   You got to be kidding.  I'm sure they sound different, but excellent? I highly doubt it.


 

 LMFAOOOOO, *eight-frigging-percent*, seriously?  That's just. . .wow.  How can that possibly sound okay?  At that level of harmonic distortion, bass notes would potentially produce audible harmonics all the way up into the upper-mids!  And god knows, then, what the Intermodulation numbers might look like!
  
  


articnoise said:


> You seems to like to say that people that doesn’t agree with you are misapprehensions. You either don’t understand how a NOS DAC work or are not standing by your own statements. Let my quote you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well he DOES really seem to enjoy using the word "misapprehension," but from what I can tell it seems that @arnyk is one of the most reliably-knowledgable guys here. . . . . .
  
 It seems to me that many people here have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it even is about DS dac's that could even *potentially *affect fidelity in some way.  FYI, it is not the *oversampling *aspect that could cause such issues.  Oversampling merely interpolates extra data-points between the existing ones.  According to the Nyquist Sampling Theorem, as long as no actual errors are made in the math being done, there is literally _*no way*_ that this would actually affect the fidelity of waveform reproduction.  People who are afraid of using oversampling are people who simply don't fully understand teh concept of the Nyquist Theorem. . .at least, that's my understanding, although if someone else with even more knowledge of the science (@arnyk or the like) wants to correct me on some aspects of this, please feel free!

 Edit:  Basically, my understanding is that the Nyquist Theorem tells us that as long as the sampling-rate is at least double the highest frequency you want to reproduce, then ALL waveforms up to that frequency can be PERFECTLY reproduced.  Interpolating in extra points between the original ones in order to oversample will not change, in any way, what waveform gets output at the end once the discrete approximation is converted back into a continuous waveform.
  
  
  
  
 Soooo, guys.  BACK TO THE TOPIC REALLY AT HAND.  Please.  Please.  Who knows somebody with both a Gungnir Multibit and a Gungnir DS, or a Bifrost Multibit and Bifrost DS, or who here has the DS version of one and also knows someone with the multibit version, or whatever, who would know (or knows someone who knows) how to setup a difference-test between the two, or at the very least would be willing to do some double-blind testing with some friends of theirs with the highest-end amp and headphones they can get a hold of?


----------



## arnyk

articnoise said:


> You seems to like to say that people that doesn’t agree with you are misapprehensions. You either don’t understand how a NOS DAC work or are not standing by your own statements. Let my quote you:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 The reason why I call misapprehensions misapprehensions is because they are so clearly exactly that. Good example, above.
  
 (1) Note the confrontational tone.
  
 (2) Note that the author has things exactly backwards.
  
 "With oversampling you need a digital filters that make oversampling techniques possible. It is impossible to make an oversampling DAC that not use them. With a NOS it is possible. FYI Astrostar has an Audio note kit that is based on the design of Audio note."
  
 The truth is that oversampling techniques were introduced for reasons related to dynamic range (not  to use digital filering), and that digital filters can be used without oversampling.
  
 Any body who is familiar with the initial development of the CD player by Philips and Sony should know that Sony developed their initial offering the CD-101 with analog filters, and suffered some serious production costs and poorer frequency response performance because of it. Philips had a development problem of their own - they had developed a DAC based on a R-2R  chip and a digital filter, but it only had 14 bit dynamic range. They added oversampling to address this dynamic range problem. With additional years of development, selected samples of the R-2R DAC had 16 bit performance. However the R-2R DAC was and still is relatively costly.  This is written up in any number of documents about the early days of digital. 
  
 These well known historical facts are apparently being concealed from modern audiophiles in order to substitute a bunch of false claims.  Here is the truth from the horse's mouth:
  
http://www.research.philips.com/technologies/projects/cd/technology.html
  
 "*Oversampling*
With the use of oversampling technology - which allowed the 16-bit Red Book standard to be met with the 14 bit digital-to-analogue converters that were available when the system was introduced - a very high sound quality was obtained."


----------



## OddE

goodyfresh said:


> Edit:  Basically, my understanding is that the Nyquist Theorem tells us that as long as the sampling-rate is at least double the highest frequency you want to reproduce, then ALL waveforms up to that frequency can be PERFECTLY reproduced.  Interpolating in extra points between the original ones in order to oversample will not change, in any way, what waveform gets output at the end once the discrete approximation is converted back into a continuous waveform.


 
  
 -There are a couple of other caveats than the 'sample rate 2x highest frequency you want to reproduce' involved, too - most notably that the signal needs to be perfectly band-limited (which it will not be unless it is of infinite duration) - however, the signals we encounter are perfect enough for all practical purposes when it comes to band-limiting.


----------



## Roly1650

goodyfresh said:


> LMFAOOOOO, *eight-frigging-percent*, seriously?  That's just. . .wow.  How can that possibly sound okay?  At that level of harmonic distortion, bass notes would potentially produce audible harmonics all the way up into the upper-mids!  And god knows, then, what the Intermodulation numbers might look like!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry, missed your previous post and I can't help you with the dacs, but here's a couple of links:

Link to null testing with Audacity: http://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
Explains it better than I can, I think @arnyk and @RRod have forgotten more about using an audio editor than I will ever know.
If you go this way, you'll need to download and install the software, google Audacity for download links, it's free.

AudioDiffMaker is here: http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

Lots of info on the site if you poke around and some sample tests, so you can road test it. Again, free. There's also a good AES paper somewhere on there which explains the design of the algorithms used.


----------



## goodyfresh

odde said:


> -There are a couple of other caveats than the 'sample rate 2x highest frequency you want to reproduce' involved, too - most notably that the signal needs to be perfectly band-limited (which it will not be unless it is of infinite duration) - however, the signals we encounter are perfect enough for all practical purposes when it comes to band-limiting.


 

 Well yeah true, the actual strict/rigorous conditions of the Nyquist Theorem require a truly band-limited signal, but as you said, for all intents and purposes the signals dealt-with in the real world are close-enough to being such that we can basically say they are.  As-in, we can assume the signals to be limited to frequencies of, say, 20Khz and below.
  
  


roly1650 said:


> Sorry, missed your previous post and I can't help you with the dacs, but here's a couple of links:
> 
> Link to null testing with Audacity: http://sdk.bongiovidps.com/2013/09/26/audio-null-test/
> Explains it better than I can, I think @arnyk and @RRod have forgotten more about using an audio editor than I will ever know.
> ...


 

 Thanks!  Now we need to find somebody with the requisite equipment for us to get the ball rolling. . .a computer with a line-in to it, and a Bifrost DS and Bifrost Multibit OR Gungnir DS and Gungnir Multibit.  So, anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone?


----------



## arnyk

goodyfresh said:


> Well yeah true, the actual strict/rigorous conditions of the Nyquist Theorem require a truly band-limited signal, but as you said, for all intents and purposes the signals dealt-with in the real world are close-enough to being such that we can basically say they are.  As-in, we can assume the signals to be limited to frequencies of, say, 20Khz and below.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!  Now we need to find somebody with the requisite equipment for us to get the ball rolling. . .a computer with a line-in to it, and a Bifrost DS and Bifrost Multibit OR Gungnir DS and Gungnir Multibit.  So, anyone?  Anyone?  Anyone?


 
  
 How do you know that the DACs that you intend to compare weren't intentionally engineered by Schitt to be audibly different?  Simple enough to do - often it takes as littlle as a pair of jumpers on the circuit board.


----------



## Baldr

arnyk said:


> How do you know that the DACs that you intend to compare weren't intentionally engineered by Schitt to be audibly different?  Simple enough to do - often it takes as littlle as a pair of jumpers on the circuit board.


 
  
 Absolutely NOT...........
 They were engineered to be technically competent >16, >19, and >21 bit performance.  Period, in ALL params.  I leave artistry to "flavored" amplifier designers or D/A converter analog section non-literalists.


----------



## arnyk

baldr said:


> Absolutely NOT...........
> They were engineered to be technically competent >16, >19, and >21 bit performance.  Period, in ALL params.  I leave artistry to amplifier designers.


 
  
 Some real world DACs, including NOS DACs fall well short of that ideal, an ideal which I totally agree with.
  
 So we're back at the question: How do you know that the DAC(s) you are listening to are performing competently?


----------



## Baldr

Check out @atomicbob who has published measurements of all three.


----------



## Baldr

Also, you may peruse Analog Devices' data sheets on their 5781, 5791, and 5547 d/a chips.  Research is your friend.


----------



## Sal1950

goodyfresh said:


> Okay so are us science-minded folks on here in agreement, at this point, that difference-testing might be "where it's at" in terms of getting a start as to checking whether DS vs. R2R actually even produce noticably different output at all to begin with?


 
 Absolutely. We have to start somewhere and this is as good as any.


----------



## jcx

baldr said:


> Absolutely NOT...........
> They were engineered to be technically competent >16, >19, and >21 bit performance.  Period, in ALL params.  I leave artistry to amplifier designers or D/A converter analog section non-literalists.


 
 so we should be asking Jason?


----------



## KLJTech

jcx said:


> so we should be asking Jason?


 
  
 Didn't Mr. Moffat answer the question?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Do any of the measurements taken from these devices indicate that an audible difference might be heard?
  
 Bifrost:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/785367/bifrost-mb-technical-measurements
  
 Gungnir:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/785365/gungnir-mb-technical-measurements
  
 Yggdrasil:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/764787/yggdrasil-technical-measurements


----------



## Sal1950

jcx said:


> so we should be asking Jason?


 
 Dang you, I almost spit my Pepsi on the keyboard.  LOL


----------



## goodyfresh

arnyk said:


> Some real world DACs, including NOS DACs fall well short of that ideal, an ideal which I totally agree with.
> 
> So we're back at the question: How do you know that the DAC(s) you are listening to are performing competently?


 

 Well, the DAC's in question from Schiit all have IMD, THD, etc. measuremetns which indicate they SHOULD all be equally transparent.  So this should be a good starting point for at least establishing whether or not there are audible differences that are NOT being accounted for in the measurements commonly taken for DACs.
  
 I do have reason to believe that it would seem that IMD, THD, jitter, etc. being below audible levels, along with a ruler-flat frequency response, is NOT enough to ensure that equipment will sound the same as other equipment.  Why do I say so?  I am almost positive (although, I have not tried blind AB/X testing, WHICH I DO NEED TO DO so don't scold me please or call me a hypocrite for stating my subjective impression here) based on my subjective experience (which, again, is probably unreliable though, haha) that my Fiio X3ii sounds better than any iPod I have ever listened to.  This being in spite of the fact that iPods do have IMD, THD, jitter, etc. which are below audible levels.
  
 The fact is, pretty much all at-least-halfway-decent portable devices and DAC's and Amps these days have IMD, THD, and jitter which are below audible levels, as well as a perfectly flat FR.  So, if that is the case, what's teh point of even buying higher-end equipment AT ALL?  Does it really sound better?  Is the whole industry just one huge scam, and we should all never bother with any portable setup beyond just a 40 dollar Sansa Clip and perhaps a portable amp for harder to drive cans?  If so, that would be VERY silly indeed, and somehow it seems unlikely to me.
  


sal1950 said:


> Absolutely. We have to start somewhere and this is as good as any.


 

 So, who has the equipment we need in order to carry out our experiment?  I know I don't, and I don't have the money to buy it or I totally would have already done so >_<


----------



## arnyk

goodyfresh said:


> Well, the DAC's in question from Schiit all have IMD, THD, etc. measuremetns which indicate they SHOULD all be equally transparent.


 
 Where may I find these?
  
 Which are based on measurements by independent authorities?


----------



## castleofargh

goodyfresh said:


> Well, the DAC's in question from Schiit all have IMD, THD, etc. measuremetns which indicate they SHOULD all be equally transparent.  So this should be a good starting point for at least establishing whether or not there are audible differences that are NOT being accounted for in the measurements commonly taken for DACs.
> 
> I do have reason to believe that it would seem that IMD, THD, jitter, etc. being below audible levels, along with a ruler-flat frequency response, is NOT enough to ensure that equipment will sound the same as other equipment.  Why do I say so?  I am almost positive (although, I have not tried blind AB/X testing, WHICH I DO NEED TO DO so don't scold me please or call me a hypocrite for stating my subjective impression here) based on my subjective experience (which, again, is probably unreliable though, haha) that my Fiio X3ii sounds better than any iPod I have ever listened to.  This being in spite of the fact that iPods do have IMD, THD, jitter, etc. which are below audible levels.
> 
> The fact is, pretty much all at-least-halfway-decent portable devices and DAC's and Amps these days have IMD, THD, and jitter which are below audible levels, as well as a perfectly flat FR.  So, if that is the case, what's teh point of even buying higher-end equipment AT ALL?  Does it really sound better?  Is the whole industry just one huge scam, and we should all never bother with any portable setup beyond just a 40 dollar Sansa Clip and perhaps a portable amp for harder to drive cans?  If so, that would be VERY silly indeed, and somehow it seems unlikely to me.


 
 you really cannot compare measurements of DACs and AMPs/DAPs IMO.
  
 the DAC will be measured with something close to IRL usage(as amp inputs are several thousand ohm). the amp for most measurements showed on specs will not. you would need to have specs for the given load/headphone you plan to use, and at the given loudness you plan to use, instead of some nominal or maxed out value into 10kohm or whatever.
  
 when DACs measure well, I expect them to be like that all the time.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> you really cannot compare measurements of DACs and AMPs/DAPs IMO.
> 
> the DAC will be measured with something close to IRL usage(as amp inputs are several thousand ohm). the amp for most measurements showed on specs will not. you would need to have specs for the given load/headphone you plan to use, and at the given loudness you plan to use, instead of some nominal or maxed out value into 10kohm or whatever.
> 
> when DACs measure well, I expect them to be like that all the time.


 

 Good point.


----------



## KLJTech

goodyfresh said:


> Well, the DAC's in question from Schiit all have IMD, THD, etc. measuremetns which indicate they SHOULD all be equally transparent.  So this should be a good starting point for at least establishing whether or not there are audible differences that are NOT being accounted for in the measurements commonly taken for DACs.
> 
> I do have reason to believe that it would seem that IMD, THD, jitter, etc. being below audible levels, along with a ruler-flat frequency response, is NOT enough to ensure that equipment will sound the same as other equipment.  Why do I say so?  I am almost positive (although, I have not tried blind AB/X testing, WHICH I DO NEED TO DO so don't scold me please or call me a hypocrite for stating my subjective impression here) based on my subjective experience (which, again, is probably unreliable though, haha) that my Fiio X3ii sounds better than any iPod I have ever listened to.  This being in spite of the fact that iPods do have IMD, THD, jitter, etc. which are below audible levels.
> 
> ...


 
  
 I have too many expensive hobbies...I can wait on the Gungnir upgrade, just a little while longer, but simply buying another Gungnir MB would be a bit much. I had a very nice multibit DAC in the 90's and that system sounded incredible though it's difficult to compare as it was years ago and the system was used in a dedicated listening room, with my Maggies at that time pulled out 5'-6' into the room with just a single chair to listen from.
  
 I do recall buying several CD players at the time (from California Audio Labs and Sony ES etc.) before settling on the Monarchy with it's multiple PCM63P-K DAC's. That DAC has always stood out to me as being special...at that time I didn't know why it sounded better, it just did, to me, in my opinion. 
  
I'm very curious to hear what my Gungnir will sound like after being switch to multibit...maybe I'll love it, maybe I won't. I've been at this way too long to B.S myself, and frankly I'm not thrilled with upgrading/changing gear very often as I'd much rather put together a system I like and simply use it to enjoy my music. I've chased the rabbit down the hole many times before and it only leads to madness and no longer being able to enjoy your music as you're too busy listening to your new audio gear. I admit that I'm intrigued  by what Mike Moffat and the guys at Schiit are doing with multibit, and I'd like to give it a go...they've never let me down before. 
  
 Regarding the Sansa Clip+ (Clip Zip etc.) versus the FiiO player (currently using the X5 II with Westone W40's) honestly, in my opinion, it's not even close. The FiiO DAP makes the Sansa Clip+ sound as if there's wool stuffed in your ears...the FiiO is just way more open sounding with a more clear sounding treble and vocals in general. I can read graphs all day long, but I hear what I hear, and it's not close. I've turned SO many people onto Sansa Clip over the past few years as it's a fantastic bargain, especially when you add the 32 extra GB of storage...I just can't go back to it now as a music player, yet I use it almost every day for audiobooks...love, love, love audiobooks. So for me the Clip is still very valuable to me. 
  
 If you guys do manage to get a DS Gungnir and the MB version I'd be very interested in reading what your opinion is after listening to both. Good luck!


----------



## arnyk

goodyfresh said:


> The fact is, pretty much all at-least-halfway-decent portable devices and DAC's and Amps these days have IMD, THD, and jitter which are below audible levels, as well as a perfectly flat FR.  So, if that is the case, what's teh point of even buying higher-end equipment AT ALL?  Does it really sound better?  Is the whole industry just one huge scam, and we should all never bother with any portable setup beyond just a 40 dollar Sansa Clip and perhaps a portable amp for harder to drive cans?  If so, that would be VERY silly indeed, and somehow it seems unlikely to me.
> 
> So, who has the equipment we need in order to carry out our experiment?  I know I don't, and I don't have the money to buy it or I totally would have already done so >_<


 
  
 There are a  number  of "cut to the chase" methodologies for testing DAPs. 
  
 One key to effective testing is to use the best standard possible for your reference, and IMO that starts with a good clean rip of the recording being used or its equivalent.
  
 IME many DAPs such as the Sansa Fuze have what I consider to be marginal performance when it comes to THD, noise, and maximum voltage output into headphone loads.
  
 Ideally one likes to have reference standards that are at least from 10 to 20 dB better than the UUT.
  
 Mid-priced headphone amps such as Fiio E11K  seem to measure equal or better that most DAPs  in these areas, so a .wav file played through a pro-audio interface such as a M-Audio AP24192 driving a Fiio E11K has become one of my references for evaluating DAPs. 
  
 Doing an ABX test of DAPs the most obvious way would involve the use of some kind of switch box to move the connections headphones or other monitoring system between the two sources being compared.  I am fortunate to have a hardware ABX system at my disposal - the one described here:
  
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_hdwr.htm


----------



## goodyfresh

arnyk said:


> There are a  number  of "cut to the chase" methodologies for testing DAPs.
> 
> One key to effective testing is to use the best standard possible for your reference, and IMO that starts with a good clean rip of the recording being used or its equivalent.
> 
> ...


 

 Nice that you have that ABX setup, man!  Once I have more DAP's in my "collection" in the future I'll almost certainly go and get something similar.


----------



## tf10charged

very nice post.
  
 after reading in page 1, saw the name Tera player. did a google and was really really surprised by the price!


----------



## goodyfresh

goodyfresh said:


> Update: Okay guys so I did alter the title of the thread to better reflect my true intent in starting it, as well as the way the thread has "evolved" over time.
> 
> To be honest, guys, I never expected this thread to take-off the way it did and become something so long and drawn-out with so much debate, when I first started it back at the end of August!  It has really evolved and grown beyond my expectations and my control.  Certainly interesting, to say the least


 
 And yet  now my thread seems to have died   Haha.


----------



## Sal1950

Ya can only put so much schitt in the out house till the hole gets full. LOL


----------



## castleofargh

goodyfresh said:


> goodyfresh said:
> 
> 
> > Update: Okay guys so I did alter the title of the thread to better reflect my true intent in starting it, as well as the way the thread has "evolved" over time.
> ...


 
 because we can only bring up specific cases, DAC X vs DAC Y. and even then what interests us are controlled tests, just this doesn't leave too many people.
 then for those who end with statistical significance showing they heard a difference, we would have to check if it's more than just a low pass filter rool off. and even then, many other variables could be the reason instead of the chipset.
 this would require a lot of efforts to never really get enough to draw a conclusion(except that they mostly all sound the same when they measure well).
 I hoped the Shiit crew could tell us about the stuff they have tested, as they're not the shy engineer type and happen to have gears where they offer the switch between R2R and pulse modulation. but most posts seem to strongly suggest that they try different techs because they can and because it's fun. not really what you're asking about ^_^.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> because we can only bring up specific cases, DAC X vs DAC Y. and even then what interests us are controlled tests, just this doesn't leave too many people.
> then for those who end with statistical significance showing they heard a difference, we would have to check if it's more than just a low pass filter rool off. and even then, many other variables could be the reason instead of the chipset.
> this would require a lot of efforts to never really get enough to draw a conclusion(except that they mostly all sound the same when they measure well).
> I hoped the Shiit crew could tell us about the stuff they have tested, as they're not the shy engineer type and happen to have gears where they offer the switch between R2R and pulse modulation. but most posts seem to strongly suggest that they try different techs because they can and because it's fun. not really what you're asking about ^_^.


 
 I'm determined though.  Someday when I have the cash, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get the gear needed to accurately test these questions!!!!  It won't be for years though >_<


----------



## Sal1950

goodyfresh said:


> I'm determined though.  Someday when I have the cash, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get the gear needed to accurately test these questions!!!!  It won't be for years though >_<


 
 By then it will all be as obsolete as a Edison cylinder player.  LOL


----------



## castleofargh

sal1950 said:


> goodyfresh said:
> 
> 
> > I'm determined though.  Someday when I have the cash, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get the gear needed to accurately test these questions!!!!  It won't be for years though >_<
> ...


 

 any time cylinders are mentioned, I have a thought for that poor fellow.


----------



## moshen

I have spent a whole lot of time trying to blind A/B identify closely volume matched Bifrost Multibit & my ODAC (many hours per day for days) with my HD800. I couldn't ever get better than random. It could also mean I just have really bad ears. Either way it put an end to my DAC upgrade craving.


----------



## landroni

moshen said:


> I have spent a whole lot of time trying to blind A/B identify closely volume matched Bifrost Multibit & my ODAC (many hours per day for days) with my HD800. I couldn't ever get better than random. It could also mean I just have really bad ears. Either way it put an end to my DAC upgrade craving.


 

 Did you try Mike Moffat's long-term blind A/B testing method? There are good reasons to avoid instantaneous, back-and-forth switching of DACs as such a workflow is unnecessarily tiring for the human brain. In my opinion _instantaneous_ blind A/B testing in audio is generally biased towards a "no difference" result (and you can apply it to just about everything, whether amps, DACs, formats, cables, etc.), whereas _long-term_ blind testing allows the ear (read: the brain) to fully appreciate all aspects of the sound reproducing system. Try listening to one album at a time (while in a blind testing setting) and see if you can perceive a difference.
  
 Check out Moffat's experiences on the subject:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/7725#post_11921090
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/748067/official-schiit-magni-modi-2-uber-thread/1065#post_11933232


----------



## landroni

Here are some relevant comments by Robert Ludwig on the subject of (instantaneous) A/B testing:
 http://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig/

_"[Q:] You once said that today's converters, with great clocking, cannot be differentiated from the analog source by anyone you've tested._
  
  
_[A:] I'm not saying that no one can ever hear the difference, I'm merely saying when someone comes into the studio for a quick visit and I play the source vs. high resolution digital, a 96 kHz, 192 kHz, or DSD copy, no one can immediately pick out the difference. Don't forget, these are all awesome converters. The quality of the engineering of the analog-to-digital converter and DAC is much, much more important to the musicality of the sound than the sampling rate could ever be. Our $8,000 converters at 16-bit/44.1 kHz sound way, way better than a 192 kHz playback from a $5 chip on a DVD-Audio player. I think the higher resolution sounds reveal themselves not in A/B testing, but in long periods of time. Play an entire album in a relaxed atmosphere at 96 kHz/24-bit, then, at the end, listen to it at 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you'll get it right away. A/B testing, while the only scientific method we have, does not reveal too much with short-term back-and-forth comparisons due to the anxiety the brain is under doing such a test. The brain becomes very left-brain-technical, rather than right-brain creative and musical." (emphasis mine)_


One may think of instantaneous A/B testing as a (stressful) exam setting, which may dull or otherwise overpower senses, or confuse the brain. Anyone recall that test where you _knew_ that that you knew the theorem, but couldn't recall it because of high anxiety? This factor can be alleviated with longer-term listening sessions.


----------



## mcteague

RE: long term listening. Why is it most people can hear differences, when they know which is being listened to, with very short sessions? Only blind ones seem to cause this confusion and stress. Interesting.
  
 Tim


----------



## RRod

> Originally Posted by *landroni* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> One may think of instantaneous A/B testing as a (stressful) exam setting, which may dull or otherwise overpower senses, or confuse the brain. Anyone recall that test where you _knew_ that that you knew the theorem, but couldn't recall it because of high anxiety? This factor can be alleviated with longer-term listening sessions.


 
  
 There are no time limits to the ABX protocol that I know of. So a long-term-listening advocate can just do his 2 hours session on A, then do a switch to X and decide of he hears a change and make his guess. He can then do this guess-at-the-end for 10 sessions then look at the results. It's a test you can be pretty chill about. So go ahead and try it, hi-res advocates.


----------



## landroni

mcteague said:


> RE: long term listening. Why is it most people can hear differences, when they know which is being listened to, with very short sessions? Only blind ones seem to cause this confusion and stress. Interesting.


 

 My intuition is that when listening to two sources, the brain "adjusts" to the way it processes sonic information. Think of it as when you're listening to two persons tell you a given phrase in English, but with two different accents. With sighted listening, the brain can quickly adjust to the incoming stream of sounds (you know what "accent" flavor to expect, and focus accordingly). With blind listening, the brain must first decide which flavor it is dealing with, before being able to "optimally" process incoming sounds. With long-term listening you have the time to do this, but not so with instantaneous tests.


----------



## landroni

rrod said:


> There are no time limits to the ABX protocol that I know of. So a long-term-listening advocate can just do his 2 hours session on A, then do a switch to X and decide of he hears a change and make his guess. He can then do this guess-at-the-end for 10 sessions then look at the results. It's a test you can be pretty chill about. So go ahead and try it, hi-res advocates.


 

 Sure, but in most instances only short listening tests are being practised, not least for convenience reasons. It surely is much easier to perform an experiment with two dozen individuals during two days using 10sec or 1 song (i.e. short) sessions. Often such sessions are used to confirm the "no huge differences" or "no differences" POV. But this is not how people listen to their gear at home (from where claims of differences will originate), where long-term listening (at least 1h) on a given gear will often be favored.


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> Sure, but in most instances only short listening tests are being practised, not least for convenience reasons. It surely is much easier to perform an experiment with two dozen individuals during two days using 10sec or 1 song (i.e. short) sessions. Often such sessions are used to confirm the "no huge differences" or "no differences" POV. But this is not how people listen to their gear at home (from where claims of differences will originate), where long-term listening (at least 1h) on a given gear will often be favored.


 
  
 Well yes, because the issue is that at some point you need control, and controlling 20 hours of trials per person for 100 people isn't something researchers want to do either. But this is why I say for people to try such test themselves: it's possible for each of us to answer the questions "can I really hear a difference," regardless of the status of any grand-scale statistical analysis of the human population.
  
 Personally, I've sat and gotten in the groove of albums I've been listening to for 25 years now, and I still can't blindly call out the correct answer after finally switching to a 14/36k downsampling. Also note that all this "long-term listening" supposition is all good and fine, but you have plenty of folks on this forum who will tell you they hear a night and day difference *immediately* when turning on a hi-res album in an airplane.


----------



## landroni

rrod said:


> Personally, I've sat and gotten in the groove of albums I've been listening to for 25 years now, and I still can't blindly call out the correct answer after finally switching to a 14/36k downsampling. Also note that all this "long-term listening" supposition is all good and fine, but you have plenty of folks on this forum who will tell you they hear a night and day difference *immediately* when turning on a hi-res album in an airplane.


 

 This may have to do with the quality of the gear used (and specific idiosyncrasies in the implementation of given models), and to the subject "getting used" to easily hearing the differences on said gear (e.g. identify spacial cues as a dead give-away). I think ANY claims of hearing differences should be accompanied by a list of source gear used as well as transducers, if any attempt at reproducibility can be entertained.
  
 BTW, some users who hear a difference (say, between redbook PCM and DSD on FiiO X7) report that their ability to reliably identify which is which decreases quickly with time and the number of back-and-forth switches. This doesn't seem to be controlled for in usual ABX testing sessions (i.e. user fatigue).


----------



## castleofargh

the general opinion against short blind tests is that they stress people, that some stuff like fatigue aren't noticeable on short tests, and that it tends to lead to more null than other tests.
  
 all seemingly valid points. but just seemingly:
  
 -a blind test put stress on people so they don't hear what they would normally hear:
 well that is true, and like anything else, stress will go down the more tests you do. first time I was on the driver's sit, I took the car into a wall right next to where I started(well I was around 12). I just pushed on the gas like my dad told, and panicked. but now time has passed I've done it soooo many times, and I don't piss myself anytime I drive a car. let's be reasonable here, I can accept people who would rather not know than bother. but those who do want to know, they just have to train a little and stop looking for false excuses.
 I've done so many abx that now passing a blind test is like doing laundry. most certainly not fun, but nervous is not what I would call myself when I do it. bored might fit better.
  
  
 -short stuff aren't good to test everything:
 again it's true. so why not test what can with rapid switching, and then test the rest differently with longer periods of time? the answer is "because it's demanding", and usually needs someone doing the switching for us. but technically, there is really nothing stopping anybody, certainly not the blind test advocates.
 have both DACs turned ON for a few days, and someone coming once or twice a day to change the output on foobar and make sure to match the loudness somewhere else if needed. there you go. don't go near the DACs(hide them), don't cheat looking at foobar settings and only use one resolution in case sample rate changing noises occurs on one DAC.  and you have your test. not impossible.
  
  
 -blind tests lead to more null:
 in practice we could say it like that. but it leads to more null than what? ^_^ the biased sighted evaluation? lol that's not even a test at all. the only ting being tested is if we are a little biased or very much biased. the gear we test doesn't not matter one bit.
  
 people letting time pass to get a full idea of the gear? sure they find more differences, they would find more differences if the device hadn't change. there are endless experiments to do to demonstrate that for a fact.
 that's because memories aren't accurate long enough to test audio in a very precise way. and when we're talking about something that failed to be noticed in a blind rapid switching test(the most effective audible method to test differences known to this day), we're obviously talking very very small differences.
 listen to music for a few weeks on a DAC, science says that we have high accuracy for the last 3 to 10seconds. of course we remember a lot of the rest, but we remember it with errors. the more we will recall a particular detail, the more it will get the flanderization treatment by our brain. because it's our brain best known trick to remember important stuff. make them important!
 so obviously we find less differences in short blind tests, because we don't give enough time to the brain to store the memory for good adding it's special sauce to it. we're asking to remember something still very fresh from 0.1second ago.
 so yes, blind test leads to more null, simply because things really are less different than we imagine.
  
  
  
 like most people here, I'm ok with any reasonable audibility testing method to replace blind testing. it's just that I'm still waiting for any alternative that isn't ludicrous. like "sit in a chair and just listen". that's fine to listen to music, but as a an effective testing method....
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
  
  
 on many tests, there is a clear audibility threshold. when you can change bit depth, sample rate, loudness imbalance... there is a consistent area were things go from "I can't pass a test", to "I can pass a test". I'm tempted to think that it demonstrates the test works just fine.
 my opinion is that people who think they heard a difference but fail a blind test for those differences, either imagined it, or used a wrong way to "evaluate" the differences in the first place. I am yet to be put in presence of someone that wasn't clearly fitting into one of those 2 profiles. all the others passed a blind test for the thing they claimed they heard.
 can you hear 96kps mp3 vs flac, sure I can most of the time.
 can you notice the noise floor on the sony A15? yes I can as long as I have my sensitive IEMs and I'm not in the subway.
 all those claims of audibility have one thing in common, I can pass a blind test. that's what justifies me into making a claim. the darn test!
  
  
 to me, the rest are excuses born from failure to admit to being wrong. they're not claims of audibility, they're claims of self righteousness as they have absolutely nothing to show.
  
  
  
 if I believed in magic, I would cast creepy spells onto all people making empty claims. empty claim is the lie of the ignorant. I hate it.


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> This may have to do with the quality of the gear used (and specific idiosyncrasies in the implementation of given models), and to the subject "getting used" to easily hearing the differences on said gear (e.g. identify spacial cues as a dead give-away). I think ANY claims of hearing differences should be accompanied by a list of source gear used as well as transducers, if any attempt at reproducibility can be entertained.
> 
> BTW, some users who hear a difference (say, between redbook PCM and DSD on FiiO X7) report that their ability to reliably identify which is which decreases quickly with time and the number of back-and-forth switches. This doesn't seem to be controlled for in usual ABX testing sessions (i.e. user fatigue).


 
  
 Total trials are typically limited, and having trained listeners can help them decide more quickly what sections of songs to compare. At some point, though, the "I can't pass the test so the test is wrong" argument starts to wear thin, especially when no real alternative controllable test is ever offered up.


----------



## moshen

landroni said:


> Did you try Mike Moffat's long-term blind A/B testing method? There are good reasons to avoid instantaneous, back-and-forth switching of DACs as such a workflow is unnecessarily tiring for the human brain. In my opinion _instantaneous_ blind A/B testing in audio is generally biased towards a "no difference" result (and you can apply it to just about everything, whether amps, DACs, formats, cables, etc.), whereas _long-term_ blind testing allows the ear (read: the brain) to fully appreciate all aspects of the sound reproducing system. Try listening to one album at a time (while in a blind testing setting) and see if you can perceive a difference.
> 
> Check out Moffat's experiences on the subject:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/7725#post_11921090
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/748067/official-schiit-magni-modi-2-uber-thread/1065#post_11933232


 

 Yes. I agree with Moffat's assessment here and that's why I mentioned I took days to do this testing..


----------



## sonitus mirus

Quick, back-and-forth switching works when testing for differences between 96kbps mp3 and a lossless version, but not between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless version?  Is that what I am supposed to believe?  If identifying difference is too tiring and difficult, at what point do we concede that any differences are not significant enough to be concerned about?


----------



## RRod

sonitus mirus said:


> Quick, back-and-forth switching works when testing for differences between 96kbps mp3 and a lossless version, but not between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless version?  Is that what I am supposed to believe?  If identifying difference is too tiring and difficult, at what point do we concede that any differences are not significant enough to be concerned about?


 
  
 That's what I don't get. If I convert a file down to some really low bits/sample spec, I can ABX it trivially. But as I increase the specs, it gradually gets harder to detect differences, and when the bit depth gets high enough to support the dynamism of the music and the sample rate gets beyond my tone-hearing ability, suddenly it's just impossible to pass the thing. At this point what I think is "I'm failing the test," but it seems others think "the test is failing me" and that what's needed is a new test that captures things that only hours of listening can eek out. Ok...


----------



## Sal1950

Here's what your supposed to believe.
 That ABX-DBT tests are just unreliable no matter how the test is configured.
 Modern scientific measurements are junk and can in no way tell you anything about a components sound.
 Only the manufacturer and ad writers spin can be trusted.
 The pro reviewer who is receiving God knows what in under the table perks can be trusted.
 The forum poster with no background in engineering or technical credentials, his opinion's can be trusted.


----------



## prot

moshen said:


> I have spent a whole lot of time trying to blind A/B identify closely volume matched Bifrost Multibit & my ODAC (many hours per day for days) with my HD800. I couldn't ever get better than random. It could also mean I just have really bad ears. Either way it put an end to my DAC upgrade craving.




Your posts is one of the very rare occasions when I can say 'trust your ears'


----------



## jcx

a couple of outakes that I suggest should give pause:
  
 Quote:


> They called it too – tubes vs a bad solid state preamp. Every friggin' time. My enthusiasm had returned


 
  
 who said all/any SS sounds like any tube kit? - especially if we're talking "bad 70's SS"?
  
 try reading the (expanded) Carver Stereophile Challenge: http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#6EYIQMaTuP1kmmyH.97
  
 it was some considerable work to get to >60 dB null - but done in the end by modding the "cheap" SS amp
  
 and Stereophile's professional reviewers in familiar surroundings, their own choice of "idiosyncratic", "difficult" speakers took a day to fail hearing the difference
  
  
 and this next was the subject of a blowup on this forum by Mike - maybe my argument was a bit obscure, but he really showed no patience, willingness to engage in discussion


> Thanks to Dr. Heil, the inventor of the Heil AMT speaker who shared this experiment with me over 40 years ago, Consider this: I am 67 years old – my high end extends to just under 15KHz (not bad for and old fart). I can play back two pulses 200 microseconds in length separated by 20 microseconds and clearly hear two pulses. Not unusual until one considers that 20 microseconds corresponds to a square wave of 50KHz. And then, there is the time domain – home of spatial cues which audio measurement traditionalists ignore. I believe that in the quest for the best sound, an open mind is the most important asset. I will even listen to cables, even though I believe in my heart that all technology about cables is well known. Who knows, even an old fart like me could be surprised.


 
  
 it seems clear the desired implication is that 44k isn't enough and that this anecdote is intended to lead you to that conclusion
  
 my test was simply to create the described signal, anti-alias and make a 16/44 .wav - and I could get 10/10 in foobar2000 abx plugin on the 1st try with my PC motherboard sound chipset, front panel headphone output to HD600 - no R2R no megaburrito, no all discrete, Class A...
  
 pretty sure my 58 year old ears weren't hearing any "50 kHz" - the 16/44 wav certainly couldn't encode any
  
 what's so difficult about yes that signal can be heard AND without any 50 kHz therefore the Argument Fails - no need to dispute MIke's hearing


----------



## Sal1950

moshen said:


> I have spent a whole lot of time trying to blind A/B identify closely volume matched Bifrost Multibit & my ODAC (many hours per day for days) with my HD800. I couldn't ever get better than random. It could also mean I just have really bad ears. Either way it put an end to my DAC upgrade craving.


 
  
  


prot said:


> Your posts is one of the very rare occasions when I can say 'trust your ears'


 
 +1 for sure.


----------



## Sal1950

jcx said:


> who said all SS sounds like any tube kit? - especially if we're talking "bad 70's SS"?
> 
> try reading the (expanded) Carver Stereophile Challenge: http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge#6EYIQMaTuP1kmmyH.97
> 
> ...


 
 I loved the Carver Challenge at Stereophile along with the one he did a few years before with Peter Aczel at The Audio Critic. It put the whole high end communities panties in a bunch and sent them off on missions trying to discredit the outcome. They never did. LOL  But It sure was fun reading all the stuff that got written. Wish we had internet back then,  the forums would have been a killing field for months.


----------



## landroni

sonitus mirus said:


> Quick, back-and-forth switching works when testing for differences between 96kbps mp3 and a lossless version, but not between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless version?  Is that what I am supposed to believe?  If identifying difference is too tiring and difficult, at what point do we concede that any differences are not significant enough to be concerned about?


 

 If a test is flawed for failing to take into account an important factor, it is flawed. Period. Such issues can invalidate decades of scientific research, which is fine as this means scientific progress. I am not saying that it is the case here, but it could be. If audio scientists are hell bent to prove that there is "no difference" (which, for the record, they can't), and previous testing yielding a null result failed to take into account ALL potential confounding factors (including newly raised questions, that weren't originally considered), then the burden is on them to redo the work to retrieve yet again a null result when controlling for ALL factors.
  
 And how can a test concede that a difference is "not significant enough to be concerned about" for a given individual? Always remember that tests and scientists tend to be concerned with averages.
  
 Now take a deep breath and consider two similar instances:
 - hi-end paintings. For a regular Joe the difference between a Rembrandt and a Van Gogh is not existent. They can look at one, look at the other, and concede they don't care. An art "subjectivist" (i.e. an acclaimed art critic) would BEG TO DISAGREE. Surely, it may take hours and weeks to appreciate a painting, and decide what in particular you like about it, and how particularly it is different from the other painting. It doesn't mean there is no difference. It simply means that it takes time, will, training, attention to appreciate artistic rendering, of which musical reproduction is. In this sense, 10 sec ABX testing are laughable --- may as well use 0.5 sec and be done with it, and prove whichever null you're seeking. Imagine if you did ABX testing on Rembrandt paintings using a 1% sample area of the paintings... And do consider that art critics are being paid handsomely and admired for being able to notice what others can't, instead of being rudely dismissed as ignorant art fools.
  
 - hi-end wines. For regular Joe the difference between two fine wines going in the thousands would be impossible to assess. Both wines would be very good. Yet for a wine "subjectivist" (i.e. a wine taster with a rarefied pallet), the difference between two wines could be LIGHT AND DAY. One would be undrinkable, and make you physically cringe. The other would be heaven on earth. For that person. The difference is. Huge. It doesn't matter if others can't sense it, or if scientists can't prove it in a blind test. There, too, those with a fine taste are appreciated instead of being ridiculed.
  
 So what is it in audio that generates such boatloads of scorn and angst? Subtle differences can be difficult to detect, and not by everyone, but just because it's subtle it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it's emphatically prescribed as "doesn't matter" or "not huge". With humans, something that might be altogether irrelevant for average Joe might be a handicapping or life-or-death factor for a given individual. (I speak from non-audio experience.)


----------



## jcx

lets see...
 strawman? check
 category error?, check
 shot yourself in the foot with a counter example presented as your argument?, check
  
  
 Science advances without revisiting absolutely everything, every time,  even if a "revolutionary" step forward is made: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
  
  
 in wine tasting a certified Sommelier actually has to pass blind tests - no pass = no certification


----------



## Sal1950

landroni said:


> If a test is flawed for failing to take into account an important factor, it is flawed. Period. Such issues can invalidate decades of scientific research, which is fine as this means scientific progress. I am not saying that it is the case here, but it could be. If audio scientists are hell bent to prove that there is "no difference" (which, for the record, they can't), and previous testing yielding a null result failed to take into account ALL potential confounding factors (including newly raised questions, that weren't originally considered), then the burden is on them to redo the work to retrieve yet again a null result when controlling for ALL factors.
> 
> And how can a test concede that a difference is "not significant enough to be concerned about" for a given individual? Always remember that tests and scientists tend to be concerned with averages.
> 
> ...


 
 In the two cases you mentioned it all comes down to a matter of taste, There is no absolute in Paintings or Wine, there are very many different styles or vintages that can be appreciated for themselves.
 In audio we have a goal, an absolute, the recreation of the sound of real instruments. Its called High Fidelity for a reason and taste should not be considered when judging.
 Of course it's your money and if you like pounding bass or screaming highly detailed and etched treble, that's cool too.  Just don't set it as the goalpost of achievement. To get High Fidelity we have to try and remove taste and bring scientific procedures to bear on the judging.


----------



## RRod

jcx said:


> in wine tasting a certified Sommelier actually has to pass blind tests - no pass = no certification


 
  
 When I saw that movie (Somm), that was the actually impressive part.


----------



## landroni

sal1950 said:


> In the two cases you mentioned it all comes down to a matter of taste, There is no absolute in Paintings or Wine, there are very many different styles or vintages that can be appreciated for themselves.
> In audio we have a goal, an absolute, the recreation of the sound of real instruments. Its called High Fidelity for a reason and taste should not be considered when judging.
> Of course it's your money and if you like pounding bass or screaming highly detailed and etched treble, that's cool too.  Just don't set it as the goalpost of achievement. To get High Fidelity we have to try and remove taste and bring scientific procedures to bear on the judging.


 

 All nice and well. But what does science tell us? Measure the audio. Fine. Look at THD and flat FR. Check. Yet as Jason Stoddard tactfully puts it, this is little more than dickwaving.
  
 For a crash course on how many headline specs advertised by manufacturers are irrelevant to actual audio fidelity, and how specs cannot be the ultimate judge of audio quality see this RMAF presentation:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> All nice and well. But what does science tell us? Measure the audio. Fine. Look at THD and flat FR. Check. Yet as Jason Stoddard tactfully puts it, this is little more than dickwaving.
> 
> For a crash course on how many headline specs advertised by manufacturers are irrelevant to actual audio fidelity, and how specs cannot be the ultimate judge of audio quality see this RMAF presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


 
  
 Science tells us to observe and then verify with experimentation. It's that last step that seems to be so hard for people to accept.
  
 *edit:
 Also note that science doesn't say "you can't know everything so throw your hands up in the air," which seems to be a common attitude around here.


----------



## landroni

rrod said:


> Science tells us to observe and then verify with experimentation. It's that last step that seems to be so hard for people to accept.


 

 I'm all for experimental verification done right.


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> I'm all for experimental verification done right.


 
  
 We of course agree. But the point of recent comments has been that ABX does perfectly well for one whole big class of audio comparison (lossy vs. lossless), so we have no reason to think it has deficiencies for testing hi-res vs. Redbook simply because people can't pass tests. If people want a longer-termed test then fine, but as I stated previously it would be perfectly possible for people to answer an ABX trial at the end of multi-hour listening sessions. So it seems the issue isn't the protocol, it's just willingness.


----------



## sonitus mirus

landroni said:


> I'm all for experimental verification done right.


 
  
 In this situation, we can't be expected to prove that no differences exist, as you put it.  Hopefully that criteria is not part of the experimental verification.   If anyone truly cared enough, they might be hell-bent to prove there IS a difference.  Is there any better method to test for an audible difference than by isolating only our hearing to best of our ability?  I'll assume, for now, that nobody has been able to hear any differences, otherwise they would embrace the methodology and let the world see the results.  That does not mean that I am certain that there is no difference.  Again, I'm waiting.  I consider myself to be impartial and would like to follow the evidence to wherever it leads me.


----------



## Sal1950

landroni said:


> All nice and well. But what does science tell us? Measure the audio. Fine. Look at THD and flat FR. Check. Yet as Jason Stoddard tactfully puts it, this is little more than dickwaving.
> 
> For a crash course on how many headline specs advertised by manufacturers are irrelevant to actual audio fidelity, *and how specs cannot be the ultimate judge of audio quality see this RMAF presentation:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


 
 Who ever said they did?  NO ONE
 You just made up a ridiculous statement to try a prove a nonsensical point.
 But without measurement, science,  and the improvements they lead to, you'd still be listening to a Edison wax cylinder


----------



## goodyfresh

landroni said:


> All nice and well. But what does science tell us? Measure the audio. Fine. Look at THD and flat FR. Check. Yet as Jason Stoddard tactfully puts it, this is little more than dickwaving.
> 
> For a crash course on how many headline specs advertised by manufacturers are irrelevant to actual audio fidelity, and how specs cannot be the ultimate judge of audio quality see this RMAF presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


 
 Yes sure, if you're ONLY talking about THD and FR.  But any differences in fidelity that ARE audible HAVE to be measurable somehow, otherwise they are simply in our heads.  That should be obvious to anyone.  So if THD and FR alone can't cut it, we then need to also look at IMD.  If that too still doesn't cut it to account for an audible difference, we need to look at things like impulse-response and CSD waterfall plots.  And so-on.


----------



## goodyfresh

castleofargh said:


> the general opinion against short blind tests is that they stress people, that some stuff like fatigue aren't noticeable on short tests, and that it tends to lead to more null than other tests.
> 
> all seemingly valid points. but just seemingly:
> 
> ...


 
 Yes, yes YES about the stuff about human memory.  One thing that REALLYYYYYYY pisses me off in this forum is people CONSTANTLY making comparisons between stuff purely from memory alone, without adding the disclaimer that it is purely from memory and thus subject to bias.  Human memory has been shown time and time again to be as unreliable as anything can ever get.


jcx said:


> _*it seems clear the desired implication is that 44k isn't enough and that this anecdote is intended to lead you to that conclusion*_


 
 Bias, bias, bias.  People have already paid a bunch of money for 24/96 tracks from HD Tracks or wherever, so they are already mentally invested in the idea that Hi-Res MUST be better!
  


moshen said:


> I have spent a whole lot of time trying to blind A/B identify closely volume matched Bifrost Multibit & my ODAC (many hours per day for days) with my HD800. I couldn't ever get better than random. It could also mean I just have really bad ears. Either way it put an end to my DAC upgrade craving.


 
 Neat!  I wonder if other people would be able to identify a difference or not.  It certainly seems plausible that people with Golden Ears could pass such a test, given that we're talking about R2R vs. DS that is not even close to "summit-fi" level or anything like that, but rather square in mid-fi territory.


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> sonitus mirus said:
> 
> 
> > Quick, back-and-forth switching works when testing for differences between 96kbps mp3 and a lossless version, but not between a 320kbps mp3 and a lossless version?  Is that what I am supposed to believe?  If identifying difference is too tiring and difficult, at what point do we concede that any differences are not significant enough to be concerned about?
> ...


 
 but how do you decide a test is flawed when you actually have no other test to validate that claim?
 you pretend to be on the rational side of things, but you really show all the bad stuff. I have a feeling that I heard a difference, I go with the hypothesis that it is the DAC (as this topic supposedly deals with that). so what will I do, I will test both DACs with the same tracks time aligned volume matched and a switch. if I still feel that I heard a difference, then I will ask someone to help me do a blind test. if I pass that test, I will conclude that I indeed heard a difference. 
 now another controlled test showing otherwise will ask the question "which test was flawed? and why?". but in this case you carefully avoid mentioning what is the other test, and we all know why. because claims of audible differences that fail a blind test come 100% of the time from uncontrolled sighted evaluation. which is biased and has been proved to be so many times for many reasons.
 so you want to justify the flaws of bind test by using the results you get from the worst subjective test method known to man after guessing. I fail to see the science behind this.
  
 so again, give us an audible test that has meaning and controls. and if the results contradict actual blind tests, then and only then, we'll look into using both tests depending on what we look for.
 blind test isn't perfect, but I won't accept crap methods as arguments against a method that works way better and has been demonstrated to do so thousands of times.
 give me an actual testing method for audible differences that outperforms rapid switching in a blind test. then we'll talk.
  
  
  
  
 the painting and wine are pure and simple fallacies. I would love to see less of those in your future posts. in both cases, almost anybody is able to tell the 2 paintings are different even if they never heard of the guys, and that 2 wines taste different even if they never had wine before. you're sliding out of your honesty chair, careful not to fall.
  
  
  
  


landroni said:


> All nice and well. But what does science tell us? Measure the audio. Fine. Look at THD and flat FR. Check. Yet as Jason Stoddard tactfully puts it, this is little more than dickwaving.
> 
> For a crash course on how many headline specs advertised by manufacturers are irrelevant to actual audio fidelity, and how specs cannot be the ultimate judge of audio quality see this RMAF presentation:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


 
 what does that have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about audibility?


----------



## watchnerd

My latest studio monitors have an A/D converter (sigma-delta based) and a DSP-based crossover.  This is becoming pretty common amongst the newest active studio monitors.
  
 What's the point of fetishizing over R2R DACs if it's going to get converted to via sigma-delta in the crossover, anyway?


----------



## Osirison

Hello Head-Fi-rs,
  
 I'm new but have been reading the Head-Fi forums for some time now.
  
 Since a year I have moved from transistor to tube amplifier's first balanced EL34 then single ended KT88 but listening on it there was some digitized sound and overly sharp S tones that was bothering me that I did not notice before on the Classe transistor amp and came to the conclusion it must be the DAC which was a Musical Fidelity m1dac.
 Before just buying a new DAC I did some research on the basics of conversion and came to the conclusion that binary-weighted or R-2R are actually a true way of decoding digits instead the alghortimic delta-sigma type and bought a PCM56 based R-2R dac which does not oversample or utilize a digital filter and it has a tube output stage.
 With this DAC in place I now have not a single transistor in the audiopath from the output of the PCM56 chip.
  
 Sounds very natural but not its not a magic device of course, the problem is that since about '85 recording studios began implementing more digital equipment and also sigma-delta/delta-sigma converters.
 This also means that your current vinyl production is probably not true analog anymore.
  
 Right now I enjoy listening to older Decca recordings from the Analogue Years box these old tape recordings where digitized around 1982 and are "captured" with R-2R AD converters.
 Instruments sound more real and not harsh compared to similar music from the digital Deutsche Grammophon recordings which are good recordings.
 Luckily labels like Tacet are into recording amazing sound without the use of sigma-delta, their "tube only" recordings sound beautiful.
  
 To me delta-sigma is only an era in time just like late 90's 2000's where people started to move to digital cameras using not so great image sensors, low resolution, artificial color saturation, but it was the best we could make at the time, just like delta-sigma is now.


----------



## spruce music

osirison said:


> Hello Head-Fi-rs,
> 
> I'm new but have been reading the Head-Fi forums for some time now.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 Well I remember all the big news when people went to delta-sigma DACs.  How they sounded so much more refined, smoother and had much better measurable performance than the old R2R gear.  There are some big problems in making accurate R2R gear that delta-sigma makes a non-issue.  So saying we once had good gear and now all we can get is sigma-delta is something of a fairy tale.  Sigma Delta outperforms R2R DACs in a measurable way.  Low level linearity is better, noise levels are better, 24 bit performance is closer to being realized, aliasing is better controlled, sigma delta is simply a better performing method.  R2R DACs can only come close to matching that performance at great expense, and don't do anything better. 
  
 Not trying to rain on your parade, but it is so funny.  All the same exact platitudes about how this is a more analog sounding, smoother, more correct way to do things has been used twice.  Once in the switch away from problematic R2R and now whats old is new again as the same spiel only in reverse is used to tell you sigma-delta isn't pure and you need to go R2R.


----------



## castleofargh

pulse modulated stuff has a lower theoretical resolution limit than R2R. but pulse modulated DAC achieves pretty much in reality what it can do on paper.
 R2R on paper is king of the hill. in practice I think it usually has more distortions than most delta sigma because, go get X resistors that are exactly the same value with the same behavior... not that easy to do in the real world.
  
 I believe Osi(welcome to headfi) is dismissing a great many changes that also occurred as the years passed that have nothing to do with delta sigma. recording processes changes, techs changed, mastering engineers had to get used to different medias needing different ways to master, and of course computers brought a all new list of digital DSPs to fool around with(just like almost everybody has some matter of vocoder applied to the voice...). and last but not least, the stupid loudness war that ruined thousands of albums so that they would be loud on the radio. so it's pretty hard to blame it on pulse modulation IMO. could be one of the cause, just like both DAC could actually sound just the same given how well they can measure compared to everything else in the audio system.


----------



## Max Choiral

Guys, you're going over and over the same thing for decades. Just make some comparisons with measurements (made by yourself) and explanation already, otherwise this discussion leads nowhere


----------



## watchnerd

osirison said:


> Sounds very natural but not its not a magic device of course, the problem is that since about '85 recording studios began implementing more digital equipment and also sigma-delta/delta-sigma converters.
> This also means that your current vinyl production is probably not true analog anymore.
> 
> To me delta-sigma is only an era in time just like late 90's 2000's where people started to move to digital cameras using not so great image sensors, low resolution, artificial color saturation, but it was the best we could make at the time, just like delta-sigma is now.


 
  
 I think you're underestimating the foothold that sigma-delta/delta-sigma has on the broader market.
  
 1. Pretty much every new, major manufacturer studio grade ADC currently on the market is a sigma-delta ADC.
  
 2. Pretty much every mass-market mobile device, car, computer, streaming device uses delta-sigma DACs.
  
 The economics have won out.  We might move on to something better than SD/DS, but I wouldn't expect R2R to make a comeback.
  
 The only people who talk about R2R/multibit vs DS are audiophiles.  Makers of pro/studio gear don't talk about it, nor do designers working at Sonos, Apple, etc.
  
 Lastly, as you mentioned, music is now recorded using SD ADCs.  So if one believes that R2R is better, the source music is already irretrievably "tainted".


----------



## castleofargh

max choiral said:


> Guys, you're going over and over the same thing for decades. Just make some comparisons with measurements (made by yourself) and explanation already, otherwise this discussion leads nowhere


 

 easier said than done. I don't know enough to go measure more than entire DACs with all the unrelated yet potentially different components. and even then, my poor focusrite ADC is no better than  some of my DACs, I would need some professional gears(and more knowledge than I have) to measure DACs correctly.
 it gives 2 ideas, one is that we're bothering about the best part of our audio system(which seems a little silly). the other is that we need pros to do this job (I had some moderate hopes when I saw Shiit on the topic, but they're now both gone).


----------



## watchnerd

max choiral said:


> Guys, you're going over and over the same thing for decades. Just make some comparisons with measurements (made by yourself) and explanation already, otherwise this discussion leads nowhere


 
  
 Why measurements made by ourselves instead of from, say, published AES or IEEE papers?


----------



## Max Choiral

castleofargh said:


> it gives 2 ideas, one is that we're bothering about the best part of our audio system(which seems a little silly). the other is that we need pros to do this job (I had some moderate hopes when I saw Shiit on the topic, but they're now both gone).


 
 This must be done by an outsider, not a "professional" reviewer or even a manufacturer of the audio stuff.
  


watchnerd said:


> Why measurements made by ourselves instead of from, say, published AES or IEEE papers?


 

 I would rather believe opinions of those people who can't affect audio business.
 P.S.: for those saying there is no difference between R2R vs Delta-Sigma. Well, good for you if you don't hear it, be happy


----------



## watchnerd

max choiral said:


> This must be done by an outsider, not a "professional" reviewer or even a manufacturer of the audio stuff.
> 
> 
> I would rather believe opinions of those people who can't affect audio business.
> P.S.: for those saying there is no difference between R2R vs Delta-Sigma. Well, good for you if you don't hear it, be happy


 
  
 When you say "measurements", do you mean a double-blind listening test?  Or do you mean actual measurements?
  
 Because the equipment required to do a comprehensive DAC comparison is pretty hardcore, including needing a femtoclock, DNL & INL error detection, impulse generators, etc, are not exactly the things non-professionals have lying around.


----------



## Max Choiral

watchnerd said:


> Or do you mean actual measurements?
> 
> Because the equipment required to do a comprehensive DAC comparison is pretty hardcore, including needing a femtoclock, DNL & INL error detection, impulse generators, etc, are not exactly the things non-professionals have lying around.


 
 The second one of course, actual measurements.
 Sure, this goes without saying. As I've told earlier, only those who are not involved in this tricky business


----------



## watchnerd

max choiral said:


> The second one of course, actual measurements.
> Sure, this goes without saying. As I've told earlier, only those who are not involved in this tricky business


 
  
 Okay, so you've set up a strawman standard that is never going to happen.
  
 You're asking for a PhD in EE and/or signal processing, who also happens to have a home lab equivalent to what would be found at a semi-conductor manufacturer, but isn't actually employed in the industry, who want to run a comprehensive research project, for free.


----------



## watchnerd

max choiral said:


> The second one of course, actual measurements.
> Sure, this goes without saying. As I've told earlier, only those who are not involved in this tricky business


 
  
 Also, measurements won't prove whether the differences are audible.
  
 For that, you need blind listening tests, which can be done at home.
  
 A simple triage: do the listening tests first. If people can't differentiate, the measured differences are pretty moot.


----------



## Max Choiral

watchnerd said:


> Also, measurements won't prove whether the differences are audible.
> 
> For that, you need blind listening tests, which can be done at home.
> 
> A simple triage: do the listening tests first. If people can't differentiate, the measured differences are pretty moot.


 

 True, you've got point here. First of all, you need to do a research in order to understand those graphs and how it's matching with the actual listening process.
 Anyway, this thing is a two sided coin where the weak chain mainly a human due to such things as:  hearing capabilities, "trained" ears, headphones, music genre etc.


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> Also, measurements won't prove whether the differences are audible.
> 
> For that, you need blind listening tests, which can be done at home.
> 
> A simple triage: do the listening tests first. If people can't differentiate, the measured differences are pretty moot.


 
 ^ Ditto. This is in the world of research is the principle of practical significance. In many behavioural science experiments a difference between variables of interest can be detected even if it is small enough to have no practical significance. Same in medical research. Many treatment and drug options are created that can show an effect, but the effect size is so small that if brought to market the drugs would have no actual treatment effect so why create the drug? If the unaided, untrained ear can't hear the difference why does it matter? People don't train and evaluate their audio gear, they use it to listen to music, or at least they should.


----------



## Max Choiral

spruce music said:


> Sigma Delta outperforms R2R DACs in a measurable way.  Low level linearity is better, noise levels are better, 24 bit performance is closer to being realized, aliasing is better controlled, sigma delta is simply a better performing method.  R2R DACs can only come close to matching that performance at great expense, and don't do anything better.


 
 One question. Do you hear the differences using those measurements you've mentioned above with headphones? I'm sure, you're not.
 Don't get me wrong, I'm not against delta-sigma. Rather, we need both, delta-sigma & R2R, in order to satisfy our "hunger"


----------



## Sonic Defender

I'll bet in blind listening tests most people will have a tough time consistently preferring either over the other assuming the sound signatures are close enough. At our last meet we had a Yggy there plus my M51. I was going to do some blind testing of preference, but instead I did a blind test of MP3 versus lossless and sadly could not do both. I heard the Yggy through a Ragg with my headphones and it didn't seem like anything transformative to me at all. It was nice, but so is my M51.


----------



## watchnerd

max choiral said:


> One question. Do you hear the differences using those measurements you've mentioned above with headphones? I'm sure, you're not.
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not against delta-sigma. Rather, we need both, delta-sigma & R2R, in order to satisfy our "hunger"


 
  
 hunger for what?


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> hunger for what?


 

 Maybe hunger for the illusion there is something better than what you have.  And that it will be better.


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> Maybe hunger for the illusion there is something better than what you have.  And that it will be better.


 
  
 I'm all in favor of pursuing better sound to make it higher fidelity to the source recording.
  
 BUT.....the choice of chip architecture is the area least in need of improvement.  Everything else in the reproduction chain, from the analog side to the headphones themselves and, most importantly, the recordings, are so measurably flawed in comparison to the purely digital portion (assuming low jitter) that it's just weird to obsess over nanoscopic differences there when everything else is much farther from being perfect.


----------



## spruce music

watchnerd said:


> I'm all in favor of pursuing better sound to make it higher fidelity to the source recording.
> 
> BUT.....the choice of chip architecture is the area least in need of improvement.  Everything else in the reproduction chain, from the analog side to the headphones themselves and, most importantly, the recordings, are so measurably flawed in comparison to the purely digital portion (assuming low jitter) that it's just weird to obsess over nanoscopic differences there when everything else is much farther from being perfect.


 

 I certainly agree with that.  I would place the biggest problems in order of increasing importance as microphones, speakers, and rooms.  Everything else is orders of magnitude better sorted out.  A special mention of the evils of terrible mastering of recordings that can undo everything else and is far too common.


----------



## Sonic Defender

spruce music said:


> I certainly agree with that.  I would place the biggest problems in order of increasing importance as microphones, speakers, and rooms.  Everything else is orders of magnitude better sorted out.  A special mention of the evils of terrible mastering of recordings that can undo everything else and is far too common.


 

 It is nice to see somebody else mention the humble microphone as a limiting factor. When you consider that a microphone captures all through the air sounds in the studio I think that technology has way more impact on the final product than infinitesimally small differences in digital reconstruction.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> It is nice to see somebody else mention the humble microphone as a limiting factor. When you consider that a microphone captures all through the air sounds in the studio I think that technology has way more impact on the final product than infinitesimally small differences in digital reconstruction.


 
  
 Yes, 100%.
  
 As much as possible I try to have phones and mics from the same maker (e.g. AKG, Sennheiser).
  
 Oh, and it impacts imaging, too...the simple choices between omni, figure 8, cardioid, etc, all have a huge impact on imaging.


----------



## disastermouse

x relic x said:


> This blog helped me understand the basics. Though it's a bit biased in its conclusions I would agree with what he states at the end based on the differences I've heard.
> 
> http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm
> There's a lot of reading and learning ahead.
> ...



Is Yggdrasil R2R or just a better digital algorithm?


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Is Yggdrasil R2R or just a better digital algorithm?


 
  
 The Yggy is definitely an R2R DAC. The question is if what makes it special is the fact that it's R2R or the digital filter it uses?
  
 There has been some comment from Schiit to the effect of (paraphrasing) "the megacomboburrito filter is the DAC."
  
 How much of the magic is due to using high precision ladder resistor DACs vs the filter is something that only Schiit can answer (or at least can answer without a huge reverse engineering effort).
  
 For me, personally, it's easier for me to conceptualize the majority of the magic happening in the filter.  Nothing wrong with that, BTW. Innovative algorithms are powerful things and the inventors should be rewarded.


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> disastermouse said:
> 
> 
> > Is Yggdrasil R2R or just a better digital algorithm?
> ...


 

  
 Delta-Sigma requires digital filtering stages (e.g. oversampling, noise-shaping...) that are unnecessary or optional in R2R. Same for the analogue output stage (e.g. the huge levels of out-of-band, high-frequency noise that are bound to fry equipment if left unattended).

  
 From Mike Moffat's musings on Schiit's super-duper closed-form filter, I've never heard him opine that this filter was implementable with a Delta-Sigma chip. In my understanding most DS chips come with their own filter (based on Parks–McClellan algorithm, or by successive approximation) and some like ES9018 even impose their own analogue stage. Some manufacturers (like Bottlehead) work around the in-built filters by using FPGA. I've never read Moffat or Stoddard suggest or even hint that the filter could be implemented in their lower-end DS designs... If it were, I'd bet that we would have already heard something along these lines for Modi, Bifrost or Gungnir. Or maybe not.

  
 More on Yggy's digital filter and what differentiates it from most Parks–McClellan implementations (by Mike Moffat):
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/4950#post_11396780


----------



## artur9

I'm not usually one to enjoy the car analogy audiophiles like to use but then this this article by Ars Technica.
  
 A quote
  


> Despite the obsession with numbers, cars remain devices of analog communication.


 
  
 TL;DR
 Measurements can't tell one everything.
  
 So strange to see this argument made in a strictly mechanical field.  No quantum effects in the automative industry, unless @tonykaz says differently.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> Delta-Sigma requires digital filtering stages (e.g. oversampling, noise-shaping...) that are unnecessary or optional in R2R. Same for the analogue output stage (e.g. the huge levels of out-of-band, high-frequency noise that are bound to fry equipment if left unattended).
> 
> 
> From Mike Moffat's musings on Schiit's super-duper closed-form filter, I've never heard him opine that this filter was implementable with a Delta-Sigma chip. In my understanding most DS chips come with their own filter (based on Parks–McClellan algorithm, or by successive approximation) and some like ES9018 even impose their own analogue stage. Some manufacturers (like Bottlehead) work around the in-built filters by using FPGA. I've never read Moffat or Stoddard suggest or even hint that the filter could be implemented in their lower-end DS designs... If it were, I'd bet that we would have already heard something along these lines for Modi, Bifrost or Gungnir. Or maybe not.
> ...


 
  
 Yes, Parks-MClellan is the default for DS DACs and I've heard Mike talk about how he doesn't like it.
  
 My point wasn't that the Yggy filter couldn't be implemented in a DS DAC, but rather the opposite -- what makes the Yggy special sounding may all be in the filter, i.e. if a more generic R2R filter might sound more...well, generic.


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> Yes, Parks-MClellan is the default for DS DACs and I've heard Mike talk about how he doesn't like it.
> 
> 
> My point wasn't that the Yggy filter couldn't be implemented in a DS DAC, but rather the opposite -- what makes the Yggy special sounding may all be in the filter, i.e. if a more generic R2R filter might sound more...well, generic.


 

 Bifrost MB uses the same digital filter as Yggy (only slightly dialled down --- from memory, at 4x instead of 8x upsampling), but NO filter at 176.4/192 kHz. At those rates it's "pure" R2R --- no digital filtering is involved and the input is passed directly to the ladder of resistors. Might be fun, if not exactly informative, to test 88.2/96 material vs 176.4/192. The former would use the filter, the latter not.
  
 My understanding/intuition on Moffat's filter is that it retrieves the _exact _form of the digitally captured waveform (i.e. exact points along the waveform), so that interpolated points aren't approximative/guesses, but perfect matches instead.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> so that interpolated points aren't approximative/guesses, but perfect matches instead.


 
  
 I always find this point tautologically interesting:
  
 If the recording as originally made with a sigma-delta ADCs, then the waveforms are an approximation, so then Yggy is making exact matches of an approximation?


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> landroni said:
> 
> 
> > so that interpolated points aren't approximative/guesses, but perfect matches instead.
> ...


 

 So it seems. Exact interpolation along the waveform as defined by the stored bits... It works with what it is being supplied. Or, as engineers quip: garbage in, garbage out. This still beats the hell out of "approximation of an approximation".
  
 BTW, it seems Moffat is 10x unhappier with SD ADCs than with DS DACs.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> So it seems. Exact interpolation along the waveform as defined by the stored bits... It works with what it is being supplied. Or, as engineers quip: garbage in, garbage out. This still beats the hell out of "approximation of an approximation".
> 
> BTW, it seems Moffat is 10x unhappier with SD ADCs than with DS DACs.


 
  
 So here is where I find things get almost almost philosophical:
  
 If the mastering engineers are using DS DACs (and most are) through their monitors / headphones while mixing, then isn't the use of a DS DAC closer to the original mixing environment and, thus, artistic intent?
  
 In other words, which is more important, precision or accuracy?


----------



## cjl

watchnerd said:


> I always find this point tautologically interesting:
> 
> If the recording as originally made with a sigma-delta ADCs, then the waveforms are an approximation, so then Yggy is making exact matches of an approximation?


 
 There's also the fact that there will always be some error in the reproduction, so it doesn't really make sense to call either approach "exact". An approach involving successive approximation can be incredibly accurate, so really, both should be quantified by accuracy, not by some feelgood theoretical "exact" claim. From what I've seen, the Yggy is very good, with real world performance of about 21 bit. However, I'm very skeptical that it would be audibly distinguishable from a very good S-D DAC, and in fact, even a mediocre S-D DAC (so long as it measured good enough to be expected to be audibly transparent) should sound identical as well. I don't see a lot of point in speculating what makes the Yggdrasil sound so good until it is established that it does, in fact, sound audibly different from any other competent DAC.
  
 That having been said, I am very impressed with the measurements they've managed to get out of that thing. Even if the difference isn't audible, I do love seeing a relatively price-is-no-object type approach taken just to see what can be done with it.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Looks like I may have a multi-bit gem on my hand. I was given a working Rotel RCD-955AX CD player which apparently has a nice Phillips mult-bit DAC in it. Does anybody in this thread no much if anything about this unit? I just read a Stereophile review of it (obviously older) where the author was quite convinced it was one of the best values in audio at that time feeling that it could keep up with the more expensive Theta's (although not quite as good). Hell I even have the remote and manual.
  
 I used to run an electronic recycling depot and a lady brought this in along with a decent Denon receiver and a pair of very nice Celestion speakers (everything in mint and working condition). The former owner told me to keep them if I liked as she didn't have room anymore, but was happy they wouldn't be smashed.


----------



## castleofargh

for the very little we actually know of this filter, whatever claim of superior fidelity should come with measurements of such superior fidelity. and then some evidence of audibility in blind test.  else to me it's only marketing and I read it as such. they all have their own special sauce somewhere that is better in their own opinions. some are bound to be wrong.
 if it's about sounding nicer, then it's subjective and everything goes. if the claim is on superior fidelity, then it should be easy enough to prove.
 just like it should be easy enough to show if it's not all going down the drain once it has passed an amp and a transducer and a human ear. I have my personal doubts about this part.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Looks like I may have a multi-bit gem on my hand. I was given a working Rotel RCD-955AX CD player which apparently has a nice Phillips mult-bit DAC in it. Does anybody in this thread no much if anything about this unit? I just read a Stereophile review of it (obviously older) where the author was quite convinced it was one of the best values in audio at that time feeling that it could keep up with the more expensive Theta's (although not quite as good). Hell I even have the remote and manual.


 
  
 How's the jitter?


----------



## cjl

watchnerd said:


> How's the jitter?


 
 Presumably audibly perfect, unless it's remarkably bad for a modern DAC. Jitter simply isn't worth worrying about in the great majority of cases.


----------



## Sonic Defender

The Rotel has a TDA1541A chipset in it which is reputed to be quite a nice 16bit chipset. I've never heard audible jitter that I knew what I was hearing so if there is jitter (which presumably there is) I can't distinguish it. The Rotel is a nice solid unit, immaculate and even the remote works like a charm. It sounds nice, very nice. Going back and forth between my M51 and the Rotel it is hard to say one way or the other what sounds better. Certainly the Rotel sounds very good indeed. Still, I will need to do some critical listening when I get a chance. For now suffice to say I am impressed with this very old chipset.
  
 I have an older Marantz CD player which I will need to see about as I wouldn't be shocked if it also has a good multibit TDA chipset in it. I bought it new in about 93-95 so not sure what chipset would have been used then by Marantz. It was always a very musical CD player and my brother has used it up until recently as the tray mechanism is starting to go.


----------



## watchnerd

I can't remember the last time I listened to a CD...
  
 I ripped all of my CDs (and SACDs), traded them in for vinyl.


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> I can't remember the last time I listened to a CD...
> 
> I ripped all of my CDs (and SACDs), traded them in for vinyl.


 
 I had a huge vinyl collection, I have to admit, very happy to let my brother deal with that. I never found vinyl to sound better than properly mastered digital, not at all. And I grew up on vinyl. Each to their own as they say.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> I had a huge vinyl collection, I have to admit, very happy to let my brother deal with that. I never found vinyl to sound better than properly mastered digital, not at all. And I grew up on vinyl. Each to their own as they say.


 
  
 Oh I don't listen collect vinyl because I think it sounds better.
  
 I do it as an act of willful anachronism.
  
 Most of my listening is digital, lately via Roon.


----------



## Sonic Defender

Getting rid of hard copies might bite you in the ass as they say. I have ripped all my CDs as well, and despite backups I might be happy to still have the discs on hand. Case in point, played Tears for Fears Sowing The Seeds of Love album through JRiver the other day (I also use Tidal) only to discover one of the tracks had errors in it, actually two so now I can just get the disc and rip again. I know the disc is fine, or it should be anyway as I had it for years.
  
 I'm thinking of buying a TDA 1514A DAC kit and taking the CD player apart to build a little R2R DAC.


----------



## spruce music

sonic defender said:


> The Rotel has a TDA1541A chipset in it which is reputed to be quite a nice 16bit chipset. I've never heard audible jitter that I knew what I was hearing so if there is jitter (which presumably there is) I can't distinguish it. The Rotel is a nice solid unit, immaculate and even the remote works like a charm. It sounds nice, very nice. Going back and forth between my M51 and the Rotel it is hard to say one way or the other what sounds better. Certainly the Rotel sounds very good indeed. Still, I will need to do some critical listening when I get a chance. For now suffice to say I am impressed with this very old chipset.
> 
> I have an older Marantz CD player which I will need to see about as I wouldn't be shocked if it also has a good multibit TDA chipset in it. I bought it new in about 93-95 so not sure what chipset would have been used then by Marantz. It was always a very musical CD player and my brother has used it up until recently as the tray mechanism is starting to go.


 
 http://www.stereophile.com/content/rotel-rcd-955ax-and-rcd-965bx-cd-players#34qt3HdgKohgIw5T.97
  
  
 A review of the unit from 1992.   Pretty sure those used a 4 times oversampling digital filter though the DAC itself was 16 multi-bit. 
  
 Info on the DAC chip here:
 http://www.dutchaudioclassics.nl/philips-tda1541.asp
  
 Of course Lampizator repackaged the same DAC and filter chip.  What was old is new again?


----------



## Sonic Defender

spruce music said:


> http://www.stereophile.com/content/rotel-rcd-955ax-and-rcd-965bx-cd-players#34qt3HdgKohgIw5T.97
> 
> 
> A review of the unit from 1992.   Pretty sure those used a 4 times oversampling digital filter though the DAC itself was 16 multi-bit.
> ...


 
 So was the chipset itself very good? I'm wondering about building a little DAC around it if it is worth it.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> I can't remember the last time I listened to a CD...
> 
> I ripped all of my CDs (and SACDs), traded them in for vinyl.


 

 I can, it was last night. We couldn't find an Einstürzende Neubauten album on Tidal or Spotify and my girlfriend wanted to hear what it sounded like with her new headphones and my new amp.


----------



## spruce music

sonic defender said:


> So was the chipset itself very good? I'm wondering about building a little DAC around it if it is worth it.


 

 Good chip for its time, superseded by later chips.  I don't know of any reason it would sound better than modern chips.
  
 If you are interested in doing such a thing, spend some time at the diyaudio forums.  Lots of such projects like that, and plenty of people to give you good help making it happen.


----------



## Sonic Defender

spruce music said:


> Good chip for its time, superseded by later chips.  I don't know of any reason it would sound better than modern chips.
> 
> If you are interested in doing such a thing, spend some time at the diyaudio forums.  Lots of such projects like that, and plenty of people to give you good help making it happen.


 
 Not thinking it would sound better, perhaps different in a good way? I just know that some people really hold these "classic" chipsets in high regard and I frankly wasn't certain where this particular iteration fit into things. Thanks for the input, I may just do the DIY thing.


----------



## spruce music

sonic defender said:


> Not thinking it would sound better, perhaps different in a good way? I just know that some people really hold these "classic" chipsets in high regard and I frankly wasn't certain where this particular iteration fit into things. Thanks for the input, I may just do the DIY thing.


 

 Well I know I am being cynical.  A friend had that Rotel player.  And I well remember all the subjective audio press eventually going gaga over bitstream, and later even more so over multi-bit sigma delta.  No issues with low level linearity etc. etc.  How it was all sounding so much better with all the more special tech involved.  Some of those very same people now go gaga over some handbuilt R2R or non-oversampling or true multi-bit DAC.  So yes some hold these chipsets in classic high regard.  Ditto with tubes, ditto with vinyl etc. etc.  I guess I am a little jaded having seen it all come around full circle.
  
 Still, DIY can be very good if it interests you.  Always more interesting to have something you put together, made the design choices and can actually use. 
  
 http://www.diyaudio.com/  The forums here are fantastic.  Not just DACs, but everything related to audio.


----------



## Sonic Defender

^ I'm a healthy cynic myself. I respect balanced and informed cynicism. Cheers.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Getting rid of hard copies might bite you in the ass as they say. I have ripped all my CDs as well, and despite backups I might be happy to still have the discs on hand. Case in point, played Tears for Fears Sowing The Seeds of Love album through JRiver the other day (I also use Tidal) only to discover one of the tracks had errors in it, actually two so now I can just get the disc and rip again.


 
  
 If I only had my own physical copies to rely upon in such instances, I can see your point.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> I can, it was last night. We couldn't find an Einstürzende Neubauten album on Tidal or Spotify and my girlfriend wanted to hear what it sounded like with her new headphones and my new amp.


 
  
 Yeah, but if one has ripped everything and is storing it in multiple places, you're not restricted to what's on Tidal or Spotify.


----------



## watchnerd

spruce music said:


> Well I know I am being cynical.  A friend had that Rotel player.  And I well remember all the subjective audio press eventually going gaga over bitstream, and later even more so over multi-bit sigma delta.  No issues with low level linearity etc. etc.  How it was all sounding so much better with all the more special tech involved.  Some of those very same people now go gaga over some handbuilt R2R or non-oversampling or true multi-bit DAC.  So yes some hold these chipsets in classic high regard.  Ditto with tubes, ditto with vinyl etc. etc.  I guess I am a little jaded having seen it all come around full circle.


 
  
 Ditto.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Not thinking it would sound better, perhaps different in a good way? I just know that some people really hold these "classic" chipsets in high regard and I frankly wasn't certain where this particular iteration fit into things. Thanks for the input, I may just do the DIY thing.


 
  
 I think you have an awesome chance to make an experimental device that has 2 different DACs (one DS, the other multibit), but with the same analog section, so you can compare the sounds of the two technologies directly.


----------



## landroni

> Originally Posted by *watchnerd* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> So here is where I find things get almost almost philosophical:
> ...


 

 Mike Moffat appears rather dismissive when queried on this:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/1365#post_10631927
 Quote:


baldr said:


> [...]
> 
> 
> Now, why do this [the filter]?? It is a lot of work. Five years of my life. Simple. It sounds better. Almost all of the high priced competition uses chips bought from a variety of manufacturers which implement the digital filters. They come with instruction booklets which show you how to hook them up. It's a lot like buying a frozen food entree and reading the side of the box.
> ...


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> Mike Moffat appears rather dismissive when queried on this:
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/1365#post_10631927
> Quote:
> 
> ...


 
  
 What I find interesting about the "it sounds better" rationale is that it's also used by many designers in the purely analog world for equipment that measures poorly, e.g. SETs.
  
 Am I looking for a DAC that makes stuff sound better than it should?


----------



## landroni

> Originally Posted by *cjl* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> From what I've seen, the Yggy is very good, with real world performance of about 21 bit. However, I'm very skeptical that it would be audibly distinguishable from a very good S-D DAC, and in fact, even a mediocre S-D DAC (so long as it measured good enough to be expected to be audibly transparent) should sound identical as well. I don't see a lot of point in speculating what makes the Yggdrasil sound so good until it is established that it does, in fact, sound audibly different from any other competent DAC.


 
  
 Could you make this into something falsifiable? Something along the lines of: "Given measurements, Schiit Yggdrasil should be audibly identical with this specific _Model X_ DS DAC." (replace _Model X_ by some actual DAC model)
  
 I always feel uncomfortable when hearing broad-brush claims like "no difference between Yggdrasil and a mediocre DS DAC" or "no difference between 100$ DAC and a 2000$ DAC". Something more precise that can actually be tested for would be very welcome...


----------



## jcx

1st show "it" "sounds better" in terms that Sound Science accepts - the 1st step we usually like to see is showing "it" sounds different at all from other approaches in controlled listening tests
  
  
 its actually standard in EE to explain what "it" is - which Mike hasn't - likely a mathematical "optimum" expressible as an equation in familiar to engineers EE Signal Theory terms
  
 since Mike doesn't clearly state what the "megaburitto" optimizes there is little that can be said without reverse engineering - which in the scheme of "valuable intellectual property" wouldn't be particularly difficult - if anyone really thought it was soo valuable
  
 but "it" hasn't swept the recording or reproduction market, wasn't valuable enough to protect with patents, hasn't so far convinced any with the resources to reverse engineer - from his use in the Theta days to now...
  
 and Schiit, Jason's writing is clear on their distain for serious Psychoacoustic testing - excused as "having fun"
  
  
 over the years several other steep digital reconstruction filter responses have been analyzed, some subjected to DBT - so far the listening test data is shaky - and the various directions pursued are all over the map - not coalescing on some few characteristics pointed to by solid listening data
  
 Meridian has white papers for the "apodizing" approach, read a few of https://www.google.com/#q=meridian+audio+apodizing+filter&pws=0 add in Charles Hansen at Ayre to the search or Putzys "Mola-Mola" project tease https://www.google.com/#q=Putzys+%22Mola-Mola%22 and tell me who knows "the one true way" - maybe Rob Watts?


----------



## Sonic Defender

Ultimately there is no one single truth, and nor should there be. There will always be a diversity of views even on topics in audio that appear so fundamental and reducible to a correct position. That is fine, people are different, what we respond to, what we want can differ, sometimes for no apparent reason. I'm not a fan of Mr. Moffat's disdain for people who don't agree with him, but I am most certainly a fan of the art he is so obviously dedicated to, and that goes for all of the designers and dreamers out there who keep this wonderful art we call being an audiophile alive and vibrant. Sure it can get frustrating and at times divisive, but that is just part of people being people. Thankfully I can choose between an R2R and DS DAC, or tube amp or solid state, or any other permeation that people care to create. It would be bad for innovation if we all agreed and wanted the same thing. Keep it coming you developers, fight it out and disagree as much as you like, as long as the ideas and innovation follow we all come out ahead don't we?


----------



## jcx

I believe many of "the stories" detract from effective prioritizing audio equipment purchases in light of fairly well established Psychoacoustics
  
 Psychoacoustics isn't "complete" but the audiophile equipment sellers have a vested interest in FUD rather than truly "advancing" the hobby through acknowledging, spreading knowledge of what is known, much less extending Psychoacoustics
  
  
 why buy a very, very arguably marginally different sounding $2500 DAC if the same money spent on a SVS Realizer makes a jaw dropping difference in headphone listening - giving soundstage/imaging of real speakers in the real room you make the personal calibration in?
  
 in comparison its hard not to dismiss Mike's "Holographic" attribution to the yggy as hype - however good, whatever the megaburitto optimizes its not in the same class of audible difference


----------



## OddE

disastermouse said:


> We couldn't find an Einstürzende Neubauten album on Tidal or Spotify and my girlfriend wanted to hear what it sounded like with her new headphones and my new amp.


 
  
 -What, your GF is into EN? What's her phone number?  (My wife's response whenever I put on anything but the latest couple of EN albums is more along the lines of 'Will you please turn off that ****** noise???'
  
 Headphones can be a path to matrimonial bliss.


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> What I find interesting about the "it sounds better" rationale is that it's also used by many designers in the purely analog world for equipment that measures poorly, e.g. SETs.
> 
> 
> Am I looking for a DAC that makes stuff sound better than it should?


 

 Metrum makes the argument that measurements are not performed at its logical end-point, since they ignore the auditory filtering behaviour of our ears. It seems like the ears behave like a steep band-pass filter. Most measurements do not take this into account:
_"Because our hearing naturally functions as a strong filter, our brains tend to interpret the signal from the NOS
 DAC as if it has passed through a FIR-filter. This is due to the limited bandwidth of our hearing. Looking at
 the picture on the top of this page, we can wonder how the eventual picture will look if another equivalent
 filter is added by our hearing. It is well-documented by both musicians and authorities in the field of audio,
 that especially percussion instruments suffer from this effect. It is therefore not unfounded when NOS DACs
 are claimed to sound the most natural of all the alternatives. Because at the same time the testresults for all
 NOS DACs fall short, the question can be raised wether the correct tests are being done to accurately gauge
 their quality. All measurements are, after all, performed without the benefit of any filter."_
  
 and:
_"As I mentioned earlier, NOS DACs don’t test well. The jtest is not different in this regard. On the internet the
 results of many jtests for NOS DACs which have been made under similar conditions can be found. Similar
 conditions are key if any comparisons between products need to be made. Miller Labs are often asked to
 perform the tests for reviews and such. These tests are always performed in the same way under similar
 circumstances. It is remarkable that every single NOS DAC performes poorly under the Jtest. Is every single
 NOS DAC designer using inferieur techniques, or are measurement errors the problem here?"_
  
 and:
_"Because the basilair membrane behaves as a sharp filter for our hearing, it has become, in a certain way,
 part of the DAC. The measurements on a NOS DAC are therefore not measured at its logical end-point, but
 before the filter (our hearing)."_


----------



## disastermouse

odde said:


> -What, your GF is into EN? What's her phone number?  (My wife's response whenever I put on anything but the latest couple of EN albums is more along the lines of 'Will you please turn off that ****** noise???'
> 
> Headphones can be a path to matrimonial bliss.


 

 The EN was her CD; I don't have any of their stuff. We listened to some Skinny Puppy too. Oddly well-recorded, but listening to those old late-80s synths is funny. The fidelity is there, but the sounds themselves are 'cute'.


----------



## sheldaze

odde said:


> -What, your GF is into EN? What's her phone number?  (My wife's response whenever I put on anything but the latest couple of EN albums is more along the lines of 'Will you please turn off that ****** noise???'
> 
> Headphones can be a path to matrimonial bliss.


 
 Don't forget that girlfriends and wives often have better hearing than us. A Yggy/Rag stack actually reduced my footprint and improved the sound quality - two pluses!
 The wife acceptance factor is strong with these


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> and:
> _"Because the basilair membrane behaves as a sharp filter for our hearing, it has become, in a certain way,
> part of the DAC. The measurements on a NOS DAC are therefore not measured at its logical end-point, but
> before the filter (our hearing)."_


 
  
 This is a pretty goofy thing to say -- the basilair membrane isn't a filter on our hearing, it is part of our hearing.  You can't remove it.
  
 Yes, it's true, our ears are not microphones. And our brains are not electronics.  But we all know this.


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 it would be nice if that was the problem in audio. before wondering it the measurement accounts for the human, how about simply getting measurements that serve a purpose and follow a clear standard?
 I'll use the shiit website because it's IMO a good example. they're not really trying to lie like so many so called high end sellers, they don't BS too much about "just listen" to hide how the measurements are not showing fidelity, and all in all they show a good number of specs that too many other brands decide we don't need. and most of all they do products I believe to be pretty good as far as fidelity goes. yet here we go into the impossible search for something relevant:
  
 Modi2
*Frequency Response: 2*0Hz-20KHz, +/-0.1dB
*Maximum Output: *1.5V RMS 
*THD: *<0.002%, 20Hz-20KHz, at max output 
*IMD:* <0.003%, CCIF, at max output
*S/N:* >104dB, referenced to 1.5VRMS, unweighted
*Crosstalk: *-80dB, 20-20kHz
  
  
 Bifrost
*Frequency Response*: 20Hz-20KHz, +/-0.1dB, 2Hz-100KHz, -1dB  
*Maximum Output: *2.0V RMS 
*THD: *<0.003%, 20Hz-20KHz, at max output 
*IMD: *<0.004%, CCIR 
*S/N:* >108dB, referenced to 2V RMS
  
*Bifrost Multibit*
*Frequency Response:* 20Hz-20KHz, +/-0.1dB, 2Hz-150KHz, -1dB  
*Maximum Output:* 2.0V RMS 
*THD: *<0.005%, 20Hz-20KHz, at max output 
*IMD: *<0.008%, CCIR 
*S/N: *>109dB, referenced to 2V RMS
  
 you can have fun and look at the other gears, it's the same idea.
 first the nomenclature varies from page to page, is it that they just typed stuff without looking too much at the first product's specs? or is it to gently fool people without lying? well it doesn't matter. it's different and once you doubt, the values become irrelevant.
 S/N ratio, one mentions being unweighted, are the others also unweighted? probably, but IDK so what's the point of those values for me?
 the modi is 104db at 1.5V, the bifrost is 108db at 2V (both full output). they are honest enough to mention the voltage output and that's real cool. but from 1.5 to 2V that's like 2.5db, so if I take the bifrost to 1.5V max output, I might end up with a SNR or 105.5db which is close to being irrelevant compared to 104db of the modi.
 but if I take that route, then THD and IMD are seemingly better on the 99$ DAC!!! so am I paying 300$ more to get something that is 2.5db louder and doesn't actually measure as good as the modi? that would be a little dumb to buy that DAC if I care only for the specs that Shiit gave me.
 and crosstalk? I don't see it on the other DACs, so my spider sense starts tingling, and I conclude that the others have worse crosstalk values, else why "hide" it? of course crosstalk is the last thing I care about in measurements as I don't notice it until it's super crappy, and Shiit might just have though the same and stop bothering with crosstalk. but how do I know with what's given on the website? again, because things aren't done with enough rigor, confusion is the only thing I get out of reading those pages.
  
 and there we have it, unreliable specs. if they're good and meaningful, then the modi is actually better than the bifrost, that's what those specs are telling me...
 and if they're not reliable, what the point? do we go back to soldering stuff randomly and tune DACs by ear because measurements can't be trusted?(lol)
 when do we reach accuracy if there isn't a set of specs we can trust in a nomenclature that is strict and complete? right now it's all just a joke and the consumer talks about high fidelity all year long while he doesn't have a clue where to find it.
 here I see the bifrost multibit measurements, clearly it shows how inferior it is to the delta sigma one. right? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so why all the fuss about "multibit"?
  
 I wholeheartedly agree that we can't disregard the human element in music when looking at the entire chain of components. but in this audio world, it's the very last of our problems. getting a trusted method to estimate fidelity for the consumer, that's what we need. and while it can be a real mess to do for amps as we need to care for all loudnesses into all loads, a DAC in comparison should be a walk in the park.

  
  
 ps: sorry Shiit for using you as guinea pigs, I would have rather used other more suspicious brands, but oh what a surprise, they do not offer half the specs you give.


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> landroni said:
> 
> 
> > and:
> ...


 

 Precisely. Measurements occur _before_ taking into account any filter-like idiosyncrasies our hearing organs may exhibit. Put differently, they do not account for the effects of the human auditory filter on the incoming sound. In yet other words, we do not seem to hear the same way as measuring machines do.


----------



## prot

landroni said:


> Could you make this into something falsifiable? Something along the lines of: "Given measurements, Schiit Yggdrasil should be audibly identical with this specific _Model X_ DS DAC." (replace _Model X_ by some actual DAC model)
> 
> I always feel uncomfortable when hearing broad-brush claims like "no difference between Yggdrasil and a mediocre DS DAC" or "no difference between 100$ DAC and a 2000$ DAC". Something more precise that can actually be tested for would be very welcome...




IIRC they tested the iggy against some $5k DS DAC during Tyll's BigSound2015 experiment. And none of the participants was able to distinguish between those in a simple blind test .. although a few tried quite hard and the test setup was TOTL from source to HPs.
 Looks to me that this "R2R sounds very different" mantra is just another audiophile myth.


----------



## landroni

castleofargh said:


> it would be nice if that was the problem in audio. before wondering it the measurement accounts for the human, how about simply getting measurements that serve a purpose and follow a clear standard?
> [...]
> 
> you can have fun and look at the other gears, it's the same idea.
> ...


 

  
 Two excellent points:
 - measurements can be catastrophically unreliable even from the same measurer (even within a single measurement session, if calibration changes or something goes awry and goes unnoticed), let alone from different manufacturing companies
 - there is no one, single, clear standard on what should be measured, and why, and how
  
  
 Then what's all the on-going brouhaha about "an amp is amp is an amp" and "no difference between DACs"?? There are few _comparable_ measurements available and no "objectively" defined standard. Not yet, anyways. So how do we go from this to "all DACs sound the same" or "no huge differences between DACs" (or a similarly broad and ill-defined claim)?
  
  
 Jason Stoddard has on several occasions insisted that the whole confusion we have today in this terapixel debate stems from our measuring all the wrong things. Even when done properly and accurately, things like THD and IMD and the like are useful in avoiding major aberrations in source gear, but will in no way define the sonic performance of the gear. (Traditional, i.e. instantaneous, double-blind testing be damned, especially when they do not control for obvious confounding factors like long-term listening effects.) The outstanding specs on Modi is indeed a running joke at Schiit, in their view a perfect example of how specs have nothing to say about how a piece of gear will sound. Just one example (on amps):
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/667711/new-schiit-ragnarok-and-yggdrasil/2355#post_10668481


jason stoddard said:


> Ragnarok specs are exceptional. But that is (largely) meaningless. Witness Vali.


 

  
  
 In this sense, comparing specs, in the way done above (whether intentionally or not), becomes a simple game of specsmanship. This has been perfectly exhibited in this RMAF talk:
 What The Specs Don’t Tell You… And Why
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY
  
  
 For instance, there are types of distortion that are not published and sometimes not even measured (e.g. there is no graph for it). So THD alone would be an unhelpful simplification of a complex subject. But some will go as far pointing out that all-out specs should be the last thing when considering buying source gear. They're excellent checks that nothing is horribly wrong with a specific unit (if you trust the headliners), but little more. 
  
  
 Stoddard wrote a nice overview on all this:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/5490#post_11355150


jason stoddard said:


> To be clear, I don't want to quash all discussion of specs, it's just that specs are a relatively minor part of the whole "audio thing," especially when taking into account the different ways people measure things.
> 
> 
> Also, using pricey test gear, like our Stanfords or Audio Precision devices, is not exactly a "plug and go," or "set and forget" kind of thing. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten weird results, then noticed an input cable running alongside an AC cord, or having the grounding wrong, etc.
> ...


 

  
 And for those of the curious faith, here's an account of how specs and measurements are being used at Schiit:
 "On Measurements (With a Side Order of Sanity)
 what do we measure, and why do we measure it?"
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6990#post_11763661


----------



## RRod

What do you expect them to do, say they can't blindly identify any of their DACs apart from one another?


----------



## castleofargh

most specs are useless because they are expressed in a useless way. all measurements have something to say, they all can be useful under the right circumstance, and as long as the guys will sell under the guise of audio fidelity, they must prove it with measurement. because audio fidelity isn't something that becomes true when the seller believes in it. how much the output signal changed is what tells about fidelity. and that's what measurements do.
  
 for the R2R vs delta sigma thing, everybody is an expert and has an opinion, but nobody seems to actually have a clue. R2R is harder to do and costs more, so the R2R DAC costs more, therefore people think it's superior because more money= better. that's how us little capitalists have been raised. as far as I can see there really is no other reason why so many people think it's superior.
 oh yes there is another reason, what am I saying. the BS step ladder graphs. and the square waves!!!!


----------



## prot

rrod said:


> What do you expect them to do, say they can't blindly identify any of their DACs apart from one another? :blink:




If that's the truth (and I have a pretty strong suspicion that it is) why not ?! How's selling all sorts of audio unicorns better for anyone?


----------



## watchnerd

prot said:


> If that's the truth (and I have a pretty strong suspicion that it is) why not ?! How's selling all sorts of audio unicorns better for anyone?


 
  
 I think you can sell luxury features for the parts that are less controversial.
  
 For example, at some point I might get a Gungnir to compliment my Mjolnir 2.  But I'll be doing so mainly because:
  
 1. It would be nice to have a high quality balanced connection throughout the chain
 2. I like the light that tells about clocking errors
 3. It matches the MJ2
 4. I like having nice things


----------



## cjl

landroni said:


> Could you make this into something falsifiable? Something along the lines of: "Given measurements, Schiit Yggdrasil should be audibly identical with this specific _Model X_ DS DAC." (replace _Model X_ by some actual DAC model)
> 
> I always feel uncomfortable when hearing broad-brush claims like "no difference between Yggdrasil and a mediocre DS DAC" or "no difference between 100$ DAC and a 2000$ DAC". Something more precise that can actually be tested for would be very welcome...


 

 Sure. Given appropriate experimental procedures (matched output levels, an amp appropriate for the transducers used, blind testing, etc), I doubt very much that anyone could tell the difference between a Yggdrasil, an ODAC, and a Benchmark DAC2 HGC (to give an example of both a relatively inexpensive DAC and a relatively comparably priced D-S DAC). The DAC2 HGC and the Yggdrasil do offer some nice features over the ODAC, and you can definitely make a case for them based on build quality/appearance, but in terms of pure sound, I bet that they would all sound the same.


----------



## RRod

prot said:


> If that's the truth (and I have a pretty strong suspicion that it is) why not ?! How's selling all sorts of audio unicorns better for anyone?


 
  
 Well a) it lets engineers try out their craft on projects that might otherwise never happen and b) some listeners just need the solace of knowing they have a giga-chimichanga in their playback chain. The company going out and harshing everyone's buzz with blind listening results just risks this happy union which, at the end of the day, isn't what is killing the quality of music.


----------



## Sonic Defender

rrod said:


> The company going out and harshing everyone's buzz with blind listening results just risks this happy union which, at the end of the day, isn't what is killing the quality of music.


 
 If you mean the poor mastering of much of todays music is the culprit keep in mind that is highly subjective. Depending on your age and tastes many people will look back on recordings as excellent sounding that their parents would have found loud and glaring. Each generation can only really reference what they know as sounding good. Kid A by Radiohead would make my parents ears bleed, but I consider it awesome. My dad blasted Abba constantly, for him they were well recorded. Quality (assuming you meant that was what was killing music) recording is very subjective and while I believe in dynamic range, I must admit, somehow, the odd really compressed album does sound good. Go figure.


----------



## sonitus mirus

sonic defender said:


> If you mean the poor mastering of much of todays music is the culprit keep in mind that is highly subjective. Depending on your age and tastes many people will look back on recordings as excellent sounding that their parents would have found loud and glaring. Each generation can only really reference what they know as sounding good. Kid A by Radiohead would make my parents ears bleed, but I consider it awesome. My dad blasted Abba constantly, for him they were well recorded. Quality (assuming you meant that was what was killing music) recording is very subjective and while I believe in dynamic range, I must admit, somehow, the odd really compressed album does sound good. Go figure.


 
  
 There may be certain genres of music that don't benefit greatly from meticulous production compared to other genres, but I don't have a problem identifying a well-recorded version. Same with musician talent.  I recognize some artists' amazing skills, even if I may not be the biggest fan of their music.  These can be separated.  I don't think anyone has to be in love with the music to find it well recorded.
  
 I may not have the most eclectic tastes, but my music listening varies quite a bit.  If only I could find some Lord Invader that sounded as crisp and clean as something from Mark Knopfler.
  
 http://www.last.fm/user/jammarnew


----------



## RRod

sonic defender said:


> If you mean the poor mastering of much of todays music is the culprit keep in mind that is highly subjective. Depending on your age and tastes many people will look back on recordings as excellent sounding that their parents would have found loud and glaring. Each generation can only really reference what they know as sounding good. Kid A by Radiohead would make my parents ears bleed, but I consider it awesome. My dad blasted Abba constantly, for him they were well recorded. Quality (assuming you meant that was what was killing music) recording is very subjective and while I believe in dynamic range, I must admit, somehow, the odd really compressed album does sound good. Go figure.


 
  
 Sounds like a great cop-out for the industry. Comparing ABBA v. Radiohead confounds way too many things. How about ABBA versus brick-wall compressed ABBA? How about the chance to hear a modern album before it went through the compressor? I'll agree that "good sound" is a hard term to define, but subjectivity shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card.


----------



## NA Blur

Could you output the signal from each, using the same source file, and then reverse the polarity of one and add them together to hear any differences?


----------



## Sonic Defender

rrod said:


> Sounds like a great cop-out for the industry. Comparing ABBA v. Radiohead confounds way too many things. How about ABBA versus brick-wall compressed ABBA? How about the chance to hear a modern album before it went through the compressor? I'll agree that "good sound" is a hard term to define, but subjectivity shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card.


 
 I agree, shouldn't be, but it is. Face it, we're fighting a losing battle. For the record, I own a ton of well mastered material and some not so well mastered material. I don't listen to poorly recorded material, but you know who does? That very large cohort of people who grew up on highly compressed music experienced through ear-buds and computer speakers. If there was enough of a backlash against poorly recorded music you can bet the labels would respond, but we have had what, a decade now of sound engineers and audiophiles pleading and imploring labels to bring back dynamics. as crushing as it is, except for some small segments as far as I can tell we are losing the battle. I don't know, maybe I'm being too fatalistic, but I think each new generation as technology, consumption styles change get to push their preferences forward and inevitably this is frowned upon by the generation that is being minimized. I sometimes think that in communities such as this one we suffer from group-think and start to believe that most people care about the same things and that well mastered music is important. In reality I can't prove this, but I think we are really quite a small group. Who knows, I'm often wrong.


----------



## watchnerd

na blur said:


> Could you output the signal from each, using the same source file, and then reverse the polarity of one and add them together to hear any differences?


 
  
 You could do that, but I don't think you'd discover anything other than differences in noise (mostly from the analog stage).  They should be identical.


----------



## landroni

prot said:


> IIRC they tested the iggy against some $5k DS DAC during Tyll's BigSound2015 experiment. And none of the participants was able to distinguish between those in a simple blind test .. although a few tried quite hard and the test setup was TOTL from source to HPs.
> Looks to me that this "R2R sounds very different" mantra is just another audiophile myth.


 

 If I understand correctly, Tyll's blind testing set-up goes along these lines: (1) gather a bunch of random people (2) unfamiliar with his system and gear set-up (3) to do mostly instantaneous switch-backs within the day. At the end of the day, the "no diff" hypothesis is being proclaimed.
  
 This set-up makes a number of assumptions that probably invalidates the entire exercise:
 - It assumes that people can nilly-willy get dropped into an unfamiliar set-up (TOTL or not) and immediately start picking up differences/subtleties. People need to be familiar with the respective systems _before_ getting subjected to blind testing. Our brains get calibrated by / attuned to a given system (forget the "a DAC is a DAC" hypothesis that is implicit here), so getting exposed to a new system requires brain warm-up and calibration time, not something achievable in half an hour. 
 - Instantaneous switch-backs may be a useful technique with transducers (where differences jump at you), but it seems like a very bad idea with DACs and amps (where differences may be more subtle, but not necessarily inexistent or of no importance). Switching back and forth requires the brain to constantly re-adjust its calibration, which is taxing on the brain --- fatiguing. IMO it's not unlike switching languages when speaking, or even accents. You don't listen to an accent the same way you do to another --- you pay attention to all those different little things, different cues, etc. And people can listen only to certain aspects of incoming sound at a time. Which is why switch-backs _only after_ extended listening sessions would be much more appropriate for such experimentation. Small differences that might be easily missed in the instantaneous approach may build up to generate a long-term effect (i.e. the ear is an integral device, not differential).
  
 Which is why I wouldn't put much value on such methodology... Until obvious factors like the above are being controlled for, it is hard to take at face value results of the usual blind tests.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> If I understand correctly, Tyll's blind testing set-up goes along these lines: (1) gather a bunch of random people (2) unfamiliar with his system and gear set-up (3) to do mostly instantaneous switch-backs within the day. At the end of the day, the "no diff" hypothesis is being proclaimed.
> 
> This set-up makes a number of assumptions that probably invalidates the entire exercise:
> - It assumes that people can nilly-willy get dropped into an unfamiliar set-up (TOTL or not) and immediately start picking up differences/subtleties. People need to be familiar with the respective systems _before_ getting subjected to blind testing. Our brains get calibrated by / attuned to a given system (forget the "a DAC is a DAC" hypothesis that is implicit here), so getting exposed to a new system requires brain warm-up and calibration time, not something achievable in half an hour.


 
  
 And yet if you do the same and ask people to compare speakers cold they have no problem differentiating between them.


----------



## landroni

In the same spirit as the above, here's a recent account by someone who isn't a manufacturer, who went all the way from "a DAC is a DAC" to "DAC differences can be picked up in extended listening sessions":
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/1635#post_12247976


crazychile said:


> I used to think that I was  DAC-immune.
> 
> 
> Back in the early 90s I worked in a Hi-Fi shop and brought home a very highly regarded sub $1K DAC to compare to the Luxman (multibit) CD player I owned at the time. I set it up so that I only had to switch inputs on my preamp to compare. No cable swapping, just clicking sources back and forth as a song played on. I couldn't hear much of a difference between the two, and figured at that price range, DACs made only a subtle improvement at best. (Now I realize that this is NOT the way to audition a DAC) A few years later I owned a California Audio Labs Alpha DAC that I really liked, but still regarded the sound as different, not necessarily a big leap forward.
> ...


 

  


crazychile said:


> Let me expand a bit upon what I originally wrote...
> 
> Since I had owned a Modi for several months, with a lot of hours spent listening to it, the sound signature of the Modi was well burned into my brain. So when I first got the Bifrost Uber, it was immediately obvious - within the first few minutes.. that I was not listening to the Modi. The Bifrost was clearly a different DAC. After a few hours I was able to get a better understanding of how it was different.
> 
> ...


 

  
 Of course some folk will jump that all this is merely a "subjectivist's" opinion, not taking into account psychoacoustics, not doing comparisons blindfolded and level-matched, so on and so forth...


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> In the same spirit as the above, here's a recent account by someone who isn't a manufacturer, who went all the way from "a DAC is a DAC" to "DAC differences can be picked up in extended listening sessions":
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/782824/schiit-fire-and-save-matches-bifrost-multibit-is-here/1635#post_12247976
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 What does "musicality" mean?


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> And yet if you do the same and ask people to compare speakers cold they have no problem differentiating between them.


 

 Precisely. Transducers tend to have much bigger differences between them than source gear. This doesn't mean that differences between source gear do not exist or are not as (or more) important. It merely means that differences between source gear may not be picked up in certain measurement settings (i.e. if the measuring tool is wrong, the measurement isn't worth considering; as in instantaneous vs extended blind testing) and that differences may manifest themselves in non-obvious ways (e.g. long-term listening experience, as opposed to instantaneous BASS BOOM or STRIDENT TREBLE). As any engineer knows, a correlation may be close to zero, yet two processes may still be functionally dependent (i.e. fully deterministic) at the same time.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> Precisely. Transducers tend to have much bigger differences between them than source gear.


 
  
 Or to put it another way:
  
 Differences in source gear will be swamped by differences in the mastering/mix of the recording.
  
 And you shouldn't be worrying about nanoscopic differences in source gear until you have your room acoustics sorted out (or not if using headphones).
  
 Lastly, if you want a more 'detailed' sound, select a transducer (speakers, headphones) that emphasize that.
  
 If you want more warmth, select a transducer (speakers, headphones) that emphasize that.
  
 etc.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> And yet if you do the same and ask people to compare speakers cold they have no problem differentiating between them.



Speakers are transducers, right? They have immediately discoverable differences in tone and presentation. A DAC or source is the start of the process and so, you'd have to dig back through amp and transducer just to find the difference and the difference may be subtle at first because the change happens furthest from the ears and the brain.

I also think it's funny for a tribe so focused on measurements to rely on blind A/B testing. Blind A/B testing is still relying on subjective reports of a scientifically inaccessible experience.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Speakers are transducers, right?


 
  
 Yes, as are microphones.
  
 And turntable cartridges.
  
 All are so blatantly distorted (along with room acoustics) that obsessing over debatably-audible differences in source gear is putting the cart well before the horse.


----------



## disastermouse

Right...but couldn't the brain adapt to and filter out those distortions over time with well known gear?


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > And yet if you do the same and ask people to compare speakers cold they have no problem differentiating between them.
> ...


 
 to me it means exactly that sources are not as important. I understand your point and we could find some analogy in long term exposure to some toxins that would show no instantaneous symptom. but it's only conjecture at this point in audio that such an effect exists outside of "fatigue".
 but even for fatigue:
 1/ there is absolutely no evidence that headphones/speakers/mics don't play a bigger part.
 2/ there is no evidence that between a fatiguing system and a non fatiguing system, people wouldn't be able to tell they sound different in a blind test with rapid switching.
  
  
 so I'm all for some open doors and some "what if...", but aren't we just trying a little too hard to justify differences because we want the DACs to sound different?


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Right...but couldn't the brain adapt to and filter out those distortions over time with well known gear?


 
  
 Does your clock radio sound like live music to you?


----------



## spruce music

rrod said:


> Sounds like a great cop-out for the industry. Comparing ABBA v. Radiohead confounds way too many things. How about ABBA versus brick-wall compressed ABBA? How about the chance to hear a modern album before it went through the compressor? I'll agree that "good sound" is a hard term to define, but subjectivity shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card.


 

 Once had a girlfriend who liked ABBA.  Not surprisingly I soured on ABBA when I also soured on the girlfriend.  My opinion since that time about how to brickwall ABBA is with a brickwall low pass filter set to 20 hz.  That should enlighten some ideas about subjective "good sound".  I am admittedly biased by my experiences.


----------



## prot

landroni said:


> If I understand correctly, Tyll's blind testing set-up goes along these lines: (1) gather a bunch of random people (2) unfamiliar with his system and gear set-up (3) to do mostly instantaneous switch-backs within the day. At the end of the day, the "no diff" hypothesis is being proclaimed.
> 
> This set-up makes a number of assumptions that probably invalidates the entire exercise:
> - It assumes that people can nilly-willy get dropped into an unfamiliar set-up (TOTL or not) and immediately start picking up differences/subtleties. People need to be familiar with the respective systems _before_ getting subjected to blind testing. Our brains get calibrated by / attuned to a given system (forget the "a DAC is a DAC" hypothesis that is implicit here), so getting exposed to a new system requires brain warm-up and calibration time, not something achievable in half an hour.
> ...




You almost have an argument there 
I mean yours are all fair objections (unfamiliar gear, music, short time, etc.) .. but if you carefully read the bigsound2015 serie, those objections do not apply very well to the context:
1. Tyll was one of the testers and was familiar with everything and had months to test. Still couldnt diff the ds & r2r dacs. 
2. Some of the testers (e.g. bob katz, the sbaf guys) had 2-3 days and did train themselves & repeated the tests. Results got better but still unconclusive. 
3. In the exact same setup most people were able to diff HPs and most amps. But even the guys who had pretty amazing rezults in the amp BTs (e.g. romaz) couldnt diff the Dacs. 

And btw your other sample posts about schiit gear are just the usual "guy thinks he heard a diff" variety .. millions of those everywhere .. useful but not exactly conclusive or proof-level. 
And before we start an old and tired flame about the sound of Dacs, please note that I'm not saying "all dacs sound the same" .. just looking for evidence to support the "r2r sounds very different" claim .. and found none. If you have better *evidence* I'm listening.


----------



## charleski

landroni said:


> If I understand correctly, Tyll's blind testing set-up goes along these lines: (1) gather a bunch of random people (2) unfamiliar with his system and gear set-up (3) to do mostly instantaneous switch-backs within the day. At the end of the day, the "no diff" hypothesis is being proclaimed.
> 
> This set-up makes a number of assumptions that probably invalidates the entire exercise:
> - It assumes that people can nilly-willy get dropped into an unfamiliar set-up (TOTL or not) and immediately start picking up differences/subtleties. People need to be familiar with the respective systems _before_ getting subjected to blind testing. Our brains get calibrated by / attuned to a given system (forget the "a DAC is a DAC" hypothesis that is implicit here), so getting exposed to a new system requires brain warm-up and calibration time, not something achievable in half an hour.
> ...


 
  
 Yet the situation you describe should _exacerbate_ any perceivable differences. If you're having to 'recalibrate' your brain and getting taxed then you're going to notice that and be able to isolate the features that vary. I should hope it goes without saying that the majority of people will be able to spot when a speaker switches to a different language, or a significantly different accent.
  
 Unfortunately, it's clear that Tyll Hertsens is no cognitive neuroscientist, and I couldn't find a clear account of the testing methodology he used (most of the posts on his BigSound 2015 seem to be geek-outs describing the flashy gear he had access to). There is one very hand-wavy post describing his attempts to get the subjects to report on their mood while listening to music - that really isn't going to work, though there _are _a variety of psychological tests which can measure mood in a reasonably reliable fashion. He says he gave the participants time before the tests to grow accustomed to the sound of the equipment, so they weren't completely naive. He doesn't say how long he gave them, but how long is an 'extended listening session'? Thirty minutes? A couple of hours? A couple of days? A couple of years?
  
 In the post you cited from crazychile he claims, 'it was immediately obvious - within the first few minutes.. that I was not listening to the Modi'. If that's the case, why spend more time on it? This is not an argument in favour of forcing subjects to spend a long time listening to the tested equipment. (Obviously, this was a sighted comparison, so the difference was sitting right there in front of his eyes.)
  
 The significance of extended familiarity is very far from obvious. It's true that the brain is heavily biased to recognising changes in stimuli and will filter out constant stimuli such that you simply stop perceiving them. But this doesn't have an impact on your ability to discriminate between two different novel stimuli. In fact, stimulus generalisation suggests that familiarity with a particular stimulus might _decrease_ your ability to discriminate similar stimuli.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> Does your clock radio sound like live music to you?



Who uses clock radios anymore?

And yeah, I've been to shows that were as bad but louder.


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> What does "musicality" mean?


 

 And how do you "define" the difference between a Rembrandt and a Van Gogh? Do you reach for a histogram, a spectrogram, shade estimates, concentration of colors, or do you reach for artsy terms?


----------



## landroni

castleofargh said:


> so I'm all for some open doors and some "what if...", but aren't we just trying a little too hard to justify differences because we want the DACs to sound different?


 

 Unless one lives under a rock, it's very obvious that people do hear differences between some gear, and not so much between other gear. Including obviously scientifically minded types who do audio measurements for a living and don't go to sleep without their analyzer, and who wouldn't get caught dead listening to non-level matched sources... So to shine the other side of the coin, aren't we just trying a little too hard to justify no differences because we want the DACs to sound identical?


----------



## disastermouse

landroni said:


> Unless one lives under a rock, it's very obvious that people do hear differences between some gear, and not so much between other gear. Including obviously scientifically minded types who do audio measurements for a living and don't go to sleep without their analyzer, and who wouldn't get caught dead listening to non-level matched sources... So to shine the other side of the coin, aren't we just trying a little too hard to justify no differences because we want the DACs to sound identical?



Hasn't it become completely obvious that the sound science folks have no unconscious motivations for their arguments? After all, no unconscious motivations show up in the measurements, therefore they must not exist!

They are acting nobly in trying to convince us of our own stupidity and the ease with which we are manipulated by the audio-industrial cabal, the only purpose of which is to deceive consumers. And also kick puppies. How can we not see this? Why are we so deaf to their warnings?


----------



## landroni

prot said:


> You almost have an argument there
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 My suspicion would be two-fold. First, all things being equal, people who are incredibly insistent that "a DAC is a DAC" if it measures _this_ way, will also be more likely to naturally not hear differences between diverse sources. Not all of us know how to appreciate a Rembrandt (I don't!), just as not all of us will sense a difference between two fine wines or two Gershwin interpretations, so not ALL will be able to appreciate a better-performing DAC.
  
 Second, expectation bias. Just as "subjectivists" get thrown the "cognitive bias" argument at them each and every time they indicate a perceived difference, so too "objectivists" can fall prey to expectations driving results. Or as Jason Stoddard elegantly put it:
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/701900/schiit-happened-the-story-of-the-worlds-most-improbable-start-up/6990#post_11763661
 "*Do open-loop numbers correlate to audible differences?* According to some of the Pundits That Be, unless the slew rate is insanely low, no. However, we have noted sonic correlations between a constant -6dB per octave falloff outside the flat passband to infinity (no lumps, humps, bumps, or other weirdness going on.) Of course, pure objectivists will say we’re fooling ourselves on that one. But hey, maybe if we can convince ourselves that there _are_ differences when there _aren’t,_ maybe they can convince themselves that there _aren’t_ differences when there _are_. Neener."
  
 How do you get out of that one?


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> And how do you "define" the difference between a Rembrandt and a Van Gogh? Do you reach for a histogram, a spectrogram, shade estimates, concentration of colors, or do you reach for artsy terms?


 
  
 There are fairly standard artsy terms in audio used to describe sound....warm, dry, bright, lean, etc.  And there is a relative (rough) consensus about what those mean.
  
 But "musicality"?  I seriously have no idea what he's describing.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Who uses clock radios anymore?
> 
> And yeah, I've been to shows that were as bad but louder.


 
  
 The clock radio question is a rhetorical one; unless your brain is fooled into thinking a reproduced sound is live (or might be), then the flaws in reproduction are manifest.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> The clock radio question is a rhetorical one; unless your brain is fooled into thinking a reproduced sound is live (or might be), then the flaws in reproduction are manifest.



As the clock radio is waking me up (no, seriously - who uses clock radios?), I may be fooled in the dream state into thinking I'm listening to a live performance.

Context affects everything, and if you think about how sound serves us from an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense. The senses work together to create context and no single perceptual organ is wholly responsible for the overall effect. This is even taking things like hormonal balance and blood glucose levels out of the equation.

In reality, our world is a confounding array of sensory messages and key to survival is the synthesis of those messages into a coherent and meaningful or actionable whole.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Hasn't it become completely obvious that the sound science folks have no unconscious motivations for their arguments? After all, no unconscious motivations show up in the measurements, therefore they must not exist!
> 
> They are acting nobly in trying to convince us of our own stupidity and the ease with which we are manipulated by the audio-industrial cabal, the only purpose of which is to deceive consumers. And also kick puppies. How can we not see this? Why are we so deaf to their warnings?


 
  
 At least for me, consumer protection has nothing to do with it.  After all, I collect watches where people spend stupid amounts of money on archaic technology with little practical application.  But nobody claims a Patek Pillippe is a more accurate time keeper than a cheap Casio G-shock.  And there's the rub:
  
 When audiophile manufacturers sell craftsmanship, build-quality, or aesthetics, I don't think anyone has an issue.  If you want to buy McIntosh gear because you think they're built like tanks, have history, look retro, and you like big blue dials, rock on. It's your money.
  
 But when the manufacturer of audio gear makes claims that challenge the scientific / engineering consensus and what is audible or measurable......well, as Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> As the clock radio is waking me up (no, seriously - who uses clock radios?), I may be fooled in the dream state into thinking I'm listening to a live performance.
> 
> Context affects everything, and if you think about how sound serves us from an evolutionary standpoint, that makes sense. The senses work together to create context and no single perceptual organ is wholly responsible for the overall effect. This is even taking things like hormonal balance and blood glucose levels out of the equation.
> 
> In reality, our world is a confounding array of sensory messages and key to survival is the synthesis of those messages into a coherent and meaningful or actionable whole.


 
  
 Okay, sure.  
  
 But what does that have to do with the audibility of transducer imperfections vs sources?


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> Okay, sure.
> 
> But what does that have to do with the audibility of transducer imperfections vs sources?



Nothing except to say that context provides a great deal of what we mistakenly believe is 'in the signal'. See Sellers' 'myth of the given'. That context is always created, consciously or unconsciously, by the subjective sense, none of which can be objectively measured.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Nothing except to say that context provides a great deal of what we mistakenly believe is 'in the signal'. See Sellers' 'myth of the given'. That context is always created, consciously or unconsciously, by the subjective sense


 
  
 Which is why blind testing is so valuable.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> Which is why blind testing is so valuable.



Except it isn't, because you're relying on the subjective experience of the listener, and his or her ability to determine a difference is affected by a myriad of subjective experiences and biases that cannot be measured. The ability to detect differences may have nothing to do with actual sound/signal, but could have anything to do with any number of context creating (or erasing) confounding factors which cannot be controlled for.

Take for instance a sighted test where differences are heard. The assumption is that foreknowledge of which is which is what affects the ability to detect (or imagine) differences. However, such foreknowledge and its extent is not directly measurable. We don't know if contextual cues or foreknowledge creates the ability or simply allows the ability. We know that they are correlated but have no real proof of causation, since the addition or subtraction cannot be adequately removed from all other context providing or context denying co-factors. That is to say, we don't know if any ability to detect differences is *enabled* by foreknowledge or *created* by foreknowledge. We simply know that without the contextual cues, differences are very hard or impossible to detect.

Since no one really uses their gear in a blind test environment, the correlation is interesting, but not particularly useful except perhaps in confirming an a priori assumption, such as 'DACs sound the same'.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Except it isn't, because you're relying on the subjective experience of the listener, and his or her ability to determine a difference is affected by a myriad of subjective experiences and biases that cannot be measured. The ability to detect differences may have nothing to do with actual sound/signal, but could have anything to do with any number of context creating (or erasing) confounding factors which cannot be controlled for.
> 
> Take for instance a sighted test where differences are heard. The assumption is that foreknowledge of which is which is what affects the ability to detect (or imagine) differences. However, such foreknowledge and its extent is not directly measurable. We don't know if contextual cues or foreknowledge creates the ability or simply allows the ability. We know that they are correlated but have no real proof of causation, since the addition or subtraction cannot be adequately removed from all other context providing or context denying co-factors. That is to say, we don't know if any ability to detect differences is *enabled* by foreknowledge or *created* by foreknowledge. We simply know that without the contextual cues, differences are very hard or impossible to detect.


 
  
 All of these factors fall in the realm of confirmation bias / placebo effect, etc. They're well-known.
  
 Are you saying it is impossible to design a listening test that differentiates one DAC vs another?
  
 Or are you saying "I think I hear a difference and that is what matters"?


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> All of these factors fall in the realm of confirmation bias / placebo effect, etc. They're well-known.
> 
> Are you saying it is impossible to design a listening test that differentiates one DAC vs another?
> 
> Or are you saying "I think I hear a difference and that is what matters"?


 
 I hope at our next meet to have a Schiit Yaddrasil compared against my NAD M51 in a blind listening test. I'm curious if anybody will hear any difference?


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> I hope at our next meet to have a Schiit Yaddrasil compared against my NAD M51 in a blind listening test. I'm curious if anybody will hear any difference?


 
  
 That would be interesting, but what do you plan to use for level matching / switching?


----------



## RRod

sonic defender said:


> I agree, shouldn't be, but it is. Face it, we're fighting a losing battle. For the record, I own a ton of well mastered material and some not so well mastered material. I don't listen to poorly recorded material, but you know who does? That very large cohort of people who grew up on highly compressed music experienced through ear-buds and computer speakers. If there was enough of a backlash against poorly recorded music you can bet the labels would respond, but we have had what, a decade now of sound engineers and audiophiles pleading and imploring labels to bring back dynamics. as crushing as it is, except for some small segments as far as I can tell we are losing the battle. I don't know, maybe I'm being too fatalistic, but I think each new generation as technology, consumption styles change get to push their preferences forward and inevitably this is frowned upon by the generation that is being minimized. I sometimes think that in communities such as this one we suffer from group-think and start to believe that most people care about the same things and that well mastered music is important. In reality I can't prove this, but I think we are really quite a small group. Who knows, I'm often wrong.


 
  
 I think your skepticism is well-founded, especially given that in many cases it seems like even the artists themselves don't care a whit about these mastering issues. As the Death Magnetic Guitar Hero episode showed, people can care about the problem when it gets bad enough. But, case in point, the artists did nothing. It would seem that we need a whole sequence of events to unfold, including perhaps a big streaming service switching to default loudness normalization. I'm less than wholly optimistic myself, but we won't solve anything by just conceding the point.


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> That would be interesting, but what do you plan to use for level matching / switching?


 
 Not sure for level matching, but that is fairly easily solved and frankly, I think even level matching by ear can be done well enough, but to avoid that confound I think we will find a better solution. The switching will be done manually by me, but there will be a screen to prevent the test subjects from seeing. To avoid any confound associated with me knowing what DAC is active for each trial I will use a careful script that is written and delivered in a way to not bias the results. My wife used to give neurological/cognitive tests for insurance companies testing victims of head trauma and she explained how it is possible to deliver instructions without biasing the subject. Last meet I did a 7 subject blind listening trial of 320mp3 versus lossless and nobody preferred the lossless version of the file at greater than 50%, usually less.


----------



## Sonic Defender

rrod said:


> I think your skepticism is well-founded, especially given that in many cases it seems like even the artists themselves don't care a whit about these mastering issues. As the Death Magnetic Guitar Hero episode showed, people can care about the problem when it gets bad enough. But, case in point, the artists did nothing. It would seem that we need a whole sequence of events to unfold, including perhaps a big streaming service switching to default loudness normalization. I'm less than wholly optimistic myself, but we won't solve anything by just conceding the point.


 
 I can't agree with you more brother, well mastered music is the life blood of audio joy and I'll never give up hoping and fighting for this.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> I think even level matching by ear can be done well enough


 
  
 It really can't.
  
 If you're off by 1 dB it's enough to skew the results.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> All of these factors fall in the realm of confirmation bias / placebo effect, etc. They're well-known.
> 
> Are you saying it is impossible to design a listening test that differentiates one DAC vs another?
> 
> Or are you saying "I think I hear a difference and that is what matters"?



The first. You can infer what's causing the result, but it's based on assumptions that cannot actually be tested.

You're better off sticking with measurements than blind A/B tests due to a number of confounding factors that approaches infinity (not really infinity. That was hyperbole).

Science is great when it says, 'This is how it measures.' It gets sketchy when is says, 'And this is what it means' - at least in any final declarative sort of statement. 'This is what we think it means' is great as an engine to direct further research, though.


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> It really can't.
> 
> If you're off by 1 dB it's enough to skew the results.


 
 Yes, but it isn't implausible to be able to level match to one db by ear, I think we can discriminate in smaller intervals than that. However, I agree, better safe than sorry. The member who owns the Yggy is actually very much into music conversion technology so I would surprised if between us we can't get the level matching thing aligned well enough.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> The first. You can infer what's causing the result, but it's based on assumptions that cannot actually be tested.
> 
> You're better off sticking with measurements than blind A/B tests due to a number of confounding factors that approaches infinity (not really infinity. That was hyperbole).


 
  
 So this thread is about "is there an audible difference" between R2R and DS DACs (we know they measure differently on certain factors).
  
 It sounds like you're saying that the entire premise of this thread is unknowable. Is that correct?


----------



## disastermouse

sonic defender said:


> Not sure for level matching, but that is fairly easily solved and frankly, I think even level matching by ear can be done well enough, but to avoid that confound I think we will find a better solution. The switching will be done manually by me, but there will be a screen to prevent the test subjects from seeing. To avoid any confound associated with me knowing what DAC is active for each trial I will use a careful script that is written and delivered in a way to not bias the results. My wife used to give neurological/cognitive tests for insurance companies testing victims of head trauma and she explained how it is possible to deliver instructions without biasing the subject. Last meet I did a 7 subject blind listening trial of 320mp3 versus lossless and nobody preferred the lossless version of the file at greater than 50%, usually less.



It would be better if you didn't know the DACs. Also, you can't control for bias with a script. You can diminish it, perhaps, but people have widely varying abilities to pick up on nonverbal cues.

I have a personality disorder, for instance, that makes me far better at picking up certain nonverbal cues even if neither I nor the other person is aware of it.

This discovery is relatively recent and it may or may not have been a confounding factor in any number of studies. It wasn't seen and its effect could not be accounted for because its existence was not known.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Yes, but it isn't implausible to be able to level match to one db by ear, I think we can discriminate in smaller intervals than that. However, I agree, better safe than sorry. The member who owns the Yggy is actually very much into music conversion technology so I would surprised if between us we can't get the level matching thing aligned well enough.


 
  
 No offense, but if you guys told me you level matched it by ear, my confidence in any results would go down by a factor of 100.
  
 Just get a Shure Motiv mic, plug it into your phone, and measure it with pink noise.  Or use a volt meter.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> So this thread is about "is there an audible difference" between R2R and DS DACs (we know they measure differently on certain factors).
> 
> It sounds like you're saying that the entire premise of this thread is unknowable. Is that correct?



I would never say unknowable, since researchers often find ingenious ways around barriers and confounding factors. I would say that any reliance on subjective experiences adds noise to the signal that can't easily be removed or accounted for. Science is also sometimes bad at recognizing that its a priori assumptions are, in fact, assumptions.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> I would never say unknowable, since researchers often find ingenious ways around barriers and confounding factors. I would say that any reliance on subjective experiences adds noise to the signal that can't easily be removed or accounted for. Science is also sometimes bad at recognizing that its a priori assumptions are, in fact, assumptions.


 
  
 Do you believe it is possible to empirically test the audibility of differences between one DAC vs another in a manner that diminishes subjective biases to the point of statistical insignificance?


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> Do you believe it is possible to empirically test the audibility of differences between one DAC vs another in a manner that diminishes subjective biases to the point of statistical insignificance?



No, I don't. I do admire the effort, but I have no confidence in it due to the limitations of science itself. It can be suggestive, but it falls short of the demands required for declarative statements as soon as subjectivity of any kind is introduced into the research. It's 'science-y', but it's not science.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> No, I don't. I do admire the effort, but I have no confidence in it due to the limitations of science itself. It can be suggestive, but it falls short of the demands required for declarative statements as soon as subjectivity of any kind is introduced into the research. It's 'science-y', but it's not science.


 
  
 In that case, if you believe the entire audibility premise of this thread is beyond empirical testing, then it falls into the realm of metaphysics and faith-based phenomena.
  
 Which is pretty much an impasse: it leaves the sides stuck at "I think I hear a difference" vs "I think maybe your mind is playing tricks on you" with no way forward.


----------



## sonitus mirus

If I understand the exchange, unfamiliarity with the gear is a major reason why no differences can be detected when blind testing; yet, anyone can unbox a new, extremely expensive DAC with no audibly significant specifications over a modestly priced DAC and provide a multitude of descriptive adjectives to outline the obvious differences being heard in a sighted evaluation?  Weird.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> In that case, if you believe the entire audibility premise of this thread is beyond empirical testing, then it falls into the realm of metaphysics and faith-based phenomena.
> 
> Which is pretty much an impasse: it leaves the sides stuck at "I think I hear a difference" vs "I think maybe your mind is playing tricks on you" with no way forward.



The comparison to metaphysics demonstrates very bad thinking. I'm not suggesting that _specific_ unknowable aspects are affecting subjective response, I'm saying that science that relies on subjective report is significantly compromised. That is, I'm saying objective measurements are much better than attempts at mingling objective and subjective elements in the pursuit of declarative statements. I'm also saying that although science could theoretically detect and maybe even correct for confounding factors dealing with subjective experience, it cannot correct for the entirety of their sum total effect. They exist together and those relationships can either be observed as a total OR singularly, but not both and observations about them singularly cannot account for changes due to their collective and relational effect.

This is not the same as saying that there are unobservable factors at play, it's simply saying that science is not sophisticated enough at this time to account for all confounding factors presented by subjective review and it fools itself by extending from examination of singular factors and extending them to account for the relationship of multiple confounding factors. A sophisticated enough model may be able to account for them, but a blind A/B is not able to do so.

Which is why a scientific exploration of sound should stick to measurements with the absolute minimum of subjective report.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> The comparison to metaphysics demonstrates very bad thinking. I'm not suggesting that _specific_ unknowable aspects are affecting subjective response, I'm saying that science that relies on subjective report is significantly compromised. That is, I'm saying objective measurements are much better than attempts at mingling objective and subjective elements in the pursuit of declarative statements. I'm also saying that although science could theoretically detect and maybe even correct for confounding factors dealing with subjective experience, it cannot correct for the entirety of their sum total effect. They exist together and those relationships can either be observed as a total OR singularly, but not both and observations about them singularly cannot account for changes due to their collective and relational effect.
> 
> This is not the same as saying that there are unobservable factors at play, it's simply saying that science is not sophisticated enough at this time to account for all confounding factors presented by subjective review and it fools itself by extending from examination of singular factors and extending them to account for the relationship of multiple confounding factors. A sophisticated enough model may be able to account for them, but a blind A/B is not able to do so.
> 
> Which is why a scientific exploration of sound should stick to measurements with the absolute minimum of subjective report.


 
  
 The net result is the same:
  
 If you don't believe audibility is empirically testable using the current commonly accepted methods, then the issue of audibility is at at untestable impasse until someone invents a test that meets your criteria.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> The net result is the same:
> 
> If you don't believe audibility is empirically testable using the current commonly accepted methods, then the issue of audibility is at at untestable impasse until someone invents a test that meets your criteria.


 

 You can attempt to test audibility empirically, but confounding factors will be problematic until you find a way to overcome them. A blind A/B test is not sufficient, no.
  
 Until then, it's merely 'empirical', not actually empirical. It's important to not fool yourself into thinking that you've achieved something you haven't. Any reasonable person could admit that. An irrational person, bound and determined to suggest that his or her methods demonstrate the empirical 'truth' would be loathe to admit those shortcomings and might even try to reduce an argument against this attempt as, I dunno, 'metaphysical' maybe.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> You can attempt to test audibility empirically, but confounding factors will be problematic until you find a way to overcome them. A blind A/B test is not sufficient, no.
> 
> Until then, it's merely 'empirical', not actually empirical. It's important to not fool yourself into thinking that you've achieved something you haven't.


 
  
 [Okay, I'm going to ignore the massive bodies of psychoacoustic work with large sample sizes used to create the algorithms used in MP3, AAC, etc, for the time being...]
  
 So just to make sure we're clear:
  
 Your stance is that is not possible to test for audible differences between DACs using double-blind ABX testing, period?


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> [Okay, I'm going to ignore the massive bodies of psychoacoustic work with large sample sizes used to create the algorithms used in MP3, AAC, etc, for the time being...]
> 
> So just to make sure we're clear:
> 
> Your stance is that is not possible to test for audible differences between DACs using double-blind ABX testing, period?


 

 Not yet. I haven't seen an explanation that can claim to even find all the confounding factors, let alone control for them. Maybe when we have a scientific model for consciousness.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> [Okay, I'm going to ignore the massive bodies of psychoacoustic work with large sample sizes used to create the algorithms used in MP3, AAC, etc, for the time being...]
> 
> So just to make sure we're clear:
> 
> Your stance is that is not possible to test for audible differences between DACs using double-blind ABX testing, period?


 

 Ah, but that psychoacoustic work determines quantitative limits, not the qualitative subjective experiences that people report with DAC changes. The qualitative effects require subjective report, and a failure to report isn't the same as a failure to exist.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Not yet. I haven't seen an explanation that can claim to even find all the confounding factors, let alone control for them. Maybe when we have a scientific model for consciousness.


 
  
 So we're back to what I said earlier:
  
 This leaves us at untestable impasse of "I think I hear a difference" vs "I think maybe your mind is playing tricks on you."
  
 If it's truly untestable, there is no actual debate, only argument about preference sets.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> So we're back to what I said earlier:
> 
> This leaves us at untestable impasse of "I think I hear a difference" vs "I think maybe your mind is playing tricks on you."
> 
> If it's truly untestable, there is no actual debate, only argument about preference sets.


 

 Sure. Perhaps you can tell me why you think that audibility is empirically testable, if you do.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Sure. Perhaps you can tell me why you think that audibility is empirically testable, if you do.


 
  
 I could list all sorts of reasons (my degree is in applied physics, I work with audio engineers on a regular basis, I'm a member of the AES, etc.), but in my experience, it's pretty pointless to try to convince DBT skeptics that DBT can be valid.  It's just a waste of time for both parites -- people's stances don't usually change.  It's like trying to debate religion.


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> I could list all sorts of reasons (my degree is in applied physics,


 
 Is your name Leonard? Just joking, couldn't resist. Yes, DBT is essential. I'm only a psychology undergraduate and I know that.


----------



## NA Blur

landroni said:


> If I understand correctly, Tyll's blind testing set-up goes along these lines: (1) gather a bunch of random people (2) unfamiliar with his system and gear set-up (3) to do mostly instantaneous switch-backs within the day. At the end of the day, the "no diff" hypothesis is being proclaimed.
> 
> This set-up makes a number of assumptions that probably invalidates the entire exercise:
> - It assumes that people can nilly-willy get dropped into an unfamiliar set-up (TOTL or not) and immediately start picking up differences/subtleties. People need to be familiar with the respective systems _before_ getting subjected to blind testing. Our brains get calibrated by / attuned to a given system (forget the "a DAC is a DAC" hypothesis that is implicit here), so getting exposed to a new system requires brain warm-up and calibration time, not something achievable in half an hour.
> ...


 

 It wasn't a scientific test by any means as I was a participant, but it did allow us to try to hear differences. As I mentioned earlier if you want to know the difference audible or otherwise take the signal from any two DACs, invert the polarity of one, and add them together. Anything left is the difference. You can decide if it is audible. And to whomever said this is not a valid I do not see why not. If you are talking about the DAC and its output which is what leads to the signal we amplify and controls the transducer then this is exactly what we need to look at for audible difference.
  
 Also, the biggest factor between one good DAC and another is going to be more psychoacoustic than audible. I am not saying there are not audible differences, but if it is not present in the signal then chances are we are imagining it rather than hearing it.
  
 Believe what you want, but until you conduct your own blind A/B test with someone other than a friend switching the gear around, you are supplying the same opinion as the rest. It sounds like you are saying that because we tested the DACs, among other things in the Big Sound 2015 gathering, that what we heard is useless. On the same token is that not what you do when you claim there are differences? Just trying to sort your logic out.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Is your name Leonard? Just joking, couldn't resist. Yes, DBT is essential. I'm only a psychology undergraduate and I know that.


 
  
 There are whole branches of study that have made progress in part due to the rigorous application of DBT (drug-testing being probably the most powerful example).  Nonetheless, there are many who don't believe in it, or believe it doesn't apply to audio.   I used to try to change the minds of those folks, but I no longer do so.  The evidence supporting DBT is there for people to look at in ample amounts.  But I've given up on trying to be an evangelist.  
  
 To be honest, I think some people are happier not knowing if they're hearing a placebo effect or no.  They perceive the sensations as real and it makes them happy.  Or, sometimes, makes them unhappy and leads to audiophilia nervosa.  The placebo effect is real and powerful.
  
 I've come to the conclusion that the objectivist vs subjectivist tribes of audio are mostly irreconcilable.  They seem to be happiest when they don't intrude on each other's worldviews.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> There are whole branches of study that have made progress in part due to the rigorous application of DBT (drug-testing being probably the most powerful example).  Nonetheless, there are many who don't believe in it, or believe it doesn't apply to audio.   I used to try to change the minds of those folks, but I no longer do so.  The evidence supporting DBT is there for people to look at in ample amounts.  But I've given up on trying to be an evangelist.
> 
> To be honest, I think some people are happier not knowing if they're hearing a placebo effect or no.  They perceive the sensations as real and it makes them happy.  Or, sometimes, makes them unhappy and leads to audiophilia nervosa.  The placebo effect is real and powerful.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that the objectivist vs subjectivist tribes of audio are mostly irreconcilable.  They seem to be happiest when they don't intrude on each other's worldviews.



I think that my skepticism for Blind A/B testing for headphone audio has been contorted into a skepticism of ALL double blind studies, which is inaccurate.


----------



## sonitus mirus

na blur said:


> It wasn't a scientific test by any means as I was a participant, but it did allow us to try to hear differences. As I mentioned earlier if you want to know the difference audible or otherwise take the signal from any two DACs, invert the polarity of one, and add them together. Anything left is the difference. You can decide if it is audible. And to whomever said this is not a valid I do not see why not. If you are talking about the DAC and its output which is what leads to the signal we amplify and controls the transducer then this is exactly what we need to look at for audible difference.
> 
> Also, the biggest factor between one good DAC and another is going to be more psychoacoustic than audible. I am not saying there are not audible differences, but if it is not present in the signal then chances are we are imagining it rather than hearing it.
> 
> Believe what you want, but until you conduct your own blind A/B test with someone other than a friend switching the gear around, you are supplying the same opinion as the rest. It sounds like you are saying that because we tested the DACs, among other things in the Big Sound 2015 gathering, that what we heard is useless. On the same token is that not what you do when you claim there are differences? Just trying to sort your logic out.


 
  
 I can use Audio Diffmaker and come up with a file that has audible sounds that I can hear, but these differences are masked when the original files are played.  Might a similar issue occur with the DAC signals?  Genuinely interested to know more about what the expected results would be from the polarity summing.
  
 I don't know if there are any differences between various DACs that appear to measure well within the transparency of our hearing limits.  When anyone claims they sound the same, it is nothing more than an opinion.  When someone claims they can hear subtle or even obvious differences with the right equipment that is revealing enough, it is also just an opinion.  The evidence that I have seen thus far leads me to believe that if any differences exist, it probably isn't consistent with improved quality, and the differences found would be exceedingly small and practically worthless to just about everyone.  
  
 I could be swayed with the right evidence, but I have not been shown anything to make me change my mind.


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> I think that my skepticism for Blind A/B testing for headphone audio has been contorted into a skepticism of ALL double blind studies, which is inaccurate.


 
  
 I'm not sure why you think that post was about you?  You weren't mentioned.


----------



## NA Blur

watchnerd said:


> There are whole branches of study that have made progress in part due to the rigorous application of DBT (drug-testing being probably the most powerful example).  Nonetheless, there are many who don't believe in it, or believe it doesn't apply to audio.   I used to try to change the minds of those folks, but I no longer do so.  The evidence supporting DBT is there for people to look at in ample amounts.  But I've given up on trying to be an evangelist.
> 
> To be honest, I think some people are happier not knowing if they're hearing a placebo effect or no.  They perceive the sensations as real and it makes them happy.  Or, sometimes, makes them unhappy and leads to audiophilia nervosa.  The placebo effect is real and powerful.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that the objectivist vs subjectivist tribes of audio are mostly irreconcilable.  They seem to be happiest when they don't intrude on each other's worldviews.


 

 +1


----------



## NA Blur

sonitus mirus said:


> I can use Audio Diffmaker and come up with a file that has audible sounds that I can hear, but these differences are masked when the original files are played.  Might a similar issue occur with the DAC signals?  Genuinely interested to know more about what the expected results would be from the polarity summing.
> 
> I don't know if there are any differences between various DACs that appear to measure well within the transparency of our hearing limits.  When anyone claims they sound the same, it is nothing more than an opinion.  When someone claims they can hear subtle or even obvious differences with the right equipment that is revealing enough, it is also just an opinion.  The evidence that I have seen thus far leads me to believe that if any differences exist, it probably isn't consistent with improved quality, and the differences found would be exceedingly small and practically worthless to just about everyone.
> 
> I could be swayed with the right evidence, but I have not been shown anything to make me change my mind.


 

 You make a good point in that the source combining the two could be adding or masking something. I still would love an example of the type of file you are talking about.


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> I can use Audio Diffmaker and come up with a file that has audible sounds that I can hear, but these differences are masked when the original files are played.  Might a similar issue occur with the DAC signals?


 
  
 I'm hard pressed think of an audio-masking scenario (i.e something normally audible covered up by something else) that wouldn't be measurable by instruments, even if we can't hear it, and thus show up as a difference between DACs.


----------



## NA Blur

I like to believe that if it is audible then it is measureable. Claiming the opposite is admitting to either a lack of understanding or a lack of a valid test.
  
 I did find an interesting paper on DAC testing:
 http://www.analog.com/library/analogDialogue/archives/39-06/Chapter%205%20Testing%20Converters%20F.pdf
  
 I will never claim that all DACs sound the same, but I will claim if they sound different then there should be a measureable difference. If no difference is ever found then this is great evidence that our brain is fooling us.


----------



## watchnerd

na blur said:


> I like to believe that if it is audible then it is measureable. Claiming the opposite is admitting to either a lack of understanding or a lack of a valid test.


 
  
 It is entirely possible that there could be a phenomenon that is audible but isn't measured because we're not looking for it (not the same as unmeasurable, BTW).
  
 This is why (and I almost hate to bring it up...) we have DBT ABX testing.....to account for the possibility that people might be hearing something real that we haven't been measuring or looking for.  And this is why such tests are important.


----------



## NA Blur

If I had more time and gear I would gladly put on an event that could A/B test questions like the one titled in this thread. I think instead of approaching this argumentatively we should turn it into something fun and enlightening by hosting an event. Anyone have a DAC of each type and willing to host a test?


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> I'm not sure why you think that post was about you?  You weren't mentioned.


 

 Earlier in the thread I thought you did.


----------



## castleofargh

disastermouse said:


> landroni said:
> 
> 
> > Unless one lives under a rock, it's very obvious that people do hear differences between some gear, and not so much between other gear. Including obviously scientifically minded types who do audio measurements for a living and don't go to sleep without their analyzer, and who wouldn't get caught dead listening to non-level matched sources... So to shine the other side of the coin, aren't we just trying a little too hard to justify no differences because we want the DACs to sound identical?
> ...


 


Spoiler: evil modo with long sharp teeth



I don't like deleting posts, it makes me very mad when it happens to me, but I also don't like people who come to sound science to troll.  we have enough dumb racism in the world already, no need to create a "sound science" ethnic genre.


 
  
  
 @landroni, there is a difference between finding 2 devices that do sound different, and take that as a reason to think any 2 techs will sound different even thought their differences measure way below -80db in about everything.
 R2R and delta sigma both seem to be able to output a signal with fidelity measurements that are usually accepted as being below our human hearing threshold of music. so from the start, to go with the idea that they are audibly different can mean 2 thing IMO:
 -that we're listening to crap products that don't measure anything close to what they advertise. then of course it could become bad enough to be audible.
 -that we're challenging all the research done on human hearing and music to satisfy our gut feeling that there must be a difference.
  
 I can't think of another reason as I don't know of a correct auditory test for small differences that isn't blind testing. and that's why I wondered if there was a need at all to start with the idea that the 2 techs must sound different?
  
 sometimes I feel that subjective claims from sighted evaluations used to dismiss blind tests are us looking at a "magician" doing a levitation demonstration, and people say it's real and argue that gravity isn't clearly explained yet so we shouldn't mind it. it's true that we don't know it all about gravity, but we certainly know and have tested enough to claim without doubt that it isn't right now taking a break on the hot girl "levitating".
 I wish we could have a better reason than ignorance and biases to decide that stuff sound different, is what I'm saying I guess. because if we reject blind test, what do we have left to demonstrate audibility of small differences?


----------



## spruce music

A perhaps eye opening demo are the files at the Audiodiffmaker site.  It has two files, one is clean, and the other has a raucous marching band mixed with it at -60 db.  Now minus 60 db artefacts are easily measurable.  Many get all bent out of shape about errors 1000 times smaller.  Yet you will find in matched level playback you cannot figure out which of the two files has the marching band mixed into it. That should give lots of people pause.


----------



## ]eep

> there is a difference between finding 2 devices that do sound different, and take that as a reason to think any 2 techs will sound different even thought their differences measure way below -80db in about everything.



You do realize that there are a lot of unspoken presuppositions in that sentence, don't you? Don't you think 'everything' is a very unscientific catch all? If science history has proven anything, then it is that any level of knowledge is 'for the time being'. And we still keep on rattling about 'the sun coming up' or 'transmitting over the aether'. We simple do not know everything there is to know. So that should make us a little more humble than this sort of generalizations. 

And you (you as in general, not you personally) do know that there are a lot more than 2 devices that sound different. In fact _every_ device sounds different. This is simple logic reasoning for manufacturing tolerances _exist_. It is simply impossible to make to identical devices. And if there would only be one person on earth that could tell the difference the highly subjective verb 'sound' (as in humanly perceptible) would be proven. The absence of that one person (or worse: the reluctance to acknowledge such a person on basis of personal bias) or his existence would not logically prove the opposite. You cannot prove something doesn't exist anywhere in the universe just because you haven't found it (or worse; refuse to look at the evidence, or still worse: try to hide it. This unfortunately happens very, very often in the science community. But let's not open that can of worms). 

This is all very philosophical. I know. But all to often technically schooled individuals stray in the realm of philosophy without even knowing it, leading others into confusion with their claims on expertise in the wrong field. 

Returning to earth: there is a technical difference between R2R and SD. If nothing else, the feedback loop in SD throws a spanner or 2 in the works. And there are a lot more technical differences. I am not the only one saying so. And since hardly anyone measures phase accuracy or shows them in their specs, this simply escapes the 'everything' of certain peoples constricted universe. 

Quote by a certain dr. in science giving about 600 lectures a year all over the world:
"Do you know everything? 
- Uhm, well no. 
So lets suppose you know half of everything there is to know, that is a lot isn't it?
- Yes, more than I do. 
Yes, but let's suppose so. Do you think that there is a possibility that something could completely exist in the half you do not know of?" Now there was a completely new thought going through his brain. Most people are brainwashed in the educational system called public school. [not my words]


----------



## watchnerd

]eep said:


> Returning to earth: there is a technical difference between R2R and SD. If nothing else, the feedback loop in SD throws a spanner or 2 in the works. And there are a lot more technical differences. I am not the only one saying so. And since hardly anyone measures phase accuracy or shows them in their specs, this simply escapes the 'everything' of certain peoples constricted universe.


 
  
  
 Nobody is saying there aren't technical differences between SD and R2R.  The question is if these differences are audible.


----------



## spruce music

]eep said:


> You do realize that there are a lot of unspoken presuppositions in that sentence, don't you? Don't you think 'everything' is a very unscientific catch all? If science history has proven anything, then it is that any level of knowledge is 'for the time being'. And we still keep on rattling about 'the sun coming up' or 'transmitting over the aether'. We simple do not know everything there is to know. So that should make us a little more humble than this sort of generalizations.
> 
> And you (you as in general, not you personally) do know that there are a lot more than 2 devices that sound different. In fact _every_ device sounds different. This is simple logic reasoning for manufacturing tolerances _exist_. It is simply impossible to make to identical devices. And if there would only be one person on earth that could tell the difference the highly subjective verb 'sound' (as in humanly perceptible) would be proven. The absence of that one person (or worse: the reluctance to acknowledge such a person on basis of personal bias) or his existence would not logically prove the opposite. You cannot prove something doesn't exist anywhere in the universe just because you haven't found it (or worse; refuse to look at the evidence, or still worse: try to hide it. This unfortunately happens very, very often in the science community. But let's not open that can of worms).
> 
> ...


 

 I nominate this for comedy of the month post on Sound Science forum.


----------



## ]eep

Which only goes to prove exactly my point....


----------



## Sonic Defender

^ We should be nice,  I know the ideas expressed may be, well, different, but it is never cool to belittle somebody unless they are themselves being cruel.


----------



## castleofargh

]eep said:


> > there is a difference between finding 2 devices that do sound different, and take that as a reason to think any 2 techs will sound different even thought their differences measure way below -80db in about everything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 obviously I express myself badly, because I don't even get why you're posting this to answer my post. I'm not contesting anything you said, just like I never said 2 DACs had to sound the same or measure the same. my hypothetical case was talking about -80 THD+N and other stuff, not identical. are you using the everything is different if we increase the measurement accuracy as an argument that if it's different it must sound different? because else I really don't get it. we're talking about 2 different techs and about audibility. you make me very confused. 
  
 I keep asking where is the idea that it will sound different(you know the topic's main question) coming from? but I'm not asking because I believe there can't be audible difference, I'm asking because the idea seems to come out of nowhere and that's what bothering me. we don't contest measurements or blind test with nothing. that can't possibly be science.  reading the last pages you can see that some people think measurements are a bad way to judge audibility, and it's in some respects a legit argument, we don't always measure enough, or we aren't perfectly sure about the threshold of audibility. so no measurement to say something is audible, I find it excessive but ok.
 then you can read about how blind test isn't good enough because false negative, stress of the experiment, bad chakras, people who mess up tests and don't actually test the right thing because of bad protocols... again some stuff are very legit, others aren't, but there is enough rational to accept that maybe we could hear something that we fail to hear in a blind test. so no blind test. again I find that excessive, but if there is something else, something better, then I'm all for it. 
 and we're left with? that's what I'm asking in my last 2 posts. where does the idea that ABX isn't enough to tell all about audible differences is coming from? where does the idea that something measuring clean down to -80db can sound audibly different from something else that also measures better than -80db even on jitter at 19khz, is coming from?
 again I insist, it's not a rhetorical question to make a point about "everything sounds the same", it's a real question. what is that third option, compelling and falsifiable enough to warrant all those doubts about blind test and measurements, or the idea that 2 DACs with great measurements may still sound different?
  
 because I never get an answer to this in any topic, I'm becoming afraid that it all came from people who got biased in a sighted evaluation, like we all are at some point. and when they failed a blind test with the same gears, they couldn't take no for an answer and started to blame the test as the one being wrong. I'm starting to seriously wonder if there is any other reason to people rejecting blind tests as the best way to test audibility?


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> because I never get an answer to this in any topic, I'm becoming afraid that it all came from people who got biased in a sighted evaluation, like we all are at some point. and when they failed a blind test with the same gears, they couldn't take no for an answer and started to blame the test as the one being wrong. I'm starting to seriously wonder if there is any other reason to people rejecting blind tests as the best way to test audibility?


 
  
 There is a phenomenon studied in behavioral economics called "anchoring" that I think is cognitively related:
  
 "*Anchoring* or *focalism* is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the "anchor") when making decisions. Duringdecision making, anchoring occurs when individuals use an initial piece of information to make subsequent judgments. Once an anchor is set, other judgments are made by adjusting away from that anchor, and there is a bias toward interpreting other information around the anchor."
  
 [from Wikipedia]
  
 Or to put it differently, a DBT ABX test challenges the perceived value of a purchase (sort of like declining home values) and it can be difficult to re-adjust in the face of new data.


----------



## Sonic Defender

^ I think that is also the principle that those Compare At price tags use to get you. Once you see the higher price the lower price is of course evaluated as a distance from the start rather than evaluated based on the items likely value. I think so anyway.


----------



## watchnerd

I just ran across this unusual beast.
  
 The AMR CD-777 has different filters / sampling modes a user can select:
  
 "

 *AMR’s Continuous Calibration Multibit “CCMD” DAC*

 
At the heart of the CD-777 Processor is AMR’s ‘continuous calibration’ Multibit Digital-to-Analogue Converter circuit using the Philips UDA1305AT Multibit Chipset. This is the first time this New Old Stock chipset has been used in a CD source and is worthy of the title “son” to the “King of Multibit” Philips TDA1541A chipset used in the multi-award winning CD-77. With AMR’s understanding of digital design down to the silicon die-level, the sonic performance of this “Prince of Multibit” chipset has been taken beyond the textbook limit. Producing visceral music that other mega-buck CD players cannot match, it must be heard to be believed. Along with AMR’s OptiSample, the CD-77 boasts full remote control of all sampling modes: Direct Mastering (AMR’s custom Non-Oversampling), Oversampling (2X, 4X) and Upsampling (96 kHz, 192 kHz).


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> But when the manufacturer of audio gear makes claims that challenge the scientific / engineering consensus and what is audible or measurable......well, as Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.


 

 Indeed so. It is NOT extraordinary to claim that there is a difference between DACs and between amps, which is obvious from the mountains of anecdotal evidence. The extraordinary claim is that "an amp is an amp is an amp" and "a DAC is a DAC is a DAC".
  
 So proof, please. And good luck with that. Please make sure to control for all potential confounding factors. Handwaving psychoacoustics and "should double-blind test it" won't work.


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > But when the manufacturer of audio gear makes claims that challenge the scientific / engineering consensus and what is audible or measurable......well, as Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
> ...


 
 how about not making up a straw man argument?  nothing in watchnerd's post meant "a DAC is a DAC is a DAC".


----------



## landroni

na blur said:


> I like to believe that if it is audible then it is measureable. Claiming the opposite is admitting to either a lack of understanding or a lack of a valid test.
> 
> 
> I did find an interesting paper on DAC testing:
> ...


 

 Absolutely. IF you know what to measure... Not all distortion types are yet known (e.g. at the beginning of digital jitter was an unknown phenomenon), and not all distortions are advertised or even included in specs. Many headline distortion figures (e.g. THD) make no sense the way they are being presented to the world, not without additional context, and many distortion measurements are useful or informative only as graphs. Distortion graphs isn't something we get a lot just about anywhere...
  
 If we had a clear model, which outlined precisely what to look for, then we could be talking. But as of now we don't have an "objective" standard that we could use to define what _should_ be measured.


----------



## landroni

castleofargh said:


> landroni said:
> 
> 
> > watchnerd said:
> ...


 

 The argument of "there are no huge differences between DACs" and "two DACs sound the same as long as they measure similarly" is an argument often bandied around here. This is an extraordinary claim, as it seems to be thrown at 100$ DACs as well as 2000$ DACs. So as long as we assume gear over 100$ and measuring similarly on "some" headline measures (with "some" being most often omitted from the discussion), what I'm hearing is that we should expect that they sound the same. This is an extraordinary claim. It is extraordinary because it assumes we know ALL there is to know that should be measured that defines what we hear; we may discover others, or there are measurements that are not being done. It also assumes that there are independent, _complete_, unbiased and accurate measures available for just about any gear out there; there aren't. 
  
 No strawmen here.


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> The argument of "there are no huge differences between DACs" and "two DACs sound the same as long as they measure similarly" is an argument often bandied around here. This is an extraordinary claim, as it seems to be thrown at 100$ DACs as well as 2000$ DACs. So as long as we assume gear over 100$ and measuring similarly on "some" headline measures (with "some" being most often omitted from the discussion), what I'm hearing is that we should expect that they sound the same. This is an extraordinary claim. It is extraordinary because it assumes we know ALL there is to know that should be measured that defines what we hear; we may discover others, or there are measurements that are not being done. It also assumes that there are independent, _complete_, unbiased and accurate measures available for just about any gear out there; there aren't.
> 
> No strawmen here.


 
  
 Take two DACs that, according to "standard" measurements should sound the same, and do a blind test of them. What's so hard about that? You don't like the ABX methodology, fine. Then YOU come up with another one, but you have to have something that removes the obvious effects of sighted bias.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> So proof, please. And good luck with that. Please make sure to control for all potential confounding factors. Handwaving psychoacoustics and "should double-blind test it" won't work.


 
  
 What method would you propose, that removes placebo effects and confirmation bias, to determine if there is an audible difference between R2R vs DS DACs?


----------



## sonitus mirus

landroni said:


> Indeed so. It is NOT extraordinary to claim that there is a difference between DACs and between amps, which is obvious from the mountains of anecdotal evidence. The extraordinary claim is that "an amp is an amp is an amp" and "a DAC is a DAC is a DAC".
> 
> So proof, please. And good luck with that. Please make sure to control for all potential confounding factors. Handwaving psychoacoustics and "should double-blind test it" won't work.


 
  
 All of that anecdotal evidence only proves what is already known, that humans are easily fooled, especially with regards to our hearing.   Why wouldn't that be a factor in this situation?


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


> The argument of "there are no huge differences between DACs" and "two DACs sound the same as long as they measure similarly" is an argument often bandied around here.


 


> what I'm hearing is that we should expect that they sound the same.


 

  looks pretty straw man argument to me.
  you brought up the people saying that a DAC is a DAC in your last 4 posts. we get it, that annoys you, but each time you were answering a post that wasn't making those claims. so it's starting to feel like you have your own agenda.


----------



## landroni

castleofargh said:


> disastermouse said:
> 
> 
> > landroni said:
> ...


 

 The threat for deleting posts and branding others as trolls (including me, I gather) are completely uncalled for. Please refrain.
  
  
 "Usually accepted" as defined by whom? Where? And why? The is no "objectively" defined standard, not yet. Headline distortion figures---without context---are meaningless from most manufacturers. Different distortion types are mostly ignored (whether by manufacturers or by "objectivists", let alone publicised.) And NOT ALL possible measurements are yet known. To assume that science has figured it all out in audio is a (HUGE) leap of faith.
  
 Personally I do not reject blind-testing, but I do qualify it for audio gear. Possibly not all factors are accounted for in traditional setups, and attempts should be made at addressing such concerns.
  
 Those who believe that "audibility of small differences" can completely be defined by completely unrealistic, lab-tests using simple tones should take a deep breath and think again. Lab results are nice (and useful!), but if they do not correlate with reality, then test methodology and complexity should be reconsidered, improved.


----------



## landroni

castleofargh said:


> looks pretty straw man argument to me.
> you brought up the people saying that a DAC is a DAC in your last 4 posts. we get it, that annoys you, but each time you were answering a post that wasn't making those claims. so it's starting to feel like you have your own agenda.


 

 After strawman claim, I get agenda thrown at me. Yay, lucky me. 
  
 It was claimed on several occasions in this thread that 100$ DAC would sound identical to 2000$ DAC (standard ill-defined disclaimer: if the two measure "the same"). E.g. Schiit Yggdrasil vs ODAC. I haven't heard many "objectivists" up in arms against these claims, so I assume that this is a consensus. This is definitely how much of the prose reads, as in the bottom line. Please don't throw straws at me...
  
 If the claim is different (and I'm really poor in my reading skills!), please define in very clear terms what is the "objectivist" claim, and present it in falsifiable and in testable format. I'd like to be able to test it.


----------



## tonykaz

Yggy vs ODAC,  
  
 I've heard both, side by side.   I think I'd be comfortable taking bets on this if we set-up a AB at a headphone meet.     Hmm, lets say $50 if a person could consistently tell the difference by scoring anything better than 60%.  
  
 Poooooooooosibly, if a person had their own Stax 009 / Blue Hawaii and Music but the vast majority would be scratching their head if the Amp was under $700 and they were using standard Audiophile mainstream under $500 headphones.  
  
 Anyway, it'd be a fun outing, even exciting.    
  
 I'd be winning most people's $50, I recon.   
  
 [size=x-small]Still, I [/size]wouldn't[size=x-small] want to piss off Schiit people so I'd need someone else to provide the test platform.[/size]
  
Debating R2R vs. the other is OK here instead of actually writing checks to find out.     Bob Katz & Tyll couldn't tell the difference between the Yggy and the Antelope.  Jason Stoddard says DACs are boring.  Watchnerd considers the DAC a properly refined device.  The ODAC lives successfully in a hyper critical world of Audiophile Nervosa ( probably the best selling audiophile DAC out-there.  Jus Say'n.
  
  
Tony in Michigan
  
 [size=x-small]ps. Tube rolling actually "moves the needle" quite a bit,  I'll [/size]take[size=x-small] "my" little performance debate to Garage1217 and leave you DAC debaters a Clear Field.  If you finally decide on one or the other would you please let me know, I'll buy one.   Thank you[/size]


----------



## sonitus mirus

landroni said:


> After strawman claim, I get agenda thrown at me. Yay, lucky me.
> 
> It was claimed on several occasions in this thread that 100$ DAC would sound identical to 2000$ DAC (standard ill-defined disclaimer: if the two measure "the same"). E.g. Schiit Yggdrasil vs ODAC. I haven't heard many "objectivists" up in arms against these claims, so I assume that this is a consensus. This is definitely how much of the prose reads, as in the bottom line. Please don't throw straws at me...
> 
> If the claim is different (and I'm really poor in my reading skills!), please define in very clear terms what is the "objectivist" claim, and present it in falsifiable and in testable format. I'd like to be able to test it.


 
  
 The devices have different measurements, but it seems that the differences would not be audible.  The only way to know for certain would be to conduct a listening test, and the best way to do this would be to isolate the ears as best we can to remove outside factors that may create bias.  At this time, that would be a carefully proctored ABX test.  
  
 If anyone claims that the devices are audibly similar, there really isn't any method to verify this is true.  No reason to get my feathers all ruffled about a claim with no hope of being proven. When someone claims that they can hear a difference, this can be verified.  Unsuccessful ABX tests do not necessarily mean that there are no differences, but the lack of evidence is quite telling, and my opinion on the matter is heavily influence by what I've seen thus far.  
  
 If someone tells me that life exists on the moon, they should be able to provide some evidence that everyone could agree on as acceptable validation.  If someone claims that life does not exist on the moon, the lack of evidence of life does not mean that life cannot exist.  Though, for similar reasons, I have no issues with anyone claiming that life does not exist on the moon.


----------



## icebear

sonitus mirus said:


> The devices have different measurements, but it seems that the differences would not be audible.  The only way to know for certain would be to conduct a listening test, and the best way to do this would be to isolate the ears as best we can to remove outside factors that may create bias.  At this time, that would be a carefully proctored ABX test.
> 
> *If anyone claims that the devices are audibly similar, there really isn't any method to verify this is true.  *No reason to get my feathers all ruffled about a claim with no hope of being proven. When someone claims that they can hear a difference, this can be verified.  Unsuccessful ABX tests do not necessarily mean that there are no differences, but the lack of evidence is quite telling, and my opinion on the matter is heavily influence by what I've seen thus far.
> ...


 
  
 There are exact statistical methods to verify if two samples are *different or similar. *
 These both can be based on the same blinded A-B comparison but require a different number of participants in the test.
  
 A rough description of the methods is here (although related to sensory science):
 http://www.sensorydimensions.com/blog/similarity-or-difference-does-it-matter/
  
 Other articles on similarity testing dive deep into the math. of statistics which do not really matter here.


----------



## sonitus mirus

icebear said:


> There are exact statistical methods to verify if two samples are *different or similar. *
> These both can be based on the same blinded A-B comparison but require a different number of participants in the test.
> 
> A rough description of the methods is here (although related to sensory science):
> ...


 
  
 Statistical significance can produce an extremely high level of confidence, but it is not a certainty, whereas if someone can show a difference is heard, they definitely heard a difference and it is then a matter of what the reason was for allowing this difference to be heard.  At a high level, I was simply attempting to point out that there was little hope in providing evidence that would change anyones mind that 2 similarly measured DACs sound exactly alike.  On the other hand, I bet most of us would see things quite differently if ever a valid, repeatable test was conducted showing that a difference was being heard.


----------



## NA Blur

The difficult in each seems to be the increased quantization error in delta-sigma DACs vs the need to precisely match resistor values ( which change over temperature ) in the R2R ladder. I suspect both can be made with no audible faults which is why both topologies are still around although the upsampling in delta-sigma grows as the capability of the chips grow.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr. sonitus mirus,
  
 "True Believers" have been supporting the Biblical account of Moses on the mountain, without any evidence or proof, for thousands of years, despite Archeological evidence to the contrary.  
  
 People believe what they want to believe, lack of good evidence enables people to "promise" and "assure" to suit themselves. 
  
 Joseph Smith was a widely recognized Con during his lifetime in the East Coast, he goes West and discovers Holy Scriptures buried in the Desert and starts a Wildly successful organization that is one of the fastest growing religions in the World Today. Try to reason with those people and you'll discover the ability that people have of embracing a set of beliefs that provide them with a Membership in a group which provides Identity and a sense of belonging.  
  
 Some folks believe in R2R 
  
 Some folks believe in DS 
  
 Some favor Class A Amplification
  
 Some Tubes
  
 Some even love Vinyl
  
 This is Audiophile, this is Identity.
  
 I'm a Class A, tube, Vinyl man sort of thing. 
  
Personally, I'm an iMac, Asgard2, Sennheiser Man and happy about it.  
  
 [size=x-small]And I'm happy that Ben Franklin gave us the [/size]Lightning[size=x-small] Rod ( wondering why Moses didn't get it along with "Thou shall not Kill". [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]Looking at CES 2016 leads me to think that Audiophile stuff will be iPhone dominated by 2020.  Today's discussions will be a stale historical debate just like 4 channel, DSD, Sony Triniton TVs and Coal fired Electrical Generation systems. [/size]
  
 [size=x-small]Tony in Michigan [/size]
  
 ps.  the DAC in the Phones is the DAC that wins the debate!


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> Personally I do not reject blind-testing, but I do qualify it for audio gear. Possibly not all factors are accounted for in traditional setups, and attempts should be made at addressing such concerns.


 
  
 What specific criteria do you feel are missing from the large sample-size, double-blind studies of audible differences and preferences published so far by scientists and engineers in peer reviewed journals?


----------



## watchnerd

na blur said:


> The difficult in each seems to be the increased quantization error in delta-sigma DACs vs the need to precisely match resistor values ( which change over temperature ) in the R2R ladder. I suspect both can be made with no audible faults which is why both topologies are still around although the upsampling in delta-sigma grows as the capability of the chips grow.


 
  
 This, at least, is the beginning of a hypothesis.  Or a pseudo-hypothesis.
  
 When comparing any two DACs, whether DS, R2R, or other, it seems there are some questions we can ask:
  
 1. Do the analog waveforms on the output null relative to each other?
  
 2. Is the jitter below audibility for both?
  
 3. Are they operating at the same output voltage, with distortion below the audible threshold at the time of test?
  
 4. Is the impulse response for both, at the voltage in #3, below the threshold of audibility?
  
 5. Is the noise threshold below the threshold of audibility?
  
 Taken together, these address frequency domain, time domain, amplitude, distortion, and noise.
  
  
 If all of the answer to all of these is "Yes", I'm hard-pressed to hypothesize what audible differences might be attributed to.  
  
 Perhaps there is something I left off the list?


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> Perhaps there is something I left off the list?


 
  
 The audiophile domain.


----------



## castleofargh

do I have to make an apology when I write that much to say so little? or maybe you guys are used to it and you just pass it thinking "nope" so you don't really suffer from my actions?
  
  
  
  
  
 Quote:


landroni said:


> The threat for deleting posts and branding others as trolls (including me, I gather) are completely uncalled for. Please refrain.
> 
> 
> "Usually accepted" as defined by whom? Where? And why? The is no "objectively" defined standard, not yet. Headline distortion figures---without context---are meaningless from most manufacturers. Different distortion types are mostly ignored (whether by manufacturers or by "objectivists", let alone publicised.) And NOT ALL possible measurements are yet known. To assume that science has figured it all out in audio is a (HUGE) leap of faith.
> ...


 
 the moderation part had nothing to do with you, I quoted his post, said what I had to say, then wrote @you to show that what followed was for you, and only what followed.
  
 now on topic(almost). this is long, and if nobody kills himself from having to read that long boring crap for 3year old french dudes, I expect it can at least make very clear where I stand and why, so people can argue about exactly where I'm wrong and why. (as I seem to have failed to explain my point in my last 3 or 4 posts).
 be strong, or just don't read it. get prepared to be:

  
  
 my question is very much in the same line as what you're saying. but while you seem to question the limits of measurements to no end, I don't see you stating half those doubts when talking about how stuff are different(or not), from anecdotal evidence as you said. is science supposed to be satisfied with anecdotal evidence? should we? that's what I'm asking about. I'm not trying to say that all DACs sound the same, or that basic specs from a manufacturer will tell the whole story about the output signal. and I'm not even saying that measurements or blind tests are perfect. so on those points we actually agree for he most part.
 but then I extend my doubts to the alternative too. the thing that in the first place created the doubt.
  
 if A is measurement and B is blind test, I know of C sighted evaluation. my questions were: 
 is there a D?
 if not why should I trust C over A of B?
 is it clear when presented like that? because of course if we can't even agree on how to test, it's really a waste of time to talk about making it happen.
  
 what is "generally accepted" AFAIK is that measurements/A can for the one thing they measure, be more accurate than human hearing. those measurements are repeatable and falsifiable, they are the core of objectivity.
 that B/blind tests are the best method to remove biases, placebo, and preconceptions. so when we want to test a subjective thing without those potential biases in the way, pretty much all domains of science resort to blind testing one way or another.
 it is also generally accepted that sighted evaluation/C does the opposite and integrates biases into the thing being tested, making the results hard to trust.
  
 so is there a D? my question on the last 3 or 4 posts.
 if there is no D, then remove C and nobody could possibly doubt B. not because B is great, but because if I only know of one way to test audibility, I will not doubt that way. if I grow up with people telling me that a plastic duck is my sister, as long as I don't get any other information that would conflict with this, I have no reason to doubt it. so a chair is a chair, the sky is blue,  trees don't run as fast as me, and the plastic duck is my sister. it's the allegory of the cave without ever getting out of the cave. no motive to doubt, so I believe that B is perfect for subjective testing in that oh so limited world I just made up. 
  
 but in our reality, to oppose B we have another subjective way, C. and as it's easy to notice a difference with C and fail to pass B for that difference, there is often conflict and I will look for the best method out of those 2. the one susceptible to be closer to the truth. from my "enerally accepted" premises mentioned before, I must say I'm really not inclined to trust sighted evaluation/C more than blind test/B. in fact with my own actual understanding of both, when B and C give different results, I trust B anytime of the day.  because while I've read a lot about how blind test has flawed, they're rather small flaws compared to sighted evaluation/C and all the possible biases. so between 2 evils, I pick the one I trust massively more when it comes to tell apart small audible differences.
  
 strong of that decision(that's only mine, but I figure many people who understand and have tested biases will vote like me on this), I go deal with measurements/A. it's my one and only objective data, the only reason why I don't trust it fully is because I've seen the same measurement done by different people with different equipments and leading to different results. so protocol is paramount to the reliability of measurements. and sure enough when the protocols are serious, measurements tend to agree with each others a lot more. so mostly I trust well done measurements and inquire a lot about how things are done and when I can, try them myself to find out the potential flaws(because if something can go wrong, with me it will. that's like a special talent of mine when I do measurements^_^).
 that's my second personal, and I hope rational, decision: trust measurements/A under given condition as holding conditional truth.
  
 now I have mostly rejected C because many experiments can demonstrate it can fail a lot. I trust A(with serious protocols), and mostly trust B. so my question at this point is: how much can I trust B blind test.
 just like for measurement/A, I now know that the protocol is paramount in A/ and B/, and once more I distrust sighted evaluation/C for its lack of protocols and controls.
 I'm in a system that seems to hold some general values. that's always reassuring even if it's not proof that I'm right.
 so I trust A a lot, and B a little and C almost not at all. my idea is to try and find stuff I can test in both A and B and see if they agree with each other. that would be a massive + in my theory. so I measure stuff, and blind test them. I notice that when a song is 16bit or 24bit I fail my abx. but when it's 8bit and 16bit, I can pass my abx. so I develop the idea of a threshold of human hearing for bit depth.
 I do the same with amplitude variation on DACs and amps, I measure signal with different amplitudes, and blind test to find if there is also a threshold. what a luck there is one! and I can consistently pass abx when the measured delta gets bigger than a given value that also seems consitent in time.
 I seem to be getting correlation between measurements and blind test on a great many things I test. as if those 2 were rather constant, repeatable and falsifiable as long as we keep a given tolerance for the threshold between tests and between individuals. so not exact science, but reliable estimates.
  
 now I do the same with A/measurement and C/sighted evaluation, and then with B and C. but here is the thing, C isn't a test. I can't remove as many biases as in B, I can't deal with preconceptions, and I can't introduce controls.  there is nothing to control, I see what I'm doing at all times. so even if C is good, I have no way of making sure of it. the way to falsivy a sighted evaluation, is a blind test... so I decide to fake sighted evaluation, I have people pass a test but I lie to them about something to see if my lie changes the result(I'm introducing a controlled variable, the test is  a blind test, but the testies don't know it and believe they're 100% doing C. like telling people they are listening to a pono when it's an ipod that is playing ^_^.
 I use B to test C. and the results are ugly. I tend to find correlation with A and C, but I need bigger thresholds than when I do a pure B/blind test. and the results tend to be less reliable than when I do complete B(compared to measurements/A).
  
 so I can't fully test C, I can't really know for sure that it works, and when I use B to fool people into thinking it's C, they don't do as good as simply doing B.
 my logic conclusion, C/sighted evaluation is crap for evaluation of audible differences, because even if it works, it serves no purpose as I can't even be sure about it.  so B is worst than A, but still the best way to test audibility without electrodes on my brain(but that would be A anyway).
  
  
 so now I have decided what system I'm living in. what's my science in audio. I don't seem to be able to get statistical significance more than winning the lottery when I blind test the same gear twice. so getting results consistent with differences that don't exist is a lottery job and doesn't happen often after 20 trials. when I get above my now relatively known thresholds of audibility for one given spec, I sometimes fail to make 100%(fatigue, boredom, trying to get rid of the test by speeding up too much, hard to notice difference...) but I still seem to get relative success when before I had success. repeatability seems to be there. so my unknown using blind test/B isn't something as massive as getting statistical differences for something identical, or a result consistent with guessing on any very obvious difference. those stuff work like 99% of the time. very reliable whatever other people seem to say. and when in doubt rinse and do more tests until doubt is removed.
 in the end measurements/A works(when well done, again, protocol, protocol and then protocol) for most practical needs that don't involve mind construct of audio. because a machine isn't a human, let's not ask the impossible(yet).
 blind test/B works well, except that we can't be sure if the thresholds we get are exact or if they are pessimistic because of some added error induced by the test. so all the question isn't about how blind test give false results, it's about trying to know what tolerance we should accept for a given test. still, when we pass a blind test, it does mean we heard a difference for that one test and that is massively significant in a great many tests. we must only keep in mind that maybe we can hear a little better than what the blind test says we can do. it's all about using a proper tolerance and not say stuff like "there is no audible difference when X=30 because I succeed at 29 but failed at 30". because that could very much be false, we can't really test for that in a way that doesn't involve the blind test protocol itself.  but if I fail to notice 30, I will tend to also fail 35, 40, 45, and it will become very unlikely that I would ever notice 50 in a similar blind test. as it's a matter of tolerance value function of a given test, the likelihood can also be at least estimated with statistics and magnitudes. but we do get results and general directions or magnitudes. and that's what people should care about IMO. blind test is a great tool when used well.
  
  
 so unless you or someone else brings me some D, E, F... that make both A and B's foundations to shatter, I believe I have a good system that brings me a little closer to the truth.
 A/measurements: fracking A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 B/blind test: to be or not to B: if I want to know about myself, B is the man.
 C/sighted evaluation: Ceased to interest me as a testing method. C will be kept exclusively for fun to "listen to music" and decide if I like the blue glowing knobs. and never to test or draw any conclusion about audible differences.
  
 now with A and B, I found that for my own self, several DACs seem to sound the same once I have matched the loudness. and almost all "sound" different when I only do C (if only for loudness differences, but other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness for C). thus my insistent questions about the method people used when they found out differences. and I guess the general tendency for objectivist to go "blind test/.AVI or it didn't happen", it seems confrontational but is in fact us asking for something we can trust a little.
  
  
  
  
  


landroni said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > looks pretty straw man argument to me.
> ...


 
 if you say "the two measure the same", I assume *all* measurements are the same and it's a theoretical argument about identical signal. if you say the 2 have the same THD+N, then I wouldn't assume they will sound identical just from that.
  
 you don't want me to point out your "leitmotiv", but you just did it again right there, saying how other people are wrong by saying that ".....they say all the same etc. look how wrong they are" ^_^ it really seems like it's your special move .


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> ...
> 
> now with A and B, I found that for my own self, several DACs seem to sound the same once I have matched the loudness. *and almost all "sound" different when I only do C (if only for loudness differences, but other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness for C)*. thus my insistent questions about the method people used when they found out differences. and I guess the general tendency for objectivist to go "blind test/.AVI or it didn't happen", it seems confrontational but is in fact us asking for something we can trust a little.



I thought I asked you (or maybe it was someone else) this before & I can't remember if it was answered but you paint a very black & white picture & the bolded bit is one that interests me. Your claim is that you "other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness" in sighted listening - so you "hear" differences because of these biases. This sounds to me like you are making it up to drive home a point so let me ask you this - if you do a blind test & hear no difference between DACs do you then hear differences between these same DACs when you are listening sighted?

An honest & forthright answer would be appreciated.


----------



## watchnerd

> Your claim is that you "other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness" in sighted listening - so you "hear" differences because of these biases. This sounds to me like you are making it up to drive home a point


 
  
 He's not making this up.  This is a well-documented phenomenon.  There are AES papers and YouTube videos of AES presentations on the impact of sight on perceived sound, even when the 'sight' part of the experiment was a facade.
  
 A famous example is the Solid State vs Tube switch.  
  
 Subjects were told a switch flipped between a solid state amp and a tube amp.  One end of the switch was labeled 'Solid State' and the other 'Tube'. The switch actually did no switching at all, but the action and mechanical sounds made it seem real.
  
 Engineers claimed that the "solid state" setting sounded better
  
 Audiophiles claimed that the "tube" setting sounded better.


----------



## landroni

@castleofargh Please keep things non-personal. I can also start throwing personal remarks towards you (or others), but refrain to. The moderation remarks were on a quotation of my post, so you can see how this can be interpreted. 
  
  
  
_"is science supposed to be satisfied with anecdotal evidence?"_
  
 Of course not. Yet if anecdotal evidence doesn't subside and even keeps mounting up, "convincing" anecdotal evidence, it is possible that there are methodological failings and possibly factors that have been overlooked or unaccounted for. Peer-reviewed or no. This is a valid question, and my only drive in this discussion. "Done and done" and "all reported differences are placebo" (as seems to be the overriding message from many) does nothing to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.
  
_"if you say "the two measure the same", I assume all measurements are the same and it's a theoretical argument about identical signal. if you say the 2 have the same THD+N, then I wouldn't assume they will sound identical just from that." _
  
 Right. No two devices will EVER measure "the same" (even same model from a given manufacturer) --- this is why we have manufacturer tolerances, among other things. So this isn't a practical way to go about it. When I hear "the two measure the same", what I understand is that "the two measure similarly and crucially reported measurements are below a specified threshold" (the latter is what I mean when I say the former). Which means that all the debate pertaining to "measures the same" argument revolves around the "threshold"... Some insist that from measurements Yggy and ODAC will sound the same...


----------



## landroni

watchnerd said:


> > Your claim is that you "other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness" in sighted listening - so you "hear" differences because of these biases. This sounds to me like you are making it up to drive home a point
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 How would one set up a double-blind switch for DACs at home? Is there some preamp that electronically allows random switching? Some other method whereas a simple preamp could be switched positions by someone else (randomly), without interfering with the test subject? Please share...


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> > Your claim is that you "other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness" in sighted listening - so you "hear" differences because of these biases. This sounds to me like you are making it up to drive home a point
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So, let me get this straight - what you are saying is that if you do a blind test on 2 DACs & hear no difference & then listen to the two DACs sighted you will always hear a difference because of biases? You can't help yourself, it's unavoidable, right? It's like the McGurk effect.

So, let me ask you what the point is of the blind test - if you always consistently hear one DAC better than the other - is this the DAC you should be using permanently as you will always perceive it to sound better - it's unavoidable!! - you can't help yourself.

What's the problem then?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> So, let me get this straight - what you are saying is that if you do a blind test on 2 DACs & hear no difference & then listen to the two DACs sighted you will always hear a difference because of biases? You can't help yourself, it's unavoidable, right?
> 
> So, let me ask you what the point is of the blind test - if you always consistently hear one DAC better than the other - is this the DAC you should be using permanently as you will always perceive it to sound better - it's unavoidable!! It's like the McGurk effect - you can't help yourself.
> 
> What's the problem then?


 
  
 The problem is that a person who HASN'T already bought either DAC and comes on a headphone site for suggestions might appreciate paying less $$ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Save yourself, young man; I'm already spoiled.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So, let me get this straight - what you are saying is that if you do a blind test on 2 DACs
> ...




No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying - it's the contention here that one is a slave to one's biases so if they are unavoidable what is the point in doing a blind test? Whatever the outcome of the blind test, once one knows the DAC one is listening to, the sound perceived will be the result of our biases - it's unavoidable - as I said it's like the McGurk effect, even though we know that Ba is being said , when we look we can't help hearing Fa so when we look/know what DAC is playing we can't help but hear what our biases determine we will hear - so what's the point - i want to hear what I perceive as best sounding, not try to convince myself that it's a Ba when I hear a Fa.

Now, if you are saying that after a blind test where no difference is heard it will change our sighted listening of these 2 DACs to there being no difference between them - then that is a different claim then we are slaves to our biases.

So, what I'm trying to establish is which scenario is it:
- we are slaves to our biases?
- our biases can be overcome by blind testing?


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> No, I don't think you understand what I'm saying - it's the contention here that one is a slave to one's biases so if they are unavoidable what is the point in doing a blind test? Whatever the outcome of the blind test, once one knows the DAC one is listening to, the sound perceived will be the result of our biases - it's unavoidable - as I said it's like the McGurk effect, even though we know that Ba is being said , when we look we can't help hearing Fa so when we look/know what DAC is playing we can't help but hear what our biases determine we will hear - so what's the point - i want to hear what I perceive as best sounding, not try to convince myself that it's a Ba when I hear a Fa.
> 
> Now, if you are saying that after a blind test where no difference is heard it will change our sighted listening of these 2 DACs to there being no difference between them - then that is a different claim then we are slaves to our biases.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Knowing your blind performance might lead you to different recommendations for others, which means that the whole thing isn't futile in the universal sense (the point I was attempting to get at). As far as for the poor fool himself, I would say that no, we're not slaves to our biases. When I first got my HD800s and hadn't looked into this stuff, I was perfectly sold on their needing special treatment via DAC/amp, because hey, these headphone guys know their stuff, right? I am now listening to them out of my Realtek sound card with no worries. The only thing I miss is the pot on my V200 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That is a much different experience for me, at least, than McGurk, where yeah I just really cannot get myself to hear "ba." But in that case the visual and audio cues move in time together, so our brain just can't help itself. That's a bit different than the DAC situation, so perhaps the analogy isn't as strong as one might think.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Knowing your blind performance might lead you to different recommendations for others, which means that the whole thing isn't futile in the universal sense (the point I was attempting to get at). As far as for the poor fool himself, I would say that no, we're not slaves to our biases.


Ok, but this was the point I was making - castleofargh made a statement that claimed this which I felt was a gross exaggeration & I wanted to clarify this.

So this absolutist statement about being at the mercy of our biases is an exaggeration then?

If that's the case what's the problem with sighted listening? Surely if our biases can be overcome by blind listening, it can be overcome by other means - becoming a trained listener fo instance? 





> When I first got my HD800s and hadn't looked into this stuff, I was perfectly sold on their needing special treatment via DAC/amp, because hey, these headphone guys know their stuff, right? I am now listening to them out of my Realtek sound card with no worries.


Right you trusted your ears - did you need to do a blind test to come to this conclusion? 





> The only thing I miss is the pot on my V200   That is a much different experience for me, at least, than McGurk, where yeah I just really cannot get myself to hear "ba." But in that case the visual and audio cues move in time together, so our brain just can't help itself. That's a bit different than the DAC situation, so perhaps the analogy isn't as strong as one might think.


I agree about the McGurk effect - it's not relevant to listening - I was just using it to illustrate the concept that is often promoted of being a "slave to our biases".


----------



## castleofargh

mmerrill99 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


 

 yes I do.
 not 100% of the time, but if I give myself time, then I tend to end up picking a difference or 2 and they seem to become clearer as time passes and I focus on those felt differences. often in the subs or in the soundstage positions for some reasons. when what I notice the most in a blind test I can pass is usually a voice difference.  
 but then I go back to blind testing with the idea that I got myself an audible clue I can use to pass, and it almost never helps me clear the blind test I already failed before. that's why I tend to think I'm being fooled by the sighted evaluation. that and all the times I thought I heard a difference and the 2 sounds were in fact one and the same. this tends to discredit a listening method for good. but it never makes a blind test to pass by mistake(outside of statistical possibilities). so... yeah I have a hard time trusting anything coming from sighted evaluation. even if I'm sure a great deal of it is legit, but the total lack of ways to control if we answered because of audio or because we saw it, that just kills it for me.


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> @castleofargh Please keep things non-personal. I can also start throwing personal remarks towards you (or others), but refrain to. The moderation remarks were on a quotation of my post, so you can see how this can be interpreted.


 
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/779572/r2r-multibit-vs-delta-sigma-is-there-a-measurable-scientific-difference-thats-audible/480#post_12252827
  
 I didn't quote your post, I clearly quoted his post. that happened to have a quote of yours inside it. you were never targeted by the moderation remark in the spoiler. you just took for yourself something that wasn't. no big deal.
  
  
 about the topic, so we do have common grounds. it seems that mostly we just interpret  "they measure the same" differently. ^_^


----------



## castleofargh

mmerrill99 said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > > Your claim is that you "other biases kick in every time even if I match loudness" in sighted listening - so you "hear" differences because of these biases. This sounds to me like you are making it up to drive home a point
> ...


 

 arf I didn't read that answer before replaying to the previous one. well I guess my answer does fall under this situation. luck or confirmation? IDK. 
 we're not always 100% rational in life, we follow our mood, our "heart", fashion, or whatever else. I eat pringles when I know it's the worst crap possible. we all do those stuff and it's ok. but I still like to know that pringles are crap and why. or how a DAC sounds when you remove all the the bells and whistles, and only keep the sound.
 it's my decision later that makes me pay 50$ more for the cable I find pretty. but I don't believe I paid more for better sound. that's a difference in knowledge and how much we allow ourselves to be fooled. in a words, it's a desire for science. doesn't mean we have to know it all or obey the science result. it's information and we use it how we see fit. even more so if we don't have a 100% confidence on it.
 we're not trying to impose a dictat of science and blind test over audio. we just try to know better.


----------



## disastermouse

I can't quote because it was a long post and I'm on my phone, but the part about 'the tree is green' or 'a duck is my sister', those are actually contextually created realities, not objective or empirical ones. They fall under the 'myth of the given'. 'Tree', 'green', 'duck', and 'sister' are realities created by entire systems of language and symbols and do not exist 'out there' waiting to be discovered.


----------



## watchnerd

landroni said:


> How would one set up a double-blind switch for DACs at home? Is there some preamp that electronically allows random switching? Some other method whereas a simple preamp could be switched positions by someone else (randomly), without interfering with the test subject? Please share...


 
  
 Why does it have to be at home?


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> So, let me get this straight - what you are saying is that if you do a blind test on 2 DACs & hear no difference & then listen to the two DACs sighted you will always hear a difference because of biases? You can't help yourself, it's unavoidable, right? It's like the McGurk effect.


 
  
 I wouldn't go as far as saying "always hear a difference", but it has been proven that people tend use all their senses, including their sight or pre-established cognitive beliefs, when asked to determine if there is a difference, when in fact there is none.
  
 See this lecture, taken from an AES conference, timestamps 1:05 - 5:16:


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> If that's the case what's the problem with sighted listening? Surely if our biases can be overcome by blind listening, it can be overcome by other means - becoming a trained listener fo instance?


 
  
 Actually, no.  The research is that even if you're a trained listener and know about biases, you are still subject to them.  See video in previous post.  The Poppy Crump part where she plays Led Zeppelin backwards is particularly impactful.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying "always hear a difference", but it has been proven that people tend use all their senses, including their sight or pre-established cognitive beliefs, when asked to determine if there is a difference, when in fact there is none.
> 
> See this lecture, taken from an AES conference, timestamps 1:05 - 5:16:



Wow. I think we actually agree.

Have any of these blind studies been done with people who are actually blind?


----------



## watchnerd

disastermouse said:


> Have any of these blind studies been done with people who are actually blind?


 
  
 Interesting idea...as far as I know, it hasn't been done. I've certainly never heard of it.


----------



## disastermouse

watchnerd said:


> Interesting idea...as far as I know, it hasn't been done. I've certainly never heard of it.



I was just wondering since audio is so easily affected by other sensory cues. I wonder if a greater reliance on hearing or even the permanent absense of sight would make any difference in A/B testing.


----------



## OddE

landroni said:


> It was claimed on several occasions in this thread that 100$ DAC would sound identical to 2000$ DAC (standard ill-defined disclaimer: if the two measure "the same"). E.g. Schiit Yggdrasil vs ODAC. I haven't heard many "objectivists" up in arms against these claims, so I assume that this is a consensus. This is definitely how much of the prose reads, as in the bottom line. Please don't throw straws at me...


 
  
 -I'll take the opportunity to rehash this old post of mine.


----------



## watchnerd

odde said:


> -I'll take the opportunity to rehash this old post of mine.


 
  
 Was the test double-blind?
  
 Just kidding.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Ok, but this was the point I was making - castleofargh made a statement that claimed this which I felt was a gross exaggeration & I wanted to clarify this.
> 
> So this absolutist statement about being at the mercy of our biases is an exaggeration then?
> 
> ...


 
  
 There's quite a difference between "being a slave" and "being affected." Sighted listening affects your judgement when trying to perform a *test of discrimination*, period. That's a different situation than allowing one's self to sit with a single DAC in front of you and chill out and listen to music.
  
 I trusted my ears *after* blind tests. Before that I wasn't trusting my ears, I was trusting price tags and forum myth.


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > watchnerd said:
> ...



Well if you are trying to know better (just for the hell of it) then you should be looking at the efficacy of blind testing - as was posted on another thread this plot from the Harmon video shows the consistency of various groups in blind testing & the only group that is reliable is selected/trained listeners -so in other words everyone else is inconsistent >65% of the time in a blind test - hardly a way to "know what's better"

Very interesting at about 55min. (p.64)
results of listening tests (268 people)
 12 selected and trained 95% consistency
215 retail sales 35%
 6 audio reviewers 20%
 21 brand sales & marketing 10%
 14 students 5%


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, but this was the point I was making - castleofargh made a statement that claimed this which I felt was a gross exaggeration
> ...




Well, I think you are splitting semantic hairs here - "being a slave" is a phrase meaning that we are "being affected" by our biases & can't help it - is this not what you are saying?

If this is the case then what's the point of doing a blind test - as I said here are two possible outcomes (apart from the one where we hear blind what we heard sighted):
- it doesn't matter what we hear in a blind test when we listen sighted (with knowledge) we will hear according to what our biases
- doing a blind test changes our biases in some way

So it looks like people are started with the first choice as their position & now are shifting to the second choice.

So, let me ask two supplementary questions based on the second choice:
- what is the blind test changing that is changing our bias?
- are we just substituting one bias for another i.e are we now biased that both DACs sound the same whereas before we were biased that the pretty one sounded better?
- if not & biases can be overcome/neutralised then why can't they be neutralised in other ways, not just by doing a blind test which changes our biases?


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > castleofargh said:
> ...



Ah, I didn't see this answer. So what I would suggest is that you are entering into a blind test without sufficiently & accurately identifying the difference you perceive in sighted listening - this is the main fault in your procedure. Your interpretation is wrong - it's not that you are being biased, you are just not being forensic enough in your sighted listening to dig deeper into the differences you perceive to check if you can put your finger on them. If you can't do this sighted you have no hope in hell of doing so in blind testing

So essentially you are failing in the first criteria needed for a successful blind test - training - you are not training yourself sufficiently in analysing what you hear. If you did so you would probably find that your sighted listening & blind listening would give you much better correlated results.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Well, I think you are splitting semantic hairs here - "being a slave" is a phrase meaning that we are "being affected" by our biases & can't help it - is this not what you are saying?
> 
> If this is the case then what's the point of doing a blind test - as I said here are two possible outcomes (apart from the one where we hear blind what we heard sighted):
> - it doesn't matter what we hear in a blind test when we listen sighted (with knowledge) we will hear according to what our biases
> ...


 
  
 I guess I view the term "slave" in stark terms. Yes we are affected by our biases, but the level of their effect depends upon the circumstances. As much as I'm ok using my sound card, there is always that slight lingering doubt I could be missing something, and it is exactly that doubt that would invalidate a non-blind comparison of two DACs in terms of their *sonic* performance. I agree with you that if you want to just be rid of these irksome worries then you can just keep the more expensive system, but then you're paying extra $$ for *non-sonic* attributes.
  
 Say I walk someone into a room and all they can see is maybe some speakers, but no other audio equipment. Now I switch them around between gear and they can't hear a difference. Then I tell them "system A costs $10000 and system B costs $100": which one would a rational human being pick if their only interest is sound?
  
 To answer your questions:
 .The blind test is removing from our decision-making the aspects of the system that do not affect physical sonic performance
 .No, we have removed bias that makes 2 identically-sounding DACs sound different to our brain due to non-sonic qualities. If you *want* non-sonic attributes to affect the test, then by all means let them
 .Perhaps they can, but we fight the fact that our brain always integrates information, so as long as it can see that DAC B is shinier than DAC A, it will be using that in its decision (note of course that by "sighted" I don't necessarily mean we can see the thing, only that we know which treatment we are being given at any time)


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > watchnerd said:
> ...




Here's my take on it - mostly blind tests are entered into "blindly"  - with the expectation that differences will be obvious to our hearing. It won't & without sufficient training we will fail to pick any audible differences that aren't of a gross nature - it's just the way our auditory perception works - 80 to 90% of it is determined by the processing in the brain, not from the ear mechanism.

Auditory perception is a very malleable sense & works in both a bottom-up manner (where our attention is drawn to an unexpected signal in the soundscape) or in a top-down manner (where we anticipate a particular sound & our attention is focussed on that). Both are natural operational aspects of auditory perception & we use them both on a continuous basis & from moment to moment in our listening.

Without training ourselves before the test in precisely what the difference is between two devices, we will fail a blind test because these differences are not of a sufficiently gross nature to evoke the bottom-up mechanism. if you can't consciously describe in detail & pick out the difference every time in a sighted test & then with eyes closed & for most this is enough to judge whether they can definitely hear a difference.

Trying something like a Foobar ABX test without doing this is an exercise in doomed optimism


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I think you are splitting semantic hairs here - "being a slave" is a phrase meaning that we are "being affected" by our biases
> ...




And I come back to the fact that if we are biased to hear a better sound from the shiny object (it doesn't mean it necessarily costs more, btw) then we would be crazy not to go with this.

Let me give you the flip side of your analogy:
If you put two meals in front of me & tell me to close my eyes taste the two dishes. Now if they taste the same but yet when I open my eyes I prefer the taste of one dish, why would I decide to eat the other dish?

This all seems predicated on :
- money (there will be a cost to my choosing the "wrong" device. Not necessarily so!
- getting to the "truth" - I agree with this but I distrust the commonly used home approach of blind testing as the means to do this as it is fraught with too many overlooked aspects which means its results are less than "the truth"


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> And I come back to the fact that if we are biased to hear a better sound from the shiny object (it doesn't mean it necessarily costs more, btw) then we would be crazy not to go with this.
> 
> Let me give you the flip side of your analogy:
> If you put two meals in front of me & tell me to close my eyes taste the two dishes. Now if they taste the same but yet when I open my eyes I prefer the taste of one dish, why would I decide to eat the other dish?
> ...


 
  
 If there's no different in cost then there is no decision to be made regarding the food, and I'd agree the same with identically priced and sounding DACs. Last I checked, the Yggy costs more than then ODAC, to a tune of many more simoleons than the difference between any two chickens I've ever eaten. It's all about what you want to base your decisions on. If you want to go through life saying "well it only sounds better because it looks prettier", then by all means, go with that. I prefer having a simpler setup that doesn't involve huge boxes on my table that don't actually do anything for the sound.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > And I come back to the fact that if we are biased to hear a better sound from the shiny object (it doesn't mean it necessarily costs more, btw) then we would be crazy not to go with this.
> ...



.
BTW, I didn't say the two meals were the same cost - I said that I would be a fool not to choose the one I preferred the taste of sighted.

What I see being done here is the use of blind testing to justify your bias i.e the bigger, more expensive DAC sounds the same as the smaller cheaper DAC (it's easy to get a null result in a blind test - just bring your bias that they will all sound the same) - then you can justify your choice "doesn't involve huge boxes on my table that don't actually do anything for the sound." It's a self-delusional trick that you can use to feed your bias.


----------



## prot

watchnerd said:


> I wouldn't go as far as saying "always hear a difference", but it has been proven that people tend use all their senses, including their sight or pre-established cognitive beliefs, when asked to determine if there is a difference, when in fact there is none.
> 
> See this lecture, taken from an AES conference, timestamps 1:05 - 5:16:



Excellent video thanks. It's posts like yours that make the science forum worthwhile. Otherwise it's just, like another guy said, 'philosophy'. 
 Lots of good & interesting posts in this thread but until someone does (or finds) a controlled test it's all pretty useless prose. And the same old and tired 'arguments' with trolls that simply dont understand what science is...and unfortunately there's an endless stream of those .. and somehow they all sound pretty much the same.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> What I see being done here is the use of blind testing to justify your bias i.e the bigger, more expensive DAC sounds the same as the smaller cheaper DAC (it's easy to get a null result in a blind test - just bring your bias that they will all sound the same) - then you can justify your choice "doesn't involve huge boxes on my table that don't actually do anything for the sound." It's a self-delusional trick that you can use to feed your bias.


 
  
 His scenario isn't a very valid DBT because he knows what the two objects are: a cheap DAC vs an expensive DAC.  As you said, this allows cognitive bias to creep in, even if one tries to avoid it, and if one has a bias to believe things will sound the same, that will steer perception.
  
 However, that doesn't mean the method is invalid.  A better test would involve a large group of subjects who aren't being told what they're listening to and can't see the objects.  They're not told it's a DAC test. They're just asked to differentiate A vs B.


----------



## Guidostrunk

I've been lurking this thread recently, and love the intense debates. Very informative stuff.

In regards to the blind testing. Is it possible to do one if the persons involved, are under a different notion as to why they're listening to said dacs.

Say there's a pair of headphones, sitting in a room with no other equipment, and it's stated to them;
"We're a new company coming to market , and want to put out the best product. Please select A or B , as to what sounds better to you, or press the red button for inconclusive. " 
Never knowing that there's an actual test in progress comparing the two dacs. All they know is someone is launching a new product. 

I'm just curious if anyone thinks those results would be credible for blind testing results. And does it take away the bias factor? Thanks


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> Well if you are trying to know better (just for the hell of it) then you should be looking at the efficacy of blind testing - as was posted on another thread this plot from the Harmon video shows the consistency of various groups in blind testing & the only group that is reliable is selected/trained listeners -so in other words everyone else is inconsistent >65% of the time in a blind test - hardly a way to "know what's better"
> 
> Very interesting at about 55min. (p.64)
> results of listening tests (268 people)
> ...


 
  
 I don't see any negative side to anyone attempting to remove bias with an ABX test, even if that person does not possess the skills to hear any differences.  At a minimum, it would demonstrate that the listener was not adequately trained to hear the differences.  For the sake of accuracy, even the selected and trained individuals could be swayed by sighted evaluations, and blind testing would surely be the better method to judge sound quality differences between equipment.
  
 These results are interesting.  What it seems to show is that there really are differences that can be heard, but these are only identified by specially trained people that have honed particular skills.  Dare I say, not unlike that rare forum member that consistently demonstrates through ABX tests that they can identify differences, or the occasional contribution from an engineer discussing their processes when designing new equipment.  Speaking for myself, though, I would have to believe that any differences that are being detected are insignificant, otherwise it wouldn't take a selected and trained person to be able to hear it. 
  
 In the context we are discussing, I agree that blind tests may be a poor method for determining if a precise difference exists; but for some of us, blind tests are still useful for determining whether or not a practical difference may exist.  I'm more comfortable with the unknowns, so I tend to be ok assuming that I am not benefiting enough from ludicrously expensive gear and large HD files.  I completely understand those pursuing the absolute best quality; though, it seems that hardly anyone is actually hearing any quality improvements, and when they discuss these differences that they posit with sighted evaluations, I'm inclined to believe this is all just bias and either there is no difference or they are not skilled enough to tell.
  
 Interested in reading more about your thoughts on the matter.  And I do apologize for being a bit of jerk before. Sorry.


----------



## watchnerd

prot said:


> Lots of good & interesting posts in this thread but until someone does (or finds) a controlled test it's all pretty useless prose.


 
  
 Even absent a test, I haven't seen a hypothesis proposed to explain why R2R vs DS might sound different if they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> .
> BTW, I didn't say the two meals were the same cost - I said that I would be a fool not to choose the one I preferred the taste of sighted.
> 
> What I see being done here is the use of blind testing to justify your bias i.e the bigger, more expensive DAC sounds the same as the smaller cheaper DAC (it's easy to get a null result in a blind test - just bring your bias that they will all sound the same) - then you can justify your choice "doesn't involve huge boxes on my table that don't actually do anything for the sound." It's a self-delusional trick that you can use to feed your bias.


 
  
 Well if they don't cost the same then there IS a decision to be made, and you must weigh the additional mental benefit you perceive. It's the same with DACs. If two sounded the same blind, then you uncovered them and suddenly one sounded better, the first thing I'd ask is "well how much?" We're all willing to pay a bit for such things, but only up to a point, which is the whole deal. If all DACs cost the same and sounded the same blind, then sure, pick the one that gives you better sighted performance. But that is a fictional world.
  
 I actually CARE how things sound blind, because at the end of the day I want my audio experience to not just be based on pre-conceived ideas from reading marketing material, forum fan threads, and bling. If you think that's self-delusional then ok. Quite frankly, your attitude sounds like a marketer's dreams come true.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


Ok, so you allow for the possibility that blind testing could well be hiding the audible differences because of the nature of auditory processing & the nature of blind testing?

Nobody is talking about ALL DACs sounding the same or costing the same - we are just talking about two DACs - not a particularly fictional scenario, I would suggest. If both sounded the same blind & yet consistently different, sighted I would be querying the blind test result & go with the sighted preference. 



> I actually CARE how things sound blind, because at the end of the day I want my audio experience to not just be based on pre-conceived ideas from reading marketing material, forum fan threads, and bling. If you think that's self-delusional then ok. Quite frankly, your attitude sounds like a marketer's dreams come true.


Oh, I thought you did care about how things sound when blind tested - you already said that you didn;t trust your hearing but now do after blind tests.

I sincerely believe that there is a fundamental difference between people:
- some listen & use their best judgement to evaluate what they like in full knowledge that, at times, they can be wrong but they see this as an opportunity to discover improvements in their enjoyment of their audio playback systems - in other words they look on hearing audible differences as an opportunity for greater enjoyment
- others look on audible differences as a threat to their current enjoyment & find ways to convince themselves that they are right - in other words they don't see these things as opportunities, more like threats

If something continues to sound great over it's lifetime & brings enjoyment, I really don't need to "prove" this to myself - it's fulfilling the function I've acquired it for. If something better sounding comes along & it consistently gives me more enjoyment, I don't really need to "prove" this to myself


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Ok, so you allow for the possibility that blind testing could well be hiding the audible differences because of the nature of auditory processing & the nature of blind testing?
> 
> Nobody is talking about ALL DACs sounding the same or costing the same - we are just talking about two DACs - not a particularly fictional scenario, I would suggest. If both sounded the same blind & yet consistently different, sighted I would be querying the blind test result & go with the sighted preference.
> Oh, I thought you did care about how things sound when blind tested - you already said that you didn;t trust your hearing but now do after blind tests.
> ...


 
  
 I allow that we don't understand audition perfectly, sure, and that ABX DBT is not necessarily perfect. But do you allow that non-blind testing could well be putting in differences that are not due to hearing?
  
 Sure, buy the DAC that sound better sighted, all other things being equal (including their blind performance).
  
 To quote a book quote made by a former forum member:
 "The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed."
 If that's your mantra then that's perfectly fine. I'm saying that my current machine doesn't disturb me, and I get tranquility from the extra $1500 in my pocket from selling off my previous machine that couldn't sound better blind to me.
  
 Best to get back to R2R vs. SD I guess.


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you are trying to know better (just for the hell of it) then you should be looking at the efficacy of blind testing - as was posted on another thread this plot from the Harmon video shows the consistency of various groups in blind testing
> ...


Well, the negative side could be that the test results are considered "the truth" when in fact the test is just exposing the lack of correct training/preparation on behalf of the individual taking the test. Looking at Harmon's results, only individuals from the trained group will give consistently "true" results - all other groups will statistically return a null result. 



> These results are interesting.  What it seems to show is that there really are differences that can be heard, but these are only identified by specially trained people that have honed particular skills.  Dare I say, not unlike that rare forum member that consistently demonstrates through ABX tests that they can identify differences, or the occasional contribution from an engineer discussing their processes when designing new equipment.  Speaking for myself, though, I would have to believe that any differences that are being detected are insignificant, otherwise it wouldn't take a selected and trained person to be able to hear it.


Yes, I agree with the trained part of this & have cited ultmusicsnob's posts from 2013 as one of those forum members who consistently posted positive ABX results. I find his posts very educational & informative because it gives an insight into the difficulty of doing blind tests & the self-training required to get ABX positive results. The interesting thing is that he had no difficulty in hearing differences in sighted listening & preferred the sound of 24/96 files upsampled from 16/44. So, in sighted listening he had already found his preferred choice but when having to do blind tests he had to isolate very specific "tells" to listen for in order to differentiate between the files - when he listened as he normally does in sighted listening, he returns null results. So, not just training is required but a whole different way of listening when wishing to find the "truth" in blind tests with suitable rests between trials, etc.

But I disagree with you that differences are therefore insignificant - just because the fundamental requirement of blind testing is training doesn't mean that these elements are not significant in our normal listening & affect our listening enjoyment. In other words we may well be able to sense differences without being able to name those differences or put our finger on exactly what those differences are & if we enter a blind test with just this level of training we will return a null result. Blind testing requires (by the very nature of the test) a definitive "tell" that we can identify & finding this tell requires care, motivation & training. Look at ultmusic's ABX tests for 16/44Vs24/96 & what "tells" he uses - then compare to his ABX tests for jitter & the "tells" he is using here - they are not the same & require a great deal of knowledge & expertise to be able to find these in order to pass the blind test.

I suggest everyone should read his threads - they are a very good source of real positive results for ABX tests, the procedures necessary, the pitfalls & the time required  



> In the context we are discussing, I agree that blind tests may be a poor method for determining if a precise difference exists; but for some of us, blind tests are still useful for determining whether or not a practical difference may exist.  I'm more comfortable with the unknowns, so I tend to be ok assuming that I am not benefiting enough from ludicrously expensive gear and large HD files.  I completely understand those pursuing the absolute best quality; though, it seems that hardly anyone is actually hearing any quality improvements, and when they discuss these differences that they posit with sighted evaluations, I'm inclined to believe this is all just bias and either there is no difference or they are not skilled enough to tell.


Yes, I'm Ok with unknowns too - most of life involves unknowns. I do treat all listening reports with scepticism, (including blind results) but look for the kernel of what is being said & if there is a wide consensus I file it as a device that I should personally try, at some point.




> Interested in reading more about your thoughts on the matter.  And I do apologize for being a bit of jerk before. Sorry.


Thanks!


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > What I see being done here is the use of blind testing to justify your bias i.e the bigger, more expensive DAC sounds the same as the smaller cheaper DAC (it's easy to get a null result in a blind test - just bring your bias that they will all sound the same) - then you can justify your choice "doesn't involve huge boxes on my table that don't actually do anything for the sound." It's a self-delusional trick that you can use to feed your bias.
> ...


Essentially for a bias-free blind test one should not even know what is being tested cables, DACs, amps, speakers, etc - all have preconceived baggage (bias) that accompanies them



> However, that doesn't mean the method is invalid.  A better test would involve a large group of subjects who aren't being told what they're listening to and can't see the objects.  They're not told it's a DAC test. They're just asked to differentiate A vs B.


Yes, correct - how many of those can you actually link to?

If a test becomes too difficult to carry out in a "valid" way then effectively it becomes in unusable test & the method considered "invalid". That is precisely what I'm saying - firstly it should never, ever be used in a home environment - all such results are flawed. Secondly, it's attempt to eliminate bias is fraught with other biases filling this void & skewing the results. Unless great care is taken the results are "invalid".


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> prot said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of good
> ...



I believe you have a problem in your statement - the premise that a complete set of measurements have been taken which completely characterise the devices & that these measurements are below/beyond the threshold of audibility.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> Yes, correct - how many of those can you actually link to?


 
  
 There are several in the AES E-Library, where you can search for them.  Some will require a membership to access.
  
 Notably when testing speakers, rarely try to hide the fact that it is speakers that are being tested, even though the test is blind.  Partly this is logistics -- Harman's lab moves the speakers around mechanically and it's pretty obvious that it's not an electronics swap.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> I believe you have a problem in your statement - the premise that a complete set of measurements have been taken which completely characterise the devices & that these measurements are below/beyond the threshold of audibility.


 
  
 A hypothesis is just that...a hypothesis.  It can advance a theory that hasn't been tested yet or for which we don't even have measurement equipment.  However, it needs to be potentially testable. Theoretical physics hypotheses are prime examples.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, correct - how many of those can you actually link to?
> ...



I don't have access to AES library - I presume you do as you said there are several? So can you say what percentage of blind tests these bias-free blind tests represent?

With regard to the Harmon tests - they could hide the fact that they are testing speakers, I presume, if they really wanted to?


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> With regard to the Harmon tests - they could hide the fact that they are testing speakers, I presume, if they really wanted to?


 
  
 Not in the facility I've seen pictures of.  The speakers are on sleds, powered by hydraulics, that move them in and out of the same spot.  If you don't do this the differences in room position will have a huge effect on the results.
  
 This takes a little bit of time and makes a bit of noise.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > With regard to the Harmon tests - they could hide the fact that they are testing speakers, I presume, if they really wanted to?
> ...


Yes, but the mechanical hydraulics could be silenced & the delay isn't of concern to those who claim quick A/B switching isn't necessary in blind testing.
The fact is that they announce what the test is about & don't try to hide this fact but nobody brings a bias into the test that "all speakers sound the same" so I guess it's really a mute point.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you have a problem in your statement - the premise that a complete set of measurements have been taken which completely characterise the devices
> ...



So let me get this right - you want to see a hypothesis presented for something based on an underlying false premise (that they measure the same in all aspects )? Why would anyone want to present a hypothesis for such a falsely defined scenario?

You made this statement framed in a way that seemed to suggest the lack of such a hypothesis somehow strengthened the case that there is no audible difference - was this not the meaning behind your post? 





> "Even absent a test, I haven't seen a hypothesis proposed to explain why R2R vs DS might sound different if they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility


.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> So let me get this right - you want to see a hypothesis presented for something based on an underlying false premise (that they measure the same in all aspects )?
> 
> You made this statement framed in a way that seemed to suggest the lack of such a hypothesis somehow strengthened the case that there is no audible difference - was this not the meaning behind your post?
> .


 
  
 First off, I never said they measure all the same.
  
 Second of all, a good hypothesis would go something like:
  
 "Even if 2 DACs measure similarly by conventional measurements, this hypothesis proposes that differences in [insert X phenomenon here] may account for subjective differences in sound.  We can test and measure for the presence of [X phenomenon] by doing [Y]."


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So let me get this right - you want to see a hypothesis presented for something based on an underlying false premise (that they measure the same in all aspects )?
> ...


To me this says exactly that "they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility"



> Second of all, a good hypothesis would go something like:
> 
> "Even if 2 DACs measure similarly by conventional measurements, this hypothesis proposes that differences in [insert X phenomenon here] may account for subjective differences in sound.  We can test and measure for the presence of [X phenomenon] by doing [Y]."


This is just plain silly & unworthy of you !!


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> Well, the negative side could be that the test results are considered "the truth" when in fact the test is just exposing the lack of correct training/preparation on behalf of the individual taking the test. Looking at Harmon's results, only individuals from the trained group will give consistently "true" results - all other groups will statistically return a null result.
> Yes, I agree with the trained part of this & have cited ultmusicsnob's posts from 2013 as one of those forum members who consistently posted positive ABX results. I find his posts very educational & informative because it gives an insight into the difficulty of doing blind tests & the self-training required to get ABX positive results. The interesting thing is that he had no difficulty in hearing differences in sighted listening & preferred the sound of 24/96 files upsampled from 16/44. So, in sighted listening he had already found his preferred choice but when having to do blind tests he had to isolate very specific "tells" to listen for in order to differentiate between the files - when he listened as he normally does in sighted listening, he returns null results. So, not just training is required but a whole different way of listening when wishing to find the "truth" in blind tests with suitable rests between trials, etc.
> 
> But I disagree with you that differences are therefore insignificant - just because the fundamental requirement of blind testing is training doesn't mean that these elements are not significant in our normal listening & affect our listening enjoyment. In other words we may well be able to sense differences without being able to name those differences or put our finger on exactly what those differences are & if we enter a blind test with just this level of training we will return a null result. Blind testing requires (by the very nature of the test) a definitive "tell" that we can identify & finding this tell requires care, motivation & training. Look at ultmusic's ABX tests for 16/44Vs24/96 & what "tells" he uses - then compare to his ABX tests for jitter & the "tells" he is using here - they are not the same & require a great deal of knowledge & expertise to be able to find these in order to pass the blind test.
> ...


 
  
 I definitely do not agree at all that it is easier to hear differences sighted.  I think that the premise should be that nearly everyone will be influenced from bias, no matter how well their hearing ability has been trained.  We can never assume that just because someone is able to hear differences in an ABX session that they would not be heavily swayed when listening sighted.  
  
 Maybe it would be useful attempting to visually fool the expert listener into believing the commonly accepted higher quality version is playing when it is not to see if they still felt the same?  Will they always choose the supposedly better option?   How drastic of a difference must exist between the 2 test samples before it is noticed that the actual sources have been swapped?
  
 Just because there may be some evidence to suggest that a person can hear a difference in an ABX test does not mean that when they claim to hear differences sighted that it is not from bias alone.  What you suggest is a fairly large jump to a conclusion that ignores a lot of findings that have already been made with our hearing and sighted evaluations.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> To me this says exactly that "they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility"


 
  
 You are misquoting me.  I said "*if* they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility".
  
 If you take out the "if", as you did, it changes the meaning entirely.
  
 Just to make things clear, here are some points for me personally:
  
 1. I have not done a head-to-head listening test, blind or sighted, comparing DS to R2R DACs.  Yes, I have heard both in my life, but not done any kind of direct bake off.
  
 2. Because of #1, I currently have no opinion about whether I might or might not perceive a difference.
  
 3. I have not seen a comprehensive set of measurements comparing a DS to R2R DAC. It may already exist and I haven't seen it.


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the negative side could be that the test results are considered "the truth" when in fact the test is just exposing the lack of correct training/preparation on behalf of the individual taking the test. Looking at Harmon's results, only individuals from the trained group will give consistently "true" results - all other groups will statistically return a null result.
> ...


I said that blind tests (as commonly encountered) are just as flawed as sighted tests - probably & highly likely, moreso. That is very different from what you are saying. 



> Maybe it would be useful attempting to visually fool the expert listener into believing the commonly accepted higher quality version is playing when it is not to see if they still felt the same?  Will they always choose the supposedly better option?   How drastic of a difference must exist between the 2 test samples before it is noticed that the actual sources have been swapped?


I'm not sure what you are getting at



> Just because there may be some evidence to suggest that a person can hear a difference in an ABX test does not mean that when they claim to hear differences sighted that it is not from bias alone.  What you suggest is a fairly large jump to a conclusion that ignores a lot of findings that have already been made with our hearing and sighted evaluations.


You are referring to ultmusicsnob's results, I presume? Where he had already established a preference for 24/92 over 16/44 & subsequently could repeatedly & consistently do this in an ABX blind test. Are you trying to maintain that his sighted listening preference was solely the result of bias? On what evidence or basis do you make this claim?


----------



## XenHeadFi

mmerrill99 said:


> But I disagree with you that differences are therefore insignificant - just because the fundamental requirement of blind testing is training doesn't mean that these elements are not significant in our normal listening & affect our listening enjoyment. In other words we may well be able to sense differences without being able to name those differences or put our finger on exactly what those differences are & if we enter a blind test with just this level of training we will return a null result. Blind testing requires (by the very nature of the test) a definitive "tell" that we can identify & finding this tell requires care, motivation & training. Look at ultmusic's ABX tests for 16/44Vs24/96 & what "tells" he uses - then compare to his ABX tests for jitter & the "tells" he is using here - they are not the same & require a great deal of knowledge & expertise to be able to find these in order to pass the blind test.


 
 Before being able to name differences, shouldn't the test first determine if there are differences in the first place? I think that this is where training is necessary because, like with just about everything, if you don't know what to look for, then it is very hard to even determine if you have a problem. Also, not all differences are the same. As an extreme example, we have the pop of a phono cartridge hitting a speck of dust. I doubt that there will be many people that need training in order to tell a track with a pop artifact than one without. Now, asking if there is a difference at 800 Hz between 2 tracks would be the exact opposite, training is almost universally needed to tell even a 6 db change.

 ABX does not require a tell. You can ask if there is a difference between 2 things. If even trained people cannot state that there is a difference or not, then the 2 things can be said to be close to identical in the range of human perception. If there is a difference, then compare the 2 things and look for the difference. Then, what is that difference worth it to you? And that is completely personal preference.
  
 I will take myself as an example using the Philips Golden Ears challenge. I really enjoyed this light and entertaining way of exposing me to the world of critical listening. Most of the challenges are pretty easy up to Silver, and that first really hard test: MP3 encode rates. People complain that the selected track made the test hard, and I can see their point. However I think tracks from most genres of music would make the test even harder. 96-kbit was hard for me. 128-kbit was really hard as I had to concentrate solely on the strum of the bass and nothing else in order to tell the 2 files apart. Now, I am stuck at the Frequency Band challenge. I can hear that there is a difference, but I cannot seem to pick out which band is cut or boosted. Compare this to stereopositioning, which was super easy to tell the difference and determine the direction of the error.
  
 So... back to R2R vs. DS implementations of DACs. I have my Soundblaster Z hooked up to an amp through a 3.5mm to RCA cable with digital volume maxed (and all other post-processing turned off). Another computer hooked up to a Gumby through USB, which then connects to the same amp through RCA to RCA cables. Files being played are served from the same computer and are therefore the exact same files. I also have 2 mice so I can hit start on each player (DeadBeef and foobar2k) nearly simultaneously.
  
 Now, I throw up my arms in defeat. Night and day difference? Sure. Attributable to R2R vs. DS? Probability very low since other factors that are known to contribute 10x to 100x more to sound quality are not controlled in the test setup.
  
 Even though I was careful in setting up my tests, my controls were inadequate to isolate the variable being tested. While I can quickly toggle the input which a button, there is a massive difference in output levels between the Soundblaster and Gumby (louder). There are too many other variables involved, namely an extra analog stage on the Soundblaster. And finally noise rejection differences between the USB cable (Belkin Gold USB2), the RCAs (Monster Cable Interconnect 400 bought new at a close out sale for like $10), and the Analog-RCA cable (Monster Cable something bought new at the same closeout for like $10).
  
 Compared to that and the typical way a user test for "better" sound quality leads me to be extremely skeptical of user reports on what *I* would experience and define as "better". A proper test will definitely need more gear (an output level matching box and an ABX randomizer box) and/or better matched gear, say Gungnir Multibit vs. Gungnir DS.


----------



## nick_charles

sonitus mirus said:


> Maybe it would be useful attempting to visually fool the expert listener into believing the commonly accepted higher quality version is playing when it is not to see if they still felt the same?  Will they always choose the supposedly better option?   How drastic of a difference must exist between the 2 test samples before it is noticed that the actual sources have been swapped?


 
  
 This is my favorite example from nwavphile
  


> For a recent non-believer, I used an Onkyo SR500 Dolby Digital receiver--purchased reconditioned for $200 (they're $250 - $300 new) against some well regarded separates. It's rated at 65 watts x 2 stereo per the FTC guidelines into 8 ohms. Distortion is 0.08% from 20-20k from 1 watt to 65 watts into 8 ohms. It has a "direct" bypass feature that supposedly bypasses all the digital/DSP for analog stereo signals.
> 
> The Onkyo was put up against the well regarded Bryston 4B 300 wpc power amp and a Bryston 2 channel pre-amp. They were driving a pair of expensive floor standing KEF speakers and the source was a high-end Marantz CD player. The person who owns this system is very proud of it and has spent a lot of time getting what he considers to be the best sound possible.
> 
> ...


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > To me this says exactly that "they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility"
> ...


You made this "If" statement as part of a request for an hypothesis & i told you that the underlying "if" premise was wrong. You are now trying to turn this into my misquoting you - which it isn't. I said it already before "So let me get this right - you want to see a hypothesis presented for something based on an underlying false premise (that they measure the same in all aspects )?"




> Just to make things clear, here are some points for me personally:
> 
> 1. I have not done a head-to-head listening test, blind or sighted, comparing DS to R2R DACs.  Yes, I have heard both in my life, but not done any kind of direct bake off.
> 
> ...



Neither have I seen a comprehensive set of measurements of DS Vs R2R DAC so, on that basis, I stated that your underlying premise was flawed & the thread title is similarly flawed


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> I said that blind tests (as commonly encountered) are just as flawed as sighted tests - probably & highly likely, moreso. That is very different from what you are saying.
> I'm not sure what you are getting at
> You are referring to ultmusicsnob's results, I presume? Where he had already established a preference for 24/92 over 16/44 & subsequently could repeatedly & consistently do this in an ABX blind test. Are you trying to maintain that his sighted listening preference was solely the result of bias? On what evidence or basis do you make this claim?


 
  
 My position is that only blind testing is acceptable for attempting to show that audible differences exist.  Any sighted test will introduce bias.  How much this bias might influence the listener's decision could vary depending on the testing circumstances.  In tests with an almost imperceptible difference to all but the most accomplished listeners, when sighted, these expert listener might also be influenced solely on sight alone.  To verify, I was suggesting that the test be administered to swap the actual sources around, so that it appeared that the better sounding subject was actually being produced by the inferior subject.  The reason for this is to see if bias introduced from sighted evaluations could trump the expert listener's ABX results.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> You made this "If" statement as part of a request for an hypothesis & i told you that the underlying "if" premise was wrong. You are now trying to turn this into my misquoting you - which it isn't


 
  
 Again, I will re-state once more since it doesn't seem to be penetrating:
  
 1. I am not asserting that R2R vs DS DACs measure the same.
  
 2. I have not seen a direct comparison test of measurements of a R2R vs DS DAC.
  
 3. If the two measure sufficiently different, that alone could be enough to account for perceived differences in sound
  
 4. If the two do not measure sufficiently different, either there is: 
  
 a) confounding subjective phenomena at play
  
*OR*
  
 b) objective phenomena that weren’t measured, or weren’t measured well, or are new
  
  
 In the absence of more data, that's my entire stance at the moment.


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I said that blind tests (as commonly encountered) are just as flawed as sighted tests - probably
> ...


You seem to assume that blind testing has no biasing influences which is incorrect





> In tests with an almost imperceptible difference to all but the most accomplished listeners, when sighted, these expert listener might also be influenced solely on sight alone.  To verify, I was suggesting that the test be administered to swap the actual sources around, so that it appeared that the better sounding subject was actually being produced by the inferior subject.  The reason for this is to see if bias introduced from sighted evaluations could trump the expert listener's ABX results.


Well yes but what about the converse - priming an expert listener by suggesting that no difference has ever been heard in what he is about to test - do you not think this will introduce a bias in the blind listener?


----------



## watchnerd

> the thread title is similarly flawed


 
  
 The thread title simply asks a question: "Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible"?
  
 The answer to which could be: "Yes, and it's XXX".


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> You seem to assume that blind testing has no biasing influences which is incorrect


 
  
 When it comes to hearing differences, the bias from a sighted test is significantly greater than what can typically be introduced in a well implemented ABX test.  I do not assume that blind testing eradicates bias, but it is the much better option.
  


> Well yes but what about the converse - priming an expert listener by suggesting that no difference has ever been heard in what he is about to test - do you not think this will introduce a bias in the blind listener?


 
  
 Yes, I do.
  
 Edit: To clarify, I mean that I do believe that bias is introduced when priming the expert listener by suggesting that no difference has ever been heard in what he is about to test.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > You made this "If" statement as part of a request for an hypothesis
> ...


Yes & this is why your request for a hypothesis is impossible - this point has not been sufficiently dealt with so asking for a hypothesis is premature, at best & foolish 



> 4. If the two do not measure sufficiently different, either there is:
> 
> a) confounding subjective phenomena at play
> 
> ...


OK but your original post to me read like it was as I stated already - framed in a way that seemed to suggest the lack of such a hypothesis somehow strengthened the case that there is no audible difference - was this not the meaning behind your post?


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to assume that blind testing has no biasing influences which is incorrect
> ...


So then the result of such a blind test is exactly as strong (but in the opposite direction i.e. towards not hearing a difference) as the sighted bias is towards hearing a difference. This, to me, suggests that both biases have the equivalent (but opposite) effect & therefore there is no bias that is stronger than the other!


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> OK but your original post to me read like it was as I stated already - framed in a way that seemed to suggest the lack of such a hypothesis somehow strengthened the case that there is no audible difference - was this not the meaning behind your post?


 
  
 I just reiterated my stances to make them more clear to avoid any misunderstandings.   
  
 You should notice that I did not assert that there is no audible difference.
  
 You are looking for evidence of a case that I'm not making.


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> So then the result of such a blind test is exactly as strong (but in the opposite direction i.e. towards not hearing a difference) as the sighted bias is towards hearing a difference. This, to me, suggests that both biases have the equivalent (but opposite) effect & therefore there is no bias that is stronger than the other!


 
  
 I don't know the answer about which bias is stronger, but that type of test seems utterly flawed.  Most tests would have varying degrees of differences from rather obvious to most and becoming increasing more difficult to identify.  This is why I suggest to anyone that conducts their own ABX to start at a low threshold and work their way up to establish where their own limits might be.  That is why several tests that have been made available in these forums often include many different versions of the test files, so that nobody is aware if the files are considered too close to judge a difference or wildly obvious to everyone.


----------



## mmerrill99

xenheadfi said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > But I disagree with you that differences are therefore insignificant - just because the fundamental requirement of blind testing is training doesn't mean that these elements are not significant in our normal listening
> ...


This is circular logic. How do you propose to test for this - by a blind test? I'll say it again - blind testing requires a special type of listening because of the nature of the process - when surety of what we are listening to is taken away we are left with a number of unknowns that we normally resolve through using our other senses. When this is no longer available, we have a tendency to doubt our choices & second guess ourselves. So unless we have a very definite cue to listen for, we are adrift 





> I think that this is where training is necessary because, like with just about everything, if you don't know what to look for, then it is very hard to even determine if you have a problem. Also, not all differences are the same. As an extreme example, we have the pop of a phono cartridge hitting a speck of dust. I doubt that there will be many people that need training in order to tell a track with a pop artifact than one without. Now, asking if there is a difference at 800 Hz between 2 tracks would be the exact opposite, training is almost universally needed to tell even a 6 db change.


Yes, training is necessary - in fact it's essential for valid blind tests




> ABX does not require a tell. You can ask if there is a difference between 2 things. If even trained people cannot state that there is a difference or not, then the 2 things can be said to be close to identical in the range of human perception. If there is a difference, then compare the 2 things and look for the difference. Then, what is that difference worth it to you? And that is completely personal preference.


Huh? What do you think trained people are "trained" to spot - they are trained to know the sound of various distortions. Yes, to do a successful ABX requires that you have already identified a tell & this is what you will be listening for in the blind testing. You might have to change this tell for another one & try again - if you are motivated. Again, i suggest that everybody should search for & read ultmusicsnob's posts on his ABX testing



> I will take myself as an example using the Philips Golden Ears challenge. I really enjoyed this light and entertaining way of exposing me to the world of critical listening. Most of the challenges are pretty easy up to Silver, and that first really hard test: MP3 encode rates. People complain that the selected track made the test hard, and I can see their point. However I think tracks from most genres of music would make the test even harder. 96-kbit was hard for me. 128-kbit was really hard as I had to concentrate solely on the strum of the bass and nothing else in order to tell the 2 files apart. Now, I am stuck at the Frequency Band challenge. I can hear that there is a difference, but I cannot seem to pick out which band is cut or boosted. Compare this to stereopositioning, which was super easy to tell the difference and determine the direction of the error.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > OK but your original post to me read like it was as I stated already - framed in a way that seemed to suggest the lack of such a hypothesis somehow strengthened the case that there is no audible difference - was this not the meaning behind your post?
> ...



All I was saying is that by stating you haven't seen a hypothesis being put forth was no indication of anything - particularly as the whole thing was premised on a false notion


----------



## mmerrill99

sonitus mirus said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So then the result of such a blind test is exactly as strong (but in the opposite direction i.e. towards not hearing a difference) as the sighted bias is towards hearing a difference. This, to me, suggests that both biases have the equivalent (but opposite) effect
> ...


 But you just posted this statement "When it comes to hearing differences,* the bias from a sighted test is significantly greater* than what can typically be introduced in a well implemented ABX test."
As to that test being utterly flawed - it is typical of the sort of blind tests seen here i.e how many people doing blind tests of cables are not influenced by the fact that, AFAIA, there has never been a positive ABX result. Do you think this might bias the participants?


----------



## RRod

Perhaps it's time for you to start a topic on meta-bias and let this one be about technology.


----------



## sonitus mirus

mmerrill99 said:


> But you just posted this statement "When it comes to hearing differences,* the bias from a sighted test is significantly greater* than what can typically be introduced in a well implemented ABX test."
> As to that test being utterly flawed - it is typical of the sort of blind tests seen here i.e how many people doing blind tests of cables are not influenced by the fact that, AFAIA, there has never been a positive ABX result. Do you think this might bias the participants?


 
  
 There are always exceptions when discussing generalities, but a well implemented ABX test is the key, and that was further explained in the rest of my post that you ignored.  You don't have to make the test with only 2 samples that many feel sound alike, and you would not be forced to tell the listener that no differences should be expected to be heard before conducting the test.  That would be coaching, and it would introduce bias.  Bias that I am not certain about the level of influence when compared to sighted evaluations.  Too many factors are not available, so I suggested that I did not know.
  
 Again, yes, it is possible to create a blind test that is not particularly useful and unintentionally introduces bias.  Are you assuming that there are not enough people that honestly believe that cables sound drastically different that they would fall victim to bias that no ABX test has been successfully passed?


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> Perhaps it's time for you to start a topic on meta-bias and let this one be about technology.


 
  
 Yes...the number of posts that actually talk about the issue at hand, i.e. how the measurements between R2R & DS DACs compare and is that audible, is sadly low.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> Perhaps it's time for you to start a topic on meta-bias and let this one be about technology.



Yes, let's leave the meta-bias & talk about technology
But there isn't really much to say really
 - sigma-delta works by using a correction feedback mechanism, a noise shaping & an output filter based on approximation
- R2R DACs work on a more direct conversion, by the use of a resistor ladder which converts to a voltage that equates to a bits place in the audio sample

There is so much different between these two approaches (not to mention, their implementation) that the topic comes down to an impossible to address question.

So, it ultimately boils down to - what measured differences are there between these two classes of DACs? But this is just a subset of the larger question - what measured differences are there between DACs 

And the further question - what audible differences are there between these DACs - again an impossible question to answer as there are so many variables at play in any such comparison


----------



## XenHeadFi

xenheadfi said:


> Before being able to name differences, shouldn't the test first determine if there are differences in the first place? I think that this is where training is necessary because, like with just about everything, if you don't know what to look for, then it is very hard to even determine if you have a problem. Also, not all differences are the same. As an extreme example, we have the pop of a phono cartridge hitting a speck of dust. I doubt that there will be many people that need training in order to tell a track with a pop artifact than one without. Now, asking if there is a difference at 800 Hz between 2 tracks would be the exact opposite, training is almost universally needed to tell even a 6 db change.


 


mmerrill99 said:


> This is circular logic. How do you propose to test for this - by a blind test? I'll say it again - blind testing requires a special type of listening because of the nature of the process - when surety of what we are listening to is taken away we are left with a number of unknowns that we normally resolve through using our other senses. When this is no longer available, we have a tendency to doubt our choices & second guess ourselves. So unless we have a very definite cue to listen for, we are adrift


 
  
  
 You say that I am using circular logic, yet you cut out the relevant part of your own post that describes the EXACT situation I am referring to. I have placed your full quote below and will bold the part where YOU state that someone may know there is a difference, but may not be able to "put" a "finger on exactly what those differences are". Exactly, a person does not need to pinpoint the exact difference between 2 files, just that the 2 files sound different. Further testing can reveal the reason for the sound difference.
  


mmerrill99 said:


> But I disagree with you that differences are therefore insignificant - just because the fundamental requirement of blind testing is training doesn't mean that these elements are not significant in our normal listening & affect our listening enjoyment.* In other words we may well be able to sense differences without being able to name those differences or put our finger on exactly what those differences are *& if we enter a blind test with just this level of training we will return a null result. Blind testing requires (by the very nature of the test) a definitive "tell" that we can identify & finding this tell requires care, motivation & training.


 
  
  
 Also, I agree that these pages of off-topic posts need to be split off from this topic.


----------



## mmerrill99

xenheadfi said:


> xenheadfi said:
> 
> 
> > *Before being able to name differences, shouldn't the test first determine if there are differences in the first place?* I think that this is where training is necessary because, like with just about everything, if you don't know what to look for, then it is very hard to even determine if you have a problem. Also, not all differences are the same. As an extreme example, we have the pop of a phono cartridge hitting a speck of dust. I doubt that there will be many people that need training in order to tell a track with a pop artifact than one without. Now, asking if there is a difference at 800 Hz between 2 tracks would be the exact opposite, training is almost universally needed to tell even a 6 db change.
> ...



What I said was circular logic was this statement "Before being able to name differences, shouldn't the test first determine if there are differences in the first place?" 
The circular logic is that I said you needed to be able to exactly identify the "tell" or difference before doing a blind test - otherwise you will return a null result i.e not be able to identify any difference (I gave the reasons for this) What you are saying above (in bold) is that you need to do the blind test first to establish if there is a difference before identifying a tell - circular logic, to my mind.

I used ultmusic snob as an example of this - he had already identified his preference for high-res before doing the blind testing. When he initially did blind testing he got null results if he listened normally - only when he found the "tell" & could focus on an exactly identifiable difference did he get positive ABX results. 

If anybody wants to continue this - then a new thread would be good place for it


----------



## castleofargh

I blame you all for significantly slowing down the progress I make reading my book at night, because of all the time I'm reading this instead.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 but at the same time I'm loving it.
 yes it's more philosophy than science, and yes it's wildly off topic most of the time, but we are actually talking about things that make sens most of the time, share different opinions and objectives that are being discussed like intelligent humans. soooo cool compared to "I hear it" vs "prove it", kind of mess we're used to. 
 thumbs up to all the guys who didn't have to resort to fallacies to try and win an argument so far!
  
 not going to answer each posts addressed to me, excuse me but there are a bunch and I would surely make a 10 page pudding to try and make clumsy answers. this is going fine, I wouldn't want to ruin it.
 still here is a general personal answer about some of the topics brought up so far:
  
 - 1/  my blind test aren't bringing truth. that's obvious to me, but it's been discussed so I point that out. science and knowledge in general don't bring truth, they try and come closer to it. when I do a sighted evaluation there will be biases and I know I might be influenced by them. so let's say I could be influenced to various degrees by 10 biases. if I match volumes, now I have to deal with 9 biases. whatever the result, I will be one step closer to the truth compared to before. so this is progress and everybody should match the loudness of the stuff they test.
  
 now if I do a simple blind test where I don't know which device I'm listening to, I remove the look of the devices, the colors, the size, the price tag, I remove the preconceptions I had about one of the device from reading reviews or being the owner of it. but let's say I add a bias that is the blind test itself. I end up removing let's say 2 kind of biases, sight and preconceptions, that spread into sub genres or biases. and I'm adding 1, the blind test. so to know if it's beneficial, I would need to find out how much I can be influenced by each bias. 
 I don't think the false negative introduces in blind test comes even close to the bias of knowing the price of a device, the look, the preconceptions I have about it etc... I don't have proof of that for my one test I'm doing, and obviously not everybody shares my opinion about that. but I do believe I'm overall getting closer to the truth by doing such a test.
 of course it would be even more beneficial to do a real double blind test, but those are hard to organize and do well. and when I'm only trying to get answers for myself, I tend to be a little lazy ^_^.
 but if I was to organize something for the community some day, I would very much insist on the test being double blind before drawing any kind of conclusion about the results! this is an important point.  if we cut too many corners in the blind test, it will come a moment where the bias introduced by the blind test may become more significant than the bias it was trying to remove. (again protocol>all)
  
  
 - 2/  mmerril99 brought up the idea that if I'm going to be biased in my every day listening and feel that the music is better from the look of the device or something else, then I should take that bias and be happy about it. I totally agree with this, and it is to me what real subjectivity is all about. Steve Eddy was(he's still very alive but banned from headfi
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...) one of the true subjectivists I know, he has always been advocating toward including subjective biases that bring joy, as being meaningful. but at the same time if the test was about sound, and not about enjoying a device, then he would never advise to do a sighted evaluation.
 objective and subjective sides don't have to be mutually exclusive in real life, but the subjective side should be removed as much as possible when the test we perform is called an audible test. if the test is called "enjoyment of the gear" then I would suggest bringing the biases back in and just do a sighted evaluation.
  
  
 - 3/ about the actual topic R2R vs DS, do you know of someone who has knowledge, time, and a bunch of audio friends to organize a blind test with DACs?  if we have such a guy, then we could ask around for people who would agree to loan the 2 versions of the shiit DAC as one of the potential tests?
 I know a bunch of french audiophiles from another website who would probably agree to be guinea pigs for such a test, but I live far away from them all(a few hundred kilometers) so me as head of such project would complicate pretty much everything. also I have no idea if they have those 2 shiit DACs(but that I can ask).
 all that to say that I'm willing, but IMO it would be much more interesting if the people organizing this also had some good measurement gears, to get both audible and objective data to play with in the end. all I have is a focusrite 2i2 to measure stuff, it's very likely that the Shiit DACs are better than this ADC for several measurements :'( .
 or maybe try to get archimago involved? he seems to be as curious about stuff as we are and doesn't mind getting his hands dirty(figuratively). and I imagine a guy like him would be trusted more than a noname like I am. that could also speed up the process of getting the Shiit units(or others if you guys know of DACs that offer both techs in 1 model?).
 anyway I agree that just talking about it is not going to bring us answers.


----------



## prot

watchnerd said:


> Even absent a test, I haven't seen a hypothesis proposed to explain why R2R vs DS might sound different if they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility.



Afaik, the saying goes that the so called aproximations in the oversampling and noise shaping filters used by DS are altering the sound .. suposedly the result sounds more 'digital', etc. 
Far fetched but still fair as a hypothesis I would say .. trouble is there is no proof.


----------



## watchnerd

prot said:


> Afaik, the saying goes that the so called aproximations in the oversampling and noise shaping filters used by DS are altering the sound .. suposedly the result sounds more 'digital', etc.
> Far fetched but still fair as a hypothesis I would say .. trouble is there is no proof.


 
  
 I've heard that said, but what's the test for that?


----------



## NA Blur

I suggest we move on from the subjective arguments as to whether one may hear differences between R2R and Delta-Sigma DACs because it is clear that some hear differences be it audible, bias, or something else.
  
 Can we change the title and angle of discussion to "are there measurable differences between well-implemented R2R and Delta-Sigma DACs?"
  
 I feel that the opinion section is growing out of control and degrading the focus on the original post.


----------



## mmerrill99

prot said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > Even absent a test, I haven't seen a hypothesis proposed to explain why R2R vs DS might sound different if they measure the same and/or all the differences are below the threshold of audibility.
> ...



Another proposed mechanism that I've seen referenced is that noise modulation ( in other words the low level noise is modulating with the signal) causes a small perception of flattening or softening of the dynamics of SD DACs

So, what test would anybody suggest which can separate real music signal from underlying noise on the DAC's output, to test this?


----------



## XenHeadFi

mmerrill99 said:


> Well if you are trying to know better (just for the hell of it) then you should be looking at the efficacy of blind testing - as was posted on another thread this plot from the Harmon video shows the consistency of various groups in blind testing & the only group that is reliable is selected/trained listeners -so in other words everyone else is inconsistent >65% of the time in a blind test - hardly a way to "know what's better"
> 
> Very interesting at about 55min. (p.64)
> results of listening tests (268 people)
> ...


 
 So I just got to this slide on the video, which is quite interesting. Not as interesting as Ethan Winer's Audio Myths video, but the science at Harmon seems quite good.
  
 The numbers were for "consistency of repeated judgement and strength of rating differentiation." As Mr. Toole explains, these were how consistent each listener gave the same subjective rating number (0 - 10) for the same loudspeaker during different listening tests. The Selected and Trained were the most consistent in giving the SAME subjective number to the SAME loudspeaker for different tests.
  
 But the kicker is, and I quote from the slide "All groups agreed on the relative rankings of the products. (Olive, JAES, pg 806-825, 2003)" Despite inconsistent numbers, all groups ranked the products in the same order! As Mr. Toole says, "Humans are amazing measuring instruments. Amazing!...and the only way we can get those consistent opinions out of you is not let you know what you are listening to. Do it blind. But, if you know what you are listening to, I don't care what you think. It doesn't matter."
  
 The Double-Blind testing procedure that is used at Harmon worked consistently for even the untrained ear. The untrained ear gave the same ranking order, but not the same subjective score for each loudspeaker over several tests.
  
 I agree, very interesting at about 55 minutes, but the context for the slide begins around 48 minutes when Mr. Toole relates a story about being called up to the boss's office for a poor showing in Consumer Reports.


----------



## Makiah S

wildcatsare1 said:


> Excellent post, R2R is in my humble experience offers more musicality. I have not heard most of the extremely expensive manipulations of DS DACs, but apparently you must manipulate them greatly to attempt to approximate R2R.


 
 Nice read actually, an this just fuels my fire for another R2R dac, I had the Hm 801 and it was amazing! I was shocked at how wide it was, while still having great bit of warmth.
 Granted I prefer my hm901 STRONGLY to it, but only because the HM901 runs a dual ESS Sabre 9018 through it's line out, which pairs nicely with my balance headphone amp
  
 though I still really want a Master 11, I own the NFB10ES2 an while it's great, I still haven't forgotten how wonderful the R2R dac in my hm801 was


----------



## mmerrill99

xenheadfi said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well if you are trying to know better (just for the hell of it) then you should be looking at the efficacy of blind testing - as was posted on another thread this plot from the Harmon video shows the consistency of various groups in blind testing
> ...



Yes, you are more correct in what you say
This graph shows "Figure 2: The mean loudspeaker preference ratings and 95% confidence intervals are shown for four loudspeakers evaluated in a controlled, double-blind listening test. The results of different groups of untrained listeners are compared to those of the 12 Harman listeners"


Now, I'm not fully sure what groups of untrained listeners are being plotted here as there are 14 columns (acad1 to acad14) along with columns nominates as Harmon/trained listeners & a column nominated "reviewers"

But in my reading of this plot the "trained listeners" rated the red & purple speaker preference the same whereas in almost all the other results they are not considered the same - this doesn't substantiate the claim "all groups ranked the products in the same order!"

Remember we are talking about speakers here - which usually have significant audible differences between them & yet the preferences are not the same. What would be the result if we were running the test on more subtle differences?


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> I blame you all for significantly slowing down the progress I make reading my book at night, because of all the time I'm reading this instead.
> but at the same time I'm loving it.
> yes it's more philosophy than science, and yes it's wildly off topic most of the time, but we are actually talking about things that make sens most of the time, share different opinions and objectives that are being discussed like intelligent humans. soooo cool compared to "I hear it" vs "prove it", kind of mess we're used to.
> thumbs up to all the guys who didn't have to resort to fallacies to try and win an argument so far!
> ...



I'm going to answer some of your points on the blind test thread I started so as not to pollute this one further


----------



## mindbomb

There's a paradox here. At a given price point, a delta sigma dac will be superior to an r2r dac, because it is easier to make. You can pay a little more to get a better r2r dac, but then there will be an even better delta sigma dac available at that price point. And that pattern might hold for a while since the $50k sennheiser orpheus system still comes with delta sigma dacs.


----------



## XenHeadFi

mmerrill99 said:


> Yes, you are more correct in what you say
> This graph shows "Figure 2: The mean loudspeaker preference ratings and 95% confidence intervals are shown for four loudspeakers evaluated in a controlled, double-blind listening test. The results of different groups of untrained listeners are compared to those of the 12 Harman listeners"
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Loudspeakers MAY have significant audible differences. The only thing we know of Loudspeaker P and Loudspeaker I is this FR graph of direct axis, on-axis, reflection, etc. with 2 computed FR-based values. The trained ears rated P slightly lower than I, but not to a significant degree. 95% error bars overlap showing uncertainty in the true values for P and I are large enough so that P and I cannot be distinguished from each other in this analysis.

 You can see how slight the preference for P over I is in this graph. Eyeballing the error bar, the difference MAY be significant, but without the actual numbers, I am uncertain. Looking at the data statistically, P & I were significantly favored over B, which was significantly favored over M. M was universally ranked with the lowest subjective score. Comparing data across all groups, B was scored significantly better than M and significantly less than P & I, even though in some sub-groups, B's lower score was not significantly different from P & I. There is a slight preference for P over I which is just significant (or not significant depending on the actual numbers), with only 1 sub-group showing a significant preference of one over the other (ACAD8 preferring P). This suggests P & I either had similar sound quality or they had complimentary strengths and weaknesses that split the listeners.
  
 TLDR: All groups ranked the products in essentially the same order. P & I were essentially tied as the top preferences, which was followed by B. Product M was significantly the least liked product. 
  
 If I read too much into this, I would say the trained listeners think P & I are only mediocre products (or are leaving room for better products) and think that M is the worst thing they have ever heard (they gave it less than a 0.5!). Everyone else thought P & I were wonderful (best they heard...so far), and poor M was bad, but not the worst thing they heard. 
  
 Figures taken from Sean Olive's Blog and his 3-part series on trained vs. untrained listeners:
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html
  
 I would have preferred Mr. Toole use "essentially the same order" as that is a more accurate and nuanced statement. Unfortunately, the "suits" and marketing hate accuracy and nuance...


----------



## watchnerd

mindbomb said:


> There's a paradox here. At a given price point, a delta sigma dac will be superior to an r2r dac, because it is easier to make. You can pay a little more to get a better r2r dac, but then there will be an even better delta sigma dac available at that price point. And that pattern might hold for a while since the $50k sennheiser orpheus system still comes with delta sigma dacs.


 
  
 Economics (and ease of implementation) are one of the main reasons DS/SD DACs/ADCs "won" in the marketplace and are now used in everything from professional ADCs, audiophile gear, and parts in cell phones.


----------



## Nu3nO

watchnerd said:


> Economics (and ease of implementation) are one of the main reasons DS/SD DACs/ADCs "won" in the marketplace and are now used in everything from professional ADCs, audiophile gear, and parts in cell phones.


 

 Home theater receivers too, DS/SD works sufficiently & elegantly.


----------



## watchnerd

xenheadfi said:


> Loudspeakers MAY have significant audible differences. The only thing we know of Loudspeaker P and Loudspeaker I is this FR graph of direct axis, on-axis, reflection, etc. with 2 computed FR-based values. The trained ears rated P slightly lower than I, but not to a significant degree. 95% error bars overlap showing uncertainty in the true values for P and I are large enough so that P and I cannot be distinguished from each other in this analysis.
> 
> You can see how slight the preference for P over I is in this graph. Eyeballing the error bar, the difference MAY be significant, but without the actual numbers, I am uncertain. Looking at the data statistically, P & I were significantly favored over B, which was significantly favored over M. M was universally ranked with the lowest subjective score. Comparing data across all groups, B was scored significantly better than M and significantly less than P & I, even though in some sub-groups, B's lower score was not significantly different from P & I. There is a slight preference for P over I which is just significant (or not significant depending on the actual numbers), with only 1 sub-group showing a significant preference of one over the other (ACAD8 preferring P). This suggests P & I either had similar sound quality or they had complimentary strengths and weaknesses that split the listeners.


 
  
 Key fact:
  
 In Toole's video, he says P & I are the same speaker except for differences in cabinetry.


----------



## tonykaz

Harmon blinds it's blind testers
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## XenHeadFi

watchnerd said:


> Key fact:
> 
> In Toole's video, he says P & I are the same speaker except for differences in cabinetry.


 
  
 Hmm... I remember him saying they were the same everything, except the crossover was set at a different level. But then, I am not sure if he was referring to another set of tests or not.


----------



## Roly1650

xenheadfi said:


> Hmm... I remember him saying they were the same everything, except the crossover was set at a different level. But then, I am not sure if he was referring to another set of tests or not.



I believe Floyd Toole is presenting the work of Sean Olive in the video, most of the graphs are the same or similar. Anyway, at about 12:30 in, Toole states that the two speakers were visually identical, it was the crossovers that differed, so I'd hazards a guess that you are right.


----------



## tonykaz

Mr.Watchnerd,
  
 Is there a goal involved with this Debate: R2R vs. DS?, such as honing and practicing artful discussion techniques.  
  
 Christopher Hitchens used Debates as a Sales Tool for his various Books, effectively (I thought).
  
 I, as well as others, have written and delivered Rants on the Audio Glossy Press which seemed fruitless. 
  
 I felt that Factual reasoning should be effective.
  
 I found that Objective Science affects-not the subjectivists. 
  
 I give you full-points for your efforts.
  
 Tony in Michigan
  
 ps.  I suspect that people listen and judge with their Eyes not their Ears


----------



## prot

watchnerd said:


> I've heard that said, but what's the test for that?




If you are asking for a clear ds vs. r2r test I dont know any. 
A few tests that should be (at least somewhat) relevant can be performed with the schiit bitfrost & gugnir dacs. 

A solid filter test may be done with the bitfrost multibit because, if you feed it 24/196, that suppsedly superior burito-la-la upsampling filter is not engaged. 16/44 signal upsampled via foobar/hqplayer/etc vs. direct to Dac will be a clean & clear filter test. 

Unfortunately the bitfrost would be quite useless for a ds vs. r2r test because afaik they completely replaced the output stage. But old gugnir vs gugnir multibit should be a fairly good test.. according to schiit that upgrade was pretty close to a chip-only change. And I doubt there is any better device for that kind of test. Unless someone builds a special dual Dac device .. chances for that are close to zero imo.

So .. anyone with a bimby or two gugnirs around here?


----------



## watchnerd

xenheadfi said:


> Hmm... I remember him saying they were the same everything, except the crossover was set at a different level. But then, I am not sure if he was referring to another set of tests or not.


 
  
 Sorry, it's both. Same drivers and dimensions, slightly different cabinets and crossovers for different markets.


----------



## watchnerd

prot said:


> If you are asking for a clear ds vs. r2r test I dont know any.


 
  
 The "waveform contruction" argument seems impossible to test because that happens inside the microcircuitry of the DAC itself.
  
 What we get on the outside is the analog output, which can be measured of course.  But if the analog waveforms are the same.....


----------



## watchnerd

tonykaz said:


> Mr.Watchnerd,
> 
> Is there a goal involved with this Debate: R2R vs. DS?,


 
  
 To appreciate Sisyphus.


----------



## prot

watchnerd said:


> The "waveform contruction" argument seems impossible to test because that happens inside the microcircuitry of the DAC itself.
> 
> What we get on the outside is the analog output, which can be measured of course.  But if the analog waveforms are the same.....



I have serious doubts that a diff on the analog outputs will show much .. if anything .. but you never know. 
At this point I'll personally even consider a simple BT or ABX done by a single guy on his laptop. Sure, it wont be particularly conclusive but still better than these 20 pages of 'arguments' 




watchnerd said:


> To appreciate Sisyphus.



at least that part worked very well for you


----------



## watchnerd

prot said:


> I have serious doubts that a diff on the analog outputs will show much .. if anything .. but you never know.


 
  
 By definition, any DAC that can't pass a perfect waveform is defective.  For the same of argument, I'm going to assume that both can pass a perfect waveform -- neither tech would have lasted in the market if it couldn't.
  
 So where does that leave us?  The sound difference has to exist somewhere....
  
 Jitter? That's pretty easy to measure. But that's very implementation dependent and I haven't seen anyone make that claim.


----------



## castleofargh

watchnerd said:


> tonykaz said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Watchnerd,
> ...


----------



## prot

watchnerd said:


> By definition, any DAC that can't pass a perfect waveform is defective.  For the same of argument, I'm going to assume that both can pass a perfect waveform -- neither tech would have lasted in the market if it couldn't.
> 
> So where does that leave us?  The sound difference has to exist somewhere....
> 
> Jitter? That's pretty easy to measure. But that's very implementation dependent and I haven't seen anyone make that claim.



If the difference exists, it is somewhere .. that surely is true . And I am quite confident that it will be measurable too. 

But I think that you are pushing too hard for the perfect, 100% measurable & sure evidence .. that may even be impossible in this case. Most of the time it's better to start with something smaller .. some of the tests I posted could be that. And we'll have something concrete to talk about instead of this 'philosophy about dacs'


----------



## cjl

watchnerd said:


> By definition, any DAC that can't pass a perfect waveform is defective.  For the same of argument, I'm going to assume that both can pass a perfect waveform -- neither tech would have lasted in the market if it couldn't.
> 
> So where does that leave us?  The sound difference has to exist somewhere....
> 
> Jitter? That's pretty easy to measure. But that's very implementation dependent and I haven't seen anyone make that claim.


 

 No dac passes a perfect waveform - the question is in what level of inaccuracies the final waveform has. Any audible difference must be visible in the output waveform - jitter, distortion, noise, etc will all show up in the final waveform.


----------



## watchnerd

cjl said:


> No dac passes a perfect waveform - the question is in what level of inaccuracies the final waveform has. Any audible difference must be visible in the output waveform - jitter, distortion, noise, etc will all show up in the final waveform.


 
  
 I should have been more precise "with no errors that cross the threshold of audibility."


----------



## charleski

xenheadfi said:


> If I read too much into this, I would say the trained listeners think P & I are only mediocre products (or are leaving room for better products) and think that M is the worst thing they have ever heard (they gave it less than a 0.5!). Everyone else thought P & I were wonderful (best they heard...so far), and poor M was bad, but not the worst thing they heard.
> 
> Figures taken from Sean Olive's Blog and his 3-part series on trained vs. untrained listeners:
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html
> ...


 
 Unfortunately Olive's actual paper is no longer available for free, but Olive has repeated his experiment:
Some New Evidence that Teenagers And College Students May Prefer Accurate Sound Reproduction
The Science and Marketing of Sound Quality
  
 Although he tries to spare the manufacturers' blushes by using initials in the AES presentation, he's not trying that hard. 'A' is the $500 Infinity Primus 362, 'B' is the $800 Polk Rti 10, 'C' is the $600 Klipsch RF35 and 'D' is the $3,800 Martin Logan Vista. The Martin Logan that costs 6 times more than the others is almost universally reviled, and _reviled more _by the trained listeners.
 (I'm not entirely sure what point he's trying to make by comparing lossless signals to those compressed using CBR 128kbps mp3, since no-one would claim that compression rate to be transparent, but it's a useful control to confirm that the listeners were capable of detecting subtle degredation in audio quality.)
  
 Others have performed similar experiments comparing 'naive' and experienced listeners, eg Rumsey et al. 2005 and Schinkel-Bielefeld et al. 2013. Schinkel-Bielefeld found the same correspondence of rank ordering: both naive and experienced listeners largely agreed in terms of the order of quality of the presentations. While it's not surprising that the naive listeners were more easily satisfied and generally rated audio quality higher than the experts, it's interesting that she found the discrepancy between the two groups grew larger for the higher quality conditions.


----------



## mmerrill99

cjl said:


> watchnerd said:
> 
> 
> > By definition, any DAC that can't pass a perfect waveform is defective.  For the same of argument, I'm going to assume that both can pass a perfect waveform -- neither tech would have lasted in the market if it couldn't.
> ...



There are alway differences in the final waveform - the question is what type of test signal you use, what type of waveform analysis you do & what you consider below the threshold of audibility when dealing with complex waveforms!


----------



## cjl

mmerrill99 said:


> There are alway differences in the final waveform - the question is what type of test signal you use, what type of waveform analysis you do & what you consider below the threshold of audibility when dealing with complex waveforms!


 
 There are some things that are pretty clearly always below the threshold of audibility - if all the differences are below -100dB for example, there's definitely not an audible difference. On the other hand, artifacts at -30dB are usually audible, though surprisingly subtle. I'd be concerned with a DAC that had artifacts any louder than -70dB or so, even though I suspect that's completely inaudible, just because it is so easy to reach that level of performance with modern electronics. You can argue about where exactly those differences become audible, but on any bandlimited waveform (no content above 20k), I'd expect the differences between any two competent DACs (I'll use my earlier examples of the Yggdrasil, Benchmark DAC2 HGC, and ODAC, though there are many more competent DACs out there at a wide range of prices) to be below the threshold of audibility.


----------



## mmerrill99

cjl said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > There are alway differences in the final waveform - the question is what type of test signal you use, what type of waveform analysis you do
> ...



I'm sure you also read Jason Stoddard's post in which he used all the normal measurements on a DAC & all were perfectly fine & below audibility & yet when listened to found that there was an audible problem?

Has anybody ever asked him what are the measureable differences between his SD & MB DACs from the same model?


----------



## castleofargh

Baldr came as a guest star for a few episodes, but he was more about how he does different stuff because they're not super easy or because they're fun(I badly paraphrase, but I don't think I'm too far off).
 but anyway the OP question was more along the line of audibility than measurable differences. if we want to use measurements to show inaudibility, we will need great measurements and a lot of them(which I'm not sure any manufacturer will ever accept to provide). or we could record the 2 outputs and see how well they can null out, but that involves an ADC that will be either of those techs. so it's easier to do, but not ideal and I'm not sure if there are many ADCs that are clearly better resolving than good DACs?


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> I'm sure you also read Jason Stoddard's post in which he used all the normal measurements on a DAC & all were perfectly fine & below audibility & yet when listened to found that there was an audible problem?
> 
> Has anybody ever asked him what are the measureable differences between his SD & MB DACs from the same model?


 

 Jason Stoddard has over a thousand posts here on head-fi. So you're going to have to post a link to it.
  
 But frankly I regard audio manufacturers as the least reliable source of information.


----------



## charleski

castleofargh said:


> Baldr came as a guest star for a few episodes, but he was more about how he does different stuff because they're not super easy or because they're fun(I badly paraphrase, but I don't think I'm too far off).
> but anyway the OP question was more along the line of audibility than measurable differences. if we want to use measurements to show inaudibility, we will need great measurements and a lot of them(which I'm not sure any manufacturer will ever accept to provide). or we could record the 2 outputs and see how well they can null out, but that involves an ADC that will be either of those techs. so it's easier to do, but not ideal and I'm not sure if there are many ADCs that are clearly better resolving than good DACs?


 

 Actually, you could invert and add the signals in the analogue domain without the need for redigitisation. I'm not sure what conclusion (if any) you could draw from the result though.


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you also read Jason Stoddard's post in which he used all the normal measurements on a DAC
> ...



Well then there's not much point in me finding & posting the link!


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > Baldr came as a guest star for a few episodes, but he was more about how he does different stuff because they're not super easy or because they're fun(I badly paraphrase, but I don't think I'm too far off).
> ...



Here's where the problems start - the analogue signals from two different DACs will have clock drift between them & impossible to achieve anything of any use
Castle is correct - the quality of the ADC needs to be clearly better than the DAC - in fact in most measuring systems the resolution of the measuring device needs to be at least double the device under test


----------



## cjl

mmerrill99 said:


> I'm sure you also read Jason Stoddard's post in which he used all the normal measurements on a DAC & all were perfectly fine & below audibility & yet when listened to found that there was an audible problem?
> 
> Has anybody ever asked him what are the measureable differences between his SD & MB DACs from the same model?


 
 I missed the part where he proved the problem was audible with double blind testing. It was a nice anecdote for the subjectivists though...


----------



## mmerrill99

cjl said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you also read Jason Stoddard's post in which he used all the normal measurements on a DAC
> ...



So you missed that he used a multitone test & found the problem in this "non-standard" measurement - do you still want the flawed pseudo-scientific DBT "proof" or did you want him to set up a large scale, rigorous & carefully administered blind test that has some semblance of scientific rigour?

For those interested Stoddards post is here 

And the relevant section is at the bottom


> Measuring the Unexpected
> 
> Okay. Is that enough? No. Let’s go deeper, and talk about one of the measurements we do that is off the beaten path. This measurement appears to correlate at least loosely to subjective impressions, and it unearths some surprising problems in gear that otherwise measures very well.
> 
> ...




So, tell me your list of tests that should be used to characterise a DAC & "prove" that it is "audibly transparent"


----------



## RRod

You don't consider IMD to be on the list of things to test for in a DAC?


----------



## XenHeadFi

mmerrill99 said:


> So, tell me your list of tests that should be used to characterise a DAC & "prove" that it is "audibly transparent"


 
 Even Floyd Toole's talk said that IMD is way more informative than THD as THD may add "pleasant distortion" while IMD is usually adds "unpleasant distortion."


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> You don't consider IMD to be on the list of things to test for in a DAC?



Do you bother to read the link before assuming that IMD & multitone tests are one & the same thing & asking a question which is already answered in the link??


----------



## mmerrill99

xenheadfi said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So, tell me your list of tests that should be used to characterise a DAC
> ...



As I said to RROD - read the link first & inform yourself about what is meant by multitone test


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Do you bother to read the link before assuming that IMD & multitone tests are one & the same thing & asking a question which is already answered in the link??


 
  
 It says right in there:


> "And…in terms of standard measurements, this DAC blew everything we’ve ever measured away. I mean, vanishingly low noise floor, virtually undetectable power supply harmonics, insanely low THD, flat frequency response…
> 
> …until you looked at the IMD, which gave numbers a bit higher than you’d expect, given the THD results. And the numbers weren’t related to the 1K spike…they appeared down low, below 100Hz."


 
  
 They ran the multitone test AFTER the got an aberrant IMD result. What would they have done had they not?


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> You don't consider IMD to be on the list of things to test for in a DAC?


 
  
 So when you get bottom of the thread:
  
 1. He notes that it had high IMD.
  
 2. His multitone test is basically another type of IMD test
  
 This seems reasonable to me.
  
 The next questions are:
  
 3. How well does this correlate with audible differences?  To Stoddard's credit, he doesn't claim a strong correlation
  
 4. How much do other SD ADCs exhibit this?  Is this characteristic of the breed or just the Perfect DAC test subject?
  
 And yet if you look at the IMD for the Schiit Gungnir DS vs MB, you see:
  
 Gungnir
  
*IMD: <0.002%, CCIR*
  
 Gungnir Multibit
  
*IMD: <0.004%, CCIR*
  
 Okay, so the SD DAC actually has lower IMD...
  
 So Stoddard might have found something, or it might be a red herring.  To Schiit's credit, Stoddard isn't claiming strong proof.
  
 Seems pretty inconclusive at this point.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you bother to read the link before assuming that IMD
> ...


This is all about experience & interpretation - the IMD result was slightly higher and not related to the harmonics looked at when running a two tone IMD test - not something that normally raises any alarm bells?



> They ran the multitone test AFTER the got an aberrant IMD result. What would they have done had they not?




I'll give you another data point about multitone tests from Scott Wurcer - the famous designer at AD & they haven't used these tests on audio DAC boards - this is what he's talking about in his quote, his testing of DAC boards


> The multitone really separates the sheep from the goats. I'm using 30 1/3 octave tones at about 12db crest factor. Artifacts show up on even the best boards.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > You don't consider IMD to be on the list of things to test for in a DAC?
> ...


Let's try to be accurate "…until you looked at the IMD, which gave numbers a bit higher than you’d expect, given the THD results. And the numbers weren’t related to the 1K spike…they appeared down low, below 100Hz.



> 2. His multitone test is basically another type of IMD test


Look at my quote from Scott Wurcer



> This seems reasonable to me.
> 
> The next questions are:
> 
> ...


Again, let's try to be accurate - Stoddard said "What? We ran through our multitone test (it’s easy to do digital multitones on a Stanford as well, not sure about other analyzers) and the low-frequency numbers went bonkers. As in, there was a broad range of non-harmonically related distortion components from 10-90 Hz, at a fairly high level (-50dB or so). -50dB is potentially audible. And it was up nearly 90dB from the baseline measurement."


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> So you missed that he used a multitone test & found the problem in this "non-standard" measurement - do you still want the flawed pseudo-scientific DBT "proof" or did you want him to set up a large scale, rigorous & carefully administered blind test that has some semblance of scientific rigour?
> 
> For those interested Stoddards post is here
> 
> ...


 

 You've completey mis-represented Stoddard's post. They were given a DAC from another manufacturer, did some measurements, and found that, while most were quite acceptable, it suffered high IMD. He doesn't _even mention_ any form of subjective listening test.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> This is all about experience & interpretation - the IMD result was slightly higher and not related to the harmonics looked at when running a two tone IMD test - not something that normally raises any alarm bells?
> I'll give you another data point about multitone tests from Scott Wurcer - the famous designer at AD & they haven't used these tests on audio DAC boards - this is what he's talking about in his quote, his testing of DAC boards


 
  
 The IMD number was high enough to worry them: the standard test worked. It seems what you need to give us is a scenario where there is an actually (not potentially) audible IMD issue that the multitone test will pick up but that will past the standard IMD test without alarms.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > This is all about experience
> ...



There's not enough detail in either of these reports to talk in absolute terms about what is a worrying IMD figure & what isn't but I'll put it to you that Scott Wurcer was using DAC evaluation boards in his multitone tests - do you really think DAC manufacturers release such boards (meant to showcase their DACs) with "worrying" IMD test results?


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> There's not enough detail in either of these reports to talk in absolute terms about what is a worrying IMD figure & what isn't but I'll put it to you that Scott Wurcer was using DAC evaluation boards in his multitone tests - do you really think DAC manufacturers release such boards (meant to showcase their DACs) with "worrying" IMD test results?


 

 The IMD Stoddard measured was -50dB. That's 0.3%, shockingly bad for a DAC and almost certainly audible.
  
 I'm bemused as to what point you think you're making here.


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So you missed that he used a multitone test
> ...



Yes, you are right, I should have gone back to the post instead of relying on my obviously bad memory - I mixed up this bit at the end of his post with what came before "That’s why we still listen. And measure. And come up with new measurements. And listen again."

But I still ask you what is your list of tests that you would use to "prove" that a DAc was transparent?


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > There's not enough detail in either of these reports to talk in absolute terms about what is a worrying IMD figure
> ...



No that was not the IMD measured - that was the result of their multitone test 
"What? We ran through our multitone test (it’s easy to do digital multitones on a Stanford as well, not sure about other analyzers) and the low-frequency numbers went bonkers. As in, there was a broad range of non-harmonically related distortion components from 10-90 Hz, at a fairly high level (-50dB or so). -50dB is potentially audible. And it was up nearly 90dB from the baseline measurement."


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > This is all about experience
> ...



Is anybody seriously going to try to maintain that a distortion which is non-harmonically related @ -50dB isn't going to be audible? 


> there was a broad range of non-harmonically related distortion components from 10-90 Hz, at a fairly high level (-50dB or so). -50dB is potentially audible. And it was up nearly 90dB from the baseline measurement.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> Is anybody seriously going to try to maintain that a distortion which is non-harmonically related @ -50dB isn't going to be audible?


 
  
 Of course it is, but in this case what caused it also caused the regular IMD test to bomb. I'm saying find me a phenomenon where it doesn't.


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Is anybody seriously going to try to maintain that a distortion which is non-harmonically related @ -50dB isn't going to be audible?
> ...


I believe you are grossly exaggerating in the bolded text - according to what Stoddard wrote, this was not the case. But continue on, regardless!


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> Yes, you are right, I should have gone back to the post instead of relying on my obviously bad memory - I mixed up this bit at the end of his post with what came before "That’s why we still listen. And measure. And come up with new measurements. And listen again."
> 
> But I still ask you what is your list of tests that you would use to "prove" that a DAc was transparent?


 
  
 I doubt I could discriminate between two DACs that both had a flat frequency response +/- 0.1dB, 0.0dB of linearity error and THD and IMD measures below 0.01%. Any competent design should far surpass this, particularly in terms of THD and IMD. The only thing that would disprove the two DACs sounded different would be to do a double-blind listening test, but given that there blind tests like this one that can't distinguish a $2k DAC from an ALC889 I wouldn't hold out much hope.
  


mmerrill99 said:


> No that was not the IMD measured - that was the result of their multitone test
> "What? We ran through our multitone test (it’s easy to do digital multitones on a Stanford as well, not sure about other analyzers) and the low-frequency numbers went bonkers. As in, there was a broad range of non-harmonically related distortion components from 10-90 Hz, at a fairly high level (-50dB or so). -50dB is potentially audible. And it was up nearly 90dB from the baseline measurement."


 
 The multitone test _is_ an IMD test, it's just not the standard SMPTE RP120-1994 variant. There's some debate as to the best frequencies and ratios to use for IMD, and you may well see its value vary across the audio spectrum, just as THD measures vary between 20-20kHz. Using more than two tones just makes it harder to separate the intermodulation components from the harmonic ones.


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> I believe you are grossly exaggerating in the bolded text - according to what Stoddard wrote, this was not the case. But continue on, regardless!


 
  
 Believe what you want. I read that whole thing as "an alarm went off and we investigated further." A yellow alert, if you will. But yes, obviously you think this is the start of a revolution and I'm like "meh", so we clearly see things differently.


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> The next questions are:
> 
> 3. How well does this correlate with audible differences?  To Stoddard's credit, he doesn't claim a strong correlation
> 
> ...


 
  
 Seems like I always read about SD having better linearity, which would seem to imply better distortion specs for a given wad of cash (anyone have any math on that?). I guess the question is how this particular DAC messed it up.


----------



## cjl

mmerrill99 said:


> So you missed that he used a multitone test & found the problem in this "non-standard" measurement - do you still want the flawed pseudo-scientific DBT "proof" or did you want him to set up a large scale, rigorous & carefully administered blind test that has some semblance of scientific rigour?
> 
> For those interested Stoddards post is here
> 
> ...


 

 Ahh, that one. I had remembered something else (not sure what though). In that case, I'm not really sure what you're trying to point at - multi tone IMD is definitely a relevant measurement for a DAC - all I see there is that a DAC that measured poorly also sounded poor.


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you are right, I should have gone back to the post instead of relying on my obviously bad memory - I mixed up this bit at the end of his post with what came before "That’s why we still listen. And measure. And come up with new measurements. And listen again."
> ...


You are seriously going to cite that as a DBT test of worth? Come again!



> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > No that was not the IMD measured - that was the result of their multitone test
> ...


Semantics - I was waiting for this! IMD = multitone, yea right!!
Of course it makes it harder to do & it also stresses the device in ways that a two tone test doesn't but continue on, regardless.
Yes you will find multitone tests on many analysers but how many manufacturers of audio DACs post multitone test results in their datasheets?
We see them in the datasheets of industrial DACs with SFDR (spurious free dynamic range) results but few audio DACs


----------



## watchnerd

charleski said:


> *The multitone test is an IMD test, it's just not the standard SMPTE RP120-1994 variant*. There's some debate as to the best frequencies and ratios to use for IMD, and you may well see its value vary across the audio spectrum, just as THD measures vary between 20-20kHz. Using more than two tones just makes it harder to separate the intermodulation components from the harmonic ones.


 
  
 Right.
  
 And we know IMD correlates highly with audibility because it's more harmonically discordant.
  
 So finding out a multi-tone test also might correlate with subjectively audible differences is not far-fetched.
  
 But nor is it shocking or ground-breaking.


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> Seems like I always read about SD having better linearity, which would seem to imply better distortion specs for a given wad of cash (anyone have any math on that?). I guess the question is how this particular DAC messed it up.


 
  
 Or how did it come to be so highly praised, and make it to market, with such bad IMD?


----------



## XenHeadFi

watchnerd said:


> Or how did it come to be so highly praised, and make it to market, with such bad IMD?


 
 THD is at 0.005% on Gumby vs. 0.002% for DS. Still inaudible amounts, either way.
  
 Moffat says that Gumby is better at time domain, waveform (original samples), and other things that I cannot remember at the moment. Time Domain could be the DAC, considering the recommended usage of the chips. Waveform is probably due to the filter, which seems to lead to the question of the filter being independent of the DAC. AtomicBob may have measurements that may shed light on time domain, but waveform seems like a black-box right now.


----------



## watchnerd

mmerrill99 said:


> You are seriously going to cite that as a DBT test of worth? Come again!
> Semantics - I was waiting for this! IMD = multitone, yea right!!
> Of course it makes it harder to do & it also stresses the device in ways that a two tone test doesn't but continue on, regardless.
> Yes you will find multitone tests on many analysers but how many manufacturers of audio DACs post multitone test results in their datasheets?
> We see them in the datasheets of industrial DACs with SFDR (spurious free dynamic range) results but few audio DACs


 
  
 I can't tell what you're advocating...
  
 If your point is that a multi-tone test might be more revealing of IMD than the standard IMD test, and that this might show up as being correlated with audible differences, okay.  Stoddard hypothesis it might be true.  Doesn't sound bat**** crazy to me, either.
  
 If it can be shown to be persistent and true (where true means highly correlated with DBT)  of most SD DACs, that would be very interesting.


----------



## watchnerd

xenheadfi said:


> THD is at 0.005% on Gumby vs. 0.002% for DS. Still inaudible amounts, either way.


 
  
 When I said "How did it come to market", I was referring to the Super DAC, which was much higher.


----------



## XenHeadFi

watchnerd said:


> When I said "How did it come to market", I was referring to the Super DAC, which was much higher.


 
 How can "Super" DACs have bad measurements? Have you seen the inside of Lampizator4 DAC?


----------



## watchnerd

xenheadfi said:


> How can "Super" DACs have bad measurements? Have you seen the inside of Lampizator4 DAC?


 
  
 LOL.
  
 What do they charge for that hot mess?


----------



## Guidostrunk

$4200 to $5200 :blink:


watchnerd said:


> LOL.
> 
> What do they charge for that hot mess?


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> $4200 to $5200


 
  
 GTFO!
  
 Damn...you would think for that money they could invest in some better PCBs and a pick-and-place machine.


----------



## Guidostrunk

I almost fell off my chair when I saw the price. Lol. I can't see how there would be some monumental improvement over something around 1k. It seems crazy for around 5k , that you get spaghetti, and meatballs, in a tin box. 





watchnerd said:


> GTFO!
> 
> Damn...you would think for that money they could invest in some better PCBs and a pick-and-place machine.


----------



## Mortalcoil

guidostrunk said:


> I almost fell off my chair when I saw the price. Lol. I can't see how there would be some monumental improvement over something around 1k. It seems crazy for around 5k , that you get spaghetti, and meatballs, in a tin box.


 
  
 The bread board is where alot of the cost is associated.


----------



## watchnerd

guidostrunk said:


> I almost fell off my chair when I saw the price. Lol. I can't see how there would be some monumental improvement over something around 1k. It seems crazy for around 5k , that you get spaghetti, and meatballs, in a tin box.


 
  
 I've made homebrew DIY stuff with point-to-point wiring that didn't look as sloppy as that.


----------



## watchnerd

mortalcoil said:


> The bread board is where alot of the cost is associated.


 
  
 I love how the tube is just lying off to the side, randomly, with a socket just dangling in free air.


----------



## Mortalcoil

watchnerd said:


> I love how the tube is just lying off to the side, randomly, with no socket.


 
  
  
 It allows the tube to suspend itself in mid air all the while ignoring the magnetic pull of the earths core.
  
 Works great in earthquake zones as well.


----------



## Guidostrunk

Hahahahahahahaha , that's hilarious! 





mortalcoil said:


> It allows the tube to suspend itself in mid air all the while ignoring the magnetic pull of the earths core.
> 
> Works great in earthquake zones as well.


----------



## watchnerd

mortalcoil said:


> It allows the tube to suspend itself in mid air all the while ignoring the magnetic pull of the earths core.
> 
> Works great in earthquake zones as well.


 
  
 Any filaments that get busted are just making the circuit more straight wire.


----------



## Mortalcoil

watchnerd said:


> Any filaments that get busted are just making the circuit more straight wire.


 
  
  
 Exactly


----------



## mmerrill99

rrod said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you are grossly exaggerating in the bolded text - according to what Stoddard wrote, this was not the case. But continue on, regardless!
> ...



Nah, I don't see it as any kind of revolution - multitone tests are old hat & have been used in telecomms days of yore - just not so much today

My point in raising it was I made this post *"There are alway differences in the final waveform - the question is what type of test signal you use, what type of waveform analysis you do & what you consider below the threshold of audibility when dealing with complex waveforms!"*

To which cjl replied "There are some things that are pretty clearly always below the threshold of audibility........"

And I gave examples that depended on the test signals used & the tests run as to whether it's pretty clear or not - the Schiit multitone measurement & Scott Wurcer's examples being a cases in point -IMD analysis showed little (Schiit) or no (Wurcer) sign of a problem & yet multitone analysis showed up many distortions. Simple enough to understand, really!


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> You are seriously going to cite that as a DBT test of worth? Come again!


  
 While there is some merit to the quibble that they should have used pairwise presentations rather than trying to test all four DACs, and it's not certain that the assistant was properly blinded, their methodology is generally sound. It certainly carries far more weight than the sighted anecdotal reports that clog up audio websites.
  
 I'd certainly like to believe that I personally could tell the difference between a well-engineered DAC and a cheap ALC889 codec chip, especially given that it was far from flat and over a decibel up at 100Hz. But I have to accept that I might be fooling myself.
  


> Semantics - I was waiting for this! IMD = multitone, yea right!!
> Of course it makes it harder to do & it also stresses the device in ways that a two tone test doesn't but continue on, regardless.
> Yes you will find multitone tests on many analysers but how many manufacturers of audio DACs post multitone test results in their datasheets?
> We see them in the datasheets of industrial DACs with SFDR (spurious free dynamic range) results but few audio DACs


 
 Seriously? You think that a DAC gets 'stressed' by playing signals at more than two frequencies?? I really think you need to go back and think about that for a while, if only to spare yourself further embarassment. Both the DAC chip and associated output hardware are operating over the full audible range all the time - they don't get tired and give up if asked to reproduce both a flute and a cello. There's nothing special about using multiple tones to check for IMD. It's more efficient at covering the frequency spectrum and would obviate the need for multiple tests covering different ranges, but, as I said, it makes analysis of the results somewhat more difficult.
  
SFDR is cited for devices used in communication systems because it's a measure of the device's immunity to interference from other signals. This shouldn't be an issue for a home-audio system in which only one signal is present. Since the distortion products found in home-audio are spread across the audible spectrum the total value is generally a more useful measurement than the largest peak.


----------



## mmerrill99

charleski said:


> While there is some merit to the quibble that they should have used pairwise presentations rather than trying to test all four DACs, and it's not certain that the assistant was properly blinded, their methodology is generally sound. It certainly carries far more weight than the sighted anecdotal reports that clog up audio websites.
> 
> I'd certainly like to believe that I personally could tell the difference between a well-engineered DAC and a cheap ALC889 codec chip, especially given that it was far from flat and over a decibel up at 100Hz. But I have to accept that I might be fooling myself.


Of course the other possibility is that the test is so ***** in every respect that it hides such an obvious difference!



> Semantics - I was waiting for this! IMD = multitone, yea right!!
> 
> Of course it makes it harder to do





> Seriously? You think that a DAC gets 'stressed' by playing signals at more than two frequencies?? I really think you need to go back and think about that for a while, if only to spare yourself further embarassment. Both the DAC chip and associated output hardware are operating over the full audible range all the time - they don't get tired and give up if asked to reproduce both a flute and a cello.


You know what IMD stands for, don't you? I wonder where those sideband distortions might be coming from? 





> There's nothing special about using multiple tones to check for IMD. It's more efficient at covering the frequency spectrum and would obviate the need for multiple tests covering different ranges, but, as I said, it makes analysis of the results somewhat more difficult.


Ah, yes difficult analysis - let's not do it then



> SFDR is cited for devices used in communication systems because it's a measure of the device's immunity to interference from other signals. This shouldn't be an issue for a home-audio system in which only one signal is present. Since the distortion products found in home-audio are spread across the audible spectrum the total value is generally a more useful measurement than the largest peak.


You just chased your own tail in a logic circle blur - "This shouldn't be an issue for a home-audio system in which only one signal is present." - do you read back what you write - it's advisable ?


----------



## watchnerd

I'm sorry, but what are we debating again?
  
 It seems like Schiit measured somebody else's "SuperDAC", that it had unexpectedly bad IMD in the lower range, and that it also did poorly on a multi-tone test.
  
 Seems perfectly logical.
  
 The only real mystery to me is how the "SuperDAC" got out the door with such crappy lower range IMD.


----------



## mmerrill99

watchnerd said:


> I'm sorry, but what are we debating again?


Well, at the moment it seems cjl is struggling to understand IMD !



> It seems like Schiit measured somebody else's "SuperDAC", that it had unexpectedly bad IMD in the lower range, and that it also did poorly on a multi-tone test.
> 
> Seems perfectly logical.
> 
> *The only real mystery to me is how the "SuperDAC" got out the door with such crappy lower range IMD.*



Well, 
Same way as the DAC manufacturer's evaluation boards did - no noticeable IMD issues with standard tests. Only when tested by Scott Wurcer using Mutitone tests did substantial differences show up between the boards - enough for him to state *"The multitone really separates the sheep from the goats. I'm using 30 1/3 octave tones at about 12db crest factor. Artifacts show up on even the best boards."*

That's how tests are designed - use an optimal signal which will clearly reveal a specific issue being tested for. The jitter test signal is an example - it was not just a randomly chosen set of digital codes - it was using chosen digital codes (signals) designed to exercise the identified issues of inter symbol interference (ISI) that was identified with SPDIF receivers - it is specifically designed to maximally stress this aspect of SPDIF receivers. Of course now it is used as a general test for jitter & has lost it's original optimal design purpose but there you go.


----------



## cjl

mmerrill99 said:


> Well, at the moment it seems cjl is struggling to understand IMD !


 
 Oh, that's rich. I understand IMD perfectly. You do understand that the multitone test is still an IMD test, right? It's arguably a better IMD test than the standard one, and I'm always a fan of increased testing and data on all devices. That doesn't change the fact that all audible defects will be measurable though.


----------



## watchnerd

cjl said:


> Oh, that's rich. I understand IMD perfectly. You do understand that the multitone test is still an IMD test, right? It's arguably a better IMD test than the standard one, and I'm always a fan of increased testing and data on all devices. That doesn't change the fact that all audible defects will be measurable though.


 
  
 Summary:
  
 1. Schiit did 2 different types of IMD tests on a competing DAC.  They were surprisingly crappy in portions of the spectrum, enough to probably be audible.
  
 2. Crappy IMD measurements that cross the threshold of audibility might correlate with subjective sound preferences.
  
 That's it, right?
  
 Seems pretty 'Well, duh' to me.


----------



## mmerrill99

cjl said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, at the moment it seems cjl is struggling to understand IMD !
> ...


I don't have any confusion over that - it's you that seems to have a problem understanding what InterModulation Distortion means & how if you increase the number of tones the distortion products increase. 





> It's arguably a better IMD test than the standard one, and I'm always a fan of increased testing and data on all devices.


Good, on that we both agree 





> That doesn't change the fact that all audible defects will be measurable though.


I would suspect they should be given a complete set of suitable tests.


----------



## charleski

mmerrill99 said:


> Of course the other possibility is that the test is so ***** in every respect that it hides such an obvious difference!


  
 No, that's not a possibility I'd seriously consider, because there's no basis for it. A 1.4dB variance in the frequency response is fairly subtle, and while I'd like to think I could spot it, I'm ready to be proved wrong. You, clearly, are not.
  
  


> You know what IMD stands for, don't you? I wonder where those sideband distortions might be coming from?
> Ah, yes difficult analysis - let's not do it then
> You just chased your own tail in a logic circle blur - "This shouldn't be an issue for a home-audio system in which only one signal is present." - do you read back what you write - it's advisable ?


 
  
 Right now I honestly don't think you really have a clue what IMD actually is. A signal composed of two frequencies will generate distortion products at the sum and difference of their frequencies: an 800Hz signal and a 1200Hz signal will generate products at 400Hz and 2kHz. This is different to harmonic distortion, in which the products appear at integer multiples of the frequency being tested, so a signal with an 800Hz component would generate products at 1600Hz, 2.4kHz, 3.2kHz, etc. Physical systems, especially loudspeakers, can generate subharmonic distortion products (rational fractions of the fundamental) as a result of interaction with their own intrinsic resonances.
  
 Generally you want to test these two different types of distortion separately, as they may be caused by different defects in the design. This is why you need to take a little care in choosing the probe frequencies for an IMD test - if you fed in a combination of 1kHz and 3kHz you would get a distortion spike at 2kHz, but have no way of knowing how much of this was IMD from the 3-1kHz difference or 2nd harmonic of the 1kHz fundamental. Spraying a bunch of different frequencies at the system will produce a large range of distortion products that can be hard or impossible to disentangle, but, as I already said, it has its use as a 'ball-park' test that will cover a wide frequency range efficiently.
  
 As for your last sentence: I only listen to one piece of music at a time. Maybe Vulcans find this illogical and listen to three or four on the trot to save time, but I'm not really interested in the listening habits of imaginary aliens. Alternatively ... you don't grasp the meaning of the word 'signal' in an engineering context.


----------



## cjl

watchnerd said:


> Summary:
> 
> 1. Schiit did 2 different types of IMD tests on a competing DAC.  They were surprisingly crappy in portions of the spectrum, enough to probably be audible.
> 
> ...


 

 Yep, pretty much that.


----------



## castleofargh

want to know something about a DAC's chipset? you have god knows how many PDF you can download that tell you everything to the point where you know how the engineer's grand mother was making her apple pie. you even have all the stuff to tell you how to make a DAC using that chipset if you like.
 now, you want to know something about the output signal of a DAC? here are some basic measurements not clearly named, often not even with a proper unit,  and made from undefined measurements. so we don't even know for example how the IMD test was done on most manufacturer's specs. oh but wait, I'm going too far already, we often don't even have IMD measurements on DACs specs...
  
 so of course it's easy to argue that measurements might not tell the all story when we only get scraps of what the measurements should be. and when you argue about that with the manufacturers, the general consensus is that they don't provide more because specs are misunderstood by people...   so we can play that game for a while.
  
 -"doc, my child doesn't know how to count"
 -"did someone teach him?"
 -"no because I'm afraid he might misunderstand".


----------



## mmerrill99

castleofargh said:


> want to know something about a DAC's chipset? you have god knows how many PDF you can download that tell you everything to the point where you know how the engineer's grand mother was making her apple pie. you even have all the stuff to tell you how to make a DAC using that chipset if you like.
> now, you want to know something about the output signal of a DAC? here are some basic measurements not clearly named, often not even with a proper unit,  and made from undefined measurements. so we don't even know for example how the IMD test was done on most manufacturer's specs. oh but wait, I'm going too far already, we often don't even have IMD measurements on DACs specs...
> 
> so of course it's easy to argue that measurements might not tell the all story when we only get scraps of what the measurements should be. and when you argue about that with the manufacturers, *the general consensus is that they don't provide more because specs are misunderstood by people*...   so we can play that game for a while.
> ...


Yes, that's adequately demonstrated in recent posts


----------



## charleski

It's sometimes amusing to browse the AudioPorn sites, and the first DAC review on Stereophile currently is of the $5500 AudioNote DAC 2.1x.
  
 This receives high praise from the enthusiastic reviewer. And yet, even as he's dishing out the plaudits he feels the need to qualify his statements: "the sound wasn't buzzy or fuzzy, but it skated right up to the border of same", "The harsh highs were, if anything, a little more grating through the Audio Notes than I heard from CD rips of the album played from my Apple iMac", "the DAC 2.1x Signature, in particular, may generate distortion products", "The question of whether the sound of the Audio Notes should be ... blamed for trading in pleasing distortions will never be answered to the satisfaction of all." But none of this diminishes his ecstatic conclusion: "I have never heard a CD player that beats this combination in the ability to involve me in the magic of notes and rhythms, or that presents lines of notes in such a musical and attention-grabbing manner. Vigorously recommended."
  
 In the measurements section we learn that this device uses an old Analog Digital AD1865, a chip that's featured in a variety of odd-ball R2R designs (the large OBSOLETE stamp is particularly fetching). But, far more seriously, the designer has chosen to throw his textbook out the window (presuming that he actually owned one) and neglected to filter the output. As is entirely predictable, this wrecks the design, spewing out gobs of aliased image noise which then intermodulates down to the audible spectrum, with a 19kHz tone causing a -52dB spike at 6kHz. Harmonic distortion from low-frequency signals is particularly high, with the 2nd harmonic _alone _reaching -50dB. John Atkinson does, at least, have the integrity to declare in summary that, 'it is difficult to avoid the temptation to describe the Audio Note DAC 2.1x Signature as "broken" '. It clearly is.
  
 So it measures like crap, but it 'sounds good'? Where have we heard that before?
 Oh yeah ... vinyl.
  
 Just as some people seem to enjoy the compression, noise and distorted frequency response of vinyl, could we be seeing a similar reaction to the nonlinearity of old R2R DACs and distortion produced by 'special' (i.e. wrong) filters? I suspect so. The human mind is incredibly plastic, and we can teach ourselves to enjoy all sorts of strange pleasures. I think the question really is: how far can this go? How long will it be before audiophiles discover the true source of digital audio nirvana and start paying $5k for DACs based on the big daddy of them all, the sublimely musical 14bit TDA 1540? Hold on, it's happening already: "when I heard the CD104 with just NOS and all capacitor mods - it was so good that I did not believe my ears. It is too good to be true." (yes, that's from Lampizator, makers of the masterpiece featured earlier in this thread, but they aren't the only ones).
  
 ... Actually, what am I doing wasting time on this thread. Bye guys, I'm off to buy up some ancient CD players so I can rip the chips out and put them in a fancy new box for the next HiFi Show.


----------



## artur9

charleski said:


> could we be seeing a similar reaction to the nonlinearity of old R2R DACs and distortion produced by 'special' (i.e. wrong) filters? I suspect so.


 
 That might possibly be true of some of these DACs but given the measurements @atomicbob took of the Schiit R2R DACs, that's not the case for them.  They measure fantastically well.


----------



## watchnerd

charleski said:


> So it measures like crap, but it 'sounds good'? Where have we heard that before?
> Oh yeah ... vinyl.


 
  
 Or tubes.
  
 (Full disclosure...I have some tube stuff I like. But I know it's distorted.)


----------



## watchnerd

artur9 said:


> That might possibly be true of some of these DACs but given the measurements @atomicbob took of the Schiit R2R DACs, that's not the case for them.  They measure fantastically well.


 
  
 I'm sure the hardest core R2R guys would slam Schiit for having a filter, too.


----------



## Vkamicht

Hi all, really interested in this topic and I've read a number of pages but I had a question I haven't seen brought up (maybe missed it) - are there any level matched analog recordings showcasing the difference between these two types of DACs? I am going through inner turmoil because I'm a skeptic but I "want to believe." I would like the ability to do an ABX on foobar or something without having to switch equipment (plus I can't really afford much), I'm wondering if the difference would be audible via line out recording. My thought being if people are truly hearing the "digital harshness" sound of the DS DACs, then even if my playback system is DS, I would still be able to pick out which audio file was run through the DS DAC, right? (essentially twice after playback) I mean it would only sound worse making multiple passes... and the R2R recording wouldn't have this problem. On the flip side if the argument is that anything coming out of the DS is going to sound awful no matter what, then I would propose to do the same test via the R2R. The "DS sound" is then recorded into the file itself and an ABX should reveal this. Is there a flaw in this thinking?


----------



## charleski

artur9 said:


> That might possibly be true of some of these DACs but given the measurements @atomicbob took of the Schiit R2R DACs, that's not the case for them.  They measure fantastically well.


 
 Oh I'd absolutely agree. The flagship Burr-Brown PCM63-K was capable of extremely good results when implemented properly ... at a price. And current darlings like the PCM1704 are almost as good (though it costs six times as much as a top-flight ΔΣ chip like the CS4398). If you want to spend money just for the sake of spending it, then it's perfectly possible to get a decent result with R2R.
  
 [As an aside, looking at the money people are spending on old PCM63 chips makes me wish I hadn't junked the old DAC I built back in the '90s.]
  


vkamicht said:


> Hi all, really interested in this topic and I've read a number of pages but I had a question I haven't seen brought up (maybe missed it) - are there any level matched analog recordings showcasing the difference between these two types of DACs? I am going through inner turmoil because I'm a skeptic but I "want to believe." I would like the ability to do an ABX on foobar or something without having to switch equipment (plus I can't really afford much), I'm wondering if the difference would be audible via line out recording. My thought being if people are truly hearing the "digital harshness" sound of the DS DACs, then even if my playback system is DS, I would still be able to pick out which audio file was run through the DS DAC, right? (essentially twice after playback) I mean it would only sound worse making multiple passes... and the R2R recording wouldn't have this problem. On the flip side if the argument is that anything coming out of the DS is going to sound awful no matter what, then I would propose to do the same test via the R2R. The "DS sound" is then recorded into the file itself and an ABX should reveal this. Is there a flaw in this thinking?


 
 I wouldn't be _at all_ surprised to learn that a DAC like the AudioNote 2.1x could be distinguished from a proper design based on a ΔΣ chip in an ABX test. That doesn't mean it sounds better, unless you have a preference for coloured sound.


----------



## prot

charleski said:


> It's sometimes amusing to browse the AudioPorn sites, and the first DAC review on Stereophile currently is of the $5500 AudioNote DAC 2.1x.
> 
> This receives high praise from the enthusiastic reviewer. And yet, even as he's dishing out the plaudits he feels the need to qualify his statements: "the sound wasn't buzzy or fuzzy, but it skated right up to the border of same", "The harsh highs were, if anything, a little more grating through the Audio Notes than I heard from CD rips of the album played from my Apple iMac", "the DAC 2.1x Signature, in particular, may generate distortion products", "The question of whether the sound of the Audio Notes should be ... blamed for trading in pleasing distortions will never be answered to the satisfaction of all." But none of this diminishes his ecstatic conclusion: "I have never heard a CD player that beats this combination in the ability to involve me in the magic of notes and rhythms, or that presents lines of notes in such a musical and attention-grabbing manner. Vigorously recommended."
> 
> ...




After reading such stuff it is extremely difficult to avoid the temptation to describe Stereophile as a bunch of incompetent liars .. or maybe I should say 'vigurously competent liars' .


----------



## castleofargh

they have that kind of unique situation where measurements and subjective opinions can mix and oppose each other. if anything, compared to most other guys, I would say that at least they have some measurements and I greatly appreciate that.
  
 now when the graphs show a problem and the feedback is "it sounds amazing", I have to say that I'm always wondering if it's one of those cases where distortions sound nice, or if it's marketing and mutual interests that are typing on the keyboard at that moment. 
  
  
@Vkamicht I honestly don't know. some would probably argue that the ADC ruined the very thing that was making the R2R DAC genuine sound. even if that's kind of silly when you know that the record was most likely made on a delta sigma if it's not an old one. I often do what you say and record what I want to test so that I can just abx it instead of having to prepare a tedious blind test. but I really don't know how much the ADC impacts the sound of both sources. maybe if I had a better ADC I would have more confidence in that kind of test.
 but at least we would need both DACs to be recorded on the same system with the same settings, just asking for people to send a recording of a song or a sweep, could then make us test more than the 2 DACs and would be unfair. but it could at least be more than us talking in the wind ^_^.


----------



## nick_charles

castleofargh said:


> they have that kind of unique situation where measurements and subjective opinions can mix and oppose each other. if anything, compared to most other guys, I would say that at least they have some measurements and I greatly appreciate that.
> 
> now when the graphs show a problem and the feedback is "it sounds amazing", I have to say that I'm always wondering if it's one of those cases where distortions sound nice, or if it's marketing and mutual interests that are typing on the keyboard at that moment.


 
  
  
 There is another possible explanation, that even what looks like impressive distortion and noise and FR deviations are *sometimes* still below our detection ability in normal listening and that the supposed huge differences between components can sometimes be attributed to the nature of uncontrolled tests where little or no effort has been expended to remove the array of biases and that even without the biases spawned by foreknowledge of what the reviewer is listening to we have a test method so flawed that any number of imagined differences and/or audio characteristics are discovered.
  
 Be that as it may removing the knowledge of what they are listening to would seem to be an utterly logical first step. The argument that these expert listeners have such superior hearing and judgment that they can remember in clear and total detail what something sounded like three weeks ago in a different room with different speakers and different tracks at different volume levels and thus make 100% judgments off differences between A and B and are not in any way (conscious or not) swayed by appearance or price stretches credulity.
  
 The late Tom Nousaine did some interesting tests. he gave listeners a box that had a circuit in it that was either a transparent pass through or introduced 2.5% distortion. Long term listeners scored randomly (50/50) in their ability to determine if the box had distortion or not. Then the distortion was plugged into a signal using a ABX box listeners able to switch between two signals (distorted/undistorted) quickly performed far better


----------



## icebear

castleofargh said:


> they have that kind of unique situation where measurements and subjective opinions can mix and oppose each other. if anything, compared to most other guys, I would say that at least they have some measurements and I greatly appreciate that.
> 
> now when the graphs show a problem and the feedback is "it sounds amazing", I have to say that I'm always wondering if it's one of those cases where distortions sound nice, or *if it's marketing and mutual interests that are typing on the keyboard at that moment. *
> ...


 
 There is for sure a chance that measurements show some kinds of odd behavior but the equipment sound subjectively good.
 But in general there can be no doubt that advertising and reviews go hand in hand. There isn't a single product review in the you know what hifi magazine (in any country) of a companie's product and the related full ad page of that manufacturer is either before the review or directly behind. Sometime next issue announcements are followed by back page high gloss ads. So much for objective reviews


----------



## watchnerd

icebear said:


> There is for sure a chance that measurements show some kinds of odd behavior but the equipment sound subjectively good.
> But in general there can be no doubt that advertising and reviews go hand in hand. There isn't a single product review in the you know what hifi magazine (in any country) of a companie's product and the related full ad page of that manufacturer is either before the review or directly behind. Sometime next issue announcements are followed by back page high gloss ads. So much for objective reviews


 
  
 This is why I adore "No Audiophile" website.  All the gear is either bought by him or lent to him by friends / readers.  He pulls speakers apart, measures them, does crazy DSP experiments. Plus it's hilarious.  His RMAF coverage alone is worth the read.


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > they have that kind of unique situation where measurements and subjective opinions can mix and oppose each other. if anything, compared to most other guys, I would say that at least they have some measurements and I greatly appreciate that.
> ...



AFAIR, you left out one important aspect of Nousaine's test - prior to ABXing the testers were given training


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> AFAIR, you left out one important aspect of Nousaine's test - prior to ABXing the testers were given training


 
  
  
 My apologies I was conflating two studies. The box study was (Greenhill, L. L. and Clark, D. L., "Equipment Profile", Audio, (April 1985))  (2.5% distortion) and the members of two audiophile clubs (no sample size given). The long term test was as long as the subject wanted and the short term switching test was indeed preceded by 45 minutes training. But now subjects could reliably detect distortion levels down to 0.4%
  
 The Nousaine follow up was CDs with distorted or undistorted signals (but now 4% distortion)  the result for the long term test was over a period of 13 weeks with 16 audiophile subjects (most subjects kept the CD for between 1 and 4 weeks - average of 2.7 weeks apart from the two who kept the CD for all 13 weeks) the 16 subjects scoring 10/16 overall with no correlation between length of CD loan and accuracy.


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > AFAIR, you left out one important aspect of Nousaine's test - prior to ABXing the testers were given training
> ...


So it wasn't Nousaine, OK



> The Nousaine follow up was CDs with distorted or undistorted signals (but now 4% distortion)  the result for the long term test was over a period of 13 weeks with 16 audiophile subjects (most subjects kept the CD for between 1 and 4 weeks - average of 2.7 weeks apart from the two who kept the CD for all 13 weeks) the 16 subjects scoring 10/16 overall with no correlation between length of CD loan and accuracy.



The way I saw this being reported was that *only one CD* was sent to each listener, not both CDs for their long-term comparison. So, what if this is correct, would that prove?

"Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of 
CD-Rs. One set of CD-Rs was a bit-for-bit copy of a commercially released 
song. The second set added 4% harmonic distortion to the song. He mailed the 
disks to 16 audiophiles and asked them whether they had received a clean 
disk or a distorted disk. Again, results were null. He then administered an 
ABX test to one of the subjects who had gotten it wrong. Using a looped 
6-second extract of the song, this subject was able to score perfectly."


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> So it wasn't Nousaine, OK
> The way I saw this being reported was that *only one CD* was sent to each listener, not both CDs for their long-term comparison. So, what if this is correct, would that prove?
> 
> "Experiment #2 was conducted by Tom Nousaine in 1996. He prepared two sets of
> ...


 
  
 It would _suggest_ that long term listening is not particularly good for detecting quite high levels of distortion on that specific track on the CD medium across a variety of listeners on their systems - we have no info on the nature of their playback systems***meaningful that is ***
  
  

  
  
 I did not bother reporting the Nousaine one subject follow up (I dug out the paper)  as one subject proves very little, he should have used a bigger sample


----------



## RRod

mmerrill99 said:


> AFAIR, you left out one important aspect of Nousaine's test - prior to ABXing the testers were given training


 
  
 For those of us without the paper, what was the training?


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > So it wasn't Nousaine, OK
> ...


Well, first point to make is that your first report of this test led one to believe that they could tell the difference using long-term listening between two CDs that they had been given, one with 4% distortion on it. This is very different to what actually happened in the test, it would seem. So the normal procedure suggested for long term listening is by comparing two devices over a period of time, not listening to something & deciding in isolation if this is distorted - I think there was an example given on a video recently of 4% clipping distortion that isn't so audibly noticeable (I think about 10% was where it became audible) whereas a much lower level of crossover distortion was audible. The reason given for this was that real music spends more time in crossover area this area than in the clipping domain. 



> It would _suggest_ that long term listening is not particularly good for detecting quite high levels of distortion on that specific track on the CD medium across a variety of listeners on their systems - we have no info on the nature of their playback systems***meaningful that is ***
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The second point to make/ask is - do we know what distortion was added? Some distortions at 4% won't disturb our normal experience of what we are listening to as I said above


----------



## nick_charles

rrod said:


> For those of us without the paper, what was the training?


 
  
  
 For the first study subjects were exposed to 13% distortion which is pretty bad , that seems to be all. Then in the test proper they had to detect distortion of 4%, then it was lowered to 2% and then down to 0.4% and these levels were reliably detected by all subjects


----------



## RRod

nick_charles said:


> For the first study subjects were exposed to 13% distortion which is pretty bad , that seems to be all. Then in the test proper they had to detect distortion of 4%, then it was lowered to 2% and then down to 0.4% and these levels were reliably detected by all subjects


 
  
 So start with a really pathological case, then tone it down. Seems like exactly what many of us have done with other audio parameters in various personal ABX tests.


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> Well, first point to make is that your first report of this test led one to believe that they could tell the difference using long-term listening between two CDs that they had been given, one with 4% distortion on it. This is very different to what actually happened in the test, it would seem. So the normal procedure suggested for long term listening is by comparing two devices over a period of time, not listening to something & deciding in isolation if this is distorted - I think there was an example given on a video recently of 4% clipping distortion that isn't so audibly noticeable (I think about 10% was where it became audible) whereas a much lower level of crossover distortion was audible. The reason given for this was that real music spends more time in crossover area this area than in the clipping domain.
> The second point to make/ask is - do we know what distortion was added? Some distortions at 4% won't disturb our normal experience of what we are listening to as I said above


 
  
 I did not imply that, that is your inference. I did not mention CDs till my second post after I went back to the paper. Initially I only mentioned the infamous box which I clearly stated **either** had distortion or not and when I mentioned the CD test I also said that the listeners got a CD not two CDs you misinterpreted this.
  
 Harmonic distortion on both studies.


----------



## mmerrill99

I feel lots of generalisations & simplifications being made above
- This video is worth looking at - about 25 mins in some audience tests of audibility of various distortions


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, first point to make is that your first report of this test led one to believe that they could tell the difference using long-term listening between two CDs that they had been given, one with 4% distortion on it. This is very different to what actually happened in the test, it would seem. So the normal procedure suggested for long term listening is by comparing two devices over a period of time, not listening to something
> ...



Yes, I know you incorrectly stated the first test was from Nousaine but when you went back to the paper & reported the follow-up Nousaine test it was easy to miss the fact that only one CD was given to each listener so they hadn't the 2nd CD for comparison in their long term listening. In their ABX testing they have the 2nd CD to compare. I would call this a lot less of a test than it's purported to be


----------



## nick_charles

rrod said:


> So start with a really pathological case, then tone it down. Seems like exactly what many of us have done with other audio parameters in various personal ABX tests.


 
  
 Yep, I did the same with some lowpass filter tests. I was trying to emulate the pre-CD JVC studies which had very high range speakers and Synthesizer noodling (above 30 KHz)  and progressively lower cutoffs, in their DBTs they found that none of their 32 subjects (audio engineers, producers and musicians) could reliably detect a cutoff at 16K , many could not detect a 14K lowpass, - they concluded that a cutoff at 20K was probably good to go...with my hearing it was about 13k - 14k (less now I guess, ho hum)


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> Yes, I know you incorrectly stated the first test was from Nousaine





> *and I did apologize for this, I'm not going to apologize again  *





>





> but when you went back to the paper & reported the follow-up Nousaine test it was easy to miss the fact that only one CD was given to each listener so they hadn't the 2nd CD for comparison in their long term listening. In their ABX testing they have the 2nd CD to compare. I would call this a lot less of a test than it's purported to be


 
  
 It is (was) what it was - make of it what you like.
  
  


nick_charles said:


> The Nousaine follow up was CDs with distorted or undistorted signals (but now 4% distortion)  the result for the long term test was over a period of 13 weeks with 16 audiophile subjects (most subjects kept *the CD *for between 1 and 4 weeks - average of 2.7 weeks apart from the two who kept *the CD* for all 13 weeks) the 16 subjects scoring 10/16 overall with no correlation between length of CD loan and accuracy.


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> I feel lots of generalisations & simplifications being made above
> - This video is worth looking at - about 25 mins in some audience tests of audibility of various distortions


 
  
  
 For a presentation by an engineer it does not look promising. First he announces his audiophile credentials (I'm one of you) and then makes a set of assertions "good sounding kit can have crappy specs and vice versa we all know this" I paraphrase, but this is standard audiophile cant and this does not fill me with great confidence, nevertheless I will persevere... tomorrow, I'm gonna finish listening to Lohengrin and watch the snow  stay safe and warm everyone !


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, first point to make is that your first report of this test led one to believe that they could tell the difference using long-term listening between two CDs that they had been given, one with 4% distortion on it. This is very different to what actually happened in the test, it would seem. So the normal procedure suggested for long term listening is by comparing two devices over a period of time, not listening to something
> ...




Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing

- both tests were set-up by people who had a particular bias & this bias was easily seen in their experimental setup - both suffered from experimenter bias
- in the first test the training before the ABX test shows the experimenter bias
- in the other test, the use of one CD without an ability to compare to the second CD is again experimenter bias in evidence & nothing like how long term listening is conducted where different music is listened to over a long period & often back & forth A/B testing done


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing
> 
> - both tests were set-up by people who had a particular bias & this bias was easily seen in their experimental setup - both suffered from experimenter bias
> - in the first test the training before the ABX test shows the experimenter bias
> - in the other test, the use of one CD without an ability to compare to the second CD is again experimenter bias in evidence & nothing like how long term listening is conducted where different music is listened to over a long period & often back & forth A/B testing done


 

  
 I interpret this as listeners could take the box out of the circuit any time they liked.
  

  
 So listeners  could use a known clean CD just not simultanesously


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > Your original post that started this was about long term listening in reviewers. I agreed with most of your post but you lost it when you went to these examples which were just confused examples of long term listening Vs ABX testing
> ...


As I said already - these participants were trained prior to ABX - not exactly an attempt to deal with just one variable, is it - why didn't they do the training before the long-term listening so they were trained what to listen for? Experimenter bias in evidence!! 



> So listeners  could use a known clean CD just not simultanesously


You mean they could find the same music, put it on another CD & do A/B comparisons? Do you know if any of them did this? If this was considered an option, why weren't the two CDs just given to them?

I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!


----------



## nick_charles

mmerrill99 said:


> I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!


 
 Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ! - you do this all the time - you make up all sorts of speculations about motivation, bias, how different tests are predisposed to one result or another and so on.


----------



## mmerrill99

nick_charles said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you are just making up possibilities to try to win a forum debate!
> ...


You are welcome to call me on it anytime you feel I'm doing so - just as I am calling you on doing so now!


----------



## watchnerd




----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


>


 
 Fair comment ! - 4 hours of shoveling snow puts things in perspective !


----------



## Baldr

Here is a variation of something elsewhere posted but also relevant here:
  
 Please allow me to take this opportunity to express my creed with respect to science and my chosen work. I should clarify to all concerned that my knowledge and expertise on cognitive neurology approaches zero. This means I am limited to my observations rather than other current experts in a field where said science is not completely known. In fact, the technology of very few, if any such sciences are completely known. My next statement is that I view this as a learning process until all experiments have been run.
  
I am an engineer first, scientist second – that means I build things, compare them with others, and then decide whether to build them or not as a production item. My chosen experiments for the most part, are the comparisons above. The comparisons are not just adjudged by myself; I also choose others for input and observation. Not to so would keep me too much in a vacuum. More on that later.
  
The science is I believe that all valid sonic differences should measurable. If the standard regimen of audio tests (frequency response, distortion, etc.) cannot measure a sonic difference, then either the sonic difference is invalid or a measurement to verify is not yet known. Simple. Either outcome is what it is. If it cannot eventually be measured, it must eventually be dismissed as para-audio.
  
 Turning to DBTs. I have written elsewhere that I have been the subject of many of these tests, usually with my own gear and someone else's most of them 35 years or so ago. Such determinations were difficult, but I could detect my own gear at the time consistently 7-9 times out of ten. Granted, this was over tube-solid state gear boundaries and differing RIAA equalizations.  My point is that while subjecting myself to ABX tests, it is a form of listening that is completely different than listening for enjoyment. In an ABX test, I am in a much more alert and stressed (must perform) state of mind, listening to micro details of the passing parade of music in a competitive effort to differentiate them; when listening to music for pleasure, it is a much more macro and integrative view of the entire parade – the pressure is gone and I can focus on the music creator's intention or message. I cannot be arrogant enough to believe that all is scientifically known about ABX differential tests of audio gear to declare them *the* sole test of value judgement or value equality. If that makes me a “real science” deviant, then so be it. Now this applies to me and the equipment I build *only*.
  
I have also written elsewhere that I rely on narrative and observational information to form a hypothesis. This is precisely how detectives solve murder cases. If experiments verify, then a hypothesis becomes scientific. Therefore I freely admit I rely on observational and narrative constructs in my engineering. Not to do so places any scientific progress in peril. As I have written before, my wife's favorite album of all time is Supertramp's _Crime of the Century, __s_o much so that she wants parts of it played at her funeral. When I play it with a multibit Bifrost and Yggy, she repeatedly cries. When I play it to her on a variety of DS DACs, she does not. She has no dog in any fight, and does not give a Schiit what DAC she is listening to. There are many, other similar experiences I have witnessed. I am investigating them at the expense of a lot of my time. More may be revealed. I also freely admit that (although I do not know all of the reasons why – still working on it) that while practicing my hobby of listening to music in a relaxed manner I prefer multi-bit. That is for me only. You may judge me delusional, agree, or prefer DS. All that is none of my business.
  
I build DACs at Schiit from $100 to $2300. The more expensive ones may (or sometimes may not) be adjudged sonically superior by narratives and observations. Schiit does not, and never will, portray or warranty any of our DACs (or amps) to perform in any sonic or subjective way. We publish and are proud of all of our specs. Our website on the $100 DAC states that “This may be the only DAC you ever need” and that is very true.
  
None of this missive is intended to be an indictment of anyone else's views. You are entitled to them. Cherish them. In any event, the above is applicable to me. One of my philosophical influences is below:
  
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
BERTRAND RUSSELL, _Mortals and Others_
  
One more:
"Trust but verify"  RONALD REAGAN


----------



## cjl

baldr said:


> I build DACs at Schiit from $100 to $2300. The more expensive ones may (or sometimes may not) be adjudged sonically superior by narratives and observations. Schiit does not, and never will, portray or warranty any of our DACs (or amps) to perform in any sonic or subjective way. We publish and are proud of all of our specs. Our website on the $100 DAC states that “This may be the only DAC you ever need” and that is very true.


 
 I have to say, I really do appreciate this fact about your DACs. It's refreshing to see a company take this position, though I do wish you'd publish a more detailed set of specs for data nerds and other engineers out there.


----------



## watchnerd

baldr said:


> The science is I believe that all valid sonic differences should measurable. If the standard regimen of audio tests (frequency response, distortion, etc.) cannot measure a sonic difference, then either the sonic difference is invalid or a measurement to verify is not yet known. Simple. Either outcome is what it is. If it cannot eventually be measured, it must eventually be dismissed as para-audio.


 
  
 Would you say the the differences between R2R & DS DACs (on the analog side), are currently measurable or are better categorized as not yet known?


----------



## Sonic Defender

Ultimately I think we can all agree that it is possible to build very musical DACs based on either architecture, the devil is in the details as they say. Personally, what I believe makes a significant difference, almost regardless of the chip topology is the quality of the analogue stage and the power supply. While not as critical as in amplification, a quality, stable power supply is important. As they say, it is the sum of the parts that gives us the whole. I am perfectly happy with a well done DS design, which I consider my NAD M51 to be an example of; however, my next DAC is quite likely to be the Yggy or Multibit Gungnir as my past experience with a Gungnir I owned for three years was very positive.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Ultimately I think we can all agree that it is possible to build very musical DACs based on either architecture, the devil is in the details as they say. Personally, what I believe makes a significant difference, almost regardless of the chip topology is the quality of the analogue stage and the power supply. While not as critical as in amplification, a quality, stable power supply is important. As they say, it is the sum of the parts that gives us the whole. I am perfectly happy with a well done DS design, which I consider my NAD M51 to be an example of; however, my next DAC is quite likely to be the Yggy or Multibit Gungnir as my past experience with a Gungnir I owned for three years was very positive.


 
  
 The M51 is a nice piece of equipment. Why replace it?


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> The M51 is a nice piece of equipment. Why replace it?


 
 It is lovely, and I may not replace it, but sadly I always thirst to experience a new sound signature. I change my gear more to have a breadth of experience as opposed to solve a deficiency per say.


----------



## OddE

sonic defender said:


> It is lovely, and I may not replace it, but sadly I always thirst to experience a new sound signature. I change my gear more to have a breadth of experience as opposed to solve a deficiency per say.




-This is a serious suggestion, though I do realise it will probably come off as rather snarky - have you considered adding a decent-quality equalizer to your setup? 

Works a charm, be it as a sw plugin or a physical device. (A 3-band parametric eq transformed my headphone listening years ago - haven't looked back since.)


----------



## mindbomb

You actually bring up a good point with the EQ. The difference some people may be hearing is a roll off of the high frequencies in r2r due to different filtering. I wonder if you just lower 10khz -20khz by 2 db with eq, if that evokes the sound people associate with r2r dacs in delta sigma dacs.


----------



## watchnerd

odde said:


> -This is a serious suggestion, though I do realise it will probably come off as rather snarky - have you considered adding a decent-quality equalizer to your setup?
> 
> Works a charm, be it as a sw plugin or a physical device. (A 3-band parametric eq transformed my headphone listening years ago - haven't looked back since.)


 
  
 Ditto...in my living room I have an OpenDRC-DI.  It has a 6 band PEQ and FIR/IIR filters.  This allows me to diddle and dial infinitely with tonal flavors.
  
 It's also highly educational about how equipment voicing works.  Want more soundstage depth?  Drop 1600 Hz by about -1 to -2 dB.  Want more detail? Pop up 8000 hz by about +1 to +2 dB. etc etc.
  
 My next speaker upgrade will be geared around things the EQ can't touch: directivity and distortion.


----------



## Sonic Defender

odde said:


> -This is a serious suggestion, though I do realise it will probably come off as rather snarky - have you considered adding a decent-quality equalizer to your setup?
> 
> Works a charm, be it as a sw plugin or a physical device. (A 3-band parametric eq transformed my headphone listening years ago - haven't looked back since.)


 
 Not snarky at all. I do have a nice parametric EQ built into JRiver which I rarely use. Regardless of the ease of use, typically I just don't like to fiddle much with EQs as once you do it, and it is great for some material, then you find material you think it isn't helping, well on you go again to a new tweak. Kind of like tube rolling. Still, I get your point, new sound signatures can be invented almost at will with some well thought out EQ settings. Thank you, I may actually be tempted to play around like this a little.


----------



## castleofargh

mindbomb said:


> You actually bring up a good point with the EQ. The difference some people may be hearing is a roll off of the high frequencies in r2r due to different filtering. I wonder if you just lower 10khz -20khz by 2 db with eq, if that evokes the sound people associate with r2r dacs in delta sigma dacs.


 

 I also wondered how often it's that simple. if difference in the DAC max voltage output, plus a little difference in the treble roll off could really be most of all the rage about night and day differences(the actual ones, not the usual dreamers)? or if maybe the guy never set his windows output correctly, and ends up with one DAC using a proprietary asio driver with the proper resolution, and the other DAC using default settings where the guy never thought to go bit perfect and has a crappy resampling done by windows as the last step, or some soundcard DSP kicking in?
 all those stuff that have nothing to do with the quality of the DAC but end up sounding different sometimes.
  
 but of course ruling out those factors in the actual audiophile community, that's some Don Quixote kind of challenge.


----------



## watchnerd

castleofargh said:


> but of course ruling out those factors in the actual audiophile community, that's some Don Quixote kind of challenge.


 
  
 I think it's best to view it with bemusement and to start collecting and hoarding old DAC chips. 
  
 Time to go to Goodwill and start gutting CD players?


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> I think it's best to view it with bemusement and to start collecting and hoarding old DAC chips.
> 
> Time to go to Goodwill and start gutting CD players?


 
 Funny you say that, I recently picked up a 90s issue Rotel CD player with a nice 16bit chip (or two I think). I know people do take the chips out and build kit DACs from them. Not my bag, but it would be fun.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> Funny you say that, I recently picked up a 90s issue Rotel CD player with a nice 16bit chip (or two I think). I know people do take the chips out and build kit DACs from them. Not my bag, but it would be fun.


 
  
 Stick it on a piece of wood, charge 6k for it!


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> Stick it on a piece of wood, charge 6k for it!


 
 I'm thinking more like 4K, but if I go Carrera Marble I might hit the 6K figure. I actually sold it to my friend for $30 including a pretty decent 90s vintage Denon receiver, everything mint with remote.


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> I'm thinking more like 4K


 
  
 Clearly looking out for the little guy. A regular man of the people!


----------



## tonykaz

Here's a funny one:  
  
 The Absolute Sound Glossy Mag. considers R2R to be Reel to Reel!  
  
 I just saw it on their Web page talking about some outfit making tape machines. 
  
 Tape's only use has been on Credit Cards, over the last few years.  
  
 I wonder if they still love Sony Trinatron TVs ?, or TVs with tubes? God Bless em. 
  
 Very Old School True Believers, phew.
  
 Tony in Michigan


----------



## watchnerd

tonykaz said:


> Here's a funny one:
> 
> The Absolute Sound Glossy Mag. considers R2R to be Reel to Reel!
> 
> ...


 
  
 2015 was the year I almost got into reel-to-reel.  I still might...
  
 2016 might be the year I get into FM radio.  I have my eye on a super sexy Revox tuner.
  
 Combine that with a Revox reel-to-reel, or a swanky Revox cassette deck, and I'll be rockin the analog from all directions.


----------



## Baldr

watchnerd said:


> Would you say the the differences between R2R & DS DACs (on the analog side), are currently measurable or are better categorized as not yet known?


 

 Please all, forgive me for returning to a semblance of the topic.  Measurable, yes and clearly.  DS DACs, which due to their architecture contain no inherent nonmonotonicity, are incapable of accurately decoding a complete set of twos compliment codes per bit-width at any rate other than static, at best.  SD ADC's suffer from the same problem, although Analog Devices has a filter solution on at least one of their parts which allow for conversions up to a sampling rate of 30Hz or so (may be slightly higher these days - I refer the interested reader to them).  No missing codes is a huge no-no for weapons technology.  The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery.  The the makers of AD5791BRUZ and AD5781BRUZ D/A chips of which we use one per phase on our two top converters provide an evaluation board which is designed to be used with a pc and precise voltage measuring system to input all 20 bits and 18 bits worth of code, respectively.  This no missing codes problem is due in part to the fact that all of the original samples are discarded and then later successively approximated in the filters inherent to SD and DS technology.  Thus my extreme mistrust of SD and DS tech.  The DS advantage is cost and that anyone with a middle school reading capability (as well as some brighter simians) can design one after reading the cookbook data sheets.  It seems there is a condescending attitude by the major semiconductor makers towards "audio" parts as written and drawn in their data sheets.  This attitude is clearly missing in say, DSP processor, microwave, and flash memory data sheets.  It also explains why so many designs are very similar, with the exception of badger testosterone treated and previously twice frozen parts offered by progressive manufacturers.  Some of those may even be upgradable by teleportation.  (No schiit, I read all about it on the internet!  Really!!)


----------



## OddE

sonic defender said:


> Not snarky at all. I do have a nice parametric EQ built into JRiver which I rarely use. Regardless of the ease of use, typically I just don't like to fiddle much with EQs as once you do it, and it is great for some material, then you find material you think it isn't helping, well on you go again to a new tweak. Kind of like tube rolling. Still, I get your point, new sound signatures can be invented almost at will with some well thought out EQ settings. Thank you, I may actually be tempted to play around like this a little.


 
  
 -Excellent! (I was just being a bit cautious, as suggesting EQ to improve fidelity doesn't go down too well with most head-fi patrons... 
  
 As @watchnerd points out, tinkering with EQ is a terrific way to train your ears, too - and, if you find that different music benefits from different EQ, a strong case can be made for a SW EQ which lets you save a number of presets.


----------



## Sonic Defender

baldr said:


> Please all, forgive me for returning to a semblance of the topic.  Measurable, yes and clearly.  DS DACs, which due to their architecture contain no inherent nonmonotonicity, are incapable of accurately decoding a complete set of twos compliment codes per bit-width at any rate other than static, at best.  SD ADC's suffer from the same problem, although Analog Devices has a filter solution on at least one of their parts which allow for conversions up to a sampling rate of 30Hz or so (may be slightly higher these days - I refer the interested reader to them).  No missing codes is a huge no-no for weapons technology.  The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery.  The the makers of AD5791BRUZ and AD5781BRUZ D/A chips of which we use one per phase on our two top converters provide an evaluation board which is designed to be used with a pc and precise voltage measuring system to input all 20 bits and 18 bits worth of code, respectively.  This no missing codes problem is due in part to the fact that all of the original samples are discarded and then later successively approximated in the filters inherent to SD and DS technology.  Thus my extreme mistrust of SD and DS tech.  The DS advantage is cost and that anyone with a middle school reading capability (as well as some brighter simians) can design one after reading the cookbook data sheets.  It seems there is a condescending attitude by the major semiconductor makers towards "audio" parts as written and drawn in their data sheets.  This attitude is clearly missing in say, DSP processor, microwave, and flash memory data sheets.  It also explains why so many designs are very similar, with the exception of badger testosterone treated and previously twice frozen parts offered by progressive manufacturers.  Some of those may even be upgradable by teleportation.  (No schiit, I read all about it on the internet!  Really!!)


 
 All of that not withstanding, there really are some nice sound DS DACs out there, and I'm sure for you the original Gungnir while not the pinnacle of your art would nonetheless deserve your respect to an extent anyway. The Gungnir was one of my favourite audio components and one of the longest tenured one for me at three years. Normally I sell gear faster, but the Gungnir was special, despite it's DS pedigree.


----------



## watchnerd

baldr said:


> Please all, forgive me for returning to a semblance of the topic.  Measurable, yes and clearly.  DS DACs, which due to their architecture contain no inherent nonmonotonicity, are incapable of accurately decoding a complete set of twos compliment codes per bit-width at any rate other than static, at best.  SD ADC's suffer from the same problem, although Analog Devices has a filter solution on at least one of their parts which allow for conversions up to a sampling rate of 30Hz or so (may be slightly higher these days - I refer the interested reader to them).  No missing codes is a huge no-no for weapons technology.  The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery.  The the makers of AD5791BRUZ and AD5781BRUZ D/A chips of which we use one per phase on our two top converters provide an evaluation board which is designed to be used with a pc and precise voltage measuring system to input all 20 bits and 18 bits worth of code, respectively.  This no missing codes problem is due in part to the fact that all of the original samples are discarded and then later successively approximated in the filters inherent to SD and DS technology.  Thus my extreme mistrust of SD and DS tech.  The DS advantage is cost and that anyone with a middle school reading capability (as well as some brighter simians) can design one after reading the cookbook data sheets.  It seems there is a condescending attitude by the major semiconductor makers towards "audio" parts as written and drawn in their data sheets.  This attitude is clearly missing in say, DSP processor, microwave, and flash memory data sheets.  It also explains why so many designs are very similar, with the exception of badger testosterone treated and previously twice frozen parts offered by progressive manufacturers.  Some of those may even be upgradable by teleportation.  (No schiit, I read all about it on the internet!  Really!!)


 
  
 Okay, but I'm still not quite getting what you're measuring to tell the difference between the two.
  
 If I gave you two black boxes, each with an analog out, what would you measure to determine which one was DS vs which one was multibit?


----------



## mmerrill99

baldr said:


> Please all, forgive me for returning to a semblance of the topic.  Measurable, yes and clearly.  *DS DACs, which due to their architecture contain no inherent nonmonotonicity, are incapable of accurately decoding a complete set of twos compliment codes per bit-width at any rate other than static, at best.*  SD ADC's suffer from the same problem, although _Analog Devices has a filter solution on at least one of their parts which allow for conversions up to a sampling rate of 30Hz_ or so (may be slightly higher these days - I refer the interested reader to them).  No missing codes is a huge no-no for weapons technology.  The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery.  The the makers of AD5791BRUZ and AD5781BRUZ D/A chips of which we use one per phase on our two top converters provide an evaluation board which is designed to be used with a pc and precise voltage measuring system to input all 20 bits and 18 bits worth of code, respectively.  This no missing codes problem is due in part to the fact that all of the original samples are discarded and then later successively approximated in the filters inherent to SD and DS technology.  Thus my extreme mistrust of SD and DS tech.  The DS advantage is cost and that anyone with a middle school reading capability (as well as some brighter simians) can design one after reading the cookbook data sheets.  It seems there is a condescending attitude by the major semiconductor makers towards "audio" parts as written and drawn in their data sheets.  This attitude is clearly missing in say, DSP processor, microwave, and flash memory data sheets.  It also explains why so many designs are very similar, with the exception of badger testosterone treated and previously twice frozen parts offered by progressive manufacturers.  Some of those may even be upgradable by teleportation.  (No schiit, I read all about it on the internet!  Really!!)




I like your writing style. Is there s Schiit school of technical writing? 

I'm very interested in what you say - just trying to tease it out so I can understand it. Can you say more about the bit in bold, please - I don't really comprehend it's meaning? Sure I understand the inherent monotonicity of 1bit modulation but I guess most SD DACs now are hybrid devices with 5 or 6 bits & various segmentation schemes. I'm not disagreeing with your analysis, just wish to understand it better. Like you I use my auditory processing & not measurements as the criteria to judge the sonic qualities of a device & so far, in my limited experience, R2R has certain sonic qualities that seem to be related to less temporal smear but there may be other underlying causes.

If you could also give a link to the Analog Devices filtering that you mentioned, I would also appreciate it


----------



## Maconi

Although slightly off-topic (from R2R vs DS), I wonder why these DAC battles don't really carry over to the ADC world? Quality R2R options (like what Schiit offers) don't seem to exist and the DS options seem extremely limited (at reasonable prices). A recently popular ADC chip seems to be the Burr Brown PCM4220 for example. I'm currently bouncing between the Tascam UH-7000 (supposedly good mic and headphone preamps) and the Audient iD22 (better drivers/latency and a built-in JFET hi-z for electric guitar) both of which have the PCM4220.


----------



## RRod

baldr said:


> …The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery…


 
  
 So what's the human-detectable analog to hitting the wrong target out of the DAC?


----------



## sonitus mirus

rrod said:


> So what's the human-detectable analog to hitting the wrong target out of the DAC?


 
  
 It seems more like an ant hill is being destroyed and we are discussing whether a fusion or fission bomb is better suited for the job.


----------



## artur9

rrod said:


> So what's the human-detectable analog to hitting the wrong target out of the DAC?


 

 A tuba sounds like a bassoon?
  
 Toscanini sounds likes Fiedler?
  
 Frank sounds like Sade?


----------



## Baldr

*DS DACs, which due to their architecture contain no inherent nonmonotonicity, are incapable of accurately decoding a complete set of twos compliment codes per bit-width at any rate other than static, at best.*
  
 Quote:


mmerrill99 said:


> I like your writing style. Is there s Schiit school of technical writing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 It may have been more clear if I had included a definition of twos compliment, the coding scheme of every audio AD/DA converter I have ever seen:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two%27s_complement
  
 No missing codes:
 https://www.maximintegrated.com/en/app-notes/index.mvp/id/748
  
 And how this relates to digital to analog converters:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_nonlinearity
  
 I really have included the above to be helpful with the above links for your own research as starting points.  You may try searching the Analog devices site for "no missing codes" to find what you seek.
  
  
  Quote:


watchnerd said:


> Okay, but I'm still not quite getting what you're measuring to tell the difference between the two.
> 
> If I gave you two black boxes, each with an analog out, what would you measure to determine which one was DS vs which one was multibit?


 
  
 You need a voltage measuring precise to tens/hundreds of microvolts for 14-16 volt systems, and ones/tens of microvolts for 18-20 bit systems - The system is an A/D system with no missing codes and the D/A converter under test to see if the voltage measurements match.  If a code is missing, the difference will not be trivial.
  


rrod said:


> So what's the human-detectable analog to hitting the wrong target out of the DAC?


 

 A careful reading of the post would reveal that I was only answering a question - I never made any such assertion of an analog.  My human detectable assertions and opinions were made in post #713 above.


----------



## mmerrill99

baldr said:


> mmerrill99 said:
> 
> 
> > I like your writing style. Is there s Schiit school of technical writing?
> ...




Ah, yes, A DNL error of <±1LSB guarantees no missing codes - I just hadn't seen it expressed in that way but it's obvious. Sorry for being so dumb.


----------



## RRod

baldr said:


> You need a voltage measuring precise to tens/hundreds of microvolts for 14-16 volt systems, and ones/tens of microvolts for 18-20 bit systems - The system is an A/D system with no missing codes and the D/A converter under test to see if the voltage measurements match.  If a code is missing, the difference will not be trivial.
> 
> 
> A careful reading of the post would reveal that I was only answering a question - I never made any such assertion of an analog.  My human detectable assertions and opinions were made in post #713 above.


 
  
 I didn't claim you made an assertion, I was asking what in fact the analog might be. That is, when do these missing codes become an audible issue, not just a measurement issue.


----------



## charleski

baldr said:


> No missing codes is a huge no-no for weapons technology.  The missile must hit the weapons dump as opposed to the nunnery.  The the makers of AD5791BRUZ and AD5781BRUZ D/A chips of which we use one per phase on our two top converters provide an evaluation board which is designed to be used with a pc and precise voltage measuring system to input all 20 bits and 18 bits worth of code, respectively.  This no missing codes problem is due in part to the fact that all of the original samples are discarded and then later successively approximated in the filters inherent to SD and DS technology.  Thus my extreme mistrust of SD and DS tech.


  
 Well it's certainly true that ΔΣ technology is based on transforming a PCM input signal into a different domain as PDM. But I can't see why this would be a crucial problem. There are plenty of R2R-PCM DAC chips that also transform their input signals in order to leverage circuit designs that allow greater linearity. The venerable PCM63, for instance, was based on a colinear design composed of two DACs sharing an R2R ladder so they could convert the twos-complement input into unsigned values. It was also, of course, designed to be fed by an 8x oversampling filter which grossly transformed the 16bit inputs from CD. The AD5791 you mention handles the upper 6 MSBs through 63 dedicated resistor switches and the rest of the signal by an R2R ladder, a transformation that underlines the fact that some bits are more equal than others and reflects a logical allocation of resources.
  
 Now, it's certainly true that it's _simpler _to trace the transformation in the last two cases, and it's easy to see the correspondence between input and output, even though it's not precisely 1-to-1. Any oversampling of the input will introduce integration, but it's still fairly easy to understand. ΔΣ transforms, on the other hand, are a lot more complex, consist of multiple stages, have multiple possible topologies, and if you really want to understand them you need to consult some textbooks. But they're still fundamentally deterministic. The output reflects the input without any 'approximation' taking place beyond the constraints imposed by the noise inherent in all physical instantiations of circuitry, and ΔΣ designs are centered around pushing that noise out to places where it doesn't matter and can be removed with ease.
  
 I'm not quite sure why you're so concerned about the 'no missing codes' criterion, since that applies to ADCs and not DACs: it basically refers to an ADC's ability to sweep through the entire range of output values without missing any as the input sweeps through its full range. It's certainly desireable, but any decent modern ΔΣ ADC can fulfill that requirement.
  


> The DS advantage is cost


 
  
 And that's really the take-home message, isn't it? Let's not beat about the bush, a modern high-precision PCM DAC like the AD5791 is obscenely expensive, almost ten times the price of a ΔΣ DAC of comparable quality. Since this is BOM cost, it gets transmitted and multiplied all the way up the chain and the cost to the consumer balloons.
  
 Now, I can't blame Analog Devices for selling expensive chips, or manufacturers like Schiit for implementing them: if people want this stuff and they're willing to pay for it, then you'd be stupid not to provide products to tap that section of the market. The home audio market has a significant carriage trade component, and only a fool would turn down the margins provided by luxury goods.
  
 But this is a consumer forum, and we're trying to be rational here: if we see one product that costs ten times as much as another we need to ask why we would possibly consider it. You can make perfectly good DACs using ΔΣ technology, and you can make equally good DACs using PCM technology, but the latter will cost considerably more for comparable performance. I can't see any reason to choose the straight PCM option apart from the false equivalence of cost = value.


----------



## kstuart

It's not "comparable performance".
  
 However the performance of the multibit DAC may be unneeded and unnecessary for 99% of listeners, just as 99% of people are not targeting weapons or performing MRIs.


----------



## charleski

kstuart said:


> It's not "comparable performance".
> 
> However the performance of the multibit DAC may be unneeded and unnecessary for 99% of listeners, just as 99% of people are not targeting weapons or performing MRIs.


 
 No No No NO.
  
 If you want to claim a difference in performance you're going to have to prove it. And anecdotes from sighted listening don't cut the mustard, laddy.
  
 By every rational measure both ΔΣ and high-performance multibit DACs perform well beyond the discernable threshold relevant to home audio.


----------



## kstuart

charleski said:


> kstuart said:
> 
> 
> > It's not "comparable performance".
> ...


 

 No, I am sorry, but fools have let this argument slide for years.
  
 If I am judging a BBQ Chicken competition, I do not have to provide a spectrograph measurement proving that one is better than the other.  The venue of food tasting is subjective, by defintion.
  
 The venue of music listening is by definition, subjective.
  
 If you want to claim that a set of measurements perfectly reflects all aspects of subjective sound quality, then the burden of proof is on you.


----------



## Vkamicht

kstuart said:


> No, I am sorry, but fools have let this argument slide for years.
> 
> If I am judging a BBQ Chicken competition, I do not have to provide a spectrograph measurement proving that one is better than the other.


 
  
 You would if you were posting in the BBQ Chicken Science forum.


----------



## charleski

kstuart said:


> No, I am sorry, but fools have let this argument slide for years.
> 
> If I am judging a BBQ Chicken competition, I do not have to provide a spectrograph measurement proving that one is better than the other.  The venue of foot tasting is subjective, by defintion.
> 
> ...


 
 If you're judging a BBQ Chicken competition then everyone's just having a bit of fun and whoever wins doesn't really matter. Are you saying home audio is just a BBQ contest? Well, ok, but there are some people out there paying serious money for their chicken, maybe you should let them know.
  
 Look, why don't you just admit that you don't have any rational foundation to claim that multibit is better? Please, do us all a favour. If you want to come here and say you believe something, then fine, you've got a perfect right to do that. But so what, do you _really _expect to change someone's mind by just making a bald assertion? (Sadly, it _is_ true that just repeating the same thing over and over again can change people's minds, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't the sort of vile miscreant that would adopt such a tactic on purpose.)
  
 Yes, listening to music is a subjective experience, but subjective experiences can be measured with the right experiments. It's a pretty tricky part of neuropsychology and it often needs a lot of refinement and expertise to get the experimental conditions right, but it can be done. So go and do it, then come back and tell us what you found.
  
 What, you aren't going to? ... Thought so. As I've said before, the people who make these subjective claims don't go and do (or fund) the relevant experiments because they're not actually interested in the results.


----------



## limpidglitch

kstuart said:


> The venue of food tasting is subjective, by defintion.


 
  
 This is where the objective/subjective dichotomy breaks down.
 Taste is subjective, but it can still be evaluated without bias.


----------



## kstuart

charleski said:


> kstuart said:
> 
> 
> > No, I am sorry, but fools have let this argument slide for years.
> ...


 
 So far there is a 100% score of audio "objectivists" commenting on cost (I have counted several dozen).
  
 Oscilloscopes do not know the price of a piece of equipment that it is measuring.
  
 Cost is an emotional issue, it is all about the emotional reaction to a $10,000 cable.
  
 So, it is not science, it is "you better have measurements if you are going to charge $10,000 ".
  
 If two manufacturers are both making $200 amps, and one sounds like crap, you don't require anyone to submit measurements before choosing the other $200 amp.


----------



## charleski

kstuart said:


> So far there is a 100% score of audio "objectivists" commenting on cost (I have counted several dozen).
> 
> Oscilloscopes do not know the price of a piece of equipment that it is measuring.
> 
> ...


 
  
 "you better have measurements if you are going to charge $10,000" - Nooo, absolutely not! If someone said he'd give me $10k for a piece of wire you wouldn't find me arguing, I'll tell you that for free!
  
 In case it's not obvious from my earlier post, let me be perfectly clear: As long as they avoid unsupportable flim-flam I'm not criticising the manufacturers who produce carriage trade goods for the home audio market. The carriage trade spans a vast range of segments of the economy and trade in luxury goods is an integral part of capitalism. If you buy a Rolex watch you aren't getting better time-keeping than you'd find in a $5 digital cheapie, but you are getting a well-made piece of jewelry that asserts your wealth, and that's its purpose.
  
 But I'm assuming here that we're talking to people who want to spend their money to attain a specific goal, that of optimal sound reproduction, free of _any _other considerations. In such a circumstance it's rational to seek to spend as little as possible to meet your goal. It's as simple as that. Of course the home audio market, like all markets, is far from rational, and it would be _irrational _not to take advantage of that fact - so sure, if people will buy your $10k piece of wire, go and sell it, you'd be stupid not to. It's the _purchasers _who are irrational, and they're going to have to put up with the fact that people are going to call them stupid.
  
 But enough of this nonsensical diversion. We were talking about transfer functions in signal converters, and if you don't have anything material to add to that conversation please take your notions somewhere else.


----------



## kstuart

I'm fine with that as long as you do not violate the Burden of Proof rules of this Forum.
  
 You said "will cost considerably more for comparable performance" which is an assertion that violates the rule, in the same way that a manufacturer assertion of "superior performance" would also require proof.
  
 And as I mentioned, it is not science, merely emotional human reaction to pricing.


----------



## artur9

charleski said:


> But I'm assuming here that we're talking to people who want to spend their money to attain a specific goal, that of optimal sound reproduction, free of _any _other considerations. In such a circumstance it's rational to seek to spend as little as possible to meet your goal.


 
 I don't see how those two statements follow.  IOW, I think you're projecting with the second statement.  After all, you did say free of any other considerations.
  
 An alternative would be to spend the mean amount spent by a consumer of such goods.  Feel free to substitute another statistical measure such as mode or median or what have you.
  
 P.S.  Bargain hunting is a different worthwhile hobby.  Consider the wrath JCPenny faced when it stopped having sales.


----------



## Baldr

rrod said:


> I didn't claim you made an assertion, I was asking what in fact the analog might be. That is, when do these missing codes become an audible issue, not just a measurement issue.


 

 Apologies for a glib response - I have absolutely NO idea, as I have never attempted any sort of test.  Such a test would either require a variety of differing missing codes ADCs with a constant DAC or spending mucho time engineering and constructing a ADC jig with controllable missing codes.  I have made no missing codes A to D converters which are quite useful in evaluating objective DNLs of DAC chips.


----------



## mindbomb

kstuart said:


> I'm fine with that as long as you do not violate the Burden of Proof rules of this Forum.
> 
> You said "will cost considerably more for comparable performance" which is an assertion that violates the rule, in the same way that a manufacturer assertion of "superior performance" would also require proof.
> 
> And as I mentioned, it is not science, merely emotional human reaction to pricing.


 
 I don't think it does violate the rule because it doesn't seem to be disputed by anyone that delta sigma dacs have an advantage in the cost department, and what he is saying is just a rephrased version of that.
  
 I feel I also share similar views of skepticism, and I'm not sure if it is just an emotional reaction to pricing. Delta sigma dacs can also be very expensive when you start using 4 or 8 of them, as in high end dacs, however since that does provide the dynamic range numbers to show a benefit, I find I'm less hostile to that concept.


----------



## dprimary

kstuart said:


> Cost is an emotional issue, it is all about the emotional reaction to a $10,000 cable.


 
 Usually when I receive a $10,000 cable my first reaction is "I hope the fork lift is working"


----------



## castleofargh

kstuart said:


> It's not "comparable performance".
> 
> However the performance of the multibit DAC may be unneeded and unnecessary for 99% of listeners, just as 99% of people are not targeting weapons or performing MRIs.


 
  
 I wish I could have such a clear opinion, feeding back the Shiit anecdote like it had an actual significance in audio. then I remember there is a crappy nasty sabre chipset full of "errors" inside the benchmark DAC2. and I wonder how many DACs with the superior R2R can really challenge it in performance?
  
 on a personal level, I started like the OP of this topic with "is there such a thing as a R2R sound?", followed by "which tech leads to highest fidelity?". then I moved on to "they both can apparently do better than what I should be able to hear", then fell into "who cares? the rest of the audio chain is much worst and will most likely cover all of it in mud". so I still would enjoy getting some answers to my first questions, because I'm a curious guy, those techs are clever, and wikipedia got me used to getting answers(my youth before internet was hell!!!). but that's really as an intellectual curiosity. the audio consumer in me has lost interest for some time now.


----------



## Baldr

charleski said:


> > The DS advantage is cost
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Let me certainly state that I do indeed have a dog in this fight; Schiit Audio and the DACs that it makes.  We make DACs from $100 to $2300.  Whatever your value judgements are with respect to what others should buy, I point out that the least expensive DACs sport DS AK4490 chips, which are an AKM "Carriage Trade" super taco DAC chip by their own chip positioning.  The $1250 DAC contains 4 (one per phase-stereo) AD5781BRUZ chips and the 4 AD5791BRUZ are reserved for our $2300 DAC.  It policy at Schiit that we make no sonic claims on any of our DACs nor on any of our amplifiers.  Any subjective judgements cannot be proven, period.  
  
 That said, I am extremely proud of our parts cost to price value, particularly in light of our competitors, who really build $10,000 (and up!) converters.  I am an engineer - I am not an opinion leader who tells anyone what to buy.  I have no opinion on my competitor's products.  I am only a designer and maker of 7 current Schiit D/A converters.  Whatever a user buys, whether by Schiit or others, is only my business statistically to tell whether the product I build is of interest to our customer base.  My viewpoint, given the starting price range of our converters is both populist and libertarian.  I mind my own business about what to buy; the world would be more harmonious if everyone else would as well.
  
 Closing my mind to narrative constructs of how things sound differently, particularly from those with no vested interests in the outcome, and particularly when there emerge certain patterns I will never do.  I am sure of nothing (not restricted to the DBT) other than there is still much to be learned and verified.  The conversion of para-audio to audio science fascinates me.


----------



## watchnerd

baldr said:


> Let me certainly state that I do indeed have a dog in this fight; Schiit Audio and the DACs that it makes.  We make DACs from $100 to $2300.  Whatever your value judgements are with respect to what others should buy, I point out that the least expensive DACs sport DS AK4490 chips, which are an AKM "Carriage Trade" super taco DAC chip by their own chip positioning.  The $1250 DAC contains 4 (one per phase-stereo) AD5781BRUZ chips and the 4 AD5791BRUZ are reserved for our $2300 DAC.  It policy at Schiit that we make no sonic claims on any of our DACs nor on any of our amplifiers.  Any subjective judgements cannot be proven, period.
> 
> That said, I am extremely proud of our parts cost to price value, particularly in light of our competitors, who really build $10,000 (and up!) converters.  I am an engineer - I am not an opinion leader who tells anyone what to buy.  I have no opinion on my competitor's products.  I am only a designer and maker of 7 current Schiit D/A converters.  Whatever a user buys, whether by Schiit or others, is only my business statistically to tell whether the product I build is of interest to our customer base.  My viewpoint, given the starting price range of our converters is both populist and libertarian.  I mind my own business about what to buy; the world would be more harmonious if everyone else would as well.
> 
> Closing my mind to narrative constructs of how things sound differently, particularly from those with no vested interests in the outcome, and particularly when there emerge certain patterns I will never do.  I am sure of nothing (not restricted to the DBT) other than there is still much to be learned and verified.  The conversion of para-audio to audio science fascinates me.


 
  
 While I'm not wholly bought into the necessity of multibit (in large part due to the presence of DS ADCs in the production chain and the gap in measurability), I do have to give Jason and Mike much credit for the quality of engineering and parts in what they produce, especially for the price.   When I finally add a DAC to my Mjolnir 2, I'll buy a Gungnir (of some stripe) without hesitation for the balanced analog stage alone.  I'm also eagerly awaiting their pre-amp (hopefully fully balanced, hopefully with a dual-mono analog section, hopefully with a remote volume).
  
 That being said, if I were a multibit advocate, I would be concerned about the guys selling $6000 multibit DACs mounted on maple planks....there is a danger that the tech becomes equated with the lunatic fringe.


----------



## watchnerd

maconi said:


> Although slightly off-topic (from R2R vs DS), I wonder why these DAC battles don't really carry over to the ADC world? Quality R2R options (like what Schiit offers) don't seem to exist and the DS options seem extremely limited (at reasonable prices). A recently popular ADC chip seems to be the Burr Brown PCM4220 for example. I'm currently bouncing between the Tascam UH-7000 (supposedly good mic and headphone preamps) and the Audient iD22 (better drivers/latency and a built-in JFET hi-z for electric guitar) both of which have the PCM4220.


 
  
 Just bypass all that and get a Thunderbolt-based interface that uses DSP chips, like the UA Apollo Twin Solo / Duo.


----------



## dprimary

watchnerd said:


> Just bypass all that and get a Thunderbolt-based interface that uses DSP chips, like the UA Apollo Twin Solo / Duo.


 

 I second the thunderbolt suggestion. UA is good stuff, Apogee as well. Under 2 ms latency. You have get an HDX system to get below 1ms.


----------



## prot

baldr said:


> Here is a variation of something elsewhere posted but also relevant here:
> 
> Please allow me to take this opportunity to express my creed with respect to science and my chosen work. I should clarify to all concerned that my knowledge and expertise on cognitive neurology approaches zero. This means I am limited to my observations rather than other current experts in a field where said science is not completely known. In fact, the technology of very few, if any such sciences are completely known. My next statement is that I view this as a learning process until all experiments have been run.
> 
> ...




That's .. hmm. 
Here's what I would call prot's audio corollary to Godwin's Law : 
"As an audio discussion grows longer, the probability of a story involving a wife or girlfriend being 'devastated' by some audio device approaches 1"
Actually, I do not know of *any* single thread longer than a few pages that does not contain one of those wet & melodramatic girlfriend-anecdotes. Btw, as a counterpart to DBTs being forbidden on the main forum, I would vote to forbid TheGirlfriendAnecdote around here. 

Other than that, many thx for joinin the discussion and sharing your manufacturer expertise .. and for those missing codes and DNL links .. as an armchair audio enthusiast I didnt know about the Adc codes and I always like reading some new & solid theory. 

As about those 'legendary' audible diffs between DACs, there are two things I understand from your msges:
1. the diffs belong mostly to the domain of audio psychology.
2. schiit doesnt make any claims about audible differences because "subjective judgements cannot be proven". 
 If my understanding is correct, muchos kudos for that too!


----------



## cjl

kstuart said:


> If I am judging a BBQ Chicken competition, I do not have to provide a spectrograph measurement proving that one is better than the other.  The venue of food tasting is subjective, by defintion.


 
 True, but if you're judging a BBQ chicken competition, ideally you wouldn't know which chef made which chicken, or how much it cost.


----------



## charleski

kstuart said:


> I'm fine with that as long as you do not violate the Burden of Proof rules of this Forum.
> 
> You said "will cost considerably more for comparable performance" which is an assertion that violates the rule, in the same way that a manufacturer assertion of "superior performance" would also require proof.
> 
> And as I mentioned, it is not science, merely emotional human reaction to pricing.


 
  
 Evidence for the subjective equivalence of these different strategies has been around for a long time Here's an old blind test in which the listeners were unable to distinguish a Wadia 6 (from the '20bit' moniker this seems to have been fitted with a PCM63 rather than the multibit R2R AD1864 Wadia used in their base configuration) from a Sony CDP DVP-NS355 (which used the AK4389, an early ΔΣ chip from AKM).
  
 You can wriggle as much as you want, but the performance is comparable by any metric you wish to cite.


artur9 said:


> I don't see how those two statements follow.  IOW, I think you're projecting with the second statement.  After all, you did say free of any other considerations.
> 
> An alternative would be to spend the mean amount spent by a consumer of such goods.  Feel free to substitute another statistical measure such as mode or median or what have you.
> 
> P.S.  Bargain hunting is a different worthwhile hobby.  Consider the wrath JCPenny faced when it stopped having sales.


 
 When talking about markets, a rational actor is generally presumed to be one who seeks to maximise value and whose definition of value is clearly defined. If two widgets perform the same purpose in an undistinguishable fashion, it's taken as rational to buy the cheapest one. This is such common usage that it should go without saying.


----------



## artur9

charleski said:


> When talking about markets, a rational actor is generally presumed to be one who seeks to maximise value and whose definition of value is clearly defined. If two widgets perform the same purpose in an undistinguishable fashion, it's taken as rational to buy the cheapest one. This is such common usage that it should go without saying.


 
 No idea we were talking about markets.  Have you defined the market you are talking about?  IIRC, the definition of market was critical during Microsoft's anti-monopoly trial.


----------



## charleski

baldr said:


> Let me certainly state that I do indeed have a dog in this fight; Schiit Audio and the DACs that it makes.  We make DACs from $100 to $2300.  Whatever your value judgements are with respect to what others should buy, I point out that the least expensive DACs sport DS AK4490 chips, which are an AKM "Carriage Trade" super taco DAC chip by their own chip positioning.  The $1250 DAC contains 4 (one per phase-stereo) AD5781BRUZ chips and the 4 AD5791BRUZ are reserved for our $2300 DAC.  It policy at Schiit that we make no sonic claims on any of our DACs nor on any of our amplifiers.  Any subjective judgements cannot be proven, period.
> 
> That said, I am extremely proud of our parts cost to price value, particularly in light of our competitors, who really build $10,000 (and up!) converters.  I am an engineer - I am not an opinion leader who tells anyone what to buy.  I have no opinion on my competitor's products.  I am only a designer and maker of 7 current Schiit D/A converters.  Whatever a user buys, whether by Schiit or others, is only my business statistically to tell whether the product I build is of interest to our customer base.  My viewpoint, given the starting price range of our converters is both populist and libertarian.  I mind my own business about what to buy; the world would be more harmonious if everyone else would as well.
> 
> Closing my mind to narrative constructs of how things sound differently, particularly from those with no vested interests in the outcome, and particularly when there emerge certain patterns I will never do.  I am sure of nothing (not restricted to the DBT) other than there is still much to be learned and verified.  The conversion of para-audio to audio science fascinates me.


 

 I'd still be interested to know why you distrust the domain transformation that lies at the heart of the ΔΣ strategy.
  
 Schiit actually does a fairly decent job in terms of reining in the expansion of material cost that comes with using a multibit chip. But obviously if people want to spend more money on your products, you're happy to accomodate them, that's business.


----------



## kstuart

charleski said:


> kstuart said:
> 
> 
> > I'm fine with that as long as you do not violate the Burden of Proof rules of this Forum.
> ...


 
 This is sound science Forum.
  
 A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs. 
  
 There is another Forum which is largely dedicated to the actual task of trying to match measurements with sound quality.  They realize that in order to do that, they have to do subjective testing, in order to know whether the measurement correlates.
  
 Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
  
 Of course, his test is not statistically significant either, but it cancels out your emotional rhetoric advantage.
  
 "the performance is comparable by any metric you wish to cite."
  
 The metric I wish to cite is *sound quality.*
  
 Note that you will have to get roughly 7 billion people to do your blind A/B test to get to over 99%.
  
 Again, note that you are making the claim, I did not bring this up.
  
 Schiit specifically posted that they make no claim about sound quality (it is also on their web site and no employee has ever claimed any sound quality benefit for more expensive equipment).
  
 Specific owners post subjective impressions " I hear.... " .
  
 Only you are making a claim "comparable performance".
  
 Now I don't expect anything in reply, because my experience is that the "objectivists" are actually more emotional and less logical than the "subjectivists".  They see a $10,000 cable or a special $300 rock to improve sound and they see red.   Somehow because some people in a field are charlatans, therefore everyone is...


----------



## cjl

kstuart said:


> Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
> 
> Of course, his test is not statistically significant either, but it cancels out your emotional rhetoric advantage.


 
 What on earth are you talking about. If he could consistently, 100% of the time identify which DAC was which, that is absolutely statistically significant.


----------



## charleski

kstuart said:


> This is sound science Forum.
> 
> A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs.
> 
> ...


 
 That doesn't mean anything.
  
 You'll need to properly cite this test you mention. It would certainly be interesting to see what effect repetitive training had, but the fact that he went to those lengths suggests that he _couldn't_ distinguish the DACs until he found some trick. It might be worthwhile to learn what that trick is, but I suspect he merely fudged the methodology.
  
 And no, you don't need to test 7 billion people. If you want claim there's a difference, the onus is on _you_ to prove that difference. Until a difference is proven, we need to assume that it doesn't exist. Everything tends towards the equilibrium, entropy always rises. I don't need to prove this, it's basic thermodynamics. There is no burden of proof for the default state - it's the default. We do need proof, however, for departures from this state.
  
 Your appeal to emotion merely reflects desperation. Look, I'm not going to delude myself by thinking that I can change your mind by presenting evidence and arguing the case on its merits. You clearly want to believe there's some undefinable benefit to multibit technology and have no intention of budging. Fine, just don't pretend that this is based on a rational foundation.


----------



## sonitus mirus

cjl said:


> What on earth are you talking about. If he could consistently, 100% of the time identify which DAC was which, that is absolutely statistically significant.


 

 It seemed like an emotionally charged response with a total disregard for logic.  Am I supposed to choose a side?  If we are going to be skins and shirts, there is 3 feet of snow outside, so I'd prefer to be shirts.  I would be interested to know what it was about the sound quality that was preferred.  I bet someone could measure it.


----------



## watchnerd

kstuart said:


> Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.


 
  
 Interesting. Do you have a link?
  
 But also the differences might not have been due to differences in chip tech.  Without knowing more, it might have been differences in the analog stage of each.


----------



## kstuart

Any two pieces of electrical gear of the exact same model by the same manufacturer are different (unless they are "mil spec").   The extra cost of mil spec demonstrates that they are - to some degree - different.
  
 Therefore, two different DACs that are different models by different manufacturers, are certainly different - to some degree.
  
 So, the only question is the degree - and whether it is "audible".
  
 So, again, a claim of "comparable performance" must be proved.
  
 "Your appeal to emotion merely reflects desperation. Look, I'm not going to delude myself by thinking that I can change your mind by presenting evidence and arguing the case on its merits."
  
 Just restating my arguments is not an argument. 
  
 I would be very happy if $100 DACs performed the same as $2000 DACs, whereas you are already unhappy with the idea that $2000 DACs might perform better than $100 DACs.
  
 "You clearly want to believe there's some undefinable benefit to multibit technology and have no intention of budging."
  
 1) I strenuously avoid believing anything.
  
 2) I never stated any "benefit to multibit technology".


----------



## nick_charles

watchnerd said:


> Interesting. Do you have a link?
> 
> But also the differences might not have been due to differences in chip tech.  Without knowing more, it might have been differences in the analog stage of each.


 
  
  
 Or even just relative output levels - I had two CD players a Magnavox and an Onkyo where one was significantly (0.6db) louder than the other and an Entech DAC that had an output level of 2.65V!


----------



## watchnerd

nick_charles said:


> Or even just relative output levels - I had two CD players a Magnavox and an Onkyo where one was significantly (0.6db) louder than the other and an Entech DAC that had an output level of 2.65V!


 
  
 That's so well-known I assumed he matched output levels...but maybe you're right.


----------



## castleofargh

the line out of my sony DAP is 0.245v, the output of my odac is around 2V, and I can indeed pass a blind test ^_^. apparently 18db in loudness has a certain impact on sound that I'm able to notice. that was a pretty strong wake up call about DACs needing to be volume matched. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
 Quote:


kstuart said:


> Now I don't expect anything in reply, because my experience is that the "objectivists" are actually more emotional and less logical than the "subjectivists".  They see a $10,000 cable or a special $300 rock to improve sound and they see red.   Somehow because some people in a field are charlatans, therefore everyone is...


 
 seriously? your "objectivists are emotional" argument is about our distrust in clearly over priced cables that usually offer zero of the electrical specs one is expecting to read for a passive electrical component?
 strange, I'd call that reason.


----------



## XenHeadFi

watchnerd said:


> That's so well-known I assumed he matched output levels...but maybe you're right.


 
 He supposedly matched to 0.01 dB on Day2. He had his wife randomly plug 2 cables into box and made a script that would randomize which output was sent signal. Nothing jumped out at me as being wrong with his methodology. I had a quibble with scoring his aborted attempts, but he subsequently reliably picked out one DAC from the other. Both DACs are favorite intro gear for head-fiers.


----------



## nick_charles

xenheadfi said:


> He supposedly matched to 0.01 dB on Day2. He had his wife randomly plug 2 cables into box and made a script that would randomize which output was sent signal. Nothing jumped out at me as being wrong with his methodology. I had a quibble with scoring his aborted attempts, but he subsequently reliably picked out one DAC from the other. Both DACs are favorite intro gear for head-fiers.


 
  
  
 linky ?


----------



## prot

nick_charles said:


> linky ?



Forbidden on headfi. Hope you know where to look. 
And btw, that is not a dbt/abx but one guy testing with a selfbuilt setup and all we got is his word. How much of that can be trusted is anyone's guess. Maybe he can demo it in public at some point. 



kstuart said:


> This is sound science Forum.
> 
> A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs.




Oh but they are .. 

In the big picture that is of course just another single DBT ... and a single test is of course not 100% proof .. but it's both relevant and statistically significant .. and it adds to the pile of negative tests .. which btw is also quite significant. 

And btw, does anyone know of a single DBT belonging to the positive pile?!


----------



## jcx

as far as I know no legal site containing headphone related relevant information is strictly forbidden on head-fi - linking to banned members individual posts or blogs that specifically criticize head-fi moderation may be deleted if seen as a way to give them a voice on their banning here


----------



## limpidglitch

prot said:


> Forbidden on headfi. Hope you know where to look.


 
  
 Is it the guy with the toilet paper?


----------



## charleski

jcx said:


> as far as I know no legal site containing headphone related relevant information is strictly forbidden on head-fi - linking to banned members individual posts or blogs that specifically criticize head-fi moderation may be deleted if seen as a way to give them a voice on their banning here


 

 Well, there are a couple of results out there that report a difference between DACs, and one of them is on a site I know for sure is banned here (I suspect people will be able to guess who that is). Do a search for 'DAC Listening Challenge Results' and you should find it. It was based on redigitising the output of different DACs and letting people who read the blog compare the files. The problem is that the output coming from the Benchmark DAC 1 gained significantly more preference votes (by a large margin) than the original ripped straight from CD! I doubt that anyone would claim that music is _improved _by passing it through a DAC->ADC chain (but hell, anything's possible in home audio, I guess ...). It seems that participants were allowed to discuss what they thought of the various files, a process that introduced sufficient bias to make the results unreliable.
  
 There's another blind test. Both DACs were ΔΣ. In the first batch of tests he allowed himself to freely alter the volume level and got 10 right out of 16 - slightly better than chance and certainly not significant. In the second batch he claims he 'level matched 0.01dB' - how, he doesn't say, and matching to that degree of precision would require some serious professional gear. Despite this 'level matching' he notes that one of the DACs was 'just plain louder all the time' - i.e., they _weren't_ level matched. Unsurprisingly, he proves that he can spot the volume difference 8 times out of 8.


----------



## limpidglitch

So it _was_ the toilet paper guy.


----------



## watchnerd

limpidglitch said:


> So it _was_ the toilet paper guy.


 
  
 Clearly some history I don't know...the toilet paper guy?


----------



## Sonic Defender

charleski said:


> - i.e., they _weren't_ level matched. Unsurprisingly, he proves that he can spot the volume difference 8 times out of 8.


 
 LOL


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> LOL


 
  
 And, once again, "proof" falls apart...


----------



## limpidglitch

watchnerd said:


> Clearly some history I don't know...the toilet paper guy?


 
  
It's how he made his initial mark.
  
 Since then he has more or less abandoned head-fi, and started his own collectives.
 First with Chang*, which ended rather ugly, and now a new attempt called something-something-friends.
 I'm not so sure it I'm even allowed to talk about this, head-fi politics are confusing.


----------



## watchnerd

Seems harmless and funny to me...


----------



## Sonic Defender

watchnerd said:


> And, once again, "proof" falls apart...


 
 I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or saying I missed something?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

For a moment there I thought Sonic Defender was the toilet paper guy...


----------



## watchnerd

sonic defender said:


> I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me, or saying I missed something?


 
  
 Agreeing


----------



## Ruben123

charleski said:


> Well, there are a couple of results out there that report a difference between DACs, and one of them is on a site I know for sure is banned here (I suspect people will be able to guess who that is). Do a search for 'DAC Listening Challenge Results' and you should find it. It was based on redigitising the output of different DACs and letting people who read the blog compare the files. The problem is that the output coming from the Benchmark DAC 1 gained significantly more preference votes (by a large margin) than the original ripped straight from CD! I doubt that anyone would claim that music is _improved_ by passing it through a DAC->ADC chain (but hell, anything's possible in home audio, I guess ...). It seems that participants were allowed to discuss what they thought of the various files, a process that introduced sufficient bias to make the results unreliable.
> 
> There's another blind test. Both DACs were ΔΣ. In the first batch of tests he allowed himself to freely alter the volume level and got 10 right out of 16 - slightly better than chance and certainly not significant. In the second batch he claims he 'level matched 0.01dB' - how, he doesn't say, and matching to that degree of precision would require some serious professional gear. Despite this 'level matching' he notes that one of the DACs was 'just plain louder all the time' - i.e., they _weren't_ level matched. Unsurprisingly, he proves that he can spot the volume difference 8 times out of 8.




Which simply means DACs can have an impact on sound, what to some people may sound better even though less the same as original CD. If this is actually good and which DAC does and which doesn't alter the original sound is more of a question then...


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> Which simply means DACs can have an impact on sound, what to some people may sound better even though less the same as original CD. If this is actually good and which DAC does and which doesn't alter the original sound is more of a question then...


 
  
 No, it means that if you don't level match it's easy to hear the difference.


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> No, it means that if you don't level match it's easy to hear the difference.




If it is not level matched it's undoubtedly a different story then!


----------



## Sonic Defender

joe bloggs said:


> For a moment there I thought Sonic Defender was the toilet paper guy...


 

 Ha ha, no, but I've been told I use too much of the stuff. I always tell people when I can see I don't need more, I stop using it, until that point I kind of keep at it!! My daughter made me switch my avatar, but I do like cats anyway.


----------



## dharma

is there any realword use for such so-called 'DIY' https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/


----------



## watchnerd

dharma said:


> is there any realword use for such so-called 'DIY' https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/


 
  
 What, you mean like for a DIY cruise missile?


----------



## XenHeadFi

dharma said:


> is there any realword use for such so-called 'DIY' https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/


 
 Practice for SMD soldering skills?
  
 If you really like DIY kits then I think this is only R2R PCB with BOM (Bill of Materials) readily for sale.


----------



## dharma

watchnerd said:


> What, you mean like for a DIY cruise missile?


 

 Wow! Oh im stupid, I was reading 'A MOST INTERESTING DIY PROJECT IN A LONG TIME'...
 My bad. Thanks, and bye


----------



## dharma

xenheadfi said:


> Practice for SMD soldering skills?
> 
> If you really like DIY kits then I think this is only R2R PCB with BOM (Bill of Materials) readily for sale.


 
 OK.


----------



## watchnerd

dharma said:


> Wow! Oh im stupid, I was reading 'A MOST INTERESTING DIY PROJECT IN A LONG TIME'...
> My bad. Thanks, and bye


 
  
 I guess the reference went over your head...
  
 Baldr is always talking about how R2R is still used for military and medical applications.
  
 So, you know...chill.


----------



## charleski

dharma said:


> is there any realword use for such so-called 'DIY' https://hifiduino.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/r2r-for-the-rest-of-us/


 

 DIY electronics can be great fun.
 But at $265 for a stereo module he might want to rethink his blog's subtitle "Lots of Value, Little Money". You can get an assembled ODAC board for $100.
  
 Looking at the forum it seems the real value lies in letting people fiddle with the FPGA to try out oddball filter settings to satisfy their curiosity.


----------



## jcx

if digital reconstruction filters are going to have any audible effect it would be at 44.1 - just preprocess, save as 96k (or 192k if you think the hardware is as good at that rate) with the 44.1 Nyquist filtering, offline processing on a PC should be free to try, may need CUDA chops to emulate long FIR "live"/inline, during playback


----------



## jimdandy

If I may chime in please. I'm thinking about buying the Black Sabbath Complete Box Set. I was listening to samples of 24bit 96hz and 24bit 192 hz. Now it maybe the fact that I'm listen to it through Modi 2 U and Magni 2 U. I'm using HE-4400i headphone. It seems to me the 24 bit 96hz sounds "better". Like the 24bit 192hz is "over processed". Like too much spice on food covering up the mid rare steak. I'm actually waiting to get the Bifrost 4490 or the Multibit before I buy music, and have to wait for tax refund also. Was going to get the Gungnir MB but cost is just too much for my practical mind. OCD that way. LOL. Is this just me or does anybody here,hear the samething? Or is it my equipment that gives it that "sound". I'm torn between which one to buy. Came here to read then yall do conversation on bit rates so thought I would ask. Thank you.


----------



## RRod

jimdandy said:


> If I may chime in please. I'm thinking about buying the Black Sabbath Complete Box Set. I was listening to samples of 24bit 96hz and 24bit 192 hz. Now it maybe the fact that I'm listen to it through Modi 2 U and Magni 2 U. I'm using HE-4400i headphone. It seems to me the 24 bit 96hz sounds "better". Like the 24bit 192hz is "over processed". Like too much spice on food covering up the mid rare steak. I'm actually wait to get the Bifrost 4490 or the Multibit before I buy music and have to wait for tax refund also. Was going to get the Gungnir MB but cost is just too much for my practical mind. OCD that way. LOL. Is this just me or does anybody hear feel the same way? Or is my equipment that gives it that "sound". I'm torn between which one to buy. Came here to read then yall do conversation on bit rates so thought I would ask. Thank you.


 
  
 I know my E-MU 0404 just had a horrible time with 192, and would fail the IMD tests from everyone's favorite article. I had no problems at 96, though, so that is something to check out. It's doubtful there is a mastering difference, but you could always upsample the 96 to 192 and compare the content.


----------



## jimdandy

Don't know how to upsamle. I have read so much on here. So much information. Have learned a lot. I'm reading this thread to understand a little more about DACs to see which one is more like I want. And to just get knowledge. Knowledge is power.


----------



## limpidglitch

jimdandy said:


> Don't know how to upsamle. I have read so much on here. So much information. Have learned a lot. I'm reading this thread to understand a little more about DACs to see which one is more like I want. And to just get knowledge. Knowledge is power.


 
  
 There are several ways to do it. If you're OK with a command line interface, then SoX is pretty much the gold standard around here.
  
 If you prefer a graphical interface, then what would be the best solution depends on what operating system you're on and what other audio software you have and are familiar with.


----------



## jimdandy

I will look into it after I get the equipment thing figured out, thank you for the info. I new hobby to learn. I have Windows 10. Just upgrade version.


----------



## jimdandy

I will inject something in here that people have not said. When I tell some of my family members to compare certain headphones like 20 dollar ones to my 400i which are 500 they get mad. "Will they sound a little different,but I don't think the difference is worth 480 dollars more". Or "I don't hear any difference". Will first one has to care and second one has to know what to listen for. Is there a difference? Will YES! Difference is so noticeable it is like a slap in the face. Some people just don't care. That is what makes me mad more than anything. Some one saying this amp sounds better or that dac sounds better is fine with me. But to set there and say something like the above statements is just unbearable for me. So that is other variable to add to the mix. Some people are just too stupid to get they are missing something. Like the beautiful sun rise I saw yesterday or the shooting star last night on my way to work. Point is probably mute but one that I thought might be one to bring up. We all have that one family member that we just want to throw out the door sometimes. LOL.


----------



## jimdandy

baldr said:


> cjl said:
> 
> 
> > I don't feel like addressing this whole post right now, so I'll address 2 specific points:
> ...


 

 This is the reason I bought your products. No gimmics, no "used car salesman bs." Just,"You like it,keep it, or send it back." Awesome. Even if dac sounded a little better than yours from another company,your honesty would win. I'm going to upgrade from the Modi 2 U to either the Bifrost MB or the Bifrost SD. My mine concern is which tech is going to be around down the road in case I wish to upgrade which ever one I get. Leaning toward Multibit but I have learned a lot from this thread even with all the "excitement". LOL. You guys should be proud of yourselves as I'm sure yall are. Schiit Audio has my blessing.


----------



## watchnerd

jimdandy said:


> If I may chime in please. I'm thinking about buying the Black Sabbath Complete Box Set. I was listening to samples of 24bit 96hz and 24bit 192 hz. Now it maybe the fact that I'm listen to it through Modi 2 U and Magni 2 U. I'm using HE-4400i headphone. It seems to me the 24 bit 96hz sounds "better". Like the 24bit 192hz is "over processed". Like too much spice on food covering up the mid rare steak. I'm actually waiting to get the Bifrost 4490 or the Multibit before I buy music, and have to wait for tax refund also. Was going to get the Gungnir MB but cost is just too much for my practical mind. OCD that way. LOL. Is this just me or does anybody here,hear the samething? Or is it my equipment that gives it that "sound". I'm torn between which one to buy. Came here to read then yall do conversation on bit rates so thought I would ask. Thank you.


 
  
 I used to think that maybe, just maybe,  I could tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192.  Then I ran it through an ABX software, administered a test on myself, and found out that I couldn't.


----------



## watchnerd

jimdandy said:


> I will inject something in here that people have not said. When I tell some of my family members to compare certain headphones like 20 dollar ones to my 400i which are 500 they get mad. "Will they sound a little different,but I don't think the difference is worth 480 dollars more". Or "I don't hear any difference". Will first one has to care and second one has to know what to listen for. Is there a difference? Will YES! Difference is so noticeable it is like a slap in the face. Some people just don't care. That is what makes me mad more than anything. Some one saying this amp sounds better or that dac sounds better is fine with me. But to set there and say something like the above statements is just unbearable for me. So that is other variable to add to the mix. Some people are just too stupid to get they are missing something. Like the beautiful sun rise I saw yesterday or the shooting star last night on my way to work. Point is probably mute but one that I thought might be one to bring up. We all have that one family member that we just want to throw out the door sometimes. LOL.


 
  
 They're not stupid.  They just have a different set of value tradeoffs than you do when it comes to audio matters. That doesn't make them dumb.
  
 Would you spend $200 on a bottle of wine?  Or would think it isn't worth the money when compared to a $20 bottle?
  
 Differences in preferences are not an indicator of stupidity.


----------



## jimdandy

Yes I would try a 200 dollar bottle of wine. Just like I have tried a 200 dollar bottle of bourbon. Smooth it was. Was it worth it? Yes, to experience that before I leave this earth,yes it was. But you are right I should not have said stupid. I sometimes get to wound up in things. Comes from past and near death experiences I guess. I value things others don't.


----------



## castleofargh

you need to put yourself in other people's shoes before judging their behaviors. audio doesn't have to be a big deal for everybody just because we think it is.  take this topic about R2R vs SD, how many people think we're just children arguing over nothing? I'd say most of the planet. and for most people, spending 500$ on a headphone means many other stuff they won't be able to do this month. people don't just stay home eating crap because they lack curiosity. it's perfectly normal to find that a 100$ headphone is more than enough and more a waste of good money. we're the oddballs here not the other way around.


----------



## jimdandy

castleofargh said:


> you need to put yourself in other people's shoes before judging their behaviors. audio doesn't have to be a big deal for everybody just because we think it is.  take this topic about R2R vs SD, how many people think we're just children arguing over nothing? I'd say most of the planet. and for most people, spending 500$ on a headphone means many other stuff they won't be able to do this month. people don't just stay home eating crap because they lack curiosity. it's perfectly normal to find that a 100$ headphone is more than enough and more a waste of good money. we're the oddballs here not the other way around.


 

 True but I sacrifice to get where I am and to get what I want so,I don't like to be judged either. If people judge me then I take my turn. Someone walks in my house and judges me and what I do then I'm going to retaliate. Because I feel like they are disrespecting in my house. I never walk into someone's house and start saying you should not do this or that. They volunteer to ask the price then when I tell them they call me stupid or make some lame comment. I don't treat people that way. That is not the way one makes friends. You would have to know the people to understand. But yes agree with what you say. However if you invited me to your house I would respect your buying something simply because you probably work hard to get and sacrificed to get it. And for that you would deserve my respect.  I would not belittle you for driving a Ferrari because I drive a Toyota.


----------



## jimdandy

watchnerd said:


> jimdandy said:
> 
> 
> > If I may chime in please. I'm thinking about buying the Black Sabbath Complete Box Set. I was listening to samples of 24bit 96hz and 24bit 192 hz. Now it maybe the fact that I'm listen to it through Modi 2 U and Magni 2 U. I'm using HE-4400i headphone. It seems to me the 24 bit 96hz sounds "better". Like the 24bit 192hz is "over processed". Like too much spice on food covering up the mid rare steak. I'm actually waiting to get the Bifrost 4490 or the Multibit before I buy music, and have to wait for tax refund also. Was going to get the Gungnir MB but cost is just too much for my practical mind. OCD that way. LOL. Is this just me or does anybody here,hear the samething? Or is it my equipment that gives it that "sound". I'm torn between which one to buy. Came here to read then yall do conversation on bit rates so thought I would ask. Thank you.
> ...


 

 It might have been the streaming process they are using. It just sounded like the highs were extended. Cymbals had more of hissing sound to them. That is why I thought it might be something in my system or theirs. So,I thought I would ask some people that seem like they know more than me. Because I'll admit,I don't know a lot. This new high res stuff I don't know much about. I rip my CDs completely uncompressed with dbPoweramp. I was reluctant to buy the set,130 dollars,and download it until I knew for sure what was going on. Don't want to spend 130 for 24bit 96 when 24bit 192 is actually better. Because I'm not hearing something right or doing something wrong. I'm 53 so I come from vinyl,cassette,and CD. LOL. So maybe it is just me.


----------



## watchnerd

jimdandy said:


> It might have been the streaming process they are using. It just sounded like the highs were extended. Cymbals had more of hissing sound to them. That is why I thought it might be something in my system or theirs. So,I thought I would ask some people that seem like they know more than me. Because I'll admit,I don't know a lot. This new high res stuff I don't know much about. I rip my CDs completely uncompressed with dbPoweramp. I was reluctant to buy the set,130 dollars,and download it until I knew for sure what was going on. Don't want to spend 130 for 24bit 96 when 24bit 192 is actually better. Because I'm not hearing something right or doing something wrong. I'm 53 so I come from vinyl,cassette,and CD. LOL. So maybe it is just me.


 
  
 I wasn't using streaming. I was comparing local FLACs.


----------



## KeithEmo

limpidglitch said:


> There are several ways to do it. If you're OK with a command line interface, then SoX is pretty much the gold standard around here.
> 
> If you prefer a graphical interface, then what would be the best solution depends on what operating system you're on and what other audio software you have and are familiar with.


 
  
 Most of the higher-end audio editors include the ability to convert between different sample rates.
  
 If you don't like the command line interface, and you use Windows, Voxengo makes a rate converter called R8Brain (there's a FREEWARE version available for download).
 (You can also get free 30 day demos for Adobe Audition, and for the iZotope products; iZotope RX, which is for audio restoration, also includes a nice sample rate converter.)
  
 Note that many have multiple filter choices, many of which do sound different.
  
 There is also a player called HQPlayer that allows you to select between a whole bunch of upsampling options.
 These include not only different sample rates, but different types of filters, and even filters with different numbers of filter taps and such.
 Note that some of the options require a LOT of processing power to play without stalling or stuttering.
 (They do recommend what someone else suggested; using a non-oversampling DAC and doing the oversampling in software.)


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> Note that many have multiple filter choices, many of which do sound different.


 
  
 I'm sorry, why would I want a filter that causes an audible difference?


----------



## KeithEmo

The main reason you don't hear much about ADCs is that, for the most part, these arguments are between _audiophiles_, and most audiophiles (myself included) don't record music. 
  
 Face it, if you're playing a CD RIP, you probably don't know what ADC was used to produce it, and you certainly have no control over that. (Some few classical or jazz labels actually mention the equipment they use, but virtually no pop or rock labels do. And, even then, it's simply one among many choices made by the producers of the album.)
  
 So, since you _CAN_ decide which DAC to use to play your favorite CD, but have no control over which ADC was used to record it, what's the point in discussing it, or agonizing over it?
  
 (This isn't limited to ADCs. You also don't find audiophiles discussing what ICs were used in the mixing board that was used to mix their favorite album, or what brand of cabling was used in the studio. At most, you may find the occasional mention of what brand of microphones or studio monitors were used - but rarely even that. I would say, in simplest terms, that audiophiles consider themselves to be in total control over _THEIR_ system, but mostly not in control of, and probably largely ignorant of, what happens to the audio before it lands on the disc. And when's the last time you heard a discussion about what brand of encoder was used to deliver audio over a certain streaming service?)
  
  
 Quote:


maconi said:


> Although slightly off-topic (from R2R vs DS), I wonder why these DAC battles don't really carry over to the ADC world? Quality R2R options (like what Schiit offers) don't seem to exist and the DS options seem extremely limited (at reasonable prices). A recently popular ADC chip seems to be the Burr Brown PCM4220 for example. I'm currently bouncing between the Tascam UH-7000 (supposedly good mic and headphone preamps) and the Audient iD22 (better drivers/latency and a built-in JFET hi-z for electric guitar) both of which have the PCM4220.


----------



## KeithEmo

I can give you two answers - the "subjectivist answer" and the "objectivist answer" - which, in this case, sound quite similar.
  
 The subjectivist answer would be "so you have more choices to pick between" (no further explanation necessary).
  
 Assuming that your goal is accuracy, and you're starting with a 16/44k digital audio source, you really need to use oversampling (because doing the conversion without oversampling would require either filters that are impractical to design and build, or filters that cause an obvious alteration in frequency response, or both). Once you choose to use oversampling, part of the process requires that you use filters that alter the signal - at least to a small degree. Our little Ego DACs offer three filters; they all measure as being very flat (steady state), but one has symmetrical ringing, another has less pre-ringing and more post ringing, while the third has less ringing altogether, but is less accurate in other ways. Many other DACs offer similar options. The point is that all three are very close to "perfect", but none of them is absolutely perfect, and many people can hear a slight difference between them. And, since all three are technically compromises, but in different ways, you can't simply declare that one or the other is "the most accurate one". And, if you look at the oversampling filters in other products, especially software conversion programs, many offer various options - sharper or gentler slope, flatter frequency response at the cost of less accurate phase characteristics, and different transient characteristics. And remember that these are all at least somewhat of a compromise because nobody has yet designed a filter that can simultaneously deliver perfect frequency and perfect transient response (ignoring whether the differences are audible or not - they are easily measurable).
  
 Therefore, acknowledging that "the perfect one" isn't an option, the objectivist answer is to either pick one for the user, or let them pick the one they prefer after explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each.
  
 One common solution, and the one chosen by HQPlayer, is to combine both..... They offer two or three choices which sound very similar, and are very close to perfect, and then throw in a selection of other options that are less accurate, and where the differences are clearly audible, and let the user decide for themselves.
  
 One thing you have to understand is that the real question isn't "Why would _YOU_ want it?"; the real question is "Why would _WE_, or any other manufacturer, design a DAC or player program that way?" And, when you look at it from that perspective, the answer becomes more obvious. By offering a DAC that offers multiple options, I have a product that will appeal to both customers who want the most accurate DAC _AND_ customers who either prefer one that's less accurate - because they "like the way it sounds" - or who simply like lots of choices. If you read other forums, you'll find people who seem to get great joy in "discovering what switch settings work the best with this or that album or song". (It's not much different than the reason why many car dealerships carry multiple brands of cars - or why two or three major tobacco companies offer literally dozens of cigarette "brands" to choose from.) 
  
 And, in the case of HQPlayer.... there are lots of player programs out there, and offering a wide variety of choices is a special feature that makes that product different - and so more appealing to some customers. Assuming that you actually are curious about whether the different filter choices will sound different, and which one you will prefer, they're offering you the option of trying out different ones by changing software settings - which is much easier than doing so by building different DACs, and configuring them with different filters in firmware, and much cheaper than buying many different DACs. And, if you're the sort of customer who is going to pick which filter they prefer for playing each song, then you can do that too.
  
 Also bear in mind that, whether we're talking about a DAC or a player program, once the basic design is done, adding additional filter choices is relatively simple - so it's a feature that may appeal to many customers, and one which can be added without much effort or cost to the manufacturer.
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> I'm sorry, why would I want a filter that causes an audible difference?


----------



## jcx

.


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


>





> because nobody has yet designed a filter that can simultaneously deliver perfect frequency and perfect transient response


 
  
 And unless there is some amazing breakthrough in signal processing theory, they never will -- current signal processing math doesn't allow for it.  
  
 Even the close-but-not-quite Chebyshev filters succumb to group delay in the passband.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 The question at hand was "how do I interpolate to a new sample rate." The suggestion was "just try the typical SoX method." That method to my ears is audibly identical to filters made from mildly hacking around with various other settings in SoX. So my question is why would I ever want to pick a filter so out of whack that an audible difference suddenly appeared? I know this is going to come down to pre-ringing again so perhaps we should just leave it there


----------



## KeithEmo

The short answer is that YOU probably wouldn't... and I probably wouldn't either. (However, I should also note that, at least according to a lot of people, while the default filter choice in Sox is inaudible, the filters in many other audio editing programs are in fact quite audible when used at their default settings.)
  
 Here's a link to a VERY interesting website that offers a comparison of the technical accuracy of the sample rate conversion performed by a whole bunch of popular software programs. You'll notice that the various options on many of the programs often produce very different results; and that the results from many of the programs that don't offer a choice of options are also quite different (either by choice, or because they simply didn't write a very good filter algorithm). However, it makes it pretty clear that "just converting it in your favorite editor" is really a hit-and-miss process. Be sure to check out the impulse response and 1 kHz sideband spectra of each 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 http://src.infinitewave.ca/  
 ------
  
 Now, to be fair, there is also something that you really do need to keep in mind. When you pick the default filter in Sox, it's not that you're picking "the best filter", and all the other choices are "less accurate" and "designed to sound different than then most accurate one"; what you're picking is the filter that, according to the folks who wrote the program, has the fewest audible compromises.... and different people perceive things differently. For example, since any ringing is a flaw, both the default filter (which usually has symmetrical pre-ringing and post-ringing) and the apodizing filter that trades off less pre-ringing for more post ringing, are equally incorrect. And, whether YOU can hear a difference or not, many people claim to hear one (and, as a general statement, psychoacoustic research does seem to justify the claim that, at least under some circumstances, pre-ringing is in fact audible to many listeners.) And, once you have a measurable difference whose audibility is varied by factors like masking effects, it's bound to be perceived differently by different listeners, with different sensitivities, and using different test material and playback equipment.
   Another thing you need to consider is that certain DACs themselves perform - and sound - differently at different sample rates. For example, many DACs have higher levels of IMD and other types of distortion at very high sample rates... in which case, for example, a certain DAC itself might actually sound _BETTER_ when playing exactly equivalent audio at 16/44k than at 24/192k. This could mean that your particular DAC could actually be producing a lot of distortion when playing 24/192k audio, and so could legitimately sound better with the 16/44k sample, and that, if they sound the same to you, then the conversion settings you've chosen are actually producing audible degradation, but the improvement in how your hardware is playing the result cancels that out. (And, IF that were happening, then a different filter might actually sound BETTER than the original one you'd chosen because it sounded identical on your particular DAC.)  
  
 However, as you say, in a situation where you hear absolutely no difference, as long as you're not planning to "extrapolate your results to the general case", then there would be no reason to choose one or the other. (And, while there are in fact a few DACs that, due to design considerations, actually do perform worse at 24/192k than at 16/44k, that is an unusual situation.) 
  
 (Where we differ is that, at least when listening to audio I already own for other than test purposes, I would choose to use NONE of the converters, or their filters, and simply leave the sample at its native sample rate; both so as to avoid even the possibility of anything being changed by the process, and because changing the sample rate simply requires more effort than _NOT_ changing it.... and, as I've mentioned before, to me the difference in storage size is simply inconsequential. Note that the going rate for a 6 tB USB hard drive is now under $200.)
   Quote:


rrod said:


> The question at hand was "how do I interpolate to a new sample rate." The suggestion was "just try the typical SoX method." That method to my ears is audibly identical to filters made from mildly hacking around with various other settings in SoX. So my question is why would I ever want to pick a filter so out of whack that an audible difference suddenly appeared? I know this is going to come down to pre-ringing again so perhaps we should just leave it there


----------



## RRod

Ringing is technically not a flaw. The *ideal*, meaning technically perfectly correct filter rings indefinitely at the cutoff frequency. This is why having a cutoff higher than we can hear is important, and why non-minimum phase filters *in the audible range* can be problematic. I am well aware of how bad some SRCs are, but SoX (which was the program under question) isn't one of them. And why are you trying to expand into how DACs work at different rates? The whole point here was to get two sources of the same content to the same rate so they can be compared. I'm also well aware of what people "claim" to hear, which somehow suddenly disappears under certain situations (that are being well hashed to death in the other thread so we'll leave that be).


----------



## KeithEmo

There seem to be several conversations going on here....
  
 To address your first comment - simply - if the original acoustic source didn't have any ringing, but the digital representation of it does, then the digital representation is _NOT_ perfect - and the ringing added by the digital proces is indeed a flaw. (Since there shouldn't be any ringing at all, but some ringing is inevitable, and even inherent, in any currently available digital representation, we much admit that none of the solutions are perfect, and so we are picking a compromise. The best we may even hope for is "the best digital representation, given the sample rate, and the other limitations of the system we've chosen.) However, even beyond that, we can't absolutely choose a single "best compromise" because the choice depends on our parameters; one filter gives the flattest power response, another gives the best phase response, and yet another gives the most accurate impulse response... name your poison. (And, in the end, the question returns to "which of the flaws is least audible? And, of course, we are hoping to be able to choose an option where there are _NO *AUDIBLE* FLAWS_. )
  
 My comment about how some DACs do in fact process different sample rates differently was directed at your comment about "the results of conversions performed by Sox sounding identical to you". And my point was that, when comparing files at different sample rates, you can't assume that listening to both on the same DAC constitutes "a level playing field". For example, assuming that you started with a 24/192k file and converted it to 16/44k using Sox, it's possible that the 16/44k file has actually been seriously altered, but that the DAC itself is seriously altering the 24/192k file when it plays it, and so their apparent similarity is simply the result of two similar errors. (This isn't as far fetched as it sounds - because many DACs - especially older ones - actually do have significantly higher levels of various types of distortion at higher sample rates. Therefore, because of design limitations, the DAC you've chosen could actually be "cancelling out" some positive difference in the higher sample rate file by adding more distortion to it during playback.) And, in the particular case of the example you've chosen, the 44k version of the file you converted using Sox might sound identical _BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG_, and, if so, then doing a better quality conversion might just produce a 16/44k file that sounded _BETTER_ than the 24/192k original _ON THAT DAC_. (I would agree that it's somewhat unlikely, and the only way I could imagine to determine if the different result was better would be to repeat the same experiment with several different converters and DACs, but such a result is not at all beyond the range of possibility, which means that it's just one more factor that makes the results uncertain.)
  
 There absolutely _ARE_ DACs in existence which process and filter source files at different sample rates differently enough that the differences in how the DAC handles the files exceeds the differences in the files themselves. (I owned a well-known non-oversampling DAC whose frequency response was 20-20k +/- 0.25 dB at 96k, but 20-20k +0/-3 dB at 44k. If you'd compared your two files on that DAC, and they were audibly identical, then that would have meant that the files were in fact far different... )
  
 As for the fact that you seem to not "believe that ringing matters" - there seem to be a lot of voices to the contrary. (While you can feel free to argue at what level it becomes audible, the vast majority of DAC chip manufacturers, and people who write CODECS, all seem to agree that, at some point, pre-ringing becomes audible and unpleasant. We're not talking about something that's being claimed by a few fringe companies; we're talking about something that Wolfson and several DAC manufacturers consider important, that virtually all DAC chip vendors specify, and that Dolby Labs considers to be an important feature in their latest professional level encoder. Therefore, I really don't think it's reasonable to dismiss it out of hand.)   
 I would suggest that, if you want to establish reasonably that a given sample rate converter is "inaudible", a good start would be to take a 16/44k file, upsample it to 96k, then down-sample it back to 44k - using the same converter. If they sound identical, then, excluding the possibility that the conversions might introduce errors that cancel out, you will have at least established the possibility that the conversions are "perfect". To me, simply converting one to another, using an "arbitrarily good enough" conversion, then comparing the two on an "arbitrarily good enough" DAC and playback system, is leaving far too many variables not adequately controlled.
  
 Now, again, we need to remember that we're discussing "proving something to a reasonable degree of certainty to make it a scientific claim" here.
  
 If the question is simply of whether "there seems to be enough evidence to convince you or me that it probably doesn't matter to us" - then the level of proof required is FAR lower.
  
 (I do apologize, to a degree, for "trying to pick you apart on scientific details" - but, at least to me, you seem to be getting dangerously close the the line of "I don't hear a difference - therefore there can't possibly be one". I personally don't have especially "good pitch", so I can't hear when a guitar is slightly out of tune... but I still can't rule out that many of the people I know who claim that they _CAN_ hear when one is even slightly out of tune might still be telling the truth... )
  
 I did know someone once who tried the experiment of taking a 44k file, upsampling it to 96k, and then downsampling it to 44k again - using one of the popular audio editing programs (I believe it was an early version of Adobe Audition.) Note that he used actual music, and not steady state test tones or pink noise. He was horrified at the level and type of differences that existed between the original file and the double-converted one - which should have been "identical". (I've never tried that experiment, and it might be interested to see how Sox would fare with it.)
  
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> Ringing is technically not a flaw. The *ideal*, meaning technically perfectly correct filter rings indefinitely at the cutoff frequency. This is why having a cutoff higher than we can hear is important, and why non-minimum phase filters *in the audible range* can be problematic. I am well aware of how bad some SRCs are, but SoX (which was the program under question) isn't one of them. And why are you trying to expand into how DACs work at different rates? The whole point here was to get two sources of the same content to the same rate so they can be compared. I'm also well aware of what people "claim" to hear, which somehow suddenly disappears under certain situations (that are being well hashed to death in the other thread so we'll leave that be).


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> To address your first comment - simply - if the original acoustic source didn't have any ringing, but the digital representation of it does, then the digital representation is _NOT_ perfect - and the ringing added by the digital proces is indeed a flaw.


 
  
 But we're talking about reproduction here, and a properly reproduced band-limited signal will ring.
  


keithemo said:


> This isn't as far fetched as it sounds - because many DACs - especially older ones - actually do have significantly higher levels of various types of distortion at higher sample rates.


 
  
 Yes which is why I told the question-asker to first check for IMD at the higher rates in his system. But that IMD would not be caused by SoX upsampling because the resampler will lowpass the upsampled file at the original bandlimit. That means if he compares the two versions and they are identical in the audible spectrum but sound different, then it is very likely distortion is affecting the playback of the higher-frequency original.
  


keithemo said:


> I would suggest that, if you want to establish reasonably that a given sample rate converter is "inaudible", a good start would be to take a 16/44k file, upsample it to 96k, then down-sample it back to 44k - using the same converter. If they sound identical, then, excluding the possibility that the conversions might introduce errors that cancel out, you will have at least established the possibility that the conversions are "perfect". To me, simply converting one to another, using an "arbitrarily good enough" conversion, then comparing the two on an "arbitrarily good enough" DAC and playback system, is leaving far too many variables not adequately controlled.


 
  
 Which is exactly what I've done with SoX in blind testing with numerous resampler settings. I really don't get what the heck people are worrying about so much with this.


keithemo said:


> (I do apologize, to a degree, for "trying to pick you apart on scientific details" - but, at least to me, you seem to be getting dangerously close the the line of "I don't hear a difference - therefore there can't possibly be one". I personally don't have especially "good pitch", so I can't hear when a guitar is slightly out of tune... but I still can't rule out that many of the people I know who claim that they _CAN_ hear when one is even slightly out of tune might still be telling the truth... )


 
  
 I'm perfectly willing to believe that someone with unusually high frequency hearing can eek out stuff at 44.1, especially with test signals. But, referencing again the particular matter at hand, I think the answer to the question "why does this 192 version sound different than this 96 version" isn't particularly going to be screwed up by a decent resampler, since we're already talking about a cutoff near 48kHz.


----------



## spruce music

Worth pointing out that actually ringing only occurs in the transition band of a filter.  Other effects are bandwidth limiting that look like ringing. 
  
 So let us say we are using 96 khz sampling.  Ringing is in the 40 khz to 48 khz area.  If we took a mic feed and added ringing at times at 40 khz why would you expect to hear that?
  
 At 44.1 khz the ringing would be just above 20 khz.  But is with musical sources only rarely of any substantial level.  While there are people who can hear to 22 or 23 khz their threshold at those frequencies is around or above 100 db in loudness. 
  
 Filters that are designed to prevent pre-ringing usually have other artefacts at 44.1 khz like altering the freq. response down in the audible range.
  
 All of that ignores the fact the ADC will have filtered out signals that would ring the DAC filter.  Yes you can generate a pulse or squarewave that would ring a DAC filter, but you won't ever get that signal if the source was via an ADC.


----------



## KeithEmo

All agreed.... and, as I've said before, the reality is that the differences in _PRODUCTION VALUES_ between different CDs, and even between different reissues of the same CD, usually _FAR_ overshadow any of the tiny differences we're talking about here. (In other words, most modern CDs have such serious flaws, introduced deliberately or accidentally during recording and mastering, that the differences between most decent DACs are quite small by comparison. And, yes, sometimes it does start to feel like we're discussing which brand of $1000 a square foot museum glass to put over a cheap $50 print of the Mona Lisa.)
  





   Quote:


rrod said:


> But we're talking about reproduction here, and a properly reproduced band-limited signal will ring.
> 
> 
> Yes which is why I told the question-asker to first check for IMD at the higher rates in his system. But that IMD would not be caused by SoX upsampling because the resampler will lowpass the upsampled file at the original bandlimit. That means if he compares the two versions and they are identical in the audible spectrum but sound different, then it is very likely distortion is affecting the playback of the higher-frequency original.
> ...


----------



## watchnerd

keithemo said:


>





> Here's a link to a VERY interesting website that offers a comparison of the technical accuracy of the sample rate conversion performed by a whole bunch of popular software programs. You'll notice that the various options on many of the programs often produce very different results; and that the results from many of the programs that don't offer a choice of options are also quite different (either by choice, or because they simply didn't write a very good filter algorithm). However, it makes it pretty clear that "just converting it in your favorite editor" is really a hit-and-miss process. Be sure to check out the impulse response and 1 kHz sideband spectra of each
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 I used that site before and love it.  It's also why I never do SRC in anything other than SoX (almost always with VHQ linear phase).  
  
 Some of the results for highly regarded software suites are surprising and somewhat inexplicable (if you can't do good SRC, just embed SoX).  Examples:
  
 -ProTools HD 10.3.5 sweep & transition filters
 -Adobe CS6 sweep, 1 khz (damn!)
 -Weiss Saracon sweep (uh oh), transition (wth), 
  
  
 dBpoweramp has also gotten a lot better, apparently.


----------



## limpidglitch

watchnerd said:


> -Adobe CS6 sweep, 1 khz (damn!)


 
  
 Do notice, however, that Audition CS6 is completely fine, so they obviously know how to do it properly.


----------



## watchnerd

limpidglitch said:


> Do notice, however, that Audition CS6 is completely fine, so they obviously know how to do it properly.


 
  
 Yes, which boggles as to why the regular CS6 media encoder is so much worse.


----------



## limpidglitch

watchnerd said:


> Yes, which boggles as to why the regular CS6 media encoder is so much worse.


 
  
 Because it's ostensibly a video encoder, would be my guess. It's not such a critical feature then, so can be made less memory and processor intensive with an (I assume) acceptable trade-off in quality


----------



## watchnerd

limpidglitch said:


> Because it's ostensibly a video encoder, would be my guess. It's not such a critical feature then, so can be made less memory and processor intensive with an (I assume) acceptable trade-off in quality


 
  
 I guess, but with modern CPUs/OSes and the tiny bandwidth that audio represents vs video, I'm surprised there would even be a need to compromise.


----------



## limpidglitch

I'm not in any way experienced with video production, but I suspect a software like that will rarely have to convert between 96 and 44.1kHz sample rates. Most camcorders and such don't go higher than 48kHz.
 In a prosumer/professional scenario sound will usually be recorded separately, and then possibly at a higher sample rate, but in that case it will also be processed separately, before being added to the video in something like Premiere Pro.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, a properly band-limited signal will/must have some ringing (which some will insist is an "unavoidable flaw" of digital audio); and, yes, that ringing should theoretically be up at frequencies where it is inaudible. (There is also some theoretical minimum of ringing due to the math, but many encoders may well produce more than this because of their choices or compromises.) However, the exact characteristics of the ringing on playback are "negotiable". For one thing, some DACs have far less ringing than others (presumably because their filters add ringing, again presumably because lengthened ringing is a trade off with some other desirable benefit - like flatter phase response). In addition to that, the ringing can be "moved around". One popular thing to do is to virtually eliminate all pre-ringing (you can mathematically "push" all the pre-ringing until after the impulse; you get virtually no pre-ringing, but a post-ringing period that is twice as long). Since masking applies much less to events before the masking stimulus than it does to events after it, the logic is that post-ringing is less audible - even if there is more of it.
  
 Since the effect of doing so is only relevant to transients, it doesn't theoretically affect measured steady-state frequency response. (But, the specific implementations of that feature on many DACs do in fact affect the frequency response, which could be what people hear in many cases.) Now, without getting into an argument about whether that ringing _should_ be audible, the fact is that many people are quite convinced that it is. And, yes, our little Ego DACs have multiple filters, which differ only in where they place the ringing, and, yes, at least to me and many other people, they do sound audibly different - very slightly - with certain source material. Dolby Labs, and several other major vendors have also incorporated the option to select different filter types in the recent encoder products.
  
 (I can't speak for others, but I can state that most of us here do in fact hear slight differences between the filters - at least with some content and some playback devices. However, we haven't run any careful double-blind tests; for a very simple reason... Being able to choose between multiple filters is a feature that our customers like, and it costs virtually nothing to add that feature to a DAC, so we have no specific reason to "validate" whether those differences are in fact due to other factors... or even whether they exist. It's quite possible that many other vendors feel the same way.)
  
 I can also think of an endless string of scenarios where ringing _COULD_ affect things that are audible. For one thing, there is the possibility of increased IMD somewhere - like you mentioned. For another, most tweeters exhibit some mechanical ringing; perhaps having ringing energy at inaudible frequencies causes some tweeters to ring, or causes them to ring longer once they start ringing - by adding energy. Ideas like this would have to be tested individually, on a case-by-case basis, in order to be proven to occur - or not. (However, by and large, it's not unreasonable to suggest that moving energy around at frequencies near those that are audible might cause something audible to occur.)  
  
 (And you also can't ignore that fact that many DACs do in fact have rather different distortion specs at 96k than at 192k - for whatever design reasons.)
  
 In short, I do agree with you that a well-implemented SRC should produce, at worst, less of an audible difference than many other likely factors.
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RRod* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> But we're talking about reproduction here, and a properly reproduced band-limited signal will ring.
> ...


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> One popular thing to do is to virtually eliminate all pre-ringing (you can mathematically "push" all the pre-ringing until after the impulse; you get virtually no pre-ringing, but a post-ringing period that is twice as long). Since masking applies much less to events before the masking stimulus than it does to events after it, the logic is that post-ringing is less audible - even if there is more of it.


 
  
 Yes you can have minimum or intermediate phase filters, but if the ringing they are moving about is inaudible then masking is a bit irrelevant.
  


keithemo said:


> (I can't speak for others, but I can state that most of us here do in fact hear slight differences between the filters - at least with some content and some playback devices. However, we haven't run any careful double-blind tests; for a very simple reason... Being able to choose between multiple filters is a feature that our customers like, and it costs virtually nothing to add that feature to a DAC, so we have no specific reason to "validate" whether those differences are in fact due to other factors... or even whether they exist. It's quite possible that many other vendors feel the same way.


 
  
 Striving to completely eliminate ringing can lead one to do things like use filters that roll off quite a bit before 20kHz, which could certainly lead to audible differences. Of course, people will naturally want to attribute these audible differences to "less time smearing" instead of "worse frequency response."
  
  


keithemo said:


> I can also think of an endless string of scenarios where ringing _COULD_ affect things that are audible. For one thing, there is the possibility of increased IMD somewhere - like you mentioned. For another, most tweeters exhibit some mechanical ringing; perhaps having ringing energy at inaudible frequencies causes some tweeters to ring, or causes them to ring longer once they start ringing - by adding energy. Ideas like this would have to be tested individually, on a case-by-case basis, in order to be proven to occur - or not. (However, by and large, it's not unreasonable to suggest that moving energy around at frequencies near those that are audible might cause something audible to occur.)
> 
> (And you also can't ignore that fact that many DACs do in fact have rather different distortion specs at 96k than at 192k - for whatever design reasons.)


 
  
 This is indeed another avenue for audibility, but again we're in the frequency domain and not the time domain where people seem to want to assign improvements. Certainly transducers are the weak end of the equation and one shouldn't do things to them like have a constant ringing frequency or, for that matter, send them a bunch of ultrasonic frequency content that they can't actually deal with. Funny that when we're talking about filtering for lowly 22050Hz, distortion associated with ringing is a horrible thing, but when we're talking about hi-res music sounding "better", distortion from ultrasonics is suddenly a good thing (for many people on this forum, not necessarily yourself).
  
 Having had equipment that sucked it up at 192 must agree with your last point. But again, this makes me wonder why we're even bothering with 192, let alone 384 which some people seem to crave.


----------



## watchnerd

rrod said:


> Having had equipment that sucked it up at 192 must agree with your last point. But again, this makes me wonder why we're even bothering with 192, let alone 384 which some people seem to crave.


 
  
 Well, I would say that there are plenty in the audio engineering world who think 192 is stupid, and 384 doubly so.  These are driven by sales/marketing needs.


----------



## RRod

watchnerd said:


> Well, I would say that there are plenty in the audio engineering world who think 192 is stupid, and 384 doubly so.  These are driven by sales/marketing needs.


 
  
 Yeah, "makes me wonder" was the wrong word choice. It's all about them benjamins.


----------



## KeithEmo

There is one thing that I wonder about on your first point: Can a tone which is itself inaudible still mask a tone which _IS _audible? Specifically, could a loud tone at 22 kHz, which is itself inaudible, affect your ear in such a way that it would reduce your ability to hear high frequencies that are audible? (Or, more in the realm of what might be audible, could ringing at 22 kHz make a cymbal sound dull because it's presence is reducing the sensitivity of your ear to harmonics which are audible? This might make sense of the claim by some people that, with some DACs, the "reverberant tail" of some instruments is altered or reduced.)
  
 (Note that I'm not specifically suggesting that this is in fact occurring; however, it seems possible, and I'm not aware of anyone ever actually testing it.)
  
 And, yes, you're absolutely right about your second point. While it should theoretically be possible to "rearrange ringing" without altering the frequency response significantly, the "apodizing filters" used by many DACs to do so seem to often cause a serious high frequency roll off (on one DAC I had it was -3 dB at 20 kHz with that filter engaged; and flat without it). Not only did it produce significant audible differences, but they were very much in line with how people often describe "the benefits" of such a filter.
  
 On your final point, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, I also suggest that the question is very different depending on whether you approach it as a music producer, a music seller, or a consumer.
  
 1) As a producer, the question is of whether the 192k version is inherently audibly superior to the 96k version (or has other benefits).
  
 2) As a seller, plain and simple, the question is whether you can charge more for it (or use it to justify selling someone another copy of an album they already have).
  
 3) And, as a customer, the question is whether _YOU_ benefit. For example, if an album was mastered at 192k, then the 192k version is presumably "the first generation". Therefore, the 96k version will have gone through a conversion (which opens up the possibility that it lost some quality in the conversion process). There is also the possibility that the producer has altered the file in other ways as well; either to deliberately force the 96k version to sound inferior to the 192k "premium" version, or because he honestly feels that "the guys who buy 192k files are looking for a different sound". (It is a well known fact that CD reissues of vinyl albums were often deliberately made to sound different to meet the expectations of their customers.)
  
 I tend to base my purchasing decisions on that third point. When an album is reissued by someone like HDTRacks, or a major studio, they often do actually re-mix and re-master the audio, so the new version is often audibly significantly different than the previous releases (not always). In those situations, I fully expect that the highest resolution version they offer will be the first generation; and I also expect that, if they do any additional tweaking after the conversion, that it will be the best sounding version (remember that this could be simply because it's one conversion closer to the "master", or because they deliberately made it different). However, either way, I assume that, _IF_ there is a difference, the 192k one will probably be the better version. And, if I do purchase that version, I then have no particular reason to convert it to a lower sample rate afterwards (because space is cheap, converting takes effort, and the conversion just might compromise the quality).
  
 So it really depends on who you mean by "we". It's pretty obvious that at least my second point is true; people _WILL _buy it, which is all the justification anybody needs to produce and sell it. (There are also more abstract reasons; for example, there's a reason why dishwasher detergent packets come in "regular", "extra strength", and "ultimate" - even though they may turn out to have the same ingredients... the reason is that people prefer variety, and so people are more likely to purchase a brand that offers them options. And, when offered three options, many people will avoid the lowest and the highest, and buy the middle one - based on factors that have little to do with actual differences between the choices - and even if the lowest option is perfectly suited to their needs.)
  
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> Yes you can have minimum or intermediate phase filters, but if the ringing they are moving about is inaudible then masking is a bit irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Striving to completely eliminate ringing can lead one to do things like use filters that roll off quite a bit before 20kHz, which could certainly lead to audible differences. Of course, people will naturally want to attribute these audible differences to "less time smearing" instead of "worse frequency response."
> ...


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


> And, if I do purchase that version, I then have no particular reason to convert it to a lower sample rate afterwards (because space is cheap, converting takes effort, and the conversion just might compromise the quality).


 
  
 Except if your playback chain has more audible distortion at 192k as opposed to 48 or 96, in which case decimation could be beneficial. And though space is cheap, cheap isn't always portable. So for someone like me who likes being able to carry his entire CD collection around on an iPod by using lossy formats, I'm lowering the rate on the hi-res albums I have bought, either due to mastering or just plain availability. So yes on *my* particular chain, blind testing hasn't revealed any issues due to resampling using SoX's high-quality settings and, besides, any effect would be small compared to what Opus is throwing away in the file, which is also not especially easy to pick up beyond 96kbps.


----------



## prot

Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva. 
 The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers 
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBlADcpbxbg


----------



## sonitus mirus

prot said:


> Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
> The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 It was discussed in this thread.  The video appears to be the same one.
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/795435/schiit-bifrost-multibit-a-b-test-video


----------



## Max Choiral

prot said:


> Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
> The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Well, just for fun. R2R can have similar tonality like 1-bit DAC regarding of implementation, that's why he mostly like can't hear a difference.
 R2R vs Delta-Sigma are like ortho vs dynamic.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem with that statement is that you're comparing two specific _PRODUCTS_ that _USE_ two different architectures - rather than making a general comparison between the architectures. So, if they sound the same, then all you will have proven is that the two architectures _CAN_ sound the same; and, if one or the other sounds better, or they sound different but equal, then you will have proven something about those two particular products - but you haven't proven if they sound different because one is D-S and the other is R2R, or if it's due to other factors entirely, like different power supplies, or different I/V conversion stages. (It's a bit like trying to figure out if horses are faster than gazelles by racing one horse against one gazelle - and taking the results to be generally applicable to all horses and all gazelles - when the reality is that there are many different types of horses and many different types of gazelles.)
  
 In technical terms, both types of DACs do in fact have weaknesses, and they have different weaknesses - but the weaknesses inherent in each topology are very small. (For examples, differences in oversampling filters can be significantly audible, so, to compare D-S to R2R DACs in terms of sound, you should try one of each - using the same oversampling filter algorithm in both - which should be possible.)
  
 Quote:


prot said:


> Direct R2r vs. Delta-sigma comparison in a nice & easy A/B setup. Schiit Bitfrost Multibit (bimby) vs. Emotiva.
> The video is worth watching so I wont add any spoilers
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## prot

sonitus mirus said:


> It was discussed in this thread.  The video appears to be the same one.
> 
> http://www.head-fi.org/t/795435/schiit-bifrost-multibit-a-b-test-video




Thx for the link, missed that one. 

KeithEmo. Havent said that it was a definitive test. Or particularly well done. I also doubt that the guy knows or cares much about the r2r vs. ds flamewars. 

Just posted the video as an ontopic and interesting watch .. and quite fun too.


----------



## castleofargh

keithemo said:


> The problem with that statement is that you're comparing two specific _PRODUCTS_ that _USE_ two different architectures - rather than making a general comparison between the architectures. So, if they sound the same, then all you will have proven is that the two architectures _CAN_ sound the same; and, if one or the other sounds better, or they sound different but equal, then you will have proven something about those two particular products - but you haven't proven if they sound different because one is D-S and the other is R2R, or if it's due to other factors entirely, like different power supplies, or different I/V conversion stages. (It's a bit like trying to figure out if horses are faster than gazelles by racing one horse against one gazelle - and taking the results to be generally applicable to all horses and all gazelles - when the reality is that there are many different types of horses and many different types of gazelles.)
> 
> In technical terms, both types of DACs do in fact have weaknesses, and they have different weaknesses - but the weaknesses inherent in each topology are very small. (For examples, differences in oversampling filters can be significantly audible, so, to compare D-S to R2R DACs in terms of sound, you should try one of each - using the same oversampling filter algorithm in both - which should be possible.)


 
 +1
   turning an anecdote into a new universal law without control to eliminate a single extra variable, leads to all the loud ways of being wrong, like racism and general xenophobia. it really doesn't offer much more than this, and certainly not an answer about R2R vs DS.
  
 better have no answer than the wrong one.
 scientific method > *


----------



## K.I. Unlimited

We have so much money circulating in the audiophile economy. 

Why don't people take all the most well-reviewed DS and MB DACs, take them apart and ID every single part inside - the clock, chips, caps etc etc and then make a modular DAC to compare part for part?


THAT will be called scientific. Not all the brand product vs. brand product bs.

Perhaps that will scare all the audio manufacturers ****less, because we'll end up having a universal DAC design, and nobody making money would want that.


----------



## KeithEmo

It's a nice idea.....
  
 However, one problem is that designing and building a DAC is complex, and there are a lot of fussy details that make a critical difference in the final performance. It's not just a matter of "using the right parts", or even "using the right parts in the right circuit"; there are very specific design details. For example, a Brand X clock could perform very well in one DAC, but very poorly in another, because the metal cover on that second DAC is 1/2" closer to the top of the clock chip, or because one of the foil traces on the board is 1/2" shorter or longer. And that 1/2" difference in spacing might make a lot of difference with that Brand X clock, but no difference at all with a Brand Y clock, and a Brand Z clock might work better with the _other_ box.
  
 Another problem is that there are lots of different criteria that people use to judge how good a DAC is.... so even deciding which DAC is better, or which one has "the best performance", isn't going to be at all consistent or perhaps even possible. A certain DAC has more accurate frequency response; another has relatively poor frequency response, but excellent time accuracy; which is better? And a third has excellent frequency response and time response, but very high levels of THD.... The answer is going to depend on who you ask. There are several objective criteria used to measure DACs, but there is no general agreement about which ones matter the most. (You can look at simple specs like THD, frequency response, and IM distortion. And you can also look at things like impulse response... which is easy to measure... but very difficult to interpret in terms of how the differences on an oscilloscope trace correlate with differences in sound, and which is subjectively better, or more important.)
  
 In short, once you get past a certain level, there are no simple answers about what specific parts, or measurements, correlate with "being better".....
  
 Quote:


k.i. unlimited said:


> We have so much money circulating in the audiophile economy.
> 
> Why don't people take all the most well-reviewed DS and MB DACs, take them apart and ID every single part inside - the clock, chips, caps etc etc and then make a modular DAC to compare part for part?
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

If we use sound quality as the criteria, I can't possibly understand how building a DAC is complex. If I'm looking for transparency, it can't be challenging to come up with a solid product or it would cost a lot more and the differences between DACs would be incredibly obvious to identify, instead of the opposite.  I think that advances in technology, and the drive with the market to create portable devices, has ultimately rendered expensive DACs and the measurable differences that they provide to be obsolete to those outside the audiophile world where stubborn ignorance rules the roost.


----------



## KeithEmo

The short answer is that it_ isn't_ that hard to build a very good DAC... and there are plenty of them available (and they aren't all expensive).
 However, to put it bluntly, it depends on what you're looking for, and how particular you are.
  
 I can buy a car for $15k that's reliable, easily gets up to 80 mph on the freeway, and has air conditioning and heat that work just fine. But I still don't think it would be fair to say that: "you can get a car that works perfectly for $15k, so anyone who pays more for a car is only doing so because of stubborn ignorance".... and I'm guessing that a lot of car owners wouldn't agree with that statement either.... and not all of them are ignorant or stupid.
  
 (And, if you want to use an analogy with "transparency", then let's try glass. Most modern window glass is what I would call "transparent"; I can see through it just fine, and stuff on the other side doesn't look funny. However, if you want a piece of glass for a picture frame that is literally so transparent you actually can't see that it's there at all, even when you squint at it at an angle, it's going to cost you several hundred dollars - it's called "museum glass", and it's perfectly clear, and has a special anti-reflective coating. And, if I want a "really clear" piece of glass to put on the front to protect my $1k Nikon lens, that absolutely positively won't make any sort of distortion or reflection when bright sunlight or a flash hits it, it's going to cost me even more. In fact, that four inch disc of special protective glass for my lens costs more than a "perfectly functional" cheap camera. It all depends on what you need - and what you're willing to pay.)
  
 You most certainly can build a DAC for $100 that sounds very good, has very low noise and distortion, and has a very flat frequency response. It's not that hard. In fact, most of the DAC chip vendors will cheerfully give you the schematic and board layout you can use to build one yourself - for free. And, if you follow their instructions, you will end up with a DAC that's quite good, and I'm sure it will make 99% of "non-audiophiles" quite happy.(Just like my Nissan Versa, or an equivalent model from someone else, would make 99% of car owners happy.)
  
 However, many companies, including Emotiva, make DACs with multiple different oversampling filters, and, even though all of them are flat, quiet, and have very low distortion, they sound a tiny bit different (you can see the difference if you look at the oscilloscope picture of their response to a transient pulse). And, while the difference is pretty slight, and you may not consider it important, it isn't that difficult to hear. Likewise, most DACs that are quite good still sound slightly different from each other. Some of those differences are due to tiny differences in design. Some of those are unavoidable, or incidental to the design differences; others are intentional - either because the designer prefers the slight difference, or because he thinks that the company's customers will. (And, yes, some of them are simply "product differentiation" - which is where someone says "we have to make our product sound different so people will hear that it sounds different from our competitor - so they have a reason to buy ours". And some have certain filters that sound wildly different, and obviously aren't flat or accurate - but we assume that some people like the way they sound too.)
  
 And, yes, some of the purported differences probably exist mostly in the imaginations of a few audiophiles... and some of them are "different but not necessarily _better_".
  
 So, yes, if you simply want a DAC that is very accurate by all the standard measurements, and actually sounds very good (better than any you could buy at any price twenty years ago), then you have lots of choices, costing anywhere from about $100 to about $100k. That should make it easy to choose...... and easy for someone with a limited budget, or limited interest, to still get an excellent product. They already exist... and you can buy them right now. But, if you find those tiny remaining differences important to you, then I guess you're an audiophile.
  
  
 Quote:


sonitus mirus said:


> If we use sound quality as the criteria, I can't possibly understand how building a DAC is complex. If I'm looking for transparency, it can't be challenging to come up with a solid product or it would cost a lot more and the differences between DACs would be incredibly obvious to identify, instead of the opposite.  I think that advances in technology, and the drive with the market to create portable devices, has ultimately rendered expensive DACs and the measurable differences that they provide to be obsolete to those outside the audiophile world where stubborn ignorance rules the roost.


----------



## sonitus mirus

If you must have an analogy for my use of transparency, than it would be "invisible".  You can't make something more invisible.  A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent.  There is nothing better.  I'm thrilled that there are a cornucopia of consumer choices available that cater to practically everyone's system and ego, but I'm not convinced that any of these offer greater sonic transparency with regards to the thresholds of our hearing.  Different, perhaps, and maybe even more pleasing to some people, but not more transparent.


----------



## KeithEmo

I don't disagree in the least with your definition....
  
 And, because our eyes are optical, it's pretty easy to do that with a piece of glass.
 I can look directly at a variety of actual objects and scenes, "switch" a piece of glass, and a blank frame, between my eyes and the scene, and see if I can tell the difference.
 Windows glass is pretty clear, but you can still tell it's there, because it's never quite clear, always has a tiny bit of distortion, and always picks up reflections under some lighting conditions.
 Under most conditions "museum glass" really is so clear that you might actually walk right through it, or try to put your hand through it.
  
 However, since we analog humans have no way to listen to the bits directly, there's no way we can simply switch a DAC in and out of the signal path to see if it makes a difference.
 But, since what we're really talking about is reproduction, taking an analog source, converting it into digital, then back to analog, will do fine.
 If the result is indistinguishable from the original then we can reasonably conclude that the entire reproduction process is transparent.
 (It's possible that the two conversions have complementary colorations that cancel each other out - but, as long as the entire process is transparent, that's OK.)
  
 The problem there is that I'm unaware of anybody demonstrating to have been able to make a digital reproduction so perfect that nobody can tell the difference at all.........
 (And, no, "most people", or "a bunch of people" doesn't count.... it has to be either everyone, or a big enough group that we can reasonably believe they represent "everyone".)
  
 Now, interestingly, while proving perfection may be difficult, proving the opposite is often somewhat simpler.
 If you have five DACs, and you want to claim that they're all "transparent", all I have to do to prove you wrong is to be able to hear_ ANY_ difference between _ANY_ two of them.
 (If two sound different, then they _CANNOT_ both be "perfectly transparent".)
  
 I simply don't accept your claim (without proof) that any specific DAC is "audibly transparent".
 And, while there have been many attempts to make "the perfect low cost DAC", and many have turned out quite well, I'm not aware of any that has been" audibly perfect" so far.
 (I haven't even heard the perfect high cost DAC - at least not that I know of - but I've certainly not heard every DAC ever made.)
 However, I do tend to notice small (and sometimes not so small) differences between the various DACs that I have heard.
  
 You claim: "A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent."
 I eagerly await your proof.
 (I'd probably buy one.)
  
 Quote:


sonitus mirus said:


> If you must have an analogy for my use of transparency, than it would be "invisible".  You can't make something more invisible.  A DAC can be built for under $100 that is audibly transparent.  There is nothing better.  I'm thrilled that there are a cornucopia of consumer choices available that cater to practically everyone's system and ego, but I'm not convinced that any of these offer greater sonic transparency with regards to the thresholds of our hearing.  Different, perhaps, and maybe even more pleasing to some people, but not more transparent.


----------



## sonitus mirus

I agree that some people probably can hear differences between some DACs, but I haven't seen anything that would pass scientific rigors, and any differences are tiny, if they exist at all.  
  
 If someone were actually hearing differences, than surely there would be some measurable data to explain it that would fall within our threshold of hearing.  I realize there are measurable differences that can be found, but these are typically orders of magnitudes below what could be heard.  I do not doubt that there are some products out there, at all price levels, with differences that can be heard by a few people in specific situations.  Has anyone been able to show with any certainty if these differences are better or worse?
  
 The measurements that I have seen do not suggest that there should be any noticeable difference that humans can hear between most inexpensive DACs that cost under $100 when compared to a $2K Benchmark DAC or an MSB Technology DAC that costs tens of thousands of dollars.    Show me a measurement that we can agree on that could account for an audible difference.  One that is not an intentionally designed filter to alter the sound characteristic from the original source.


----------



## KeithEmo

I'm a little bit confused at your statement.... you seem to be agreeing that "some people can hear differences with some DACs" - which would seem to satisfy the statement that "there are audible differences". Now it is quite another matter whether those differences are "significant" or "important".
  
 I think a big part of the problem is that not everyone agrees on what to measure. For example, virtually any decent DAC is going to have THD that is really low, and frequency response that is really flat. I would even go as far as to say that those values would be so low that I wouldn't expect them to be at all audible. However, if you look at oscilloscope pictures of how different DACs respond to transients, there is a lot of quite obvious variation. However, the audibility of variations in transient performance are not at all clearly defined. Some people insist that pre-ringing is clearly more audible than post ringing; while others argue that neither is typically significant enough to be audible. However, I think it's fair to say that nobody has produced experimental data showing that those differences are _NOT_ audible, so they might be what people are hearing (or maybe it's something else entirely).
  
 Emotiva's Ego DACs each have three different filters.... each of which sounds a tiny bit different with certain program material. My Wyred4Sound DAC2 has six different ones, and I notice a difference with four of them. You only notice it with certain things, and sometimes only on certain speakers or headphones, but the difference is there. One has the least ringing overall; another has less pre-ringing, but more post-ringing. And one is somewhere in-between. Which is _better_? Who knows. Are any of them "perfect"? Probably not. The process of converting analog into digital isn't measurably perfect, and there's still debate about which imperfections are the most audible, or audible at all. My guess is that certain people are more sensitive to certain flaws, and don't notice or don't mind others. Some people go nuts about "perfect sound stage"; personally, I don't care much about that at all, but I find that many DACs don't seem to reproduce metallic sounds, like wire brush cymbals, that really sound like metal on metal - and that bugs me. Wolfson's top DAC chip offers 21 different filter choices. Personally I can hear the differences between some of them, but not others. (And some of them do have significant differences in frequency response or phase response...  so which of those factors accounts for the differences?)
  
 To me, the bottom line is that it's still "an open topic".
 I simply don't think we've reached the point yet where there are a whole bunch of DACs that sound _exactly_ the same - and "arbitrarily perfect".
 However, there are an awful lot of reasonably priced DACs that are very good......
 (And, as for "better" or :worse" - well, that's always going to be a matter of opinion anyway.)
  
  
 Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sonitus mirus* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> I agree that some people probably can hear differences between some DACs, but I haven't seen anything that would pass scientific rigors, and any differences are tiny, if they exist at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## sonitus mirus

I never said that there were no audible differences with all DACs, only that anyone could purchase an inexpensive DAC that was audibly transparent to the point where the sound quality could not be improved upon by spending heaps of money.  I fully understand that there are limitations and situations that might not be ideal for every DAC in all applications.  Unless there is specific information, I'm simply generalizing.  And generally speaking, a DAC is a DAC is a DAC.


----------



## RRod

keithemo said:


>


 
  
 At what frequencies is this ringing occurring? If it's anywhere much south of 20k, well then sure people can hear the effect. I'd love to see some sine sweeps out of all these different filters.


----------



## spruce music

rrod said:


> At what frequencies is this ringing occurring? If it's anywhere much south of 20k, well then sure people can hear the effect. I'd love to see some sine sweeps out of all these different filters.


 

 I am not Emo.  The ringing is occurring in the transition band.  For a proper filter that would be between 20 khz and 22.050 khz for redbook.  For 96khz sample rates it might be between 40-48khz or one might roll off more gently prior to 40 khz.
  
 Mostly leads you on a snipe hunt.  People saw single impulse response when DACs were tested and worried about pre-ringing.  A single impulse signal is an illegal one ADC to DAC because the filtering at input would have altered it by removing higher frequencies.  So recorded music even with cymbals and glockenspiel aren't putting in these transients to cause appreciable ringing upon playback.   Of course worry over this caused people to use other filters some of which can let aliasing thru or alter the upper octaves response or do other things.  All to fix what was a non-problem. 
  
 Want to try it out for yourself?  Get some 192 khz recordings.  Drop it into some software.  Implement your own steep filter at 20 khz or even 18 khz.  This would result in the same ringing as if it were a low sample rate recording. Compare the original with the filtered one while both are still 192 khz files.  See how it sounds to you.  Better still don't know which is playing and see if you can hear it unsighted.


----------



## RRod

spruce music said:


> I am not Emo.  The ringing is occurring in the transition band.  For a proper filter that would be between 20 khz and 22.050 khz for redbook.  For 96khz sample rates it might be between 40-48khz or one might roll off more gently prior to 40 khz.
> 
> Mostly leads you on a snipe hunt.  People saw single impulse response when DACs were tested and worried about pre-ringing.  A single impulse signal is an illegal one ADC to DAC because the filtering at input would have altered it by removing higher frequencies.  So recorded music even with cymbals and glockenspiel aren't putting in these transients to cause appreciable ringing upon playback.   Of course worry over this caused people to use other filters some of which can let aliasing thru or alter the upper octaves response or do other things.  All to fix what was a non-problem.
> 
> Want to try it out for yourself?  Get some 192 khz recordings.  Drop it into some software.  Implement your own steep filter at 20 khz or even 18 khz.  This would result in the same ringing as if it were a low sample rate recording. Compare the original with the filtered one while both are still 192 khz files.  See how it sounds to you.  Better still don't know which is playing and see if you can hear it unsighted.


 
  
 Already done, which is why I asked KE for some data on these switchable filters. And my logic tracks with yours: the ringing is up at frequencies that I can't hear and it's some dB down away from the impulse peak. And often it seems people like to talk about less ringing as though it just happens, as though one doesn't have to pay the piper in the frequency domain somehow.


----------



## Ruben123

This discussion is going wild ever since it was started. There are two possible outcomes. First: all _good_ DACs sound the same and they should because they should go for optimal transparency. Blind test several very different DACs, for instance in audiopile DAPs such as Chord and AK stuff. Second: DACs _dont_ sound all the same. Well that is easy because just do test 1 too. But if it is so hard to make a 100% transparent DAC, why do then most have a flat FR measurement?


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes, the ringing itself occurs above what should be audible frequencies.
  
_However_, ringing is energy, so several cycles of ringing before or after the intended audio signal spreads out the energy of the original signal in time... This means that energy is "taken away" from where it should be and moved somewhere else. It also means that ultrasonic energy is present where there was none in the original signal - so we might suggest that this might cause distortion in another component - or even in our ears (I've heard that theory suggested by some people).
  
 It is also true that a single impulse is "an illegal signal" (meaning that you will never encounter that waveform in a digital audio signal that was produced with a properly band-limited A/D converter). In other words, you can mathematically "create" a digital signal representing a "pure impulse", but you cannot record one, and will never find one in an actual recording. In fact, many audio editors actually won't let you create one, because they limit their output to "theoretically possible" signals. As a philosophical issue, ringing itself is sort of interesting. Assuming there was no ringing in the original analog signal, then any ringing is an artifact of the digitizing process.... or at least an alteration of the original. (However, in real life, most "sharp transients" do already contain lots of ringing - which, presumably, might intermodulate with ringing at a different frequency introduced later.)
  
 Many people insist that pre-ringing is more audible, and more annoying, than post-ringing. And it's possible, using certain types of DSP operations, to "shift the pre-ringing to post ringing". (What that really means is that you can alter the time-domain response so that you end up with less pre-ringing, but the "cost" is either more post-ringing, or other anomalies.)
  
 However, all theory aside, there are many DACs that offer a choice of several different digital filters, usually with choices between different filter slope shapes, phase responses, and amounts and types of ringing. And many of them offer several choices whose THD, frequency response, and phase response are all so low that they "should clearly be inaudible" by all the "accepted theory". Yet the fact remains that they do in fact sound different. (The difference is usually quite subtle. I tend to notice it with good quality recordings of wire brush cymbals, when played on electrostatic headphones, or speakers with ribbon tweeters. To me, with some DACs, or some filters, they sound more like "metal on metal", while, with others, they sound more like the hiss of escaping steam. Subjectively, to me it sounds like the sounds of the individual wires hitting the cymbal are "blurred together in time". I also notice a slight difference in how sibilants are rendered on some recordings.)
  
 Just to be honest here... I haven't spend the time to try and analyze this in detail. All I'm saying is that the differences do in fact exist. Perhaps the "currently accepted facts" about what differences are and are not audible are wrong - at least in degree. Perhaps there's some sort of interaction going on that hasn't been suggested yet. (Check out "parametric speakers" - they use a modulated 65 kHz ultrasonic carrier wave to transmit audio which is perfectly intelligible to humans. They are just starting to be used in "talking signs" and other advertising applications.)  If I was still in college, this would make a great subject for a final thesis....  However, the fact remains that the theory seems to suggest that there shouldn't be an audible difference, but in fact there is... so, clearly, there's something missing in the theory.
  
 I would also remind people that real world DACs do_ NOT_ in fact operate exactly according to the theory. The physical process used by every DAC I know of involves taking a series of electronic samples at calculated voltages and averaging them over time using a filter. This is NOT exactly equivalent to the SinC operation called for in the actual theory. And even the DSP filters themselves are only nominally close approximations to the theoretically chosen function - models claimed to be close enough that the differences "should be" inaudible. (For example, a physical low-pass filter has a response curve that slopes down after its cutoff frequency, and eventually asymptotically approaches zero at much higher frequencies, DSP filters do not... because their performance is limited by the number of taps and calculation depth used.)  
  
 Here's the data sheet for the Wolfson 8741 DAC chip (which offers a choice of quite a few different filters). If you read down to the graphs and specs you'll see that the responses of the various filters they offer are quite different.... but, with most of those filters, those differences fall into areas that "shouldn't be audible" according to "currently accepted theory". 
  
 https://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/WM8741_v4.3.pdf
  
 Many DAC product vendors offer you a choice between several filters, and some even develop their own separate filters - usually with the intent to minimize or "optimize" certain specific characteristics.... however, which characteristics are audible, and which of those are important, doesn't seem at all "well understood" to me. (Of course, each of us needs to decide at what level these differences become unimportant - which is a different question than whether they're audible or not.)
  
 Quote:


rrod said:


> Already done, which is why I asked KE for some data on these switchable filters. And my logic tracks with yours: the ringing is up at frequencies that I can't hear and it's some dB down away from the impulse peak. And often it seems people like to talk about less ringing as though it just happens, as though one doesn't have to pay the piper in the frequency domain somehow.


----------



## RRod

Pre-ringing is more audible... if you can hear it. This is certainly an issue in EQ where we're filtering within the main audible range, but we're talking about higher range stuff than that. As far as "spreading" energy, I tend to view it as removing the energy of the higher frequencies which we weren't hearing anyway. There is a duality to all this, after all. I don't know why you need to air quote "should be audible", because either you can hear 20kHz where you set your pot or you can't. As far as hearing things, well then we get into the whole expectation bias thing that always goes nowhere. Seeing as how I can take any track I have and lowpass it with a steep, linear filter at 18kHz and hear no difference when doing blind tests, even on tracks of all cymbals, I am either a super-lazy listener or I actually just can't hear above 18kHz. You can guess which one I think is true.


----------



## landroni

rrod said:


> As far as hearing things, well then we get into the whole expectation bias thing that always goes nowhere.


 

 Expectation bias is just as relevant, if not more so, when it comes to _not_ hearing things... Unless you invoke this potentiality every single time you don't hear a difference, I don't see why you would invoke it whenever you do hear a difference. In this sense, it's more of a unsubstantiated argument (for the sake of arguing) than anything else.


----------



## RRod

landroni said:


> Expectation bias is just as relevant, if not more so, when it comes to _not_ hearing things... Unless you invoke this potentiality every single time you don't hear a difference, I don't see why you would invoke it whenever you do hear a difference. In this sense, it's more of a unsubstantiated argument (for the sake of arguing) than anything else.


 
  
 Except that if I CAN hear things, then I should be able to pass a test. Anyone can fail a test if he wants, which is why we put the burden on the person making a positive claim.


----------



## sonitus mirus

landroni said:


> Expectation bias is just as relevant, if not more so, when it comes to _not_ hearing things... Unless you invoke this potentiality every single time you don't hear a difference, I don't see why you would invoke it whenever you do hear a difference. In this sense, it's more of a unsubstantiated argument (for the sake of arguing) than anything else.


 
  
 This is a false dilemma, or an _argumentum ad ignorantiam_.  Some notions may never be fully explained with certainty, whether it be true or false.  You're shifting the burden of proof.  Think where we would be if this type of logical fallacy was applied to space exploration?  Instead of landing men on the moon or investigating the solar system with unmanned vehicles, we would still be researching if movements of snails in Gibraltar might create catastrophic technical miscalculations when it rained in Boston on Tuesday.  I mean, unless somebody has proven otherwise, it might make the rocket explode on the launch pad.


----------



## landroni

sonitus mirus said:


> This is a false dilemma, or an _argumentum ad ignorantiam_.  Some notions may never be fully explained with certainty, whether it be true or false.  You're shifting the burden of proof.  Think where we would be if this type of logical fallacy was applied to space exploration?  Instead of landing men on the moon or investigating the solar system with unmanned vehicles, we would still be researching if movements of snails in Gibraltar might create catastrophic technical miscalculations when it rained in Boston on Tuesday.  I mean, unless somebody has proven otherwise, it might make the rocket explode on the launch pad.


 

 ^ Makes no sense...


----------



## landroni

rrod said:


> landroni said:
> 
> 
> > Expectation bias is just as relevant, if not more so, when it comes to _not_ hearing things... Unless you invoke this potentiality every single time you don't hear a difference, I don't see why you would invoke it whenever you do hear a difference. In this sense, it's more of a unsubstantiated argument (for the sake of arguing) than anything else.
> ...


 
  
 True, provided the testing conditions are conducive towards an effect being detected. It is all too easy to set up testing conditions, whether willingly or not, where you're testing for something completely different (and undesired) than what you set out to detect in the first place. In other words, confounding factors may be a bitch, and embedded assumptions in testing settings may throw off all of your efforts.
  


> Anyone can fail a test if he wants, which is why we put the burden on the person making a positive claim.


 
 Exactly. Anyone can fail (intentionally or not, and importantly consciously or not) a test by choosing randomly the answers, which is why negative results from blind tests must be taken with more care than positive ones, and extrapolation of said results should be done with much care. In other words, when someone claims that they've DBTed something (say, two DACs) and they can't hear a difference, this isn't necessarily much of a proof with general implications. To put it differently still, negative results are usually local (unless it's a carefully controlled setting, with appropriate sample size, etc., etc.).
  
 None of the above however detracts from the fact that expectation bias has no innate directionality. It is just as easy (if not more so) to fool yourself that you don't hear a difference, as it is to fool yourself that you do hear a difference. Which is why the systematic invocation of expectation bias by audio sceptics when someone claims to hear a difference feels hollow: Absent cognitive dissonance, said sceptics would be invoking expectation bias whenever someone claimed _not_ to hear a difference as well.
  
 As for the burden of proof... Well. It's on the one interested in seeing such proof, not on the one claiming to perceive a difference. Choosing a DAC/amp/headphone and listening to it has nothing to do with science, and is as inconsequential to humanity as choosing ice-cream, a light bulb or a movie. Infusing science into the process of choosing DACs or amps is just as unnecessary as when choosing diapers or keyboards: choose one that seems to work best for you, use it, enjoy it, and move on with your life. I for one, sure as hell, have no interest in supplying anyone with 'proof' that _I_ can perceive a difference between the two ice-creams (or two keyboards), and that I prefer one over the other... Whatever the 'specs' may say...
  
 But if we are in the business of requesting proof of those who claim to hear differences between stuff, well, allow me to barge in as well: I keep seeing self-identified "objectivists" insist hearing a difference between headphones like Grado SR-80, Audeze LCD-4 and, presumably, run-of-the-mill Apple earbuds and Bose Soundbars. Well, call me unconvinced. Is there really ANY 'objective', 'scientific' proof out there, from carefully set-up *double-blind* tested studies with matched levels, that the four items above really do sound any different from each other? And I insist, for any evidence to have any validity both the researchers and the test subjects must NOT know, at any point during the testing, which piece of equipment they're listening to. Until any such peer-reviewed, scientific evidence emerges, I say we can safely assume that there is no _audible_ difference between these pieces of audio gear and that all those who claim to hear a difference are hapless audiophools gullible to their expectation biases...
 As you can see, this isn't really a scientific argument, insofar it's a simple debating trick. Yeah, "prove it!"


----------



## spruce music

landroni said:


> True, provided the testing conditions are conducive towards an effect being detected. It is all too easy to set up testing conditions, whether willingly or not, where you're testing for something completely different (and undesired) than what you set out to detect in the first place. In other words, confounding factors may be a bitch, and embedded assumptions in testing settings may throw off all of your efforts.
> 
> Exactly. Anyone can fail (intentionally or not, and importantly consciously or not) a test by choosing randomly the answers, which is why negative results from blind tests must be taken with more care than positive ones, and extrapolation of said results should be done with much care. In other words, when someone claims that they've DBTed something (say, two DACs) and they can't hear a difference, this isn't necessarily much of a proof with general implications. To put it differently still, negative results are usually local (unless it's a carefully controlled setting, with appropriate sample size, etc., etc.).
> 
> ...


 

 Okay this is bizzarro world science.  Just reverse or ignore it for the ridiculous kind of thinking it is.  I want to believe what I want to believe.  So I will require ridiculous things from you in order not to agree with you.  I'll make claims and no burden of proof on the claimant only on those who don't believe what I believe.  Bad faith and all that you know.


----------



## sonitus mirus

landroni said:


> ^ Makes no sense...


 
 How about a gross oversimplification?  You can't prove a negative.
  
 Take Newtonian physics, as an example.  This is significantly responsible for human's achievements with regards to exploring the solar system.  Gravity is a constant.  You are suggesting that not everything follows this law.  We are asking you to provide evidence.  You have none, but retort that we must show that every possible object of all sizes and shapes dropped from an infinite number of distances would fall at the same rate, otherwise gravity is not shown to be a constant.  My reply to your comment was to show how absurd it would be to have to prove every possible negative outcome.  Science would be lost if this was the method required for discovery.


----------



## castleofargh

landroni said:


> rrod said:
> 
> 
> > landroni said:
> ...


 

no! the burden is very much on the one claiming anything. suggesting it's not is just false. we don't force someone to make a claim, the one making it is the one that needs to demonstrate something. always.
 and pretending that the guy claiming he can fly using telekinesis has the same burden of proof as the guy claiming he can't fly that way is just silly. this is not kinder garden where we have to pretend like all people are equal and all tasks equally significant. some stuff are very conclusive, some aren't. failing to pass a test isn't very conclusive aside from "I failed to pass that test", and as such isn't very interesting to other people. being able to find differences is of significance because it shows there is indeed a difference that can be heard in that test. and because of that we are logically more concerned about proving/disproving it as a logical scientific process.
 your paranoia won't make failed tests more interesting. nobody cares about failure to prove something.
  
 also it should be obvious enough that there is a difference between having personal opinions, and making a claim for the world to read. the first one is for you, by you. even sharing it isn't a necessity. but making public claims involves everybody reading it and as such requires more controls. the same way freedom doesn't define the same thing when you're alone in the middle of the desert and when youryou are surrounded by a crowd. there are plenty of actions that wouldn't have the same consequences depending on the situation. if your actions can affect others, then you should take those potential effects into account before doing anything. if not for legal reasons, at least for moral reasons as not to be a total jerk.
 making empty claims is the disrespectful action, not asking for evidence of a claim already made public. having a desire for proof and not being gullible are healthy rational behaviors, not debating tricks. making a claims trying to convince everybody without any actual evidence that we're right, here is your debating trick. we asking for proof comes only as as a consequence of something done wrong, don't get things reversed as if asking for clarity was the cause of the problem. making a claim implies I have proof of what I'm claiming. if I don't, I shouldn't have made the claim in the first place. it's that simple.
  
 edit: your vs you're. me spik engrish very great.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

landroni said:


> None of the above however detracts from the fact that expectation bias has no innate directionality. It is just as easy (if not more so) to fool yourself that you don't hear a difference, as it is to fool yourself that you do hear a difference. Which is why the systematic invocation of expectation bias by audio sceptics when someone claims to hear a difference feels hollow: Absent cognitive dissonance, said sceptics would be invoking expectation bias whenever someone claimed _not_ to hear a difference as well.




You mean to discard the effect of billions spent each year on audio advertising of all sorts, never mind the fact that different pieces of equipment look completely... different?

Or the fact that each time you so much as sneeze (unbalancing your inner ear pressures), reseat your headphones (completely changing acoustics) or _think a different thought_, what you hear truly changes--thus introducing random variations to the sound heard in each piece of equipment that the subject can and will attribute to the equipment rather than himself--thus setting up the stage for expectation bias towards a consistent difference between the equipment?

:rolleyes:

Or how about just the fact that us hard-nosed "non-believers" are such a small minority that we have been ringed apart in our own subforum of a subforum "for our own good"?


----------



## K.I. Unlimited

castleofargh said:


> no! the burden is very much on the one claiming anything. suggesting it's not is just false. we don't force someone to make a claim, the one making it is the one that needs to demonstrate something. always.
> and pretending that the guy claiming he can fly using telekinesis has the same burden of proof as the guy claiming he can't fly that way is just silly. this is not kinder garden where we have to pretend like all people are equal and all tasks equally significant. some stuff are very conclusive, some aren't. failing to pass a test isn't very conclusive aside from "I failed to pass that test", and as such isn't very interesting to other people. being able to find differences is of significance because it shows there is indeed a difference that can be heard in that test. and because of that we are logically more concerned about proving/disproving it as a logical scientific process.
> *your paranoia won't make failed tests more interesting. nobody cares about failure to prove something.*
> 
> ...




I must beg to differ on the bolded text. In medical literature, most of our problems coming from scientists who are publishing papers for the sake of finding "something different" is one of the factors slowing down our progress. If we ignore the e.g. 5 papers that rigorously proved that a new drug does in FACT have no value (or worse may harm patients) we will have problems with cost (and for this context, health) should we follow the paper finding "significant differences ", and not those that proved the null hypothesis correct. 

And in the world of audio, a lot of money can likewise be saved if we proved there is no significant difference between two items, so we can push our audio engineers in the field to keep up the research for better advancements in audio technology.


----------



## castleofargh

sure, I was talking about motivation. to say that our insistence to get proof only from the ones claiming differences was natural and not some conspiracy from the "everything sounds the same" secret society.  you talk about actual research, which can hardly describe a guy sitting in his chair doing sighted evaluations and claiming to hear a difference from DACs. and even better for this topic, claiming that part of a design(while never ever isolating that section) is the cause for such differences. 
 for actual research, there is indeed the attraction for spectacular discoveries, be it to become famous or to get funding. and on that matter I totally agree with you, it's basically human desire and money corrupting the scientific method. the same way there is so little love for replication studies when repeatability is supposed to be the actual foundation of science. it's wrong for science, but also easy to understand why it's happening.


----------



## hagenhays

Relative newbie to headfi...but am rather intrigued by all of the banter and "scientific discussion" on dacs. What i distinctly remember hearing/taking away from the "schiit gods" is that every piece in your audio chain is a distinct player in your end sound performance, and that some pieces play more nicely then others. I also think that the term "sounds better/clearer" is thrown around way to much when they should really just say different. If people cant decide between different sound signatures, than save up and by both, have fun switching them out.

Just not sure how a subjective hobby can pose as an objective one even if there are quantitative numbers involved??

Just my $.02.
I started with "high end" Denon and polk audio...LOL. WTH was i thinking. 
Really wish the guys could steer me on my next dac purchase though...or anyone on here.
Heavily leaning between bifrost 4490 and bifrost multibit. And its not the price difference hanging me up. I dont like having to send stuff back.

Anyways...learning about the mathematical aspect of all of this is fascinating...cheers!!


----------



## Ruben123

Then the question: do you even need an amp or dac?


----------



## watchnerd

hagenhays said:


> I also think that the term "sounds better/clearer" is thrown around way to much when they should *really just say different.* If people cant decide between different sound signatures, than save up and by both, have fun switching them out.
> 
> *Just not sure how a subjective hobby can pose as an objective one even if there are quantitative numbers involved??*


 
  
 To start with, engage in double blind ABX testing to determine if they really do sound different, or are just imagined to sound different.


----------



## hagenhays

If i had $1000 laying around i would. Im currently using their "lo-end" modi which to my ears sounds fine....its filtering pandora and cds. I also have my cds flac ripped. Schiit is pretty reputable and steering people to higher flagship pieces isnt their thing....i will probably get the bifrost4490.

...it was so much eaiser when you could go to an audio store. I miss those days. If anyone has impressions of the 4490 that would be great. I dont understand how if the multibit analog stage is on a smaller piece of board how it can sound better than a fully discrete supply (bifristmb vs s/d) That is where im lost.


----------



## Ruben123

hagenhays said:


> If i had $1000 laying around i would. Im currently using their "lo-end" modi which to my ears sounds fine....its filtering pandora and cds. I also have my cds flac ripped. Schiit is pretty reputable and steering people to higher flagship pieces isnt their thing....i will probably get the bifrost4490.
> 
> ...it was so much eaiser when you could go to an audio store. I miss those days. If anyone has impressions of the 4490 that would be great. I dont understand how if the multibit analog stage is on a smaller piece of board how it can sound better than a fully discrete supply (bifristmb vs s/d) That is where im lost.




Like I said: do you even need an amp? I'm listening to my Havi b3 earphones which are hard to drive and "benefit" from better sources from my Compaq netbook. Volume 20%.


----------



## hagenhays

Im just looking to update my main list station and move my modi to a second listening station...and of course knowing full. This is a hobby, No one needs any of this crap...you could plug in headohones and listen to anything on you tube if ya wanted. I love the hobby. I just think it gets a little to overanalyzed at times. Since i was happy with schiit before, i was hoping to find another piece of equip that would provide a difference in listening differences. And im looking for a dac for 2 channel stereo amp with speakers, not headphones. I think that part of my chain is pretty solid--Marantz 2015 rebuilt with tekton tower speakers. And my q earlier...to get back on topic was opp vs discrete amp for better analog stage??


----------



## watchnerd

hagenhays said:


> to get back on topic was opp vs discrete amp for better analog stage??


 
  
 All things being equal, discrete is usually considered better.  So from that point of view, one could argue that the analog stage of the Bifrost 4490 is superior to that of the Bifrost MB.
  
 But the multi-bit believers presumably feel that the benefits of MB (or at least the DSP filter used in Schiit's MB products) trumps that difference.
  
  
 (BTW, the Jotunheim DAC implementation is arguably superior to the Bifrost 4490 in that it is fully balanced and uses 2 x 4490).


----------



## Ruben123

watchnerd said:


> All things being equal, discrete is usually considered better.  So from that point of view, one could argue that the analog stage of the Bifrost 4490 is superior to that of the Bifrost MB.
> 
> But the multi-bit believers presumably feel that the benefits of MB (or at least the DSP filter used in Schiit's MB products) trumps that difference.
> 
> ...




The most interesting though is if they indeed DO sound any different, but that's hard to know since I haven't seen any blind test between them yet


----------



## hagenhays

If anyone has some preferences over the sd bifost vs multibit that would be great. ( i could save the $200 for a cd transporter).
But if the multibit is worth the voodoo magic...then im cool getting that.
Darn...wish i could listen to both...but 15% restocking isnt worth it.


----------



## Ruben123

I'd get the cheapest one, I'd be surprised if they actually sound different from each other.


----------



## reginalb

hagenhays said:


> Im just looking to update my main list station and move my modi to a second listening station...and of course knowing full. This is a hobby, No one needs any of this crap...you could plug in headohones and listen to anything on you tube if ya wanted. I love the hobby. I just think it gets a little to overanalyzed at times. Since i was happy with schiit before, i was hoping to find another piece of equip that would provide a difference in listening differences. And im looking for a dac for 2 channel stereo amp with speakers, not headphones. I think that part of my chain is pretty solid--Marantz 2015 rebuilt with tekton tower speakers. And my q earlier...to get back on topic was opp vs discrete amp for better analog stage??


 
  
 Get another Modi, or better yet, get a Schiit Fulla, if it's just for headphones. I use a Valhalla 2 on my desk, I had planned to play with it and sell it, but it looks really cool, and I got it used at a great price. That's the only reason I use it. I use a $20 DAC with it, and it's great. I use a DAC at all externally, because I switch between two computers a lot, and the DAC is plugged in to a hub that is connected to both via a USB switch so I can swap my audio (both headphone and speakers), mouse, keyboard, quickly. I probably wouldn't have an external DAC at all if not for the need to switch quickly, but mine serves several purposes for me (also use it as an input) and it was like $20. 
  
 The Schiit guys are marketers, and they're smart ones, you say that they don't steer people to to their top products, but they're pretty savvy and are actually doing just that. Get you on the cheap, then plant seeds of upgradeitis. They are brilliant at their marketing. They have found a niche market that they hit with relentless intensity as "non-marketing" that is actually just amazing marketing.


----------



## watchnerd

reginalb said:


> They are brilliant at their marketing. They have found a niche market that they hit with relentless intensity as "non-marketing" that is actually just amazing marketing.


 
  
 Agreed.


----------



## hagenhays

I "hear what your saying", ive heard this logic before....marketing by appearing aloof is genius marketing.
Understanding i need none of these fangled things....want vs need, i will settle on a cheaper budget item that i am already happy with the sound. I want something for 2 channel music for a more analog sound for my vintage marantz--in terms of streaming and flac. (Cds and vinyl sound great). My modi 2 works pretty well but im tired of moving it around--another modi 2 should work, and not break the bank. Chasing upgraditis for the sake of "audio nirvana" is prepostorous....buy music instead. Maybe i should just buy a $2k cd player.....joking haha!!
I love my vali by the way....dont see why people need more than that...sounds great.


----------



## hagenhays

Any recommendations on a decent blu ray player for digital out pass thru to dac?


----------



## watchnerd

hagenhays said:


> buy music instead





>


 
  
 How do I buy more music?
  
 I'm being serious. I have a Tidal Hifi subscription which gets me unlimited lossless streaming for $19.99/month to *40 million tracks*. I can't buy more than that.
  
 Not to mention the archive of 50,000 tracks already sitting on my NAS, playable via Roon.
  
 (I guess I could buy more vinyl, but I don't have the space for that...)


----------



## 460414

Can anyone here contribute to this?
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/825898/best-measuring-r2r-dac


----------



## Baldr

Check the atomicbob threads on this forum


----------



## hagenhays

I would like to clarify my earlier comment/rant...given the fact there arent audio stores anymore (at least ive never seen one) i think its a breath if fresh air to not have to deal with sales tactics or watch for sale prices. SCHIIT is very honest, you know what your going to get and if you do want to upgrade..you know it should squeeze more detail out of your setup.

Im hoping to pull the trigger soon.
I dont have balanced outputs so im thinking bifrost is probably my upper threshold, since i love my amp.


----------



## Traveller

hagenhays said:


> ...given the fact there arent audio stores anymore (at least ive never seen one)...


 
 Maybe not in your neck of the woods...


----------



## 460414

In scientific applications where accuracy etc is required and the frequency is comparable to that of audio dacs (~192khz max, normaly 44.1khz), delta sigma is a far better choice. With high frequency frequencies, well beyond that of audio (eg multiple mega hz), multibit starts to quickly become a better choice.
  
 Not sure where this "delta sigma throws away all the bits etc etc" argument comes from. As most of you know sigma delta works in a very different way with only 1 bit instead at a high clock sped... But the end results is identical to that of a multibit dac, except with lower distortion (good chip vs good chip). Unless you want a high number of bits, eg 21 bits vs say ~19 bits, then multibit is better. But then.. Can you tell the difference between 19 (524,288 combinations) and 21  bits (2,097,152)? Suppose the recording is actually a true 21 bit recording. (not to mentions the noise floor interfering with the accuracy at 21 bits with a 21 bit dac) Here is a test of 8 (256 combinations) vs 16 (65,536) bits: http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php or http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php granted the recording is horrible, but still. That's a tiny *256* vs 65,536.


----------



## watchnerd

nbe9 said:


> Here is a test of 8 (256 combinations) vs 16 (65,536) bits: http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php or http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit.php granted the recording is horrible, but still. That's a tiny *256* vs 65,536.


 
  
 I completely flunked that listening test, doing no better than random chance.


----------



## OddE

watchnerd said:


> I completely flunked that listening test, doing no better than random chance.


 
  
 -That makes two of us. Granted, the source material is not very suitable to detect bit depth differences in the first place - but then again, surprisingly few recordings are, which kind of is the point that webpage stresses.


----------



## KeithEmo

The answer to your question is pretty simple.....
  
 In this day and age we can put millions of transistors on a piece of silicon a few millimeters square.
 There are benefits that can be gained by using nice big separate parts....
 And there are other benefits to using tiny little parts, close together, and mounted on the same substrate....
 So, in and of itself, whether your circuit is the size of a building, or of a speck of dust, doesn't necessarily suggest whether it will sound better.
 Sometimes a designer will use separate parts for a specific reason; sometimes it's just a matter of not being able to buy one chip that does all of what they need.
 And, of course, sometimes there's a little chip that does EXACTLY what you need 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Quote:


hagenhays said:


> If i had $1000 laying around i would. Im currently using their "lo-end" modi which to my ears sounds fine....its filtering pandora and cds. I also have my cds flac ripped. Schiit is pretty reputable and steering people to higher flagship pieces isnt their thing....i will probably get the bifrost4490.
> 
> ...it was so much eaiser when you could go to an audio store. I miss those days. If anyone has impressions of the 4490 that would be great. I dont understand how if the multibit analog stage is on a smaller piece of board how it can sound better than a fully discrete supply (bifristmb vs s/d) That is where im lost.


----------



## KeithEmo

But "considered" is a very dangerous and misleading word.....
  
 Discrete components have certain advantages.....
 And integrated circuits have _OTHER_ distinct advantages.....
 And, in a given circuit, either may prove to be more important.
  
 One of the biggest "advantages" of discrete components is that it's a lot easier to convince people that your fancy complicated circuit, with all those transistors, sounds different than the other guy's equally complicated circuit, with just as many, than it is to convince people that your preamp, which has three parts, including a standard $5 op amp, really sounds a lot different than the other guy's preamp, constructed of the same three parts, and the same standard $5 op amp.
  
 By and large, you can make a really good sounding piece of equipment (or a really bad sounding one) using discrete components or integrated circuits, so it's rather foolish to generalize that either is "better".  
 Quote:


watchnerd said:


> All things being equal, discrete is usually considered better.  So from that point of view, one could argue that the analog stage of the Bifrost 4490 is superior to that of the Bifrost MB.
> 
> But the multi-bit believers presumably feel that the benefits of MB (or at least the DSP filter used in Schiit's MB products) trumps that difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruben123

Could anyone summarise this topic? Do two different DACs with flat fr differ any bit?


----------



## KeithEmo

Easy summary......
  
 Frequency response, noise, and distortion are NOT the ONLY specs that define how something sounds.
 Another way in which DACs differ is "time response" or "transient response" (which has to do with "ringing" and how their digital filters work).
 In non technical terms, those other specs all concern steady state sine wave response.
 Time response has to do with how the device reproduces a transient (a sound that is short and sharp or doesn't repeat).
 Different types of DACs differ significantly in this regard, and you can easily see the differences on an oscilloscope picture.
_HOWEVER_, because of the nature of those differences, there's a lively debate as to whether they're_ AUDIBLE_ or not.
  
 Depending on your speakers, and your source content, most people (but not all) seem to agree that, on a DAC that offers multiple filters to choose from, switching between filters produces a subtle but noticeable change in sound. (To me, on a high-res recording that includes well recorded wire brush cymbals, the cymbals sound more "natural" or more like "metal on metal" with one filter than with another. Try the 24/192k HDTracks version of the Eagles Hotel California album.) Some people claim to not hear any difference, and others insist that, based on the numbers, there cannot possibly be an audible difference to hear. I only notice it on certain content material, and with certain speakers or headphones. Note that we're talking about a very subtle difference that, even if you do notice it, you may not find at all important.
  
 Some people claim to notice this sort of difference between R2R DACs and D-S DACs. My personal suspicion is that they're hearing differences in the digital filter which aren't strictly due to whether it's an R2R or a D-S DAC. (The filter is actually a separate thing from the topology.)
  
_NOTE_ that many R2R DACs are _ALSO_ non-oversampling, which produces noticeable audible differences for other reasons.
 (However, DACs like the Schiit Yggdrasil, which gets a lot of mention in this thread, is actually R2R, and uses its own custom filter, but is _NOT_ a non-oversampling DAC.)
  
 Quote:


ruben123 said:


> Could anyone summarise this topic? Do two different DACs with flat fr differ any bit?


----------



## sonitus mirus

keithemo said:


>





> Easy summary......
> 
> Frequency response, noise, and distortion are NOT the ONLY specs that define how something sounds.
> Another way in which DACs differ is "time response" or "transient response" (which has to do with "ringing" and how their digital filters work).
> ...


 
  
 That was a wonderful synopsis and as fair as I've read on the topic under discussion.  Though, it should be noted exactly how you go about noticing these subtle differences in filters.  Is there a high probability that what you seem to be noticing is actually nothing more than sighted bias?  Also, for those filter changes, could some of these actually be altering the sound significantly enough to show a measurable difference that many would consider to be audible?


----------



## watchnerd

ruben123 said:


> Could anyone summarise this topic? Do two different DACs with flat fr differ any bit?


 
  
 1. Implementation is just as important as the specific DAC chip technology.  Don't pick something just because it has your favorite species of chip.
  
 2. Remember that almost all modern recordings are made using Sigma-Delta AD converters before you get too crazy purist about the superiority of R2R (unless you're only going to listen to digital recordings from the last century, and no modern re-masterings).
  
 3. R2R vs Delta-Sigma is most importantly about what a given designer is most comfortable with.  They're both just tools, capable of glory or disaster in the right or wrong hands.  If a designer does her best work using R2R, then you may have a solid reason for preferring R2R from that vendor (e.g. Schiit). On the other hand, if a given designer pushes the envelope of DS design, that's probably the better product from that vendor (e.g. NAD Master Series).
  
 3. For R2R DACs that use DSP filters, the filter is really the secret sauce that has the biggest effect on the sound (aside from the analog output stage).  There are real, measurable differences between IIR and FIR filters in the realm of phase and impulse response.  How much this is audible is a different question.  But it is real.
  
 4. Except for the cheapest gear, old gear, or disastrously crappy connections, jitter is probably not worth worrying much about now.  The difference between 500 picoseconds and 100 picoseconds of jitter in the audio band is more about epeen and bragging rights than anything audible.
  
 5. Pay more attention to the analog stage than the chipset (unless you need/want DSD).  A beefy analog stage with good power supply and isolation, coupled to a ho-hum DAC chip, will beat a razzle-dazzle expensive DAC chip coupled to a ho-hum analog stage.
  
 6. DACs are not turntables or tape decks or tuners or other highly flawed, distorted, electromechanical analog sources, where the difference between the best and the worst is both huge and costly.  $99 DACs can be perfectly listenable, regardless of chipset, with only minor flaws.  The same wasn't true of budget tape decks or budget turntables.  So keep things in perspective.


----------



## KeithEmo

One part of the problem is that the measurable and visible differences constitute differences in ringing waveforms that are themselves ultrasonic in nature. For example, how does a short sharp spike sound as compared to the same spike with several cycles of ultrasonic ringing before and after it? Some would argue that, since the ringing is at inaudible frequencies, you can't possibly hear it, so it doesn't matter. Others will say that, because the ringing takes power away from the primary spike and spreads it in time, the spike itself is stretched, and its energy delivered over a longer period of time. The result is that nothing extra is heard, but the "character" of what is heard seems to alter slightly. There's also the possibility that, even if the ringing itself is inaudible, it could still cause interactions or distortions which are audible.
  
 The other problem is that the differences we're talking about are difficult to define. To me, it's the difference between whether a wire brush hitting a cymbal sounds more like, well, little wires hitting a hunk of metal, or more like a steam valve going "tssss  tsssss tssss". I'm not quite sure how I'd describe the differences between those two sounds, but they seem different to me. (I can say that it sounds to me more like, with the latter, the individual little noises of wires hitting metal seem blurred together, but that image in my head could be due to what I _BELIEVE_ to be the cause.)
  
 I can also say that I've tried a sort of double blind test on several DACs I currently own and been able to reliably detect differences between filters.
 We're talking about a test where I had a friend switch between the filters, and I could identify which filter was being used, as could he when our roles were reversed.
  
 Note:
 1) we're talking about filters which were both arbitrarily very flat in terms of frequency response (so the differences there should be quite inaudible)
 2) the difference was only apparent on certain few recordings - and not on many others
 3) the difference was only apparent with certain models of speakers and headphones
 4) on one of the DACs, a Wyred4Sound DAC2, of the six filters it offers, only three of them sounded distinctly different (to me)
 5) we are talking about very tiny differences of the sort that are only noticeable when you switch back and forth between the choices multiple times
  
 Please note that I'm not suggesting which is better, or even which is more technically correct, or even whether the differences matter - simply that there are in fact audible differences... which suggests to me that we don't know everything yet. For example, while there have been plenty of studies done on the range of frequencies audible to humans, they've all been done with continuous steady state sine waves. (Most folks agree that most humans with excellent hearing can hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz - although one study extends the bottom of the range to 10 Hz.) However, less direct concepts, like how much phase shift between the left and right it takes to produce an apparent shift in the left/right position of something in the sound stage, are more difficult to measure, And measurements that involve transient and varying waveforms even more so. (Virtually all of the math that describes things like the Nyquist frequency, and the ability to accurately represent waveforms with limited numbers of samples, assumes a continuous sine wave signal.... which music is NOT. Likewise, even the math that describes how a DAC works assumes that the DAC uses something called a "SinC function" when, in reality, the sampling process used by DACs is really only an approximation of it.)  
   Quote:


sonitus mirus said:


> That was a wonderful synopsis and as fair as I've read on the topic under discussion.  Though, it should be noted exactly how you go about noticing these subtle differences in filters.  Is there a high probability that what you seem to be noticing is actually nothing more than sighted bias?  Also, for those filter changes, could some of these actually be altering the sound significantly enough to show a measurable difference that many would consider to be audible?


----------



## sonitus mirus

Thanks for the additional details, if only for my sake.
  
 Have you heard inexpensive (<$200) DACs that could reproduce wire brushes accurately?  In other words, did you find a correlation to price and accuracy, or is it just a specific filtering technique that you found preferable?


----------



## KeithEmo

To be quite honest, I've heard some DACs in the sub-$200 range that sound very good to me, and I've also heard some very expensive DACs that seemed to me to NOT do a very good job..... so I wouldn't say that I've found much correlation between cost and performance at all. To me, the biggest distinction seems to be between DACs that do their best to be neutral (which I prefer), and DACs which were clearly designed with the intent of "sounding a certain way" - which is a nice way of saying that they have some sort of deliberate coloration.
  
 I would also have to say that I haven't found a specific correlation between accurate sound and a particular type of filter. (While I notice slight differences between the filter choices on a given DAC, and also find that some DAcs seem to sound more natural than others to me, there's not one specific filter _TYPE_ that I prefer across multiple DACs. Of the two DACs I often use which have multiple filters, I do NOT prefer the same filter on both, and I have other DACs which only offer a single filter which I find to be equally good.)
  
 (While having multiple filters on a single DAC is a convenient way of demonstrating that the filters make a difference, while holding everything else equal, I do not find having multiple filters to be an important feature. I'm quite satisfied with a DAC that only has one filter, as long as it is one which sounds neutral to me, and seems to handle transients well.)
   Quote:


sonitus mirus said:


> Thanks for the additional details, if only for my sake.
> 
> Have you heard inexpensive (<$200) DACs that could reproduce wire brushes accurately?  In other words, did you find a correlation to price and accuracy, or is it just a specific filtering technique that you found preferable?


----------



## watchnerd

sonitus mirus said:


> Thanks for the additional details, if only for my sake.
> 
> Have you heard inexpensive (<$200) DACs that could reproduce wire brushes accurately?  In other words, did you find a correlation to price and accuracy, or is it just a specific filtering technique that you found preferable?


 
  
 I find wire brushes to be more dependent on tweeters and crossovers than on DACs.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely.......
  
 And, as I said, we're talking about subtle differences here.
 I have a pair of powered monitors (Emotiva Stealth 8's) with folded ribbon (AMT) tweeters - and I noticed the differences with those.
 And I found them somewhat obvious on my Koss electrostatic headphones.
 However, I didn't hear any difference on my AKG headphones or another pair of speakers I had at the time with soft dome tweeters.
 And, out of a dozen or so high-res albums I had at the time, I only noticed a difference with one or two of them.
  
 So, as I've said before, I'm not suggesting that we're talking about _significant_ or_ important_ differences.
 Or even that most people would notice or care......
 (However, if even a few people, and only under certain circumstances, hear them, then they are in fact audible.....)
  
 Personally, I've kind of reached the conclusion that, if I have to pull out one or two select "'test albums" in order to be able to hear something, then it's probably not terribly important. However, if you do happen to notice the difference between various DACs, then it does make sense to buy the one that sounds better to you.
  
  
 Quote:


watchnerd said:


> I find wire brushes to be more dependent on tweeters and crossovers than on DACs.


----------



## gregorio

keithemo said:


> ...simply that there are in fact audible differences... which suggests to me that we don't know everything yet. [1] For example, while there have been plenty of studies done on the range of frequencies audible to humans, they've all been done with continuous steady state sine waves. ([2] Most folks agree that most humans with excellent hearing can hear frequencies between 20 Hz and 20 kHz - although one study extends the bottom of the range to 10 Hz.) [3] However, less direct concepts, like how much phase shift between the left and right it takes to produce an apparent shift in the left/right position of something in the sound stage, are more difficult to measure, And measurements that involve transient and varying waveforms even more so. ([4] Virtually all of the math that describes things like the Nyquist frequency, and the ability to accurately represent waveforms with limited numbers of samples, assumes a continuous sine wave signal.... which music is NOT. [4] Likewise, even the math that describes how a DAC works assumes that the DAC uses something called a "SinC function" when, in reality, the sampling process used by DACs is really only an approximation of it.)


 
  
 Hopefully without causing too much ill feeling, I have to say that I find some of your posts a little troubling. It's not that they're overtly incorrect, it's that they sometimes appear (IMHO) to expand the grey areas, to suggest implications which are, or very easily could be, misleading. Although it maybe entirely a coincidence, some of your statements appear virtually idetical to those exploited by marketing departments in order to deliberately mislead consumers and then quoted (typically inappropriately) by audiophiles. How many times have we seen these types of responses from audiophiles when challenged over some ludicrous claim: "Science doesn't know everything yet", "we can't measure everything", "music isn't just a sine wave", "digital audio is just an approximation", etc?
  
 1. While strictly true, this statement omits some pertinent facts and the implication is: Maybe if we used music instead of "continuous steady state sine waves" we might discover that the range of audible frequencies extends higher than currently accepted. However: A. With music, other test signals (such as noise) and short duration signals (like transients) our ability to discern high frequencies diminishes. We use steady state sine waves in this case because it presents the best case scenario for success, which allows us to say with significant confidence that if (for example) your limit is a 19kHz isolated, continuous, steady state sine wave, frequencies higher than 19kHz (of equal amplitude) will be inaudible to you in any other circumstances. B. There have been many more tests/studies which effectively test the human audibility of high and ultrasonic frequencies and which used music rather than sine waves as the test material (HiRez vs CD tests for example). However, as they were not tests aimed solely/specifically at testing the frequency limits of audibility, your statement is strictly true though not, IMHO, generally true.
  
 2. I can't speak for "most folks" but again "generally" I would disagree. When I was a lecturer in audio engineering, my colleagues and I informally blind tested first year students, the vast majority of whom were 18-20 year olds, in small groups, as part of the "Listening Skills" module. We tested about 300 a year and I was there for 6 years. The vast majority struggled beyond 17kHz and were out by 18kHz, a dozen or so made it to 19kHz, not one of the roughly 1800 tested could detect 20kHz. In the analogue days, the BBC restricted broadcast TV to 15kHz but for several years broadcast an accompanying 19kHz pilot tone. None of the tens of millions of viewers appeared to notice when it started, when it stopped or during the period. In fact, it wasn't until many years later (the early 90's I believe), when some BBC broadcast engineer mentioned it, that anyone was aware it had ever occurred.
  
 3. It's not difficult to measure phase shift, although it is difficult to measure the human perception of positioning from it, not least because that perception varies with frequency (and amplitude). Therefore, we don't know THE answer because there is no one answer. What we do know is that phase shift which affects positional perception is typically in the millisecond range and with best case test signals can extend down to the microsecond range. If we take any perception at all (not necessary just perception of positioning) of timing/phase then we're down into the hundreds of nano second range but still hundreds of times above what any moderately competent DAC should achieve.
  
 4. This is the most obviously incorrect statement, although I'm not a mathematician and so might be mistaken. As I understand it, Nyquist's theory does not mention or assume sine waves, in fact it does not consider continuous signals of any type. The actual Sampling Theorem (which describes and proves the Nyquist frequency), also does not assume a sine wave, it assumes any mathematical function which has a Fourier transform, EG. All acoustic sound waves (regardless of complexity), which obviously does include all music! In fact, in his seminal 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" (the paper which proved the sampling theorem and why it is commonly called the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem), Shannon specifically states: "_A communication system is designed not for a particular speech function and still less for a sine wave ..._". From what I understand (which is admittedly limited) of the mathematical contributions to the sampling theorem, rather than say "virtually all the math ... assumes a continuous sine wave", I would say the opposite; none of the math assumes a sine wave! I'm not however disputing that many of the explanations/demonstrations of the sampling theorem use a single continuous sine wave as an example.
  
 5. Although Shannon/Whittaker's perfect interpolation formula is a sinc function, the maths which explain how a modern DAC works does not, as far as I'm aware, assume this perfect sinc function, which is impractical to implement. Therefore other math (which doesn't assume a perfect sinc function) has been developed to get around the engineering practicalities. While I agree that a DAC is effectively approximating, we have to be very careful as the word "approximate" is both relative and frequently abused. Every work of engineering has a practical limit of accuracy, so the question isn't whether a DAC is approximating, it's by how much. With modern technology, even cheap DACs can/should be astonishingly accurate, with any approximations (interpolation errors) being well below audibility.
  
 Again, this is NOT intended as an attack, I'm not even disputing your observations, just some of your wording/rationale suggesting an explanation for those observations. For example, with the first two sentences I've quoted; I'm not disputing your observation and I obviously can't dispute what those observations may suggest to you personally. However, what it suggests to me is not that "we" (science) doesn't know everything yet but that "we" (personally) don't know how the manufacturer/s are actually implementing their filters. It seems to me far more likely that some DAC manufacturers, especially those offering filter choices, maybe implementing filters deliberately designed to be audibly distinguishable. In all fairness, you do imply this possibility in a subsequent post. I think we need to be very careful, particularly here on head-fi, not to appear to invoke, support, rationalise or add fuel to the fire of audiophile myths. Just sayin'
  
 G


----------



## briskly

gregorio said:


> 4. This is the most obviously incorrect statement, although I'm not a mathematician and so might be mistaken. As I understand it, Nyquist's theory does not mention or assume sine waves, in fact it does not consider continuous signals of any type. The actual Sampling Theorem (which describes and proves the Nyquist frequency), also does not assume a sine wave, it assumes any mathematical function which has a Fourier transform, EG. All acoustic sound waves (regardless of complexity), which obviously does include all music! In fact, in his seminal 1948 paper "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" (the paper which proved the sampling theorem and why it is commonly called the Nyquist/Shannon Sampling Theorem), Shannon specifically states: "_A communication system is designed not for a particular speech function and still less for a sine wave ..._". From what I understand (which is admittedly limited) of the mathematical contributions to the sampling theorem, rather than say "virtually all the math ... assumes a continuous sine wave", I would say the opposite; none of the math assumes a sine wave! I'm not however disputing that many of the explanations/demonstrations of the sampling theorem use a single continuous sine wave as an example.
> 5. Although Shannon/Whittaker's perfect interpolation formula is a sinc function, the maths which explain how a modern DAC works does not, as far as I'm aware, assume this perfect sinc function, which is impractical to implement. Therefore other math (which doesn't assume a perfect sinc function) has been developed to get around the engineering practicalities. While I agree that a DAC is effectively approximating, we have to be very careful as the word "approximate" is both relative and frequently abused. Every work of engineering has a practical limit of accuracy, so the question isn't whether a DAC is approximating, it's by how much. With modern technology, even cheap DACs can/should be astonishingly accurate, with any approximations (interpolation errors) being well below audibility.


 
 To elaborate on a few concepts of sampling, informally:
  
 Just as you said, the sampling theorem does not assume sine waves, only a frequency representation(the existence of a Fourier transform). Sampling theorem invokes what is now called the Discrete-time Fourier Transform (DTFT) using discrete samples, impulses, to get a continuous spectrum. This DTFT representation does allow for the representation of sampled sinusoids as discrete spikes, but is not restricted to it.
  
 The sampling theorem and sinc interpolation are too closely related to really be separate. Sampling has the pesky property of representing the spectrum from DC to Nyquist *and* the spectrum flipped and folded over integer multiples of Fs/2. To reject those aliases, we would like to have filter that preserves the amplitude and phase everything within +/-(Fs/2) and totally reject everything outside that range. The impulse response of this is the sinc function, hence sinc interpolation is the ideal.
 The sampled signal in time, an audio signal for example, can be thought as a sequences of impulses that scales the amplitude of the sincs. The ideal DAC has the impulse response of a sinc, with a smooth sinc interpolation between the sample points in time. However, the sinc has the unfortunate properties of not following causality and an infinite rise and settle time. We have to make our peace with causality, and we generally limit ourselves to finite time intervals; the combination of these leaves a somewhat different impulse response. The interpolation is then given by the sum of the impulse responses scaled by the amplitudes of the signal points.
  
 Actual DACs tend not to work like an impulse train, they operate closer to a zero-order hold that "holds" the voltage constant in between samples, the much maligned stairstep representation. For the normal DACs that have analog reconstruction filters, that output is immediately filtered into a bandlimited signal that interpolates a smooth time curve. For the sake of analysis, we can still consider the zero-order hold or filtered version as a sequence of pulses. The DAC still has its own impulse and frequency response to consider, the ability of the DAC to accurately interpolate signals can still be evaluated.


----------



## castleofargh

briskly said:


> ... Actual DACs tend not to work like an impulse train, they operate closer to a zero-order hold that "holds" the voltage constant in between samples, the much maligned stairstep representation. For the normal DACs that have analog reconstruction filters, that output is immediately filtered into a bandlimited signal that interpolates a smooth time curve. For the sake of analysis, we can still consider the zero-order hold or filtered version as a sequence of pulses.


 
 I'm just nit picking here.  but in the topic of R2R vs delta sigma, calling R2R behavior normal DACs, and delta sigma's model becoming the shadow of "for the sake of analysis", doesn't seem representative of the actual DAC world IMO. isn't pulse modulation vastly dominating the DAC market in quantity?
  
  
  
  
  
 geek ON:  page 61 was a great page! you guys rock.


----------



## KeithEmo

Without getting into minutae, as you've noted, real DACs are not following a true SinC function, and do each have their own impulse, phase and frequency response. They are also delivering 'good approximations" in other areas as well. In simplest terms, if you put a complex signal into several DACs, what comes out will not be identical. Which puts us right back to the question of whether those differences will be audible or not...and, if so, which ones.
  
 In general, we have adequate studies to agree that, in terms of steady state sine waves, our human frequency response extends from about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz (some studies have shown that humans can hear as low as 10 Hz under certain conditions). We also have lots of studies attempting to determine the minimum difference in amplitude that we can hear - but they tend to vary somewhat in their results. (Most people agree that you can hear a 3 dB jump in loudness; and most agree that you cannot hear a 0.01 dB step; but some set the "cutoff point" at 0.25 dB, while other claims a 1 dB step isn't usually audible.)
  
 I personally suspect that even these assumptions have been oversimplified. For example, you probably wouldn't notice a difference in frequency response between two speakers that are both "flat to within 0.5 dB" when listening to music. However, if one has a gradual rise of 1 dB between 200 Hz and 500 Hz, while the other zig-zags up and down a dozen times between those two frequencies, and you play a 100 Hz to 1 kHz sweep through both, I'll bet you won't hear the slow rise but you'll hear a "warble" in the one with the zig-zag response. It would be interesting to do a study to determine exactly how small a modulation amplitude is audible at 3 kHz.... my bet is that it's a tiny fraction of a dB.
  
 In the case of DACs, just to pick an example, we all know that differences in phase between the left and right channels are audible as shifts in the apparent position of the sound source; this, along with amplitude differences is what gives us "sound stage". Some studies have suggested that VERY tiny shifts in relative phase produce audible shifts in apparent position. (One study claimed that a frequency response of at least 50 kHz would be required to resolve the phase shifts beyond the point where they're audible.) Perhaps, in the context of DACs, a few degrees of relative phase shift are in fact audible, or, perhaps, a fixed shift isn't audible, but one that varies rapidly can be heard as "a blurring or apparent position".
  
 Note that I'm _NOT_ especially claiming that they're right in that specific claim. All I can claim with certainty is that I've listened to many DACs whose frequency response is flat enough, and whose THD is low enough, that, according to "the standard assumptions" I SHOULDN'T be able to hear any difference between them. However, in some cases, there are in fact audible differences.  This suggests to me that either the standard assumptions aren't entirely correct, or that there are other differences that haven't been adequately studied yet.
  
 There's a big difference between claiming that "there are no measurable differences - so you must be imagining them" and "well, yes, there are lots of measurable differences, but we're sure that none of them can possibly be audible". And I'm not aware of anyone who has actually done a full-scale study to determine if things like variations in transient response are in fact audible or not. (Wolfson offers a total of 21 different filter choices on their top of the line DAC chip; and they offer oscilloscope images to show the specifics; but, as far as I know, they haven't done a controlled study to prove which of them are audibly different.)
  
 Quote:


briskly said:


> To elaborate on a few concepts of sampling, informally:
> 
> Just as you said, the sampling theorem does not assume sine waves, only a frequency representation(the existence of a Fourier transform). Sampling theorem invokes what is now called the Discrete-time Fourier Transform (DTFT) using discrete samples, impulses, to get a continuous spectrum. This DTFT representation does allow for the representation of sampled sinusoids as discrete spikes, but is not restricted to it.
> 
> ...


----------



## briskly

Quote:


castleofargh said:


> I'm just nit picking here.  but in the topic of R2R vs delta sigma, calling R2R behavior normal DACs, and delta sigma's model becoming the shadow of "for the sake of analysis", doesn't seem representative of the actual DAC world IMO.


 
 I phrased that quite poorly. A Delta-Sigma DAC isn't necessarily restricted to a single bit and the output still operates by ZOH, albeit at a much higher rate than signal bandwidth.


----------



## myusernameislove

I am considering use of signal purifiing product with my R2R-11 dac (f.e. iFi iPurifier3). Is it a good idea to connect something between Windows PC and USB-B input on R2R dac to alter that 32bit PCM signal flowing via audiocable (Schiit Pyst)?


----------



## bigshot

It's better to address the specific problem with your source if you have one, rather than try to cobble together some sort of fix for it downstream. What exactly is wrong with your Windows PC's output?


----------



## myusernameislove

bigshot said:


> It's better to address the specific problem with your source if you have one, rather than try to cobble together some sort of fix for it downstream. What exactly is wrong with your Windows PC's output?


Nothing. It sounds superb. I just would like to know, if there is something that should NOT be done specifically to R2R dacs in contrast with DS dacs in terms of signal treatment with sound purifiers.


----------



## KeithEmo

First off, assuming that the bits are correct to begin with, you should _NOT_ be altering the _data_ - at all.
If it starts out being correct, and you alter it, then the result must no longer be correct.

In general, computers have relatively noisy power supplies and grounds, and the data they deliver may be transmit on a less than ideal waveform (the square waves may be a bit rounded, or a bit noisy, or not timed perfectly).
And, in general, a well-designed DAC should be designed to avoid being adversely influenced by all these minor flaws.
(In fact, since USB data is delivered in little chunks, the DAC has to re-create all the timing as it receives and decodes the signal anyway).
Therefore, the short answer is that, assuming that the DAC does its job well, then there's no purpose in doing anything to the signal along the way.
Therefore, the purported purpose of the various "signal purifying products" is to compensate for various shortcomings in the DAC.
(And, since nothing is perfect, some DACs do in fact have shortcomings.)

However, in the context of your question.....
If the performance of your DAC is being compromised by imperfections in the signal it's receiving from your computer, then adding a device to filter out some of those imperfections may enable it to work better.
If it's working perfectly to begin with, then there's nothing to improve, and you risk making things worse instead of better.

So the answer really depends on how good the input circuitry on your DAC is, and how bad the output circuitry on your computer is, and there is a _LOT_ or variation on both of those between different models.



myusernameislove said:


> I am considering use of signal purifiing product with my R2R-11 dac (f.e. iFi iPurifier3). Is it a good idea to connect something between Windows PC and USB-B input on R2R dac to alter that 32bit PCM signal flowing via audiocable (Schiit Pyst)?


----------



## KeithEmo (Sep 13, 2018)

As long as you don't alter any of the actual data - which would make in incorrect....
And you do nothing that makes the DAC unable to properly decode the incoming signal without errors....
There shouldn't be much of anything you can do that will be especially bad for either type of DAC.... (they are both designed to accept the same exact PCM digital audio signal)

D-S and R2R DACs have slightly different weaknesses and sensitivities, so, if you were to make the signal worse, there would definitely be certain flaws that would affect one type more than the other.
Luckily, most well designed DACs are going to be mostly immune to this sort of things anyway.
However, no sane person would add a device to their signal chain that made the signal quality _worse_, so this shouldn't be a problem.



myusernameislove said:


> Nothing. It sounds superb. I just would like to know, if there is something that should NOT be done specifically to R2R dacs in contrast with DS dacs in terms of signal treatment with sound purifiers.


----------



## bigshot

myusernameislove said:


> Nothing. It sounds superb. I just would like to know, if there is something that should NOT be done specifically to R2R dacs in contrast with DS dacs in terms of signal treatment with sound purifiers.



There's an old saying... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"


----------



## MichaelXX2

I honestly can't tell much difference between my D/S CD players and my Holo Spring.


----------



## JRG1990

*Pros and cons of R-2R DAC  :*
Advantages:
         1.R-2R will not convert the clock signal into the output signal.
         2. R-2R is not sensitive to jitter while Delta-Sigma DA is much more sensitive to jitter.
         3. The output signal is much more precise compared to Delta-Sigma DA .
Weaknesses:
        1.THD today is extremely good with Sigma Delta chips; R2R ladders are good too but not as good.
        2. Glitches and accuracy of the ladder resistors are very difficult to avoid and require complex technology to resolve it.

Since a audibley transparent delta - sigma dac can be cheaply and easily manufactured and R2R requires more complex methods to over come Glitches and accuracy of the ladder resistors, could the Glitches and accuracy of the ladder resistors in a R2R thats not very well designed cause audible differences.


----------



## chaos215bar2

JRG1990 said:


> 1. R-2R will not convert the clock signal into the output signal.
> 2. R-2R is not sensitive to jitter while Delta-Sigma DA is much more sensitive to jitter.
> 3. The output signal is much more precise compared to Delta-Sigma DA .


Why would 1 and 2 be any more or less true on an R2R vs. a delta-sigma DAC? Either should be capable of maintaining their own internal reference clock (which would have to be phase locked to the input signal) or just using the input as a reference, no? In fact, if using USB input, I don't believe there's any clock on the input signal that's useful for clocking the DAC, so the USB section of the DAC will have to generate its own clock regardless.

In what way is the output signal of an R2R DAC more "precise" than a delta-sigma DAC?

(I'm not trying to poke holes. I'd just like to understand on a technical level why you list these as advantages of R2R.)


----------



## JRG1990

I copied and pasted that from here http://www.audio-gd.com/R2R/R2R11/R2R11EN.htm . it was only really this point I was interested in  "2. Glitches and accuracy of the ladder resistors are very difficult to avoid and require complex technology to resolve it."

My guess would be the claim that R2R is more precise is because it doesn't use oversampling or digital filters like delta sigma.


----------



## chaos215bar2 (Sep 22, 2018)

I don't think that statement means much of anything without defining what Audio-GD means by "precise". For instance, THD seems a good measure of precision, in which case that statement would directly contradict what's said below. Oversampling and digital filters definitely make the output less "pure", if that's the aim, but that has nothing to do with precision or accuracy (both of which do actually have specific meanings in a technical context). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

From my limited knowledge, the two weaknesses listed (especially the second) are why R2R DACs fell out of favor. But again, the only way to really judge a design's technical merits is to see how it actually measures against the competition. (THD, IMD, and SNR being the a good set of measurements, though in practice it's also important that a DAC's output characteristics behave well with a connected amp's inputs.) For listening, of course, one is absolutely free to use whatever sounds best to them.


----------



## JRG1990

The better designed R2R dacs I've seen measured, don't do anything better than delta sigma and theres no differences that would be audible to our ears. But there more expensive and complex and to manufacture requiring laser trimmed resistors, so its highly likely there are some poorly performing one's around that do sound audibly different.


----------



## KeithEmo

JRG1990 said:


> *Pros and cons of R-2R DAC  :*
> Advantages:
> 1.R-2R will not convert the clock signal into the output signal.
> 2. R-2R is not sensitive to jitter while Delta-Sigma DA is much more sensitive to jitter.
> ...



A lot of the clams made for R2R DACs are extremely dependent on the context in  which they're made - and some of them are a bit specious.

I have no idea what "advantage #1" is supposed to mean. The process of converting digital audio into analog requires data and a clock. With PCM data, the data and the clock are parts of the same signal (the timing of the pulses is the clock). With USB, the data is sent in packets, which don't explicitly contain the clock that goes with them, and the clock must be re-created inside the DAC, which can be done a few different ways. Either way, the DAC takes care of the details, creating or regenerating the clock as needed, and then using it in the conversion process. The analog output signal is analog; it does not have or use a clock. Both types of DACs "internally" generate an output that is a series of voltage "steps". The steps are inherent in the process; they must be filtered out; and, when they are filtered out, the remaining analog output is precisely what it should be. R2R DACs _DO NOT_ somehow magically avoid this part of the process. Some R2R DAC designs do avoid using an explicit filter stage to remove the steps. They do so by incorporating one or more components that is inherently frequency limited, like a transformer, which simply fails to pass the extraneous high-frequency energy. However, they are not "elegantly avoiding an inaccuracy". What they are doing is to remove an accurate and precisely calculated filter, and instead allowing design imitations to do the same job, only sloppily and imprecisely. 

Advantage #2 is actually true in a certain context. By all reports, many R2R DAC _chips_ are less sensitive to jitter than most Delta-Sigma DAC chips. That means that, for a given amount of jitter in the signal that actually reaches the chip itself, the R2R chip will produce fewer artifacts (less distortion). This means that, if all else in the design was exactly equal, the R2R chip might perform better. However, in real life, it simply means that, when designing a Delta-Sigma DAC, the designer has to be a little bit more careful about minimizing jitter. This is not especially difficult to achieve. (And note that we're NOT saying that an R2R DAC will perform better with input signals with a lot of jitter. First off, an input signal should not have a lot of jitter to begin with. Second, all DACs have internal mechanisms that eliminate or drastically reduce jitter before the signal reaches the DAC chip. Third, virtually all R2R chips have more serious issues that overshadow this one.)

Advantage #3 is simply an unsubstantiated claim. The output signal produced by most Delta-Sigma DACs is far more precise than the one produced by most R2R DACs... and this is especially true with higher bit depths. There are many R2R DACs that can reproduce a 16 bit signal relatively accurately, but almost none that are accurate to 24 bits. The term "precise" is ambiguous; it can refer to any measurement, or combination of measurements, you choose to use. By almost all commonly used measurements, the output of most Delta-Sigma DACs is FAR more accurate than that of most R2R DACs. Fans of R2R DACs will point to the one or two performance metrics in which R2R DACs do well and claim "they're the ones that you hear the most", but that is... err... a minority opinion. Also, incidentally, most of the so-called "time accuracy issues" usually attributed to Delta-Sigma DACs are really associated with oversampling. Therefore, they are equally true for all oversampling DACs - whether they are D-S or R2R. (Oversampling has huge benefits and minimal drawbacks - so is really necessary for a DAC to perform well - especially with a 44.1k input sample rate signal. Non-oversampling DACs of either type perform quite poorly - by almost all performance metrics. Although, again, fans of NOS DACs will insist that the few things they get more or less right are "the important ones".)

Both weaknesses are spot on.... I would also add that the complex technology needed to overcome glitch issues is often rather fussy (which is why some R2R DACs require an absurdly lengthy warm-up before they perform properly). The complexity also detracts from the price/performance ratio. Low cost R2R DACs often perform really badly; and R2R DACs that perform even reasonably well tend to cost far more than D-S DACs that perform at an equivalent or higher level.

I also feel obligated to comment on one fact that seems to crop up in the marketing literature for many expensive R2R DACs.
They say "the makers of Delta-Sigma DACs use them because it enables them to make a very cheap product that exhibits really good performance".
(But they try really hard to infer that getting excellent performance for a low price is somehow a bad thing.)


----------



## ericx85 (Feb 7, 2019)

If there's anything the endless comparing between the Yggdrasil and Benchmark 3 dacs has taught me is that measurements serve their purposes, but not always the answer you need to what you might want for casual listening.

If a common standard for a beautiful woman is that they are blonde and thin(lets make this D/S as they usually measure great), and my preference is curvy/thick hispanic/black/whatever women(R2R). I'm not going to force myself to or pretend to like the thin blonde. Measures great? Awesome, but if my ears say get this thing away from me then I'm not going to keep using it. I'll just let my ears sit in the corner with their box of tissues as they get their R2R fetish on.What DAC I use will largely depend on the cans anyway, Utopias sounded not so great on Yggy, but fantastic on the Benchmark, while the HD800S sounded fantastic on Yggy, but blah on the Benchmark. There's too many variables for measurements to be the end all be all answer in a decision. One of the DACs will get sold eventually, whichever pairs better with the ZMF Verite I'll keep.


----------



## bigshot

Audibly different is the only difference that matters to my all too human ears.


----------



## chaos215bar2 (Feb 8, 2019)

ericx85 said:


> If a common standard for a beautiful woman is that they are blonde and thin…


Next time, let’s make the point without objectifying and demeaning women in the process.


----------



## castleofargh

ericx85 said:


> If there's anything the endless comparing between the Yggdrasil and Benchmark 3 dacs has taught me is that measurements serve their purposes, but not always the answer you need to what you might want for casual listening.
> 
> If a common standard for a beautiful woman is that they are blonde and thin(lets make this D/S as they usually measure great), and my preference is curvy/thick hispanic/black/whatever women(R2R). I'm not going to force myself to or pretend to like the thin blonde. Measures great? Awesome, but if my ears say get this thing away from me then I'm not going to keep using it. I'll just let my ears sit in the corner with their box of tissues as they get their R2R fetish on.What DAC I use will largely depend on the cans anyway, Utopias sounded not so great on Yggy, but fantastic on the Benchmark, while the HD800S sounded fantastic on Yggy, but blah on the Benchmark. There's too many variables for measurements to be the end all be all answer in a decision. One of the DACs will get sold eventually, whichever pairs better with the ZMF Verite I'll keep.


measurements provide extra information. if it's useful, cool, if not we'll rely on something else. what's nonsensical is deciding that measurements are useless or even misinformation simply because we don't understand them. or just as bad, because I as an individual, am a fan of some device but the measurements didn't say it was the best stuff since sliced bread. basically ignorance or ego getting in the way of reason. and sadly we see this all too often on the forum.
once we understand that a given measurement tells us about one specific variable measured under one specific set of conditions, and all that is properly specified for us, we're able to know if that measurement is relevant to our use or not. and if we want to care or not. as for euphony and personal taste, only a few measured variables may give hints about such subjective notions. nobody expects a list of ingredients and chemicals to tell us how much we'll like the taste of some processed food. but some ingredients might be a big no no for us, so that list may still serve a purpose and we're glad to have it. it's the same for music and measurements. I wouldn't purchase a DAC if it had anchovy in it(analogy gone too far^_^).


----------



## ericx85

castleofargh said:


> measurements provide extra information. if it's useful, cool, if not we'll rely on something else. what's nonsensical is deciding that measurements are useless or even misinformation simply because we don't understand them. or just as bad, because I as an individual, am a fan of some device but the measurements didn't say it was the best stuff since sliced bread. basically ignorance or ego getting in the way of reason. and sadly we see this all too often on the forum.
> once we understand that a given measurement tells us about one specific variable measured under one specific set of conditions, and all that is properly specified for us, we're able to know if that measurement is relevant to our use or not. and if we want to care or not. as for euphony and personal taste, only a few measured variables may give hints about such subjective notions. nobody expects a list of ingredients and chemicals to tell us how much we'll like the taste of some processed food. but some ingredients might be a big no no for us, so that list may still serve a purpose and we're glad to have it. it's the same for music and measurements. I wouldn't purchase a DAC if it had anchovy in it(analogy gone too far^_^).



Agree completely! Only wish auditioning gear, especially less popular gear was an easier process since not every brand offers trial periods. Most av stores might not even carry or heard of what you're looking for in my experience, limiting auditioning opportunities to events like Can Jam.


----------



## bigshot

Auditioning transducers is important. They're mechanical, there's considerable variance in sound from model to model, and produce make the sound you can actually hear. But I don't see any reason why someone couldn't decide on a player or amp based on specs alone. All you want is audible transparency and in the case of the amp, power. Well maybe it would be nice to see the remote control before you haul the box all the way home...


----------



## WarrenMmm

Having heard the fine implementation of Delta Sigma DACs in the Oppo 205, and the *staggering improvement* in the same Oppo 205 after pre-DAC, clocking and post-DAC mods by CustomAnalogue.com (JLTi), I can say that D-S DACs need a *lot* of work to bring out their best. But having said that, *their best turns out to be spectacularly wonderful*.


----------



## bfreedma

WarrenMmm said:


> Having heard the fine implementation of Delta Sigma DACs in the Oppo 205, and the *staggering improvement* in the same Oppo 205 after pre-DAC, clocking and post-DAC mods by CustomAnalogue.com (JLTi), I can say that D-S DACs need a *lot* of work to bring out their best. But having said that, *their best turns out to be spectacularly wonderful*.




Yet another example of taking already inaudible “problems” and allegedly making them “more inaudible”.

Many claims on that page, but not a single measurement.  My favorite is the claim they found a mode in the ESS DAC that “ESS may not even be aware of”.  Come on...


----------



## sonitus mirus

bfreedma said:


> Yet another example of taking already inaudible “problems” and allegedly making them “more inaudible”.
> 
> Many claims on that page, but not a single measurement.  My favorite is the claim they found a mode in the ESS DAC that “ESS may not even be aware of”.  Come on...


I was thinking the same thing.   Without any measurements, how does the manufacturer even know they are making any audible improvements?  I'm guessing it is all about specification sheets for each of the components, and while the overall measured performance is more than likely to be technically better, without even a base to work with, how can any potential enhancement be verified?  

If there are any noticeable differences in sound, I'd be more concerned that something was wrong.


----------



## bigshot

Is the DAC in the Oppo 205 different than the one in the HA-1? They were both designed around the same time and for the same basic purpose.


----------



## bfreedma (Feb 26, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Is the DAC in the Oppo 205 different than the one in the HA-1? They were both designed around the same time and for the same basic purpose.




The 205's DAC is an ES9038PRO DAC
The HA-1 DAC is an ES9018

Slightly different USB input capabilities as well:

205:  USB Audio: up to 2ch/*768kHz* PCM, up to 2ch/2.8224MHz/5.6448MHz/11.2896MHz/*22.5792* MHz (native mode only) DSD.
HA-1:  up to 2ch/*384kHz* PCM  up to 2.8224 MHz (DSD64), 5.6448 MHz (DSD128), 11.2896 MHz (DSD256, native mode only)


----------



## bigshot

Well my HA-1 doesn’t sound any different than any other stuff I own.


----------



## bfreedma (Feb 26, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Well my HA-1 doesn’t sound any different than any other stuff I own.




You didn’t ask if there were audible differences.

But you’re welcome for my Googling of the answer to the question you did ask...


----------



## WarrenMmm

bfreedma said:


> Yet another example of taking already inaudible “problems” and allegedly making them “more inaudible”.
> 
> Many claims on that page, but not a single measurement.  My favorite is the claim they found a mode in the ESS DAC that “ESS may not even be aware of”.  Come on...



So you put measurements on your sales pages???? Get real. Mr Rasmussen LOVES to give measurements. Get into a conversation about them and it will never end. But the page you mention is already far too technical for what it's meant to be.


----------



## bigshot (Feb 26, 2019)

I was trying to figure out if it was the same guts inside before I offered an opinion on it. Based on the serial numbers, I think they are the same, just with added AV features on the blu-ray player.


----------



## bfreedma (Feb 26, 2019)

WarrenMmm said:


> So you put measurements on your sales pages???? Get real. Mr Rasmussen LOVES to give measurements. Get into a conversation about them and it will never end. But the page you mention is already far too technical for what it's meant to be.




If you’re going to make claims about a product that’s already audibly transparent, I’m going to need more than flowery prose to consider an additional $4000Aud on an “upgrade”.  Sorry, but unless you can produce something tangible, I don’t see any reason to believe there is any performance advantage audible to humans.

The whole page reeks of sales BS.  It’s carefully written to draw in audiophiles without actually offering a single pice of hard evidence.

If you can supply something, happy to discuss it further.


----------



## bfreedma (Feb 26, 2019)

bigshot said:


> I was trying to figure out if it was the same guts inside before I offered an opinion on it. Based on the serial numbers, I think they are the same, just with added AV features on the blu-ray player.




Not sure if that was a reply to my post.  If so, there are clearly differences in the internals as the two devices don’t use the same DAC chip.

Both are probably audibly transparent, but the 205 supports higher res input (for anyone that might be important to).


----------



## bigshot

Looking at the model numbers, it appears that they are in the same series. I've seen Wolfson DACs numbered like that where they are the same DAC, just with different features. It may be the sampling rate difference is just to make it compatible with all the video formats. The one in the HA-1 might also be capable of that, but there are no common 2 channel audio formats that would call for it.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Looking at the model numbers, it appears that they are in the same series. I've seen Wolfson DACs numbered like that where they are the same DAC, just with different features. It may be the sampling rate difference is just to make it compatible with all the video formats. The one in the HA-1 might also be capable of that, but there are no common 2 channel audio formats that would call for it.




Same family, but several years apart in release and some different capabilities including built in filters in the 9038

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...ile-dacs/classic-sabre-8-channel-dacs/es9018/

http://www.esstech.com/index.php/en...ers/audiophile-dacs/sabre-pro-dacs/es9038pro/


----------



## chaos215bar2

bfreedma said:


> The whole page reeks of sales BS.  It’s carefully written to draw in audiophiles without actually offering a single pice of hard evidence.


I have no stake in this one way or another, but I do have to agree with this statement. I read about half way through the sales page, and I see plenty of technical-sounding sales language telling me how great all the upgrades are, but very little actual technical information explaining what the benefits are.


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> Same family, but several years apart in release and some different capabilities including built in filters in the 9038



Ah. OK. Then there is at least a theoretical reason for them to sound different. I know it's highly unlikely that they do, but I was seeing if I could eliminate even the slightest possibility completely.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Ah. OK. Then there is at least a theoretical reason for them to sound different. I know it's highly unlikely that they do, but I was seeing if I could eliminate even the slightest possibility completely.



No problem and agree that unless the filters are in use, I highly doubt the two DACS sound any different.


----------



## theveterans

bfreedma said:


> No problem and agree that unless the filters are in use, I highly doubt the two DACS sound any different.



Some claim differences in different NOS multibit DAC (not referring to NOS vs OS). For example: Metrum DACs vs Holo Audio DACs in NOS mode


----------



## bfreedma

theveterans said:


> Some claim differences in different NOS multibit DAC (not referring to NOS vs OS). For example: Metrum DACs vs Holo Audio DACs in NOS mode



Some form of controlled testing (blind, ABX) would be necessary to validate those claims.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 7, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> My favorite is the claim they found a mode in the ESS DAC that “ESS may not even be aware of”.  Come on...



Yes, come'on indeed. Would you like to know the technical details?

Keep in mind, what follows below is not everybody's cup-of-tea and that is the reason that it is not stated explicitly on my website. There is no intention of sleight of hand or to be deceptive. So here goes.

The Sabre DAC family is a little different from what others offer. The output has a DC offset 1/2 of Vcc, which means half of 3.3V and hence 1.65V. So far so good, if we were to put a scope there, we would see that it is acting as a 'voltage' DAC capable of swing 6V peak-to-peak (the half voltage is a D-S DAC is 50% of the pulses are 'on' and the other 505 'off' - at least that is the easiest explanation.

If this was a normal voltage DAC, we should be sure that it looks into something that matches that 1.65V or else we might damage it. So then, even if we should use ESS recommendation, and we connect it to an I/V converter that will _*not *_shorten it with respect to DC (that could damage the DAC), but it will see a short with regard to AC, which is our music signal.

*This is known as a virtual earth as opposed to a physical earth.*

In a similar way to conventional voltage DACs, they too usually have around half of 5V, hence the offset tends to be around 2.4V to 2.5V. This has to be matched to a similar DC or potential damage (been there).

*Hopefully not boring too many, but at least here things does get a bit more interesting: The Sabre DAC is different. *

Take the ES9018 DAC, it has four phases, that is 8 pins, and each pin has an output impedance of just under 800 Ohm. This impedance is permanent (very stable indeed). Because of this higher stable impedance, it means that we can shorten the phase to ground. No we shall have zero voltage DC offset, _but what we have done is created a current offset_.

This is the mode I was alluding to. You have turned what looks like a voltage DAC into a current DAC with an offset current. The offset current is 1.65V/795R = 2.1mA and as I do in the Oppo 105, I parallel two pairs of phases up and create an offset current near 4.2mA per side.

*So I am now using a physical earth rather than a virtual earth.
*
So I made a comment on my website that I am indeed using a different mode and I wonder if ESS the manufacturer knew that this could be done this way?

*What did I do wrong?
*
But seriously, to most people this is boring stuff. I have a website that tries to be as informative as possible, so I have to draw a fine line, how technical do I get? I want it to be readable as I can make it.

*At the top of every page on my website is my phone number, I get phone calls from many parts of the world. When I hear and understand their level of understanding, I will indeed get into far more technical details - indeed I am more open about what I do than just about anybody else out there. 

Give me a call!
*
Let us now resume normality. 

Cheers, Joe


----------



## bigshot

Generally, before you go looking for reasons something sounds different, you determine if an audible difference exists. I’ve compared a Sabre DAC to other DACs and I can’t hear a difference with a controlled listening test. I’d be interested to hear about a controlled test that revealed clearly audible differences.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bigshot said:


> Generally, before you go looking for reasons something sounds different, you determine if an audible difference exists. I’ve compared a Sabre DAC to other DACs and I can’t hear a difference with a controlled listening test. I’d be interested to hear about a controlled test that revealed clearly audible differences.



People perform poorly under so-called ABX tests. They often make things sound the same, and who or what is being tested? Is it the person or is it the equipment?

When I demonstrate a piece of equipment I never ask the question "What do you think?" and instead I ask if there is another piece of music to play. I keep doing this, after a little while the listener relaxes knowing that the dreaded question is not going to come. In time he will freely express what he feels comfortable saying. I make sure that I never get him to become a performing monkey, that he is never put on the spot. I also believe a person who walks into a shop should be treated this way. I don't have a shop, but this is the approach that should always be used, IMHO.

As for getting into an argument that has more to do with ideology than the real world, I beg off please. The average person needs to be treated respectfully and not as a target, that you have a responsibility that goes way beyond dollars and cents - you have an obligation to make things better for your fellow human being and that this will be something that will enable him to enjoy music in a better way than before.

*Or else you have failed miserably!
*
So why has this ideological battleground opened up? I can see reasons why. I have noted many audiophiles seems to be frustrated reviewers. They seem to be able to make instant judgements about a piece of equipment under all sorts of uncontrolled conditions, by that I mean in unfamiliar systems. I am not a reviewer and I think others should avoid it (a professional reviewer would want to _live _with the equipment over a reasonable period of time) - and perhaps for this reason there is a push-back and ABX is part of that push-back. I can to a certain extent understand that.

*But both sides are quite capable of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
*
Perhaps one more thought. There have been occasions, in a system with I am familiar and _comfortable_ with and a single change has been done something in that system - and _then _heard instantly that something better and so much more right has happened. Other than that, I tend to be quite conservative and often keep my mouth shut while others go of. Like I said, I won't get into any ideological battles over this and I recommend that stance to others.

I have a recording and I realised at the intro, in a good system, that it became obvious that the guitar was _double_-tracked. Only with a decent setup was this obvious. Then a change in the amplifier (to me most amplifiers on the market are not that good, even expensive ones) made me realise that the guitar was in fact _triple_-tracked.

*To me that is an objective experience - and hence as valid as any ABX test.*

BTW, I have always thought that everybody should have a stint in a good recording studio. It would straighten out a lot of people on both side. Heard a grand piano on a live feed? Wow! But even better than that, in this family we _own_ and have a grand piano in the room opposite the sound room. Want to go from one room with the real thing and walk into another room with the ability to play the same instrument convincingly!

*Way better than any ABX test will ever be, trust me. Everybody is welcome to come here to experience it.
*


bigshot said:


> I’ve compared a Sabre DAC to other DACs and I can’t hear a difference with a controlled listening test. I’d be interested to hear about a controlled test that revealed clearly audible differences.



But what if you heard a difference under different circumstances? Would you trust your hearing? What if you heard a double-tracked guitar was now _triple_-tracked? Would you trust your hearing? 

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Aug 7, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> People perform poorly under so-called ABX tests. They often make things sound the same, and who or what is being tested? Is it the person or is it the equipment?



There can by definition be NO PROOF EVER that people perform better in non-blinded conditions than in blinded, since when asked whether they're listening to A or B, they can always simply point to the box they see connected to their headphones, whether or not they hear any difference!

And if you don't know what confirmation bias is, I won't bother starting an argument with you.

It's stupid to design for improvements that can only be "heard" by an oscilloscope and not by a blinded listener, since I can name a baker's dozen improvements that WILL make an improvement, blinded or not, in any state-of-the-art playback system, that have hardly ever been touched on commercially.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

There's also nothing in the definition of ABX that puts "pressure" on anybody to perform like a monkey.  In fact people have been put into long-term ABX tests without even knowing they were part of such a test, to validate / invalidate the audible improvement of various technologies.


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> Yes, come'on indeed. Would you like to know the technical details?
> 
> Keep in mind, what follows below is not everybody's cup-of-tea and that is the reason that it is not stated explicitly on my website. There is no intention of sleight of hand or to be deceptive. So here goes.
> 
> ...



Such a long post yet not a single indication, let alone a measurement of any audible change.

Feel free to post comparative's between the original product and your modified version that actually show audible improvement.  Until then, I see no reason to believe that the hundreds (thousands?) of implementations are technically incorrect or that ESS is unaware of their own product.

I remain unconvinced by your sales spiel and the usual attempts by mod vendors to discredit ABX while failing to provide hard evidence to support made claims.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bfreedma said:


> I remain unconvinced by your sales spiel and the usual attempts by mod vendors to discredit ABX while failing to provide hard evidence to support made claims.



I am sorry you feel that, at this point I don't think I can say or do anything that would satisfy you. You asked about the Sabre DAC's unusual 'mode' and I explained in quite detail what it was. I would have thought that you should at least have something positive to say about that?

Besides, I don't make "claims" and if I did I would get it peer reviewed by appropriate people (like engineers and scientists) and not public/social media. I accept criticism, but it has to be constructive. Here is not the place, so I apologise that I shall disappoint you. Goes with territory, so I have sadly learned.

As for suggesting that I am something along the line of being a charlatan, because you are suggesting that I fool people into giving me money, I find exception to that. You have not even met me, you have not talked to me on the phone (the number which you can easily find) and after fourty plus years as a reputable person in this area, have you anything to match that?

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I am sorry you feel that, at this point I don't think I can say or do anything that would satisfy you. You asked about the Sabre DAC's unusual 'mode' and I explained in quite detail what it was. I would have thought that you should at least have something positive to say about that?
> 
> Besides, I don't make "claims" and if I did I would get it peer reviewed by appropriate people (like engineers and scientists) and not public/social media. I accept criticism, but it has to be constructive. Here is not the place, so I apologise that I shall disappoint you. Goes with territory, so I have sadly learned.
> 
> ...




Joe,

I could be very easily satisfied and described how in the section of my post you didn’t quote.

Simply provide measurements of your mods compared to the original design showing an audible difference.  You must have them - how could someone design and engineer a modification without them?

I find the statement that you won’t make claims because they would be peer reviewed by engineers to be quite telling.  As is asking about my background as an attempt to validate your mods.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

Joe Bloggs said:


> And if you don't know what confirmation bias is, I won't bother starting an argument with you.



Very odd. As if I was seeking an argument? Not me. You?

Confirmation bias is why Google Search has proven deadly, taking into consideration what has happened in the last few days. So yes, I know what confirmation bias is. I have even warned many people about it and not just recently. It works on many levels and audio too. Why I gave a warning about too many audiophiles wanting to be instant reviewers. Did you not read that?

I wish audiophiles could spend some time is a respected recording studio. Those guys know how to listen and can teach all of us a thing or two. You have no idea what 'critical listening' means unless you have spent time with those guys. I can even mention significant names like Barry Wolifson, Phil Punch and Garth Porter. You don't have their reputation without an acute hearing ability. 

Here is an example of Garth's work: http://www.customanalogue.com/IfThisIsLove.flac

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> Very odd. As if I was seeking an argument? Not me. You?
> 
> Confirmation bias is why Google Search has proven deadly, taking into consideration what has happened in the last few days. So yes, I know what confirmation bias is. I have even warned many people about it and not just recently. It works on many levels and audio too. Why I gave a warning about too many audiophiles wanting to be instant reviewers. Did you not read that?
> 
> ...



Your next Google search should be "Appeal to Authority"


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 7, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> Simply provide measurements of your mods compared to the original design showing an audible difference.  You must have them...



I could, but 1) it would be viewed as promoting a product and that I am pretty sure is against the rules. And 2) they do in fact measure very differently. Not a little bit, but in an obvious and BIG way.



bfreedma said:


> ... how could someone design and engineer a modification without them?



Ouch! Not very nice. What does "how could" mean? That is just pejorative speech, is it really necessary to go that far?

*If you want to win an argument, then you just have! You win. If that is what you need, so be it. I don't have an ego to defend.*

I won't give what you ask on social media. I don't know you.

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I could, but 1) it would be viewed as promoting a product and that I am pretty sure is against the rules. And 2) they do in fact measure very differently. Not a little bit, but in an obvious and BIG way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have measurements but won't post them?  I'm back to where we started - Come on.

If you feel that posting the measurements on head-fi is a violation of the TOS (highly doubtful), you could always post them on your web site.  If they showed a significant audible improvement, why wouldn't you?  That would certainly help you sell your product.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bfreedma said:


> You have measurements but won't post them?  I'm back to where we started...



So it seems, anything else?


----------



## gregorio (Aug 7, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] People perform poorly under so-called ABX tests. [1a] They often make things sound the same, and who or what is being tested?
> [2] The average person needs to be treated respectfully and not as a target, that you have a responsibility that goes way beyond dollars and cents - you have an obligation to make things better for your fellow human being ...



1. Please provide reliable (IE. Not anecdotal) evidence of that.
1a. No they don't! Any decently designed ABX test does the exact opposite, it optimises the opportunity to detect differences.

2. So demonstrate that you are actually making things better by providing some objective evidence.


Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] BTW, I have always thought that everybody should have a stint in a good recording studio. It would straighten out a lot of people on both side. [1a] Heard a grand piano on a live feed?
> [2] I have a recording and I realised at the intro, in a good system, that it became obvious that the guitar was _double_-tracked. Only with a decent setup was this obvious. Then a change in the amplifier (to me most amplifiers on the market are not that good, even expensive ones) made me realise that the guitar was in fact _triple_-tracked.
> *To me that is an objective experience - and hence as valid as any ABX test.*



1. Would about 40 years be a good "stint" and nearly 30 years as a recording engineer? And, would Abbey Road or Air Studios constitute "a good recording studio"?
1a. Couldn't even count how many times and not just a grand but numerous different grands and in many of the world's most famous concert venues. If you're going to use the old "Appeal to Authority" then the first rule is to make sure it is actually a better "authority"!

2. To YOU it might be an objective experience but it's actually a subjective experience. You're free make-up your own definition of the word "objective" for yourself but you're not free to redefine it for everyone else! Therefore, no, it is NOT as valid as an ABX test, not even close!


Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] Besides, I don't make "claims" and if I did ...
> [2] I accept criticism, but it has to be constructive.



1. That's ridiculous, your whole post is full of claims! "People perform poorly under ABX tests", "They make things sound the same", etc., etc., etc.

2. This is the sound science forum, not the "what you accept" forum. Here, criticism does NOT have to be constructive, it just has to be factually/scientifically accurate!


Joe Rasmussen said:


> I could, but 1) it would be viewed as promoting a product and that I am pretty sure is against the rules. And 2) they do in fact measure very differently. Not a little bit, but in an obvious and BIG way.


1. Not it wouldn't. This is the sound science sub-forum, you've made claims and we've asked you for objective evidence (which you say you have). It is not against the rules to then post that evidence, in fact, this being the sound SCIENCE forum it is effectively against the rules/etiquette not to post it!

2. Great, then prove it, post your objective evidence. If you don't, then according to the rules of science (and the etiquette of this sub-forum) there is no alternative but to view you as a charlatan!

G


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

*
I don't use social media to peer review my work. End of story. 
*
I use reputable designers, engineers and scientists.

The responses here are more about finding scalps and egos. They have given me full justifications for just saying *"NO!"*

I would love to have an intelligent conversation, I have tried in the past. But out comes the *jackals*, they tear apart, they have no intention to build, only to decimate. *I posted many measurements*, it did not matter, the jackals scream for measurements, but they lie, what they really want is 'flesh' and notches that they can brag about. I can't match your egos and I won't even try.

This is a sad story, you can only have proper discussions of this type by having a limited forum, where those who are there have been invited or they have submitted and applied. I have written a number of discussion papers, not one of them are on my website. I write articles for general consumption, these should not be confused with serious papers containing measurements and mathematics/equations. 

Have a good day!

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

It's another sad day, sigh.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> Generally, before you go looking for reasons something sounds different, you determine if an audible difference exists. I’ve compared a Sabre DAC to other DACs and I can’t hear a difference with a controlled listening test. I’d be interested to hear about a controlled test that revealed clearly audible differences.


TBH, given how exhaustive the ESS recommendations are on how to get nominal results with their DACs, it's pretty obvious to me that many of the designers who go another route, do it because they believe in a specific thing they want to do, or because it's just in their nature to try and make something themselves instead of using what they see as a boring and simple guide. I've seen many engineers say similar things over the years and with @Joe Rasmussen if he's the one I'm thinking about, then DIY is kind of his middle name.



Joe Rasmussen said:


> To me that is an objective experience - and hence as valid as any ABX test.


the purpose of ABX or several such blind tests, is to challenge the null hypothesis, "there is no audible difference", and get an opportunity to disprove it. that's what they are made for. a sighted experiment, even when you do feel some differences as specific as your guitar example, does not usually prove that the feeling of a difference is caused by sound and only sound. which to us is a big problem as we have more than enough evidence that non audio variables can and will affect our impressions of the sound.
 it doesn't mean of course that every single sighted impression is false, or that every single person will perform better in a blind test, but the lack of conclusive evidence is a pretty big problem for people who wish to rely on evidence based knowledge. 



Joe Rasmussen said:


> The average person needs to be treated respectfully and not as a target


couldn't agree more.
the average person doesn't have to prove everything he says, and doesn't have to test everything and get statistical evidence before having an opinion or even a belief on something. and if someone doesn't feel comfortable being tested, he should obviously have the right to refuse and live his life without that added stress. but at the same time, and that relates to what you said about reviewers, the average person doesn't have to pretend that he's an expert at everything concerning a device because he held it in his hands for a week, or to be an expert in anything audio because he happens to have 2 ears and some ideas. and for every guy exercising his freedom of speech and claiming that something is a certain way because he believes it, there are sometimes thousands or more people who may be misguided by that empty claim. the consequences could be innumerable, from insignificant to pretty serious. we clearly agree about the general principles. but from my point of view, when I get in someone's face demanding evidence for his claims, which often might require a blind test because there is no other option available, I'm targeting that guy so that everybody else gets a chance to question the validity of the super confident yet empty claim, and hopefully reduce the chance for any of them to become a target of misinformation.
perhaps the nicest thing I could do would be to mind my own business and let natural selection run its course? it certainly is the easiest option for me as a consumer and a very average guy. I have enough skepticism to last me for hundreds of years, so I don't need warnings about everything. but many of the people I care about are not like me and will trust almost anything said with a smile and a little self confidence. none of them had a science oriented education and they hated the little science they had at school. I often wonder if they lack critical thinking because it was never properly taught to them, or if maybe they ran away from objective minded disciplines because their minds just can't work that way? or maybe I'm just seeing correlation where there isn't one. IDK, I have not been able to demonstrate that relation .





Joe Bloggs said:


> It's stupid to design for improvements that can only be "heard" by an oscilloscope and not by a blinded listener


I disagree with that. not that I think it's going to change the life of a listener, obviously. but some people are very much interested in getting objective improvements even beyond what can be noticed. why shouldn't they get products doing what they desire? and in a more global way of thinking, our ability to measure things accurately and discover stuff, relies on us making gears that go beyond what we can perceive. I'm jerking around and get what you mean, but the "stupid" part made me want to react anyway.


----------



## castleofargh

*modo speech:*
even if I'm maybe missing some previous stories between you guys, it isn't the rule or etiquette of Sound science or Head-fi in general to bully someone who simply explained his position(correct or not). can't you guys just reject a statement and argue against it without trying to roast the person who made it? this is looking exactly like how people who hate this section describe it. I'm not happy or proud.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Aug 7, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> *modo speech:*
> even if I'm maybe missing some previous stories between you guys, it isn't the rule or etiquette of Sound science or Head-fi in general to bully someone who simply explained his position(correct or not). can't you guys just reject a statement and argue against it without trying to roast the person who made it? this is looking exactly like how people who hate this section describe it. I'm not happy or proud.


I don't know about roasting, but you removed all posts pointing to the ridiculousness of his exit speech.  So are we the jackals he alluded to, now?  How are we supposed to hold up our side of the story?  Just because he says he's put in his last word, does that mean nobody can comment any further (making his last word THE last word)?

3 persons have posted their own dissection of his last post. I can't believe they ALL fall under the category of "roasting"--unless the bare facts are just too ugly to bring to the surface in all cases.

People who hate are gonna hate. Doesn't make them right or us wrong.  Just as a bit of exasperation at someone's thick skull has never made an argument logically invalid (much though the anti-science brigade love to make a big deal of it).

I understand that this post falls under "discussing modo decisions" so you needn't comment further if you need to delete this.


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Bloggs said:


> I don't know about roasting, but you removed all posts pointing to the ridiculousness of his exit speech.  So are we the jackals he alluded to, now?  How are we supposed to hold up our side of the story?  Just because he says he's put in his last word, does that mean nobody can comment any further (making his last word THE last word)?
> 
> 3 persons have posted their own dissection of his last post. I can't believe they ALL fall under the category of "roasting"--unless the bare facts are just too ugly to bring to the surface in all cases.
> 
> ...


within my very limited e-powers, I could lock the topic. I didn't, so there is no concern with who has the last word, yet. 
if I could edit posts, I probably would have left the legitimate questions and arguments while removing the not so cool parts, but I can't do that. so if for example someone writes a brilliant thesis and adds some racial slur at the end, I'll delete the all thing.

you probably can guess that I'm not agreeing with many of his statements. and anybody who spent a week in this section will have the same issues you did. but that's that, and moderation is something else, I've seen reports in the admin section and made a mostly subjective and pretty arbitrary decision called moderation. if you guys feel insulted and take the jackal thing at heart because as a kid you were raised by jackals and they're super nice, or some other perfectly legit reason to be offended nowadays, you should report the post and explain your issue. then me or another modo can make a decision on that specific matter. as you know when nobody complains to me(in PM or with reports), I tend to mostly let you guys do your thing(up to point).


----------



## bigshot

He was trying to advertise some invention of his, wasn't he? I wasn't paying any attention and I guess I missed all the fun.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 7, 2019)

[deleted-disengaging]


----------



## bigshot

I just scrolled back to his reply to me. Boy! That one is a doozy! I love it when people come in and emit multiple paragraphs of blather and then get mad when people point out to them that they're blathering.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

castleofargh said:


> *modo speech:*
> even if I'm maybe missing some previous stories between you guys, it isn't the rule or etiquette of Sound science or Head-fi in general to bully someone who simply explained his position(correct or not). can't you guys just reject a statement and argue against it without trying to roast the person who made it? this is looking exactly like how people who hate this section describe it. I'm not happy or proud.



*Thank you for your 'moderate' words.*

I have been asked for a 'measurement' and only to find every possible reason not to engage. 

I mean, these people are using pseudonyms and I am appearing here under my real name. Google my name, you know my address, you can call me on the phone, _anybody _can! So the phrase "Coward's Castle" comes to mind. For me to submit anything like they are asking for, they at least should give me their name - and some semblance of a level playing field.

I would love to talk about measurements. BTW, the only reason I decided to make an appearance here is because I came across Warren's comments. Now I have regrets.

Re submitting a measurement, let us briefly discuss how that works. We have to ask 'what' measurement and then 'why' that measurement. Then the 'how' comes into it. Just submitting a measurement is not that simple, its full context must be made known. I have seen measurements that actually hide things (this is especially true about speakers). 

Just making a simple emphatic demand for a measurement is great gamesmanship, but not helpful and more about points scoring. A measurement isn't to be viewed as a trump card in a card game. It needs careful examination, it may well have strengths and weaknesses, it may show a need for more work and where the next measurement needs to go. 

I have been in situations that it took months to come up with the next or best (hopefully) measurement. And even if the measurement was successful in finding out what you felt was important, just showing the measurement is simply not enough. As they say "science doesn't work like that."

Re ABX or blind testing, I can only note that any suggestion that it is not the perfect device and the road to all that is truth, to have any reservations and express them, and then comes in a maddening crowd that feels that you have questioned their beliefs. 

There is a word to describe this situation, one that I will not buy into: Extremism.

*I have never said that ABX testing was wrong, only that I have some rational reservations about how it works. I do think there is room for improvement.*

I know that here in Sydney at Macquarie University, they have been trying to make ABX testing better. I have seen ABX testing and I was struck by the near constant confusion of the process. For a listening test to be valid, in my mind, it needs to be well anchored in some reliable way. ABX can be improved.

I have ideas about _how _ABX test can be improved, but they would take a much longer time and would be costly and then rarely done. But it would validate that ABX tests can be made to work. Once we have proven that ABX works, then what? The test then really has been about the process and not the equipment. But it does mean that ABX can work in situations where it may critically be needed and by companies with big pockets. For the public, there will be benefits in the sense we will have _some _validations. But day-to-day they will still have to make choices as to what they want to listen to.

Oh, I come from a musical family, a number of musicians both professional and amateur. I have worked with people who love music all my life. I enjoy a musical life. *I even a Grand Piano in my house* and many musical instruments. I know what real live instruments sounds like. It is the sound that we aspire to, right?

No, I don't appear forums to advertise. As proven here, it doesn't work like that. I only appear on forums ever so often.

*But thanks again for the moderation.*

Cheers, Joe

PS: They say there are no measurements on my website, not true. Go to the Elsinore Loudspeaker section and you will see plenty. There the context of each measurement is clear. I will not just plaster my website with measurements that are designed just to impress and not properly explained. I think the balance is about right, but not perfect.

http://www.customanalogue.com/elsinore/elsinore_images/diyaudio/HDS_110dB.gif

http://www.customanalogue.com/elsinore/elsinore_15.htm

A feast of measurements in those links and much more...


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 7, 2019)

[deleted-disengaging]


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 7, 2019)

[deleted—disengaging]


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Rasmussen said:


> *Thank you for your 'moderate' words.*
> 
> I have been asked for a 'measurement' and only to find every possible reason not to engage.
> 
> ...


yeah I also hate people who hide behind nicknames. 


to put things in context a little, this is an audiophile forum. people with beliefs and unsubstantiated explanations as to why(they think) something is going on, that makes up probably a third of the members and 99% of the regular posters on Head-fi. so of course we're not looking for that, more like we're looking for a way to filter out most of the nonsense probably pulled out of a hat or some marketing ad. and the obvious solution is to request supporting evidence. you know something happens for that reason? well how about showing us how you confirmed it? what sort of a demonstration made you go "ok now I can tell it's factual". it's a win/win approach for us. if nothing is presented, we can just move on and focus on something that seems more solid. and if some evidence is presented, we can study it, agree, or maybe find some flaws, or decide to try ourselves and replicate the experience if possible, etc. it can go from great conversation starter to "come back when you can actually back up your, so far, empty claim". 
and that leads to a few people here reacting with various expressions of the same "put up or shut up" position when asking for supporting evidence to a statement. I don't like the clear failure to communicate that manifests as aggression(although I've been doing just that myself sooooo many times, we're just humans), and hope to mitigate that part. but I do support the request for evidence and will personally reject any statement that lacks evidence or doesn't have a convincing one(like sighted impressions). if we're being honest, if I could get rid of empty claims on the forum, I'd do it right now. that would almost magically improve the mood and the content quality in that section. so I do blame "them" for acting on emotion while pretending to be the voice of science, but I also get why they do it. 
there is a kind of statistical relevance to it. like how our best bet when trying to predict tomorrows weather(without any actual information) is to simply bet that it will be close to what it was today, assuming that someone making an empty claim on the forum is full of crap, also turns out to be the safest bet we can make. it's very sad, but I've seen no reason to think otherwise after a few years reading audiophile forums. obviously that doesn't align too well with the desire for carebear attitude of everybody being friendly and helpful on the forum. starting a conversation by "hi, you're probably full of crap", not many places will allow it. yet it's probably the best bet as a default stand on empty online statements anyway. 

now, you're correct that providing evidence of something through measurement isn't necessarily easy, and will almost always depend on a full list of conditions. no argument here. but you came explaining why you don't have much confidence in ABX, and your point also happens to criticize most blind and double blind test methods. so if you don't rely on that to demonstrate something , what's left? obviously we're going to think about measurements and ask for that. again, the way it's been done wasn't the nicest and most gentle, but it's still a pretty obvious result considering your first post(and what followed). 

on DACs(let me pretend that I'm on topic for a sec ^_^), if we take all the people making claims of hearing a difference and just disqualify all those who didn't even consider that 2 DACs might not have the same voltage output. how many do you think would be left? on this forum I would bet that about half of those claims were born from an experience without volume matched between the DACs. it's only a guess based on all the times I've discussed with people just to learn at some point that they didn't volume match anything, but if that sample is an indication of the bigger picture, I might be optimistic about the half thing. now this is the most obvious stuff out of many possible variables that could affect a listening test, and I'm already thinking that it would probably disqualify half of the claims. knowing this, why on earth would I ever take a claim at face value when the "proof" is a sighted impression? 
 ABX isn't perfect at all, in fact I know several people who reject ABX, not because they try to defend their gut feelings, but because they consider that ABX isn't enough or the best option among a wide range of double blind tests. and for amateurs audiophiles(most of us on this forum) is we use ABX, it's going to be self administered, which is never ideal. but as you say, improving on that requires time effort and possibly money. an ABX app is free, fairly simple to use, it usually will handle the stats so people won't even have to know how to calculate the odds. we just can't deny how convenient it is despite still retaining a pretty high level of control. if I pass an ABX with statistical significance, I can be very confident(as much as the odds tell me to be) that I did perceive a sound difference. what difference? was it caused by flawed samples or the switch making some noticeable noise when going back to A? anything is possible, but I heard something in a repeatable way and can legitimately be very confident about that. I have effectively disproved the null hypothesis, that's a pretty big deal in term of demonstrating audibility. while sighted impressions lack that element of control demonstrating audibility. instead I'm self assessing what I should believe, and decide how confident I am based... well... on how confident I feel. so my way to determine if I should trust that a subjective impression accurately describes an objective change, is by subjectively deciding it. I've confirmed nothing but I now have one more opportunity to make a mistake.
I've been in too many situations where I "heard" a difference with my eyes and was completely sure it was caused by sound before learning that I was listening to the same thing all along. I get sighted impressions like anybody else, but I treat them as relevant for my subjective enjoyment, not for demonstrating objective differences in sound or to convince others that I can hear those differences. and it is my belief that everybody else should do the same and rely on proper experiments when seeking actual evidence of something. 
when my sighted impressions are rich in nuances and specific differences that I notice while my ABX test(or any other blind test) made me unsure that I noticed any, drawing the conclusion that ABX limits our ability to notice differences in sound is wishful thinking pure and simple. it does remove differences by removing visual differences and all the preconceptions we have on the gear(price, design, reviews, etc), so it makes perfect sense that we are going to feel fewer changes. but if removing the view of the device changing along with the sound, alters my impression that the bass are tighter, it's high time to wonder if my impression of tighter bass has anything to do with the actual sound.  

maybe ABX reduces the ability to notice something for at least some people. certainly there exits more/better controlled tests, and depending on the question we wish to answer, it would make more sense to go with MUSHRA or something like that. or at least ensure that the ABX is performed in the conditions of a double blind test. but the moment we decide that something without actual proof makes more sense than something achieve under controlled experiment just because we want to trust ourselves, we have given up on trying to learn anything about the objective world. 
and in a more academical way, an experiment trying to demonstrate causality should at the very least offer the concept of dependent and independent variable. that should remain valid no matter how much self confidence we have for right or wrong reasons. 


to end this too long post, if you reason to believe that something sound better is not a controlled listening test, most people here will not trust your statement. it's that simple. and one last time it doesn't mean that we all think you're wrong or that whatever you do can't measure differently, perhaps better, and subjectively sound different. it just means that we don't trust your method of assessment so we reject the claim(until more appropriate evidence is presented to us, if ever).


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

Seems I have committed a cardinal rule, I am in business, my bad.

But I make people happy - not much of that here. 

Try to have a good day, the sun is at least shining here in Sydney.


----------



## old tech

Joe Rasmussen said:


> *Thank you for your 'moderate' words.*
> 
> *I have never said that ABX testing was wrong, only that I have some rational reservations about how it works. I do think there is room for improvement.*
> 
> I know that here in Sydney at Macquarie University, they have been trying to make ABX testing better. I have seen ABX testing and I was struck by the near constant confusion of the process. For a listening test to be valid, in my mind, it needs to be well anchored in some reliable way. ABX can be improved.



Which discipline?  I wouldn't mind following this up.

I personally know a couple of senior lecturers at Macquarie, including the music faculty. I have never heard anyone there lamenting that ABX testing is confusing.

While ABX tests are refined, depending on the experiment or test being conducted, I very much doubt anyone at the uni would not accept ABX as the gold standard, let alone being inferior to subjective sighted tests.  The people that would make such claims ar those that cannot support their hypotheses and frustrated when ABX testing does not confirm their beliefs.  Is it then no surprise that those that eschew ABX testing typically are people found in the psuedosciences?


----------



## Alboxing

In my personal experience, most of the differences in dacs are due to the different reconstruction filters applied and if they make use oversampling or not etc, rather than the dac architecture itself.

For example, the famous Khadas Tone Board which uses an ESS DS dac chip (normally known for being "analytical", "sterile", "dry sounding" etc etc), was apparently set in NOS mode and it is probably why lots of people are praising it for its "warm, lush and musical sound".


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Aug 9, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> *The question is about whether those differences in measurement is audible?*
> 
> Now I am not God, so I shall not play one. So since we have a loaded question, is this because there _is_ a difference and we can measure it? OK then. But if this is a case where you can measure a difference, then we have the answer: _It measures differently and it sounds different._ Great! No issues from me. What's the problem if there isn't a problem? Haven't they cornered themselves?


Hi Joe,
Out of the mountain of words that has piled up since my last visit, I shall point to only this paragraph and make one basic, basic objection:  A measurable difference is not necessarily audible. 

On the other hand, I don't think anyone is asking for a measurement comparison between an R/2R DAC and a D/S DAC from you, since you obviously did not mod one into the other.  Rather, people are asking for measurements between the original D/S DAC and your modded one.

Cheers,
Joseph


----------



## Gazny

So what gear have people heard that they didn't enjoy. Went back a few pages and couldn't find much. So far my test song has been Chameleon - Herbie Hancock unfortunately It isn't in 24 bit WAV but it does sound good from Spotify.


----------



## Sil3nce

_Mod comment_: We usually let the sound science section dictate their own pace in terms of discussion, but too many of these posts have gone against the acceptable threshold.
Due the direction of this thread, I have deleted posts pertaining to any inflammatory, personal, and off-topic banter.


----------



## gregorio

TBH, deleting a bunch of lies, fallacies and deflections, plus the obvious responses to them, is not such a bad thing. Although it could have been somewhat informative for some readers, both in relation to this specific thread/topic and many others.

This is worth addressing further because it ultimately goes to the heart of this thread and many others.


castleofargh said:


> if we're being honest, if I could get rid of empty claims on the forum, I'd do it right now. that would almost magically improve the mood and the content quality in that section. so I do blame "them" for acting on emotion while pretending to be the voice of science, but I also get why they do it.
> there is a kind of statistical relevance to it. like how our best bet when trying to predict tomorrows weather(without any actual information) is to simply bet that it will be close to what it was today, assuming that someone making an empty claim on the forum is full of crap, also turns out to be the safest bet we can make.



It seems to assume that all empty claims are equal but that's not the case; we've got empty claims, extraordinary claims, ridiculous claims and everything in between. Science itself recognises this with one of it's famous axioms, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". For example, if someone comes here and says jitter noise/artefacts at -80dB are audible, without any reliable evidence, that's an empty claim with a high probability of being false. If someone says jitter noise at -110dB is audible without any reliable evidence, that's an extraordinary claim, it's near the threshold of what's even possible to reproduce, not far from the level that's likely to cause hearing damage, is virtually certain to be unidentifiable in any music signal (even given the most optimal conditions) and would require some extraordinary evidence. This empty claim is likely to get a somewhat harsher response from me if it's repeated/defended without any reliable evidence. And, if someone claims jitter noise at -140dB is audible, that's ridiculous, it can't even be reproduced and therefore can't be audible by definition. This empty claim is likely to get the harshest response from me if it's repeated/defended (without extraordinary evidence).

G


----------



## castleofargh

gregorio said:


> TBH, deleting a bunch of lies, fallacies and deflections, plus the obvious responses to them, is not such a bad thing. Although it could have been somewhat informative for some readers, both in relation to this specific thread/topic and many others.
> 
> This is worth addressing further because it ultimately goes to the heart of this thread and many others.
> 
> ...


my position is that if I doubt the content of a... let's call it "standalone statement", its lack of supporting evidence is sufficient for me to reject it. I'll simply not consider it a fact because I doubt it for some reason and haven't yet seen supporting evidence that could change my mind. we can discuss the statement, we can ask for evidence from the person who made it, we can bring our own evidence or reasoning as to why we came to doubt the statement in the first place. all that and more can be posted and help share our position on a subject so that other members can see our doubts and possibly agree. but we don't have to do all that, it's optional. one empty claim and us having some reason to doubt, that's enough to reject anything and refuse to accept it as a fact.

when your own knowledge is telling you that a claim is complete nonsense, like with hearing stuff down at 140dB below signal. you getting mad and insulting the poster is not part of science. it's not part of demonstrating that his claims is BS. that's just you getting mad and venting your frustration on someone in a way that is not allowed by this forum. if a claim is extraordinary and the poster doesn't offer supporting evidence when asked, or only very unreliable supporting evidence like "I know what I heard", why get mad and attack him? isn't that situation as clear as it can ever be? we already didn't have to accept his statement as a fact because it lacked proper supporting evidence. the extraordinary nature of the claim justifies even more skepticism. the case is ready made and we won it. just dismiss that statement(in your head or on the forum), explain why if you want or if someone asks, and move on. trying pages after pages to force someone to admit that he's wrong, and insulting him when he doesn't, that's not any part of the scientific method. don't get obsessive about making someone admit that he's wrong.
yes some people know perfectly well what they're saying, and they're just messing with us. a few would rather see the world burn than admit publicly to being wrong. but many are just ignorant enough to think they're right(which is probably my case a few times a day). they come sharing what they consider true in all honesty, so that others can know it. and IMO, many of those could have listened to an alternative position and changed their mind(if they could understand enough of the explanation, sometimes there will be a knowledge barrier). but instead they will usually close their mind as a defensive reaction to the aggression they have felt from you or whomever. the little stabs, the sarcasm, the sentences suggesting someone is a fraud or is simply too dumb to get it. all those completely unwarranted extras in a post are not just making many people run away from us, they will in many cases convince those people that your views on the topic are wrong. it's a pretty well know psychological case, and in a section where we do pay attention to biases, well that's one and you're using it against us.
even without forum rules demanding that we treat others with respect, it would still be counterproductive in the long run to attack people like this. 


ps: I'm preaching something I have not been able to consistently do myself. but I try more and more to do it right(without the temper), and you should too.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 10, 2019)

I am ambivalent about the deletions. But if moderator felt it needed, then OK by me. I believe most people judge fairly, some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified. Most people would see that.

Could somebody, in a neutral tone, without acrimony, sum up exactly what is meant by the question (even if the ? mark is missing, it _is _a question).

For a question to be answered, the question must first be understood. Give the question a context.

Can somebody do that here?


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 10, 2019)

Oops, duplication error.


----------



## bigshot

I volunteer this question.... "What's the point?"


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I am ambivalent about the deletions. But if moderator felt it needed, then OK by me. I believe most people judge fairly, some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified. Most people would see that.
> 
> Could somebody, in a neutral tone, without acrimony, sum up exactly what is meant by the question (even if the ? mark is missing, it _is _a question).
> 
> ...


Are you sure you want to continue? If so...
The thread title was 
*R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible?*

I would define the question quickly as
1. Define the fundamental differences in sound that exist because of a DAC being designed as R/2R or as D/S. (Rather than that of any individual examples; however, real world design constraints and parts performance limits have to be taken into consideration, otherwise either design can be perfect in theory)
2. Are such differences audible in a provable way (i.e. in any truly blinded test. I would personally even be open to new-age methods like MRI results as long as the subject doesn't know which he's listening to.

(Btw I'm going to assume we don't want to discuss your Oppo mods anymore since that has nothing to do with the question.  Or did I define the wrong question?)


----------



## gregorio

castleofargh said:


> when your own knowledge is telling you that a claim is complete nonsense, like with hearing stuff down at 140dB below signal. you getting mad and insulting the poster is not part of science.



But I don't get mad with a claim that is complete nonsense, because the poster might simply be an average audiophile who's fallen victim to all the marketing BS. If they keep repeating their empty claim then I'll be somewhat harsher in my request/demand for evidence. I'll only actually get mad if it becomes obvious they're a troll, shill or member of the trade and, THEY start with the insults aimed at me or science/this sub-forum. I would tend to be harshest towards a manufacturer/maker because if they really were as ignorant of the basics as they make out, there's a chance their product could actually be dangerous and if they're not really that ignorant, then they've deliberately come to a sound Science forum to pervert science AND, are deliberately trying to scam me/audiophiles/potential audiophiles for personal gain. The only way we could not be mad at that, is if we care nothing for sound or the science/actual facts of it! I realise getting mad isn't part of science itself but particularly in this current age, scientists (and those who understand science) getting mad and expressing it, might be the only thing that stops us wiping ourselves out.

G


----------



## sonitus mirus

Getting mad about any comment made on an internet forum is like intentionally stepping in dog poop instead of walking around it.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 12, 2019)

sonitus mirus said:


> Getting mad about any comment made on an internet forum is like intentionally stepping in dog poop instead of walking around it.



Haha! ^ this



gregorio said:


> But I don't get mad with a claim that is complete nonsense, because the poster might simply be an average audiophile who's fallen victim to all the marketing BS. If they keep repeating their empty claim then I'll be somewhat harsher in my request/demand for evidence. I'll only actually get mad if it becomes obvious they're a troll, shill or member of the trade and, THEY start with the insults aimed at me or science/this sub-forum.



This ^ too.


----------



## gregorio

Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] I believe most people judge fairly,
> [2] .... some of the things said about me here were totally unjustified.
> [3] Most people would see that.



1. I believe most people try to judge fairly but their ability to do so can be impaired if their understanding of what they're judging has been compromised by "fake news", marketing BS, political "spin", etc. Which of course is why marketing BS, political "spin", etc., exist in the first place!

2. ONLY(!) if one has NOT read the links on the Home Page of this sub-forum or otherwise does NOT have a basic understanding of how science works, IE. The "Burden of Proof" - that a claim requires reliable evidence (and an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence)!

3. I don't know who "most people" who read the posts on this sub-forum are. If they have a basic understanding of how science works and their judgement is not too compromised by marketing BS, then most people would see the opposite of that!

G


----------



## bigshot

I don't think he's coming back.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bigshot said:


> I don't think he's coming back.



You wish!


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Joe Rasmussen said:


> You wish!


 It is not uncommon in modern HiFi to run into design innovations that are technically interesting or even brilliant but of unknown audible benefit.  Really, you need not mire yourself in this thread and fall under the scrutiny of everyone who demands ABX tests.  We have bigger fish to fry, there are charlatans out there who don't even try--they'd just wrap a regular cable in garden hose or charity stickers in flowery prose and sell them for thousands apiece.

If HiFi were only about what is necessary and scientifically provably audible, we'd all be rocking $100 integrated HiFi systems and $100 7.1 HTIBs and it would be everyone's job to make these audibly transparent and they'd succeed at it too   Personally I'd be fine with that but... that's not how it actually works (unfortunately)


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 17, 2019)

Joe Bloggs said:


> It is not uncommon in modern HiFi to run into design innovations that are technically interesting or even brilliant but of unknown audible benefit.  Really, you need not mire yourself in this thread and fall under the scrutiny of everyone who demands ABX tests.  We have bigger fish to fry, there are charlatans out there who don't even try--they'd just wrap a regular cable in garden hose or charity stickers in flowery prose and sell them for thousands apiece.
> 
> If HiFi were only about what is necessary and scientifically provably audible, we'd all be rocking $100 integrated HiFi systems and $100 7.1 HTIBs and it would be everyone's job to make these audibly transparent and they'd succeed at it too   Personally I'd be fine with that but... that's not how it actually works (unfortunately)




Hi Joe B

Sorry I have been run off my feet this week. The front of the house is getting a facelift, my wife got some money from her super and we got the landscapers in. Also, got involved in issues about loudspeakers elsewhere and so on.

I asked two questions earlier (I recall) and they were answered. But they also revealed, via the second answer, what the purpose is for starting this thread originally. So while distracted elsewhere I decided there was no rush, and then a discussion related to speakers broke out on a different forum...

*My answers to what this forum is really about are typed in below.*

I have to attend SAC tomorrow, the Sydney Audio Club, and they are featuring my new hybrid amplifier and upgraded Oppo is the source, plus a phono stage as well. I am not the MC, but I need to be there.

---

*OK, back to the trenches and everybody else here:*

I don't know if the battle between objectivists and subjectivists will ever stop. Honestly, to me, much of it is just noise and both sides have good and bad points. I think my problem is, in order to exist or survive, or just to get along. I have to be on both sides.  So let me make some simple points here, so that people reading this thread can clearly understand my position, that it is a considered position that I have contemplated in depth:

*A.*  To be a total objectivist you almost have to ignore your natural senses and play the distrust card, you become an ideologue - and yet measurements are hugely important and trying to get a correlation between what we measure and what we hear, is one of the ultimate challenges and will be for a long time. I am right now working on an aspect of where it can be argued that the current of the amplifier can be corrupted by the speaker's load. If this is true, then it must be measurable, so some objectivists have brought down a challenge that it should be measured, and they are right to do this. So we are now looking and preparing for such a measurement. This is an actual science endeavour and if achievable, everybody is a winner.

*B.*  I do feel subjectivists get one thing right: When you sit down and listen to music, at that moment that is all you want. What most subjectivists want is uncomplicated and they have a right. Who cares about numbers and ABX at the moment when you just want to enjoy music. But some things are very difficult to subject to ABX tests, they are not always universal as a solution. But alas, some subjectivists can also be so irrational and quick to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions. This, of course, irritates some objectivists. But it's not a reason to start a war. The worst kind of subjectivist suffers from what I call "instant reviewer syndrome" and they don't listen because they are always in "review mode" - even I find that extremely irritating. Yet simple-minded subjectivists who know little about electronics has every right to sit just down and enjoy relaxed listening. They should also be allowed to express themselves, as to what they hear. Simple people who keep things simple are my kind of people.

*C.*  Never assume on a forum whether the other person is an objectivist or subjectivist. Ask him first. The answer may turn out different from what you thought. On forums I get instantly lumped in with the subjectivists and that is just plain wrong. I only have to utter a single word of mild criticism of ABX tests and they go off on me, without justification. That is not how intelligent people should conduct themselves. You don't have to force a person to be a square peg or a round peg. Don't try to be an "instant reviewer" of the other person. Or else you may be guilty of character assassination. If that kind of assassination was real and physical, then I have died a thousand deaths online.

*D.*  Don't underestimate that many are in audio professionally because that is also their passion - some of these people I know could make a lot of money doing something they like less. Also, look for the good in other people, don't assume all they want to rip you off. Yes, there are some who will, but even a retail salesman in a Hi-Fi shop should be given a chance. And I also know some should get the boot instantly, but what I have found is that 'flakes' are transient in the industry. That salesman who wanted to sell you a pair of speakers because they had "the best high-frequency dispersion of any speaker in the entire world" will soon be gone. Yes, I heard a salesman say that with my own ears. I did not know if to laugh or cry. But there are good and bad people in every industry. Take a little time, you will soon figure out who is the bad, but sometimes it takes a little longer to figure out who the good ones are. These are the ones that you will come back to, time and again.

So I hope that is a bridge, but most of all, to those who have never met, not even talked to me on the phone:

*Just don't be a judge, jury, and executioner. OK?*

Cheers to all of you.

Joe R.


----------



## bfreedma

Are you going to post the measurements you claim to have which show your mods making an audible improvement or not?

Sorry, but you made the claim - don’t blame others here for asking you to produce evidence.  Particularly when you state you have it.  Hopefully you can understand how  to posting what you state you have appears.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bfreedma said:


> Are you going to post the measurements you claim to have which show your mods making an audible improvement or not?
> 
> Sorry, but you made the claim - don’t blame others here for asking you to produce evidence.  Particularly when you state you have it.  Hopefully you can understand how  to posting what you state you have appears.



I am not going to respond to that. Please read my post above carefully, it has been fully covered there. Havagoodday!


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I am not going to respond to that. Please read my post above carefully, it has been fully covered there. Havagoodday!



Fantastic.  

I’d have some sympathy if you stated you didn’t have evidence.  Since you state you have proof of audibility and refuse to post it here due to (paraphrasing) Sound Science being a swamp filled with unworthy anonymous denizens, I’m comfortable considering your $3500AUD mod of a $1000 piece electronics as Herpetological Extract.

Feel free to prove me wrong.  As stated before, hard evidence of audible improvement would certainly help sales.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

Somebody tell this guy not to put words into my mouth.

A little story:

I am on the phone to my flat-earther friend Johnny in Pensylvania and I happen to mention that I am looking out of my window here in Sydney and it is sunny and blue skies. Johnny then says "that can't be true, I am looking out of my window and it is pitch black."

How do you prove the earth is round to a flat-earther?

*Don't even try, change the subject!
*


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> Somebody tell this guy not to put words into my mouth.
> 
> A little story:
> 
> ...



An ad hominem attack is not a substitute for factual evidence.

The example you chose for your ad hominem is incredibly ironic.  Both for its posturing of you being on the side of modern science/knowledge and for mentioning changing the subject...

I fail to understand how you could believe your posts are supporting your assertions or helping build your brand.  Conversely, a single short post containing the data you claim to have would force me to eat crow.


----------



## chaos215bar2 (Aug 17, 2019)

Could we at least start another thread with a relevant topic if we're going to do this again?

I nominate "Subjectivism vs. Objectivism", which _could_ actually be an interesting discussion (and would, hopefully, clarify the entire point point of having a Sound Science sub-forum). Unfortunately, only a moderator could both create the thread and move the appropriate posts.

@Joe Rasmussen, since you're the one bringing this up, maybe start another thread so we're not making a mess of this one? It'll be kind of impossible to do that if you keep replying here anyway. (And, honestly, I'll probably just go with reporting the posts as off-topic at this point.)


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 17, 2019)

If somebody wants to start another thread, may I make the following suggestions:

1. As a starting point, post the intro and A-B-C-D points. I have now been able to edit it, as there were few typos and a few more things were cleaned up.

2. That the Moderator will make sure that cheap shots like "you have a claim, prove it" are to be limited. This is just a pure mantra, repeated many times. They are not fair and this is counter-productive. My example of trying to prove to the flat-earther that the world is round shows the impossibility to counter such an unreasonable request. The flat-earther does not want proof, or else he would not be a flat-earther.

3. Questions about measurements should be allowed, but the topic should not be weaponised. Those who believe that is all that matters, should be respectful of others who don't.

4. Any suggestions that people who are in the audio business are only there to rip you off, you have to be specific about such cases. It is defamatory to lump the innocent with the guilty.

5. Most importantly, it is NOT WRONG to disagree. Respect others even if your viewpoint is not the same. Be willing to apologise if you get something wrong. You will feel better if you do.

If others can add or think of something reasonable, feel free to make a suggestion.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Joe Rasmussen said:


> If somebody wants to start another thread, may I make the following suggestions:
> 
> 1. As a starting point, post the intro and A-B-C-D points. I have now been able to edit it, as there were few typos and a few more things were cleaned up.
> 
> ...



1. Are you one to believe that measurements do not matter?  I doubt that :hmm:
2. I can see tuat you certainly aren't in the business to intentionally rip people off, given the huge amount of work that you've demonstrated goes into one of these mods.  But I think it is also fair to ask what the system has to "show" for all the work done on it.  You made some specific claims which can be easily demonstrated via measurements, e.g. that the output stage has no more capacitors (thanks to your innovative work on the way the ESS DAC is wired to the circuit) hence I guess goes down to 0Hz in response, and that there is a certain rolloff filter applied hence the high frequency response would be different.  Nobody least of all I am asking for you to conduct am ABX test of these changes for us, but I think it is reasonable to ask for measurement validation of these overt claims on the system as a starting point.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone. And defaming me and my work is actually legally fraught. If you tried to do this to Panasonics (for whom I worked), then you could end up in court.



bfreedma said:


> An ad hominem attack is not a substitute for factual evidence.
> 
> The example you chose for your ad hominem is incredibly ironic.  Both for its posturing of you being on the side of modern science/knowledge and for mentioning changing the subject...
> 
> I fail to understand how you could believe your posts are supporting your assertions or helping build your brand.  Conversely, a single short post containing the data you claim to have would force me to eat crow.


----------



## gregorio

Joe Rasmussen said:


> How do you prove the earth is round to a flat-earther?



Simple, you present the reliable evidence, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks. That’s it, job done, you’d have proven to a flat-earther that the world is round! Of course they may choose not to accept that proof/evidence but that’s their ignorance/problem, not science’s!



Joe Rasmussen said:


> 2. That the Moderator will make sure that cheap shots like "you have a claim, prove it" are to be limited. This is just a pure mantra, repeated many times.
> [2a] They are not fair and this is counter-productive. My example of trying to prove to the flat-earther that the world is round shows the impossibility to counter such an unreasonable request. The flat-earther does not want proof, or else he would not be a flat-earther.
> 3. Questions about measurements should be allowed, but the topic should not be weaponised. Those who believe that is all that matters, should be respectful of others who don't.
> 5. Most importantly, it is NOT WRONG to disagree.
> [5a] Respect others even if your viewpoint is not the same....You will feel better if you do.



2. “You have a claim, prove it” is the “mantra” upon which science is based. So you’re effectively saying, in a science forum, that science is a “cheap shot” and the mods should limit it! You’re joking right?
2a. It’s entirely “fair” and entirely “productive”, unless of course you’re a flat-earther, in which case the reliable evidence/science/proof is counterproductive to their false belief!

3. That makes no sense! Digital audio is ONLY a (series of) measurements, so by definition, measurements is all that matters! Anyone who believes otherwise is contradicting the facts/science and you’re saying that here, in the science forum, we should be respectful of unscientific false beliefs? 

5. Again, that is completely INCORRECT, it should read: Most importantly, it IS WRONG to disagree, if you are contradicting the facts/science without any reliable evidence!
5a. Again, you don’t appear to be getting the basics; this isn’t the “different viewpoints”, “feel better” or even the “respect” forum, this is the Sound Science forum! It should be self-evident that the ONLY valid viewpoint here is the science/actual facts and science is not based on what “feels better” or “respect”, it’s entirely based on reliable evidence! Do you really not know any of this?

I’m sorry but you obviously do not get to set the conditions for a discussion/thread here in the sound science forum which include eliminating science! Sheesh!

G


----------



## Wyville

Joe Rasmussen said:


> Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone.


Honestly, I think your only option is not to post here because this part of the forums does not seem like it will ever change. I would love to have a sub-forum here to discuss the science behind this hobby, be it technological, biological or psychological. I have said so here before, but every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.


----------



## gregorio

Wyville said:


> ... every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.



Sticking to the facts, reliable evidence and science is only "treading lightly" if you're used to presenting opinions or lies which fly in the face of the facts/science. How is this "profoundly ironic" exactly?

G


----------



## Wyville

gregorio said:


> Sticking to the facts, reliable evidence and science is only "treading lightly" if you're used to presenting opinions or lies which fly in the face of the facts/science. How is this "profoundly ironic" exactly?
> 
> G


Because this place is not as scientific as it likes to think it is. A lot of what I read here merely has a superficial resemblance to science.


----------



## gregorio

Wyville said:


> Because this place is not as scientific as it likes to think it is. A lot of what I read here merely has a superficial resemblance to science.



A lot of what I read here has no resemblance to science at all, not even a superficial resemblance! What it actually resembles is medieval folk lore, superstition  and myth, marketing nonsense regurgitated as facts. You're right then, this place is not as scientific as it wants to be, because of all those who come here trying to peddle nonsense/myths and deliberately deflect from and avoid the science/actual facts!

G


----------



## Wyville

gregorio said:


> A lot of what I read here has no resemblance to science at all, not even a superficial resemblance! What it actually resembles is medieval folk lore, superstition  and myth, marketing nonsense regurgitated as facts. You're right then, this place is not as scientific as it wants to be, because of all those who come here trying to peddle nonsense/myths and deliberately deflect from and avoid the science/actual facts!
> 
> G


I was actually referring to those who profess to be scientific not being as scientific as they would like to be.


----------



## bfreedma (Aug 17, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone. And defaming me and my work is actually legally fraught. If you tried to do this to Panasonics (for whom I worked), then you could end up in court.



Unfounded threats of legal action is the last resort of the fraudster.

It’s comical that you complain about the tone of conversation and for the second time have threatened me with legal action for simply asking you for measurements you state you have.


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 17, 2019)

Wyville said:


> Honestly, I think your only option is not to post here because this part of the forums does not seem like it will ever change. I would love to have a sub-forum here to discuss the science behind this hobby, be it technological, biological or psychological. I have said so here before, but every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.



In my opinion, the people who venture into this section are not mentally prepared to have a discussion that takes the position of skepticism (null hypothesis) by default. They just want to have a "casual" chit chat.

That results in them throwing out claims left and right, and without supporting evidence or credible explanations, they get roasted. Then they feel as though the sound science section is so unfriendly.

But this is the sound science section, where you have to come prepared. Like really prepared. It's not a chit chat with your best buddy. Most are not here to have an "agreeable" discussion, or to feel good. I come here to weed out the crap that I'm told by people, and I am damn grateful this section exists for that purpose. It would have taken me months of research and meeting real experts to learn what I did here in just mere days.

If you know about the DISC personality types (Dominant, Influential, Stable, Conscientious ), I'm willing to bet most here are of the C type. Prepare your evidence or you will not be taken seriously.


----------



## Wyville

SilentNote said:


> In my opinion, the people who venture into this section are not mentally prepared to have a discussion that takes the position of skepticism (null hypothesis) by default. They just want to have a "casual" chit chat.
> 
> That results in them throwing out claims left and right, and without supporting evidence or credible explanations, they get roasted. Then they feel as though the sound science section is so unfriendly.
> 
> But this is the sound science section, where you have to come prepared. Like really prepared. It's not a chit chat with your best buddy. If you know about the DISC personality types (Dominant, Influential, Stable, Conscientious ), I'm willing to bet most here are of the C type. Prepare your evidence or you will not be taken seriously.


None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people _think_ science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.


----------



## bfreedma

Wyville said:


> None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people _think_ science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.




Are you suggesting that claims made in Sound Science without any supporting data and/or evidence should go unquestioned?

The rest of head-FI operates under those parameters.  This is the one subsection where members are allowed to ask for objective support - the same questions are banned on the rest of this site. That this one area bothers so many members is troubling to me - no one is required to post here, yet many visit and want to alter it.  

If you think the bar is high here, try posting in Hydrogen Audio


----------



## bigshot

It's interesting how they seem to always come in tag teams and immediately leap to defending each other. It's also interesting how the people who say that science doesn't know enough are the first ones to act as the judge of "good" and "bad" science.


----------



## Joe Bloggs (Aug 26, 2019)

Wyville said:


> None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people _think_ science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.


That's what it may look like, in a field that is "wide open".

The history of sound science is more like this:
Early 20th century: real scientists established the bounds of human hearing, with actual credible tests.
Late 20th century: one by one all these bounds are met or exceeded by the state-of-the-art, then by the not so SOTA, then by 50 dollar off-brand Walkmans.
Thereafter: desperate to sell new stuff for more money, the audio salesmen engage in ever-escalating FUD campaigns to discredit past research.  They attempt to wipe real audio science off the face of the earth and replace it with pseudoscientific woo, with increasing levels of success.

What we have here is one of the last bastions of sanity in audio circles, besieged by well-funded attackers from almost every audio manufacturer set on wiping us out.  There's no wonder we're just a _bit_ defensive.

Edit: and YOU, @Wyville , turns out to be part of the exact same army of undead audio salesmen, per @Steve999 's findings.


----------



## Wyville

bfreedma said:


> Are you suggesting that claims made in Sound Science without any supporting data and/or evidence should go unquestioned?
> 
> The rest of head-FI operates under those parameters.  This is the one subsection where members are allowed to ask for objective support - the same questions are banned on the rest of this site. That this one area bothers so many members is troubling to me - no one is required to post here, yet many visit and want to alter it.
> 
> If you think the bar is high here, try posting in Hydrogen Audio


What I am suggesting is that if this place wants to become a stimulating environment for high quality discussions that it should change its environment to become something that facilitates such discussions instead shooting them down.


bigshot said:


> It's interesting how they seem to always come in tag teams and immediately leap to defending each other. It's also interesting how the people who say that science doesn't know enough are the first ones to act as the judge of "good" and "bad" science.


I am not defending anyone, merely taking the opportunity to try and stimulate Sound Science forum members to reflect on the environment that has been created here. And please don't make assumptions about me. You do not know me.


----------



## Wyville

Joe Bloggs said:


> That's what it may look like, in a field that is "wide open".
> 
> The history of sound science is more like this:
> Early 20th century: real scientists established the bounds of human hearing, with actual credible tests.
> ...


I am genuinely very sorry to read a post like this and rather speechless.


----------



## bfreedma

Wyville said:


> What I am suggesting is that if this place wants to become a stimulating environment for high quality discussions that it should change its environment to become something that facilitates such discussions instead shooting them down.
> 
> I am not defending anyone, merely taking the opportunity to try and stimulate Sound Science forum members to reflect on the environment that has been created here. And please don't make assumptions about me. You do not know me.




I’ve seen few examples here where posts are shot down prior to the poster being given the opportunity to present a case better than a purely subjective opinion.  Once that opportunity is ignored and the subjective opinion doubled down on, many, myself included, feel insulted. 

The recent discussion is a prototypical example.  How many times can requests for any form of objective data be ignored and why is the problem with those asking for it?


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Wyville said:


> I am genuinely very sorry to read a post like this and rather speechless.


Sorry about what?  Merely _reproducing_ audio with high fidelity is simpler than you think.  The state of the art today is on _manipulating_ audio with ever higher degrees of sophistication.

But the HiFi salesmen would break everything back down to the stone ages so they can start over if they have their way.

It's actually been going like this in many other scientific fields lately.

Most people don't believe we actually ever went to the moon anymore.

Vaccines are getting de-invented.

The more set in stone the conclusions of climate science are to actual researchers in the field, the more discredited it is in the public eye.

The list goes on...


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 17, 2019)

Wyville said:


> None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people _think_ science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.



I don't understand your take on science. Are you implying that researchers and scientists should not do their research (preparation) before presentation of their paper? That's absurdity.

Some degree of understanding and preparation_ is necessary _otherwise everyone will just be discussing about _opinions_.

And no it's not prepare or be roasted. It is the lack of preparation that gets them roasted in an intellectual discussion, as they have nothing more to say other than their _opinions_. Their opinions is no better than my opinions so then we are just going around exchanging opinions and will never really come to an understanding based at least in some real world observation or results!

To argue that some degree of preparations is unnecessary, and that opinions itself is sufficient basis for scientific discourse, is absurdity.


----------



## Wyville

bfreedma said:


> I’ve seen few examples here where posts are shot down prior to the poster being given the opportunity to present a case better than a purely subjective opinion.  Once that opportunity is ignored and the subjective opinion doubled down on, many, myself included, feel insulted.
> 
> The recent discussion is a prototypical example.  How many times can requests for any form of objective data be ignored and why is the problem with those asking for it?





Joe Bloggs said:


> Sorry about what?  Merely _reproducing_ audio with high fidelity is simpler than you think.  The state of the art today is on _manipulating_ audio with ever higher degrees of sophistication.
> 
> But the HiFi salesmen would break everything back down to the stone ages so they can start over if they have their way.
> 
> ...


The problem is that there are underlying issues that complicate matters, which have mostly to do with a misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. If you want to address issues in a constructive and scientifically informed manner, then this is not the way to do it.


----------



## Wyville

SilentNote said:


> I don't understand your take on science. Are you implying that researchers and scientists should not do their research (preparation) before presentation of their paper? That's absurdity.
> 
> Some degree of understanding and preparation_ is necessary _otherwise everyone will just be discussing about _opinions_.
> 
> ...


Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).


----------



## taffy2207

Wasn't this thread on topic once?


----------



## SilentNote

taffy2207 said:


> Wasn't this thread on topic once?


I created a new thread here:

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/wha...lation-to-sound-science.913195/#post-15129375

Hopefully this topic will stop getting derailed.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 17, 2019)

Wyville said:


> [1] None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion.
> [2] Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements.



1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!

2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.

G


----------



## sonitus mirus

gregorio said:


> 1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!
> 
> 2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.
> 
> G


A dogmatic statement such as those leaves no room for hunches or subjective experiences where hordes of ignorant folks all take comfort from groupthink and businesses are more than willing to take advantage of the situation and bolster these ideas for profit.  You know the drill.  This discussion is leading to the inevitable claim that we don't know everything and something unknown could be responsible for differences that have not even been reliably established to exist at all, let alone significantly obvious differences.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree entirely....

I agree that pseudoscience is a big problem... but so is allowing actual science to drift into pure dogma.

Real science is an ongoing process of learning things, and then testing and refining what we know, which often results in having to adjust that knowledge.
In the past, many scientists did detailed studies about the limits of human hearing, using tuning forks and sine waves.
As a result, we knew a lot more about human hearing than we knew before those tests were performed...
However, we didn't suddenly know everything that there was to be known...
And, in fact, we may still not know it all...

When I went to high school we "knew" that all matter was made up of small indivisible particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons....
Nowadays, most people know that this was just a simple and somewhat effective model, but matter really isn't that way at all...

And, back then, we "knew" that our entire "genetic inheritance" was contained in the DNA strands in our genes (which were "a complete blueprint")...
But, nowadays, (if we keep up on our reading), we know that it's not nearly that simple, and that some genetic information is carried by other mechanisms...

I absolutely agree that pseudoscience is a big problem...
And one that seems to be becoming worse lately... especially in the audio field...
However, that's still no excuse to suggest that we should stop ALL exploration and discovery and fall back on dogma...

I'm pretty sure that the guys who did all those tests a century ago had neither R2R nor D-S DACs....
Therefore, they probably had neither the inclination nor the ability to test whether the differences between them were audible or not....
(In fact, with a foundation in tuning forks and steady state sine waves, they probably never even imagined things like data-correlated errors and error masking.)

And I'm pretty sure that the pioneers of information theory would have laughed at the idea that lossy compression could actually work transparently.
In general, information theory considers problems like storing or transmitting a given amount of information in the minimum bandwidth possible.
It usually does NOT address the idea that certain information is "psycho-acoustically expendable" and we can save bandwidth by simply discarding it.
(By their equations the information in a typical AAC or MP3 file "just plain wouldn't fit in the available bandwidth".)

I'll bet, if you look back far enough, you can find articles debunking "acoustically transparent lossy compression" as "a nice idea but not possible in practice". 
(But I guess we're lucky nobody was convinced enough to stop trying...)

While explaining basic science to beginners definitely has its place...
I'd personally rather discuss things that go beyond "Basic Audio Science for Beginners 101"...
Even if some of the things that get discussed end up being disproven... or debunked... or just plain silly... because that's also part of science.
(And, yes, we may have to explore a few dead ends in order to have any chance of making any actual progress.)




Wyville said:


> Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).


----------



## KeithEmo

Your second statement is an excellent example of an oxymoron...
And also an excellent example of where the risk lies...

On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree.
(And most of may even realize that it isn't actually a perfect sphere either.)

However, in point of fact, there have been any number of examples provided showing that pigs do occasionally fly.
I suspect that it would be accurate to state that "non-genetically modified pigs cannot fly using their own wings and muscle power"...
However, instead, you have chosen to overstate the claim, and in such a way that it can easily be shown to be FALSE.

For example, I didn't have to stop laughing very long to find this on Google:
The first historically recorded flight of a pig took place on British soil, at Leysdown in Kent on *November 4th, 1909*. 
The pig was carried aloft by J.T.C. Moore-Brabazon, later the First Lord Brabazon of Tara, in his personal French-built Voisin aero plane.
https://www.porkopolis.org/2008/first-pig-to-fly/
(the web page includes a black and white photo of the pig on his first flight)

While I would agree that making absolute claims, in contradiction of well established science, should include some form of proof to be taken seriously...
Suggesting that "established science" might be wrong... and needs further testing... is a time honored tradition... and one of the reasons why science is right so often...
(Statistically speaking, of all the people over the years who claimed that "what you know is wrong", a certain number have in fact turned out to be correct.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Agreed, it's only necessary if you're going to actually contradict the established/proven science. Anyone can easily avoid this, for example by asking questions instead of making claims/assertions or, by making assertions which do not contradict the science but if you are going to contradict it, then you'll need to be prepared with reliable supporting evidence!
> 
> 2. What's wrong with rigid dogmatic statements? What's wrong for example, with the rigid dogmatic statement that the earth isn't flat or that pigs can't fly? Rigid dogmatic statements are only a problem if they're false/incorrect.
> 
> G


----------



## chaos215bar2

@KeithEmo, come join the fun here!


----------



## bigshot

troublemaker!


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Your second statement is an excellent example of an oxymoron...
> And also an excellent example of where the risk lies...
> 
> On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree.
> ...




When you say you had eggs for breakfast, do you qualify it by stating it's an "unfertilized chicken egg not including it's shell" or do you assume people will make the correct assessment unless unusual qualifiers are stated?  If you had an ostrich or turtle egg for breakfast, I'm willing to assume you would mention it.

I believe the same level of standard assumptions exist when discussing "flying pigs" and many other typical points of discussion.  I don't think we need to be pedantic - we should all have the intellectual honesty to state any unusual scenarios/qualifiers when they exist.


----------



## bigshot

I get very weary with semantics. That's usually a smoke screen to cover up lack of any worthwhile points to make. I feel the same way about irrelevant analogies, reducto ad absurdum, and appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 19, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> On the first point, that the Earth is not flat, I think that most of us agree. (And most of may even realize that it isn't actually a perfect sphere either.)
> 
> While I would agree that making absolute claims, in contradiction of well established science, should include some form of proof to be taken seriously...
> Suggesting that "established science" might be wrong... and needs further testing... is a time honored tradition... and one of the reasons why science is right so often...
> (Statistically speaking, of all the people over the years who claimed that "what you know is wrong", a certain number have in fact turned out to be correct.)



That last point has also meant many have been dragged over coals - the history of many who have had to suffer in order to benefit mankind is depressing.

Yes, there are flakes, yes there are crooks, yes the innocent needs to be protected from them. But there is also a danger that we might miss out on something important.

*The danger is that the reactionary Pendulum swings too far!*

Couple that, we seem to be living in an age of anger bordering on an age of rage. So the opposite can be just as dangerous and maybe even more so?

I am struck by the fact that you now have to be more brave than ever before. And your motive will be questioned: *"So you think you are so great?"* while putting on a pedestal the Einsteins of the past while skewering the possible Einsteins of the future.

On another forum elsewhere, I tried to suggest an alternative way of looking at the interface between the amplifier acting as a "voltage" source and the speaker as a "current" device - it is a known compatibility problem. I presented a very powerful 'equivalence' test (it can be tested even in software) and predictive maths that was spot on in every case. It was 100% accurate and very revealing. I showed it to some extremely capable people first and thought I was on safe ground. I was not.

I was basically accused of being a New Age nutjob. It got vicious, then it got malicious and then they resorted to slander accusing me of stealing. There was no limit, the moderation was weak and disappointing. I can see why some unwary souls on the internet can be driven into depression and worse, especially if they are younger. But I have 40 years experience. But the internet can be dangerous to your mental health.

From here on, if anybody insists on "proof" does not mean they want it. The tone will give it away every time. Even showing incredibly powerful proof meant nothing.

*A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.*

So disappointed about missing out the flying pig achievement. Someone beat me to it. Sigh.


----------



## old tech

Joe Rasmussen said:


> *A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.*



But wouldn't a simple request for evidence which supports your claim open up a discussion, particularly over claims which contradict the science behind digital audio?  Wouldn't that evidence, if it does exist, open up a new and exciting world of new discoveries? 

For example, if someone wanted to claim that gravity pulls rather than sucks there hardly will be any discussion as most people would would write that person off as a crank.  However, if that person provided some credible evidence to back up that claim, there would be massive discussions, perhaps even a full house Nobel award presentation.

So, are you going to provide some credible evidence or not?


----------



## chaos215bar2

Strictly speaking, gravity accelerates.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

old tech said:


> So, are you going to provide some credible evidence or not?



No! Has never worked before, so go away... please!


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 19, 2019)

chaos215bar2 said:


> Strictly speaking, gravity accelerates.



That’s interesting. Thanks. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity

Would it be true to say that we can describe the effects of gravity (warping of space-time, etc.), but we do not yet know the cause of it? Aren’t as-yet detected “gravitons” one hypothesis?

Here’s an interesting and perhaps somewhat related development—some evidence of the idea of sound being in the form of particles, called “phonons,” first hypothesized by Einstein in 1907, and now reportedly detected by quantum-microphones. Apparently when phonons vibrate at some frequencies they are heat particles, and when vibrating at other frequencies they are sound particles?

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-physicists-particles-quantum-microphone.html


----------



## bigshot

Joe Rasmussen said:


> the history of many who have had to suffer in order to benefit mankind is depressing.



Let me know when you have something solid to offer. Until then, I'll just ignore you. The rest of us are trying to help people, not just prop ourselves up.


----------



## chaos215bar2 (Aug 20, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> That’s interesting. Thanks. https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-5/Acceleration-of-Gravity
> 
> Would it be true to say that we can describe the effects of gravity (warping of space-time, etc.), but we do not yet know the cause of it? Aren’t as-yet detected “gravitons” one hypothesis?
> 
> ...


I don't want to take this too far off topic, but if you're interested, I _highly_ recommend this series: https://www.pbs.org/show/pbs-space-time/. If you can, start from the beginning, as it frequently builds on previous episodes.

I'm afraid I know just enough about gravitation, general relativity, and quantum mechanics to know that I won't be able to manage an explanation without butchering the topic (after all, some of the most important unanswered questions in modern physics lie right at the intersection of those topics), but I can do my best to describe what a phonon is.

Phonons are not particles, they describe a quantum of vibration within a material (a discrete packet of energy, effectively). It's really just a mathematical description of a physical behavior, but there are many parallels between phonons and real particles. (The similarity between "phonon" and "photon" is quite intentional.) Since both sound and heat are indeed vibrations within a material, I would expect that both could be described using phonons.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree - but only somewhat.

We all live our lives based largely on assumptions of what other people think and will do.
For example, we assume that the other guy stops at red lights, and goes when they turn green.
It would be almost impossible to drive without being able to trust that assumption - and it is _usually_ true.
However, I also don't give a second thought to the fact that everyone will be driving on the right side of the road.
And, while that works fine here in the USA, it could get me in a lot of trouble in England (where they drive on the_ left_).
(I'm also pretty sure that, in some other countries, they commonly eat a variety of different sorts of eggs.... including specifically fertilized chicken eggs in some places.) 

For an excellent example.... I just has a Whopper at Burger King yesterday....
But I didn't eat any meat that day....
(Because what I ate was the new meatless hamburger they've been advertising recently - Wasn't it _obvious_ to you?)

The problems arise when we make assumptions about what_ other people_ think is obvious... and they turn out to be wrong.
For example, if I were to complain to a stewardess that "the pig sitting in the seat next to mine is making noise", he or she had _better NOT_ assume that "pigs don't fly".

For an example that's more specific to this discussion.

As someone with an engineering background, and who has worked for a long time with oscilloscopes, I tend to follow what we learned in school about waveforms displayed on a screen.

Which is: 
"When you look at a sine wave on an oscilloscope screen, even if there is several percent of THD, it usually won't be visible."
"And, if there _is_ so much distortion that it is clearly visible on an oscilloscope screen, then it will almost certainly be accompanied by audible differences."
And, in general, this even holds true when the primary frequency involved is itself inaudible.
If the distortion is severe enough that it "makes the waveform look odd" then it is almost always accompanied by at least some audible distortion.
This is why many engineers look at an MP3 file on an oscilloscope screen and reason: "Anything that looks that bad can't possibly sound right...." and take that as their default assumption.
(I know at least one elderly engineer, whose hearing is failing, who will say: "It sounds fine to me....but it's pretty obvious from the display that it can't sound right to people with good hearing".)

Therefore, when I look at oscilloscope images of the ringing associated with different DAC filters, my "obvious assumption" is this:
"They look very different - so they probably also sound different".
Notice that I did not assert that an audible difference _actually_ exists.
What I said was that my _DEFAULT ASSUMPTION_ would be that, with such large visible differences, the most likely situation would be that an audible difference exists.
So, to me, the claim that "they all sound the same" is the exceptional claim - and the claim that requires the exceptional proof - and not the other way around.
And I find it quite odd that so many people are so sure that "no audible difference exists" - "just because a few measurements are more or less similar".



bfreedma said:


> When you say you had eggs for breakfast, do you qualify it by stating it's an "unfertilized chicken egg not including it's shell" or do you assume people will make the correct assessment unless unusual qualifiers are stated?  If you had an ostrich or turtle egg for breakfast, I'm willing to assume you would mention it.
> 
> I believe the same level of standard assumptions exist when discussing "flying pigs" and many other typical points of discussion.  I don't think we need to be pedantic - we should all have the intellectual honesty to state any unusual scenarios/qualifiers when they exist.


----------



## KeithEmo

You bring up an interesting point......

Which more closely describes the reason why this thread exists?:
1) "To encourage scientific discussion that might perhaps lead to extending our current knowledge....."
2) "To educate people about currently accepted scientific theories and knowledge....."
3) "To protect ignorant people from believing the wrong things (specifically when they may be protected from nefarious vendors seeking to separate them from their cash using various devious pseudoscientific claims)....."

I was sort of under the impression from the title that the purpose was:
- to discuss whether there were actually_ measurable performance differences_ that could _specifically_ be attributed to the difference between R2R and D-S topologies
- to discuss whether there were _audible_ differences between the two DAC topopogies
- if such differences were posited to exist - to discuss the correlation between them - if any...

I sort of missed the part where the purpose was: "to explain to people who _believe_ they hear a difference why they _must_ be wrong".
Just for the record, I personally suspect that neither topology is necessarily "audible better", or even that they are "audibly different", but I'm at least willing to consider discussion on the subject.
(From the examples of products I've heard, there are often audible differences, but those can usually be attributed to easily measurable differences unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the topology involved....)

I was sort of hoping to see a scholarly discussion...
Perhaps with some details about the specific measurable differences...
And maybe some specific proposed ways in which we could test the audibility of each... 
Has _ANYONE_ ever made up a set of samples, with various amounts of various types of ringing deliberately added, and tested them on a significant sample of people, to see how much is audible? 
(Or is it both more fun, and less work, to argue endlessly about why such a test would be "an obvious waste of time".)



bigshot said:


> Let me know when you have something solid to offer. Until then, I'll just ignore you. The rest of us are trying to help people, not just prop ourselves up.


----------



## bigshot

Claiming to hear a difference doesn't mean much without any other sort of verification. There are plenty of reasons to hear differences that have nothing to do with different topologies. The problem is that people rush past determining if there is a difference and go straight to dreaming up reasons for a difference to exit.


----------



## KeithEmo

Again... I would agree with you _as long as you don't take it too far_.

Human perception is certainly fallible, often inaccurate, and often subject to all sorts of biases and external influences.
However, that does not justify simply dismissing it as "totally meaningless".

Perhaps the best analogy would be to a different human sense perception - taste.
I very much doubt that you or I could say with any accuracy how many milligrams of salt were present in our dinner last night.
And I'm pretty sure that neither of us could state, with any degree of accuracy, whether it contained "the proper amount, according to Escoffier, in the appropriate text".
However, if you were to say that you always found the dinners at a certain restaurant to be "rather salty", you would not expect to be told:
"We all know that humans can't judge chemical composition accurately. Stop bothering us until you can produce a lab report showing the actual salt content."
Instead, you would expect your observation to be noted, and taken for what it is.... 
An opinion, from an observer, and a statement based on a human experience.... 
(And I haven't seen many suggestions that food critics should all be replaced with far more accurate mass spectrometers...)

And, likewise, some people insist that tube gear sounds better....
And that claim is no less valid that the well documented fact that most test subjects report that "meat doesn't taste as good when you color it bright green"....
And, if you find that the difference disappears when they can't see what equipment they're listening to, then you've proven that the cause is psychological rather than auditory.
But that fact still doesn't make it some sort of blasphemy to discuss it...
(And, technically, it also doesn't mean that they didn't hear a difference.... although they may not understand _why_ they heard it.) 



bigshot said:


> Claiming to hear a difference doesn't mean much without any other sort of verification. There are plenty of reasons to hear differences that have nothing to do with different topologies. The problem is that people rush past determining if there is a difference and go straight to dreaming up reasons for a difference to exit.


----------



## bigshot

It's simple. You do a controlled test to see if a difference exists. If you can't detect any difference, for all practical purposes you can stop there and move on to bigger and better things. But some people don't do that. They so dearly want there to be a difference, they try to think of theoretical reasons why there *might* be a teenie tiny difference they missed, or they question the testing methodology. It's a waste of energy that could be better spent elsewhere. The truth is, we're talking about something to play Rush albums on in your family room. You don't need to split atoms. If you can't hear it easily, it probably doesn't matter. There are too many things that really count to waste time on things that really don't.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Human perception is certainly fallible, often inaccurate, and often subject to all sorts of biases and external influences.
> However, that does not justify simply dismissing it as "totally meaningless".


while I don't think we have to dismiss all uncontrolled impressions, I do think that we have enough reasons to do just that if we want to. we have ample evidence that those are fallible and will be affected in some ways by other senses or biases already present in the brain. that's more than enough reason to reject sighted impressions when trying to get facts. 
obviously some events are found at levels, amplitudes, frequencies so nominal for our ears that nobody would mistake them for something else. like recognizing a piano sound as coming from a piano, or noticing massive clipping, or very high noise levels, etc. I probably won't demand a blind test to prove that the listener can recognize a piano from a cow bell. chances are that I'll just accept his testimony from uncontrolled listening. but as soon as things happen close to hearing thresholds(or beyond), it's another story. our level of confidence in our subjective impressions should clearly reflect that and drop near or at zero. 
I can see ambiguity concerning non obvious cues that someone might still decide to identify as "night and day different"(the trouble of subjective quantification). but I see no ambiguity when it comes to sighted impressions of events near or beyond typical human hearing threshold. then I will reject them all by default and do believe it is the only correct choice. once we get confirmation through controlled method, that will be the time to agree that the listener did hear stuff all along.


----------



## gregorio

Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] I am struck by the fact that you now have to be more brave than ever before. And your motive will be questioned: *"So you think you are so great?"* while putting on a pedestal the Einsteins of the past while skewering the possible Einsteins of the future.
> [2] A reasonable person does not demand proof, he demands explanations. He opens up the discussion, he does not kill it.
> [3] No! Has never worked before, so go away... please!



1. Again, how does just repeating a falsehood make it true? Einstein of the past (the actual Einstein) presented his theories with a significant amount of supporting reliable evidence (mathematical) and wouldn't have dreamt of doing otherwise! In what way is an Einstein of the present or future treated any differently? Your repeated untrue statement is still as untrue as the first time it was shown to be untrue!

2. Please point out where it states this is the "Reasonable Person" forum. This isn't the "reasonable person" forum it's the Sound Science forum, how is it possible that you don't know this considering it says so in great big letters and you've been specifically told several times? How is that in any way "reasonable"? Furthermore, I don't recall anyone here "demanding proof", we've just demanded reliable evidence and, I would contend that many "reasonable people" would also require reliable evidence.

3. Clearly that's utter nonsense, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Credible/Reliable evidence is the ONLY way that science ever works! You apparently not understanding and refusing to abide by this most basic, defining principle/tenet of science, in an actual science forum, is just ridiculous! To any even marginally "reasonable person" it's obvious who should "go away"!



KeithEmo said:


> For example, if I were to complain to a stewardess that "the pig sitting in the seat next to mine is making noise", he or she had _better NOT_ assume that "pigs don't fly".



Huh? Of course I would assume that "pigs don't fly" because you stated the pig was sitting! Obviously the pig is sitting and the plane is flying (not the pig) or are you saying that the pig is flying and the plane is sitting? If the pig were sitting in the pilot's seat, would the pig be flying then? Are pigs even allowed into flight school? A pig in a jet airliner would be cruising at over 400kph but science states the fastest flying animal is the Peregrine Falcon (at over 320kph). Ergo science is wrong, not only can pigs fly but they're the fastest flying animal! In fact, aren't Peregrine Falcons actually slower than cr@p (if I go to the toilet on a jet airliner)? If I sit a pig on a speed boat travelling at 100kph, is the pig swimming at 100kph? Are pigs the best/fastest at everything?

Tough questions, thank god I'm asking them here in the science forum, can you imagine the ridiculous responses I'd get in the "cables" forum? 

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 21, 2019)

Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....

If someone were to challenge a _good_ scientist about having seen a pig fly.
What the scientist would definitely _NOT_ do would be to say: "You're nuts. Of course pigs can't fly."

He or she would say something like....
"Gee, I'm sorry, I was saying that current day pigs, with no genetic modifications, cannot fly under their own power, because they don't have wings."
"I assumed that we were discussing the situation in terms of those basic assumptions. Let me be more concise this time around."
In other words, the scientists would understand the limitations of his counter-claim, and be quite willing to spell them out in detail.

For example, if you want to refute someone's claim that they can hear the difference between DACs with different ringing characteristics, you might say, quite concisely:
"There is lots of evidence to support the claim that a typical human cannot hear steady state sine waves at frequencies much past 20 kHz."
"Since the ringing you're talking about occurs at much higher frequencies, I am assuming that the results with steady state sine waves are also true for all other conditions."
"And, that being the case, I consider it extremely unlikely that ringing at frequencies above 20 kHz would be audible either."
"And, incidentally, so far there seems to be little if any credible evidence to the contrary."
("However, since very little testing has actually been done under those conditions, it is remotely possible that I may someday be proven wrong.")

Sadly, the world is filled with not only _good_ scientists, but poor scientists....
Who either treat science as if it were religious dogma....
Or fall into the common human failing of "NIH" ("not invented here" - which, in this case, refers to assigning excessive weight to their own _personal_ beliefs).

Seventy years ago, some scientists took the time to explain that "the idea that matter consists of protons, neutrons, and electrons is just a _convenient model _that is often useful".
(And many poor scientists, lazy scientists, and scientists who took it for granted that we already knew that and wouldn't be confused, simply stated it as a "fact".)
Likewise, there are still many people who still think there is a "debate about whether light is a wave or a particle".

We also tell children in grade school that "we have tides because the moon's gravity pulls on the oceans so they pile up on the side nearest the moon."
(Which, of course, doesn't exactly explain why we have a second high tide on the side of the Earth more or less opposite the position of the moon at the same time.)
It's only in the higher grades (if ever) that we explain the matter in detail...
And we often don't bother to explain it at all until and unless they ask...
And many people never seem to notice that the grade school explanation doesn't really make complete sense at all...

There is FAR more to real science than "taking the latest accepted scientific fact and 'dumbing it down so the general public can sort of get the general idea' ".



gregorio said:


> 1. Again, how does just repeating a falsehood make it true? Einstein of the past (the actual Einstein) presented his theories with a significant amount of supporting reliable evidence (mathematical) and wouldn't have dreamt of doing otherwise! In what way is an Einstein of the present or future treated any differently? Your repeated untrue statement is still as untrue as the first time it was shown to be untrue!
> 
> 2. Please point out where it states this is the "Reasonable Person" forum. This isn't the "reasonable person" forum it's the Sound Science forum, how is it possible that you don't know this considering it says so in great big letters and you've been specifically told several times? How is that in any way "reasonable"? Furthermore, I don't recall anyone here "demanding proof", we've just demanded reliable evidence and, I would contend that many "reasonable people" would also require reliable evidence.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....
> 
> If someone were to challenge a _good_ scientist about having seen a pig fly.
> What the scientist would definitely _NOT_ do would be to say: "You're nuts. Of course pigs can't fly."
> ...




I work with a number of PHD level scientists, a few who are recognized in their field as thought leaders.

I asked a few this morning if pigs can fly.  All responded "No" with no further qualification.  Apparently not all scientists (even good ones) are as pedantic as you believe them to be.


----------



## Leporello (Aug 21, 2019)

Wyville said:


> Not implying anything of the sort. What I am saying is that what you do here is not science, it is Cargo Cult Science. The arguments presented here lack the depth of understanding, thoroughness, and integrity needed. The problem is that most people here are so convinced that they know how science works that they keep fooling themselves and never actually get to the good stuff (ie. genuine science).



Yes, humans are petty, envious, greedy, jealous and think too highly of themselves. Most scientists are fundamentally wretched people, like everyone, like me. You rarely see scientific ideals fulfilled, even in science. What was your point again?

So 'Sound science' is not as scientific as some of its members would like to think? Big news.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> Actually, i think you've got the part about the pig backwards....



You think *I'VE* got it backwards? Oh dear! 

Maybe I was wrong, compared to your line of reasoning, the cables forum is starting to look like the epitome of truth and rational thought!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

As I said, that's because they expect you to be basing your statements on "the standard assumptions"....
I suspect, however, that if you specifically told one of them them that you HAD seen a pig fly - whether on an airplane, or under its own power on a hang glider....
They would have qualified their statement as I suggested - rather than simply insist that you must be mistaken.
(See what answer you get from a NASA scientist involved in "flight testing with animal test subjects".)

Likewise, if I were to walk into a good restaurant, and ask for "eggs", they would probably ask how I preferred them cooked.
Because, as you say, we would both assume that, by using the term "eggs", I was referring to chicken eggs...
And we would both assume that, if I'd wanted caviar (fish eggs), or perhaps turtle eggs, both of which they may in fact serve, I would have said so.)

However, if you were working an a lab doing research on embryology, and someone were to ask "how you would like those eggs you'd requested prepared".....
They probably would NOT assume that you meant "poached" or "scrambled".

The problem in this forum is that people specifically confuse the contexts of "pure science" and "practical consumer advice"....

There is a specific difference between saying: "Most people don't notice much difference between most R2R and D-S DACs."....
And saying: "There is no difference between them that is audible to any human under any circumstances."....

My personal belief on "whether there is a measurable difference between R2R and D-S DACs that is audible" is this....

- Most high quality DACs both measure and sound very similar.
   (Note that I said "most" but didn't generalize that to "all".)
- However there are in fact obviously measurable differences between them.
- And sometimes specific types of errors and distortions may be audible, under certain conditions, and to certain people.
   (Note that I DID NOT say "all" or "most" or "usually".)
- R2R and D-S DACs are measurably prone to different types of flaws, errors, and distortions.
- Therefore, it makes sense that, WHEN THERE ARE AUDIBLE FLAWS, those audible flaws may be distinctive of one type or the other.
   (If an R2R DAC and a D-S DAC both have audible distortion, they will often have different types of audible distortion, which will allow you to recognize which type they are.)

And, yes, I would be a lot more pedantic when discussing this on an AUDIO SCIENCE forum...
Than I would when discussing it on a consumer advice forum...
Or with a buddy who was trying to decide which $500 stereo system to buy...

To me, from the title, this is NOT "a consumer advice forum"....
It is a SOUND SCIENCE DISCUSSION forum....
(But clearly some people don't agree.... )
And, yes, when there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that seems to contradict the experimental evidence, there is most certainly "cause for discussion"....
(Whether the answer turns out to be in the realm of physical science, psychoacoustics, psychology, or marketing.....)

And, from both the title of this thread, and its content, it is quite clear that many people DO NOT start from the same base assumptions.
Perhaps, if you asked for "eggs" on some tropical island, and didn't specify which sort, you'd end up with poached turtle eggs instead of chicken eggs.
(And many people on this forum quite apparently do not take it for their base assumption that "all DACs sound the same" - whether you do or not.)



bfreedma said:


> I work with a number of PHD level scientists, a few who are recognized in their field as thought leaders.
> 
> I asked a few this morning if pigs can fly.  All responded "No" with no further qualification.  Apparently not all scientists (even good ones) are as pedantic as you believe them to be.


----------



## SilentNote

I think unless a moderator moves this thread to the other one I don't think it can stop getting hijacked..


----------



## KeithEmo

Not at all....

In fact, I personally happen to believe that _most_ of what they believe is incorrect, based on my personal knowledge and experience.
However, as an engineer, I can easily provide numerous examples of situations where different cables do in fact sound quite different.....
Therefore, it would be equally foolish to automatically assume that they must always be wrong.



gregorio said:


> You think *I'VE* got it backwards? Oh dear!
> 
> Maybe I was wrong, compared to your line of reasoning, the cables forum is starting to look like the epitome of truth and rational thought!
> 
> G


----------



## SilentNote

KeithEmo said:


> Not at all....
> 
> In fact, I personally happen to believe that _most_ of what they believe is incorrect, based on my personal knowledge and experience.
> However, as an engineer, I can easily provide numerous examples of situations where different cables do in fact sound quite different.....
> Therefore, it would be equally foolish to automatically assume that they must always be wrong.



Oh wow, big ass opinion right there. Too bad it isn't any bigger than mine.


----------



## KeithEmo

I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......

What _should_ we be discussing?

Assuming that, as some folks would like, we dismiss all anecdotal evidence as "meaningless"....
Then, until and unless someone sponsors a proper scientific study on the subject, we don't have anything left to discuss.
So we might as well close the thread now.

To be frank.... with nothing but endless exchanges of....

"I think I hear a difference...."  <->  "We don't care what you think you hear unless you can prove it".

It just gets sort of boring after a while.



SilentNote said:


> I think unless a moderator moves this thread to the other one I don't think it can stop getting hijacked..


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 21, 2019)

Anecdotal "evidence" you mean. Well lets exchange opinions and see whose opinion is better.

I think your opinion while interesting fundamentally sucks.

Oh also in my opinion, you must be kind of slow. Since you don't even know what to discuss in a sound science forum. But exchanging opinions surely is very helpful to improving everyone's understanding. Especially to what you're trying to sell. As long as they believe in your opinion, they'll pay their arms and legs for it.

Still I think your opinion sucks. Because it's different from mine and mine is BETTER. My opinion RIGHT. Yours is WRONG. So your opinion sucks. Your opinion also tries to discredit the scientific work of the past century with your opinion. With no references from yourself, just your opinion which is evidently inferior from mine.


----------



## Steve999

KeithEmo said:


> I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......
> 
> What _should_ we be discussing?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> As I said, that's because they expect you to be basing your statements on "the standard assumptions"....
> I suspect, however, that if you specifically told one of them them that you HAD seen a pig fly - whether on an airplane, or under its own power on a hang glider....
> They would have qualified their statement as I suggested - rather than simply insist that you must be mistaken.
> (See what answer you get from a NASA scientist involved in "flight testing with animal test subjects".)
> ...




I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying".  Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"

Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so.  One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI.  She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.

Rational people, including scientists, know how to parse a simple question in a generalized setting and expect that if the questioner doesn't provide qualifiers, they have no need to run through all of the options that are theoretically possible, like genetically engineered winged pigs which don't exist to date.

When you find measurements indicating audible differences between properly built R2R and DS DACs, please post it so we can have an actual discussion and not a theoretical one.


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying".  Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No".




Can you ask them this question for me?


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem is that there are plenty of measurements showing that significant and sometimes quite obvious differences exist.
And nobody has actually done any significant experiments to determine whether they are audible or not.

What we have is a bunch of people who have chosen to _infer_ that the measured differences aren't audible...
However, those inferences are based on the results of experiments that were devised and carried out to test different things under different conditions.
For example, many experiments have been conducted, which seem to clearly show that most humans cannot hear steady state sine waves at frequencies significantly above 20 kHz.
However, very few experiments have been done to determine the audibility of non-steady-state or pulsed tones above 20 kHz.
And even fewer tests have been done to determine whether the presence of sounds which are themselves inaudible may affect our perception of sounds which are audible. 
And, more specifically, I am not aware of any formal tests to specifically determine whether ringing above 20 kHz, in close proximity in time, before or after other sounds, is audible or not.
Therefore, what we have are a bunch of people who have chosen to infer one from the other, based on _their opinion that the situations are close enough to be considered equivalent_.
(Although Dolby Labs, as well as many DAC chip manufacturers, claim that pre-ringing and post-ringing are audible distinguishable...) 

If you are aware of a single experiment that was conducted specifically to determine whether the presence of ringing above 20 kHz had an audible effect on audible content.... 
Do please post _THOSE_ results...
(I've singled out this aspect as the most obvious - but there are other ways in which the imperfections in D-S DACs and R2R DACs tend to vary.)

Incidentally, if your friend is researching AI interfaces to be used with human subjects...I'm sure she's encountered_ far_ more entertaining variations and questions by now.

The problem is that, while the subject of flying pigs is one in which it can fairly be claimed that "most people know the context you're in"....
The same is not at all true for measuring DACs....

Incidentally, if anyone was interested in actually performing a few experiments to settle this question, rather than arguing endlessly about why they don't have to...
I could offer a few suggestions about how one might go about it... 



bfreedma said:


> I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying".  Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"
> 
> Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so.  One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI.  She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

Incidentally, according to the dictionary, the pigs are flying....

fly·ing
/ˈflīiNG/
 


_adjective_
adjective: *flying*

1.
moving or able to move through the air with wings.
"a flying ant"
synonyms: airborne, in the air, in flight; More
fluttering, flitting, flapping, hovering, floating, gliding, windborne, soaring, winging, wheeling;
winged;
noun
noun: *flying*

1.
flight, especially in an aircraft.
"she hates flying"




bfreedma said:


> I asked them again about your pigs on an airplane reference and the universal response was "Those aren't flying pigs - the airplane is flying".  Same answer as when you asked this morning to whether pigs fly - an unqualified "No"
> 
> Again, real scientists are not as pedantic as you believe, and also don't look for qualifiers until presented with the need to do so.  One of the scientists I work will likely be a Nobel candidate in the next few years based on her work in AI.  She's finding your views of how to pursue questions highly entertaining and wants to know if you have another absurd way of asking a question with such an obvious answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## chaos215bar2

KeithEmo said:


> I have an interesting, and quite serious, question for you......
> 
> What _should_ we be discussing?


Well, that is a hard question. (I mean, what _is_ a discussion, anyway. It’s just so hard to be certain in a proper scientific setting.)

But… I don’t know. We _could_ go with “R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible”.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> Can you ask them this question for me?




They want you to clarify if it's an African or European swallow.

And is the swallow in question onboard a jet?


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Incidentally, according to the dictionary, the pigs are flying....
> 
> fly·ing
> /ˈflīiNG/
> ...




*Definition of pedantic*


1: of, relating to, or being a pedanta pedantic teacher
2: narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learneda pedantic insistence that we follow the rules exactly.  Far worse, he was pedantic, pernickety, letting nothing inaccurate or of uncertain meaning go by—not an aphrodisiac quality.— Kingsley Amis
3: UNIMAGINATIVE, DULL  Pedantic song choices don't help any. Only 2 out of 10 songs stray from the most common classic-rock fodder.
4: overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.


----------



## castleofargh

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. who cares about a pig in a plane when we have a full archive of videos about "pigs in space"?



Dogmatrix said:


> For me sound science inhabits a range of disciplines from engineering to philosophy . I think it unfortunate that the engineering end seems to claim sole ownership .


read a few of the posts above and see how inaccurate your statement has been. we clearly embrace a large range of disciplines, including philosophy, virtual wrestling, and comedy. I heard that on occasion you can even read about science concerning the actual subject of a thread. but that last one might just be an urban legend.


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> I don't know what you guys are arguing about. who cares about a pig in a plane when we have a full archive of videos about "pigs in space"?
> 
> 
> read a few of the posts above and see how inaccurate your statement has been. we clearly embrace a large range of disciplines, including philosophy, virtual wrestling, and comedy. I heard that on occasion you can even read about science concerning the actual subject of a thread. but that last one might just be an urban legend.


Not sure why my post has been pulled out of context into an entirely different thread but I stand by its accuracy in the context it was made .
As far as I can decipher the posts above contain more unsubstantiated argument and someone trying to assert they are right just because they are an engineer (no offence intended to the poster concerned) which kind of speaks to the accuracy of my post even outside its intended context .
I understand that diverse views do appear in the sound science forum and that my observation does not apply 100% . However I have observed of late in my lurking a wolf pack dynamic which not entirely but mostly masquerades as engineering correctness . It is again not entirely but mostly asserted by posters who claim ownership by using terms like us , we and our and elude to special rules  . So what my post was somewhat cryptically eluding to is my observation of a sense of ownership of an open public forum some seem to have developed which in turn is giving them a perceived authority to pick apart posts in a very confronting word for word fashion .These assessments are often done in the guise of applying engineering fact to a post which was clearly aimed from a more philosophical angle . Invariably this is followed by a cascade of posts reinforcing the same criticism  hence the wolf pack dynamic .  Each to his or her own I say but I think it has become so prevalent it is damaging participation in what is a sub forum in an open public forum .


----------



## sonitus mirus

What is the philosophical contribution to digital audio with regards to the development and design of R2R/Mulitbit or ΔΣ digital-to-analog conversion and how might it apply to audible differences either experienced or imagined?

Are we good now?  Back on track?


----------



## castleofargh

sonitus mirus said:


> What is the philosophical contribution to digital audio with regards to the development and design of R2R/Mulitbit or ΔΣ digital-to-analog conversion and how might it apply to audible differences either experienced or imagined?
> 
> Are we good now?  Back on track?


I quoted @Dogmatrix post from the Sound Science discussion thread as a clear simple counterpoint to the really depressing state of the topic here, with people happily fighting for the sake of fighting and not much else. he didn't post anything here, I did.


----------



## castleofargh

so R2R DACs? anybody cares?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 21, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> wolf pack dynamic



The emphatic behavior comes from past conditioning by dozens and dozens of people who come in here just to stir up trouble. We've been down these same roads more times than we can count, so we tend to cut to the chase. Perhaps that isn't fair to people who come in here cold, but people who are new here need to understand that we have the right in this subforum to expect factual verification for opinions. That isn't being rude. We don't get mad when it's demanded of us, in fact we enjoy discussing and analyzing the information. No one else should be put off by being asked to back up what they say. It's written into the charter of this group.

If we are galloping past the topic you want us to talk about with you, just keep focused on the key question and repeat it if need be. It's easy to get sidetracked into side arguments. I think you'll find that if you keep focused yourself, and maintain respect for the people you're chatting with, you'll avoid things spiraling out of control.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 21, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> Not sure why my post has been pulled out of context into an entirely different thread but I stand by its accuracy in the context it was made .
> As far as I can decipher the posts above contain more unsubstantiated argument and someone trying to assert they are right just because they are an engineer (no offence intended to the poster concerned) which kind of speaks to the accuracy of my post even outside its intended context .
> I understand that diverse views do appear in the sound science forum and that my observation does not apply 100% . However I have observed of late in my lurking a wolf pack dynamic which not entirely but mostly masquerades as engineering correctness . It is again not entirely but mostly asserted by posters who claim ownership by using terms like us , we and our and elude to special rules  . So what my post was somewhat cryptically eluding to is my observation of a sense of ownership of an open public forum some seem to have developed which in turn is giving them a perceived authority to pick apart posts in a very confronting word for word fashion .These assessments are often done in the guise of applying engineering fact to a post which was clearly aimed from a more philosophical angle . Invariably this is followed by a cascade of posts reinforcing the same criticism  hence the wolf pack dynamic .  Each to his or her own I say but I think it has become so prevalent it is damaging participation in what is a sub forum in an open public forum .



Look at my moniker. I am not a wolf. I am a jackal. I did not know that until someone said “we” were all jackals. I looked me up in Wikipedia. I am monogamous and stick to my family, I do not form packs. I am really rather impressive, I had no idea. I know nothing about engineering or science. I don’t even know how the light switch works.

I do wonder, however, if no one knows what causes gravity, how they know gravity accelerates. There is a theory that gravitons cause gravity but we can’t find them and they don’t weigh anything. Oh how convenient. And then there is another theory called “string theory” that proposes strings cause gravity. I suppose like with marionettes. How creative is that? What causes gravity? Oh, it’s a bunch of strings attached to everything. And they have eleven dimensions. But we can’t find them. Wow. Genius. So you can see what I think of science.

As far as whether there is a measurable scientific difference that’s audible between R2R/multibit vs. Delta-Sigma? I say yeah right, when pigs fly. No one has ever provided any evidence of it, other than the equivalent of claims of seeing Bigfoot. Wonder why that is. Beyond that it’s not really worth discussing, IMHO. It seems to me that should have been taken care of in about four posts.

By the way, welcome back and I hope you will stick around. 

Edit in first two lines: in consideration of @bigshot ‘s observation.


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> I quoted @Dogmatrix post from the Sound Science discussion thread as a clear simple counterpoint to the really depressing state of the topic here, with people happily fighting for the sake of fighting and not much else. he didn't post anything here, I did.


Sorry for pulling things off topic , I clearly had an axe to grind rant over .
On r2r I don't own one but I have delta sigma x2 and one Metrum nos which I understand employs industrial data loging chips oh and a dap with an fpga dac . 
From my own research r2r dacs measure poorly but there is a great deal of hearsay evidence to the effect they are enjoyable which is more philosophical and by definition impossible to prove definitively  .


----------



## bigshot (Aug 21, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> one of “you” said “we” were all jackals



Being an elderly old coot, I have the advantage of having no memory for internet handles and avatars. I quickly forget who is who and just respond to the post in front of me. I don't engage much in "us or them" stuff because of that.



Dogmatrix said:


> From my own research r2r dacs measure poorly but there is a great deal of hearsay evidence to the effect they are enjoyable.



How poorly do they measure? Does anything get anywhere near the threshold of auditory perception?


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Being an elderly old coot, I have the advantage of having no memory for internet handles and avatars. I quickly forget who is who and just respond to the post in front of me. I don't engage much in "us or them" stuff because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> How poorly do they measure? Does anything get anywhere near the threshold of auditory perception?


They were sinad measurements specifically so well below auditory perception , it would be hard to sell a dac these days with audible noise or distortion . My understanding is the difficulty is not in the concept of r2r but manufacturing tolerance .
While inaudible factors are an unfair criticism of a product in an audio market free market competition means they are non the less a factor in a products success or failure .


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> Look at my moniker. I am not a wolf. I am a jackal. I did not know that until one of “you” said “we” were all jackals. I looked me up in Wikipedia. I am monogamous and stick too my family, I do not form packs. I am really rather impressive, I had no idea. I know nothing about engineering or science. I don’t even know how the light switch works.
> 
> I do wonder, however, if no one knows what causes gravity, how they know gravity accelerates. There is a theory that gravitons cause gravity but we can’t find them and they don’t weigh anything. Oh how convenient, And then there is another theory called “string theory” that proposes strings cause gravity. I suppose like marionettes. How creative is that? What causes gravity? Oh, it’s a bunch of strings attached to everything. Wow. Genius. So you can see what I think of science.


not knowing what causes an effect, or why something causes a certain effect, doesn't mean we can't ever predict the effect itself with some degree of accuracy and do fine in life. in fact that's how we do most things.
my favorite example of this is the "magical" case of using 3 polarized filters(super famous case) with the first and third at 90° from each other and the middle one at anything but 90° from either filters. I know form both the theory and my own experience that 2 polarized filters at 90° from one another will let no light pass through. I even think I understand why at this point.
but with the 3 filters, some light does pass through. that blows my mind and I do not understand why even now after many years. BUT! I do know how to calculate how much light will go through ^_^. I've known that from back when I was at my photography school. so I effectively have all I need to handle real life conditions.
and that's why it's my favorite example, everything I think I know about light tells me that the result should still be zero light out. the model I have in my head wants it to be so. I can't figure out what is going on, but I can predict how much light will come out depending on the orientation of the second filter.
gravity isn't different. we learn to predict where a basket ball will fall depending on its initial trajectory, and that even without understanding what causes gravitational forces, or any aerodynamic.





compelling meme statement, how can I claim it's false if I wasn't there at the time(the logical brother of "how can you talk about that device if you didn't listen to it?").

I don't have the answer for what is gravity either, but one of the problems(at least it was for me) with visualizing gravity as anything that could make sense, was that I was told as a kid that mass was the amount of little balls in the object. and that's BS! but I was told about it only much later in life. once I dropped the model of some static object that somehow magically projects some force out of nothing and onto something else, gravity while still a huge mystery in my life, became a little more palatable. my vision of things right now is that everything is moving, it doesn't even matter much to me if everything is made of waves, particles, or gremlins and micro pineapple pizzas. everything has or maybe is energy(if only from being in movement, having a temperature that's not absolute zero, etc) we can look at it however we like, there are stuff moving, therefore there is energy. and stuff in movement can affect other stuff, that is a fact for me. I already accept the existence of phenomenons like induction or kinetic energy from something hitting something else(despite learning that probably nothing actually touched at a small enough scale, so that too is a "force at a distance" kind of virgin alchemist crap). but we can test those stuff and see the very clear effect, like with gravity. so I can imagine similar types of reactions to movement, and gravity is just another manifestation of some force caused by something moving and transferring energy into trying to make something else move(or get hot when hitting the ground very fast^_^).
I don't have a clue if that's better or closer to reality than thinking about magic that makes people stick to the ground, in the end it's just a mental model. it also doesn't really change how I would calculate the speed of a falling object at a given moment in time. in fact for that I could still use newton laws and come pretty close to the exact value. 

 string theory is a similar desire to make up a model that could perhaps help unify what we already know, make it all easier to imagine, and why not, help us learn new stuff. as it happens sometimes with models so cool that they correctly predict stuff we didn't even know would happen. string theory apparently had issues from day one(that I don't necessarily understand TBH, those stuff are for uber math geeks). but you can't blame scientists for having dumb ideas and wanting to test them against the real world to see how dumb they are. that's most of the fun of doing science. 
personally I like the idea of more dimensions than what we are aware of. it's a cheap trick that doesn't really help for much of anything, but it's a really nice mental patch where unexplained behaviors and unknown sources of energy(or lack of energy that should be there) could perhaps be explained by the very simple and obvious fact that we just don't have the right sensors to detect anything in those dimensions. MAGIC!






otherwise I spend most of my days thinking "****ing magnets, how do they work?" like anybody else.



Steve999 said:


> As far as whether there is a measurable scientific difference that’s audible between R2R/multibit vs. Delta-Sigma? I say yeah right, when pigs fly. No one has ever provided any evidence of it, other than the equivalent of claims of seeing Bigfoot. Wonder why that is. Beyond that it’s not really worth discussing. That should have been taken care of in about four posts.


as it happens that's possible. in part because the R2R designs can more often be found on DAC designed by old guns who ironically haven't completely accepted digital audio despite them building DACs. so you'd end up with DACs that don't have a filter for band limiting, no oversampling, and whatever other great idea that would perhaps be great if only it didn't part in some ways from the necessary conditions of Nyquist's theorem.
those aspects are what I would consider bad designs, but as several DACs were made like that, perhaps we should count them as some of the R2R DACs instead of just broken DACs sold anyway? IDK. among the impacts that can measure pretty high and possibly become audible, we have ludicrous amounts of aliasing, or high frequency roll off. several such DACs can surely be audible in a blind test, so long as you're not too old. most R2R DACs will have a mix of moderate roll off and aliasing, that I would expect to remain inaudible in most cases.
the other impact of R2R is the typical non linearity due to the difficulty of making n resistors with exactly the same resistance value. I don't really know about audibility, because the type and amount of non linearity is going to result in different distortions. the best way to know if it's audible is still probably to have a listening test for each DAC.
again, many DACs will have fairly low linearity issues so maybe we should count that as a defect if it's important enough to be audible?
there is a real need to define R2R DACs in a specific way, so that all the weirdo designs do or don't end up counted as representative of R2R. and same thing for the DACs that do oversample and have some portion of digital filter and what not. they're not the historic or exotic R2R, but they still may use a resistor ladder for the bits, and are likely to be very good DACs.

we might have to consider the same question of defining what counts as a proper delta sigma reference. some stuff measure pretty bad(for a DAC!!!!!), some don't have the voltages or grounding design advised by the chip manufacturer. if that turns out not to be transparent, do we blame delta sigma design or do we call those DACs defective?
I said something similar for cables, but I, and several others here, have a few standards we'll probably stick to when purchasing a DAC. starting by trying stuff that provide extensive specs. and being quite suspicious of gears that just happen to "forget" a typical measurement. or maybe not buying a R2R DAC in the first place(me!!). and I have friends on the other side, who aren't complete delta sigma haters, but will probably purchase almost anything else. that will make it less likely to come across the biggest possible differences between gears.
and of course also having standards when it come to testing gears will mean that we will not forget to check for loudness differences before claiming to hear a difference. and we won't let ourselves fall for the biases of a sighted test. that too is sure to result in people like myself naturally being exposed to fewer cases with big perceived differences.


----------



## chaos215bar2

castleofargh said:


> my favorite example of this is the "magical" case of using 3 polarized filters(super famous case) with the first and third at 90° from each other and the middle one at anything but 90° from either filters. I know form both the theory and my own experience that 2 polarized filters at 90° from one another will let no light pass through. I even think I understand why at this point.
> but with the 3 filters, some light does pass through. that blows my mind and I do not understand why even now after many years. BUT! I do know how to calculate how much light will go through ^_^. I've known that from back when I was at my photography school. so I effectively have all I need to handle real life conditions.
> and that's why it's my favorite example, everything I think I know about light tells me that the result should still be zero light out. the model I have in my head wants it to be so. I can't figure out what is going on, but I can predict how much light will come out depending on the orientation of the second filter.


This is literally quantum mechanics in action, visible at the macro scale. (Pretty cool, isn't it!)


----------



## bigshot (Aug 22, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> They were sinad measurements specifically so well below auditory perception ,



Then I'd suggest a blind test to see if an audible different even exists. It sounds like it's expectation bias. If it's manufacturing tolerances, some testing of samples would reveal that. Usually when people don't do the obvious tests, it's because they know there really isn't a difference in their heart of hearts.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Then I'd suggest a blind test to see if an audible different even exists. It sounds like it's expectation bias. If it's manufacturing tolerances, some testing of samples would reveal that. Usually when people don't do the obvious tests, it's because they know there really isn't a difference in their heart of hearts.


What about Schiit audio they make multibit and sigma delta dacs and they are into blind tests , I recall they tested some turntable carts recently and are planning a blind test of some valve tubes soon .


----------



## old tech

chaos215bar2 said:


> Strictly speaking, gravity accelerates.


One question though (seriously), if gravity accelerates why do objects fall at a constant rate?


----------



## bfreedma

old tech said:


> One question though (seriously), if gravity accelerates why do objects fall at a constant rate?




Falling objects do accelerate, but eventually the acceleration slows or stops due to the effect of other forces.  In atmosphere, rate of fall is usually thresholded by air resistance limitations driven by the coefficient of drag.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] There is a specific difference between saying: "Most people don't notice much difference between most R2R and D-S DACs.".... And saying: "There is no difference between them that is audible to any human under any circumstances."....



This is a good example of an all too common tactic employed in this and various other discussions (audible cable differences for example) by trolls and those peddling some product or false audiophile belief/myth! IE. They make up one or more false assertions (or completely misrepresent a true assertion to make it false), falsely state (or imply) those assertions are being made by the members here, then argue that those assertions are false (which of course they are) and therefore that the members here are wrong (and not being scientific). At the very least, they hope to derail the thread by arguing about the semantics of their (false) assertions/misrepresentations and deflecting from what's actually being stated/the actual facts!

To answer the quote directly: Yes, there is a specific difference between saying those two things but what has that got to do with anything? Both of those two assertions are false (which you've just made up) and NO ONE here is "saying" either of them! And therefore, whether or not there's a "specific difference" between them is utterly irrelevant, unless of course one is deliberately trying to derail/troll the thread?!! The second assertion is particularly annoying because firstly, it's so obviously false and secondly, it's been stated numerous times not only that there are conditions/circumstances (to our assertion of no audible differences) but actually detailed what those conditions/circumstances are. However, this fact is simply ignored, the false assertion (and false implication that we are making that assertion), is just repeated. What rational conclusion can we draw other than that it's just a deliberate attempt to troll/derail the thread???



KeithEmo said:


> In fact, I personally happen to believe that _most_ of what they [in the cables forum] believe is incorrect, based on my personal knowledge and experience.
> However, as an engineer, I can easily provide numerous examples of situations where different cables do in fact sound quite different.....



Then please do so. However (!), obviously ONLY "numerous examples" WITHIN the conditions are acceptable. With no conditions it's trivially easy to provide numerous examples and one doesn't need to be an engineer. For example, just take one correctly functioning cable and one completely broken cable, the audible difference would be obvious (and truly "night and day")! Same if you take say a fully functioning headphone cable and a fully functioning Ethernet cable, the headphone cable will sound "night and day different" because you can't even plug the Ethernet cable into a pair of headphones! Therefore, to anyone except an idiot, a troll or both, there OBVIOUSLY has to be some conditions.

Example conditions would be: Both cables are functioning correctly, both cables are of approximately the same length, both cables are designed for and appropriate for the task (they are being tested for) and that the other variables of the test (the input signals to the cable for example) are the same for both cables. Now in a rational discussion, with a basic understanding of science, we wouldn't need to explicitly detail these conditions, they would be self-evident. Furthermore, an engineer is required to be capable of rational discussion and have substantially more than a basic understanding of science!!


KeithEmo said:


> What we have is a bunch of people who have chosen to _infer_ that the measured differences aren't audible...
> However, those inferences are based on the results of experiments that were devised and carried out to test different things under different conditions. ....


Continuing on from the previous point: The same is (self-evidently) true of R2R vs D-S DACS. For example, if we take a non-functioning D-S DAC and compare it with a fully functioning R2R DAC, I would assert "most people would notice an audible difference". According to your reasoning though, that assertion would not be true. I would have to provide a scientific study that specifically tested a non-functioning D-S DAC vs a fully functioning R2R DAC, otherwise I'm just making an "inference" (which is/could be wrong), and of course I can't provide such a scientific study because it would be nonsense/pointless. So there we have it, apparently neither I nor science could make such an assertion.

The hole in your understanding and logic/reasoning (which has been pointed out previously but you continue to ignore!), is that most/all scientific hearing threshold studies are "devised and carried out" specifically for the purpose of being used for "inference"! IE. The most optimal conditions/circumstances are used to determine a hearing threshold, specifically for the purpose of being able to "infer" that under any other conditions, which by definition must be other than optimal, will not exceed the established threshold. Again, this should be self-evident, to any rational person with a basic understanding of science! Clearly, we cannot test even one human being's threshold with every piece of music and every combination of reproduction equipment, let alone a significant sample size. So the idea of an optimal test signal/conditions is the only rational approach, if one wants to work out how/why things work for everyone (rather than just one thing for one person), which of course is the whole point of science! How many times, in how many different threads, are we going to have to restate this basic scientific principle of threshold tests?

So now what, isn't it time for another non-analogous analogy? How about some more semantics or misrepresentations which deflect from scientific facts/axioms or what if we gaffer tape an acorn to an ICBM, so we can scientifically state that "obviously an Oak tree is the fastest flying living thing"?

G


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> Falling objects do accelerate, but eventually the acceleration slows or stops due to the effect of other forces.  In atmosphere, rate of fall is usually thresholded by air resistance limitations driven by the coefficient of drag.



Which of course is why we should all be using oxygen free cables. Without oxygen to create atmospheric resistance, there's no drag coefficient and therefore the analogue signal is free to accelerate towards your speakers, due to your speakers' gravity. If you're an audiophile with expensive OFC cables and massive speakers (which obviously have more gravity than cheap/lightweight consumer speakers), then you can clearly hear that the music is just a tad faster. Honestly, trust me, I'm an engineer! 

G


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> Which of course is why we should all be using oxygen free cables. Without oxygen to create atmospheric resistance, there's no drag coefficient and therefore the analogue signal is free to accelerate towards your speakers, due to your speakers' gravity. If you're an audiophile with expensive OFC cables and massive speakers (which obviously have more gravity than cheap/lightweight consumer speakers), then you can clearly hear that the music is just a tad faster. Honestly, trust me, I'm an engineer!
> 
> G



Well played.

However...

I'm going to add that to my Google search terms list to see how long it takes for you to be quoted by a cable believer or manufacturer!


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> [1] Well played.
> [2] However... I'm going to add that to my Google search terms list to see how long it takes for you to be quoted by a cable believer or manufacturer!



1. Thanks.
2. Ah, but the beauty of it is that it can also by used by audiophiles/manufacturers to scientifically justify massive speakers, small speakers with some added mass or even a 3rd party product like an "audiophile brick", which you can bungee strap to your existing speakers to give them more mass/gravity! This of course would eventually lead to an "audiophile grade" bungee strap. The possibilities are almost endless ... I'm an undiscovered genius! 

G


----------



## SilentNote

bigshot said:


> Then I'd suggest a blind test to see if an audible different even exists. It sounds like it's expectation bias. If it's manufacturing tolerances, some testing of samples would reveal that. Usually when people don't do the obvious tests, it's because they know there really isn't a difference in their heart of hearts.



Exactly. It doesn't matter if we do not know what is audible theoretically. If it cannot be discerned using blinded ABX testing then for all intent and purposes, it probably doesn't matter.



old tech said:


> One question though (seriously), if gravity accelerates why do objects fall at a constant rate?



Because air friction.


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> 1. Thanks.
> 2. Ah, but the beauty of it is that it can also by used by audiophiles/manufacturers to scientifically justify massive speakers, small speakers with some added mass or even a 3rd party product like an "audiophile brick", which you can bungee strap to your existing speakers to give them more mass/gravity! This of course would eventually lead to an "audiophile grade" bungee strap. The possibilities are almost endless ... I'm an undiscovered genius!
> 
> G




I anxiously await the launch of gregaudio.com and the interesting products you will be selling!


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree.... and that makes perfect sense.

So, once and for all, would someone please publish the results of an _ACTUAL TEST_ where a bunch of both R2R and D-S DACs, both with excellent and similar performance specifications, _WERE ACTUALLY COMPARED DIRECTLY_, by a significant number of test subjects, under properly controlled test conditions, to see if there was an audible difference or not.

- _NOT_ a claim that "the differences we can measure are so small that they _must be_ inaudible"....
- _NOT_ a claim that "since we believe that both are audibly perfect there cannot possibly be an audible difference"....
- And _NOT_ a claim that "since nobody has shown a difference to exist, we should all assume there isn't one"....

I am personally not aware of such a test ever having been conducted (using a reasonable number of DACs, test material, and test subjects).
And I am quite certain that I have personally never seen the results of such a test published. 
All I've ever seen on that particular question is a bunch of anecdotal claims and inferred guesses in either direction
(I would hope that we can all agree that the fact that something simply hasn't been tested does _not_ constitute proof that it's impossible.)
(And, no, I do not consider the fact that one or two people "couldn't hear any difference", which happens to confirm their existing expectations, to be "proof".)

So.....

If anyone actually has the results of such a test - then that would seem to be relevant to the discussion...
Otherwise, it might be interesting to discuss how such a test could be structured to best find out, while avoiding the mistakes so often seen in other audio perception tests...
(And, failing either of those, all we're left with is really just opinions and philosophy... )



SilentNote said:


> Exactly. It doesn't matter if we do not know what is audible theoretically. If it cannot be discerned using blinded ABX testing then for all intent and purposes, it probably doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> Because air friction.


----------



## KeithEmo

I do want to address a few things specifically to Dogmatrix here....

While it makes sense at one level that it should be difficult to sell any audio product these days with "audible noise or distortion"... the reality is actually the opposite in much of the audiophile market. Specifically when it comes to electronics, any two products that were "audibly perfect" would perforce sound exactly the same. The reality is that, while many audiophile products are sold based on other distinctions, real or imagined, many do in fact sound quite different from each other. In some cases these differences are due to obvious differences in well-known characteristics like noise and distortion. Some of these differences may be unintentional  or incidental - for example, no speaker is audibly perfect, but most speaker manufacturers have a "house sound". This is simply a way of saying that, accepting that perfection is out of reach, their designers and their customers have agreed to prefer certain flaws in deference to others. (There is no such thing as a perfectly flat speaker. So, accepting that, would you prefer a small bump _here_ or a slight dip _there_? And, do you prefer your speakers a little bright or a little laid back?) In other cases, the designers may have deliberately chosen to make their product sound different, so there is some way to differentiate it from other similar products. (It's much simpler to convince potential customers that your product "sounds _better_" if there is a clearly audible difference you can demonstrate.)

To pick the example of the DAC you mentioned - one of the NOS DACs from Metrum.... 

There is a very well known design constraint on NOS DACs. In order for a DAC to reproduce 16/44k digital audio content properly, without using oversampling, it must include a filter which nominally passes the entire audio frequency band with a flat frequency response, but strongly attenuates frequencies above 20 kHz, to eliminate spurious images. Such a filter is difficult to design and manufacture and involves some serious compromises. (The main reason why oversampling is so prevalent in modern DACs is that it avoids this issue.) Therefore, when designing an oversampling DAC, the designer must either accept a significant deviation from a flat frequency response inside the audio band, or accept other serious compromises. 

I owned a Metrum Octave for a while....  

When playing 16/44k content, its frequency response is -3 dB at 20 kHz, which is a significant and audible high frequency roll-off.
(I also happen to have access to an AP analyzer... and the THD wasn't especially low either...)
Therefore, while that DAC was audibly quite different, and many people rate it as "sounding very nice"...
There are obvious measured differences that may well account for that audible difference.

The part about manufacturing tolerances is a bit of a red herring... based on a bit of truth...
(It's not that R2R DACs _inherently_ have better manufacturing tolerances... but that they _require_ them in order to deliver even acceptable performance.)

In order to design an R2R DAC, and achieve reasonably good performance measurements, certain parts must be specified with extreme accuracy.
(Even a tiny mismatch in the resistor values in the ladder network will result in significant distortion and nonlinearity.)
From an engineering perspective, one of the benefits of the D-S DAC topology is that it can achieve similar or better performance using less accurate lower cost parts.
In technical terms - the D-S topology is "largely immune to inaccuracies that would have a major effect on an equivalent R2R design".
(In other words, in order to build an R2R DAC that works equally well, you must build it out of _MUCH_ more precise and _MUCH_ more expensive parts than a D-S DAC.)
(In the vernacular.... R2R DACs are very fussy, if you want even decent performance, but you can make a D-S DAC using really cheap parts, and it will still work very very well.)

Imagine a design for a paper clip which HAD to be made out of platinum to work as well as - but not better than - the cheap steel one you're using now.
Would you describe that platinum paper clip as "sophisticated" or "a terrible waste of money"?

As it turns out, while D-S DACs, for a given cost, perform FAR better than R2R DACs, there are some minor ways in which R2R DACs do deliver superior performance.
Outside of audiophile circles, R2R DACs are still often used in instrumentation and video applications...
However, both of those are applications where very high operating speed and very rapid settling times are critical requirements...
And where very good linearity, low noise, and low distortion, are less critical...
A video DAC must operate at incredibly high speeds... but linearity of 10-12 bits is usually adequate.
In contrast, an audio DAC operates at relatively low speed, but its linearity and noise floor are critical.
In other words, most engineers agree that R2R DACs work much better for video, but that D-S DACs are superior for audio.
And you'll see this stated in many engineering texts - and the spec sheets for many DAC chips.
(The reason so many R2R audio DACs are using "instrumentation DAC chips" is that their manufacturers DO NOT recommend using those chips for audio applications!) 

An R2R video DAC, that can operate at hundreds of mHz, with linearity of 10-12 bits, can be had for a few $$$.
(And there are probably a handful of them in your TV or video recorder.)
A D-S DAC with those specs would cost a small fortune - if it could be had at all.

_HOWEVER_, an D-S DAC that can operate at 384k, with better than 24 bit linearity, costs only a few dollars.
(Which makes it a much better match for the requirements of audio equipment.)



Dogmatrix said:


> They were sinad measurements specifically so well below auditory perception , it would be hard to sell a dac these days with audible noise or distortion . My understanding is the difficulty is not in the concept of r2r but manufacturing tolerance .
> While inaudible factors are an unfair criticism of a product in an audio market free market competition means they are non the less a factor in a products success or failure .


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> So, once and for all, would someone please publish the results of an _ACTUAL TEST_ where a bunch of both R2R and D-S DACs ...



Whoops, looks like I missed the most common/obvious one, silly rabbit:

"_So now what, isn't it time for another non-analogous analogy? How about some more semantics or misrepresentations which deflect from scientific facts/axioms or what if we gaffer tape an acorn to an ICBM, so we can scientifically state that "obviously an Oak tree is the fastest flying living thing"?_" - Or, how about simply ignore the responses/refutations and just keep repeating the same fallacy?

G


----------



## bigshot (Aug 22, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> What about Schiit audio they make multibit and sigma delta dacs and they are into blind tests , I recall they tested some turntable carts recently and are planning a blind test of some valve tubes soon .



I can see how turntable cartridges and tube amps might sound different. I don't know why anyone would make a colored DAC though. And I don't see any reason why a DAC that measured as audibly transparent wouldn't be audibly transparent in a blind listening test.

If someone isn't aware of a controlled test comparing specific types of DACs, the best thing for them to do is to do one themselves. I've done a lot of listening tests myself and it isn't that hard. In all of the stuff I've compared, I have yet to see any reason to expect a difference from the specs, and I haven't found any differences in my tests. Audibly transparent should be audibly transparent, unless there is some sort of defect in design or manufacture. It's good to double check while you are still in the return window though.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree...

And I would personally be quite satisfied to base _my_ conclusions on the results of _my_ experiences.
Of course, we should each expect any such results to be considered to be "anecdotal data" by everyone else.
(Unless we conduct a properly designed, fully documented, and statistically significant series of proper tests.)

Incidentally, here at Emotiva where I work, we have quite a few of the latest Audio Precision test sets...
And they are able to perform and document a very long list of industry standard tests quite accurately...
However, on that entire list, there is not a single test which I have ever seen that produces a result of "audibly transparent"...

So, if you have found a definitive, repeatable, widely accepted test for "audibly transparent", we'd all love to hear about it. 
Or do you just have a _personal opinion_ about a certain set of specifications which you _believe_ will show that something is audibly transparent?
If so, at the very least, we'd like to hear precisely how _you_ define meaning of that term.



bigshot said:


> I can see how turntable cartridges and tube amps might sound different. I don't know why anyone would make a colored DAC though. And I don't see any reason why a DAC that measured as audibly transparent wouldn't be audibly transparent in a blind listening test.
> 
> If someone isn't aware of a controlled test comparing specific types of DACs, the best thing for them to do is to do one themselves. I've done a lot of listening tests myself and it isn't that hard. In all of the stuff I've compared, I have yet to see any reason to expect a difference from the specs, and I haven't found any differences in my tests. Audibly transparent should be audibly transparent, unless there is some sort of defect in design or manufacture. It's good to double check while you are still in the return window though.


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> What about Schiit audio they make multibit and sigma delta dacs and they are into blind tests , I recall they tested some turntable carts recently and are planning a blind test of some valve tubes soon .


we had the honor of a visit on this very topic when some of us thought that their DACs with the "multibit" option would be a good start to try and limit external factors beside the crucial converter part. some stuff were said, but the point I remember most was that taking a nice delta sigma chip and following the advised circuitry around it, was simple enough and led to something that would measure well. and baldr's view on this was something along the line of "where's the fun in that?"(I'm probably paraphrasing but that was the idea).
and that's one of the most relatable reasons I've seen to date. not necessarily compelling for the consumer, but if I was an engineer with some serious know how, I probably wouldn't want to just be part of the same virtual assembly line, doing the electronic version of building IKEA furniture in my own office and then trying to sell that.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 22, 2019)

I've been asking for a couple of years now for someone to provide proof of an amp or DAC that sounds different in its intended use. So far, everyone says such a thing exists, but the only things they can point to are units that measure a little bit worse (but still well within the range of audible transparency), and models that have been out of production for more than a decade. I'm open to the possibility that there is an amp or DAC that sounds different, and I'm willing to contribute time trying to verify that. But no one has stepped up to the plate. I think that says something about the rarity of this bird.

Every single DAC, DAP, player or amp that I've ever bought is audibly transparent. I test every one when I get it to make sure. That's dozens of things from a high end DAC/amp down to a $40 Walmart DVD player... they all sound the same.


----------



## Dogmatrix

KeithEmo said:


> I do want to address a few things specifically to Dogmatrix here....
> 
> While it makes sense at one level that it should be difficult to sell any audio product these days with "audible noise or distortion"... the reality is actually the opposite in much of the audiophile market. Specifically when it comes to electronics, any two products that were "audibly perfect" would perforce sound exactly the same. The reality is that, while many audiophile products are sold based on other distinctions, real or imagined, many do in fact sound quite different from each other. In some cases these differences are due to obvious differences in well-known characteristics like noise and distortion. Some of these differences may be unintentional  or incidental - for example, no speaker is audibly perfect, but most speaker manufacturers have a "house sound". This is simply a way of saying that, accepting that perfection is out of reach, their designers and their customers have agreed to prefer certain flaws in deference to others. (There is no such thing as a perfectly flat speaker. So, accepting that, would you prefer a small bump _here_ or a slight dip _there_? And, do you prefer your speakers a little bright or a little laid back?) In other cases, the designers may have deliberately chosen to make their product sound different, so there is some way to differentiate it from other similar products. (It's much simpler to convince potential customers that your product "sounds _better_" if there is a clearly audible difference you can demonstrate.)



Very good point , I had discounted shall we say agreeable distortion . Harmonic distortion in tube amplifiers would be another example . Not convinced on agreeable noise since I am a black background type but I would be open to consider noise as agreeable coloration perhaps . 
Tolerance I was referring to was in fact the sourcing and testing of suitably matched resistors as opposed to manufacturing of the unit as a whole . I have some personal experience of this and know it is difficult to find manufacturers that use tight enough tolerance in the first place and mind numbingly tedious to test and match them (resistors not manufacturers).
I am well aware of the roll off character in nos dacs but would hesitate to say 20khz is audible certainly not in my case .


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> we had the honor of a visit on this very topic when some of us thought that their DACs with the "multibit" option would be a good start to try and limit external factors beside the crucial converter part. some stuff were said, but the point I remember most was that taking a nice delta sigma chip and following the advised circuitry around it, was simple enough and led to something that would measure well. and baldr's view on this was something along the line of "where's the fun in that?"(I'm probably paraphrasing but that was the idea).
> and that's one of the most relatable reasons I've seen to date. not necessarily compelling for the consumer, but if I was an engineer with some serious know how, I probably wouldn't want to just be part of the same virtual assembly line, doing the electronic version of building IKEA furniture in my own office and then trying to sell that.


I was thinking that since Schiit market dacs like Modi for example with a choice of AK4490 or AD5547 multibit they would make perfect blind test subjects . If I interpret your post correctly (has been problematic for me lately) it would mostly be a blind test of the surrounding architecture rather than multibit vs sigma delta and therefore not entirely useful .


----------



## old tech

SilentNote said:


> Because air friction.



Don't objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, ie with no other force than gravity?


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 22, 2019)

old tech said:


> Don't objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, ie with no other force than gravity?



I believe that after you do the math the Newtonian model holds that for two objects the force gravity accelerates at the same rate in a vacuum in theory, though I do not believe in the real world there is any such thing as a vacuum. The net result for a layperson like me being if you drop two DACs of any sort straight down, even of different weights, or masses, or wildly different costs, or whatever, from the same height from the Tower of Pizza at the same time in a vacuum they will hit the sidewalk at the same time. Relativity I believe gives slightly different results that become important for things like properly transporting pigs in space to the moon.

I am sure I will be corrected.

I know how you feel. I wonder about this stuff too.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

bigshot said:


> It's simple. You do a controlled test to see if a difference exists. If you can't detect any difference, for all practical purposes you can stop there and move on to bigger and better things. But some people don't do that. They so dearly want there to be a difference, they try to think of theoretical reasons why there *might* be a teenie tiny difference they missed, or they question the testing methodology. It's a waste of energy that could be better spent elsewhere. The truth is, we're talking about something to play Rush albums on in your family room. You don't need to split atoms. If you can't hear it easily, it probably doesn't matter. There are too many things that really count to waste time on things that really don't.



All you are saying is that YOU have not heard any difference. But YOU have adopted an attitude where you now expect no difference. So are YOU not also guilty of the same thing? You have already made up your own mind.

Come here and I will show you that there are dramatic differences in DACs. You won't own them, so no bias there, and you won't know the price either, again no bias. In fact, bring your own DAC and we shall play that first and then we put in another that I have here, not crazy money, YOU now listen and YOU WILL HEAR A DIFFERENCE!

This challenge is OPEN to EVERYONE!

But please understand the logistic limits. Even blind tests have limits, but let's face it, for that reason they are costly to conduct. People like YOU have already made up your mind, so will YOU come up with the dosh to pay for it? No, because YOU have already made up your mind, SO NO PAY!

So for my challenge, it too is OPEN to EVERYONE.

The logistic limit is, they have to COME HERE.

At least some, often MANY have to travel to conduct a blind test, so please don't complain.

Above all:

HAVE AN OPEN MIND! 

(Not shouting, capitals only for emphasis).

Joe R.


----------



## castleofargh

Steve999 said:


> I believe that after you do the math the Newtonian model holds that for two objects the force gravity accelerates at the same rate in a vacuum in theory, though I do not believe in the real world there is any such thing as a vacuum. The net result for a layperson like me being if you drop two DACs of any sort straight down, even of different weights, or masses, or wildly different costs, or whatever, from the same height from the Tower of Pizza at the same time in a vacuum they will hit the sidewalk at the same time. Relativity I believe gives slightly different results that become important for things like properly transporting pigs in space to the moon.
> 
> I am sure I will be corrected.
> 
> I know how you feel. I wonder about this stuff too.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 22, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> All you are saying is that YOU have not heard any difference. But YOU have adopted an attitude where you now expect no difference. So are YOU not also guilty of the same thing? You have already made up your own mind.



Ah, but see the difference is that I applied controls. I level match, direct A/B switch and do multiple blind trials. I struggle as hard as I can to hear a difference and I fail. Perhaps there is a microscopic difference that is slipping by me, but if I go to all that trouble to hear a difference and I still can't hear one, it flat out doesn't matter when I sit down in my living room to listen to Beethoven.

If you have a current DAC in proper working order that sounds clearly different, and you've gone to the trouble to verify that yourself with a controlled listening test, I'd like to hear about it. And I'd like to borrow the DAC to get the Sound Science braintrust to measure it and verify the difference. We have people here who are quite knowledgeable and are capable of conducting a fair test. It would be useful to determine if such a beast exists. It sounds like you're up for a challenge, so pick something and let's get started. I'm happy to pay for shipping to and from.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen

*It is very possible for two DACs to measure differently and the one with the worse measurement to sound better.*

Let me explain:

Measure the jitter of two DACs. They will be identical in every way. Put them side-by-side, they cannot be distinguished apart. Same volume level. You point to the one that you are convinced sounds better by quite some margin. It turns out that it is the one that was earlier measured as having higher jitter.

What is going on?

It is the nature of the jitter that has to be measured. Jitter is frequency related, jitter is in fact noise and it has a frequency response. So it matters WHAT frequency that the jitter shows up. At certain frequencies, jitter matters more than showing up at other frequencies.

Jitter close to the fundamental (low frequency) is very difficult to measure and it has been shown to be the worst form of jitter. Peter Miller in the UK (a known audio measurement guru) demonstrated this to great effect:







Now we see the jitter side-bands and we none worse than -120B.

But what happens when we multiply the Blue area by 100?

This and it is scary:







Look at how below 50 Hertz the rise in random noise means an increase in very low-frequency jitter. It goes from a decent -130dB to worse than -90dB and if further magnification it would likely be worse than that. That LF jitter has typically *100 times* high magnitude/amplitude.

There are a number of things that can cause this, analog circuits produce LF noise:






Can you see the correlation? This rise of noise, common in analog circuits, causes a corresponding increase in LF jitter and increases even to way below One Hertz.

This noise is typically on +3.3V power supplies for oscillators (these are analog devices) that serve as clocks in DACs. You need to get that noise flat at 1Hz (and below) or else you will hear it!

This LF jitter is what causes the kind of "digital sound" that many have complained about. It is at a much higher amplitude than normal jitter.

*IMPORTANT: What Peter Miller showed is that we did not yet have the correct measurement before then!
*
(Not shouting, capitals only for emphasis).


=====================================================

Amplifiers:

More briefly, the THD figure for amplifiers was once considered GOD in terms of distortion measurement. Now we need to know the spectral distribution of the harmonic distortions matters.

Here we do have considerable, if not complete, a correlation between known harmonics and audibility. *Second order* harmonic distortion is not a problem, indeed *even-order* harmonics are not a problem since they occur naturally in the real world. The *third harmonic* is pretty harmless too, great Master Tape recordings have plenty of it and still sound great!

*Fith harmonic*: This is where the borderline is.

*Seventh harmonic: THE DEVIL INCARNATE!
*
The seventh is discordant and foreign to our hearing. The 9th, 11th etc should also be avoided. Only the tiniest amount as part of the THD and you have something that you will not want to listen to. This explains why high THD measurement may actually sound better, just as Master Tape has high THD but extremely little 7th to be a problem.

*At one time they said that ALL amplifiers sounded the same. Now we know a multitude of reasons why they do NOT.
*
We now know there are multiple reasons for amplifier non-linearities and these have been discussed in reputable places going back to Wireless World.

=====================================================

So whether amplifiers or DACs, the issues of correlation often come down to finding the correct measurement.


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 23, 2019)

old tech said:


> Don't objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, ie with no other force than gravity?



Yes, they fall at the same rate in vacuum. As there nothing else acting on them besides the same acceleration due to gravity.



Steve999 said:


> I believe that after you do the math the Newtonian model holds that for two objects the force gravity accelerates at the same rate in a vacuum in theory, though I do not believe in the real world there is any such thing as a vacuum. The net result for a layperson like me being if you drop two DACs of any sort straight down, even of different weights, or masses, or wildly different costs, or whatever, from the same height from the Tower of Pizza at the same time in a vacuum they will hit the sidewalk at the same time. Relativity I believe gives slightly different results that become important for things like properly transporting pigs in space to the moon.
> 
> I am sure I will be corrected.
> 
> I know how you feel. I wonder about this stuff too.



For real world scenario, it is highly unlikely that two DACs will arrive at the same time, unless they have the same air resistance acting on them. In short if the air resistance (or lack of thereof) is the same, the objects will accelerate identically.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 22, 2019)

bigshot said:


> Ah, but see the difference is that I applied controls. I level match, direct A/B switch and do multiple blind trials. I struggle as hard as I can to hear a difference and I fail. Perhaps there is a microscopic difference that is slipping by me, but if I go to all that trouble to hear a difference and I still can't hear one, it flat out doesn't matter when I sit down in my living room to listen to Beethoven...



I am not going to enter into a tit-for-tat with you, because I believe that is what you want. I don't care whether you are right or wrong. It has no benefit to me. I am not on any crusade and it strikes me that you are. That is not my role.

Now I don't have your ears, I cannot replicate what you have there and what you did or did not do. I have not seen you conduct any of your 'blind tests' and hence I shall not comment, whether I approve of your methodology or not, that does not interest me.

So what interests me?

*Doing my job!*

You are certainly invited (as anybody is) to come here and listen to Beethoven. I am a cordial and always polite host, I never raise my voice.

BTW, I know about the Stereo Review magazine. That was 32 years ago and if you are doing the same as they are, then I am not surprised. We have thankfully come a long way since then. I have been involved in amplifier design for fourty years and if you cannot come up with a blind test that shows an improvement since then or even 1987? If that is the kind of results you come up with, then I am wasting my time.

Most amplifiers still don't sound that good anyway.

*I believe we are on the cusp of coming out with a new generation of amplifiers, they measure well but not ultra-low distortion and they are totally different to anything on the market.

QUESTION: *Why do we only measure amplifiers on the voltage side?

For example, we are only now starting to understand that we have been using a "voltage" model and never really measuring the distortion on the current side. It turns out that there is a correlation between amplifiers, what they do on the current side has hardly been looked at, but amplifiers that have been accepted as sounding good also do better on the current side.

*The coil in the loudspeaker responds to current, not voltage. *

Measurement shows that a single amplifier can have two different distortion profiles, one on the voltage side and a completely different one on the current side. Which one are we listening to? If you are listening to dynamic speakers, then the uncomfortable thought is that it must be the current distortion profile.

Measure the distortion on the current side and do something about it? Then we have a different beast. This is happening here in Australia right now. Do these amplifiers sound different? Oh yes, you bet!

PS: No, these amplifiers are not current sources and we are not talking about so-called current driving.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 22, 2019)

I'm not arguing. I'm trying to take you up on your challenge. I'll make it easy on you. Just answer one question...

Are you interested in participating in a group effort to conduct a controlled listening test to verify that DACs can sound different?


----------



## Davesrose

Steve999 said:


> I believe that after you do the math the Newtonian model holds that for two objects the force gravity accelerates at the same rate in a vacuum in theory, though I do not believe in the real world there is any such thing as a vacuum. The net result for a layperson like me being if you drop two DACs of any sort straight down, even of different weights, or masses, or wildly different costs, or whatever, from the same height from the Tower of Pizza at the same time in a vacuum they will hit the sidewalk at the same time. Relativity I believe gives slightly different results that become important for things like properly transporting pigs in space to the moon.
> 
> I am sure I will be corrected.
> 
> I know how you feel. I wonder about this stuff too.



Unless there are members who are part of the flat Earth/we did not land on the Moon community.....during the Apollo missions, there was a video of an astronaut dropping a bowling ball and feather at same time.  Even though the Moon has 1/6 Earth gravity, it doesn't have atmospheric drag....so these objects did fall at the same rate.  For some reason, I find flat Earth an entertaining subject with youtube.  There is a community of folks who don't understand what a scientific theory is, and that Newtonian gravity is both a law and theory: Einstein's relativity does not negate Newton: it fills in the gaps (especially as originally finding deviations with particular orbits in the solar system that Newtonian gravity couldn't account for).


----------



## Dogmatrix

Observation

A large body of experiential evidence along the lines of dac a sounds different to dac b . Counterpoint a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating difference outside of audible limits

Hypothesis

Perception of audible is possible outside of accepted audible limits

Often after a concert friends have remarked "did you hear that thumping bass" of course they probably mean did you feel that thumping bass . So they have shifted a perception from one sense to another . This made me think is it possible something like this is happening here .

Cochlear implant

I know from the existence of the cochlear implant that a perception of sound can be achieved without using the ear , so there can be a perception of audible without hearing .

Bone conduction

"Ultrasound modulated by different speech sounds can be discriminated in the auditory cortex"

Activation of the auditory cortex by ultrasound / The Lancet 14Feb 1998 vol 351 no 9101 pages 496-497 / Hiroshi Hosoi , Satoshi Imaizumi , Takefumi Sakaguchi , Mitsuo Tonoike  , Kiyotaka murata

"Ultrasonic stimulation of the skull with frequencies up to 108khz induces a perception of sound within the head without any sensation of cutaneous feeling , suggesting that these high frequencies are being processed in a modality other than the vibratory-somatosensory system"

Human ultrasonic speech perception / Science 5 july 1991 vol 253 no 5015 pages 82-85 / Lenhardt ML , Skellett R , Wang P , Clarke A

These studies show that a person can hear something and indeed discern speech in ranges far outside accepted audible limits . Problems arise in the direct application of this hypothesis to the question at hand such as the ability of a headphone to produce such a signal at the required level . However it does demonstrate there is more to this game than appears at first glance .

"When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains , however improbable , must be the truth" Sherlock Holmes , Arthur Conan Doyle


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Observation
> 
> A large body of experiential evidence along the lines of dac a sounds different to dac b . Counterpoint a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating difference outside of audible limits
> 
> ...



When it comes to accepted hearing ranges, there is more variance with low frequencies.  So the average of accepted studies say that the normal range for a healthy young adult is 20hz-20khz.  Some studies have found the low is 16hz or 15hz, which I assume is environmental bone conduction.  The only studies about humans hearing 100khz are deep sea divers...in which it’s direct conduction of water to middle ear and bone.  When it comes to speech ranges, I would like to see your citation of how a given person hears above common speech ranges.


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> I was thinking that since Schiit market dacs like Modi for example with a choice of AK4490 or AD5547 multibit they would make perfect blind test subjects . If I interpret your post correctly (has been problematic for me lately) it would mostly be a blind test of the surrounding architecture rather than multibit vs sigma delta and therefore not entirely useful .


no I'm saying that other people(including me) shared the same idea you got of using the same DAC model with the 2 boards. to try and reduce the extra variables by some amount. but it led nowhere in this topic at least. and I don't know if anybody since had both options at the same time and bothered running some blind tests.



Dogmatrix said:


> Observation
> 
> A large body of experiential evidence along the lines of dac a sounds different to dac b . Counterpoint a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating difference outside of audible limits
> 
> ...


I disagree right at the start. there is not a large body of experimental evidence suggesting that 2 DACs sound different. what we have is mostly a great many testimonies based on listening conditions(uncontrolled or very poorly controlled) that have no place in any serious research.
 looking for ideas to explain an event is correct, but that should not come before we have properly confirmed that the event is real. with a typical sighted experience, we do not have a demonstration of audible difference. only a demonstration that some people feel like they heard a difference. and that to me is a big distinction. because the feeling of hearing a difference is also found in many tests where the subjects got tricked into thinking they were listening to 2 different DACs, while hearing only one output throughout the tests.


----------



## old tech

SilentNote said:


> Yes, the fall at the same rate in vacuum. As there nothing else acting on them besides the same acceleration due to gravity.



Doesn't that then contradict the statement that gravity accelerates - at least after the point where the fall rate is achieved?  What I mean is if gravity accelerates then the objects would continue to fall at a faster rate (accelerate) rather than plateauing at a speed in a vacuum.  Didn't Newton have an equation for this?


----------



## castleofargh

old tech said:


> Doesn't that then contradict the statement that gravity accelerates - at least after the point where the fall rate is achieved?  What I mean is if gravity accelerates then the objects would continue to fall at a faster rate (accelerate) rather than plateauing at a speed in a vacuum.  Didn't Newton have an equation for this?


oh now I get what your problem was. that they talk about acceleration while saying that the air friction would end up stabilizing the "fall" of the object to a constant speed(which means no acceleration). ^_^


----------



## SilentNote (Aug 23, 2019)

old tech said:


> Doesn't that then contradict the statement that gravity accelerates - at least after the point where the fall rate is achieved?  What I mean is if gravity accelerates then the objects would continue to fall at a faster rate (accelerate) rather than plateauing at a speed in a vacuum.  Didn't Newton have an equation for this?



Same rate as in same velocity between both objects. Not same rate as in constant velocity. The rate of change will be ~ -9.8 m/s^2. In other words, if it is now static, after one second the velocity will be at 9.8 m/s, the next second, at 19.6m/s so on and so forth, assuming there's no drag / buoyancy. Doesn't matter if it's a parachute or a small lead ball, they fall at the same velocity as they are subjected to the same gravitational acceleration (instantaneous rate of change). And you are right that in a vacuum it the object will continue to fall at a faster rate until it hits something.

If there is drag, then the acceleration is not the same for 2 objects with different air resistance, as the air resistance will reduce the total acceleration (usually until the drag = gravitational acceleration). At this point, the object will stop accelerating and fall at a constant speed.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> When it comes to accepted hearing ranges, there is more variance with low frequencies.  So the average of accepted studies say that the normal range for a healthy young adult is 20hz-20khz.  Some studies have found the low is 16hz or 15hz, which I assume is environmental bone conduction.  The only studies about humans hearing 100khz are deep sea divers...in which it’s direct conduction of water to middle ear and bone.  When it comes to speech ranges, I would like to see your citation of how a given person hears above common speech ranges.


The point as I read it in the referenced studies is the subjects had the perception of hearing speech in the upper audible range ie 12-16khz but the speech was in fact being transmitted by bone conduction at 40khz in the case of the Lancet study and up to 108khz in the other .


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> no I'm saying that other people(including me) shared the same idea you got of using the same DAC model with the 2 boards. to try and reduce the extra variables by some amount. but it led nowhere in this topic at least. and I don't know if anybody since had both options at the same time and bothered running some blind tests.
> 
> 
> I disagree right at the start. there is not a large body of experimental evidence suggesting that 2 DACs sound different. what we have is mostly a great many testimonies based on listening conditions(uncontrolled or very poorly controlled) that have no place in any serious research.
> looking for ideas to explain an event is correct, but that should not come before we have properly confirmed that the event is real. with a typical sighted experience, we do not have a demonstration of audible difference. only a demonstration that some people feel like they heard a difference. and that to me is a big distinction. because the feeling of hearing a difference is also found in many tests where the subjects got tricked into thinking they were listening to 2 different DACs, while hearing only one output throughout the tests.


RE Schiit 
Oh well 
RE I disagree 
The term is experiential evidence 
"Much of the intuitive appeal of evidentialism results from conflating two importantly different conceptions of evidence . This is most clear in the case of perceptual justification , where experience is able to provide evidence...…….."
Lyons, J. Philos Stud (2016) 173: 1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0540-z


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> RE Schiit
> Oh well
> RE I disagree
> The term is experiential evidence
> ...


eheh, sorry, I thought it was typo ^_^. didn't know that word existed in English.  
my position on listening test and what we should trust: if a difference is big and easily noticeable, then we don't need controlled tests to confirm it. but at the same time, if a difference is really big, it's going to be so trivial to demonstrate both its existence and audibility that I don't get why people wouldn't just do it and be done anytime they have the desire to demonstrate the fact. as for small differences, there are just too many reasons why we shouldn't trust a vague sighted impression to determine audibility. 
with DACs, the usual level of fidelity makes it very likely to encounter small differences where that following type of recommendation should apply https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> eheh, sorry, I thought it was typo ^_^. didn't know that word existed in English.
> my position on listening test and what we should trust: if a difference is big and easily noticeable, then we don't need controlled tests to confirm it. but at the same time, if a difference is really big, it's going to be so trivial to demonstrate both its existence and audibility that I don't get why people wouldn't just do it and be done anytime they have the desire to demonstrate the fact. as for small differences, there are just too many reasons why we shouldn't trust a vague sighted impression to determine audibility.
> with DACs, the usual level of fidelity makes it very likely to encounter small differences where that following type of recommendation should apply https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/bs/R-REC-BS.1116-3-201502-I!!PDF-E.pdf


No worries it is obscure language but quite apt I thought . 
I agree , I think weight of evidence is important and vague sighted impressions carry little weight but In large volume it adds up . Regardless of volume it of course lacks the credibility to carry the debate alone . So many place importance in small perceived difference I think it worth investigating . 
I will have a look at the pdf tomorrow it is listening time down under , interesting the sub section is titled BS just saying .


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 23, 2019)

castleofargh said:


> oh now I get what your problem was. that they talk about acceleration while saying that the air friction would end up stabilizing the "fall" of the object to a constant speed(which means no acceleration). ^_^



I am having one sticking point. Okay, you have two DACs. Very different masses, one one is quite expensive, one is cheap, one is multibit and one delta sigma, but somehow they have the same air resistance (coefficient of drag or whatever). @Bighshot receives them from New Zealand by flying pig in the mail on the West Coast of Hawaii from a guy named Larry and drives them over to you in Brooklyn, after he runs an extensive test with thousands of college students in conjunction with the faculty at Cal Tech and they both sound the same to everybody there as his $40 Walkman.

So you figure they are both garbage. You go to Brooklyn and drop them both straight down from the Tower of Pizza, which is even taller than the Seattle Sewing Needle. It is not a vacuum, even though the air is barely breathable. The rate of fall of both DACs increases at the same rate until the coefficient of drag settles the rate of fall down to an even 500 m/s. They hit the sidewalk at the same time and both are smashed to bits. A typical New Yorker finds them on the sidewalk and tries to sell them to unwitting tourists as spare UFO parts.

(True story, BTW.)

Now technically I am told gravity accelerated, not the DACs. And I verified it on the Internet so it must be true. I am figuring gravity itself has no coefficient of drag, whether we look at is as a force (Newton) or a warping of space-time (Einstein), and whether it’s caused by weightless undetectable gravitons or undetectable eleven-dimensional strings, or, just maybe, something else. It is the DACs themselves that are affected by the coefficient of drag, not gravity.

So did the gravity stop accelerating after the DACs settled down at 500 m/s? Or does the gravity keep accelerating even after the coefficient of drag has caused the rate of fall of the DACs to settle down to a constant rate 500 m/s?


----------



## KeithEmo

I would personally agree that "there's no such thing as agreeable distortion or noise"....

However, there are absolutely types of both that are_ less disagreeable_ to most people than others.
For example, assuming you have a noise floor that is low but still slightly audible, for the same S/N, many people find "analog hiss" like tape hiss much less annoying than digital quantization noise.
In some situations this may even extend to unequal amounts... for example, many tape fans cheerfully tolerate high levels of "harmless tape hiss", to avoid far lower, and barely audible, levels of digital artifacts that they find far more annoying.

An analogous situation exists with the latest h.265 video compression CODEC. 
For a given _measured_ "loss of quality" the new CODEC substitutes a rather innocuous softening for the unpleasant blocky artifacts produced by the previous h.264. 
(The new CODEC does actually deliver better measured quality for a given level of compression... but, even when delivering the _same_ measured level of _quality_, the flaws it contains are less _visually_ unpleasant to most viewers.)

On the notion of manufacturing tolerances... 
I understand what you're saying, and you are generally correct, but the details can sometimes be more complex, and the comparison between R2R and D-S still applies.

The thing you need to remember is that precision carefully matched parts are critical in some situations - yet deliver no benefit whatsoever in others.
For example, in a typical analog amplifier, certain pairs of components must be carefully matched, especially if you want good performance, while others perform perfectly even with considerable variation.
(It might be a nice idea to carefully sterilize your garden tools before planting flowers - but it offers no actual benefit at all.)

From a design and manufacturing perspective an R2R DAC _requires_ precision matched components in order to deliver reasonably good performance.
Specifically, precision carefully matched ladder resistors are _necessary_ in an R2R DAC.
Unless you use expensive, high precision, carefully matched resistors in the ladder network, it's performance will be audibly and measurably poor.
So, rather than reflecting "better manufacturing quality" they actually do represent "the cheapest part that will actually do the job even reasonably well".
(In engineering terms this is considered to be one of the drawbacks of the R2R topology... that it only performs at all well if you use expensive and carefully chosen parts.)
In contrast, a D-S DAC does NOT rely on a set of carefully matched resistors to deliver its linearity... so it can deliver similar or better performance _without_ the requirement for those precision components.
This was in fact one of the major factors motivating the development of D-S DACs....
(And it's why D-S DACs have almost entirely replaced the older R2R topology for almost all audio applications.)

I point this out because the manufacturers of many R2R DACs are quite proud of the fact that they use expensive, precise, carefully matched resistors.
And they point this out in their marketing literature to suggest that their product is "a quality product" because it uses "expensive carefully chosen precision parts".
However, in engineering terms, what it suggests is that, due to inherent design issues, the R2R topology forces the manufacturer to use unnecessarily expensive components.
I've seen many ads that infer, or claim outright, that a D-S DAC that uses less precise components will necessarily not perform as well - which is simply untrue.
However, in the audiophile world, and a few other niche markets, people are too readily willing to believe that "if it's too cheap they must have cut an important corner somewhere"....

A reasonable analogy would be if my economy car required expensive aviation fuel - in order to deliver the same performance that its competitors delivered with plain old regular gas.
(And if the manufacturer were to advertise that "it must be faster and more powerful - because it burns more expensive higher quality fuel".)



Dogmatrix said:


> Very good point , I had discounted shall we say agreeable distortion . Harmonic distortion in tube amplifiers would be another example . Not convinced on agreeable noise since I am a black background type but I would be open to consider noise as agreeable coloration perhaps .
> Tolerance I was referring to was in fact the sourcing and testing of suitably matched resistors as opposed to manufacturing of the unit as a whole . I have some personal experience of this and know it is difficult to find manufacturers that use tight enough tolerance in the first place and mind numbingly tedious to test and match them (resistors not manufacturers).
> I am well aware of the roll off character in nos dacs but would hesitate to say 20khz is audible certainly not in my case .


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 23, 2019)

Gravity actually applies a constant force...
The acceleration is the result of that force acting on a mass...
And, since the mass remains constant, the force will also remain constant...
However, terminal velocity will be reached when upward force applied by air friction is exactly equal and opposite to the force applied by gravity...
(Once the speed at which this occurs is reached, the system will be in equilibrium, and the parts will continue to fall at that rate... until the sidewalk intervenes.)

And, incidentally, assuming a proper location, and a steady supply of tourists, it is almost certain that those parts will in fact be sold...
(Although, being New York, it is more likely that they will be sold as "a fancy new Japanese wrist watch MP3 player"... )
(I'm also pretty sure the Tower of Pizza isn't in NY.... unless it's been sold recently.  )



Steve999 said:


> I am having one sticking point. Okay, you have two DACs. Very different masses, one one is quite expensive, one is cheap, one is multibit and one delta sigma, but somehow they have the same air resistance (coefficient of drag or whatever). @Bighshot receives them from New Zealand by flying pig in the mail on the West Coast of Hawaii from a guy named Larry and drives them over to you in Brooklyn, after he runs an extensive test with thousands of college students in conjunction with the faculty at Cal Tech and they both sound the same to everybody there as his $40 Walkman.
> 
> So you figure they are both garbage. You go to Brooklyn and drop them both straight down from the Tower of Pizza, which is even taller than the Seattle Sewing Needle. It is not a vacuum, even though the air is barely breathable. Both DACs accelerate at the same rate until the coefficient of drag settles the rate of fall down to an even 500 m/s. They hit the sidewalk at the same time and both are smashed to bits. A typical New Yorker finds them on the sidewalk and tries to sell them to unwitting tourists as spare UFO parts.
> 
> ...


----------



## SilentNote

Steve999 said:


> So did the gravity stop accelerating after the DACs settled down at 500 m/s?



Nope, gravity still acts on the DACs even when they have reached terminal velocity.



Steve999 said:


> Or does the gravity keep accelerating even after the coefficient of drag has caused the rate of fall of the DACs to settle down to a constant rate 500 m/s?



Gravity keeps accelerating at ~ -9.8m/s^2 and drag keeps doing the opposite until it reaches +9.8m/s^2. During the terminal velocity, -9.8m/s^2 + 9.8m/s^2 = 0 m/s^2, therefore no more change in velocity will occur to the DACs, the DACs will fall at a constant velocity of 500m/s (as per your example).

Actually the DACs and Earth attract and accelerate each other, but since one is massively larger than the other, it kinda gets ignored. The gravitational constant also changes depending on where you are on earth and your current altitude.


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 23, 2019)

The answer to your question: Why do we only measure amplifiers on the voltage side? is this....

Because, since a speaker is a passive load, the current that passes through it is directly related to the voltage that is applied to it. If you know the voltage, and you know the impedance of the speaker, then you already know (or can calculate) the current. They cannot be separated and so there is no specific reason to consider them separately.

Your statement further down is entirely correct - the mechanical drive force applied to a typical loudspeaker (excluding electrostatics and certain other exotic designs) is proportional to the current flowing through their voice coil. This would seem to suggest that we would get better performance if we controlled the drive current directly. (And it is in fact trivially simple to design a "current drive amplifier" - whose output current, rather than its output voltage, is proportional to its input voltage.)

The "catch" is that, since all commercial amplifiers are "voltage output" amplifiers, existing speakers are designed with that in mind... and would have to be altered to work well with the other type. For example, a typical dynamic loudspeaker has at least one mechanical resonance which depends on both the driver and the cabinet. At that frequency, both its electrical impedance and its mechanical acoustic efficiency rise. When driven by a voltage drive amplifier, the rise in impedance results in the speaker drawing less current, which tends to partially counteract the rise in acoustic efficiency. However, with a current drive amplifier, the current would remain constant, and, as a result, the rise in mechanical efficiency would result in a major peak in output at that frequency. (It would certainly be possible to design speakers that would work well with a current output amplifier... but it's doubtful that existing available models would.)

The main reason for the existing disparity between "amplifiers that have similar output voltage capabilities but different current capabilities" is due to how we measure amplifiers. We typically measure amplifiers using a resistive load - even though this is not at all characteristic of most loudspeakers - most of which offer a very reactive and often very complex load. Therefore, many amplifiers which can deliver the current required to sustain their specified output voltage into a resistive load, are unable to do so into many commonly encountered real world speaker loads. So they measure one way when connected to a resistor and quite differently when connected to different speakers. (However, if you measure the output voltage _WHILE THE AMPLIFIER IS CONNECTED TO A GIVEN SPEAKER OR OTHER LOAD_, the current will always be directly related to the voltage, so there is no need to measure or respond to both separately.... and you cannot in fact separate the two. For a given load, and a given voltage, there is only one possible current.) 

Of course, in any given design, it is perfectly reasonable to actively reference either the output current or the output voltage to the input voltage... but the two will always be directly related to each other. (You cannot have two amplifiers that, with the same input signal, and the same load, actually deliver the same output voltage, but different output currents, or vice versa... it is simply not possible.)

(If a certain amplifier were to try to deliver a certain voltage, yet be unable to source or sink the appropriate amount of current necessary to do so, then it would be unable to deliver the correct voltage, and the disparity would show up in the voltage measurement.)



Joe Rasmussen said:


> I am not going to enter into a tit-for-tat with you, because I believe that is what you want. I don't care whether you are right or wrong. It has no benefit to me. I am not on any crusade and it strikes me that you are. That is not my role.
> 
> Now I don't have your ears, I cannot replicate what you have there and what you did or did not do. I have not seen you conduct any of your 'blind tests' and hence I shall not comment, whether I approve of your methodology or not, that does not interest me.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely agree.

As far as I know, there is no "large body of scientific evidence" that R2R and D-S DACs sound significantly different...
However, there is also no "large body of scientific evidence" that they do not...
And the admittedly large body of unscientific and anecdotal evidence seems to be somewhat evenly divided...
(Just for the record - in the few cases where I heard clearly audible differences they could be attributed to obvious measured differences in frequency response.)

As far as I know no such large scale tests have even been conducted (or, if they have, they weren't published)...
Therefore, all we have are some default assumptions...
(And, while many of those default assumptions are inferred from reasonably reliable data, how well that data correlates to the current question has also not been conclusively shown.)
However, some people who are quite convinced that their particular default assumptions are "obviously the most likely to be correct"...
And those folks repeatedly claim that, based on that assumption, any claim to the contrary is "exceptional and requires exceptional proof"...

I should point out that admitting that there is no proof either way does _NOT_ constitute "conceding that the anecdotal claims are true"....



Joe Rasmussen said:


> All you are saying is that YOU have not heard any difference. But YOU have adopted an attitude where you now expect no difference. So are YOU not also guilty of the same thing? You have already made up your own mind.
> 
> Come here and I will show you that there are dramatic differences in DACs. You won't own them, so no bias there, and you won't know the price either, again no bias. In fact, bring your own DAC and we shall play that first and then we put in another that I have here, not crazy money, YOU now listen and YOU WILL HEAR A DIFFERENCE!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 23, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> Perception of audible is possible outside of accepted audible limits



You have a contradiction in terms there... How can inaudible be audible?

The thresholds of audibility are established by scientific testing to determine if the human ear can hear it. If it is inaudible, it's inaudible. Human ears have varying levels of degradation, but there is an upper limit to human hearing that no one can hear beyond.

The problem is that the average audiophile knows a great deal about specs in theory, but they know almost nothing about what those numbers on the page actually sound like. They assume because one amp has better specs than another, that there must be an audible difference. If the difference exists beyond human ability to hear, there is no difference. You're more likely to find that the difference is due to simple perceptual error or bias than it is actual sound. That's when you do a controlled test (line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind) to see if an audible difference exists. If you can hear a difference without controls, but not with controls the difference is because of the lack of controls, not the way the component actually sounds.

The studies that have shown perception of super audible sounds just show changes in brain waves. That doesn't mean that they are being heard. Sticking someone with a pin will result in a brain wave change. So will lying down rather than sitting up. There have been studies where music with super audible frequencies was compared to music without and listeners expressed absolutely no preference of one over the other. Inaudible frequencies were determined to add nothing to the perceived sound quality of music.

This argument usually is a last ditch effort for audiophiles to justify their biased perception. It's kind of like arguing about darker than pitch black or louder than deafening or hotter than scalding. Yes, all of that exists, but it doesn't matter because our ability to discern isn't infinite. The problem is normal human limits, not the quality of one amp over another.


----------



## KeithEmo

The problem here is that now YOU are being pedantic.....
Specifically, you are choosing a very narrow definition of "hearing" as opposed to "audible perception".....

There is an answer to your question: 
"How can inaudible be audible?"

That answer is simply that there is no such definitive fact as: 
"Certain sounds are inaudible."
There are ALWAYS conditions that must accompany any such conclusion.

In this case....
"When human subjects were tested, with steady state sine waves, using test tones limited to safe listening levels, the range of frequencies found to be audible to a typical human being was found to be limited to approximately 20 Hz to 20 kHz."  (Although recent tests strongly suggest we should extend that range downwards to 10 Hz.)

You continually insist that "the thresholds of audibility are established by scientific testing" - and I would assume that includes an "upper limit" of about 20 kHz.
Yet, in general, all of those test results have been limited to very specific conditions.
Yet someone else published a reference to an experiment where it was shown that, when subjected to frequencies in the 40 kHz range, subjects _PERCEIVED_ hearing a sound.
So, apparently, under some conditions, a 40 kHz tone produces a response which the subject experiences as hearing a sound.
So, under those specific conditions, apparently a 40 kHz tone, or _the presence of a 40 kHz tone_, is in fact audible after all.
This would certainly seem to open the door to all sorts of interesting "audible interactions" that you simply choose to ignore.

For example, assuming we had two otherwise identical DACs, but one delivered occasional bursts of ringing at 40 kHz...
And I were to listen to both, using electrostatic headphones, which have useful response to 40 kHz...
Since the headphones are clamped onto my head, I might reasonably expect some of that sound to reach my inner ear via bone conduction.
And, according to the results of that experiment, I _would_ expect those 40 kHz noise bursts to "produce an audible impression of hearing a sound".
And, because that sound would only be present with one of the two DACs, I would expect to "perceive an audible difference" between the DACs...
However, the question could probably be answered with better surety if anyone were to actually bother to run the experiment.

I don't disagree with you that, in many cases, and perhaps even a majority, a lot of what audiophiles claim to hear or believe they hear is nonexistent.
However, I find it totally unreasonable to claim that this applies to EVERY case.
You would also have to bang a lot of metal blocks together before you find the ones that set off a nuclear explosion when you do so...
However, if you claim that "you can't EVER cause a nuclear explosion by banging two blocks of metal together, you will still be incorrect.

The problem, as I see it, is that your statement about "applying controls" in inaccurate and overreaching.
In fact, if you can hear a difference without controls, but not with controls, then the difference MAY HAVE BEEN because of the lack of controls.
However, it is also possible that your controls were poorly chosen, and have actually obscured a legitimate difference, which might be obvious under other conditions.
(For example, you can virtually ensure that all DACs will sound the same, by the simple expedient of comparing them using a 1950's vintage carbon telephone speaker.) 
The problem is that you continually refuse to admit this possibility.



bigshot said:


> You have a contradiction in terms there... How can inaudible be audible?
> 
> The thresholds of audibility are established by scientific testing to determine if the human ear can hear it. If it is inaudible, it's inaudible. Human ears have varying levels of degradation, but there is an upper limit to human hearing that no one can hear beyond.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve999




----------



## bigshot (Aug 23, 2019)

An interesting bit of trivia (or maybe not interesting!) is that "Here We Go Again" was the punch line to a dirty joke popular in the 40s. Whenever you see that phrase in the 40s and early 50s they are slyly referring to the joke. The full punch line is "Hold on to your hats boys, here we go again!"


----------



## Dogmatrix

@castleofargh . I read the pdf and it is indeed a fine blueprint for blind tests . Were anyone able to conduct a test of suitable dacs along these lines it would have strong credibility and carry great weight as evidence . What I find most problematic in my investigation of this long running debate is the calculation or attribution of weight to the related experience or experiential evidence as I have put it . I understand you give very little weight to vague impressions . I think I will take some time to look for more evidence that might help quantify vague impressions before placing them on the balance in the debate .


----------



## Dogmatrix

@KeithEmo Thank you for the feedback you have expanded my horizons in an interesting subject . 
On quality , I find it interesting how perception of quality shifts over time particularly in audio and video . Sound quality from even a high end cassette player of 30 years ago would be unacceptable in a budget dap of today for example . Advances in television are possibly even more striking with even the best crt units having lower resolution than todays phones .


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> You have a contradiction in terms there... How can inaudible be audible?
> 
> The thresholds of audibility are established by scientific testing to determine if the human ear can hear it. If it is inaudible, it's inaudible. Human ears have varying levels of degradation, but there is an upper limit to human hearing that no one can hear beyond.
> 
> ...


My intent in posting the hypothesis was only to explore another path . 
By itself the Cochlear implant demonstrates audible perception in people who have no functioning ear ie total degradation .
I specifically chose two studies which included speech recognition , no pins involved . 
I am open to establishment of a counter hypothesis if you would care to construct one .


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> My intent in posting the hypothesis was only to explore another path .
> By itself the Cochlear implant demonstrates audible perception in people who have no functioning ear ie total degradation .
> I specifically chose two studies which included speech recognition , no pins involved .
> I am open to establishment of a counter hypothesis if you would care to construct one .



It seems to me the main problem with your premise is if there is any acoustic energy of a voice within your claimed 100khz range.  The orders of magnitude for harmonics of the human voice is well below 100khz, so by the time you reach this frequency, you have nothing left for bone conduction from regular voice in an air medium.  Furthermore, the only studies that confirm a situation with 100khz hearing is deep sea diving: in which conditions are very different and there is a better medium of bone conduction with water transference.


----------



## Steve999




----------



## bigshot (Aug 24, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> I am open to establishment of a counter hypothesis if you would care to construct one .



Sure... sloppy controls on the listening test and bias. Notice that a disproportionate number of people who claim to hear differences are people who "don't believe in controlled tests".



Dogmatrix said:


> I think I will take some time to look for more evidence that might help quantify vague impressions before placing them on the balance in the debate .



Vague impressions resist quantification. It's never described in terms of quantifiable aspects like distortion, noise, frequency response, etc... only in non-specific terms like veils, soundstage width and blackness. If you see these sorts of terms being used, you can be pretty sure that the person using them hasn't bothered to quantify.



Dogmatrix said:


> Sound quality from even a high end cassette player of 30 years ago would be unacceptable in a budget dap of today for example



How do you tell if you've achieved "perfect sound"... Hint: think transparency.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> It seems to me the main problem with your premise is if there is any acoustic energy of a voice within your claimed 100khz range.  The orders of magnitude for harmonics of the human voice is well below 100khz, so by the time you reach this frequency, you have nothing left for bone conduction from regular voice in an air medium.  Furthermore, the only studies that confirm a situation with 100khz hearing is deep sea diving: in which conditions are very different and there is a better medium of bone conduction with water transference.


Really it's not my premise or claim it is just a quote from an article to back my hypothesis . 
Here is a link to the article
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2876207


----------



## gregorio (Aug 24, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] Measure the jitter of two DACs. They will be identical in every way. Put them side-by-side, they cannot be distinguished apart. Same volume level.
> [1a] You point to the one that you are convinced sounds better by quite some margin. It turns out that it is the one that was earlier measured as having higher jitter. What is going on?
> [1b] It is the nature of the jitter that has to be measured. Jitter is frequency related, jitter is in fact noise and it has a frequency response. So it matters WHAT frequency that the jitter shows up. At certain frequencies, jitter matters more than showing up at other frequencies.
> [1c] Jitter close to the fundamental (low frequency) is very difficult to measure and it has been shown to be the worst form of jitter.
> ...



1. Good.
1a. What's going on is that firstly, if one has a higher measured jitter, then obviously they are NOT "identical in every way". What other way are they not identical? Secondly, even If we assume they are identical in every way except jitter, then the jitter artefacts have to be at least equal to, or above, the threshold of audibility otherwise "what is going on" MUST be some cognitive bias/perception error, there is NO other rational alternative!
1b. That depends on how you define "matters". "Matters" in terms of a measurement or "matters" in terms of an audible difference?
1c. That depends on the frequency of the fundamental and what you mean by "low frequency". If the fundamental is at say 3kHz then that would be potentially the "worst form of jitter [noise]" as that's where human hearing is most sensitive. If we're talking about frequencies below about 500Hz though, then that would potentially be the best form of jitter noise, as human hearing is progressively less sensitive to low frequencies. I say "potentially" because obviously it doesn't "matter", if it's below audibility.

2. There's obviously two huge problems with your assertion:
A. Firstly, that's a hypothetical question. What happens if we multiply a wasp's size by 100 times, is that scary? Sure, in our imagination but of course there's no need to be scared in reality because no such wasp exists. We might as well say "what happens when we multiply the blue area by" a few trillion, that would be particular scary as it would probably kill you!
B. Secondly, even if it were not a hypothetical question and there were DACs which multiplied the blue area by 100 times, it still wouldn't make any difference! If we take jitter noise (or any other noise) that is inaudible at 3kHz, increase it's amplitude by 100 times and change it's frequency to "below 50Hz", then it is still INAUDIBLE! Because, human hearing is about "*100 times*" less sensitive to frequencies below 50Hz. Science has known this for over 85 years (Fletcher-Munson) and it's been confirmed by countless hearing threshold tests ever since! In other words, even if there were DACs that produced 100 times more jitter noise below 50Hz (at -90dB), that would still be way below audibility!
2a. How is -130dB "decent"? It's not "decent", it "preposterous"! Given any reasonable listening volume, -130dB noise cannot even be reproduced by transducers and so the question of audibility is obviously mute!

3. No it's not, you just made that up! The "digital sound that many have complained about" is the lack of analogue distortion and in some cases, also a deliberate choice made during mixing and/or mastering. This has been thoroughly well established for many decades, even when digital audio was first released to the public!

As there are cheap DACs on the market ($100 and lower) which have jitter artefacts throughout the spectrum which peak no higher than -120dB, then "What is going on" appears completely obvious: The old audiophile marketing ploy of taking some inaudible "problem", lying about it's magnitude and/or audibility and then offering some expensive audiophile solution which (falsely) claims an audible improvement!



Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] So what interests me? *Doing my job!*
> [2] BTW, I know about the Stereo Review magazine. That was 32 years ago and if you are doing the same as they are, then I am not surprised. We have thankfully come a long way since then.



1. Which is to sell an expensive audiophile solution which claims an audible improvement!!

2. Agreed, we've come an awful "long way since then", in terms of the audiophile marketing of snake oil, although I'm not in the least be "thankful" for that!



Dogmatrix said:


> [1] A large body of experiential evidence along the lines of dac a sounds different to dac b . Counterpoint a large body of empirical evidence demonstrating difference outside of audible limits
> [2] "When you have eliminated the impossible , whatever remains , however improbable , must be the truth" Sherlock Holmes , Arthur Conan Doyle



1. As castleofargh pointed out. "no" there is no reliable evidence, let alone a large body of reliable evidence. In fact, the reliable evidence indicates no difference. There also is no reliable evidence which demonstrates anything beyond audible limits, given the conditions of listening to commercial music recordings at a reasonable level with consumer equipment (consumer headphones/speakers).

2. Absolutely! But conversely, what if you haven't "eliminated the impossible", what if you've eliminated something that IS possible? Surely, "what remains" (as it's improbable) is unlikely to be the truth. What if you've eliminated something that isn't just possible but is likely? Surely, "what remains" is extremely unlikely to be the truth. And, what if you eliminated something that isn't just likely but is proven/demonstrated to occur almost continuously and is responsible for the very existence of music in the first place? Surely, "what remains" has no chance, and even less chance still if "what remains" isn't even applicable! You've effectively applied the quote backwards; your "what remains" should have been eliminated and what you've erroneously eliminated should be the "what remains" (and it's not even slightly improbable)!!

G


----------



## castleofargh

Dogmatrix said:


> @castleofargh . I read the pdf and it is indeed a fine blueprint for blind tests . Were anyone able to conduct a test of suitable dacs along these lines it would have strong credibility and carry great weight as evidence . What I find most problematic in my investigation of this long running debate is the calculation or attribution of weight to the related experience or experiential evidence as I have put it . I understand you give very little weight to vague impressions . I think I will take some time to look for more evidence that might help quantify vague impressions before placing them on the balance in the debate .


my point of view is that improper experiments do not gain statistical significance through sheer number. doing it wrong a thousand times, doesn't make it less wrong. a sighted experience isn't really a listening test. that's a pretty bad way to start. it involves listening, seeing, feeling, and the influence of already existing opinions in the listener's mind. all of those variables will have some unknown amount of impact on the final impression of "sound". unknown because that type of "test" lacks the needed conditions and controls we'd need to estimate how reliable anything may be. when someone says he heard something, that experience has no way of letting us confirm it(and why I refuse it as supporting evidence).
so in a sighted "listening test", we get something that's not focused enough on listening and isn't really a test because we can confirm nothing. not a great way to look for answers about audibility.

getting a lot of similar reactions from feedback can hardly mean increased confidence. I get how it could feel like it should, but we know that this would also happen simply by having the first people listening to those devices and sharing their impressions with everybody else, feeding them preconceptions. and again, it's something we could control by making sure that the listeners don't communicate with each other before the experiment is complete. or simply by making sure they don't know what they're listening to at a given time. but doing that would start to look suspiciously like a controlled test ^_^.


----------



## Davesrose (Aug 24, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> Really it's not my premise or claim it is just a quote from an article to back my hypothesis .
> Here is a link to the article
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2876207



Yet the very introduction to that study states that no appreciable sound is beyond 24khz with the natural voice, and they’ve modulated the signal (applying their own artificial environment).  Their setup was also very different from your premise that people might perceive ultra high frequencies from regular audio systems.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 24, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> Really it's not my premise or claim it is just a quote from an article to back my hypothesis .
> Here is a link to the article
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2876207



We're speaking here specifically about recorded music. Why would super audible frequencies be important if blind test after blind test of 16/44.1 vs 24/96 show no audible difference? I also read a study where they gave normal people two samples... 1) 24/96 and 2) CD quality with everything above 10kHz filtered out. People said that they could detect a small difference between the two samples, but they didn't think one sounded any better than the other. Most people can't hear much above 15kHz. Why would the top octave be so unimportant to sound fidelity, yet frequencies 2 1/2 octaves above that be important? Especially when tests clearly show that super audible sound can't be heard! The truth is that our perception of sound fidelity depends on the core frequencies, particularly the ones in the sweet spot of hearing from 2kHz to 5kHz. It doesn't depend on the bleeding edges of human hearing and beyond.

Generally, it's good to firmly establish if something is audible first, then you can start thinking up reasons why it might be important. When you think up reasons for the importance of sound that it turns out you can't even hear, you can end up chasing down the wrong end of the rabbit hole.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> Yet the very introduction to that study states that no appreciable sound is beyond 24khz with the natural voice, and they’ve modulated the signal (applying their own artificial environment).  Their setup was also very different from your premise that people might perceive ultra high frequencies from regular audio systems.


Indeed , but I didn't quote the introduction . 
It is as labelled a hypothesis .

"a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

It is up to you how you look at it and your estimation of its relevance .


----------



## Dogmatrix

@castleofargh , @bigshot , @gregorio 
Hi guys . I will more succinctly outline my position and perhaps save you the trouble of trying to educate me .
If I consider the thread title strictly then of course you are absolutely undeniably correct . 
However being a public forum the title can be seen as open to interpretation and I observe that many interpret "audible" in a way that invites the human / machine interface into the question .
To that end I am thinking outside the box trying to avoid the circular arguments contained within .
Unfortunately the box seems to have gravity .


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Indeed , but I didn't quote the introduction .
> It is as labelled a hypothesis .
> 
> "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."
> ...



But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment.  The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment.  The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges.  To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment.  The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment.  The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges.  To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.


Looks like there is a misunderstanding at some level . I can't state my position more clearly than I have already . To continue would be pointless argument .


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment.  The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment.  The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges.  To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.


Apologies that last post was a little lazy . I will explain more fully .
I did not take the introduction at all , out of context or otherwise , only the quoted section .So I make no assertions concerning uhf and its relevance to audio equipment . Any such assertions are entirely assumed by you . I do not refer as such to the entire study only the quoted section . Any other reference to the study is only as evidence the quoted section is not fabricated . I would not argue with your final summary .


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Looks like there is a misunderstanding at some level . I can't state my position more clearly than I have already . To continue would be pointless argument .



I thought you were quite explicit about your beliefs in post #1107....you stated:



> Hypothesis
> 
> Perception of audible is possible outside of accepted audible limits"
> 
> ...



You're citing studies about perception from stimuli that's not from traditional audio systems, and maintaining your belief that these correlate with normal acoustic stimuli: in which there has been study after study that says through normal acoustic hearing, healthy young adults have a mean hearing range up to 20khz (and it declines with age).  Again, the studies do not indicate humans can hear the ultra high frequency capabilities without artificial stimulation through bone conduction, or that the audio systems we're referring to can even have output capable of ultra high frequencies.  Your final argument to the regular contributors to this thread is that you're trying to think outside the box.  That's fine if you want to keep it completely hypothetical: but you haven't made a scientific case for people being able to hear ultra high frequencies in normal circumstances.


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 24, 2019)

I remember the days when transistor amplifiers came out and the claims were that they had as low or lower distortion than tube amps and basically sound identical. We soon realised that was not so. Then really serious people like Matti Otalo showed that there were distortion mechanisms present that people had not yet figured needing a measurement and yes, amplifiers did sound different.

The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.

Well, there are amplifiers that have recently surfaced is so much better than what we have seen before. They don't come at one particular price point. I am involved in the development based on an incredible ambitious design that was left behind by the late Allen Wright. After 32 months of collaborations, we now have a workable design. The circuit is totally unlike anything previously, it is not based on any earlier designs. It will not be expensive to make. It has now been heard by dozens of people and it just puts smiles on their faces. Also, I believe in a well-conducted blind test it will do very well. But we now have a number of people with prototypes living with them, and that to me has always been the most severe test.

Now if you choose to rubbish the above, should I even care? I am going to be listening to something that to my ears sound amazing and they are not. Where am I losing out? I am not. They are. The negativity will have no affect on me.

But there is also something else that is really obvious, that we can all observe:

*1*. These dinosaurs are so obnoxious. They see evil in corners where there is none. The audio industry is full of nefarious people, they say.

*2*. They are a loud minority, they make a big noise for the size of their number. Most people just ignore them.

*3*. When they find a forum like this, they have their own echo chamber. They rely on circular arguments and repeat known attack lines.

*4*. They don't realise that blind tests are only the purview of large audio corporations, they are expensive. Buy *Panasonic and you will be OK.

*5*. Like anything in life, they don't seem to understand that the most difficult test is to live with something or somebody. Judge something on your home turf.

* I used to work for Panasonic.

*Don't get caught up in their web. They are destructive and have very little constructive to contribute. 

Meanwhile, some bad things do happen, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!*


----------



## bigshot

I asked a question that wasn't answered... 



> We're speaking here specifically about recorded music. Why would super audible frequencies be important if blind test after blind test of 16/44.1 vs 24/96 show no audible difference?



A hypothesis in a completely different context that might require further study is fine... But here is solid evidence that super audible frequencies don't make any difference, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many recording engineers who would think they do. Isn't that the sort of directly applicable evidence we should be pointing to?


----------



## bigshot (Aug 24, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.



Welcome back. I still have a question I posed to you that hasn't been answered yet... Are you willing to participate with us here in Sound Science to help us set up a controlled listening test and measurements to verify your claims? All we would need is the loan of a current solid state home audio component that is in operational order and performing to spec that sounds clearly different. We won't need to rely on 30 year old tests then. We can all find out for ourselves.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> I thought you were quite explicit about your beliefs in post #1107....you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> You're citing studies about perception from stimuli that's not from traditional audio systems, and maintaining your belief that these correlate with normal acoustic stimuli: in which there has been study after study that says through normal acoustic hearing, healthy young adults have a mean hearing range up to 20khz (and it declines with age).  Again, the studies do not indicate humans can hear the ultra high frequency capabilities without artificial stimulation through bone conduction, or that the audio systems we're referring to can even have output capable of ultra high frequencies.  Your final argument to the regular contributors to this thread is that you're trying to think outside the box.  That's fine if you want to keep it completely hypothetical: but you haven't made a scientific case for people being able to hear ultra high frequencies in normal circumstances.



A hypothesis is only a seed like a computer virus (malware in this case) . Pick it up and run or bin it , entirely up to the reader .
I make no statement of belief or correlation , in fact I intentionally point out its lack of direct relevance . It only serves to demonstrate a possibility . 
A referenced hypothesis is about as close to science as your going to get around here . 
Responding like this is only argument . 
A scientific approach would be to conceive and build a counter hypothesis .


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> I asked a question that wasn't answered...
> 
> 
> 
> A hypothesis in a completely different context that might require further study is fine... But here is solid evidence that super audible frequencies don't make any difference, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many recording engineers who would think they do. Isn't that the sort of directly applicable evidence we should be pointing to?


Yes absolutely . However the inclusion of blind test brings into play human perception which in turn opens the flood gates and all bets are off


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> A hypothesis is only a seed like a computer virus (malware in this case) . Pick it up and run or bin it , entirely up to the reader .
> I make no statement of belief or correlation , in fact I intentionally point out its lack of direct relevance . It only serves to demonstrate a possibility .
> A referenced hypothesis is about as close to science as your going to get around here .
> Responding like this is only argument .
> A scientific approach would be to conceive and build a counter hypothesis .



Within science, a hypothesis is an initial statement that's open to testing.  It will be dropped and continually forgotten if it doesn't meet more scrutiny with experimentation or repeatable observation.  Your construct here for "hypothesis" seems more to be appeal to popularity.  One doesn't need a counter hypothesis if the original assumption does not correlate with the experiments referenced (in this case, tests with artificial stimuli).

If I can be frank, it's a pretty slim footing to assert noticeable differences in audio equipment is due to ultra high frequencies and cite studies about artificial stimuli.  Now if the premise is that there can still be perceptual differences with audio systems...that's very different conditions (IE how well the amplifier stage is and if there's appreciably less distortion with certain equipment).


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> Within science, a hypothesis is an initial statement that's open to testing.  It will be dropped and continually forgotten if it doesn't meet more scrutiny with experimentation or repeatable observation.  Your construct here for "hypothesis" seems more to be appeal to popularity.  One doesn't need a counter hypothesis if the original assumption does not correlate with the experiments referenced (in this case, tests with artificial stimuli).
> 
> If I can be frank, it's a pretty slim footing to assert noticeable differences in audio equipment is due to ultra high frequencies and cite studies about artificial stimuli.  Now if the premise is that there can still be perceptual differences with audio systems...that's very different conditions (IE how well the amplifier stage is and if there's appreciably less distortion with certain equipment).


Yes , you are getting the spirit of it now , pick it up or bin it , in this case probably both but its all good .
A valid counter hypothesis would be entirely off subject but go along the lines . 
The hypothesis posted by Dogmatrix (insert quote) is full of schiit .
Then find studies posted in reputable journals which prove something loosely relevant such as there is a prevalence of schiit on internet forums or something about fake news .
Then find sections of said studies which relate more closely and quote them .
Give your assessment of how it ties together
Set it free


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Yes , you are getting the spirit of it now , pick it up or bin it , in this case probably both but its all good .
> A valid counter hypothesis would be entirely off subject but go along the lines .
> The hypothesis posted by Dogmatrix (insert quote) is full of schiit .
> Then find studies posted in reputable journals which prove something loosely relevant such as there is a prevalence of schiit on internet forums or something about fake news .
> ...



Dude, this is the internet...don't take things to heart so much!  I hoped you could have stepped back a bit to fully read my last post.  I don't see a scientific footing for asserting hearing ultra high frequencies during normal circumstances....but that's a separate topic than evaluating audio equipment for all their appreciable qualities.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> Dude, this is the internet...don't take things to heart so much!  I hoped you could have stepped back a bit to fully read my last post.  I don't see a scientific footing for asserting hearing ultra high frequencies during normal circumstances....but that's a separate topic than evaluating audio equipment for all their appreciable qualities.


No worries I wasn't getting uppity . I did read your post , that's what I meant by getting the spirit it wasn't meant as a facetious quip . I agree and it is exactly the kind of discourse the hypothesis was designed to generate .


----------



## Dogmatrix

gregorio said:


> 1. As castleofargh pointed out. "no" there is no reliable evidence, let alone a large body of reliable evidence. In fact, the reliable evidence indicates no difference. There also is no reliable evidence which demonstrates anything beyond audible limits, given the conditions of listening to commercial music recordings at a reasonable level with consumer equipment (consumer headphones/speakers).
> 
> 2. Absolutely! But conversely, what if you haven't "eliminated the impossible", what if you've eliminated something that IS possible? Surely, "what remains" (as it's improbable) is unlikely to be the truth. What if you've eliminated something that isn't just possible but is likely? Surely, "what remains" is extremely unlikely to be the truth. And, what if you eliminated something that isn't just likely but is proven/demonstrated to occur almost continuously and is responsible for the very existence of music in the first place? Surely, "what remains" has no chance, and even less chance still if "what remains" isn't even applicable! You've effectively applied the quote backwards; your "what remains" should have been eliminated and what you've erroneously eliminated should be the "what remains" (and it's not even slightly improbable)!!
> 
> G


I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and value your feedback . In this case I must raise doubts to its validity .

1. The term is experiential evidence as in reported observation . I make no claims as to the level of its reliability .

2. Just a quote from a fictional character meant to encourage a spirit of investigation . Totally at a loss as to how you can argue with that .


----------



## gregorio

Joe Rasmussen said:


> [1] The dinosaurs have come back.
> [2] The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story.
> [2a] They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.
> [3] Well, there are amplifiers that have recently surfaced is so much better than what we have seen before.
> ...


1. They never went away, they just had to figure out how to lie/market more convincingly.

2. True but of course the "story" is science!
2a. That's a lie. We point to that 30 year old blind test simply because it's probably the most well known example (of the many thousands of examples). However, we do not rely on that one example, we rely on objective evidence (actual measurements), all the other blind/double blind tests and the long established thresholds of audibility. Therefore "yes of course", anyone who comes to a sound science forum and contradicts the wealth of relevant, demonstrable science/reliable evidence going back decades, without a single shred of reliable evidence to back it up, does indeed "deserve to have a bucket emptied upon them" for two reasons: Firstly, they've wasted years of school and secondly, they are perverting/insulting science and therefore this and all other science forums.

3. Not audibly "so much better", unless you have some reliable evidence which contradicts the established science?

4. Of course you are! In fact there are only two options, either you're an audiophile suckered by the marketing BS or, you're someone who makes audiophile products and invents marketing BS. 

5. This isn't the "what Joe believes" forum. Present some reliable evidence or it's just marketing BS and ...
5a. As what you believe completely contradicts science and you have NO reliable evidence to support it, it's unwelcome here (or in any science/fact based forum). The actual truth is pretty much the opposite of what (you say) you believe: Uncontrolled, sighted "impressions" and anecdotes are absolutely NOT the "most severe test", in fact, they're just about the least reliable ("severe") of all tests/evidence. The "most severe test" is the controlled double blind test!

6. That's up to you. A few snake oil salesmen obviously do care, because they go to sound science forums and argue their case (using everything BUT science), in an attempt to pervert it and get the science/facts "on their side". Although most snake oil salesmen are bright enough to avoid sound science forums like the plague, they don't bother trying to get science "on their side", they simply make-up lies and completely ignore the actual science/facts!


Joe Rasmussen said:


> But there is also something else that is really obvious, that we can all observe:
> *1*. These dinosaurs are so obnoxious. [1a] They see evil in corners where there is none. [1b] The audio industry is full of nefarious people, they say.
> *2*. They are a loud minority, they make a big noise for the size of their number. Most people just ignore them.
> *3*. When they find a forum like this, they have their own echo chamber. [3a] They rely on circular arguments and repeat known attack lines.
> ...


I absolutely agree but the problem is, that despite it being "really obvious" many/most audiophiles just don't realise they are observing it:

1. "Obnoxious" and I would also add; callous and despicable. They are effectively sociopaths, they either simply don't care that they are deceiving innocent people with their marketing lies or worse, they're actually proud of it! 
1a. If you're referring to us: We "see evil in corners" indicated by reliable evidence! Duh!
1b. Again, if you are referring to us, then that's a lie! I for one "say" the audio industry is mainly full of decent people. It's only the very small "audiophile" corner of the audio industry which seems to have a disproportionate number of "nefarious people".

2. Agreed, "they" obviously being audiophile marketers and those suckered by them. Science, music/sound engineers, the rest of the audio industry and even many/most members of the public do indeed "just ignore them" (the small, loud minority of audiophiles and snake oil salesmen), or if the subject does comes up, just refers to them as a bunch of delusional nutters.

3. I don't agree with that: When "they" (marketers and those suckered by them) come to a forum like this they do NOT find an echo chamber and that's what so upsets them, because they are used to other ("audiophile") forums, where science/the actual facts are marginalised or even actively banned!
3a. They (snake oil salesmen and those scammed by them) don't ONLY rely on circular arguments, they also rely on a wide variety of fallacies and outright lies but I agree that they do "repeat known attack lines", two obvious examples, unbridled hypocrisy and childish insults (Eg. "you're all obnoxious dinosaurs")!

4. No, of course we don't realise that, because it's a lie! An ABX test and objective measurements of differences are relatively cheap. ABX software is free and an objective null test only requires a modestly priced ADC (and some other free software). How is free (or modestly priced) "expensive"?

5. Clearly that's just yet another lie! It's NOT like anything in life, it's not like science for example. In science we don't judge something on our "home turf", we create specially designed rooms called "science laboratories" (which I learned when I was about 8 years old!), and then repeat the experiments in different laboratories (or other controlled environments), specifically to eliminate any "home turf" bias! So yet again, what you're suggesting is effectively the exact opposite of science and you're suggesting it in an actual science forum! How much more ridiculous can it possibly get?

All 5 of your points are good examples of 3a: IE. Outright lies and childish insults but most particularly "hypocrisy", because they're actually applicable to snake oil salesmen (and those suckered by them), rather than to us here. I don't get it; how does being hypocritical, making up lies and childish insults (and then being called out on them) help a snake oil salesman, is it simply a matter of their (marketing) pride/ego being blind to the humiliation? Here in the sound science forum one should stick to the science/actual facts .... Why is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

G


----------



## gregorio (Aug 25, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> 1. The term is experiential evidence as in reported observation . I make no claims as to the level of its reliability .
> 2. Just a quote from a fictional character meant to encourage a spirit of investigation . Totally at a loss as to how you can argue with that .



1. Yes but experiential evidence on it's own is entirely invalid scientifically. It may spark some scientific enquiry or not, for example if the experiential evidence contradicts a body of existing reliable evidence. If we based science on the amount of experiential evidence, then there wouldn't be science and we'd still believe the earth is the centre of the universe, because we don't experience travelling at thousands of miles an hour (around the sun).

2. I'm not arguing with it, I'm completely agreeing with it! What I'm disagreeing with is your (backwards) application of it.

G


----------



## bfreedma

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I remember the days when transistor amplifiers came out and the claims were that they had as low or lower distortion than tube amps and basically sound identical. We soon realised that was not so. Then really serious people like Matti Otalo showed that there were distortion mechanisms present that people had not yet figured needing a measurement and yes, amplifiers did sound different.
> 
> The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the comedy:

You complain about this forum by insulting it's members in an almost incomprehensibly hypocritical manner
You continue to rant about "science" without demonstrating a shred of operational knowledge of scientific method
You spout thousands of words of audiophile marketing garbage without posting a single piece of evidence.  Evidence that you claim to have.  Evidence that you clearly don't possess, as sharing it would sell your products, particularly to members of this forum.

If your goal in posting here is to establish that you're selling based on fantasy and not fact, congratulations - you're a huge success!

PS - I found your attempt to align yourself with Einstein to be the most egocentric single post I can recall on this site.  A reminder - Einstein had voluminous supporting evidence for his theories and openly published them, exposing them to peer review.


----------



## castleofargh

Joe Rasmussen said:


> I remember the days when transistor amplifiers came out and the claims were that they had as low or lower distortion than tube amps and basically sound identical. We soon realised that was not so. Then really serious people like Matti Otalo showed that there were distortion mechanisms present that people had not yet figured needing a measurement and yes, amplifiers did sound different.
> 
> The dinosaurs have come back. The difference between amplifiers sound wise is so small that it does not matter, so goes there story. They point to blind tests, particularly one done 30 years ago, and that this is all settled and anybody who thinks otherwise deserves to have bucket emptied upon them.
> 
> ...


all this would probably come across more convincingly:
- if you gave more than empty claims about working on something "so much better than what we have seen before". if you wish to trigger skepticism, that's very much the right method. otherwise, as was suggested many times already, you should consider a different approach.
- if you didn't confuse(or just try to confuse us?) the concept of audible difference with how much some listeners will appreciate something. many people love listening to worn out vinyls they played hundreds of times through a 6% THD amp. I did that a lot in my childhood and by your own measurement standard, it did put a smile on my face. yet the overall fidelity was bad by today standards, and I don't read much controversy when I suggest that such a setup doesn't sound like the CD player + a low distortion amp. so maybe there is something else making the nasty "they", pick their target?



Joe Rasmussen said:


> I remember the days when transistor amplifiers came out and the claims were that they had as low or lower distortion than tube amps and basically sound identical. We soon realised that was not so.


reading this, I think you're referring to the initial claims from the "nefarious people" of marketing at the time. so we all seem to agree about that bit.  
it also brings up a good point, claims without supporting evidence probably shouldn't be taken at face value.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 25, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> A scientific approach would be to conceive and build a counter hypothesis .



Wouldn’t a scientific approach be to look for evidence that either supports the hypothesis or disproves it? I think I offered up some evidence that inaudible is inaudible. I haven’t seen any evidence to support the idea that super audible frequencies enhance the perceived sound quality of recorded music. Is this just something thrown out there with no interest in supporting it? If so, we can probably dismiss it now.



Dogmatrix said:


> However the inclusion of blind test brings into play human perception which in turn opens the flood gates and all bets are off



Perception is where the rubber meets the road. It’s how we hear our home stereos. I can’t think of anything more relevant to this discussion. How do you judge fitness for the task of reproducing music in the home without considering it in the context of perceived audio fidelity?


----------



## Joe Rasmussen (Aug 25, 2019)

QUOTE="KeithEmo, post: 15142127, member: 403988"]

Because, since a speaker is a passive load, the current that passes through it is directly related to the voltage that is applied to it. If you know the voltage, and you know the impedance of the speaker, then you already know (or can calculate) the current. They cannot be separated and so there is no specific reason to consider them separately.
[/QUOTE]

If only if it was that simple. You are partly correct re the current of the LOAD, but what you say describes an I/V converter, and that is not what we have here. We have the DC resistance Re as only part of the impedance, if this was seen by the driver directly, then you would be I/V 100% accurate. Another part of the total impedance, above Re, is resisting the current prevent a true I/V conversion. But you are correct, the altered current is what we will hear, the current of the LOAD is what we hear indeed, but it is far from the complete picture.

Truth is that the voltage model is very powerful and there are good reasons for this. To a large extent, it seems to explain a lot of things and that it is intuitively easy to understand. OTOH, the current model is anything but easy to understand. I have now spent at least a decade to understand it and have had many discussions with knowledgeable people about this. There is a saying "keep an eye on the money" as that will in many cases lead to answers. The same here is not to do lip service to 'current' and acknowledge that drivers are current devices. Only by tracking the current, what it does irrespective of voltage, will give us a more complete picture. Many just cower at making that effort.

These days I am wiser, I only get into a deeper discussion with people who have a genuine interest in unlocking something that takes real mental effort. That number is growing, but it is a slow process.

Also, I repeatedly get blocked when I mention current. I get locked into the current drive camp and "you are into current drive" and I am *not* - in fact, I consider myself in the voltage camp. What I am trying to do is get the current right under those circumstances. Understanding something can lead to solutions and I think I have one (but that will be for another time).

I devised a very powerful "equivalence test" that is highly revealing. Note I do not say new things, rather I am increasing awareness of something that has always been there but we had a resistance to take on.

The 'LOAD' that you mention does indeed determine the current (when using a voltage source) and that current is indeed what the speaker will attempt to reproduce. The "equivalence test" reveals a number of additional things, such as in terms of impedance (the act of impeding current) of the load have actually two measurable parts. Any impedance above the Re, we could name it excess impedance, is actually explained as the back-EMF impedance of the driver. Note the EMF here and that the F indicates force or voltage. This part of the impedance resists the current of the amplifier and hence it is both a voltage (force) and an impedance (calculable in Ohm). The voltage that forms across the Re of the driver's impedance, I call the Vre of the driver. Vre*Ic, where Ic is the current of the amplifier, defines the heat dissipation of the voice within 1%, because the driver I have in mind is 0.5% efficient. Both the current and the dBSPL (picked up by a microphone) correspond.

Hope the graph link works, but this is what the experiment looks like.











Measure the actual differences in dBSPL with a real-world driver, and the maths developed predicts the _difference _in dBSPL of the microphone. The difference in dB and Ohm of the two parts of the impedance is mathematically sound. Any driver imperfections will show up in the back-EMF impedance and have a direct consequence to the current that the driver will now respond to. What is shows is that the amplifier is now producing a current that is influenced by the distortions (like resonance or other poor aspects of the driver) and hence we have a mechanism where the driver is affectively altering current that is now circulating, _feeding back on itself_, circulating current. Basically time smear. Better drivers, lower inductance etc, they will perform better. I am not the only who is seeing this - and there is now finally an effort to start to understand this. Using the voltage to explain something that, this will amount to an incomplete picture.

Cheers, Joe R.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 25, 2019)

Joe Rasmussen said:


> These days I am wiser, I only get into a deeper discussion with people who have a genuine interest in unlocking something that takes real mental effort. That number is growing, but it is a slow process.



Third time asking this question: Are you willing to participate in a group effort to validate your claims that DACs, DAPs, players and amps sound different?


----------



## Dogmatrix

gregorio said:


> 1. Yes but experiential evidence on it's own is entirely invalid scientifically. It may spark some scientific enquiry or not, for example if the experiential evidence contradicts a body of existing reliable evidence. If we based science on the amount of experiential evidence, then there wouldn't be science and we'd still believe the earth is the centre of the universe, because we don't experience travelling at thousands of miles an hour (around the sun).
> 
> 2. I'm not arguing with it, I'm completely agreeing with it! What I'm disagreeing with is your (backwards) application of it.
> 
> G


1.Glad this was edited . I find the use of "entirely invalid..... " problematic in this version . I have stated elsewhere and indeed here indirectly that I hold a view of science as a wide spectrum including philosophy since it is widely regarded as the predecessor to science . as such I consider experiential evidence valid . However I intend to make some more detailed comment on this in response to a reply from bigshot you are invited to take a look . Regarding the rest of 1. I find the number of ifs contained makes it conjecture , amusing perhaps .

2.Not much progress here . I have explained the context of the quote yet the use of "your (backwards) application" suggests the assumed context is still being applied .

Generally 
The application of you've and your in these contexts "you've effectively applied...." , "you've erroneously ….." and "your (backwards) application.."  are at once assumption , argument and accusation .
Perhaps a reframing of these assessment style posts to a more scientific investigation and inquiry format would help .


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Wouldn’t a scientific approach be to look for evidence that either supports the hypothesis or disproves it? I think I offered up some evidence that inaudible is inaudible. I haven’t seen any evidence to support the idea that super audible frequencies enhance the perceived sound quality of recorded music. Is this just something thrown out there with no interest in supporting it? If so, we can probably dismiss it now.
> 
> 
> 
> Perception is where the rubber meets the road. It’s how we hear our home stereos. I can’t think of anything more relevant to this discussion. How do you judge fitness for the task of reproducing music in the home without considering it in the context of perceived audio fidelity?


Re "Wouldn't a scientific...."
My request for a scientific approach in the context of a reply or counter to my hypothesis infers links to published journals as the bar set for evidence.
I make no claim of evidence to support the idea that super audible frequencies enhance the perceived quality of recorded music . Changing the parameters of an investigation is valid in science however it can not be applied retrospectively .
 I explain the reasoning for the hypothesis more fully here 
Posts #1133 , #1138 , #1142 and #1147 .
Re "Perception is where....." 
Indeed , for many it is their only means of evaluation . However in the context of the debate , if one side allows human perception as evidence then the other side must also . That includes vague sighted impressions imo .
However
I have concluded my investigation of the "difference that's audible" component . Attention now turns to the "measurable scientific" component .
I am yet to tie all the components of the question together formally .(@gregorio please start here) A cursory evaluation suggests experiential evidence and blind testing  are invalid due to their failure to meet the measurable condition regardless of their scientific veracity or otherwise .

Were the question constructed differently ,for example

Are there measurable scientific or audible differences between r2r/multibit and delta sigma dacs 

the issue would not arrise . Indeed the bulk of this thread appears to address something similar to my reconstruction and not in fact the posted title .


----------



## bigshot (Aug 26, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> My request for a scientific approach in the context of a reply or counter to my hypothesis infers links to published journals as the bar set for evidence.



Have you gone through the pinned post at the top of this forum yet? https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/

I'm afraid if you want to read the papers themselves, you'll need to join the AES. http://www.aes.org/membership/ The papers are behind their paywall, and the abstracts don't always accurately reflect what the paper says.

This is an internet forum, not a peer reviewed journal. If you are going to require published papers, you're in the wrong place. We are more casual than that here. You will want to join the AES. It's all there. There are people here who are members of the AES that can give you the names of the papers to look up, I'm sure. I'm a producer, not an engineer so I'm not a member myself.

In case you haven't noticed, you can hear with your eyes closed. Perception does not have to include bias and perceptual error. You want to take measures to eliminate those. Otherwise you're testing the bias and error, not the perceived sound. There's a whole section in the pinned post at the top of the forum about the importance of blind testing. You'll want to read that too.

I get that you're trying hard to be what this forum is about, but your concept isn't accurate or even practical. You might want to slow down with posting and do some reading to figure out how we work here. Then you won't have unrealistic expectations and you'll understand what we are talking about better. That's the way to become a part of this community.


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 26, 2019)

[Disengaged]


----------



## bigshot

I might be wrong, but I tend think the underlying purpose of these "your science isn't rigorous enough" arguments is to make the burden of proof so difficult to meet that the person offering facts will just give up, and the field will be open for subjective impressions presented as "hypothesis worthy of study". We've seen the argument "you can't know anything because you can't know everything" over and over and it always comes from the same kind of science denying scientific purists. The person doing this may not even realize he's doing it. He might think that "winning" is the purpose of discussions. The real purpose is learning, and with the diversity of knowledge and experience in this group, resisting learning from the people around you is a complete waste of a golden opportunity.


----------



## Dogmatrix

bigshot said:


> Have you gone through the pinned post at the top of this forum yet? https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/
> 
> I'm afraid if you want to read the papers themselves, you'll need to join the AES. http://www.aes.org/membership/ The papers are behind their paywall, and the abstracts don't always accurately reflect what the paper says.
> 
> ...



Thankyou and yes . I have no issue with blind tests in their many forms generally . However in the context of the question posed . I find the probability of mounting any test of suitable vigour effectively 0 .
I note that in all the years the thread has run only Tyll's bigsound 2015 is mentioned and rejected .

Please accept my apology . My request for journal evidence was only in a like for like context and made in humour .
In terms of the inaudible is inaudible question I can not agree without the addition of retrospective conditions which even in casual science can not be allowed .


----------



## Dogmatrix

Steve999 said:


> This is all my opinion, YMMV, I am a lay person with this stuff, straight and simple.
> 
> As I understand it actual scientific inquiry requires having a question; conducting systematic, rigorous, study of the subject at hand (which I would guess would take eight to twelve years of higher education for a very intelligent person for the underlying subject matter of this thread, if one had the unusual intellectual capacity to truly understand it all); developing a very well defined hypothesis; laying out honestly all of the evidence you know of that would support the hypothesis and all of the evidence that would appear to weigh against the hypothesis; testing the hypothesis through experimentation; reaching a conclusion and working out the degree of confidence in your conclusion based on your data; making a novel prediction based on your conclusion and testing it with more experimentation and data; sharing your data with others so that they may verify your data supports the conclusion made and the novel prediction, and then having others try to replicate your results.
> 
> ...


Is this post pointed in my direction ? 
If so thank you but I do not feel I can address it here in the detail it deserves due to relevance .
Once my investigation here is completed I will proceed to the "what science is and how it works- especially in relation to sound science" .
I will say I find posts full of "you" and "your" of little value in any forum .


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 26, 2019)

[Disengaged]


----------



## Dogmatrix (Aug 26, 2019)

Steve999 said:


> It was not directed at, um, hmmm, what’s the word, uh, oh I give up. I’ll try to do better next time. It was intentionally not directed at anyone.


Fair enough


----------



## Steve999 (Aug 26, 2019)

[Disengaged]


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Thankyou and yes . I have no issue with blind tests in their many forms generally . However in the context of the question posed . I find the probability of mounting any test of suitable vigour effectively 0 .
> I note that in all the years the thread has run only Tyll's bigsound 2015 is mentioned and rejected .
> 
> Please accept my apology . My request for journal evidence was only in a like for like context and made in humour .
> In terms of the inaudible is inaudible question I can not agree without the addition of retrospective conditions which even in casual science can not be allowed .



Unlike Steve, I am going to point this towards you.  I'm not trying to be mean, but you seem to want your cake and eat it too with your assertions and then claiming you have some evidence with scientific studies that (even in the abstracts) do not have the same conditions as your initial assertions.  When further analyzed, you've asked what a counter hypothesis is to your hypothesis: when your hypothesis hasn't meet any rigor.  Electrical engineering might be different, but I know with medical studies, authors know they will have more credence with how well their hypothesis is defined, how explicit their test conditions are, and how large their test samples are.  I've noticed in these forums, when it comes to brain activity or perception with ultra-high frequencies (beyond now accepted conditions for divers) referenced studies also tend to be from a small sample.


----------



## Dogmatrix

Davesrose said:


> Unlike Steve, I am going to point this towards you.  I'm not trying to be mean, but you seem to want your cake and eat it too with your assertions and then claiming you have some evidence with scientific studies that (even in the abstracts) do not have the same conditions as your initial assertions.  When further analyzed, you've asked what a counter hypothesis is to your hypothesis: when your hypothesis hasn't meet any rigor.  Electrical engineering might be different, but I know with medical studies, authors know they will have more credence with how well their hypothesis is defined, how explicit their test conditions are, and how large their test samples are.  I've noticed in these forums, when it comes to brain activity or perception with ultra-high frequencies (beyond now accepted conditions for divers) referenced studies also tend to be from a small sample.


Everything here I am confident I have already covered and as such does not open new ground or move forward .


----------



## Davesrose

Dogmatrix said:


> Everything here I am confident I have already covered and as such does not open new ground or move forward .



Covered, no, but I’ll wait to see if you will have anything of relevance.


----------



## Dogmatrix

I have concluded the "audible" component of my investigation .

That's weird no trumpets ?!?

I find that with respect to the Head-Fi universe and keeping in mind the devices specified in the question . I could locate no evidence to contradict the definition found here

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/

I will move forward to investigate the "measurable" component with this definition . 
I am researching data generally but it is proving difficult to find anything not associated with a manufacturer . 
Happy to explore the relevance of manufacturer data .


----------



## gregorio (Aug 27, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> [1] I have concluded the "audible" component of my investigation .  ... That's weird no trumpets ?!?
> [1a] I find that with respect to the Head-Fi universe and keeping in mind the devices specified in the question .  I could locate no evidence to contradict the definition found here  https://www.head-fi.org/threads/the-most-important-spec-sheet-the-human-ear.645851/
> [2] I will move forward to investigate the "measurable" component with this definition . I am researching data generally but it is proving difficult to find anything not associated with a manufacturer .Happy to explore the relevance of manufacturer data .



1. I'm not quite sure why you expect trumpets? Presumably it's not for discovering something already posted in this sub-forum and known to science for many decades? So maybe it's for concluding that science is right, as opposed to audiophile myth? Which to be honest does seem to be quite an achievement for many who visit this forum!
1a. True but bare in mind two points: Firstly, those figures are "optimal", IE. Optimal conditions, which means; listening conditions and test signals specifically designed to optimise detectability. However, we're not talking about optimal conditions, we're talking about adults listening to commercial music recordings, which does NOT present those conditions, it presents sub-optimal conditions and therefore in practice, those figures are over optimistic, very significantly so in some cases. Secondly, even given conditions very much closer to optimal than presented by listening to music, for example; an optimally detectable test signal, good listening conditions and reasonable listening levels (rather than extremely good listening conditions and levels higher than reasonable), then exceedingly few people will attain those figures. For example, my university colleagues and I tested roughly 300 students a year, every year for the 6 years I was there. The vast majority were 18-21 years old, although there were also a number of 16-18 year olds and some mature students up to about 50. We only found about 3 or 4 who could hear 19kHz (out of the 1,800 or so) and not single one who could hear the quoted 20kHz human hearing limit. The limit for the vast majority was around 17.5kHz.

The only quoted definition that poses any serious concern is the "_Just Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns_". I believe that is based on Julian Dunn's theoretical work. A theoretical model which predicts that given a worse case scenario, no one should be able to hear jitter less than 20ns (in music material). In actual (reliable) threshold listening studies though, 200ns or higher appears to be about the limit in practice (with musical material). One of the most interesting examples is the work of Dr. Ashihara (et al.) because it's actually two papers. The first was fixed (high quality) listening conditions and untrained students, where only a few could detect jitter of 1152ns and none when jitter was reduced 576ns. As this raised questions of familiarity and listening skills, they created a second experiment where: 1. All the subjects were professionals (pro engineers and musicians). 2. Each chose their own listening (music) materials from which test samples were created (with various amounts of jitter applied) and returned to the subjects so they could train themselves to identify the differences before the test. 3. The DBTs were then carried out at the subjects' own listening environments (which ranged from various audiophile systems to high quality commercial recording studios). The results were significantly better, some could detect jitter at 500ns, although none could when the jitter was 250ns. This correlates quite well with other published studies, where most subjects were out by 500ns but one managed 200ns (can't remember the study off the top of my head) and indeed the first published study I'm aware of (BBC, 1974), which indicated 200ns as the practical limit with commercial audio (music or TV/movie sound).

One last point, which addresses some of your previous posts, there is in fact a great deal of evidence which contracts the quoted definitions, the other forums here on Head-Fi are full of it (both literally and metaphorically  ). Of course though, that's just anecdotal impressions/experiences, which represents the least reliable/poorest form of evidence.

2. "Measurable" is almost unimaginable. We (science) can measure down to truly ridiculous levels, trillions of times (or more) beyond what our senses are capable of, although at the most ridiculous levels, only one or a few places in the world are capable of such measurements. However, we're not talking about differences that only say the LHC could detect. Even given a theoretically perfect response (IE. Zero distortion), all analogue components/electrical circuits must produce differences due to Nyquist/Johnson "thermal" noise (except under some extreme conditions, such as near absolute zero), which is random and measurable by standard measuring equipment. In other words, there is a measurable difference between any two analogue components, not just between an R2R and a DS DAC but even between two DACs of the same make and model.

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I think that the division between "artificial stimuli" and "what is present in actual music" is, in this case, both artificial and arbitrary.
The reason is that, in the final analysis, our experience is limited to what is actually present during_ playback_.

Let's assume that we have a DAC which, in addition to playing back the desired content, ADDS some ultrasonic ringing (virtually all DACs do).
If the ringing was in fact "audibly totally imperceptible" (meaning that it has absolutely no effect on what we hear) then the entire question would be moot.
However, if the ringing does "artificially produce some seemingly-audible response" then that response is part of the listening experience of the playback event.
If, when we play back that music using that DAC, "we hear funny noises because of the ringing", then that funny noise has altered what we should be hearing and what we ARE hearing.
It is totally irrelevant that the ringing noise was not present in the original musical performance - or even if it was present in the recording itself.
That funny noise is _an inescapable result of listening to that music with that DAC_.
(And it doesn't matter whether it was due to simple audible distortion or some complex mechanism that enables the inaudible ringing to somehow affect what we hear.)

It could be that ultrasonic noise at certain level is audibly perceptible after all...
Or it could be that the otherwise inaudible ultrasonic ringing modulates your ear's sensitivity to audible high frequencies...
Or it could be that it causes your amplifier, or your speaker, to produce audible intermodulation distortion...
Or it could be that, due to some nonlinearity of air itself, it causes intermodulation distortion in the air between you and the speaker....
Or it could be that, whenever you play that song, only on that one DAC, all the dogs in the neighborhood start howling...
(Those are _all _potentially audible responses to an otherwise inaudible difference.)

For example, a certain company makes a product called "an acoustic spotlight", which produces audible sounds using a beam of focused ultrasonic sound.
Therefore, we know for a fact that, at least under some circumstances, ultrasonic energy CAN produce readily audible sounds.
Therefore, we cannot take it as "an obviously true default assumption" that "ultrasonic energy can NEVER be heard".
(We already have a commercial product that clearly demonstrates that it can be heard - at least under certain circumstances.)
So, in this case, the most we can claim is that "ultrasonic energy well above 20 kHz is USUALLY inaudible to humans"....
(Which puts us back in the realm of proving experimentally whether it is or is not audible in a certain situation.)



Davesrose said:


> Within science, a hypothesis is an initial statement that's open to testing.  It will be dropped and continually forgotten if it doesn't meet more scrutiny with experimentation or repeatable observation.  Your construct here for "hypothesis" seems more to be appeal to popularity.  One doesn't need a counter hypothesis if the original assumption does not correlate with the experiments referenced (in this case, tests with artificial stimuli).
> 
> If I can be frank, it's a pretty slim footing to assert noticeable differences in audio equipment is due to ultra high frequencies and cite studies about artificial stimuli.  Now if the premise is that there can still be perceptual differences with audio systems...that's very different conditions (IE how well the amplifier stage is and if there's appreciably less distortion with certain equipment).


----------



## KeithEmo

I absolutely disagree with your first assertion....

Virtually every scientific inquiry was first considered because of some "experiential evidence"....
The point here is that, if you continually choose to IGNORE all experiential evidence, or declare it to be "invalid", then it will NEVER "spark some sort of inquiry".



gregorio said:


> 1. Yes but experiential evidence on it's own is entirely invalid scientifically. It may spark some scientific enquiry or not, for example if the experiential evidence contradicts a body of existing reliable evidence. If we based science on the amount of experiential evidence, then there wouldn't be science and we'd still believe the earth is the centre of the universe, because we don't experience travelling at thousands of miles an hour (around the sun).
> 
> 2. I'm not arguing with it, I'm completely agreeing with it! What I'm disagreeing with is your (backwards) application of it.
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 27, 2019)

I'm afraid I disagree with some of your assertions about the equivalence of certain things.
Forgetting any "I/V" conversion - the FORCE applied to the cone is always directly proportional to the current flow through the "motor".

For example, with a typical speaker and amplifier, the back EMF from the speaker results in current flow through the amplifier.
The amplifier sinks or sources whatever current is necessary to cancel out the back EMF.
This happens instantaneously.
Assuming the amplifier was theoretically perfect, with a 0 Ohm output impedance, then the voltage at its output will not change due to this current flow.
Assuming that the amplifier is UNABLE to source or sink enough current, then a change in voltage will occur, which would be distortion.
(And, at this point, the amplifier has shown itself to be NOT a perfect voltage source into that particular load.)
However, all of this happens instantaneously, so there is no "time smear" involved.

Apparent time smear is usually observed due to mechanical energy storage in the speaker itself.
The inertia of the moving speaker stores energy, which is released over time in the form of both acoustic energy and back EMF.
Assuming the amplifier is capable of driving the load that is presented, all of the back EMF is cancelled by an opposing current from the amplifier, and there is no time smear in this part of the process.
(That energy is dissipated by the "electronic braking action" of the amplifier.)

If you look at your equivalence model you will note that the current output amplifier has an infinite output impedance.
So, assuming a theoretically perfect model (both amplifier and speaker), there is no mechanism whereby back EMF is cancelled.

Let's assume you play a test tone - and then stop.
Assuming that the speaker has momentum it will generate back EMF.

If we had a voltage source amplifier, it would cancel that out with an opposite current, and the opposing current would generate force to oppose the speaker's motion.
This is your damping factor.

However, our current source amplifier has an infinite output impedance.
Therefore, our back EMF sees an infinite load impedance, resulting in an infinite voltage, and no current flow.
Therefore, the damping factor is zero, and there is absolutely no electrical damping applied to the speaker.
So the speaker will continue to ring until it manages to dump all of its acoustic energy into the air (or that energy is "burned up" by mechanical damping).
(And that is likely to introduce quite a bit of "audible time smear".)
(The way to counteract this would be to create a speaker with lots of MECHANICAL damping... but that would drastically reduce its efficiency.)

Yes, I would agree that the back EMF constitutes "a very complex impedance"... and "an active impedance"...
And, yes, under certain circumstances, the result might be that the amplifier is required to deliver its output voltage into what appears to be a load of "less than 0 Ohms".
However, the result can still be expressed as a voltage source operating into a load.
And, as long as the amplifier can drive enough current to deliver its voltage into that load, it will still be acting as "a pure proper voltage source".
(And the entire process should still be instantaneous - with the opposing current generated instantly by feedback - and there need be no "time smear".)
(And, yes, I am discounting the time delay introduced by the slew rate of the electronics in an amplifier - when compared to the mechanical delays present in a speaker driver.)
However, yes, it is an interesting premise.

I have often wondered, however, whether a true current source amplifier might be practical for a single driver speaker- or a headphone.

(TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION - EVERYTHING FROM HERE ON DOWN IS THE ORIGINAL QUOTED POST)



Joe Rasmussen said:


> QUOTE="KeithEmo, post: 15142127, member: 403988"]
> 
> Because, since a speaker is a passive load, the current that passes through it is directly related to the voltage that is applied to it. If you know the voltage, and you know the impedance of the speaker, then you already know (or can calculate) the current. They cannot be separated and so there is no specific reason to consider them separately.



If only if it was that simple. You are partly correct re the current of the LOAD, but what you say describes an I/V converter, and that is not what we have here. We have the DC resistance Re as only part of the impedance, if this was seen by the driver directly, then you would be I/V 100% accurate. Another part of the total impedance, above Re, is resisting the current prevent a true I/V conversion. But you are correct, the altered current is what we will hear, the current of the LOAD is what we hear indeed, but it is far from the complete picture.

Truth is that the voltage model is very powerful and there are good reasons for this. To a large extent, it seems to explain a lot of things and that it is intuitively easy to understand. OTOH, the current model is anything but easy to understand. I have now spent at least a decade to understand it and have had many discussions with knowledgeable people about this. There is a saying "keep an eye on the money" as that will in many cases lead to answers. The same here is not to do lip service to 'current' and acknowledge that drivers are current devices. Only by tracking the current, what it does irrespective of voltage, will give us a more complete picture. Many just cower at making that effort.

These days I am wiser, I only get into a deeper discussion with people who have a genuine interest in unlocking something that takes real mental effort. That number is growing, but it is a slow process.

Also, I repeatedly get blocked when I mention current. I get locked into the current drive camp and "you are into current drive" and I am *not* - in fact, I consider myself in the voltage camp. What I am trying to do is get the current right under those circumstances. Understanding something can lead to solutions and I think I have one (but that will be for another time).

I devised a very powerful "equivalence test" that is highly revealing. Note I do not say new things, rather I am increasing awareness of something that has always been there but we had a resistance to take on.

The 'LOAD' that you mention does indeed determine the current (when using a voltage source) and that current is indeed what the speaker will attempt to reproduce. The "equivalence test" reveals a number of additional things, such as in terms of impedance (the act of impeding current) of the load have actually two measurable parts. Any impedance above the Re, we could name it excess impedance, is actually explained as the back-EMF impedance of the driver. Note the EMF here and that the F indicates force or voltage. This part of the impedance resists the current of the amplifier and hence it is both a voltage (force) and an impedance (calculable in Ohm). The voltage that forms across the Re of the driver's impedance, I call the Vre of the driver. Vre*Ic, where Ic is the current of the amplifier, defines the heat dissipation of the voice within 1%, because the driver I have in mind is 0.5% efficient. Both the current and the dBSPL (picked up by a microphone) correspond.

Hope the graph link works, but this is what the experiment looks like.











Measure the actual differences in dBSPL with a real-world driver, and the maths developed predicts the _difference _in dBSPL of the microphone. The difference in dB and Ohm of the two parts of the impedance is mathematically sound. Any driver imperfections will show up in the back-EMF impedance and have a direct consequence to the current that the driver will now respond to. What is shows is that the amplifier is now producing a current that is influenced by the distortions (like resonance or other poor aspects of the driver) and hence we have a mechanism where the driver is affectively altering current that is now circulating, _feeding back on itself_, circulating current. Basically time smear. Better drivers, lower inductance etc, they will perform better. I am not the only who is seeing this - and there is now finally an effort to start to understand this. Using the voltage to explain something that, this will amount to an incomplete picture.

Cheers, Joe R.[/QUOTE]


----------



## gregorio (Aug 27, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> It could be that ultrasonic noise at certain level is audibly perceptible after all...
> [1] Or it could be that the otherwise inaudible ultrasonic ringing modulates your ear's sensitivity to audible high frequencies...
> [2] Or it could be that it causes your amplifier, or your speaker, to produce audible intermodulation distortion...
> [3] Or it could be that, due to some nonlinearity of air itself, it causes intermodulation distortion in the air between you and the speaker....
> [4] Or it could be that, whenever you play that song, only on that one DAC, all the dogs in the neighborhood start howling...



1. There's no reliable evidence to support that "idea" but a great deal which contradicts it.
2. In which case one would be hearing noise (IMD) in the audible band, NOT ultrasonic noise!
3. That requires far more energy than would be present at any reasonable level with musical material and even then, it would again be hearing noise (IMD) within the audible band, not ultrasonic noise.
4. If you play it extremely loud and have your windows open, then maybe .... but aren't we talking about humans, rather than dogs?



KeithEmo said:


> [1] Therefore, we know for a fact that, at least under some circumstances, ultrasonic energy CAN produce readily audible sounds. Therefore, we cannot take it as "an obviously true default assumption" that "ultrasonic energy can NEVER be heard".
> [2] So, in this case, the most we can claim is that "ultrasonic energy well above 20 kHz is USUALLY inaudible to humans"....



1. How is that at all relevant? Neither science nor any one here has ever made that assumption!

2. No, that is definitely NOT the most we can claim, although it might be the most you want to claim, for an obvious reason!! We can claim that under certain conditions (extremely high SPLs for example) "well above 20kHz" can be audible but as those conditions do not occur when humans listen to music at reasonable levels, the most we can actually claim is therefore that "ultrasonic energy well above 20kHz is inaudible to humans when listening to music at any reasonable level"!! You already know this so why are you repeating this fallacy for the umpteenth time?


KeithEmo said:


> The point here is that, if you continually choose to IGNORE all experiential evidence, or declare it to be "invalid", then it will NEVER "spark some sort of inquiry".



That is NOT the "point here", you're just making up another fallacy, that is also clearly not what I stated. No one has stated, implied or actually continually ignored all experiential evidence. The experiential evidence that is continually ignored is that experiential evidence which has either already been investigated and demonstrated to be false or that clearly contradicts an existing body of established, reliable evidence!!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

I should point out that the phenomenon of "jitter" is rather more complex than even this suggests.

"Jitter" is simply a term used to generally describe "short term variations in the data clock".
Jitter has not only a frequency, but a waveform, and a spectrum.
1 Hz sine wave jitter is different than 10 Hz sine wave jitter...
But 1 Hz sine wave jitter is also different than 1 Hz square wave jitter or random jitter centered around 1 Hz...
And jitter that is temporally related to the signal ("data-correlated jitter") is different than jitter that occurs periodically or randomly...
And all of these will result in obvious differences when you look at the spectrum plot of the noise sidebands caused by jitter.
(They are also known to be audibly different when present in large quantities.)
So, for example, a narrow sideband at a singe frequency may be far more audible than a series of widely spread sidebands that have the same average energy level...
And jitter whose appearance correlates in some way with the signal waveform may be more or less audible than jitter that is random or unrelated to it...
(Just as a noise tone at a specific harmonically unrelated frequency can be far more audible than harmonic distortion.)

And, to make matters more interesting, many DACs include mechanisms, like ASRCs, for reducing or eliminating jitter.
(And each of those devices reduces jitter at different frequencies, and of different types, by significantly different amounts.)

For example, when comparing two specific "pin compatible ASRCs" (the Analog Devices AD1896 and the Texas Instruments equivalent)...
Both reduce the level of sine wave jitter at 1 kHz by about the same amount...
But one provides almost 40 dB better rejection of sine wave jitter at 1 Hz than the other...
(This suggests that their performance may be audibly different, under some circumstances, but not others.)



gregorio said:


> 1. Good.
> 1a. What's going on is that firstly, if one has a higher measured jitter, then obviously they are NOT "identical in every way". What other way are they not identical? Secondly, even If we assume they are identical in every way except jitter, then the jitter artefacts have to be at least equal to, or above, the threshold of audibility otherwise "what is going on" MUST be some cognitive bias/perception error, there is NO other rational alternative!
> 1b. That depends on how you define "matters". "Matters" in terms of a measurement or "matters" in terms of an audible difference?
> 1c. That depends on the frequency of the fundamental and what you mean by "low frequency". If the fundamental is at say 3kHz then that would be potentially the "worst form of jitter [noise]" as that's where human hearing is most sensitive. If we're talking about frequencies below about 500Hz though, then that would potentially be the best form of jitter noise, as human hearing is progressively less sensitive to low frequencies. I say "potentially" because obviously it doesn't "matter", if it's below audibility.
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

There is an extremely basic issue of circular logic that you continually overlook....
Which is that we do not have a clear standard for what constitutes "an existing body of established, reliable evidence".

It seems quite obvious that we have _WHAT YOU AND MANY OTHERS BELIEVE TO BE_ "an existing body of established, reliable evidence".
But it is equally obvious that many others here don't necessarily agree with your opinion on that particular subject.

There as a time when "the Earth is at the center of the universe" was considered to be "based on an existing body of established, reliable evidence".
Then some people questioned it.
And they did some experiments.
And they found out that it was in fact incorrect.
And this is the process by which science works.
(In fact, in science, there is very little "knowledge that is sacrosanct".)

I personally agree with you that there are an awful lot of unscientific and pseudo-scientific beliefs floating around the audiophile world.
And I also agree that, in many cases, these are due to deliberate complication and obfuscation by people who simply want to sell stuff.
(Although I suspect that many of the folks who sell these products actually believe they're right.)

However, to be quite blunt, a significant percentage of what we thought we knew even fifty years ago has turned out to be wrong.
Therefore, I am not nearly as willing as you to accept much of anything without at least a few reservations, and without acknowledging that it may in fact turn out to be incorrect.
(And perhaps I'm not quite as convinced that everyone is either a charlatan or a fool... although there are obviously plenty of both floating around.)

I suspect you may also disagree with many of us here as concerns the definition of "audible perception".

This is one of those gadgets that delivers audible sound via an ultrasonic "carrier beam":  https://www.holosonics.com  .
Personally, if I were to find one of these built into my next audio system, and it insisted on playing commercials whenever I listen to music...
I would find it to be quite annoying... and I would derive little comfort in knowing that "it was only inaudible ultrasonic noise".
And, while I agree that it's probably rather unlikely,  I'm not completely convinced that no DAC will ever produce enough ringing to end up inadvertently causing a similar effect.



gregorio said:


> 1. There's no reliable evidence to support that "idea" but a great deal which contradicts it.
> 2. In which case one would be hearing noise (IMD) in the audible band, NOT ultrasonic noise!
> 3. That requires far more energy than would be present at any reasonable level with musical material and even then, it would again be hearing noise (IMD) within the audible band, not ultrasonic noise.
> 4. If you play it extremely loud and have your windows open, then maybe .... but aren't we talking about humans, rather than dogs?
> ...


----------



## KeithEmo

I realized that some people are unable or unwilling to read more than a few sentences....
So... a succinct answer to your assertion.

Even though the source recording, or even the source content itself, may not contain frequencies above 24 kHz....
That doesn't mean that they won't be present in the reproduced recording...
For example, virtually all modern DACs introduce _SOME_ additional ultrasonic content, in the form of ringing...
And, whether you choose to consider their presence to be "artificial" or not, those will still be present whenever you listen to music on that product...
(The question is simply of whether a known and easily measured flaw in the product will or will not be audible when you use the product.)



Davesrose said:


> But it's not just the introduction you're taking out of context for your assertion that ultra high frequencies have a relevance for gauging audio equipment.  The whole study you've referred to has said the original frequencies could not go above 24khz, and that they were modulating the signal and inducing an artificial environment.  The conclusion for their study is to make of it what you will with specialized equipment that stimulates audio signals beyond regular ear interaction, and they are not disputing accepted studies for acoustic hearing ranges.  To put it more succinctly, music sources do not have such ultra-high frequencies, and most audio reproduction has negligible bone conduction with high frequencies.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] 1 Hz sine wave jitter is different than 10 Hz sine wave jitter... And all of these will result in obvious differences when you look at the spectrum plot of the noise sidebands caused by jitter. (They are also known to be audibly different when present in large quantities.)
> [2] So, for example, a narrow sideband at a singe frequency may be far more audible than a series of widely spread sidebands that have the same average energy level...


I'll just take two points rather than refute all of them individually because they're all effectively the same. Everything you've stated is true or true under certain circumstances but it's all irrelevant as a response to my post and irrelevant to the thread title and is therefore off topic.

1. And when are they present in such large quantities? Maybe a faulty device? I don't think such quantities were even present in the earliest CD player when digital audio was first launched to the public.
2. A single sideband frequency at an inaudible level cannot be "more audible" than a spread of sidebands with the same average energy level because it's inaudible!!



KeithEmo said:


> [1] There is an extremely basic issue of circular logic that you continually overlook....
> [2] There as a time when "the Earth is at the center of the universe" was considered to be "based on an existing body of established, reliable evidence".
> [3]However, to be quite blunt, a significant percentage of what we thought we knew even fifty years ago has turned out to be wrong.



1. I don't overlook it, I continually point it out to you but you carry on using circular logic anyway!
2. That's clearly false! That view was based on an existing body of un-established, unreliable evidence but was the best available at the time (IE. Before science established a body of reliable evidence!).
3. Quite a significant percentage? Can you give just one example of audio science that we knew 50 years ago but has since proved to be wrong?

G


----------



## bigshot

A side note... One thing I'm beginning to notice... I don't follow audiophile forums much. This is the only one I follow regularly. But I get the impression that normal audiophile forums value a lot of very important sounding words used in a poetic manner. The more, the better. Ideas flowing from one to another... If you finish reading it and the person who wrote it seems to know what they're talking about, it's a success. You don't actually have to get any solid information out of it.

That sure isn't what I am looking for. I tend to prefer posts that make a clear point in an organized, concise way. If a question is being asked, the answer should start out with a clear yes or no. I find when I'm reading the first sentence of the first paragraph is the most important, because that is how I determine if it's worth my time to read the rest. If the poster starts out with semantics, logical fallacies, argumentativeness or blather, I don't keep reading to see if it gets any better. I move on. I guess it's best to put your strongest argument up front. One clear fact based sentence is really all you need.

No one is required to read all the posts. We're all filtering for ourselves. It's always a good idea to consider your audience.


----------



## bigshot (Aug 27, 2019)

gregorio said:


> The only quoted definition that poses any serious concern is the "J_ust Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns_



Thanks, Gregorio! I updated it. I appreciate it. I was hoping folks would contribute to that discussion, but it stalled early on and never went any further. It's a shame, because our ability to hear is the thing that defines the limits of audible fidelity.

Just to add this to the discussion...

If something is inaudible, it might be measurable. But for the purposes of playing back recorded music in the home, it doesn't matter. That is pretty much self evident.

Every time someone brings up jitter, I roll my eyes, because I spent a great deal of time searching the web for jitter ratings and never found any home audio component with audible levels of jitter. In fact, even the cheapest digital audio components had levels an order of magnitude below audible levels. Jitter is a hoodoo. It is the best example of the old high end audio sales pitch of coming up with a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The only way for jitter to be a real problem is to redefine the meaning of the term audible. There are plenty of salesmen doing just that.

A significant percentage of human knowledge turning out to be wrong after fifty years is a pretty amazing statistic. What percentage of statistics are made up on the spot?


----------



## KeithEmo

First of all, yet again, you are assuming that there is some well established standard for "what quantities of jitter cannot possibly be audible".
In fact no such standard exists.
(Although a few tests have shown that, under certain specific conditions, relatively high levels of jitter may be inaudible.)

Your second assertion is technically incorrect... although, yet again, you persist in describing "inaudible levels" as if such a clearly established standard actually existed.
(When you're talking about things like jitter sidebands, which occur at audible frequencies, there is no such thing as "inaudible", 
there is only "too far below a specific noise floor to be heard".)

Start with 100 watts of pink noise....
Now add 1 watt of pink noise....
You will find that the added pink noise, spread over the entire spectrum of the original noise floor, will result in an inaudible rise of a tiny fraction of a dB in the noise floor....

Now, start with the same 100 watts of pink noise....
And add 1 watt of a pure 440 Hz sine wave....
You will find that the 440 Hz tone, at exactly the same level as the added pink noise, but limited to a single frequency, will result in a clearly audible tone....

Your last one is easy.....
Up until recently "it was well known" that "the range of frequencies audible to human beings went from about 20 Hz to about 20 kHz.....
Until recently published test results proved that humans can actually hear as low as 10 Hz....
(And, now, knowing that one end of the "well established range" was wrong, I'm not sure how much faith I place in the "well known limit" at the other end.)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15273023/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710123506.htm

Note that, in the article in Science Daily, while an MRI was used initially, "All persons concerned explicitly stated that they had heard something --".



gregorio said:


> I'll just take two points rather than refute all of them individually because they're all effectively the same. Everything you've stated is true or true under certain circumstances but it's all irrelevant as a response to my post and irrelevant to the thread title and is therefore off topic.
> 
> 1. And when are they present in such large quantities? Maybe a faulty device? I don't think such quantities were even present in the earliest CD player when digital audio was first launched to the public.
> 2. A single sideband frequency at an inaudible level cannot be "more audible" than a spread of sidebands with the same average energy level because it's inaudible!!
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

unless I'm misunderstanding the posts, @Dogmatrix listed some ideas but never tried to have them pass as claims or conclusions to anything. as for going further he seems to find that there are reasons to reject the feasibility of blind tests to specifically evaluate the R2R part of a DAC against the DS part while everything else is identical, and reasons to give some amount of credit to sighted feedback, but I don't remember him saying that it would or should be conclusive in any way. if I didn't completely misunderstand his posts so far, I tend to agree with the result. testing specifically the audibility of R2R vs DS is not something the amateur audiophile can do properly. we could extend the system to statistical results from having many R2R and many DS tested, and accept that for whatever reason, there may or may not be a clear trend of audible differences(like how a R2R playing 44.1kHz is in general more likely to start rolling off sooner in the upper audible range, or some other idea ). but again, it's not something the amateur audiophile can hope to test at a statistically significant level(at least I can't). the treble roll off without being tested rigorously, is likely given that many R2R DACs are NOS or offer a NOS option(often caters to the same crowd), while DS will do DS things.

of course I already have a general opinion about the likelihood of audible differences between any DACs. that based on the many formal or informal failed blind tests and just the fact that a DAC is usually the element with the highest fidelity in a playback chain(and not by a little). so I'm tempted to simply consider that R2R vs DS is included within the group test for audibility of differences in all DACs, and draw the same conclusion. differences found are typically small, most of the time inaudible for the average human. 

if we rely on testimonies from uncontrolled feelings about DACs, there seems to be a trend of subjective preference for R2R. 2 issues here for me:
1/ it's one of those situations where people can tell us how different it is in great details with confidence, but somehow are very bad at demonstrating that they're actually hearing any difference at all. which could very much suggest shared preconceptions about the differences to be heard. I've talked to maybe 25 people over many years, who really tried to blind test DACs properly(some including a R2R DAC) and could pass for whatever reason not clearly defined by their experiment(as those tests try to demonstrate audibility, not determine the cause). and the very vast majority of the remaining testimonies in subjective favor of R2R, seem to have been participating in a contest on how not to test anything.
2/ DS DACs are everywhere, they have completely taken over a market. so it should be factored in that users vocal about that R2R preference,are similarly to those being vocal about how nice vinyl is, drops in the ocean.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] First of all, yet again, you are assuming that there is some well established standard for "what quantities of jitter cannot possibly be audible". In fact no such standard exists.
> [2] Start with 100 watts of pink noise....
> [2a] You will find that the 440 Hz tone, at exactly the same level as the added pink noise, but limited to a single frequency, will result in a clearly audible tone....
> [3] Until recently published test results proved that humans can actually hear as low as 10 Hz....
> [3a] And, now, knowing that one end of the "well established range" was wrong, I'm not sure how much faith I place in the "well known limit" at the other end.



1. Of course it does! For example, jitter artefacts at say -130dBFS are inaudible and even some cheap DACs achieve such a figure. The rest of your post is essentially circular logic based on this initial false assertion, false analogies and false statements.

2. Why? What has 100 watts of pink noise got to do with jitter artefacts well below -100dBFS?
2a. Thanks for clearing that up, you're saying that your DACs produce 100watts of pure tone jitter artefacts are you? That's easily the worst DAC ever made, by orders of magnitude!

3. What recently published tests, can you link to them? Obviously the ones you linked don't count because they don't conclude "humans can actually hear 10Hz", sense/perceive yes but hear no.
3a. Firstly, we don't know that "one end of the well established range was wrong" and even if it is, it's pure fallacy to assume the other end is! Secondly, that's NOT even audio science, it's psychoacoustics. So far then, your "significant percentage" is exactly 0% and that's the only question I asked you thought you might stand a chance of favourably answering, don't you think that's funny?!! And lastly, fortunately this isn't the "What KeithEmo has faith in" forum ... Some reliable supporting evidence or it's marketing BS!

Talk about circular logic, thanks for the great examples (again)! Why do you always follow the same fallacious tactics, you think maybe sooner or later we'll fall for it?

G


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 27, 2019)

I'm sorry..... which jitter artifacts, at which frequencies, and in which proportions, are inaudible below 130 dB?
(And could you please reference the specific test that showed this conclusively.)

Please note that I am not specifically asserting the opposite to be true...
I'm merely pointing out that you are stating an assumption as if it were a confirmed fact.
(Since I haven't tested it, or seen the results of such a test, I'll admit that I don't actually know one way or the other.)

I should also point out that you seem to have some confusion about the difference between relative levels and absolute levels. 
(For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system. 
Or are you referring to artifacts that are 130 dB below some specific signal level?)



gregorio said:


> 1. Of course it does! For example, jitter artefacts at say -130dBFS are inaudible and even some cheap DACs achieve such a figure. The rest of your post is essentially circular logic based on this initial false assertion, false analogies and false statements.
> 
> 2. Why? What has 100 watts of pink noise got to do with jitter artefacts well below -100dBFS?
> 2a. Thanks for clearing that up, you're saying that your DACs produce 100watts of pure tone jitter artefacts are you? That's easily the worst DAC ever made, by orders of magnitude!
> ...


----------



## bfreedma (Aug 27, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> I'm sorry..... which jitter artifacts, at which frequencies, and in which proportions, are inaudible below 130 dB?
> (And could you please reference the specific test that showed this conclusively.)
> 
> Please note that I am not specifically asserting the opposite to be true...
> ...




This must be some form of audio reproduction or music style of which I am not aware.

More seriously, anyone can play the game of contriving an example that isn't relevant in the real world, but what is it accomplishing in terms of this discussion?


----------



## KeithEmo

I suspect you are correct - and that, if there are inherent differences, when both are implemented properly, they are quite small.

However, there is one important consideration, vis-a-vis audiophiles with limited resources to do comparisons.... and marketing.

R2R DACs are a sort of niche product.
Compared to a D-S DAC that delivers similar technical performance, an R2R DAC is likely to cost more, and to be sold in smaller volume.
(You will also find that, as a group, R2R DACs are more often represented as "audiophile products".)

The upshot of all this is that there is a stronger motivation for a company or designer to _DELIBERATELY_ design their R2R DAC to introduce some sort of coloration.
In colloquial terms, they want to make sure that their product sounds audibly different as a way to justify both its higher cost and its status as an "audiophile product".
Or, to phrase that another way, they are likely to place a higher value on "a unique sonic signature", rather than on a neutral or accurate sonic signature.
This makes it more likely that an R2R DAC, and especially an NOS R2R DAC, will sound "distinctly different" from its competitors....
(They are trusting that, specifications aside, if their product sounds "unique", they will be able to convince some potential customers that it sounds better.)
(And it makes it doubly important that you make a careful effort to distinguish "different" from "better".)



castleofargh said:


> unless I'm misunderstanding the posts, @Dogmatrix listed some ideas but never tried to have them pass as claims or conclusions to anything. as for going further he seems to find that there are reasons to reject the feasibility of blind tests to specifically evaluate the R2R part of a DAC against the DS part while everything else is identical, and reasons to give some amount of credit to sighted feedback, but I don't remember him saying that it would or should be conclusive in any way. if I didn't completely misunderstand his posts so far, I tend to agree with the result. testing specifically the audibility of R2R vs DS is not something the amateur audiophile can do properly. we could extend the system to statistical results from having many R2R and many DS tested, and accept that for whatever reason, there may or may not be a clear trend of audible differences(like how a R2R playing 44.1kHz is in general more likely to start rolling off sooner in the upper audible range, or some other idea ). but again, it's not something the amateur audiophile can hope to test at a statistically significant level(at least I can't). the treble roll off without being tested rigorously, is likely given that many R2R DACs are NOS or offer a NOS option(often caters to the same crowd), while DS will do DS things.
> 
> of course I already have a general opinion about the likelihood of audible differences between any DACs. that based on the many formal or informal failed blind tests and just the fact that a DAC is usually the element with the highest fidelity in a playback chain(and not by a little). so I'm tempted to simply consider that R2R vs DS is included within the group test for audibility of differences in all DACs, and draw the same conclusion. differences found are typically small, most of the time inaudible for the average human.
> 
> ...


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> I suspect you are correct - and that, if there are inherent differences, when both are implemented properly, they are quite small.
> 
> However, there is one important consideration, vis-a-vis audiophiles with limited resources to do comparisons.... and marketing.
> 
> ...


that's an argument in favor of possible audible differences that I find most convincing. I'd still like to see more controlled tests demonstrating it, because that's how I roll. but at least it's not a situation where we have to make up new laws of physics or discover a new listening organs in the human body to try and justify claims of obvious differences.


----------



## KeithEmo

Jitter is simply any variation in clock speed....
When the clock speed varies, that speed variation modulates the audio signal itself, resulting in distortion.
You can then measure the spectra of the distortion that results - which is what you often see expressed graphically.

However, as with any other form of modulation, the frequency and waveform of the modulating signal, and of the music signal, together determine the result.
In this case, it's very difficult to characterize "what's more relevant", because jitter can occur at virtually any frequency (between a fraction of 1 Hz and hundreds of kHz).
And jitter can also occur with an infinite variety of weveforms and random distributions.
Each individual device or circuit is going to have different amounts of different types of jitter.
And each combination will produce different sidebands, both inside and outside the audio band, and in different proportions.
(I'm sure that, with enough data, you could characterize which sorts are most common, and in what quantities.)



bfreedma said:


> This must be some form of audio reproduction or music style of which I am not aware?
> 
> More seriously, anyone can play the game of contriving an example that isn't relevant in the real world, but what is it accomplishing in terms of this discussion?





bfreedma said:


> This must be some form of audio reproduction or music style of which I am not aware?
> 
> More seriously, anyone can play the game of contriving an example that isn't relevant in the real world, but what is it accomplishing in terms of this discussion?





bfreedma said:


> This must be some form of audio reproduction or music style of which I am not aware.
> 
> More seriously, anyone can play the game of contriving an example that isn't relevant in the real world, but what is it accomplishing in terms of this discussion?


----------



## bigshot

"Since I haven't tested it, or seen the results of such a test, I'll admit that I don't actually know one way or the other."

That should be your motto. Of course it's good that you resist performing controlled tests. That helps you maintain your perfect record.


----------



## KeithEmo

I agree....

I'd like to see a few more tests...
And a little less justification about why we know so much that there's no reason to bother testing things...

"Obvious" is and always will be a matter of personal opinion....
I'm told that there are "obvious" differences between the sound of a Stradivarius and a $1000 Sears violin....
However, to be honest, I'm pretty sure I couldn't tell them apart....
But that _DOES NOT_ mean that the differences don't exist....
Or that the people who insist they do hear them are imagining them....
(Although it's also quite possible that some of them actually are...)



castleofargh said:


> that's an argument in favor of possible audible differences that I find most convincing. I'd still like to see more controlled tests demonstrating it, because that's how I roll. but at least it's not a situation where we have to make up new laws of physics or discover a new listening organs in the human body to try and justify claims of obvious differences.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I'm sorry..... which jitter artifacts, at which frequencies, and in which proportions, are inaudible below 130 dB?
> [1a] (And could you please reference the specific test that showed this conclusively.)
> [2] For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system.



1. All jitter artefacts at any frequency and in fact anything at all at -130dBFS is inaudible. If we take a loud peak playback level, say 100dBSPL, then 130dB below that is -30dBSPL, how are you even going to reproduce that, let alone hear it?
1a. I don't have a specific test showing that -30dBSPL is inaudible. I also don't have a specific test showing that -10,000dBSPL is inaudible, so that means they are audible! Well, I would never have believed it, I'll call CERN tomorrow and tell them to switch off the LHC, they don't need it, I can easily hear Higgs Bosons!!

2. You have a 1 megawatt system in your office do you? How big is your office and how many kilometers do you sit away from the system? 

You respond to the accusation of nonsense with more nonsense, how circular is that and what does that make you?

G


----------



## bfreedma

KeithEmo said:


> Jitter is simply any variation in clock speed....
> When the clock speed varies, that speed variation modulates the audio signal itself, resulting in distortion.
> You can then measure the spectra of the distortion that results - which is what you often see expressed graphically.
> 
> ...



I think you missed the part of your post that I highlighted and was responding to - where does the item below exist in audio reproduction of musical form?:

"*(For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system."*


----------



## gregorio (Aug 27, 2019)

bfreedma said:


> "*(For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system."*



The really ridiculous part of it is that even if such a system existed, you had one in your office and played back artefacts that were potentially audible, say around 50dBSPL (roughly the same as the noise floor in an average office) then peak level would be 130dBSPL higher than 50dBSPL (180dBSPL) and you still wouldn't be able to hear the artefacts, unless you can hear them while a patient in an intensive care ward or a morgue!

His flying pigs argument was less ridiculous, as hard as that is to imagine! 

G


----------



## bfreedma

gregorio said:


> The really ridiculous part of it is that even if such a system existed, you had one in your office and played back artefacts that were potentially audible, say around 50dBSPL (roughly the same as the noise floor in an average office) then peak level would be 130dBSPL higher than 50dBSPL (180dBSPL) and you still wouldn't be able to hear the artefacts, unless you can hear them from an intensive care ward or a morgue!
> 
> His flying pigs argument was less ridiculous, as hard as that is to imagine!
> 
> G




Perhaps the two analogies are related.  I can imagine that if such a system existed, it might shoot pigs across the sky from the shock wave.

Was there a swine population on Krakatoa on 8/27/1883?  Or in Tunguska on 6/30/1908?


----------



## gregorio

bfreedma said:


> Was there a swine population on Krakatoa on 8/27/1883? Or in Tunguska on 6/30/1908?


Not sure but I'm pretty sure there wasn't on 8/28/1883 and 7/01/1908 respectively 

G


----------



## KeithEmo

Errr... no.... I didn't specify my reference for both.
(And, yes, I was being somewhat facetious.)

If I were to play some music in my office, at a level that was "130 dB below 1 megawatt", the level would actually be somewhat low.
And, if I ONLY played the noise, which was at a level of 130 dB below 1 megawatt, it would almost certainly be easily audible.
(I didn't say I planned to play anything at the reference level - JUST the noise at "130 dB below 1 MW".)

The point is that, just as some people insist on zooming their digital images millions of times, until the individual pixels are clearly visible...
Some people turn their music up during the quiet spots - just to hear what the cellist is saying under her breath - or if someone really dropped a pencil between sets.
And, if the noise floor does become audible at those times, differences in noise spectra that were previously inaudible often do become audible.
(And there is a major difference between saying that "the difference doesn't matter to YOU" and saying that "it doesn't exist".)



bfreedma said:


> I think you missed the part of your post that I highlighted and was responding to - where does the item below exist in audio reproduction of musical form?:
> 
> "*(For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system."*





gregorio said:


> The really ridiculous part of it is that even if such a system existed, you had one in your office and played back artefacts that were potentially audible, say around 50dBSPL (roughly the same as the noise floor in an average office) then peak level would be 130dBSPL higher than 50dBSPL (180dBSPL) and you still wouldn't be able to hear the artefacts, unless you can hear them while a patient in an intensive care ward or a morgue!
> 
> His flying pigs argument was less ridiculous, as hard as that is to imagine!
> 
> G


----------



## KeithEmo

I wouldn't bet either way.....

However, back in those days, explorers often left breeding pairs of pigs on islands they visited.... as a sort of "self stocking larder".... for when they eventually returned.
Therefore, it's quite possible that there were some pigs on Krakatoa when it exploded.
(In Tunguska I would more suspect something like the occasional caribou...)

Since, as far as I know, nobody witnessed either from close up (and lived to tell about it)....
I really don't know if either resulted in any flying wildlife or not....
(Note that we also haven't been specifying whether a) the pig flies under his own power b) the pig is alive when he or she lands...)
Therefore, apparently, it remains one of the not-so-great unknowns....

Which is why I wouldn't be foolish enough to make any claim about it either way. 



gregorio said:


> Not sure but I'm pretty sure there wasn't on 8/28/1883 and 7/01/1908 respectively
> 
> G


----------



## Dogmatrix

gregorio said:


> 1. I'm not quite sure why you expect trumpets? Presumably it's not for discovering something already posted in this sub-forum and known to science for many decades? So maybe it's for concluding that science is right, as opposed to audiophile myth? Which to be honest does seem to be quite an achievement for many who visit this forum!
> 1a. True but bare in mind two points: Firstly, those figures are "optimal", IE. Optimal conditions, which means; listening conditions and test signals specifically designed to optimise detectability. However, we're not talking about optimal conditions, we're talking about adults listening to commercial music recordings, which does NOT present those conditions, it presents sub-optimal conditions and therefore in practice, those figures are over optimistic, very significantly so in some cases. Secondly, even given conditions very much closer to optimal than presented by listening to music, for example; an optimally detectable test signal, good listening conditions and reasonable listening levels (rather than extremely good listening conditions and levels higher than reasonable), then exceedingly few people will attain those figures. For example, my university colleagues and I tested roughly 300 students a year, every year for the 6 years I was there. The vast majority were 18-21 years old, although there were also a number of 16-18 year olds and some mature students up to about 50. We only found about 3 or 4 who could hear 19kHz (out of the 1,800 or so) and not single one who could hear the quoted 20kHz human hearing limit. The limit for the vast majority was around 17.5kHz.
> 
> The only quoted definition that poses any serious concern is the "_Just Detectable Threshold in Music 20ns_". I believe that is based on Julian Dunn's theoretical work. A theoretical model which predicts that given a worse case scenario, no one should be able to hear jitter less than 20ns (in music material). In actual (reliable) threshold listening studies though, 200ns or higher appears to be about the limit in practice (with musical material). One of the most interesting examples is the work of Dr. Ashihara (et al.) because it's actually two papers. The first was fixed (high quality) listening conditions and untrained students, where only a few could detect jitter of 1152ns and none when jitter was reduced 576ns. As this raised questions of familiarity and listening skills, they created a second experiment where: 1. All the subjects were professionals (pro engineers and musicians). 2. Each chose their own listening (music) materials from which test samples were created (with various amounts of jitter applied) and returned to the subjects so they could train themselves to identify the differences before the test. 3. The DBTs were then carried out at the subjects' own listening environments (which ranged from various audiophile systems to high quality commercial recording studios). The results were significantly better, some could detect jitter at 500ns, although none could when the jitter was 250ns. This correlates quite well with other published studies, where most subjects were out by 500ns but one managed 200ns (can't remember the study off the top of my head) and indeed the first published study I'm aware of (BBC, 1974), which indicated 200ns as the practical limit with commercial audio (music or TV/movie sound).
> ...


There may have been trumpets , it's hard to tell as the talking bananas wont shut up . 
There is method to my madness bear with me . 

1.a Evidence accepted . I will go with the updated figures .
 I agree with @bigshot on jitter . I personally also have doubts the non pro listener could discern even relatively high levels without repeated comparison to a clean sample which of course is biased .

2. Excellent advice I will narrow my focus .

Many thanks .


----------



## Dogmatrix

castleofargh said:


> unless I'm misunderstanding the posts, @Dogmatrix listed some ideas but never tried to have them pass as claims or conclusions to anything. as for going further he seems to find that there are reasons to reject the feasibility of blind tests to specifically evaluate the R2R part of a DAC against the DS part while everything else is identical, and reasons to give some amount of credit to sighted feedback, but I don't remember him saying that it would or should be conclusive in any way. if I didn't completely misunderstand his posts so far, I tend to agree with the result. testing specifically the audibility of R2R vs DS is not something the amateur audiophile can do properly. we could extend the system to statistical results from having many R2R and many DS tested, and accept that for whatever reason, there may or may not be a clear trend of audible differences(like how a R2R playing 44.1kHz is in general more likely to start rolling off sooner in the upper audible range, or some other idea ). but again, it's not something the amateur audiophile can hope to test at a statistically significant level(at least I can't). the treble roll off without being tested rigorously, is likely given that many R2R DACs are NOS or offer a NOS option(often caters to the same crowd), while DS will do DS things.
> 
> of course I already have a general opinion about the likelihood of audible differences between any DACs. that based on the many formal or informal failed blind tests and just the fact that a DAC is usually the element with the highest fidelity in a playback chain(and not by a little). so I'm tempted to simply consider that R2R vs DS is included within the group test for audibility of differences in all DACs, and draw the same conclusion. differences found are typically small, most of the time inaudible for the average human.
> 
> ...


Right on the money as usual .


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> I think you missed the part of your post that I highlighted and was responding to - where does the item below exist in audio reproduction of musical form?: "*(For example, I suspect that artifacts that are 130 dB below 1 megawatt would be quite audible - if played on my office system."*



You missed your cue. You were supposed to ask him about his office system so he could give you a bunch of technical details to impress us all... or not.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> If I were to play some music in my office, at a level that was "130 dB below 1 megawatt", the level would actually be somewhat low. And, if I ONLY played the noise, which was at a level of 130 dB below 1 megawatt, it would almost certainly be easily audible.



Oh good. So not only have we got a system in your office that doesn't exist but you're playing "some music" that doesn't actually have any music (only jitter noise at -130dB), a new album by John Lennon maybe? So under certain conditions, NONE of which exist, "it would almost certainly be easily audible", great, thanks for your contribution! Maybe in a parallel universe pigs can not only fly but play the violin while they're flying? Who knows, who cares and how is any of this even vaguely relevant or on topic?



Dogmatrix said:


> I agree with @bigshot on jitter . I personally also have doubts the non pro listener could discern even relatively high levels without repeated comparison to a clean sample which of course is biased .



Given that the threshold for jitter with music/TV/Film sound was known a decade before digital audio was released to the public, even the first consumer digital audio devices (CD players) had jitter below audibility. The first professional ADC/DAC I bought in 1992 had jitter of about 80 pico-secs (if I remember correctly) and as far as I'm aware, even very cheap consumer DACs don't have jitter higher than a few hundred ps, which is at least a 100 times or so below the 200 nano-sec threshold. The "relatively high levels" we're talking about simply don't exist and never have (except of course when we've deliberately added it for test purposes). I'm not sure how/when this whole audiophile jitter myth started but it seems to be another example of taking something from the professional world of recording studios and fallaciously applying it to consumer playback:

In the late 1990's/2000's jitter was (could be) somewhat of a problem in studios, as studios switched over from mainly analogue mixing and processing to more exclusively digital hardware units (digital recorders, digital mixers, digital samplers, digital reverbs and other effects, etc). As these were all digital hardware units, they each had their own internal clock, none of which would be in sync and the system would have so much jitter (timing error) as to be inoperable. In order to actually work in the first place, it was necessary to have a single clock signal and a master/slave relationship between all the digital hardware units in the system to distribute that clock signal and bypass/sync each unit's internal clock (except for the unit acting as the clock master of course). However, such an arrangement still resulted in significantly higher jitter and if there were a lot of digital units in the system, jitter could accumulate to audible levels, so fairly elaborate clock distribution systems were created to avoid this. Therefore, while jitter could be an issue in studios, it's not applicable to consumers (unless they've got a dozen or so digital hardware units chained together in their playback system!). Furthermore, even with music recording studios this potential jitter issue only existed for a relatively few years, as digital hardware units became obsolete in favour of virtual units (virtual mixing environments and software plugins), which of course do not have an internal hardware clock to sync/bypass and therefore could not exhibit this jitter issue.

G


----------



## Dogmatrix

gregorio said:


> Oh good. So not only have we got a system in your office that doesn't exist but you're playing "some music" that doesn't actually have any music (only jitter noise at -130dB), a new album by John Lennon maybe? So under certain conditions, NONE of which exist, "it would almost certainly be easily audible", great, thanks for your contribution! Maybe in a parallel universe pigs can not only fly but play the violin while they're flying? Who knows, who cares and how is any of this even vaguely relevant or on topic?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the insight . I am satisfied I can rule out jitter now . Interesting they (RME for one) are marketing dacs in terms of "Femto clock" .


----------



## KeithEmo

I must have missed the stone tablets where that threshold was inscribed. I do think you're mis-remembering. I recall a popular hardware sample-rate-converter from the early 1990's that was quite proud of their claim of "only 90 _NANOSECONDS_ of jitter", which they claimed to be exceptionally good for the day. Very few pieces of modern equipment, other than expensive audiophile gear, speficy jitter.... although, among those that do, claims of amounts below 100 _picoseconds_, and even a single picosecond, are sometimes found. A lot of so-called audiophile gear claims to incorporate _clock chips_ with jitter specs of one picosecond or better, or even as low as a few hundred femtoseconds, but they rarely if ever specify the actual jitter present on the data as delivered at their output. This is an issue because thye amount of jitter at the output is often several orders of magnitude worse. Obviously there is _some_ level below which jitter has no audible effect - but I believe that, as with many things, not everyone agrees with what that level might be.

I believe the so-called "myth" started when people started experimenting with devices that specifically reduce jitter and claimed to hear an audible difference.
There is a lively market in devices that reduce or eliminate jitter, both in DACs, and as separate little black boxes... and many modern DACs incorporate such devices internally.
(For example, one of the main benefits of asynchronous USB inputs is to reduce jitter, and many DACs include an ASRC to reduce jitter by resampling and reclocking the data.)

You're probably also aware that, in the context of this thread, one of the claimed benefits of R2R DACs is that they are less sensitive to jitter. In theory, this should be even more true for NOS R2R DACs, if you ignore their other shortcomings. For a given amount of absolute jitter, added to the signal reaching the DAC chip itself, a "typical" R2R DAC will supposedly experience fewer and lower distortion sidebands as a result than a typical D-S DAC. It seems that, since the amount of distortion caused by a certain amount of jitter is determined by the relationship between the amount of jitter and the clock period, and the internal architecture of a D-S DAC operates on a much faster clock, the same amount of jitter in absolute terms will result in a higher _percentage_ of jitter in proportion to the clock period on a D-S DAC, and so a higher level of distortion. (I haven't checked all the math there - but it seems to make sense - and so may well be worth a few experiments. However, these days, virtually nobody actually tests how various DACs respond when jitter is present on their input signal in any detail.)  

However, there is a good case to be made that you won't achieve much benefit to having playback equipment with jitter that's much lower than the amount of jitter on the equipment your content was recorded on or converted with. So, in order to perform a valid test to determine whether 20 nanoseconds of jitter is audible, you want to start with content samples that were recorded on equipment with jitter levels that are at least 5x lower than that... However, oddly, in the only early test I've seen published, they neglected to document where their test samples came from in any detail. I hope they weren't sourced from tape masters - because the analog jitter (wow and flutter) on tape is far worse than that. (You cannot reach valid conclusions about what effect adding jitter will have unless you start with a known amount as a reference.)

I should also point out that both commercial product manufacturers and recording engineers do deserve a lot of the credit for the current distrust common to audiophiles.
The reality is that many early digital recordings, including many early CDs, did NOT sound good at all... even though the recording industry insisted that they were better.
As a result, many audiophiles simply learned to distrust claims by both the audio product industry and the recording industry about such things.
The result was a serious credibility gap - which still exists.
(We here all know that Red Book CDs can sound really good.... but the fact remains that many early examples did not.... for various reasons.)



gregorio said:


> Oh good. So not only have we got a system in your office that doesn't exist but you're playing "some music" that doesn't actually have any music (only jitter noise at -130dB), a new album by John Lennon maybe? So under certain conditions, NONE of which exist, "it would almost certainly be easily audible", great, thanks for your contribution! Maybe in a parallel universe pigs can not only fly but play the violin while they're flying? Who knows, who cares and how is any of this even vaguely relevant or on topic?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Aug 28, 2019)

Dogmatrix said:


> Thanks for the insight . I am satisfied I can rule out jitter now . Interesting they (RME for one) are marketing dacs in terms of "Femto clock" .



You should make a list of the exaggerations and lies you uncover. Just make sure you have enough yellow pads on hand.

sidenote

A patently absurd claim doesn't have to have thresholds engraved on stone tablets. Anyone who knows what -130dB is knows you can't hear it. That is like knowing you can't bicycle to the moon, or you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd.

I didn't read past the first sentence. It's getting really easy to blow through his posts lately.


----------



## sonitus mirus

Dogmatrix said:


> Thanks for the insight . I am satisfied I can rule out jitter now . Interesting they (RME for one) are marketing dacs in terms of "Femto clock" .



It is just marketing.  Check out what Matthias Carstens at RME had to say about it.

https://www.forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=26677

_"Still we will not enter this useless number throwing game. SteadyClock FS uses a 'femtosecond' clock (marketing hooray) and has less self-jitter than the former version (marketing not excited)."_


----------



## Dogmatrix (Aug 29, 2019)

sonitus mirus said:


> It is just marketing.  Check out what Matthias Carstens at RME had to say about it.
> 
> https://www.forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.php?id=26677
> 
> _"Still we will not enter this useless number throwing game. SteadyClock FS uses a 'femtosecond' clock (marketing hooray) and has less self-jitter than the former version (marketing not excited)."_



Perhaps an example of the eternal struggle between engineering , design and marketing . Although in my experience accounting generally  wins .

Full disclosure . An ADI-2 PRO by RME (former high self-jitter version) has formed the hub of my Head-Fi wheel for some time .

For the casual observer

*Microsecond definition*
A microsecond is a unit of time equal to *one millionth of a second*. It is also equal to one 1000th of a millisecond, or 1000 nanoseconds.

*Nanosecond, definition*
A nanosecond (ns) is an SI unit of time equal to *one thousand-millionth of a second* (or one billionth of a second), that is, 1/1,000,000,000 of a second, or 10−9 seconds. The term combines the prefix nano- with the basic unit for one-sixtieth of a minute. A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or 1⁄1000 microsecond. 

*Picosecond definition*
A picosecond is *one trillionth (10 -12 ) of a second*, or one millionth of a microsecond. For comparison, a millisecond (ms or msec) is one thousandth of a second

*Femtosecond definition*
Femtosecond. A femtosecond is the SI unit of time equal to *10 −15 or 1 / 1,000,000,000,000,000 of a second;* that is, one quadrillionth, or one millionth of one billionth, of a second. For context, a femtosecond is to a second as a second is to about 31.71 million years; a ray of light travels approximately 0.3 µm (micrometers)…


----------



## SilentNote

But I’m Flash. When I travel at light speed, femtoseconds are too long (and audible).


----------



## bigshot

And we watch movies with a sampling rate of a 24th of a second.


----------



## KeithEmo (Aug 29, 2019)

You missed Picoseconds.....
A picosecond is 1/1000 of a nanosecond.

That is the term you're most likely to encounter these days.
(Many current products designed to reduce jitter claim specs between a few picoseconds and a few hundred picoseconds... whether you believe it matters or not.)

And, yes, we are talking about _very_ small numbers here.

However, in this context, the actual size of the numbers, and the values they represent, are irrelevant to the discussion.
In the context of our discussion, all that matters is how those numbers affect the audio signal we're listening to.
A 1 picosecond error in the time of when a song starts playing would be inconsequential.
However, a 1 picosecond error in the timing of when a missile is launched could mean you miss your target, or hit the wrong target entirely.
In the case of a particular DAC - all that matters is how much distortion will occur as a result of that error.
(And it is not at all valid to assume that, because 1 picosecond is a really tiny interval of time, it will only cause a really tiny amount of distortion.)

In the case of a DAC, the output voltage is determined by both the data itself, and the time at which it arrives.
Potential errors in amplitude include linearity errors, offset errors, and just plain data errors.
Most errors in the accuracy of the clock, other than very long term speed variations, which are exceptionally rare these days, are lumped under the single label of "jitter".
And the amount and type of distortion a given amount and type of jitter will cause depends on both the content being converted and the architecture of the DAC itself.
(The same amount of jitter could cause very different amounts or types of distortion when fed into different DACs.)

However, the linked article mentions a very important point, which I also alluded to.

Many DAC manufacturers like to brag about their use of exceptionally accurate clocks with very low jitter.
DACs use a variety of different types of clock circuits - and many use a modular "clock chip" that is simply purchased from an outside vendor.
And, as you might expect, the cost of a clock chip or circuit is generally proportional to its specifications...
Many high-end DACs these days use clock chips with jitter specs at or below one picosecond.
("Femto-clock" is simply a marketing term for "a clock whose jitter is measured in femtoseconds" - in other words "a really small amount".)

The catch is that the amount of jitter in other parts of the circuit depends more on the design of the rest of the circuitry than on the clock itself.
In most situations, the amount of jitter created by the clock chip sets the lower limit, and the amount of jitter increases as the clock passes through more circuitry.
(The amount of jitter can increase significantly even after simply passing through a few inches of circuit board trace - if that trace is poorly laid out.)
As a result, the fact that a certain DAC uses "_a clock with less than 1 picosecond of jitter_" does not indicate how much jitter will be present at other points in the circuit.
And, as the author of that article said, in terms of distortion in the analog signal, _ALL_ that matters is the amount of jitter that directly affects the conversion process.
This includes the actual jitter present in the data when it reaches the DAC chip... and the jitter present on any clocks directly used in the conversion process.
(So a DAC that uses "a femto-clock" _COULD_ have very low levels of jitter where jitter is critical... but is actually not guaranteed to... that depends on the rest of the design.)

From a purely practical (and marketing) perspective....
Actually measuring very low levels of jitter is very difficult and requires very expensive equipment.
(For example, actually measuring a few picoseconds of jitter on the input pin of the DAC chip in your product.)
But reprinting an impressive specification from the spec sheet on the brand and part number of clock chip your product incorporates is simple.
(So, as a manufacturer, you spend a few extra $$$ for a clock chip with a spec of "jitter < 1 picosecond", and then you get to brag about it.)
(And, yes, if next year's model uses a slightly more expensive chip, with better specs, they _are_ going to brag about that too.)



Dogmatrix said:


> Perhaps an example of the eternal struggle between engineering , design and marketing . Although in my experience accounting generally  wins .
> 
> Full disclosure . An ADI-2 PRO by RME (former high self-jitter version) has formed the hub of my Head-Fi wheel for some time .
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

In the real world, jitter is an irrelevant spec. It's pure sales pitch. I seriously doubt if there's ever been any home audio component with audible jitter. Only salesmen and suckers care about jitter ratings.


----------



## gregorio (Aug 30, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> [1] I must have missed the stone tablets where that threshold was inscribed.
> [2] I do think you're mis-remembering. I recall a popular hardware sample-rate-converter from the early 1990's that was quite proud of their claim of "only 90 _NANOSECONDS_ of jitter", which they claimed to be exceptionally good for the day.
> [2a] Very few pieces of modern equipment, other than expensive audiophile gear, speficy jitter.... although, among those that do, claims of amounts below 100 _picoseconds_, and even a single picosecond, are sometimes found.
> [2b] A lot of so-called audiophile gear claims to incorporate _clock chips_ with jitter specs of one picosecond or better, or even as low as a few hundred femtoseconds, but they rarely if ever specify the actual jitter present on the data as delivered at their output.
> ...



1. Well that's your problem. Although to be fair, it's a common problem with many audiophiles: Just because they don't know some fact they falsely assume that we (science/humanity) also doesn't know it, but of course that's a fallacy, it's actually just a problem of their own ignorance (or worse, they're not ignorant of the facts but just pretend to be in order to sell some snake oil belief or product)!

2. Nope, I'm not mis-remembering, I've never heard of the unit to which you're referring. As far as I'm aware, there was very little call for sample rate conversion in the early 1990's and therefore, I don't see how a unit that did that could be "popular"? Additionally of course, what they claimed in their marketing material and how proud they were of it, is irrelevant. Again, I bought a pro ADC in 1992 which had a jitter spec more that 1,000 times better than that, but I don't recall how proud they must have been about it!
2a. As far as I recall, EVERY pro audio digital hardware unit I've ever bought (or seen specs of) always specified jitter. Of course these days there aren't many digital hardware units, with the obvious exception of ADCs/DACs but even going back to the 1990's, I don't recall a specification worse than about 100ps and by the early 2000's, even quite modestly priced pro/prosumer ADCs had jitter specs of around 50ps or so. Again though, in a pro studio setting, very low jitter could be an important factor, as jitter could accumulate due to clock signal distribution between numerous digital units and/or several round trips through ADCs/DACs (which was very common).
2b. Agreed, the jitter of the clock is largely irrelevant, it's the jitter of the clock signal at the DAC chip's input that's relevant but this figure is pretty much never given.
2c. And here we come to the crux of it all! Firstly, two orders of magnitude worse than 1 pico-sec is 100 pico-secs, which is still around 2,000 times below audibility when listening to music. Please explain how that's "an issue"! Secondly, you're very vague about what amount of jitter we actually end-up with at a DAC chip's input, I'd like to see evidence where the amount of jitter reaches even a magnitude below audibility.

3. Ah, so you admit there are some "stone tablets" then!
3a. Of course "not everyone agrees", not everyone even agrees that the Earth isn't flat!


KeithEmo said:


> [1] And, yes, we are talking about _very_ small numbers here.
> [1a] However, in this context, the actual size of the numbers, and the values they represent, are irrelevant to the discussion.
> [1b] In the context of our discussion, all that matters is how those numbers affect the audio signal we're listening to. ... In the case of a particular DAC - all that matters is how much distortion will occur as a result of that error.
> [1c] (And it is not at all valid to assume that, because 1 picosecond is a really tiny interval of time, it will only cause a really tiny amount of distortion.) ... And the amount and type of distortion a given amount and type of jitter will cause depends on both the content being converted and the architecture of the DAC itself. (The same amount of jitter could cause very different amounts or types of distortion when fed into different DACs.)
> [2] However, the linked article mentions a very important point, which I also alluded to.


1. Hallelujah brother!
1a. No they're not, the OP asked about "measurable scientific differences" and few hundred femto-secs worth of jitter is measurable.
1b. True, in the context of what we end-up with "that's audible".
1c. We don't have to assume anything, we can just measure the resultant distortion!

2. A "very important point" to whom, snake oil salesmen? "In the context of our discussion" (measurable differences that are audible) it's NOT "very important", in fact the opposite, it's of less than no importance whatsoever because jitter artefacts even in cheap DACs isn't just inaudible but typically at least one (and not uncommonly two or so) orders of magnitude below audibility!

Although padded out with some actual facts/truths, it's just the same old, tried and trusted, audiophile marketing BS again. "Very important points" and "real issues" which as far as audibility is concerned are neither of any importance nor "issues", but if we (falsely) state they are, then we can maybe sell them some snake oil product which allegedly addresses and fixes those "very important points" and "real issues"!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

(I may be somewhat off on the date there...)
I believe we were also talking about hardware_ sample rate converters_ and NOT ADCs in that conversation.....
The only reason I looked at them was that, around that time, I had a "pro mini-disc recorder" and a "pro CD recorder" - both really just expensive home units.
The digital output on the mini-disc recorder ran at only a 48k sample rate while the CD recorder only accepted 44k.
(I believe I ended up replacing the CD recorder with one that accepted both rates.)

The only "consumer level sample rate converter" I see lately is the Behringer SRC2496 - which is apparently a current product.

And, if you look in its spec sheet, you will find the following....
Jitter permitted at input >40 ns
Internal jitter at input <2 ns
Internal jitter with external <20 ns, 10 ns typ.

That is a cut-and-paste... they are actually specifying NANOSECONDS of jitter....
(And that IS a spec that would be pretty bad on a $250 DAC...)

And, yes, I am also trolling BigShot a bit...

After all, whenever anybody ELSE makes a claim about something being obvious, he's usually the first to insist that OTHER PEOPLE's experiences are "just anecdotal data"....
(Usually followed by a suggestion that everyone with any common sense would disregard any claims that aren't backed up by actual test results.)
Therefore, it only seemed fair to expect him to follow the same "rules" he seems to expect everyone else to follow when making "claims"....
Yet, apparently, we're expected to simply accept that "jitter is obviously a meaningless specification.)

I am not personally aware of any well established "threshold of audibility" for jitter.....
And, since jitter comes in a wide varieties of frequency spectra, waveforms, and levels of data correlation, it seems likely that any such spec would be quite detailed and complex.
(I would expect the threshold of audibility for 0.1 Hz random jitter to be very different than the threashold of audibility for 440 Hz data-correlated sine wave jitter.)

Of course, with a DAC, you also need to consider internal jitter and susceptibility to external jitter present on the input separately.
Some DACs may have very low levels of self-jitter, yet be very sensitive to jitter present on their input signal, while others may be the opposite, and they are rarely if ever specified individually.
(Note that the popularly quoted "J-Test" tests neither - it merely shows the amount of jitter-related distortion present at the output when you input certain specific test signals.)

As for "we can just measure the distortion"..... there I would agree entirely.
However, if you actually look at the spectrum of the distortion on the output of a particular device, you'll find that no two are exactly alike, and it varies depending on the conditions present at the input.
Therefore, if you want to have useful information, you really do still need to specify your test conditions.

And, no, I don't think there_ are_ any stone tablets....
Although, since some people seem to believe that they do exist, I figured it was only fair to offer the opportunity for them to present those tablets for verification... 



gregorio said:


> 1. Well that's your problem. Although to be fair, it's a common problem with many audiophiles: Just because they don't know some fact they falsely assume that we (science/humanity) also doesn't know it, but of course that's a fallacy, it's actually just a problem of their own ignorance (or worse, they're not ignorant of the facts but just pretend to be in order to sell some snake oil belief or product)!
> 
> 2. Nope, I'm not mis-remembering, I've never heard of the unit to which you're referring. As far as I'm aware, there was very little call for sample rate conversion in the early 1990's and therefore, I don't see how a unit that did that could be "popular"? Additionally of course, what they claimed in their marketing material and how proud they were of it, is irrelevant. Again, I bought a pro ADC in 1992 which had a jitter spec more that 1,000 times better than that, but I don't recall how proud they must have been about it!
> 2a. As far as I recall, EVERY pro audio digital hardware unit I've ever bought (or seen specs of) always specified jitter. Of course these days there aren't many digital hardware units, with the obvious exception of ADCs/DACs but even going back to the 1990's, I don't recall a specification worse than about 100ps and by the early 2000's, even quite modestly priced pro/prosumer ADCs had jitter specs of around 50ps or so. Again though, in a pro studio setting, very low jitter could be an important factor, as jitter could accumulate due to clock signal distribution between numerous digital units and/or several round trips through ADCs/DACs (which was very common).
> ...


----------



## bigshot

gregorio said:


> it's just the same old, tried and trusted, audiophile marketing BS again.



I think it's deliberate muddying of the waters. Sometimes Sound Science is filled with Sound Sales Pitch. The only people that fall for this stuff are people who don't want to think for themselves, and they're a lost cause anyway. The Sound Science regulars and lurkers know the score.


----------



## Steve999 (Sep 2, 2019)

KeithEmo said:


> And, no, I don't think there_ are_ any stone tablets....
> Although, since some people seem to believe that they do exist, I figured it was only fair to offer the opportunity for them to present those tablets for verification...



I am thinking there might be some kind of stone tablets, although of course you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

Here is some purported stone tablet where the ancient Babylonians were supposedly (if you know what I mean) doing trigonometry 3,700 years ago better than we can: 




And here is something referred to as a “stone tablet” called the Rosetta Stone, although who knows, maybe it was just a publicity stunt by some software company a couple of thousand years ago. 



I mean, if you want to believe in that kind of stuff.

IMHO, FWIW, YMMV, & etc.


----------



## gregorio

KeithEmo said:


> [1] Internal jitter with external <20 ns, 10 ns typ. That is a cut-and-paste... they are actually specifying NANOSECONDS of jitter....
> [2] And, yes, I am also trolling BigShot a bit...
> [3] Yet, apparently, we're expected to simply accept that "jitter is obviously a meaningless specification.
> [4] I am not personally aware of any well established "threshold of audibility" for jitter.....
> [5] And, since jitter comes in a wide varieties of frequency spectra, waveforms, and levels of data correlation, it seems likely that any such spec would be quite detailed and complex. (I would expect the threshold of audibility for 0.1 Hz random jitter to be very different than the threashold of audibility for 440 Hz data-correlated sine wave jitter.)



1. Yes they are but there's two EXTREMELY OBVIOUS points here: A. That's both internal and external jitter and B. Even 20ns of jitter is still an order of magnitude below what has ever (reliably) be demonstrated to be audible with music recordings! Duh!

2. Glad you're admitting it but not only bigshot of course, the whole of this sub-forum!

3. No, we're expected to simply accept that jitter is obviously a meaningless specification not just because Bigshot says so but because ALL the reliable evidence says so, including the objective measurements of it!!

4. Again, another circular argument. This isn't the "What KeithEmo is personally aware of" forum (or the "KeithEmo self contradiction" forum, as you've already admitted that "_Obviously there is some level below which jitter has no audible effect_").

5. How can you possibly expect that? If ALL the jitter artefacts peak no higher than say -130dB then whether one of those peaks at 0.1Hz or 440Hz makes no difference whatsoever to the threshold of audibility because both are long way below it. (Except apparently on an office system that doesn't exist, playing a music recording without any music on it)!

G


----------



## KeithEmo

#1... 
Yes, by today's standards, as applied to most other equipment, both are NOT especially good.
More to the point, the "internal" measurement is the relevant one since it sets the minimum which you can ever expect that piece of gear to deliver.
(More to the point, since you can only conduct valid tests using test samples whose quality is significantly better than what you're measuring, samples that had been through a
piece of equipment whose quality was equivalent to that one would be useless for testing whether the lower levels present on another piece of gear are audible or not.)

#3...
I only ever recall seeing a single test published about the audibility of jitter...
And it was done a long time ago, using source content and test equipment that was itself somewhat dubious, and with no explanation of where and how they secured test samples with extremely low jitter to use....
(Obviously, if you want to test whether adding 10 NS of jitter is audible or not, you must first start with test samples whose level of jitter can be demonstrated to be far lower...)
Could you please present us all with some of that other "reliable evidence" substantiating that claim...

#4...
There are obviously levels below which any type of noise or distortion is inaudible...
However, since I seem to have missed the stone tablets containing that exact information for various types of jitter, I was thinking it might be nice to do a few tests...

#5...
I would be inclined to agree that, if the total quantity of jitter artifacts sums to a level below -130 dB, then it will probably be inaudible...
And, if the level of any individual sideband falls below 100 dB or so, then it too will probably be inaudible...
Note how, since I haven't personally tested either, or seen any test results I would consider authoritative, I stated it as "my opinion" and "probably"...



gregorio said:


> 1. Yes they are but there's two EXTREMELY OBVIOUS points here: A. That's both internal and external jitter and B. Even 20ns of jitter is still an order of magnitude below what has ever (reliably) be demonstrated to be audible with music recordings! Duh!
> 
> 2. Glad you're admitting it but not only bigshot of course, the whole of this sub-forum!
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2019)

My opinion is based on doing the research and tracking down the tests and figuring it out for myself. It isn't up to anyone else to "present you" with anything. We've done that many times in the past on a variety of subjects and every time we did, you blew right past it and went back to your salesman double talk. If you really want to have an informed opinion, take Gregorio's post as a clue that perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do and go do your own homework. There's no reason to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge information when it's "presented" to them.


----------



## KeithEmo

Yes... we seem to always end up in the same place.

When someone like myself makes a claim we are told "that's just anecdotal evidence" or "it's just a sales claim"...
And you routinely follow that up by suggesting that, unless we provide documented proof to support our claim, then we shouldn't expect it to be taken seriously...
However, when you make a claim, we're expected to accept that it has been fully documented and proven conclusively to be true...
I should also point out that, while I have quite a bit of respect for Gregorio, I do NOT necessarily assume that he is necessarily always correct on technical matters either.
(And I would not expect anyone to accept what I say as gospel truth either.... as we are ALL occasionally wrong. However, in general, I at least try to quality my proclamations.)

As I said the first time around....
I can't recall seeing published results of any tests on the audibility of various types and amounts of jitter....
Conducted using test samples produced on equipment with known low levels of jitter....
And with other equipment, also with low enough documented levels of jitter, so as not to obscure any possible results.
If you actually have any such reports to mention - now would be a good time.

Otherwise, we will consider your opinion, and the anecdotal evidence you seem to be saying you have, in their proper perspective.



bigshot said:


> My opinion is based on doing the research and tracking down the tests and figuring it out for myself. It isn't up to anyone else to "present you" with anything. We've done that many times in the past on a variety of subjects and every time we did, you blew right past it and went back to your salesman double talk. If you really want to have an informed opinion, take Gregorio's post as a clue that perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do and go do your own homework. There's no reason to have a conversation with someone who won't acknowledge information when it's "presented" to them.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2019)

I'm more than happy to help research things for people who appreciate the help. But you have another kind of agenda. Every time I go fetch a stick for you, you change the subject and go back to the same old sloppy logic again. Sorry, but it just isn't worth my time. Feel free to look it up yourself. It's all at your google search.


----------



## castleofargh

KeithEmo said:


> Yes... we seem to always end up in the same place.
> 
> When someone like myself makes a claim we are told "that's just anecdotal evidence" or "it's just a sales claim"...
> And you routinely follow that up by suggesting that, unless we provide documented proof to support our claim, then we shouldn't expect it to be taken seriously...
> ...


I fully agree with this! 721%
double standards are bad and all too common in this section depending on who's posting. it should not be so. 




bigshot said:


> I'm more than happy to help research things for people who appreciate the help. But you have another kind of agenda. Every time I go fetch a stick for you, you change the subject and go back to the same old sloppy logic again. Sorry, but it just isn't worth my time. Feel free to look it up yourself. It's all at your google search.


consider what you'd think of somebody else making a statement, and when asked for supporting evidence, replied what you just posted. you've put people on ignore(and I don't blame you) for less. 
Keith just likes to explore possibilities, remote ones even more than big stuff, probably because for the most part in audio, we already know what there is to know about the big stuff. he never claimed that they were typical issues, never claimed that jitter had big audible impacts and that we needed super saiyan femto clocks. even his made up examples for audibility with THD and such are arguably no about music listening but involve test signals. so not much reason to declare WW3 just yet IMO. 
you on the other hand claim that jitter will not be audible. I tend to agree, but it remains that the burden of proof is on you. so you should be in charge of the googling and copy pasting as deciding by the knights of the round table, or science, or the internet of things... I'm not completely sure which one. 

yes jitter in modern products is expected to have no audible impact because of how small it typically should be. most DAC designers agree on that, even several MOT selling DACs here with more or less marketing free-styling habits, have said something along those lines about jitter in properly designed gears. and yes there is at least one paper pretty opinionated about jitter in consumer electronic, and several sound samples shared online over the years to try and get a feeling of what jitter(at least some form of jitter) might sound like and to check for ourselves what levels we can consider below hearing. and yes opening my window even in the dead of the night will affect the music I'm hearing in measurable ways probably magnitudes above what most stuff discussed in this topic ever will. I get that the constant distraction from actual audible issues in this hobby can be frustrating. but on the other hand, it's a forum, if someone is curious and wishes to discuss some oh so unlikely stuff possibly having oh so unlikely audible impact in music, that's his right.  to quote a legendary philosopher, "it's the Sound Science forum, not the ________*  forum".  the important part being that it's a forum. a public one at that. 

* replace with the name of the guy annoying you.


----------



## bigshot (Sep 3, 2019)

There's history here. I went out of my way many times to provide him with tests to take and backup to my comments, and he blew right past them as if they didn't exist. He launched into abstract theories that he thought hinted that documented evidence "might be wrong". I've seen enough UFO and bigfoot documentaries to know what that is. I've done my part and it was answered by complete blather. Is it a surprise I don't feel the need to provide anything now? I don't see a point in entertaining abstract fantasies of thought. If I wanted that, I would go to the head shop instead of Head-Fi. If it doesn't have any relationship to a person's stereo system, it seems irrelevant to me. And someone who says I'm not "scientific enough" just makes me want to blow them off completely. We've seen enough wastes of time taking that approach. He's parked on Sound Science to put on a self-serving show. And his example led to others doing the same thing. My patience for it has worn down to nothing. Gregorio is an energizer bunny and keeps answering and they blow by him too. He's a great resource being wasted on replying over and over to the same kind of grandstanding.

A useful forum is being dominated by circular reasoning and pointless "what ifs". That isn't science. That's a waste.


----------



## Fulinstrumentale

Hi Everyone,

According to the thread's name (R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible) and the most recent bigshot's sentence:



> A useful forum is being dominated by circular reasoning and pointless "what ifs". That isn't science. That's a waste.



i would like to share with You some of my research about conventional vs sigma-delta way of processing digital audio signal. Maybe You will find it useful:

AES paper (2015) - http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17677
PhD Thesis (2014 - Polish language - at the bottom of the page there is a link to pdf) - The short-time analysis of the performance of sigma-delta SD modulators
Thesis is written in Polish langauge so You should translate it somewhere online, AES paper is secured for AES members (please send me a private message if You can't access it)

Best regards,
Marcin Lewandowski


----------



## sonitus mirus

Fulinstrumentale said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> According to the thread's name (R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible) and the most recent bigshot's sentence:
> 
> ...



How was it determined that there were audible differences between sigma-delta audio dacs and "conventional" dacs?  If we can identify that audible differences exist with some certainty, it would be ideal to understand the conditions that allow for this to occur.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 21, 2020)

If there were audible differences in normal use, I'm sure it's easy to test for. Any well conducted double blind test should prove it. But I'm afraid I don't speak Polish! If you do, can you summarize how the listening tests were conducted?


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> If there were audible differences in normal use, I'm sure it's easy to test for. Any well conducted double blind test should prove it. But I'm afraid I don't speak Polish! If you do, can you summarize how the listening tests were conducted?


I was only able to comprehend the abstract that was in English, as I have no easy method to translate a technical document in an adobe file format.  I did scan the thesis and found nothing that appeared to be listening tests throughout the document.  It does seem likely that any audible differences were expected to be common knowledge and the bibliography pointed toward many of the same references often cited as "proof", but carry copious amounts of conflation and obfuscation that generate the typical controversy that runs in circles around these parts.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2020)

I've seen too much described as "audible" that only bats can hear to go with common knowledge. It's amazing that scientists start theorizing on why differences exist before they prove that they do. I thought only audiophools did that. It's drop dead easy to do a basic listening test to prove something is audible.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bigshot said:


> I've seen too much described as "audible" that only bats can hear to go with common knowledge. It's amazing that scientists start theorizing on why differences exist before they prove that they do. I thought only audiophools did that. It's drop dead easy to do a basic listening test to prove something is audible.


To be fair, I have no idea if that is case here.


----------



## WarrenMmm

I haven't read through this whole topic (it's a bit big for that). I'll give my own experience of Delta-Sigma sound. A good Delta-Sigma-based player/DAC, Oppo BDP-105 say, sounds unrealistic when listening to acoustic music (e.g. a piano concerto recording) that I can also hear on my expensive vinyl system. Comparing the same music through my heavily modified JLTi Oppo BDP-105 version 4.2, which includes analogue clock filtering and other means to counter the switching noise and other digital noise signature of the Delta-Sigma DAC, gives a sound which, while certainly easily distinguishable from the vinyl, sounds just as realistic as the vinyl and radically more realistic than the unmodified Delta-Sigma player. The modifier contends that Delta-Sigma jitter is actually analogue noise (switching noise predominantly) and has made his changes to the player substantially on this basis. Based on its vastly superior performance to the original Oppo player, I would have to assume he is correct.


----------



## old tech

WarrenMmm said:


> I haven't read through this whole topic (it's a bit big for that). I'll give my own experience of Delta-Sigma sound. A good Delta-Sigma-based player/DAC, Oppo BDP-105 say, sounds unrealistic when listening to acoustic music (e.g. a piano concerto recording) that I can also hear on my expensive vinyl system. Comparing the same music through my heavily modified JLTi Oppo BDP-105 version 4.2, which includes analogue clock filtering and other means to counter the switching noise and other digital noise signature of the Delta-Sigma DAC, gives a sound which, while certainly easily distinguishable from the vinyl, sounds just as realistic as the vinyl and radically more realistic than the unmodified Delta-Sigma player. The modifier contends that Delta-Sigma jitter is actually analogue noise (switching noise predominantly) and has made his changes to the player substantially on this basis. Based on its vastly superior performance to the original Oppo player, I would have to assume he is correct.


Perhaps you are just accustomed to a particular colourisation of sound? Assuming similar quality recordings, there is no way a piano recording sounds more realistic on vinyl, no matter how expensive. The subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts may sound more pleasant to some ears but it is not more realistic.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2020)

Are we talking about the Sabre chip? I've directly compared my Oppo HA-1 (with the same basic kind of chip as the BDP-105 I believe) to the output of my iMac and they sound exactly the same to me. I haven't found any DAC, DAP, or player that sounds different than any other when I do line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparisons. I've compared dozens of them from $40 DVD players to iPhones and iPods to an Oppo blu-ray player. The people who seem most convinced that there are differences seem to be people who rely on impressions rather than controlled listening tests. And I have no idea how you would know if the mastering on an LP is anything like the mastering of a CD. That's apples and oranges.


----------



## Fulinstrumentale

Hello again,



sonitus mirus said:


> How was it determined that there were audible differences between sigma-delta audio dacs and "conventional" dacs? If we can identify that audible differences exist with some certainty, it would be ideal to understand the conditions that allow for this to occur.



First of all, in my opinion, strictly controlled and well conducted listening tests are not necessary to conclude that there are differences between audio impression while listening to DACs with "conventional" chips and DACs with chips based on sigma-delta modulator's concept. And I don't have in mind comparisons between DACs with ES9026PRO vs ES9038PRO, DACs with patented Ring DAC from dCS or classic MASH or advanced segment architecture like PCM1738 or popular multibit sigma-delta Cirrus Logic. I'm talking about differences between overall impression while listening to, fox example, Audio-Gd Master 7 with old-fashioned PCM1704 ladder-network DAC or Shiit Yggdrasil with 20-bit ladder structure AD5791 and impression with sigma-delta modulators. There is quite a difference - whether "conventional" chips sound better or sigma-delta it doesn't matter for scientific work simply because subjective evaluation is not an objective measure which can be formulated mathematically and proved. For me, conventional DACs sound much better than sigma-delta (Chord Electronics patent is a hard nut to crack for me cause Qutest sounds very similar to Audio-Gd with PCM1704, but I don't know enough about technology to write more). To sum up - we have conducted many listening tests, but they prove nothing in my scientific world - specifically electronics faculty. So...



bigshot said:


> I've seen too much described as "audible" that only bats can hear to go with common knowledge. It's amazing that scientists start theorizing on why differences exist before they prove that they do. I thought only audiophools did that. It's drop dead easy to do a basic listening test to prove something is audible.



this is quite unfair judgement about my work. But I really understand it. 

Back to the topic. Since I knew that there are some differences in sound, and i can't rely only on subjective evaluation of sound quality, the only measure I could look for was the analysis of the core of DACs architecture's process of modulation and coding of signal. That is sigma-delta modulation in sigma-delta DACs and pulse code modulation in conventional DACs. And there was quite a challange to find some measure (besides parameters which are a part of long-term measurements in the frequency - domain such as SNR, THD, SINAD, SFDR etc.). So I focused my research on time-domain specifications of modulation/coding process in conventional and sigma-delta DACs. I will write more after the weekend and will try to translate some of the fundamental parts of my work for You. What was the most valuable outcome of my work - it proved that short-term parameters of sigma-delta modulators are much more correlated with the sound that is processed than in the conventional modulator.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 22, 2020)

Did you conduct a controlled listening test to determine audibility? That is all I am asking.

I'm not questioning that there is a difference. I'm questioning whether it is audible. The best way to determine that is a controlled listening test. If you have two samples randomly distributed and people can pick out which sample is which with a high degree of accuracy, I will call that audible. Theoretical audibility and sighted impressions don't prove audibility.

If it isn't audible, then that falls under the heading of "there's more than one way to skin a cat". As long as my ears can't hear it, I don't care.


----------



## WarrenMmm

old tech said:


> Perhaps you are just accustomed to a particular colourisation of sound? Assuming similar quality recordings, there is no way a piano recording sounds more realistic on vinyl, no matter how expensive. The subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts may sound more pleasant to some ears but it is not more realistic.


Wow, that's interesting. Given that I have regularly played several different grand pianos including at amateur concerts, and have attended many dozens of piano concerts (including concerts by performers of whom I have recordings), I'm not sure that I'm happy to accept your characterisation of me being accustomed to some particular colourisation of sound! Perhaps you would like to explain why my ears hear exceptional vinyl recordings as authentic, sounding SIMILAR to actual live performances, while the same performance cut to say CD and played on most digital playback systems sounds UNLIKE actual live performances. 

I would contend that the subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts you mention, are far LESS IMPORTANT than the DIGITAL artefacts you mistakenly believe are part of the music.


----------



## castleofargh

WarrenMmm said:


> Wow, that's interesting. Given that I have regularly played several different grand pianos including at amateur concerts, and have attended many dozens of piano concerts (including concerts by performers of whom I have recordings), I'm not sure that I'm happy to accept your characterisation of me being accustomed to some particular colourisation of sound! Perhaps you would like to explain why my ears hear exceptional vinyl recordings as authentic, sounding SIMILAR to actual live performances, while the same performance cut to say CD and played on most digital playback systems sounds UNLIKE actual live performances.
> 
> I would contend that the subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts you mention, are far LESS IMPORTANT than the DIGITAL artefacts you mistakenly believe are part of the music.


 His so called characterization of you, starts with "perhaps" and ends with a question mark.
 Just saying.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 23, 2020)

WarrenMmm said:


> I would contend that the subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts you mention, are far LESS IMPORTANT than the DIGITAL artefacts (SIC) you mistakenly believe are part of the music.



And that is extremely easy to prove. All you have to do is take the very best LP you own and digitize it at 16/44.1. Then compare your capture to the original LP in a level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. If an LP is higher fidelity than a CD, then digitizing an LP would introduce all of those digital artifacts and would be clearly degrading the quality of the capture.

I have done this and I know what the truth is. CD quality sound can capture *everything* contained in the grooves of an LP, and when you take care to do a controlled test, there is no difference between the original LP and the digitized file.

I'd be happy to help you set up a test to discover the truth for yourself if you are interested. It doesn't cost a lot to do it and you will know for yourself instead of relying on guesses and bias. You'll also find that you can back up all your LPs as a digital file that is exempt from wear or damage. It's a wise thing to do if you care about your records.

I'm saying this as someone who owns nearly 10,000 records myself.


----------



## old tech (Apr 23, 2020)

WarrenMmm said:


> Wow, that's interesting. Given that I have regularly played several different grand pianos including at amateur concerts, and have attended many dozens of piano concerts (including concerts by performers of whom I have recordings), I'm not sure that I'm happy to accept your characterisation of me being accustomed to some particular colourisation of sound! Perhaps you would like to explain why my ears hear exceptional vinyl recordings as authentic, sounding SIMILAR to actual live performances, while the same performance cut to say CD and played on most digital playback systems sounds UNLIKE actual live performances.
> 
> I would contend that the subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts you mention, are far LESS IMPORTANT than the DIGITAL artefacts you mistakenly believe are part of the music.


Well given this is a sound science forum perhaps you could provide the specific measurements that support a claim that vinyl reproduces the source signal (it is an electrical signal after all) more realistically (sic) than a $100 DAC, rather than a personal and biased subjective impression? It should be fairly easy to demonstrate where a delta sigma DAC is deficient compared to a signal from a cart yet I've never seen any measurement of vinyl playback that matches a DAC on linearity and timing. 

For the record (no pun intended) I have yet to hear any vinyl playback gear that can accurately reproduce a sustained piano note, something that is trivially simple with a delta sigma DAC.  Do you ever wonder why music enthusiasts in the classical music genre gave up on vinyl over 30 years ago?


----------



## gregorio

WarrenMmm said:


> [1] A good Delta-Sigma-based player/DAC, Oppo BDP-105 say, sounds unrealistic when listening to acoustic music (e.g. a piano concerto recording) that I can also hear on my expensive vinyl system.
> [2] Comparing the same music through my heavily modified JLTi Oppo BDP-105 version 4.2, which includes analogue clock filtering and other means to counter the switching noise and other digital noise signature of the Delta-Sigma DAC, gives a sound which, while certainly easily distinguishable from the vinyl, sounds just as realistic as the vinyl and radically more realistic than the unmodified Delta-Sigma player.
> [3] The modifier contends that Delta-Sigma jitter is actually analogue noise (switching noise predominantly) and has made his changes to the player substantially on this basis.
> [3a] Based on its vastly superior performance to the original Oppo player, I would have to assume he is correct.



1. A piano concerto recording IS unrealistic. It would have been recorded in a studio or concert hall without an audience, from multiple different positions simultaneously and mixed together. It is therefore quite different and unrealistic compared to listening to a piano concerto as a human being would, from a single listening position.

2. Firstly, any moderately decent D-S DAC does not have any audible digital noise signature. Secondly, if the vinyl or modified DAC makes a piano concerto recording sound realistic but an unmodified one doesn't, then obviously the unmodified D-S DAC is more accurate/higher fidelity, because the recording is actually unrealistic! But of course, some might prefer the coloured, lower fidelity of the vinyl or modified DAC.

3. Not sure what you mean by "switching noise" but certainly, when the digital data is converted to the analogue signal, random jitter manifests as noise. If the "modifier" has made changes "substantially on this basis" then he's completely wasting his time, as jitter noise even in relatively cheap D-S DACs is well below audibility (an order of magnitude or more), unless of course he can use this jitter noise reduction as a marketing ploy to introduce a bias that affects perception.
3a. But you have described a vastly INFERIOR performance, reducing fidelity to the point that an unrealistic recording sounds like a realistic one and therefore, wouldn't you "have to assume that he is" incorrect?



Fulinstrumentale said:


> [1] First of all, in my opinion, strictly controlled and well conducted listening tests are not necessary to conclude that there are differences between audio impression while listening to DACs with "conventional" chips and DACs with chips based on sigma-delta modulator's concept.
> [2] I'm talking about differences between overall impression while listening to, fox example,.... There is quite a difference - whether "conventional" chips sound better or sigma-delta it doesn't matter for scientific work simply because subjective evaluation is not an objective measure which can be formulated mathematically and proved.  .. To sum up - we have conducted many listening tests, but they prove nothing in my scientific world - specifically electronics faculty.
> [3] Since I knew that there are some differences in sound and ...
> [3a] i can't rely only on subjective evaluation of sound quality, the only measure I could look for was the analysis of the core of DACs architecture's process of modulation and coding of signal. ... So I focused my research on time-domain specifications of modulation/coding process in conventional and sigma-delta DACs.
> [4] I will write more after the weekend and will try to translate some of the fundamental parts of my work for You.



1. True, although rather than saying strictly controlled and well conducted tests "are not necessary", shouldn't you have stated "cannot be used"? The WHOLE POINT of a strictly controlled, well conducted listening test is specifically to eliminate "differences between audio impressions" where there are no audible differences. In other words, if a "strictly controlled and well conducted listening test" reveals "differences between audio impressions" where there are no audible differences, then by definition it is NOT a "well conducted test"!  

2. I don't understand what you're trying to say. You are "talking about differences between overall impression when listening" but the act of listening and forming an impression is an entirely subjective process that occurs in the brain, which has nothing to do with your "scientific world - specifically electronics faculty", unless your electronics faculty contains the Psychoacoustics or Cognitive Neuroscience departments.

3. How do you know there are "some differences in sound"? There are certainly differences between individuals' impressions and some differences in the converted analogue signal but neither of them indicate "some differences in sound". Impressions can vary significantly, even with absolutely no difference in sound and differences in DAC chips' analogue output would need to be of a sufficient magnitude to overcome the (relatively) highly inefficient/noisy process of transduction, in order to become a difference in sound.
3a. As in point 2 above, I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you are talking about "overall impression when listening" why are you looking at an analysis of a DAC's architecture process when the process of "overall impression when listening" doesn't occur in a DAC's architecture, it occurs in the listener's brain? Let's say we have two gold bars that appear identical to the human eye but one of them isn't real gold. Most individuals would have quite a different impression between them because real gold is far more valuable. A strictly controlled and well designed visual test will prove nothing about this different impression because there is no visible difference. And, we would need to focus our research on the human brain, on how it creates impressions, not on trying to find an objective measurement of some visual property of gold bars. - Maybe I've failed to understand your post and this analogy is false?

4. I would like to see that. On the face of it, your post appears to me to be based on fallacy and/or serious misunderstandings of human perception but it's entirely possible I've badly misunderstood and if so, I'd be very interested in seeing/understanding your work.



WarrenMmm said:


> Given that I have regularly played several different grand pianos including at amateur concerts, and have attended many dozens of piano concerts (including concerts by performers of whom I have recordings), I'm not sure that I'm happy to accept your characterisation of me being accustomed to some particular colourisation of sound! Perhaps you would like to explain why my ears hear exceptional vinyl recordings as authentic, sounding SIMILAR to actual live performances, while the same performance cut to say CD and played on most digital playback systems sounds UNLIKE actual live performances.
> 
> I would contend that the subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts you mention, are far LESS IMPORTANT than the DIGITAL artefacts you mistakenly believe are part of the music.



What DIGITAL artefacts? Certainly there are digital artefacts but in any half-decent digital system they will be well below audibility. So how can "subtle wow and added harmonic artefacts" that ARE audible be LESS IMPORTANT than digital artefact that are not?

Assuming you have the appropriate listening skills, you should be aware that the actual sound entering your ears is quite different when playing a concert grand, only a couple of feet away from the hammers, to the sound entering the ears of the audience many yards away, which is almost entirely the sound reflected from the piano lid and concert venue boundaries. A piano recording is typically made with two microphones inside the piano, very close to the strings and about 3ft apart and at least one (usually two or more) far more distant, in the auditorium or elsewhere in the venue. So, unless you have 3 or more ears spaced many yards apart, a piano recording is "UNLIKE actual live performances", either from the perspective of the performer or a member of the audience. An average to good digital system, along with very good transducers and the appropriate listening skills can reveal this fact but the significantly lower fidelity, colourisation and other artefacts of vinyl (it's noise floor for example), can conceal it.

Therefore, the characterisation of you being accustomed to some particular colouration of sound is the only logical characterisation, regardless of whether you're happy about it or not.

G


----------



## WarrenMmm

gregorio said:


> Assuming you have the appropriate listening skills, you should be aware that the actual sound entering your ears is quite different when playing a concert grand, only a couple of feet away from the hammers, to the sound entering the ears of the audience many yards away, which is almost entirely the sound reflected from the piano lid and concert venue boundaries. A piano recording is typically made with two microphones inside the piano, very close to the strings and about 3ft apart and at least one (usually two or more) far more distant, in the auditorium or elsewhere in the venue. So, unless you have 3 or more ears spaced many yards apart, a piano recording is "UNLIKE actual live performances", either from the perspective of the performer or a member of the audience. An average to good digital system, along with very good transducers and the appropriate listening skills can reveal this fact but the significantly lower fidelity, colourisation and other artefacts of vinyl (it's noise floor for example), can conceal it.
> 
> Therefore, the characterisation of you being accustomed to some particular colouration of sound is the only logical characterisation, regardless of whether you're happy about it or not.
> 
> G


So what you are saying, if I might paraphrase, is 
1. That what I hear in a live classical concert is coloured, while what I hear on a digital playback system is not!!!
2. That the vinyl record played on my record playing system sounds more like an actual live performance to me, than the same analogue master-tape cut to an SACD played on an unmodified BDP-105, because I prefer the colourations of an actual live performance???
3. That the same SACD played on my pre-and-post-DAC-modified BDP-105 sound MUCH more like an actual live performance to me, than the same SACD played on an unmodified BDP-105, presumably because the modifier has introduced colourations which make it sound like a live performance, rather than removed colourations which were inherent in the unmodified digital playback system and made it sound unrealistic in comparison.

I think you need to stop smoking that stuff. Because it has really turned your logical brain into mush.


----------



## bigshot (Apr 25, 2020)

There is no such thing as an analogue master tape that is mastered exactly the same on both an LP and SACD. Two completely different mediums with two completely different mastering processes. The differences you are hearing are due to mastering, not the format.

Whether or not something sounds more like an actual live performance to you is irrelevant because you are listening to a recording, not a live performance. Recordings are designed to be optimized for the medium. They are not intended to be naturalistic captures of the live sound.

How did you compare the output of your unmodified BDP-105 with your modified one? Do you have two BDP-105s and you did a side by side, direct switched, line level matched blind listening test? That is what would be required to be able to comment on the differences.

I'd be happy to explain these concepts if you'd like to be respectful of the people you are communicating with. If you just want to troll and strut about with comments about brain mush and smoking dope, I don't have any interest in corresponding further.


----------



## old tech (Apr 25, 2020)

WarrenMmm said:


> 2. That the vinyl record played on my record playing system sounds more like an actual live performance to me, than the same analogue master-tape cut to an SACD played on an unmodified BDP-105, because I prefer the colourations of an actual live performance???


The problem is that you are over generalising your own unique subjective preference to listeners in general and then employing psuedoscience to try and turn an individual subjective preference to an objective fact.

There are very few controlled tests for comparisons of realism as it is a given that a majority (assuming similar quality recordings and playback gear) would hear the digital recording of a concert as more realistic than vinyl. The development of digital audio was driven by classical musical enthusiasts as they were never satisfied with the realism of vinyl or tape playback. Why else would have the majority of classical music listeners eagerly moved to CDs and SACDs a generation ago?

There is at least one properly conducted controlled study I'm aware of comparing an all analog recording of a live concert with a digital recording.  See for example, Geringer, J., Dunnigan, P. "Listener Preferences and Perception of Digital versus Analog Live Concert Recordings." _Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education._ 1 Jul. 2000, Number 145: 1-13.

Music majors were subjects who listened to digital and analog recordings of the same concert performance, recorded unequalized and unmixed (to control EQ/mastering/production variables) and level matched. It was a double blind test and the listeners were able to switch back and forth between the two at will. Overall, the digital version was preferred in all ten scoring areas.

The researchers concluded that music major listeners rated the digital versions of live concert recordings as higher in quality than the corresponding analog versions. The listeners gave significantly higher ratings to the digital presentations in bass, treble and overall quality, as well as separation of instruments and voices. The ratings were consistent across loudspeaker and headphone listening conditions.

It was analog tape v CD so not directly compared with vinyl (though one would have to presume tape is superior to vinyl) and guess what?  The digital gear uses Delta Sigma convertors!

The other take out from the controlled study is that a small minority did prefer the all analog recording.  So perhaps just accept that you are part of the small minority and maybe that is a result of convincing yourself of so called deficiencies in convertors and being able to hear inaudible digital artefacts.


----------



## KeithPhantom

One of the things I see people that support R2R as the holy grail of DSP is that they think that DS is the same thing as it was in the 80's and 90's. First of all, pretty much all modern DS DAC is not monolevel, meaning that it doesn't use 1-bit with oversampling. Modern DS uses multi-level technology to surpass it's native low-resolution. Almost all modern DS DAC's are able to fully utilize 4 bits, with the best ones able to use 6 bits. Many will say that R2R is able to use an ENOB of 20 or 21 bits, but remember that DS oversamples by huge factors to compensate for the rather low resolution. We're not talking about oversampling a single bit, now we're talking about 6 bits of bit depth, and that gives you a huge resolution boost, with the best ones when converted to PCM can match or exceed 768kHz/24-bits. DS had better scalability with less R&D than R2R, so it was more cost-effective. There is an ESS presentation where they compare R2R to DS and why they chose the later as the better technology. Thanks for your time.


----------



## bigshot

audibly better?


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> audibly better?


At least technically. Audibly better depends on the subject in question and if they can hear the difference after isolating all possible and controllable variables in a test such as a double blind.


----------



## bigshot (May 3, 2020)

Do you have listening tests showing a clear difference? Because people have a million theories about which numbers are audible. I like to see an example of people who actually do hear a difference in a controlled listening test. I’ve been looking for one for years and I haven’t seen any evidence of audible differences between properly functioning DACs since oversampling in the 80s.

People vary in their ability to hear, but downward in various levels of hearing degradation. There aren’t people who hear better than normal undamaged hearing.


----------



## KeithPhantom

I would like to have proper test done in this matter, but I also don't find anything remotely close to test the differences between DACs. In my opinion, it is good to have alternatives at the very least.


----------



## bigshot

I figure, if it’s that difficult to hear a difference in a simple blind listening test, it flat out doesn’t matter. Paying more money for quality I can’t hear is a waste. I’ve done controlled comparisons between every piece of equipment I own, from a $40 Walmart DVD player up to an Oppo HA-1 and they all sound exactly the same to me. They should... they are designed to be audibly transparent. You can’t prove a negative, so it’s the responsibility of people claiming audible differences to provide evidence that real people actually heard a difference. It’s easy to just think up reasons why something *might* be audible. And it’s easy to do a controlled test to prove it.


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> I figure, if it’s that difficult to hear a difference in a simple blind listening test, it flat out doesn’t matter. Paying more money for quality I can’t hear is a waste. I’ve done controlled comparisons between every piece of equipment I own, from a $40 Walmart DVD player up to an Oppo HA-1 and they all sound exactly the same to me. They should... they are designed to be audibly transparent. You can’t prove a negative, so it’s the responsibility of people claiming audible differences to provide evidence that real people actually heard a difference. It’s easy to just think up reasons why something *might* be audible. And it’s easy to do a controlled test to prove it.



I agree with you with most of your argument, the only thing I see subjective is the price to pay for perceived quality. There's no arguing against the emotional connection someone can have to pricier gear, and if you think you have reached the maximum quality this hobby, I envy you. 

Subjectively, I think transducers are the weakest link and pretty much all gear but the parts that actually produce the sound are transparent, and this is what keeps me in this hobby. I've yet to hear how Stax headphones sound, the Focal Utopia, the Abyss, LCD-4; also I would like to find a portable closed-back that can emulate the quality and subjective perception of my open-backs. I understood that improving transducers are the way to transparent sound, and I'm in that train without forgetting how measurements are a great benchmark to understand how close we are of that goal. Happy listening!


----------



## bigshot (May 4, 2020)

People can spend money on whatever they want. But when they come into an internet forum and tell people that don't have the same drive to spend money that they will hear the improvement, that is where I draw the line. It's fine if people want all their cables to match with fancy woven coverings, that is fine. If they want to spend money on specs that are far beyond the range of human hearing, that is fine. But be honest about that. Know *why* you spend that money.

Obviously transducers are the wild card. No one disagrees with that. And DACs and amps are transparent enough to not matter, if not completely transparent. Why do I get in so much trouble when I say that? This isn't about perceived differences. This is about people manufacturing differences in their heads. All I want is someone to show me evidence with listening tests that a difference is audible. Then I'll do a happy little dance of glee because I've learned something new.

I really enjoy British reality shows because they aren't about hillbillies who believe in UFOs, they're about real people who have no clue that they are shooting themselves in the foot... Kitchen Nightmares, Hotel Inspector, and this one...


----------



## KeithPhantom

bigshot said:


> People can spend money on whatever they want. But when they come into an internet forum and tell people that don't have the same drive to spend money that they will hear the improvement, that is where I draw the line. It's fine if people want all their cables to match with fancy woven coverings, that is fine. If they want to spend money on specs that are far beyond the range of human hearing, that is fine. But be honest about that. Know *why* you spend that money.
> 
> Obviously transducers are the wild card. No one disagrees with that. And DACs and amps are transparent enough to not matter, if not completely transparent. Why do I get in so much trouble when I say that? This isn't about perceived differences. This is about people manufacturing differences in their heads. All I want is someone to show me evidence with listening tests that a difference is audible. Then I'll do a happy little dance of glee because I've learned something new.
> 
> I really enjoy British reality shows because they aren't about hillbillies who believe in UFOs, they're about real people who have no clue that they are shooting themselves in the foot... Kitchen Nightmares, Hotel Inspector, and this one...




I agree with you, the only things I have problem with are the unsupported claims made by some and the spread of myths that confuse the community.


----------



## bigshot

KeithPhantom said:


> I agree with you, the only things I have problem with are the unsupported claims made by some and the spread of myths that confuse the community.



Isn't that about 80% of the commentary on Head-Fi?


----------



## AudioThief

KeithPhantom said:


> I agree with you, the only things I have problem with are the unsupported claims made by some and the spread of myths that confuse the community.



I wouldn't say "made by some" - its like a religion in the community. Outside of this sub forum and some few other boards around the internet, you can't have a discussion without it quickly devolving into a discussion between the "audiophile elite" who sunk $ 10 000 into their amp, $ 10 000 into their DAC, $ 2 000 into cables, and everything between $500 to $ 5 000 on the headphone, swearing that if you haven't heard their specific gear or something in a similar price range, then you simply can't make a statement on it. One of the most comical examples of this is the Stax amplifiers for the SR-007. The community has been brainwashed to parrot the following mantra: "If you want to own a Stax SR-007, you must have a third party amplifier because Stax cannot make amplifiers good enough themselves. Starting at $3 000 minimum, preferably a $ 6 000 Carbon or BHSE to really make them shine". The fact is of course that a number of Stax amps can drive it properly, but of course according to the men in their ivory tower, it "lacks authority" and all the typical audiophile verbiage about "sounding flat, narrow soundstage, muddy" and so on.


----------



## KeithPhantom

AudioThief said:


> I wouldn't say "made by some" - its like a religion in the community. Outside of this sub forum and some few other boards around the internet, you can't have a discussion without it quickly devolving into a discussion between the "audiophile elite" who sunk $ 10 000 into their amp, $ 10 000 into their DAC, $ 2 000 into cables, and everything between $500 to $ 5 000 on the headphone, swearing that if you haven't heard their specific gear or something in a similar price range, then you simply can't make a statement on it. One of the most comical examples of this is the Stax amplifiers for the SR-007. The community has been brainwashed to parrot the following mantra: "If you want to own a Stax SR-007, you must have a third party amplifier because Stax cannot make amplifiers good enough themselves. Starting at $3 000 minimum, preferably a $ 6 000 Carbon or BHSE to really make them shine". The fact is of course that a number of Stax amps can drive it properly, but of course according to the men in their ivory tower, it "lacks authority" and all the typical audiophile verbiage about "sounding flat, narrow soundstage, muddy" and so on.



I drive both my LCD-2 and my HD800 out of a SS DAC(D-S)/AMP that if you look at the measurements is transparent in pretty much any regard. People in other forums say that I shouldn't be using cheap gear for the headphones I have, but for me an amplifier is ideally a wire with gain, and the boxes we have most likely are perceptually transparent; I argue the same with DACs. 

Someday I will listen to one of the Stax headphones, and if I ever buy one, I'll keep my philosophy of buying an amp that's powerful and transparent enough to be perceptually transparent. 

I see others that are invested in pricier gear as trying to defend their equipment by propagating the same myths that tricked them into buying and spending their money in virtually no improvement, even worsening their equipment (think about tubes with a lot of distortion). The looks and the build quality is something I appreciate, but it can also create bias when objectively evaluating sound if not taken away by a blind test. 

Finally, I respect the decision of others into buying in snake oil, but propagating lies and unsupported claims to those that truly want to better their audio experience is what takes me out of my comfort zone. Audio is not a mostly unknown matter and can be described by science, and claiming any possible measurements (even some not published/not measured but existing) cannot measure every aspect of sound is false and that's why I keep posting and helping others.


----------



## bigshot (May 5, 2020)

I think I care more about the newbies than the ones deeply invested in snake oil. It's not hard to learn the basics of how things work and apply that to achieving good sound. It's a lot easier than memorizing a whole bunch of complicated theory and sales pitch to vomit back in internet forums.

People tend to think that it isn't possible to do the job simply and efficiently. They are convinced that it takes a lot of money, or a half dozen black boxes connected by wires, or a million apps, software patches and plugins. That isn't true. We are lucky to live in a time when consumer audio is at a very high level. Even inexpensive equipment sounds good if you implement it properly. And you don't have to make things complicated and difficult to use. It can be simple too.


----------



## KeithPhantom (May 5, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I think I care more about the newbies than the ones deeply invested in snake oil. It's not hard to learn the basics of how things work and apply that to achieving good sound. It's a lot easier than memorizing a whole bunch of complicated theory and sales pitch to vomit back in internet forums.
> 
> People tend to think that it isn't possible to do the job simply and efficiently. They are convinced that it takes a lot of money, or a half dozen black boxes connected by wires, or a million apps, software patches and plugins. That isn't true. We are lucky to live in a time when consumer audio is at a very high level. Even inexpensive equipment sounds good if you implement it properly. And you don't have to make things complicated and difficult to use. It can be simple too.



That's why this subforum is important, but we're the minority in this business.


----------



## AudioThief

bigshot said:


> I think I care more about the newbies than the ones deeply invested in snake oil. It's not hard to learn the basics of how things work and apply that to achieving good sound. It's a lot easier than memorizing a whole bunch of complicated theory and sales pitch to vomit back in internet forums.
> 
> People tend to think that it isn't possible to do the job simply and efficiently. They are convinced that it takes a lot of money, or a half dozen black boxes connected by wires, or a million apps, software patches and plugins. That isn't true. We are lucky to live in a time when consumer audio is at a very high level. Even inexpensive equipment sounds good if you implement it properly. And you don't have to make things complicated and difficult to use. It can be simple too.



One issue is that most people have no idea how powerful our biases and placebo is. I can honestly say I several times, before my major epiphany, thought about what I read objectivists writing, and thinking "there is simply no way my mind is playing tricks on me to this degree!". 

Another issue is that objectivists often consist of people that are ruthlessly logical thinkers with technical knowledge. Many audiophiles are ruthlessly logical thinkers WITHOUT technical knowledge - what ends up happening is that an objectivist will go into the hobby, make logical choices and get a great sounding setup without spending a lot of money. The subjectivists will be blindsided by the seemingly logical descriptions and explanations of the community, and then later scoff at the objectivists claims because, well, the objectivists hasn't paid the entrance fee, and the subjectivists lacks the technical knowledge to understand why that doesn't actually matter.

Another issue, and here I'm just thinking loudly, but I still think it might exist - Its a lot of fun to read and write impressions, and obviously if you gather a large amount of impressions, you'll probably get a general idea about how a headphone sounds. Objectivists will not engage in this sort of audiophile description, further making them seem, to the subjectivist crowd, to just be "beginners". The term "audiophile beginner" is so laughable to me. It actually disgusts me to see youtube videos and posts on various forums talking about "beginner headphones" and "beginner dacs" as if this is a long ardous journey to the top - when I know what I know now, after having went through it all myself, and having had to pay the price. 

Of course "beginner" equipment makes no sense. Most grown ups can get headphones that sounds basically as good as its ever going to get for only a small portion of their monthly paycheck.


----------



## bigshot

AudioThief said:


> Its a lot of fun to read and write impressions



This is true of the internet as a whole, not just home audio. People go on social media or internet forums ostensibly to learn from other people, but end up just speaking for their own benefit. You see those kinds of people all the time- they reply to posts without reading them, they get mad if someone questions them, and they never ask anyone else for info or recommendations. There are people who truly do know their stuff and become natural leaders in a forum, but there are quite a few who don't know a lot and just assume an attitude of authority. They suck in general consensus like a vacuum cleaner and spit it out like passages from the Bible. I have a couple of forums I participate in with a person like this. They usually don't like me because I question things they are parroting, and they don't have enough personal knowledge on the subject to answer my questions. So they just get mad at me... I think I am a lightning rod for assholes sometimes.


----------



## KeithPhantom

Just reading another forum about the topic of NOS vs. oversampling DACs I see the same arguments without any objective base. They say that NOS is able to give more "musicality" and "more mids" and "it feels more analog" without knowing that the lack of oversampling removes the headroom upsampling DACs have and the possibility to add filters that after oversampling the possible errors in the signal, can either remove them or place them way outside of any threshold of hearing of any human. NOS only brings more possibility for errors to creep in the signal and distort it, and the lack of filters also introduces the interference of ultrasonics and it opens the door for IMD to increase. My problem isn't that they buy those DACs since it's their money and they can do whatever they want with it, but they describe them as if they were the absolute best compared to regular upsampling DACs, when objectively they measure worse.


----------



## old tech

KeithPhantom said:


> Just reading another forum about the topic of NOS vs. oversampling DACs I see the same arguments without any objective base. They say that NOS is able to give more "musicality" and "more mids" and "it feels more analog" without knowing that the lack of oversampling removes the headroom upsampling DACs have and the possibility to add filters that after oversampling the possible errors in the signal, can either remove them or place them way outside of any threshold of hearing of any human. NOS only brings more possibility for errors to creep in the signal and distort it, and the lack of filters also introduces the interference of ultrasonics and it opens the door for IMD to increase. My problem isn't that they buy those DACs since it's their money and they can do whatever they want with it, but they describe them as if they were the absolute best compared to regular upsampling DACs, when objectively they measure worse.


Well, the "it feels more analog" may generally be true which is why they are best avoided.


----------



## KeithPhantom

To better educate myself I've been reading more about digital filters; this article is perfect explaining the different types of filters.


----------



## Krassi (May 7, 2020)

not a lovely and refreshing thread here with no fairy dust magic talk ;(
deleted


----------



## AudioThief

Krassi said:


> Lovely and refreshing thread here with no fairy dust magic talk
> You get this subjective point of view evangelists in every hobby area.. i experienced this with kitchen knifes too and in some forums there are people that talk complete bull and other people are praising them for their nonsense.. Snakeoil is flowing like a fountain and the usual..
> 
> for me the biggest turningpoint in believing all this stuff was when i listened to a old pretty worn down pair of 70s AKG K340 with their old crap cable and crap earpads on a crap amp with no EQ... hmm sounded better than all my new hightech snakeoil junk... hmm made me start to think that i got a slave to marketing crap und believing anything..
> ...



Yup. Its incredible how the imagination can run amok when you read about "high end" gear. I remember owning the Fidelio X2s and reading about this and that headphone in different categories, and imagining all its weak points, and how incredibly smooth it could all sound if I just got a new headphone + a new amp and a new dac. And improvements did of course come, nothing more staggering than my switch to electrostatics. But of course once I entered estats, the snakeoil flowed even more wildly. And of course for someone sitting there with the best sounding rig possible to their ears, they will still be able to imagine sometihng sounding better. So they go buy cables, or a black box with a switch. I remember getting a schiit eitr, converting USB to coax. And I could swear it was one of the most staggering differences ever made to my system! Of course it was all in my head. But because I found fault in my system on certain tracks, I so wanted it to be fixed by this little box, and I was so ready for everything to be perfect - so it magically fixed the very errors I believed my system had. 

Of course the errors I was hearing was the headphones and only the headphones. And the errors wasn't actually errors, but rather wishful thinking.


----------



## Krassi (May 7, 2020)

deleted


----------



## castleofargh

> R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible


----------



## Krassi (May 7, 2020)

deleted


----------



## bigshot

no


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> I figure, if it’s that difficult to hear a difference in a simple blind listening test, it flat out doesn’t matter. Paying more money for quality I can’t hear is a waste. I’ve done controlled comparisons between every piece of equipment I own, from a $40 Walmart DVD player up to an Oppo HA-1 and they all sound exactly the same to me. They should... they are designed to be audibly transparent. You can’t prove a negative, so it’s the responsibility of people claiming audible differences to provide evidence that real people actually heard a difference. It’s easy to just think up reasons why something *might* be audible. And it’s easy to do a controlled test to prove it.


You cannot hear a difference. Sorry it is only your loss. Use that $40 Walmart DVD player and be happy.
Somebody can hear difference he will use the Oppo HA-1 and he will be happy.
I do not understand your problem here.


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> You cannot hear a difference. Sorry it is only your loss. Use that $40 Walmart DVD player and be happy.
> Somebody can hear difference he will use the Oppo HA-1 and he will be happy.
> I do not understand your problem here.



So you've ABX or blind tested a $40 DVD player and a more expensive unit and were able to identify them in a statistically meaningful way?


----------



## bigshot

magicscreen said:


> Somebody can hear difference he will use the Oppo HA-1 and he will be happy. I do not understand your problem here.



I seriously doubt that anyone can hear a difference. The reason I pick one player over another is features, not sound quality. If you had taken the time to do a little controlled testing too, you would know that. It isn't difficult and a switcher isn't expensive. The only reason NOT to do your own tests is because you don't want to know the truth. I can understand that if you have a great deal of money invested into a lie.

I'm not the one with a problem here.


----------



## magicscreen (May 12, 2020)

bfreedma said:


> So you've ABX or blind tested a $40 DVD player and a more expensive unit and were able to identify them in a statistically meaningful way?


Sorry, I am not a greenhorn audiophile. You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht


----------



## bigshot

You are in the wrong forum, pal. You need to go back to the places where people are allowed to guess and make crap up.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> I seriously doubt that anyone can hear a difference. The reason I pick one player over another is features, not sound quality. If you had taken the time to do a little controlled testing too, you would know that. It isn't difficult and a switcher isn't expensive. The only reason NOT to do your own tests is because you don't want to know the truth. I can understand that if you have a great deal of money invested into a lie.
> 
> I'm not the one with a problem here.


I will not do any test. I would rather enjoy the listening to my Rockna Wavedream. 
Why don't you buy one and try it?
Experience is the most important.


----------



## magicscreen

bigshot said:


> You are in the wrong forum, pal. You need to go back to the places where people are allowed to guess and make crap up.


You are in the wrong forum. Go to ASR.
Crap = you can measure how a DAC or amp sounds.


----------



## bigshot (May 12, 2020)

magicscreen said:


> I will not do any test.





You have stumbled into the one forum where we get to demand proof to substantiate claims. I'm sorry, biased descriptions of your impression works in the rest of head-fi, but here we get to dismiss you if you aren't willing to back up what you say.

Thanks for playing though, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you as you leave... The Sound Science Home Game!


----------



## KeithPhantom (May 12, 2020)

I just don't understand why other people reject the scientific method and controlled blind testing. It is a great way to see the measured differences of the equipment and the perception by the hearing of these. I don't disregard buying because you like it, but to affirm differences they must be able to be measured by either standard measurements or other correlated but non-standard measurements.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> You are in the wrong forum, pal. You need to go back to the places where people are allowed to guess and make crap up.


You‘re ”allowed to guess and make crap up” all the time... and you’re the most prolific poster here!


magicscreen said:


> You are in the wrong forum. Go to ASR.


He wouldn’t survive at ASR. He didn’t survive at HA.


bigshot said:


> You have stumbled into the one forum where we get to demand proof to substantiate claims.


Great! I’d like to demand proof to substantiate this ridiculous claim: 


bigshot said:


> People vary in their ability to hear, but downward in various levels of hearing degradation. There aren’t people who hear better than normal undamaged hearing.



The fact is: if you don’t break any rules or posting guidelines, you can post here. People can (politely, I hope) request testing, but it’s not a rule.


----------



## AudioThief

magicscreen said:


> Sorry, I am not a greenhorn audiophile. You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht



Use your head man. I used to think like you too, but just think about it - if you cannot hear the difference in a blind test... Its either not there, or you can't hear it, so it doesn't matter! Save yourself time and money and take the wool out of your ears.


----------



## bigshot

I just dismiss with bye bye. Bye!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I just dismiss with bye bye. Bye!


The rules allow that too! Bye!

But, requesting reasonable (scientific) standards makes sense; ignoring them in some of your own posts is hypocrisy. ...also allowed by the rules.


----------



## bfreedma

magicscreen said:


> Sorry, I am not a greenhorn audiophile. You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht




Science is BS and uncontrolled subjective observations and opinions trump ABX.  Got it.

You are definitely in the wrong subforum.

But go ahead - explain how ABX is a trick...


----------



## bigshot

I always put on a blindfold when I play pin the tail on the donkey. Lately, it's been awfully easy to find a donkey to pin!


----------



## SoundAndMotion

magicscreen said:


> You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht





KeithPhantom said:


> I just don't understand why other people reject the scientific method and controlled blind testing.





bfreedma said:


> Science is BS and uncontrolled subjective observations and opinions trump ABX.
> [snip]
> But go ahead - explain how ABX is a trick...


I can't speak for @magicscreen , but most of the posts/articles I've seen cite_ test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ (short snippets, short transitions, multiple repetitions). There are also several "I don't need to", or "I don't want to" responses.

*An honesty test - Just supposin'*
When I was about 20 (a long time ago), I went to a sales seminar. There were lots of ideas, all but one forgotten, a very cool one.

After an interview ("what are you looking for?"), and a sales pitch, you ask to write it up. (I skipped parts of the process) If the customer hedges, you ask why. He/she lists some reasons (wrong color, price, performance spec). You answer all with "just supposin'" each list item were addressed: "Just supponin' we have something in the color you want, with the specs you want, for the price you want? _Can we write it up now_?"
If they say yes, you know the reasons given are honest, and you know where to go, or that it's impossible. If they say no, you repeat "why not?" and "just supposin'" the reasons away again. Keep repeating until you get the real reason(s). I said "lying", but it is often subconscious. "Just supposin' " helps them figure it out too.

One could do the same with those unwilling to do a proper blind test. Many here already know that _test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ can easily be addressed/removed. ...but are those the real reasons?

The problem I often see in forums is that the "seller" treats the "buyer" with derision, condescension, and arrogance. "You are delusional", "You are ignorant", "Science says you are full of it", may not be the most convincing strategies. I think this is the reason for many "I don't need to"/"I don't want to" responses.

IMHO, lying, or just making crap up ("It's easy", "I've tested everything I own", "No one can hear better than average") doesn't help to convince. Ahem, you know who you are...


----------



## dazzerfong (May 13, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> I can't speak for @magicscreen , but most of the posts/articles I've seen cite_ test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ (short snippets, short transitions, multiple repetitions). There are also several "I don't need to", or "I don't want to" responses.
> 
> ...........................
> 
> IMHO, lying, or just making crap up ("It's easy", "I've tested everything I own", "No one can hear better than average") doesn't help to convince. Ahem, you know who you are...




Pot, meet the kettle calling you black.

Your very first sentence is already a lie: _nobody is advocating for 'unnatural listening scenarios'_. ABX can be literally _anything _you want as long as you're blind to what you're listening to. If you want to ABX for a few weeks, absolutely nobody is stopping you.

Hell, there's an entire thread on this very topic: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/my-take-on-foobar-abx-test-with-very-subtle-effects-on-files.857152/

EDIT: I'm an idiot - ignore the struck-out post.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 13, 2020)

dazzerfong said:


> Pot, meet the kettle calling you black.
> 
> Your very first sentence is already a lie: _nobody is advocating for 'unnatural listening scenarios'_. ABX can be literally _anything _you want as long as you're blind to what you're listening to. If you want to ABX for a few weeks, absolutely nobody is stopping you.
> 
> Hell, there's an entire thread on this very topic: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/my-take-on-foobar-abx-test-with-very-subtle-effects-on-files.857152/





SoundAndMotion said:


> I can't speak for @magicscreen , but most of the posts/articles I've seen *cite*_ test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ (short snippets, short transitions, multiple repetitions).
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Many here already know that _test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ *can easily be addressed/removed*. ...but are those the real reasons?


My first sentence is true. Many who don’t like ABX *cite* that as a reason.
... which I said *can easily be addressed/removed.*
Does someone need to read more carefully?


A clue for careless readers: I support blind testing and use it in my work!


----------



## dazzerfong (May 13, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> My first sentence is true. Many who don’t like ABX *cite* that as a reason.
> ... which I said *can easily be addressed/removed.*
> Does someone need to read more carefully?
> 
> ...



Yep, apologies for that - misread it as though you thought that way.

I see your snarkiness is still at an all-time high. This quarantine is doing wonders for our brains.....

To be fair, deserved that one.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

No worries.
Here in Germany, we’re allowed out with a mask, but the security to get into the hospital rivals airport checks! How is it in Oz?


----------



## gregorio

magicscreen said:


> [1] Sorry, I am not a greenhorn audiophile. You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht
> [2] I will not do any test. I would rather enjoy the listening to my Rockna Wavedream.
> [3] Why don't you buy one and try it? Experience is the most important.
> [4] Crap = you can measure how a DAC or amp sounds.



1. Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. ABX and blind/double blind testing is NOT "audiophile BS" because many/most audiophiles dispute/reject them. It's pretty much the opposite, because ABX/DBT are scientific testing methods that disprove many of the claims the audiophile world depends on. Your statement is like saying: "_The scientific methods that prove the Earth is a sphere, is flat earther BS_".

2. That's of course your choice but if you don't test then you cannot know the actual performance of any component/piece of equipment (individually or in combination) and therefore you cannot truthfully make any assertions about their actual performance.

3. Clearly that is NOT true. In fact, that's pretty much why science was invented in the first place! If experience were "the most important", we'd still be treating people with leeches, mercury, blood letting, Snake Oil, etc. We treated people for years or centuries with these quack cures because EXPERIENCE demonstrated that they worked! The problem is that personal "experience" cannot differentiate an actual cure from placebo effects or statistical/probability effects. Unless you've been an astronaut or flown military aircraft at extremely high altitudes, you've never experienced the curvature of the earth. Therefore, if "experience is the most important" then you MUST believe that the Earth is flat. Presumably you don't believe the Earth is flat, how is that possible unless you believe there's something more important than your experience?

4. That's true! One obviously can't measure how a DAC or amp sounds because they don't produce sound, they produce an analogue electrical signal! You might as well state: "Crap = you can measure how a car or motorcycle fly" because cars and motorcycles are specifically designed not to fly, like DACs and amps are designed not to produce sound. What they are designed to do, produce an analogue electrical signal, OBVIOUSLY can be measured because that's exactly what digital audio is in the first place, a series of measurements of an analogue electrical signal!



SoundAndMotion said:


> [1] You‘re ”allowed to guess and make crap up” all the time... and you’re the most prolific poster here!
> [2] He wouldn’t survive at ASR. He didn’t survive at HA.
> [3] Great! I’d like to demand proof to substantiate this ridiculous claim: "_People vary in their ability to hear, but downward in various levels of hearing degradation. There aren’t people who hear better than normal undamaged hearing._"



1. In all fairness to @bigshot, most of what he states isn't just a guess or if it is, then it's a guess that at least broadly agrees with the science. Unfortunately though, that's not always the case.

2. I didn't know he "didn't survive at HA" but I'm not at all surprised. His testing methods and the reporting of his results are a long way from the minimum requirements demanded of scientifically acceptable evidence but again, his results are commonly in broad agreement with the scientific evidence, though not always. Although he sometimes falsely extrapolates his own experience to others, at least his experience is informed by knowledge not entirely derived from audiophile marketing and testing that is considerably more reliable than the typical audiophile sighted test.

3. That claim isn't "ridiculous", although it entirely depends on how one defines "normal undamaged hearing". If one defines it in terms of a mean or average, then it is ridiculous but if one defines it in terms of a range, then it's not. For example, "normal undamaged hearing" is defined by the range of 20Hz - 20kHz, the average 50 year old can probably hear no higher than about 14kHz (at a moderate listening test level). Is it possible there's a 50 year old who can hear say 16kHz? Sure, very unlikely but possible. Such a person would disprove bigshot's assertion if "normal undamaged hearing" refers to the average 50 year old, but obviously not if it refers to the normal hearing range of 20hz - 20kHz. However, as high freq hearing response deteriorates with age, then there aren't any 50 year old's who have "undamaged" hearing. Taken with this interpretation, as I personally did, bigshot's assertion was correct. At a reasonable listening level, no adult has the ability to hear higher than 20kHz and probably without any exceptions, all adults will have a somewhat lower threshold. You have the right to demand proof of this assertion, although generally I/we would not provide one initially because it's a well researched and long established scientific fact that many/most/all here are already aware of, that can be verified with a quick look at Wikipedia if necessary.

G


----------



## old tech

magicscreen said:


> Sorry, I am not a greenhorn audiophile. You cannot trick me this ABX and blind testing audiophile bullsht


Now where did I hear others say the same thing about blind testing?  Alternative medicine, astrology, paranormal.


----------



## AudioThief

SoundAndMotion said:


> I can't speak for @magicscreen , but most of the posts/articles I've seen cite_ test-stress_ and an _"unnatural listening scenario"_ (short snippets, short transitions, multiple repetitions). There are also several "I don't need to", or "I don't want to" responses.
> 
> *An honesty test - Just supposin'*
> When I was about 20 (a long time ago), I went to a sales seminar. There were lots of ideas, all but one forgotten, a very cool one.
> ...



The main reason people on this forum has a short fuse against "outsiders" is because outsiders largely aren't actually interested in the truth. They are interested in digging a ditch for their position. If most people are anything like I was only a year ago, then the fact is they don't want to learn the truth. They almost know they are full of crap, but it would be too painful to fully learn the truth, so its best avoided.

I always argued like this against why I wouldn't be able to pass a blind test:

- "To discern a product I need weeks or months, so telling apart gear can't be done in a quick blind test!"
- "I might not be able to tell this DAC or amp apart on 95% of tracks, but maybe like 5% of my favorite music in specific moments like a cymbal or drum snare, and that can't be distinguished in a blind test! I don't even know what tracks those are but I've experienced it before!"
- "Measurements is nice and all, but obviously there are factors outside of measurements that impact the sound I experience! The measurements can't pick up those, nor can they pick up changes in DACs that my developed human brain can interpret!"

Of course little did I know these arguments made no sense, and that it was in fact my brain just tricking me. But it took quite a lot of literally challenging myself to deal with reality before I could understand the simple truth - if I can't tell it apart in a blind test (which I know I couldn't with basically all of my gear at the time) then the difference either isn't there, or doesn't matter. It really is that simple! And of course, even testing a $2K headphone vs a 500$ headphone will disappoint most $2K headphone owners, because the difference between transdusers, while obvious, isn't exactly staggering! Audiophilia is just such a ridiculous hobby. I think the only really eye opening difference was from dynamics/planars to electrostats, and even then its not THAT big. I love good music and I love good sound, but any "audiophile" that is honest with himself will sooner rather than later have to accept that its all just a massive cult that duped us all.


----------



## dazzerfong

SoundAndMotion said:


> No worries.
> Here in Germany, we’re allowed out with a mask, but the security to get into the hospital rivals airport checks! How is it in Oz?



Until Friday, unless we have an acceptable reason (work, food or exercise), $1000 fine if caught mucking around.


----------



## bigshot (May 13, 2020)

In LA, the sun is shining and I have all the windows in the house open. Wonderful breeze! Life is good.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

gregorio said:


> 1. In all fairness to @bigshot, most of what he states isn't just a guess or if it is, then it's a guess that at least broadly agrees with the science. Unfortunately though, that's not always the case.


Yes, in all fairness to @bigshot...
That reminds me of something my first wife (oops, is that a clue?) taught me about myself. If she did a bunch of errands successfully, mostly for me, but smashed the car in the process, 95-100% of the words out of my mouth would be about the car. That was unfair. ... Thanks to Kelly:
@bigshot seems to be a smart and likable guy. He has a lot of knowledge and experience in some interesting areas, including audio. If we met 1 on 1 to chat, I bet we'd get along great and have a good ol' time. I'd love to hear about his record collection, animation work and museum, and reminisce about separate experiences at UCLA (he was probably North Campus; I was South). 
But... Guessing and making stuff up has differing importance depending on context. All of us make mistakes! An artist can usually do it without any problems or issues. Pilots and surgeons are different. In a teaching scenario,_ if the teacher, guide, counselor or senior forum member mixes guesses, made-up "alternative facts" and lies with actual true and valuable facts, how is the naive student/learner to distinguish?_ You and I, and good "teachers" typically warn the reader/listener with disclaimers: "I'm speculating", "It seems to me ... but I might be wrong", "IMHO". When confronted with being wrong, the courageous way is to accept and acknowledge, perhaps apologize, perhaps thank the person who found it.
But when one presents guesses and made up stuff as solid facts, and mixes them with real solid facts, and when confronted, deflects, side-steps or flees the topic, I take issue... and so do you. (I realized rereading some previous posts that _a different, but perfectly appropriate reply to you could have been made with quotes from you_.) Your post does not display your normal focus on truth, science and honesty.


gregorio said:


> 2. I didn't know he "didn't survive at HA" but I'm not at all surprised. His testing methods and the reporting of his results are a long way from the minimum requirements demanded of scientifically acceptable evidence but again, his results are commonly in broad agreement with the scientific evidence, though not always. Although he sometimes falsely extrapolates his own experience to others, at least his experience is informed by knowledge not entirely derived from audiophile marketing and testing that is considerably more reliable than the typical audiophile sighted test.


I guess I should clarify that by "didn't survive" I did not mean he was kicked out or blocked; I meant he went there, posted some stuff and didn't stay to become a regular. I guess one could say that about you and me also.


gregorio said:


> 3. That claim isn't "ridiculous", although it entirely depends on how one defines "normal undamaged hearing". If one defines it in terms of a mean or average, then it is ridiculous...
> 
> [pretzel-making]
> 
> At a reasonable listening level, no adult has the ability to hear higher than 20kHz and probably without any exceptions, all adults will have a somewhat lower threshold. You have the right to demand proof of this assertion, although generally I/we would not provide one initially because it's a well researched and long established scientific fact that many/most/all here are already aware of, that can be verified with a quick look at Wikipedia if necessary.


Sorry!... I have to: This is the Sound Science sub-forum, not the "gregorio twists and spins bigshot's words" forum or the "gregorio defines words using gregorese" forum!
As a native speaker who's been reading, writing and speaking English nearly my whole life, and reading, writing and presenting scientific works a couple of decades less, I don't believe I need a translation.
All measures of human performance, whether sensory, athletic, cognitive or anything else provide distributions of values. Most of the measures depend strongly on several factors: age, sex, race, health, etc. Many of the distributions follow a Gaussian (aka Normal) distribution, the so-called bell curve. Bi-modal distributions are tricky, but for unimodal distributions, e.g. the Gaussian, typically you'd use the mean (non-skewed data) or the mode (skewed data) for the idea of "normal", typical or average performance. 
"Normal undamaged hearing" would include measures of frequency-dependent absolute and differential thresholds (nicely summarized in equal-loudness curves) and speech-recognition, with and without distractor noise. If you deviate too far on any measure (except differential thresholds), your hearing is not "normal".

"At a reasonable listening level"... You know the ear's frequency response is level-dependent and the equal-loudness levels are frequency dependent. If you set poorly-defined parameters that directly influence the measure you are interested in, you can say nearly anything you want. The vagueness and wishy-washyness is not typical of your writing.
So let's be clear: some adult humans can hear above 20kHz (this will be the third time I've pointed you to Ashihara), and if "all adults will have a somewhat lower threshold" (I think you mean cutoff frequency - the threshold at high frequencies will be higher), then the 20kHz number is a straw man. It is not "normal".

It wouldn't surprise me if many people here know much of what you and I have said. But most/all?... put down that bong!

As for Wikipedia, I use it often... knowing there's a wide range of quality of the articles. Some are great, some bad. It would not be my go-to source to settle a dispute. Maybe the references though.

Just for kicks: there is no article on "Normal Hearing", but several discuss that idea in terms compatible with what I've written above.
From "Hearing Range":
The commonly stated range of human hearing is 20 to 20,000 Hz. Under ideal laboratory conditions, humans can hear sound as low as 12 Hz and as high as 28 kHz, though the threshold increases sharply at 15 kHz in adults, corresponding to the last auditory channel of the cochlea. Humans are most sensitive to (i.e. able to discern at lowest intensity) frequencies between 2,000 and 5,000 Hz. Individual hearing range varies according to the general condition of a human's ears and nervous system. The range shrinks during life, usually beginning at around age of eight with the upper frequency limit being reduced. Women typically experience a lesser degree of hearing loss than men, with a later onset. Men have approximately 5 to 10 dB greater loss in the upper frequencies by age 40.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> In LA, the sun is shining and I have all the windows in the house open. Wonderful breeze! Life is good.


Cool! Have the smog and traffic decreased a lot because of COVID-19?


----------



## bigshot (May 14, 2020)

Traffic is very easy, but the real thing that's nice is that we had a nice wet winter and the spring has been very mild so far. We'll see what the summer holds.

I'll give you a clue how to interpret what I say, because some folks seem to want to project stuff on me that isn't me. I'm not a scientist or engineer. I've never claimed to be one. I am a practical person. I use science to solve immediate problems. I don't have much interest in pure theory because my focus is on where the rubber meets the road. I see people come into Sound Science full of bogus advice from other audio forums that is designed to make life difficult for them and relieve them of their money. I try to give them practical advice to lead them to a more efficient and inexpensive way of skinning the cat. I'm not going to bother to go into detail about stuff that almost certainly doesn't apply to their circumstances, because that would only confuse them further. I try to provide general signposts of the direction they should take and encourage them to do simple tests to see the basics of how things work for themselves.

Tests can have more than one purpose... they can be rigorous and scientific with the intent of building up proof to hold up to peer review... or they can be simple and general with no purpose other than to help a hi-fi nut check to see if he is heading in the right direction or not. I've done informal tests as a matter of course for decades. I'm happy to share what I have learned from them. But that doesn't mean that I expect anyone to take them as gospel and not do any tests of their own. Go back and look at my posts and you'll see that I consistently encourage people to do tests. The problem is that people in the forum follow up my friendly suggestion with a bunch of absolutest demands telling the person that a casual test isn't good enough- they need expensive equipment, or rigorous standards, or huge sample sizes. Pretty soon it's become so complicated that beginners are discouraged from even starting down the road of doing their own tests. I see audiophools do the exact same thing- except they argue that they will never be convinced because some insignificant i hasn't been dotted or a t hasn't been crossed. All this is just obfuscation. Everyone should be doing simple basic controlled tests for themselves to the best of their ability. If everyone did that, audiophoolery wouldn't stand a chance.

In the past decade or so that I've been posting here, I can think of one time when someone came in here claiming to hear a clear difference between DACs and I was able to shepherd him past all the distractions and counter productive arguments to actually conduct a decent level matched, direct A/B switched, blind test. Against all odds, he spent a Saturday with a friend and found out the DACs sounded the same to him and his friend. Was his test enough to prove objectively and without doubt that there was no audible difference to any human being in the world with any kind of recording or test tone? No. But it was enough for him to realize part of what really counts for him in home audio. That is one person. I have one chalk mark on my score slate, not because he was convinced of what I was trying to tell him, but because he took the trouble to test it and find out for himself. I count that as a victory for myself. Maybe there are more like him among the lurkers. I don't know. But that is my purpose here, to get people to think in an organized fashion to solve their everyday problems, not to get into pissing matches over who is the biggest scientist.


----------



## AudioThief

You can add one more to your hitlist, bigshot. 

When I came into the sound science forum, there were 3 guys that were important for my understanding of the audiophile myth(s). castleofargh, gregorio and bigshot. It didn't take long until I "got" bigshot - he was the opposite of rigorous, but it was, as he says, practical. Something that stuck with me was "If I can't hear it, that means the difference isn't there, or it doesn't matter!". That really changed everything for me, as absurd as it may sound. Technical explanations are great, but for some people, like me, it helps just keeping it simple. Now I'm definitely happy there are people who on here who will explain in rigorous detail and be extremely precise in their explanation, such as gregorio. But simple, practical advice like bigshot provides is also great. I don't think every single post has to be rigorous scientific work. With that being said I do respect your post @SoundAndMotion , and I largely agree with it. Its important to acknowledge whether what you're saying is fact or opinion and so on - but in my case, I feel bigshot, by virtue of his writing style, makes it clear what he does.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 15, 2020)

bigshot said:


> Traffic is very easy, but the real thing that's nice is that we had a nice wet winter and the spring has been very mild so far. We'll see what the summer holds.
> 
> I'll give you a clue how to interpret what I say, because some folks seem to want to project stuff on me that isn't me. I'm not a scientist or engineer. I've never claimed to be one. I am a practical person. I use science to solve immediate problems. I don't have much interest in pure theory because my focus is on where the rubber meets the road. I see people come into Sound Science full of bogus advice from other audio forums that is designed to make life difficult for them and relieve them of their money. I try to give them practical advice to lead them to a more efficient and inexpensive way of skinning the cat. I'm not going to bother to go into detail about stuff that almost certainly doesn't apply to their circumstances, because that would only confuse them further. I try to provide general signposts of the direction they should take and encourage them to do simple tests to see the basics of how things work for themselves.
> 
> ...



@bigshot  Thanks for a great reply! I find it sincere and honest, on-point and thorough. I would recommend reading it to everyone who reads your posts... _before reading your other posts_. Maybe put the whole thing, or an edited version in your profile???

My ongoing concern is: words matter. You and I could write 2 sentences that _perhaps_ 99% of readers would interpret the same way.
SAM: Adult human hearing above 20kHz is very rare.
B: No humans can hear above 20kHz.
Interpretation by 99%(??): I (the reader) can't hear above 20kHz.
You once wrote that brevity was your motivation, but I believe that it's the 1% that concerns both of us. And not the whole 1%, but a teeny-weeny fraction of the 1%. My guess would be that it's not laziness (SAM's sentence is waayyy too long), rather you want to inhibit the audiophile from thinking: Yes, I'm one of the rare ones, so I need 50k$ cables. My concern is both audiophiles and others who think: I know that's false (a lie), so the rest of what bigshot says is/might be too, even if it's true and valuable. And worse, if you and gregorio and castle say mostly the same thing, but they catch your lie, they may discard all 3.
And it is a lie. You know better. If challenged, you would immediately move the goalpost by adding a lot of words: only some young people, with (perhaps dangerously) loud volumes, and there's nothing but noise up there anyway. Words I can avoid by saying "rare".
I'm guessing you choose absolutist terms (e.g. all, none, always, never, proven, debunked) to strengthen you point. But by making the point demonstrably untrue, you weaken it.

As for testing, I'm sure you've missed the couple of long back-and-forths I've had (perhaps elsewhere) where the other person said proper blind testing is so complex, that it can only be correctly done with great difficulty by scientists in a lab. Another absolutist stance. The point I forcefully argued was, no, some tests can easily be done by lay people at home. The key is "some". The rest of the story (remember Paul Harvey?) is that some others are difficult and complex. But you seem to say often: blind testing, it's easy. When I challenged you a couple years ago repeatedly (you deflected for a while) to give specific details on how you did your last test, you conjured up an audio engineer friend who took care of the details. That's not an option for everyone.

Finally, I know you're not a scientist or engineer; I never thought you were and I'm not in a pissing contest with you. But when you throw around strong statements about things you don't understand, e.g. HRTF, or you say "I tried binaural and it didn't work, therefore spatial hearing requires space and can't be done with headphones", you are scientifically, logically, and empirically wrong about spatial hearing. Pointing that out requires no urine.

BTW, how's the smog?

Cheers, SAM


----------



## bigshot

I think most people get where I’m coming from because they listen to what I say instead of trying to shove me into a box for argumentative purposes.


----------



## SoundAndMotion

bigshot said:


> I think most people get where I’m coming from because they listen to what I say instead of trying to shove me into a box for argumentative purposes.


Got it. But you certainly missed my purpose. So I expect you'll continue to guess and make crap up. ...and I'll feel free to point it out, when convenient...


bigshot said:


> You are in the wrong forum, pal. You need to go back to the places where people are allowed to guess and make crap up.


----------



## bigshot

I could answer but what’s the point? You won’t listen anyway. You’ll just start pulling out a ruler to show yours is longer again. If you were interested in hearing what I say, I would answer. I’d rather talk with people who listen.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 15, 2020)

bigshot said:


> You won’t listen anyway. You’ll just start pulling out a ruler to show yours is longer again. If you were interested in hearing what I say, I would answer. I’d rather talk with people who listen.


What I quoted is entirely false. I am interested in what you have to say, and I do listen. Who's butt-hurt now?


----------



## bigshot

No it isn’t. You have cherry picked what I say. I’ve answered all this stuff before and you’ve either ignored it or selectively forgotten it. All you’re doing is playing a broken record of insults. Why should I pay attention to you? I can’t think of any reason.


----------



## bigshot

I’m not mad or anything. I’m more bored with our interaction than anything.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 15, 2020)

bigshot said:


> No it isn’t. You have cherry picked what I say. I’ve answered all this stuff before and you’ve either ignored it or selectively forgotten it. All you’re doing is playing a broken record of insults. Why should I pay attention to you? I can’t think of any reason.





bigshot said:


> I’m not mad or anything. I’m more bored with our interaction than anything.


So stop.
1. We all cherry pick; you as much as anyone. I quoted your entire post and really liked it (literally).
2. I don't read everything you write or have written. If you've answered before, set me straight with a link, or if it's short, by repeating it. Trust me, I don't selectively forget anything - Mother Nature is taking care of that!
3. If all you read are insults, you are selectively forgetting. Grow a thicker skin man!

p.s. How's the smog?


----------



## sander99 (May 15, 2020)

I moved this post to off-topic-thread-off-topic-is-on-topic-here:
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/off...-is-on-topic-here.928412/page-8#post-15616819


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 15, 2020)

sander99 said:


> Scientifically minded and well informed people are a minority compared to the people who are misinformed in varying degrees and the latter are exposed to all sorts of marketing bulshit far more than to correct information. For the first group to distinguish themselves from advocating "just another opinion" they should be correct, precise, consistant and complete.


Well said. I completely agree.

But, very few or none of those in the first group have to slog through a complete overhaul of their posting style/habits, rather a few small word changes here and there would usually accomplish this.
I suppose when people feel they're under attack, or that someone (e.g. me) is trying to "shove them in a box", they will find even small changes unacceptable, and they'll see all (attempts at constructive) criticism as further attacks.

... 'tis a shame, we could all be on the same team, but I understand the intransigence: I don't think I can stop reacting to those whose posts are egregiously _not_ "correct, precise, consistant and complete".


----------



## castleofargh

For the last time(I wish):


> *R2R/multibit vs Delta-Sigma - Is There A Measurable Scientific Difference That's Audible*


https://www.head-fi.org/threads/off-topic-in-sound-science-the-new-old-moderation.927233/

This is a scientifically minded section, not your room when you were living alone as a student. stop spreading all your dirty laundry everywhere! please!


----------



## gerelmx1986

I think the sony S-master digital amplifier/DAC is delta sigma.

To me it produces the most organic sound, very lifelike


----------



## old tech

What's an organic sound?  And apposed to what?


----------



## gregorio

SoundAndMotion said:


> [1] As a native speaker who's been reading, writing and speaking English nearly my whole life, and reading, writing and presenting scientific works a couple of decades less, I don't believe I need a translation.
> [2] ... typically you'd use the mean (non-skewed data) or the mode (skewed data) for the idea of "normal", typical or average performance....
> [3] "At a reasonable listening level"... You know the ear's frequency response is level-dependent and the equal-loudness levels are frequency dependent.
> [3a] If you set poorly-defined parameters that directly influence the measure you are interested in, you can say nearly anything you want. The vagueness and wishy-washyness is not typical of your writing.
> ...



1. Hmmm. Many of the published papers I've read in the last 30 years did need some form of interpretation, at least in terms of contextualisation, if not also sometimes in terms of the language itself and/or in how the conclusion relates to the data.

2. Yes, but not always. For example, the average family has (or at one time had) 2.4 children but obviously, as no family can have 2.4 children, there are no "normal" families. Or, taking the mode to be "normal", then a family with 3 children would not be "normal". This sort of thing crops up quite commonly in the perception of sound/music recording and reproduction. One of many examples, mastering studio acoustics represents an average similar to the 2.4 children, it's an average that doesn't exist for pretty much any consumer. Typically the term "normal", at least in the human perception of sound, is a range, not a specific average, mode or median.

3. Yes, that was rather vague/wishy-washy of me but if I'm to be honest, then I don't have much choice. The "ear's frequency response" is dependant or potentially dependant on numerous factors; age, equal-loudness contours, distance to source, gender, etc. In order not to be vague I would have to define a single specific level, a single specific source (recording), a single specific distance to the sound production source, a single specific age and gender and potentially other specifics, such as; room acoustics, headphone/IEM isolation or seal, etc.  But of course, we're dealing with a range of different people, with a range of different playback transducers (speakers/headphones/IEMs), reproducing a range of different recordings, at a range of different playback levels. Plus, taking just one of these factors, for example the equal-loudness contours: Which loudness contour, the one for threshold or say 60phon and whose loudness contour, Fletcher/Munson, Robinson/Dadson, ISO contours, the ITU's K-weighted filter or Audiometry's SPL(HL) and RETSPL (of which there are differing relative dBSPL calibration levels)? This isn't just semantics, differences between each of these can be 10dB or more. So even calculating an average (or median or mode) in the first place is somewhat vague and even if we could, there would be many who would fall somewhat outside it but still be "normal". In order to be honestand applicable to all, we need to use a "range". And as you yourself quoted 20 to 20,000 Hz covers everyone.
3a. Not sure I agree. Sure, if you set no parameters then you can say "_nearly anything you want_" but a range of parameters also limits the range of what you can say. "A reasonable listening level" covers a (limited) range and therefore also limits what can be said and applies to all or nearly all people. I'm commonly less vague because the claims being made are often either simply non-applicable/non-existent to start with or fall outside what is humanly possible under any conditions.

4. I've been aware of Ashihara's papers since long before even the first time you pointed him out, so I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by pointing him out yet again? So, let's REALLY be clear about what the reliable scientific evidence demonstrates: Adult humans cannot hear above 20kHz! The only exception is a specific set of circumstances/conditions which never exist in the real world and my source, ironically is Ashihara ("Audibility of complex tones above 20kHz"). Do I need to point out Ashihara to you? 
4a. Sure, if we define all people as adults and eliminate infants, young children and adolescents. What then is "normal" for an adult, I can't remember the exact source/s but 16kHz is typically the adult average? So if an adult has a threshold of 17kHz then they are not "normal" but in fact a 17kHz threshold is entirely normal for 18-21 year old adults.
4b. Referring back to point #1, how do you interpret "ideal"? The "ideal lab conditions" are obviously limited to the real world and are not ideal (perfect), there are no ideal/perfect reproduction systems, perfect recordings or perfect room acoustics for example. "Ideal" therefore actually means: As close to ideal/perfect as practically achievable in the real world, say on a par with a mastering studio. However, this interpretation of "ideal" eliminates the signal typically used to determine the HF hearing threshold, a high level, single high freq tone never exists in the real world. No naturally occurring sounds, no musical instrument or man made machinery produces just a high level single HF/ultrasonic tone (that I'm aware of), only complex sounds containing several/many different tones/freqs. The only exception is a signal generator/synthesiser but the only time they're used to produce such a signal is to create a test signal, there are of course no consumer music/sound recordings of nothing but a high level, single >20kHz tone. In other words, "normal" hearing is 20Hz-20kHz, unless we're talking about hearing a signal that is completely abnormal (will NEVER normally exist), in which case, how is it "normal"? This is why we/science quote 20Hz-20kHz for normal hearing, even though there's sufficient reliable evidence to state the absolute threshold of hearing **can** be as high 26kHz.

In this case, I agree with bigshot. His statement covers everyone and all conditions (all sound systems, acoustics and available audio recordings), except the one condition of a single test tone at high level.



bigshot said:


> [1] Tests can have more than one purpose... they can be rigorous and scientific with the intent of building up proof to hold up to peer review... or they can be simple and general with no purpose other than to help a hi-fi nut check to see if he is heading in the right direction or not.
> [2] The problem is that people in the forum follow up my friendly suggestion with a bunch of absolutest demands telling the person that a casual test isn't good enough- they need expensive equipment, or rigorous standards, or huge sample sizes.
> [3] Pretty soon it's become so complicated that beginners are discouraged from even starting down the road of doing their own tests. I see audiophools do the exact same thing



1. And who gets to define "a hi-fi nut"? The problem is that you define a "hi-fi nut" by your own preferences, priorities and sensibilities, which often are applicable to others but not always. When they're not and someone calls you out on it, you state their objection is "absolutist BS" and/or only applies to scientists or engineers, which is often a false assertion!

2. That depends on what you are stating. Sometimes you're not just making a "friendly suggestion" but an absolute statement that you falsely apply to everyone else. And on at least one occasion, the casual test you suggested was close to useless, it was obviously good enough to satisfy your personal preferences but for many would likely result in no more acurate reproduction than the default settings. Plus, the solution was cheap equipment, no rigorous standards and a sample size of one!

3. Really? I don't recall ever seeing an audiophool over-complicate and discourage beginners by demanding expensive measurement equipment, rigorous standards and huge sample sizes, typically they demand pretty much the opposite! However, extrapolating their subjective preferences/perceptions to everyone else, thereby implying they're objective, IS the "exact same thing" many audiophools do! Secondly, who decided this forum is only for beginners and that we can't/shouldn't discuss more advanced/complicated aspects of Sound Science? Simplifications and getting down to fundamental basics is often very useful here (as the fundamental basics are often perverted by marketing) but sometimes they're not enough or are actively misleading, depending on what is being discussed/asked. Such is the case with this thread's title, incidentally! 

G


----------



## bigshot (May 15, 2020)

gerelmx1986 said:


> I think the sony S-master digital amplifier/DAC is delta sigma. To me it produces the most organic sound, very lifelike



Everyone is going to pounce on you like tigers now, but I just wanted to suggest that you do a controlled comparison with other DAC/amps to see if that is the case. The best way to do that is to do a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. The equipment to do it can probably be had for under $50, and it will give you valuable skills for sorting out what is sales pitch and what is actual differences in sound. I do this with every piece of equipment I own... from a $40 Walmart DVD player all the way up to an Oppo HA-1, and I've never found a DAC, player or DAP that sounds any different from any other in normal use. If you can set up a test and determine that something does sound clearly different, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

By the way, I think I have that Scarlatti box set. That is Brilliant Classics, right? They have a lot of really good recordings of pre-classical music. Some people think that label is bad because it's bargain priced, but I find the quality to be quite high. People can have the same kind of misconceptions about audio equipment. When you find the good stuff at a bargain price, that counts as a score in my book!

EDIT: I just checked my iTunes library. That is the Warner box, not Brilliant Classics. I love the performances, but the level of the recording is so loud, I have to adjust the volume every time one comes up in shuffle mode. I need to re-rip that and adjust the volume so it doesn't blast me with "the sound of two skeletons making love in a closet" as Beecham so aptly put it!


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> Everyone is going to pounce on you like tigers now, but I just wanted to suggest that you do a controlled comparison with other DAC/amps to see if that is the case. The best way to do that is to do a line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison. The equipment to do it can probably be had for under $50, and it will give you valuable skills for sorting out what is sales pitch and what is actual differences in sound. I do this with every piece of equipment I own... from a $40 Walmart DVD player all the way up to an Oppo HA-1, and I've never found a DAC, player or DAP that sounds any different from any other in normal use. If you can set up a test and determine that something does sound clearly different, I would be very interested in hearing about it.
> 
> By the way, I think I have that Scarlatti box set. That is Brilliant Classics, right? They have a lot of really good recordings of pre-classical music. Some people think that label is bad because it's bargain priced, but I find the quality to be quite high. People can have the same kind of misconceptions about audio equipment. When you find the good stuff at a bargain price, that counts as a score in my book!
> 
> EDIT: I just checked my iTunes library. That is the Warner box, not Brilliant Classics. I love the performances, but the level of the recording is so loud, I have to adjust the volume every time one comes up in shuffle mode. I need to re-rip that and adjust the volume so it doesn't blast me with "the sound of two skeletons making love in a closet" as Beecham so aptly put it!


I heard other DAPs including.ilder sony walkmans pre-Smaster and while they sounded ok, they had a bit of too digital sound, lifeless, on two older walkman could find they used cirrus DACs. 
Also had an iPod classic, this sounded ni e too, it was my first DAP that made me make the switch to lossless.  I got from this iPod also nice enveloping 3D stage. Sadly it fell down from my careless hands and it died.

Had a fiio x3 with a wolfson DAC thinkthe WM8740. It sounded musical lush,had bigger soundstage than the ipod it replaced.  Only that in some songs it had a tendency to make them "float" above your head.

Last year before this COVID pandemic went out of control was in Berlin for a job interview, while there I remembered that in 2014 on my way to the Brandenburg gate we stood in front of a sony building. Went there. There is a TV and film Museum as well as a sony shop.
In this shoo they had the WM1Z which is 2x more expensive than my WM1A, decided to give it a spin to see if what they are always raving "the 1Z sounds better than the 1A" what I found... they sound the same, if I could hear a difference it was very minimal to justify the price difference. They also had the DMP-Z1, the walkman for the rich people LOL (I saw the price tag and my eyes fell down from their sockets haha, 9.999€).nonetheless asked the shop team if I could demo that one as well, unfortunately I came just when they wanted to close and well I could not demo it.

Brilliantclassics started very good, their early releases have a fantastic SQ (F. COUPERIN THE COMPLETE OUVRE D' CLAVECIN, HANDEL THE HARPSICHORD SUITES and many others), recent ones have been rather a.mixed bag some sound as great as their early releases sone sound ok and some really had to look else were (simone stella set of froberger sounds rather bad, theinatrument he chose had wolf tones in the bass registers. Bob asperenon aeolus no contest, the best hands down.  Had always them in CD until I moved to Germany and got a pioneer bluray to rip SACD DSD layerao I upgraded all what I had to DSD ). Had two CD sets that had a cut-off at 15kHz (clearly they screwed something in the edit stage).

I listened to the brilliant classics set of scarlatti (Belder) to compare to mine (Ross on Erato/warner). Some sounded as great as the one I have, some not, the mixer or they put the mic's away so it sounded rather soft with less detail, some had a body studio feeling, no reverb ( toss set also has some imperfections tions buy only on three discs).


----------



## old tech

What's a digital sound? Unless your device is faulty, digital does not have a sound.


----------



## gerelmx1986

old tech said:


> What's a digital sound? Unless your device is faulty, digital does not have a sound.


I meant lifeless, cold with neo essence to the music at all.
Organic sound for.me is how we hear in real life, unlike f.e sennheiser HD800 arent natural or organic, they have artificial boosted treble, same for some early CD masters from Deutsche Grammophon artificial treble boost to give the sense of more details


----------



## gerelmx1986

@bigshot  you have the scarlatti from Warner, same as me, mine is not.loud, note that I have the 2005 re-issue (there is a 2014 re-issue as well, and I know re-re-issues have this crappy bass boost ot worse loudness wars volume boost).


----------



## castleofargh

gerelmx1986 said:


> I heard other DAPs including.ilder sony walkmans pre-Smaster and while they sounded ok, they had a bit of too digital sound, lifeless, on two older walkman could find they used cirrus DACs.
> Also had an iPod classic, this sounded ni e too, it was my first DAP that made me make the switch to lossless.  I got from this iPod also nice enveloping 3D stage. Sadly it fell down from my careless hands and it died.
> 
> Had a fiio x3 with a wolfson DAC thinkthe WM8740. It sounded musical lush,had bigger soundstage than the ipod it replaced.  Only that in some songs it had a tendency to make them "float" above your head.
> ...


A few things to take into account here, beside the lack of controlled listening:
 they're DAPs, so the experience imposes a different DAC, but also a different amp unless we go around to using both line outs and match the volume output on our external amp(needed as the x3 had a line out way louder than any sony DAP will probably ever have).
The Fiio X3 had an impedance output a full magnitude lower than the Sony, so depending on the IEM/headphone used, very real and very audible differences could come from that without the DAC itself having anything to do with it. 
Both are delta sigma anyway. 
The X3(at least the first version), was doing something mysterious to the sound. At the time I didn't have all the little measurement toys I have now or any understanding of how to measure much of anyting, so to this day that device is a mystery to me. But my subjective impression with the various IEMs I had at the time is indeed that it had "a special sound".


----------



## old tech

gerelmx1986 said:


> I meant lifeless, cold with neo essence to the music at all.
> Organic sound for.me is how we hear in real life, unlike f.e sennheiser HD800 arent natural or organic, they have artificial boosted treble, same for some early CD masters from Deutsche Grammophon artificial treble boost to give the sense of more details


But that is not a digital sound but rather the sound of a poor recording or mastering or a faulty/poorly designed device. Digital audio does not have a sound it accurately captures, stores and plays back the original source.

Look at it another way, what is an analog sound (ie sound that has been recorded, stored and played back on analog devices)? Using that sort of logic one could say it is sound that is hissy, veiled and lacking in treble or accurate bass. But half decent analog recordings and gear sounds close to good digital recordings.

As for some early CDs having too much top end, it can sound that way to someone more used to, and a preference for, the roll off from records and some tapes, but it could also be that those CDs have pre-emphasis as some early CDs had. That can result in excessive treble if they are not played on a proper CD player or if the ripped files have not been de-emphasised.


----------



## Davesrose

I know I won't have much of an influence, but I'll add a post anyway.  "Digital" is a high fidelity source that will be influenced by whatever audio chain you have.  Recently, we're getting into DAPs....as has been highlighted, there are different stages: source file, DAC, and included amp as such.  As of now, all audio is mastered in digital: this new fade of having vinyl issues means the digital master is then pressed to vinyl😑.   I have collected the older vinyl records that were mastered for vinyl back when it was in its hay-day.  I'm now finding there are some new fangled 3d audio *must tries* for specific format, but haven't found anything that makes me convinced (except, 2d DTS-MA to DST:Neural).


----------



## gerelmx1986

I agree  digital audio is high fidelity, especially when done right. I have always said there are bad sounding CD as there are also bad sounding 24-bit/DSD files 
.

But most of the time in newer recordings I tend to look first for DSD/SACD -> 24BIT ->CD


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2020)

gerelmx1986 said:


> I heard other DAPs including.ilder sony walkmans pre-Smaster and while they sounded ok, they had a bit of too digital sound, lifeless, on two older walkman could find they used cirrus DACs. Also had an iPod classic, this sounded ni e too, it was my first DAP that made me make the switch to lossless.  I got from this iPod also nice enveloping 3D stage.



As I said before, your impressions are subject to bias and perceptual error. If you do a proper line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison, you would know for sure if they sound different. I'll bet you two bits if you did that, there would be no difference at all in any of them.

The Scott Ross Scarlatti is close miked and normalized up to peak volume. It is very loud because harpsichords have a very narrow dynamic range. If you rip a track from that and then play any other classical cd without adjusting the volume on the amp, you will see what I am talking about.

When it comes to human ears, CD = 24 bit = DSD because all of those formats are capable of reproducing sound better than human ears can hear. If you hear bad sound, it is because of the way the music was recorded/mixed/mastered, not because of the file format.

You might be able to learn some interesting new things in this forum if you were open to it.


----------



## gerelmx1986

bigshot said:


> As I said before, your impressions are subject to bias and perceptual error. If you do a proper line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison, you would know for sure if they sound different. I'll bet you two bits if you did that, there would be no difference at all in any of them.
> 
> The Scott Ross Scarlatti is close miked and normalized up to peak volume. It is very loud because harpsichords have a very narrow dynamic range. If you rip a track from that and then play any other classical cd without adjusting the volume on the amp, you will see what I am talking about.
> 
> ...


That's what I say, I see.many audiophiles loathe the CD, I was on a shop trying headphones and one dude with an Astell and kern player came in. He let me listen to his DAP and I to mine... he then says dis this CD? i said yes, why? Is very good. He said uff CD!!! I hear thebrickwall, i hear the box the music crashing into a wall..i listen to 24bit only

The albumin was listening was this one
MOTETTE RECORDS 
The Weinberger Bros (two organists)
Krebs: Sämtliches Orgelwerk vol. 2


----------



## bigshot (May 17, 2020)

I repeat... Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison or I won’t believe you. I’ll think your sloppy comparison was responsible for skewing your results. Sorry!

I further bet that in a blind test, you couldn’t tell the difference between an MP3 with a decent bandwidth and lossless CD quality.


----------



## gregorio

gerelmx1986 said:


> [1] I heard other DAPs including.ilder sony walkmans pre-Smaster and while they sounded ok, they had a bit of too digital sound, lifeless, on two older walkman could find they used cirrus DACs.
> Had a fiio x3 with a wolfson DAC thinkthe WM8740. It sounded musical lush,had bigger soundstage than the ipod it replaced.  Only that in some songs it had a tendency to make them "float" above your head.
> [2] Had two CD sets that had a cut-off at 15kHz (clearly they screwed something in the edit stage).
> [3] I listened to the brilliant classics set of scarlatti (Belder) to compare to mine (Ross on Erato/warner). Some sounded as great as the one I have, some not, the mixer or they put the mic's away so it sounded rather soft with less detail, some had a body studio feeling, no reverb ( toss set also has some imperfections tions buy only on three discs).



1. It's probably the oldest, most used and most reliable examples of comparative logic in existence: We compare two things and notice some difference (in appearance, sound, taste, smell or touch), we then look for a physical difference between our two things, which logic dictates must be the cause of the difference we noticed. HOWEVER, there's a fundamental caveat to this logic, it's ONLY reliable provided there is only ONE difference between our two things. If, for example, there are two differences between our two things, then the difference we noticed could be caused by either of them. Despite how OBVIOUS this caveat is, it's amazing how many people fail to account for it, which often results in them making false/fallacious assertions about causality (what's causing the noticed difference). Unfortunately, a large portion of audiophile beliefs are entirely based on these fallacious assertions. .... You've noticed a difference when listening to different DAPs and asserted their different DAC chips is the cause. Were the different DAC chips the ONLY difference when you listened to the different DAPs? How do you know the different chips is the cause rather than one of the other differences? In a sighted listening test, one of the biggest differences can be human perception itself, there's also likely differences in the DAPs' amps (their output power/impedance) as castleofargh mentioned and either of these differences is almost certain to be the cause than the different DAC chips, as indicated by actual measurements of different DAC chips. .... Unfortunately, you've made various assertions that ignore the basic tenets of comparative logic/science and worst still, you've posted them in an actual Sound Science forum!

Also, as @old tech tried to point out, there really is no such thing as "digital sound". Even fairly mediocre digital audio is transparent and therefore has no sound. It's rather like stating you don't like the colour of transparent glass and that the things you view through transparent glass are "lifeless".

2. There are four basic stages of creating a music recording: Recording, editing, mixing and mastering. Unfortunately, you've picked the wrong stage, a 15kHz cut-off could occur at any stage except the editing stage! Also, they may not have "screwed something", it might be that what they recorded had no content above 15kHz to start with, or that it was a deliberate creative decision (albeit one that doesn't suit your personal preferences) or it could have been done to comply with a technical requirements (analogue TV broadcast was restricted to 15kHz for example).

3. I've heard some of the Belder Scarlatti recordings, none of them had "no reverb", can you provide an example of one please? "The set" is a collection of several different recordings, probably made over the course of more than a year, obviously with different instruments, at different venues, with different equipment and probably different engineers/producers and therefore different tracks have different amounts and types of reverb. Additionally, some of the recordings are mixed with more bias on the more distant mics, with the result of less harsh transients and "detail", this conforms to what an audience would likely hear in a larger venue and also is NOT an "imperfection" (though again, may not suit your personal preferences).

These last two points are again unfortunate examples of a common audiophile fallacy. If a recording does not conform to one's personal preferences then it's not a good recording and the engineers who made it screwed-up.



gerelmx1986 said:


> [1] I meant lifeless, cold with neo essence to the music at all.
> [2] Organic sound for.me is how we hear in real life, unlike f.e sennheiser HD800 arent natural or organic, they have artificial boosted treble, same for some early CD masters from Deutsche Grammophon artificial treble boost to give the sense of more details



1. Again, digital audio is transparent. So if the reproduction sounds "_lifeless, cold with no essence to the music at all_" there's only 3 options:
A. Something downstream that isn't digital has a serious problem, speakers, HPs or room acoustics for example, or
B. It doesn't actually sound "lifeless, cold ...", it's just your personal perception/biases causing you to think it does, or
C. The recording is actually supposed to sound "lifeless, cold, ...."!

2. How "_we hear in real life_" depends on what we're listening to, in what environment, how far away we are from it and what we're concentrating on. For example, put your head a couple of feet away from the stings of a harpsichord and you'll hear a substantially boosted treble (and "_the sense of more details_") compared to sitting say 10m or more away. Is this example not organic or how we hear in real life?

G


----------



## SoundAndMotion

gregorio said:


> G


G, I saw your post late, will respond tomorrow or so, but have to move to another thread (or make one), since it's OT here.


bigshot said:


> I repeat... Line level matched, direct A/B switched, blind comparison or I won’t believe you.





gerelmx1986 said:


> That's what I say, I see.many audiophiles loathe the CD, I was on a shop trying headphones and one dude with an Astell and kern player came in. He let me listen to his DAP and I to mine... he then says dis this CD? i said yes, why? Is very good. He said uff CD!!! I hear thebrickwall, i hear the box the music crashing into a wall..i listen to 24bit only


I think @bigshot and I understand you differently... but your personal pronouns (I, he) _are_ confusing. To me, it seems you are saying the CD sound was very good, and the A&K dude didn't think so. Is that right?

Either way, your Signature-series Walkman is an interesting beast! It has no DAC in the traditional sense. It processes the digital data from your song files directly into a proprietary form of _digital_ pulse-width-modulation (PWM) for a class D amplifier. Sony's method of creating the pulse width is "special", so it gets its own name: C-PLM, complemetary pulse length modulation. That is what the S-Master chip is: digital in, high-power PWM (digital) out. It is followed by a passive (mostly inductors, also presumably caps and resistors) low pass filter to create the analog out. It is neither a delta-sigma nor an R2R DAC. But @bigshot 's request is still interesting. It would be fun to compare it to another DAP with more traditional DAC/amp circuitry. Even though the /Z is more expensive, some would consider your /A expensive too. You may find it useful/interesting to see if the sound differences you hear survives blind testing. All that means is that you listen without knowing if it's your WM or the other DAP, and see if you hear which it is.

@bigshot has mentioned a couple other things: level-matching under load and a switcher. Ask for help if needed. Make sure you do it correctly to avoid damage to you WM.

A couple of questions so other people may help. Do you use balanced (4 rings and a tip) or unbalanced (2 rings and a tip) headphones? The WM has a relay on the output: can you hear it click? Will you try to convince just yourself or do you want @bigshot to believe you? If the latter,_ before you start(!!)_: find out exactly what he expects you to do, to prevent misunderstanding.


----------



## gerelmx1986 (May 17, 2020)

SoundAndMotion said:


> G, I saw your post late, will respond tomorrow or so, but have to move to another thread (or make one), since it's OT here.
> 
> 
> I think @bigshot and I understand you differently... but your personal pronouns (I, he) _are_ confusing. To me, it seems you are saying the CD sound was very good, and the A&K dude didn't think so. Is that right?
> ...


Yes you are correct I stated CD is very good. The AK guy said CDs suck ba***

About my WM1A, yup the relays click and yup I am using g the 4.4balanced side so Headphones with TRRRS


----------



## bigshot

You can take line out from both into an amp and switch between both inputs in the amp. That way you would be able to test the DAC, which is what you are probably thinking is the difference anyway.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 17, 2020)

bigshot said:


> You can take line out from both into an amp and switch between both inputs in the amp. That way you would be able to test the DAC, which is what you are probably thinking is the difference anyway.


The Sony has no DAC the way you’re thinking of it, and therefore there is no “line out”. A “line” signal never exists. The only analog signal at all is after the amplifier has been LPF-ed.


----------



## bigshot

It shouldn't be hard to find a way to A/B them without a click. Don't they have a standard headphone out?


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 18, 2020)

bigshot said:


> It shouldn't be hard to find a way to A/B them without a click. Don't they have a standard headphone out?


It has a normal unbalanced headphone jack also. As far as I can tell, that should prevent the relay clicking.
What would it take for you to believe the results?
Not sure how you’d get around the lack-of-synchronization cue...
How many trials would you need? ...or p-value?
How would you/could you agree on proctoring?


----------



## gregorio

gerelmx1986 said:


> The AK guy said CDs suck ba***
> "_He said uff CD!!! I hear thebrickwall, i hear the box the music crashing into a wall..i listen to 24bit only_"



Then the AK guy never listens to any music recordings, because there aren't any 24bit music recordings!

Think of it this way: Let's say we have a 24 litre water container and we fill it with 12 litres of water. How much water do we have, 24 litres or 12 litres? Now let's say we have a 16 litre water container and fill it with 12 litres of water. How many litres of water do we have now, how is it different to the amount of water we had in the 24 litre container and how does 16 litre container "suck ba***" compared to a 24 litre container if we never have more than about 12 litres of water? 

With commercial digital audio music recordings the container can be 16bit, 24bit or even 32bit but we never fill those containers with more than about 12 bits of actual audio and even that is extremely rare, the vast majority of classical music recordings use 10 bits or fewer and popular music recordings typically use 5 - 8 bits.

G


----------



## bigshot (May 18, 2020)

I'm not the one that is demanding peer reviewed standards. If the guy actually makes a sincere effort to do a fair test and hears for himself, he will know for himself. It doesn't matter what I think. I just want people to do a fair test. If they do that and come up with something I don't expect, I'll be excited and eager to reproduce their results. That is what the scientific method is all about. (in case you weren't aware)

People who lie, lie. They don't need to convince me. They are only fooling themselves. I know the truth. I've done it myself... and most of the folks here in this forum have done it for themselves too.

I'm not talking crazy here. We all know that the likelihood of a decent DAC sounding clearly different than another decent DAC is very low. I don't know why just saying that is so controversial, but I do understand from the point of view of ego.

That said, I have a unique ability to sniff out bull. I can detect agendas. Have you noticed that?


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 18, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I'm not the one that is demanding peer reviewed standards. If the guy actually makes an effort to do a fair test and hears for himself, he will know for himself. It doesn't matter what I think. I just want people to do a fair test. If they do that and come up with something I don't expect, I'll be excited and eager to reproduce their results. That is what the scientific method is all about. (in case you weren't aware)
> 
> People who lie, lie. They don't need to convince me. They are only fooling themselves. I know the truth. I've done it myself... and most of the folks here in this forum have done it for themselves too.
> 
> I'm not talking crazy here. We all know that the likelihood of a decent DAC sounding clearly different than another decent DAC is very low. I don't know why just saying that is so controversial, but I do understand from the point of view of ego.


Sounds good to me! BTW, who's demanding peer-reviewed standards? Not me. Saying "We all know that the likelihood of a decent DAC sounding clearly different than another decent DAC is very low." isn't controversial. 

Saying "I don't believe you" seems to make your belief somehow important. I seem to remember you saying that to someone who had done testing as you recommended, but I may be mistaken. Apologies, if that's the case.

Helping people discover things on their own is an excellent and generous approach.


----------



## bigshot

Whatever. If you don’t listen and keep mischaracterixing what I say, what’s the point replying to you? Let the guy reply for himself.


----------



## gerelmx1986

The clicking on the sony are the circuit relays this happens during
Headphone disconnect /connect 
Sample rate change e.g. from 44.1 base clock to the 48kHz clock base
Engaging high gain as well when disabling it
Unit Entering standby sleep.

It has a std unbalanced 3.5mm Jack and a balanced 4.4


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I'm not the one that is demanding peer reviewed standards. If the guy actually makes a sincere effort to do a fair test and hears for himself, he will know for himself. It doesn't matter what I think. I just want people to do a fair test. If they do that and come up with something I don't expect, I'll be excited and eager to reproduce their results. That is what the scientific method is all about. (in case you weren't aware)
> 
> People who lie, lie. They don't need to convince me. They are only fooling themselves. I know the truth. I've done it myself... and most of the folks here in this forum have done it for themselves too.
> 
> ...


The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination. That's your bias and you do have it. In this specific case of 2 highly different DAPs, it's relatively trivial to set up conditions where audible differences would clearly come out. Be it because the amp section is IMO, pretty bad on Sony DAPs(but it's very easy on the battery and I do love that). Or that with sensitive IEMs the difference in background noise is easy to notice. Or that with some multidriver IEMs the difference in frequency response from impedance could become easy to notice.

If I gave you the result of any such test what would you say? That one of the devices sucks? That the test was bad and that I need to match impedance and avoid sensitive IEMs? I'm all for listening tests, as they're the only factual method to confirm audibility, but here you're asking someone to perform one under conditions so vague that they would benefit nobody. At no point will the result define the transparency of the DAC itself because we will probably not manage to test only the DAC.

What @gerelmx1986 experiences has most likely causes that are due to lack of controls, or one of the stuff I mentioned above. The DAC itself has no obvious reason(that I know of!) to be at the top of our list of suspects for audible sound differences. But that's not something we know for a fact in this case as nobody went to properly test anything. It's just a nice rule of thumb based on what we know a DAC can do.

Anyway, DAPs are often the worst of everything, they're the most likely to have been built with priorities that aren't sound fidelity but concerns for size and battery. When they have a line out it's often some non standard stuff(on my sony DAPs, the LO is the HO fixed at a given level. It's not even where the DAP measures the best and we're far from the 2V standard...). And of course when it comes to listening test, synchronizing 2 DAPs is actually really hard and rarely holds on for more than a song even if somehow you got lucky when pressing play. 
I suggest we all save a lot of time and reject DAPs as evidence of anything about DACs. It's already enough of a mine field to discuss the sound of DACs(and in this thread, of one piece of the DAC...), let's not willingly add obstacles that needn't be there.


----------



## gerelmx1986

castleofargh said:


> The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination. That's your bias and you do have it. In this specific case of 2 highly different DAPs, it's relatively trivial to set up conditions where audible differences would clearly come out. Be it because the amp section is IMO, pretty bad on Sony DAPs(but it's very easy on the battery and I do love that). Or that with sensitive IEMs the difference in background noise is easy to notice. Or that with some multidriver IEMs the difference in frequency response from impedance could become easy to notice.
> 
> If I gave you the result of any such test what would you say? That one of the devices sucks? That the test was bad and that I need to match impedance and avoid sensitive IEMs? I'm all for listening tests, as they're the only factual method to confirm audibility, but here you're asking someone to perform one under conditions so vague that they would benefit nobody. At no point will the result define the transparency of the DAC itself because we will probably not manage to test only the DAC.
> 
> ...


Sony has taken incredible measures with recent DAPs to curb down EMI-induced noise as well S-Master noise levels down

It has a nice milled block or gold plated copper to isolate the BT antenna and othe such plates to isolate the S-master. I cant hear any WMI even if I lie on top of my walkman my cellphone.

S-master nouse maybe is there, I tried the beethoven piano sonatas album from DECCA V. Ashkenazi in a Fisher audio amplifier via 3.5mm aux cable.. hiss was there, I am not sure if Tape or S-master hiss. But to hear it I needed to push both the walkman and the Fisher desktop amp feeding the speakers at MAXIMUM VOLUME (ear-splitting)


----------



## gerelmx1986

gregorio said:


> Then the AK guy never listens to any music recordings, because there aren't any 24bit music recordings!
> 
> Think of it this way: Let's say we have a 24 litre water container and we fill it with 12 litres of water. How much water do we have, 24 litres or 12 litres? Now let's say we have a 16 litre water container and fill it with 12 litres of water. How many litres of water do we have now, how is it different to the amount of water we had in the 24 litre container and how does 16 litre container "suck ba***" compared to a 24 litre container if we never have more than about 12 litres of water?
> 
> ...


I think you're lying ... as each 16 bit chunk (slice) represents a part of the wave form being recorded


----------



## castleofargh

gerelmx1986 said:


> I think you're lying ... as each 16 bit chunk (slice) represents a part of the wave form being recorded


https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination.



Bulloney. I suggest that people try a test and everyone tries to make up reasons why to not do the test. The tests never get done and discussed. I set three conditions- level matched, direct A/B switchable, and blind. Up to now only one person has taken up my challenge and actually done it. And he found that both of his DACs sound the same. If someone can prove to themselves honestly that they can hear a difference in sound fidelity, I would love to hear about it and try to reproduce their results myself. But it seems no one around here does tests. They just sit around and talk in theory- “oh, but you can’t say every DAC in the world sounds the same because you haven’t tested every DAC!” That’s just an excuse for not wanting to do a test. It’s pie in the sky and doesn’t tell us anything about the specific DACs we’re talking about. I just want to find one DAC that sounds clearly different in a controlled test so I can figure out if it’s true, and if it is, why does it sound different.

Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said. They say I’m not scientific enough. Well, doing a casual limited controlled test is a hell of a lot more scientific than talking unsubstantiated theory as an excuse for not doing a test at all. I assume people are like me and have done controlled tests between DACs and players. I know bfreedma and Gregorio have. Who else? Tell the truth. Show of hands.


----------



## SoundAndMotion (May 19, 2020)

bigshot said:


> I suggest that people try a test and everyone tries to make up reasons why to not do the test.
> [snip]
> They just sit around and talk in theory-
> [snip]
> Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said. They say I’m not scientific enough.


Enough with the persecution complex! There is no cabal out to get you. Everyone who disagrees with_ some things _you say is not in a club. Deal with people, not imaginary groups.



bigshot said:


> ...tries to make up reasons why to not do the test.


 I don't speak for a group, but* I *support sensible testing, which you often suggest. I oppose incompetent, incomplete and ill-conceived tests; live with it.



bigshot said:


> ...doing a casual limited controlled test is a hell of a lot more scientific than talking unsubstantiated theory as an excuse for not doing a test at all.


 If it helps someone learn something true, if it helps understanding, I agree. But ignorance, and awareness of it, is better than "learning" something untrue and turning dogmatic because "I proved it" falsely.



bigshot said:


> They say I’m not scientific enough.


 I have 3 problems here: hypocracy, holding others to a standard to which you don't hold yourself; the "just right" Goldilocks level of science, not too much (with disparagement of "real, lab" science), not too little, but some sliver you imagine to be adequate, but move around to match your narrative, i.e. hypocrisy again; suggesting potentially dangerous or costly acts, because you just don't understand enough. This is just audio, so in most cases it's harmless. But, if you said "it's easy, it's fun, just mix the chemicals" in a DIY chemistry forum, you'd be called out more.
I looked for an electrostatic headphone switcher to no avail. Do you have one in mind? A DIY switcher in that case would require care, so would switching a heavily-inductor-filtered amp out. Do you even think of these things?



bigshot said:


> Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said.


 I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply to me, but show me I'm wrong!! Don't accuse without specifics! When, where? I'll back up anything I claim you've said with quotes from you. ... or I'll openly admit my error and apologize, with egg on my face and crow in my mouth.

You and I are actually on the same team (like it or _not_), but we disagree intensely about the best defensive and offensive strategies against ignorance.


----------



## bigshot

Anyone else? I'm not interested in hearing any more of his carping and attacks.


----------

