• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Mivera Audio DAC

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
Here is your lie mike, you insinuated collusion between you both in regard to this blind test. You posted this email in support of your assertion you both conducted blind tests, again this infers collusion.

The truth is you conducted no such test yourself, you only had customer feed back from a random guy claiming he did? Or is that not true either, maybe your customers listening was sighted?

All totally unreliable as evidence either way.

Well we were all involved. I told them about my results, Dustin and mark decided to do it, I arranged the 50Mhz 957 clocks with Luiz at Crystek, I forwarded Luiz's contact into to Mark, he ordered the clocks. Dustin had the clock soldered in one of the DAC's in the ESS lab. Then Hans picked them up to do the blind listening tests at his place. Mark wrote down the serial numbers of which DAC had which clock. Hans listened for a week or so and shared the results with Mark and Dustin. Mark and Hans both told me the results by phone. So it was something we were all involved with.

No deception. You're just grasping at straws now because if what I say is true, Amir's APx will no longer hold any weight regarding meaningful DAC testing. It will nullify all of the digital audio tests Amir has preformed around here.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,766
Likes
37,623
So one guy picked which DAC one time out of two DACs.

Stop the (audiophile) presses. Okay, okay presses is out of place in the modern world.

Signal the heralds to sing of the new accomplishment. We have complete solid proof that clocks sound different, and which one is better, and exactly why? You guys are all primed for an AES award winning paper if not a Nobel prize.

Yes, my reaction is a bit hair trigger. Except this is an old story following an old audiophile fable plotline. An oldie, but a goodie. No reason to discard it now.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So one guy picked which DAC one time out of two DACs.

Stop the (audiophile) presses. Okay, okay presses is out of place in the modern world.

Signal the heralds to sing of the new accomplishment. We have complete solid proof that clocks sound different, and which one is better, and exactly why? You guys are all primed for an AES award winning paper if not a Nobel prize.

Yes, my reaction is a bit hair trigger. Except this is an old story following an old audiophile fable plotline. An oldie, but a goodie. No reason to discard it now.


Since you would never buy a high end dac, and aren't a manufacturer, any of this information should have no interest to you anyways. Just plug your smartphone into a 70's Kenwood receiver and call it a day.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
He could tell which DAC had the 957. If he chooses to divulge the same results of the test I was told, then he would. But then again he might not want to get involved with something so petty. Him along with everyone in the industry that matters is all on the same page anyways. Nothing for him to prove around here.

You do realise that differences, if they exist, may not be specifically due to lower phase noise? Show some measurements of the DAC output demonstrating a difference and demonstrate masking is not true.

As asked, precisely who is this ""everyone in the industry""
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
You do realise that differences, if they exist, may not be specifically due to lower phase noise? Show some measurements of the DAC output demonstrating a difference and demonstrate masking is not true.

As asked, precisely who is this ""everyone in the industry""

Measured results from the analog outs were the same. Just like the measured results after upgrading the Mirus to the 9028 from the 9018 didn't change either. However the sound was drastically improved.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,321
Location
Albany Western Australia
Measured results from the analog outs were the same. Just like the measured results after upgrading the Mirus to the 9028 from the 9018 didn't change either. However the sound was drastically improved.

You mean you "thought"" the sound was improved.

Improved clock phase noise, if relevant in the overall design, would be visible in the DAC output. Its a myth that we cant measure these things.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,305
Location
uk, taunton
No deception. You're just grasping at straws now because if what I say is true, Amir's APx will no longer hold any weight regarding meaningful DAC testing. It will nullify all of the digital audio tests Amir has preformed around here.
Iv heard this from you before, after getting suspended from here a while back you decided to pop off to another forum , saying something along the lines of " amir at asr banned me because I was getting a better version of his APx machine and he was upset" . You got banned quickly I recall, your not banned from here though. Funny if your narrative was correct and 'we' were all so frightened of being proved wrong you'd think you would be banned by now.

I'm not "grasping at straws" , I have no attachment to the conclusions of any tests here. If you or anyone in the industry truly advances our understanding of what's audible I in no way would take it as a slight on what I think. I don't hold any view really, I'm just here to maintain a standard of proof mike.

I can't speak for amir but I'm sure he would embrace the new standard if it was presented and proven in the proper way.

I don't see it as reasonable to expect you as a individual to create such proof either , you maintain a conviction im not attacking that. As there seems to be no proof of your claims of audibly then we go with what's been proven before.

You can't expect everyone to drop what's known because you sent two unmarked boxes to some guy you know?

That would be unreasonable don't you think?
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,766
Likes
37,623
Since you would never buy a high end dac, and aren't a manufacturer, any of this information should have no interest to you anyways. Just plug your smartphone into a 70's Kenwood receiver and call it a day.

I actually have purchased a few high end DACs. As DACs improved you don't seem to benefit from expensive high end ones so much.

All of which is simply a comment by you to draw attention elsewhere. You offered up someone passing a blind test. After a long and circuitous group of postings by you, we now have a very different story than what you started out with. Oh, and btw, correctly identifying something once out of one attempts does NOT qualify as "passing a blind test".
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
Iv heard this from you before, after getting suspended from here a while back you decided to pop off to another forum , saying something along the lines of " amir at asr banned me because I was getting a better version of his APx machine and he was upset" .

I'm not "grasping at straws" , I have no attachment to the conclusions of any tests here. If you or anyone in the industry truly advances our understanding of what's audible I in no way would take it as a slight on what I think. I don't hold any view really, I'm just here to maintain a standard of proof mike.

I can't speak for amir but I'm sure he would embrace the new standard if it was presented and proven in the proper way.

I don't see it as reasonable to expect you as a individual to create such proof either , you maintain a conviction im not attacking that. As there seems to be no proof of your claims of audibly then we go with what's been proven before.

You can't expect everyone to drop what's known because you sent two unmarked boxes to some guy you know?

That would be unreasonable don't you think?

The thing is almost every DAC manufacturer on the planet who builds well regarded DAC's is on board with low close in phase noise being very important. It's only you guys and other amateur audio forum based objectivists such as Archamigo who are still living in 1992 regarding this topic. But you guys never actually talk to professionals, only amongst yourselves, or google searches for information. Likely the problem.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,766
Likes
37,623
Measured results from the analog outs were the same. Just like the measured results after upgrading the Mirus to the 9028 from the 9018 didn't change either. However the sound was drastically improved.

So hypothetically what do you think the clock changes about the output? I mean you do agree the output changed or it would not sound different right? Close in phase noise would need to be investigated much more thoroughly to see if increasing or decreasing close in phase noise resulted in a direct correlation with judged sound quality by listeners than what you have presented here. Hand waving, industry experts, and one Clever Hans, or in this case is it Clever Mike or Clever Dustin?
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
So hypothetically what do you think the clock changes about the output? I mean you do agree the output changed or it would not sound different right? Close in phase noise would need to be investigated much more thoroughly to see if increasing or decreasing close in phase noise resulted in a direct correlation with judged sound quality by listeners than what you have presented here. Hand waving, industry experts, and one Clever Hans, or in this case is it Clever Mike or Clever Dustin?

I already shared lots of info in the other thread about why close in phase noise matters. And I'm sure there's some way to measure it from the analog outs, just not by using circa 1992 SPDIF cable jitter tests. For me measuring in the digital domain works perfectly fine. Better results in the digital domain, always means better results in the analog domain.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,305
Location
uk, taunton
The thing is almost every DAC manufacturer on the planet who builds well regarded DAC's is on board with low close in phase noise being very important. It's only you guys and other amateur audio forum based objectivists such as Archamigo who are still living in 1992 regarding this topic. But you guys never actually talk to professionals, only amongst yourselves, or google searches for information. Likely the problem.
I'm sure DAC manufacturers see these technical issues as performance areas they want to improve. Iv no issue with that and Iv no issue about striving for better performance ideals. Better performance of the digital side of things can be seen, how that relates to the analog side of things is so far known to not always be significant.

That might change in the future, it might not but so far the research published suggests it's ( these types /levels of jitter) not audible.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
I'm sure DAC manufacturers see these technical issues as performance areas they want to improve. Iv no issue with that and Iv no issue about striving for better performance ideals.

It's just as far as we know these improvements are not audible once it all gets to the speakers.

If nothing is audible once it gets to the speakers then just buy the cheapest gear you can find. Great thing about my Puremusic system is it will have clock sockets. So if people don't believe in jitter mattering they can pop in a 60 cent Fox expresso if they want. Same with the opamps. Rather than the Weiss OP2-BP's, they can install $45 Fivefish DOA 17's. So far none of my clients like my gear because of beliefs. They like it because of how it sounds. And the reason it sounds like it does is because of the quality of the components used. Unfortunately lesser quality components will yield an inferior result.

I make the same profit off of my gear no matter which clock or opamp my clients choose. So if these components didn't make any difference, then I'd be much better off just recommending the cheaper parts and reducing the end cost. Also its a major PITA waiting 4 months to get 600 clocks measured and sorted. I'd much rather just use them straight off the reel.
 
Last edited:

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,305
Location
uk, taunton
If nothing is audible once it gets to the speakers then just buy the cheapest gear you can find then. Great thing about my Puremusic system is it will have clock sockets. So if people don't believe in jitter mattering they can pop in a 60 cent Fox expresso if they want. Same with the opamps. Rather than the Weiss OP2-BP's, they can install $45 Fivefish DOA 17's. So far none of my clients like my gear because of beliefs. They like it because of how it sounds. And the reason it sounds like it does is because of the quality of the components used. Unfortunately lesser quality components will yield an inferior result.

I make the same profit off of my gear no matter which clock or opamp my clients choose. So if these components didn't make any difference, then I'd be much better off just recommending the cheaper parts and reducing the end cost. Also its a major PITA waiting 4 months to get 600 clocks measured and sorted. I'd much rather just use them straight off the reel.
I edited that a bit.

I agree in a sense though, there's a contradiction with many objectivist types. If you take the mantra to the extreme indeed you would end up with a very different system but plenty do this. Like AJ for example.

Many though do push objectivism when it suits them, i can't help that.

That's not really what's happened here though mike.
 

Mivera

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
2,322
Likes
97
Location
West Kelowna
I edited that a bit.

I agree in a sense though, there's a contradiction with many objectivist types. If you take the mantra to the extreme indeed you would end up with a very different system but plenty do this. Like AJ for example.

Many though do push objectivism when it suits them, i can't help that.

That's not really what's happened here though mike.

Yeah it's only because I'm a direct seller I can offer flexible options like this. I don't make profit off the clocks or opamps. This way the end user can decide what's worth their money, and I make the same either way. If sold through the distributor/dealer model, they need to make their same margins based on the total end cost of the order. So this wouldn't be possible.But for me it's the same labor involved popping any opamp or clock into a socket.
 

Thomas savage

Grand Contributor
The Watchman
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 24, 2016
Messages
10,260
Likes
16,305
Location
uk, taunton
Yeah it's only because I'm a direct seller I can offer flexible options like this. I don't make profit off the clocks or opamps. This way the end user can decide what's worth their money, and I make the same either way. If sold through the distributor/dealer model, they need to make their same margins based on the total end cost of the order. So this wouldn't be possible.But for me it's the same labor involved popping any opamp or clock into a socket.
That's nice , I selected everything in my system by ear.. personally Iv come to the conclusion that's not a reliable method of determining fidelity or even preference tbh. Too many hidden bias and faulty prejudice cloud reality.

But I know for many it's integral to their belief structure. Everyone listens and gives themselves a A grade , it's all lovely and self affirming.

I think 99% ( @amirm :D) of people would be just as well served by a sonos.
 

Jakob1863

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 21, 2016
Messages
573
Likes
155
Location
Germany
<snip>

Net, net, you have no argument here. The science here is 100% solid and accepted by all.

Sure, but it is a restricted model, that concentrates on sidebands ocurring due to jitter effects. Dunn derived his earlier curve strictly based on the premises and constraints mentioned and relaxed the requirements after Gannon/Benjamin published their AES convention paper.

But, Benjamin/Gannon still concentrated their experiments on sidebands and consequently even used mostly music that was more like a "sinus tone" than anything else.

Further, it should be clear after all the discussions that every jitter figure depended on the digital input receiver and pll inside of the DACs used. If they had used another DAC, that was - according to their description - inferior wrt to jitter signals below 20 kHz, it is most likely that the audible jitter numbers would have been quite lower. The DAC they used during the listening experiments had a 13dB advantage over the other inferior one.

So basically they used a reduced model - although plausible and valid given the psychoacoustical model used - to develop an experimental procedure (which naturally incorporated some caveats due to the model) and got results that corrobated what one would have expected from the model used.

In reality jitter spectra do not look like sinusoidal but otoh todays DACs jitter performance should be much be better compared with those used by Benjamin/Gannon.
But, as said in an earlier discussion thread, other like Putzeys and Grimm also found that surprisingly the low frequency jitter impact was much higher than expected.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,663
Likes
240,944
Location
Seattle Area
It is not often in audio that we can prove something mathematically. Turns on in the case of clock jitter/noise in DACs, we can.

Let's say I feed the DAC a simple sine wave. The output in an idea case then would be Y = sin(t) with t = time.

t is determined by the DAC clock which in the above is assumed to be perfect.

Let's make "t" imperfect by adding noise, deterministic changes, etc. That change will have its own function. Let's call that j(t).

Now our equation for what comes out of the DAC becomes:
Y = sin(t + j(t))

This is obviously different from sin(t).

What this says is that mere fact of feeding a DAC a sine wave, allows the output to change with distortions of the clock (j(t)). It has to. It has no choice mathematically.

Of course you all have seen these outcomes. That no matter how good DACs are, no matter how we feed them, we are able to easily see differences in implementations in the analog output of the DAC.

So the theory Mike has that you cannot use an audio analyzer is busted.

---

There is another important bit here. An audio analyzer is not used always to find out what is improved. It is used often to figure out what is screwed up!

Take a look at this diagram from one of my earlier articles which showed that mere changing from HDMI to S/PDIF (bits are bits) made the analog output of DACs completely different: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-deep-dive-into-hdmi-audio-performance.56/

index.php


We dealt with the clock variations in part one of this post. But there is also a reference voltage that gets divided down to create the output. If you so much as breath on that, you also change the output of the DAC.

If again we fed the DAC a sine wave, and modeled the reference voltage as ref(t), then the output of our DAC becomes:

Y = sin(t + j(t)) * ref(t)

Again, this is different from sin(t) and can easily be measured with a simple sine wave.

High performance DACs from top companies with real engineering expertise go out of their way to minimize j(t) and ref(t). They confirm that with audio measurements.

The DIY companies like we are dealing with this go buy an expensive parts and stick them in DAC and call it done. They never confirm if they have actually done things that screwed up the output of the DAC!
----

Of course I come along, measure them for the first time and the ugly bits show up which they are seeing for the first time.

So don't tell me you don't use an audio analyzer because it doesn't show audible improvements. Tell me that have used one to make sure you have not screwed up anything.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,663
Likes
240,944
Location
Seattle Area
Sure, but it is a restricted model, that concentrates on sidebands ocurring due to jitter effects. Dunn derived his earlier curve strictly based on the premises and constraints mentioned and relaxed the requirements after Gannon/Benjamin published their AES convention paper.

But, Benjamin/Gannon still concentrated their experiments on sidebands and consequently even used mostly music that was more like a "sinus tone" than anything else.
You can (and indeed that is how it is done) by computing the ERB of the noise as a sine wave and then compare it to psychoacoustic models which are developed using sine wave listening tests.

See the references in this article I wrote: http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dynamic-range-how-quiet-is-quiet.14/

Using that type of analysis, we can use threshold of hearing in Fletcher-Munson curves to determine if the added noise or distortion spikes are audible. This is what Dunn is using in creating his graph, not the Gannon/Benjamin listening tests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom