- Thread Starter
- #501
Will do.
Hi dear Amir, thanks to your great work. I'm still on babe steps on this kind of stuff. I'm hesitating between a used but stay in good status IFI Micro iDSD silver version at nearly 330USD and a new Topping D50 250USD. Does IFI silver has significantly better performance than Topping D50? Which one would you recommend. Thank you.Here is another DAC I have, the iFi micro iDSD.
It is a $500 DAC. The measurements are with its pre-amp bypassed. With it, it has increased distortions.
Usual story remains:
1 ) Uptone Iso Regen provides no reduction of noise or distortion/jitter. There is for example some low frequency random noise that widens our main tone at 12 Khz. It is the same with and without Iso Regen.
2) Increased AC mains (hum) induced again in the output of the DAC when run through Iso Regen (seen in red).
I have one of those. Will measure and post the results. I will also sell mine since it has been sitting eating dust for a long time.Hi dear Amir, thanks to your great work. I'm still on babe steps on this kind of stuff. I'm hesitating between a used but stay in good status IFI Micro iDSD silver version at nearly 330USD and a new Topping D50 250USD. Does IFI silver has significantly better performance than Topping D50? Which one would you recommend. Thank you.
This is very surprising to me. I have a background in psych and typically am very wise to the placebo-type issues with audio....
Human beings are amazing things aren't they ...
So you can run the blind tests yourself and find out if what you think you hear is real, or notThis is very surprising to me. I have a background in psych and typically am very wise to the placebo-type issues with audio...I have not done blind abx testing, mainly because I don't prefer to turn my hobby into a science experiment, but the ISO regen with the stubby connector and LPS2 PSU sure seemed to make a difference to my ears. I'm really shocked to see the measurements not indicate *anything* going on.
So you can run the blind tests yourself and find out if what you think you hear is real, or not
The numbers speak for themselves.
I am pretty sure that everything audible is measurable but equally sure that the fact that a piece of kit has a flat frequency response and inaudible distortion doesn’t mean everybody will like it.That's the part I always go back and forth on. I just am not a believer that everything audible is measurable. So I tend to lean toward the science, but also incorporate an aspect of subjectivity. Sometimes I just find things that don't measure well to be enjoyable. For example, Sennheiser headphones tend to usually measure well when tested, whereas Grados do not. However, I find there are aspects of Grados that I just find more enjoyable, and every time I audition a Sennheiser headphone (with the exception of the HD650), I usually end up passing on it. That's why I tend to avoid turning it into a science project and run all sorts of experiments. I acknowledge the objective, but ultimately for me it's about enjoyment...so I allow my ears to be the final judge.
That being said, I just bought a Topping dac b/c of this site...lol
Why? How can you change the sound waves out of a product without any trace of it in any measurement? I am not saying the measurements explain what you hear. But that measurements MUST CHANGE if the sound waves have changed.I just am not a believer that everything audible is measurable.
Why? How can you change the sound waves out of a product without any trace of it in any measurement? I am not saying the measurements explain what you hear. But that measurements MUST CHANGE if the sound waves have changed.
I am pretty sure that everything audible is measurable but equally sure that the fact that a piece of kit has a flat frequency response and inaudible distortion doesn’t mean everybody will like it.
A huge number of very popular pieces of kit have either significant frequency response variations, or audible levels of (presumably euphonic) distortion or both, measurements show this but a lot of people prefer it.
The part where you go astray is that music creation is art. Music reproduction is a science..but it just doesn't make logical sense to me that music reproduction (or any form of art) can be reduced to numbers and graphs.
The part where you go astray is that music creation is art. Music reproduction is a science.
What two components that measure identical sound different under blind conditions?I don't disagree. But that's not really getting at my point. My point isn't that the science/measurement part isn't useful or accurate. My point is that the entirely of music reproduction (and all that is audible) is not fully measurable in my experience.
Can you detail the tests and results that lead you to believe this.My point is that the entirely of music reproduction (and all that is audible) is not fully measurable in my experience.
What two components that measure identical sound different under blind conditions?
But your making that claim?I can't answer that. It's just not something I typically partake in.
But your making that claim?
AFAIK there is no way to measure those directly. What we can measure is if the equipment will reproduce the timbre or soundstage captured in the recording accurately.Well, if you care to share, how does one reliably measure timbre and soundstage? Two of my favorite qualities of audio reproduction that I've never seen any reliable measure of.