Sabaj D5 vs. SMSL M500 vs. Topping DX7 Pro: measurement comparison

[SIY]

Well, although I agree with what you wrote previously, we cannot say that since external jitter countermeasures are well known, they are properly implemented. We have seen enough crap tested during the past monthes.
Unless I missed something, @amirm doesn't test the products immunity to the external disturbances (mains or inputs noise, inputs jitter, nuclear attacks, attractive women or whatever). As I understand it, the jitter test looks at the intrinsinc jitter of the DUT, but there is no injection of a disturbance.

The J Test gives insight into this. Amir's AP has the Advanced Clock option to measure jitter rejection directly, but the J Test will show the issues.

 

[Veri]

-Can there be differences in jitter performance (optical, coax, usb) if the dac reads and "re clocks" every input bit-perfect? This does not make sense to me at all.

I have had the believe that optical has the benefit of cutting out possible electrical nasties from source to a dac (groundloops and such) and thats why I have never worried about optical, quite the contrary.

No, I would not worry whatsoever.

 

[boXem]

The J Test gives insight into this. Amir's AP has the Advanced Clock option to measure jitter rejection directly, but the J Test will show the issues.

I am not talking about USB 2.0, which is by construction immune to external jitter.
My assumption is that the spdif output from the AP is quite clean. As a consequence, the J test would only highlight jitter intrinsinc to the DAC. In the same spirit that the AP ultra clean analog output will not highlight problems with sensitivity to external noise.

 

[SIY]

My assumption is that the spdif output from the AP is quite clean.

Only if you set it that way. You can also add sine, square, and noise jitter.

The J Test specifically is for spdif.

 

[Shoaibexpert]

Take a look at the analog output. That's the only thing that matters.

I don't have any measuring device to check for myself if my Chromecast optical signal is being reclocked it not...all measurements in ASR for DACs are using USB and so I asked the question theorei.

 

[boXem]

Only if you set it that way. You can also add sine, square, and noise jitter.

The J Test specifically is for spdif.

@amirm could you please let us know how your AP is setup for the J test?

 

[SIY]

@amirm could you please let us know how your AP is setup for the J test?

It's a standard setup, just choosing the J Test signal as the source. Here's a screenshot.

 

[boXem]

It's a standard setup, just choosing the J Test signal as the source. Here's a screenshot.

View attachment 38020

Thanks!
Now let me reformulate the question: is there any form of jitter in "j test 48k 24 bit.wav"?

 

[SIY]

Thanks!
Now let me reformulate the question: is there any form of jitter in "j test 48k 24 bit.wav"?

The AES3 standard test signal is equivalent to worst-case jitter. Here's a good review of the issue by the guy who developed the test.

 

[boXem]

The AES3 standard test signal is equivalent to worst-case jitter. Here's a good review of the issue by the guy who developed the test.

Ok, you found a way to keep me quite for a while . Thank you, it seems to be a very interesting reading.

 

[NielsMayer]

Out of curiosity...since all 32 tone results show variation below -120db...and we all know you definitely can't hear below say -117db...is the difference between the DACs a matter of audible concern at all? I'm sure you can't hear one DAC being more jittery than the other...so may I know the purpose of quoting these results? Most importantly, is this a matter of importance to the whole real/fake balanced discussion...as @amirm mentioned earlier, he has never encountered a fake balanced DAC before...
\

And then proceeded to completely forget the behringer device reviewed on this site using fake balanced. aka provably wrong. many prosumer devices for musicians use fake balanced. What Amir sees is not the totality of industry knowledge. In fact he only just started reviewing "prosumer" multichannel audio devices.

See entire ensuing discussion about "impedance balanced" which is a term used by poseurs that think they know about electronics.

 

[SIY]

And then proceeded to completely forget the behringer device reviewed on this site using fake balanced. aka provably wrong

Provably! There ya go.

 

[LuckyLuke575]

Well then you have other problems than just audio, if you can't have an open discussion about a topic that is in no way "settled science". And since when is the most distinguished author on the subject of jitter a "charlatan". Why is this "charlatan" quoted in the scientific literature by other authors on the subject, when they need to reference the first papers publicly discussing the audibility of jitter.

But maybe the 1980's are calling and you're yearning for the digititis of your old sony discman? Because in those 30-40 years the subject has come far, and they always quote the person you call a "charlatan" in subsequent academic papers because that's how academic attribution works. Maybe you're not familiar with academia and how academic papers are written because you've never written any yourself??

[SCHUT] – Schut, Peter; “Why jitter matters in high resolution digital audio systems.”
[ATKI90] – Atkinson, John; “Jitter, bits and sound quality”; December 1990.

The executive summary -- because nobody has the patience to actually read the articles i posted -- is that jitter is a form of intermodulation distortion and the fact that a sinewave shows jitter components below level of audibility has zero to do with whether you're going to hear the jitter in a real world situation (@Veri ) -- which is why I made comments about you "objectivists" and your goalpost moving that consists of looking at sidebands off a sinewave and thinking that has anything to do with music.

Let alone your outrageously simplified non-model of the human hearing system perceiving this sound. In case you didn't notice, not a single human has an FFT, nyquist theorem, oscilloscope or Audio Precision device embedded in their heads, nor any of your sophomoric oversimplifications encoded into their neural networks that allows them to hear, let alone spatialize sound. That's like a bunch of newtonians imposing F=MA on a Quantum and Relativistic world -- again, it's nearly 2020, not 1800, so get off the horse-drawn buggy for your own sake.

Let alone the ability to use a thesaurus instead of all bleating "charlatan" simultaneously. As in you can't even come up with a different word between you... and With zero proof. No references even (like I always give) in counterargument. Basically wasting our time with BS and handwaving while posing as "objectivists" ... give me a break....

But as to audibility, since you've all probably never attended AES (HP Labs paid for me to go for a few years back when i was doing 3d audio as my f-ing job not some wankoff hobby). perhaps you also missed this, which refers to one such very old -- and most importantly for academia and academic publishing -- first -- such instance of audibility:

( https://www.stereophile.com/reference/1290jitter/index.html ) aka [ATKI90]

For further reading:

https://s3t.it/data/uploads/docs/di...-in-high-resolution-digital-audio-systems.pdf
aka [SCHUT]


PS Oh, and why exactly are you all worried about femtosecond clocks in your USB->DAC interface given that a "charlatan" said probably when some of you were in short pants or not even born (1990): "these results tie in with work by others that indicates that 16-bit data jitter of any kind needs to be less than 200ps". Why? Because jitter is THE MOST IMPORTANT MOST PERCEPTIBLE, MOST AUDIBLE & MOST NON-EUPHONIC THING IN A DAC OR DIGITAL AUDIO.

https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/adc-performance-what-s-jitter-got-do-it
https://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/application-notes/AN-756.pdf

PPS: it's too bad jitter artefacts can't be better measured on this site, as it would probably drop plenty of "20 bit linear DAC" (tested on a single 1khz sinewave) down to like 12-16 bits. That is conjecture, but from the above papers you can get an idea of actual bit-depth reduction equivalent that jitter introduces. It's nasty.

This long tirade sounds like pseudo-science par excellence. Multiplying zero by a million is still zero.

 

[SIY]

This long tirade sounds like pseudo-science par excellence. Multiplying zero by a million is still zero.

It's a tactic that's effective when you're accustomed to dealing with people who aren't actual engineers and scientists. Classic Gish Gallop, flitting from balanced lines to RF immunity to jitter, none of which will get past the bullshit filters of people here. Works at other places, presumably. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in a forum populated by the likes of Floyd Toole, Scott Wurcer, Jan Didden...

 

[LuckyLuke575]

For sure. I'm an ardent believer in the principle of "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough". And I'm certainly not willing to engage in 'bullshit baffles brains' discussions. I may not be a technical expert, but I know nonsense when I see it.

 

[BDWoody]

It's a tactic that's effective when you're accustomed to dealing with people who aren't actual engineers and scientists. Classic Gish Gallop, flitting from balanced lines to RF immunity to jitter, none of which will get past the bullshit filters of people here. Works at other places, presumably. Unfortunately, it doesn't work in a forum populated by the likes of Floyd Toole, Scott Wurcer, Jan Didden...

Not to mention your own humble self.

This is the deep end. They are used to the kiddie pool.
They often don't realize the depths of their ignorance until confronted with a whole lot of harsh cold cruel reality...
Then it becomes painfully clear, if not to them, then everyone else at least.

 

[LuckyLuke575]

Not to mention your own humble self.

This is the deep end. They are used to the kiddie pool.
They often don't realize the depths of their ignorance until confronted with a whole lot of harsh cold cruel reality...
Then it becomes painfully clear, if not to them, then everyone else at least.

The deep and murky waters are dangerous... I won't stand for any pseudo-science and tomfoolery that's for sure

 

[NielsMayer]

Out of curiosity...since all 32 tone results show variation below -120db...and we all know you definitely can't hear below say -117db...is the difference between the DACs a matter of audible concern at all?

Next time you listen to 12 tone music or 32 tone music, as long as it consists of infinitely long, perfect sinewaves, all phase aligned perfectly and unchangingly forever, in a way that no music ever has, you can be assured of total theoretical fidelity.

I'm sure... can't hear one DAC being more jittery than the other...so may I know the purpose of quoting these results?

I'm sure you're wrong. 40 years of AES literature proves this wrong beginning with atkinsons reportage of the first meetings at AES prior to 1990 (see links I provided -- feel free to dig up originals source AES proceedings which are not easily found online) . 40ps jitter is audible at 44.1ksamples/second. Take that to 192k or higher and you have to divide that 40ps down proportionally. Jittery high sample rate converesion is no better than conversion at much lower rates and bit depths. If the sample isn't precisely timed, bit depth or high sample rates doesn't even matter because your data is garbage in the time domain. Garbage in garbage out.

 

[VeerK]

Next time you listen to 12 tone music or 32 tone music, as long as it consists of infinitely long, perfect sinewaves, all phase aligned perfectly and unchangingly forever, in a way that no music ever has, you can be assured of total theoretical fidelity.



I'm sure you're wrong. 40 years of AES literature proves this wrong beginning with atkinsons reportage of the first meetings at AES prior to 1990 (see links I provided -- feel free to dig up originals source AES proceedings which are not easily found online) . 40ps jitter is audible at 44.1ksamples/second. Take that to 192k or higher and you have to divide that 40ps down proportionally. Jittery high sample rate converesion is no better than conversion at much lower rates and bit depths. If the sample isn't precisely timed, bit depth or high sample rates doesn't even matter because your data is garbage in the time domain. Garbage in garbage out.

Do you have any links to research from the last decade, to support your assertions?

Somewhere in all of your posts, you claimed that SMSL M500 is “fake balanced”, what are you basing this on?

I guess you’re also claiming that the M500 suffers from jitter, which you can somehow hear? Do you have any data or widely accepted testing methodologies to support that?

I don’t really care about SMSL or Topping, at this level of performance it’s all about utility for me. But if you’re going to claim one DAC, which measurements show is audibly transparent, sounds worse than another DAC, which is also transparent, I’d like to see some kind of objective, measurable data to show this. Quite frankly, one paper from 1990 isn’t going to cut it, and this goes for any scientific discipline, we don’t need to meander from theory to theory or wax nostalgia, let’s stick to some tangible data.

 

[BDWoody]

This long tirade sounds like pseudo-science par excellence. Multiplying zero by a million is still zero.

Pseudo-science...yes...
Par excellence...? Naaaaahhh...that takes some degree of originality.
This is just trolling...