Cost no object dac/streamer

[jacobacci]

Ok thanks again. So the purpose of the listening was to determine whether a difference could be detected? Or to determine a favourite?

And how did you level match the DACs?

Of course in each pair a favorite emerged. After all, I did want to determine if there was a better DAC than my Weiss.
Seeing if a difference could be reliably established was to ensure the favorite was not a figment of my imagination.
We level matched playing a 1kHz sine through both DACs and a voltmeter at the speaker terminals of the power amp. The volume of each DAC was then set to yield an identical reading of the voltmeter. Volume was left constant during the test.
The Aune S16 (and I think the Merlot) has a fixed volume output. We used a passive attenuator to adjust the Aune's volume.

 

[sonci]

I think the point is human hearing is not a reliable test device for best accuracy of the gear in reproduction. Now whether some inaccuracy is preferred over accuracy is another question. Mixing up the two ideas causes many of the squabbles about audio.

How do you know that human hearing is so inferior to a device?
Do you have the specs for the human body hearing? except the frequency threshold not a lot is known.
Human don't hear the same as devices, we hear better some frequencies then others, for this we use HL scale instead of SPL when we measure hearing in audiogram.
Well, when reading a review it's easier to believe the test than the mumbo jumbo in the WhatHifi style, considering a lot of reviewers are not even honest, but certainly when I'm hearing something in my room for 2 weeks or a month and I like it, I don't care much how it measure.

 

[Blumlein 88]

How do you know that human hearing is so inferior to a device?
Do you have the specs for the human body hearing? except the frequency threshold not a lot is known.
Human don't hear the same as devices, we hear better some frequencies then others, for this we use HL scale instead of SPL when we measure hearing in audiogram.
Well, when reading a review it's easier to believe the test than the mumbo jumbo in the WhatHifi style, considering a lot of reviewers are not even honest, but certainly when I'm hearing something in my room for 2 weeks or a month and I like it, I don't care much how it measure.

Distortion of several types, measurements beats hearing by a wide margin.

FR, hearing is variable and varies from person to person, from time of day and other factors, not with measurements.

Ditto for signal to noise of hearing.

Truly humans don't hear the same as devices, and don't have the repeatability of devices or the reliability over time to function the same.

 

[digititus]

Isn't the dCS Purcell / Delius the reference in this case. It stays constant. Or am I missing something?

If you were just innocently/without purpose trying to distinguish if you could tell the difference between the DCS and other DAC's then yes. However, you stated initially

my purchase of a dCS DAC was preceded by four lengthy single blind listening sessions with two friends. In the given circumstances (system, room etc.) there were significant differences in the sound of the different DACs.

Why was the DCS chosen as a reference? It was the one you wanted to buy. Therefore, to remove your confirmation bias, another 'reference' should also have been used and without you knowing what A/B/C were.

 

[sonci]

If it measures good but sounds bad, it is BAD!.

If it measures bad but sounds good, then we are measuring the wrong thing!

 

[andreasmaaan]

How do you know that human hearing is so inferior to a device?
Do you have the specs for the human body hearing? except the frequency threshold not a lot is known.
Human don't hear the same as devices, we hear better some frequencies then others, for this we use HL scale instead of SPL when we measure hearing in audiogram.
Well, when reading a review it's easier to believe the test than the mumbo jumbo in the WhatHifi style, considering a lot of reviewers are not even honest, but certainly when I'm hearing something in my room for 2 weeks or a month and I like it, I don't care much how it measure.

I recommend "Psychoacoustics: Facts and Models" by Zwicker and Fastl. Very techincal, but fascinating, and a wealth of info on the theoretical functioning of the human hearing, and experimentally derived thresholds for far more than simply frequency. It can be quite surprising just how much is actually known about it.

Essentially, humans have been used to try to discern differences using their hearing in countless scientific studies. In no case have human auditory systems proven able to measure differences that were not measurable by instruments (to my knowledge ofc).

 

[Frank Dernie]

If it measures bad but sounds good, then we are measuring the wrong thing!

Unless the listener in question likes added colouration like one inevitably gets with NOS DACs and LPs.
People who prefer this are not uncommon in this hobby, but it isn't "high fidelity" in the literal sense of the term.
The electrical signal we are dealing with has frequency, amplitude and phase all of which are measurable. There isn't anything else and the only signal travelling from one component to the next is the electrical signal in the wires. There isn't anything else to measure.
Accuracy is not necessarily what some people like.

 

[garbulky]

If the equipment measured accurately, and the listener didn't like what he was hearing, then ipso facto, he didn't like accuracy. No logical failure at all.

Accuracy in many measurements present doesn't equal that it was the accuracy they didn't like. Perhaps they didn't like the color of the device. Perhaps they were thinking of cilantro and they hated cilantro. I don't know and you don't either.

We can confirm accuracy to any arbitrary level, we can't confirm liking, as that's entirely personal.

sergeauckland said:
Absolutely wrong!! if it measures good but sounds bad to you, then YOU are at fault.

Accuracy to arbitrary levels and liking are two different things. When we say "sounds good" we are definitely talking about liking. And liking things has to be 100% what the reviewer claims. And you can't claim what they liked was something like accuracy because you don't know.

 

[garbulky]

I can't help but point out that this gentleman claims he did a blind level matched test with several subjects and you guys are still objecting to his claim.

 

[DonH56]

Interesting discussion. Yes, preference vs. reference is always an issue, and subjective listeners will always say "It's my ears so why should I care what the measurements say?" Accuracy is poo-poo'd by many reviewers so what do you expect? But accurate to the source is not really an arbitrary thing. Plenty of people do not like accurate but prefer some sort of EQ or distortion. That leads to products catering to people's likes and dislikes, not necessarily bad for a product in general, but off-putting to someone like me. I prefer the component be as accurate as possible and then I can flavor it to my taste. But many want a product already catered to their taste... Whatever!

The blind test that @jacobacci did sounds as good as most could hope for and far better than most audiophiles would ever do. The only thing I would really quibble over is the 0.25 dB level matching; I found I needed to use better than 0.1 dB in the past (and yes it was a PITA). Seems like there may really be a difference among the DACs and I'd focus on figuring out what. I could speculate lots of reasons but it would be nice to see measurements on them -- not likely given the cost and availability of the units. IME (fairly limited in the audio world) the differences tend to be more related to the interface -- does the USB connection add noise or make a ground loop, for instance -- and the output buffers/filters after the actual DAC chip(s). That said, Amir's measurements certainly show a lot of DACs are pretty comparable, though perhaps more time-domain results would be worthwhile. But take more (ahem) time, natch.

 

[sonci]

But accurate to the source is not really an arbitrary thing. Plenty of people do not like accurate but prefer some sort of EQ or distortion. That leads to products catering to people's likes and dislikes, not necessarily bad for a product in general, but off-putting to someone like me. I prefer the component be as accurate as possible and then I can flavor it to my taste. But many want a product already catered to their taste... Whatever!

Yes, but accurate to what, that signal has passed through a ton of equalizers and compressors already, by some mastering engineer, through his speakers, good for his hearing.
Some guys here talk like we are discussing for pacemaker devices, these things should reproduce music.
Have anyone here listened to live music? No dac or amplifier can reproduce it,
Accurate yes, but first is the listening..

 

[sergeauckland]

Accuracy in many measurements present doesn't equal that it was the accuracy they didn't like. Perhaps they didn't like the color of the device. Perhaps they were thinking of cilantro and they hated cilantro. I don't know and you don't either.



Accuracy to arbitrary levels and liking are two different things. When we say "sounds good" we are definitely talking about liking. And liking things has to be 100% what the reviewer claims. And you can't claim what they liked was something like accuracy because you don't know.

Liking and accuracy are indeed two different things. Reviewers do indeed often claim likings, not accuracy. How many reviewers could get away with writing "sounds like every other competent amplifier", or whatever. So what? I only care for accuracy and I buy what's accurate even if I might prefer the sound of something less accurate as it would drive me nuts knowing that. But then, I'm not a reviewer looking for my next commission.

S

 

[DonH56]

Yes, but accurate to what, that signal has passed through a ton of equalizers and compressors already, by some mastering engineer, through his speakers, good for his hearing.
Some guys here talk like we are discussing for pacemaker devices, these things should reproduce music.
Have anyone here listened to live music? No dac or amplifier can reproduce it,
Accurate yes, but first is the listening..

You can measure the signal applied to the input of the amplifiers, or output of the preamp, or whatever, and compare to the sound from the speakers. That is a measure of accuracy. To think you can know the changes from voice or instrument through mics, mixing, mastering, and final release is folly (see Toole's "circle of confusion" argument). The best I can do is to have an accurate playback system and adjust from there. To me listening matters but listening is for preference, not for accuracy. To me accuracy is most important and then I can tailor the sound to what I like to hear. If the starting point is inaccurate then I have to find something that is designed to be inaccurate in a way I find pleasing, which implies it was designed for somebody else and I have to hope our tastes align. I'd rather start with an accurate playback system and tweak it to my taste than start with something colored (inaccurate). To each his own.

I have listened to a lot of live music, and created it as well (three concerts this coming weekend), so the charge of not listening to live music is not accurate in my case. But I often prefer the recorded variety -- no audience noise, I can adjust for the perfect seat, and often the mix is better than what the average seat in the hall provides. Of course it depends upon the hall. And I can listen to the recording whenever I want, for a lot less money after the initial investment in the system.

And what is "live" to some folk is not the same to others. The sound of an orchestra depends very much upon the hall, the seat in the hall, and the orchestra. A jazz trio in a small club sounds different than the same group on a large stage. Then there is the whole debate about sound reinforcement -- is it still "live" if what we hear is generated by a huge stack of speakers in an auditorium? Some argue only acoustic instruments are "live". Ultimately I decided decades ago that I don't really care about the "live" vs. "living room" sound debate -- I want it to sound good to me in my room. Purely preference. To close the circle for me, starting with a known accurate system allows me to tweak for the sound I like across the spectrum of recordings and genre. Starting with an inaccurate system just means more work for me to establish a solid baseline from which to tweak.

I keep telling myself to stay out of these religious debates -- the same points and counterpoints always arise with nobody changing sides.

My main point was to acknowledge that to me the blind testing seemed reasonable and I am curious what changed. My guess is I'll never know, but that won't change how much I like listening to my system (at whatever level of accuracy it has, or has not, attained). I'm just a curious sort.

 

[Thomas savage]

Most recordings are a studio composition and bare no relation to anything playable with instruments on a stage, what jo audiophile thinks they are listening to and actually what’s been done to make the sound will often be remarkably different.

 

[garbulky]

Yes, but accurate to what, that signal has passed through a ton of equalizers and compressors already, by some mastering engineer, through his speakers, good for his hearing.
Some guys here talk like we are discussing for pacemaker devices, these things should reproduce music.
Have anyone here listened to live music? No dac or amplifier can reproduce it,
Accurate yes, but first is the listening..

Agreed. To what level does accuracy matter when stereo listening is already severely limited in reproducing audio comparable to real life? It contains no height information and the sound sources from two speakers. The sound sources are also directional. If listened in a room, the room's reflections add on to the original acoustic echos recorded.
Speakers also disperse the two point source sound usually over a wide range of drivers with sound coming from different heights.

And we haven't got started in "virtual" soundstage where the instruments are close miced in separate venues and combined together on a mixer.
And all this happens without touching upon Already we are far from accurate music reproduction without talking about the distortions present through the chain of recording equipment both electronic and mechanical.
Nitpicking minute distortions on electronic equipment is way down the list of importance for "accurate" reproduction.

 

[Thomas savage]

To what level does accuracy matter when stereo listening is already severely limited in reproducing audio comparable to real life? It contains no height information and the sound sources from two speakers. The sound sources are also directional. If listened in a room, the room's reflections add on to the original acoustic echos recorded.
Speakers also disperse the two point source sound usually over a wide range of drivers with sound coming from different heights.

To my mind the limits are actually capturing the sound in the first place, we can fairly faithfully reproduce what we want now.

You can only deal with the information the mic captured, hardly a reason to chuck out ideas of hifi playback though. If you want to recompose the sounds by using gear that does odd things that the recording engineers and producers never intended that’s your choice.

I just go for the least interference, the least homogeneous route. Each to their own.

 

[garbulky]

To my mind the limits are actually capturing the sound in the first place, we can fairly faithfully reproduce what we want now.

You can only deal with the information the mic captured, hardly a reason to chuck out ideas of hifi playback though.

It's not a reason to chuck out hi fi playback, but we have to keep in mind its importance in the scheme of things. We have to know we are reproducing something already severely flawed. The speakers and the microphones are usually directional units. And sound is typically omnidirectional in source. Even the omnidirectional microphones capture the sound down into mono or stereo.
I'm surprised sound reproudction sounds as great as it does!

 

[Thomas savage]

It's not a reason to chuck out hi fi playback, but we have to keep in mind its importance in the scheme of things. We have to know we are reproducing something already severely flawed. The speakers and the microphones are usually directional units. And sound is typically omnidirectional in source. Even the omnidirectional microphones capture the sound down into mono or stereo.
I'm surprised sound reproudction sounds as great as it does!

We all known that mate, many of the guys here have made recordings to quite a high standard.

Most music is totally artificial these days so actually there’s no real world reference, that being so I guess those terrible flaws are negated and we are back to not messing with what we have..., unless your a heretic lol

 

[oneforward]

https://www.naimaudio.com/product/unitiserve

Thanks. I've since discovered BlueSound Vault, which looks like it will do the job.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Interesting discussion. Yes, preference vs. reference is always an issue, and subjective listeners will always say "It's my ears so why should I care what the measurements say?" Accuracy is poo-poo'd by many reviewers so what do you expect? But accurate to the source is not really an arbitrary thing. Plenty of people do not like accurate but prefer some sort of EQ or distortion. That leads to products catering to people's likes and dislikes, not necessarily bad for a product in general, but off-putting to someone like me. I prefer the component be as accurate as possible and then I can flavor it to my taste. But many want a product already catered to their taste... Whatever!

The blind test that @jacobacci did sounds as good as most could hope for and far better than most audiophiles would ever do. The only thing I would really quibble over is the 0.25 dB level matching; I found I needed to use better than 0.1 dB in the past (and yes it was a PITA). Seems like there may really be a difference among the DACs and I'd focus on figuring out what. I could speculate lots of reasons but it would be nice to see measurements on them -- not likely given the cost and availability of the units. IME (fairly limited in the audio world) the differences tend to be more related to the interface -- does the USB connection add noise or make a ground loop, for instance -- and the output buffers/filters after the actual DAC chip(s). That said, Amir's measurements certainly show a lot of DACs are pretty comparable, though perhaps more time-domain results would be worthwhile. But take more (ahem) time, natch.

@DonH56 , you wrote:

«That said, Amir's measurements certainly show a lot of DACs are pretty comparable, though perhaps more time-domain results would be worthwhile».

Could you elaborate om time domain? With examples?