DAC blind tests? EVER?

[solderdude]

The Clear I would say is pretty 'reference' by istelf.
The Stellia is 'colored' a bit. Lightly emphasized in the bass with some 'punch' and lacking 'brilliance/clarity' yet 'forward/open' sounding.
The Abyss is kind of a weird duck and has a distinct 'presentation' a bit similar-ish to Stellia but less bass.
Could be seen as an inbetween for the Clear and Stellia. Clear bass and forwardness but 'relaxed' in clarity.

"resolving" and "resolution"

A device that is resolving has a good resolution.

 

[akosinskiy]

A device that is resolving has a good resolution.

I do not disagree. My point is that it could be a minimal requirement but could be not enough. Again, I probably should not be called an audiophile. I see people coming to audio shows listening to vynil two-three instruments with no bass. I'm not like that. I ask the vendor to put something more dynamic and everything falls apart. I won't be able to understand those details these folks are looking for but if I can hear that voice is coming from "the inside" of the artist and I didn't hear it before then I'm getting excited. Maybe it's not 100% true reproduction as it was recorded maybe it should sound more flat as I have it now. But I like it and I would spend more time listening to that sound than what I have now. That is the best comparison I am able to rule out for myself.

 

[board]

Someone here did what he considered a very easy test of telling DACs apart, although I'm a bit unsure of how he got that result and if he did something wrong, although he did say that he level-matched the units:

DAC Blind Test Series

Here is my triple blind setup. Each DAC has its own pot (JBL Nano Patch). These pots are used to match levels. The outputs from these pots are then...

www.superbestaudiofriends.org

If anyone can discern how he achieved the result he did, please enlighten me.

I once read about a shoot-out between a lot of different DACs. A room full of people listened to DAC A vs. DAC B and then chose a winner that went on to the next round. Then DAC C vs. DAC D had a shootout and so forth.
It was a blind test, and it was certainly better than a sighted test, but unfortunately it didn't seem to be level-matched. The winner was a DAC with tubes, which could potentially be something that would be audible beyond volume level.

 

[Plcamp]

When I think about DACS I realize I am actually thinking of them as the latest generation of preamplifiers.

I would prefer the makers not look so much for the next half db SINAD and focus instead on things like more inputs, dsp tone controls, triggers, subout and an analogue volume control.

 

[ahofer]

When I think about DACS I realize I am actually thinking of them as the latest generation of preamplifiers.

I would prefer the makers not look so much for the next half db SINAD and focus instead on things like more inputs, dsp tone controls, triggers, subout and an analogue volume control.

And dynamic loudness, like RME

And a good remote, unlike RME…

 

[Killingbeans]

If anyone can discern how he achieved the result he did, please enlighten me.

Well, the premise is that two competent DACs should be indistinguishable from each other. The Airist is quite possibly designed badly enough to have an actual sound signature:

Massdrop Airist R2R DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Airist R2R DAC. It is on kind loan from a member a while back who has been patiently waiting for its review. The Airist R2R costs US $350. Drop's website says 931 are sold so it seems like a popular DAC. The Airist DAC employs the attractive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[ahofer]

Well, the premise is that two competent DACs should be indistinguishable from each other. The Airist is quite possibly designed badly enough to have an actual sound signature:

Massdrop Airist R2R DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Airist R2R DAC. It is on kind loan from a member a while back who has been patiently waiting for its review. The Airist R2R costs US $350. Drop's website says 931 are sold so it seems like a popular DAC. The Airist DAC employs the attractive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Ooh - that one borderline pierces the thresholds.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Someone here did what he considered a very easy test of telling DACs apart, although I'm a bit unsure of how he got that result and if he did something wrong, although he did say that he level-matched the units:

DAC Blind Test Series

Here is my triple blind setup. Each DAC has its own pot (JBL Nano Patch). These pots are used to match levels. The outputs from these pots are then...

www.superbestaudiofriends.org

If anyone can discern how he achieved the result he did, please enlighten me.

I once read about a shoot-out between a lot of different DACs. A room full of people listened to DAC A vs. DAC B and then chose a winner that went on to the next round. Then DAC C vs. DAC D had a shootout and so forth.
It was a blind test, and it was certainly better than a sighted test, but unfortunately it didn't seem to be level-matched. The winner was a DAC with tubes, which could potentially be something that would be audible beyond volume level.

No level matching then just stop. No need to go further. Just don't waste your time considering that test.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Someone here did what he considered a very easy test of telling DACs apart, although I'm a bit unsure of how he got that result and if he did something wrong, although he did say that he level-matched the units:

DAC Blind Test Series

Here is my triple blind setup. Each DAC has its own pot (JBL Nano Patch). These pots are used to match levels. The outputs from these pots are then...

www.superbestaudiofriends.org

If anyone can discern how he achieved the result he did, please enlighten me.

I once read about a shoot-out between a lot of different DACs. A room full of people listened to DAC A vs. DAC B and then chose a winner that went on to the next round. Then DAC C vs. DAC D had a shootout and so forth.
It was a blind test, and it was certainly better than a sighted test, but unfortunately it didn't seem to be level-matched. The winner was a DAC with tubes, which could potentially be something that would be audible beyond volume level.

The test you linked. Possible issue with matching using a microphone. Why do people keep doing it this way?

Then he didn't continue because differences were too obvious. So he really never did the test.

 

[kemmler3D]

"Triple blind" setup, in that neither he, nor the test administrator, nor THEY, but only a 4th party, knew which DAC was which?

Level matching with a mic is better than nothing though, I understand why it's not preferred, but what makes this method much worse than another if nothing else in the room moves between tests?

As for the test, looks like he tested two DACs with insane (like > -60dB) levels of distortion, if you look at the review of the Airist, the 1khz tone actually under-stated the distortion... OP's own measurement of the other DAC showed similar levels of distortion. With that much THD / IMD I certainly wouldn't argue nobody could hear it. Esp. if he is familiar with the gear it's not shocking to think he could pass even a properly level-matched test.

This is sort of like disproving the idea "nobody can tell the difference between different pairs of competently designed underwear based on fabric" and then showing that you can clearly tell the difference between burlap and sandpaper. Sort of the exception that proves the rule...

 

[sajgre]

Comparing DACs is what brought me here in first place. I bought Denafrips Ares ii to replace my "******" streamer/preamp/dac yamaha wxc-50. Since I couldn't hear magic instrument separation that Denafrips should make I started researching and ended up here where hearing impaired people like me hang out.

 

[xeizo]

Comparing DACs is what brought me here in first place. I bought Denafrips Ares ii to replace my "******" streamer/preamp/dac yamaha wxc-50. Since I couldn't hear magic instrument separation that Denafrips should make I started researching and ended up here where hearing impaired people like me hang out.

The Yamaha WXC-50 has a pretty good DAC implementation so should be transparent, as other good DACs, if the Denafrips had sounded better if would possibly have been beacause of some coloration. Good you couldn't hear a difference, so you didn't get a dud.

 

[Plcamp]

Anecdote:

Except for background noise, I didn’t notice any difference between the preamp out of a Yamaha AVR and a Topping E30 DAC.

Noise just noticeable from Yamaha, silent from Topping.

The Topping does have a major size advantage.

 

[xeizo]

Anecdote:

Except for background noise, I didn’t notice any difference between the preamp out of a Yamaha AVR and a Topping E30 DAC.

Noise just noticeable from Yamaha, silent from Topping.

The Topping does have a major size advantage.

Yes, my Yamaha RX-A2050 sounds just fine on the headphone out (using the built in DAC chip), only it's a waste to have a 18Kg piece with a 1000VA transformer running for a pair of cans. I use it for speakers. Would I need an external DAC for speaker listening? No.

 

[johnah5]

I’ve been searching near and far via google and can’t find any blind abx tests done on DACs with statistically significant results favoring one DAC over another.

Does anyone know of any? If so can you please paste a link. If one DAC can significantly improve sound quality of my 2-channel system I want to find it!

Listen to them. There are differences but you would not know what diff you prefer so listen is the way

 

[12Many]

I just switched swapped out my Onkyo RZ820 receiver (being used as a DAC/volume control) for the Benchmark DAC3. Current system is now Node to DAC3 to Benchmark Amp AHB2 to Revel F208 & two SVS 12" subs. I was not expecting a difference, but I feel like it is pretty evident. I am surprised because the DAC in the RZ820 is not bad and I was considering returning the DAC3 to save some money. I think there is more going on then just the DAC aspect though. I should add that I find the sound amazing for a medium priced system.

 

[Killingbeans]

Listen to them. There are differences but you would not know what diff you prefer so listen is the way

He didn't ask for the differences you get from sighted listening, but instead differences that are still clearly evident when minimizing the influence of cognitive bias.

 

[board]

No level matching then just stop. No need to go further. Just don't waste your time considering that test.

He did level-match them - or at least tried his best.
If he weren't to use a microphone and the pots he used, how would a consumer then level-match two DACs?

 

[board]

Well, the premise is that two competent DACs should be indistinguishable from each other. The Airist is quite possibly designed badly enough to have an actual sound signature:

Massdrop Airist R2R DAC Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Airist R2R DAC. It is on kind loan from a member a while back who has been patiently waiting for its review. The Airist R2R costs US $350. Drop's website says 931 are sold so it seems like a popular DAC. The Airist DAC employs the attractive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Yeah, that Airist really is poorly made.
In case the poor design isn't the explanation, do you, or anyone else here, have a suggestion to what the explanation could be, except perhaps not level-matching them completely?

 

[BDWoody]

He did level-match them - or at least tried his best.
If he weren't to use a microphone and the pots he used, how would a consumer then level-match two DACs?

Using a simple multimeter to match the voltages is probably the easiest way to do it, and it doesn't have to be very expensive. Without matching those levels very closely, the results are going to be questioned, no matter the sincerity of the person doing the comparison.