• Welcome to ASR. 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!

DAC/streamers do influence sound. Tested in home and in a recording studio. It's not your imagination.

Drakon

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2024
Messages
83
Likes
49
This is a home and recording studio comparison of the Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo DMP A8.

NOTE: I'm editing this post adding this paragraph to clarify that yes there is another Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo A8 comparison post. It is my post. However there is confusion by some thinking this is a duplicate post. It is not. Doing a little more thorough search would have shown the author to be me. In that post I mentioned there was to be a follow up involving a professional studio. This is that post.

This is not going to be an exhaustive subjective review of what sounded better etc. That applies to my ears only. To say what another will or will not hear or for another to say what I did or did not hear is argument fodder and a waste of bandwidth.

At the end I will briefly cover why I chose as I did.

What does this test and research factually reveal? That regardless of the belief to the contrary these machines - DACs, streamers etc are not built the same and DO influence the sound. Period. Any arguments to the contrary are simply false beliefs influenced by poor sources, misinformation or a desire to argue.

First let me say I held no expectations or belief of one machine being better or different.

The setup:

1. In home. Both were fed the same source material via ethernet through an X/Y/Z switch. The switch is Amir tested and approved. Both were db matched via a 1kHz tone. Someone else swapped machines and music from another room. The loudspeakers and I were alone. The speakers are positioned per the manufacturers instructions. I spoke with their tech. No special room treatment.

I listened to short and longer passages repeating as necessary to hear the same segment.

In the end there was quite a noticeable difference between the machines. If these machines as some incorrectly believe are all the same then the music would have sounded identical. But it didn't because they aren't designed the same. A former classical pianist and tuner also identified differences as well as another in the house who consistently identified the Eversolo as harsh sounding. The subjectiveness isn't the point nor matters. What matters is three people all heard distinctions between the machines set up per professional recommendation including Amir's suggestions.

2. Not satisfied with the home test I sought professionals in the music industry. I rented time at an east coast recording studio. The two machine outputs were matched via their equipment and methods and again Amir's recommendations. Once done music was streamed via ethernet from the same lossless source. The recording studio monitors have a flat response. I had no idea which machine was streaming. I listened to the same song same passage. Repeating via both slow and quick switching. My choice was noted and we proceeded on.

I turned the tables and did the switching for the listeners which included the studio's chief audio engineer. Clear differences noted by all.

Same signal in. Different sound out.

The machines were closer in performance than at home but still sounding noticeably different.

This difference was noted by myself, the audio engineer, crew and another non employee that was there and I asked to join.

But lets be honest clearly there is a belief held by some to be unshaken by real world facts that (digital) signal processing is cookie cutter. DACs, streamers, etc sound the same. Or should I say for their world view "must sound the same" if not it's your ears fooling you. Nonsense.

These streaming DACs perform differently. I was there as were others.

Matched I've heard a difference, a classical pianist had heard a difference, an audio engineer has heard a difference, studio crew heard a difference. I don't hold to (a) belief because it is a popular one and because skepticism is popular. I am compelled to belief because of the facts.

I had earlier emailed Amir on this and as mentioned included his advice in with the testing methodology. Although I could not hear clear distinctions in all music it was quite evident in some therefore it must be there in all whether distinguishable or not. Therefore these streaming DACs perform/sound (whatever the popular adjective is) differently. They likely all do but I can't prove that.

Through doubt and wanting clear evidence I've gone far beyond what many would do applying the valid advice and suggestions here and elsewhere. I've received compliments and "well dones" from various people here and elsewhere for this effort. Thank you. Sorry if some don't like the facts. Challenged they become condescending and angry. It's ok. Ignore the naysayers. Your ears, your money.

Had I shone that the machines are the same there would be no debate from them. Irregardless of my methodology.

Facts. Proven qualifications. I don't put myself forward as any expert. I'm not. By no means. Nor do I quote sources elsewhere without verification. I seek expertise. There's an old saying in testing "trust but verify". It doesn't mean the person giving advice isn't correct but the burden of proof has not been met. I am happy to hear from the qualified but but please prove your expertise. Just someone saying I worked at X or did this or that doesn't prove their opinion or "facts" valid if they can't be investigated. The fact that I myself worked for decades at my company doesn't necessarily qualify me to make flat statements regarding systems design, fabrication or execution. I have to bring source and possibly evidence.

The worse explanation begins with " everyone knows . . ." Also there is no need to berate or lecture. I've seen that in other posts. The emotional argument is the losing one. Gaslighting or sarcasm is the last resort of lost reasoning and a failed point.

I can't and am not interested in changing ingrained (popular) beliefs. But if someone can't prove what they are saying and just rinse and repeat then I'll toss that in the opinion bucket.

Further qualified evidence is here in a response to my questions to Cambridge Audio:

I asked:

"My question to you is when matched output wise do these machines truly sound differently or is it my ears. An audio engineer, classical pianist, another and myself all heard distinct differences streaming identical songs in a blind test. Do DACs or streamers add their own unique touch to the signal?"

Their answer:

Thank you for contacting Cambridge Audio.

We "ear pick" our components based on the overall design and which ones sound best. Of course, the DAC used, and the audio chain in every DAC/network player we produce, will have a different flavour or character, and multiply a similar process across every other manufacturer, then of course, differences in sound could be perceived by the listener. This is why there are so many reviews and opinions expressed worldwide about the perception of sound of a particular device, amplifiers or DACs or network players, the source material or input in use, the list goes on, mostly based on an individual's own personal opinion, the setup as a whole, including connected hi-fi equipment, interconnects, and the listening environment. Even in A/B setups, it is expected that some will hear a difference, while others may not.

So to answer your question, yes, it is an expectation that a DAC or streamer would add its own unique touch, in some way . ."

Let us stop beating the DAC/amps etc sound the same the ear is being fooled horse. It's dead and buried. This data and Cambridge Audio just added more dirt on the grave.

Anyway I hope this helps those seeking real world knowledge. The machine specs guarantee nothing the only important factor is what you will hear.

**Warning you are entering a subjective zone**

I did say I would briefly mention why I chose what I did which is the Cambridge. It has a warmer sound. The sound field seemed wider. I did not need all of the bells and whistles of the A8. Six output filter characteristics choices for instance. Seems you can "tune" the output stage roll-off. Hmm, now why would one (or Eversolo) need to do this if all DACs sound alike? Because filter (design) roll-off settings can (and do) affect sound quality as well as the machine's handling of transients. I didn't change the A8 from the default.

The Cambridge has a better established customer support. From purchase to forever I have 7 day after sales tech support from Crutchfield. And with text and email responses from Cambridge I feel better covered.

There is no straightforward customer service contact I found for Eversolo. Seems you go through the dealer or on their website for purchased products only. The company is simply too new. Will they be around to honor their warranties? The A8 did receive good reviews from Amir. In the end looking at both machines I wish the A8 had been victorious. It is sharper looking and has a plethora of I/O options and internal settings should they ever become needed. The touchscreen is clear and responsive however any screen that size is useless to me at just a few feet away. If the screen is to be useful it needs to stay within reach which means placing the A8 on your desk.

However I/O, screens and such mean little of it's aurally displeasing. It's audio equipment so sound is first, last and everything in between. I'm happy with my choice. Oh, in that blind testing the chief audio engineer and visitor also picked the Cambridge Audio EXN100 three to zero over the A8. Enough said there.

For those shopping I encourage narrowing choices down to two, buying both provided the return is straightforward and window sufficient.

Don't hear a difference? Then pick the one that had the I/Os, looks etc that you want. If and you likely will hear some nuances then is it in the genres you listen to? If positive you've found your machine. If you don't like what you hear with your preferred music keep looking. The Eversolo cost $23 to return. 1% of it's price. Drop in the bucket to eliminate doubt and ensure happy listening. Also if you like features but the sound is not pleasing perhaps room treatments physical or electronic might be your answer. For me buying the machine that already "fit" the room worked.

Remember your ears, your money, your choice. Don't leave it to or be led by someone else who isn't there listening, hasn't demonstrated any repeatable evidence or is trying to put a factual suit on a (popular) belief.

Thank you to those for the helpful feedback. Especially Amir for his quantitative suggestions.

Good luck. But if you listen carefully you won't need it.
 
Last edited:
I think it´s the 2nd time this story is published here.
If not the same, a very similar thread was started a few months ago.
It might have been me. I had posted something similar but hadn't gotten to the studio testing. I mentioned I would at some point.

I see the popcorn and cartoon network crowd is awake. Good morning Leeuw and friend.
 
One Cambridge/Eversolo ‘comparison ‘ is probably enough.
 
To make that kind of claims and to be considered serious by the ASR crowd, you need to follow a proper reproductible protocol to erase the possibility of any type of bias.
If not, almost nobody will take you seriously, simply because the protocol you just described isn't serious.
The day you'll understand that simple reality, your input will be warmly welcomed and you'll probably make very interesting posts, but it isn't the case right now.
 
Anyway this is just food for thought. Nada mas. I'm not really posting this for active discourse just a resource. I know many already know this.

Apologies for the verbosity.

I won't be monitoring this post having to waste time filtering for mature useful responses while leap frogging the trolling childish and argumentative ones but would enjoy hearing adult thoughts.

Please feel free to message me.
 
This is a home and recording studio comparison of the Cambridge Audio EXN100 and Eversolo DMP A8.

This is not going to be an exhaustive subjective review of what sounded better etc. That applies to my ears only. To say what another will or will not hear or for another to say what I did or did not hear is argument fodder and a waste of bandwidth.

At the end I will briefly cover why I chose as I did.

What does this test and research factually reveal? That regardless of the belief to the contrary these machines - DACs, streamers etc are not built the same and DO influence the sound. Period. Any arguments to the contrary are simply false beliefs influenced by poor sources, misinformation or a desire to argue.

First let me say I held no expectations or belief of one machine being better or different.

The setup:

1. In home. Both were fed the same source material via ethernet through an X/Y/Z switch. The switch is Amir tested and approved. Both were db matched via a 1kHz tone. Someone else swapped machines and music from another room. The loudspeakers and I were alone. The speakers are positioned per the manufacturers instructions. I spoke with their tech. No special room treatment.

I listened to short and longer passages repeating as necessary to hear the same segment.

In the end there was quite a noticeable difference between the machines. If these machines as some incorrectly believe are all the same then the music would have sounded identical. But it didn't because they aren't designed the same. A former classical pianist and tuner also identified differences as well as another in the house who consistently identified the Eversolo as harsh sounding. The subjectiveness isn't the point nor matters. What matters is three people all heard distinctions between the machines set up per professional recommendation including Amir's suggestions.

2. Not satisfied with the home test I sought professionals in the music industry. I rented time at an east coast recording studio. The two machine outputs were matched via their equipment and methods and again Amir's recommendations. Once done music was streamed via ethernet from the same lossless source. The recording studio monitors have a flat response. I had no idea which machine was streaming. I listened to the same song same passage. Repeating via both slow and quick switching. My choice was noted and we proceeded on.

I turned the tables and did the switching for the listeners which included the studio's chief audio engineer. Clear differences noted by all.

Same signal in. Different sound out.

The machines were closer in performance than at home but still sounding noticeably different.

This difference was noted by myself, the audio engineer, crew and another non employee that was there and I asked to join.

But lets be honest clearly there is a belief held by some to be unshaken by real world facts that (digital) signal processing is cookie cutter. DACs, streamers, etc sound the same. Or should I say for their world view "must sound the same" if not it's your ears fooling you. Nonsense.

These streaming DACs perform differently. I was there as were others.

Matched I've heard a difference, a classical pianist had heard a difference, an audio engineer has heard a difference, studio crew heard a difference. I don't hold to (a) belief because it is a popular one and because skepticism is popular. I am compelled to belief because of the facts.

I had earlier emailed Amir on this and as mentioned included his advice in with the testing methodology. Although I could not hear clear distinctions in all music it was quite evident in some therefore it must be there in all whether distinguishable or not. Therefore these streaming DACs perform/sound (whatever the popular adjective is) differently. They likely all do but I can't prove that.

Through doubt and wanting clear evidence I've gone far beyond what many would do applying the valid advice and suggestions here and elsewhere. I've received compliments and "well dones" from various people here and elsewhere for this effort. Thank you. Sorry if some don't like the facts. Challenged they become condescending and angry. It's ok. Ignore the naysayers. Your ears, your money.

Had I shone that the machines are the same there would be no debate from them. Irregardless of my methodology.

Facts. Proven qualifications. I don't put myself forward as any expert. I'm not. By no means. Nor do I quote sources elsewhere without verification. I seek expertise. There's an old saying in testing "trust but verify". It doesn't mean the person giving advice isn't correct but the burden of proof has not been met. I am happy to hear from the qualified but but please prove your expertise. Just someone saying I worked at X or did this or that doesn't prove their opinion or "facts" valid if they can't be investigated. The fact that I myself worked for decades at my company doesn't necessarily qualify me to make flat statements regarding systems design, fabrication or execution. I have to bring source and possibly evidence.

The worse explanation begins with " everyone knows . . ." Also there is no need to berate or lecture. I've seen that in other posts. The emotional argument is the losing one. Gaslighting or sarcasm is the last resort of lost reasoning and a failed point.

I can't and am not interested in changing ingrained (popular) beliefs. But if someone can't prove what they are saying and just rinse and repeat then I'll toss that in the opinion bucket.

Further qualified evidence is here in a response to my questions to Cambridge Audio:

I asked:

"My question to you is when matched output wise do these machines truly sound differently or is it my ears. An audio engineer, classical pianist, another and myself all heard distinct differences streaming identical songs in a blind test. Do DACs or streamers add their own unique touch to the signal?"

Their answer:

Thank you for contacting Cambridge Audio.

We "ear pick" our components based on the overall design and which ones sound best. Of course, the DAC used, and the audio chain in every DAC/network player we produce, will have a different flavour or character, and multiply a similar process across every other manufacturer, then of course, differences in sound could be perceived by the listener. This is why there are so many reviews and opinions expressed worldwide about the perception of sound of a particular device, amplifiers or DACs or network players, the source material or input in use, the list goes on, mostly based on an individual's own personal opinion, the setup as a whole, including connected hi-fi equipment, interconnects, and the listening environment. Even in A/B setups, it is expected that some will hear a difference, while others may not.

So to answer your question, yes, it is an expectation that a DAC or streamer would add its own unique touch, in some way . ."

Let us stop beating the DAC/amps etc sound the same the ear is being fooled horse. It's dead and buried. This data and Cambridge Audio just added more dirt on the grave.

Anyway I hope this helps those seeking real world knowledge. The machine specs guarantee nothing the only important factor is what you will hear.

**Warning you are entering a subjective zone**

I did say I would briefly mention why I chose what I did which is the Cambridge. It has a warmer sound. The sound field seemed wider. I did not need all of the bells and whistles of the A8. Six output filter characteristics choices for instance. Seems you can "tune" the output stage roll-off. Hmm, now why would one (or Eversolo) need to do this if all DACs sound alike? Because filter (design) roll-off settings can (and do) affect sound quality as well as the machine's handling of transients. I didn't change the A8 from the default.

The Cambridge has a better established customer support. From purchase to forever I have 7 day after sales tech support from Crutchfield. And with text and email responses from Cambridge I feel better covered.

There is no straightforward customer service contact I found for Eversolo. Seems you go through the dealer or on their website for purchased products only. The company is simply too new. Will they be around to honor their warranties? The A8 did receive good reviews from Amir. In the end looking at both machines I wish the A8 had been victorious. It is sharper looking and has a plethora of I/O options and internal settings should they ever become needed. The touchscreen is clear and responsive however any screen that size is useless to me at just a few feet away. If the screen is to be useful it needs to stay within reach which means placing the A8 on your desk.

However I/O, screens and such mean little of it's aurally displeasing. It's audio equipment so sound is first, last and everything in between. I'm happy with my choice. Oh, in that blind testing the chief audio engineer and visitor also picked the Cambridge Audio EXN100 three to zero over the A8. Enough said there.

For those shopping I encourage narrowing choices down to two, buying both provided the return is straightforward and window sufficient.

Don't hear a difference? Then pick the one that had the I/Os, looks etc that you want. If and you likely will hear some nuances then is it in the genres you listen to? If positive you've found your machine. If you don't like what you hear with your preferred music keep looking. The Eversolo cost $23 to return. 1% of it's price. Drop in the bucket to eliminate doubt and ensure happy listening. Also if you like features but the sound is not pleasing perhaps room treatments physical or electronic might be your answer. For me buying the machine that already "fit" the room worked.

Remember your ears, your money, your choice. Don't leave it to or be led by someone else who isn't there listening, hasn't demonstrated any repeatable evidence or is trying to put a factual suit on a (popular) belief.

Thank you to those for the helpful feedback. Especially Amir for his quantitative suggestions.

Good luck. But if you listen carefully you won't need it.

We have your word for all this, right? ;)
 
One Cambridge/Eversolo ‘comparison ‘ is probably enough.
Yup, that's me. I had not yet done the studio testing. And to agree with another it was subjective.
 
Last edited:
We have your word for all this, right? ;)
Short of dragging the people involved here it's the best I can do. I've seen no better presenting of evidence except Amir's reviews that is why I rented anothers tens of thousands of dollars in studio equipment and their knowledge. No different than sending gear to Amir. No difference in validity of results. Just no graphs. If someone wants to see that - and so many live and die by graphs and curves I gave a source - Cambridge Audio. If those few still want to stomp and hold their breaths crying methodology methodology I can't help further.

I got others with no skin involved because I'll agree that my expertise is nonexistent for audio engineering. As apparently are many others having read responses to other posts.

A Chief audio engineer and DAC manufacturer are experts. Contact them.
Again your point is well taken. The Net is loaded with " experts" and opinions. Statements like "proper test protocol/methodology/means . . . are meaningless as ironically and amusing the individuals stating such seem neither knowledgeable or can reference such.

I'd say Amir, a recording Chief Engineer and major DAC manufacturer know proper methodology. And honestly will likely forget more regarding such than most of us will ever know.
 
Last edited:
The DAC chips themselves have lots of of programmable registers, not just limited to filters, which may be implemented differently - meaning the identical chip embedded in identical hardware could sound different with a few bit changes in the firmware that set the chips up. All these streamers use an amplification stage after the DAC chip to get to line level. There are variables that may not be down to chip-level differences. So it may be that DACs in a system can measure differently, but I'm certainly not golden eared enough to hear these differences.

My first non-subjective test would be to compare the digital output first. You assume the PCM streams to be identical - if not, you're in trouble right away. The PCM can be recorded to a PC file via, for example spdif to USB converter, and compared with software.

My second test would be to record the gain-matched analogue signals through an ADC. Then you can time align them, invert one and sum them to get a difference signal the level of which and frequency spectrum may reveal what is likely to audible - this is how one pro studio guy on YouTube compares his DACs.

If on a blind test you can hear the differences every time; good for you - you can get a very paid job with that skill.

As for Cambridge Audio, I have an Evo 75 and I really like it, even if it's not rated by ASR folk, and they are an OK company to deal with, but really, I'd have to be wearing my "Mr. Gullible Hat and Balaclava" to take whatever they said about how special their kit is! Does anyone think CA would say "these streamer DACs are all the same"?!
 
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with your observation or experience, but you are essentially saying that listeners perceived differences between two devices therefore DACs and streamers in general are audibly different in a reliably detectable way. That is similar to saying you tasted two bottled waters and perceived a difference, therefore water chemistry measurements are irrelevant. Your perception may absolutely be genuine, but the issue is the leap from a specific listening experience to a broad technical conclusion about all DACs and streamers. Tiny level mismatches, filter behavior, output stage differences, downstream interactions, or expectation effects can all contribute without disproving the idea that many competently designed DACs operate transparently within normal listening conditions.
 
The methodology is nowhere near strong enough for the conclusion. “Someone else swapped the boxes,” “we level matched at 1 kHz,” and “several people heard differences” is not a reproducible blind protocol. No trial counts, no statistics, no verification of bit-identical input, no proof of matched settings, and then manufacturer marketing is used as corroboration. That’s not evidence that DAC/streamers inherently sound different; it’s a loosely controlled listening anecdote dressed up as one.

By that standard, astrology is science too: a few strong impressions, some confirming witnesses, no real controls, and total confidence in the conclusion.
 
I've been thinking about creating a thread like this for months, but it feels to hopeless. It's like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It's the same thing every time and it doesn't lead to anything.

I know psychology exists, and it's possible to hear differences that aren't there. You can already hear a difference by focusing your attention on something else. I'm actually interested in psychology. Some people are very good at fooling themselves, to the point that they actively avoid anything that they feel deep down could contradict their would view. Because I'm human, I should naturally consider that I also do that to some degree.

Having said that, there are too many signs that point out there is more going on in audio than is typically believed here. Some examples:

- unexpected negative results: I have had some products that I had high expectations of and I didn't like their sound at all. It sometimes felt like a relief going back to my previous setup.
- unexpected positive results: especially when I first tried speaker cables, I was astonished how much difference they make, almost like a speaker upgrade
- other people describing the same kind of sound when listening to these products

It's not scientific to not use this kind of information. Expectation bias is ruled out by unexpected results. Confirmation by other listeners proves that it's real - only when their opinions were not known in advance of course.

Unfortunately this is very much based on personal experience. It's difficult anyhow to prove scientifically that something can or cannot be heard. It may be easier to just come up with some extra measurements that can then be correlated to what is heard. Some people seem to believe in eye patterns (like in Purité Audio's avatar). There is something in the transmission of digital data that very subtly alters the workings of the DAC. I'm sure you will all agree that this is true. The discussion is all about whether it's audible. I'd say: skip the discussion and start investigating what could be the cause.

And I'm sorry I'm just complaining without actually doing the research myself, but that's because I have a busy life, in which optimizing my audio takes a lot of my time. I have used measurements from this website several times as part of my decisions, so they're very valuable already. Can you imagine how much more valuable they could be if they explained more audible phenomena?
 
First of all, why would you simply repeat a report on the flawed testing from your last post again? You already wrote about this once, why write about it a second time here without any added value? It has been explained to you ad nauseam why and how your testing was flawed, with scientific evidence and links to the relevant publications. And you still ignored it, brushed it off or simply replied along the lines of "my dry cleaner said it was level-matched good enough". What even is there left to discuss if you continue to ignore hard, scientific evidence on a science-oriented forum?

You also specifically held back essential information about your test setup and protocols in the last thread, just to then come back at people pointing out what was missing with "gotcha! totally did that but didn't want to bore everybody by explaining this vital detail"-style answers. I gave up commenting on it in the end, because I had to assume this was either malice or trolling. And this repeated nonsense post does not make me less suspicious.

I did say I would briefly mention why I chose what I did which is the Cambridge. It has a warmer sound. The sound field seemed wider. I did not need all of the bells and whistles of the A8. Six output filter characteristics choices for instance. Seems you can "tune" the output stage roll-off. Hmm, now why would one (or Eversolo) need to do this if all DACs sound alike? Because filter (design) roll-off settings can (and do) affect sound quality as well as the machine's handling of transients. I didn't change the A8 from the default.
If the sound were warmer, you could easily prove that using a measured frequency response. "Sound field" or imaging are properties of the recording, influenced by your speakers and room. No competent DAC should alter this property in any way, unless effects or EQ are applied. If they were, you could measure it easily instead of poking around in the dark with semi-sighted listening tests.

You would need different reconstruction filters if you needed low latency for music production or other recording rooms. The filters are part of all common DAC chip designs and their existence is not a hint or proof of anything at all. Also, comparing DACs using different reconstruction filters with 44.1 or 48 kHz material can lead to small audible differences. This isn't news and you didn't "discover" this. If you wanted a fair comparison of the devices, clearly, you would use equivalent filters in both.
 
Back
Top Bottom