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

[Purité Audio]

The debate will just go round and round endlessly unless there is more independent controlled group blind listening tests of products. Otherwise the listening advocates will never convince the measurement advocates and measurement advocates will never completely convince the listening advocates.

They are all wedded to their believes by their innate human cognitive biases which no one is above. Won’t happen because not simple to do in practice and people are more comfortable staying in their tribes.

I’m just doing a training course from a leading international organisation developed by a renowned US university based on research findings. They found hardly surprisingly that long term the most successful organisations and individuals are generally those that step outside their comfort zone, question their views and believes and engage constructively with those with different views.

The research and training applies to business and the world generally including as just one specific example how best to work with AI. It’s difficult as it requires people to step out of their comfort zone, question their views and beliefs, engage constructively, and admit sometimes they might not always be absolutely completely right in every situation. Individuals, groups, organisations and society would all benefit from such an approach but it takes an element of courage.

You are now arguing in bad faith.
Keith

 

[olieb]

They found hardly surprisingly that long term the most successful organisations and individuals are generally those that step outside their comfort zone, question their views and believes and engage constructively with those with different views.

There is a whole culture and system built around that finding. It is called science. And yes some people are better at this than others and that holds for “scientists“, too.

The debate will just go round and round endlessly unless there is more independent controlled group blind listening tests of products. Otherwise the listening advocates will never convince the measurement advocates and measurement advocates will never completely convince the listening advocates.

As far as electronics (cables, dacs, amps,..) are concerned, I tend to disagree. In this case we can compare input and output as both are electrical (resp. digital) signals (voltage) for which there is a quite successful scientific theory available and we have superb measurement capabilities, too.
One can throw anything (sweeps, music, noise,...) into the gear and measure the difference at the output. For competent hifi gear the difference is amazingly small and to claim audibility one has to resort to sensitivity of hearing to a degree for which there is just no evidence.
So trying to gather more evidence by listening tests (which are complicated, insensitive and prone to statistical limitations) will hardly change anything.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

So trying to gather more evidence by listening tests (which are complicated, insensitive and prone to statistical limitations) will hardly change anything.

It's a convenient goalpost: he can demand it and say nothing short of it will suffice because (A) he knows it won't happen at least not to whatever standards he'll retroactively set for it and (B) it won't really end the "debate" anyway.

 

[Pausi]

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.

I don't doubt that you all heard a difference. What does that prove? That there is a difference in sound between this to devices. The two devices have different implementations of the DAC-chips. Nobody are listening to just the DAC-chips. I guess if you had three good builds with the same quality components and a DAC-chip from ESS, AKM og ROHM or older Burr Brown no one would be able to heard any audible difference. Most DAC-chips have been perfect for human ears for 20-30 years. The mission is to find a good implementation of any DAC-chip. Then you need scientifically valid measurements, to verify that the implementation of the DAC-chips is done well. Like this one. No HiFi or studio would ever need anything better, but what's the fun in that. Of course many of us will always chase the HiFI-dragon. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-d10s-usb-dac-and-bridge-review.14859/

 

[TTT15]

There is a whole culture and system built around that finding. It is called science. And yes some people are better at this than others and that holds for “scientists“, too.

As far as electronics (cables, dacs, amps,..) are concerned, I tend to disagree. In this case we can compare input and output as both are electrical (resp. digital) signals (voltage) for which there is a quite successful scientific theory available and we have superb measurement capabilities, too.
One can throw anything (sweeps, music, noise,...) into the gear and measure the difference at the output. For competent hifi gear the difference is amazingly small and to claim audibility one has to resort to sensitivity of hearing to a degree for which there is just no evidence.
So trying to gather more evidence by listening tests (which are complicated, insensitive and prone to statistical limitations) will hardly change anything.

I‘m not generally disagreeing. Just saying that to convince subjective listener advocates of measurements then I suspect they need more group blind controlled listening tests of products. And yes no doubt some will still claim that they can hear things that aren’t possible and others can’t.

To be truly scientific you need to look for and be willing to accept information that disagrees with your views as well as supports your views and be open to other possibilities outside of what is generally accepted. Not just what you want to believe and hear. That is what the research I refer to finds.

I’m just off for another test for something else. I might not like the results and it might conflict with everything that I know up until now and want to hear. But I’m still doing the test to confirm or disprove the original findings just to be absolutely sure even though it is very uncomfortable doing so.

 

[Mart68]

Just saying that to convince subjective listener advocates of measurements then I suspect they need more group blind controlled listening tests of products.

There's been plenty over the years. I don't think anyone is interested in convincing the fanatics they are wrong. Some men you just can't reach, they will always take their personal experience over science, logic, reason, evidence. Even when they fail blind tests themselves they make excuses. Why waste time on them?

Only those who are open minded yet still undecided can be convinced, happily that's quite a few people and ASR does make an impact. I have met people who started looking at audio more objectively as a result of reading this site and are now no longer aspiring to own ten grand DACs or cables and it's also apparent that the scam side of the industry is running scared.

 

[olieb]

To be truly scientific you need to look for and be willing to accept information that disagrees with your views as well as supports your views and be open to other possibilities outside of what is generally accepted.

The key point here is “information“.
If you accept anything anybody says or claims you will never get anywhere.
People “invented“ perpetuum mobiles and the like for centuries, but when checked, they just did not work or were frauds. At some point (when the science was evolved sufficiently) the patent office stopped accepting these for checking. Probably there are still “inventors“ out there but they do not make a splash anymore.
The “information“ has to be meaningful evidence.
And if you are contrary to well established science then this is pretty hard to get.

To “convince subjective listener advocates of measurements“ evidence is seldom the way to go. If evidence would be essential then the problem would probably not arise.
I think Thomas Kuhn has got it right, these opinions typically fade and die out over time, literally.

 

[TTT15]

There's been plenty over the years. I don't think anyone is interested in convincing the fanatics they are wrong. Some men you just can't reach, they will always take their personal experience over science, logic, reason, evidence. Even when they fail blind tests themselves they make excuses. Why waste time on them?

Only those who are open minded yet still undecided can be convinced, happily that's quite a few people and ASR does make an impact. I have met people who started looking at audio more objectively as a result of reading this site and are now no longer aspiring to own ten grand DACs or cables and it's also apparent that the scam side of the industry is running scared.

Ive sure you are right that some will never be convinced whatever the evidence but some will.

The research says to progress better then everyone needs to be more open minded and test their existing beliefs in different situations and with different people. This includes being able to convince other people when you are right. It is no good being right if you can’t convince other people.

There are clearly many who don’t wish to accept that evidence also applies to them but it doesn’t make it wrong no matter how much many people feel the need to stay in their comfort zone and hang onto their existing thought paradigms.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Just saying that to convince subjective listener advocates

You don't have to speak on behalf of anyone here. Just speak for yourself. This is textbook concern trolling.

 

[Mart68]

The research says to progress better then everyone needs to be more open minded and test their existing beliefs in different situations and with different people.

Audio isn't particle physics though. It's a done deal. There are no boundaries to push and it's highly unlikely at this stage that there's anything important that's been overlooked. You may say that's simply being 'closed minded' but the way this works is that it's up to the dissenters to produce evidence that the current paradigm is wrong.

 

[Overseas]

I used about 8-10 DACs, standalone or amps or embedded in CD players.
Many, many times, empirically, I found different DACs sounding exactly the same
As no scientific approach was in place, it does not count.
Very few times, rarely, seemed to me sound was different. Again, empirically, so it does not count.
Though I am an audio enthusiast and way above the average citizen (people think I am a freak with all the details about audio equipment) , organizing a blind test by the book does not seem attainable to me.
On the other hand, people with science degrees tell me all sound the same. I am not equiped to evaluate their degrees nor their technical arguments.
Also, any super duper blind test will only settle the models involved.

 

[TTT15]

Audio isn't particle physics though. It's a done deal. There are no boundaries to push and it's highly unlikely at this stage that there's anything important that's been overlooked. You may say that's simply being 'closed minded' but the way this works is that it's up to the dissenters to produce evidence that the current paradigm is wrong.

Sorry I’m obviously not contradicting particle physics although they would never claim they have all the definitive answers for everything but that does contradict the research findings. They says it needs to be a two way interactive process between different parties.

For example I may think I’m right because I’ve more experience, knowledge and qualifications and generally hopefully I am but that doesn’t mean I don’t need to listen to my customers and persuade them and sometime they might just have a point in certain specific circumstances. It doesn’t just take technical skills but also social skills

 

[voodooless]

It doesn’t just take technical skills but also social skills

Reality does not care about your feelings.

 

[Mart68]

It doesn’t just take technical skills but also social skills

Sales requires social skills but I don't think audio science does.

 

[Karmacoma]

The debate will just go round and round endlessly unless there is more independent controlled group blind listening tests of products. Otherwise the listening advocates will never convince the measurement advocates and measurement advocates will never completely convince the listening advocates.

They are all wedded to their believes by their innate human cognitive biases which no one is above. Won’t happen because not simple to do in practice and people are more comfortable staying in their tribes.

I’m just doing a training course from a leading international organisation developed by a renowned US university based on research findings. They found hardly surprisingly that long term the most successful organisations and individuals are generally those that step outside their comfort zone, question their views and believes and engage constructively with those with different views.

The research and training applies to business and the world generally including as just one specific example how best to work with AI. It’s difficult as it requires people to step out of their comfort zone, question their views and beliefs, engage constructively, and admit sometimes they might not always be absolutely completely right in every situation. Individuals, groups, organisations and society would all benefit from such an approach but it takes an element of courage.

You totally missed the point here. I don't know what kind of training you're doing, ''from a leading international organisation developed by a renowned US university based on research findings'', but it sure looks like you could be good friends with the OP.
You probably don't realise it but your ''I'll be the adult in the room'' post isn't the call for rationality you think it is, it is in fact a call for irrationality, based on biases and paralogisms that i could list and name.

The scientific process is pretty straightforward: when you make an extraordinary claim, you need an extraordinary evidence.
The evidence proposed here is underwhelmingly pertinent (and I'm being polite here).

And most of the people I know on this forum are eager to be proven wrong.

 

[Pausi]

Audio-buffoonery doesn't go away even with controlled double blind ABX-testing evidence like this one almost twenty years ago: https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=14195

 

[MatrixS2000]

Just saying that to convince subjective listener advocates of measurements then I suspect they need more group blind controlled listening tests of products. And yes no doubt some will still claim that they can hear things that aren’t possible and others can’t.

At some point you need to leave those people behind as no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. The Objective view should inform and guide the Subjective view, not replace it.

 

[MAB]

I‘m not generally disagreeing.

Actually, you present verbose disagreement. In very general terms. Without ever getting specific.

 

[Joe Smith]

The quality/sound differential between all audio devices just seems so small compared to speaker differences. I see no reason to spend thousands more for amps or dacs or transports just for slight improvements in specifications, but with no discernible improvement in what I'm hearing.

 

[HalSF]

At this point I’m into this topic for one reason only, the comedy.

After I started reading hi-fi enthusiast forums and reviews intensively about 25 years ago, I started encountering audiophile connoisseurs who confidently claimed to hear all kinds of different sonic flavors and artisanal characteristics in different DAC chips, people who were fans of specific chips and who rated them and ranked them according to sound quality. This is hilarious to me.