DACs that better compensate for noise

[100rounddrum]

Read again what I wrote above.

It's hard to understand that there is a proof without a level matched DBT.

I already said multiple times that I level tested them. The results were always the same.

 

[100rounddrum]

And to reiterate. You are referring to DAC /amps.

I'm referring to the Hifimediy Sabre USB DAC and the HRT Microstreamer.

Wouldn't the principle of an amp be the same as a DAC though, or can amps actually make a difference in sound texture and timbre?

 

[100rounddrum]

@100rounddrum you did check the output impedance, didn't you? What's the impedance on the headphones you used?

Both output impedances of the DACs were the same, 0.5ohm.

I used the same headphone on them, the Audio Technica AD1000x

 

[Jimbob54]

Both output impedances of the DACs were the same, 0.5ohm.

I used the same headphone on them, the Audio Technica AD1000x

You said the hifimediy had been tested on here? This one? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...and-review-of-hifime-sabre-9018-usb-dac.2146/ or a different one?

 

[100rounddrum]

No the 9023 version. That is the 9018 version

 

[Jimbob54]

No the 9023 version. That is the 9018 version

I give up. No idea why you perceive it to have smoother treble and better timbre than the other. If you're saying you did double blind level matched tests between the two.

I might even buy one. Got the links to the measurements of both so I can check them out?

 

[Tks]

My post is a bit late, I thought I pressed submit yesterday, only to see this draft here today...

Not with any of the dacs I have used.

That's because you'll never see an industry-grade "music via the network or from a separate specialized computer".

In summary, OP is just blowing smoke of "Don't got answers? Then don't talk if you don't got the highest standard of scientific proof."

While at the same time using the lowest standard possible of: "Nah I don't double blind/volume match test, I do casual listening and there's perhaps something there, why else would companies sell various products of purported superiority?"

He, like many others, confuses skepticism, if one doesn't have the evidence to falsify his explicit subjective notions, then the burden of proof is seemingly on the skeptic. Which is pretty hilarious if you've ever held a conversation with normal people and debated any topic. It'd be like saying the onus of truth is on the skeptic when being told: "I believe in ghosts, religions talk about immaterial beings and souls, many people believe in religion, so YOU have to falsify and demonstrate all those people are incorrect for believing in things they themselves haven't proved to exist beyond subjective experiences, and never any objective and repeatable demonstration".

OP doesn't seem to understand the concept of "if there is no/little evidence for something, then there is no/little reason to believe it". If there is any proof in his claims, he would be the one required to substantiate them, or at least provide objective verification of a phenoma AT LEAST existing in the first place. People will say "the phenomena is all the people claiming they hear a difference", except for that phenomena there is a whole field of science in terms of neurochemistry, cognitive science, and psychology that can account for this sort of ordeal, and as for the existence of these products: Industries that exist in the current market paradigm of planned obsolescence pressures that has intensified all sorts of fraudulent products as a means of survival in such a hostile global market. And many in the upper echelon pay educated neuroscientists on how to best exploit and manufacture a pervading belief in something with no appreciable basis in objective reality.

OP purports "he's not biased". presupposing as if this is something he has actual control over cognitively speaking:

There's no one free of bias to some degree, no one's experiential events of life lead them to be truly 50/50 on any matter if they are somewhat familiar with the relevant topic of discussion.

OP, as a demonstration for instance of how bad your sighted bias testing can be, look no further.

But it's far too easy to equivocate and use proprietary definitions for things, where colloquially speaking, if someone says they're aren't biased, it usually means he doesn't care either way for something or another, or simply that he recognizes what his biases are, and simply takes that into account when time comes for objective calculus insofar as practicably possible at such given moment.

But the bias we're talking about is one he can rectify, but is lukewarm it seems to consider addressing (the bias of sighted tests that you can't just simply "will" out of existence just because you're aware of it). So when he says he's not biased, he MAYBE at best can address the colloquial bias, but to then hold to the ideas he does without addressing the sighted bias for example as I just spoke for - he is clearly demonstrating a propensity for one side more than the other.

 

[Wes]

I am talking about the general attitude here, not the "debatable" noise matters. Even though someone conceded that testing of dacs should include how well it compensates for isolation. And I believe upsampling is debatable as well if it is capable of making the analog output "more accurate" and allow for more processing outside of the audible range.

The general attitude here sometimes seeks to substitute engineering expertise and knowledge via expert opinion for actually doing the science of a controlled listening test.

You can address that deficit by performing relevant controlled listening tests, and then publishing them.

As to your OP, just use WiFi or optical cable between your PC and your DAC if you are worried about noise transmitted along USB or even Ethernet wires, and don't want to do a test.

Alternatively, you may be able to seek a quantum of solace in one of the EtherDegen devices. It's only money and far cheaper than a psychoanalyst.

 

[March Audio]

Yes, a single byte step would be exactly the same. But the timing difference and uncertainty from one bit to the next, varies a lot with DACs. And that timing difference is what makes an audible difference.

That's called jitter and it is eminently measurable. Amir does so with most dacs tested and it is a non problem with all but the most disfunctional dacs.

So sorry but you are wrong. The timing difference and uncertainty from one sample to the next does not vary a lot with DACs. Far from it. This is *proven* by measurement.

 

[wineandmusic]

As to your OP, just use WiFi or optical cable between your PC and your DAC if you are worried about noise transmitted along USB or even Ethernet wires, and don't want to do a test.

That is exactly what i have been doing for over 5+ years now. When i first had this struggle, I proclaimed streaming DSD via DLNA sounded much better than using a USB DAC. I just recently tried a usb dac again for the first time in a couple years, and just thought maybe usb dacs have gotten better (and they have). I am comfortable saying the gap has lessened. But i just unplugged the dac and am back to DLNA, HDMI, and toslink for now.

In all likelihood, unless someone can tell me that there is a USB Dac that offers what I am seeking under $2K, i will continue my solutions without usb. USB does have it's advantages though, so i look forward to the day when I can say I believe that usb out my everyday windows pc sounds as good as other solutions....

 

[LTig]

It's hard to understand that there is a proof without a level matched DBT.

I already said multiple times that I level tested them. The results were always the same.

You forgot the 2nd part: DBT.

 

[Jimbob54]

You forgot the 2nd part: DBT.

I suspect its more a case of choosing to ignore the hard part. Or it's yet another wind up.