GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)

[MacClintock]

Spoiler: Apparently he does it by hearing above 20kHz.

MOD EDIT: GS only tests two different filters created with a software program. At no time he tests different DACs let alone passing such a difference.

Edit: The sharp filter, the sinc-L, is very similar to the MScaler x2 filter, so supposedly the results may hold when comparing a Chord DAC with the MScaler using that filter to another good measuring DAC with a very common "lazy" filter.

 

[tmtomh]

Cool - if he does it by hearing above 20kHz, then he's essentially demonstrated that it doesn't matter. It is interesting, though.

 

[tmtomh]

Sorry for another comment right away, but the one other issue to keep in mind is that the introduction of the video frames it as a test to see if differences between DACs are audible, based on the claim that "you don't need anything more than a dongle."

What gets muddled and lost in that - as it so often does in these discussions - is that if you can reliably detect a difference, especially a tiny one and in this case especially one at 20kHz, that says exactly nothing about whether that difference has any significance as a preference, and if so, whether that preference has any significance to anyone else - in other words you have to hear a difference and you have to consistently prefer one over the other, and among those who can also reliably hear that difference your preference has to be intelligible to those other folks - they have to share your preference or at least recognize the audible characteristic of that preference even if they don't share your preference.

Even so, among those who can't hear a difference, the difference is irrelevant - which is important to keep in mind because the claims made by those who can (or say they can) hear exceptionally well are used by others who cannot hear exceptionally well to claim that they too can somehow hear the same differences. "So and so passed a blind test and prefers DAC X, and so I bought DAC X and I hear the same special qualities" - a claim made without proper blind testing, and a claim made by someone who cannot hear the frequency range required to detect the difference in the first place.

 

[MacClintock]

Cool - if he does it by hearing above 20kHz, then he's essentially demonstrated that it doesn't matter. It is interesting, though.

Assuming all this is true, it is interesting, but that is already all that is. No reason to spend any single extra $ for this. In a few years time he probably won't hear the difference anymore (if he really did so in the first place).

 

[MacClintock]

Sorry for another comment right away, but the one other issue to keep in mind is that the introduction of the video frames it as a test to see if differences between DACs are audible, based on the claim that "you don't need anything more than a dongle."

What gets muddled and lost in that - as it so often does in these discussions - is that if you can reliably detect a difference, especially a tiny one and in this case especially one at 20kHz, that says exactly nothing about whether that difference has any significance as a preference, and if so, whether that preference has any significance - in other words you have to hear a difference and you have to consistently prefer one over the other, and among those who can also reliably hear that difference your preference has to be intelligible to those other folks - they have to share your preference or at least recognize the audible characteristic of that preference even if they don't share your preference.

Even so, among those who can't hear a difference, the difference is irrelevant - which is important to keep in mind because the claims made by those who can (or say they can) hear exceptionally well are used by others who cannot hear exceptionally well to claim that they too can somehow hear the same differences. "So and so passed a blind test and prefers DAC X, and so I bought DAC X and I hear the same special qualities" - a claim made without proper blind testing, and a claim made by someone who cannot hear the frequency range required to detect the difference in the first place.

Yes, on the $5000 Holo DAC the cymbals have this marvelous sound....

 

[Keith_W]

For those who don't want to watch the video, here is a quick summary:

- the ABX test he is conducting seems valid.
- he got 18/20 correct. That's a p-value of 0.02%.
- the reason why is because of different reconstruction filters introducing a slight rolloff > 20kHz
- Goldensound is 26 years old. He can hear 21kHz. He was also specifically using headphones which don't have a Harman curve which rolls off the top end so he can hear HF better.

What this means for everyone else who can't hear up to 21kHz is that you will likely fail the blind test and say the two DAC's sound the same.

 

[DVDdoug]

Interesting and surprising result!

And it's still surprising (to me) knowing that he can hear over 20kHz.

The highest frequencies tend to be masked by other high frequencies... MP3 usually throws-away the highest frequencies based on the theory that even if you can hear to 20KHz in a hearing test, the highest frequencies in program material are masked. And when people can "pass" an ABX test with a high-bitrate MP3, the "tell" is usually a temporal effect called pre echo, rather than the loss of highs.

 

[amirm]

The test is that of two resample files. It has nothing to do with dacs sounding different.

 

[KSTR]

The test is that of two resample files. It has nothing to do with dacs sounding different.

Well, it shows that reconstruction filters matter -- with regard to the frequency response and the images they allow to get through, and sometimes less obvious effects like distinct pre-echos (not to be confuses with pre-ringing).
Different DACs (or one and the same DAC) may offer different filters a fixed filter (not necessarily made transparent to the user which one) and that sure can be a source of perceivable differences.

 

[RandomEar]

It's possible he might be hearing IMD on the headphones way below 21 kHz, isn't it? "True" hearing around 21 kHz at 26 would be quite unusual, but not impossible.

Also, it seems somewhat pointless to claim you can hear differences between DACs with different reconstruction filters. Sure, I can use the super slow filter with severe roll-off past 10 kHz and ABX it with the standard filter (doesn't have to be another DAC) and I might be able to pass the test. Doesn't mean I could ever differentiate between different DACs with identical filters. The main point of the video "DACs matter" is thereby wrong, as it's more something like "reconstruction filters matter and specifically these two I tested only really matter for me as I can hear higher tones than 99.6% of all adults".

Meh.

 

[Mnyb]

Yes , I for one hope that DAC mfg sticks to the more correct ones instead of trying to be different .

But I’m >50 so I probably don’t hear past 16-18kHz anymore.

Did not Ayre made some DAC’s with filters that rolled of way way to early and claimed some esoteric benefits instead of just simple HF rolloff ? Even I could possibly detect those ?

 

[Sokel]

The test is that of two resample files. It has nothing to do with dacs sounding different.

It's more about the filters of the used dacs,songs are the same,both oversampled.
Here's the DACs:

 

[Mnyb]

It's possible he might be hearing IMD on the headphones way below 21 kHz, isn't it? "True" hearing around 21 kHz at 26 would be quite unusual, but not impossible.

Also, it seems somewhat pointless to claim you can hear differences between DACs with different reconstruction filters. Sure, I can use the super slow filter with severe roll-off past 10 kHz and ABX it with the standard filter (doesn't have to be another DAC) and I might be able to pass the test. Doesn't mean I could ever differentiate between different DACs with identical filters. The main point of the video "DACs matter" is thereby wrong, as it's more something like "reconstruction filters matter and specifically these two I tested only really matter for me as I can hear higher tones than 99.6% of all adults".

Meh.

And it only matters if the DAC manufacturers picks the wrong filters or have them available for the unsuspecting users....

 

[amirm]

It's more about the filters of the used dacs,songs are the same,both oversampled.
Here's the DACs:


View attachment 366440

There are no dacs but two different filters of the same file.

 

[Mart68]

I thought it was an excellent presentation. Very clear and concise.

Okay so the title is click-bait but I'll forgive that.

 

[Coverpage]

It's possible he might be hearing IMD on the headphones way below 21 kHz, isn't it? "True" hearing around 21 kHz at 26 would be quite unusual, but not impossible.

Also, it seems somewhat pointless to claim you can hear differences between DACs with different reconstruction filters. Sure, I can use the super slow filter with severe roll-off past 10 kHz and ABX it with the standard filter (doesn't have to be another DAC) and I might be able to pass the test. Doesn't mean I could ever differentiate between different DACs with identical filters. The main point of the video "DACs matter" is thereby wrong, as it's more something like "reconstruction filters matter and specifically these two I tested only really matter for me as I can hear higher tones than 99.6% of all adults".

Meh.

The idea that well measuring DACs sound the same is liberally applied in the ASR forums. Any post with any notion about DACs sounding different are moved into a single thread.

And yet the control that is demanded for two DACs to sound the same are not as liberal.

 

[jooc]

Sorry for another comment right away, but the one other issue to keep in mind is that the introduction of the video frames it as a test to see if differences between DACs are audible, based on the claim that "you don't need anything more than a dongle."

What gets muddled and lost in that - as it so often does in these discussions - is that if you can reliably detect a difference, especially a tiny one and in this case especially one at 20kHz, that says exactly nothing about whether that difference has any significance as a preference, and if so, whether that preference has any significance to anyone else - in other words you have to hear a difference and you have to consistently prefer one over the other, and among those who can also reliably hear that difference your preference has to be intelligible to those other folks - they have to share your preference or at least recognize the audible characteristic of that preference even if they don't share your preference.

Even so, among those who can't hear a difference, the difference is irrelevant - which is important to keep in mind because the claims made by those who can (or say they can) hear exceptionally well are used by others who cannot hear exceptionally well to claim that they too can somehow hear the same differences. "So and so passed a blind test and prefers DAC X, and so I bought DAC X and I hear the same special qualities" - a claim made without proper blind testing, and a claim made by someone who cannot hear the frequency range required to detect the difference in the first place.

^ Very good response to this type of question IMO.

The only possibly viable argument I've heard against this is based on interesting data about the capabilities of the human eardrum, inner ear and auditory nerve - apparently there's some data suggesting that higher frequencies do reach the nervous system, but the human brain essentially employs a low-pass filter on it (as do most animals that evolved *alongside* other animals that use high-frequency echolocation such as bats and insects use.) Because of this there's a slight possibility that we 'detect' the high frequency and the act of filtering it out could cause fatigue sooner in some people. It's only speculation at this point based on inner-ear and auditory nerve measurements only. The part that's interesting is that this would be something that's by definition not detectable via ABX tests, because the conscious mind is not 'hearing' the frequencies after the low-pass.

 

[Sokel]

There are no dacs but two different filters of the same file.

Here are the DACs I think:

and here are the same and the ABX device he has to to compare amps,DACs,etc.

The test as he says (and as I understand) is about the audibility and the quality of the filter in each DAC .

 

[mocenigo]

Yes , I for one hope that DAC mfg sticks to the more correct ones instead of trying to be different .

But I’m >50 so I probably don’t hear past 16-18kHz anymore

More like 14khz if your hearing is in a particularly good shape (I am 53 and stop at 12.5khz)

Roberto

 

[gvl]

So differences in the frequency response that land in the frequencies that we humans can hear are potentially audible, how old is this news?

Also I was waiting he would mention intersample overs and if any attempt was made to control them but no, so unless I missed it there’s reasonable doubt that the differences he heard are intersample overs which are likely with the steep filter he used.

Now the real question, how can I get back 20 minutes of my life I spent on watching this?