GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)

[yys310]

A valid point.
The digital file is the most trustworthy way for people here to examine the experiment design.
The upscale setting and the files have been share and the hash of ABX also provided that people can remotely examine them.
I got the same thought as him that if he just release the ABX video about the DAC people here will just say he's cheating or the ABX machine of his is flawed or whatever reason one can diss him.

After all, the well-regarded, "acoustically transparent", ESS/AKM based SOTA Topping/SMSL DAC's filter somehow become a "lazy" filter now.

 

[MacClintock]

Looks like he did ABX different DACs too but for some reasons did not post them (yet ?)

As far as I know, the Holo DAC does not have this extreme filter like the Chord ones, so it seems questionable that he would pass an ABX test on that, as this tiny high frequency roll-off seems to be his only cue to get the differences.

 

[Jeromeof]

he did ABX different DACs too but for some reasons did not post them (yet ?)

That seems convenient! I.e. this sounds like "trust me I can ABX 2 different DAC's with the same filters but I decided not to publish my proof".

While its a great achievement to hear differences even at his age in this treble region - I think saying 2 SOTA "DACs sound different" is different than "very different DAC Filters on SOTA DAC's can make a different frequency response, therefore with the right headphones I can tell a difference".

 

[Coverpage]

Some replies from Cameron (GoldenSounds) in answer to some questions in his comments.















About placebo:




Interesting conversation:






https://www.youtube.com/create_channel?upsell=comment






Looks like he did ABX different DACs too but for some reasons did not post them (yet ?)

Would be very interesting if he ABX not well measuring DACs against well measuring ones.

While I love my delta sigma DACs through well measuring amps, I will be lying if I’d say I don’t enjoy my affordable Hifiman EF400 and that it seems to sound different from my delta sigma DAC/amp. I don’t think it’s well measuring.

I understand the tests so far has assumptions and tight controls isolating each component in the comparison.

However, in a practical sense one can buy a unit such as the EF400 from the market which consist of their own implementation of DAC + amp. It can have different dc bus voltage, reconstruction filter etc

If the sound of the something popular like the EF400 is deemed favourable and it is indeed different sounding when compared against well-measuring DAC/amp combination, then purchasing multiple gear in this space for a unique sound is somewhat reasonable.

Unless well-measuring DAC can universally replicate the sound through some reasonable efforts like EQ. (To the extend of covering a reasonable amount of popular products in the market.)

I do think this is the discussion with greater implications around whether DACs/Amps sound the same. It is what gives us the reason to buy multiple dacs and amps.

 

[Sokel]

A far as I know, the Holo DAC does not have this extreme filter like the Chord ones, so it seems questionable that he would pass an ABX test on that, as this tiny high frequency roll-off seems to be his only cue to get the differences.

I don't see Holo on the desk,I see the (nowdays very popular) Ferrum Wandla which seems to has also modify.
Nice but normal filter,nothing crazy:



(link)
Stock


(link)
and the Goldsound edition.

 

[MacClintock]

I don't see Holo on the desk,I see the (nowdays very popular) Ferrum Wandla which seems to has also modify.
Nice but normal filter,nothing crazy:


View attachment 367236
(link)
Stock

View attachment 367237
(link)
and the Goldsound edition.

He also has a Holo DAC, which in fact was used for the ABX test. Interesting that he now includes a quite sharp filter (not exactely Chord level, but still) in his version of the Ferrum Wandla. This 20kHz roll-off of most filters seems to be the straw all his audiophile hope is based on. It´s a very thin straw, though, difficult to get enough air into!

 

[kemmler3D]

He also has a Holo DAC, which in fact was used for the ABX test. Interesting that he now includes a quite sharp filter (no exactely Chord level, but still) in his version of the Ferrum Wandla. This 20kHz roll-off of most filters seems to be the straw all his audiophile hope is based on. It´s a very thin straw, though, difficult to get enough air into!

Agree... 20khz roll-off is worth worrying about if your hearing is still perfect. Sadly, mine is not. But I don't think 20khz roll-off can produce most of the various sensations people attribute to DACs, especially since a lot of the people reporting those audible changes like "more open soundstage" or whatever definitely don't have youthful ears...

 

[solderdude]

I do think this is the discussion with greater implications around whether DACs/Amps sound the same. It is what gives us the reason to buy multiple dacs and amps.

1: Not all DACs and amps sound nor measure the same. It is a question of training/ears/music/circumstances/technical performance/test method if differences can be perceived.
Remains the question (if audible differences are present) if it is worthwhile (price, the difference itself)
2: There can be many reasons why one may own multiple (and different) DACs/amps/steamers/speakers/headphones.

Eagerly awaiting the ABX videos he claims he has and which holes can be poked into the video.

Then.... it should be repeated and witnessed (and not by one of his friends)

 

[CedarX]

If I use an ESS-based DAC that has the THD compensation registers exposed for adjustment, and I record two files of the same track: one with the registers set for min. THD and the other with the registers set for for max. THD. If I do an ABX comparison between these two files and I can ear a statistically meaningful difference (I don't know that BTW... ), would I also prove that "every ESS-based DAC sounds different"?

The logic is: I can hear the difference between two THD comp. settings on a given ESS-based DAC ... since no DAC has the same register settings ... every ESS-based DAC is unique, and sounds different. How is it different from GoldenSounds logic?

 

[pablolie]

Here's a stupid question - what if you just take any two DACs and connect them to an RCA splitter -one of them with reversed polarity- into the amp... would listening to the resulting signal be "proof" of differences between DACs? The trick would be perfectly aligned synch, I assume.

 

[pkane]

Here's a stupid question - what if you just take any two DACs and connect them to an RCA splitter -one of them with reversed polarity- into the amp... would listening to the resulting signal be "proof" of differences between DACs? The trick would be perfectly aligned synch, I assume.

perfect clock and level sync would be required. Not impossible, though.

 

[pablolie]

perfect clock and level sync would be required. Not impossible, though.

Indeed, thanks! Note that I think it is a silly test, since the differential could be boosted to ridiculous levels that in no way indicate a hearable difference in any real world situation.

 

[amirm]

Here's a stupid question - what if you just take any two DACs and connect them to an RCA splitter -one of them with reversed polarity- into the amp... would listening to the resulting signal be "proof" of differences between DACs? The trick would be perfectly aligned synch, I assume.

It is not hard to show differences. I once tested a Topping against Schiit DAC. I played signals at very low level, something like -50 dB. I then boosted the levels to compensate. Difference was easy to hear although getting the parameters right to avoid amplification/capture noise was hard. Performing the same test at full amplitude blind, showed no difference.

 

[ads_cft222]

Some replies from Cameron (GoldenSounds) in answer to some questions in his comments.















About placebo:




Interesting conversation:













Looks like he did ABX different DACs too but for some reasons did not post them (yet ?)

On the part he is talking about the fact he is not comparing a topping and his holo dac because it is not remotely verifiable , it could be solved if people come over his place shoot a live video and verify the procedure . Who are gonna be these people ?

 

[MacClintock]

Here's a stupid question - what if you just take any two DACs and connect them to an RCA splitter -one of them with reversed polarity- into the amp... would listening to the resulting signal be "proof" of differences between DACs? The trick would be perfectly aligned synch, I assume.

As far as I know Ethan Winer did something like this for amps, he constructed a nulling device.

 

[007Shorty]

As far as I know Ethan Winer did something like this for amps, he constructed a nulling device.

Ethan Winer has compared cables with his null-tester. You can see it here.

I don't know if you can do the same with DACs.

 

[KSTR]

Ethan Winer's hardware null tester is ancient (and outdated) technology by now. Today, we have DeltaWave, the best tool on the planet for difference testing and most astonishingly it is freeware.

 

[MacClintock]

Ethan Winer has compared cables with his null-tester. You can see it here.

I don't know if you can do the same with DACs.

Right, the nulling for amps was by Bob Carver.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

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.

Here is another viewpoint:
- using my headphones, I can hear up to 18kHz if I push myself! that means short tests (long tests, I loose it), highish volumes. I am 64 (almost).
However, listening to the same headphones and DAC, applying a 3dB shelf boost at 12kHz+, on a song with enough high frequency content (as seen on analyzer), hardly makes any audible difference to me!
I reckon it has something to do with the threshold of my hearing. OK I can detect 18kHz, but only at stupid levels, with a single test tone. Mix it up with other tones, drop the level, then it goes below my ability to detect.
Assuming I have a point, the fact that he can detect 21kHz at silly levels, should not really have affected the results to that degree. I am not arguing that a sharp roll-off filter is the cause, but rather, there maybe something else at play here.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

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.

Question:
- Do I understand that he used one DAC only? the Holo May?
- by applying software reconstruction filters of choice, then all DACs can sound the same?
- He used two upsampled pieces of music, the difference being the upsampling filter used. right?
How did he do it? for the files to have a sharp cutoff at 22kHz, they need to be sampled at 44kHz, No?
to get that kind of roll-off within a 176kHz file, he needs to apply filters at 44kHz first, and then upsample the results to 176kHz, using filters twice.
Please correct me.