GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)

[lazarian]

He's been saying he has passed ABX between DACs for years but never posted anything. He's said the same thing for years as to why, namely that no one would believe it.

I believe this reasoning that it's not possible to setup a true physical blind test is new however...

The reason to do it this way is because there is no way to do a physical ABX test in a remotely verifiable way

He's desperately trying to find a middle ground here between subjectivism and objectivism as the majority of the headphones.com group tries to (probably has to) sit somewhere on the middle as well. But the rest generally deal with transducers, he's their source chap so it's harder.

 

[kemmler3D]

He's been saying he has passed ABX between DACs for years but never posted anything. He's said the same thing for years as to why, namely that no one would believe it.

I believe this reasoning that it's not possible to setup a true physical blind test is new however...

He's desperately trying to find a middle ground here between subjectivism and objectivism as the majority of the headphones.com group tries to (probably has to) sit somewhere on the middle as well. But the rest generally deal with transducers, he's their source chap so it's harder.

It's certainly REMOTELY possible, just a pain in the butt. I guess it's not worth it to him, either.

 

[pablolie]

It's certainly REMOTELY possible, just a pain in the butt. I guess it's not worth it to him, either.

If the test is about listening to high frequency artifacts, I bet with my cat's help I'd score stellar too.

 

[lazarian]

It's certainly REMOTELY possible, just a pain in the butt. I guess it's not worth it to him, either.

Yeah the drama he brought about years ago on this very forum was related to setting up an in person blind test. That then led to him buying the AP to prove how omgbad the measurements were here. Seems around that time he also got the ABX box he shows in this latest video.

Now he comes back years later, with this attempt at a ABX test that is inherently niche, saying things like measurably similar DACs can sound different despite a full spectrum sweep with high frequency falloff being right there in measurements....

He has another video that subjectivists love to gather around and cite saying how easy it is to show misleading measurements, which is about the only thing he's got to show for his AP purchase to "prove" how ASR is wrong.

This screams of straw clutching.

 

[sam_adams]

This screams of straw clutching.

 

[kemmler3D]

I think someone with a few bucks (few ... ten thousands of bucks?) should just fly these guys out and sit them down at a properly, independently conducted double blind test to put this stuff to rest. I would say "once and for all" but apparently this has to be done every few decades once a new generation imbibes enough snake oil. Enough excuses, put up or shut up, etc.

I actually think if you did enough tests, you'd find some units that people could reliably tell apart if you jacked around with the gain enough. And you could undoubtedly (as in this case) show it in measurements. Which would be of benefit to everybody as a demonstration of what's audible and what's not.

 

[solderdude]

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.

He took a 44.1kHz file.
Upsampled it twice to 176.4 using a very steep filter and a slower filter creating 2 files of 176.4kHz which he then compared to each other.
Everyone can do that and you don't need a hardware ABX comparator for that. You can do that with software ABX comparator and a decent 176.4Hz capable DAC.
You need young ears, know what to listen for and a capable headphone (would be a lot harder with speakers I reckon)

 

[Ken Tajalli]

He took a 44.1kHz file.
Upsampled it twice to 176.4 using a very steep filter and a slower filter creating 2 files of 176.4kHz which he then compared to each other.
Everyone can do that and you don't need a hardware ABX comparator for that. You can do that with software ABX comparator and a decent 176.4Hz capable DAC.
You need young ears, know what to listen for and a capable headphone (would be a lot harder with speakers I reckon)

Thanx, that's what I thought. But he processed it once, and upsampled it once!
So he is basically arguing, that DACs can sound detectably different if they employ different reconstruction filters. Ergo, reconstruction filters can sound different.

 

[voodooless]

So he is basically arguing, that DACs can sound detectably different if they employ different reconstruction filters.

No, he's actually arguing "DACs can sound detectably different". He doesn't specify how or why, he just extrapolates from his ABX findings. Obviously, you can't just do that.

 

[Music1969]

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


View attachment 366440

Hundreds of people on ASR over the years have said these 2 filters (or similar) would sound the same

 

[Purité Audio]

Reconstruction filters are possibly the only element of well engineered dacs that can sound different, and of course that difference is clearly evident in their respective measurements.
Keith

 

[BDWoody]

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.

Are they ever compared in a way that there is actual evidence of this sound difference? I haven't really seen that. All I've seen is people making unsupported claims.

Hundreds of people on ASR over the years have said these 2 filters (or similar) would sound the same

I think it's typically implied that we are talking about using regular music, at rational listening levels, in either a real listening room or with headphones. When comparing DACs, the most comparable filters should be chosen. In other words, no playing games with extreme gain riding or weird pathological corner cases and test tones. This is not useful, unless you are trying to make a point no one really disputes.

People typically claim their music sounds better using one box or another. Given the challenge in even identifying a difference, I wonder if any are now brave enough to set up a preference test.

 

[voodooless]

Hundreds of people on ASR over the years have said these 2 filters (or similar) would sound the same

I'm pretty sure they would for 99.9% of people. The files are available, just ABX them using Foobar and try them for yourself.

As a matter of fact, I would love to see Foobar ABX output of Goldensound doing it. It's a much more trustworthy result than some video evidence. BTW, did he ever measure his ABX device?

 

[Sokel]

I'm pretty sure they would for 99.9% of people. The files are available, just ABX them using Foobar and try them for yourself.

As a matter of fact, I would love to see Foobar ABX output of Goldensound doing it. It's a much more trustworthy result than some video evidence. BTW, did he ever measure his ABX device?

Are you talking in general or just this test?
Cause the foobar's ABX's about the filters and about the 21Khz vs 22Khz tones are already in the download files with the test tracs,original track,etc.
I,for one ABX'd them with the LCD-X and could not identify them to be honest.Maybe 20 years ago...

 

[Ken Tajalli]

No, he's actually arguing "DACs can sound detectably different". He doesn't specify how or why, he just extrapolates from his ABX findings. Obviously, you can't just do that.

I beg to differ. watch the video at 11:45.
He argues that reconstruction filters sound different so as a result, DACs sound different as they employ different reconstruction filters.
Check it, let me know.

 

[voodooless]

Are you talking in general or just this test?

Let's start with this one

Cause the foobar's ABX's about the filters and about the 21Khz vs 22Khz tones are already in the download files with the test tracs,original track,etc.

Ah, I missed that. I thought the ABX device was used. I see that the signature is valid and the file signatures match. So that seems all legit.

 

[Tell]

Yeah different filters can have an audible difference, but the question is if those different filters are correct? Isn't it Monty that says that "the original input is also the only possible output"?

 

[Sokel]

Let's start with this one

Ah, I missed that. I thought the ABX device was used. I see that the signature is valid and the file signatures match. So that seems all legit.

That's minor,at the beginning I thought it was two different DACs,if it wasn't Amir to point me out to the right test it would take me longer to find out

 

[voodooless]

but the question is if those different filters are correct?

We have the files, so we can just see that. "correct" is not an easy definition, because various filters make various tradeoffs. Given that, however, I would consider both of these filters transparent enough. You can call that "correct" if you like. Apparently, for Goldensound, they are not transparent enough, though

 

[Sokel]

Yeah different filters can have an audible difference, but the question is if those different filters are correct? Isn't it Monty that says that "the original input is also the only possible output"?

You can see them at the Deltawave tests early in the thread.Nothing exotic,rather normal I would think.