GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)

[MacClintock]

Plus it seems the "test" has been well and truly covered over these 28 pages of kerfuffle, so maybe there isn't much else to discuss here?

So having a content of -45 dB above 20 kHz is for you a sufficient and plausible explanation for the audibility of the DAC filter difference?

 

[Chris Brunhaver]

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.

Well, the difference in reconstruction filter is more about the time domain than frequency domain performance (e.g. apodizing and linear phase, minimum phase and even more so in NOS dac etc). You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters.

 

[MacClintock]

Well, the difference in reconstruction filter is more about the time domain than frequency domain performance (e.g. apodizing and linear phase, minimum phase and even more so in NOS dac etc). You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters.

Have you followed the thread? These two files have been thoroughly investigated and there is simply no relevant difference whatsoever below 20 kHz.

Edit: I have seen you work at PS audio, well that explains everything.

 

[majingotan]

Well, the difference in reconstruction filter is more about the time domain than frequency domain performance (e.g. apodizing and linear phase, minimum phase and even more so in NOS dac etc). You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters.

I run my SOTA DAC on NOS and filterless, just zero hold order sampling straight to the ladder DAC chip and still couldn't RELIABLY tell a difference between that and Schiit's brickwall filter

 

[Somafunk]

Have you followed the thread? These two files have been thoroughly investigated and there is simply no relevant difference whatsoever below 20 kHz.

Edit: I have seen you work at PS audio, well that explains everything.

Why the attack dog response?, there is no need for it

 

[MacClintock]

Why the attack dog response?, there is no need for it

Well someone, who didn't do his proper reading to really understand the case makes some bold and also wrong claims. Furthermore he turns out to work for PS Audio, one of the worst snake-oil companies around.

 

[amirm]

Chris is on the speaker design side which is run differently than the electronics. While I appreciate your stance, please extend courtesy to him.

 

[MacClintock]

Chris is on the speaker design side which is run differently than the electronics. While I appreciate your stance, please extend courtesy to him.

Sure. But let's also stick to the facts. "You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters." Where is the evidence for that claim? I consider it also courtesy if someone steps in more than 500 posts late in a thread, to not just make bold and unsubstantiated claims, but either to read what has been said and what kind of facts have been established already or maybe ask about it.

 

[MacClintock]

Chris is on the speaker design side which is run differently than the electronics. While I appreciate your stance, please extend courtesy to him.

Paul McGowan is also head of the speaker deparment, isn't he? He is not only speading so much misinformation and falsehood, but sells also many overpriced products that do nothing (power conditioner). Not a company that combines well with the ASR endeavor, I suppose.

 

[oleg87]

Well some DACs/filters I've seen measured have several dB of attenuation well within what should be audible to most younger adults. But there's not much mystery as to why there'd be something audible there.

For example:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/gustard-a26-dac-and-streamer-balanced-filter-measurements-png.276159/

 

[pablolie]

Sure. But let's also stick to the facts. "You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters." Where is the evidence for that claim? I consider it also courtesy if someone steps in more than 500 posts late in a thread, to not just make bold and unsubstantiated claims, but either to read what has been said and what kind of facts have been established already or maybe ask about it.

Why is anyone interested? If you claim to be one of the few bat eared people on the planet, enjoy it. But don't blabber about those who can't missing anything. If anything, it is a death knell to all things high def if only 0.5%% of potential buyers of audio gear are unqualified to hear the difference to begin with. Enjoy your supposed hearing advantage that is utterly irrelevant to any potential customer. Or make them undergo a hearing test before you design or recommend gear for them. Let them know in the data sheet they are unlikely to hear the difference because their hearing sucks anyhow. How's that for a business strategy?

I don't see Usain Bolt telling me I should stop enjoy running because me (like 99.999% of people) can't run the 100m sprint under 10.5.

I *can* cheat on hearing 20kHz stuff all the time. Just need to have my cat reacting. Should challenge those audiophools to a 25kHz+ challenge, and cheat like they do. They have never ever not even once subjected themselves to a third party test, they just blabber about it because it helps their (sorry to say it, fraudulent) business claims. Do it in public. I can claim I can levitate at home, and no one can prove me wrong. Why on earth are we still subjecting ourselves to this cornerline claim BS? It has been defeated in open tests so often it isn't even funny anymore.

We discussed earlier in the topic how you can fix the results with some tech help at home. Do it in public without the tech crutches.

PS: I can hear differences between compressed and CD quality on a few chosen recordings. Has zero to do with the ability to be able to hear 20K. I can hear 17k, but that is NOT what hearing the difference between compressed and CD quality is about. It is well within the hearable range actually. You just need to be trained. Castanets anyone? This whole 20kHz claim is stupid and uneducated.

Fact check: MP3 320kbps (CBR) has a frequency cut-off at 20.5 kHz. MP3 256kbps (CBR) has a frequency cut-off at 20 kHz. MP3 192kbps (CBR) has a frequency cut-off at 19 kHz.

 

[MacClintock]

Well some DACs/filters I've seen measured have several dB of attenuation well within what should be audible to most younger adults. But there's not much mystery as to why there'd be something audible there.

For example:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/gustard-a26-dac-and-streamer-balanced-filter-measurements-png.276159/

I don't think we are talking about filters that roll-off below 20 kHz. At least not in this thread as the two filters employed extend both to 20kHz.

 

[MacClintock]

Why is anyone interested? If you claim to be one of the few bat eared people on the planet, enjoy it. But don't blabber about those missing the difference who most definitely can't and won't missing anything.

I don't see Usain Bolt telling me I should stop enjoy running because me (like 99.99% of people) can't run the 100m sprint under 10.5.

I *can* cheat on hearing 20kHz stuff all the time. Just need to have my cat reacting. Should challenge those audiophools to a 25kHz+ challenge, and cheat like they do. They have never ever not even once subjected themselves to a third party test, they just blabber about it because it helps their (sorry to say it, fraudulent) business claims. Do it in public. I can claim I can levitate at home, and no one can prove me wrong. Why on earth are we still subjecting ourselves to this cornerline claim BS? It has been defeated in open tests so often it isn't even funny anymore.

We discussed earlier in the topic how you can fix the results with some tech help at home. Do it in public without the tech crutches.

PS: I can hear differences between compressed and CD quality on a few chosen recordings. Has zero to do with the ability to be able to hear 20K. I can hear 17k, but that is NOT what hearing the difference between compressed and CD quality is about. It is well within the hearable range actually. You just need to be trained. Castanets anyone? This whole 20kHz claim is stupid and uneducated.

What are you talking about? I think you are are confusing things. I am not claiming to hear any difference. Why would you say that? Also please watch you language, I don't "blabber".

 

[pablolie]

What are you talking about? I think you are are confusing things. I am not claiming to hear any difference. Why would you say that? Also please watch you language, I don't "blabber".

If you are arguing against my point, you did blabber. If you think I supported it, you didn't. I happen to think I supported your point in replying to it.

PS: The "you" wasn't you as a target, it was the generic "you".

 

[sam_adams]

Plus it seems the "test" has been well and truly covered over these 28 pages of kerfuffle, so maybe there isn't much else to discuss here?

Agreed. Most of what needed to be discussed has been discussed—and dismissed—quite a ways back. Now it seems that the original intent by the originally posted video's author—to sow divisiveness amongst the membership here—is being accomplished. It's way past time to continue giving this 'issue' oxygen and just let it expire on its own.

 

[MacClintock]

Agreed. Most of what needed to be discussed has been discussed—and dismissed—quite a ways back.

Plus it seems the "test" has been well and truly covered over these 28 pages of kerfuffle, so maybe there isn't much else to discuss here?

So what is the conclusion then?

 

[amirm]

So what is the conclusion then?

Much earlier in the thread @Mad_Economist promised us captures of the DAC output. That would be the next piece of data we need to see what is going on.

 

[sam_adams]

So what is the conclusion then?

That all depends on the reader/viewer. There have been many dissections here of the files and the methods of the 'individual in question' with regards to the claims made. As-far-as I am concerned—with regard to this particular issue—everything he posts is sus.

He was previously excoriated by @amirm and others here for his video regarding room treatments. There is an axe to grind for him over that. He is, after all, a 'content creator' so he needs to generate 'content' and controversy to keep his legions of fans engaged. Remember, most of them—probably—are not ASR members and lack our seasoned, sceptical nature.

 

[JSmith]

He was previously excoriated by @amirm and others here for his video regarding room treatments. There is an axe to grind for him over that.

I agree, every video he does appears to have an agenda... often reverse engineering a narrative around measurements. Like when he got an AP, he made that video about how measurements can be "gamed"... make no doubt, that was also directed at Amir and ASR as well.


JSmith

 

[majingotan]

Well, the difference in reconstruction filter is more about the time domain than frequency domain performance (e.g. apodizing and linear phase, minimum phase and even more so in NOS dac etc). You don't need hearing to 20kHz to hear the (albeit subtle) differences in DAC reconstruction filters.

Have you tried actually performing the ABX test files from Goldensound? At least provide some DBT ABX test that you can distinguish with 90% correct answer (18/20) minimum between the two filters on his test file like I provided below:

Apparently, just did it for the very first time ever at least between two filters (but I've done lossy and lossless for the most part prior) and got 15/20 results. Slightly better than random guessing, but not sufficient enough that I can reliably tell although I do hear a very, very slight difference in spatial presentation and some extremely minor differences in the note edges (mostly ever so slightly noticeable in the 1-4KHz estimated range where one track is sharper and the other mellower) using the infamous distortion-laden Hifiman Susvara headphone . But as you can see, I'm still imagining things since I didn't get 18/20 and p-value of 0.002. However, this is the closest to passing the single session DBT ABX test I've ever performed in my life.

foo_abx 2.2 report
foobar2000 v2.6.4
0124-05-09 21:32:38

File A: Test A (High Performance Filter).wav
SHA1: d626785e576b21b988a3ff3c59f85d3de27ed86d
File B: Test B (Normal Filter).wav
SHA1: 6cefd9bc846b7ba69d2bb06a869596cb740a4c0e

Output:
Core Audio : Yggdrasil+ [exclusive], 16-bit
Crossfading: NO

21:32:38 : Test started.
21:37:33 : Test restarted.
21:37:33 : 00/01
21:38:58 : Test restarted.
21:38:58 : 00/02
21:40:03 : Test restarted.
21:40:03 : 00/03
21:41:07 : Test restarted.
21:41:07 : 01/04
21:42:17 : Test restarted.
21:42:17 : 02/05
21:43:44 : Test restarted.
21:43:44 : 03/06
21:45:42 : Test restarted.
21:45:42 : 04/07
21:47:57 : Test restarted.
21:47:57 : 05/08
21:49:03 : Test restarted.
21:49:03 : 06/09
21:50:02 : Test restarted.
21:50:02 : 07/10
21:53:35 : Test restarted.
21:53:35 : 08/11
21:54:56 : Test restarted.
21:54:56 : 08/12
21:56:37 : Test restarted.
21:56:37 : 09/13
21:59:44 : Test restarted.
21:59:44 : 10/14
22:00:46 : Test restarted.
22:00:46 : 11/15
22:02:38 : Test restarted.
22:02:38 : 12/16
22:03:44 : Test restarted.
22:03:44 : 13/17
22:05:17 : Test restarted.
22:05:17 : 14/18
22:06:31 : Test restarted.
22:06:31 : 14/19
22:08:16 : Test restarted.
22:08:16 : 15/20
22:08:16 : Test finished.

 ----------
Total: 15/20
p-value: 0.0207 (2.07%)

 -- signature --
c5e68ef4cc31b72cdd0fb36b601026280d83ec28

BTW, I could't find the abx log verification website again in case you guys want to prove that I didn't just made it up (I'm not that shameless), but I tried it on the abx page and it returned as valid

Referencing Amir's article, https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/statistics-of-abx-testing.170/

In my opinion, at least a 90% chance correct rather than 70% correct for 20 repetitions should be considered as credible of passing the ABX test