GoldenSounds passes apparently ABX test for DACs (NOT Really)

[allmanfan]

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

the sarcasm is so off putting...the reverse snobbery is simply incredible...gee you mean there are better and worse DAC's?...what a shock....next thing you know we will be told there are better AMP's and better HP's....I know of course I will be attacked but really why all the vitriol to attack and mock those who think you can actually buy and enjoy a better DAC?I ask seriously are DAC's better than they were when they were introduced?...are CD players better today than they were in the 1980's when they were introduced?...we know they are so obviously it is not just all x and O...it is implementations....it is filters used...the same chips sound different in different DAC's...some chips sound softer some more aggressive...some DAC's have better soundstage and some have more bass....is it all cost?..of course not but this obsession to mock anything other than a 200 dollar DAC is ridiculous...ok, no go ahead and attack me

 

[Blumlein 88]

One would expect imaging to show in the Lissajous pattern. Nothing there.

 

[Blumlein 88]

One possibility is there is nothing audible in the files. Only in how his following gear responds to those files. I don't find this very likely either. There are DACs which when presented with ultrasonic noise higher in the beyond 20 khz range have their noise floor below 20 khz modulated. I've seen it investigating aliasing and imaging. I've have never seen it occur at levels that make me think it audible unless one were using purely ultrasonic and therefore inaudible content while listening to highly amplified below 20 khz content where you might hear a noise floor difference. You cannot do that using music however.

 

[MacClintock]

the sarcasm is so off putting...the reverse snobbery is simply incredible...gee you mean there are better and worse DAC's?...what a shock....next thing you know we will be told there are better AMP's and better HP's....I know of course I will be attacked but really why all the vitriol to attack and mock those who think you can actually buy and enjoy a better DAC?I ask seriously are DAC's better than they were when they were introduced?...are CD players better today than they were in the 1980's when they were introduced?...we know they are so obviously it is not just all x and O...it is implementations....it is filters used...the same chips sound different in different DAC's...some chips sound softer some more aggressive...some DAC's have better soundstage and some have more bass....is it all cost?..of course not but this obsession to mock anything other than a 200 dollar DAC is ridiculous...ok, no go ahead and attack me

Not much to say besides educate yourself.

 

[MacClintock]

I was about to post the phase info when Sokel did. It is about .1 degree barely, and mostly less.

I've been quiet about it, but having already looked in Deltawave I don't see any reason one could hear these different. If he does, he does and that makes this very interesting. So if one wished to narrow down what is being heard there are things that could be done involving him doing more tests. One is to try just one channel instead of stereo or to mono the stereo channels. One could come up with others, but if it is an image shift claimed audible, then that seems a place to start. I have my doubts about an image shift as our acuity for that isn't really very deep in terms of db of difference.

I am not saying that it is the explanation or that is is even likely, just that it is a possible explantion, as both, GoldenSound and Sharur, made remarks along these lines. It also appears more likely to me than above 20kHz content, I would say.

 

[Sokel]

The only metric I see apart from peaks with some enough difference is the gain error.
Can't tell which transfer function gets closer to ideal but here's the difference between the files:

 

[Ken Tajalli]

When he just records the output of both DACs that should be enough input for DeltaWave.

And how would one go about doing that?
If we for one second, assume that there are differences in DAC sound, then using any ADC to capture the outputs could taint the results. If there are minute differences, Audible differences, then only Ears qualify.

Doing an actual test IRL with those 2 DACs real time is really problematic. Maybe it should have short 'mutes' and somehow the timing differences should be made small enough. Level matching (for both channels) should be < 0.1dB.
Not an easy task to ABX. Also replaying a part of a song could have different 'tells' that may not be present when just listening.

I agree, and I tried to touch on those. Level matching can be achieved, but TT2's buffer delay can be a cheat Tell (I hate that phrase!), apart from that, I don't see an obstacle.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am not saying that it is the explanation or that is is even likely, just that it is a possible explantion, as both, GoldenSound and Sharur, made remarks along these lines. It also appears more likely to me than above 20kHz content, I would say.

Maybe it is there, and I missed it, but what was the software used for the resampling?

 

[Blumlein 88]

And how would one go about doing that?
If we for one second, assume that there are differences in DAC sound, then using any ADC to capture the outputs could taint the results. If there are minute differences, Audible differences, then only Ears qualify.

I agree, and I tried to touch on those. Level matching can be achieved, but TT2's buffer delay can be a cheat Tell (I hate that phrase!), apart from that, I don't see an obstacle.

A good ADC might not taint the results or it might. Still a reasonable thing to see if the output of the DAC with each file differs more than the file themselves. It will at least in terms of low level noise, but maybe it does in other ways.

 

[Geert]

Maybe it is there, and I missed it, but what was the software used for the resampling?

HQPlayer

 

[Ken Tajalli]

A good ADC might not taint the results or it might. Still a reasonable thing to see if the output of the DAC with each file differs more than the file themselves. It will at least in terms of low level noise, but maybe it does in other ways.

Yep. I give you that.
But! if our goal is to find out if there are any Audible differences, then firstly, we should use ears only.
If it becomes apparent that there are audible differences, only then we should spend the time and do the capture as to explain Why!
There may not be any need!

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yep. I give you that.
But! if our goal is to find out if there are any Audible differences, then firstly, we should use ears only.
If it becomes apparent that there are audible differences, only then we should spend the time and do the capture as to explain Why!
There may not be any need!

The other test that might be worth doing is having someone else prepare the files with him repeating the test. In this second round, the files would be the same in both cases. If he also correctly identifies one vs the other then it would indicate an undetected tell in the process. He seems to have gone to some length to prevent this. But it still might be there.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

The other test that might be worth doing is having someone else prepare the files with him repeating the test. In this second round, the files would be the same in both cases. If he also correctly identifies one vs the other then it would indicate an undetected tell in the process. He seems to have gone to some length to prevent this. But it still might be there.

I was suggesting to do it with two actual DACs, with same unaltered redbook files.
He did set out to find if two so called transparent DACs could sound different, but the test he did, only proves two FILES with different recon filters could sound different.
Let's go back to square one.

 

[JIW]

What was that test (actual measurements,just not the ones we do here) in a thread comparing an E1DA dac with an SMSL (I think but I'm probably wrong about the later) which showed differences otherwise not evident in the usual tests and no one really cared about?
(not debunked either as far as I remember)

I can't find it,maybe it contains some more data to consider.

Do you mean this?

DR126dBA of DL200 is not bad at all. But the performance of my es9038q2m usb dongle is exactly the same and I was огые hoping for something more. I don't think it's unreal. Measurements of the XLR (TRS) output confirm that this is HPA noise.
XLR DR = 130.6/130.7dBA
View attachment 341354
XLR THD+N -124.5/-123.7dB
View attachment 341355
XLR SMTE -112.9/-110.9dB
XLR CCIF -115.7/-113.5dB

The bad news is that the noise has a fairly high amplitude. This applies to both XLR and HPA.
That's the scope of 1kHz -25dB HPA output:
View attachment 341360
The XLR output silence scope shows 35.7MHz WTF oscillations:
View attachment 341361
I believe that this was the reason for the unexpected clipping of the preamp and the increase in distortion that sometimes occurred during my measurements.

 

[solderdude]

I was suggesting to do it with two actual DACs, with same unaltered redbook files.
He did set out to find if two so called transparent DACs could sound different, but the test he did, only proves two FILES with different recon filters could sound different.
Let's go back to square one.

Cameron claims he already did compare DACs with the ABX device and claims he aced it but did not want to go public fearing he would not be believed.
He said he wanted to prove he could tell 2 different reconstruction filters apart (against all odds) and 18/20 is a good result.
He stated this was his 3rd attempt and the shown vid attempt was the best result yet. He did not disclose what his earlier attempts were.

Recording the output of 2 DACs in a good ADC (I am sure he has one) in 192/24 will capture everything that is needed. No need for flawed ears until it is known how much the DACs differ and how likely it is to be audible.

No matter what and how Cameron does this there will always be people claiming the test was rigged. I think (hope) he is sincere in his endeavors.
Ultimately ... if he truly heard differences then it would be interesting to find out why and how.
For me it is a safe bet it is not the used DAC nor the files nor the amplifier nor the test method.
Either he can actually hear the reported differences or there was an artifact that created an audible difference. I assume there isn't intentional foul play here.

 

[Sokel]

Do you mean this?

No,it was another one comparing DAPs if I remember well.

 

[oleg87]

the sarcasm is so off putting...the reverse snobbery is simply incredible...gee you mean there are better and worse DAC's?...what a shock....next thing you know we will be told there are better AMP's and better HP's....I know of course I will be attacked but really why all the vitriol to attack and mock those who think you can actually buy and enjoy a better DAC?I ask seriously are DAC's better than they were when they were introduced?...are CD players better today than they were in the 1980's when they were introduced?...we know they are so obviously it is not just all x and O...it is implementations....it is filters used...the same chips sound different in different DAC's...some chips sound softer some more aggressive...some DAC's have better soundstage and some have more bass....is it all cost?..of course not but this obsession to mock anything other than a 200 dollar DAC is ridiculous...ok, no go ahead and attack me

If you've got $5000 burning a hole in your pocket knock yourself out - but if you think you're getting something meaningful beside the luxury factor and bragging rights (and the attendant auditory placebo effects), you are being had. This isn't the forum for "everything sounds different" nonsense.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

But! if our goal is to find out if there are any Audible differences, then firstly, we should use ears only

It needs to be done in parallel. I think you are wrong to believe an instrument grade ADC won't detect it - that should be straightforward. The issue is that the ADC can detect hundreds things that humans can't hear. So which of these things picked up by the ADC is the thing he has ALSO detected.

 

[sonitus mirus]

Can anyone seriously suggest that Chord DACs are preferred over a dirt-cheap Topping DAC after any of this discussion? DACs all sound the same.

 

[Ken Tajalli]

It needs to be done in parallel. I think you are wrong to believe an instrument grade ADC won't detect it - that should be straightforward. The issue is that the ADC can detect hundreds things that humans can't hear. So which of these things picked up by the ADC is the thing he has ALSO detected.

I never said the ADC could not detect it, did I? nor suggested it.
The knee-jerk reaction by many, on either side of the fence (DACs sound different - DACs don't sound different) would be to blame the ADC, let's take it out of the equation.
Again, going back to basics, what is the goal here? I is it Audibility?
After all, we already know there are differences in the output of (say) a Chord DAC and a top ESS based DAC. The bit at 20/22kHz, distortion patterns and levels etc.. We need no ADC to confirm, Amir has already confirmed it by measurements.
The point has always been " Aha! but are they Audible?"
Ears, test subjects are/should be the only judges, to confirm or refute.
I am bowing out, enough said (by me). you guys go on.