Gustard A18

[w1000i]

Hi

Maybe it is "crapping on a thread",...

I noticed on this thread, an abundance of "bloom", "tiresome", "air", "perspective", etc., in a few of the last posts ... Care to substantiate these? A bit of definition , of context, would go a long way toward comprehension... What are "Air", "bloom", etc.?

My experience is that past a certain level of measurable performance, all DAC sounds the same. What gives? What has suddenly been giving ? Care to explain?

I think the digital section with constriction filter can affect the sound even if the analog section measure the same.
Upsample any PCM to DSD and hear a sound difference for your self on the same DAC.

 

[sq225917]

If your referring to my posts, 'presentation' is where it sounds like you're sat in your favourite music venue. I get a sense of being a few rows further back in the seats with the Gustard than with my rpi dac stack. Its a fuller, more reverbarant sound with slightly reduced impact and immediacy, as if more of the sound come comes from reflection rather than direct from the stage.

Bloom describes the shaping and decay of bass notes, like the difference between a kick drum with a pillow in and one without.

I dont know which of the two presentations is more accurate, though I do have a preference.

I dont know whete the limit of audibility ends or begins with dac's specifications and measurements. I do know that when level matched and playing music that highlights specific aspects of the music I can clearly tell them apart even when I'm not doing the source switching. On some music they are indistinguishable, but play anything with deep synth bass or aggressive staccato or drum kit rims shots and they are clearly audible.

I had to learn how to tell them apart under sighted conditions by taking notes before I could do it blind.

A bit like learning to spot artifacts in high bit rate mp3, once you learn what to look out for its easy. Like live audience clapping for example, mp3 just can't do it, it sounds like swarming bees.

 

[Hemi-Demon]

If your referring to my posts, 'presentation' is where it sounds like you're sat in your favourite music venue. I get a sense of being a few rows further back in the seats with the Gustard than with my rpi dac stack. Its a fuller, more reverbarant sound with slightly reduced impact and immediacy, as if more of the sound come comes from reflection rather than direct from the stage.

Bloom describes the shaping and decay of bass notes, like the difference between a kick drum with a pillow in and one without.

I dont know which of the two presentations is more accurate, though I do have a preference.

I dont know whete the limit of audibility ends or begins with dac's specifications and measurements. I do know that when level matched and playing music that highlights specific aspects of the music I can clearly tell them apart even when I'm not doing the source switching. On some music they are indistinguishable, but play anything with deep synth bass or aggressive staccato or drum kit rims shots and they are clearly audible.

I had to learn how to tell them apart under sighted conditions by taking notes before I could do it blind.

A bit like learning to spot artifacts in high bit rate mp3, once you learn what to look out for its easy. Like live audience clapping for example, mp3 just can't do it, it sounds like swarming bees.

What is this RPI Dac Stack that you are referring to? I have never heard of it, and so I wanted to research it.

 

[sq225917]

Its comprised of parts designed by Ian Yin, he posts on diyaudio.com as Iancanada.

My stack consists of a 1tb samsung ssd, rpi b3 and then Ian's Life04 a123 lifepolymer battery power supply with 5 rails of isolated dc power, his Fifopi reclocker /DOP/DSD clock board, a pair of crystek chd 557 clocks, his shieldpi boatd, ess controller board, his ess9038q2mpi dual dac board, additionally powered by two discrete regs and one 3.3v rail from the Lifepo psu and a transformer output board made by a guy in the Ukraine who posts on diyaudio.com as biselik.

You can find all of ians products on his github pages, there's lots of them.

https://github.com/iancanada/DocumentDownload

I guess it runs me about £1100 inc batteries, pi, ssd and the output transformers.

 

[Ntrax]

Maybe with some correct pairing preference might change.

 

[Martin]

The subjectivists have taken over the thread with their BS audiophile jargon... I think you just make this stuff up.

The thing measures fantastically. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/.../wolfs-measurements-of-gustard-a18-dac.13781/ Please point to the measurements that support your claims of "congested", "darker", "fuller", "a few rows back", "bloom" or "air". Also, show me measurements that support the idea behind "cobwebs" being "cooked" out.

Try level matched double blind tests and tell us if you can really hear any differences.

Martin

 

[FrantzM]

If your referring to my posts, 'presentation' is where it sounds like you're sat in your favourite music venue. I get a sense of being a few rows further back in the seats with the Gustard than with my rpi dac stack. Its a fuller, more reverbarant sound with slightly reduced impact and immediacy, as if more of the sound come comes from reflection rather than direct from the stage.

Bloom describes the shaping and decay of bass notes, like the difference between a kick drum with a pillow in and one without.

I dont know which of the two presentations is more accurate, though I do have a preference.

I dont know whete the limit of audibility ends or begins with dac's specifications and measurements. I do know that when level matched and playing music that highlights specific aspects of the music I can clearly tell them apart even when I'm not doing the source switching. On some music they are indistinguishable, but play anything with deep synth bass or aggressive staccato or drum kit rims shots and they are clearly audible.

I had to learn how to tell them apart under sighted conditions by taking notes before I could do it blind.

A bit like learning to spot artifacts in high bit rate mp3, once you learn what to look out for its easy. Like live audience clapping for example, mp3 just can't do it, it sounds like swarming bees.

Hi

Need to reply to this so that we refresh what the Ethos is at ASR.

If it is audible , then it is measurable since, not opinion, fact. microphones are more sensitive and precise than our hearing apparatus. So a bit of measurements will tell us what you heard, else it is , pun not intended, hearsay
Responding to the bold paragraph... You are aware this is completely backward?
Once knowledge sets in, for exemple carefully looking for the flaws on pieces we know, some of us are able to pinpoint flaws in mp3 ... for the most part and I bet, you included, 320 kbps mp3 is virtually tranparent. You can't tell it from CD Data. Test yourself, there are a few exemple o this website

 

[sq225917]

Martin, thanks for your input. Maybe you didn't read my post fully. They were level matched, I couldnt see which device was being switched into circuit, the playlists were perfectly synced so they couldn't be pointed out by delay.

I never said that it didn't measure well, I only relayed how it sounded.

Frantzm, Instead of telling me I'm wrong about mp3, which I have proven that I'm not many times. Why not find a good live album and transpose to 320kbps mp3 and burn it cd and see if you can't hear the difference between the original and mp3 version of audience applause. You could actually try the test for yourself before making me out to be a liar or fantasist.

As I'm unable to measure either of my dacs, all I can talk about is the differences I hear under rigorous conditions. I thought that might have been interesting to anyone thinking of buying one, as a talking point, I didn't realise that there was an Audiosciencereview protocol that I must adhere to.

If anyone doubts run in exists in some circuits then you just havent experienced it. I build a phonostage called the Paradise, designed by Joachim Gerhard, every time I build one it takes about fifty to sixty hours for dc offset to drop from +/- 200mV to under a mV, measurable, repeatable, happens every single time, and I've built 40 of them. ( zero negative feedback design relying on wilson current mirrors fed by large electrolytic caps)

Given that the two dacs I reported on are wildly different in design and implementation, even down to opamp output vs transformer im hardly surprised differences existed. What I am surprised at it how small they were.

 

[sq225917]

franztm, surely it doesnt matter if the initial notes are taken sighted or blind. If the differences are fantasy they will dissappear during the following blind testing.

Which they didn't.

 

[FrantzM]

Martin, thanks for your input. Maybe you didn't read my post fully. They were level matched, I couldnt see which device was being switched into circuit, the playlists were perfectly synced so they couldn't be pointed out by delay.

I never said that it didn't measure well, I only relayed how it sounded.

Frantzm, Instead of telling me I'm wrong about mp3, which I have proven that I'm not many times. Why not find a good live album and transpose to 320kbps mp3 and burn it cd and see if you can't hear the difference between the original and mp3 version of audience applause. You could actually try the test for yourself before making me out to be a liar or fantasist.

As I'm unable to measure either of my dacs, all I can talk about is the differences I hear under rigorous conditions. I thought that might have been interesting to anyone thinking of buying one, as a talking point, I didn't realise that there was an Audiosciencereview protocol that I must adhere to.

If anyone doubts run in exists in some circuits then you just havent experienced it. I build a phonostage called the Paradise, designed by Joachim Gerhard, every time I build one it takes about fifty to sixty hours for dc offset to drop from +/- 200mV to under a mV, measurable, repeatable, happens every single time, and I've built 40 of them. ( zero negative feedback design relying on wilson current mirrors fed by large electrolytic caps)

Given that the two dacs I reported on are wildly different in design and implementation, even down to opamp output vs transformer im hardly surprised differences existed. What I am surprised at it how small they were.

Thanks for the head-up!
I will thus not buy the Gustard, because it is too laid back and lack impact on bass... I may however start saving to purchase the $15,000 Total DAC because it is more organic than the puny, ridiculous $100 WesionTek Khadas ToneBoard, I have been using, thanks to those tin-eared here...
The only issue that I have is that according to ASR the $9 Apple dongle outperform the Total Dac, then again they never spoke about the Total bass decay or its presentation... Omission or ignorance?

 

[sq225917]

I'm sat here with both dacs, paid for. I tested them under effective blind conditions, no way to see what was playing. I notice a repeatable and very slight difference between them and tried to convey that as best I could.

The likelihood is that the better measuring akm, I assume but cant check, is the more accurate dac.

Obviously thats of no interest to you, so just let it slide, its just an opinion with no commercial axe to grind.

The assumption that the better measuring component will be accepted/preferred in terms of how it sounds is folly. While thats usually the case for me, a bruno putzeys pre amp and nuerochrome power amp user other people enjoy all sorts of weird shit, after all you appear to be enjoying taking a shit on my opinion.

Thats all I have for you today.

 

[Hemi-Demon]

Hi

Need to reply to this so that we refresh what the Ethos is at ASR.

If it is audible , then it is measurable since, not opinion, fact. microphones are more sensitive and precise than our hearing apparatus. So a bit of measurements will tell us what you heard, else it is , pun not intended, hearsay
Responding to the bold paragraph... You are aware this is completely backward?
Once knowledge sets in, for exemple carefully looking for the flaws on pieces we know, some of us are able to pinpoint flaws in mp3 ... for the most part and I bet, you included, 320 kbps mp3 is virtually tranparent. You can't tell it from CD Data. Test yourself, there are a few exemple o this website

Wait, are you stating that you can't hear the difference between a mp3 file and flac file?

 

[sq225917]

On some music I cant hear a difference, heavily produced pop music for example.

But I can always hear the difference when listening to good quality live recordings that include audience applause.

It very much depends on the recording.

 

[FrantzM]

Wait, are you stating that you can't hear the difference between a mp3 file and flac file?

Yep! I can’t on most recordings. On those I know very well and looking for passages, I know there would be issues ... Sometimes. On the whole I am perfectly satisfied with 320 mp3. if the recording is unknown to me, I can’t. I am not alone.

 

[sq225917]

Yeh, that mirrors my experience, on some music you cant tell, but on some you can. Storage is so cheap why bother?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi sq

How reliable are our impressions? There is somewhere in the ASR website some tests of mp3 at 128, 256, 320 an uncompressed. Test yourself and see if you can , reliably, tell them apart/ The results may surprise you, humble you and finally liberate you. I have around 3000 CD in flac but listen mostly to Spotify these days... through accurate headphones, HiFiman HE6, HE560 and Stax SRX-007... and I find myself very satisfied. I have reduced ny great number of DACs to one: the $99 Khadas Toneboard, because I could not hear the differences between it and a $5000 DAC. Many have gone that path.
Last but not least, mp3 treble signature, is not that "swarm of mosquitoes" you're talking about, in most cases it is transparent. Some people that are Trained Listeners, can distinguish between mp3 and flac but not all the times, not on all material... Being an audiophile doesn't make of you a Trained Listener.. Many audiophile, I, included, tend to think their hearing is elevated... No so, not really ... We are poor Trained Listener and if we are over 50 , we don;t hear pat 15 KHz. You need to be trained to become a "Trained Listenr" , I gave up on trying to get to that level, There is an app for the purpose, it wasn't worth the bother, for me ...
Peace

 

[sq225917]

I dont believe I said that the treble signature of mp3 was swarming, I said that was how it sounded on audience applause which is a much lower frequency range and a very specific dynamic and temporal case.

How reliable are our impressions, well obviously, mine are 100% accurate all the time and everyone else is either cloth eared or a bat eared fantasist...

;-)

 

[sq225917]

Having spent a couple of weeks with it now and level matched it with a few dacs my views havent changed. Its a good dac, the Bluetooth input has been surprisingly good.

Only thing I'd change, id have it default to a large display of volume/attenuation figure on the display after 30 seconds.

 

[jumbo]

Hi sq,

how do you think it might compare to the Weiss dac202 ?

You see I wonder how the technology and it's implementation may have improved over the years.

 

[Veri]

Hi sq,

how do you think it might compare to the Weiss dac202 ?

You see I wonder how the technology and it's implementation may have improved over the years.

The Weiss is quite old but seems quite good for its time. 0.0001% THD as long as it's not digitally clipping (specs use −3 dBFS). It should hold up quite well.