• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Is Soekris dac1321 worth buying?

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
25,093
Likes
52,050
Location
Seattle Area
Yeah?

Try this:

The squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray.
What is remarkable is that the knowledge of what is going on does NOT stop one from arriving at the wrong conclusion!
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
8,570
Likes
6,100
Location
Riverview FL
What is remarkable is that the knowledge of what is going on does NOT stop one from arriving at the wrong conclusion!
It's my favorite illusion.

Baffling.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
0
Can you give some specific examples, including how the level-matching was done and the double-blinding procedures?
Most people will not have the self discipline to do what you ask, and so I do admire those that do.

I understand your view on having double blind guidelines and accuracy, yet to me, this is a type of question to dismiss me on any grounds of differences we take in testing.

I have my own customized methods which I do not care to be called out upon to be in accordance with your specific ways.

I also have a customized training of listening using one ear as well as two.
It was a derivative of using one ear to guage microphone placement techniques long ago, and I use it to gauge headphone differences when modifying them.
I I don't leave anything to chance as I have been called out in the past about not having enough measurements.
For for example my headphone modifications.

Yet I like to give you a metaphor example.
When your trying out different pairs of sunglasses, you don't think to use or need double blind testing.
You instantly see the difference in color and clarity and other things as you try them.
I feel there is a missing middle ground between those that shoot fantastic hyperbole and those who play the numbers game to dissmiss and state there is no difference in anyting.

It is a sad state, when we cannot have clear results like when we view sunglasses and instantly know what we are experiencing is reality.
 

SIY

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
3,880
Likes
7,330
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Most people will not have the self discipline to do what you ask, and so I do admire those that do.

I understand your view on having double blind guidelines and accuracy, yet to me, this is a type of question to dismiss me on any grounds of differences we take in testing.

I have my own customized methods which I do not care to be called out upon to be in accordance with your specific ways.

I also have a customized training of listening using one ear as well as two.
It was a derivative of using one ear to guage microphone placement techniques long ago, and I use it to gauge headphone differences when modifying them.
I I don't leave anything to chance as I have been called out in the past about not having enough measurements.
For for example my headphone modifications.

Yet I like to give you a metaphor example.
When your trying out different pairs of sunglasses, you don't think to use or need double blind testing.
You instantly see the difference in color and clarity and other things as you try them.
I feel there is a missing middle ground between those that shoot fantastic hyperbole and those who play the numbers game to dissmiss and state there is no difference in anyting.

It is a sad state, when we cannot have clear results like when we view sunglasses and instantly know what we are experiencing is reality.
If you refuse to use the most basic controls, what you're doing is worthless voodoo. That sounds harsh, and admittedly it is (I am not renowned for my sense of diplomacy), but it's true. Throwing a couple of whoppingly incorrect things in like "state there is no difference in anyting (sic)" does not increase the reliability of anything you claim.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
0
I know none of this is intuitive for you and others like you. But the evidence is so overwhelming that one should ignore all sighted, uncontrolled tests
I have experienced this visual bias and know it exist.
I once tested an amplifier visually against others that we're higher-priced and we're more impressive looking.
I totally did not expect to even be at the level of the other amplifiers .

Yet it did not affect the outcome which was first a denial, and disbelief, a delay in processing what was heard.
The lesser looking amp won and gave a lingering mental feeling of disbelief so yes the advantage of double-blind definitely there, but not a true or permanent obstacle in my view
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
0
If you refuse to use the most basic controls, what you're doing is worthless voodoo. That sounds harsh, and admittedly it is (I am not renowned for my sense of diplomacy), but it's true. Throwing a couple of whoppingly incorrect things in like "state there is no difference in anyting (sic)" does not increase the reliability of anything you claim.
I agree fully we need the most basic controls, but you seem to have already considered me to not use any, which is incorrect.
 

SIY

Technical Expert
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
3,880
Likes
7,330
Location
Phoenix, AZ
If you're not doing double blind and level matched, you're not doing the most basic controls. Period.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
25,093
Likes
52,050
Location
Seattle Area
Yet I like to give you a metaphor example.
When your trying out different pairs of sunglasses, you don't think to use or need double blind testing.
The issue here is that different sunglasses in audio are routinely just as clear as the other. Yet people claim one is orange and the other gray. If this were the outcome with your eyes, you would dismiss the subjective reports, right? Such is the case with audio.
 
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
58
Likes
48
Changing from the CD6003 DAC to an external DAC made me realize my speakers were too harsh with cymbals. Beware!
Thank you for your advice, but all is done, I bought a new DAC. I finally decided Topping D70 will be a better choice. Sounds much better than Cirrus-Logic in my Marantz CD6006. I'm very happy with all changes in sound. My speakers seem to be happy with a new companion, high tones are harsh only when should be :).
 

Frank Dernie

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
2,721
Likes
4,683
Location
Oxfordshire
No they don't because they all introduce doubt, unless you are the one switching the gear.
The doubt of wether the great has changed will ruin the results as it does introduce doubt.
Knowing a gear has been changed and knowing the whole chain of gear exept for the one change, (like a cable or dac of your own system) is a whole different approach wich is more real world and not unnatural as your blind testing where nothing is certain and nothing is known and no familiarity is present.
That scenario guarantees failure.
:)
But this is the whole point.
If the difference between components is so small being scared that not knowing even if the component has changes created doubt there is obviously either no difference or such a tiny difference (for the listener) that it is of zero consequence.
Don't forget it is differences described by people as "night and day" ,"enormous" and so forth which fade to zero in level matched tests. In my case all I needed to do was match the levels accurately, even sighted it was obvious they were the same or inconsequentially different and I was astonished that a 1:15 price ratio of DACs from reputable companies (not bodged boutique nonsense) sounded the same, Mind you the £15k unit was in a beautifully made machined from solid case and the £1k unit in a painted folded steel box with separate power supply...
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
0
Just because you are not aware of advancements in audio and sound, doesn't mean that every one else is just as uninformed
Sorry, the misunderstanding is that technology is usually trickle down.

This is why most users have more solid biases when they are at home relaxed with thier gear.
Actually in my experience with audiophiles you pretty much can.
I agree that biases can run rampant and we end up seeing fanboys of all types of gear.

Fact is that blind listening tests work excellently. I am able to find tiny differences that objectively there in audio using ABX tests. Vast majority of audiophiles however cannot. This means that they don't have critical listening abilities anyway. Therefore, any assessment they have of sound is false. Tested sighted or not.
Yes, sadly, there are many biased audiophiles and normal users out there.

Not many people mature from that.
I think being open minded and using all tools available, is valuable for discerning, so I respect your position.

You think based on what? I read between 50 and 100 new audio papers a year. I keep the good ones for future reference. This is the stats on that folder:
Wow impressive.
I appreciate you for mentioning that.
Very interesting, did any of the papers turn out to be corrected by others?
This probably to general a question but must be very interesting to read up this stuff.

How much have you read really? I assume the answer is a handful if that. Which is fine but please don't be dismissive of those of us who have dedicated our lives to learning about that science and summarizing it for others to learn. You don't dismiss the advice of your doctor when you are sick. Don't do that to us....
Apologies I am newby here so thanks for corrections and your time you give.
I think it's a great thing to give knowledge to others, and a great loss to not do so.

For example, I have heard about the old tube manufacturers took their secrets to the grave.

Rare is the piano tuner who doesn't use a tuning fork as a reference for the initial note (typically 440 Hz for the middle A). From there, the rest can be worked out through an elaborate sequence of ratios (relatively) easily identified by ear when two notes are played together. These days, it is common to use a microphone and electronic frequency meter to simply measure the frequency of each string and adjust until correct.
That's fine but it doesn't disprove my point about that profession.


Not impressed. My phone can do the same, and with greater precision. Ask a piano tuner to name five random notes playing at the same time. My phone can do that.
That's fine but your overlooking the point that they are trained to hear very critically.

Well, that is unwise. But it is not just placebo that steers you wrong. It is the lack of understanding of our hearing works. We routinely change our perception of audio, from moment to moment. If this is not equalized in testing, which only occurs in blind tests, then you again get wrong results. There was a reason I thought in identical playback of the same track twice in a row, one had much higher fidelity, more air, more resolution, etc. I simply listened differently and read all that into the identical experience.

I know none of this is intuitive for you and others like you. But the evidence is so overwhelming that one should ignore all sighted, uncontrolled tests.
You need to change the "you" to a "we, in general" ,as I do agree on many points especially the bias, so I do use what tools I have and don't have any problems discerning what I hear.
My actual point has now changed as I realize now that many are swayed, which is actually quite disappointing.
I had assumed everyone had a good judgement in discerning, but the tests say different...
Sad.

That is the problem with improper listening tests. The outcome is as good as random. It is not reliable and as such, durable over time, content, mood, etc.
I agree.

Nope. It has nothing to do with that. And what you are saying has been tested and shown to be false: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

As you see, taking the device home, listening on one's system for long period did the reverse: it reduced one's ability to tell differences, NOT more.
This is so very dissapointing for me to learn I am quite surprised in a sad way.

I didn't know so many people have such high failure rates, regardless what test it is.
I took for granted and believed many, not knowing how easily they can be swayed.

I don't know how trained those people were in that test, but I assume they are representative of your average and audiofiles listeners.

Yet that doesn't apply to all, or you (as you stated you can detect), or me.

Regardless,
I am more inclined to be in agreement with this guy:


Yeah?

Try this:

The squares marked A and B are the same shade of gray.

View attachment 29550

Haha good one!.. but you do not take into account that these imagery is "static" and controlled by being under certain conditions.
In real life our brains rely on continuously changing & incoming information into the eye (or ear) to discern our environment.
Nice trick though I admit.

If you refuse to use the most basic controls, what you're doing is worthless voodoo. That sounds harsh, and admittedly it is (I am not renowned for my sense of diplomacy), but it's true. Throwing a couple of whoppingly incorrect things in like "state there is no difference in anyting (sic)" does not increase the reliability of anything you claim.
I see, and agree with your statement fully.

But this is the whole point.
If the difference between components is so small being scared that not knowing even if the component has changes created doubt there is obviously either no difference or such a tiny difference (for the listener) that it is of zero consequence.
Don't forget it is differences described by people as "night and day" ,"enormous" and so forth which fade to zero in level matched tests. In my case all I needed to do was match the levels accurately, even sighted it was obvious they were the same or inconsequentially different and I was astonished that a 1:15 price ratio of DACs from reputable companies (not bodged boutique nonsense) sounded the same, Mind you the £15k unit was in a beautifully made machined from solid case and the £1k unit in a painted folded steel box with separate power supply...
I agree, that we talking tiny tiny differences, but that's what we are all chasing after, that elusive gains for a more realistic performance.


Anyways, I appreciate and like to give thanks to all the knowledgeable members here that give up their time to school us.
I believe there is always more to learn.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
14
Likes
0
To answer this question:
"Is Soekris dac1321 worth buying?"

It is about $500 here in US, while the similarly competitive and similar ladder type tech dac, the "Massdrop x Airist Audio R-2R DAC" is $150 cheaper at $350, and is similarly performing.

I have only heard the 1321, which I found extremely good in resolve, and would consider as way above average dac.

I think it would depend if you're system is good enough to be able to detect the improvement of one over the other.

Personally, I would go with what I heard, this 1321.
Yet, many users may have average gear and not be able to detect much difference and the Airist Audio is already reviewed to be a really great unit.


For those that like to research, the soekris 1321 has twice the amount of ladder resistors of the Airist Audio R-2R dac.

There are indirect reviews out there, and when you read, take note of reviewers that you trust more.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
25,093
Likes
52,050
Location
Seattle Area
It is about $500 here in US, while the similarly competitive and similar ladder type tech dac, the "Massdrop x Airist Audio R-2R DAC" is $150 cheaper at $350, and is similarly performing.
Someone has sent in the Airist DAC for testing. So I should be able to sort out which is better post measurements.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom