Review and Measurements of Audio-gd NFB2 192 DAC

[urfaust]

But there s no such arguments as "trying things" for manufacturers, we don't want them to try things, we want an electronic that serves the audio the way it was put on with as little alteration as possible, there aren't 40 ways to make it audibly transparent, just one, having good conversion, with little distorsion and noise mostly, possibly burried under hearing range for SOA, that's the way to do it.
If you want to add something to your music, which is fine, it shouldn't be done through the deficiencies of a dac or an amplifier per say, then try your luck with them each time. Indeed audiophiles keep changing gears because of this nonsensical approach to begin with.

 

[garbulky]

@AndrovichIV so you were enjoying your dac and after reading asr you didn't enjoy it anymore?
I don't see the difference with liking a dac based on a headfi forum.
You re biased by what you read and that changed your mind.
To me i don't mind if a dac measures bad or if headfi don't like it.
Most important is that I like it. I'm not influenced by either side.

asr give a measurement aspect.
Forums give musical aspect.

I think the two complete each other.

What i don't understand is why asr i angry about people who ear differences between op amps or between good measuring stuff.
Even if they are wrong (what i don't believe) what's the problem? Why no beeing tolerent?
Why not beeing tolerant with manufacturers who believe less in measurements? Who try different thing.
It's like asr want to eradicate this.

But it's better to have diversity in the world. If you don't like it respect it don't kill it.

I get where you're coming from because I evaluate things subjectively. But perhaps nobody else does. There's very few subjectivists on this forum,. I have heard some measurably great dacs not sound fgood, and some measurably mediocre dacs sound quite a bit better. I accept that subjectivity has nds of flaws, from bias, mood etc. However I'm not terrified of trusting my opinion. THe brain and our hearing system is not a machine which produces 100% repeatable results uninfluenced. But it was never meant to be, I am capable of holding two contradictory views - one being that our hearing is damn good at what it does. It can describe things that no insdtrument can with way more detail than any machine can - like soundstage, emotion, whether it "sounds like real life (to you)).". Instruments can't get close to it. However I have to accept that the brain is sometimes wrong. When I do encounter these errors, I have to be open minded enough to accept them. Subjective viewpoints can't be scientific. They are only anecdotal.

However this site also doesn't talk about any possible issues with their gold standard of level matched DBT. It's almost heresy to do so. The most people do (other than poke fun) is to handwave concerns away and say it's "removing bias" But I remain unconvinced as to how effective DBT's are at obtaining differences. All I can say for them is that when they DO obtain differences, they can't be argued against. It is actually proof of an audible difference - though how important the difference is cannot be proved.

 

[solderdude]

perhaps nobody else does.

The vast majority of people do.. and almost 100% of them sighted.
Often after reading heaps of info they found online about their new toy.

I remain unconvinced as to how effective DBT's are at obtaining differences.

Very ineffective, as when the 'knowing what is playing' part is removed a LOT of differences magically disappear and some differences (they do exist, not all DACs, amplifiers, vinyl setups, speakers, rooms, listening positions, headphones and headphone positions are the same) still remain audible but in those cases all are quite measurable.

How,s that for handwaving

 

[Calexico]

But there s no such arguments as "trying things" for manufacturers, we don't want them to try things, we want an electronic that serves the audio the way it was put on with as little alteration as possible, there aren't 40 ways to make it audibly transparent, just one, having good conversion, with little distorsion and noise mostly, possibly burried under hearing range for SOA, that's the way to do it.
If you want to add something to your music, which is fine, it shouldn't be done through the deficiencies of a dac or an amplifier per say, then try your luck with them each time. Indeed audiophiles keep changing gears because of this nonsensical approach to begin with.

Some have the right to believe that measuring isn't enough. All dac add something to the music. Firstly noise shaping add something. Secondly oversampling and filtering add something. Also converting bit depth add something.
What it adds is never shown and never studied enough.
So if you prefer to add nothing to the music be sure that measurements prove that they add nothing. Good thd and imd doesn't proove it.

And maybe what we measure is not what is important for the hear.

Not hearing good at high frequencies doesn't mean we re not sensitive if in complex sound something is strange at high frequencies.
We don't know yet everithing about the hear with complex sounds. We know for sine waves but in the nature we never hear pure sine waves. So that's strange to study the hear with sounds that are not in the nature.

 

[Thomas savage]

Then there's all the kit your music has been through before you got it , I mean it's ruined before you get your hands on it.

Just think of all that pro gear dirtying the flow , unknown DACs and ADCs , crappy wires and dirty mains..

Makes me want to bleach my ears just thinking about it.

 

[Veri]

Then there's all the kit your music has been through before you got it , I mean it's ruined before you get your hands on it.

Just think of all that pro gear dirtying the flow , unknown DACs and ADCs , crappy wires and dirty mains..

Makes me want to bleach my ears just thinking about it.

After https://old.reddit.com/r/Eyebleach/ apparently this is a thing:
https://old.reddit.com/r/EarBleach/ small community, lots of potential

 

[garbulky]

Then there's all the kit your music has been through before you got it , I mean it's ruined before you get your hands on it.

Just think of all that pro gear dirtying the flow , unknown DACs and ADCs , crappy wires and dirty mains..

Makes me want to bleach my ears just thinking about it.

Agreed! I’ve seen some of these recording studios!

 

[amirm]

What i don't understand is why asr i angry about people who ear differences between op amps or between good measuring stuff.

Nobody is angry here or you would have been banned days before. You are however projecting your own feelings of anger toward the work we are doing here. Seems like a theme of blaming us for what you are doing.

 

[amirm]

Even if they are wrong (what i don't believe) what's the problem? Why no beeing tolerent?

We are very tolerant. Again, you would not be here if that was not the case.

What we don't want is people advocating audio myths in countless posts as you have. It clouds the information and serves to advance audio quackery as I mentioned to you before.

 

[amirm]

However this site also doesn't talk about any possible issues with their gold standard of level matched DBT. It's almost heresy to do so.

Actually, I am happy to relax the criteria quite a bit. Single blind is fine too. All I ask is that levels be matched and evaluation be done without the person knowing which is which. This is why a lot of times you see me saying "controlled test" not "double blind."

If someone is not willing to take away their eyes from evaluating gear and match what comes out of the two products as far as level, then they have no interest in audio truth. They want to know something unrelated to that and that is not what we are about. We want to know what an audio product does, not what else you imagine or pile on top of that.

 

[LTig]

Some have the right to believe that measuring isn't enough. All dac add something to the music. Firstly noise shaping add something. Secondly oversampling and filtering add something. Also converting bit depth add something.
What it adds is never shown and never studied enough.

Wrong. What a DAC (oversampling stage/digital filter/DA-converter/analog stage with reconstruction filter) adds to the music is actually well known and studied extensively: noise, dither if required, all kinds of distortion - linear/nonlinear (harmonic and non harmonic), IMD - and aliasing components (forgive me if I forgot something). Most of this depends on both frequency and level. It can all be measured by an AP555.

So if you prefer to add nothing to the music be sure that measurements prove that they add nothing. Good thd and imd doesn't proove it.

It's true that one can perform more measurements than for example @amirm always does. He usually runs the full set only on very good measuring devices. If the first measurements show that a device emits a lot of THD and noise then it makes not much sense to perform all those other measurements, they will not be much better. Such a device is not transparent and colors the sound.

Yet there may be people who prefer to listen to such colored sound, and as I said somewhere else I'm fine with this. Just don't state that it is better. It may feel better, but isn't.

And maybe what we measure is not what is important for the hear.

This is true insofar, as transparency is reached at higher levels of THD, IMD and noise than the AP555 can measure. A DAC with 120 dB SINAD certainly does not sound worse than a DAC with 130 dB SINAD since THD and noise are below the human hearing level even when playing music at loudness levels which permanently destroy your ear within seconds of exposure.

 

[amirm]

What it adds is never shown and never studied enough.

I crack up when someone who has never studied audio science, knows that audio science has not studied enough!

Surely you first need to read and understand all that is researched in audio science first, before having an informed opinion of what it does or does not cover.

 

[urfaust]

Of course plenty can go wrong in the recording phase of our music, but that's the art/technical/production value, this is something i set aside from what i get in my hands on as a media, and i can actually judge that too if my gear are transparents as a result, if they are not, i can't be sure what's wrong is on their side or mine.

More generally, encouraging better measuring gears should benefit the whole ecosystem in the long terms, eventually.

@Calexico, we know what sounds better, it's simply what is closer to the source, not what someone would prefer as a sonic preference which usually are more artefacts than deliberate products of audio enhancements, that should be the point of verifying design or even experimentation in the hardware design, with blind/AB tests. Chord for example doesn't do it, but they generally produce very solid piece of hardware, so if it doesn't hurt, it just makes it more complicated for them and/or more expensive, but at least they aren't degrading the source.

 

[amirm]

And maybe what we measure is not what is important for the hear.

Maybe we do. How do you know enough to have a worthy opinion here?

 

[Thomas savage]

But has anyone listened to the AP machine to ascertain what it adds when measuring.

 

[SIY]

But has anyone listened to the AP machine to ascertain what it adds when measuring.

Don't laugh, I did that as part of my review of the APx1701.

 

[amirm]

@Calexico, we know what sounds better, it's simply what is closer to the source, not what someone would prefer as a sonic preference which usually are more artefacts than deliberate products of audio enhancements, that should be the point of verifying design or even experimentation in the hardware design, with blind/AB tests.

Let me make sure this point is clear: vast amount of gear that people think "sound better" do not at all. They imagine it sounding better due to improper subjective evaluation. I have now tested over 100+ headphone amplifiers with listening tests and have yet to hear anything that measures bad, sound good. A lot of gear that measures worse likely sounds the same to most audiophiles.

So let's not give faulty listening tests credit that they do not deserve. Bad data is bad data and needs to be ignored.

 

[Thomas savage]

Don't laugh, I did that as part of my review of the APx1701.

We live in strange times indeed.

 

[Calexico]

@amirm you re not tolerant because you try to discredit all manufacturers that don't believe much in measurements.
I wasn't talking about me.
I was talking to dacs that don't measure good on your criteria.
You should respect their philosophy and not try to eradicate it.
I think it's good to have new tried.
You misunderstood me when i say maybe we don't know enough about hearing.
I don't know anything about it.
I just think it's lying to say that everything is known and what we think important to test is necessary what is important for the hear.
There is necessarily some improvement to do on it.
Also it's logical to think that it's not ideal to study hear with signals that are not present in the nature.
Human hearing is not meant to hear pure waves.
But because of traditional testing and because it's easier everybody make pure sine wave tests.
What if someone would experiment on more compex test?
How to be sure all is known in human hearing?
If knowledge for measurements hasn't improved for years that doesn't mean everything is known.
Maybe it's means nobody cares if that doesn't make any money.
If you appreciate only transparent sounding dac (in your measurements point of view) that just means you don't care about enjoying what you listen to.

I'm sure if you would freely try a good.tube buffer and forget your measurements you could enjoy better the music you listen to.
And also i'm sure there is not yet any dsp that can emulate it.

 

[LTig]

@amirm you re not tolerant because you try to discredit all manufacturers that don't believe much in measurements.
I wasn't talking about me.
I was talking to dacs that don't measure good on your criteria.
You should respect their philosophy and not try to eradicate it.

ASR is about transparency. High fidelity is about transparency. A bad measuring DAC cannot be transparent. That's all.

Just as a side note: transparency seems not to be the target in audiophile high end. Otherwise more expensive high end systems would sound much closer to each other which is certainly not the case. As a counter example have a listen to the best professional studio monitors.

I think it's good to have new tried.
You misunderstood me when i say maybe we don't know enough about hearing.
I don't know anything about it.

Agreed.

I just think it's lying to say that everything is known and what we think important to test is necessary what is important for the hear.
There is necessarily some improvement to do on it.

Regarding speakers you are absolutely right. Here we are far from transparency. On the other hand for ADCs, DACS and preamplifiers transparency has been reached already (just think about how many ADDA and preamplifier stages the music passes before it reaches the customer), and looking at the Benchmark AHB2 power amplifier transparency is now also reached for power amps. And if transparency is reached there is no more to gain at all.

Also it's logical to think that it's not ideal to study hear with signals that are not present in the nature.
Human hearing is not meant to hear pure waves.
But because of traditional testing and because it's easier everybody make pure sine wave tests.
What if someone would experiment on more compex test?

What about all those extensive listening tests just Dr. Toole and Sean Olive have performed with countless number of aspirants? They did not listen to test tones but to carefully selected recordings of highest quality. Those tests were double blind of course since this is the only way to get repeatable and consistent scientific results. All scientific tests have been done this way.

How to be sure all is known in human hearing?
If knowledge for measurements hasn't improved for years that doesn't mean everything is known.

Because the scientific relevant tests have shown the limits of human hearing in a repeatable manner. One result is that humans cannot hear above 20 kHz. Is there any point in repeating this test again and again and again if human hearing has not changed? Those tests where humans could detect changes in sound with signals above 20 kHz have been proven invalid due to IMD in the tweeter (IMD created audible distortion products).

Your problem is that you do not want to accept that you cannot rely on your own hearing sense although all scientific knowledge gained in the last 80 years has proven without any serious doubt that this is the case. This is hard to accept but most people here at ASR learned the hard truth somewhere in the past. I did, twice.

Maybe it's means nobody cares if that doesn't make any money.

You are again very wrong. Compare the prices of equipment proven by measurements to be transparent with prices of audiophile high end equipment and you notice immediately who cares about making money.

If you appreciate only transparent sounding dac (in your measurements point of view) that just means you don't care about enjoying what you listen to.

You are still quite wrong. If I don't like the sound of a bad recording I use secondary means to improve the sound quality. With my Behringer Ultrafex Pro I have very fine controls over bass, treble and stereo width. I need not buy 10 DACS with different coloring just to improve specific aspects of bad recordings.

I'm sure if you would freely try a good.tube buffer and forget your measurements you could enjoy better the music you listen to.
And also i'm sure there is not yet any dsp that can emulate it.

Been there, done that. In 1988 I deliberately chose a solid state pre/power amp combination over an integrated tube amplifier because the sound of the solid state amp was better. It was a sighted test (as you prefer) so you cannot complain. Don't tell people that any tube electronic will beat any solid state electronic.