Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC

[AudioSceptic]

(as can be reliably measured)

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it: do we have the right measurements or not, and if not, shouldn't that be beyond belief in the 21st C when we know so much about so many other things? I mean, relativity, quantum theory, discovering exoplanets, just for starters, c'mon!

 

[BDWoody]

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it: do we have the right measurements or not, and if not, shouldn't that be beyond belief in the 21st C when we know so much about so many other things? I mean, relativity, quantum theory, discovering exoplanets, just for starters, c'mon!

I'm waiting for someone to actually demonstrate otherwise under controlled listening. Until then...

 

[AudioSceptic]

I think this latest (Miska) diversion from the subject (hard to remember now but it's a PS Audio DAC) needs to go to another thread. Anyone else agree?

 

[GrimSurfer]

I'm waiting for someone to actually demonstrate otherwise under controlled listening. Until then...

Where controlled listening, ABX tests and the like fail (for me) is that they're oriented around preference. They don't, and can't, legitimately make any conclusions on fidelity. A few reasons for this include:

1. Poorly calibrated sensors (human ears);
2. Lack of precise or accurate sensors (human ear); and
3. Multiple biases (past experience, preferences, expectations, etc.).

Because of this, I make clear distinctions between something that measures well and sounds pleasing. Where conflicts occur, I take great care and attention trying to explain the gap (or close it). Otherwise, I invite my own circle of confusion which can only be resolved by accepting individual preferences and dismissing measurements, or vice versa.

I prefer to accept devices that measure well and giving my hearing a chance to recalibrate to a new audio environment than shrug and accept $hit as pleasing. Much in the same way as I consume what nutritionists say is generally good for me instead of eating bonbons and swilling soft drinks all day, with a view of developing good eating habits and learning to enjoy the right things (much as I've learned to enjoy some of the bad things like gin & tonic, albeit in small quantities).

 

[amirm]

But there are three levels, one is the non-focus listening where you listen for the big picture. And then the focus listening where you use hearing's capability to block out the surrounding noise - just like when you do when you try to listen what someone is saying in a noisy night club. Then you combine impressions from these two. Third one is long term listening if you notice that something begins to annoy you, or the listening becomes tiresome.

Unfortunately that process does not work or guard against errors. See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

I am a trained listener. I have performed huge number of listening tests, both controlled and otherwise. I can beat countless people in controlled blind testing. Yet, yet, it is trivial for me to make subjective errors where I think something is clearly different, only to find out that the two samples were identical!

 

[BDWoody]

Where controlled listening, ABX tests and the like fail (for me) is that they're oriented around preference. They don't, and can't, legitimately make any conclusions on fidelity. A few reasons for this include:

1. Poorly calibrated sensors (human ears);
2. Lack of precise or accurate sensors (human ear); and
3. Multiple biases (past experience, preferences, expectations, etc.).

Because of this, I make clear distinctions between something that measures well and sounds pleasing. Where conflicts occur, I take great care and attention trying to explain the gap (or close it). Otherwise, I invite my own circle of confusion which can only be resolved by accepting individual preferences and dismissing measurements, or vice versa.

I prefer to accept devices that measure well and giving my hearing a chance to recalibrate to a new audio environment than shrug and accept $hit as pleasing. Much in the same way as I consume what nutritionists say is generally good for me instead of eating bonbons and swilling soft drinks all day, with a view of developing good eating habits and learning to enjoy the right things (much as I've learned to enjoy some of the bad things like gin & tonic, albeit in small quantities).

ABX doesn't have to be about preference. It can simply be about identifying audible differences. I'd be happy to see someone start with just identifying which is which when comparing two similarly measuring transparent DAC's. So far hasn't happened to my knowledge.

Several cash offers I'm sure are still standing, Why no takers if it's so easy to tell them all apart?

 

[GrimSurfer]

ABX doesn't have to be about preference. It can simply be about identifying audible differences. I'd be happy to see someone start with just identifying which is which when comparing two similarly measuring transparent DAC's. So far hasn't happened to my knowledge.

Several cash offers I'm sure are still standing, Why no takers if it's so easy to tell them all apart?

I hear you on audible differences, but there is still the issue of poorly calibrated sensors at an individual and collective level and an inherent lack of precision writ large.

@amirm's last point illustrates the frailties of human sensory system capability.

 

[BDWoody]

I hear you on audible differences, but there is still the issue of poorly calibrated sensors at an individual and collective level and an inherent lack of precision writ large.

I get that most won't bother...but those who are the most vocal and adamant are the ones who won't even go through any attempt to control the exercise. Why?

It's *almost* as if they are terrified that they will 'fail' to demonstrate their claims. Once the test is controlled, and the differences aren't there any more, they would have to face a truth they have spent their money and time avoiding. They'd rather just talk about it with zero risk of being shown to have normal human hearing...

The reality, is that all they would be doing is controlling for bias and doing some real science that might mean something to themselves and others...but...naaaaahhhhh...

 

[BDWoody]

I hear you on audible differences, but there is still the issue of poorly calibrated sensors at an individual and collective level and an inherent lack of precision writ large.

@amirm's last point illustrates the frailties of human sensory system capability.

Exactly! That's why controls matter...

 

[GrimSurfer]

I get that most won't bother...but those who are the most vocal and adamant are the ones who won't even go through any attempt to control the exercise. Why?

It's *almost* as if they are terrified that they will 'fail' to demonstrate their claims. Once the test is controlled, and the differences aren't there any more, they would have to face a truth they have spent their money and time avoiding. They'd rather just talk about it with zero risk of being shown to have normal human hearing...

The reality, is that all they would be doing is controlling for bias and doing some real science that might mean something to themselves and others...but...naaaaahhhhh...

I go the other way, accepting that my hearing (by age and past experience) may be corrupted. So I do a lot of critical listening as a way of compensation, along with putting a reasonable level of trust in measurement. This gets me past the whole "pass or fail" anxiety.

I have no more golden ears as I do the ability to make a 10 foot drop at Waimea Bay. Doesn't stop me from trying to develop a good ear or make a 4-6 footer.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I use three different analyzers. But for example shape of the filter roll-off correlates, and amount of overshoot analog stages have, and reconstruction accuracy (image levels). And complex behavior of the the SD-modulator. Just to name a few.

I've tried to discuss some of these aspect here, but response has been that it doesn't matter. Only SINAD matters, although you cannot hear it.

I just do a lot of measurements and testing as part of R&D.



My focus is also on lossless formats.

MP3 and AAC certainly have their can of worms, AAC improving over many of the defects MP3 had, such as better transient response. In the past I've spent quite a bit of time comparing different formats and encoders. There are also many listening test results between different MP3 and AAC encoders (different encoders use somewhat different approaches regarding psycho-acoustic models etc).

@Miska Why don't you start a thread showing what basic measured characteristics you find point toward a good DAC? I'd be interested. Even if I'm not sold on what you are saying, I'd be interested and would ask questions.

 

[Juhazi]

Don’t forget the Circle of Confusion, what if the system Martin heard the on was overly warm or bright?

Just this, and many other examples of studios/mixers having signature sound eg. Spector. I have never understood how Stevie Wonder's recordings sound so dull. And now we have several new mixes and masterings of Beatles music, the latest being https://www.cbsnews.com/news/beatles-abbey-road-remix-offers-rare-behind-the-scenes-glimpse/

I have noticed that Amir pays no attention to different reconstruction filters and impulse response charactereristics. Many reviewers like Stereophile's Atkinson always show them. And even I can hear some differencies, I think...

The master index of dacs is purely the SINAD, nothing else. And where is the limit of audibility of it in worst scenario, around 85dB? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

 

[Miska]

Well, I would say it hasn't been very receptive...but that happens when you make claims that don't always make sense. Your focus on what is outside the audible range is an interesting hobby I suppose, but until you can correlate your claims of actual audibility to actual evidence, rather than the old because I've been doing it so long I don't have to...and I don't care what anybody thinks... I'm not sure what you expect?

You are repeating same old song... Same goes for SINAD figures and all the rest, you need to correlate your claims of audibility to actual evidence regarding the measurement results here too. Those ranking graphs make absolutely no sense if you cannot hear the difference?

I'm seeing exactly what I'm expecting here. Denial.

 

[Purité Audio]

A new thread in the dealers section.
Keith

 

[Thomas savage]

I know this DAC sounds different from my other ones , my dog humps the sofa when I play my bananarama albums through the PerfectWave and that's never happened before.

 

[Miska]

I am a trained listener. I have performed huge number of listening tests, both controlled and otherwise. I can beat countless people in controlled blind testing. Yet, yet, it is trivial for me to make subjective errors where I think something is clearly different, only to find out that the two samples were identical!

Enough cycles and statistically the outcome becomes relevant, even if there would be occasional mistakes. I've listened my test tracks thousands of times. Most of the time I need only couple of seconds to have an opinion. I do kind of MOS/MUSHRA kind of scoring.

 

[Miska]

@Miska Why don't you start a thread showing what basic measured characteristics you find point toward a good DAC? I'd be interested. Even if I'm not sold on what you are saying, I'd be interested and would ask questions.

Uhh no, if I say something about even one thing, and the welcome is such... No, no way. It feels like going to extremist church to discuss different religions objectively.

 

[Krunok]

The master index of dacs is purely the SINAD, nothing else. And where is the limit of audibility of it in worst scenario, around 85dB? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-thresholds-of-amp-and-dac-measurements.5734/

My opinion is that even with headphones 85 is still not audible while with speakers there's that room noise which even further helps masking..

 

[Krunok]

Uhh no, if I say something about even one thing, and the welcome is such... No, no way. It feels like going to extremist church to discuss different religions objectively.

Not really. As long as you can provide sound arguments (which include listening impressions, but unsighted of course) you may be pleasantly surprised..

 

[Frank Dernie]

In the end you also need to accept that reaching something totally transparent throughout the (re)production chain is going to be impossible.

I debate with myself whether I am lucky or cursed.
Perhaps I had enjoyed poorly performing LP and FM radio systems so much over the decades before digital appeared that the improvement of digital sounded like perfection to me, but I for one found that whilst I easily hear differences between microphones and the various tape recorders I used the very first time I used digital I couldn't hear any of the usual differences between the recording and the microphone feed, they sounded exactly the same.
Maybe I was listening for the normal big differences and missed tiny subtelties but I was very pleased by the results from day 1.
Almost 10 years ago I carefully compared several DACs on music I was familiar with and heard no difference, though perhaps I could have persuaded myself one had a minute increase in detail but I couldn't be sure, and it certainly wasn't enough to bother about.
I do hear differences in some reconstruction filters on DACs where they have been selectable, but by no means all.
I hear clear differences between my 4 record players, so my ears are not completely made of cloth, but even they have been tuned by ear and I like all of them.
I know no simple number can define what sounds nice since some distortion is barely noticeable, some is nice (tape saturation is a nice way of limitimg ime) some sounds dire at low levels but since I listen on loudspeakers it seems to me that my source would have to be pretty awful not to be masked by speaker imperfections.
So overall I think I consider myself lucky, I think, I can enjoy my records without worrying. As a hobby dicking about with hifi has come to an end for me since I pretty well never listen to music and am concerned by some aspect missing or wrong with the sound quality, mind you I have loudspeakers I really, really like.
I do find background noise between tracks irritating on FM tadio and LPs but I have only ever heard it on CD when the recording is an analogue original and the tape noise is still there.