Ok thanks for clearing that up! I don't know why reviewers say that. One person said the Yiggy was superior in layered depth in comparison to Chord Hugo 2 which was comparatively 2 dimensional!
Sure. . .
Ok thanks for clearing that up! I don't know why reviewers say that. One person said the Yiggy was superior in layered depth in comparison to Chord Hugo 2 which was comparatively 2 dimensional!
They say that because it is fashion. And they think by commenting on it makes them a good listener and knowledgeable. The reality is the opposite of course. It is all in their imagination.Ok thanks for clearing that up! I don't know why reviewers say that. One person said the Yiggy was superior in layered depth in comparison to Chord Hugo 2 which was comparatively 2 dimensional!
They say that because it is fashion. And they think by commenting on it makes them a good listener and knowledgeable. The reality is the opposite of course. It is all in their imagination.
I meant "Fixed EQ" as in DACs with built-in "sound signature" which you cannot change, or those so-called remastered discs that has certain frequency ranged turned up higher, or overall compressed in general. Imagine applying EQ on Roon and then you go through some DAC that adds its own sound signature. The source I meant is the source device that converts digital signal to analog signal.
Depends on implementation of the EQ, sometimes I prefer to do it in the analog domain. There are some professional processors that does the EQ in DSP without taking into account of the extra headroom needed, and caused hard clipping. Roon seems to have implemented it correctly so I do use it sometimes for my bedroom setup.
They say that because it is fashion. And they think by commenting on it makes them a good listener and knowledgeable. The reality is the opposite of course. It is all in their imagination.
Also, frequency response in 1 to 3 kHz is a large determinant of this effect. Take any headphone you have and boost this region and listen for spatial qualities. Likely you hear the effect (ignore the tonality difference -- just listen for externalization of the sound).
That's actually not what you said Amir. What you said was:
(excludes most of Topping/SMSL and other such gear and older Schiit).
So audirvana is both bit perfect and also not?That's actually not what you said Amir. What you said was:
Hence a DAC or a player whose built-in processing slightly favours certain frequency response or slightly sweetens the sound can indeed create more or less of a soundstage effect. These differences are audible but not all listeners are reliable or have correctly set up the comparisons. As you have correctly pointed out, comparative listening must be done under identical circumstances and with near instant switchover (8 seconds is too long).
If all measurably "audibly transparent" DACs, pre-amps and amplifiers sounded the same everyone here would just have bought a $100 Chinese DAC two years ago, attached it directly to powered monoblocks and gone home. You may wish to visit the Audirvana thread. Audirvana is your player of choice. By Damien Plisson's admission and audibly, Audirvana is a euphonic player which sweetens the sound.
It's more than plausible that Schiit have subtly sweetened the sound of this Ygg. I don't know. I don't have it and would not buy it, as I prefer gear which 1. includes proper safety features (excludes most of Topping/SMSL and other such gear and older Schiit) 2. measures at least adequately well. 3. I'm based in Europe and buying Schiit is asking for trouble here and we have our own good manufacturers like RME whose ADI-2 DAC FS costs about half of what it does in the United States and includes full warranty (inverse of the Schiit situation). Any manufacturer who chooses to add euphonic qualities to his gear should do so after meeting an adequate and clear technical standard. On the other hand, this belief that the measurements done at ASR in any way fully characterise the sound of audio equipment is just myopia.
Meeting food safety standards does not a gourmet meal make. A gourmet meal (great sound) can be made in a dirty kitchen, risking making diners sick (great sounding audio gear with either safety issues or technical performance issues).
Could you please elaborate on this? Do you mean specific regulatory approval, lack of internal fuse, etc.?
So audirvana is both bit perfect and also not?
As I'm pretty sure I posted you a link to their site yesterday that claimed it was bit perfect.
Kindly give us a link to that audirvana support page rather than linking your pasted extract here.Read the Audirvana thread carefully please and respond there if you could.
Kindly give us a link to that audirvana support page rather than linking your pasted extract here.
I have never, ever seen a DAC create a dip in 1 to 3 kHz region. My comment there was regarding speakers and headphones where frequency response is variable. With DACs, that explanation is not relevant due to their rule flat frequency response.Hence a DAC or a player whose built-in processing slightly favours certain frequency response or slightly sweetens the sound can indeed create more or less of a soundstage effect.
I have never, ever seen a DAC create a dip in 1 to 3 kHz region. My comment there was regarding speakers and headphones where frequency response is variable. With DACs, that explanation is not relevant due to their rule flat frequency response.
I performed controlled testing of the Yggy against Topping DAC which the last owner said he had compared. He even gave me the exact pieces of music that replicated his experience. I tested that and there was no difference at all in controlled AB testing. Everything we know about audio research backs my experience. And and predicts that someone would think the Yggy sounds better even though in reality it does not.In the absence of such tests, this Ygg may genuinely sound better to most humans than better measuring DACs (solution proposed at the end of this post).
Such tests are difficult to do since due to noise and clock drift, the output differs from run to run on the same DAC let alone different ones. We have tools to compensate for this but they don't null out to infinity.With DACs, a simple and significant test would be to diff output. Even subtle differences in sound cannot easily hide from a well-run diff as it's not a partial measurement but a full measurement.
Whilst I expect we have vastly different view on measurements, I believe running a music file through different devices and comparing their digitized output would be an interesting thing to do (probably been done a thousand times on this forum). Does anyone have some high quality musically challenging/revealing files they can share with me so I can do some playing around?Thanks for the clarification. My own tests show that good modern DACs measure almost identical but still show significant differences when listening. While some of these heard differences have their origins in psychoacoustics, some are real (otherwise we'd all be listening to Topping's excellent budget D30 DAC with inexpensive monoblocks). We need better and more revealing tests to account for these perceptual differences.
In the absence of such tests, this Ygg may genuinely sound better to most humans than better measuring DACs (solution proposed at the end of this post).
I've recently run through a whole pile of amplifiers which tested very well in your tests (amp section of Yamaha R-S700, NAD C320BEE, ones which tested less well Behringer A500, Marantz SR7001). There are huge differences in sound quality, with the Behringer doing much, much better in subjective tests than it possibly should in the field. Yes, there is hiss and crackle on near silent passages at high volume, but when music with a strong signal is playing, the A500 often sounds better than the rest (probably thanks to its enormous power reserves). The pre-amp tests which also included an NAD C372 (amp section long dead, preamp still works). As well as the variable output of the DACs (not recommended after testing, proper pre-amping with extra power does make a difference), there was a Topping A50s (excellent balanced headphone sound, excellent pre-amp, relatively better than its stablemate D50s), a NAD C165BEE (very, very good pre-amp but takes up a lot of space, very similar to the pre-amp in the C372) and a Pro-Ject Pre Box Analogue DS2 (great for rock, didn't like at all for classical/vocal) and now an RME ADI-2 DAC FS (compact, flexible, configurable, but a small step below the C165BEE and Pre Box as a pre-amp on congested passages). Worst pre-amp of all was the Yamaha R-S700, which sterilises and deadens sound while still measuring adequately. I was able to do these tests simultaneously and/or back to back as all the gear was here at the same time. I won't be able to do this again as almost all of it will be shipping out.
You have enormous stamina to go through so much gear every week. When people ask for you to put gear back in to run just one more test, I shudder. Thankfully you often refuse these days.
I correlated your measured findings with listening tests on as much of this gear as possible. The measurements provide a rough guide to performance but there were many cases where relatively poor measurers sonically outperformed measurement champs. To bring audio down to four or five measurements is a horrific simplification of sound, music and the capabilities of our ears. We need better and more revealing tests.
With DACs, a simple and significant test would be to diff output. Even subtle differences in sound cannot easily hide from a well-run diff as it's not a partial measurement but a full measurement. It's all the information which we hear. Diff files could work for pre-amps as well. What to do to better measure amplifiers, I have no idea.
I'm sure that RME is tip top but I hear it's like figuring out Vulcan chess and dazzling light displays keep us from the inner sanctum where we truly hear what's going on. My main listening room is pretty strict, relatively speaking
Still the unit includes a high-quality switching power supply, 12 V / 2 A, which not only accepts any mains voltage between 100 V and 240 V (usable world-wide), but is also fully regulated against voltage fluctuations and suppresses line noise. Additionally it only weights 150 g in spite of its high power of 24 Watts.
So let me get this straight, even after attempting to find some kind of explanation for what you seem to hear (good on you) and failing to do so, you still think there are changes "beyond" measuring, not seen in the FR?
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science.
Happy members who like to discuss audio....Come here to have fun.
Angry members who like to browbeat others...Come here to be abused and abuse others.
Also any proof to your Audirvana claims?
Such tests are difficult to do since due to noise and clock drift, the output differs from run to run on the same DAC let alone different ones. We have tools to compensate for this but they don't null out to infinity.
Also, difference signals that are audible may not at all be in context of the music itself due to masking.
Fair enough, but let's get one thing straight...whatever it is you are doing for your "listening tests" has nothing whatsoever to do with science. DACing-off to convince yourself that differences do exist among DACs does not make your conclusions "real" with respect to scientific validity, and does not justify the need for "better and more revealing tests to account for these perceptual differences." Your tests need to be conducted with far more rigor to be taken seriously.What differences in sound do you hear between your Topping D50s and the Topping E30 (or D90 or Schiit Ygg or Modi)? If your answer is "none, as I haven't listened to either and the measurements show they are the same," you are no scientist. A scientist gets out in the field and actually tests his or her hypothesis and doesn't miserably lurk at home measurebating through someone else's work (Amir's in this case). Go out and listen!