RME ADI-2 DAC fs against the Topping D90SE

[Consistent]

I am gob smacked at what I am reading, the 'deafness' of those who don't rely on what they are hearing but more on the specs...which are really only a human construct as is the equipment used to measure things! It's like going backwards in time to 490 BCE just before Pythagorus began to realize the earth was round and we still had people believing it was flat 1,000 years later! Perhaps even today! There are a myriad of things both internal and external to our hearing that affect our perceptions, just like how we taste wine. You can take a bottle of wine and 'measure' many things that it contains and match these measured contents to another wine and they can taste completely different...surely that can't be true! That's why we have people like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Dan Dagostino, Rob Watts and Paul Klipsch. I guess these people are all redundant and of no use to 'objectivists'. I thought there would be an equality of open-mindedness in this forum, I was wrong. Many thanks to those who have appreciated my contribution and good luck with the continued use of your ears and the thing that sits between them.

 

[MaxBuck]

Actually, no I have the right to my perceptions.

Who said you didn't? We just object to your characterizing your subjective perceptions as "established fact."

 

[Blumlein 88]

I am gob smacked at what I am reading, the 'deafness' of those who don't rely on what they are hearing but more on the specs...which are really only a human construct as is the equipment used to measure things! It's like going backwards in time to 490 BCE just before Pythagorus began to realize the earth was round and we still had people believing it was flat 1,000 years later! Perhaps even today! There are a myriad of things both internal and external to our hearing that affect our perceptions, just like how we taste wine. You can take a bottle of wine and 'measure' many things that it contains and match these measured contents to another wine and they can taste completely different...surely that can't be true! That's why we have people like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Dan Dagostino, Rob Watts and Paul Klipsch. I guess these people are all redundant and of no use to 'objectivists'. I thought there would be an equality of open-mindedness in this forum, I was wrong. Many thanks to those who have appreciated my contribution and good luck with the continued use of your ears and the thing that sits between them.

You have the flat earth thing backwards actually.

 

[Rednaxela]

I am gob smacked

Nah. Nothing in this thread to be gob smacked by. Just a regular subjectivist vs. objectivist audio debate.

You come here declaring that there was a coin in the girl’s ear because you saw the magician take it out. People tell you that a coin does not fit inside an ear, and suggest you to rethink what you saw. You tell them they are blind and closed minded, and should rely more on their senses.

 

[ahofer]

I am gob smacked at what I am reading, the 'deafness' of those who don't rely on what they are hearing but more on the specs...which are really only a human construct as is the equipment used to measure things! It's like going backwards in time to 490 BCE just before Pythagorus began to realize the earth was round and we still had people believing it was flat 1,000 years later! Perhaps even today! There are a myriad of things both internal and external to our hearing that affect our perceptions, just like how we taste wine. You can take a bottle of wine and 'measure' many things that it contains and match these measured contents to another wine and they can taste completely different...surely that can't be true! That's why we have people like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Dan Dagostino, Rob Watts and Paul Klipsch. I guess these people are all redundant and of no use to 'objectivists'. I thought there would be an equality of open-mindedness in this forum, I was wrong. Many thanks to those who have appreciated my contribution and good luck with the continued use of your ears and the thing that sits between them.

I don’t think you’ve thought at all about what’s been said here. You’ve built your own fantasy strawman of our views. We are open-minded, but we believe hearing is fallible and suggestible. We demand a scientific basis for claims of fact. Preferences are your own, facts must be established rigorously, not by assertion.

By the way, everything you taste in wine can be measured chemically (read about frankenwines and Rudi Kirnawan), just as, so far, nobody has established a strictly audible phenomenon that electronic instruments/microphones, which are far more sensitive than the human ear, cannot measure in frequency, phase, and amplitude.

We have dedicated threads for topics like “are measurements everything or nothing”, how to do blind tests, does market success prove sound quality, "objectivism vs subjectivism", “message to golden-eared first time posters” etc. I politely explained that that this is a science-based forum that has addressed these issues in depth. You read none of it, but instead made up your own ridiculous characterization of our views, and then called us flat earthers.

This is an evidence-based, objective-leaning audio forum, and you seem to prefer subjective fantasy. This will continue to be an uncomfortable place for you, especially if you continue to project, deny, and insult like the Orwell-understander up the thread.

Off to the ignore list with you as well.

 

[Oukkidoukki]

One question: Can these filters or ”sound mode” settings affect to experience how wide or ” close” sound feels in headphones for example? My smsl su8 has sound modes like tube, standard, original etc. and filters like fast minimum. I hate to have these options, just want neutral output.

 

[Yuhasz01]

This group has an article of faith that perceived differences don't exist if measurements are the same. The problem with this is that it is a hypothesis and has to be proved. It is simply empirical fact that different DACs and amplifiers often sound different. Moreover, whenever someone claims the contrary, you all pile on to say that they have deceived themselves somehow. That has to be proved. Amongst other things, science should explain what we perceive, not to say that our perceptions are illusions and browbeat the person into submission by adopting a superior attitude. It is not uncommon for doctors are unable to detect the cause of a patient's discomfort. That means that medical science hasn't developed the right tests, not that the patient is deluded.

Of course individual differences possible. Each of us has slightly different ear patterns, ability to hear upper frequencies, our rooms are all different as well. And, equipment and components differences.
With same equipment specs there are listening differences due to human and physical space issues and perceptions.

 

[Yuhasz01]

I am gob smacked at what I am reading, the 'deafness' of those who don't rely on what they are hearing but more on the specs...which are really only a human construct as is the equipment used to measure things! It's like going backwards in time to 490 BCE just before Pythagorus began to realize the earth was round and we still had people believing it was flat 1,000 years later! Perhaps even today! There are a myriad of things both internal and external to our hearing that affect our perceptions, just like how we taste wine. You can take a bottle of wine and 'measure' many things that it contains and match these measured contents to another wine and they can taste completely different...surely that can't be true! That's why we have people like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Dan Dagostino, Rob Watts and Paul Klipsch. I guess these people are all redundant and of no use to 'objectivists'. I thought there would be an equality of open-mindedness in this forum, I was wrong. Many thanks to those who have appreciated my contribution and good luck with the continued use of your ears and the thing that sits between them.

Your comments are accurate here.

If you want real measurement perspective, balanced with some listening perceptions also, follow Achimagos Musings. He provides deep dive to measurement process which he recognizes can be flawed many times.

 

[Jimbob54]

Of course individual differences possible. Each of us has slightly different ear patterns, ability to hear upper frequencies, our rooms are all different as well. And, equipment and components differences.
With same equipment specs there are listening differences due to human and physical space issues and perceptions.

What? Nobody is saying 2 people hear the same.

But if the listener is the same, in the same room etc etc , changing the DAC should not result in a change in what the user hears.

That is, if they cant see the DAC and the levels are matched, filter behaviours are the same etc etc

 

[Jimbob54]

One question: Can these filters or ”sound mode” settings affect to experience how wide or ” close” sound feels in headphones for example? My smsl su8 has sound modes like tube, standard, original etc. and filters like fast minimum. I hate to have these options, just want neutral output.

You have everything you need to try this yourself if you have an independent button presser.

 

[ahofer]

What? Nobody is saying 2 people hear the same.

But if the listener is the same, in the same room etc etc , changing the DAC should not result in a change in what the user hears.

That is, if they cant see the DAC and the levels are matched, filter behaviours are the same etc etc

Listeners are different, and the non-aural processing they bring to listening is different. We're just trying to isolate the differences that originate in the signal presented by the equipment (a stable phenomenon) from those created in the listener's head (an unstable and widely variable phenomenon, IMO). The latter are a poor way of judging equipment.

Certainly people get lasting enjoyment from looking at tubes (or the "phallic brutalism", as my wife calls it), fiddling with nice-feeling controls, and admiring the carved lines and bulbous monitors of their beefy amps.

We often get satisfaction from owning really well-engineered gear even if that engineering creates no strictly audible benefit (people here get excited by SINAD measurements that are waaaay beyond our ability to notice). Otherwise we would all own Dongle-DACs.

 

[AdamG247]

I'd love take a piece of your cheap, but perfect measuring chifi and compare it to something let's just say different and see if it is so very hard to perceive the difference, a difference that would be as clear as day or the nose on your face.

We kindly ask our Members to refrain from using the term ChiFi. As we have a global presence and members from around the globe. Some members find this term to be demeaning and insulting. Thank you for your understanding and support.

 

[Andreas007]

I am gob smacked at what I am reading, the 'deafness' of those who don't rely on what they are hearing but more on the specs...which are really only a human construct as is the equipment used to measure things! It's like going backwards in time to 490 BCE just before Pythagorus began to realize the earth was round and we still had people believing it was flat 1,000 years later! Perhaps even today! There are a myriad of things both internal and external to our hearing that affect our perceptions, just like how we taste wine. You can take a bottle of wine and 'measure' many things that it contains and match these measured contents to another wine and they can taste completely different...surely that can't be true! That's why we have people like Nelson Pass, John Curl, Dan Dagostino, Rob Watts and Paul Klipsch. I guess these people are all redundant and of no use to 'objectivists'. I thought there would be an equality of open-mindedness in this forum, I was wrong. Many thanks to those who have appreciated my contribution and good luck with the continued use of your ears and the thing that sits between them.

Fun fact 1: You can design and produce fake wine with some synthetic aroma and some colour added into water! Even professional wine tasters will fall for it. And guess what, you can do it because the ingredientes have been measured and the relevant substances identified. If two wines taste different, you can surely measure why.

Fun fact 2: You don‘t have to reproduce the original composition down to every detail of the original. Because your taste is not sensitive enough to taste the very small differences. Reminds you of another topic?

Fun fact 3: I would never ever drink synthetic wine. Reminds me too much of Synthehol which, we all know, tastes awful.

 

[Sproketz]

Can you not use the EQ to get the result you're looking for?

This is what I also want to know.

I see a lot of these threads around the web comparing ADI-2 DAC to whatever, or perhaps someone saying that it "isn't warm enough" or "the highs are too bright" etc. Just add warmth using the PEQ or the B/T knobs then? Buying various high priced audio equipment to alter the sound signature sounds like an absurdly hit and miss way to do things. That's why the ADI-2 DAC exists. Just add whatever warmth, punch, or sound characteristics you want. If you want to use a tube amp to add pleasurable distortion, perhaps that's something that would warrant a separate amp, but the D90SE vs ADI-2 DAC? What are we doing here? Can someone really not EQ in whatever thing they perceive they are missing?

Are people really saying that there is some specific sound quality they can't achieve with EQ on the ADI-2? Or are they purists who are afraid of using EQ? If the latter, why buy an ADI-2 DAC to begin with?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Fun fact 3: I would never ever drink synthetic wine. Reminds me too much of Synthehol which, we all know, tastes awful.

I don't think the complaint was on taste of Synthehol. It was the limited inebriating capability of it. You know, you can only get two beers drunk no matter how much you consume. Of course there is always Two-Beer Charlie who becomes unhinged after.....wait for it.....two beers.

 

[Andreas007]

I don't think the complaint was on taste of Synthehol. It was the limited inebriating capability of it. You know, you can only get two beers drunk no matter how much you consume. Of course there is always Two-Beer Charlie who becomes unhinged after.....wait for it.....two beers.

Hehe, I guess so. But there is this one scene with Scotty and Data in TNG „Relics“ where he immediately recognizes the bad stuff. Funny as hell too: It is green…

 

[Sound86]

Well I am not much invested in the discussion at large. I am in my 30s now and have heard hundreds (mostly sub-1000 a few higher overwhelmingly vintage) components by the time I was in my 20s. Measurements only recently peaked my interest and Ive been buying new components again.
Do I believe measurements are the be all and end all? Nah not really, because after all I (me) want to enjoy music and Ive had plenty speakers or amps that I could just enjoy. To name only a few highlights (and I bet they would all measure awfully) are Goodmans Dimension 8, Bose 6.2 (only Bose I ever really liked and I had plenty), Magnepan MMG, Martin Logan Aerius, Equation 1b etc. I also enjoyed a Uher 3000 combination (built by Harman) with 20 tubes altogether. Man that thing could heat up your apartment.

With DACs, well... Do I want them to insert coloration? Probably not. Im using a Gustard X16 now, waiting for my D90Se, which should arrive Wednesday. But the RME DAC ist also interesting. Espacially the features do make it a big contender. Now even though the personal experience of someone else doesnt tell me much about my experience its sure entertaining to read if you consider buying similar equipment, more so if the person has other equipment you own too.