Nope. A sighted listening test is a test done with knowledge of the equipment being compared. Testing in this manner introduces expectation bias, thus rendering the comparison meaningless and also uninteresting to many people on a science forum such as this one. All subjective comparisons and reviews fall into this category.
A properly conducted blind, level-matched test, on the other hand, removes expectation bias and produces results that can be considered objective, making them useful and interesting to people here.
Here’s a good primer on expectation bias in audio if you’re interested:
http://nwavguy.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-we-hear.html
Makes sense. I had already read a ton on the Topping D90 (not saying I had overblown expectations) so I ordered it and it didn't sound right below around 200 hz. Maybe I was accustomed to my other DACs all of which had either the ESS 9038PRO or ESS 9012 chip.
Not really saying either has a house sound, I'm told that simply cannot be true since it can't be demonstrated in lab testing. But many people think so and I tend to agree, at least on this DAC after after spending weeks with it, constantly switching back and forth, day and night with my other DACs. It was better sounding in some other areas (not slightly either) but the lighter (or just different) sounding low end and mid bass was the deciding factor.
After thinking of all the glowing D90 reviews I had watched and read I kept going to the bit where the reviewer commented how the D90 'has the bass and slam'. I can't believe I didn't notice their careful parsing of words. Every DAC has bass and slam, duh! That was window dressing, an ambiguous empty statement glossing over what I found out too late.
I also notice they were ALL using KEF Q50s or the like. Can't believe I missed that. Not saying they were uttering false statements but no. That must be taken into account. You can't disconnect the tweeters in a pair of speakers then wax poetic on an amps delicate treble.
A reviewer cannot speak credibly regarding something the speakers they tested with simply cannot create. It defies logic. Now, with a caveat of granted my 5.25 woofers don't really shake the foundation, this DAC seemed to have adequate bass" would have been honest and painted a more complete picture of the DACs attributes. My Tekton Double Impacts show definition, pitch and volume below 200 hz like no other speakers I've had, even my legion of subs. Not saying DACs reviews need this degree of bass resolution but it would be cool if they did. The Tektons do NOT reveal what Magnepan 3.6 do in the rest of the spectrum. Can't have everything in one speaker I guess.
The D90 may have been the truth teller for all I know, if I had spent years living with only AKM 4499 DACs perhaps the new 9038PRO may have been the squeaky wheel getting the grease. It remains my reference till i can hear the RME ADI-2 another member here picked over many others. Or maybe if we ever get a AK4500. My Modius uses a AK4493 and it doesn't have the same issues for some reason. It can produce the same dirt and gritty texture of the ESS DACs, when it's in the material of course.
I don't know if it's been done yet but I've seen cool multi spectral imaging pics of the on / off axis performance of speakers. It would be amazing (paging Dr. Amir) to do the same thing using the same system only with different DACs, of course level matched, etc.
Then we could establish whether two different DACs, say the D90 and a W4S or SMSL M500 actually sound different is said areas, or any areas, with 'hard evidence' since our own ears fool us for a barrage of reasons apparently. DAC numbers: Good. Spectral decay proof of DAC frequency performance: Better. My money says they would not produce identical images with the same material, not just test tones although that alone might shed light on this.