Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[JustJones]

Funny I feel your comments are aimed at the likes of me.
First of all I never stated or believe I hear better.
Of couse serious manufacturers of audio gear create using measurements or scientific data as you would call it, after that they listen to their end product and tweak it by listening with various possible matching components before sending it out to market.
The entire audiophile industry is dependent on that.
Sometimes I feel like I am talking with the Greta Thunberg of the audio world; She bases her diatribes on the scientific data of her choice, ignoring all others. By the way scientist can be bough very cheap, you tell them what data you want to put forward and they will tailor their results to your needs.

Is this a side line heading into the weeds of climate change? What's your point other than no point?

 

[RHO]

There are examples of carefully controlled measurements of suggerstibility in Floyd Toole's book.

Can't we measure them or don't we yet know how to corrolate the measurements with the effects (or vice versa)? Or don't we yet know how to measure them. It's all physics. It is measurable.

 

[BDWoody]

Sometimes I feel like I am talking with the Greta Thunberg of the audio world; She bases her diatribes on the scientific data of her choice, ignoring all others. By the way scientist can be bough very cheap, you tell them what data you want to put forward and they will tailor their results to your needs.

Between this nonsense and a couple of posts that were deleted, I think a little time off would be good.

 

[fpitas]

Jim

Not enough face palms, by far

 

[NiagaraPete]

Shiit Audio set up a comparison of their budget Dacs against they high price Dacs. Have you read the company owner's CV? They are highly qualified engineers with decades of experience in the audio business. What are your qualifications?

They build DAC’s with tubes. What credibility could they have?

 

[Jmudrick]

They build DAC’s with tubes. What credibility could they have?

They make no claims that they're more accurate.

 

[NiagaraPete]

They make no claims that they're more accurate.

Not my point.

 

[Killingbeans]

I suggest, with caution, that members who require measurements as proof for any suggestion or passing statements don't own or have not handled a lot of hifi gear.

I've never understood that argument, or why it warrants caution. Exposure to something gives you experience, but that experience holds no value if it leads you to faulty conclusions. Experience on its own does not automatically make you an expert of anything.

Just look at the people who buy the most ridiculously far-fetched nonsense products, like audiophile fuses or magic lumps of play-doh. I bet many of them have handled a huge amount of hi-fi gear during their time enjoying the hobby, but it has obviously given them zero tools to recognize cognitive bias when it's at play.

 

[Purité Audio]

The entire ‘high-end’ premise is that sound quality correlates with money spent, the continual and never ending ‘upgrade’.
Keith

 

[Spkrdctr]

So how were the controls implemented and what were the actual results? You've made a remarkable claim and I'm trying to see if there's anything there beyond, "No, seriously, they took me on their spaceship. Then it got weirder..."

Heck yes it got weirder. The anal probing began and I can tell you as a colonoscopy patient, it is no fun!

The problem is that most listening tests are just plain old A/B as 99% of the people seem to do it. They do A/B, do the switching themselves and to double check themselves they listen a second time to verify that yup A or B was better. Bottom line they are trusting their ears whether they know it or not.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I think you have no idea what you are talking about.

Like a laser beam to the truth. One sentence says it all.

 

[Ken1951]

Heck yes it got weirder. The anal probing began

 

[drallim]

After initial listening, they could accurately pick out which of the three was playing, without knowing.

Where does it say that? You might have made that part up.

"It was about relaxing, ... listening to whatever music one wanted, and giving an opinion. There were no wrong answers."

What kind of test has no wrong answers? If there are no wrong answers it not actually a test it's just a circlejerk. A double blind circlejerk, you don't know who's jerking who.

Again, I get that here double blind testing is wanted, but every time such a test is run and doesn't give the results you expect, you reject the test. It's clear that no matter how the test is run, it will be said here it wasn't done properly, if the results aren't what you expect.

A guy was given three DACs to listen to. He listened to them and wrote down some nonsense about what he thought he heard. That's exactly what I would expect.

Then when he was finished he tried to guess which DAC was which. He got 1/3 correct, again pretty much what you would expect from someone guessing.
2/6 chance of of all wrong, 3/6 chance of one correct, and 1/6 all three correct.

If you wanted to impress anyone you would have to repeat this test many times and correctly identify the same DAC at least 90% of the time, while also providing measurements of the output of the XYZ box.

 

[firedog]

Then when he was finished he tried to guess which DAC was which. He got 1/3 correct, again pretty much what you would expect from someone guessing.
2/6 chance of of all wrong, 3/6 chance of one correct, and 1/6 all three correct.

The report I read said nothing like that.
Writer said he correctly identified the DACs consistently. He already owned the older model and said it was easy to easy to pick out from the other two.

 

[Jimbob54]

Writer said he correctly identified the DACs consistently.

I hate to push on this, but I must keep missing this part on this article. https://audiophilestyle.com/ca/bits-and-bytes/new-schiit-yggdrasil-blind-listening-comparison-r1045/

And its really quite important. My understanding was the listeners were asked to say what they thought about x, y and z. His notes say he heard different attributes between the dacs. At all times they knew whether x, y or z was playing and knew when the switch had been moved.

After the test concluded he correctly picked the OG. As pointed out, statistically this could have been guesswork

II don't believe the test ever included a section where listeners DIDN'T know which of x, y or z was playing. I wish it did as it might have a little more value. They never had to identify which of x, y and z was playing.

There is a degree of suggestion in the way the test was run that might encourage participants to hear differences without having to ever prove they existed.

 

[NikJi]

Only if you challenge without proof.

You should continue posting, especially if you are able to demonstrate you can tell the differences between DACs. That would be remarkable.
Just understand that if you wish to upend science, you do need evidence. And the title of this thread is so anti-evidence, and you just parroted the title, with no evidence. So, yeah.

Ahhhh… thanks for the advice. I wish I had the means to record and post what the Audioquest Dragon and the THX Onyx sounded like on the Sony MDR7506. That said, it is a simple experiment anyone of you can try. All you need is to go to amazon.com and purchase the 3 items (with free returns), hear them and post your feedback. It is so much simpler than someone like me attempting to convey it to you in words.

 

[posvibes]

It is so much simpler than someone like me attempting to convey it to you in words.

That's the point of measurement.

Take any typical audiophile descriptive word and imagine the wide ranging interpretation of that word by other audiophiles, not only similar but, dissimilar, exact opposite interpretations of what you even admit to struggling to define.

 

[Reynaldo]

@Thorsten Loesch

Unfortunately everything came in a sequence and for some reason some messages were moved from place, generating an endless discussion.
At 69 years old I don't have the time or patience for this kind of thing, because I know that in addition to science there is also a commercial side to everything related to audio.

Coming back to iFi, I intend to buy the iFi Audio NEO iDSD next year, probably I won't have an improvement in sound quality compared to the IFI AUDIO ZEN ONE SIGNATURE DAC.

But in this hobby the eyes work with the ears.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

@Thorsten Loesch
Coming back to iFi, I intend to buy the iFi Audio NEO iDSD next year, probably I won't have an improvement in sound quality compared to the IFI AUDIO ZEN ONE SIGNATURE DAC.

Technically speaking, the "Neo" was based on the next generation entry level platform.

At iFi we had in effect three general "levels", later rising to four and I guess now five.

Originally they were labelled nano/micro/pro.

The nano platform meant 5V single supply analogue circuitry using charge pumps for a negative, single DAC Chip. The "Zen Range" was essentially a re-warming of the nano range, at a lower price/better build etc. Technically they are "nano" derivates

The Neo had a number of new design blocks, that were intentend to provide a new nano range. Specifically, on the DAC side it shares the design of the Zen DAC (which I consider a superior design to that in the "one"), except the addition of SPDIF & BT inputs. Improvements mainly apply to the headphone amplifier and variable line out.

The design brief was to provide a competitor specifically to the Denon DA-300 at 300 USD retail. So I feel at the current retail price it is not competive. Unless you need the SPDIF or BT inputs a zen DAC is a better upgrade.

Another option would be to use the Zen One as D2D converter with SPDIF Output and feed the output to the Musical Fidelity DAC you already have.

You could also look out for a second hand iDSD Pro, if you want a significant upgrade.

There are also other BB DAC based Units you can find (especially 2nd hand), possibly with better results than the NEO.

Finally, if you want to jump off at the deep end, there is a PCM56 non oversampling FAC floating around ebay and AliExpress at very low cost. It could be worth a punt, you might like it (I had nothing to do with that DAC, just in case).

Thor

 

[Music1969]

You could also look out for a second hand iDSD Pro, if you want a significant upgrade.

This didnt measure at all well by JA at Stereophile.

I think Zen DAC Signature V2 measures better.

Did you design Pro iDSD ?

The WiFi/BT antenna affecting the analogue electronics? Or the DSP chip?

Note I still use and love my micro iDSD Black Label, for portable use.

iFi Audio Pro iDSD D/A processor/headphone amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com