Keith_W
Major Contributor
Where is "here"? I am sure we could arrange for an ASR member local to you to verify your claims. I for one would be excited to see a blind test showing that DAC's make a difference.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?
- Thread starter Willhelm_Scream
- Start date
Where is "here"? I am sure we could arrange for an ASR member local to you to verify your claims. I for one would be excited to see a blind test showing that DAC's make a difference.
lateralous
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2022
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 102
Do you believe there is any possibility, any at all, that the difference you hear is perception and not an actual difference in the sound produced at the transducer? Why even come here to tell us about your personal anecdote in the first place? If you can't admit that possibility you will never get anywhere here, nor towards a better understanding of hearing and audio reproduction (they are two completely different things).
Also, you did claim golden ears: "So to answer the question: is it a waste of money? Depends on what you're looking for in a sound signature and how well your ears are trained or abilitied. Half of this stuff is really just knowing what to listen for."
Nope, the question was asked after your unprompted claim about hearing differences between all ifi DACs.
1. No, because it's been done on various equipment I'm familiar with and the results were the same. How did I get the tests right? It wasn't luck or simply "perception" or the transducer doing different things at exactly the right times over and over.
2. I don't think it requires golden ears, but some people lack perception or abilities that others have. That doesn't make the person who HAS them "special" or "golden". I think it just requires concentration and training in most times.
lateralous
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2022
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 102
In that case your comments make sense, then. I'd caution you might struggle to have meaningful discussions on this forum while eschewing psychoacoustics completely.
Ricardus
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Based on their newness and the content of their post (this one anyway). I'm going with troll or fake account.
I literally said that. 3 sets of equipment, two different houses. (at least)
Fake account? What am I, a bot? No, I'm definitely real. the only reason I chimed in originally was because someone asked about iFi gear I had experience with. Typically I stay out of this place because it's so hardline unless I'm curious to know various technical information (which I've learned a lot of here). I've been around the communities for years. People have met me at shows. I know industry people. I've been in the industry. I'm known at meets. I'm very/incredibly minor or totally unimportant in the grand scheme of things tho. And just wanted to share my experience with the person who asked about the iFi units.
Last edited:
Laboratory conditions, please. You can't do it in a kitchen.
lateralous
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2022
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 102
Excellent points here. Given what I've seen of ifi prodcuts and the comments of certain ifi designers, I've no doubt there may be actual audible differences amongst all DACs they've produced. More broadly, I'm sure some portion of those claiming to hear differences in DACs truly are differences in output at the transducer; be it level matching, intended deviation from transparency, an unexpected effect somewhere else in the signal chain, or something as simple as a loosening cable. But to start with the explicit statement that there are audible differences in the DACs, and that there is ZERO chance of psychoacoustics affecting that judgement is gratingly egotistical for those of us who are, as you eloquently put, "invested in the control, the logic and the rigor of the scientific discipline". It's OK to admit we are human.
Can you elaborate on this "test between I2S/hdmi cables?" What products? What cables?
Maybe some of us are interested in DAC discussions from a perspective other than as a consumer. Maybe some of us used to design and test DAC circuitry. Maybe.
It certainly is in our house. And the number of failed experiments is frankly discouraging.
Holmz
Major Contributor
I like jokes and humour as much as the next person… But let’s go adult mode here, and consider the difference between filters and their response in the time domain?
it was a random i2S cable (blue, generic, stock?) that I'm SURE was specc'd correctly to industry standards vs an AQ Carbon HDMI running from a (I believe) Singxer SU-1 into a Holo Spring 1 and out into a headphone amplifer into Audeze LCD 3. The i2S cable sounded like hot garbage. (again, I'm sure it was specc'd fine) The Carbon HDMI did not. Was it "broken"? Was it "messed with" by AQ? Was I hearing "not normal" sounds? Was it "not to spec"? Maybe, but I don't care. Didn't sound broken or "wrong" to me. When the AQ was plugged in, I had more definition, detail retrieval, a blacker background, more "pop" to the music, more space between the instruments, clearer sound, etc.
And again, I used songs I was VERY familiar with and I had also "studied" before the test so I knew what to listen to from each cable on that particular system. Again, it wasn't a case of having "golden ears" it was a matter of simply listening and taking some mental notes. And no, the volume control was not messed with on the amp at all after the cables were plugged in. My eyes were shut the entire time and I had no idea what order he was putting in the cables and I couldn't see anything nor hear/notice any indication of what cable was going in or being taken out. Maybe the DAC was reacting badly with the generic cable; I don't know. Don't really care. I heard what I heard and I got the results I got. It wasn't *that* hard to tell the fairly obvious differences IMO. I mean, the generic cable was THAT bad. It sounded beyond bad. But again I'm sure it was specc'd fine. But it's not going to hurt my feelings if no one believes it. Everyone should stick with whatever equipment makes them happy. As Andrew Robinson says, "the only person who has to like the sound of your system is you".
On a side note, the guy who sold my buddy the Singxer/i2S/Holo combo was INSISTING an iS2 cable HAD to be used and an HDMI cable would NOT work on the system. (it of course, did) My friend wanted a decent (more expensive) cable than what came with it (not because he can hear the difference, he just likes nicer, more expensive cables to complement his system) so I told I had always had good luck with AQ and got him the Carbon and that's part of why we did the test, since he trusted my ears more than his and he was going to keep the one I thought was better (with the blind test as one way of confirming if the AQ purchase was good or not).
Last edited:
Huh. Shows I'm not keeping up with the game like I used to. I didn't know that external I2S connections had become a thing in the industry. When I worked (90s-early 2010s), it was an internal audio interface only (between chips on a board, not between two products).
A little bit of Googling tells me it was pushed by PS Audio as superior to SPDIF. Color me skeptical of that claim.
But what you describe seems nearly impossible. "More definition, detail retrieval, a blacker background, more "pop" to the music, more space between the instruments, clearer sound, etc." defies all my understanding of a digital audio interface. Even if one cable was totally defective, those differences are not what one would get. Instead there would be dropouts or no audio at all. What you describe are more analog effects, not something that can change in a digital interface.
Of course, you won't like my response, but your observations contradict conventional wisdom in digital audio and therefore, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A little bit of Googling tells me it was pushed by PS Audio as superior to SPDIF. Color me skeptical of that claim.
But what you describe seems nearly impossible. "More definition, detail retrieval, a blacker background, more "pop" to the music, more space between the instruments, clearer sound, etc." defies all my understanding of a digital audio interface. Even if one cable was totally defective, those differences are not what one would get. Instead there would be dropouts or no audio at all. What you describe are more analog effects, not something that can change in a digital interface.
Of course, you won't like my response, but your observations contradict conventional wisdom in digital audio and therefore, as the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The things that stood out to me *most* were the a blacker background, and more "pop" or sparkle to the music. I used "Twilight" by ELO and "The Other Side of Life" by the Moody Blues as my main two test tracks. Those aspects were the two dead most obvious giveaways.
Personally, I wouldn't have have used the Singxer in MY system but he had a bundle package so he decided to keep it in there. I didn't like the Singxer, honestly.
Or it was your brain lying to you. Which is far and away the most likely answer. It may not be the answer you imagine, but you're human and that's what our brains do. Hence the need for controls when making fabulously unlikely claims.
Well that is going to be the perspective of many, the problem is that it is a report of observations, in a blind test, and no one else who posts about the same (their results from a blind test) is expected to do that so long as they do not hear a difference.
Not sure who said that it needs to be peer reviewed or where that notion came about (you don’t peer review tests) . That would certainly apply if you wanted your “work” published in a peer reviewed journal, but this is an audio forum FFS. Anyone with an internet connection and a belly button can post an opinion,
Speaking for myself only, I wouldn’t even worry about replicating any “tests” (not that you were) - you say you did blind tests, with a friend, you could consistently pick out a difference in whatever it was . Great for you. It make you uniquely qualified to be an audio equipment reviewer, Of course your reviews would be limited to your house, and your equipment - as that’s what you put the time and energy into being familiar with.
Hopefully whatever difference you heard, your preference was for the cheaper of the two. the unbroken one etc. If not, and you could do it with equipment away from your home, you could make a fortune, a serious fortune. You should let the largest cable makers and the most expensive DAC makers know that you can consistently distinguish one DAC from another, or one cable from another, and they would pay a fortune for you to do so under controlled blind conditions, Plus, they would probably throw in a bunch of free equipment if you said you preferred their equipment. It’s a rare gift you have, probably less than a 1/2 dozen in the world.
I compared some 400 dollar speaker cables to 40 dollar Blue Jean cables. I initially preferred the 400 dollar cables (for about a week). Then I realized I didn't like them on my system. They simply did not sound as pleasant as the cheaper cables. I went back to the 40 dollar cables and I'm very happy. More expensive is not necessarily better.
Similar threads
