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

[lateralous]

I'm not whining or excuse making. You're the one screaming about laboratory settings. Not me. I'm happy and comparing and listening and sharing. You're the very upset one screaming that my results (and others') are totally un-factual and scientifically untrue outside of a laboratory setting, a blind test, and a peer review. I'm sitting here right now with both DACs and I can do A/B comparisons all night long and am happy doing so. Again, I don't care if you claim my findings are inaccurate. It doesn't ruin MY enjoyment of said units, nor my belief or experience. You on the other hand are very upset and posting your dissatisfaction that I would share and believe what you consider to be bad information. I don't think you need laboratory settings to hear the difference. I don't have "Golden Ears" nor have I ever proclaimed to. I just simply know what to listen for on specific songs and equipment.

Again, anyone here willing to prove me wrong is welcome to fly here, set up a laboratory test, and get a gang of peer reviewers here as well to make it official.

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."

I am not acting angry or surprised. I fully expected the response. However, someone asked the question and I responded with a truthful answer, to the best of my knowledge and ability. I would pose it as other people being angry about my thoughts.

Nope, the question was asked after your unprompted claim about hearing differences between all ifi DACs.

 

[all24bits]

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."

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]

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.

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]

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.

Based on their newness and the content of their post (this one anyway). I'm going with troll or fake account.

 

[all24bits]

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.

I literally said that. 3 sets of equipment, two different houses. (at least)

Based on their newness and the content of their post (this one anyway). I'm going with troll or fake account.

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.

 

[JustJones]

My wife's score picking DACs is still 100% from the kitchen. No idea how she does it but there it is.

 

[all24bits]

My wife's score picking DACs is still 100% from the kitchen. No idea how she does it but there it is.

Laboratory conditions, please. You can't do it in a kitchen.

 

[JustJones]

The kitchen is a laboratory.

 

[lateralous]

Posters here have been saying that there is no difference in cables, and that there is no difference in DACs.

Technically, that is not true.

There is no difference in competently designed electronic equipment, and there is no difference in honestly made cables, low-level or otherwise.

If the people here are invested in anything, they are invested in the control, the logic and the rigor of the scientific discipline. That scientific discipline has given us, each and every one of us, our modern contrivances, our modern medical advances, our communications and media abilities and continuing breakthroughs in all of the various disciplines that benefit us in our lives. That means billions of us, all over the world.

Jim Taylor

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.

 

[Beave]

Well, I've done blind tests with cables and I came out with accurate results every time. No, it wasn't in a laboratory setting and peer reviewed. It was in a living room with my friend administering the test between I2S/hdmi cables. And no, no one recorded it and there would have been no way to peer review the recording if I had. Again, it was literally just a matter of knowing what to listen to in the songs that I was extremely familiar with, with cables I was familiar with, on equipment I was familiar with. Not that hard if you invest time and energy into it.

Can you elaborate on this "test between I2S/hdmi cables?" What products? What cables?

 

[Beave]

If I did or did not level match wouldn't matter here. It would need to be blind tested (what if people don't have anyone to administer the test?) and THEN peer reviewed to be accepted. I'm actually really confused why people who thinks all DACs sound alike are hanging out discussing DACs that have no differences when they could just buy the top ASR rated DAC and be done with the hardware hobby/discussion for good. We already have enough DACs on the market that operate and sound identical (like, all or most of them). I think manufacturers should shut down and and stop producing electronic waste and trying to scam people.

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.

 

[MaxBuck]

The kitchen is a laboratory.

It certainly is in our house. And the number of failed experiments is frankly discouraging.

 

[Holmz]

I think dopamine may be involved in these uncontrolled listening responses.

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?

 

[all24bits]

Can you elaborate on this "test between I2S/hdmi cables?" What products? What cables?

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).

 

[Beave]

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.

 

[all24bits]

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.

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.

 

[SIY]

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.

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.

 

[Travis]

You made the claim: please provide us with a controlled test or a scientifically replicable explanation otherwise it never happened. And you can save yourself the time posting.

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.

You fly here and set it up then. I could video record a set of tests but then I would be accused of possibly rigging the tests and faking the video. Then how is a peer review going to happen for a video for an event these peer reviewers were never part of ?

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.

 

[all24bits]

Hopefully whatever difference you heard, your preference was for the cheaper of the two.

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.

 

[Doodski]

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.

What is it that you think the cheaper and expensive cables are doing?