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

[BDWoody]

They hear something we don’t and science can’t explain.

But funny enough, this has ever been demonstrated. By anyone. Ever.

Claims aren't evidence.

If you are interested in actually having a good faith discussion, that's great. However, if you are just here to troll in this fashion, there's no real need to continue.

 

[Purité Audio]

No problem Keith. I strongly believe we are on this planet to help eachother: "Your" signature is referring to the Eversolo.

View attachment 355945
Maybe listening to this song will help you to understant what I mean.

I think I know what the problem might be, you haven’t removed the screen protector, which makes an enormous difference, and really easy to corroborate, just ask your partner to slip the screen protector on and off while you remain unsighted.
The effect is not subtle!
Keith

 

[CleanSound]

My wife and kids can’t hear the difference either. Being able to hear nuances between dacs is obviously not possible for everyone. Some? No doubt.

I hereby challenge you, the Golden Ear, to a hearing test showdown.

Challenge 1: 24 bit track at 96kHz sampling rate vs. 16 bit track at 44.1kHz sampling rate that is down sampled from the 24 bit track, level matched. Using Foobar ABX pluggin, passing at least 13/15 times. You can use headphones or loud speaker. You have 60 mins.

Challenge 2: Two different DACs with 105 or higher SINAD with no filters, level matched using a multimeter. Blind ABX, you can use either headphones or loudspeaker. Passing at least 13/15 times, you have 60 mins.

Challenge 3: Two different amplifiers with 95+ SINAD at 1kHz, 5w, 4ohm, level matched using a multimeter. Blind ABX, you can use either headphones or loudspeaker. Passing at least 13/15 times, you have 60 mins.

All challenges done with third party inspection and moderation to ensure nothing is fishy. All live streamed with your face visible for viewers to see along with your first name, last name and home town announced.

If you pass 2 or more, I will send you $500 USD and you can become famous being the face of subjectivists. And I shall address you as the "Holy Golden Ear" and kneel to kiss your feet every time I see you until I die. If you fail the challenge, nothing happens to you.

 

[Purité Audio]

I think you will find $50k is the going rate these days.
Keith

 

[oleg87]

The Eversolo plays every note in all the registers. After listening to it for several hours I could not take it anymore. Why? Because the sound coming from it is not music. It has no emotion what so ever. Its flat and has no dept. The words of the artists no longer match the sound.

It just never ends...

 

[DonR]

It just never ends...

...and it never will. 412 pages is the clue.

 

[krabapple]

I've been cycling through 3 different DACs for a couple of weeks after getting the new speakers. The RME ADI-2 DAC was annoying and hyper-detailed (I do like it with headphones, but with speakers I find it intolerable). Mark Levinson was very pleasant, mid-bass centric, but lacking in transparency. The Eversolo was just fine, transparent and "flavour-less".

Enjoy your 'cycling' but please know it has zero to do with determining the truth of audible DAC difference.

I wonder why you bother to even relate such paltry evidence on Audio Science Review after being here for four years. Getting bored?

 

[DLS79]

...and it never will. 412 pages is the clue.

I think its its because the forum has slowly been infiltrated by golden ear sleeper accounts!

 

[ahofer]

These people always play the Princess in their ever-popular Pea drama.

Personally, I find my RME is like Champagne, my Wiim is more like a Vouvray, and my Cambridge Audio is a Cremant D'Alsace.

 

[voodooless]

These people always play the Princess in their ever-popular Pea drama.

Personally, I find my RME is like Champagne, my Wiim is more like a Vouvray, and my Cambridge Audio is a Cremant D'Alsace.

You mean: they all taste the same?

 

[LeonidK]

Enjoy your 'cycling' but please know it has zero to do with determining the truth of audible DAC difference.

I wonder why you bother to even relate such paltry evidence on Audio Science Review after being here for four years. Getting bored?

Not as bored as you lot, each with thousands of messages dispatched and hundreds of DACs evaluated.

 

[krabapple]

I fear you overestimate my tolerance for boredom, stranger; you won't catch me wasting my time 'evaluating' DACs, much less hundreds of them.

I imagine Amir might get a bit bored doing it. They are, after all, essentially commodities, in terms of audible difference. But I can see how from a purely engineering standpoint it can interesting to see how far the signal can be pushed towards 'immaculate'.

Certainly I'm bored with the contributions of should-know-better-by-now members that boil down to 'gol dang it I hear it, it must be real' . But it's not like I go searching for them. They just pop up like critters in that whack-a-mole game.

They're not just boring -- might even be called downright disrespectful, since Amir went to the effort to make an educational video targeting exactly that fallacy.

 

[BDWoody]

Not as bored as you lot, each with thousands of messages dispatched and hundreds of DACs evaluated.

Ok, you can move along now.

 

[gjm]

I believe that all modern DAC chips can be audibly transparent from one another in properly designed audio equipment. Personally, I feel that they should be audibly transparent; however, they can be made to sound different and stray from transparency either intentionally by design or unintentionally from poor design or with specific configuration settings.

This is what I have said.
In terms of measured performance, the DAC chips may be different, but that difference is no below any possible threshold of audibility.

The implementation of the chip - the circuitry around it, the output stage - are likely to be different between manufacturers and even devices. That might lead to an audible difference.

 

[Kiko1974]

I got an SMSL DO 300 EX after getting rid of an SMSL DO 300.
I much prefer the sound of the AKM 4499EX based DO 300 EX to the DO 300, bad implementation of DSD playing of the DO 300 aside.

 

[staticV3]

I got an SMSL DO 300 EX after getting rid of an SMSL DO 300.
I much prefer the sound of the AKM 4499EX based DO 300 EX to the DO 300

I can guarantee that in a controlled listening test, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Cognitive bias makes you prefer one over the other, not physical sound.

 

[Kiko1974]

I can guarantee that in a controlled listening test, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Cognitive bias makes you prefer one over the other, not physical sound.

Believe me, me, my 50 years old hearing and my 8 years of suffering of tinnitus can tell one chip from the other.

 

[johny_2000]

Human ears and eyes are limited in terms of resolution and bandwidth. And they naturally degrade with the age at which the average buyer can afford high-quality equipment. Therefore, the differences between the DAC chips are leveled out. Learn more about the implementation and application features.

 

[johny_2000]

Believe me, me, my 50 years old hearing and my 8 years of suffering of tinnitus can tell one chip from the other.

You are right. But only if you step over significantly. I mean across generations. My latest DAC chip, purchased a few days ago, is about 15 years younger than its predecessor. Either way, I can hear the difference too.

 

[MaxBuck]

Yet another "Believe me, I can hear the difference" claim.

How many of those unsupported, eyes-wide-open claims does that make on this site? Has it reached five figures yet?