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

[DSJR]

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

Not so sure and with respect. Tinnitus removes a huge amount of audible dynamic range to the listener (first hand sufferer here!) and my wife can easily hear things going on in the background that are forever lost to me, even with hearing aids giving estimated 20dB or so boost at 5 - 7kHz or so and I believe any male over 50 will have a limited hf range over 13kHz I'm certain.

My 2012 dac for a fiver matchbox 'sounds' absolutely fine on red book material, limited mainly by a lower output. I kind of felt/imagined it wasn't quite as 'clean' as my other digital sources and the Fiio Taishan I first replaced it with had, as well as a more contemporary output level, what I felt was a slightly cleaner tone (no proper comparisons made so ignore accordingly and technically, not sure how much 'better' the taishan actually is/was). The SU1 currently in this second rig just gets on with it and as I can hear into recordings easily and hear production differences, I've stopped any form of subjective analysis as at my stage of life and away from the industry now, I find it boring to be honest Life's too effin' short frankly

 

[KSTR]

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

Depends on how such a test is conducted. Some tests are designed to fail right away, even if there "is something".
If you mean by controlled listening test something similar like suggested here in post #8,223 then yes, it's not going to work this way.

 

[staticV3]

Depends on how such a test is conducted. Some tests are designed to fail right away, even if there "is something".

By controlled, I mean:

-Same data being sent to each DAC. Test subject can choose music.
-Nyquist filter matched as best as possible in phase, impulse, and frequency response
-Output voltage matched electrically
-Test subject can't see which DAC is playing

 

[KSTR]

By controlled, I mean:

-Same data being sent to each DAC. Test subject can choose music.
-Nyquist filter matched as best as possible in phase, impulse, and frequency response
-Output voltage matched electrically
-Test subject can't see which DAC is playing

Yes, those are mandatory requirements, no arguments.

But I see already some sketchy nomenclature here. We test for a phenomenon but we do not test a person. Any kind of test stress must be strictly avoided, there must not be any sensation of a "challenge" going on. I know it's a natural human reaction to put the messenger to test especially if bold claims are made but we should strictly test for the message alone.

I think we all remember class mates at school who were actually brilliant in mathematics and logic, true natural talents, but always failed miserable in the tests and exams.
Same thing with many musicians who can't shine when they know they are actually being recorded, some can't even tolerate somebody else in the room or nearby when they are practicing or just playing for recreational fun.

This extreme sensitivity to "set and setting" has to be handled properly in listening tests when it's about subtle details. The other major part is sufficient preparation and training.

 

[krabapple]

Yes, those are mandatory requirements, no arguments.

But I see already some sketchy nomenclature here. We test for a phenomenon but we do not test a person. Any kind of test stress must be strictly avoided, there must not be any sensation of a "challenge" going on. I know it's a natural human reaction to put the messenger to test especially if bold claims are made but we should strictly test for the message alone.

Nonsense. This isn't basic academic research into first principles, using naive subjects who'll need training.

A 50-year-old audiophile already claims he can hear the difference between these DACs, no problem, sighted, even while afflicted with tinnitus for 8 years.

You're saying he will now suddenly claim hearing-debilitating stress or 'sensation of a challenge' because he can't rely on his eyes?

That all by itself would tell me his claim is bogus.

There is no need to bend over backwards to optimize sensitivity for him.

I think we all remember class mates at school who were actually brilliant in mathematics and logic, true natural talents, but always failed miserable in the tests and exams.
Same thing with many musicians who can't shine when they know they are actually being recorded, some can't even tolerate somebody else in the room or nearby when they are practicing or just playing for recreational fun.

This extreme sensitivity to "set and setting" has to be handled properly in listening tests when it's about subtle details. The other major part is sufficient preparation and training.

By the claimant's own admission, this isn't about subtle details.

 

[olieb]

Yes, those are mandatory requirements, no arguments.

But I see already some sketchy nomenclature here. We test for a phenomenon but we do not test a person. Any kind of test stress must be strictly avoided, there must not be any sensation of a "challenge" going on. I know it's a natural human reaction to put the messenger to test especially if bold claims are made but we should strictly test for the message alone.

I think we all remember class mates at school who were actually brilliant in mathematics and logic, true natural talents, but always failed miserable in the tests and exams.
Same thing with many musicians who can't shine when they know they are actually being recorded, some can't even tolerate somebody else in the room or nearby when they are practicing or just playing for recreational fun.

This extreme sensitivity to "set and setting" has to be handled properly in listening tests when it's about subtle details. The other major part is sufficient preparation and training.

While this of course is all correct the claims regularly come in the form of "I can hear the differences (not you)" or "night and day" and so on.
These claims should be a bit more robust in testing than your proposals for a thorough and sensitive approach.
The stress comes naturally with these claims the moment a test is due. That is in the nature of the (bold) claims more than in the idea of checking.

 

[KSTR]

You're saying he will now suddenly feel hearing-debilitating stress or 'sensation of a challenge' because he can't rely on his eyes?

Obviously, this is not what I said and I know that you know.

 

[krabapple]

Obviously, this is not what I said and I know that you know.

What you said:

We test for a phenomenon but we do not test a person. Any kind of test stress must be strictly avoided, there must not be any sensation of a "challenge" going on.

You also say a subject needs 'sufficient preparation and training'.

These provisos do not apply in this case. Our subject here asserts great confidence that he can perform the discrimination task already. We need only apply the routine controls that staticV3 listed (I would add, randomizing order of presentation)

What sketchy nomenclature do you refer to?

 

[KSTR]

While this of course is all correct the claims regularly come in the form of "I can hear the differences (not you)" or "night and day" and so on.

I fully agree that there are many questionable claims like that, typically coming from audiophiles with some sort of narcissistic personality. And these claims and the discussion about them drowns out the more modest ones which might be worth further investigation.

 

[pma]

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.

You may try Topping D10s vs. Topping DX5

https://pmacura.cz/DX5_D10s.zip

For a valid result, ABX report is to be attached (Foobar2000 abx). And it can be done without any stress at home conditions .

 

[krabapple]

You may try Topping D10s vs. Topping DX5

https://pmacura.cz/DX5_D10s.zip

For a valid result, ABX report is to be attached (Foobar2000 abx). And it can be done without any stress at home conditions .

We may, but save us some time and tell us what measurably causes this audible difference.

 

[colourcode]

I'd love to see high end audiophiles do blind tests on DACs and headphone amps.

Doubt many would. This world is very similar to that of wine.

The more appraised something is the better people think it sounds and tastes. Unless it's completely our of their comfort zone.

 

[CedarX]

I'd love to see high end audiophiles do blind tests on DACs and headphone amps.

Doubt many would. This world is very similar to that of wine.

The more appraised something is the better people think it sounds and tastes. Unless it's completely out of their comfort zone.

That will never happen for what I think you mean by “high-end audiophiles”: that group is characterized by a belief that their hearing and judgment is superior to anything else (particularly measurement) and anybody else (particularly others not claiming to be audiophiles or having less investment in their audio gear than they do).

The only thing a forum like ASR can do is to repeat over and over, explain, test… hammer… the same science-based evidences hopping that eventually the mass opinion becomes better informed.

 

[Mnyb]

That will never happen for what I think you mean by “high-end audiophiles”: that group is characterized by a belief that their hearing and judgment is superior to anything else (particularly measurement) and anybody else (particularly others not claiming to be audiophiles or having less investment in their audio gear than they do).

The only thing a forum like ASR can do is to repeat over and over, explain, test… hammer… the same science-based evidences hopping that eventually the mass opinion becomes better informed.

It’s all makes sense to repeat another tidbit.
Many of us here ( for example me ) are recovering audiophooles who spent decades actually believing all this woo woo and have done it all , we had all the cables , listening to different DAC’s CD players et al

So I probably had more audiophile cred than many whiners that ends up in this tread claiming the usual night and day differences and lifted veils .
I never graduated to dirt boxes and magic stones so I left before the final level

 

[Purité Audio]

I'd love to see high end audiophiles do blind tests on DACs and headphone amps.

Doubt many would. This world is very similar to that of wine.

The more appraised something is the better people think it sounds and tastes. Unless it's completely our of their comfort zone.

You may as well ask retailers to conduct unsighted comparisons between half million pound Wadax and a Wiim it is never going to happen, although it would be great!.
Keith

 

[colourcode]

I do believe we're on the same page here. If that wasn't clear

Converted myself back to reasonably-fi setups after A-B testing an ancient budget Technics amp with my Moon one and was hard pressed to hear the difference. Quite modest in comparison to other setups of course.

Though, the one thing no one can deny - VU meters make everything better.

 

[AdrianusG]

You may as well ask retailers to conduct unsighted comparisons between half million pound Wadax and a Wiim it is never going to happen, although it would be great!.
Keith

"There were several reasons why I was extremely eager to hear this system. First and foremost, given the high price of Wadax digital gear, I wanted to get a sense of what the Wadax Atlantis Reference DAC ($166,420), Wadax Atlantis Reference Server ($68,800), Wadax Atlantis Reference Transport $115,000), and Wadax Atlantis Reference PSU ($52,700) might sound like"

Yeah , i don't see this stuff ending up at Amir's place anytime soon, but you never know

Oh, and there were also 4 cables used, 20.400$ each, which lifted the final veils.

 

[Ze Frog]

In theory they should sound the same, and for the most part between certain types and vendor they do sound the same.

There are differences though which I can't really understand why. For instance I prefer ESS chips over AKM, for my ears the ESS has a somehow more vivid upper midrange and treble sound that seems more etched somehow. A lot of people prefer AKM because they feel it's smoother, and my limited experience with both tells me the AKM is smoother, but I appreciate the more anylitical sound, not exaggerated or glassy perse, but some nice energy going on in the upper ranges. Weirdly this only really applies when running ribbons for me, ESS with domes I don't like, but then domes I think can't quite match the speed of the ribbon. Not really sure of the science involved, but definitely cases where different chips or speakers make quite the difference. Really though, all measuring flat it is strange.

 

[DonR]

In theory they should sound the same, and for the most part between certain types and vendor they do sound the same.

There are differences though which I can't really understand why. For instance I prefer ESS chips over AKM, for my ears the ESS has a somehow more vivid upper midrange and treble sound that seems more etched somehow. A lot of people prefer AKM because they feel it's smoother, and my limited experience with both tells me the AKM is smoother, but I appreciate the more anylitical sound, not exaggerated or glassy perse, but some nice energy going on in the upper ranges. Weirdly this only really applies when running ribbons for me, ESS with domes I don't like, but then domes I think can't quite match the speed of the ribbon. Not really sure of the science involved, but definitely cases where different chips or speakers make quite the difference. Really though, all measuring flat it is strange.

Without a proper blind test, you can never be sure if the differences you hear are not products of bias from your brain.

 

[majingotan]

^ Sighted bias. Somehow we always fall for it. I have single blind A/Bed my Schiit Yggdrasil MiB (~119 dB SINAD with Ti DAC11001B R2R chip) against JDS Element III (~112 dB SINAD with ESS multibit-delta sigma) on Balanced to ZMF Homage (118 dB SINAD amp) and ZMF Atrium Open. Neither myself and my friend could tell the difference when none of us are looking at the system!

In theory they should sound the same, and for the most part between certain types and vendor they do sound the same.

There are differences though which I can't really understand why. For instance I prefer ESS chips over AKM, for my ears the ESS has a somehow more vivid upper midrange and treble sound that seems more etched somehow. A lot of people prefer AKM because they feel it's smoother, and my limited experience with both tells me the AKM is smoother, but I appreciate the more anylitical sound, not exaggerated or glassy perse, but some nice energy going on in the upper ranges. Weirdly this only really applies when running ribbons for me, ESS with domes I don't like, but then domes I think can't quite match the speed of the ribbon. Not really sure of the science involved, but definitely cases where different chips or speakers make quite the difference. Really though, all measuring flat it is strange.