Whatever the difference is between the different converters, it must be measurable because typically different people acting independently all have similar comments about specific devices. It's a question of measuring the right aspects of the converters. For example I have not seen anyone in this thread commenting about the D1 being the opposite of bass strong. It's either that or "I can't hear any difference". Makes one think, there should be something about the way it reproduces the low frequencies in relation to the treble that makes is sound a certain way to some listeners. I heard smooth treble as compared to the other two CS43131 based DACs I had on hand right away. And went on record that the low mids and bass in the D1 have a quality to them that is not present in the other two. I only read through the rest of the thread later and noticed that some posters have a similar impression.
Blind tests have their own problems. I participated in a few and have my own suspicions as to why they become so difficult for the participants. I don't know if there was a scientific study that looked at audio perception under different conditions, but there should be.
A blind test is only stressful for those who think they need to hear a difference.
But there are many examples, even in scientifically conducted tests, that deliver very clear results that can be repeated as often as needed.
If you swap the devices using a trick, so that the tester thinks they know which device they're listening to, then the sound impression remains the same as before the swap.
That really says everything you need to know about it, doesn't it?
In the same way, there are statements and examples where, due to an error, the device wasn't switched to another device at all, or the other device wasn't even connected.
Nevertheless, the testers repeatedly heard the differences between the devices.
These tests were also deliberately conducted with the same results.
With these online reports, you forget that the testers aren't testing these devices alone, but in a chain with other devices and their speakers. There are usually enough possibilities and reasons for perceived differences, if any exist.
By the way, I have another example from a project where we developed something for a wine tasting society. Completely blind tastings were introduced some time ago. People in the industry went berserk because they were against it.
Interestingly, the results were completely different, even among the same tasters, depending on whether the tasters knew which wine they were drinking or not.
Additional tests with swapped wine labels also showed that most tasters are extremely influenced by the label.
Since these blinded tests were introduced, the chemical analyses have also been in perfect agreement with the test results.
Strange, isn't it? Two completely different areas, yet absolutely comparable results.
By the way, we experienced the same thing in the photography industry when we had people evaluate the bokeh of lenses in images.
Completely different results, depending on whether the lens used was known or not.
The results without knowledge of the lens used were, incidentally, extremely consistent across several thousand testers.
The results with knowledge of the lens used were completely confusing and did not allow any conclusions to be drawn.
The whole thing led to a minor war of faith between specialist editors and professional photographers at the time, but it was quickly over when these people themselves conducted the blinded comparison and got exactly the same results as the masses.
That's three cases of people exhibiting the same behavior on completely different topics. And this applies to hearing, sight and taste.
Unbelievable, isn't it?
