You couldn’t hear the difference - Proof! Beautiful video of David Mellor (Audio Masterclass) about sound differences between DAC

[dasdoing]

Fast Car is the Stairway to Heaven of speaker evaluation. people use it because people use it.
Personaly my go-to track is Billy Jean. tells me a lot more.....also because I was a fan as a kid, so I heard it thousand times

 

[ahofer]

It's often said that hard / alt rock is best because of the dense spectrum... I think this is more or less correct for the same reason that pink noise works well.

Symphonic stuff can be useful for the same reason, but it's less common in that genre to have the density that makes it easy to hear problems with FR.

Electronic music is what I hear most in this context.

 

[HalSF]

David Mellor has the results now: 505 Participants!
And I have left a comment, as Davis suggested: Beginn your comment with Your test is invalid because……
So I wrote: „Your test is invalid because you have crushed all my audible Illusions!“

Check also out Alain Pauls (AP Masterings) video (same test, same result, 300 Participants)

I’ll begin with: Their tests are invalid because both of those dudes are making those infinitely annoying mugging faces in their thumbnail portraits that seem mandatory in the Idiocracy of YouTube.

 

[ahofer]

For judging loudspeakers *without* measurement reference, I prefer unamplified music. I know classical recording engineers do a lot of channel mixing, but at least I have a fair aural memory of the correct timbre of the instruments. Good dynamic and frequency range also helps.

Pop studio creations are so highly processed that you are always listening to a huge mix of effects (distortion, compression, harmonic enhancement...) in the recording as well as whatever the system adds.

 

[ahofer]

Technically, both "Has bass" and "have almost no bass" can be true at the same time.

I personally consider this to be quite lean. Maybe it is just my copy.View attachment 446146

Tracy Chapman is practically a bass.

 

[Mart68]

I’ll begin with: Their tests are invalid because both of those dudes are making those infinitely annoying mugging faces in their thumbnail portraits that seem mandatory in the Idiocracy of YouTube.

In fairness to him, I think the bloke with the beard just always looks like that.

 

[Mart68]

Technically, both "Has bass" and "have almost no bass" can be true at the same time.

I personally consider this to be quite lean. Maybe it is just my copy.View attachment 446146

Okay I will have a listen again to that one next. I think I remember bass on it but of course we always think we remember right.

 

[HalSF]

In fairness to him, I think the bloke with the beard just always looks like that.

Fair enough, his visage may simply be permanently imprinted with an expression that conveys intense existential dread. Resting dread face.

 

[ahofer]

Have you ever seen a Devon Rex? Resting B----face.

 

[Mart68]

Okay I will have a listen again to that one next. I think I remember bass on it but of course we always think we remember right.

Okay so it does have bass - bass guitar, quite softly played but goes low. Plus kick drum. My speakers only go down to upper thirties so probably be more on some systems. As mentioned above, it is a very smooth recording. Even cranked up high.

 

[ahofer]

Fast Car is the Stairway to Heaven of speaker evaluation. people use it because people use it.
Personaly my go-to track is Billy Jean. tells me a lot more.....also because I was a fan as a kid, so I heard it thousand times

It is a very monotonous song to begin with. She gives an emotional vocal performance, but it is insufficient to rescue the unbroken tedium of the vocal melody and accompaniment.

 

[MAB]

Ok, then what about this Tracy Chapman track? Is it also used just to identify differences?

Yes, Harman used it in determining preference, along with many other tracks. Because it is so useful for testing for difference, it also follows that it is well suited for preference too. As you can imagine, preference is more difficult study and other factors exist for sure. Difference testing has multiple additional factors too, like if the audience is a bunch of trained listeners or average peeps off the street.

I like Tracy Chapman and have many fond memories of when the album came out so it additionally works for me. It is a great test of my system, like if I move a speaker and want to see changes in bass or imaging, and see if things improved in my space.

 

[HalSF]

It is a very monotonous song to begin with. She gives an emotional vocal performance, but it is insufficient to rescue the unbroken tedium of the vocal melody and accompaniment.

 

[kemmler3D]

Electronic music is what I hear most in this context.

Totally, I use "I can't stop" by flux pavilion because it has a pretty full spectrum lead-bass synth for a lot of the song.

 

[MattHooper]

"In real life", testing gear with music is mostly a waste of time.

I disagree.

I can certainly see why you like to use White Noise for quickly identifying problems.

On the other hand, I have some test tracks that very quickly tell me lots of what I want to know about loudspeaker.

One single track for instance that I’ve been using since the 90s, if I throw that on I instantly know if me and this loudspeaker are going to get along

It’s going to tell me things about the bass response, the clarity, imaging, soundstaging, tone/timbre, how it handles vocal sibilance etc.

I’ve never ever liked a loudspeaker that didn’t play that track the way I like it.

 

[MattHooper]

Pop studio creations are so highly processed that you are always listening to a huge mix of effects (distortion, compression, harmonic enhancement...) in the recording as well as whatever the system adds.

Some of my test tracks are pop songs I love that also have somewhat exaggerated sibilance and even a hint of distortion.

I don’t want a system that covers up those aspects of the recording - I want to know the nature of a recording. But I also don’t want a system that exacerbates those issues either.

If a system shows me everything good and not so good about the recording, but still allows me to enjoy the recording, that’s what I’m looking for. I really don’t want to end up with one of those systems that makes me hunt for “ good recordings” in order to enjoy myself. I’m trying to enjoy as wide a range of music and recording quality as possible on my system.

 

[westsail42]

I will point out while his video provides a link to "everything else" there is no link to this "cheap as chips" DAC/ADC all-in-one he got for $50 or so off Amazon. It seems knowing the equipment used for the test is critical information. Maybe this DAC/ADC does no conversion at all? Or there is no DAC> For all we know there are "no cuts" and his video is all "take my word for it" BS.

My own ears tell me my last external DAC sounded way different than my others. THEREFORE, DACs sound different. But I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'DAC' since this guy doesnt want to clarify.

 

[JiiPee]

I will point out while his video provides a link to "everything else" there is no link to this "cheap as chips" DAC/ADC all-in-one he got for $50 or so off Amazon. It seems knowing the equipment used for the test is critical information. Maybe this DAC/ADC does no conversion at all? Or there is no DAC> For all we know there are "no cuts" and his video is all "take my word for it" BS.

My own ears tell me my last external DAC sounded way different than my others. THEREFORE, DACs sound different. But I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'DAC' since this guy doesnt want to clarify.

First of all, the link he provides shows that he uses Behringer UMC202HD, which costs approx 53 USD just as he says. It is a rather popular audio interface from a well known established manufacturer. You can rest assured that there really is a DAC and an ADC in that box. If You don't, it only cost 53 USD to get one and test it Yourself.

I see You are quite new to this forum, so You might want to have a look at threads about blind abx-type of testing procedures. They will explain You why "My own ears tell me there is a difference..." does not carry much weight on this forum.

 

[ahofer]

All too often “my own ears” is “my own eyes” in disguise.

 

[westsail42]

First of all, the link he provides shows that he uses Behringer UMC202HD, which costs approx 53 USD just as he says. It is a rather popular audio interface from a well known established manufacturer. You can rest assured that there really is a DAC and an ADC in that box. If You don't, it only cost 53 USD to get one and test it Yourself.

I see You are quite new to this forum, so You might want to have a look at threads about blind abx-type of testing procedures. They will explain You why "My own ears tell me there is a difference..." does not carry much weight on this forum.

What's your point? The question is not about ABX testing and I do not need an explanation. This is curiosity about the hardware he vaguely describes but doesn't link to.

The UMC202HD is just an A/D converter not an D/A=>A/D converter a device which he claimed to use in the test. And the link was described as for "making the video" (makes sense) but NOT as the device used in the test. And even if it was, such a device as the UMC2020HD is not one would use to listen to digital music.

So we still do not know this mystery device he used for the test. Or if it even resembles a typical DAC an "audiophile" would use to listen music. We just know that is cheap and on amazon.

And thank You for being so welcoming.