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

[ahofer]

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.

I don't think that's right, it's a full digital interface

Behringer U-Phoria UMC202HD as a DAC

Hello there. Recently I have been thinking to buy a good headphone to enhance the sound quality of the video games that I am playing, and maybe for the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077. I had tried the DT 770 Pro 250 ohms before but due to the lack of power of Scarlett 2i2, I couldn't get what I hoped...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic about "welcoming", but all he suggested was you look around. My own orientation to Newbies is here:

People at ASR tend to view good sound as (for electronics) fidelity to signal, and speaker output conforming to Toole and Olive's research. If you like the sound distorted, less accurate, or prefer some other speaker presentation, that's fine, but own it, don't pretend a) lesser fidelity is greater accuracy or b) there must be something wrong with these standards because of your personal preferences or c)you can hear something that can't be measured. There's no need to rationalize your tastes.

Most of us also believe that the way to test for *strictly audible* differences is by properly executed and level-matched double blind procedures, or through taking measurements and recording a result above audible thresholds. The fact that you noticed a difference outside of these conditions simply isn't evidence of a difference in signal quality at your ears. Even if it is a difference in the signal, as opposed to some sighted bias, it is likely to be a difference in amplitude rather than something more subtle.

Finally, all of the above mistakes are simply human. No human being is so "experienced" or "trained', or "sensitive" as to be able to make sighted comparisons objectively.

 

[Barry_Sound]

Dacs are measured at their output which includes of course the output stage,
Keith

Recorded at the output stage? How? From analog out to another A/D converter? Where is it explained in the video?

 

[Purité Audio]

Measured at their output.
Keith

 

[Barry_Sound]

Measured at their output.
Keith

Because you say so or … ?

 

[kemmler3D]

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.

I also have about a dozen tracks that I use as a "test suite" which serve a similar purpose, but if I only had a minute or two to evaluate something I'd go straight for sweeps and PN.

 

[solderdude]

Recorded at the output stage? How? From analog out to another A/D converter? Where is it explained in the video?

In case of the UMC202HD the analog output can either be the TRS outputs or the headphone out (which is really crappy).

 

[ahofer]

Since I can see where this is going.

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Barry_Sound]

Since I can see where this is going.

Listen and choose the 8th generation digital copy.

Each of these zip files will open into three wav files. One is labeled Reference, one is A and one is B. These are 30 second snippets of full songs. The originals were from CD so all 44.1 khz and 16 bit. Either A or B has been thru 8 generations of DA to AD copying. The other is identical...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The problem with the test in the video is that both devices went through the same A/D conversion stage which could potentially be a bottleneck. Has anyone ever tried an in-room studio recording of different DACs? I think that would put an end to a lot of discussions. Place a professional recording microphone in the listening position and then compare nothing more and nothing less than what the microphone has recorded.

 

[JiiPee]

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.

That thing has TRS analog output connectors for listening digitally recorded sound from Your computer (as well as analog headphone output as solderdude pointed out). Common logic dictates that it means such a device has to perform digital-to-analog conversion.

In my opinion, common logic also dictates that when we are provided a link to a page that is supposed to offer a device with both A/D and D/A converters at price 53 USD, and - lo and behold - when we open that link, there is such a device at just the promised price, chances are that it really is the device that the poster of the link meant.

My reference to blind testing was not meant to be offence/insult. It was just meant to point out that the prevailing ethos on this forum is that only properly controlled blind testing is regarded as reliable proof. There are far too many threads that have descended to fruitles back and forth argumentation, when this is not taken into account, or dismissed on purpose.

Sarcasm or not, You are welcome anyway.

 

[Mart68]

The problem with the test in the video is that both devices went through the same A/D conversion stage which could potentially be a bottleneck. Has anyone ever tried an in-room studio recording of different DACs? I think that would put an end to a lot of discussions. Place a professional recording microphone in the listening position and then compare nothing more and nothing less than what the microphone has recorded.

How tiny would any differences have to be for the ADC to be a bottleneck?

 

[ahofer]

The problem with the test in the video is that both devices went through the same A/D conversion stage which could potentially be a bottleneck. Has anyone ever tried an in-room studio recording of different DACs? I think that would put an end to a lot of discussions. Place a professional recording microphone in the listening position and then compare nothing more and nothing less than what the microphone has recorded.

Recorded HOW? Also, microphones are transducers, and we really can hear the difference between transducers.

Lots more tests to be found.

Catalogue of blind tests

I thought this thread on Head-Fi was a valiant effort to put together blind tests that have been performed over the years. Given that there have been many more (I'm thinking Archimago's tests, among others), it would be fun to open source a complete list...

www.audiosciencereview.com

It is also worth considering the *lack* of tests showing people actually finding an audible difference. I know of one, which is over at Archimago:

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART I: Devices Unveiled!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

It's not quite as veil-ripping as the audiophile community might hope.

 

[Purité Audio]

Too ridiculous.
Keith

 

[Robbo99999]

Is it this Sean Olive chart?
View attachment 446018

SoundStage! Access | SoundStageAccess.com (GoodSound.com) - Dr. Sean Olive on 35 Years of “Fast Car”

Of the female pop-rock, Tracy Chapman's 'Fast Car' was the song studied with the highest score for evaluating reproduction.

People often misinterpret this to mean it's because other genre require different reproduction qualities... Not true, other genre have lower performance of the listener to hear actual differences in reproduction. The best test signal for determining reproduction performance is pink noise.

I'm not sure that that's translatable to being the best tracks to use to listen to differences between DACS, but then again I can't tell you which tracks or types of sounds would best be suited to distinguish DACS, not that I expect people to be able to do it with well measuring DACS. Yes, if the DACS have frequency response differences then maybe they'd be good tracks, but that tends to not be the problem or the differences between them. Anyway, we kinda know you can't hear well measuring DACS so anyway.

 

[Barry_Sound]

How tiny would any differences have to be for the ADC to be a bottleneck?

Any A/D conversion introduces a filter into the testing setup and we are not given any information on software, device, sampling rate, noise-shaping, etc. And we have an experimenter with a strong expectation bias towards "no difference." The whole thing is flawed and the opposite of a blind test, it´s a self-fulfilling scenario.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

My favorite track for listening tests is the first track on the album "The Violincello in the 17th Century," "Canzone XVI" by Frescobaldi with Anner Bylsma on cello. I've listened to it many times and it captures the attack very clearly. To be fair, it's my subjective preference. Orchestral or other large ensemble music in other genres is also a good test because it offers the opportunity to look for detail resolution.

 

[danadam]

The problem with the test in the video is that both devices went through the same A/D conversion stage which could potentially be a bottleneck. Has anyone ever tried an in-room studio recording of different DACs? I think that would put an end to a lot of discussions. Place a professional recording microphone in the listening position and then compare nothing more and nothing less than what the microphone has recorded.

So the A/D conversion of electrical analog signal is meh, but conversion of that same signal to acoustic signal (through speakers), back to electrical analog signal (through a microphone) and finally its A/D conversion to digital will somehow put an end to discussions? I'm not sure I follow.

 

[danadam]

The problem with the test in the video is that both devices went through the same A/D conversion stage which could potentially be a bottleneck.

Oh, and what do you mean here? AFAIU none of those videos do tests between devices. In each video the test it between some original digital file and that same file that went through DA/AD conversion. So if the AD conversion is really a bottleneck, then it should actually make it easier for the participants to get the right answers.

 

[ahofer]

Any A/D conversion introduces a filter into the testing setup and we are not given any information on software, device, sampling rate, noise-shaping, etc. And we have an experimenter with a strong expectation bias towards "no difference." The whole thing is flawed and the opposite of a blind test, it´s a self-fulfilling scenario.

Perhaps get all the facts right before jumping to that conclusion.

However, one test is indeed only one test. I'd encourage you to look at the many others and consider what a reasonable person would infer from the incredibly well-supported null hypothesis (no audible difference between DACs meeting a baseline engineering standard), combined with established audiological science describing what humans can and cannot hear (with their ears only). Truly, the evidence is overwhelming, if you care to look.

I just gave you the only somewhat scientific evidence to the contrary that I know of.

If you don't acknowledge these things, your interactions here will be frustrating and unproductive, and not just for you.

PS - I sort of *hope* we can identify audible differences, just because it would be interesting. That's why I highlighted the Archimago result. But I try not to confuse my hopes with the low probabilities based on available science and information.

 

[westsail42]

That thing has TRS analog output connectors for listening digitally recorded sound from Your computer (as well as analog headphone output as solderdude pointed out). Common logic dictates that it means such a device has to perform digital-to-analog conversion.

In my opinion, common logic also dictates that when we are provided a link to a page that is supposed to offer a device with both A/D and D/A converters at price 53 USD, and - lo and behold - when we open that link, there is such a device at just the promised price, chances are that it really is the device that the poster of the link meant.

My reference to blind testing was not meant to be offence/insult. It was just meant to point out that the prevailing ethos on this forum is that only properly controlled blind testing is regarded as reliable proof. There are far too many threads that have descended to fruitles back and forth argumentation, when this is not taken into account, or dismissed on purpose.

Sarcasm or not, You are welcome anyway.

The device is basically a microphone A/D converter (makes sense to use one to create videos like he does). He lists links for EVERYTHING he uses for his videos. Teleprompters, microphones, monitors. Even what he uses for hair care. No link to say device he used for the "test". You are making assumptions. The questions is about equipment used. The video author makes no mention (except your "link") is being ambiguous at best, even when faced with a direct question in the video comments, the author does not answer. Perhaps ambiguity is his intention, if for aything but to generate activity such as this thread.

I understand blind A/B testing and the principle behind it.

But as a music listener, this test is irrelevant. If the goal is to point out "you cannot tell the difference between DACs" then it is pure BS depending on what you call a "DAC". I am not going to be listening to music through a mic A/D converter. And of all the two-channel "DACs" intended for music, take any two and you will probably hear a difference (design and gain stages make a difference, chips? no so much, but I have had my share of "bad" sounding "DAC" purchases). This is what I suspect MOST on this forum are interested in. Not some 48+Khz sampling pro audio device.

No offence or insult taken. It is just irritating that so many assumptions are made based on a post of two or three sentences (and how "new" I am to this forum). Attempting a broader view/understanding of the world may help (no gaurantee), but I am not here to give advice.

In any case the video is useless as far as I am concerned.

 

[westsail42]

Too ridiculous.
Keith

Well, that settles it.