The practical constraints placed on us from being an internationally dispersed community of hobbyists, makes properly scientifically controlled group experimentation extremely difficult. Even a single hobbyist's experiments can be very challenging in terms of their scientific validity, because proper scientific methodology can easily be time-consuming, and costly to perform.
Regarding D/A converter operation type in this listening comparison, yes, the lowest ranked (#6 and #7) DACs are both delta-sigma Sabre chip based. However, one of the higher ranked DACs (#4) is delta-sigma PCM1794A based.
Slow roll-off mode OS filters are frequently identified as subjectively more natural sounding than sharp roll-off mode OS filters which, of course, does not necessarily mean that slow roll-off OS sounds equivalent to NOS. I think that the subjective issue with typical OS isn't the roll-off slope, it's rather one of inadequately performed OS via typical D/A chip-resident interpolation filters. Externally performed OS, performed via software running on a PC/Mac, however, does seem to essentially sound the same as NOS.
You are missing the bigger picture. See my reply to bohrok2610 below.
One can surely draw any conclusion from any listening comparisons. From subjective listening test, it just becomes a subjective conclusion. The problem is when some people try to blur that distinction (withholding the details of test method) for their gain, i.e. business.
How was the listening test conducted? Please share the details so that readers can figure out what kind of conclusion they are reading about.
Right and it's not necessary for DACs. Why? Because it's already a matured technology and has been for over 20 years, unless you read / listen to DAC sellers. You will also get the same from boutique cable sellers, shakti stone seller, Bybee quantum purifier, ... etc.
I friendly hint to you is then to hold on to your "teasers" a bit or you will find yourself being added to the "max headroom" group by readers here
I am not one with a desire to save a “Little House on the Prairie” family being forced into eating spam because daddy was tricked by some charlatan into purchasing an Air Force One , Dartzeel electronics, CheePo Mk 1 DAC, Wilson Audio WAMM Master Chronosonic (the Cessaro Horn Acoustics Omega 1 wasn’t carried by the dealer), a Steinway model D (bulk purchase discounted) and a variety of blindfolds. The blindfolds and the Steinway being sold to daddy in the event that a need arose to conduct a family double blind test for him to defend his purchase to his family because the local Mennonite community had used pictures of FFT’s being held against the windows of the little house, having been in clear view of Caroline, Carrie, Laura, Mary and Lassie while they were eating their left over Spam from the night before.
I enjoy reading the totality of the dialog as can consist of opinion upon auditory perceptions alone, being presented by Markw4 and many others willing to do so to the maximum extent they want to reveal, for whatever reason. Charlatan’s have to live too.
Last edited:
Dunno. I get PMs now and then from lurkers who are interested but aren't up to speed on some of the technical discussion.
You’re making the argument of a pure subjectivist. Okay, fine, let’s see, however, if your purchase decisions have been consistent with that philosophy. Since you conclude that DACS are a mature technology, then you must also certainly conclude that power amps, and preamps are mature technologit’s. As such, they all, necessarily, sound the same, just as you assert for DACs. Assuming that the specifications of a the component exceeds the detection threshold of human hearing, something easy to achieve. Then, the only ratonal difference among amplification components are cost, and power output for power amps. Which necessarily means that your home system is based around some mass-market A/V receiver, or integrated amp.
A/V audio components have long featured performance specifications beyond reproach, so, purchasing anything more than one of those would be succumbing to seller’s hype, and therefore a foolish expenditure according to your logic. Further, you did not listen to your A/V amplification component before you purchased it, because the specifications completely informed you of how it would sound. Which was, that it would sound exactly like every other likewise specified amplification component.
So, please share which mass-market A/V component is your system based around?
Super slow roll-off filter in AK449x DACs is actually "digital filter bypass mode" so it should be more or less equivalent to NOS. AKM uses quite strange names for filters.
Yes, agreed. If the OS FIR-interpolation unit is bypassed, then it’s equivalent to NOS. This is the approach Doede utilizes in his PCM1794A based DAC.
@Ken Newton , your requirement (to Evenharmonics) does not make much sense. The correct question would be: “show me a set of measurements of your system”.
Of what use are measurements which show performance beyond human perception, other than that they should render every other factor, except for cost, irrelevant to a purchase decision. Since I’m told by Evenharmonics that DACs are a mature technology, then amplification must be more so. Which logically means that one has purchased the least expensive A/V component (within the desired power output) as the center of their audio system. Yes?
Assuming that one takes the route of purchasing a finished component, rather than scratch building one, just for the entrainment of that activity.
Last edited:
Why did you leave out speakers? Also, who stated that they all, necessarily, sound the same? Quote please.
Speakers were left out for reasons which should be obvious. They are the least technically mature among audio components. Exhibiting performance which is certainly not better than human detection thresholds.
Please, stop dodging. If you’re not suggesting that DACs sound the same because DAC technology has been mature for 20 years as you say, then what, exactly, are you suggesting? Be specific, and clear, so that there’s no misinterpretation.
Even amplifiers have frequency response modulated by speaker complex impedance, may be current limited into impedance dips, etc. So the “always sounds same” of course does not work. On the other hand, all the subjective stories and impressions are totally pointless without a properly done controlled DBT. Measurements are the only thing we may compare in a long distance on-line communication.
Thus the most critical component (+ room acoustics) in sound reproduction that needs the most attention and funds. You wanted to leave that out, eh. That revealed your understanding of sound reproduction.
Try a search of this thread on "audibly transparent".
Yes, agreed, there are complex interactions among physical parameters which are not revealed in a typical list of specifications. Since the specification sheet therefore does not necessarily serve as a reliably predictive proxy for the component’s subjective sound, the sound should also be auditioned by ear. This has been my point.
While non-scientifically controlled subjective reports, certainly, are not determinative for every other potential listener, neither are they necessarily pointless. The subjective assessments of other listeners can help us to create a short-list of components to targert for audition among the vast pool of choices on the market. This can be especially helpful when, from experience, we’ve discovered that some certain reviewer has assessments with which we often agree.
I certainly wish there were some commonly provided set of metrics which were reliably predictive of how a given component would subjectively sound. It would make the lives of all audio component consumers so much easier, and thereby enhance audio component equipment sales. As you pointed out, however, some component behaviors have to be heard to be detected, lacking subjectively accurate, comprehensively predictive performance metrics.
Last edited:
I was wondering when you would attempt to pull out the - I understand more about sound reproduction than you, card. Which, only betrays an attempt by you to escape some uncomfortable questioning, most of which you’ve not yet answered. Don’t think that has gone unnoticed, I’m not so easily lead off track. I’m still waiting to read about which A/V receiver your home system is based around.
Sure, it's still about this one:
"Even the cheap ones are audibly transparent...."
A nice example of projection on your side.
Basically, it is very unlikely for a human to be unbiased, so nothing wrong with it, bias might lead to questions but in the end usage of the scientific toolbox guards against fooling yourself. (You know, the old Feynman line "the easiest person to fool is oneself")
Your bias let you guess, my view on some listening tests must be based on the (alleged) fact that these tests don't "support my business narrative".
And, as you obviously like to fool yourself, you don't care about any proof, but instead, you presented your guess as fact.
Sorry, but your question needs to be more specific, and please think about what the purpose of sensory experiments is.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.