Note that the RevB has NO input from NWAVguy and shares none one of the same key chips. BUT it still has measured performance that I would mark as 'transparent'.
Yes I know that 🙂 Too bad he disappeared and could not revise things himself. Still I think it will compete with the better of them out there for not much $, but guess I will see/hear when it arrives 🙂
It is actually: "I should have mentioned that". Try HAVE instead of OF then I can also understand frog.
Last edited:
there vs. here
is there a bar? ....is sufficient
or
is there a bar around here?
I'm lucky to have 2 Aussie kids... when things get tough.
Nick
Trying to get back to the subject in hand
:
Here is a comprehensive review (with lab results) for my choice of DAC the 'Leema Elements DAC' -
which I chose at length, against six other well reviewed DACs. (the likes of Benchmark DAC 1, Audiolab M-DAC, PS Audio digital link III, etc.).
It was a relief and a delight to findout that the unit actually measured well too, after my purchase.
The review is in Greek, so use google to automatically translate it for you:
REVIEW
Leema's page on the product:
PAGE
:
Here is a comprehensive review (with lab results) for my choice of DAC the 'Leema Elements DAC' -
which I chose at length, against six other well reviewed DACs. (the likes of Benchmark DAC 1, Audiolab M-DAC, PS Audio digital link III, etc.).
It was a relief and a delight to findout that the unit actually measured well too, after my purchase.
The review is in Greek, so use google to automatically translate it for you:
REVIEW
Leema's page on the product:
PAGE
This is strange and at the same time very interesting.
The Xonar Essence is using good onboard regulator, caps and opamps (LME/MUSES). The DAC chip has much better capability (at least 127dB DNR).
The Wolfson, my prediction is using cheap opamp (most probably JRC4558) and of course cheaper regulator (probably LD1117) and caps. The DAC chip has lesser capability (103dB).
When they sound the same, usually because the bottleneck is NOT the chip (most probably that the actual DNR is less than 103dB).
But I like Wolfson because of they attention to the out-of-band noise (digital filter). If the opamp is made equal, what will be the result? (Because the Xonar has opamp slot, you can just put equal opamps there)...
If they still sound "the same", may be the computer environment IS the bottleneck...
There are strong indications that the human auditory system is the bottleneck. There are all sorts of things you can change in a signal which are easily measurable, but which will not be picked up by our neck mounted sensor pod. Sharp notches, moderate amounts of distortion, phase shifts, a fair amount of noise, sousa bands at -/- 60dB, all of this can be measured in a signal, but not perceived.
The only handphone player that gave me a goosebump upon first listening is the iPhone4. Many people rated other players (including the old iPod) higher but to my ears this iPhone4 is special.
I tracked the DAC chip, hoping that I could find it in ordinary DAC/CD/DVD player (so I can optimize its implementation), but it seems the Cirrus Logic chip is dedicated for handphones.
Yes, that's possible. Or the speaker (because IIRC OS is using low quality speakers) but people tend to have good headphone, which is usually better than their speakers.
Although that seems to be reasonable, in fact even quite large differences render undetectable in tests, see for example the famous "gorilla experiment".
30 - ~50% (depending on the specific experiment) of the participants do not notice the "gorilla" .
Attachments
Testing is avoided like the plague by many Audiophiles, why... well from many years reading comments on various forums my view is Arrogance... they will not admit that hearing and perception is fallible, ears are the best instrument etc. and most of these are middle aged men who's hearing is sub par anyway... Recently I have become to despair of this hobby and the way it is going, so many are denying science and facts and dragging audio reproduction into ridicule....
After the test did anyone claim that the 'gorilla' was not in fact present? Did anyone claim to see the 'gorilla' when it was not present? It is well known that our eyes, like our ears, are easily fooled. A good analogue for audio tests would be to get people to rate photographs, but sometimes knowing and sometimes not knowing what camera or system was used to produce them. I suspect it might be found that photo ratings were related to the brand or cost of the camera, but more strongly when that was known to the participants.Jakob2 said:
Surely the problem with audio is not that big differences are being missed in tests, but that small or zero differences are being claimed as "night and day" or "wife in the kitchen" in sighted tests but not being heard in unsighted tests.
I am sorry, but your argument was "if easy to hear it would not remain easily undetected in tests" and imho the "gorilla" test (and similar tests wrt inattentional deafness) show, that your conclusion is not backed up by the facts.
Doing controlled tests is a very good idea, but just doing something "blind (or double blind)" is not sufficient.
If the difference the gorilla makes really qualifies for beeing described as "night and day" might be questionable, but in my book it is a quite large difference.
You are absolutely right, every human sense is easily fooled, but that holds true for both possible errors, but, as illustrated by your argument, "nonbelievers" tend to concentrate on only one error, which is (technically spoken) equivalent to neglecting Beta errors.
Arrogance?? Strange, I don't see it like that. I see many reasons but one thing I want to mention right now is that they feel that the nature of the challenge is not trying to find out the truth but trying to prove that somebody is wrong (a conclusion has been made even before the experiment begin). So it doesn't benefit both party, only one.
There is also another angle to this.
To detect differences, imaginary or real, does not make for better or worse sound, it is our preferences or palate that dictates it.
Same as in your photograph example, an over sharp or vivid colour picture, may win with some people, when in reality it is false!
But it does not matter, people pay with their own palate, so if they think the vivid-coloured over-sharp picture taken by camera A is better, that camera gets sold.
In HiFi, almost all of the music we hear through them, is to some degree falsified at recording, mixing and equalisation, there may even not be an original to compare the results to (i.e, 'studio Albums').
To some, those systems that are falsely over-sharp and vivid in their colour may win with some, and you can't argue with the listener. A good example of this can be found in 'Tube Sound' that so many chase after. 'Tube Sound' at its best is just another effect or distortion.
Equally classing what we don't understand (or refuse to accept) as yet another 'effect' or 'distortion' is also invalid.
Just because we did not detect it with our 'common lab measurement' results does not mean it is not there.
Eyes can detect colour, contrast in 3D environment, a black'n'white camera from the 40's could not compare to the human eye, to argue 'it is not in the picture' so it does not exist.
Hifi, stereo imagery are but illusions, illusion requires a human audience, together they make the illusion work, lab equipments can not detect illusions.
We are getting better at testing equipments, but we have not perfected it yet.
All of our testing criteria has come to being, because the ears detected something, so the engineers found a way of measuring it, afterwards.
But as I have said it before, if it sounds better to enough ears, then it does.
The proof of the pudding, is in the eating.
Everyone have beliefs, including a belief to have no belief. Audiophiles or not are no different. But human react more or less similar when they feel/are under attack. It is like insecurity. The higher the insecurity the more incapable he is to accept "defeat".
It is unfair to say that the audiophiles have this insecurity and the ones who challenge them do not. Sometimes, behind an aggressive behavior there is an unseen insecurity as well.
Once again there is confusion between 'nice sound' (or pictures) and 'accurately reproduced sound' (or pictures). I admit to some extent I encouraged this by talking of rating pictures.KenTajalli said:
That would depend on what you mean by "Tube sound". Some use it to mean what you get from a poorly-biased 'tube buffer' or a 3W SET running into clipping much of the time - that is certainly a distortion. Others mean high quality sound reproduction which just happens to employ tubes. Two very different meanings.
Only a fool would claim that we have. However, to say that we don't know everything is not to say that we don't know anything. Sadly, some can't distinguish between these two quite different statements so they want to go backwards in human understanding. I accept that is not what you are saying, but it is what some appear to say.
Yes. If there is enough evidence then we can say that it does sound better. This, of course, does not mean that it is better i.e. a closer reproduction of the original sound. There was someone on here (fortunately I forget who it was) who said that certain musical instruments sounded better, in his view, when recorded and played back through his system than they did in real life.