Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why I hate chocolate ice cream)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why I hate chocolate ice cream) - Page 80

post #1186 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

How did you carry out your ABX tests?

 

It depends on which tests in particular. I tested power amps, headphones amps, lots of interconnects, and different files from 64kbps to DSD.

post #1187 of 1530

Awesome, a friend from a chilean forum, did some tests with audio formats, and found differences up to 320kbps mp3 vs FLAC 44.1khz/16bit with 7% chance of guessing. FLAC 44.1khz vs 96khz, no difference whatsoever.

 

But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.

post #1188 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

Awesome, a friend from a chilean forum, did some tests with audio formats, and found differences up to 320kbps mp3 vs FLAC 44.1khz/16bit with 7% chance of guessing. FLAC 44.1khz vs 96khz, no difference whatsoever.

 

But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.

 

That's pretty much what I found also, differences up to 320 kbps mp3s / 256VBR AAC, no differences whatsoever between 44/96/192.

 

There are no doubt differences, the question is whether they are audible or not. There is no DAC in an ABX box.


Edited by elmoe - 8/5/14 at 7:42am
post #1189 of 1530

I mean an ABX box with four inputs and only one output.  Conect four DACs playing at the same time and the distortion will be high.

post #1190 of 1530
The changes are there and obvious I'm most cases
I do not hear cables or interconnects this is for super hearing people.
But no one here us posting how the testing was done.
For starters CIEMS are in most cases not suitable to test with.
So good headphones like a stax 009 or hd800.
No LCD or like them. A HE6 is also good.
But only speakers are a very revieling test.
Lastly the system must be transparent to the source if not it's a waste
And lastly the ref music must be your own. I have a collection on a thumb drive
From redbook to hibrez PCM to DSD 64 and 128
And really good redbook is really good and does sound close to DSD in some ways.
But only DSD gives you the analog sound as from open reels
Al
post #1191 of 1530
Changes in transport - that can be argued I guess. Changes depending on your OS or CPU? Sorry, but I have to disagree.
post #1192 of 1530
the canges are there its obvious and very repeatible were not talikng wiring .
al
post #1193 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoe View Post
Changes in transport - that can be argued I guess. Changes depending on your OS or CPU? Sorry, but I have to disagree.

 

I can tell you that I feel my craputer w foobar sounded better with Ubuntu than with Mickeysoft with it's default not-so direct sound and horrible drivers. Things got more even as one might expect when I used ASIO drivers (though they are a pain). I still have not done a test (ABX or whatevs) with ASIO vs Wasapi, but I'm predisposed in not expecting lot's of difference.

 

I don't think the CPU is going to have a major impact, unless it's something like an 8051. But the particular PC built might, depending on components and how well it was put together.

 

Whatever one may believe or not, it's good to keep an open mind and check things out whenever possible... I've learned quite a bit that way.

post #1194 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by ultrabike View Post
 

 

I can tell you that I feel my craputer w foobar sounded better with Ubuntu than with Mickeysoft with it's default not-so direct sound and horrible drivers. Things got more even as one might expect when I used ASIO drivers (though they are a pain). I still have not done a test (ABX or whatevs) with ASIO vs Wasapi, but I'm predisposed in not expecting lot's of difference.

 

I don't think the CPU is going to have a major impact, unless it's something like an 8051. But the particular PC built might, depending on components and how well it was put together.

 

Whatever one may believe or not, it's good to keep an open mind and check things out whenever possible... I've learned quite a bit that way.

 

There is no doubt that with DirectSound in Windows, things are going to sound very different than they would using ASIO or WASAPI. I'm not arguing that at all. That being said, using ASIO under windows or OS X will be exactly the same thing. DirectSound is not your typical output considering the music will go through windows' kmixer which will significantly alter the sound, unlike ASIO or WASAPI which alter nothing.

 

If we're talking about using the onboard soundcard's headphone output then YES, the PC build will probably have a major impact. However, if we are talking about sending a digital signal using ASIO/WASAPI through a USB port, then the impact, if any, will be inaudible at best.

 

Since we here on Head-Fi tend to like our computer audio as close to perfection as possible, most if not all of us are doing exactly that: using ASIO/WASAPI to send the signal via USB to our interfaces or DACs. Thus, being on topic in the discussion, which operating system or whether you have a mac or PC will not matter significantly enough for audible changes to arise. Whether you're using an i5, a pentium IV or an i7 will matter even less.


Edited by elmoe - 8/5/14 at 8:37am
post #1195 of 1530
a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there .

al
post #1196 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALRAINBOW View Post

a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there .

al

 

I don't see how the use of a software making your music sound better will also mean different CPU will. There is no correlation there.

post #1197 of 1530
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mowglycdb View Post
 

But in this thread they're testing transports for DACs. There must be diferences but for one I know I would fail in double blind tests, but I still believe there are differences.  I don't trust ABX boxes, I think that if more than one DAC is playing at the same time some distorción goes through.

 

There are other ways of performing experiments to verify if people are indeed hearing differences.

 

Slightly off topic, but the notion of "I believe in what science says" is nonsense. Science only tells us to observe and conduct experiments. While there is nothing unscientific with making an assumption such as "modern DACs and/or transports have jitter levels so low that they are undetectable to human ears", the minute someone takes such an assumption as truth, particularly if that person has limited or no zero exposure to the systems in question, science gets thrown out the door.

 

It's really no different than someone saying this: the earth is flat, this is what science says. And when asked did you sail the seas? The person replies no. Did you scan the heavens? No. Did you study the movement of the stars? No. Then why do you believe science says the earth is flat? I believe the earth is flat based on my own intuition and my readings of materials from the Church, Doug Self, nwavguy, etc. while I sit in my chair at home.

 

Getting back on topic: DBT ABX is only one way to test. Another method I thought would be a neat idea is to stick DACs, transports, or combinations thereof into identical boxes and label them A, B, C. This arrangement would allow for long term listening of various DACs in a more relaxed setting without any pressure of "passing" the test or having listening fatigue affect the results. I have found that listening fatigue sets in rather quickly with quick ABX tests via switches.

 

On the argument that the switches themselves can color or distort the sound, this is a possibility; but I feel that it is unlikely that the switches will impact the sound so much as to make DACs indistinguishable.

 

By the way, I use this cheap-ass switch from Radioshack in reverse:

 

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=3964911&utm_source=GooglePLA&utm_medium=pla&utm_term=1500313&cid=iP:PLA:RSO:Google&gclid=CLiDvZrH_L8CFYsbfgod8X4AYw&gclsrc=ds#

 

One thing I would urge people to do is to experiment for yourselves. Some already have. Even casual observation, while not as reliable as blind tests, is better than no observation at all.

 

P.S. I have my own doubts on different software players or WASAPI vs. kernel streaming sounding different. I'll make no strong statements either way until I get a chance to properly test and evaluate. It's possible to be skeptical while keeping an open mind.


Edited by purrin - 8/5/14 at 9:48am
post #1198 of 1530

There is no assumption in DACs having inaudibly low level jitter, there are actual papers published proving that fact. It's cute to compare actual scientific data with the earth being flat, but it's nonetheless wrong. There are many published AES papers on the topic:

 

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/white-papers/12142221-jitter-and-its-effects

 

Links at the bottom.

 

The only thing here that is an assumption is the fact that you believe you can hear things which are inaudible.

post #1199 of 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALRAINBOW View Post

a more simplistic approach is win ser 2012 and audio optimizer . it elevates things to another level . even if not using batteries or linear psu,s the gain is there . so if this true then various cpu,s must be true as well . lets face it computer audio is not real until it gets to the analog output and who knows what is going on to get it there .

al

 

In isolation, a CPU, as long as it's capable of handling the load (and everything from the last two decades fits that description) will have no impact on audio.

 

I read the Audio Optimizer page and it's claims about the advantages of Windows Server 2012 over a standard desktop OS.  What an absolute bunch of bunk - they are just another "audiophile" company preying on those who might not understand how light a task processing audio is to any computer of a recent vintage.  After reading the manual, it's pretty clear that all the product does is configure a standard Windows installation while requiring an expensive WinS12k license on top of whatever they are charging for what amounts to an install script.

 

There are a lot of testimonials on that site.  What there isn't is a single piece of valid information as to why their product is actually better.

post #1200 of 1530

I don't think I've called anyone here stupid? Or anything else for that matter. At the end of the day, you spend your money however you want. Just don't try to convince me that OS X sounds better than Windows or a PC better than a Mac. I am as entitled to my own opinions as the "believers". And I don't mind arguing about audio at all, but I expect a civilized discussion instead of petty name calling. ;) 


Edited by elmoe - 8/5/14 at 11:23am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › Thoughts on a bunch of DACs (and why I hate chocolate ice cream)