[pinnahertz]

  There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in.
They are clearly different.
 
If that would provide proof, or not, is dependant upon what you consider proof.
 
For me the 'proof' is in hearing the music, not in tests or numbers, which are ofttimes misleading (ie. tests that don't correlate, etc. to the experience of music).
 
JJ

Link please.
 
As to your "proof", I can easily prove that your hearing music can be influenced by placebo.  That one is a done deal, actually for a very long time. 

 

[pinnahertz]

 
​Yes, humidity does have an effect, even in my listening room; and,  regarding my SACD, of course it's the performance but the SACD of this performance does allow me to listen to it as was recorded in 3 channels. Also, I am actually impressed with this SACD which gives me the impression that magnetic tape recording back then could capture a performance so well.

Humidity...nope.  Sorry, not a chance, though you may be 100% convinced it is.  
 
Yes, the old tape is amazing.  But Reiner, even more so.  I'll have to get one of those 3-channel SACDs.  I admit to not knowing about them.

 

[pinnahertz]

 
Ears are WAY more misleading than numbers. True that measurements don't tell the whole story, but still I don't trust anyone ears, not even mine because I know I'm biased.
You are not proving anything to me if you say "it sounds good".
 
Just think measuring a table with your arm. Or saying how far is the Eiffel Tower with your eyes. Or how warm is the teapot just by touching it. It makes no sense.
In a hobby that the differences are so subtle even for trained ears, the error is greater since each person hear different AND are differently biased.
 
I take what sounds best for me.

I used to think measurements were inadequate, that we could hear things we can't measure.  But that was a long time ago.  Since then, I've been fooled many, many times.  I've taken and administrated many ABX tests,  and now have the capability to measure far, far beyond any hearing ability.  Measurements do tell the whole story, but we may have difficulty understanding how they do that.  It's all there, but the challenge is interpretation and relation to how things sound.
 
Example: it's extremely easy to measure the effects of  humidity.  In fact, it's well documented (not new). If something about a device changed with warm up, that's simple to check also.  There's no limit to the examples of changes that are measurable but not audible. 

 

[Krutsch]

Where is a moderator when you need one? 

 

[johnjen]

 
Ears are WAY more misleading than numbers. True that measurements don't tell the whole story, but still I don't trust anyone ears, not even mine because I know I'm biased.
You are not proving anything to me if you say "it sounds good".
 
Just think measuring a table with your arm. Or saying how far is the Eiffel Tower with your eyes. Or how warm is the teapot just by touching it. It makes no sense.
In a hobby that the differences are so subtle even for trained ears, the error is greater since each person hear different AND are differently biased.
 
I take what sounds best for me.

Proof in this context is subjective to begin with since it boils down to, do the changes made sound better, or not?
We listen to music and decide for ourselves what is 'better' based upon our experiences, mostly having to do with does what we hear sound better than before we made any changes.
Numbers usually don't directly relate to SQ changes and certainly static numbers don't present the whole picture even from the test they are derived from.
Graphs do a better job but they are only reflecting the results of that one specific test.
 
Music on the other hand is more or less untestable, at least with the available tests we now have.
I listen to music and decide if what I hear is 'better' than what I have heard in the past, or not.
Individual measurements by themselves are helpful in determining if the gear is operating properly but don't usually have a direct correlation to how we perceive music in real time.
And trying to tie multiple measurements together to adequately describe how music is affected by these same changes is equally as difficult.
 
Lastly, "I take what sounds best for me.", is my point.
It all boils down to "…what sounds best for me."
Not numbers or tests or expert opinions etc.
Granted they all contribute to some degree but in the end it is what I hear that matters, and I have come to trust my hearing.
That others don't or are convinced otherwise, is beside the point that I DO trust my sense of hearing.
 
And since "I take what sounds best for me." is what I use as my final arbiter as well, all of the tests and numerical results are at best partial reflections of the real time experience of listening to music, which is what ALL of this is about to begin with, at least for me.
 
JJ

 

[johnjen]

  Link please.
 
As to your "proof", I can easily prove that your hearing music can be influenced by placebo.  That one is a done deal, actually for a very long time. 

Due to existing antagonisms, I can't provide a link, not here.
But they are easy enough to find if you really want to.
 
JJ

 

[pinnahertz]

  Due to existing antagonisms, I can't provide a link, not here.
But they are easy enough to find if you really want to.
 
JJ

You said, "There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in. They are clearly different."
 
Now you refuse to post a link.  Interesting tactic.  So I did more than my usual due diligence, and searched Google for Atomic Bob for a few minutes...a long time for any Google search.  Three pages deep all I see is reference to a young guitarist, and Google suggesting what I really want is "Atomic Bomb".    I search for "Jggy DAC", and, aside from hits back to your posts here, no results.  I see there is a Schiit product with a roughly similar nickname, so I hit the Schiit site looking for "Jggy DAC".  Nope, nada.  So I checked their review for the YGGDRASIL DAC....nope, no Atomic Bob, no DAC measurements after burn-in.
 
We're done here unless you post that link.  Pretty much hearsay otherwise. 

 

[winders]

  We're done here unless you post that link. 

 
I think we were done before we even started.

 

[johnjen]

  You said, "There are some measurements made by Atomic Bob on the Jggy dac at different times during burn in. They are clearly different."
 
Now you refuse to post a link.  Interesting tactic.  So I did more than my usual due diligence, and searched Google for Atomic Bob for a few minutes...a long time for any Google search.  Three pages deep all I see is reference to a young guitarist, and Google suggesting what I really want is "Atomic Bomb".    I search for "Jggy DAC", and, aside from hits back to your posts here, no results.  I see there is a Schiit product with a roughly similar nickname, so I hit the Schiit site looking for "Jggy DAC".  Nope, nada.  So I checked their review for the YGGDRASIL DAC....nope, no Atomic Bob, no DAC measurements after burn-in.
 
We're done here unless you post that link.  Pretty much hearsay otherwise. 

Are you aware of the antagonism between this site and another?
 
Apparently not, because if you were you'd have gone to that site and found those posts.
 
I have no wish to be banned from here just to satisfy your demand for proof.
 
If you'd like to find that info PM me and we can deal with it that way.
 
JJ

 

[Wilderness]

   
1) Warm-up time:
 
I have found warm up to be important on all my gear: DACs, Class A, Class A/B, and Class D amplifiers, Bryston music server, linear power supplies. I leave my DACs, music serve, and Class D on 24/7. You'll find manufacturers recommending that as well. For Class A/AB, it's a lot quicker. For digital gear, it's a lot longer. You'll find plenty of Bryston and Naim owners echoing the exact same thing, along with manufacturers saying the same thing. Thermal stabilization is a real thing.
 
 
2) DACs sounding different:
 
I have an Emotiva DC-1 which is mid level DAC and neutral. My other DAC (Dangerous Music Source w/ LPS) and other high end DACs that are neutral and have brought into my setup trash the DC-1. If the critiquing is done via headphones, then it's probably tougher to hear it. However, in my case, it's much simpler to prove.
 
Get a big treated room with a full range system and level match all the DACs. Next, I can even put earbuds in your ear to block the sound. Yet, you'll still be able to tell the difference based on how deep the bass goes. Aside from hearing the difference, you can feel the difference. My DC-1 for example can never hit the bass with that tightness. Regardless of how much I crank it, I can never replicate that feeling in the chest.
 
There's another thread on another forum (which I don't know if I'm allowed to reference) are testing all top DACs and people are consistently finding differences in testing among all high-end DACs (Crane Song Solaris/Avocet IIA, Prism, Dangerous Music Convert-2, Mytek Brooklyn, the new high end RME DAC, Burl B2). It should be mentioned that most of us there are running high-end monitors in decent rooms, so perhaps that maybe the case. We're mostly talking about $10k+ rigs here. I don't expect the general headphone crowd to really match that.
 
Once you spend a lot of time with each particular chain, listening both passively and actively, it becomes quite easy in doing blind A/B. The time-interval in the A/B is also of great importance. I don't want to derail this thread any further as it's about Mac players, but absolutely needed to step in and say this. I've heard this way too many times that all DACs sound the same, which makes me wonder if that person has ever tested high-end DAC in a highly transparent chain in a decent room.

I connected a new DAC, the Meridian Explorer 2, to my computer system today.  It is smoother than my Dragonfly Red.  This is obvious with some songs more than others.  For example, I noticed that Jozef Van Wissem's acoustic instruments can sound too strong with the Dragonfly and my Dynaudio speakers, but just right with the Explorer.  The Dragonfly has been described an Xray into the music, and that can be fun at times but it also is too hard edged with some songs.  Vocals are also smoother with the Explorer.  I prefer the Explorer, no A/B testing needed.
 
I haven't heard high end DACs, but everything I have read says that they all sound different.
 
So, I agree with you that different DACs can change what we hear.  As can various music player software and file formats.  From what I have been reading lately, Roon, Tidal, MQA, and JRiver have been getting a lot of use by audiophiles and newbies who are seeking the best sound from their systems.

 

[Wilderness]

I have learned a lot about audio and music on Headfi.  It is nice when I find that others agree with me here, but it is also okay when I see that some people have different opinions.  I have the opportunity to learn something new when I encounter opinions or methods and gear that are different than my own.

 

[Mortone]

I know there is another link on Fidelia, but why is it not talked about on this link?

 

[Tro95]

  I know there is another link on Fidelia, but why is it not talked about on this link?

 
I'm not too sure what you're trying to say, but the first post in this thread does mention Fidelia. Having used Fidelia myself I quite liked it, but the UI was terrible and it hasn't been updated in years despite having obvious issues. I've since switched to Audirvana and not looked back.

 

[omasciarotte]

Hey sterling1,
 
This thread is now so old and so long, pretty much any topic related to player SQ has already been discussed, dissected and jacked around to the point of nausea. Try searching backwards and you’ll find lengthy discussions on why different players, and different OSs, may sound different with a bit-perfect bitstream.
 
Quote:

 
​The science of it suggests that no matter the player, you when you play the same file  at the same volume you'll  get the same sound. This has been my experience…

 
I have to agree with Naim.F.C on this. I’m not sure what “science” you’re referring to, but audio software engineers will tell you that:
 
a) there are many ways to implement any particular function, and each has its advantages and disadvantages from a processor/hardware efficiency and audible impact perspective.
 
Anecdote: A kid fresh out of college thinks that Matlab has all the answers. After all, it “knows” how to form a parametric filter, so that should work just fine…until the newbie finds that their code sounds like ass.
 
b) by running DSP or, for that matter, changing the bitstream in any way, you alter the sound. Sure, you can make it subjectively “better,“ but the bitstream is no longer what the artist/producer/label created. We each have opinions, but just because you or I cannot discern a particular aspect of audio, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid. It just means you can’t hear it!
 

  So far, I can not distinguish 16/44 from higher resolution files i.e. 24/96 and 24/192.

 
I’m glad you mention that as it implies either:
 
a) your auditory mechanism is not able to convey the information (no insult intended, just stating fact)
b) your system & room is not resolving enough (again, no insult intended, just stating fact)
c) you have not yet trained your hearing to discern the differences
 
Can’t do much about item (a) (a gross generalization) but, for (b); you can throw money at the problem. Item (c) is the real goodie in that you can train your ear/brain to be more perceptive!
 
Want to learn more about the sciences of software engineering, psychoacoustics, audio engineering and physics? This ain’t the place! That said, there’s plenty of certified, objective information available on the interwebs if you’re careful about validating the source…Wanna visit your local libraries?
 
One last thing: until you’ve actually sat down at a (unfortunately very costly) collection of highly resolving systems and performed listening tests along with other trained listeners, individually changing one variable while keeping everything else the same, can you unequivocally state your opinion and expect no push back. A first step might be to hit some audiophile shows with your reference audio in hand and hear what some of those hi rez systems sound like.

 

[Krutsch]

There is a whole collection of sub-fora, on Head-Fi, where you can argue until you are blue in the face, off-topic from Mac OS X Music Players:
 
http://www.head-fi.org/f/133/sound-science
 
Enjoy!