A DAC listening test challenge. Will it happen?

[bigshot]

There are quality headphones of all impedances and sensitivities. You just need to make sure the amp you are using is suitable for the headphones or IEMs you are using. One size does not fit all, and if they don't match, it doesn't mean your system is of poor quality. It just means you put it together wrong.

I'm of the opinion that a really good system has very little to do with the cost or even the quality of the amp and DAC, It has to do with the way the person who put it together balanced the requirements of effective functional operation and usability. A really good system might cost $200 or it might cost $20,000. And really bad systems might cost the exact same amounts. It's all in how the user designs it to suit his purposes and needs. I'm more impressed by people who have solved their problems efficiently and inexpensively than I am by people who just go out and buy the most expensive everything.

Recently, I gave myself the task of figuring out how to take music with me and my friends to places where there is no electricity... like backyard BBQs and trips to the mountains. My prerequisites were that it had to be battery operated and bluetooth, able to operate for two days without plugging in (to cover a weekend) and be able to fill a room with sound and be listenable outdoors. It also had to be able to shuffle multiple large libraries of music organized by genre and it had to fit into a messenger bag with all the cables and cases I would need all in one place. I figured it all out, got a nice leather messenger bag, and gave it a trial run. It nailed it. I think putting together systems like this is a lot more fun than just trading one amp with specs beyond the range of audibility for another one that is slightly more inaudible.

 

[kandamrgam]

I wished there were this kind of blind tests for DAC/amp routinely done in the audio world, like how it is done for phone cameras by mkbhd and likes. One interesting thing about blind camera tests (I admit it is extremely unscientific) is that the usual winners are not Samsug or Apple but lesser players like Asus or OnePlus, or more often than not Pixels.

I get it why. Pixel photos have that aesthetically pleasing look, with typical higher contrast and punchy images. I wonder what would be that Pixel equivalent in DAC/amp world which can win tests like this more often than not (even if they are not technically superior).

 

[dunring]

I have a Pixel and get to buy $8k a month in audio equipment for the business, so I've tried much of what's out there. The Google Pixel equivalent of DACs that I think most people would prefer is the Topping E70 9028Pro for balanced, or JDS Atom DAC for single ended. Can't go wrong with either.

 

[kandamrgam]

I have a Pixel and get to buy $8k a month in audio equipment for the business, so I've tried much of what's out there. The Google Pixel equivalent of DACs that I think most people would prefer is the Topping E70 9028Pro for balanced, or JDS Atom DAC for single ended. Can't go wrong with either.

I highly doubt Topping E70 and JDS Atom can win any blind tests (even if unscientific). Why do you say so?

 

[gregorio]

I wished there were this kind of blind tests for DAC/amp routinely done in the audio world, like how it is done for phone cameras by mkbhd and likes.

That used to be done quite often with consumer audio products such as amps in the 1970’s and 1980’s but then around the mid ‘80’s it became increasingly impossible to detect any audible differences even between fairly cheap and the most expensive models. Of course, this did not suit the audiophile manufacturers, their marketing or the incentivised reviewers, so they implemented a campaign to discredit DBTs. By the 1990’s there were hardly any being done in the audiophile world and as we know, these days even mentioning blind tests is forbidden on some/many audiophile forums.

Blind tests continue to be used in audio research/science and the international standards bodies but not for DACs or amps as there’s no point. Unlike with cameras, it’s not possible to tell the difference audibly between amps and DACs (except for one or two outliers) and there’s no equivalent of “pixel peeking” with audio.

G

 

[2leftears]

... and there’s no equivalent of “pixel peeking” with audio.

Sample peeping? Don't give them any ideas gregorio!

TBH the same dubious marketing practices happened with digital cameras quite a while back, in the pixel race. For a while the marketing really was "more pixels = better" and the public at large bought into that. But it was ignoring a host of associated noise and dynamic range issues.

 

[kandamrgam]

That used to be done quite often with consumer audio products such as amps in the 1970’s and 1980’s but then around the mid ‘80’s it became increasingly impossible to detect any audible differences even between fairly cheap and the most expensive models. Of course, this did not suit the audiophile manufacturers, their marketing or the incentivised reviewers, so they implemented a campaign to discredit DBTs. By the 1990’s there were hardly any being done in the audiophile world and as we know, these days even mentioning blind tests is forbidden on some/many audiophile forums.

Blind tests continue to be used in audio research/science and the international standards bodies but not for DACs or amps as there’s no point. Unlike with cameras, it’s not possible to tell the difference audibly between amps and DACs (except for one or two outliers) and there’s no equivalent of “pixel peeking” with audio.

G

I read in some forum about some of the blind test winners in the past like Eastern Electric Minimax DAC, Radford tube amp, Sugden A21 integrated amp etc. Those are old products, not sure if they are still in existence.

 

[gregorio]

Those are old products, not sure if they are still in existence.

Effectively they are ancient products. I say “effectively” because although they may still be available, they employ audio technology that was superseded half a century or more ago and are deliberately lo-fi. They account for the “outliers” I mentioned previously.

G

 

[castleofargh]

Sample peeping? Don't give them any ideas gregorio!

TBH the same dubious marketing practices happened with digital cameras quite a while back, in the pixel race. For a while the marketing really was "more pixels = better" and the public at large bought into that. But it was ignoring a host of associated noise and dynamic range issues.

Off-topic:
Astronomy: focus on wavelength, lens/mirror diameter, to handle the hard physical limits(of diffraction)


Cellphones: here's a 50 megapixels through a pinhole with AI.

I read in some forum about some of the blind test winners in the past like Eastern Electric Minimax DAC, Radford tube amp, Sugden A21 integrated amp etc. Those are old products, not sure if they are still in existence.

The rule of thumb about audio preferences, is to look for a fairly clean signal and a frequency response the listener will perceive as flat. So for DACs, that means nearly all DACs are it.
For products showing more sonic variations like speakers, reasonably low distortions and flat frequency response will still be the statistical winner(according to Harman research).

It's still hard to predict how something else will do preference wise under controlled conditions, so yes, it would be nice to actually run some trials from time to time for outlier products that seem to be loved by some users. If only to find out if there is something to it or if those guys got bamboozled by marketing. But it can be difficult to run such a test objectively if one of the products tested has a dramatically different sound, because then, audiophiles might identify it and make their decisions based on more than sound. Like a guy who used tube amps for a long time, will tend to give his vote to anything that vaguely sounds like tube. It would be extremely hard to know when he's giving a sincere answer about a sound preference, and when he's just voting for his team.
The other difficulty is that the owners of truly exotic products tend to massively be against blind listening.

But at least anecdotally, I've heard weird(as in obviously high distortion) products that I really enjoyed for some sort of smoothness or feeling of extra texture that some distortion profiles can provoke. But to me, it's like pushing the bass like crazy for a song or 5 because I'm in that mood that day, and I'm picking the tracks for it. The moment I do it, it's the best, but I'll rapidly fall back on a perceptually flattish EQ and keep it there for months before the bass demon catches me again. I feel the same for certain exotic products, and I might pick them at instant t when being asked about preference under controlled listening because then I'm enjoying the novelty a lot, but I probably wouldn't purchase it as my default sound at home. Does that make sense?

 

[2leftears]

Off-topic:
Astronomy: focus on wavelength, lens/mirror diameter, to handle the hard physical limits(of diffraction)


Cellphones: here's a 50 megapixels through a pinhole with AI.

Spoiler: Off-Topic

Indeed, smartphone cameras are pretty much working at the diffraction-limit on a small sensor format. Hence all the "fun" stuff such as controlling depth-of-field has to be done with software/AI; no ability for proper aperture control given the physical limits.

 

[BobG55]

Thought I’d share this video I came across on YT :

 

[gregorio]

Thought I’d share this video I came across on YT :

The videos of his I’ve seen, 3 or 4 I think, generally seem OK, although one was a bit weak. The only thing about many of them is that they’re very old news, by 20 years or more. EG. 20 years or more ago studio DACs were already all transparent, plugin EQ’s all nulled, etc. I presume he’s mainly making these videos for audiophiles and “bedroom engineers”, those without formal training.

G