[BS5711]

I am not sure what to make of all this.

(I am in the camp that) I hear no or very little difference between most DACs and amps.

The only DAC I have noticed an immediate difference in sound was a cheap little AliExpress supplied PCM56 based R2R DAC based on chips that I believe originated in the early CD era.

So I believe my own hearing which tells me there is no difference in sound and to me the extension of that is that all the folks talking about really significant sound differences between even quite fundamentally similar gear must be wrong.

To make my stand even more firm in my own mind is that I know I have thought I heard differences until I revisit the comparison on several later occasions perhaps with different music and realise that the difference I thought I heard before was all in my mind, expectation bias, whatever you want to call it. So I figure if I can imagine a difference so can others and they are therefore potentially only imagining what they think they hear.

It seems that we are OK to believe our own ears when our own ears agree with whoever it is we are having a conversation with out this stuff.

 

[jamesjames]

I am not sure what to make of all this.

I am in the camp that I hear no or very little difference between most DACs and amps.

The only DAC I have noticed an immediate difference in sound was a cheap little AliExpress supplied PCM56 based R2R DAC based on chips that I believe originated in the early CD era.

So I believe my own hearing which tells me there is no difference in sound and to me the extension of that is that all the folks talking about really significant sound differences between even quite fundamentally similar gear must be wrong.

To make my stand even more firm in my own mind is that I know I have thought I heard differences until I revisit the comparison on several later occasions perhaps with different music and realise that the difference I thought I heard before was all in my mind, expectation bias, whatever you want to call it. So I figure if I can imagine a difference so can others and they are therefore potentially only imagining what they think they hear.

It seems that we are OK to believe our own ears when our own ears agree with whoever it is we are having a conversation with out this stuff.

I would like to make one or two comments about your post. Like you, I'm not sure what to make of the differences between listeners' reactions. All I can say about my own experience - I hear differences between some DACs and amps - is that I've listened closely over many years, and sometimes changed my mind on whether differences exist. I've also changed my mind on what sounds better. I don't doubt that others are genuine when they say they can't hear differences.

But I think that's OK. I don't have any difficulty with others seeing things (and hearing things) differently. It has never occurred to me that others will always see things the way I do. I guess I see that as the point of this website - to talk about the differences that will always exist. Sometimes views will change. Sometimes they won't. I don't think it's useful to see things in terms of 'camps' - it seems to me to buy into the idea that we should be arguing about this rather than discussing it. I like talking about this hobby, and that means talking about differences, without condescension and without lecturing others on why they are 'wrong'.

So, I'm interested to read your post, and I'm happy to enter into the discussion. On the matter of bias, and expectation bias in particular, it's worth noting that the literature says it may work both ways - an expectation against difference may be as likely as one for difference. For my part, I'm not so interested in these (sometimes questionable) psychological debates. I find it difficult to imagine what this website might be for if we can't talk about what we hear.

 

[bagwell359]

I am not sure what to make of all this.

I am in the camp that I hear no or very little difference between most DACs and amps.

The only DAC I have noticed an immediate difference in sound was a cheap little AliExpress supplied PCM56 based R2R DAC based on chips that I believe originated in the early CD era.

So I believe my own hearing which tells me there is no difference in sound and to me the extension of that is that all the folks talking about really significant sound differences between even quite fundamentally similar gear must be wrong.

To make my stand even more firm in my own mind is that I know I have thought I heard differences until I revisit the comparison on several later occasions perhaps with different music and realise that the difference I thought I heard before was all in my mind, expectation bias, whatever you want to call it. So I figure if I can imagine a difference so can others and they are therefore potentially only imagining what they think they hear.

It seems that we are OK to believe our own ears when our own ears agree with whoever it is we are having a conversation with out this stuff.

There is certainly a lot of virtual ink on the topic. Outside of several exception cases, don't buy into the cable wars. I do buy into the balanced vs SE differences, since they are in my experience always different, and DAC's too, but unlike my early days of massive exposure to hundreds of pieces of equipment from 1972-2005, I'm much less into upgrades and constant comparisons, but I do most of them double blind - although headphones usually give themselves away with the fit.

I hated digital from the vinyl/DMM era all the way until I heard that Krell 20i, whoa. The Gungnir was the cheapest DAC I heard in 2015 that sounded like music (liked the initial over the initial Yggy. Heard a number of DAC's since. Mostly similar/same to each other (nothing unusual), and a few that were different, but, not interesting - like that DAC in my LG v40 that got big write ups, thought it was very odd. Many, but not all double blind.

I don't think amps are changing much these days, I still think DAC's are moving forward a bit more. One reason I never advise people to buy amp/DAC packages unless its a strict budget issue.

The big effort/bucks as back in the day should be transducers.

I'm all for a pleasant discussion. Let's not get into a thing that belongs in the "sciences" folder.

 

[IanB52]

I am not sure what to make of all this.

I am in the camp that I hear no or very little difference between most DACs and amps.

The only DAC I have noticed an immediate difference in sound was a cheap little AliExpress supplied PCM56 based R2R DAC based on chips that I believe originated in the early CD era.

So I believe my own hearing which tells me there is no difference in sound and to me the extension of that is that all the folks talking about really significant sound differences between even quite fundamentally similar gear must be wrong.

To make my stand even more firm in my own mind is that I know I have thought I heard differences until I revisit the comparison on several later occasions perhaps with different music and realise that the difference I thought I heard before was all in my mind, expectation bias, whatever you want to call it. So I figure if I can imagine a difference so can others and they are therefore potentially only imagining what they think they hear.

It seems that we are OK to believe our own ears when our own ears agree with whoever it is we are having a conversation with out this stuff.

I do think hearing differences can be a lot harder if they use the same topology, chips, etc. For example DS chips vs R2R and DSD FPGA are obvious differences, and I think linear power supplies vs switching. These are a few examples. But if you are in a pool of similar designs and price points, it is harder to distinguish. Some of these may actually be very close or identical in manufacture.

 

[BS5711]

I would like to make one or two comments about your post. Like you, I'm not sure what to make of the differences between listeners' reactions. All I can say about my own experience - I hear differences between some DACs and amps - is that I've listened closely over many years, and sometimes changed my mind on whether differences exist. I've also changed my mind on what sounds better. I don't doubt that others are genuine when they say they can't hear differences.

But I think that's OK. I don't have any difficulty with others seeing things (and hearing things) differently. It has never occurred to me that others will always see things the way I do. I guess I see that as the point of this website - to talk about the differences that will always exist. Sometimes views will change. Sometimes they won't. I don't think it's useful to see things in terms of 'camps' - it seems to me to buy into the idea that we should be arguing about this rather than discussing it. I like talking about this hobby, and that means talking about differences, without condescension and without lecturing others on why they are 'wrong'.

So, I'm interested to read your post, and I'm happy to enter into the discussion. On the matter of bias, and expectation bias in particular, it's worth noting that the literature says it may work both ways - an expectation against difference may be as likely as one for difference. For my part, I'm not so interested in these (sometimes questionable) psychological debates. I find it difficult to imagine what this website might be for if we can't talk about what we hear.

That is of course all perfectly fair and very reasonable.

I used the work "camp" not to identify myself in some sort of tribal group that are vehemently opposed to others that don't see things their way, only identify my position. I could just as easily have left those first few works out and the result would have probably better conveyed my meaning.

Yes on an audio forum we have to be able to talk about what we hear but if we are to do that as intelligent human beings we need to understand and accept the weaknesses of the human auditory system regardless of what our position is on the subject.

I think if an honest discussion is being had about hearing differences between gear I think it is absolutely essential that both sides of the conversation acknowledge that as humans we can hear things that are real and we can absolutely think we hear things that are not real at all. For example, with an appropriate set up we could quite easily believe we hear a difference in sound between the exact same device if we think we are listening to two different devices with wildly different price tags.

I have no objection at all with others hearing things that I don't but I do find it odd that earlier parties on this thread would apparently feel victimised by somebody else saying that they should also consider the possibility of being tricked by the mind. To state categorically that they are not is, in my opinion, nonsense. If you are being fooled you don't know that you are being fooled so you are not in an optimal position to judge.

Hearing things that don't exist is real. As you pointed out the opposite is no doubt true and maybe I don't hear things that do exist because I have convinced myself that I won't hear some difference . I am happy to accept that.

I come back to the notion that if having an honest and rational conversation all parties need to accept that what they do or don't hear might not even be real, that is just a reality based on the fact that we are flesh and bone and not finely regulated measurement equipment. Being reminded of that fact shouldn't be cause for somebody to get all bent out of shape because their listening experience was brought into question.

 

[bagwell359]

That is of course all perfectly fair and very reasonable.

I used the work "camp" not to identify myself in some sort of tribal group that are vehemently opposed to others that don't see things their way, only identify my position. I could just as easily have left those first few works out and the result would have probably better conveyed my meaning.

Yes on an audio forum we have to be able to talk about what we hear but if we are to do that as intelligent human beings we need to understand and accept the weaknesses of the human auditory system regardless of what our position is on the subject.

I think if an honest discussion is being had about hearing differences between gear I think it is absolutely essential that both sides of the conversation acknowledge that as humans we can hear things that are real and we can absolutely think we hear things that are not real at all. For example, with an appropriate set up we could quite easily believe we hear a difference in sound between the exact same device if we think we are listening to two different devices with wildly different price tags.

I have no objection at all with others hearing things that I don't but I do find it odd that earlier parties on this thread would apparently feel victimised by somebody else saying that they should also consider the possibility of being tricked by the mind. To state categorically that they are not is, in my opinion, nonsense. If you are being fooled you don't know that you are being fooled so you are not in an optimal position to judge.

Hearing things that don't exist is real. As you pointed out the opposite is no doubt true and maybe I don't hear things that do exist because I have convinced myself that I won't hear some difference . I am happy to accept that.

I come back to the notion that if having an honest and rational conversation all parties need to accept that what they do or don't hear might not even be real, that is just a reality based on the fact that we are flesh and bone and not finely regulated measurement equipment. Being reminded of that fact shouldn't be cause for somebody to get all bent out of shape because their listening experience was brought into question.

* Objectivity is needed for baseline/reality thinking on these topics.
* Everything we see and hear is subjective
* Critical facilities can be improved through experience, and learning.
* We are at many levels here. Price, taste, is music the first thing, or is the constant upgrading the way to nirvana?

I'm into accuracy not by spec sheet, but by does it sound like unamplified music that in some cases I heard in the same venue as the recording? It's not the perfect aural memory that maintains, its the way I felt then and now about the reality of a piece. This audiophile angle isn't so popular anymore, supplanted by people that have listened to mostly studio productions on audio equipment, and the huge emphasis on bass the past 15 years in headphones, and the overdone sibilance of so much gear since way back when. People of different ages and sizes hear differently. So, how to have a conversation that doesn't turn into a lecture, or a battle? Me, mine vs you, yours? Oh please no.

I used to be one argumentative guy, but, eventually old age and some wisdom crept in. But I will admit to my dislikes readily. "Fun" tuning is poison for me. Never going to say one good thing about that. Ask me and see.

Try the adjective "transparent". We all like it, right. What about "body"? "Impact". "Depth", "Clarity".... so many more. Is all that subsumed by the almighty Harman 2019 curve?

FR is important to get right or nearly right. Right? But say a Senn HD-650 EQ'd per crinicle (those that know me, know I have issues with that) isn't going to sound much like a HFM HE-6 SE v2 EQ'd the same. Technology? CSD? square waves, square waves at different frequencies at the same time, diffraction, reverberations, pad material, fit, distances to ear, placement on head... it's a deep well for those that want to look.

Measurements? Sure. But ASR characterized themselves in a very poor way, when they went negative over the latest Rall headphone because of THD readings, but, they never heard it, just dumped on it for the longest time. I hope that type of thinking/commentary can be avoided. Measurements without critical listening is what?

Enough. Please guys expound.

 

[BS5711]

* Objectivity is needed for baseline/reality thinking on these topics.
* Everything we see and hear is subjective
* Critical facilities can be improved through experience, and learning.
* We are at many levels here. Price, taste, is music the first thing, or is the constant upgrading the way to nirvana?

I'm into accuracy not by spec sheet, but by does it sound like unamplified music that in some cases I heard in the same venue as the recording? It's not the perfect aural memory that maintains, its the way I felt then and now about the reality of a piece. This audiophile angle isn't so popular anymore, supplanted by people that have listened to mostly studio productions on audio equipment, and the huge emphasis on bass the past 15 years in headphones, and the overdone sibilance of so much gear since way back when. People of different ages and sizes hear differently. So, how to have a conversation that doesn't turn into a lecture, or a battle? Me, mine vs you, yours? Oh please no.

I used to be one argumentative guy, but, eventually old age and some wisdom crept in. But I will admit to my dislikes readily. "Fun" tuning is poison for me. Never going to say one good thing about that. Ask me and see.

Try the adjective "transparent". We all like it, right. What about "body"? "Impact". "Depth", "Clarity".... so many more. Is all that subsumed by the almighty Harman 2019 curve?

FR is important to get right or nearly right. Right? But say a Senn HD-650 EQ'd per crinicle (those that know me, know I have issues with that) isn't going to sound much like a HFM HE-6 SE v2 EQ'd the same. Technology? CSD? square waves, square waves at different frequencies at the same time, diffraction, reverberations, pad material, fit, distances to ear, placement on head... it's a deep well for those that want to look.

Measurements? Sure. But ASR characterized themselves in a very poor way, when they went negative over the latest Rall headphone because of THD readings, but, they never heard it, just dumped on it for the longest time. I hope that type of thinking/commentary can be avoided. Measurements without critical listening is what?

Enough. Please guys expound.

Sorry, that is far beyond my interest in this thread.

My point was simply that if a group of audio enthusiasts are going to discuss perceived sound differences between specific devices all parties need to acknowledge the weakness of the human machine regardless of whether that suits their position the matter or not.

To say that you hear this or that difference and defiantly state you are right and that is fact is simply ignorant of the realities of how we as humans work. That may be your listening experience but it doesn't mean it has its basis in reality, it might and it might not, and that is fine, its just human.

An earlier poster got all bent out of shape about being reminded that he is subject to the same weaknesses as everybody else and took objection to having expectation bias pointed out to him, that is what my comment was largely in response to.

I don't hear differences in most DACs, that might be down to a physiological deficiency on my part or it might be because I have conditioned myself to expect to not hear a difference. It could be that I simply don't care about the minutiae enough, I figure that if I have to listen extra carefully for any tiny change that tiny change isn't important to me, I simply like listening to music I enjoy replicated in a manner that I find pleasing.

Anyway .... moving on.

 

[bagwell359]

Sorry, that is far beyond my interest in this thread.

I stated some of my interests. So you prefer I start another thread, or at least just address your interests?

My point was simply that if a group of audio enthusiasts are going to discuss perceived sound differences between specific devices all parties need to acknowledge the weakness of the human machine regardless of whether that suits their position the matter or not.

That's what we have I am afraid. So you are supporting the idea that human perceptions are so fraught as to be - what? Useless, or just flawed beyond having any real use? Please clarify. You haven't touched on ego, the emperor having no clothes, the attempt by sales, reviewers, "friends" to get one to join the elite circle? Is that in or out?

To say that you hear this or that difference and defiantly state you are right and that is fact is simply ignorant of the realities of how we as humans work. That may be your listening experience but it doesn't mean it has its basis in reality, it might and it might not, and that is fine, its just human.

An earlier poster got all bent out of shape about being reminded that he is subject to the same weaknesses as everybody else and took objection to having expectation bias pointed out to him, that is what my comment was largely in response to.

Is that what you got from my post? Its not what I intended, and I'm quite sure I've had way more than my share of incorrect thinking and conclusions over time. And I've made many clear here.

I don't hear differences in most DACs, that might be down to a physiological deficiency on my part or it might be because I have conditioned myself to expect to not hear a difference. It could be that I simply don't care about the minutiae enough, I figure that if I have to listen extra carefully for any tiny change that tiny change isn't important to me, I simply like listening to music I enjoy replicated in a manner that I find pleasing.

Anyway .... moving on.

Geez I must be getting senile. I thought it was invitation for discussion, not your conclusions presented and discussed in a specific manner.

 

[BS5711]

I stated some of my interests. So you prefer I start another thread, or at least just address your interests?


That's what we have I am afraid. So you are supporting the idea that human perceptions are so fraught as to be - what? Useless, or just flawed beyond having any real use? Please clarify. You haven't touched on ego, the emperor having no clothes, the attempt by sales, reviewers, "friends" to get one to join the elite circle? Is that in or out?

Is that what you got from my post? Its not what I intended, and I'm quite sure I've had way more than my share of incorrect thinking and conclusions over time. And I've made many clear here.

Geez I must be getting senile. I thought it was invitation for discussion, not your conclusions presented and discussed in a specific manner.

I have no objection to anything you said in the slightest. The comments I made were in respect to earlier conversation in this thread, I did say that, perhaps not clearly enough.

I don't need or want to address my specific interests, I don't see them as relevant to my comments so I didn't address yours either, I don't see any problem with that, I am sorry if you do, I didn't intend anything by that.

I simply don't have the inclination to get involved in further ongoing discussion on the subject. I simply stated my thoughts and am essentially happy to more or less leave it that. I would have thought that was my prerogative, I don't see that I should by default have any sort of obligation to continue the banter. I am in a different time zone, probably have different priorities and have a job to do so my appetite for ongoing discussion might not be the same as yours.

 

[jamesjames]

I do think hearing differences can be a lot harder if they use the same topology, chips, etc. For example DS chips vs R2R and DSD FPGA are obvious differences, and I think linear power supplies vs switching. These are a few examples. But if you are in a pool of similar designs and price points, it is harder to distinguish. Some of these may actually be very close or identical in manufacture.

I happen to think this is an important point and wonder whether it's actually the real point for many. For what it's worth, I agree that much current equipment seems very similar indeed, essentially for the reasons you (and others) have outlined. But, of course, that's not an argument that differences don't exist. On the point that hearing isn't completely reliable, I'm not sure why this matters. I often change my mind, including on what sounds good and why - perhaps this is down to faulty hearing - or even negligent listening! I've certainly returned to components after a time and wondered why I thought they were bad (or good). I feel on a site like this that most understand aural memory is a slippery thing. But if what we hear isn't relevant, where does that leave us? Must we defer to the expert, who can explain some measurements and make our choice. But which expert? And which measurements? Do we need an expert to help us find the right expert? A tricky business. Speaking for myself, I see no better alternative than listening with an open mind, as much technical information as I can find and a healthy scepticism regarding advertising puffery. My impression is that this is the low-key, preferred approach of many.

 

[BS5711]

I see no better alternative than listening with an open mind, as much technical information as I can find and a healthy skepticism ......

That is pretty much what I was suggesting should be the case with any comparisons and discussion of comparisons.

Listen carefully and pay attention but at the same time be skeptical of what we hear to a sensible degree acknowledging that we are not the greatest measuring tools but also aware that our ears are ultimately all we have. Go back and repeat the comparison several times on different occasions and ideally do it blind.

And no I don't mean that humans are so useless that we shouldn't even bother trying !

That all seems patently obvious, simple and common sense but seems to be lost on some here.

Anyway, I have put my oar in one last time when I said I was done so I am now done.

 

[bagwell359]

I have no objection to anything you said in the slightest. The comments I made were in respect to earlier conversation in this thread, I did say that, perhaps not clearly enough.

I don't need or want to address my specific interests, I don't see them as relevant to my comments so I didn't address yours either, I don't see any problem with that, I am sorry if you do, I didn't intend anything by that.

I simply don't have the inclination to get involved in further ongoing discussion on the subject. I simply stated my thoughts and am essentially happy to more or less leave it that. I would have thought that was my prerogative, I don't see that I should by default have any sort of obligation to continue the banter. I am in a different time zone, probably have different priorities and have a job to do so my appetite for ongoing discussion might not be the same as yours.

Thanks for the clarification. Carry on.

 

[jamesjames]

One other point often lost in these discussions, I think, is that we listen to systems rather than components. And I think missing this often creates confusion. Before moving exclusively to headphone listening some years ago I also used loudspeaker systems. I was interested in the introduction of hi-res recording and playback. I found hi-res to be a terrific development when using headphones, but not so important with loudspeakers. In fact, this was one of the reasons I moved from speakers to headphones - I found good headphone systems generally performed at a level I couldn't match with speaker systems. I'm persuaded that the resolution of loudspeakers is often limited in practice by physical/mechanical issues and power requirements that are beyond the resources of most listeners to address effectively.

A related point I think is terminology. We use the terms 'DAC' and 'amp' (understandably) as if we all mean the same things by them. But I'm conscious that my very simple headphone system, for example, involves a separate digital player (with integrated DAC), a separate analogue amp, and headphones. Processing is physically separate from amplification and, of course, the transducer. I don't stream or 'serve' digital information to my player - it plays discs or files from usb drives plugged into it. This makes it relatively easy for me to change the DAC (player) or the amp and decide whether I hear differences. Many streamers, on the other hand, often integrate a streaming processor, DAC, amp, and various power supplies. Even basic headphone 'amps' these days often combine DAC and amp sections. Whether the integration of components in this way actually homogenises sound is hard to say - but it might well make it more difficult to say with confidence how particular elements of the system affect what we hear.

 

[iFi audio]

The only DAC I have noticed an immediate difference in sound was a cheap little AliExpress supplied PCM56 based R2R DAC based on chips that I believe originated in the early CD era

That's interesting. Was this DAC any better in comparison to your other DAC(s)?

 

[Sonic Defender]

I haven't posted here in quite a while, since I now have a dedicated listening room, therefore, my headphone listening has diminished quite a bit.

About 5 years ago, just before the LA Audio Show at the LAX Hilton, I took part in a double blind listening test comparing 3 DAC's. All of 3 were pretty high end, starting at about $2000, and going up to well into the 5 figures. They were: Benchmark, Chord Hugo, dCS.

I found that I could consistently (well above chance) hear the difference. All I had to do is concentrate on listening to aspects such as: soundstage, imaging, ambience, and other spatial cues. With the better DAC's, the soundstage was noticeably bigger, and the musicians better defined within the soundstage.

There was no bias involved that I could tell, because the person switching between DAC's could not see which DAC's they were choosing, we could not see the person switching or the DAC's.

The system we were listening to was quite high end: Pass Labs amp/preamp. Von Schweikert Reference 55 speakers, and the rest of the system was similar grade. The room was pretty well treated.

Let me add this caveat; we were almost exclusively listening to music which was recorded where all the musicians were playing at the same time together, in the same acoustic space. Where the engineer made good efforts to capture the ambience and spatial cues of the acoustic space, probably using a Decca Tree or Blumlein pair mic setup, pretty standard in the classical world.

The few times we listened to studio recorded rock or pop, the differences with the soundstage and imaging were substantially harder to hear.

There is no information about this test you participated in. Do you know for absolute certain that the three DACs were level matched? That is extremely important, they would have to be driving the amplifier or preamp exactly the same as even small differences in volume are easily detected. So that is the first thing, and given how different the voltage outputs can be from a DAC there is a strong likelihood that there was a difference.

Second you said well above chance, what does that mean exactly? If you didn't manage at least a 90% discrimination rate, you didn't do better than chance by any reasonable experimental standard. Who set these tests up? Were participants allowed to adjust the volume up and down? Hopefully not.