[xenoVa]

It is 2022. I can't understand why we still don't have scientific answers to these audiophile debates

"Do X and Y DACs sound different ?" is not really a subjective question. This is a scientific question with a certain answer, we just don't know the answer yet.

There are three possible outcomes.

1- There are no measureble sound differences between these DACs. So they sound the same.
2- There are measureble differences, but it is outside of human hearing so they sound the same.
3- There are measureble differences in human hearing range, so they sound different.

Again, this question has an objective answer. With sufficent measurement equipment and a good experiment, we can figure it out. Why do we keep having subjective debates about objective questions ?

 

[Luke Skywalker]

It is 2022. I can't understand why we still don't have scientific answers to these audiophile debates

"Do X and Y DACs sound different ?" is not really a subjective question. This is a scientific question with a certain answer, we just don't know the answer yet.

There are three possible outcomes.

1- There are no measureble sound differences between these DACs. So they sound the same.
2- There are measureble differences, but it is outside of human hearing so they sound the same.
3- There are measureble differences in human hearing range, so they sound different.

Again, this question has an objective answer. With sufficent measurement equipment and a good experiment, we can figure it out. Why do we keep having subjective debates about objective questions ?

Well one scenario is if you have a DAC that doesn’t match a certain IEM or doesn’t have enough power (Euclid + Questyle M15). Oddly enough I think my Monarch Mk2s sound better with the Gryphon than my JH Lola. It’s the complete opposite with the M15 or HiBy R6 Pro.

 

[Sampajanna]

Again, this question has an objective answer. With sufficent measurement equipment and a good experiment, we can figure it out. Why do we keep having subjective debates about objective questions ?

Because this is not a cure for a disease; it is recreation. Who is going to invest such resources to conduct such experiments? The money we spend on gear is disposable income set aside for fun, fpr pleasure. How much is available is bound to be different amongst us all and same with what drives our journey and what brings us joy. Some skepticism is always healthy and more research is nice. It is the way that the research is interpreted and then held up with certainty to smack subjective opinions. Even this forum is a place to share opinions alongside research and opinions of research .The more we allow that, the better the conversation goes. If you want the DAC with the best SINAD I say go for it and I am happy you saved money buying Chifi. Enjoy your music. Be happy. Relax…. Or not.

 

[BrownBear]

I haven't much DAC experience, but they are something that greatly intrigues me. I will say that I 'believe' I can hear a difference with between the Modi and my old iPod as source, but it could be many things. I want to get a better DAC soon....I find that I'm able to hear computer noise with the Modi....clicks and stuff. Never noticed it before but then again that means nothing.

 

[Luke Skywalker]

You might want to give the Gryphon a try. Amazing deal for $500. Just watched Leon The Professional with it paired to my Nvidia shield using Bluetooth LDAC. 70% volume was perfect for Audeze LCD-2s

 

[castleofargh]

Well one scenario is if you have a DAC that doesn’t match a certain IEM or doesn’t have enough power (Euclid + Questyle M15). Oddly enough I think my Monarch Mk2s sound better with the Gryphon than my JH Lola. It’s the complete opposite with the M15 or HiBy R6 Pro.

Bad examples. A DAP is more than a DAC, and a portable DAC/amp is also not just a DAC. Pairing and power variations with headphones or IEMs are essentially about their relation to the amplifier they’re plugged into.

As it’s something I inevitably see in DAC difference threads, I feel like I should point it out.

 

[gregorio]

It is 2022. I can't understand why we still don't have scientific answers to these audiophile debates

But we do have scientific answers to these audiophile debates! Digital audio has of course always been driven by science, it’s a scientific discovery and hugely researched by science because it’s not just about audiophiles listening to music but about the massive telecommunications industry and even national security. So, we’ve had the answers to this particular question for several decades. The answers are well documented, verified and accepted throughout the scientific community and the audio community, with one exception, the audiophile community.

So, your question should be, “why we still don’t we have scientific answers in the audiophile community”? And the reason is simple: It’s not in the interests of those who make and market audiophile products or those who earn revenue from that marketing. We don’t have the scientific answers here because science is banned here, it’s only allowed in the Sound Science subforum and any mention of science that contradicts the marketing/marketers is liable for deletion and/or the poster being temporarily banned.

And, when scientific answers are allowed on audiophile forums, you spend most of your time being flamed and arguing with shills and those who blindly believe all the marketing they’ve been fed. So the scientific community and those in pro-audio have learned to stay away from audiophile communities, let them get on with it and believe any old nonsense the marketers think they can get away with.

"Do X and Y DACs sound different ?" is not really a subjective question. This is a scientific question with a certain answer, we just don't know the answer yet.

It is indeed a scientific question and there is a certain answer: Your option #2 is virtually always the case but again, I risk the post being deleted or being temporarily banned again if I provide you with the actual science. Science is not allowed in ANY forum on head-fi except the Sound Science subforum, so if you really want the science based answer to your question you’ll have to ask there or on a different site altogether.

G

 

[gregorio]

Because this is not a cure for a disease; it is recreation.

Although you might not realise it, that’s just audiophile marketing again. Firstly, it’s obviously not just a recreation. DAC manufacturers obviously don’t produce DACs just for recreation, it’s a business, they do it for money/profit. Same is true of all audiophile products and of course of those who create and distribute the recordings you listen to. Secondly, you’re right, it’s not a cure for a disease, it’s far more (financially) valuable than that!

Who is going to invest such resources to conduct such experiments?

As with all insular communities, the audiophile community tends to ONLY think in terms of itself, the audiophile world. However, we’re dealing with digital audio here, it was invented and developed by AT&T to improve fidelity of telecommunications and subsequently further researched and developed by huge national and multi-national telcos and audio (or A/V) content broadcasters/distributors. Plus, it has applications for the military and national security. This covers industries worth countless trillions of dollars over the years and some of these companies have huge R&D departments. Even in the 1920’s, just Bell Labs had over 2,000 researchers. There’s been very few areas in human history with more resources spent on research than audio.

Even this forum is a place to share opinions alongside research and opinions of research .

No, this and all but one subforum on head-fi is a place to share opinions and audiophile marketing ONLY. Sharing certain research maybe tolerated to a limited extent, until it conflicts with opinion/marketing and some research is explicitly banned even in the title of some forums here!

G

 

[CiptoH]

I have no evidence I’ve actually measured it but I do have supporting evidence that what I’ve stated is correct, your quote from What Hi-Fi and from Wikipedia.

If you can't provide evidence according to your claim, don't expect people who have logic to believe you.

Where do you think dynamic range comes from, didn’t you read your own quote from hyperphysics?
“If you are doing a linear stair-step digitization of an analog waveform, the number of bits used in the sampling determines the maximum dynamic range you can faithfully represent with the sampling.” - The number of bits/resolution is the dynamic range!

CD (with noise-shaped dither) has a dynamic range of 120dB, same as 1bit DSD!

You keep avoiding discussing the true value of DSD resolution based on measurement results and not based on assumptions without reliable evidence !

What I ask for is the measurement results of DSD resolution and not assumptions without proof of measurement results !
The measurement results are very important to ascertain whether the claims of a theory or assumption are true or not !

My doubts about your assumptions are growing.
If you are unable to measure the resolution of DSD or cannot provide references from other reputable parties, maybe you can ask ASR to measure it, especially the highest version of DSD, namely DSD512 and DSD1024 whether it is in accordance with the claims or not, and this is a scientific method and not just an assumption !

 

[CiptoH]

But we do have scientific answers to these audiophile debates! Digital audio has of course always been driven by science, it’s a scientific discovery and hugely researched by science because it’s not just about audiophiles listening to music but about the massive telecommunications industry and even national security. So, we’ve had the answers to this particular question for several decades. The answers are well documented, verified and accepted throughout the scientific community and the audio community, with one exception, the audiophile community.

Where is the measurement evidence of the true value of DSD resolution ?
Don't forget, these are scientific methods that you always glorify.

If you can't provide proof of measurement of DSD resolution, then you are inconsistent !

 

[gregorio]

If you can't provide evidence according to your claim, don't expect people who have logic to believe you.

Exactly, glad you realise that! I’ve provided evidence of my claim from your own What Hi-Fi and hyperphysics quotes and from Wikipedia. You however have provided none at all, so how can you believe your own claims, unless you are claiming you do not have logic?

You keep avoiding discussing the true value of DSD resolution based on measurement results and not based on assumptions without reliable evidence !

That is simply a lie or again, you have not read what you are responding to!

I clearly have NOT avoided discussing DSD resolution, in fact that’s pretty much all I’ve discussed with you. How do you not know that after all these posts? What do you think I’m basing it on, magic? And, I have ALREADY provided measurements, my quote from Wikipedia for example. How many times are you going to ask for what I’ve already provided?

G

 

[CiptoH]

Thanks my friend! My Monarchs are home running a burn loop that another thread had. I’ve given up on the Euclids and I’m going to return them

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/free-burn-in-files.466827/page-6#post-17104686

It is recommended that the burning-in process is started from a low sound level first, then the sound level is gradually raised. Excessive sound levels are potentially damaging.
From my experience, the burning-in process with recorded music is better than white-noise or pink-noise.

 

[gregorio]

If you can't provide proof of measurement of DSD resolution, then you are inconsistent !

Right, so you’re admitting you’re “inconsistent” then. Glad we finally got that sorted!

G

 

[CiptoH]

I clearly have NOT avoided discussing DSD resolution, in fact that’s pretty much all I’ve discussed with you. How do you not know that after all these posts? What do you think I’m basing it on, magic? And, I have ALREADY provided measurements, my quote from Wikipedia for example. How many times are you going to ask for what I’ve already provided?

Where is the measurement evidence of the true value of DSD resolution ?
Don't forget, these are scientific methods that you always glorify.

In the Wikipedia article you provided there are only DSD dynamics-range measurement results and no DSD actual resolution measurement results.

 

[gregorio]

In the Wikipedia article you provided there are only DSD dynamics-range measurement results and no DSD actual resolution measurement results.

This is ridiculous! The DSD dynamic-range measurement results ARE the actual DSD resolution measurement results. You yourself quoted this fact in your hyperphysics quote, which I've ALREADY mentioned and quoted back to you! if you disagree with your own quote, then why did you quote it and why don't your argue with hyperphysics? Talk about "inconsistent", this takes it to an unimagined level!

G