[Music Alchemist]

I'm not really convinced that you will ever find enough theoretical data or measurement data to change the minds of those who are certain of the validity of their skepticism, but I wish you good luck in your quest

 
Neither of those alone would accomplish the goal I proposed, but controlled listening tests (the details of which I would divulge to anyone who wants to do them) would, because they would demonstrate that at least one person could reliably distinguish between the two DACs. Even just one volunteer could work. And since it would involve comparing the DAVE against a cheap DAC, it should be pretty easy once everything is set up.

 

[Beolab]

OT

Received my Uptone Ultra-capacitor LPS-1 FPGA power supply that i power one of my W4s Remedy femto clocks with ( before i use to powered them with battery packs) , the clarity / separation / timing and the definition is very much better than before!

I can highly recommend it!

I take of my hat for Alex Crespi @ Uptone

So now the Abyss trough DAVE sings like never before!

[

 

[Chrispb1]

I can only assume, my system has a better synergy with the Yggdrasil. After having the DAVE in my system I found it no better than the Dac in my already excellent Mcintosh C2500 pre amp. Maybe at Its price I was expecting too much, but it moved me no more, no less and certainly no match for my Well Tempered Amadeus GTA. So when I arrange a home loan of the Yggy I wasn't expecting anything that would be more than tonal differences, I, in fact was beginning to think "digital" isn't "there" yet. However, in the context of my system, I'm amazed, it's like a new hi res format has been launched. So much so my TT is now sitting on its own in the other room until the Yggy goes back. Will buy one? More than likely. My only reservation is it's been out now for close on 2 years, and as amazing as it is I'd be very dissapointed if the model was superseded very soon after purchase despite its performance and promises of upgradability I just want best bang per £. I did message Schiit but they're giving nothing away as to product development. Problem is I don't think I can live without it now. Hey, DAVE, Yggy or anything else, you pays your money, just know where mine's going between the two. Rest of the system: Bluesound Vault 2, Mcintosh C2500 pre, Levinson 433 power, Genesis 5.3 speakers.
Furman reference, isol8 substation, Vertex AQ Taga,

 

[JaZZ]

 

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Is anyone willing to fight alongside me against "objectivist" trolls who insist all DACs sound the same?
 
They seriously get on my nerves, not only because they spread misinformation, but more importantly because they've never even used the products they trash. (Which is supposed to be against the rules, but they get around it somehow.)
 
I'm asking this here because the DAVE is widely regarded as the best DAC available and is generally thought to sound wildly better than affordable DACs.
 
Explaining the technical advantages doesn't work because they can simply say it's below the threshold of audibility, ie humans can't hear it. Explaining that practically everyone who has heard it insists it sounds much better doesn't work because they can simply say it's the placebo effect, ie everyone is imagining the difference. And suggesting that they actually listen to the product doesn't work because they can simply refuse and say there's no point. (See why these people tick me off?)
 
Merely ignoring them isn't good enough for me. I want to prove them wrong.
 
The only two things I can think of to do that are controlled listening tests and measurements.
 
The technical superiority of the DAVE has already been documented via measurements. So if someone were to prove that they could reliably tell it apart from, say, a Schiit Modi 2 with statistical significance, the skeptics could not claim that it is merely because the DAVE is coloring the sound, since it has better measurements, not worse ones.
 
The problem is actually pulling that off. I'd imagine you would need very specific equipment to rapidly switch between the two DACs and record the results.
 
One easier set of measurements that may not have been done yet is with Audio DiffMaker. (Signal difference extraction software.) This would involve playing music with the two DACs and recording the difference between them.
 
If anyone wants to help me out with this little project, please quote, tag, or PM me!
 
The ultimate goal would be to have objective proof that people really can hear a genuine improvement with high-end DACs, so then anyone can link the "objectivists" to it and proudly proclaim, "See, look. It really does sound different, and it is higher fidelity because the measurements already showed this."

 

 
A few years ago I was similarly militant in trying to convince the skeptics in the Sound Science forum of the relevance of various unaccepted audio phenomena, such as amplifier and cable sound – with zero success. All they believe in is controlled listening tests, and I'm not the least motivated to absolve any just for the sake of proving something to them. On the one hand I can understand their general skepticism, on the other hand it looks much too closed-minded to me. So all I could recommend to you is to invite one or some of the protagonists there to an (uncontrolled) listening test with several electronics with enough sonic differences to be demonstrative even for relatively unsensitive ears or minds.

 

[Deftone]

OT

Received my Uptone Ultra-capacitor LPS-1 FPGA power supply that i power one of my W4s Remedy femto clocks with ( before i use to powered them with battery packs) , the clarity / separation / timing and the definition is very much better than before!

Can highly emrecomend it!

I take of my hat for Alex Crespi @ Uptone

So now the Abyss trough DAVE sings like never before!

[

I would imagine that the Dave has quality clock system and shouldn't need any femto re clockers.

Reminds me of that Hans fellow on YouTube saying that mojo benefited from a reclocker even though it's immune to jitter...

I think it's got to a point where people have bought the stuff they really like but don't like the idea of not having to buy anything else so they search for absolutely anything to try and make "improvements" most audiophiles say they are searching for endgame but don't like it when they get there, the chase is over. Just my opinion.

 

[jlbrach]

  Is anyone willing to fight alongside me against "objectivist" trolls who insist all DACs sound the same?
 
They seriously get on my nerves, not only because they spread misinformation, but more importantly because they've never even used the products they trash. (Which is supposed to be against the rules, but they get around it somehow.)
 
I'm asking this here because the DAVE is widely regarded as the best DAC available and is generally thought to sound wildly better than affordable DACs.
 
Explaining the technical advantages doesn't work because they can simply say it's below the threshold of audibility, ie humans can't hear it. Explaining that practically everyone who has heard it insists it sounds much better doesn't work because they can simply say it's the placebo effect, ie everyone is imagining the difference. And suggesting that they actually listen to the product doesn't work because they can simply refuse and say there's no point. (See why these people tick me off?)
 
Merely ignoring them isn't good enough for me. I want to prove them wrong.
 
The only two things I can think of to do that are controlled listening tests and measurements.
 
The technical superiority of the DAVE has already been documented via measurements. So if someone were to prove that they could reliably tell it apart from, say, a Schiit Modi 2 with statistical significance, the skeptics could not claim that it is merely because the DAVE is coloring the sound, since it has better measurements, not worse ones.
 
The problem is actually pulling that off. I'd imagine you would need very specific equipment to rapidly switch between the two DACs and record the results.
 
One easier set of measurements that may not have been done yet is with Audio DiffMaker. (Signal difference extraction software.) This would involve playing music with the two DACs and recording the difference between them.
 
If anyone wants to help me out with this little project, please quote, tag, or PM me!
 
The ultimate goal would be to have objective proof that people really can hear a genuine improvement with high-end DACs, so then anyone can link the "objectivists" to it and proudly proclaim, "See, look. It really does sound different, and it is higher fidelity because the measurements already showed this."

Every record player sounds the same...yeah right!Every loudspeaker sounds the same,yeah right!Every DAC sounds the same,yeah right!....it is true that when you get up into the big leagues and compare DAC's in the same price range that the differences become subjective but the differences between entry level DAC's and Dave or other premium DAC's is quite stark!

 

[jlbrach]

I can only assume, my system has a better synergy with the Yggdrasil. After having the DAVE in my system I found it no better than the Dac in my already excellent Mcintosh C2500 pre amp. Maybe at Its price I was expecting too much, but it moved me no more, no less and certainly no match for my Well Tempered Amadeus GTA. So when I arrange a home loan of the Yggy I wasn't expecting anything that would be more than tonal differences, I, in fact was beginning to think "digital" isn't "there" yet. However, in the context of my system, I'm amazed, it's like a new hi res format has been launched. So much so my TT is now sitting on its own in the other room until the Yggy goes back. Will buy one? More than likely. My only reservation is it's been out now for close on 2 years, and as amazing as it is I'd be very dissapointed if the model was superseded very soon after purchase despite its performance and promises of upgradability I just want best bang per £. I did message Schiit but they're giving nothing away as to product development. Problem is I don't think I can live without it now. Hey, DAVE, Yggy or anything else, you pays your money, just know where mine's going between the two. Rest of the system: Bluesound Vault 2, Mcintosh C2500 pre, Levinson 433 power, Genesis 5.3 speakers.
Furman reference, isol8 substation, Vertex AQ Taga,

I sold my Yiggy to buy a TT and thought the TT head and shoulders better than the Yiggy,I now own the Dave and can't conceive of going back to the Yiggy so to each his or her own

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Every record player sounds the same...yeah right!Every loudspeaker sounds the same,yeah right!Every DAC sounds the same,yeah right!....it is true that when you get up into the big leagues and compare DAC's in the same price range that the differences become subjective but the differences between entry level DAC's and Dave or other premium DAC's is quite stark!

 
So would you be willing to prove it objectively to the skeptics? Let me know and we can go from there.
 
I already have a way of proving it once and for all, but am not sure about the specific equipment needed to do it. I'd have to get in touch with a few experts...but first I'd need a willing participant who owns the DAVE.
 
I want to emphasize that I am not a skeptic, and believe the endless DAC impressions out there are a result of them actually sounding different. (At least in most cases.)
 
Since the difference is so stark, that should make it a simple matter to demonstrate that you can reliably distinguish between the DAVE (which I feel is an ideal choice for this experiment precisely because it should sound dramatically better) and an entry-level DAC—once the necessary test conditions are prepared.
 
Remember, the entire purpose of this would be to have concrete proof to refute the claims of the skeptics. (Or whatever you want to call them.) And that claim (or rather, one of them) is that a $100 DAC sounds the same as the most expensive DACs. They've abused the name of science with anti-audiophile propaganda for long enough.

 

[astrostar59]

   
So would you be willing to prove it objectively to the skeptics? Let me know and we can go from there.
 
I already have a way of proving it once and for all, but am not sure about the specific equipment needed to do it. I'd have to get in touch with a few experts...but first I'd need a willing participant who owns the DAVE.
 
I want to emphasize that I am not a skeptic, and believe the endless DAC impressions out there are a result of them actually sounding different. (At least in most cases.)
 
Since the difference is so stark, that should make it a simple matter to demonstrate that you can reliably distinguish between the DAVE (which I feel is an ideal choice for this experiment precisely because it should sound dramatically better) and an entry-level DAC—once the necessary test conditions are prepared.
 
Remember, the entire purpose of this would be to have concrete proof to refute the claims of the skeptics. (Or whatever you want to call them.) And that claim (or rather, one of them) is that a $100 DAC sounds the same as the most expensive DACs. They've abused the name of science with anti-audiophile propaganda for long enough.

I am sick of this same old line. Is it you hate the 'idea' of the more expensive units? Maybe they just wind up? Whatever, it is key to get to hear some of the higher end units. Yes, some are very pricey and you get into performance v cost ratios. But after having owned 20+ DACs that cost £200 to £15K, and heard some priced at over £25K I have to say the more expensive units do tend to sound better, in some cases MUCH better. Some high end DACs also sound a bit harsh IMO such as the Esoteric K-01, and is beaten by cheaper R-2R DACs IMO. But that case was pretty exceptional.
 
It isn't just the DAC chip implementation, or the FPGA, wether it is R-2R or whatever, it is also the integrity of the power supplies and line stage implementation. I have said it for years, but a DAC is effectively a pre-amplifier with a digital board. We all know there are good, bad and great pre-amplifiers. DACs are no different....
 
Good high end DACs I have heard and rate are the Lampizator Golden Gate, Audio Note DAC 5 Special, CH Precision C1. I also rate the much cheaper AMR DP-777. Not heard the DAVE yet, but a buddy has one in the UK so that will be soon. 

 

[Deftone]

Musicalchemist isnt agreeing with the sceptics he's going against them lol

 

[Music Alchemist]

  I am sick of this same old line. Is it you hate the 'idea' of the more expensive units? Maybe they just wind up? Whatever, it is key to get to hear some of the higher end units. Yes, some are very pricey and you get into performance v cost ratios. But after having owned 20+ DACs that cost £200 to £15K, and heard some priced at over £25K I have to say the more expensive units do tend to sound better, in some cases MUCH better. Some high end DACs also sound a bit harsh IMO such as the Esoteric K-01, and is beaten by cheaper R-2R DACs IMO. But that case was pretty exceptional.
 
It isn't just the DAC chip implementation, or the FPGA, wether it is R-2R or whatever, it is also the integrity of the power supplies and line stage implementation. I have said it for years, but a DAC is effectively a pre-amplifier with a digital board. We all know there are good, bad and great pre-amplifiers. DACs are no different....
 
Good high end DACs I have heard and rate are the Lampizator Golden Gate, Audio Note DAC 5 Special, CH Precision C1. I also rate the much cheaper AMR DP-777. Not heard the DAVE yet, but a buddy has one in the UK so that will be soon. 

 
Um...did you even read my posts? Please read them again, carefully this time. And don't miss my original post on the topic.
 
I was talking about objectively proving to the skeptics (such as ones who claim all DACs sound the same) that high-end DACs do sound better and that some people really can tell the difference. One of the best ways I could think of for proving that would be to compare the DAVE against a cheap DAC in a controlled listening test, since the differences there should be the greatest and easiest to detect.
 
I am not a skeptic and am not claiming they sound the same. I already made all that very clear.
 
I have heard high-end DACs, but only on systems I did not own.
 
I also stated in this thread that I plan on buying the DAVE once I can afford it. I have no problem with expensive DACs. The price of the DAVE is quite attractive considering that so many think it sounds better than DACs that cost ten times more.
 

Musicalchemist isnt agreeing with the sceptics he's going against them lol

This. I don't even understand how I could have been misinterpreted.

 

[Music Alchemist]

  Aren't you this guy?
http://www.head-fi.org/t/725435/please-bury-this-thread-music-alchemists-ultimate-wish-list-thread-feel-free-to-add-your-own-items
 
Please, you're useless.
First, you get excited about the most expensive and exclusive, after, you read somewhere on the internet that more expensive gear isn't always better, and come up with this? 
Of course, you have not heard anything of the gear mentioned.
 
D@mn, now I understand the angry people at the other forum.

 
Oh my goodness. You're completely misinterpreting me too. (I really don't see how you could have unless you simply did not actually read my posts.) I am saying that expensive DACs do sound better, and am seeking out those who are willing to help me objectively prove it to those who do not believe that.
 
Read this post:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/6225#post_13103154
 
Also, which "gear mentioned" are you referring to? I have owned and heard all sorts of stuff.

 

[jlbrach]

   
So would you be willing to prove it objectively to the skeptics? Let me know and we can go from there.
 
I already have a way of proving it once and for all, but am not sure about the specific equipment needed to do it. I'd have to get in touch with a few experts...but first I'd need a willing participant who owns the DAVE.
 
I want to emphasize that I am not a skeptic, and believe the endless DAC impressions out there are a result of them actually sounding different. (At least in most cases.)
 
Since the difference is so stark, that should make it a simple matter to demonstrate that you can reliably distinguish between the DAVE (which I feel is an ideal choice for this experiment precisely because it should sound dramatically better) and an entry-level DAC—once the necessary test conditions are prepared.
 
Remember, the entire purpose of this would be to have concrete proof to refute the claims of the skeptics. (Or whatever you want to call them.) And that claim (or rather, one of them) is that a $100 DAC sounds the same as the most expensive DACs. They've abused the name of science with anti-audiophile propaganda for long enough.

 

   
Oh my goodness. You're completely misinterpreting me too. I am saying that expensive DACs do sound better, and am seeking out those who are willing to help me objectively prove it to those who do not believe that.
 
Read this post:
http://www.head-fi.org/t/766517/chord-electronics-dave/6225#post_13103154
 
Also, which "gear mentioned" are you referring to? I have owned and heard all sorts of stuff.

What is the point of such an action?Why would one need to prove something like this to anyone...if somebody told me he enjoyed the sound of scratching a record to listening to the music on the record my answer would be fine,enjoy yourself....I am sure they would be ways for engineers to make objective claims but in the end it is up to your ears and how it sounds

 

[Music Alchemist]

  What is the point of such an action?Why would one need to prove something like this to anyone...if somebody told me he enjoyed the sound of scratching a record to listening to the music on the record my answer would be fine,enjoy yourself....I am sure they would be ways for engineers to make objective claims but in the end it is up to your ears and how it sounds

 
The point is that the skeptics (at least the ones I'm talking about) will only accept a controlled (and documented) listening test as objective proof of someone being able to tell two DACs apart. Once someone does that, they won't be able to make claims like "all DACs sound the same" anymore, because we can simply link them to the proof that they do in fact sound different.
 
...But I suppose you're not willing to participate in such a test...

 

[x RELIC x]

I work in the film and tv realm and have a very sensitive eye. I can spot jutter in a televisions frame rate easily and I can not stand any motion enhancements (frame interpolation) from modern televisions. It's extremely easy for me to spot these things, and yet most of those around me don't detect them or have no bias one way or another. It all depends on the perspective of the viewer and the ability/mental focus to perceive a difference. Most people I know simply talk about the colour saturation and that's all that matters to them, but they'll never realize the contrast ratio has a large influence on the colour reproduction for example. If there is no perception of a difference then all the talking in the world simply won't convince the individual otherwise. Others can see a difference with motion enhancements, but can't for the life of them describe what is going on. This is where comments like 'soap opera effect' arise, because of a lack of knowledge about what is actually happening.

It's very much the same with audio. Many people simply don't take the time to understand what is going on with regard to timing and noise/distortion and the effect they have with the resulting sound and the focus is usually just on the perceived frequency response. This leads to them making assumptions about what is 'better' to them vs what is actually happening under the hood, and this also creates a myriad of false asssumptions because of a lack of knowledge to describe what is going on. For example, if a system is injecting a lot of substrate noise and the resulting sound is brighter this is often mistaken for detail, but it may just be an artifact of an anomaly in the system. Others may point to a piece of gear that is 'fuller' being the better implementation, but the root cause may be harmonic distortion making everything sound 'fuller' with less variety within the reproduction, like a phat filter on everything which results in less transparency. Of course this isn't always the case but it's easy to make assumptions. To the individual who likes these things the perception will be that the gear is 'better'. For them that is their reality so there is no way any amount of words will change their mind. The issue becomes when they can't describe what is happening and then present their findings as gospel based on false assumptions. Well, to their perspective it is 100% accurate so there is no way this can be debated for them.

There is also the factor of amps, transducers, and the entire audio chain having an effect on the source. If the amp, or transducer is adding their own distortions and colouration then of course the differences between DACs will be much harder to discern. I see this all the time with less experienced 'audiophiles'. The same can be said for power supplies injecting a lot of noise in to the system which may mask any subtle differences in timing or timbre. Dealing in a holistic approach to improve the audio chain is what I've found to be the best way to distinguish quality of components rather than just picking apart one element within a flawed system. I see this all too often and I believe is a large reason why some describe the same gear in different ways assuming that the rest of their system isn't altering the sound. In fact that is why I like Rob's implementations so much, because he approaches his designs from input to output and has worked very hard to reduce the amount of components in the path for the sake of transparency.

For those that want to move past the dogma of a hard line of audibility then there is a entirely new world of possibility as to what may alter the sound. With Rob's DACs I can see where some may not see the initial attraction. Objectively it's not like there is an overwhelming difference like moving to a 3D tv from a 2D tv. The differences are subtle enough with audio to easily be overlooked, difficult to describe, or mistaken if not focusing on where the improvements lie. Subjectively the differences could be night and day depending on what is important to the listener. I can say without hesitation that, for me, after I became used to the Mojo, and later the DAVE, that the differences between other gear is very easy to hear and the ability to focus on what is missing/changed is much easier. Similar to hearing something in a recording that was previously missed on other gear, but once heard can not be missed although perhaps not as easily heard. This often takes time to be acquainted with the gear with a multitude of tracks so most a/b comparisons are not productive in these cases. Most who have a brief demo may not be able to discern any outward difference and for them the book is closed from that point forward. It takes careful listening, knowing what to focus on, knowing what to listen for, and only then, IMO, will an individual be able to state where there may be a discernible difference.

With regard to audibility thresholds I'm in the camp that believes there is much more to our brains ability to dissect the information that our ears retrieve than what is assumed to be the limit of our hearing. There is more to listening than just frequency response, just like there is more to seeing than just colour (or lack of). Really, at the end of the day it all depends on the individual's perception. There is absolutely no way around that.