You're right. Randomly comparing things is a waste of time. That's why you have a baseline to compare against. I have an iPod Classic that I know is audibly transparent. I compare against that. If it sounds the same, the thing I'm comparing is transparent. If it sounds different, something is wrong with the thing I'm comparing. If you don't have a known baseline to compare against, compare to a wide sample. If ten things sound the same and one thing sounds different, you can safely assume that the odd one out is the one with a problem. Error is generally random. Ten different components wouldn't be likely to have identical error.
We aren't talking about enjoyable here. We're talking about fidelity. Coloration is best added at the very end of the chain, so all your sources benefit from the same "enjoyable" coloration. And it's best added with DSPs that can be adjusted to fine tune the coloration, not from random error introduced by defects in design or manufacture.
My iPods are on one level, where yes they are flat. They also have been routinely rumored to be flat. That is an expected sound.
My Sony DAPs are everything better. When I say everything I mean, higher detail, deeper bass, wider soundstage.............a clarity and basic entertainment level improvement. So if someone was to say the difference is DACs, I would not know? To me it could possibly be better amps?
You're right. Randomly comparing things is a waste of time. That's why you have a baseline to compare against. I have an iPod Classic that I know is audibly transparent. I compare against that. If it sounds the same, the thing I'm comparing is transparent. If it sounds different, something is wrong with the thing I'm comparing. If you don't have a known baseline to compare against, compare to a wide sample. If ten things sound the same and one thing sounds different, you can safely assume that the odd one out is the one with a problem. Error is generally random. Ten different components wouldn't be likely to have identical error.
We aren't talking about enjoyable here. We're talking about fidelity. Coloration is best added at the very end of the chain, so all your sources benefit from the same "enjoyable" coloration. And it's best added with DSPs that can be adjusted to fine tune the coloration, not from random error introduced by defects in design or manufacture.
Note an excerpt from a review (below) of the Sony DAPs. In this part taken from the Sony 1Z review twister6 talks about how the DAC and Amp section is uniformly different than normal DAPs. You could at first think it’s simple sales talk that all DAP/DACs are the same....but the S-Master HX system is truly different in how it works.
In my DAP reviews, the "under the hood" section usually starts with a discussion about which DAC is used in the design. And often the discussion continuous talking about using dual DACs in higher end models to separate L/R channels. WM1Z is different because Sony has a totally different approach to this design requirement - using their own digital S-Master HX amplifier.
S-Master digital amp is not a brand-new concept, Sony has been using it in a lot of their high-end desktop audio systems throughout years. But they continue to perfect it, to optimize it, and to adapt it for a portable use with their latest in-house developed S-Master HX semiconductor digital amplifier - model CXD-3778GF. This new evolution of S-Master HX digital amp wasn't only optimized for efficient battery use, but also developed to be compatible with native DSD decoding, Balanced output, and High-Power output. Keep it mind, other entry and mid-fi Sony DAPs, like A40 and NX300, also use CXD-3778GF model, but they have a different implementation of LPF circuit where, for example, A40 uses switching FET inside of CXD-3778GF, while WM1 has high voltage FET outside of the digital amp.
I already mentioned "digital amp" a few times, and would like to talk more about its benefits. In a traditional design, decoded digital data stream is fed into D/A converter for digital signal to be converted into analog, then some Low Pass Filter (LPF), perhaps a volume control, and analog headphone amplifier section. Such traditional design generates "open-loop" distortion which is corrected with a Negative Feedback that has its own problems. Also, with a traditional off-the-shelf DAC architecture design, we see more dual DAC implementations to separate L/R channels in order to reduce the interference and crosstalk.
The problem with this architecture is that majority of the signal goes through analog path which is more susceptible to noise coupling, interference, and crosstalk. Even with L/R channel separation, you are still dealing with a small printed wiring board (pwb) and close proximity of the signals. What S-Master digital amp does is to completely replace the analog amplification with a digital amp technology without a feedback. S-Master doesn't have D/A converter. Instead, the amp processes the digital signal until the final output stage where it uses LPF.
In a digital domain, there is no need for a dual DAC since you don't have to worry about analog signal interference and crosstalk, and because this is a fully custom semiconductor design, Sony is in full control to optimize the audio performance (in this case supporting balanced output with DSD native playback in balanced mode only of up to 11.2MHz and Linear PCM playback up to 384kHz/32bit), and also to optimize battery life depending on the audio format playback. When it comes to audio formats, you have support of most of the lossy and lossless formats, such as MP3, WMA, FLAC, Linear PCM (wav), AAC, HE-AAC, Apple Lossless, AIFF, and DSD. CUE files playback is read as a single file. Also, although there is no menu selection to enable gapless, I tested it with one of my gapless MP3 albums and it worked flawless.
Battery life is truly phenomenal, Sony was able to optimize the performance, depending on the file format, to have a playback of over 30hrs. I ran multiple tests with MP3 and FLAC files, using balanced output, and with direct sound on (no DSP effects) and off. On average, my best-case scenario of playing 320kbps MP3 from 4.4mm HO with direct sound yielded 32 hours of continuous playback. Switching to FLAC, playing continuously from 4.4mm HO with DSP effects enabled – lasted 19 hours.
So in ending here maybe the Sony DAPs royalty screw up the sound? Don’t know if you have read ASRs take on the Sony 1A? There the 1A measures way less than phone quality. But as we all know there is more to this than measurements! Do the Sony DAPs give a more messed up audiophile response than the iPod? It’s way way beyond simply saying that the 1Z/1A are a preferred sound (individually). Of course this example simply shows that the Sony DAPs are superior to the iPod in being more listenable.
My Sony DAPs are everything better. When I say everything I mean, higher detail, deeper bass, wider soundstage.............a clarity and basic entertainment level improvement.
Perfect description of unconscious expectation bias! It's clear that all the advertising literature you've been reading have had its intended effect. Now get someone who is unbiased to set up a controlled listening test for you and get back to me.
The sorts of things Solan is talking about are below the threshold of perception by an order of magnitude... or several orders of magnitude. You don't need to organize a controlled listening test
And then you are using your theory to trump practical experience and say that a test is not wanted, not desirable, since your theory tells you that you have full control of the variables.
Perfect description of unconscious expectation bias! It's clear that all the advertising literature you've been reading have had its intended effect. Now get someone who is unbiased to set up a controlled listening test for you and get back to me.
And now you want a listening test again! Do you even listen to yourself pontificate and contradict yourself? No, probably not. So why should anyone else bother listening to you if even you yourself don't?
No, I am saying that when you know what the numbers translate to in real world sound, you know when you are looking at a molehill and mistaking it for a mountain. Your bias has blinded you to the actual context and application of the theory. You aren't alone. Redcarmoose is trotting down the same rabbit hole. Run rabbit! Run!
Now if you are interested in home audio *purely in theory* and don't mind spending more for "sound" your ears can't possibly hear, then I say "More power to you!" You've found a theoretical rabbit hole that has no end, and if you enjoy running, you've found the right place.
But I use my audio equipment to listen to music with my ears. There is such a thing as good enough. Tests are great for discerning if small differences are real or the phantom effects of bias or perceptual error. But they can also put the lie to blatant bias. I don't ask people to do tests to prove anything to me. When the theory is that far off in left field, I don't need you to prove anything to know you're wrong. When I suggest someone try verifying their subjective impressions with a controlled listening test, it's to help THEM find out what the truth is. Maybe trying it will help you learn something useful.
Perfect description of unconscious expectation bias! It's clear that all the advertising literature you've been reading have had its intended effect. Now get someone who is unbiased to set up a controlled listening test for you and get back to me.
So you really think the sound of a $190 iPod Classic is better than a $3200 Sony DAP? And......all this due to sales speak being understood and believed by the Sony owner? Really?
1) So you really think the sound of a $190 iPod Classic is better than a $3200 Sony DAP? 2) And......all this due to sales speak being understood and believed by the Sony owner? 3) Really?
1) No. I think it is most likely that they sound exactly the same. There is no correlation between price and fidelity in this type of audio component as long as it is properly designed and manufactured.
2) Yes. The purpose of the sales pitch is to convince you that their product is better than the competition, whether it really is or not. Snake Oil doesn't sell without a really good pitch.
3) Yes, really.
As I suggested before, find an unbiased person to help you set up and administer a line level matched, direct A/B switched blind listening comparison. See if the difference is as great as you seem to think it is. You may very well learn something interesting about your own perception.
So you really think the sound of a $190 iPod Classic is better than a $3200 Sony DAP? And......all this due to sales speak being understood and believed by the Sony owner? Really?
Have not heard either, but it is perfectly possible the the Ipod classic is able to reproduce the signal more faithfully than the Sony. It is an empirical question, not a logical impossibility. People with $3200 DAPs have swallowed the audiophile bait hook, line and sinker. It is not very surprising they are in denial about this possibility.
Have not heard either, but it is perfectly possible the the Ipod classic is able to reproduce the signal more faithfully than the Sony. It is an empirical question, not a logical impossibility. People with $3200 DAPs have swallowed the audiophile bait hook, line and sinker. It is not very surprising they are in denial about this possibility.
I haven't heard the Sony myself, but I have compared dozens of players and DACs at all different price points and I have yet to find a single one that sounds different. I'm told that old school NOS DACs from the beginning of consumer digital audio color the sound by rolling off high frequencies due to lack of precision in low pass filters. That might make an audible difference, but as you say, that would be less faithful than the iPod Classic, not more faithful. Is there indication in the Sony's specs and measurements that there is any audible coloration to the sound? Does it not have a flat response? Does it add euphonic distortion? I suppose that is possible, but I would guess that Sony wouldn't sell something that deliberately degrades fidelity.
If the claim is that the difference is clearly audible, but not measurable, then we are back to proving that with a controlled listening test. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that possibility because it's extremely unlikely, but if someone would like to try to verify it, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would be interested in peer reviewing a test that proves that some aspect of audible sound can't be measured.
If you are saying that the Sony audibly colors the sound in a euphonic way, that would certainly be measurable, just as tube amp distortion and response curves are.
I haven't heard the Sony myself, but I have compared dozens of players and DACs at all different price points and I have yet to find a single one that sounds different. I'm told that old school NOS DACs from the beginning of consumer digital audio color the sound by rolling off high frequencies due to lack of precision in low pass filters. That might make an audible difference, but as you say, that would be less faithful than the iPod Classic, not more faithful. Is there indication in the Sony's specs and measurements that there is any audible coloration to the sound? Does it not have a flat response? Does it add euphonic distortion? I suppose that is possible, but I would guess that Sony wouldn't sell something that deliberately degrades fidelity.
If the claim is that the difference is clearly audible, but not measurable, then we are back to proving that with a controlled listening test. I don't spend a lot of time worrying about that possibility because it's extremely unlikely, but if someone would like to try to verify it, I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who would be interested in peer reviewing a test that proves that audible sound can't be measured.
See the gross negligence on your part deals with the fact that your thinking all amps are the same after the DAC. The amplifier section is different DAP to DAP. Realistically maybe 2% of Head-Fi even use that iPod. iPods were popular here 10 years ago, yet almost no one uses them now. I’m not saying they are bad, just not the preference of the generations of current Head-Fi owners.
The Amplifier is different. Now your going on then maybe to say all amplifiers are the same? I only chose the Sony DAP as an example. There are 1000s of DAPs in use all over that are different than the iPod, the DAPs don’t all sound the same. I’m not saying the iPod is not flat. I’m just saying that the majority of listeners (now) preference something else.
Have not heard either, but it is perfectly possible the the Ipod classic is able to reproduce the signal more faithfully than the Sony. It is an empirical question, not a logical impossibility. People with $3200 DAPs have swallowed the audiophile bait hook, line and sinker. It is not very surprising they are in denial about this possibility.
See the gross negligence on your part deals with the fact that your thinking all amps are the same after the DAC. The amplifier section is different DAP to DAP.
I have yet to find a DAP or amp that sounds different as long as the impedance and sensitivity of the transducers are compatible. It is no great feat to make a transparent headphone amp. You keep pointing to rabbit holes of theory without relating them to audibility. Just because one headphone jack puts out .001% THD and one puts out .01%, it doesn't mean that human ears can hear a difference. Yes there is a measurable difference. But it isn't an audible difference. Digital audio and advances in solid state electronics have guaranteed audible transparency, even in inexpensive players. The only way that fidelity is not perfect is if the component was designed to not perform to digital spec, or it has manufacturing flaws. I have yet to find an example of either of these things myself. If I did, I would pack it up and return it for a full refund.
I just looked up that $3k Sony Walkman. It's gold plated. BLING! Do you think the gold plating might be there to reinforce expectation bias? It also reproduces frequencies that human ears can't hear.
If you'd like to avoid "gross negligence" yourself, please rerfer to the links in my sig file "CD Sound Is All You Need" and the Stereo Review amp listening test results.
Proponents of digital audio? How about proponents of analog audio? How about perfect analog audio? We can't do things PERFECTLY digitally or analogically, but we can do things perfectly enough, at least digitally.
1. That tautology is like saying to walk a mile you need to walk a mile.
2. Is that nonsense suppose to silence those who don't know what inverse Fourier Transformation means? Whittaker–Shannon interpolation formula (sinc interpolation) is used to calculate the continuous time function from discrete time samples. It is a function from discrete time domain to continuous time domain and isn't essentially an inverse Fourier Transformation, because inverse Fourier Transformation is a function that converts a signal from frequency domain to time domain. I have wrote (long ago) Matlab code that uses sinc interpolation to resample (with extreme accuracy) impulse responses measured at an exotic sample rate to 44.1 kHz for listening test purposes so I know this stuff.
Regaining of the original signal is attempted through low-level polynomial interpolation from the samples.
At worst, just the "staircase", proceeding from sampled value to sampled value
Second worst, linear interpolation between sample points
Upsampling, so that you get something approximating a higher order polynomial
To make up for the shortcomings in (1) and (2), DACs apply dithering (noise shaping) and filtering, and maybe some other corrective techniques. Still, the shortcomings are there, and is the reason why the theoretically sufficient 44.1kHz is not sufficient in all cases and therefore mandate higher sampling rates for better results.
But regardless, modern DACs are not anywhere near perfect "Nyquist machines" performing Nyquist's theorem in practice. They just try to be the best possible approximation, and approximations can be done in many different ways. That's why different DACs will sound different.
As if analog audio was perfect and with digital audio we need to settle with "actual imperfect DACs."
1. Yes and that's why the dynamic range isn't infinite just as analog audio doesn't allow infinite dynamic range.
2. What? No, that's not how DACs generally work. Integer-valued upsampling can be done by inserting zeros "between" sample points and applying low pass filter.
1. Staircases again! Reconstruction filter takes care of those.
2. That's what your wave editor does to resample in real time using as little cpu as possible.
3. sample interpolation is needed to upsample, not otherwise. You are confusing something here.
3. I am afraid you are misunderstanding the "shortcomings" of (1) and (2). Dither is not applied in DACs. Dither is applied in ADCs when converting analog signal into quantized samples or when truncating for example 24 bit samples to 16 bits. Dithering can be applied with or without noise shaping and there are many types of dither noise optimized for different situations. For example, if we have digital zeros (total silence) in our signal, applying rectangular dither doesn't add dither to these parts of total silence, but the cost is the dither noise elsewhere is louder than for example triangle dither. It is meaningless to debate whether there are shortcomings, because both analog and digital sound has those. The question is whether those shortcomings are audible or not? To demonstrate the shortcomings you are talking about we need very special test signals taylored to expose them. How much do you expect to encounter such signals in music? It is absolutely crazy to think we need higher sample rates in case the music happens to contain something like a very short impulse miraculously not masked by the music! In a way 44.1 kHz is at worst theoretically insufficient, but practically sufficient, because people don't listen to torture signals taylored to expose shortcomings. People listen to music.
Modern DACs are so close being "Nyquist machines" that to human ears they provide transparent sound even at 44.1 kHz/16 bit.
I have yet to find a DAP or amp that sounds different as long as the impedance and sensitivity of the transducers are compatible. It is no great feat to make a transparent headphone amp. You keep pointing to rabbit holes of theory without relating them to audibility. Just because one headphone jack puts out .001% THD and one puts out .01%, it doesn't mean that human ears can hear a difference. Yes there is a measurable difference. But it isn't an audible difference. Digital audio and advances in solid state electronics have guaranteed audible transparency, even in inexpensive players. The only way that fidelity is not perfect is if the component was designed to not perform to digital spec, or it has manufacturing flaws. I have yet to find an example of either of these things myself. If I did, I would pack it up and return it for a full refund.
I just looked up that $3k Sony Walkman. It's gold plated. BLING! Do you think the gold plating might be there to reinforce expectation bias? It also reproduces frequencies that human ears can't hear.
If you'd like to avoid "gross negligence" yourself, please rerfer to the links in my sig file "CD Sound Is All You Need" and the Stereo Review amp listening test results.
I have iPods, which I use every day. Still the Sony DAPs ARE different. I would be the first to say the iPods probably ARE flat.
But there is more to the equation than DACs here. Absolutely many amp sections sound different. They even have different amp sections which you can change-out of DAPs which give them a different sound. Even a DAP that has a solid state amp and by the flick of a switch tube-amp deployment. At this point you have to understand a tube amp (does) sound different than a solid state amp. I don’t know why you won’t admit that there is a profound difference between amps. I’m not saying they are better than the iPods amp section, just different; most of the time warmer.
The gold Sony maybe was a bad reference as there is many DAPs closer to the iPods price that are different, not better but different.
The gold plate simply allows the OFC copper case gives protection corrosion. The sold copper does a very small improvement to make the sound more black, by blocking interference. The difference between the $1200 Sony 1A and the $3200 Sony 1Z is very small, 10%. The difference is very much just a form of audiophile distortion in relation to the Apple iPod. Yes, you pay for a different sound. It’s very simple....not all DAPs sound the same.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
