[bokononista]

Not a blind comparison? CHECK! Not direct A/B switched? CHECK! Not level matched? CHECK! Nearly a half hour between samples? CHECK!
Sounds like a $150 placebo/perceptual error upgrade to me.

Don't open that box man , too dangerous.
I am open even to idea i had a stroke between installation. To me the difference is more hearable than tube rolling (please dont tell me all tubes sound same and i need A/B them). I would like to know the truth why i hear the difference.

 

[bigshot]

The most likely reasons you might hear a difference would be...

1.) Either with or without is not performing to spec and is coloring the sound.
2.) You have unconscious expectation bias that the new and improved gadget will improve the sound, and you are hearing it even though it isn't there.
3.) It was quieter before. Human ears perceive louder as having better sound quality.
4.) There was too long of a space of time between when you heard the original sound and when you heard the new sound. Humans have a very short auditory memory... as short as a few seconds with similar sounds.

The absolute least likely reason would be that the new circuitry is cleaner sounding than the other. The only way that could happen would be because your old equipment was defective and wasn't achieving audible transparency. Even cheap audio components are audibly transparent. Transparency is the line where nothing can sound any better any more. The quality of the sound being produced exceeds your ability to hear it. There is no likely technical reason to believe that it can possibly sound better, so the odds are it is either bias or perceptual error.

The fact that you keep looking for a technical improvement in specs to explain what you hear a difference instead of making an effort to set up a basic listening test to eliminate bias and perceptual error tells me that it is probably number 2.

 

[bokononista]

The most likely reasons you might hear a difference would be...

1.) Either with or without is not performing to spec and is coloring the sound.
2.) You have unconscious expectation bias that the new and improved gadget will improve the sound, and you are hearing it even though it isn't there.
3.) It was quieter before. Human ears perceive louder as having better sound quality.
4.) There was too long of a space of time between when you heard the original sound and when you heard the new sound. Humans have a very short auditory memory... as short as a few seconds with similar sounds.

The absolute least likely reason would be that the new circuitry is cleaner sounding than the other. The only way that could happen would be because your old equipment was defective and wasn't achieving audible transparency. Even cheap audio components are audibly transparent. Transparency is the line where nothing can sound any better any more. The quality of the sound being produced exceeds your ability to hear it. There is no likely technical reason to believe that it can possibly sound better, so the odds are it is either bias or perceptual error.

The fact that you keep looking for a technical improvement in specs to explain what you hear a difference instead of making an effort to set up a basic listening test to eliminate bias and perceptual error tells me that it is probably number 2.

1) If there is no technical possibility to be hearable difference between GEN5 and Unison, this would be reasonable. (Or possibility of defective card - gen5 or even unison, because what i can hear with gen5 is more sharp sound (or harshness) in conparsion with clean sound with unison (or rounded edges or blur or bloom).

2) Not this kind (I know what you mean, that it is unconscious, but for example, if you buy new headphones, you just know the sound differs. Nobody have opinion that all headphones sound the same, you dont need to A/B them, level match and do blind tests to be sure the sound differs. It is just too obvious. Perception of this difference doesnt change even after years of use. Difference i hear with Unison is just too big as you can notice it in the first second and still lasts. It is quite a long time i buy stuff and most of the time i have no conscious expectance, often hear no difference or i am not much suprised. I do also A/B tests if i can. I am just suprised to hear such a difference because i did not expected it technically and I am really curious why would i be biased now so much with Usb card in dac and not some stuff where i can objectively expect more sound improvement (like headphones). I am looking forward to do basic listening tests to eliminate bias, i do that if i can with tubes and amps also. In this case i have only option to swap the cards fast because i have only 1 Bifrost, still doubt i have so big perception error in this case. Its like you know you hear some hum for example and you know its not your brain.

3) In this case volume really doesnt matter, its hearable at all levels (not subtle).

4) I am aware about it, its the reason i write about speed of swapping cards

 

[bigshot]

Generally, before you start thinking about why a difference exists, you should make sure there actually is a difference. Headphones and speakers do sound different, but electronics shouldn’t. Digital audio specs are beyond the threshold of transparency. If two DACs, amps, players or whatever sound different, one of them must be defective and it isn’t meeting spec. It isn’t possible to sound better than transparent. Bias can easily produce “night and day” differences. So can perceptual error. It is MUCH more likely that your casual way of comparing is the problem. The only other reason it could be is that your old equipment was broken.

 

[bokononista]

Generally, before you start thinking about why a difference exists, you should make sure there actually is a difference. Headphones and speakers do sound different, but electronics shouldn’t. Digital audio specs are beyond the threshold of transparency. If two DACs, amps, players or whatever sound different, one of them must be defective and it isn’t meeting spec. It isn’t possible to sound better than transparent. Bias can easily produce “night and day” differences. So can perceptual error. It is MUCH more likely that your casual way of comparing is the problem. The only other reason it could be is that your old equipment was broken.

There is so much more topics in this to discuss. For now, thank you for your time and opinions, i appreciate it.

 

[bigshot]

Welcome to sound science. I think you'll find that we're quite practical and logical about how we approach things. Other forums on Head-Fi can make stuff up without proof or evidence. You'll find more speculation there.

 

[gregorio]

1) If there is no technical possibility to be hearable difference between GEN5 and Unison, this would be reasonable. (Or possibility of defective card - gen5 or even unison, because what i can hear with gen5 is more sharp sound (or harshness) in conparsion with clean sound with unison (or rounded edges or blur or bloom).

2) Not this kind (I know what you mean, that it is unconscious, but for example, if you buy new headphones, you just know the sound differs. ... Difference i hear with Unison is just too big as you can notice it in the first second and still lasts. It is quite a long time i buy stuff and most of the time i have no conscious expectance, often hear no difference or i am not much suprised. I am just suprised to hear such a difference because i did not expected it technically and I am really curious why would i be biased now so much with Usb card in dac and not some stuff where i can objectively expect more sound improvement (like headphones). I am looking forward to do basic listening tests to eliminate bias, i do that if i can with tubes and amps also. In this case i have only option to swap the cards fast because i have only 1 Bifrost, still doubt i have so big perception error in this case.

3) In this case volume really doesnt matter, its hearable at all levels (not subtle).

1. There is the possibility of a technical reason, if the GEN5 were defective for example. However, your description of the difference is not consistent with a defective USB interface and therefore this is extremely unlikely. Far more likely is a perception error ...

2. Human perception is complex and the vast majority of those who take audio seriously have BOTH a poor understanding of the actual facts, plus a bunch of misconceptions about it. For example, you seem to think that perception errors are only small, that if you perceive a big difference then it can't be a perception error. This is incorrect, perception errors can be anything from only just audible differences to huge differences, the difference between silence and loud hammering for example! Also:
A) Perception errors can last anything from a few moments to a lifetime and some/many perception errors are desirable or even vital, in some cases even huge ones!
B) There's typically several/numerous biases at play whenever we listen, both subconscious and conscious. The human brain factors all of these biases into it's "perception". For example, if the brain knows there's some physical difference (say a different USB interface) then subconsciously it expects to hear a difference. Having a conscious expectation of not hearing a difference may or may NOT override the brain's subconscious expectation/bias.
C) The human brain makes these decisions about biases (and therefore it's perception) on a case by case basis. For example, let's say there's a physical difference which results in no audible difference: You may have no conscious expectation of hearing a difference and on one/many occasions not perceive a difference, on other occasions, even virtually identical circumstances, you will (falsely) perceive a difference, potentially even a large difference.

3. Unfortunately, you have this backwards and therefore it could "really matter"! Volume difference perception errors can occur "at all levels", in fact there's only ONE level at which it can be ruled out, where the level of both are audibly identical (within 0.1dB). However, a USB interface cannot affect the volume level, unless it is doing something beyond being a USB interface.

A little bit old thread, but i want to add the information about my experience with upgrading my Bifrost 1 to Unison USB (from GEN5) for the people searching for some informations in this regard.

The above 3 points are why "experiences" are not valid "information" in this sub forum.

But this time it is obvious, I am not deaf.

Being deaf is irrelevant! Both the deaf and normally hearing people are subject to perception errors that result in apparently obvious differences.

G

 

[bokononista]

1. There is the possibility of a technical reason, if the GEN5 were defective for example. However, your description of the difference is not consistent with a defective USB interface and therefore this is extremely unlikely. Far more likely is a perception error ...

2. Human perception is complex and the vast majority of those who take audio seriously have BOTH a poor understanding of the actual facts, plus a bunch of misconceptions about it. For example, you seem to think that perception errors are only small, that if you perceive a big difference then it can't be a perception error. This is incorrect, perception errors can be anything from only just audible differences to huge differences, the difference between silence and loud hammering for example! Also:
A) Perception errors can last anything from a few moments to a lifetime and some/many perception errors are desirable or even vital, in some cases even huge ones!
B) There's typically several/numerous biases at play whenever we listen, both subconscious and conscious. The human brain factors all of these biases into it's "perception". For example, if the brain knows there's some physical difference (say a different USB interface) then subconsciously it expects to hear a difference. Having a conscious expectation of not hearing a difference may or may NOT override the brain's subconscious expectation/bias.
C) The human brain makes these decisions about biases (and therefore it's perception) on a case by case basis. For example, let's say there's a physical difference which results in no audible difference: You may have no conscious expectation of hearing a difference and on one/many occasions not perceive a difference, on other occasions, even virtually identical circumstances, you will (falsely) perceive a difference, potentially even a large difference.

3. Unfortunately, you have this backwards and therefore it could "really matter"! Volume difference perception errors can occur "at all levels", in fact there's only ONE level at which it can be ruled out, where the level of both are audibly identical (within 0.1dB). However, a USB interface cannot affect the volume level, unless it is doing something beyond being a USB interface.



The above 3 points are why "experiences" are not valid "information" in this sub forum.



Being deaf is irrelevant! Both the deaf and normally hearing people are subject to perception errors that result in apparently obvious differences.

G

Thank you for your opinion, I appreciate your will to share. Do you have an opinion about some collective perception errors? - I mean, very often people describe the same sound difference between DACs or amps for example. How can they have the same perception error? I can understand the possible influence of internet informations creating expectations, but this cant be always the case (even from my own experience - many times my perception is the same as others (vast majority i can tell) and I found out after my audition, in such a case my experience matters, because i compare it with others). From real scientific view we would need to discuse some relevant data, but i just asking for your opinion.

 

[bigshot]

A lot of people claim to have been abducted by aliens. Just because a group of people claim something, it doesn’t make it true. Every human on Earth is subject to expectation bias, and audiophile marketing departments are in the business of planting it in as many potential customers as possible.

If you want to claim something that there’s no technical reason to back up, and it’s based entirely on uncontrolled purely subjective impressions, the burden of proof is on you. I know I have no personal feeling about your claim that is different than any unlikely claim. My only opinion is that your opinion isn’t worth much with nothing to back it up. A simple test would let you know what your opinion is worth.

 

[gregorio]

Thank you for your opinion,

You're welcome but it's not really my opinion, it's demonstrated science.

Do you have an opinion about some collective perception errors? - I mean, very often people describe the same sound difference between DACs or amps for example. How can they have the same perception error?

Because the basics of human perception are the same for all humans! Take your heart beat for example: The vast majority of the time you don't hear/perceive your heart beating because your ear/brain is filtering it out. This is effectively a perception error because it's actually very loud and we all know this because under certain circumstances, sometimes when we are experiencing fear for example, our ear/brain stops filtering it and we hear how loud our heartbeat is. Everyone shares this perception "error" and of course it's highly desirable that we do, life would be a lot more difficult if we heard a loud thumping all the time. Do we honestly believe our ears and think that most of the time our heart is not beating? There are other examples which are based purely on communal learned experience. Music itself is effectively a perception error (human perception exaggerates sonic "patterns") and the vast majority of us have learned the difference between semi-random sounds/noise and music as defined by communal experience, which of course is why the word "music" exists in the first place. We might not like the same music but we all largely agree that it is music.

I can understand the possible influence of internet informations creating expectations, but this cant be always the case ...

True, it's not always the case but as in my example above it can be the case, even for the vast majority of humanity. Audiophiles are a community and have communal experiences which people learn when they join the audiophile community, regardless of whether they're purely perception errors. It's almost impossible to be a member of the audiophile community and not be influenced by it's "group think". However, conscious expectation bias is just one of many potential biases (both conscious and subconscious) and our brains' make a judgement between them all on a case by case basis, as I mentioned before.

From real scientific view we would need to discuse some relevant data, but i just asking for your opinion.

There is of course a great deal of relevant science. The whole history of audio Double Blind Testing and DBX and virtually the entirety of their data demonstrates the phenomena. So many of the supposedly audible and even "night and day" differences accepted by the audiophile community simply disappear when those audiophiles are subjects of tests which eliminate both conscious and subconscious expectation biases. Interestingly, members of the general public often perform better than audiophiles, because they are often not aware of and therefore influenced by audiophile myths/beliefs, although of course that depends on what exactly the test is testing for.

BTW, there's data from the 1950's/1960's, of experiments with remote tribes who'd had no exposure to western music and in some cases to any form of music. The results of these experiments is how we know music is a learned shared/communal perception rather than an innate ability. Many other experiments of aural pattern recognition and of course the existence of aural illusions demonstrate that what we perceive is often significantly different from reality.

G

 

[Paul Mohr]

I don't know if it does anything to the sound but if I remember correctly from what I read it had something to do with solving some compatibility issues and its actually "certified" or whatever and shows up as a Schiit audio product in windows. So I am assuming the others didn't? I don't know didn't have any of them. And yes it was a reason to use their own tech instead of something else I guess. Sort of like their multi bit thing.

All I can tell you is I have a Modi 3+ with unison usb and it works fine. Then again I also have a focusrite 2i2 and I have never had any issues with that either. Plugged it in and it worked. Not sure I had to install drivers for it or not though. I know it came with software but I am not 100 percent sure you need it for the 2i2 to work.

The modi does sound better than the 2i2 but that isn't fair because my modi runs into an Asgard 3 which is a much better amp. I do run my modi off from digital coax and optical though I don't think it sounds any different or better one way or the other. I even tried the optical out on my motherboard and it sounded the same to me. Currently I run it with my computer running into the unison usb, a dvd/cd player running into the coax and my LG C9 tv running into the optical. My computer and tv both have tidal and it sounds the same regardless of which I use. And CD's sound just as good as tidal. Any differences that there are between cd and tidal I think are purely the mastering on the particular song and has nothing to do with the platform.

I can also run audio to my home theater receiver via HDMI or optical out from my computer and both those sound the same as well. Digital is digital to me.

I would also note that my system is a cabling nightmare. There are power cords, usb cords, ethernet cables, HDMI, RCA and XLR mic cables running all over the place crossing each other. It truly looks horrid lol. And I also have a battery back up supply right next to my computer and my router/modem that does wifi sits on top of my computer and less than a foot away from my Asgard 3. And my modi 3+ dac sits on top of my dbx 286s mic pre amp/processor and next to my focusrite 2i2 mic interface. I don't have any issues with noise, interference, hum or any of that. If there was a worst case scenario I think mine is probably it. Oh and there is also an RG6 amplified antenna cable running through all of it from a rooftop antenna for my police scanner. And I don't have any special fancy expensive cables. Just whatever crap stuff comes with when you buy or cables I got at walmart or best buy. And not to mention the denon receiver that sits in the middle of it all with 7 speaker wires coming out of it and a center channel speaker plopped on top of that.

I am not sure what you would need to do to get noise but based on my wreck of a system I think you would have to try pretty hard lol.

 

[AudioEarthling]

Read this topic with great enjoyment from the start all the way untill the line "A lot of people claim to have been abducted by aliens." three posts above

One thing that Schiit says about the new Unison USB, is that its not compatible with antique Windows. So anything below Windows 10 won't work they say.
I would like to propose a diversion from the "subjective personal sound perception" towards "drivers and communicating with PC Windows" side of the Unison USB implementation.

Schiit Audio:

"Unison USB is our own proprietary USB input, not based on C-Media or XMOS or any other off-the-shelf USB receiver out there. Instead, we spent a couple of person-years developing our own code for a standard Microchip PIC32 microprocessor, which allowed us to create a higher-performing USB input than anything else on the market.

Designed to provide the highest performance input for PCM digital, period. It doesn’t have one beeelion un-used functions, nor is it trying to optimize for five different unicorn formats that will probably be gone tomorrow. It also uses very high-quality local clocks and offers complete electrostatic and electromagnetic isolation from the source. It also provides lower power draw and complete UAC2 compatibility. "

Does anyone knows HOW the new "Natively Driverless Custom Unison USB interface" differs from off the shelf USB interfaces when connected to a PC running Windows 10 as source? HOW does it connect/handshake and send/pull commands via Asynchronous USB differently from off-the shelf interfaces?

 

[malocadi]

I started this thread because I come from a digital electronics background (though not audio related) and built and wrote software for a lot of low level hardware and applications, including writing USB drivers. From what I experienced first hand I would be hard pressed to know whether data errors were that prevalent, or prevalent enough to make sonic differences in audio.

I'm in the "bits are bits" camp but of course there are audiophiles who would challenge that, going down the path of "oh but the square waves from the 1s and 0s might not be perfectly 90 degrees which might make a 1 a 0 instead, or EM interference could flip the signal". I'd link the actual claim of this but it might be against the rules.

The whole argument brings into question the overall reliability of USB data transmission to me which I just didn't see as being that prevalent.

 

[bigshot]

If it isn’t compatible with older operating systems, people would be reporting that it sounds bad, not that it sounds good, no?

It’s always possible to sound worse if the equipment is broken or incompatible. But sounding better than audibly transparent is a lot less likely.

Unless you’re saying that the error created by the incompatibility is somehow euphonic and people actually preferred the degraded sound… which again seems very unlikely to me. Most digital error isn’t pretty. It either works or it doesn’t work in a big way.

 

[gregorio]

Does anyone knows HOW the new "Natively Driverless Custom Unison USB interface" differs from off the shelf USB interfaces when connected to a PC running Windows 10 as source? HOW does it connect/handshake and send/pull commands via Asynchronous USB differently from off-the shelf interfaces?

I don't know and there's a good chance no one outside Schitt knows, if it's custom then it's proprietary. However, it looks like typical audiophile marketing to me. For example, it "sends/pulls commands via Asynchronous USB differently from off-the-shelf interfaces" because some/many off-the-shelf interfaces don't "send/pull" commands via UAC 2.0 on Win 10 (or didn't when that advertising was written), as it's only in the last 3-4 years that microsoft implemented UAC2 in Win 10. Of course, this only affects formats not supported by UAC 1.0, such as sample rates >96kHz and UAC2 also provides some theoretical clocking improvements in Synchronous and Adaptive mode.

[1] From what I experienced first hand I would be hard pressed to know whether data errors were that prevalent, or prevalent enough to make sonic differences in audio.

[2] I'm in the "bits are bits" camp but of course there are audiophiles who would challenge that, [2a] going down the path of "oh but the square waves from the 1s and 0s might not be perfectly 90 degrees which might make a 1 a 0 instead, or EM interference could flip the signal". I'd link the actual claim of this but it might be against the rules.

1. From my first hand experience, data errors streaming audio over USB are very rare.

2. There is only one camp, the other camp isn't really a "camp", it's just a relatively tiny sub-set of the audiophile world who don't understand what digital audio data is or how it works, and have been duped by false marketing. For example:
2a. I'm sure you probably already know that there are no square waves and the USB protocol (even UAC 1.0) doesn't specify "perfectly 90 degrees" square waves, it specifies an "eye pattern". So this example is just nonsense, like all the others I've seen. So there's one valid camp and one nonsense camp!

G