[arnyk]

  What it says in the title:  Could someone explain to me, in a simple-enough way, the real difference between the two, and exactly why everybody seems to think that R-2R/Multibit is so much "better?"
 
And if delta-sigma does in fact suck so very much, why the heck are all the major manufacturers leanign towards using it in almost all their DAC chips these days?

Finally:  Are there any CHEAP options out there for DAC's (with USB input) which use R-2R instead of delta-sigma?  Like, below 300 or 400 dollars?

Edit:  I changed the title of the thread, at @x RELIC x's suggestion, to better reflect what I was actually trying to ask.

 
Most current R2R DACs appear to be composed of half of a Philips chipset that was designed in the early 1980s.  If they sound different from complete DACs you can probably explain the difference based on the missing pieces.  

 

[goodyfresh]

   
redacted by the FBYofargh, let's try and respect each other so that I don't have to just delete entire posts.
I DO understand the theory of DS, and spent shed loads of money over 20 years because of that (in part). I didn't stop there, i moved forward, and as in medicine there are new advances, even re-visited routes where some question the original theories. Read the TotalDAC story, the Audio Note papers, there are tons of stuff on the web challenging the DS theories. Your best bet, and the only way you will calm down, is to demo some good R-2R DACs against your current DS DAC, and YOU decide. Forget the theories, the measurements, they were flawed anyway.
 
I have something for you to think about. In DS we have a 16 bit signal that is up sampled in the chip to be 18 bit, 24 bit even 32 bit. Now consider, where is this 'new' information coming from? Is it embedded in the original? Is is in a new sub layer. No, it does not exist. 
Now consider the real reason they up sampled in the first place. It was to make it easier to implement a brick wall filter that removed 'artefacts' or 'ringing' in the data. The original 22.05khz of space (half of the 44.1hz) left to do that they say, was close to the human hearing limit. So they only had lets say for an example, 2Khz of space to filter out the 'artefact'. This is where the problems began, and why the whole DS oversampling ethos began and magnified. The better DACs remover there artefacts by other methods, mostly in the analogue domain.
 
There are many building ladder DACs which have NO filtering, and no apodizing or 'guessing' what the gaps in the waveform should be. These ladder DACs convert digital to voltage or 'bit perfect' as many call it with no processing. Some don't even have a c
 
So, we can see there is an 'issue' with DS architecture from day one. Yes, it is cheaper to implement, but that does not stop some manufacturers charging 30K for a top tier DS DAC. There are very good DS DASs about, I have heard some, but i made my choice to go R-2R. You make your choice, I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is you are clinging to the technical theories to justify that. I try to put that to one side, and mark performance on what I hear, and how it makes me real about the music. It is a personal thing, thus we will never agree..... you read the tech specs, I will stick to what I hear.

Ummmmm. . . .you are blatantly confusing bit-depth with sample-rate here. . .bit-depth has nothing to do with oversampling. . .so. . .ummm. . .I don't really know what you're trying to say.

Again, what you are talking about are subjective impressions of the supposed audible improvements of R2R vs. DS.  Where is the blind AB/X testing where you show that you can identify the difference between the two consistently?  Let me guess. . .it doesn't exist.  Also, I bet when you are comparing "R2R vs. DS" you do not take into consideration the different analog implementation.
 

   
Most current R2R DACs appear to be composed of half of a Philips chipset that was designed in the early 1980s.  If they sound different from complete DACs you can probably explain the difference based on the missing pieces.  

THAT is intriguing.  Seems to support my one possible theory that maybe most R2R DAC's around these days are actually less hi-fi than most DS ones, but the reason people think they sound better is because a lot of audiophiles are old and think that "old fashioned" sound "like what stuff sounded like back in the 80s" sounds "more natural."

  you're very right, clearly one of the voices of reason in the topic.
measurements are the very best, I have no doubt about that, but that doesn't mean all measurements give real life values, and that's why knowing how the measures are done is as important as knowing how to read them. when I see the measurement of an amplifier into 10kohm and nominal output, it would be silly to expect the same when I plug a 16ohm IEM in it to listen at comfortable loudness. almost every specs will fall.
but a DAC measured with 10kohm, that's very close from real life usage. all amps will have a several thousand ohm input. and about the max output, well as long as we don't attenuate the volume digitally on the computer, we'll also be very close. so I do trust measurements for a DAC to give a pret realistic vision of the signal in real life usage.
 
but as you say, we do get DACs with pretty great measurements for both techs(thanks to the engineers doing a nice implementation job). as Baldr said, usually the way to get the best signal out of a sigma delta chip is to follow the manufacturer's guideline to the letter. does that mean it's bad? I don't think so, just that it's cheap and require less R&D.
but still, we didn't answer much. can we make using both techs, 2 DACs that exceed human thresholds in resolution? my own experience would push me to say yes, but then you get Astrostar saying no and that R2R is better(at least to his ears without serious controls).
 
unless we can get a clear answer, a demonstrated one, the rest is a futile exercise sadly. "I got better distortions thanks to linearity", "yes but I get lower noise". nobody knows how audible are those differences, so we become religions, thinking the phase is super important while being unable to pass a blind test. or we decide that noise is always audible and should be at -200db when we actually fail to notice a dithered sound at -90db.  if it's science just to use a rocks to fight our cult wars, it's a sad waste of science. too often that's exactly what happens and most likely one of the reasons why headfi went all "no blind test talks" on the rest of the forum.
what I would like to know is if we can get transparency with both techs? or if, as many people seem to believe, R2R sounds different. not in general, but with some of the best measuring DACs of both kinds. the question being really to know if we can achieve transparency. not at all to say that all DACs are transparent, or that any crap with a R2R resistor ladder will have those characteristics. I'm sure some people will interpret it as such because audiophiles love nothing more than to turn a "it happened once" into a godly rule. but the more informed and reasonable people, could take the information for what it is. and that would be something like:
1/ we can get transparent at the DAC with both techs
or 2/ one behaves better because the hard limit of the component is this and that and so the very ultimate DAC should use XXXXX tech.
or 3/ the limiting factor of the DAC is the analog part and R2R or SD don't really matter on their own.
I would be ok with any of the answers for that matter.
 
on a money per performance standpoint we already very much have our answer, sigma delta gives the best value. that is a manufacturing fact. so we're not totally in the dark. but I sure would love to know if investing in a great R2R is more than just deciding to use the expensive stuff for the sake of it being expensive and becoming rare.
 on a personal level, I would take any and all factual information, be it anecdotal on a given model, or about the technology or the difficulties of implementation. I like to learn, that's science for me.
 
for the ESS chips, I find the 2 videos done at RMAF to be full of interesting information. probably not all it to take at face value because the guy is still there to tell how great his chip is, but I learned a lot when those vids came out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mn5PrnZV-k  and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYjHKv2_OqQ
 of course it doesn't tell much about what R2R can do. having so little choice in the chips does simplify the questions about products variations.

Honestly man as the one who started this thread, lemme just say that at this point I am totally cool with you becoming a "dictator" or whatever else you want in this thread, LMAO.
 
"At least to his ears without serious controls."  Yes, my point above exactly.  Ugh.
 
 

  Wow, what a collection of misapprehensions!
 
When data is upsampled, no new data is added. Well obviously samples are added, but the added samples are zeroes, so no new data as such is added.
 
Why is the signal upsampled? Yes, it is upsampled to facilitate digital filtering, but the digital filtering is not gratuitous. It is part of the design of a proper DAC. A proper DAC has a brick wall filter, and any DAC that lacks one is improper or broken. Call it what you want, but it is not a proper DAC. It is a broken DAC. Its like a 4 wheel automobile with the rear wheels missing. The back bumper is dragging on the ground.
 
The brick wall filter is not there to remove ringing. In fact it is usually the cause of ringiing.  So why add something that causes ringing?  The reason the brick wall filter is there is that a larger more important purpose needs to be served.  The purpose that needs to be served is that the DAC is supposed to only output signals in its defined band of operation, such as 20-20 KHz. Without the brick wall filter, the incomplete DAC will produce signals that are outside that defined band, and that may or may not cause other problems. Do it right and there are in general no problems no matter what. 
 
Does it matter whether these spurious signals are removed in the analog domain or the digital domain? If you are a fan of removing spurious signals in the analog domain, take heart because proper DACs with digital filters still have analog filters that remove spurious responses in the analog domain. It is just that the analog filters operate at a far high frequency where their design and operation is vastly less critical so they can be relatively simple.
 
The removal of spurious responses in the digital domain is just a refinement to the process that allows us to further exploit the benefits of being in the digital domain in the first place. If you like throwing away benefits for no reason, then by all means avoid digital filtering!  But, it will cost lots of money and provide no audible benefit.  You pays your money and you makes your choice.
 
well enough explaining the true story for now!

You explained this better than I could, thanks!

   
That was 15 years ago, and its a whole article not a reasoned response to my post.  The guy had some hardware to sell and said whatever he thinks he must. Next!
 
What is your response to a thoughtful response to your post?

Apparently people can't seem to understand that when marketing/an agenda to sell something is involved, companies and individuals involed with those companies can *GASP* be DISHONEST!!!!  That's why folks will buy "quantum crystal purifiers using proton-alignment" (yes, that's a real thing that a company sells to audiophiles using blatant Hollywood-style technobabble gibberish for marketing, for up to $5000 a pop) and the like.  "It's expensive and the guys who make it say I need it, so I'll get one!"

 

[MacacoDoSom]

  From the Posting Guidelines:
 

 

DON'T reply If someone makes an off-topic, rude or otherwise inappropriate comment, or a post appears to be trolling or spam.

 Report it by clicking on the red flag and filling in the box explaining what the problem is and let the moderators take care of it. If something is inappropriate or rude, what is the point of giving it more attention by replying to it and/or quoting it?!? If nobody replies to or comments on a trolling or abusive post 100% of the time the person goes away!

 

 

[Sal1950]

goodyfresh,
Chill out bro, that's exactly what the subjective trolls are trying to accomplish, get you all worked up while posting one nonsense post after the other and grinding a good, well meaning investigative thread into unreadable dust.
But your right and I've also asked castleofargh to step up the moderation of this forum header.
There is no reason we should be have to be treated like this. We are even banned from mentioning ABX-DBT or any scientific testing methods on the Cable forum when shining some light there could only help to save honest people from being taken by dishonest hardware retailers.
What's fair is fair.
Cheers

 

[RRod]

The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.

 

[Roly1650]

 
Speaking of getting back on track with actually trying to test this:  So do we know anybody with both a DS and a R2R Bifrost?  Or do we have any confirmation yet that the analog sections fo the two are even similar enough for us to validly compare R2R vs. DS by using the Bifrost as an example?


Edit:  You know what I think the guy's issue might be?  I think he might believe he knows better than the rest of us becauase he has a really high-end Summit-Fi system with a SR-009.  Ugh.

As I've already posted, Schitts' website indicates that both versions of the Bifrost and both versions of the Gungnir have different analog sections. The specs indicate that performance of either iteration is pretty damn close and allowing for the fact that the measurements aren't complete, could be approaching transparency.

However all isn't lost, because the multi bit version could be null tested against the SD version, this would reveal the realistic likelyhood of there being any audible differences. If, for example, there was a null at -75/80 dB or so, then you could conclude, with a high level of confidence that somebody claiming audible differences would be seriously taking the p@ss.

As for your "buddy", I think there's a fair chance he's left, I think @arnyk scared the cr@p out of him, so best advice, let it go, anything else is counterproductive, (and I'm not claiming to be any paragon in that department, having had a post deleted by mods yesterday). As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.

 

[prot]

May e a stupid Q... why do u guys have to write so much? It's clear for anyone with some brains that astrothings dont get it .. so, why the verbose 'answers'? why trying logic again and again against 'ears'? It never worked, never will...

 

[Sal1950]

As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.

There are rules that work both ways.

  The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.

Something is obviously bad wrong here when a member posts an honest technical question and 18 pages later very little has been learned accept that many will come here and disrupt the flow in any way than can with impunity?

 

[castleofargh]

removed goodyfresh's post, there was just too much to edit even if some of it was kind of legitimate. but we can't get too personal, the law of the forum says so. it's like obeying the host rules under his roof, we don't have to agree or like it, but as long as we stay under headfi's roof, we must accept headfi's rules. 
I'm sure now that astrostar could learn a great deal about himself, should he decide to learn about the human brain a little, but I don't believe he's a troll. he just knows too little about bias to even fathom the idea that a sighted listening could give a false impression of the sound. but by now I admit that we have more than explained, and if he is not willing to make any effort to learn anything or accept that scientific method is the currency for facts in here, I will now be much less lenient.
I tried the talking thing, it clearly didn't work.
 
 
Quote:

  The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.

exactly, I mentioned TOS 8 to Sal a few hours back ^_^. this is headfi and the right to talk about blind test and all sciency stuff in sound science doesn't mean we have the right to reject everything else and create a "my god vs your god" situation.  our job should be to make the subjectivist want to come here to learn that there might be useful stuff in the objective approach. not to reject them like we often feel rejected outside(something I really hate TBH).
we supposedly are the better informed, let's show we also can behave with more reason.
I asked to come find me when you think you're ready to blow a fuse, goodyfresh did come and currawong actions were the result. I'm sorry it wasn't enough to relax you, here let me massage your shoulders and whisper in your ear that I went into defcon 2(if my army doesn't come in action in less than 6 hours, the next army is free).

 

[goodyfresh]

  There are rules that work both ways.
Something is obviously bad wrong here when a member posts an honest technical question and 18 pages later very little has been learned accept that many will come here and disrupt the flow in any way than can with impunity?

 

  goodyfresh,
Chill out bro, that's exactly what the subjective trolls are trying to accomplish, get you all worked up while posting one nonsense post after the other and grinding a good, well meaning investigative thread into unreadable dust.
But your right and I've also asked castleofargh to step up the moderation of this forum header.
There is no reason we should be have to be treated like this. We are even banned from mentioning ABX-DBT or any scientific testing methods on the Cable forum when shining some light there could only help to save honest people from being taken by dishonest hardware retailers.
What's fair is fair.
Cheers

 
Yeahhhh, it really upsets me when people waste a lot of money on snake-oil and we aren't even allowed to go and tell them about the objective scientific proof of the fact that they are being scammed

  The rules aren't symmetric. We have to play nice about ABX on other sub-fora but there is no law (a TOS 8, if you will) requiring that ABX be the law of the land in Sound Science. I'd be all for it, of course. Regardless, saying things like "are you stupid" is exactly the kind of thing that has gotten quite a few really knowledgeable people banned.

 
Yeahhhhh, I suppose that IS a bit unfair, isn't it? *sighs*

Btw, NICE job correctly using "fora" as the plural of "forum."  Did you take Latin in school, bro?

   Them second-declension nouns!
 

May e a stupid Q... why do u guys have to write so much? It's clear for anyone with some brains that astrothings dont get it .. so, why the verbose 'answers'? why trying logic again and again against 'ears'? It never worked, never will...

 
I guess. . .because we're human and humans have a tendency where most of us can't stand it when we know that people are wrong about something?  Lol.  Yeah, it's a real problem.

 
removed goodyfresh's post, there was just too much to edit even if some of it was kind of legitimate. but we can't get too personal, the law of the forum says so. it's like obeying the host rules under his roof, we don't have to agree or like it, but as long as we stay under headfi's roof, we must accept headfi's rules. 
I'm sure now that astrostar could learn a great deal about himself, should he decide to learn about the human brain a little, but I don't believe he's a troll. he just knows too little about bias to even fathom the idea that a sighted listening could give a false impression of the sound. but by now I admit that we have more than explained, and if he is not willing to make any effort to learn anything or accept that scientific method is the currency for facts in here, I will now be much less lenient.
I tried the talking thing, it clearly didn't work.

exactly, I mentioned TOS 8 to Sal a few hours back ^_^. this is headfi and the right to talk about blind test and all sciency stuff in sound science doesn't mean we have the right to reject everything else and create a "my god vs your god" situation.  our job should be to make the subjectivist want to come here to learn that there might be useful stuff in the objective approach. not to reject them like we often feel rejected outside(something I really hate TBH).
we supposedly are the better informed, let's show we also can behave with more reason.
I asked to come find me when you think you're ready to blow a fuse, goodyfresh did come and currawong actions were the result. I'm sorry it wasn't enough to relax you, here let me massage your shoulders and whisper in your ear that I went into defcon 2(if my army doesn't come in action in less than 6 hours, the next army is free).

 
I completely agree with you about deleting my post, and that there was too much anger mixed in with the rationality for it to simply be edited easily.  I shouldn't have blown my top like that, my bad guys.  It's too bad I got like that in that post, too, because the parts where I was actually making rational scientifically-backed points were, IMO, pretty darn good

And you know what man?  I didnt' think of it that way.  You're right.  Totally right.  We shouldn't respond to having our views rejected elsewhere (even if we know our views are the true correct ones, LMAO

) by rejecting and getting all butthurt (that's directed at myself, of course, I'm the one who got butthurt, lol) about the views of people who say we're wrong.  And yeah, perhaps if I was a little bit nicer at explaining to people about things like how bias clouds the evaluation of audio, and thus blind testing is needed, and the evidence for just how pervasive and powerful bias can be, rather than just getting all angry and YELLING AT THEM, GRRRRRRRRR about it, then maybe they'd open their minds a little and hear me out.  I mean. . .well. . .probably not, let's be honest here they'd probably still reject the idea of blind ABX testing but still, being nicer about would still be worth a shot and at least not be counterproductive the way that yelling is.
 
I mean, yeah, what you said. . .if we're going to claim to be the ones with the voice of reason on our side, then I guess it's hypocritical to allow our emotions to get the better of us, huh? *embarassed*

 

As I've already posted, Schitts' website indicates that both versions of the Bifrost and both versions of the Gungnir have different analog sections. The specs indicate that performance of either iteration is pretty damn close and allowing for the fact that the measurements aren't complete, could be approaching transparency.

However all isn't lost, because the multi bit version could be null tested against the SD version, this would reveal the realistic likelyhood of there being any audible differences. If, for example, there was a null at -75/80 dB or so, then you could conclude, with a high level of confidence that somebody claiming audible differences would be seriously taking the p@ss.

As for your "buddy", I think there's a fair chance he's left, I think @arnyk scared the cr@p out of him, so best advice, let it go, anything else is counterproductive, (and I'm not claiming to be any paragon in that department, having had a post deleted by mods yesterday). As @RRod has already said, this forum has lost too many really knowledgeable regulars through responding to the moronic. Them's the forum rules, take it or leave it.

I'm addressing this one last since it's the post that can really get us back on-track with what we're trying to accomplish here
 
Okay, so. . .yes, it does seem like analyzing the newest DS version of Bifrost alongside the new multibit version (paired with as high-end and transparent an amp as possible, of course) in blind ABX testing, or, even better if we could find someone with the equipment, a DS vs a Multibit Gungnir (because I feel that being higher-end, the Gungnir is more likely than the Bifrost to reveal audible differences between R2R and DS), would be the way to go.  At the very least, if we find that all the different folks in the test, including those with VERY good hearing (Golden Ears, anyone?) simply CANNOT identify which is which in double-blind testing, then we can at least reasonably conclude that much. . .that for equipment at the level of the Bifrost, or the Gungnir (so high-mid-fi in the former case, bordering-on true-hi-fi in the latter case), an audible difference cannot be found.  Or well, not conclusively of course, but we could proceed to make such a statement at least tentatively.  On the other hand, if we find that audible differences CAN be established, the next step would be to take things further and try to find out if the audible differences are due to the DAC chips themselves (the R2R vs. the DS), or rather are due to the analog sections.  Of course, THAT would be the hard part!
 
Here's another idea that could even potentially remove the human-element entirely, but on the other hand would still not rule out the potential utility of trying some blind tests with humans. . .how about directly comparing the output of the two DAC's via line-in to another device?  As in, input the very same audio files from the same computer into each of the DAC's with a line-in to an ADC (yes, an ADC) but of course, the same ADC being used both times, then running thhe output of the ADC back into the computer, recording the resulting waveforms in each case.   Or, would the step involving the ADC not even be necessary, and we could somehow just get the analog output directly from the DAC's back into the computer and then record it?  Anyway, I'm not too familiar with audio analysis software and equipment so I'm not sure exactly how one would get this to work, but shouldn't it at least in-theory be possible to do so, get wav or FLAC files of the output of the DAC's in both cases, and then "subtract" the two files from one-another in order to get the "difference," if there is any, between the outputs?  Then, we could analyze the difference-file and see if it is at-or-above audible level compared to the dynamics of the original file being played.  I know that similar tests (albeit requiring a lot less legwork) have been performed in order to measure the differences between lossy and lossless versions of the same track.
 
Anyway yeah, I think @arnyk may have scared at leats one or two people away with his no-nonsense (but non-abrasive) attitude and his extensive knowledge

 

[castleofargh]

I think I was the one suggesting the bifrost, but maybe others exist with some kind of modularity too? I'm not big on DAC models(as I never look for one^_^).  if we have the power source, the usb tech and a few other stuff identical, it's still better than just trying random DACs.

 

[Roly1650]

:rolleyes:




Okay, so. . .yes, it does seem like analyzing the newest DS version of Bifrost alongside the new multibit version (paired with as high-end and transparent an amp as possible, of course) in blind ABX testing, or, even better if we could find someone with the equipment, a DS vs a Multibit Gungnir (because I feel that being higher-end, the Gungnir is more likely than the Bifrost to reveal audible differences between R2R and DS), would be the way to go.  At the very least, if we find that all the different folks in the test, including those with VERY good hearing (Golden Ears, anyone?) simply CANNOT identify which is which in double-blind testing, then we can at least reasonably conclude that much. . .that for equipment at the level of the Bifrost, or the Gungnir (so high-mid-fi in the former case, bordering-on true-hi-fi in the latter case), an audible difference cannot be found.  Or well, not conclusively of course, but we could proceed to make such a statement at least tentatively.  On the other hand, if we find that audible differences CAN be established, the next step would be to take things further and try to find out if the audible differences are due to the DAC chips themselves (the R2R vs. the DS), or rather are due to the analog sections.  Of course, THAT would be the hard part!

Here's another idea that could even potentially remove the human-element entirely, but on the other hand would still not rule out the potential utility of trying some blind tests with humans. . .how about directly comparing the output of the two DAC's via line-in to another device?  As in, input the very same audio files from the same computer into each of the DAC's with a line-in to an ADC (yes, an ADC) but of course, the same ADC being used both times, then running thhe output of the ADC back into the computer, recording the resulting waveforms in each case.   Or, would the step involving the ADC not even be necessary, and we could somehow just get the analog output directly from the DAC's back into the computer and then record it?  Anyway, I'm not too familiar with audio analysis software and equipment so I'm not sure exactly how one would get this to work, but shouldn't it at least in-theory be possible to do so, get wav or FLAC files of the output of the DAC's in both cases, and then "subtract" the two files from one-another in order to get the "difference," if there is any, between the outputs?  Then, we could analyze the difference-file and see if it is at-or-above audible level compared to the dynamics of the original file being played.  I know that similar tests (albeit requiring a lot less legwork) have been performed in order to measure the differences between lossy and lossless versions of the same track.

Being naturally bone idle and finding abx testing a bloody boring excercise, my feelings are that null or difference testing is way too neglected, (imo, deliberately by the high end, they avoid it like the plague).

There's a couple of ways of doing it, record into an audio editor like Audacity or use software like AudioDiffMaker which also has a recording function, both are free software.

A few advantages of doing it this way, a) you don't need any ancilliary equipment, dac to pc, forget the amp and speakers/headphones, b) you get a numerical value of the differences, that reduces the guess work on whether it is or isn't audible, human hearing has finite limits and we, (the scientific amongst us at least) know what those limits are, c) it's a mathematical excercise, unemotional, none fatiguing, didn't test long enough, tested too long, blah, blah, so less chance of bullcrap baffling brains, d) you get the difference track as a playable audio file and e) no arguments about the ancilliary equipment not being good enough. There may be more I've forgotten.

At the end of the day, if it's shown that the Bifrosts or Gungnirs are so close to identical, it matters not what the underlying topology is, or am I missing something?

Screw abx testing, (for the right reasons) ha, ha......if it was good enough for Bob Carver to dumbfound Stereophile, it's good enough for me.

 

[]eep]

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

I am one of the only, if not the only person who actually answered your question. It took me more than an hour of my time (even more in subsequent efforts to be heard with said answer) to give a simple explanation for it. I even alluded to it in my previous - I admit, very cynical- post. But again, you didn't pick up on it. I am just reading this (or not, in your case, I just skip abuse) to be able to help someone else. Some people are worth helping. In my personal taste, you are not.

All it takes to stand out as a smart person is for others to make total fools of themselves. So sorry for me trying anything of the kind. I should be wise and just shut up.

 

[arnyk]

Being naturally bone idle and finding abx testing a bloody boring excercise, my feelings are that null or difference testing is way too neglected, (imo, deliberately by the high end, they avoid it like the plague).

There's a couple of ways of doing it, record into an audio editor like Audacity or use software like AudioDiffMaker which also has a recording function, both are free software.

A few advantages of doing it this way, a) you don't need any ancilliary equipment, dac to pc, forget the amp and speakers/headphones, b) you get a numerical value of the differences, that reduces the guess work on whether it is or isn't audible, human hearing has finite limits and we, (the scientific amongst us at least) know what those limits are, c) it's a mathematical excercise, unemotional, none fatiguing, didn't test long enough, tested too long, blah, blah, so less chance of bullcrap baffling brains, d) you get the difference track as a playable audio file and e) no arguments about the ancilliary equipment not being good enough. There may be more I've forgotten.

At the end of the day, if it's shown that the Bifrosts or Gungnirs are so close to identical, it matters not what the underlying topology is, or am I missing something?

Screw abx testing, (for the right reasons) ha, ha......if it was good enough for Bob Carver to dumbfound Stereophile, it's good enough for me.

 
Audio difference testing has its place. It's a great way to enhance the sensitivity of some other means that are used to to do the  final evaluation of the difference signal. For example if my difference processor amplifies any errors that the UUT creates by 10, than the effective sensitivity of any means I use to analyze the amplified error has been increased by 10 which can be very worthwhile. 
 
In the case of listening tests, listening to the amplified error signal is a valid way to train my ears to better hear the errors  the UUT makes as it is normally operated.  
 
Of course there is a real world situation where the error is amplified by 10 and its still inaudible. This is actually pretty common with good DACs.  
 
Well, so now we amplify it by 100, and may be that is sufficient to make the errors audible. 

 

[Sal1950]

I am one of the only, if not the only person who actually answered your question. It took me more than an hour of my time (even more in subsequent efforts to be heard with said answer) to give a simple explanation for it. I even alluded to it in my previous - I admit, very cynical- post. But again, you didn't pick up on it. I am just reading this (or not, in your case, I just skip abuse) to be able to help someone else. Some people are worth helping. In my personal taste, you are not.

All it takes to stand out as a smart person is for others to make total fools of themselves. So sorry for me trying anything of the kind. I should be wise and just shut up.

What positive effect was this post supposed to have?
I knew it couldn't stay civil here for long.