[charleski]

   
Let me certainly state that I do indeed have a dog in this fight; Schiit Audio and the DACs that it makes.  We make DACs from $100 to $2300.  Whatever your value judgements are with respect to what others should buy, I point out that the least expensive DACs sport DS AK4490 chips, which are an AKM "Carriage Trade" super taco DAC chip by their own chip positioning.  The $1250 DAC contains 4 (one per phase-stereo) AD5781BRUZ chips and the 4 AD5791BRUZ are reserved for our $2300 DAC.  It policy at Schiit that we make no sonic claims on any of our DACs nor on any of our amplifiers.  Any subjective judgements cannot be proven, period.  
 
That said, I am extremely proud of our parts cost to price value, particularly in light of our competitors, who really build $10,000 (and up!) converters.  I am an engineer - I am not an opinion leader who tells anyone what to buy.  I have no opinion on my competitor's products.  I am only a designer and maker of 7 current Schiit D/A converters.  Whatever a user buys, whether by Schiit or others, is only my business statistically to tell whether the product I build is of interest to our customer base.  My viewpoint, given the starting price range of our converters is both populist and libertarian.  I mind my own business about what to buy; the world would be more harmonious if everyone else would as well.
 
Closing my mind to narrative constructs of how things sound differently, particularly from those with no vested interests in the outcome, and particularly when there emerge certain patterns I will never do.  I am sure of nothing (not restricted to the DBT) other than there is still much to be learned and verified.  The conversion of para-audio to audio science fascinates me.  

I'd still be interested to know why you distrust the domain transformation that lies at the heart of the ΔΣ strategy.
 
Schiit actually does a fairly decent job in terms of reining in the expansion of material cost that comes with using a multibit chip. But obviously if people want to spend more money on your products, you're happy to accomodate them, that's business.

 

[kstuart]

 

  I'm fine with that as long as you do not violate the Burden of Proof rules of this Forum.
 
You said "will cost considerably more for comparable performance" which is an assertion that violates the rule, in the same way that a manufacturer assertion of "superior performance" would also require proof.
 
And as I mentioned, it is not science, merely emotional human reaction to pricing.

 
Evidence for the subjective equivalence of these different strategies has been around for a long time Here's an old blind test in which the listeners were unable to distinguish a Wadia 6 (from the '20bit' moniker this seems to have been fitted with a PCM63 rather than the multibit R2R AD1864 Wadia used in their base configuration) from a Sony CDP DVP-NS355 (which used the AK4389, an early ΔΣ chip from AKM).
 
You can wriggle as much as you want, but the performance is comparable by any metric you wish to cite.

This is sound science Forum.
 
A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs. 
 
There is another Forum which is largely dedicated to the actual task of trying to match measurements with sound quality.  They realize that in order to do that, they have to do subjective testing, in order to know whether the measurement correlates.
 
Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
 
Of course, his test is not statistically significant either, but it cancels out your emotional rhetoric advantage.
 
"the performance is comparable by any metric you wish to cite."
 
The metric I wish to cite is sound quality.
 
Note that you will have to get roughly 7 billion people to do your blind A/B test to get to over 99%.
 
Again, note that you are making the claim, I did not bring this up.
 
Schiit specifically posted that they make no claim about sound quality (it is also on their web site and no employee has ever claimed any sound quality benefit for more expensive equipment).
 
Specific owners post subjective impressions " I hear.... " .
 
Only you are making a claim "comparable performance".
 
Now I don't expect anything in reply, because my experience is that the "objectivists" are actually more emotional and less logical than the "subjectivists".  They see a $10,000 cable or a special $300 rock to improve sound and they see red.   Somehow because some people in a field are charlatans, therefore everyone is...

 

[cjl]

Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
 
Of course, his test is not statistically significant either, but it cancels out your emotional rhetoric advantage.

What on earth are you talking about. If he could consistently, 100% of the time identify which DAC was which, that is absolutely statistically significant.

 

[charleski]

  This is sound science Forum.
 
A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs. 
 
There is another Forum which is largely dedicated to the actual task of trying to match measurements with sound quality.  They realize that in order to do that, they have to do subjective testing, in order to know whether the measurement correlates.
 
Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
 
Of course, his test is not statistically significant either, but it cancels out your emotional rhetoric advantage.
 
"the performance is comparable by any metric you wish to cite."
 
The metric I wish to cite is sound quality.

That doesn't mean anything.
 
You'll need to properly cite this test you mention. It would certainly be interesting to see what effect repetitive training had, but the fact that he went to those lengths suggests that he couldn't distinguish the DACs until he found some trick. It might be worthwhile to learn what that trick is, but I suspect he merely fudged the methodology.
 
And no, you don't need to test 7 billion people. If you want claim there's a difference, the onus is on you to prove that difference. Until a difference is proven, we need to assume that it doesn't exist. Everything tends towards the equilibrium, entropy always rises. I don't need to prove this, it's basic thermodynamics. There is no burden of proof for the default state - it's the default. We do need proof, however, for departures from this state.
 
Your appeal to emotion merely reflects desperation. Look, I'm not going to delude myself by thinking that I can change your mind by presenting evidence and arguing the case on its merits. You clearly want to believe there's some undefinable benefit to multibit technology and have no intention of budging. Fine, just don't pretend that this is based on a rational foundation.

 

[sonitus mirus]

  What on earth are you talking about. If he could consistently, 100% of the time identify which DAC was which, that is absolutely statistically significant.

It seemed like an emotionally charged response with a total disregard for logic.  Am I supposed to choose a side?  If we are going to be skins and shirts, there is 3 feet of snow outside, so I'd prefer to be shirts.  I would be interested to know what it was about the sound quality that was preferred.  I bet someone could measure it.

 

[watchnerd]

 
 
Due to hearing whining from super-objectivists, one of the Forum founders actually did a blind A/B test between a current Multibit DAC and an SD DAC.  He practiced the blind A/B test until he was able to get it consistently 100% correct.  If there is actually no difference, then practicing would make no difference.
 
 
 

 
Interesting. Do you have a link?
 
But also the differences might not have been due to differences in chip tech.  Without knowing more, it might have been differences in the analog stage of each.

 

[kstuart]

Any two pieces of electrical gear of the exact same model by the same manufacturer are different (unless they are "mil spec").   The extra cost of mil spec demonstrates that they are - to some degree - different.
 
Therefore, two different DACs that are different models by different manufacturers, are certainly different - to some degree.
 
So, the only question is the degree - and whether it is "audible".
 
So, again, a claim of "comparable performance" must be proved.
 
"Your appeal to emotion merely reflects desperation. Look, I'm not going to delude myself by thinking that I can change your mind by presenting evidence and arguing the case on its merits."
 
Just restating my arguments is not an argument.
 
I would be very happy if $100 DACs performed the same as $2000 DACs, whereas you are already unhappy with the idea that $2000 DACs might perform better than $100 DACs.
 
"You clearly want to believe there's some undefinable benefit to multibit technology and have no intention of budging."
 
1) I strenuously avoid believing anything.
 
2) I never stated any "benefit to multibit technology".

 

[nick_charles]

   
Interesting. Do you have a link?
 
But also the differences might not have been due to differences in chip tech.  Without knowing more, it might have been differences in the analog stage of each.

 
 
Or even just relative output levels - I had two CD players a Magnavox and an Onkyo where one was significantly (0.6db) louder than the other and an Entech DAC that had an output level of 2.65V!

 

[watchnerd]

   
 
Or even just relative output levels - I had two CD players a Magnavox and an Onkyo where one was significantly (0.6db) louder than the other and an Entech DAC that had an output level of 2.65V!

 
That's so well-known I assumed he matched output levels...but maybe you're right.

 

[castleofargh]

the line out of my sony DAP is 0.245v, the output of my odac is around 2V, and I can indeed pass a blind test ^_^. apparently 18db in loudness has a certain impact on sound that I'm able to notice. that was a pretty strong wake up call about DACs needing to be volume matched.

 
Quote:

 
Now I don't expect anything in reply, because my experience is that the "objectivists" are actually more emotional and less logical than the "subjectivists".  They see a $10,000 cable or a special $300 rock to improve sound and they see red.   Somehow because some people in a field are charlatans, therefore everyone is...

seriously? your "objectivists are emotional" argument is about our distrust in clearly over priced cables that usually offer zero of the electrical specs one is expecting to read for a passive electrical component?
strange, I'd call that reason.

 

[XenHeadFi]

   
That's so well-known I assumed he matched output levels...but maybe you're right.

He supposedly matched to 0.01 dB on Day2. He had his wife randomly plug 2 cables into box and made a script that would randomize which output was sent signal. Nothing jumped out at me as being wrong with his methodology. I had a quibble with scoring his aborted attempts, but he subsequently reliably picked out one DAC from the other. Both DACs are favorite intro gear for head-fiers.

 

[nick_charles]

  He supposedly matched to 0.01 dB on Day2. He had his wife randomly plug 2 cables into box and made a script that would randomize which output was sent signal. Nothing jumped out at me as being wrong with his methodology. I had a quibble with scoring his aborted attempts, but he subsequently reliably picked out one DAC from the other. Both DACs are favorite intro gear for head-fiers.

 
 
linky ?

 

[prot]

linky ?

Forbidden on headfi. Hope you know where to look.
And btw, that is not a dbt/abx but one guy testing with a selfbuilt setup and all we got is his word. How much of that can be trusted is anyone's guess. Maybe he can demo it in public at some point.

This is sound science Forum.

A small group of self-proclaimed "trained ears" is not statistically significant, and one DAC is not automatically representative of multibit DACs. 

Oh but they are ..

In the big picture that is of course just another single DBT ... and a single test is of course not 100% proof .. but it's both relevant and statistically significant .. and it adds to the pile of negative tests .. which btw is also quite significant.

And btw, does anyone know of a single DBT belonging to the positive pile?!

 

[jcx]

as far as I know no legal site containing headphone related relevant information is strictly forbidden on head-fi - linking to banned members individual posts or blogs that specifically criticize head-fi moderation may be deleted if seen as a way to give them a voice on their banning here

 

[limpidglitch]

Forbidden on headfi. Hope you know where to look.
 

 
Is it the guy with the toilet paper?