[bigshot]

Whatever. If you don’t listen and keep mischaracterixing what I say, what’s the point replying to you? Let the guy reply for himself.

 

[gerelmx1986]

The clicking on the sony are the circuit relays this happens during
Headphone disconnect /connect
Sample rate change e.g. from 44.1 base clock to the 48kHz clock base
Engaging high gain as well when disabling it
Unit Entering standby sleep.

It has a std unbalanced 3.5mm Jack and a balanced 4.4

 

[castleofargh]

I'm not the one that is demanding peer reviewed standards. If the guy actually makes a sincere effort to do a fair test and hears for himself, he will know for himself. It doesn't matter what I think. I just want people to do a fair test. If they do that and come up with something I don't expect, I'll be excited and eager to reproduce their results. That is what the scientific method is all about. (in case you weren't aware)

People who lie, lie. They don't need to convince me. They are only fooling themselves. I know the truth. I've done it myself... and most of the folks here in this forum have done it for themselves too.

I'm not talking crazy here. We all know that the likelihood of a decent DAC sounding clearly different than another decent DAC is very low. I don't know why just saying that is so controversial, but I do understand from the point of view of ego.

That said, I have a unique ability to sniff out bull. I can detect agendas. Have you noticed that?

The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination. That's your bias and you do have it. In this specific case of 2 highly different DAPs, it's relatively trivial to set up conditions where audible differences would clearly come out. Be it because the amp section is IMO, pretty bad on Sony DAPs(but it's very easy on the battery and I do love that). Or that with sensitive IEMs the difference in background noise is easy to notice. Or that with some multidriver IEMs the difference in frequency response from impedance could become easy to notice.

If I gave you the result of any such test what would you say? That one of the devices sucks? That the test was bad and that I need to match impedance and avoid sensitive IEMs? I'm all for listening tests, as they're the only factual method to confirm audibility, but here you're asking someone to perform one under conditions so vague that they would benefit nobody. At no point will the result define the transparency of the DAC itself because we will probably not manage to test only the DAC.

What @gerelmx1986 experiences has most likely causes that are due to lack of controls, or one of the stuff I mentioned above. The DAC itself has no obvious reason(that I know of!) to be at the top of our list of suspects for audible sound differences. But that's not something we know for a fact in this case as nobody went to properly test anything. It's just a nice rule of thumb based on what we know a DAC can do.

Anyway, DAPs are often the worst of everything, they're the most likely to have been built with priorities that aren't sound fidelity but concerns for size and battery. When they have a line out it's often some non standard stuff(on my sony DAPs, the LO is the HO fixed at a given level. It's not even where the DAP measures the best and we're far from the 2V standard...). And of course when it comes to listening test, synchronizing 2 DAPs is actually really hard and rarely holds on for more than a song even if somehow you got lucky when pressing play.
I suggest we all save a lot of time and reject DAPs as evidence of anything about DACs. It's already enough of a mine field to discuss the sound of DACs(and in this thread, of one piece of the DAC...), let's not willingly add obstacles that needn't be there.

 

[gerelmx1986]

The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination. That's your bias and you do have it. In this specific case of 2 highly different DAPs, it's relatively trivial to set up conditions where audible differences would clearly come out. Be it because the amp section is IMO, pretty bad on Sony DAPs(but it's very easy on the battery and I do love that). Or that with sensitive IEMs the difference in background noise is easy to notice. Or that with some multidriver IEMs the difference in frequency response from impedance could become easy to notice.

If I gave you the result of any such test what would you say? That one of the devices sucks? That the test was bad and that I need to match impedance and avoid sensitive IEMs? I'm all for listening tests, as they're the only factual method to confirm audibility, but here you're asking someone to perform one under conditions so vague that they would benefit nobody. At no point will the result define the transparency of the DAC itself because we will probably not manage to test only the DAC.

What @gerelmx1986 experiences has most likely causes that are due to lack of controls, or one of the stuff I mentioned above. The DAC itself has no obvious reason(that I know of!) to be at the top of our list of suspects for audible sound differences. But that's not something we know for a fact in this case as nobody went to properly test anything. It's just a nice rule of thumb based on what we know a DAC can do.

Anyway, DAPs are often the worst of everything, they're the most likely to have been built with priorities that aren't sound fidelity but concerns for size and battery. When they have a line out it's often some non standard stuff(on my sony DAPs, the LO is the HO fixed at a given level. It's not even where the DAP measures the best and we're far from the 2V standard...). And of course when it comes to listening test, synchronizing 2 DAPs is actually really hard and rarely holds on for more than a song even if somehow you got lucky when pressing play.
I suggest we all save a lot of time and reject DAPs as evidence of anything about DACs. It's already enough of a mine field to discuss the sound of DACs(and in this thread, of one piece of the DAC...), let's not willingly add obstacles that needn't be there.

Sony has taken incredible measures with recent DAPs to curb down EMI-induced noise as well S-Master noise levels down

It has a nice milled block or gold plated copper to isolate the BT antenna and othe such plates to isolate the S-master. I cant hear any WMI even if I lie on top of my walkman my cellphone.

S-master nouse maybe is there, I tried the beethoven piano sonatas album from DECCA V. Ashkenazi in a Fisher audio amplifier via 3.5mm aux cable.. hiss was there, I am not sure if Tape or S-master hiss. But to hear it I needed to push both the walkman and the Fisher desktop amp feeding the speakers at MAXIMUM VOLUME (ear-splitting)

 

[gerelmx1986]

Then the AK guy never listens to any music recordings, because there aren't any 24bit music recordings!

Think of it this way: Let's say we have a 24 litre water container and we fill it with 12 litres of water. How much water do we have, 24 litres or 12 litres? Now let's say we have a 16 litre water container and fill it with 12 litres of water. How many litres of water do we have now, how is it different to the amount of water we had in the 24 litre container and how does 16 litre container "suck ba***" compared to a 24 litre container if we never have more than about 12 litres of water?

With commercial digital audio music recordings the container can be 16bit, 24bit or even 32bit but we never fill those containers with more than about 12 bits of actual audio and even that is extremely rare, the vast majority of classical music recordings use 10 bits or fewer and popular music recordings typically use 5 - 8 bits.

G

I think you're lying ... as each 16 bit chunk (slice) represents a part of the wave form being recorded

 

[castleofargh]

I think you're lying ... as each 16 bit chunk (slice) represents a part of the wave form being recorded

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/24bit-vs-16bit-the-myth-exploded.415361/

 

[bigshot]

The problem is, you often seem to assume that any test is good enough so long as it returns a lack of discrimination.

Bulloney. I suggest that people try a test and everyone tries to make up reasons why to not do the test. The tests never get done and discussed. I set three conditions- level matched, direct A/B switchable, and blind. Up to now only one person has taken up my challenge and actually done it. And he found that both of his DACs sound the same. If someone can prove to themselves honestly that they can hear a difference in sound fidelity, I would love to hear about it and try to reproduce their results myself. But it seems no one around here does tests. They just sit around and talk in theory- “oh, but you can’t say every DAC in the world sounds the same because you haven’t tested every DAC!” That’s just an excuse for not wanting to do a test. It’s pie in the sky and doesn’t tell us anything about the specific DACs we’re talking about. I just want to find one DAC that sounds clearly different in a controlled test so I can figure out if it’s true, and if it is, why does it sound different.

Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said. They say I’m not scientific enough. Well, doing a casual limited controlled test is a hell of a lot more scientific than talking unsubstantiated theory as an excuse for not doing a test at all. I assume people are like me and have done controlled tests between DACs and players. I know bfreedma and Gregorio have. Who else? Tell the truth. Show of hands.

 

[SoundAndMotion]

I suggest that people try a test and everyone tries to make up reasons why to not do the test.
[snip]
They just sit around and talk in theory-
[snip]
Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said. They say I’m not scientific enough.

Enough with the persecution complex! There is no cabal out to get you. Everyone who disagrees with some things you say is not in a club. Deal with people, not imaginary groups.

...tries to make up reasons why to not do the test.

I don't speak for a group, but I support sensible testing, which you often suggest. I oppose incompetent, incomplete and ill-conceived tests; live with it.

...doing a casual limited controlled test is a hell of a lot more scientific than talking unsubstantiated theory as an excuse for not doing a test at all.

If it helps someone learn something true, if it helps understanding, I agree. But ignorance, and awareness of it, is better than "learning" something untrue and turning dogmatic because "I proved it" falsely.

They say I’m not scientific enough.

I have 3 problems here: hypocracy, holding others to a standard to which you don't hold yourself; the "just right" Goldilocks level of science, not too much (with disparagement of "real, lab" science), not too little, but some sliver you imagine to be adequate, but move around to match your narrative, i.e. hypocrisy again; suggesting potentially dangerous or costly acts, because you just don't understand enough. This is just audio, so in most cases it's harmless. But, if you said "it's easy, it's fun, just mix the chemicals" in a DIY chemistry forum, you'd be called out more.
I looked for an electrostatic headphone switcher to no avail. Do you have one in mind? A DIY switcher in that case would require care, so would switching a heavily-inductor-filtered amp out. Do you even think of these things?

Everyone keeps putting words in my mouth I never said.

I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply to me, but show me I'm wrong!! Don't accuse without specifics! When, where? I'll back up anything I claim you've said with quotes from you. ... or I'll openly admit my error and apologize, with egg on my face and crow in my mouth.

You and I are actually on the same team (like it or not), but we disagree intensely about the best defensive and offensive strategies against ignorance.

 

[bigshot]

Anyone else? I'm not interested in hearing any more of his carping and attacks.