[kstuart]

  Psychoacoustic data is from human listening tests, with controls, standards established by any researchers over decades of practice- there are rules for turning reported sensory impressions into moderately reliable data that have been tested in practice by people whose careers, reputations depended on getting results that could be reproduced, verified

 
People who careers and reputations depend on getting results, use their ears as the sole arbiter.

 
I don't know one mastering engineer who says " this way sounds better to my ears, but since there is no existing theory that explains it, I won't do it that way ".
 
For example, Paul Stubblebine and Barry Diament both claim that one of the biggest advantages of 24/192 recording over 44.1 or 48 is bass quality.  Paul wrote in another Forum:
 

  Barry has mentioned that he hears a qualitative difference between the 2X rates (88 and 96) and the 4X rates (176 and 192) and I hear it pretty much the way he describes it. As we go up from 16 to 24 bits, and as we go up from the 1X rates to the 2X rates, I hear a number of specific improvements. When we get to the 4X rates done well (and here I agree again with Barry--easier said than done) it's more of a feeling that we have turned a corner and we are almost dealing with a musical experience rather than a facsimile of a musical experience. And I'll confirm that Keith Johnson has said something similar in several conversations.
 
I'll go further: Those of us who work in digital audio understand the relationships of sample rate to frequency response, and bit depth to dynamic range. Theory says that higher sample rates allow us to record higher frequencies, and in practice that's true. But here's something that the theory doesn't account for: every time we double the sample rate (up to 4X) the bass gets better. Much better. More dimensionality, more texture, more clarity, better decay, lots of things. I'm just trying to make the point that digital audio is more complicated, and more subtle, than the first-level theory that we all learned.

 
Objectivists give the impression that the scientific theory, measurements and studies are 90% of the way toward describing what we hear, when actually they are about 10%.

 

[AndreYew]

  but that doesn't address the Engineering, Signal Theory based questions I asked about why one would speculate the purported differences were in places so deeply buried by headphone variability
 

If that's the case, then why are 0.5dB level differences readily audible (and spoil listening tests) when heard over speakers or headphones which have orders of magnitude more level variation?

 

[Jason Stoddard]

Fair warning to everyone: if this devolves into the typical objectivist/subjectivist argument (as in, endless, heated, and about as useful as talking to a fish), I will pull the plug on it, right quick.

 

[mkozlows]

Objectivists give the impression that the scientific theory, measurements and studies are 90% of the way toward describing what we hear, when actually they are about 10%.

 
This is the audio world's most boring debate (especially because I think both sides are wrong[1]), but I think that no matter what you think, it's nearly impossible to fault Schiit as a company.  Their website gives measurements for their products, and you can see that by the numbers, their products generally get measurably better as they go up the line (with some obvious exceptions like higher distortion on tube products); and they very pointedly don't make any claims about the audibility of those differences. If you're the most dyed-in-the-wool objectivist, surely this satisfies you; if you're the most ardent subjectivist, you have your suspicions that they secretly agree with you that their better products are better for reals.
 
[1] (What I think, not that anyone cares: Measurements are just an imperfect proxy for reliable observational data. Reliable observational data is proper blind testing. But doing this well takes a lot of time and resources, and it's rarely definitive. So where it's unambiguous (e.g., power cords, where I've never heard of a blind test that even hinted at a difference, for obvious reasons), accept it; but where results are ambiguous and non-definitive, be willing to accept lower-quality data, like what you can hear in sighted tests. Which is why I'm willing to provisionally believe that the Bifrost Multibit sounds better than my old DAC, but not willing to say it for sure.)

 

[Tuco1965]

Since this is Jason's thread that he has kindly shared with us, can we all please respect his wishes and take the arguments elsewhere? Many of us are enjoying this story and would like to hear more.

 

[atomicbob]

  atomic bob -
 
<snip>
 
so why single out "execptional channel matching"
 
<snip>

Because it was one of the attributes measurable that differed from most other DACs that I have measured, and appears to correlate with A/B listening. The matching wasn't just the usual frequency response of L/R, it was also in the low level distortions, crosstalk, gain linearity, etc.
 
My apologies to Jason for taking this thread on a somewhat of a tangent. I will refrain from furthering the discussion down such tangents. Going to go back to my listening lab and enjoy.
 
-atomicbob

 

[atomicbob]

   
Have you taken a look at Van Alstine's ABX Comparator?  I've no idea if it does what you're looking for, but it's an interesting product and apparently one of very few that is focused on facilitating ABX testing.
 
http://avahifi.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=271&Itemid=259

EXCELLENT! No I had not seen this. I will download the manual now and look into this. Thank-you!

 

[Baldr]

Too many lose sight of the fact that audio is a hobby.  Best I can tell, hobbies are fun, or are at least assumed to be.  Anyone telling anyone else what is right or wrong about that listening is not fun.  Kinda like your third grade teacher.  (Mine was a beyatch.)
 
Now, speaking for myself, it has been a helluva lot more fun than misery building Schiit with Jason.  Yes there are lessons which result in knowledge and the whole cycle repeats, but that does not prevent the enjoyment of what I do.  I am confident that Jason feels the same.  Now to the extent that you have fun with our stuff, that is a huge bonus.  If you can't have fun, then please go ahead and not have it with OP's stuff.
 
I look in a mirror, and find it hard to take myself too seriously.  The more I take myself seriously, the less fun I have.  There are some others out there who may find that useful.
 
Mozart famously had fun with music.  His favorite quote for me is:  "Opera would be a wonderful thing were it not for some of the singers."

 

[ScottFree]

 
Good point. We'll do that at the next shoot. In the meantime, this is a document I put together in 2014 that shows relative sizes.

 
Funniest thing I've seen this week.

 

[Ableza]

I heard that Fox is bringing back The X Files.  I Want To Believe!

 

[jimmers]

I came to head-fi to find out about Schiit, or more precisely why rocketscientist/nwavguy got banned.
 
So I didn't necessarily start out as a fan.
I recently bought my first Schiit product, I realised that what I really wanted in a DAC was the ability to play CD rips well, so I took a punt and bought a Multibit Bifrost.
 
I am now enjoying my music more than any time since I left vinyl, not listening to the gear anymore.
 
Don't know why I'm enjoying it so much more now, don't care, happy.. 

 

[atomicbob]

For tonight and tomorrow's fun and games will be A/B comparing Bimby and Gumby again, this time through the Cavalli Liquid Crimson. Last time was Project Sunrise III. The picture also shows relative size between Bimby and Gumby as they sit stacked. Level matching channels and assuring identical cables, power cords, source feed to eliminate variables. Will even calibrate listening levels with a dummy head Sound Level Meter. Tonight it is just me. Tomorrow I have two other victims, I mean volunteers.

 

[tonykaz]

Mr. jimmers
 
You probably landed on an End-game system, 6 months from now you'll know for sure, 2 years from now you'll smile about all the gear you didn't need to chase-buy-sell on ebay.
 
Nice going.
 
Tony in Michigan

 

[Jones Bob]

For tonight and tomorrow's fun and games will be A/B comparing Bimby and Gumby again, this time through the Cavalli Liquid Crimson. Last time was Project Sunrise III. The picture also shows relative size between Bimby and Gumby as they sit stacked. Level matching channels and assuring identical cables, power cords, source feed to eliminate variables. Will even calibrate listening levels with a dummy head Sound Level Meter. Tonight it is just me. Tomorrow I have two other victims, I mean volunteers.

Wondering more about your impressions of BM vs Yggy.

I've got a Yggy which I love. Thought about getting my Gungnir updated to Gumby. With similar voltage output chip sets, the same megacumwadburrito filter and output buffer between the two, it does not seem enough difference technology-wise for me to splurge.

But the BM has a current output DAC, external audio opamp derived I/V stage, and abbreviated filter that allows access to NOS at highest sampling rates. That interests me. Might be good to get for a second system.

 

[7ryder]

  For tonight and tomorrow's fun and games will be A/B comparing Bimby and Gumby again, this time through the Cavalli Liquid Crimson. Last time was Project Sunrise III. The picture also shows relative size between Bimby and Gumby as they sit stacked. Level matching channels and assuring identical cables, power cords, source feed to eliminate variables. Will even calibrate listening levels with a dummy head Sound Level Meter. Tonight it is just me. Tomorrow I have two other victims, I mean volunteers.

I believe you meant "schitt stacked"