[madwolfa]

Well, I don't want to argue over semantics. Yes, you don't really need science to enjoy the (recorded) music, but to dismiss something that made it possible to begin with is my problem with many hardcore subjectivists.

 

[ThePianoMan]

Philosophically bankrupt conversation, here on headfi?! Heavens me.
Don't you people listen to any music?

Eugh. I need a shower after all the garbage.

 

[Ableza]

Yea, where's the off-topic forum cops when you need them? 

 

[franzdom]

  Yea, where's the off-topic forum cops when you need them? 

 

 

[Jason Stoddard]

  Yea, where's the off-topic forum cops when you need them? 

Here I am.
 
Okay, guys, let's stop the passive-aggressive (and oftentimes poorly formatted/capitalized) bickering about subjective/objective stuff. I've covered that in a previous chapter. If you have substantive input based on actual engineering knowledge and/or experience with designing and implementing audio devices, then that's cool. If not, any subjective/objective whining/bitching/carping/moaning/speculation/opinion stuff will be removed.
 
Remember, if you don't believe multibit confers any advantage, you're free to save a bunch of money and get a delta-sigma DAC. Or no DAC at all.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Of course not. When comparing DACs we're really talking about subjective perceptions and enjoyment of one specific gear over another, when looking for a pastime.
So, in gardening, how often have you DBT'ed two different plants, to see if there is a reliably perceptible and scientific difference between the two when you tend over them or when you watch over your garden? Or in stamp collecting, is there really any evidence out there, and I mean published peer-reviewed scientific evidence, that two different stamps will generate different perceptions in a philatelist? Or is it all philatephoolery? And in gaming, have you ever DBT'ed Halo vs Sims, to see if you can perceive ANY difference between the two? Or in programming languages --- surely there are differences between Python and C, but have there ever been formal DBT that show that programmers can perceive any differences between them? Or when eating ice-cream, do you doubt your perceptions of a difference between two flavors until you're presented with formal proof from a carefully set up DBT that controls for all factors, including the level-matched temperature of the said ice-creams, on an infinite sample size, published in Nature; and will you just assume that all ice-creams taste the same until scientific evidence emerges from carefully controlled DBT'ed studies? But there are many hobbies out there involving gear, so have you ever gone about DBT'ing ski gear, tennis rackets, foot balls, golf balls, diving gear, TV sets, digital cameras, cars, planes, parachutes, keyboards, game consoles?

But let's not stray from audio and let's do reductio ad absurdum right here. Is there really ANY 'audible' difference between an Elac UB5, an iPhone ear bud and a Stax 009? I mean, objective, scientific proof from carefully set-up double-blind tested studies with matched levels, not subject to the much maligned "expectation bias"? And I insist, for any evidence to have any validity both the researchers and the test subjects must NOT know, at any point during the testing, which piece of equipment they're listening to. (Good luck with that, of course, but it's a fun thought experiment.) Of course, you can point to all the measurements you'd like, but "is it audible?!" Until any such peer-reviewed, scientific evidence emerges, I say we can safely assume that there is no difference between these three pieces of audio gear and all those who claim to hear a difference are hapless audiophools gullible to their expectation biases and being abused by mean and greedy audio corporations.

The thing is, this obsession with "scientific proof" in some circles is quite unique to high-end audio, and the real question of interest here is why? I suspect part of the answer is that in audio there are things that we can DBT, whereas in many other hobbies DBT'ing would be a futile endeavour at best. 

You have deliberately raised all examples of things with blatantly obvious differences--and there is no scientific evidence contradicting the existence of said obvious differences in these cases. The problem is, in audio there are many classes of things for which most would also believe that there are blatantly obvious differences, but for which there is scientific evidence that points otherwise. You can argue about the validity of this evidence, but you can't argue that the situation is at all comparable with the examples you raised.

Personally I don't even bother to perform DBT tests and simply choose to ignore all classes of upgrades for which there is any contention as to the audible difference they make. Over the course of years I have found that there are plenty, PLENTY of upgrades I can make to my system outside of such contentious classes: headphones, speakers, equalizers for optimizing system frequency response, multiband compressors for de-essing, HRTF plugins for improving soundstage, custom HRTF measurements and impulse convolution for photorealistic reproduction of loudspeaker soundstage, etc. Many people turn to tube amps when they want to take the edge off a "sharp" pair of earphones, yet there is considerable debate over whether tube amps (especially high-end, high-fidelity tube amps) sound enough different from SS amps to make any audible difference to this "sharpness". A multiband compressor set to de-emphasize sibilance frequencies at appropriate thresholds will make a night-and-day difference to making a system sound more "relaxing", whether you're blindfolded or not.

I believe my previous work with FiiO qualifies me for "actual engineering knowledge implementing audio devices".

 

[franzdom]

You have deliberately raised all examples of things with blatantly obvious differences--and there is no scientific evidence contradicting the existence of said obvious differences in these cases. The problem is, in audio there are many classes of things for which most would also believe that there are blatantly obvious differences, but for which there is scientific evidence that points otherwise. You can argue about the validity of this evidence, but you can't argue that the situation is at all comparable with the examples you raised.

Personally I don't even bother to perform DBT tests and simply choose to ignore all classes of upgrades for which there is any contention as to the audible difference they make. Over the course of years I have found that there are plenty, PLENTY of upgrades I can make to my system outside of such contentious classes: headphones, speakers, equalizers for optimizing system frequency response, multiband compressors for de-essing, HRTF plugins for improving soundstage, custom HRTF measurements and impulse convolution for photorealistic reproduction of loudspeaker soundstage, etc. Many people turn to tube amps when they want to take the edge off a "sharp" pair of earphones, yet there is considerable debate over whether tube amps (especially high-end, high-fidelity tube amps) sound enough different from SS amps to make any audible difference to this "sharpness". A multiband compressor set to de-emphasize sibilance frequencies at appropriate thresholds will make a night-and-day difference to making a system sound more "relaxing", whether you're blindfolded or not.

 
I don't believe this adds to the thread, please refer to the thread before yours.

 

[StanD]

 
Here I am.
 
Okay, guys, let's stop the passive-aggressive (and oftentimes poorly formatted/capitalized) bickering about subjective/objective stuff. I've covered that in a previous chapter. If you have substantive input based on actual engineering knowledge and/or experience with designing and implementing audio devices, then that's cool. If not, any subjective/objective whining/bitching/carping/moaning/speculation/opinion stuff will be removed.
 
Remember, if you don't believe multibit confers any advantage, you're free to save a bunch of money and get a delta-sigma DAC. Or no DAC at all.

Not much to whine about as Schiit has grown a wide range of product types covering numerous market segments at very reasonable price points without BS sales fluff. All good qualitywith excellent performance.  Kudos to the company. I may not be a fan of MB, but you guys don't make ridiculous claims or gouge wallets. The new Modi MB is proof enough.
So how about a new pure tube amp that has a heavy expensive output transformer? That's missing from the lineup.  

 

[vocalstrance]

Still waiting for a preamp from schiit, I hope it isn't any bigger than the Ragnarok. Seeing the Mimby puts a smile on my face until then even if I won't buy the Mimby. Someday I will get the Gumby though.

 

[reginalb]

   
Not in weapons systems nor in medical imaging.  Where we differ is the potential relevance of those differences in audio.
 
 
 
Well, for whatever the phuc I am or not, I can guarantee I am not an elitist.  I (usually after looking around) scratch where it itches and have been known to utter occasional disgusting locutions.  The elite reside on the upper floors of the show hotels and have the same look of pinched constipation as many of their detractors.
 
My engineering concentrates on differences.  If I were to do what 98% of my competition does which is focus on similarities - I would put out boring data sheet based crap differentiated by gold plated circuit boards, whale oil damped platinum knobs and buttons, rare earth phosphors in the display, etc.  I happen to really believe in the superiority of multibit; it is not a religious backdrop for a tooth fairy narrative.  After all, $249 is no elite price for multibit.  I also make no sonic warranties - enjoy it if you care to.  I genuinely do!  Or you could spend 150x that money for a model equipped with accuwank.

 
So, a question that I've asked in a couple places, and have yet to get a great answer to, is related directly to what you said. 
 
Put as succinctly as possible: If I were to buy a Modi and a Modi multibit, what would the differences be? Not in meaningless audiophilia, but in concrete descriptions. What is missing from Modi proper that Modi multibit offers. I know that some people have tried to describe the difference, which I appreciate, but I don't know what "Less digital glare" actually means. If I were to A/B Modi and Modi U, what should I listen for?
 

Still waiting for a preamp from schiit, I hope it isn't any bigger than the Ragnarok. Seeing the Mimby puts a smile on my face until then even if I won't buy the Mimby. Someday I will get the Gumby though.

 
Isn't the Mani a preamp?

 

[Jason Stoddard]

Personally I don't even bother to perform DBT tests and simply choose to ignore all classes of upgrades for which there is any contention as to the audible difference they make. Over the course of years I have found that there are plenty, PLENTY of upgrades I can make to my system outside of such contentious classes: headphones, speakers, equalizers for optimizing system frequency response, multiband compressors for de-essing, HRTF plugins for improving soundstage, custom HRTF measurements and impulse convolution for photorealistic reproduction of loudspeaker soundstage, etc. Many people turn to tube amps when they want to take the edge off a "sharp" pair of earphones, yet there is considerable debate over whether tube amps (especially high-end, high-fidelity tube amps) sound enough different from SS amps to make any audible difference to this "sharpness". A multiband compressor set to de-emphasize sibilance frequencies at appropriate thresholds will make a night-and-day difference to making a system sound more "relaxing", whether you're blindfolded or not.

I believe my previous work with FiiO qualifies me for "actual engineering knowledge implementing audio devices".

I'll let this one stand, though this does not necessarily demonstrate engineering knowledge, this demonstrates an opinion: that, beyond transducers, signal processing is a way to better audio.
 
That's a valid viewpoint. There are no perfect systems, no perfect rooms, no perfect recordings...if I wanted to do an EQ product, for example, it would be the easiest sell in the world. And it would irritate a whole helluva lot of tree-worshipping audio purists. Which would make it sell even more. Not that I'm necessarily going to do something like that--this is just blue-skying.
 
For the future, let's keep objective/subjective discussions on an informed, technical level--as in, cite your specific experience and/or credentials, or cite peer-reviewed studies.

 

[Ableza]

I've been saving my last bottle of Unicorn Tears (tm) from Adire Audio just to lubricate Accuwank when I can find some.  Baldr, release your stash!!

 

[Torq]

   
Isn't the Mani a preamp?
 

 
It's a phono pre-amp with RIAA network (sometimes called a phono "stage") ... it's only useful for connecting a phono-cartridge, i.e. from a turntable, to a line-level input on a pre-amp (since most modern pre-amps do not have phono stages built-in).

 

[lm4der]

   
So, a question that I've asked in a couple places, and have yet to get a great answer to, is related directly to what you said. 
 
Put as succinctly as possible: If I were to buy a Modi and a Modi multibit, what would the differences be? Not in meaningless audiophilia, but in concrete descriptions. What is missing from Modi proper that Modi multibit offers. I know that some people have tried to describe the difference, which I appreciate, but I don't know what "Less digital glare" actually means. If I were to A/B Modi and Modi U, what should I listen for?
 

 
Well, I can try to provide some examples, but not sure if my language will be meaningful - ultimately it's hard to describe things we hear - Between the Modi 2 and Modi 2 Uber (4490), I can hear a difference in nuance - there is a violin passage in a Bach piece that exhibits some very expressive playing, and a section where the violin swoons a little in loudness, as the violinist exerts subtly more pressure on the bow and then relaxes it. I can here more layers of nuance in that part making the violin sound closer to how expressive it should be and more engaging. So, listen for nuance, fine levels of volume expression. Also, related, sometimes music feels like it has a more lively "bounce" to it.
 
Between the Modi2 and Mimby - so I have Bimby, not Mimby, but from what I have read the experience is close enough for this impression to count - The Bimby resolves more finely - all of a sudden a violin sounds finely focused, like the real instrument sitting before you, and its position and location in space image in an "uncanny" way (I put the quotes on uncanny, because I hear that word used a lot for this, but it really is the right word.  The 3d positioning thing is present in all of their MB DACs, and I think is credited to the mega burrito filter.  So listen to instrument placement and how finely focused the instrument sound is. 
 
Edit:  And of course there are many other differences people hear, these are just some high level examples.

 

[FrivolsListener]

   
So, a question that I've asked in a couple places, and have yet to get a great answer to, is related directly to what you said. 
 
Put as succinctly as possible: If I were to buy a Modi and a Modi multibit, what would the differences be? Not in meaningless audiophilia, but in concrete descriptions. What is missing from Modi proper that Modi multibit offers. I know that some people have tried to describe the difference, which I appreciate, but I don't know what "Less digital glare" actually means. If I were to A/B Modi and Modi U, what should I listen for?
 

 
Tambourines and cymbals.  From a good master (1985 Dire Straits Brothers In Arms) they will leap out at you in the multibit and be lost in the mush on the DS.