[Billheiser]

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.

 

[FrivolsListener]

  The decay of an instrument, as you described it has to do with time and the envelope of a note. I don't see how any DAC can change how that has been recorded. Perhaps you meant to describe something different? I might say the same about ambience or reverberance/delay. I'd expect a DAC to accurately reconstruct what was recorded.

 
You aren't reading what we are writing.
 
We're saying that IF the recording captures the instruments, AND it is a quality recording, THEN a multibit DAC will reproduce it more faithfully AND here are some examples to look for.

 

[kstuart]

 

  In addition to previous comments, I would add:
 
* The "decay" of instruments - instead of "doomp" you get the more realistic "dooommmmmmph" at the end of an acoustic instrument note.
 
* The sound of the room in which the recording takes place.  This is related to the first, because it is further sound from the instrument when it hits the walls of the recording room and then returns to the microphone.
 
Both of these require using a good stereo recording of acoustic instruments in a room that is not dead (muffled with soft material).  So, "classic rock" or metal does not work for this purpose.  A live classical recording, perhaps a string quartet, is ideal.
 
Once the gear gets that right, then it will also sound right for the rock tracks as well.

The decay of an instrument, as you described it has to do with time and the envelope of a note. I don't see how any DAC can change how that has been recorded. Perhaps you meant to describe something different? I might say the same about ambience or reverberance/delay. I'd expect a DAC to accurately reconstruct what was recorded.

The whole concept here is that real world digital electronics do not actually perform as well as their design theory.

 

[kstuart]

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.
 

No this is where the fallacy lies.
 
You cannot manufacture two copies of the same piece of audio gear (i.e. the same model) that are 100.0% identical.  There is always going to be some resistor that is 0.001% different, some capacitor, etc.
 
There cannot be two playbacks of the same track on the same setup that are 100.0% identical.  Due to air currents, the densities of air are 0.0001% different, the air pressure is 0.001% different.  The temperature of the ICs are 0.01% different, giving slightly different electrical values.   Your head is 0.01 inch from where it was the first time.   Etc.
 
So, scientifically, no two audio devices are the same and no two audio playbacks are the same.
 
Okay, then there is an example of two things that are obviously not the same.   Two speakers of the same model, but one with a blown speaker.  Two playbacks, but one with the amplifier turned off.
 
One can logically state that there is a spectrum between the obvious difference of two playbacks where a component is turned off, and two playbacks where nothing can be perceived to be different.
 
In that spectrum between obvious and inaudible, there is a point where differences start to be audible.  This point is different for each person, because each person's ears are different, and more importantly, each person's listening skill is different.
 
But the main point is that science can never prove that there is no difference between two pieces of audio gear, because no difference at all is impossible.

 

[franzdom]

So what you are saying is, it's all about tolerance. I totally hear you!

 

[StanD]

  The whole concept here is that real world digital electronics do not actually perform as well as their design theory.

To me that sounds simply dismissive, however, anyone is free to believe as they wish. I will say this is not rocket science, it's audio electronics, pretty low frequency, not so hard to deal with. In this arena a couple of smart guys at a small company can do amazing things without millions of dollars of investment.

 

[artur9]

What do D/S DACs do wrong that makes these differences?  Phase, noise, something else?  No idea?
 
Also, we need a Schiit Show in Philadelphia. For incentive, I'll treat @Baldr to dinner at the Victor Cafe (excluding wine, he's on his own for that).  Jason will have to settle for a cheesesteak

 

[StanD]

  What do D/S DACs do wrong that makes these differences?  Phase, noise, something else?  No idea?
 
Also, we need a Schiit Show in Philadelphia. For incentive, I'll treat @Baldr to dinner at the Victor Cafe (excluding wine, he's on his own for that).  Jason will have to settle for a cheesesteak

Gee, not so long ago everyone was thrilled to spend thousands of bucks on D/S DACs. That is if they could drop that kind of cash. Suddenly it's not good enough because something new is in town. Gee, what happened to the misguided romance with 24 bits and above. There's always something else on the horizon that is supposed to be so much better than what we have today. That kind of goings on makes me wonder about, "The Sky is the limit." That can't go on forever.

 

[bigro]

landroni gets into some good detail here about the difference of MB vs DS
http://www.head-fi.org/t/779572/r2r-multibit-vs-delta-sigma-is-there-a-measurable-scientific-difference-thats-audible#post_12038925
 
The Go read the Gumby and Bumby threads those are products that has DS and MB. Alot of the same questions are asked and answered there.Some people said the like the DS versions of the DACS better and some say their are no difference while some (myself included) got kicked in the face the first time we heard multi bit, it was that dramatic.
 
If you are still curious and the numerous accounts on the bimby and gumby threads about what people say about the MB's don't work for you. Mimby is an old Norse way of saying "Multibit for all". @ $250 Its cheaper than newer gaming consoles or the latest Iphone, Save up your pennies and give one a try. I'm digging through the sofa cushions next.

 

[artur9]

  Suddenly it's not good enough because something new is in town. 

Technology advances.  We no longer play Atari 8-bit games nor should we tolerate D/S DACs
 
I like people to spend many thousands of dollars on cutting edge things.  The technological trickle down is great.  Hello, Mimby!

 

[artur9]

  If you are still curious and the numerous accounts on the bimby and gumby threads about what people say about the MB's don't work for you. Mimby is an old Norse way of saying "Multibit for all". @ $250 Its cheaper than newer gaming consoles or the latest Iphone, Save up your pennies and give one a try. I'm digging through the sofa cushions next.

I have the UberFrost and it sounds so good I cannot fathom all the talk of the Bimby being better.  The Gumby, I can understand, with its balanced architecture and extended bit resolution (IIRC 18bit resolution).   That's all.

 

[Torq]

  Technology advances.  We no longer play Atari 8-bit games nor should we tolerate D/S DACs
 
I like people to spend many thousands of dollars on cutting edge things.  The technological trickle down is great.  Hello, Mimby!

 
You speak for yourself! 

 
I love me some Star Raiders, MULE, Archon, Miner 2049er and so on!
 
Pretty much with you on the D/S DAC part though!

 

[earnmyturns]

  I have the UberFrost and it sounds so good I cannot fathom all the talk of the Bimby being better.  The Gumby, I can understand, with its balanced architecture and extended bit resolution (IIRC 18bit resolution).   That's all.

The $250 I spent to upgrade my Uberfrost to a Bimby were by far the most bang for the buck I ever got in audio. Attack and decay, especially in percussion and strings, got quite a bit closer to the live performances that I attend frequently.

 

[Torq]

  The $250 I spent to upgrade my Uberfrost to a Bimby were by far the most bang for the buck I ever got in audio. Attack and decay, especially in percussion and strings, got quite a bit closer to the live performances that I attend frequently.

I should just send mine in.  I'm lazy like that.  If it was a self-installable thing like the "4490" board, I'd have done it ages ago.
 
Of course, I could just order a new multi-bit Bifrost.  That'd give me two Bifrost chassis; one capable of running both my original and 4490 analog/DAC boards, and one multi-bit.  And then if I could cheaply source an Uber board I could still do the 4-version Bifrost comparison I was noodling on earlier in the thread.  
 
Hmmm ...

 

[Billheiser]

 
I should just send mine in.  I'm lazy like that.  If it was a self-installable thing like the "4490" board, I'd have done it ages ago.
 
Of course, I could just order a new multi-bit Bifrost.  That'd give me two Bifrost chassis; one capable of running both my original and 4490 analog/DAC boards, and one multi-bit.  And then if I could cheaply source an Uber board I could still do the 4-version Bifrost comparison I was noodling on earlier in the thread.  
 
Hmmm ...

If you do that, I have an Uber board available