[sunjam]

Not sure how many of us here would be interested in such topic as I believe that most people here would understand that different DAC would sounds differently, even with the so-called "audibly transparent" (as defined below). (I believe It is not the same transparent that most people use)

The above topic was started in another famous audio science review forum and have spanned more than 445 pages already as many people doubt the claim from the senior members there (i.e. the senior members there claim "all audiibly transparent DACs sound the same". Other people who questioned the claim with valid concerns are banned from further reply.

Before we proceed further, we have to define the term audbily transparent they use as it is very different from our understading of the term.

The term, audibly transparent, they used is indeed extremely mis-leading. From their point of view, two different DACs are considered as "audibly transparent" if "the measurements of two different DACs are good enough (i.e. the measurements are better than certain dB in SINAD, SNR, etc)".

With these "audibly transparent" DACs, they claim that listener cannot tell the difference from the audio output of these DACs because the difference is less than certain dB, the listener cannot tell the difference between these DACs."
They further said that "if you can hear any difference, it must be your brain is fooling you, or you are using a poorly designed re-construction filter that causes the difference".

Hmm... this sound familiar... isn't it a unfalsibile claim? It is a characteristic of pseudo science claim...

Here we just have a latest Youtube video showing that the DACs does matter. Proof that DACs matter! - Blind ABX Testing (youtube.com) to debunk such pseudo science claim.

What do you think? You trust those senior members in the other forum that all DACs sounds the same (no matter it is AKM, ESS, CS, TI, or discrete) as long as they are all measured as "good enough"?

or you think the YouTube video above make more sense?

 

[Ghoostknight]

Imo there are much things that matter with dacs, even -0,2db in your hearing range can be audibly if you are used to listen to minor differences ime

Tho since it wasnt clear in the video i would like to know if goldensound's hearing actually goes "flat" to 20khz or if there is some rolloff involved.... flat is even for 26 highly unlikely, no?
im 29 and can hear "flat" up to around 14-15khz, but i can also hear differences in different reconstruction filters

For me its a clear case that there are audible differences between dacs, the question is just how we explain/measure them...

 

[castleofargh]

All those debates aren't about DAC differences, but about how much someone can insist he has conclusive results despite relying on a notoriously flawed testing method.
The entire thing isn't all that far from asking a tarot card reader if DACs sound different. And then finding excuses as to why tarot reading is the right way to know facts about sound.
Once the way to get an answer is established as flawed, said answer should be called inconclusive and be discarded. People don't do that. Even most reviewers don't have that much common sense.


I'm obviously strongly advising b lin d te sti ng, but just saying the word causes earthquakes and dangerously increases the blood pressure of my fellow headfiers. Which clearly is the true reason why the forum rules tell to only utter those 2 words inside the Sound Science subsection where protective spells are carved within the smiley icons to stop the curse from getting out and hurt people.

 

[hakunamakaka]

Not everything that we perceived as sound can be measured and many of these DAC's with perfect measurement charts from LAB environments will yield different results when varying conditions will be involved.
While some DAC's will sound identical, others can offer totally different experience.

 

[GoldenSound]

Not sure how many of us here would be interested in such topic as I believe that most people here would understand that different DAC would sounds differently, even with the so-called "audibly transparent" (as defined below). (I believe It is not the same transparent that most people use)

The above topic was started in another famous audio science review forum and have spanned more than 445 pages already as many people doubt the claim from the senior members there (i.e. the senior members there claim "all audiibly transparent DACs sound the same". Other people who questioned the claim with valid concerns are banned from further reply.

Before we proceed further, we have to define the term audbily transparent they use as it is very different from our understading of the term.

The term, audibly transparent, they used is indeed extremely mis-leading. From their point of view, two different DACs are considered as "audibly transparent" if "the measurements of two different DACs are good enough (i.e. the measurements are better than certain dB in SINAD, SNR, etc)".

With these "audibly transparent" DACs, they claim that listener cannot tell the difference from the audio output of these DACs because the difference is less than certain dB, the listener cannot tell the difference between these DACs."
They further said that "if you can hear any difference, it must be your brain is fooling you, or you are using a poorly designed re-construction filter that causes the difference".

Hmm... this sound familiar... isn't it a unfalsibile claim? It is a characteristic of pseudo science claim...

Here we just have a latest Youtube video showing that the DACs does matter. Proof that DACs matter! - Blind ABX Testing (youtube.com) to debunk such pseudo science claim.

What do you think? You trust those senior members in the other forum that all DACs sounds the same (no matter it is AKM, ESS, CS, TI, or discrete) as long as they are all measured as "good enough"?

or you think the YouTube video above make more sense?

The simple issue is that there are various factors for which we are not actually entirely certain where the thresholds of audible transparency are.

In the case of my video, it's commonly ASSUMED that the existing filters in DACs should be audibly transparent, but the testing shows that they aren't, and there is literature both in general hearing range and also on the subject of hi-res audio generally that backs this up.

Other factors such as Jitter for example have had some study but are not actually comprehensive. The main 1998 study for example is actually drawing a conclusion from the level of jitter input to the DAC not measured at the output, and so we don't know what level at the output is audible. It also didn't independently test different types/structures of jitter, used a small number of subjects, and in the study itself noted that the results from listeners improved dramatically with practice which in itself leaves room to question where the ceiling could be if you use more 'experienced' listeners or have people practice for an extended amount of time. Plus just considerations about what other factors may be masking jitter audibility in a DAC from 1998 that may not be an issue now and therefore could the threshold be different with a more modern DAC. Etc etc.

There's a lot that we do have a pretty good picture of, but the long and short of it is that whilst there ARE a lot of products that in many ways such as just THD should absolutely be below the threshold of audibility, there are a wide range of factors that can affect the output of the DAC without even affecting SINAD and many of the devices that are proclaimed to be 'audibly transparent' we actually cannot yet be sure of that.

As an example on the Wandla GoldenSound Edition, the Spatial Enhancement feature has absolutely 0 effect on any of the tests typically seen on ASR for instance. You would not be able to tell whether it was on or off, and yet it sounds drastically different.
That doesn't mean you can't measure it, you absolutely can and fairly easily show that it's altering stuff, it's just that you have to look deeper into things. There is a lot more to a DAC than THD/SINAD

 

[sunjam]

The simple issue is that there are various factors for which we are not actually entirely certain where the thresholds of audible transparency are.

In the case of my video, it's commonly ASSUMED that the existing filters in DACs should be audibly transparent, but the testing shows that they aren't, and there is literature both in general hearing range and also on the subject of hi-res audio generally that backs this up.

Other factors such as Jitter for example have had some study but are not actually comprehensive. The main 1998 study for example is actually drawing a conclusion from the level of jitter input to the DAC not measured at the output, and so we don't know what level at the output is audible. It also didn't independently test different types/structures of jitter, used a small number of subjects, and in the study itself noted that the results from listeners improved dramatically with practice which in itself leaves room to question where the ceiling could be if you use more 'experienced' listeners or have people practice for an extended amount of time. Plus just considerations about what other factors may be masking jitter audibility in a DAC from 1998 that may not be an issue now and therefore could the threshold be different with a more modern DAC. Etc etc.

There's a lot that we do have a pretty good picture of, but the long and short of it is that whilst there ARE a lot of products that in many ways such as just THD should absolutely be below the threshold of audibility, there are a wide range of factors that can affect the output of the DAC without even affecting SINAD and many of the devices that are proclaimed to be 'audibly transparent' we actually cannot yet be sure of that.

Cool, thanks for your reply.

I found this experiment, Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Insertedinto High-Resolution Audio Playback, is interesting. It was done in 2007.
This was their setup:

Recap from its conclusion:

With the momentum of widespread “high-rez”anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs we could find. We used a large and varied sample of serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different types of high-quality playback systems and rooms; and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish the transparency of the CD standard.

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to provethe inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

They also made a note regarding hi-res (recap from its note after the conclusion):

A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held upthroughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD andDVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs —sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them....

 

[GoldenSound]

Cool, thanks for your reply.

I found this experiment, Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Insertedinto High-Resolution Audio Playback, is interesting. It was done in 2007.
This was their setup:



Recap from its conclusion:

With the momentum of widespread “high-rez”anecdotes over the last decade, culminating in the Stuart assertions, we felt the need to go further and perform a thorough, straightforward double-blind level-matched listening test to determine whether 16/44.1 technology would audibly degrade the sound of the best high-resolution discs we could find. We used a large and varied sample of serious listeners; we conducted our tests using several different types of high-quality playback systems and rooms; and we took as much time as we felt necessary to establish the transparency of the CD standard.

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to provethe inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades highresolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

They also made a note regarding hi-res (recap from its note after the conclusion):

A NOTE ON HIGH-RESOLUTION RECORDINGS Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held upthroughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD andDVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs —sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them....

This was a good method for a test, though unfortunately lacks a bit of context that could explain the results. Without knowing much about the behaviour of the SACD player and AD/DA device used we can't see what factors may mask audible effects or whether there are any clear limitations.

One important thing to note though is that SACD/DSD64 itself is pretty limited and the playback quality in most cases is pretty much limited by the format itself. If this test were repeated using a source that was either DSD256/512 produced using a high quality modulator or even just redbook source material the results may have been different. We can't be sure. It's a good approach though and hopefully it may be repeated at somepoint with some more modern hardware and/or a less restricted source material.

This is a good read and is on the topic of Hi-Res audio: https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

It concludes:
"Eighteen published experiments for which sufficient data could be obtained were included, providing a meta-analysis that combined over 400 participants in more than 12,500 trials. Results showed a small but statistically significant ability of test subjects to discriminate high resolution content, and this effect increased dramatically when test subjects received extensive training. This result was verified by a sensitivity analysis exploring different choices for the chosen studies and different analysis approaches. Potential biases in studies, effect of test methodology, experimental design, and choice of stimuli were also investigated. The overall conclusion is that the perceived fidelity of an audio recording and playback chain can be affected by operating beyond conventional resolution."

 

[theveterans]

Not sure how many of us here would be interested in such topic as I believe that most people here would understand that different DAC would sounds differently, even with the so-called "audibly transparent" (as defined below). (I believe It is not the same transparent that most people use)

The above topic was started in another famous audio science review forum and have spanned more than 445 pages already as many people doubt the claim from the senior members there (i.e. the senior members there claim "all audiibly transparent DACs sound the same". Other people who questioned the claim with valid concerns are banned from further reply.

Before we proceed further, we have to define the term audbily transparent they use as it is very different from our understading of the term.

The term, audibly transparent, they used is indeed extremely mis-leading. From their point of view, two different DACs are considered as "audibly transparent" if "the measurements of two different DACs are good enough (i.e. the measurements are better than certain dB in SINAD, SNR, etc)".

With these "audibly transparent" DACs, they claim that listener cannot tell the difference from the audio output of these DACs because the difference is less than certain dB, the listener cannot tell the difference between these DACs."
They further said that "if you can hear any difference, it must be your brain is fooling you, or you are using a poorly designed re-construction filter that causes the difference".

Hmm... this sound familiar... isn't it a unfalsibile claim? It is a characteristic of pseudo science claim...

Here we just have a latest Youtube video showing that the DACs does matter. Proof that DACs matter! - Blind ABX Testing (youtube.com) to debunk such pseudo science claim.

What do you think? You trust those senior members in the other forum that all DACs sounds the same (no matter it is AKM, ESS, CS, TI, or discrete) as long as they are all measured as "good enough"?

or you think the YouTube video above make more sense?

Topic is a copypasta from ASR. If you post this on sound science forum, you get the the usual ASR comments, but here at computer audio thread: it's all about the synergy of components and cables too BTW that tailor the system FR as a whole to your perceived preference. That means, component matching that gives off certain sound signature that suits your preference so yes by my opinionated statement, DACs have their own sound signature that can or cannot synergize well with certain amps and transducers and even cables/interconnects. BTW, source matters too especially if you're using SPDIF/AES as your input of choice

 

[sunjam]

Topic is a copypasta from ASR. If you post this on sound science forum, you get the the usual ASR comments

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, the topic is from ASR (I think I stated that when I created this thread).

On ASR, you would just get the famous standard reply from a groupthink, i.e. they sound the same (no matter they are ESS, AKM, or TI/BB) as long as they are measured audibly tranaparent (their definition of the term is very differently from the one used in Hi-Fi world).

In addition, you would get this "if you find any difference, your brain is fooling you or your DAC is using a pooly reconstruction filter that cause it". When I see such reply, I am indeed speechless. LOL.

Actually, I got the link of the above research paper from a ASR member who claim the above paper is the objective scientific evidence that "HiRes is useless". (Upsampling 16/44.1 collection a good idea? | Page 13 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum)... (that's why I created my blog to talk about Pseudo Science)

It looks to me that we have a group of people who have a different calibre here. So far, looks like I am correct.

 

[theveterans]

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, the topic is from ASR (I think I stated that when I created this thread).

On ASR, you would just get the famous standard reply from a groupthink, i.e. they sound the same (no matter they are ESS, AKM, or TI/BB) as long as they are measured audibly tranaparent (their definition of the term is very differently from the one used in Hi-Fi world).

In addition, you would get this "if you find any difference, your brain is fooling you or your DAC is using a pooly reconstruction filter that cause it". When I see such reply, I am indeed speechless. LOL.

Actually, I got the link of the above research paper from a ASR member who claim the above paper is the objective scientific evidence that "HiRes is useless". (Upsampling 16/44.1 collection a good idea? | Page 13 | Audio Science Review (ASR) Forum)... (that's why I created my blog to talk about Pseudo Science)

It looks to me that we have a group of people who have a different calibre here. So far, looks like I am correct.

Keep in mind this is a debate free forum so I respect everyone's opinion including those from ASR and sound science forum. I just fall into the camp that everything matters (from physical state, cables, sources and component synergy to even power supply ripple/noise which is greatly reduced at 2-3 am in the morning, and seasonal voltage variability where some SMPS/LPS sound better at specific input voltage, i.e. it might sound better at 218V than 222V input for example). Synergy to me, is significantly far more important than whether DAC oversamples or not. A crappy DAC still sounds crappy whether you feed it with HQPlayer or run straight NOS while a greatly implemented DAC will sound amazing regardless of HQPlayer or just NOS

PS. To an ASR or sound science folk, DBT ABX or it's a bunch of Black Star placebo. Then by that point it becomes a debate and is not allowed outside sound science forum