[Steve Eddy]

Well, I'm sorry if you had any preconceptions, hahahaha.

You know the "Welcome to HeadFi. Sorry about your wallet" saying?

Maybe we should have one for here. "Welcome to Sound Science. Sorry about your preconceptions."

EDIT: Just made it my signature.

se

 

[StanD]

You know the "Welcome to HeadFi. Sorry about your wallet" saying?

Maybe we should have one for here. "Welcome to Sound Science. Sorry about your preconceptions."

EDIT: Just made it my signature.

se

I was teasing BigShot as that is his signature. 

 He beat you to it.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I was teasing BigShot as that is his signature.   He beat you to it.

I knew that.

se

 

[cel4145]

There are other factors then just sound quality in audio ( don't care about audiophiles) stable, linear, interfaces well, no pin 1 issues, doesn't care about power, can get dropped off a truck and then driven over and still work is equally valuable. Great sound and working always beats excellent sound if it worked. Something like Benchmark I would expect to work sitting on a microwave under a pile of phones in the transmitter room of a radio station, that is part of what I am paying for.

And how do you know that? Anecdotal evidence? Instinct based on brand loyalty? Reputation (we know how well that one works)?

Not saying it's not true, but I know that I have biases that make me attribute durability and reliability to products that quite possibly don't deserve it.

 

[dprimary]

I would start with EMC standards it has passed. Past performance of the brand, to a lesser extent reputation. Talk to people that have used it in the the same function, and when I have to push equipment to the limits of its specifications talk to the manufacturer about the device's limits and will they support it even when running on the edge of the capabilities.
 
Sometimes we have to get samples and test it ourselves.  That would be another difference in professional equipment and consumer. While it is not unheard of the to get detailed specifications and support for a use that pushes the limits of a consumer device, the manufacturers of professional equipment have support for that and are expecting it.

 

[KeithEmo]

  I did a comparison between a $40 Walmart DVD player, an iPod classic and a $900 SACD player and they all sounded identical.

 
... to you... under whatever unspecified test conditions you used...
 
Just curious - but what were your test conditions?
 
What speakers were you using? And what amplifier? And what was your music source? And how good is your hearing? (Don't get mad; I have to ask. A good buddy of mine used to work as a machinist, and his hearing is rather damaged, so he probably wouldn't hear the difference no matter what.) I wouldn't hope to hear a difference either - if I was listening through a $99 pair of speakers, or a $19 pair of iPod earbuds, or if I was listening to a badly recorded disc (or maybe a compressed piece of iTunes audio).
 
It's also true that all of the "players" you mentioned probably at least rise to the level of "pretty good". This means that, if you were to play a compressed version of someone's latest pop tune that you bought from the iTunes store on each, I wouldn't bet I could hear the difference either. And, if we were to limit that to using a pair of $99 Beats headphones, then I'd bet against hearing any difference myself. It's also true that, if you were to play all three through a pair of $1000 electrostatic headphones instead, the difference between those headphones and the Beats ones would be so huge that it would be a lot more obvious than any difference between the sources. I also wouldn't necessarily expect "a $900 SACD player" to sound better than either of the others - because I wouldn't generalize that all $900 SACD players sound especially good. However, failing to discern a difference under several different conditions is NOT at all the same as "proving" that no such difference exists under ANY conditions.
 
I have owned an iPod classic, and, at least with some source material, I most certainly can hear a significant (to me) difference between how the output of that iPod sounds and how the same material sounds when played through the output of any one of several DACs that I own. (And, since the DACs I'm referring to have better specs than the iPod, and their manufacturers haven't been accused of lying about those specs, I'm forced to conclude that the specs on the iPod are NOT "good enough to be audibly perfect".)
 
I think the problem a lot of people seem to have with some of these discussions is in differentiating between "significant differences", "audible differences", and "important differences".

 
If you're listening to an iPod classic using the $20 ear buds it came with, then buying a new pair of headphones is most certainly going to make a much bigger difference than spending an equal amount of money on a better DAC (bearing in mind that a $200 DAC may not even BE better than the one in your iPod anyway). Likewise, if you buy all your music from iTunes, because you find the convenience to be more significant to you than the fact that they compress everything, then it probably wouldn't make sense to you to start buying CDs or high-res music downloads.
 
I'm belaboring this point because the semantic differences I mentioned often seem to "bleed" into various surveys which are intended to "prove" something - and are a lot of the reason why studies so often disagree. If you were to "stop some people on the street", play a WAV file and an MP3 file for them on an iPod, through a $100 pair of headphones, and ask them "if they heard any difference", the answer you would get from most of them wouldn't be an accurate answer to that question - instead they would be answering "whether they heard a significant difference". In other words, they're going to tell you "if they heard a difference THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS WORTH MENTIONING".
 
(Try the same test - only do it as an ABX test - where they get to hear the MP3, the WAV, and then an unknown which they must try to identify.... only this time offer each subject $100 if they can identify the unknown correctly a statistically significant percentage of the time.... and I'll bet you would get a very different percentage of correct answers. The reason, obviously, being that you've given them a significant motivation to listen carefully, and to ignore how significant or important they consider the difference to be, and to concentrate on whether it exists. In short, you've given them plenty of incentive to actually do their best to see if they can hear a difference or not - rather than just respond "they both sound OK to me".)
 
Now, semantic trivialities aside, you may reasonably argue that, if they have to try that hard to hear a difference then it isn't important.... however, that wasn't the original question.
 
 
 

 

[cel4145]

I think the problem a lot of people seem to have with some of these discussions is in differentiating between "significant differences", "audible differences", and "important differences".

...

Now, semantic trivialities aside, you may reasonably argue that, if they have to try that hard to hear a difference then it isn't important.... however, that wasn't the original question.

You are right about the difference in semantics. For me personally, when it comes to audio electronics, I'm just looking for "significant" differences because my goal is to listen to music. If it's not significant to me, then I might as well invest in better headphones/speakers to improve my music listening experience

 

[cjl]

  I do believe that the 0DAC is isochronous. However, note that the Sabre DAC chip - which it uses - also has built-in jitter reduction mechanisms. I also find it interesting that you mention the 0DAC. I've had one for quite a while and, while I would say it sounds pretty good, and is certainly competitive in its price range, I would not by any means say that it sounds "indistinguishable from other DACs", or that it is "audibly perfect".    

All of the measurements and blind tests I've seen indicate that it should be audibly perfect, and I tend to believe data over random anecdotes. If you can show that you did a level-matched blind test and were able to distinguish it from another DAC (and the other DAC didn't have any obvious flaws in its performance), that would mean something.
 
As for your rolex comparison? That's actually fairly accurate, in my opinion. If someone buys a $50k tube amp (or something like that) because they like feeling like they have a symbol of opulence or prestige, and because they like the way it looks, and how the tubes glow when it's on, that's fine with me. Those are valid reasons for liking a product. It's when they try to claim that it sounds objectively better than a $1k solid state amp that I take issue - just like I would take issue with someone trying to claim their Rolex as the pinnacle of chronological stability and accuracy. There's nothing wrong with liking Rolexes (or high end audio gear), but don't claim it's because of its' technical performance unless you can back that up with data.

 

[bigshot]

  Just curious - but what were your test conditions?

 
Level matched, direct A/B switchable, single blind on three different systems- headphones, my main speaker rig and the rig of a sound mixer friend of mine. We did a test between SACD and CD too the same way. Same results. That's good enough for my use. Everyone should do it for themselves. A lot of people would be very surprised about what they can't hear.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

 

  Just curious - but what were your test conditions?

 
Level matched, direct A/B switchable, single blind on three different systems- headphones, my main speaker rig and the rig of a sound mixer friend of mine. We did a test between SACD and CD too the same way. Same results. That's good enough for my use. Everyone should do it for themselves. A lot of people would be very surprised about what they can't hear.

...really?

 

[bigshot]

Yes, a sound mixer friend of mine was interested so I set up the test files. The hardest part was finding an SACD that had the same mastering on both the redbook layer and the SACD layer. Also, the SACD player wouldn't switch layers without a huge delay, so we had to compare two disks in two different machines... the Philips SACD player and the cheap CD player.
 
I guess most people figure testing stuff is too much of a hassle. It did take back and forth over several days to do all of that. But I'm confident that the results reflect the reality of the situation and are good enough for me to move forward with. That was my purpose. I was beginning to build a music server and I wanted to see what it required to put together a system that would sound as good as possible.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

  Yes, a sound mixer friend of mine was interested so I set up the test files. The hardest part was finding an SACD that had the same mastering on both the redbook layer and the SACD layer. Also, the SACD player wouldn't switch layers without a huge delay, so we had to compare two disks in two different machines... the Philips SACD player and the cheap CD player.
 

...and the SACD sounded much better I hope...

transparent???

 

[bigshot]

AAC256 = redbook = SACD
$40 Walmart CD player = midrange Yamaha CD player = iPod Classic = $900 Philips SACD player
 
I did a few different combinations of equipment, but it always came out the same. And since then I have tested the iPod against my Sony midrange blu-ray player and an Oppo BDP-103D and got the same results.

 

[MacacoDoSom]

  AAC256 = redbook = SACD
 
I did a few different combinations of equipment, but it always came out the same.

DON'T SAY!!!!                     
                                     

 

[KeithEmo]

  All of the measurements and blind tests I've seen indicate that it should be audibly perfect, and I tend to believe data over random anecdotes. If you can show that you did a level-matched blind test and were able to distinguish it from another DAC (and the other DAC didn't have any obvious flaws in its performance), that would mean something.
 
As for your rolex comparison? That's actually fairly accurate, in my opinion. If someone buys a $50k tube amp (or something like that) because they like feeling like they have a symbol of opulence or prestige, and because they like the way it looks, and how the tubes glow when it's on, that's fine with me. Those are valid reasons for liking a product. It's when they try to claim that it sounds objectively better than a $1k solid state amp that I take issue - just like I would take issue with someone trying to claim their Rolex as the pinnacle of chronological stability and accuracy. There's nothing wrong with liking Rolexes (or high end audio gear), but don't claim it's because of its' technical performance unless you can back that up with data.

 
I do have an interesting question for you... since you are the one making the "positive assertion" here (that "all good DACs sound the same"). Have you actually compared the 0Dac to other DACs, double-blind or otherwise, or are you just accepting other people's claims about what specifications are and are not audible?
 
I might suggest you find a DAC that uses the Wolfson 8741 chip. That chip includes several different internal digital filters, and offers the ability to switch between them using a simple hardware switch - so many DACs that use it give you a front panel switch to switch between filters (and, by flipping the switch, the only thing you're changing is that internal filter). Regardless of whether you suspect Wolfson of deliberately "fiddling" with things to artificially produce audible differences, the fact remains that different filters, all with THD low enough that it should be inaudible, and frequency responses flat enough that any variations there should also be inaudible, nevertheless do manage to somehow sound different. This clearly proves that there's something else that constitutes an audible difference between them - which disproved your claim that no such difference can exist.
 
(I don't know who's producing DAcs using the Wolfson lately - but AudioG*D used to make several reasonably priced ones.....