[Jaywalk3r]

But that "degree of magnitude" is both relative and subjective.
If the guy is actually enjoying his $1200 whatzit, he probably doesn't really care how it measures.
(He'll probably say something like: "I like the way it sounds and that's all I care about".)

Snake-oil salesmen depend on that reaction.

 

[KeithEmo]

I'm sorry... I keep missing this one.

In my opinion, it is the Sabre DACs that are usually colored (the Wyred4Sound DAC2 rather than the Emotiva DC-1).

I base that partly on my (subjective) personal opinion of "how things should sound".
And partly on the fact that several people I know, when offered an opportunity to listen to a produce with a Sabre chip in it, have remarked "gee, that sounds grainy".
And also on the fact that, when I notice differences, I tend to find that virtually all other high-performance DACs sound similar...
While most Sabre DACs sound quite similar to each other, but different than the others...

I've noticed the difference with many Sabre DACs - although some seem to exhibit it more than others.
I should also point out that MANY people seem to agree that there is an audible difference between, for example, the Oppo 203 and the Oppo 205.
(And Oppo claims outright that the difference is due to their use of Sabre DACs in the "audiophile models".)

I picked my example for two reasons:
- it's the most recent time I actually compared two DACs side by side
- I found it FAR more obvious than the differences I've noticed between others

Then I said, "Let's verify it." and you started thinking up ways to make that completely impossible. Is this the only DAC that you claim has a clearly audible difference? Maybe you can suggest one we can compare that you haven't tied all up in knots like this.

Do you know of an available DAC that would sound clearly different to an iPod or iPhone? A lot of us have those.

You still haven't answered one question... Which of the two DACs you compared do you think is colored?

 

[KeithEmo]

I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
(There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
This fails to differentiate between jitter from the source, jitter generated internally, jitter caused by the input circuitry, and jitter removed by any processing.
(It's the equivalent of "shaking the box and listening for noises caused by stuff rattling around".)

Since you asked, while our output spectra tests show the results of any jitter which might be present, and so would alert us to any "jitter problems", we do not measure jitter directly.
(Measuring jitter directly is very difficult, and requires an expensive, and extremely specialized, extra module for the AP.)

The product page for the DC-1 is no longer online - because it is discontinued.
However, at least for now, you can download a copy of the AP test report for it here:
https://emotiva.com.ua/pdf/dc-1/DC1_AP_Report.pdf

I haven't seen one for the Wyred4Sound (and we didn;t run or save one).

Most of that list should be easily addressed through proper implementation.

As to the “small, but clearly measurable differences”, I don’t doubt that either. Can you show any of those measurements so that it can be determine if they are likely to be audible to a human? Since you have an AP 585, there should be plenty of hard evidence regarding the magnitude of the differences. Jitter, for example, is commonly referenced by audiophiles as the cause of audible differences, yet I can’t remember the last time actual measurements of jitter on a modern component were anywhere near the threshold of audibility.

 

[bfreedma]

I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
(There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
This fails to differentiate between jitter from the source, jitter generated internally, jitter caused by the input circuitry, and jitter removed by any processing.
(It's the equivalent of "shaking the box and listening for noises caused by stuff rattling around".)

Since you asked, while our output spectra tests show the results of any jitter which might be present, and so would alert us to any "jitter problems", we do not measure jitter directly.
(Measuring jitter directly is very difficult, and requires an expensive, and extremely specialized, extra module for the AP.)

The product page for the DC-1 is no longer online - because it is discontinued.
However, at least for now, you can download a copy of the AP test report for it here:
https://emotiva.com.ua/pdf/dc-1/DC1_AP_Report.pdf

I haven't seen one for the Wyred4Sound (and we didn;t run or save one).

Thanks for the link - I’ll dig into the details tomorrow. On first glance, the results of the jitter related tests are excellent. And far below the human audibility threshold.

 

[bigshot]

Is there an A/B switch for analogue input for my SACD player and digital input for the Oppo (you yourself have made the generalization that digital input is always better then analogue input)? My evaluation has been changing inputs with my receiver.

Mark Twain said, "We are all ignorant... just on different subjects." But being willfully ignorant is something else altogether. You may not realize it, but you come off as incredibly disingenuous. I apologize for backing you into a corner here. I thought it might help you think about things logically and truthfully. It didn't.

I won't bother you any more.

 

[bigshot]

I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.[/SIZE]

That's because jitter in the levels it occurs in even the cheapest audio equipment measures at least and order of magnitude below the threshold of audibility. I think you know that. And you aren't replying to me any more because you've been backed into a corner too. I'm done. I don't want to be unduly cruel. You can join Analoguesurvivor.

 

[bigshot]

If anyone knows of a DAC that sounds different than other ones and is willing to help verify that, I am willing to work with you to do that.

 

[analogsurviver]

If anyone knows of a DAC that sounds different than other ones and is willing to help verify that, I am willing to work with you to do that.

I told you that already - iFi Micro iDSD ( original silver ) and iFi Micro iDSD Black Label.

You can use these to establish both the DAC differences ( same DAC chip used in both ) AND amplifier differences ( functionally the same, analog input on both ) - as well as of course overall difference as DAC/amp combo. Readily available, no modifications required. The "black" has improvements in each and every possible place/department - starting with the MUCH improved clock and finishing off with the last output capacitor in the analog output stage - plus everything in between. There are three power modes, three filtering modes, three amplifier sensitivity modes ( slightly affecting the output impedance of the amp ), absolute polarity switch, 3D circuit ( there are different between the two, never really cared for either ) and X-bass ( bass boost for bass shy IEMs ).

It should be possible to make a direct ABX using jRiver - it should be possible to asign each DAC to different zone - while playing the same file, the outputs of both can then be ABX or DBT.

 

[Arpiben]

I should point out that, like many things, nobody has performed any tests of the audibility of jitter in modern DACs.
(There are one or two very old tests, performed on very different equipment, which suggest that it is largely mostly inaudible.)
I should also note that the popular "J-test" used by many magazines does NOT in fact measure jitter.
It actually applies a "stress test signal", then measures the output noise spectra.
This fails to differentiate between jitter from the source, jitter generated internally, jitter caused by the input circuitry, and jitter removed by any processing.
(It's the equivalent of "shaking the box and listening for noises caused by stuff rattling around".)

Since you asked, while our output spectra tests show the results of any jitter which might be present, and so would alert us to any "jitter problems", we do not measure jitter directly.
(Measuring jitter directly is very difficult, and requires an expensive, and extremely specialized, extra module for the AP.)

The product page for the DC-1 is no longer online - because it is discontinued.
However, at least for now, you can download a copy of the AP test report for it here:
https://emotiva.com.ua/pdf/dc-1/DC1_AP_Report.pdf

I haven't seen one for the Wyred4Sound (and we didn;t run or save one).

Thanks for your inputs.
The issue with phase noise (continuous function of time) or jitter (phase noise amount at crossing times) is that DAC manufacturers do not understand it!
Most of them if not all keep providing irrelevant or at best not meaningful data.
IMHO, DAC missing specifications are:

• Entry noise rejection (AC/DC,USB,Coaxial)
• Output measurements with real load or real conditions as opposed to clean PS and input data from test equipments.

Well, if Inputs & Outputs were properly designed we should care less about about entry and load susceptibilities.
You may feel better if I add that unfortunately DACs are not an exception.

 

[Phronesis]

@KeithEmo, in your sighted comparisons, have you tried instant switching with matching of volume levels and music segments? When I did that, I couldn’t consistently perceive any difference between the Mojo and Hugo 2 (with various headphones and tracks), whereas when I did prior casual comparisons without that matching and delayed switching, I had perceived significant and consistent differences. I was very surprised by that result.

 

[KeithEmo]

Yes, I always match the level, and switch back and forth as quickly as possible, using the same source and content.

If you use a computer as your source, and a USB connection, it's simple enough to switch the output between DACs, and it only takes a split second with most programs.
The DC-1 has an analog input, and a quite transparent analog stage, so it can switch between its own DAC, and an analog input from another DAC, instantly.
At Emotiva, we also have a little add-on unit called the SP-1, which is simply a relay-operated line level switcher, which is handy for comparisons (as long as your sources have level controls).
(It has both front panel buttons and a remote control for switching... but it doesn't have any facility for "blind" operation.)
Obviously, there are also plenty of preamps that will do the job adequately as well.

And I agree with you...it is impossible to jugde properly whether there are differences if there is any significant delay... or obviously if you aren't listening to the same content.

@KeithEmo, in your sighted comparisons, have you tried instant switching with matching of volume levels and music segments? When I did that, I couldn’t consistently perceive any difference between the Mojo and Hugo 2 (with various headphones and tracks), whereas when I did prior casual comparisons without that matching and delayed switching, I had perceived significant and consistent differences. I was very surprised by that result.

 

[bigshot]

I told you that already[

No need.

 

[FX5K]

There is something to point out considering the human anatomy.
And that is that our auditory sensory memory decays rather fast.
I'd like to leave a quote from a paper which I found most illuminating.

"Research has shown striking variation in the estimated duration of ASM (Auditory Sensory Memory). Though some researchers have estimated it to be 2 s or less (Crowder, 1976; Huron and Parncutt, 1993), longer estimates have included 3.5 s (Mcevoy et al., 1997), 4–5 s (Glucksberg and Cowen, 1970), at least several seconds (Cowan, 1984), 10 s (Sams et al., 1993), 10–15 s (Winkler and Cowan, 2005), 20 s (Watkins and Todres, 1980), at least 30 s (Winkler et al., 2002), and possibly up to 60 s (Engle and Roberts, 1982)."

Nees MA. Have We Forgotten Auditory Sensory Memory? Retention Intervals in Studies of Nonverbal Auditory Working Memory. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:1892. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01892.

Which means to me that you cannot compare more than 10s of audio in listening tests and they shouldn't exceed a period of 30s. The content needs to be identical before and after the test-component is changed.

 

[Zapp_Fan]

There is something to point out considering the human anatomy.
And that is that our auditory sensory memory decays rather fast.
I'd like to leave a quote from a paper which I found most illuminating.

"Research has shown striking variation in the estimated duration of ASM (Auditory Sensory Memory). Though some researchers have estimated it to be 2 s or less (Crowder, 1976; Huron and Parncutt, 1993), longer estimates have included 3.5 s (Mcevoy et al., 1997), 4–5 s (Glucksberg and Cowen, 1970), at least several seconds (Cowan, 1984), 10 s (Sams et al., 1993), 10–15 s (Winkler and Cowan, 2005), 20 s (Watkins and Todres, 1980), at least 30 s (Winkler et al., 2002), and possibly up to 60 s (Engle and Roberts, 1982)."

Nees MA. Have We Forgotten Auditory Sensory Memory? Retention Intervals in Studies of Nonverbal Auditory Working Memory. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:1892. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01892.

Which means to me that you cannot compare more than 10s of audio in listening tests and they shouldn't exceed a period of 30s. The content needs to be identical before and after the test-component is changed.

There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio. In other words, if it takes you 5+ seconds to switch back and forth and it's a tiny difference, it's very, very hard to be sure if the difference is real or what the difference even is. This is why instantaneous switching is so important.

If something is massively clipped and the comparison audio isn't, I could probably identify the difference sometime next week.

If something has +1dB at 1Khz I'll need to A/B in real time with zero delay in the switch-over to even have a faint hope of correctly identifying the difference.

 

[Phronesis]

There's also the (at least, in my subjective experience) factor of the magnitude of a difference affecting how long your auditory memory is able to adequately serve as a point of comparison for new audio. In other words, if it takes you 5+ seconds to switch back and forth and it's a tiny difference, it's very, very hard to be sure if the difference is real or what the difference even is. This is why instantaneous switching is so important.

If something is massively clipped and the comparison audio isn't, I could probably identify the difference sometime next week.

If something has +1dB at 1Khz I'll need to A/B in real time with zero delay in the switch-over to even have a faint hope of correctly identifying the difference.

Yes, my experience has been that, when comparing based on music segments of a few seconds duration, switching time of much less than 1 second is much better than a few or several seconds of switching time.