[jcx]

monitoring the V going to the headphone seems like the most practical method - with a Y connector and a a high R ( 10 kOhm is enough to avoid extra loading with dynamic headphones) V divider you could use a soundcard line input
 
the soundcard line in may be as bad as a few % absolute accuracy, channel matching but the repeatability/resolution should be better than 0.01%
 
if trying to check headphone cable properties you may want to probe the V at the headphone driver terminals inside the cups - less easy 
 
the subjective comparision is always difficult with taking the headphone off, replacing it on your head, the physical placement, sealing (got hair?) giving changes in frequency response that should be ABX audible

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

monitoring the V going to the headphone seems like the most practical method - with a Y connector and a a high R ( 10 kOhm is enough to avoid extra loading with dynamic headphones) V divider you could use a soundcard line input
 
the soundcard line in may be as bad as a few % absolute accuracy, channel matching but the repeatability/resolution should be better than 0.01%
 
if trying to check headphone cable properties you may want to probe the V at the headphone driver terminals inside the cups - less easy 
 
the subjective comparision is always difficult with taking the headphone off, replacing it on your head, the physical placement, sealing (got hair?) giving changes in frequency response that should be ABX audible

That's a good idea.  So I set one amp/DAC system to the volume I want to do the test at, measure the output voltage of the amp on a multimeter, then adjust the values in the voltage divider to get an output voltage that my sound card input can handle, and then measure?
 
Then I'd repeat the same for the other amp/DAC system, this time adjusting the volume to match that of the first based on the measured voltage.  This would definitely work for what I have in mind, particularly for amp testing.
 
For comparing cables, it ought to work for, say, my HD 600 since I could measure at the headphone end of the cables.  Of course, if using the same amp that would make switching rather difficult to have to adjust the amp every time (if the cables [or DACs if switching them] are enough different in resistance [or output] to make a difference).

 

[westsounds]

I love this post its awesome thanks for going through the trouble to put it together. Thats what I love about forums like this its free of any marketing or bulls*** that you get with magazines and the like. haven't got through it all yet it will take some time to read all those reviews.
 
A lot of the time gear just sounds different not necessarily better. When you do some AB testing some shines more than others but a lot of the time this could be down to personal preference also, hence why there is so many different stuff on the market selling. Just one of many examples I can give you is I had a cheapo midi CD player years ago and I bought the what Hifi best at £400-500 got it home to find the cheapo sounded MUCH better and it wasn't just me I made my random guests do the side by side and they said the same. However I and others have also listened to some equipment and been blown away by its presentation. Some equipment does sound amazing but I dont think the more you spend the better it gets but there is some superb sounding expensive equipment out there. If you spend more you do usually get better looking or quality materials and componants but the sound can be subjective.
 
I have enjoyed testing different equipment in the past and wasted a lot of hours I suppose, I still have a quality system here and love it, it gets me close to the recording/performance and that what I'm after. Speakers are without a doubt the biggest sound changers and the component I have had more than anything of. If I won the lottery however I still go out and test the big money system's and have a drop dead gorgeous high end system just to be a snob, as long as it delivered the goods that is.
 
Personally I've settled on ProAc speakers for my domestic use ( I keep going back to them and would hate to get rid of them now ) with quality but not really expensive partners. ProAc are quite expensive but they are not in comparison to others, this is a bold statement but I think they make some of best sounding speakers in the world at any cost!

 

[Prog Rock Man]

Hi westsounds and welcome to the forum.
 
Making people happier with their existing setup, losing the feeling that you need to constantly upgrade to get better sound and concentrating on what is important have become aims of this thread.
 

 

[bigshot]

Well, it depends on what your existing setup is.
 
The point is to upgrade smart if you need to upgrade. Identify an aspect in your system that you aren't happy with, determine the source of the problem and correct it. Too many people think that just spending money is going to give them better sound. With electronics, this rarely happens because most electronics sound pretty much the same. The place where improvements can be made is with the choice of music itself, transducers like speakers and headphones, and acoustic adjustments like room treatment and equalization. The ends of the chain provide more options for improvement than the middle.

 

[Eisenhower]

Quote:

Science has many different fields, some we know VERY well and some we know very little.  Sub-atomic and Quantum physics is one which we know very little and has yet to even reach the point of coming up with practical applications, but things like germ theory, electromagnetism and signal theory (both digital and analog) is very well known and understood and we use and apply its theories in practical ways every day, and in fact if those theories are wrong our life as we know it now would most certainly crumble (for example if signal theory/analog-digital theory is wrong the PC and Internet you are using now would most certainly NOT exists).  You can't just take one poorly understood field and dismiss the other established one.  

Not to sniff my own farts here,
but quantum mechanics is extremely well validated. Quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate physical theory yet conceived, as a matter of fact (much more so than electromagnetism, which is simply an approximation of quantum electrodynamics.)
and its practical applications are too vast to list entirely.
 
there are however some serious philosophical problems with QM, if that is what you meant by "we know very little".
 

 

[drez]

There certainly is a problem with certain people cough*Bybee*cough who claim to implement theoretical physics in practical applications cough*quantum_purifier*cough.
 
If the man did develop practical applications as he claims, he should have won a Nobel prize by now.
 
As for cables, amplifier etc I think there are some useful ways to implement science and logic eg. in understanding magnitudes of various parameters but there are some definite limits which need to be acknowledged as to what can be said with certainty purely from priorised knowledge.  There is also the fact that in a subjective field such as music reproduction objective analysis will only take us so far, and controlled subjective analysis has previously been shown to be very limited in the resolution of differences it can prove to be distinguishable.
 
Analytical rigor is a two way street but IMO it takes a LOT of highly specialised, in depth technical inquiry to still not provide the relevant information a simple level matched (sighted or not) listening test can.  A few people here would probably argue with this but honestly in the end it is your subjective experience of music that you should be most worried about, not what you can prove to yourself or others.  IMO when it comes to music reproduction, numbers [often can] lie just as much as subjective impressions do.

 

[Chris J]

 
Argh!
Just read thru some of this thread.
I was thinking about getting a new DAC.
May as well either:
a.  pick it blind folded or
b.  buy the cheapest one and be done with it or
c.  pick based on my favourite features

 

[Head Injury]

I'd say a little of b and c. Buying with blind tests would be pretty time-consuming, but if you're up to trying I don't think anyone here would mind 

 

[Chris J]

 
LOL!
 
I meant buying it blind folded out of a choice of several!   No testing involved!
Read the specs, the features, over and out, no endless agonizing over the best "sounding DAC".
Even the mighty Absolute Sound said that all DACs sound almost identical in one of their digital issues.
Must of had a moment of weakness in the editorial staff........
 
I'm thinking of an Arcam rDAC because it is Apple compatible, and has several different types of digital inputs!

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

I'm thinking of an Arcam rDAC because it is Apple compatible, and has several different types of digital inputs!

It seems to measure well, but some audiophiles actually like it so be careful!

 

[bigshot]

Perhaps there is some reason for it that I'm missing, but I've never seen the need for an outboard DAC for listening to digital music. The one built into players usually sounds pretty much the same.

 

[Willakan]

There are some examples of truly terrible DACs: my PS2 has a staggeringly high noise floor. And I would advise spending a little more than rock-bottom to get something someone has actually measured.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I went with C and bought a DAC on features, so it has a USB input and thats it!

 

[khaos974]

Quote:

LOL!
 
I meant buying it blind folded out of a choice of several!   No testing involved!
Read the specs, the features, over and out, no endless agonizing over the best "sounding DAC".
Even the mighty Absolute Sound said that all DACs sound almost identical in one of their digital issues.
Must of had a moment of weakness in the editorial staff........
 
I'm thinking of an Arcam rDAC because it is Apple compatible, and has several different types of digital inputs!

I'm thinking either DacMagic+ (Dacmagic 100 for cheaper?) or Musical Fidelity M1 DAC A because the previous gens measured very well.
And both have plenty of features.