[Steve Eddy]

By stating that "no difference exists" as if it were a proven fact, he is essentially saying that I am wrong.

Please quote where he stated that unequivocally.

He could have said something like "all of the evidence and results of studies I've seen seem to suggest that the difference shouldn't be audible" if he preferred to be less contentious.

That's funny. By my reading, that's precisely what he said.

He wrote "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."

How is that any different than your example and how the hell do you read that as "no difference exists"?

And, while it's true that some studies have indeed failed to prove that differences in digital filters are actually audible, the few actual test results people keep trotting out are rather thin.

Well instead of just hand-waving in here, why not get to work and add to the body of research? High end audio is long on talk but conspicuously absent when it comes to action. But I guess as long as all it takes is talk to make a sale, there's really no incentive, is there?

And that's fine. Just don't make out like you have any interest in expanding our knowledge and understanding. Otherwise you're just muddying the waters.

Face it, the fact that two dozen volunteers were unable to hear something, using their own equipment, and their own sample material, really doesn't constitute "ironclad proof that no audible difference exists" - at least not on the planet where I live.

Except that the person you were replying to said absolutely no such thing. Which brings me back to my original point. I think you're being rather disingenuous.

se

 

[cel4145]

For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they EXPECT to not hear any difference between the various units under test? Doesn't that constitute an expectation bias that biases them in the direction of hearing no difference?

Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point.

So why not do some testing instead of all this speculation that the ODAC will sound different from chip X or that such and such filters produce an audible response?

 

[RRod]

Maybe. But ABX testing still eliminates other biases, which is why it's important. So that doesn't discount the value of DBT over sighted listening at all. Plus, you obviously wouldn't have that problem, so seems a moot point.

 
ABX is fine for the case of a single person wanting to prove he can hear a difference, which is curiously the case that always seems to get the most resistance from the person ^_^

 

[cel4145]

ABX is fine for the case of a single person wanting to prove he can hear a difference, which is curiously the case that always seems to get the most resistance from the person ^_^

I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same

 

[RRod]

I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same

 
First rule of drug dealing: don't sample your own product.

 

[StanD]

I'm sure that there are members of the trade that DON'T want to know if their different dacs and amps really do sound the same

That would create a marketing challenge called reality.

 

[cel4145]

That would create a marketing challenge called reality.

I've been thinking we should have you do Mystery Science Theater 3000 style reviews of some of these audiophool videos on YouTube. Good match for a format since they are scifi

 

[SandAndGlass]

I had a couple of cheap players laying around in the system, a under $50 Sony cd/dvd player and a Samsung Bluray player. I got rid of them and replaced them with an Oppo BDP-93. I can't say that with the Sony CD player and the Oppo both playing CD's through the player's digital outputs into the Peachtree iNova (and on to the XPA-2), that I could tell any difference from memory, as they were never connected at the same time. This is with both units having been played through different amps and different speakers.

 

[bigshot]

I once was talking to a guy online who swore up and down that his Oppo BDP105 sounded light years better than his old midrange Sony blu-ray player. He had his equipment listed in his signature file, and it listed a high end AV amp. I asked him how did he connect his Oppo to the AV amp... he said HDMI. (The Sonys don't have RCA outs.) Of course if he had them hooked up with HDMI, all of the digital to analogue conversion was being done in the AV amp, not the players. HDMI totally bypasses the DAC in the Oppo. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't sound identical hooked up that way. He figured it out and backed down fast.

 

[analogsurviver]

  I once was talking to a guy online who swore up and down that his Oppo BDP105 sounded light years better than his old midrange Sony blu-ray player. He had his equipment listed in his signature file, and it listed a high end AV amp. I asked him how did he connect his Oppo to the AV amp... he said HDMI. (The Sonys don't have RCA outs.) Of course if he had them hooked up with HDMI, all of the digital to analogue conversion was being done in the AV amp, not the players. HDMI totally bypasses the DAC in the Oppo. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't sound identical hooked up that way. He figured it out and backed down fast.

Well, one just should not do this kind of a mistake. Being 100% home theatre free, there is nothing featuring HDMI I can think of in my possession.
 
There are audible differences in DACs - or more correctly, in analog stages. I remember having a really good laugh when some time ago, somebody tested, side by side, practically any chip set available at the time, using prototype breadboards. Nice, commendable, etc.
 
With one "simple" glitch - he used normal grade of capacitors throughout the test, same (non)quality used for each and every chip set.
 
About as good as testing the optics of  various cameras - shooting trough a dirty glass on windows ...

 

[bigshot]

Just whistling and waiting for someone interesting to answer.

 

[analogsurviver]

Ditto.

 

[stv014]

Originally Posted by KeithEmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Differences clearly heard between: AudioQuest DragonFly (not through the converter since it is USB only); Emotiva XDA-2 (v1), Emotiva DC-1, Wyred4Sound DAC2, AudioLAB MDAC, Schiit Bifrost (original).
 
This clearly suggests that some components mask the differences I'm hearing (or some components exaggerate them).

 
Another (in my opinion not unlikely) possibility is that the "clear" differences you heard are mainly the result of expectation bias and simple factors by level differences.
 

Originally Posted by KeithEmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
For example, what if a dozen people perform a double-blind ABX test, yet they EXPECT to not hear any difference between the various units under test?

 
That is why the test should ideally be performed by people who do expect to hear differences. You could try some ABX tests yourself, although I guess you most probably will not.

 

Originally Posted by KeithEmo /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Interesting that you compare it to another DAC that also uses a Sabre chip

 
Actually, there is a new revision of the ODAC that no longer uses an ESS DAC.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Just whistling and waiting for someone interesting to answer.

Answer what? Was there a quiz?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

There are audible differences in DACs - or more correctly, in analog stages.

When was this demonstrated under controlled listening conditions?

se