1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

The Hopelessly Derailed ODAC/Objective DAC Anticipation/Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by maverickronin, Apr 29, 2012.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13 14 15 16 17 18
  1. Anaxilus
    Oh I believe you, we've been having similar issues when comparing tubes.  At least that observation takes us beyond a sense of immutable universal claims.  Rather than people saying there are no differences between X sub whatever, better to say there is little to no evidence to support possible or minute existing differences are audible.  I think the distinction is relatively important to facilitate a more constructive dialogue rather than having a religious attitude about such things either way.
  2. kiteki
    So that's it?
    Edit:  I mean, we may as well ask X to record the ODAC for us, and upload it to soundcloud, so we can listen to the ODAC there, right?
    Edit 2:  + an upload of a Clip+ recording.  I want to ABX the ODAC and the Clip+, what do you think?
  3. khaos974

    Some people just happen to like nice things, regardless of utility :wink:
  4. kiteki
    So no comments on Clip+ versus ODAC output recordings...?
    The O2 is picking up speed, 5000 youtube views in less than 4 days.
  5. Battou62
    That was a pretty terrible review anyways. Its like the reviewer had no idea about the design of the headphone amp.
  6. thune
    I found it refreshing: a simple subjective/feature review of the O2 as an amp, not as an embodiment of philosophy or marketing hype.
  7. scoopbb
    but the commentary in the video. smh
  8. jschristian44
    Man I have the Gamma y2 which is pretty amazing, but will the ODAC beat it?  Just curious?  I got the Wolfson WM8742 chip.
  9. Prog Rock Man
    Read cable maker's blurb and you will find many examples of this. There are differences, but are they audible and is there any causation between the difference and sound quality? The cable makers never answer those questions.
  10. kiteki
    In pure FR terms not all speaker cables are flat as pancakes.  For example this hydrogenaudio thread says...
    "Since these data are near the threshold of audibility, and thicker cable not much expensive, it's better to stay on the safe side and use a thicker cable." -- Pio2001
    So, in this case someone recorded the cables (lamp cord versus cat5e), and you can ABX the digital files with software, however in any real test you can't ABX components like that.
    There are so many extra processes to take into account, it's like recording a movie at a cinema, or ABX'ing Pepsi and Coke, both heavily mixed with Sprite.  First you have to prove that Sprite is transparent, which it isn't, neither are any of our systems.
  11. frenchbat
    I don't know if you put the graph so small on purpose so that everyone would go to read the original thread, but I can't read a thing on it [​IMG].
    The original thread is interesting though, because the alledgedly best cable out of the 2 is the lamp cord (in blue), and not the CAT5e (in red). Where I fail to see how this is contradicting Nick_Charles' findings, is that he made measurement relevant to headphones, not speakers where the electrical specifications are vastly different (length being the first one).
    Also, if the reference is the same for the cables compared, then it doesn't matter. Even if there's no perfectly transparent system out there, there are some significantly accurate ones to show whether or not the differences between cables are above the threshold of audibility. The ODAC being alledgedly under the threshold of audibility, a similarly measuring DAC should be sufficient. Unless one's using a DAC with a roll-off, but then you have to question the experimentation methodology then. Why measuring through Sprite when you can measure through water ?
  12. maverickronin
    I just got an email saying my ODAC has shipped.
    kiteki and lukeahale like this.
  13. kiteki
    I didn't say it contradicts Nick_Charles' findings.  He found that a number of various retail interconnects were pretty much identical, with respect to those specific cables, his specific measuring equipment, and the specifics of what he measured.  Every finding is on a case by case basis.
    You can't measure Coke versus Diet Coke and say Sprite versus Sprite Zero are the same etc.

    some links...
    - http://www.head-fi.org/t/573853/dac-with-wide-soundstage-v-good-depth-and-holography/75#post_7793463
    - http://www.gearslutz.com/board/geekslutz-forum/410239-beyond-thd-n-how-does-your-power-amplifier-really-perform.html

    Reality is water, all sound systems are soft drinks.
  14. frenchbat
    I stand corrected, you didn't say it was contradicting his findings, you implied that his findings were not applicable to speaker cables. But that doesn't change anything to my answer. Speaker cables are dealing with a different kind of situation, with harder loads and longer distances, which can account for slight differences in certain situations. However the discussion and the measurements done by Nick_Charles are relevant to headphones. 
    Besides, saying that every finding is on a case by case basis, is asserting that virtually any scientific find is totally isolated. It's been a long time since I've read Nick_Charles' thread, but he exposed his methodology, which makes possible the repeatability of the experience, and by consequence the verifiability of the results. So, no, every finding is not on a case by case basis, unless the two conditions of repeatability and verifiability are absent.
    In this case there's no Coke VS Diet Coke results extrapolation to Sprite VS Sprite Zero. There's cable A VS cable B, C, etc ...
    Thanks a lot for the link. The webinar was great. But have you actually watched it ? The main point is to show that THD+N is a mixed results, and that the Scope is capable of giving individual findings for harmonics, hum noise, etc ... But in any case, there's no situation where the distortion is wrongly reported by the measurement. In case of high THD+N, you just don't know where it comes from, unless you know how to ask the Scope, which is demonstrated in the video. To go back to the ODAC, the THD+N is not yet know precisely, as in the final revision, that's why I used the term alledgedly. But in any case, if the measured THD+N is -120dB, then there's no component that will be -60dB. So the point is moot, THD+N is only unprecise in what composes it, not the scale of the measurement itself.
    Sorry but I don't agree. Water and soft drinks are what the signal goes through, let's say light. Light is the reality (not the best term for what is described here, but I'm lazy to find another one), refraction through water or sprite is the fact. Some systems are closer to Sprite, some closer to water, but that's irrelevant. In any case, what matters is your measurement apparatus. If your measurement apparatus is not precise enough, you'll measure its limits which are the same for everything measured. If it's precise enough, you'll pick differences and be able to draw conclusions from the results. You were talking about the numerous factors that need to be taken in account, would you mind quoting some ?

  15. kiteki
    Even if some components in an audio system are water in theory, the total system is not, it's water mixed with soft drink, so you can't perceive (let alone evidence) the transparency of Sprite (via listening) when it's mixed with champagne, which is why it's useless to upload sound-card recordings (via A/DC) to 'listen' to sound-cards / components in a different system, or a studio...
    here and here
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
13 14 15 16 17 18

Share This Page