[bigshot]

I've got no problems doing that stuff. I'm not doing things to published standards, so I don't have to be 100% anal about it. My purposes are just to determine if a difference exists under normal use (listening to music in the home). If I determine a difference, I might want to apply more stringent controls to see if it's something slipping though the cracks, but I haven't had to do that. Most stuff is close enough that I can't tell even if I try hard. That is good enough for my purposes, and it's good enough for everyone else who is just listening to music on their rigs.

Now if I was running a recording studio, I would want to be more thorough. But I'm just playing back music in my living room. Most of the stuff people obsess over in internet forums are based purely on theory. They read some minute detail and then worry about it *potentially* affecting their sound. Pretty soon the inaudible molehill becomes a mountain that costs them thousands of dollars to correct. If they determined whether they could hear it first, they would save a lot of expense and worry. I listen very carefully to my system and work on improving it. I find I have more impact when I identify an audible flaw and then try to figure out what's causing it, rather than making up a theoretical flaw then trying to prove it's audible.

the alternative that I use a lot is to simply record the output of the DAC unloaded, and ABX that, but I've met several people who dismiss that form of testing

If you've already proven that your capture method is audibly transparent by comparing a capture to a file that hasn't been captured, then that argument is moot.

but deep down I believe you're part of the legendary cabal against good DACs, you pretend not to notice night and day differences to push your evil agenda. prove that I'm wrong!

It's a lot easier to imagine differences that don't exist than it is to overlook blatant differences. And blind testing removes the element of bias anyway.

 

[gregorio]

I consider DAC and amp as a single stage because today they are designed together as a SoC solution in most cases (“Wolfson chip”).

We have to be very careful when audiophiles are around though! Many audiophiles will simply take "chip" to mean DAC chip and make all kinds of false assertions about audible differences between DACs.

[1a] Hugo far improves listening experience of an iPhone. Not even close
[1b] But concerning Hugo and iPhone max s, Hugo wins powering my encores via dhc 8 braid silver type 6 litz cable
[2] except therefore they do not sound the same. I care less for this gizmo or that, but hugo is not designed the same as rockwell dac, both are separately patented.
[3] Ok I didn’t realize for 1, we are at the all dacs are the same sound science, my mistake, I’m leaving.

1. Your first statement is false, your second statement on the other hand could be true, except for the part about the cable (which makes no difference). A Hugo has a far more powerful amp section (and far lower impedance) than an iPhone, so if your HPs require higher power, produce a greater load, than an iphone is designed for, it's very likely there will be an audible difference, maybe even an obvious difference. However, using HPs with an appropriate load, a Hugo would NOT "far improve the listening experience of an iPhone", in fact there would be no audible difference! If we take a two identical Ducatis around a race circuit but add a 500kg weight to the second one, we'd easily notice a very different performance but would we therefore conclude and assert that the first Ducati is far superior to the second? Of course not, common sense/basic understanding dictates that the "load" is entirely responsible for the difference. Unfortunately, many audiophiles seem incapable of the same level of common sense/understanding that everyone takes for granted with vehicle performance!

2. It doesn't matter in the slightest how differently they're designed, the only thing that matters is the end result, is there any audible difference in the output? Using simple logic, that leaves two possibilities:
A. Your perception is being fooled, you are imagining audible differences where there are none because you have not done a fair, controlled DB/ABX test.
B. You are actually hearing a (audible) difference, due to your HP's load being inappropriate for the iPod/iPhone. In which case you again have not done a fair, controlled DB/ABX test!
Note: A few DAPs/DACs have been deliberately designed to have a lower fidelity, audible difference. For example, the Pono implements a filter that rolls off from around 10kHz which is within audibility. However, this is not the case with the Hugo.
In either case, you have not done an appropriate test, despite your claims that you have!

3. Yes, it is YOUR mistake. With the exception of a very few DACs which are deliberately designed to be audibly lower fidelity and differences in amp output power (which of course is the amp and not the DAC), then all the reliable evidence indicates no audible differences between DACs, that's the science! Mistakes are understandable but repeating the same mistakes over and over, even after they've been explained to you, is NOT! If you believe we're all mistaken and you're not, then to start with you have to provide some reliable evidence but you never do, you just leave in a huff, only to pop back up some time/place later and make the exact same mistake all over again! BTW, in case you're confused, audiophile marketing materials or "impressions" do not qualify as reliable evidence.

the alternative that I use a lot is to simply record the output of the DAC unloaded, and ABX that, but I've met several people who dismiss that form of testing because they believe the recording and replay will remove the filter characteristics ringing and whatever else that made a given DAC distinctly good.

I've heard that argument but it doesn't hold water. Even a fairly modest ADC set to record at 96kHz, will accurately capture any filter characteristics of the test DAC, within and even well beyond the audible freq range. Any other supposedly audible artefacts of the ADC would be the exactly the same across all the A, B and X samples and therefore would not affect the result.

G

 

[Whazzzup]

yes it was a mistake.

 

[ruthieandjohn]

Just did a quick non-blind only-audibly-output-level matches comparison of my iPhone 5SE driving my Ultrasone Edition 8 (Ruthenium) headphones vs. a Sony A17 DAP (my cheapest smallest DAP) as transport driving my Chord Hugo via the Sony port to USB converter, USB input to Hugo, and same headphones. I was listening to Barbara Streisand and Michael Buble from her Partners album at lossless CD rates. I switched between 5 sec segments of each song, same sagment first played by one, then the other, back and forth.

No significant difference in sound to my ears. I might have perceived a bit more openness between instruments and a bit more cymbal shine on the Hugo, but not so much as I would ever be able to tell which was which if I were just listening to one without rapidly switching between them.

This is the same result as I found when I had the temerity to post in the Chord Hugo thread, over a year ago, that I could hear no difference. This was likely for a different headphone and DAP, but results were the same. I was challenged by one person there in particular stating that there HAD to be a difference and that I must be wrong.

I realize that I am subject to possibly overloading the limited output of the iPhone with the load of the Ultrasone Edition 8 headphones, but I don’t think that is likely, as those headphone have been described by at least one leading member here as among the best to drive with the iPhone.

However, it IS fun to fiddle with a $2,000 beautiful piece of gear with multicolored lights, trying to figure out how to physically construct a robust package of DAP, adapter, cable, and Hugo. It makes me THINK it sounds better, just as a bread recipe with 17 ingredients MUST taste better than one with only five, right?

 

[StandsOnFeet]

So, even a sloppy test finds either no or an extremely subtle difference between the Hugo and an iPhone. It's what I'd expect.

I agree about the beauty of the box and the multicoloured lights having some appeal. On the other hand, $2300 CDN is an awful lot to pay for aesthetics.

 

[castleofargh]

've heard that argument but it doesn't hold water. Even a fairly modest ADC set to record at 96kHz, will accurately capture any filter characteristics of the test DAC, within and even well beyond the audible freq range. Any other supposedly audible artefacts of the ADC would be the exactly the same across all the A, B and X samples and therefore would not affect the result.

yes it's also my opinion, but it causes to jump into one or two other rabbit holes about ringing, the number of taps we need to approximate something, the noise shaping at -250dB, jitter and what not. we end up having to convince people about hearing thresholds for all that just to convince them that the test is probably valid. it would ideally be better to just have an almost irreproachable test. but I'm nitpicking here, I'm arguing in favor of a huge level of control when the other testing method presented here is typically people not controlling anything at all and telling how they feel. in that mindset, recording a DAC to abx the matched and time aligned files is freaking amazing ^_^.

 

[Steve999]

Damn, this sound science section is blissful. After wandering only the other sections for months, here I'm awash with phrases like "blind tests" and "there's only one sound science". No platitudes, niceties and tolerance of biases. Wonderful, just wonderful!

Yes, we’re amazing, only 50-plus pages and counting to discuss the sound quality of iStuff! Actually it’s in large part because of the dynamic you allude to—we cut across the intended philosophical grain and established pecuniary interests (I’m hoping they don’t know what pecuniary means) of the much larger rest of head-fi. It’s only a matter of time until the next poor soul posts here and expects to have a typical head-fi conversation and then off we go.

But I’ve learned a lot of interesting things and come across some thoughtful nuances in this thread though so it’s cool.

 

[bigshot]

If it convinces folks to try their hand on conducting a blind test themselves, I think it's great. More audiophiles should arrive at their opinions through first hand controlled testing.

 

[SergeSE]

We have to be very careful when audiophiles are around though! Many audiophiles will simply take "chip" to mean DAC chip and make all kinds of false assertions about audible differences between DACs.

I thought it is not difficult today to find out that “Wolfson chip” from iPod 5th is WM8758BG. From its description:

The WM8758B is a low power, high quality stereo CODEC designed for portable applications such as MP3 audio player. The device integrates preamps for stereo differential mics, and drivers for headphone and differential or stereo line output. External component requirements are reduced as no separate microphone or headphone amplifiers are required. Headphone and line common feedback improves crosstalk and noise performance. Advanced on-chip digital signal processing includes a 5-band equaliser, a mixed signal Automatic Level Control for the microphone or line input through the ADC as well as a purely digital limiter function for record or playback. Additional digital filtering options are available in the ADC path, to cater for application filtering such as ‘wind noise reduction’ and notch filter. - https://d3uzseaevmutz1.cloudfront.net/pubs/proDatasheet/WM8758B_v4.4.pdf

Today's price is $2 - https://www.digipart.com/part/WM8758BG

 

[stonesfan129]

I don't understand why people think Wolfson > anything else. I like the way the Wolfson WM8740 sounds in my FiiO X3 1G. But I thought it all depended upon how it was implemented and the device's output impedance, amplification and the source files that ultimately affected the sound quality on the headphones. For as much as people hate on iPods, I actually think my iPod Touch sounds quite nice on my Sennheiser HD598SE and Apple earpods. I thought all of the newer iPods were using Cirrus Logic DACs.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

If it convinces folks to try their hand on conducting a blind test themselves, I think it's great. More audiophiles should arrive at their opinions through first hand controlled testing.

I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.

 

[SergeSE]

I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.

So, they are the best subjects for any listening tests. Welcome to SE blind listening tests!

 

[bigshot]

I don't understand why people think Wolfson > anything else.

It's the old "common knowledge" phenomenon. One person states an opinion in a forum based on facts, misconception, bias, whatever... and someone else sees that and repeats it. It spreads like a virus until everyone believes it and parrots it. By this time, it's gospel and they've forgotten what it's even based on.

The truth is that the specs on the Woflson DAC in the iPod 5th is far beyond the threshold of human perception. It's as transparent as any other DAC ever used in iPods. As you say, how the headphone out matches to the headphones is much more likely to cause coloration than the DAC ever is.

I think a lot of audiophiles just feel the need to hear a 'difference'.

Even if they aren't actually hearing it.

 

[gregorio]

This is the same result as I found when I had the temerity to post in the Chord Hugo thread, over a year ago, that I could hear no difference. This was likely for a different headphone and DAP, but results were the same. I was challenged by one person there in particular stating that there HAD to be a difference and that I must be wrong.

Unfortunately, much/most of the audiophile world is based on this. The Hugo is marketed with a host of impressive sounding processing features (filters with millions of taps, etc.), then various professional reviewers all sing the Hugo's praises and last but not least, a Hugo costs $2,700, while the audio playback components in an iPhone cost about $20. Add all this up and there absolutely "HAS to be a difference", which results in the last piece of the puzzle; numerous audiophiles posting "impressions" which confirm this difference. It's unthinkable that: All those processing features either make no difference at all or no audible difference AND that all those professional reviewers have been directly/indirectly bribed AND that a $2,700 device is no higher fidelity than a $20 one AND that all the numerous audiophiles' "impressions" are placebo/wrong. It just sounds like some ridiculous conspiracy theory and therefore, without question you "must be wrong", either you've got defective hearing/equipment or you're trolling.

[1] So, even a sloppy test finds either no or an extremely subtle difference between the Hugo and an iPhone. [2] It's what I'd expect.

1. Although of course, most "sloppy tests" find the opposite, because they've failed to eliminate volume/power differences, expectation/confirmation biases or commonly both.

2. It's not necessarily what I'd expect. Sure, using HPs/IEMs that can easily be driven by an iPhone's amp, there won't be any audible difference. On the other hand, I expect that an audiophile who's spent $2,700 on a DAC/Amp to also have spent a considerable amount on some fairly exclusive/esoteric audiophile HPs/IEMs, which have a higher probability of requiring more power/lower impedance than an iPhone's amp can easily provide.

[1] yes it's also my opinion, but it causes to jump into one or two other rabbit holes about ringing, the number of taps we need to approximate something, the noise shaping at -250dB, jitter and what not. we end up having to convince people about hearing thresholds for all that just to convince them that the test is probably valid.
[2] it would ideally be better to just have an almost irreproachable test.

1. Yes but of course ringing is an artefact caused by steep filters and we don't have steep filters at a recording sample rate of 96kHz. So, even a fairly modest ADC should near perfectly capture any DACs ringing up to at least 35kHz or higher. So, we just have to convince people that they don't have a higher frequency hearing threshold than a dog's.

2. TBH, I don't think it would make any difference. To many audiophiles, any test, no matter how perfect/ideal, will always be more reproachable than their beliefs. In some cases we do have an effectively perfect test, an objective measurement but many audiophiles still reproach them!

G

 

[bigshot]

Most people in Head Fi make crap up. Harder to do that here.