[Triode User]

Yeah, OK that's all fun and we appreciate the sniggers and fun that you are having but no one is actually saying that the digital transmission is not perfect.
After all, we get music out of the other end with no clicks or other noise so we agree the digital signal must be fine and unaltered.
But when a designer of a well respected DAC (Rob Watts, designer of the Dave DAC) regularly discusses the impact that RF noise in a digital cable can have on the sound of the DAC, it is at that point that I do not think it is particularly helpful to met by yet more sniggers on here and for people to say that either his design or his DAC must be broken.
The condescending and mocking tone of posts by the guardians of science on here regarding Rob Watts' description of his designs is also unhelpful and does not show those posters in a good light.

 

[castleofargh]

a radicalized point of view is always at least partially false and they exist on both sides. sadly I'm often one of them. I blame it all on how forum members are still mostly made of people in 2017, and how the sound science section is open to non Nobel prize winners.
IMO this topic ended the moment if was moved here. it's obviously pissing off both sides of the argument and will only achieve to get someone banned.

 

[JaeYoon]

But you gotta give it to headfi to allow people to spread their ideas.

On hydrogenaudio people will be gone without any test logs/DBT done.

Oh you hear RF affecting your cables. We eagerly await your test logs or you will have breached the TOS when you signed up.

 

[bigshot]

And what you are missing is the fact that the thread was moved from the cable DBT free forum by an admin

I think there was a reason for it. Someone was probably getting tired of something or someone in the thread and wanted to teach them a lesson. I think the folks from the cable forum should take a moment and try and figure out what that was. All of us here in Sound Science are just doing what we do in Sound Science. We're nice and stay inside our box. We don't venture out. That isn't true of non-science people. We get a steady stream of logical fallacies and magical thinking coming into this group. We give every opinion the respect it deserves.

 

[Triode User]

a radicalized point of view is always at least partially false and they exist on both sides. sadly I'm often one of them. I blame it all on how forum members are still mostly made of people in 2017, and how the sound science section is open to non Nobel prize winners.
IMO this topic ended the moment if was moved here. it's obviously pissing off both sides of the argument and will only achieve to get someone banned.

Agreed. It would have been better to close the thread rather than move it. Personally I’m out of this thread now as I will eventually get pissed off enough to say something and get banned and I rather like the discourse in other threads so that would be cutting my nose off to spite my face.

See ya.

 

[theorist]

I read through all of that the first time you linked to it and decided to withhold comment, but since you brought it up again...

Your test was certainly NOT a DBT, and absolutely did not follow the ABX protocol. There were uncontrolled biases, an nowhere near enough data was collected to draw a valid statistical conclusion, yet conclusions were drawn, and firmly presented as if they were conclusive. They were anything but.

Agree it was not a DBT or follow the ABX protocol, but I did not wish to rub the Science Forum supporters noses the wrong way who were contributing to the thread (before it was re-located) by pointing this out, when they suggested the methodology, or at least did not raise this as an issue within it. Of course, it would only be double-blind if the cable swapping itself was appropriately 'black boxed', and this is far from easy to do in a home environment especially with different in physical appearance cables. However, the test was sufficient to convince me that there was a repeatable material difference in the reconstituted sound correlated with each particular cable, not one solely constructed by my expectation or other mentally induced biases.

Further, with 100% correlation there is statistical validity even when the N is quite small.

Now I'm done and will let you get on with your 'science'.

 

[bigshot]

Sighted tests don't do anything to prevent bias from creeping in. And the first thing we suspect when someone says some cables sound better than others is bias. The only thing you confirmed was your bias. You still haven't proved that the cables actually do sound different. That's really easy to test for, but you have to actually want to know the answer, even if it doesn't match your bias.

 

[JaeYoon]

Sighted tests don't do anything to prevent bias from creeping in. And the first thing we suspect when someone says some cables sound better than others is bias. The only thing you confirmed was your bias. You still haven't proved that the cables actually do sound different. That's really easy to test for, but you have to actually want to know the answer, even if it doesn't match your bias.

This why DBT are hard to do. Someone has to want to do it.

Say for instance you really like this cable. You compare it to a bland regular cable off amazon basics. Already the owner will have this preference for their favorite cable to win.

Someone like rollswindowsdownmanually used an abx switcher to compare amps and headphones with the help of his wife to hide the amps from view or so.

So he couldn't see which product was which.

It's understandable many people choose not to use this method. If you like a piece of equipment. You don't want to see it being compared to other products and either being same or losing.

It can part of human psyche in general depending on person.

I'm not against people who believe in cable differences here. Just open to people sharing their views too.

 

[gregorio]

But when a designer of a well respected DAC (Rob Watts, designer of the Dave DAC) regularly discusses the impact that RF noise in a digital cable can have on the sound of the DAC, it is at that point that I do not think it is particularly helpful to met by yet more sniggers on here and for people to say that either his design or his DAC must be broken. The condescending and mocking tone of posts by the guardians of science on here regarding Rob Watts' description of his designs is also unhelpful and does not show those posters in a good light.

Right there we have a large part of the problem, a part which I've mentioned numerous times but which is consistently ignored, the BS marketing pervasive in the audiophile world and the reason it's employed, to create biases which hopefully will affect audiophile's perception. You've obviously have substantial respect for Rob Watts but based on his posts (this one quoted previously, for example), I have no respect for him at all, in fact quite the opposite! All it takes to realise this, as I've said before, is a few basic facts and the application of a little logic. I could go through his post point by point demonstrating it to be nonsense but let's just take the main point, that of noise/distortion down to -200dB (and beyond) being audible. The basic fact to know is that if 0dB is equivalent to the sound level of a truck driving past a few meters away, then the approx -144dB limit of 24bit would be roughly equivalent to the to the sound level of two hydrogen atoms colliding! This should raise a couple of questions:

1. Assuming you realise that a sound wave is a pressure wave which travels through air, how would the tiny pressure produced by two hydrogen atoms colliding be enough to move the billions of air molecules necessary to propagate a sound wave in the first place? - Answer - It couldn't, there is no way that could be achieved. In theory, the noise created by just the sub-atomic particles (electrons) colliding inside resistors and other electrical components in a DAC limits the lowest noise floor achievable to about -132dB but in practise no one has achieved this. The lowest noise floor of any DAC on the market that I'm aware of is about -124dB, roughly 10 times higher than the theoretical limit of 24bit. In practise we don't have to be even slightly concerned about this, as your speakers or headphones have a much higher noise floor and there are no commercial recordings I'm aware of with a noise floor lower than -60dB, which is 100-1,000 times higher than even relatively cheap DACs!
2. Watts is going on about noise/distortion far lower than the sound of two hydrogen atoms colliding though, 1,000 - 100,000 times lower! What in the real world could even create such a ridiculously low sound pressure level? Maybe a quark scratching it's nose? You think it's even possible that a sound pressure wave at that level could be propagated, that your speakers/headphones have anywhere even vaguely near that resolution or that the billions of molecules which make up your eardrum could be in any way affected by it?

Out of curiosity, what is the claimed signal to noise ratio of a Chord Dave? That alone is enough to demonstrate Watts is talking utter, laughable nonsense, provided of course you know what "signal to noise ratio" means! And you wonder why we're using a condescending and mocking tone?

G

 

[bigshot]

That logical fallacy is called "Appeal to Authority".

 

[JaeYoon]

That logical fallacy is called "Appeal to Authority".

Just imagine if Jim Jones was in control of a massive amount of audiophiles. Told them to drink the kool aid and it will bring them to audio nirvana.

In fact that kool aid would make cables sound every audiophiles dream. Just imagine a 3D soundstage where you are suspended in midair with all the notes flying around you.

In fact imagine drinking this kool aid and you wouldn't hear any jitter or EMI or anything that could possibly affect your audio listening experience.

Now sit down, plug in those expensive cables, get a nice jug of audio nirvana kool aid. Drink it down real deep!

Bigshot how many audiophiles do you think would drink it down if Rob watts told them to.

 

[Arpiben]

Right there we have a large part of the problem, a part which I've mentioned numerous times but which is consistently ignored, the BS marketing pervasive in the audiophile world and the reason it's employed, to create biases which hopefully will affect audiophile's perception. You've obviously have substantial respect for Rob Watts but based on his posts (this one quoted previously, for example), I have no respect for him at all, in fact quite the opposite! All it takes to realise this, as I've said before, is a few basic facts and the application of a little logic. I could go through his post point by point demonstrating it to be nonsense but let's just take the main point, that of noise/distortion down to -200dB (and beyond) being audible. The basic fact to know is that if 0dB is equivalent to the sound level of a truck driving past a few meters away, then the approx -144dB limit of 24bit would be roughly equivalent to the to the sound level of two hydrogen atoms colliding! This should raise a couple of questions:

1. Assuming you realise that a sound wave is a pressure wave which travels through air, how would the tiny pressure produced by two hydrogen atoms colliding be enough to move the billions of air molecules necessary to propagate a sound wave in the first place? - Answer - It couldn't, there is no way that could be achieved. In theory, the noise created by just the sub-atomic particles (electrons) colliding inside resistors and other electrical components in a DAC limits the lowest noise floor achievable to about -132dB but in practise no one has achieved this. The lowest noise floor of any DAC on the market that I'm aware of is about -124dB, roughly 10 times higher than the theoretical limit of 24bit. In practise we don't have to be even slightly concerned about this, as your speakers or headphones have a much higher noise floor and there are no commercial recordings I'm aware of with a noise floor lower than -60dB, which is 100-1,000 times higher than even relatively cheap DACs!
2. Watts is going on about noise/distortion far lower than the sound of two hydrogen atoms colliding though, 1,000 - 100,000 times lower! What in the real world could even create such a ridiculously low sound pressure level? Maybe a quark scratching it's nose? You think it's even possible that a sound pressure wave at that level could be propagated, that your speakers/headphones have anywhere even vaguely near that resolution or that the billions of molecules which make up your eardrum could be in any way affected by it?

Out of curiosity, what is the claimed signal to noise ratio of a Chord Dave? That alone is enough to demonstrate Watts is talking utter, laughable nonsense, provided of course you know what "signal to noise ratio" means! And you wonder why we're using a condescending and mocking tone?

G

What people are missing is that some designers are also salesmen. Some are even gifted and empathic...
Dealing with measurements most of them are simulated/calculated ones and in digital domain: Noise shaping, Complex Power relative to Carrier,etc...
As an audio layman with alive background in digital transmission it took me quite some time and curiosity for making up my mind. Therefore I perfectly understand why some headfiers may become hard believers.
Nonetheless, I value a lot feedbacks from users even if biased since they are quite informative at different levels.
I also value a lot this science forum since it has been opening my eyes. Thanks

 

[Triode User]

Right there we have a large part of the problem, a part which I've mentioned numerous times but which is consistently ignored, the BS marketing pervasive in the audiophile world and the reason it's employed, to create biases which hopefully will affect audiophile's perception. You've obviously have substantial respect for Rob Watts but based on his posts (this one quoted previously, for example), I have no respect for him at all, in fact quite the opposite! All it takes to realise this, as I've said before, is a few basic facts and the application of a little logic. I could go through his post point by point demonstrating it to be nonsense but let's just take the main point, that of noise/distortion down to -200dB (and beyond) being audible. The basic fact to know is that if 0dB is equivalent to the sound level of a truck driving past a few meters away, then the approx -144dB limit of 24bit would be roughly equivalent to the to the sound level of two hydrogen atoms colliding! This should raise a couple of questions:

1. Assuming you realise that a sound wave is a pressure wave which travels through air, how would the tiny pressure produced by two hydrogen atoms colliding be enough to move the billions of air molecules necessary to propagate a sound wave in the first place? - Answer - It couldn't, there is no way that could be achieved. In theory, the noise created by just the sub-atomic particles (electrons) colliding inside resistors and other electrical components in a DAC limits the lowest noise floor achievable to about -132dB but in practise no one has achieved this. The lowest noise floor of any DAC on the market that I'm aware of is about -124dB, roughly 10 times higher than the theoretical limit of 24bit. In practise we don't have to be even slightly concerned about this, as your speakers or headphones have a much higher noise floor and there are no commercial recordings I'm aware of with a noise floor lower than -60dB, which is 100-1,000 times higher than even relatively cheap DACs!
2. Watts is going on about noise/distortion far lower than the sound of two hydrogen atoms colliding though, 1,000 - 100,000 times lower! What in the real world could even create such a ridiculously low sound pressure level? Maybe a quark scratching it's nose? You think it's even possible that a sound pressure wave at that level could be propagated, that your speakers/headphones have anywhere even vaguely near that resolution or that the billions of molecules which make up your eardrum could be in any way affected by it?

Out of curiosity, what is the claimed signal to noise ratio of a Chord Dave? That alone is enough to demonstrate Watts is talking utter, laughable nonsense, provided of course you know what "signal to noise ratio" means! And you wonder why we're using a condescending and mocking tone?

G

I have unsubscribed to this thread but just popped in to look at the general tone.

My respect for Rob Watts is primarily because I like the sound of his Blu2 and Dave combined MScaler/DAC. You of course will be of the persuasion that any decent in spec DAC does the job fine and if a DAC sounds different it is because someone has fiddled with sound signature or because the output levels have not been correctly matched. I have suggested you listen to a Blu2 with Dave and you have merely been scornful and piled on more condescending mockery. A more adult response might be to say that if the opportunity arises you would be interested to hear the Blu2/Dave combo and that you would do so with an open mind. But, well, hey ho, the open mind bit means that will never happen.

The published spec of the Dave is :-

Frequency Response:
20Hz to 20kHz +/- 0.1dB
THD +N:
127.5dB (AWT)
Channel Separation:
>125dB @ 1kHz
Dynamic Range:
127.5dB (AWT)

 

[ev13wt]

Ya, my soundcard can do that.

Frequency response: <10Hz–90kHz, –3dB (96kHz sampling). THD at –3dB: 0.0003%, line out; 0.001%, headphone out. Signal/noise: 124dBA, line out; 110dBA, headphone out. A/D input S/N: 118dBA. A/D input THD at –3dBFS: 00002%.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...soundcards-specifications#ZhualMpJv0UHI1AH.99

See, my card goes up to 90KHz, so I have you beat on that alone.






Its that careful line that must be treaded. Ya know, the one between sales and supporting companies that pay money to this site. Some people don't want to lose that money. Maybe a reason this thread ended up here where nobody looks.


The people that form the "headphone market" public opinion can choose what they want - all the money and all the snake oil, or they put their foot down and throw out snake oil in general. Its a problem of motivation for people new to the market. Would you join up to a site where BS flies, is supported and recommended? Where you as a newb cannot see anything different to the 27 reviews you just read? Its very close to "beats by dre" being the "best thing ever".

If you read this site as a newb, you NEED 5K in gear, including ... special power cords and high end interconnects to have good sound. I mean, people actually believe and spread the BS all over the internet, reviews, blogs... So sad. (I have no problem with wanting expensive gear.)


This is the reason I argue so emotionally when BS is on the table; Kids or newbs need about 150 to 500 bucks to get 95% of high fidelity sound. The should know this. Without having to sort through cable sound bs.

But I am only a simple man, what do I know about big business?

 

[gregorio]

[1] What people are missing is that some designers are also salesmen. Some are even gifted and empathic...
[2] Dealing with measurements most of them are simulated/calculated ones and in digital domain: Noise shaping, Complex Power relative to Carrier,etc...

1. Absolutely! The other problem is that in today's world, where digital audio technology was effectively perfected beyond the limits of audibility quite a few years ago, boutique audiophile manufacturers have no where to go, no upgrade path which brings us closer to audible perfection because that's not only already been achieved but is now achieved routinely at a tiny cost. At bulk trade prices, an audibly perfect DAC chip costs about $1.50! Pretty much the only direction audiophile manufacturers can go, if they are to stay in business and charge more than a very modest amount for their digital audio products, is to lie, to misrepresent or dispute the facts, science and engineering. The result is an audiophile product which, in it's attempt to differentiate itself from cheap products, does something differently and ends up either not achieving the basic standards of engineering that cheap products achieve or, actually improves upon the basic standards but those improvements are inaudible.

2. Yep, the problem so often in the audiophile world is one of relative scale. What does say -200dB really mean and how does it relate to the real world? In the digital realm we can have and calculate any arbitrary low level down to minus infinity dB but back in the real world, where we have to convert those numeric values into an analogous electrical current and then an acoustic sound wave, those digital numbers/values are completely un-convertable even in theory! Sure, we use 64bit processing for mixing audio but there's two good reasons for that: 1. Pretty much all CPU chip manufacture today is based on a 64bit architecture, so it's cheaper to employ 64bit for the significant processing required when mixing than some lower bit depth which would still be sufficient. 2. Again scale! A consumer DAC has 2 channels of digital audio, relatively modest processing requirements for those two channels and therefore digital noise artefacts which should be well below audibility (assuming basic competent design), even at relatively low bit depths. 64bit processing maintains digital noise artefacts well below audibility in any commercial mixing eventuality and any commercial mixing eventuality includes some feature film workflows which can employ up to 1,200 or so digital audio channels/paths, plus numerous processors on many of them. Distortion/Noise artefacts down at silly numbers (-200dB and beyond) are therefore valid in commercial mixing as we could be compounding those artefacts many thousands of times but of course, this is an entirely different scale to stereo consumer playback!!

[1] A more adult response might be to ....
[2] Dynamic Range: 127.5dB (AWT)
[3] I have unsubscribed to this thread ...

1. IMHO, a "more adult response might be to" learn some basic facts and apply some simple logic rather than swallowing hook, line and sinker whatever nonsense an audiophile product designer come up with to get you to buy that product.

2. Unweighted, that DR figure equates to or is poorer than the 124dB I mentioned above. This means, as 0dB is the highest possible value in digital audio, that the Dave is potentially capable of resolving down to somewhere around -124dB. But, that -124dB limit of the Dave is roughly 6,300 times higher than the -200dB noise/distortion Rob Watts claims to be hearing. So, in order for him to even potentially be hearing what he claims, he must obviously be using some other DAC with a massively better dynamic range than the Dave! Oh dear, to admit that is not great from a Chord marketing perspective is it? Not to worry though, there is no DAC which is 6,300 times better than the Dave, there's probably none even 2 times better and that's why what he claims to be hearing is utter nonsense. Note that we arrived at this obvious conclusion with just a basic fact or two (the DR spec of Dave plus an understanding of what it means) along with some simple logic. Nothing which is beyond even an average school child, let alone an adult!

3. The more "adult response" might have been to try and understand why you found some of the comments offensive and why they were posted. At the very least, an "adult response" IMHO, would have been to ignore those particular comments/posters but still open your mind to some of the others and some actual facts, rather than steadfastly remaining close minded to anything other than marketing BS and a demonstrably false belief in the accuracy of your perception. However, you're obviously unable to open your mind and/or unwilling to face the uncomfortable truths that those actual facts represent, which incidentally is another classic example of what I mentioned previously; accusing others of what audiophile themselves are most guilty of. So while you unsubscribing from this thread is not IMO an "adult response", it is somewhat understandable, if somewhat lamentable.

G