FYI:
the way i SHOULD HAVE proceed is with identification blind test, first. Then appreciation test.
Maybe there is someone on the forum who conducted a blind test (controlled environment) with DACs ? At least we might know if there is any identification possibilities between a ''bad'' and an ''excellent'' DAC...
(educated guess here: it's possible.)
An appreciation test is actually a paired/multiple preference test, and if a preference is established (and if this preference is stable) then a difference is confirmed and an identification will be possible, so a preceding identification/difference test is not necessarily needed.
If no preference ist established, the situation is a bit more complex, because a difference might exist, but the listener may like (or dislike) both samples equally.
If no preference ist established, the situation is a bit more complex, because a difference might exist, but the listener may like (or dislike) both samples equally.
Jakob2: the first step is always the Identification Blind Test.
We need to verify if there is any audible difference before making any appreciation on something. It's common sense.
In this particular thread, i ASSUMED i'd be able to positively identify the DACs between each others... But i have absolutely NO proof of that. And, anyway, you cannot make an identification test with only one participant, it's not statistically valid.
We need to verify if there is any audible difference before making any appreciation on something. It's common sense.
In this particular thread, i ASSUMED i'd be able to positively identify the DACs between each others... But i have absolutely NO proof of that. And, anyway, you cannot make an identification test with only one participant, it's not statistically valid.
There are a few experienced guys on this thread. Unless you work/have worked professionally with DAC's and/or A-D's, I'd just shut up and learn from the experts if I were you.
Oh, and stop trolling. Its obnoxious (that's English for it stinks - you know, foul odour etc)
Often, yes. That's why checking your own perceptions is Step One. All of us with human brains are wired to perceive differences, whether or not they exist.
One of the main challenge when you compare DACs is the level-match. Even two 2vrms outputs may not make the same in-room SPL, we must take great care to level-match in a comparison, by 0.3db maximum, and 0.1db is better when possible.
I did a test once: i had two configurations on my DEQX... Exactly the same. Except one was 0.5db louder. Results ? 80% preferred the loudest config... (more dynamic, more resolution, more bass, blah blah, etc..)
I did a test once: i had two configurations on my DEQX... Exactly the same. Except one was 0.5db louder. Results ? 80% preferred the loudest config... (more dynamic, more resolution, more bass, blah blah, etc..)
Last edited:
Hard to believe anybody could be that naive about how people *hear things* in 2015. I'm sure Sy didn't mean to say what he seems to have written.
BTW, the "even the wife in the kitchen can hear it" criterion reflects how confused some people are about the weaknesses of subjective testing. If a person in another room can twig to your new DAC try-out, it means the new DAC is louder (or softer). It could not possibly be testimony about better imaging, sense of depth, subtle sounds, or even better high frequencies, or other wine-taster types of golden-eared judgments*. Just plain loudness that is fooling the golden-eared "tester" into thinking it is better.
Ben
*I've left distortion off the list. Remote chance you can sense distortion in another room. But we all agree that all our equipment measures very very low distortion by conventional tests.
Last edited:
What was unclear about what I wrote? It is quite simple to determine whether or not you can hear the difference between A and B (whatever they are) if you think that you hear one. It is more difficult to determine if ANYONE can hear the difference between A and B.
There are other possibilities- Clever Hans Effect, for one.
Implementation Factors
Listening and having various DAC to be compared side by side I would say that "implementation" is the key element of a DAC quality. A "commercial" cheap DAC has never sound good to me even when using good DAC chip.
Soundcards for example, for more than £100 I think the DAC chip is comparable to a £500 Teac (IIRC is using PCM1795), but the critical analog stage is almost always using very poor opamp... (Note: £36 Xonar is using WM8766 DAC chip, £55 is using CS4398, £200 is using PCM1796).
External DAC OTOH, at $500 wouldn't skimp on the analog stage (and power supply).
The reason why above $2000 you don't get much more is because all machines already have good enough power supply and capacitors, have equal DAC chip and most importantly almost all is using the same "old" delta-sigma technology.
Things can be different if the technology is different, like Mola Mola, but the price will be too expensive. Or it could be different IMHO if the DAC chip is from Wolfson (but is rare I believe) for certain reason.
So beside the analog stage, other "implementation" factor is the power supply. This is where external DAC wins. As a first step, it is already well known among DAC chip manufacturers that digital/switching supply should be separated from analog supply (even the grounds shouldn't be "common") to avoid switching noise from entering the analog section.
And worse, not all power supplies are made equal (sound-wise!). My latest finding (actually many years ago) was that tube is very powerful when the power supply is perfect. And the bottleneck is usually in the heater (no wonder people swear on direct heated tubes).
Listening and having various DAC to be compared side by side I would say that "implementation" is the key element of a DAC quality. A "commercial" cheap DAC has never sound good to me even when using good DAC chip.
Soundcards for example, for more than £100 I think the DAC chip is comparable to a £500 Teac (IIRC is using PCM1795), but the critical analog stage is almost always using very poor opamp... (Note: £36 Xonar is using WM8766 DAC chip, £55 is using CS4398, £200 is using PCM1796).
External DAC OTOH, at $500 wouldn't skimp on the analog stage (and power supply).
The reason why above $2000 you don't get much more is because all machines already have good enough power supply and capacitors, have equal DAC chip and most importantly almost all is using the same "old" delta-sigma technology.
Things can be different if the technology is different, like Mola Mola, but the price will be too expensive. Or it could be different IMHO if the DAC chip is from Wolfson (but is rare I believe) for certain reason.
So beside the analog stage, other "implementation" factor is the power supply. This is where external DAC wins. As a first step, it is already well known among DAC chip manufacturers that digital/switching supply should be separated from analog supply (even the grounds shouldn't be "common") to avoid switching noise from entering the analog section.
And worse, not all power supplies are made equal (sound-wise!). My latest finding (actually many years ago) was that tube is very powerful when the power supply is perfect. And the bottleneck is usually in the heater (no wonder people swear on direct heated tubes).
IME, DAC or CD player blind test is easier than premap and amplifier blind tests. This makes sense when we notice that amplifiers are all measured good enough (above audibility thresholds some people say).
Non delta-sigma are usually can be identified. If all is the same delta sigma (equal SNR), I believe the difference came from power supply and the analog stage. NE5532 for example, sounds so "perfect" to me in term of "distortion" but is boring or even "fatiguing". Tube output stage almost always easy to identify due to excessive second order distortion. But the first time I heard an Audio Aero in a blind test, I didn't notice that it has tube output. Yes it has that "grande" sound but I just missed that prediction.
And what I noticed from observing people expression, the expression changed when they hear an Audio Aero. I believe this is because of distinct signature, and that it is clearly audible for everyone.