DAC blind test: NO audible difference whatsoever

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Are you saying the WX-50 has and A/D and a D/A and they performed a test passing through both data converters?

Also, I see in the manual there is something called "direct mode" that bypasses DSP. Could it be that if there is an A/D that it is not used in direct mode, that processing is analog only?
 
Are you saying the WX-50 has and A/D and a D/A and they performed a test passing through both data converters?

I need to take a look when I get home what connections they used. But yeah, I assume that they used analog in/analog out, which means an ADA-conversion. Even more challenging for a device, of course. One clue to the performance could be that the WXC-50 only has 0.12 DB deviation between 20 and 20 khz, according to their measurements. That's better than many other dacs.
 
It also says there is switch on the back that say "player" or "preamp." Player mode bypasses internal processing and volume. Preamp mode allows one "to take advantage of all internal processing and volume control." Which position was the switch in during the test, and would that bypass or disable any data conversion?
 
mmerrill99 said:
Would you use equipment of unknown sensitivity to measure something & claim it as evidence of anything?
No measurements were performed, merely a comparison. This is not "this string is 10 inches; that string is 9 inches" (for which you need a calibrated inch) but it is "these two strings are (not) the same length". It is not even "this string is longer than that string" just "they are different" or "they are not different".

If two pieces of equipment for listening to music are indistinguishable when they are used for listening to music then this means that they must be fairly similar in performance. Now it may be interesting to ask "how similar?" and further tests may show that but it cannot be argued that they are in fact quite different no matter how much this assertion may be commercially convenient to some parties.

If a piece of string is sold for tying a parcel, and someone claims that cheap string X is the same length as expensive string Y when used for tying parcels it might not cut much ice if the maker of Y (or his friends) claims that Y is much longer than X and the parcel was obviously too small and no ruler was used. Let him tell us how long is Y; then we have some facts.

I don't know how you can divorce the goal that audio devices are being used for - that of creating this illusion - from the functionality of the device itself? If you are just trying to create an engineering device which has no other function than to produce a set of standard measurements which match some engineering checklist, then fine - state that but don't make the leap in faith that therefore the device satisfies it use case!

The issue seems to be that your "ideal outcome" is different from the actual end use for which the device is intended
You can't have it both ways. If the only valid test for a DAC is listening then you cannot dismiss a listening test just because the result is inconvenient, and demand measurement. Tell us what measurements you want. Thus far your objections just come across as merely a more sophisticated version of the usual deaf/poor/stupid accusations hurled at ordinary audio enthusiasts by 'high end' people when we ask to see the emperor's clothes.
 
No measurements were performed, merely a comparison. This is not "this string is 10 inches; that string is 9 inches" (for which you need a calibrated inch) but it is "these two strings are (not) the same length". It is not even "this string is longer than that string" just "they are different" or "they are not different".

If two pieces of equipment for listening to music are indistinguishable when they are used for listening to music then this means that they must be fairly similar in performance. Now it may be interesting to ask "how similar?" and further tests may show that but it cannot be argued that they are in fact quite different no matter how much this assertion may be commercially convenient to some parties.

If a piece of string is sold for tying a parcel, and someone claims that cheap string X is the same length as expensive string Y when used for tying parcels it might not cut much ice if the maker of Y (or his friends) claims that Y is much longer than X and the parcel was obviously too small and no ruler was used. Let him tell us how long is Y; then we have some facts.
All of this would be fine if you could show that the test itself has enough sensitivity to differentiate between differences that are equivalent in range to the type of differences being tested for.
In other words if your string comparison test can only be evaluated to 1 foot differences or 1 inch differences the only claim you can make is that two strings match to withing 1 foot or 1 inch - it's a very basic concept & your twisting & turning is not logical


You can't have it both ways. If the only valid test for a DAC is listening then you cannot dismiss a listening test just because the result is inconvenient, and demand measurement.
Who did? Not me!
Tell us what measurements you want. Thus far your objections just come across as merely a more sophisticated version of the usual deaf/poor/stupid accusations hurled at ordinary audio enthusiasts by 'high end' people when we ask to see the emperor's clothes.
Others claimed (perhaps you are not in the same boat) that this ABX showed these DACs were indistinguishable & generalised this to the wider claim that all competently designed, yada, yada, DACs were similarly audibly indistinguishable. I simply asked for some proof of the sensitivity of that test.

Some further stated that measurements can be used to determine what is transparent - I again asked for details of these measurements.

The ball is in the court of those who make these claims about measurements.
 
The issue seems to be that your "ideal outcome" is different from the actual end use for which the device is intended

That is all well and good. A sampled data stream has a unique relationship to an analog waveform output, if the "actual end use" is not to reproduce this then these exercises are just a waste of time. Why not just listen to unfiltered NOS DAC's they have their own posse too.
 
That is all well and good. A sampled data stream has a unique relationship to an analog waveform output, if the "actual end use" is not to reproduce this then these exercises are just a waste of time. Why not just listen to unfiltered NOS DAC's they have their own posse too.

Are you saying that you deny the end use of audio devices is more than the engineering measurements? Engineering is not a pure science - existing for itself - it is an applied science used to produce devices with an end goal -
the engineering measurements aren't the end goal - they are simply a self-evaluating technique.

Did you miss the bit about Sean Olive's research which has resulted in a headphone frequency curve which is not flat?

What should be done - ignore this finding & keep producing headphones with flat(ish) FR - or accept that auditory perception is the final arbiter in our judgement of what we hear
 
How about neither device is "transparent" but just different, there is inherently no reference for "ideal" in these tests (you can't bypass the DAC.)

But the point of this test protocol is to avoid that. The point is to add the device to an existing chain. Assuming you add a wonderful ad/da-converter to a horrible dac. Say, a Benchmark Dac3 HGC, and you use input from the worst dac ever produced. If the Dac3 is truly transparent, it will not change anything in the ouput signal from the horrible dac. The sound will be just as horrible after putting the Dac3 into the chain, as it was before. If there are any changes - well, then we know that the Dac3 is not transparent. (but I have every reason to think the Dac3 is fully transparent)

It also says there is switch on the back that say "player" or "preamp." Player mode bypasses internal processing and volume. Preamp mode allows one "to take advantage of all internal processing and volume control." Which position was the switch in during the test, and would that bypass or disable any data conversion?

Just confirmed that it was used in player mode, as a stand-alone dac, without using the internal volume control. Still need to confirm what inputs they used.
 
Just confirmed that it was used in player mode, as a stand-alone dac, without using the internal volume control. Still need to confirm what inputs they used.

Probably, they used the analog aux line input.
Question would then be, in Player mode does the auxiliary analog input still go into the A/D converter or bypass it?

To put it another way, in Player mode is the aux line input analog signal simply summed with the analog output of the the DAC, and then routed to the analog line output?
For it to have been judged transparent, this seems most likely the case. Otherwise, something still wouldn't add up.
 
Last edited:
Did you miss the bit about Sean Olive's research which has resulted in a headphone frequency curve which is not flat?

So what now make DAC's with non flat frequency response so flat headphones sound right, what about normal speakers then? If you want components as effects boxes then a measurement protocol becomes more just informational. I get the impression many already are simply shuffling an effects chain in their systems.

Did you ever see a guitarist with 10 or 12 distortion pedals in series.
 
So what now make DAC's with non flat frequency response so flat headphones sound right, what about normal speakers then? If you want components as effects boxes then a measurement protocol becomes more just informational. I get the impression many already are simply shuffling an effects chain in their systems.

Did you ever see a guitarist with 10 or 12 distortion pedals in series.

No, you are missing the whole point - your claim was that the end goal of a DAC/amplifier, etc was to be accurate according to a prescribed set of measurements.

I contend this is wrong & stops short of what is the actual goal of all audio devices - to create an audio illusion as believable & realistic as possible.

The example of the work of Olive et al on headphone FR target curve which is far from flat. Now what you do with this information is up to you. the point is that ignoring listening & auditory perception as the last receiver in the chain & ignoring the factors that research is beginning to find are important in achieving the end goal - ignoring both of these facts results in sub-optimal headphone experiences by following an 'accuracy is everything' target. It also can result in a excessive waste of energy into trying to achieve accuracy in areas which just aren't important to auditory perception & overlooking areas where not enough effort & focus is expended

"Components as effect boxes" is just a bit of a mantra as is "competently designed" - it is a blinkered view from within the 'accuracy is everything' mindset & again denies the end goal of the audio devices being designed/engineered.
 
No, you are missing the whole point - your claim was that the end goal of a DAC/amplifier, etc was to be accurate according to a prescribed set of measurements.

I contend this is wrong & stops short of what is the actual goal of all audio devices - to create an audio illusion as believable & realistic as possible.

This is your own personal misconception of the situation, but then you just state it's all a simulacrum and anything goes.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.