so far the Gustard X20 is the best value and can't decide which is the absolute best between Weiss DAC1 mk3 and Forssell MADA-2a
i believe it's a matter of taste at some point.
yeah, well, i have a lot of Lossless too you know... i'd say 90% of my collection is Lossless or even uncompressed. 😉
but what SHOULD make things shaky to you with my DACs comparisons is the fact that i'm not fullrange...
Crawling back eh ? 😉 I thought I was oversimplifying things 🙂. You were the one mentioning 256 kbps AAC. I will try another test to keep my opinion updated. I do like 16/44.1 and can enjoy it. I already concluded that 24/96 is very hard to compare with 16/44.1 (not when mastering was different or if it is "remastered"). I put a lot of time in comparing MP3 and FLAC and found that losing time was not my hobby and kept it all lossless on a NAS. Problem solved (for me at least).
What do you mean with "not full range" ? It seems a kind of coming out of the closet but I don't know what you mean.
Last edited:
there's a sim for that...
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/245555-temporal-resolution-6.html#post3697702
showing Inter Aural Time Delay resolution doesn't imply or rely on high sample rate - 16/44 is fine for nanoseconds resolution of "audio events" between channels
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/245555-temporal-resolution-6.html#post3697702
showing Inter Aural Time Delay resolution doesn't imply or rely on high sample rate - 16/44 is fine for nanoseconds resolution of "audio events" between channels
Last edited:
i have active speakers, which mean i test DACs one way at a time (and i have 4...)
Not bad per se, just very unusual.
Last edited:
I am not sure if that is called "not full range" but OK. You could use a passive source selector to switch between DAC outputs.... You don't compare AB which is unusual as the human memory works in strange ways.
Just as pointless as comparing DACs after each other 😉
Still I am quite sure that original files that have not been altered have a higher chance of sounding like they should. Call it "risk reduction". Why on earth would I introduce yet another variable in the chain especially when one has the uncompressed original files ? There is no logical thinking in wanting to change a winning team.
Last edited:
Wish there was a Redbook comparison done with all this, with a good R2R Ladder Multibit dac added, as aren't these all DS based?
Cheers George
Cheers George
In the absolute: you are completely right.
The real ''scientific way'' would be the go through a blind identification test first, then the appreciation one. And i might just do that one day...
But i'm not right now simply because i feel the differences are much more obvious than AAC/Lossless differences.. 😉
In other words: I wouldnt bet 1$ on my ability to spot the AAC from a Lossless, but i'd bet 1000$ on my ability to spot a Forssell MADA-2 from a Fiio DAC.
Most of my DAC comparisons were made with the tweeters, which have crossover points @ +/- 4khz and brickwall 300db/oct.
later this week i'll try on the midbass and subwoofers, we'll see..
Ha ha, I bet you will also notice differences when tested at night or during the day. For some reason I doubt you will be comparing all these DACs with 256 kbps Itunes material.
Just suppose one of those DACs sounds better with lossless than the other (better tested one) compared when tested with lossy material ....
Too much variables.J***s C****t, you are stating that you are comparing DACs with 256 kbps iTunes material on just tweeters which have crossover points @ +/- 4khz and brickwall 300db/oct ?
Drugs are bad ... mkay ?
Last edited:
ooh wow, you're overthinking it..
Lossless or AAC...it's irrelevant. Really.
i'm testing with any good recordings i see fit, the rest is not important... because it's not audible. Like i said.
Not easy to process, i know.
Well, no. 🙄
I do have all the other ways operationnal but with other DACs...
I am NOT listening to high frequencies alone, if its what you ask... that would be rather unpleasant and painful. 🙂
But i could ask my dog.
It must be that I am not a native english speaker but that is what is written. Or could it be that you are expressing yourself rather unclear ? It would be unusual to test DACs without the tweeters so stating that the tests were done with the tweeters gives a strange impression. Here in the low countries we test with uncompressed stuff on speakers that cover 20 Hz to 20 kHz (at least as that is the original DIN HiFi norm). We do notice differences during the day and at night as the mains voltage is way cleaner at night. We do compare AB (also blind) with a few listeners and compare results and write those down as memory fades quite fast. Best tested devices are compared again with each other and with different music genres. Seems quite neutral that way.
Please let the dog test the DACs properly with lossless material. Then compare with your results 😉 I trust the dog but only when it uses headphones.
Last edited:
Couldn't you buy the dog a better set of cans ? As an animal lover I must object against mistreating animals this way. Dogs do deserve good audio !
Please draw 4 lines creating a square or a rectangle. Now add all components in that square/rectangle and connect them. Try to add all connectors, peripherals and the PSU to the very same board. Transformers can be on board too when the application allows it but it will be better in many cases to keep it off board with audio devices. When using good I/O connectors they can also be on the board allowing the board to be encased without added wiring. Done. A one module device without too much wiring and with somewhat higher reliability.
Last edited:
this is an English speaking board, please post with accompanying translation....