I build a media player with a 14” HD touch screen(€85) , n100 mini pc(€200) and Akliam PD6 dac(€100). Dac has balanced output. I like it . 🙂 . If you only need an usb dac for phone, tablet or PC/media player this Akliam PD 6 deserves a try.
Regarding the so-called study: It required people to use their own dacs over lossy youtube audio, didn't try to disprove the alternate hypothesis, no controls, didn't comply with ITU recommendations, etc., etc. No reputable journal would publish that garbage, and they haven't.
There was no need for double blind or blind nor to comply with ITU recommendations as it was not an AB or ABx test and there was nothing to compare. Participants only needed to listen to a single wav file on their own. Results were unambiguous.
Are you aware of any study that would contradict the result?
Are you aware of any study that would contradict the result?
If there was nothing to compare then there was nothing to count.
Regarding the result, there were no controls! People were supposed to count. Were people tested to see if they would count correctly if cuts were made sufficiently obvious? So, maybe the test was to see if people playing around with youtube videos would count accurately? Serious studies have to make sure what they are measuring is what the study is supposed to show. When people listen to lossy compressed youtube audio and try to count "cuts," are they used to counting cuts? Its something mastering engineers might do every day, but most audiophiles have no experience doing it at all. Maybe the test actually tested to see if any listeners were experienced mastering engineers? Or maybe not even a mastering engineer could hear cuts, much less keep track of a count, on some of the playback systems listeners used? Those types of things are what can happen when there are zero controls.
The whole thing is so awful I can't believe you would seriously post a link to it.
Regarding the result, there were no controls! People were supposed to count. Were people tested to see if they would count correctly if cuts were made sufficiently obvious? So, maybe the test was to see if people playing around with youtube videos would count accurately? Serious studies have to make sure what they are measuring is what the study is supposed to show. When people listen to lossy compressed youtube audio and try to count "cuts," are they used to counting cuts? Its something mastering engineers might do every day, but most audiophiles have no experience doing it at all. Maybe the test actually tested to see if any listeners were experienced mastering engineers? Or maybe not even a mastering engineer could hear cuts, much less keep track of a count, on some of the playback systems listeners used? Those types of things are what can happen when there are zero controls.
The whole thing is so awful I can't believe you would seriously post a link to it.
Last edited:
So you did not read the study. Participants did not listen to Youtube but a wav file.
How about any study that would contradict the result?
Still miles above the non-existing studies you have presented.
But as with any religion audio religion is all about faith, not evidence.
But as with any religion audio religion is all about faith, not evidence.
Bohrok2610 and Markw4 please open your own thread to debat.
@Ro808 The SMSL PS200 has great value for money and same dac ess9039q2m as Akliam PD6.
Not possible for me the build something like this for that money.
@Ro808 The SMSL PS200 has great value for money and same dac ess9039q2m as Akliam PD6.
Not possible for me the build something like this for that money.
One must be prudent with evidence... from flat Earth to Planck, evidences seem not always evident ! Ask Schrod's cat... 😊
Since Fatima, we know one can hear sound that doesn't exist ! 😀 ... Not controlled claims !
Last edited:
Imho it depends entirely on 'objectives' (based on frame of reference) and the 'system'.
It's unlikely the average user is able to 'reliably' distinguish between the above SMSL and say a Benchmark DAC3 or RME ADI-2 (when there's no need for the extra features) and the transducer system isn't very efficient, which applies to about 98% of all commercial loudspeaker systems. Dynaudio being an example.
In this case I'd probably go for the PS200. Why?
Because of the distortion profile and the 'less is more engineering'.
My speakers aren't very efficient, because they're Sound Lab large panel electrostatics. Yet, differences between dacs are quite plain, including for Benchmark DAC3 and RME ADI-2.
The other thing is, while the general public may be pretty oblivious to flaws in audio systems, diyaudio members may on average notice more in the way of such flaws than average members of the general public do.
The other thing is, while the general public may be pretty oblivious to flaws in audio systems, diyaudio members may on average notice more in the way of such flaws than average members of the general public do.
Last edited:
@Ro88, as you already know I am a Dynaudio fan for 30 years.
I can hear the differences between my dacs. (TDA1541, TDA1387, PCM1793, PCM1794, CS4398, AK4490, 9038q2m, 9039q2m, passive dsd, r2r all with minimal filter opamp and/or tube stage).
Also nice dac, pcm1794 on ali.
I can hear the differences between my dacs. (TDA1541, TDA1387, PCM1793, PCM1794, CS4398, AK4490, 9038q2m, 9039q2m, passive dsd, r2r all with minimal filter opamp and/or tube stage).
Also nice dac, pcm1794 on ali.
Last edited:
it is because lack of points of recall and things to listen to and quantitate them, I am sure with a proper guide route anyone can hear the difference. They just have to train their brains to remember how certain aspects were and memorize them.
It's good to note that differences between so-called 'transparent DACs' are audible. I agree with Markw4's comment about diyaudio members.
As an aside, I specifically referred to detecting differences without prior knowledge of changes, even when different source material is being played on a system that has only been listened to once.
This is more or less the opposite of what I mean.
My detection isn't so much about the brain, and not even just about hearing/listening. It's more about inner knowledge and feeling.
Once you start analyzing (using your brain) there's room for conflict/doubt/error.
Yes, you could learn by training, but without intrinsic/spontaneous motivation it remains a trick.
Think of samurai fighters who, after many years of constant study, have to forget everything they've learned.
There are variations on the same underlying principles/mechanisms and some of these are (increasingly conspicuously) (mis)used by certain 'leaders'.
Last edited:
Nothing wrong with that. I can still enjoy the Contour 2.8s that I arranged for a buddy 25 years ago.
You know Edwin Rutte I assume? He was very enthusiastic about the gear that I bought on assignment for home recording, including Dynaudio monitors.
Last edited: