Seems maybe one is a bargain, and one is overpriced.
Really haven’t had the best luck with USB powered dacs, maybe this one is special?
I would not pay $3K for the other one either...
Really haven’t had the best luck with USB powered dacs, maybe this one is special?
I would not pay $3K for the other one either...
Just made an important update on page 1.
Some people will be happy about it, some won't. But Day 1 was critical and we shouldn't expect much changes for the upcoming days of this 3rd set-up, whether it's a bad or a good news....
Some people will be happy about it, some won't. But Day 1 was critical and we shouldn't expect much changes for the upcoming days of this 3rd set-up, whether it's a bad or a good news....
Last edited:
At the risk of repeating myself, if you're close to Montreal and would like to take a shot at this test please PM me.
Golden ears: NOW it's the time to prove yourselves. 🙂
Golden ears: NOW it's the time to prove yourselves. 🙂
Failed on every trial instance is not random as it should be if he could not hear a difference. This is a fairly strong idicator that he is hearing something.
dave
No ''failed'' means no positive identification.
Results were in the like of 4/7 or 3/10 or 5/8, etc... All in all, it was close to 50%, so it means purely random.
Yeah, i know, all opposite would be a very good indicator indeed. 🙂
I didnt made the test in that 3rd set-up.
I heard it, i asked myself: do you think you can spot it, answer was: nope.
Seriously, you casually listen to one and then the other ...and it's clearly not a day & night kind of difference. I mean, it's extremely obvious for anybody that listens to it that, AT BEST, we're talking subtleties.
Then, you sit on that chair, blindfolded, and it's just frustratingly difficult. You don't stay there for hours thinking it would get easier with practice, no, you're very quickly convinced the task is just impossible. It's like being asked to run at 100 kph. You might try for 35, but 100 is just out for the question.
It feels like that.
I heard it, i asked myself: do you think you can spot it, answer was: nope.
Seriously, you casually listen to one and then the other ...and it's clearly not a day & night kind of difference. I mean, it's extremely obvious for anybody that listens to it that, AT BEST, we're talking subtleties.
Then, you sit on that chair, blindfolded, and it's just frustratingly difficult. You don't stay there for hours thinking it would get easier with practice, no, you're very quickly convinced the task is just impossible. It's like being asked to run at 100 kph. You might try for 35, but 100 is just out for the question.
It feels like that.
If not compared side-by-side, within the same 10min, that's another story though... Your brains may think differences are HUGE.
But compared side-by-side, SPL-matched, within a minute or so ? Damn. They're twins, sonic-wise.
But compared side-by-side, SPL-matched, within a minute or so ? Damn. They're twins, sonic-wise.
i thought about something though...
Maybe making some sort of AAAAAAX or BBBBBBBX, where sighted the participant listens to A or B for repeated times, same tune, then you make a switch and he must say if it's the same or not.
It's close to some sort of training but it's rather to make a deeper sonic impression into the brain. To imprints the memory with numerous repetitions in a short period of time, then try to benefit from a maximum contrast potential.
Of course, the weakness here is the lack of AB-AB-AB comparisons, but maybe you only need to feel the contrast once, but deeper ?
...i'm brainstorming here...
Still can't accept the results from this test yet. My audiophile innerself is in deep crisis.
Still can't accept the results from this test yet. My audiophile innerself is in deep crisis.
I really need to organise next a blind test where positive identifications will be possible. For the sake of keeping faith in ourselves... Haha!
Speakers V.S. speakers.
I think we're there.
Speakers V.S. speakers.
I think we're there.
Can I respectfully suggest that the wrong test is being used here to establish if one DAC is preferred over another - do a blind preference test, not a "spot the difference" test.
It's quite OK to have a preference without being able to identify exactly why. In an ABX blind test to "spot the difference" you are listening to a very complex soundfield & trying to pick out a specific element which is different. This is not the strength of auditory perception as I have outlines already so using an ABX test is misinformed in so many cases - this being one such case.
In essence you are being asked to spot a difference between two near identical movies which you have previously sensed are different but in an ABX test you are being presented a small number of frames from both, comparing them & asked to identify which is which. The preference approach & the "spot -the-difference" approach use totally different aspects of visual perception
In such preference testing one needs to listen non-analytically, not looking for specific differences or indeed any differences, just listening to the music (as long a sample as you want) & deciding which of two presentations you prefer. And even if you don't have a conscious preference choose on gut instinct.
Try this & see how it goes
Last edited:
No. I didn't say that. I don't believe that. I do believe that you are on a mission, though.mmerrill99 said:
There are people who claim that differences between DAC equipment is mostly down to the circuitry around the DAC chip, especially the I/V and filters. Some of these people replace properly engineered circuits with DIY simplicity and say that the result is an improvement. For example, in almost all cases replacing an opamp virtual ground by a passive I/V will result in increased distortion - yet people often prefer this.MrMagic said:
That would depend on your patience and your desire for truth. What you seem to be claiming is that we cannot compare sounds by comparing sounds. So we have to do it some other way, perhaps by looking?mmerrill99 said:
Your suggested solution was more training. I can only suspect that training can then be added to the list of reasons why people will then reject ABX - it is so unlike normal listening!
Preference tests can only tell us about preferences - and even then they may tell us nothing about sound if they are sighted. It is well known that some people prefer distortion and frequency response shaping; others may prefer a shiny box, or a polished wooden box, or lots of LEDs.
I was not aware of that. Perhaps the OP would care to comment? I have no desire to defend someone who is misleading us. However, what I have gleaned so far in this thread is that while the OP is opposed to snake oil products he did expect a cheap and expensive DAC to sound different; these two views are not inconsistent.Doppler9000 said:
All talk of preference has to be based on difference. If you can't hear a difference then you can have no preference.mmerrill99 said:
No. You are not asked to spot the difference, just say whether they are different. Spotting the difference may be harder than being aware that there is a difference.
Preference testing has nothing whatsoever to do with high quality sound reproduction.
All that's needed for anyone to investigate this themselves is to search for threads started by the o/p. Yes, I'm on a mission to expose pseudo-science & bring some science to understanding auditory perception & how it should be tested. Believe it or not, there are those who want to ignore science & logic, wallowing instead in simplistic beliefs & statements about auditory perception!
You steadfastly refuse to see what is plain to see - the strengths & weakness of auditory perception - it hasn't evolved to have strengths in "spot-the-difference" style comparisons - neither has visual perception & why it can often take a long time to spot a small difference between still pictures tests - now try doing this with moving images. In other words, training is needed to be able to come anywhere near being able to achieve this highly taxing ABX task - training in the sound of various distortions & training in how to retain focus during such taxing tests. Have you read or do you know of the guidelines for running perceptual tests such as these?
Ordinary people will give up very quickly when faced with such difficulties. Maybe the participants in the test will chime in on their difficulties & when they stopped trying?
Ignoring this & mislabelling the complexity behind auditory perception into the simplistic phrase "comparing sounds" is either misinformed or disingenuous
My suggestion is that the test is exactly the wrong test (as was pointed out on the first page of posts) & not only that but he doesn't know how to conduct an ABX test in a manner that has any chance of revealing subtle differences.
Who said anything about SIGHTED preference tests? What is your objection to BLIND preference tests?
The BS about needing to establish difference before preference is tested is the great LIE told by those who know that all these amateur ABX blind tests produce null results. It's a good trick to fool those who think that hearing just happens & don't bother or don't understand how auditory perception works
We see this LIE is trotted out so many times.
Do you know how ABX testing works? You are asked if X is A or X is B. Let the participants or the o/p answer if they were trying to "spot-the-difference" in order to say if X is A or X is B.
Your logic is tripping you up
You fail to read what's written. If BLIND preference testing has nothing to do with high quality sound reproduction, you better contact Harmon & tell them to stop designing their loudspeakers based on the preference testing Olive & Toole did on speaker preference
Last edited:
Occam's razor.
If this ABX test fails to show positive identification it's probably because there is no audible differences whatsoever.
If this ABX test fails to show positive identification it's probably because there is no audible differences whatsoever.
Guys, please.
Nothing, nothing, will change the fact that -so far- 5 individuals listened to extremely different devices by nature and by cost... and didn't observe any kind of ''day & night'' differential.
...and that's sighted pre-test and that's sighted post-test.
As soon as you precisely SPL-match the devices, they become twins.
The PERCEIVED differences are -at best- subtle.
The test is showing -so far- that these subtle perceived differences are simply constructions of the mind.
Knowing how the brains works, it's not that surprising after all...
Nothing, nothing, will change the fact that -so far- 5 individuals listened to extremely different devices by nature and by cost... and didn't observe any kind of ''day & night'' differential.
...and that's sighted pre-test and that's sighted post-test.
As soon as you precisely SPL-match the devices, they become twins.
The PERCEIVED differences are -at best- subtle.
The test is showing -so far- that these subtle perceived differences are simply constructions of the mind.
Knowing how the brains works, it's not that surprising after all...
mmerrill99, now that is just silly.
WHO would you trust the most to make grand cru wine notation? An individual who is not able to blindly spot a pinot noir from a shiraz or an individual who is able to blindly spot a Chambolle-Musigny from a Chambertin ?
I mean... really? You really fail to get a grasp on that basic logical concept? Is it some sort of joke you are playing on us, in some devil's advocate way?