advertisement


Sorting out evidence-based from faith-based

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would agree that such differences are very, perhaps even vanishingly, small, but even a rigid objectivist can't claim that there is scientific justification for denying the possibility of any difference.

It's time to demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
 
It can be done with some items (different transports into a dac, or different dacs into a pre). But the real problem is the shortness of audio memory. That's why quick changes are thought to be more rather than less revealing (conducive to accurate judgment not "revealing" as in conducive to thinking there is a difference.)

However it would be useful in response to those who feel that short-term tests don't work but that marked differences appear after longer listening.

Tim
 
(no doubt bit perfect) converted digital output from the chip.

Doubt.

DAC chips differ in:

-cascaded reconstruction filters (to get to 8x or 16x of the original sample rate)
-interpolators (to get to the final modulator's rate)
-noise shaper
-mathematical hygiene of the above
-the actual conversion switches, current sources, and subsequent rudimentary filter (often switched-cap)
-noise, linearity, timing errors, supply rejection, ... of above

All of this can be engineered to arbitrary standards of accuracy, but that does not mean that all products are identical in these respects.
 
But we've both experienced differences with the Original vs. 1st pass!
I've not tried the original v one pass yet, but yes, I found minute differences between the 20 pass v original.

So, assuming I also find them between original and one pass, as you did - what does this tell us?

What it tells me is that there is more audible distortion after one pass compared to the original.

I've been told by Ethan that the original is transparent but this hasn't been proven.

If it is true then the distortion levels created by adding one pass are high enough as to be audible.

If the XFi's DAC function is not audibly transparent then the extra pass makes it more distorted still.

Either way there's a clear action that causes a reaction that is audible.

I just don't see this as revelatory. It's interesting though.

OK, it may have been a ropey old Soundblaster (was it ropey and old?)

2005 and with a transparent DAC, allegedly.

but it was an AB'able difference! What if those subtle differences add up to a better sound?

The subtle differences added up to a more distorted sound, but they were not real-world differences, they were a consequence of a test that used the sound card in ways not intended for.

You won't have to worry about these differences if using a transparent DAC, as a DAC, without the loop and extra pass/es.

You've already found this out for yourself!

OK, speakers make more obvious differences, but approach the whole thing with an open mind and think for yourself

I always do.

beyond the mantra others may feed you from either side.

Always do, and I hope you do too?

To be clear (how many times do I have to type those words!) I'm not suggesting you're a stooge or what-have-you, but you do seem to believe what the "first guy" said to the exclusion of all the experiences and advice you may be receiving ever since...

Ian, it's not about believing or repeating what the first guy said. I most certainly do temper what I think I know with new information, wouldn't one be a little stifled if in life they didn't do that?

What I'm still not seeing is what may have come out of this thread that may be a catalyst for change, or even contemplation? I genuinely just don't get what all the fuss is about.

The thread was started by a guy who sells the notion of differences for a living, and we've found some differences using ABX, but these differences exist and seem to be explainable.

Differences between DACs may exist too, though there's no need for this to be the case these days and indeed you've found it isn't with the DACs you've tested.

I think you're drawing an illogical conclusion from all of this, i.e., I've heard differences between A and C, because of B, so maybe X differs too, because of B, even though B isn't used with X, so I'll have to re-check.

With the greatest of respect (genuine), while I appreciate your open-mindedness I think your very decent nature has allowed you to be a touch manipulated by the thinly veiled commercial interest of others.
 
Ethan tells me that the D/A function of the XFi is transparent. Can you prove otherwise?

Any other DAC that is also transparent will sound the same, including yours, if it's transparent. Can you prove otherwise?

Some may measure further below transparency than others and thus will not jump into audibility as fast in comparison when put in a loop for multiple passes.
Can you prove otherwise?

You're the DAC designer, give us something more than hand-waving. What can you tell me that will convince me that current scientific understanding is wrong?

Off you go now, good lad...
I was hoping you would do some of your own thinking & come to some logical conclusions but I guess not.

So, let's see - we have proof that 1 pass through the XFi is audible.
Winer says the D/A is transparent so:
- either the A/D's distortion added to the D/A's distortion brings the cumulative distortion above the audible threshold, right?
- Wait I haven't added in the distortion of all the other devices/cables in the audio chain

So, it might just be possible that one "transparent" DAC in a system sounds different to another because the cumulative distortion in the audio chain is different? Do you comprende?

Or maybe Winer's single figure transparency measurements are rubbish?

Edit: I see others have answered you too along the same lines
 
With the greatest of respect (genuine), while I appreciate your open-mindedness I think you're very decent nature has allowed you to be a touch manipulated by the thinly veiled commercial interest of others.

Ian, don't forget to wear that necklace of garlic & sleep with a crucifix under your pillow. Oh, & sprinkle yuorself with holy water every time you look at PFM
 
So, it might just be possible that one "transparent" DAC in a system sounds different to another because the cumulative distortion in the audio chain is different? Do you comprende?
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally have the reason for this part of the investigation.

DACs differ, is what's being sold - line up if you're buying based on the sound-blaster experiments.

John, must we wait 600 pages for the motive for the other tests, or am I correct in saying it's high-res is better?

I'm struggling to see what angle you've got for ABX testing working so well though. Was that an unintended consequence?
 
Max,

I think Winer has some questions to answer, so could you email him again with a synopsis of the findings here?

At worst, he's disproved his own thesis, at best he's cast a shadow on it that requires investigation. I don't think a response such as "it was a cheap DAC" works, do you?
 
...I think your very decent nature has allowed you to be a touch manipulated by the thinly veiled commercial interest of others.

I cherry picked this one comment as the rest of your post would take more time to respond to than I have right now...

Don't confuse decency (thanks for what I consider to be a great compliment) with an inability to think for oneself. I'm no soft touch, just open-minded!

As I said before, the sighted preference for the Vibe (pre-amp - not phono stage as I think was confused somewhere above), despite blind tests revealing nothing, does suggest to be that whilst still a useful tool a DBT negative is not a conclusive result.
 
Max,

I think Winer has some questions to answer, so could you email him again with a synopsis of the findings here?

At worst, he's disproved his own thesis, at best he's cast a shadow on it that requires investigation. I don't think a response such as "it was a cheap DAC" works, do you?

Avole, I'm happy to fire off a few questions to him if people would like to agree on them.
 
I cherry picked this one comment as the rest of your post would take more time to respond to than I have right now...

Don't confuse decency (thanks for what I consider to be a great compliment) with an inability to think for oneself. I'm no soft touch, just open-minded!

No worries :)

As I said before, the sighted preference for the Vibe (pre-amp - not phono stage as I think was confused somewhere above), despite blind tests revealing nothing, does suggest to be that whilst still a useful tool a DBT negative is not a conclusive result.

A sighted preference for something is fine, but not being able to find audible reasons for said preference via blind testing is no reflection on blind testing as a methodology.

All blind testing can do in this instance is help you to find out whether your preference is related to sound quality, or not.

Yours may not be, but that aint blind testings fault ;)
 
Could you summarise his findings - or point those of use with short memories at them?
Ian, I'd rather not, I'm sick of looking at this pooter screen :)

If anyone's interested, please post questions here and I'll fire them off later.
 
Ladies and gentlemen, we finally have the reason for this part of the investigation.

DACs differ, is what's being sold - line up if you're buying based on the sound-blaster experiments.

John, must we wait 600 pages for the motive for the other tests, or am I correct in saying it's high-res is better?

I'm struggling to see what angle you've got for ABX testing working so well though. Was that an unintended consequence?

Max, you're being blinded by your overwhelming desire to trash me, it seems.
I & others have laid out the illogicality of your position. Step back for a while & think about it.
 
Ian, it's not about believing or repeating what the first guy said. I most certainly do temper what I think I know with new information, wouldn't one be a little stifled if in life they didn't do that?

How can new information happen if no tests are attempted?
FWIW I have no interest in testing of DACs because unless they're rubbish, they'll sound identical as distortion will be below audibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top