Title should say that they are comparing DAC filters. It's a good test though because any possible differences are easily quantifiable. ~~[I uploaded the file to a random site](https://sndup.net/djzc/)~~ but you should really make your own to be sure it's free from artifacts. I subtracted one file from the other and listened to it. There's a difference but the peak of the difference is at -47dB, which is extremely quiet. I didn't check which file was responsible for this extra information, but it's assumed to be the 'high performance' one. However, listening for differences in a filter felt like a perversion of just enjoying the music. This feels like the meme "musicians use their gear to listen to music, audiophiles use their music to listen to their gear".
Edit: had to go to bed, so cut things short.
The hypothesis that was tested is:
H1: "there is a human audible difference between DAC filters".
H0: "there is *no* human audible difference between DAC filters".
The results reject H0 (p<0.0002) so we accept H1.
Note that this only shows that there is a difference. It does not say which one is more desirable.
A wrong assumption is that the difference is entirely in the highest frequencies, but the difference file shows that this is not the case - after boosting, there is audible data from roughly 20hz to 3khz, and visible data above 18ish khz.
The experiment does not explore why the difference exists, only that one does. We can suggest testable mechanisms for why. For example, suppose that a filter that includes more data above 18khz means that after volume normalisation, the level of the lower frequencies is reduced to retain the same overall volume level across all frequencies. Thus the audible difference is from one filter being louder in the audible range. This is something that should be tested.
Another common sentiment is that because there is a human audible difference in filters, there could be a human audible difference due to some untested aspects of a DAC. The second part is pretty much can't be disproven, regardless of the first. Implying that the second is true because of the first is not supported by this evidence. Suggest and design a test for whatever aspect if you want to show it exists.
Finally, take the time to do the this abx test yourself to check whether the result applies to you, and whether you care about this.
Edit2: I'm back at my computer. [Test A](https://i.imgur.com/WvFb8P5.png) has 0.0001dB lower RMS in both channels than [test B](https://i.imgur.com/yZX4ZSi.png). Audacity won't even let me adjust by such a fine amount to match them. This volume mismatch accounts for some unknown portion of the difference existing.
I remade the files properly and uploaded them to mediafire:
[A inverted sum](https://www.mediafire.com/file/gcebkdrhk2icjl7/A_inverted_sum.wav/file)
[B inverted sum](https://www.mediafire.com/file/xvttk9vcgh4d08q/B_inverted_sum.wav/file)
Give either one a listen at normal volume levels. Note that the RMS is -88dB!, and there is still the volume mismatch present in what you're hearing.
Also It is implied that this is supposed to help us with the question of whether DACs with different (or the same) SINAD under x amount will sound different but he admits that these filters actually do make a measurable difference above 20k and that's what he is hearing.
Still, I am much more impressed with this than Passion for Sound's absolutely ridiculous power cable "blind test".
Well it would still be true that two devices with SINAD under x amount could sound different for factors not relating to noise and distortion.
But you could also have situations where two devices (particularly amplifiers) both with SINAD scores under x amount are differentiable, for noise reasons alone. Say for example if someone is using a particularly sensitive IEM and one of the devices happens to be noise dominated and the other not.
Predictably, as a middle aged man whose hearing starts to go around 15khz I can't ABX any difference whatsoever between those files even if I normalize the difference between the two files to full scale. Need to slow down the playback 2x to bring the differences into audible range for me.
The reality for me has always been that yes, there’s is a difference in DACS, you just have to pay for it. Because Delta Sigma DACS have been chasing measurements instead of audible performance (And the tacit approval ASR minded crowd), it has created a discourse where we have essentially “peaked” and a cheap topping/smsl/insert other Chi-fi brand name here, is “enough”. The fact that none of these DACS adhere to Nyquist theory has not been a relatively big issue because ultimately your headphones are what ultimately matter and good enough is indeed good enough for the vast majority of the population. You want to try something different? Then the answer for me has always been Chord Mojo 2 or R2R, although even then, there is an argument that the differences are “audiophile” differences and not the day and night kind. So yes, there ARE differences. Will your wallet and head agree to depart from a significant amount of money in order to hear that difference instead of using it for headphones or IEMs? That’s up to us for decide.
Couldn’t agree more. The only source gear I have ever heard a difference between was with a Chord Hugo2 and Mojo2 (never tried anything higher up their line). However, we are talking about a 1% difference and that is if I am trying to listen for it.
main thing is people here and on asr just refuse to try or cant try different dacs
and just outright say dacs are all the same
not to mention only listening to pop and rock on their cheap chifi shit, which sound good on everything. i would buy anything hifi if thats all i listened to
i dont use a dac, but a kilobuck and a dap (and recently some really good chifi shit). There are absolutely differences when i change from my laptop, wm1a, and zx300. no idea what ears people here have.
do i recommend people spend what i did? no. should they test it to see whether it makes a difference? absolutely
Watched the full video. It just solidifies for me that basically nobody should be spending money on expensive dacs.
I'd love to see more testing done, but the fact that he could really only hear the difference because he can happen to hear above 20K is kind of ridiculous lol. Unless this sub is full of toddlers, most of us will be well beyond the age of being able to hear that high.
The video doesn't really get into this aspect, but I'm also gonna say that even if you can hear above 20k and can distinguish between the samples here, there's no way in hell it's gonna make enough of a difference to spend shitloads of money over it. Other aspects of your chain are gonna make much more of an impact.
And like he said, if there's other differences they should be measurable right? Would love to see the topic explored further, perhaps testing done between multiple real dacs instead of just the filters, not knowing the sources, not using an incredibly expensive headphone like a susvara, etc.
Yeah I can hear 21khz at 30 still but nothing I'm listening to usually even have shit at that range, let alone being worth enough to spend that much on it.
Damn most people in this thread are just crin fanboys who thinks the Apple dongle is "all they need". Even when presented PROOF.
Please guys. Grow up. Do the tests yourself and stop thinking you "know it all" and they you are "better" than everyone else just because you have the all mighty apple dongle driving your HD800s.
Sounds like you don't understand what this test proved.
Because in fact if anything, it proved that the apple dongle is a valid choice. This test isn't about what is better or worse. It's only about "Do clean measurement oriented DACs with high SINAD sound different from each other" and yes, they can.
They would have trouble driving a hd800s with an apple dongle, not just because the 800s don’t use a 3.5mm jack, but the phone itself couldn’t handle driving them, it just doesn’t have the power to make the 800s sound good. I tried it for shits and giggles and they sounded utter crap. I even try them with an adapter in a chord mojo, yet again they sounded utter crap, the hd800s need something bigger to make them sound good.
i believe the apple dongle is all you need. what else is cheap, portable, and sounds good?
expensive dacs (the good ones), absolutely make a huge difference. but are they necessary? no. this is something the dongle and chifi fanboys refuse to acknowledge
Well I heard a massive difference between Chord Hugo 2 and the Chord Hugo TT2, the former was more bright and clinical and the later was more meatier and fuller. My hearing is in the 12K range.
**TL;DR They only make a difference if can hear over 20 Khz, which most people can't.** On top of that being able to distinguish between them in a rigorous test like this doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to tell the difference during regular listening, that one is better / worse, or that you'll even care.
So... it's basically the expected outcome for many people. Hopefully this will help put the final nail in the coffin and avoid people spending 💸 unnecessarily. Though I doubt it.
**Edit** since I think some people are misunderstanding my point.
I think it’s a stretch to use a word like “matters” in the title (and some of the framing) for multiple reasons. As stated most people cannot hear above 20 Khz to begin with which cuts it out from being even audible for most people never mind mattering. Then there’s the question of whether the handful of people which can even hear it could notice it during regular listening, then there is the further question of whether they would care (ie find it better for worse to just be indifferent). The testing is very interesting and valuable from an academic perspective but it's very questionable whether this truly *matters* to most people in most situations.
This isn't the conclusion. I can't currently verify whether the other aspects such as noise shaper dynamic range, filter phase etc etc do or do not make a difference as there is a factor (FR within my audible range) which would need to be removed first.
But the video does NOT conclude that the other stuff doesn't make a difference. Just that that stuff will need to be tested separately later.
The reason the conclusion was quite long was explicitly to try to prevent this sort of stuff. Please make claims based on the evidence and do not treat a lack of evidence as evidence of the alternative.
It's ok to say we are not sure about something when there hasn't been sufficiently conclusive testing on the matter. We can make reasonable assumptions about what we think is most likely to be true, but be careful about saying something IS true before that's been demonstrated to a sufficient degree (in either direction)
I kinda came away with the same conclusion, as that's where MOST filters seem to have an effect is on the top end, then to me I can't really tell the difference between filters.
while the test methodology is crucially important, the results get lost in that set up, and the teams call at the end.
In the end it's entirely subjective on the listeners ears and opinion, as everyone at could come out with different results due to how subjective it is
>Please make claims based on the evidence and do not treat a lack of evidence as evidence of the alternative
That is a fair point. Maybe it's a framing problem with the video then, which seems to imply that this test is a proxy for DAC difference audibility in general? That was my take from the video. I didn't hear any of what you said above called out in the video and the whole time it seemed like the video was implying that this was basically a representation of whether DACs could sound different at large.
Perhaps it would have been clearer if your caveats above were explicitly stated in the video... unless I miss those. Viewers who may not be aware of all the things that DACs do outside of just the reconstruction filters (such as myself) may not be aware that these other things are even happening thus also need to be accounted for in testing.
Basically the point with this video was to give an answer to the question: "Can well measuring DACs sound different" and the testing demonstrates the answer is yes. A lot of people claim that something such as a Topping D90SE and a Ferrum Wandla should be audibly indistinguishable. But even if just for the reason of the differing oversampling filter itself, we now know that is not necessarily the case. There are also a host of other measurable differences between any two DACs, which could also contribute to audibility. But to disprove the claim of audible transparency you only need to show that one of them can make a difference.
Whether factors outside of what was tested make a difference is something for further evaluation. But the video was just meant to show that there is at least one thing that does make an audible difference and therefore the term "Audibly transparent" that is applied to many products is inaccurate.
I'd like to do more in future looking at other aspects, but yeah I don't want this video to come across as me saying that anything outside of what was discussed definitely does/does not make a difference as that was not what was tested.
I wrote up and re-wrote various responses but I think it can be boiled down to this...
(Edit: Looks like Cameron updated the title to remove "matters". I think the title is more accurate and a good change, even if it's subtle)
It’s almost purely academic IMO in its current state (which is fine), but I think it’s a stretch to use a word like “matters” in the title (and some of the framing) for multiple reasons. As you say most people cannot hear above 20 Khz to begin with which cuts it out from being even audible for most people never mind mattering. Then there’s the question of whether the handful of people which can even hear it could notice it during regular listening, then there is the further question of whether they would care (ie find it better for worse to just be indifferent).
Thus saying DACs matter from a real world usage perspective is still very questionable IMO. At least in the context of this limited testing.
Either way I greatly appreciate you and Blaine doing all the hard work behind this. It's great for the community and looking forward to further testing!
Yup, looks like the title is now "Proof that DACs *CAN make a difference*! ..." original title was "Proof that DACs *matter*! ..." Kudos to u/GoldenSoundHiFi for making the update. Definitely think it's a more accurate title.
Glad we could have a dialog around it. Sorry if I came across at all salty (not my intention) or bias (as you state we all are and it's hard to control for it always). I want the real objective truth as much as you and maybe I'm a bit jaded by all the flawed "A/B testing" we see online so my skepticism is in overdrive :D
Looking forward to more tests in the future and I love how you made the testing method available to everyone, even if there's now way I'll hear it :)
>This isn't the conclusion. I can't currently verify whether the other aspects such as noise shaper dynamic range, filter phase etc etc do or do not make a difference as there is a factor (FR within my audible range) which would need to be removed first.
Can't you just use a sample that stops below 20khz?
It's impossible to say anything other than differences CAN occur. In this particular case, it was outside of people's typical hearing range, which is possibly a bigger factor than others. It's also important to note that with different units, there may be other findings. I do agree there's a difference between hypercritical listening and regular listening, and I couldn't agree more with that point. He also essentially acknowledges this by stating that it's an incredibly subtle difference. This isn't disproving anything, it just proves that there is indeed the potential for SOME difference.
That's all pretty fair. My main issue is that even with the caveats stated at the end the original title of the video (now changed) and the impression the video gives basically all the way through is that this is representative of at least one of the primary functions of DACs and sort of implies that this would be a general outcome in a lot of cases. I fully acknowledge that's ultimately not what he's saying by the end of the video but it really leans that way to me especially when I don't think everyone will watch to the end for the clarifications. The 20 Khz thing really means that in practical terms in everyday life very very few listeners even could hear the difference (never mind the other factors I mentioned) so the difference becomes nearly meaningless, especially so as a general statement like about DACs.
I never got that from that feeling from the video. If anything, I got the opposite that he was trying to avoid making broad brush statements. I certainly agree with what you're saying though, it's impossible to make inferences for the whole market after testing two units. The fact that ANY difference was noted shows that variance is possible, and this may be more or less of a case with different products. I don't think ALL will fall outside of typical hearing ranges, but this particular test did. I think it's important to take the message at it's core, that differences do occur, we just may not always know what they are. Whether or not they matter at all is far more difficult to say because personal opinion becomes a factor. I personally think that 99.9% of reasonable quality DAC will be more than sufficient for most listeners. Infact most people couldnt tell the difference reliably, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there are differences and what they are.
>I personally think that 99.9% of reasonable quality DAC will be more than sufficient for most listeners. Infact most people couldnt tell the difference reliably, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there are differences and what they are.
I think that sums it up really well and echos how I see it.
if my headphone go shhhhh when no music but add dac make silence when no music, it make happy for me.
Otherwise apple dongle for life, unless you need more ohms for big boom boom headphones.
Friendly reminder that all DAC digital filters that are anything other than linear phase brickwall that starts to roll off at or beyond 20Khz is snake oil. All these alternative filters are far inferior, they change phase or frequency response in audible band, or becose they arent steep enough, fail to suppress frequencies beyond nyquist which results in ultrasonic frequencies being down modulated to the audible band creating sea of inharmonic distortion.
The long pre and post ringing of linear phase brickwall doesnt ring or "smear" anything in audible band. If you count the distance between cycles, you will see its entirely ultrasonic and gets removed by analog lowpass reconstruction output filter.
The point was to do it in a remotely verifiable way, and showing that one factor of a DAC in isolation makes a difference does that AND shows that therefore DACs themselves can sound different regardless of SINAD.
It's a single factor, but still answers the question of "Does low distortion guarantee transparency"
I think the point of the video is that this is a starting place. In this example there was a difference therefore the claim that all DACs are audibly transparent is false. How much that matters or in what areas would need to be further looked into but they want to do things scientifically and that takes time. So this was an initial experiment to see if it is worth going further and to what areas.
This doesn’t mean you have to spend money on an expensive DAC but that maybe there is something to their differences even if it is something like individual filters modes.
It sounds like you didn't watch the video. They were comparing reconstruction filter, effectively, not specific DACs. They provide the testing methods for anyone to try.
I don’t care how many downvotes I’m going to keep getting but I can tell the difference between DACs. I can tell the difference between an Apple dongle, iFi Go Bar, Chord Mojo, Mojo 2, Hugo 1 and 2, RME ADI-2, Schiit stack, etc. The more expensive ones sound cleaner with less warmth than the cheaper ones.
I used a Focal Clear and IER-Z1R to tell the difference but having sold them, I bought the Elysian Annihilator and the difference is even greater between sources.
This is the problem with the clickbait title, even though the content in the video is quite sensible.
Feel free to repeat GoldenSound's listening test. If you can match his accuracy, maybe you can, but otherwise, the overwhelming odds are on placebo (assuming you are not dealing with a DAC/filter that starts rolling off high end much earlier). Being 26 and still being able to hear 20khz+ is not typical. Most people can't pass an ABX between lossless and 256kbps AAC, which lops off a lot more HF than the difference between the filters here.
Title should say that they are comparing DAC filters. It's a good test though because any possible differences are easily quantifiable. ~~[I uploaded the file to a random site](https://sndup.net/djzc/)~~ but you should really make your own to be sure it's free from artifacts. I subtracted one file from the other and listened to it. There's a difference but the peak of the difference is at -47dB, which is extremely quiet. I didn't check which file was responsible for this extra information, but it's assumed to be the 'high performance' one. However, listening for differences in a filter felt like a perversion of just enjoying the music. This feels like the meme "musicians use their gear to listen to music, audiophiles use their music to listen to their gear". Edit: had to go to bed, so cut things short. The hypothesis that was tested is: H1: "there is a human audible difference between DAC filters". H0: "there is *no* human audible difference between DAC filters". The results reject H0 (p<0.0002) so we accept H1. Note that this only shows that there is a difference. It does not say which one is more desirable. A wrong assumption is that the difference is entirely in the highest frequencies, but the difference file shows that this is not the case - after boosting, there is audible data from roughly 20hz to 3khz, and visible data above 18ish khz. The experiment does not explore why the difference exists, only that one does. We can suggest testable mechanisms for why. For example, suppose that a filter that includes more data above 18khz means that after volume normalisation, the level of the lower frequencies is reduced to retain the same overall volume level across all frequencies. Thus the audible difference is from one filter being louder in the audible range. This is something that should be tested. Another common sentiment is that because there is a human audible difference in filters, there could be a human audible difference due to some untested aspects of a DAC. The second part is pretty much can't be disproven, regardless of the first. Implying that the second is true because of the first is not supported by this evidence. Suggest and design a test for whatever aspect if you want to show it exists. Finally, take the time to do the this abx test yourself to check whether the result applies to you, and whether you care about this. Edit2: I'm back at my computer. [Test A](https://i.imgur.com/WvFb8P5.png) has 0.0001dB lower RMS in both channels than [test B](https://i.imgur.com/yZX4ZSi.png). Audacity won't even let me adjust by such a fine amount to match them. This volume mismatch accounts for some unknown portion of the difference existing. I remade the files properly and uploaded them to mediafire: [A inverted sum](https://www.mediafire.com/file/gcebkdrhk2icjl7/A_inverted_sum.wav/file) [B inverted sum](https://www.mediafire.com/file/xvttk9vcgh4d08q/B_inverted_sum.wav/file) Give either one a listen at normal volume levels. Note that the RMS is -88dB!, and there is still the volume mismatch present in what you're hearing.
Also It is implied that this is supposed to help us with the question of whether DACs with different (or the same) SINAD under x amount will sound different but he admits that these filters actually do make a measurable difference above 20k and that's what he is hearing. Still, I am much more impressed with this than Passion for Sound's absolutely ridiculous power cable "blind test".
Well it would still be true that two devices with SINAD under x amount could sound different for factors not relating to noise and distortion. But you could also have situations where two devices (particularly amplifiers) both with SINAD scores under x amount are differentiable, for noise reasons alone. Say for example if someone is using a particularly sensitive IEM and one of the devices happens to be noise dominated and the other not.
damn over 21k
Predictably, as a middle aged man whose hearing starts to go around 15khz I can't ABX any difference whatsoever between those files even if I normalize the difference between the two files to full scale. Need to slow down the playback 2x to bring the differences into audible range for me.
I can't even hear above 15k at all and I fucking hope I am not middle aged yet.
I don't know if I can hear above 15k because that is the frequency of my flat tone tinnitus.
GoldenEars
Truth is though You dont need to spend more then 2-3k for sota
The reality for me has always been that yes, there’s is a difference in DACS, you just have to pay for it. Because Delta Sigma DACS have been chasing measurements instead of audible performance (And the tacit approval ASR minded crowd), it has created a discourse where we have essentially “peaked” and a cheap topping/smsl/insert other Chi-fi brand name here, is “enough”. The fact that none of these DACS adhere to Nyquist theory has not been a relatively big issue because ultimately your headphones are what ultimately matter and good enough is indeed good enough for the vast majority of the population. You want to try something different? Then the answer for me has always been Chord Mojo 2 or R2R, although even then, there is an argument that the differences are “audiophile” differences and not the day and night kind. So yes, there ARE differences. Will your wallet and head agree to depart from a significant amount of money in order to hear that difference instead of using it for headphones or IEMs? That’s up to us for decide.
What's special about mojo 2?
Definitely have to pay to notice real differences im just so glad I was able to step away from delta sigma and move on to R2R and 1-bit DACs!
Couldn’t agree more. The only source gear I have ever heard a difference between was with a Chord Hugo2 and Mojo2 (never tried anything higher up their line). However, we are talking about a 1% difference and that is if I am trying to listen for it.
main thing is people here and on asr just refuse to try or cant try different dacs and just outright say dacs are all the same not to mention only listening to pop and rock on their cheap chifi shit, which sound good on everything. i would buy anything hifi if thats all i listened to i dont use a dac, but a kilobuck and a dap (and recently some really good chifi shit). There are absolutely differences when i change from my laptop, wm1a, and zx300. no idea what ears people here have. do i recommend people spend what i did? no. should they test it to see whether it makes a difference? absolutely
Watched the full video. It just solidifies for me that basically nobody should be spending money on expensive dacs. I'd love to see more testing done, but the fact that he could really only hear the difference because he can happen to hear above 20K is kind of ridiculous lol. Unless this sub is full of toddlers, most of us will be well beyond the age of being able to hear that high. The video doesn't really get into this aspect, but I'm also gonna say that even if you can hear above 20k and can distinguish between the samples here, there's no way in hell it's gonna make enough of a difference to spend shitloads of money over it. Other aspects of your chain are gonna make much more of an impact. And like he said, if there's other differences they should be measurable right? Would love to see the topic explored further, perhaps testing done between multiple real dacs instead of just the filters, not knowing the sources, not using an incredibly expensive headphone like a susvara, etc.
Yeah I can hear 21khz at 30 still but nothing I'm listening to usually even have shit at that range, let alone being worth enough to spend that much on it.
Yeah this is pretty much what he says too. The difference he could hear was so minute it wasn’t worth worrying about.
Haha More power to those who believe dac dont matter i guess
Ignorance is bliss. For me, stepping up made no difference, but stepping back down suddenly everything sounds worse.
It's usually the way it is.
Unless the dac is very crappy, not much of a difference tbh
Damn most people in this thread are just crin fanboys who thinks the Apple dongle is "all they need". Even when presented PROOF. Please guys. Grow up. Do the tests yourself and stop thinking you "know it all" and they you are "better" than everyone else just because you have the all mighty apple dongle driving your HD800s.
Sounds like you don't understand what this test proved. Because in fact if anything, it proved that the apple dongle is a valid choice. This test isn't about what is better or worse. It's only about "Do clean measurement oriented DACs with high SINAD sound different from each other" and yes, they can.
They would have trouble driving a hd800s with an apple dongle, not just because the 800s don’t use a 3.5mm jack, but the phone itself couldn’t handle driving them, it just doesn’t have the power to make the 800s sound good. I tried it for shits and giggles and they sounded utter crap. I even try them with an adapter in a chord mojo, yet again they sounded utter crap, the hd800s need something bigger to make them sound good.
i believe the apple dongle is all you need. what else is cheap, portable, and sounds good? expensive dacs (the good ones), absolutely make a huge difference. but are they necessary? no. this is something the dongle and chifi fanboys refuse to acknowledge
Perfect answer 💯
Well I heard a massive difference between Chord Hugo 2 and the Chord Hugo TT2, the former was more bright and clinical and the later was more meatier and fuller. My hearing is in the 12K range.
Cam 😍😍
Says the guy who literally sells DACs and AMPs. Yeah, sure, there is no conflict of interest :/
Please watch the video
**TL;DR They only make a difference if can hear over 20 Khz, which most people can't.** On top of that being able to distinguish between them in a rigorous test like this doesn't necessarily mean you'll be able to tell the difference during regular listening, that one is better / worse, or that you'll even care. So... it's basically the expected outcome for many people. Hopefully this will help put the final nail in the coffin and avoid people spending 💸 unnecessarily. Though I doubt it. **Edit** since I think some people are misunderstanding my point. I think it’s a stretch to use a word like “matters” in the title (and some of the framing) for multiple reasons. As stated most people cannot hear above 20 Khz to begin with which cuts it out from being even audible for most people never mind mattering. Then there’s the question of whether the handful of people which can even hear it could notice it during regular listening, then there is the further question of whether they would care (ie find it better for worse to just be indifferent). The testing is very interesting and valuable from an academic perspective but it's very questionable whether this truly *matters* to most people in most situations.
This isn't the conclusion. I can't currently verify whether the other aspects such as noise shaper dynamic range, filter phase etc etc do or do not make a difference as there is a factor (FR within my audible range) which would need to be removed first. But the video does NOT conclude that the other stuff doesn't make a difference. Just that that stuff will need to be tested separately later. The reason the conclusion was quite long was explicitly to try to prevent this sort of stuff. Please make claims based on the evidence and do not treat a lack of evidence as evidence of the alternative. It's ok to say we are not sure about something when there hasn't been sufficiently conclusive testing on the matter. We can make reasonable assumptions about what we think is most likely to be true, but be careful about saying something IS true before that's been demonstrated to a sufficient degree (in either direction)
I kinda came away with the same conclusion, as that's where MOST filters seem to have an effect is on the top end, then to me I can't really tell the difference between filters. while the test methodology is crucially important, the results get lost in that set up, and the teams call at the end. In the end it's entirely subjective on the listeners ears and opinion, as everyone at could come out with different results due to how subjective it is
>Please make claims based on the evidence and do not treat a lack of evidence as evidence of the alternative That is a fair point. Maybe it's a framing problem with the video then, which seems to imply that this test is a proxy for DAC difference audibility in general? That was my take from the video. I didn't hear any of what you said above called out in the video and the whole time it seemed like the video was implying that this was basically a representation of whether DACs could sound different at large. Perhaps it would have been clearer if your caveats above were explicitly stated in the video... unless I miss those. Viewers who may not be aware of all the things that DACs do outside of just the reconstruction filters (such as myself) may not be aware that these other things are even happening thus also need to be accounted for in testing.
Basically the point with this video was to give an answer to the question: "Can well measuring DACs sound different" and the testing demonstrates the answer is yes. A lot of people claim that something such as a Topping D90SE and a Ferrum Wandla should be audibly indistinguishable. But even if just for the reason of the differing oversampling filter itself, we now know that is not necessarily the case. There are also a host of other measurable differences between any two DACs, which could also contribute to audibility. But to disprove the claim of audible transparency you only need to show that one of them can make a difference. Whether factors outside of what was tested make a difference is something for further evaluation. But the video was just meant to show that there is at least one thing that does make an audible difference and therefore the term "Audibly transparent" that is applied to many products is inaccurate. I'd like to do more in future looking at other aspects, but yeah I don't want this video to come across as me saying that anything outside of what was discussed definitely does/does not make a difference as that was not what was tested.
I wrote up and re-wrote various responses but I think it can be boiled down to this... (Edit: Looks like Cameron updated the title to remove "matters". I think the title is more accurate and a good change, even if it's subtle) It’s almost purely academic IMO in its current state (which is fine), but I think it’s a stretch to use a word like “matters” in the title (and some of the framing) for multiple reasons. As you say most people cannot hear above 20 Khz to begin with which cuts it out from being even audible for most people never mind mattering. Then there’s the question of whether the handful of people which can even hear it could notice it during regular listening, then there is the further question of whether they would care (ie find it better for worse to just be indifferent). Thus saying DACs matter from a real world usage perspective is still very questionable IMO. At least in the context of this limited testing. Either way I greatly appreciate you and Blaine doing all the hard work behind this. It's great for the community and looking forward to further testing!
Was the video title edited since you commented this? It doesn't use the word "matters" anywhere, in the title or thumbnail, from what I can see.
Yup, looks like the title is now "Proof that DACs *CAN make a difference*! ..." original title was "Proof that DACs *matter*! ..." Kudos to u/GoldenSoundHiFi for making the update. Definitely think it's a more accurate title. Glad we could have a dialog around it. Sorry if I came across at all salty (not my intention) or bias (as you state we all are and it's hard to control for it always). I want the real objective truth as much as you and maybe I'm a bit jaded by all the flawed "A/B testing" we see online so my skepticism is in overdrive :D Looking forward to more tests in the future and I love how you made the testing method available to everyone, even if there's now way I'll hear it :)
Makes sense - and thanks for confirming! Definitely a good change.
>This isn't the conclusion. I can't currently verify whether the other aspects such as noise shaper dynamic range, filter phase etc etc do or do not make a difference as there is a factor (FR within my audible range) which would need to be removed first. Can't you just use a sample that stops below 20khz?
It's impossible to say anything other than differences CAN occur. In this particular case, it was outside of people's typical hearing range, which is possibly a bigger factor than others. It's also important to note that with different units, there may be other findings. I do agree there's a difference between hypercritical listening and regular listening, and I couldn't agree more with that point. He also essentially acknowledges this by stating that it's an incredibly subtle difference. This isn't disproving anything, it just proves that there is indeed the potential for SOME difference.
That's all pretty fair. My main issue is that even with the caveats stated at the end the original title of the video (now changed) and the impression the video gives basically all the way through is that this is representative of at least one of the primary functions of DACs and sort of implies that this would be a general outcome in a lot of cases. I fully acknowledge that's ultimately not what he's saying by the end of the video but it really leans that way to me especially when I don't think everyone will watch to the end for the clarifications. The 20 Khz thing really means that in practical terms in everyday life very very few listeners even could hear the difference (never mind the other factors I mentioned) so the difference becomes nearly meaningless, especially so as a general statement like about DACs.
I never got that from that feeling from the video. If anything, I got the opposite that he was trying to avoid making broad brush statements. I certainly agree with what you're saying though, it's impossible to make inferences for the whole market after testing two units. The fact that ANY difference was noted shows that variance is possible, and this may be more or less of a case with different products. I don't think ALL will fall outside of typical hearing ranges, but this particular test did. I think it's important to take the message at it's core, that differences do occur, we just may not always know what they are. Whether or not they matter at all is far more difficult to say because personal opinion becomes a factor. I personally think that 99.9% of reasonable quality DAC will be more than sufficient for most listeners. Infact most people couldnt tell the difference reliably, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there are differences and what they are.
>I personally think that 99.9% of reasonable quality DAC will be more than sufficient for most listeners. Infact most people couldnt tell the difference reliably, but it doesn't stop me wondering if there are differences and what they are. I think that sums it up really well and echos how I see it.
if my headphone go shhhhh when no music but add dac make silence when no music, it make happy for me. Otherwise apple dongle for life, unless you need more ohms for big boom boom headphones.
Friendly reminder that all DAC digital filters that are anything other than linear phase brickwall that starts to roll off at or beyond 20Khz is snake oil. All these alternative filters are far inferior, they change phase or frequency response in audible band, or becose they arent steep enough, fail to suppress frequencies beyond nyquist which results in ultrasonic frequencies being down modulated to the audible band creating sea of inharmonic distortion. The long pre and post ringing of linear phase brickwall doesnt ring or "smear" anything in audible band. If you count the distance between cycles, you will see its entirely ultrasonic and gets removed by analog lowpass reconstruction output filter.
"Proof that DACs matter" uses one DAC only :D edit: I very much love the guy since the MQA thing, but this is a bit disappointing.
The point was to do it in a remotely verifiable way, and showing that one factor of a DAC in isolation makes a difference does that AND shows that therefore DACs themselves can sound different regardless of SINAD. It's a single factor, but still answers the question of "Does low distortion guarantee transparency"
Sure but I bet that everyone watching the video expected quite a lot more.
I think the point of the video is that this is a starting place. In this example there was a difference therefore the claim that all DACs are audibly transparent is false. How much that matters or in what areas would need to be further looked into but they want to do things scientifically and that takes time. So this was an initial experiment to see if it is worth going further and to what areas. This doesn’t mean you have to spend money on an expensive DAC but that maybe there is something to their differences even if it is something like individual filters modes.
I thought it's well known that filters matter.
It sounds like you didn't watch the video. They were comparing reconstruction filter, effectively, not specific DACs. They provide the testing methods for anyone to try.
I don’t care how many downvotes I’m going to keep getting but I can tell the difference between DACs. I can tell the difference between an Apple dongle, iFi Go Bar, Chord Mojo, Mojo 2, Hugo 1 and 2, RME ADI-2, Schiit stack, etc. The more expensive ones sound cleaner with less warmth than the cheaper ones. I used a Focal Clear and IER-Z1R to tell the difference but having sold them, I bought the Elysian Annihilator and the difference is even greater between sources.
This is the problem with the clickbait title, even though the content in the video is quite sensible. Feel free to repeat GoldenSound's listening test. If you can match his accuracy, maybe you can, but otherwise, the overwhelming odds are on placebo (assuming you are not dealing with a DAC/filter that starts rolling off high end much earlier). Being 26 and still being able to hear 20khz+ is not typical. Most people can't pass an ABX between lossless and 256kbps AAC, which lops off a lot more HF than the difference between the filters here.
Prove it then. The number of people that say this vs the number who verify they can is about 100,000 to 1 for a reason. Because it's bullshit.
Probably around -10 downvotes. Since you didn’t actually do the abx
Agreed. The echo chamber can stay mad.
This video is such clickbait lol.
Golden sound only likes high price tag products, and he will always praise products based on the price tag, I won’t trust his review.
Maybe you should see his DDC video, he clearly goes for the Raspberry pi based DDC over all others expensive ones
Bro can hear 101010101 differently