Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Transparent Gear and Testing (Read 21014 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Hello,

I believe it is generally believed here that a $150 dac is transparent. Where are the tests to show this? Yes, I could conduct the test for myself and see if I pass or fail, but I'm looking more for a larger scale testing to see if other people can pass or fail it, rather than just myself.

Thanks.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #2 –
Quote from: saratoga on
This article might be interesting to you:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-e...audio,3733.html


I think their conclusion goes a BIT too far.  The 77 ohm output impedance of the Realtek should be easily audible with certain headphones.  Of course, that's more of a headphone amplifier comparison, not a DAC comparison.  Actually, it might increase the bass output of the HD800's enough to be audible.  I certainly notice the difference with a 120 ohm output, but I don't know if I'd hear 77ohms.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
I'm looking more for a larger scale testing to see if other people can pass or fail it, rather than just myself.


Who do you have in mind?

Trying to "convert" audiophools to a more rigorously scientific approach is a waste of time IMO. For them, the notion that perfect fidelity could be inexpensive and even available from the likes of Target stores is simply not an acceptable reality. Too much ego/self-worth issues on the line I think.


Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #4 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: saratoga on
This article might be interesting to you:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-e...audio,3733.html


I think their conclusion goes a BIT too far.  The 77 ohm output impedance of the Realtek should be easily audible with certain headphones.  Of course, that's more of a headphone amplifier comparison, not a DAC comparison. 


Yeah, the headphone amp is obviously crap at 77 ohms, but its not really made to drive headphones, and the DAC is fine for powered speakers. 


Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #5 –
Quote from: saratoga on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: saratoga on
This article might be interesting to you:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-e...audio,3733.html


I think their conclusion goes a BIT too far.  The 77 ohm output impedance of the Realtek should be easily audible with certain headphones.  Of course, that's more of a headphone amplifier comparison, not a DAC comparison. 


Yeah, the headphone amp is obviously crap at 77 ohms, but its not really made to drive headphones, and the DAC is fine for powered speakers.


You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #6 –
Thanks for the replies guys. However, I was hoping for something of a larger scale. For example, when we do drug trials or crime statistics, we look for a much larger sample size than 2 people. I understand that doing thousands upon thousands tests like this will be impractical but I was hoping for maybe a test of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 people.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Thanks for the replies guys. However, I was hoping for something of a larger scale. For example, when we do drug trials or crime statistics, we look for a much larger sample size than 2 people. I understand that doing thousands upon thousands tests like this will be impractical but I was hoping for maybe a test of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 people.



You can't extrapolate from bench measurements + known limits of human hearing?

Do your own experiments if that's insufficient.  Because who, exactly, is going to perform (and pay for) the experiments you require?  DAC makers? Why would they?





Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #8 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Thanks for the replies guys. However, I was hoping for something of a larger scale. For example, when we do drug trials or crime statistics, we look for a much larger sample size than 2 people. I understand that doing thousands upon thousands tests like this will be impractical but I was hoping for maybe a test of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 people.



You can't extrapolate from bench measurements + known limits of human hearing?

Do your own experiments if that's insufficient.  Because who, exactly, is going to perform (and pay for) the experiments you require?  DAC makers? Why would they?

This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.
Test only 50 people? But what if the 51st one, you didn't test, could hear a difference?
Even if you tested all 7 billion humans on Earth, at the moment, how would you know that the headphones/stereo you used were adequate or that the song selection was good enough? Audiophools will never be satisfied and will always challenge any results using this methodology with their three, classic, perpetual excuses:
- you tested the wrong people
- you used inadequate peripheral gear
- your musical selections were inadequate

This is why when I challenged my Stereophool reading audiophile friend I had the foresight [pre Meyer and Moran, I might add] to make the challenge "I bet YOU can't hear a difference, and that includes under any conditions of your choice, using any gear you can get a hold of [turned out to be a >$13K, hand selected 2ch system entirely of his choice, in a dedicated, professionally designed sound room with extensive acoustical room treatments, not someone's living room], using any music of your choice, at your chosen pace, any time, any place." He lost. [But our test was of amps].

Your "test 50 people" approach is like trying to convince followers of Uri Geller that he can't bend spoons with his mental powers because these 50 random people you tested can't. It won't get you anywhere with his devotees.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #10 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.

It would be nonsensical to do a large scale study to answer the question whether $150 DACs are sonically transparent. The question itself is the problem. What would you choose as a representative example of such a DAC? Or would you want to test all of them? What kind of difference is it that you want to test the audibility of? Noise floor? Distortion? Frequency response? Phase response? Something else entirely? Undefined and usually meaningless properties like "musicality"?

A large scale study needs a well-defined and sensible research hypothesis, not a broadly worded question.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Thanks for the replies guys. However, I was hoping for something of a larger scale. For example, when we do drug trials or crime statistics, we look for a much larger sample size than 2 people. I understand that doing thousands upon thousands tests like this will be impractical but I was hoping for maybe a test of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 people.



You can't extrapolate from bench measurements + known limits of human hearing?

Do your own experiments if that's insufficient.  Because who, exactly, is going to perform (and pay for) the experiments you require?  DAC makers? Why would they?

This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.



You seem to have ignored my first (rhetorical) question.

But at least now we have a better idea of the axe you're intending to grind.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Hello,
I believe it is generally believed here that a $150 dac is transparent.

Don't speak for anyone/all else, but I can see most DACs, including $150 ones. Perhaps you mean "audibly indistinguishable vs other non-pathological DACs"? Then yes, $150 should do, unless shown otherwise.

Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Where are the tests to show this?

Show what? You've got the cart before the horse. You need only one example that violates the premise. Got one?

Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
Yes, I could conduct the test for myself and see if I pass or fail, but I'm looking more for a larger scale testing to see if other people can pass or fail it, rather than just myself.

Thanks.

Why?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #13 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


What is this in reference to?

Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.


This doesn't really make sense.  You can't determine the abilities of people to discern a difference in general by testing specific devices, so this huge test you're hoping for would be useless for your purposes.  You can do that by controlled listening tests that measure the threshold of audibility for different audio phenomena.  If you want to understand the physics of human hearing, I'd ignore device tests entirely and start reading up on the scientific literature. 

The only thing testing specific devices can really do is show you that theres not very much difference between devices, but probably you already knew that.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.


To what end? I don't think the notion of transparency from a $150 DAC such as ODAC is controversial on HA or the public at large, just a tiny subset of the population which isn't likely to accept the validity of controlled testing procedures anyhow.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #15 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.


Let's flip this on its head.

The assumption is that DACs such as the ODAC perform the task of converting digital recordings to analog signals with no audible defects or noise. It can be inferred from measurements that neither THD, stereo crosstalk, noise floor or any other parameter reaches audible levels, by a margin that is quite large.

The question should not be "can you prove that there are no audible defects", because the measurements quite clearly show that there are indeed no audible defects.

Rather, the question and burden of proof is on those who believe these measurements are wrong, and that there are indeed audible defects present when using high-quality DACs such as the ODAC. So far, no one has been able to provide any proof for these arguments, other than audiophile woo-woo. At least not in any case I know of where the measurements didn't already indicate a problem.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
This isn't about my own ability to discern a difference, it's about human beings' abilities to discern a difference in general, and whether we can just say that Odac is transparent, full stop and anybody that disagrees is wrong.


As others have pointed out, the quick summary of all generally accepted scientific evidence to date is that a DAC that measures as good as the ODAC can reasonably be expected to be totally undetectable by any human being, and not by a little.

To be more specific, the ODAC  should be able to pass a straight wire bypass test, hands down. 

A product that measured say 10 times worse can be reasonably be expected to pass the same tests. 

100 times worse, probably that too.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #17 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #18 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.


Computer noise is not shaped to those standards.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #20 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
To be more specific, the ODAC  should be able to pass a straight wire bypass test, hands down.

How would one do a straight wire bypass test with a DAC?


Obviously, an ADC needs to be added to the test setup. 

This puts the ODAC at the mercy of the quality of added ADC, but finding adequately high performing ADCs is not rocket science.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #21 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.


Computer noise is not shaped to those standards.


Which means that there may or may not be a problem.

The fact that computer noise is another 20 dB down in most cases often effectively addresses that concern.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #22 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.


Computer noise is not shaped to those standards.


Which means that there may or may not be a problem.

The fact that computer noise is another 20 dB down in most cases often effectively addresses that concern.


I don't know how you established "in most cases," but I'm planning to check my motherboard grounding...

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #23 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.


Computer noise is not shaped to those standards.


Which means that there may or may not be a problem.

The fact that computer noise is another 20 dB down in most cases often effectively addresses that concern.


I don't know how you established "in most cases,"


Over 20 years experience measuring and liotsening.


Quote
but I'm planning to check my motherboard grounding...


May help if not done right the first time.

Transparent Gear and Testing

Reply #24 –
Quote from: theriverlethe on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: theriverlethe on
You're still going to get background noise as high as -80dB or higher, which could be audible at high volume during silent passages.


As a rule, the noise floor of almost all commercial recordings is -70 dB or higher. There are a few exceptions.


The source of the noise is typically "room tone" in the recording studio or venue where the recording was made, and that usually turns out to be spectrally shaped  so as to put a lot of the noise at frequencies where the ear is not particularly sensitive.


Computer noise is not shaped to those standards.


Which page exactly are you getting those numbers from?