Connect no longer bit-perfect?

What's wrong with that is you can do the exact same thing with a DSP and/or equalizer, in an almost infinite amount of configurations, and not pay thousands of dollars for it. A DAC shouldn't be purposefully coloring the output, if it does, it is not a "pure" DAC, it's nothing but DSP snake oil easily achieved in much less deceptive (and less expensive) ways.

You can tailor the sound to make it sound similar using DSP, but that will be hiding more detail. Not saying that is a bad thing.
And there has been advances in digital playback that has improved things considerably, to believe that we can progress no more is just naive.
I agree a DAC shouldn't colour the output, but they are not perfect yet, so they do, the better DACs simply colour them less.


Who has said anything about paying thousands of dollars?
I am talking about DACs like the Meridian Explorer 2, retails at £129 (so around $149) or the Audioquest Dragonfly at £89, so around $119, both will do MQA.

I use Roon a my interface, Sonos as the endpoint is nice because it allows me to also play the compressed services Roon does not support like Spotify and Apple Music, so it is handy. What is wrong with wanting to be able to play the MQA files?

Why do the same people feel the need to come into every thread where people are asking for new features or for devices to be bit perfect and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot, all hifi and all files sound the same."

Do you go onto Porsche forums and say "You're all stupid, a Toyota will get you from A-B" or the watch forums and say "A Casio from the filling station free with a tank of gas will tell the time the same as a Rolex".
Of course they will, but some people may want more than that.

Peter, the only way one can rank the Sonos DAC against any other at any price on sound quality is via a level matched blind test, and I am yet to see one reported any where. If I do, I just might have reasons to reconsider what my ears tell me today!


Is what your ears tell you today the result of a level matched blind test?

I think it is important that we apply the same standards to ourselves as we require of others. I admit I do not always live up to this - it's difficult, requires constant vigilance, and an occasional reminder from friends 🙂

Why do the same people feel the need to come into every thread where people are asking for new features or for devices to be bit perfect and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot, all hifi and all files sound the same."

Do you go onto Porsche forums and say "You're all stupid, a Toyota will get you from A-B" or the watch forums and say "A Casio from the filling station free with a tank of gas will tell the time the same as a Rolex".
Of course they will, but some people may want more than that.

A Porsche can be objectively tested against a Toyota using scientifically valid methods and found to be a better performer. Also, if a Toyota was measured 0-60 to be faster than a Porsche (it has happened) in an objective series of tests, would you actually claim the Porsche is faster 0-60? Bottom line, give me a scientifically valid objective test of differences in quality of audio equipment and I'll back your post against any and all comers.

I'll be waiting.

As to the Rolex vs. Casio analogy, if you want to purchase audio equipment according to subjective styling or expensive decorative jewels or other materials, be my guest. I do the same with lots of purchases. However, if you claim it performs better, you better have experimental data to back up that claim.

Is what your ears tell you today the result of a level matched blind test?

I carried out an extensive one in 2011 using the Connect in analog mode and while using it to feed the digital inputs of my highish end Marantz SACD/KI Signature labelled player. In this set up, blind protocols were observed. Level matching was not done by instruments, but I don't think it was needed given the nature of the two inputs and the use of the exact same master/recording - which was Kind of Blue and Something Else, by the way. While switching back and forth, only the input selector on the SACD player was used and volume controls on the Connect or the downstream Quad 99/909 amp were not touched. Speakers used were Harbeth C7s, in the near field. But even if instrument based level matching was missing, here is my thinking on that subject - if I did not hear any differences even so, I do not see that I would have heard differences after instrument based level matching.

I confess that I haven't carried out a test on every DAC pair out there. I don't think I need to do that.

On the subject of DACs in general, a DAC is supposed to be a HiFi component in the sense of having to be audibly true to the original signal. Coloring isn't its function and DACs these days don't do this. Or so I have found.

DSP of different kinds is a different subject, and should not be used to muddy the waters of DAC quality assessments. One could just as well do this for a PSU comparison!

Why do the same people feel the need to come into every thread where people are asking for new features or for devices to be bit perfect and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot, all hifi and all files sound the same."

Do you go onto Porsche forums and say "You're all stupid, a Toyota will get you from A-B" or the watch forums and say "A Casio from the filling station free with a tank of gas will tell the time the same as a Rolex".
Of course they will, but some people may want more than that.

A Porsche can be objectively tested against a Toyota using scientifically valid methods and found to be a better performer. Also, if a Toyota was measured 0-60 to be faster than a Porsche (it has happened) in an objective series of tests, would you actually claim the Porsche is faster 0-60? Bottom line, give me a scientifically valid objective test of differences in quality of audio equipment and I'll back your post against any and all comers.

I'll be waiting.

As to the Rolex vs. Casio analogy, if you want to purchase audio equipment according to subjective styling or expensive decorative jewels or other materials, be my guest. I do the same with lots of purchases. However, if you claim it performs better, you better have experimental data to back up that claim.

I give up.

You really are missing the point.

Some people want to discuss these things, let them discuss it rather than come into the thread and derail it.

The analogy with the car was not comparing dac differences FFS! It was pointing out on every forum, no matter what the subject content is, you get silly know it all old men like yourself who ruin every thread like you guys have this one. What pleasure do you get from that?
If you don't agree with our point of view fair enough, but just keep out and let people discuss things.

Is what your ears tell you today the result of a level matched blind test?

I carried out an extensive one in 2011 using the Connect in analog mode and while using it to feed the digital inputs of my highish end Marantz SACD/KI Signature labelled player. In this set up, blind protocols were observed. Level matching was not done by instruments, but I don't think it was needed given the nature of the two inputs and the use of the exact same master/recording - which was Kind of Blue and Something Else, by the way. While switching back and forth, only the input selector on the SACD player was used and volume controls on the Connect or the downstream Quad 99/909 amp were not touched. Speakers used were Harbeth C7s, in the near field. But even if instrument based level matching was missing, here is my thinking on that subject - if I did not hear any differences even so, I do not see that I would have heard differences after instrument based level matching.

I confess that I haven't carried out a test on every DAC pair out there. I don't think I need to do that.

On the subject of DACs in general, a DAC is supposed to be a HiFi component in the sense of having to be audibly true to the original signal. Coloring isn't its function and DACs these days don't do this. Or so I have found.

DSP of different kinds is a different subject, and should not be used to muddy the waters of DAC quality assessments. One could just as well do this for a PSU comparison!


Simple question...

Do you believe digital audio has reached perfection?

K
I give up.

You really are missing the point.

Some people want to discuss these things, let them discuss it rather than come into the thread and derail it.

The analogy with the car was not comparing dac differences FFS! It was pointing out on every forum, no matter what the subject content is, you get silly know it all old men like yourself who ruin every thread like you guys have this one. What pleasure do you get from that?
If you don't agree with our point of view fair enough, but just keep out and let people discuss things.

Sorry, but I'll not sit back and let people post unscientific, subjective nonsense, nor will I let you bully me into stopping my replies. If you don't like my posts, disprove them. Humiliate me with facts and knowledge and I will shut up. Until you do, I will post what I want, when I want, as long as I'm within the forum TOS. I've not asked you to stop posting just because you disagree with me, have the same amount of respect for me.

And by the way, when you have to stoop to childish attacks like "silly know it all old men" when you don't even know my age, you've already lost the argument. Good job derailing the discussion into personal jabs. That's on you, not me.

PS- What are you talking about with "our point of view?" Last time I checked, the only person preaching the subjectivist/audiophile point of view is you. So by your rules, we should be the ones running you out of the thread, (except we don't do that).

You can tailor the sound to make it sound similar using DSP, but that will be hiding more detail.
I agree a DAC shouldn't colour the output, but they are not perfect yet, so they do, the better DACs simply colour them less.

Why do the same people feel the need to come into every thread where people are asking for new features or for devices to be bit perfect and say "You're wrong, you're an idiot, all hifi and all files sound the same."

Do you go onto Porsche forums and say "You're all stupid, a Toyota will get you from A-B" or the watch forums and say "A Casio from the filling station free with a tank of gas will tell the time the same as a Rolex".
Of course they will, but some people may want more than that.
Interesting statements, that allow for responses!
1. Room response DSP emphasises a particular detail over another and does this to compensate for the way room responses have messed up with the existing detail; so it isn't hiding any detail in an absolute sense, but restoring what was lost on the way from the speakers to the ears. It isn't perfect, but that is the direction of progress.
2. DACs may have bolted on DSP to colour the sound and that is by design. Nothing wrong with that as long as the DAC also has a flat mode such that one doesn't have to hear sound of a particular colour all the time. And in flat mode, DACs should and nowadays usually do, sound the same to the extent that is audible. Anyone saying that one DAC colours sound less than another in flat mode needs to have some basis other than subjective experience of the usually quoted kind to offer coherent responses when challenged. On this subject, if you were to say that the Connect has limitations because of its limited EQ capability and using a better equaliser downstream of it would give better results, I would not argue - but I would expect even that device to be just a pass through in flat mode, an essential feature.
3. Because people keep saying inaccurate things like saying that what some of us say includes things like: " All Hifi and all files sound the same". It doesn't and they do not.
4. In a Porsche forum, I would not tout the benefits of Toyota as you suggest I would. Because I would expect all forum members to have accepted that in buying a Porsche, they have willingly given up some admitted benefits of Toyota, so saying this would be wasting everyone's time. Where the analogy collapses is when you say that in buying Sonos, I have given up such and such sound quality benefits compared to XYZ. That may well be the case, but not in every case that is brought up here. In fact, there are very few cases where this is found to have an objective basis.

People that use Rolex do not ever claim - now - that it is for superior timekeeping. One does not even need a watch now, the smart phone does it all for me on that front, with unfailing accuracy as long as I charge the bloody thing! But those that wear Rolex, do so to flaunt wealth and status and don't hide that - do you know anyone that uses a Rolex that no one else can see?! They want something from Rolex other than - as you have also pointed out - time keeping that is superior to a Casio. But bringing the analogy home, people aren't willing to admit that their new audio kit is bought for more than just better sound. Why not be honest about it as the Rolex owners are? Why also beat the better time keeping/sound quality drum? If you want something more and it floats your boat - say something like backlit dancing VU meters for each channel - say so as a Rolex owner would!

Simple question...

Do you believe digital audio has reached perfection?
Simple answer: No.

I give up.


About time. Thanks. 🆒