I am looking to add a DAC to my SONOS - Nak RE1 - KEF Q70 system, and am considering the Schiit Bifrost. My source is a wide range of ALAC, MP3 and AAC material. Any advice, is it worth it? Am I likely to hear the "wider, more detailed, deeper, etc." sound the reviewers write about.
Page 10 / 11
I think that has been discussed and that is largely the point.
An audiologist one told me that memory and mood can account for significant differences in perceived hearing, often resulting in perceptions which could dwarf any real world differences.
Brand and cost certainly has an impact on how we feel, else manufacturers wouldn't spend millions on this every year. In most cases, audio vendors spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D. And confirmation bias is also significant: it's rare that someone spends a lot of money on something that is supposed to be an improvement without some kind of prior belief.
The trouble is there are those who deny (either directly or via omission) that these things could be a factor even though, in most cases, it's probably the single most significant factor in what you perceive.
When did the snake oil creep in or was it always there? Record players sure have a lot to answer for in this respect.
Snake oil has, of course, always been there, but in the past the lines were blurred. Back then, building a highly linear amp, or creating a recording and playback system with low noise and wide dynamic range was difficult and costly, and the market was born for people who were prepared to spend more money to get better quality. And then, as now, the purchasers of such systems weren't necessarily that expert in how it all worked. Often the purchasers were more interested in owning things which were "rare and beautiful" simply for status symbol value. That's a ripe breeding ground for snake oil products, especially as equipment improved, pricing came down, and the market for "hifi" expanded massively.
Things have changed: these days building an amp that is, for practical purposes, "transparent" can be done by putting together a handful of off-the-shelf components. Recording and playback systems now give us a dynamic range far greater than any commercial recording requires, and a frequency response that is beyond human hearing, but the snake oil guys insist that we can improve on perfection.
There are still challenges, such as speakers, room acoustics, and the quality of recording mixing and mastering, but these are expensive, difficult and, often impractical for end-users to address. As such, they are a hard sell so the snake oil salesmen stick to what has traditionally worked: equipment and cables, bigger specification numbers, pseudo-scientific explanations, and flowery prose.
Cheers,
Keith
I didn't say anything about plagues of transmission errors or inadequate shielding. Occasional, infrequent transmission errors would not necessarily cause drop-outs; the DAC might be designed to interpolate or perform some other error "reduction" (I recall this is discussed in the AES/EBU standard but I might be mistaken). Noise could be transmitted through the conductors of the cable and injected into the DAC's ground plane or power rail.
This is all about engineering and design, not really "science" as such. It is possible that some combinations of cable and equipment may not work together in a mathematically ideal way, simply because they were designed with different assumptions, constraints, or interpretations of the relevant standards.
Likewise, I didn't mention $1000 cables, and neither did you in your original assertion, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.
You're arguing on the basis the hypothesis is already proven fact, whereas I've postulated some plausible, engineering-based reasons why it might not be, so if anything I think the burden of proof is with you. But truly I have no axe to grind about this.
Why would the burden of proof be on me? I'm claiming that unless the one who claims to hear a difference can prove it via a DBT, then that difference is based on faith. Prove you hear a difference and then we can talk about why it exists.
And Blackcat cables were one of the boutique brands mentioned in another thread by the very person who made the claim about cables sounding different. Check out their prices and you will see that $1000 cables were mentioned.
1. Two amplifiers that have the same measured flat frequency/distortion response of the kind that most modern amplifiers exhibit, that are working within designed limits - i.e, without clipping/distorting - cannot be distinguished from each other in a level matched DBT when operating with tone controls or the like not engaged.
2. All amplifiers sound the same.
People, of whom I am one, that support the first statement are often said to be saying the second, which they are not. The second statement is not a short version of the first, and isn't believed to be a true statement by them.
I am curious to know if there is anybody on this forum that disagrees with statement 1.
It is interesting - and to me revealing - that the only responses to the above display inadequate reading comprehension or deflect follow on explanations with a stab at humour.
Things have changed: these days building an amp that is, for practical purposes, "transparent" can be done by putting together a handful of off-the-shelf components.
This isn't recent and the amplifier problem was solved by engineers and manufacturers about 25 years ago. Recent real progress has been to drive down the cost of the solution to very low levels.
Pricing them for what the target market will bear is a different matter, the realm of business management/marketing and not science.
The DAC problem was similarly solved within a few years of their appearance on the audio scene. In some ways, it is a simpler problem - none of the complex and dynamic speaker load interactions to be dealt with.
The cable subject does not merit discussion. Along with green magic markers.
This is the internet though. I am sure there are still places on the net where the view that the Apollo missions landing on the moon was a hoax is actively debated.
Good point, though I would argue that it isn't the ears that are the culprit, but the easy to manipulate brain.
As just an example, take the case of someone that has bought a Marantz PM 6005 amp, after reading the audio press reviews of how it delivers noticeably better sound than even its immediate predecessor, the 6004. Having got the new kit home, and installed it, with a brain preconditioned to believe it sounds better, how can it not sound to be so? The financial and emotional investments demand that kind of return.
I am not sure that Marantz makes such claims for it - as far as I know, the only thing they say is that it has the addition of a built in DAC to take digital inputs. But Marantz counts on the media, perhaps persuaded by ad spend, and word of mouth on the net and other places, to do the job of selling better sound quality from it.
You're arguing on the basis the hypothesis is already proven fact, whereas I've postulated some plausible, engineering-based reasons why it might not be, so if anything I think the burden of proof is with you.
What is the truth, the philosopher would ask?
Every scientific fact is nothing but a hypothesis that is yet to be proved wrong, to be then substituted by a better one. The all swans are white hypothesis/fact is easy to be proved wrong by finding just the one black swan - but where is that in this case of amplifiers/DBTs?
Surely if you are going to make such postulations, they remain just speculations until you find the black swan? While the white swan hypothesis has been constructed by many people that have done these tests over the years and are satisfied to its quality. Anyone that doesn't agree has the burden of finding the black swan to destroy it.
Over at Harbeth UK, Alan Shaw for some time now has offered a free pair of his flagship speakers to anyone that can turn up one in controlled conditions, with any two amp of the claimants choice that are in working condition and meet a frequency response/distortion criteria that almost all modern ones do. No downsides, no entry fee, except for travel costs. And yet he has seen no takers, not even from people living in the UK where travel costs/time may not be the investment it would be for people elsewhere. Where are the black swans hiding?
Every scientific fact is nothing but a hypothesis that is yet to be proved wrong, to be then substituted by a better one. The all swans are white hypothesis/fact is easy to be proved wrong by finding just the one black swan - but where is that in this case of amplifiers/DBTs?
Surely if you are going to make such postulations, they remain just speculations until you find the black swan? While the white swan hypothesis has been constructed by many people that have done these tests over the years and are satisfied to its quality. Anyone that doesn't agree has the burden of finding the black swan to destroy it.
Over at Harbeth UK, Alan Shaw for some time now has offered a free pair of his flagship speakers to anyone that can turn up one in controlled conditions, with any two amp of the claimants choice that are in working condition and meet a frequency response/distortion criteria that almost all modern ones do. No downsides, no entry fee, except for travel costs. And yet he has seen no takers, not even from people living in the UK where travel costs/time may not be the investment it would be for people elsewhere. Where are the black swans hiding?
You've conveniently elided my following comment to the effect that I don't really care who has the burden of proof. It's not important to the thrust of my argument, which is that both sides of the debate are actually discussing beliefs (about the real-world behaviour of engineering and technology) rather than scientific fact.
I am sorry I misunderstood you to mean that the side arguing for conclusion validity based on controlled level matched DBTs has to prove the negative as well. I must have misread:D.
Leaving aside the question of whether this approach is based on a belief/fact/hypothesis, what exactly is the statement of the other side of the debate, never mind what it is called?
Well, Tell Alan Shaw to come to America with that offer, myself and millions of others would be glad to relieve him of some free Harbeths.
God knows, science never got anything wrong either. Logic would dictate that even if all amps where created equal, there would still be perceived differences because audio is certainly subjective and hearing itself is different from person to person.
God knows, science never got anything wrong either. Logic would dictate that even if all amps where created equal, there would still be perceived differences because audio is certainly subjective and hearing itself is different from person to person.
If you had said that in the above case there would still be perceived differences because of speaker load/behaviour differences, I'd say yes.
But to what you have said above, all I can do is shake my head in wonder:D.
Originally Posted by Kumar
Consider the two statements:
1. Two amplifiers that have the same measured flat frequency/distortion response of the kind that most modern amplifiers exhibit, that are working within designed limits - i.e, without clipping/distorting - cannot be distinguished from each other in a level matched DBT when operating with tone controls or the like not engaged.
2. All amplifiers sound the same.
People, of whom I am one, that support the first statement are often said to be saying the second, which they are not. The second statement is not a short version of the first, and isn't believed to be a true statement by them.
I am curious to know if there is anybody on this forum that disagrees with statement 1.
It is interesting - and to me revealing - that the only responses to the above display inadequate reading comprehension or deflect follow on explanations with a stab at humour.
OK, here are my comments.
Firstly, I think you have to talk about acoustic and electrical noise as well as distortion. Otherwise mains hum (for example) could be a trivially easy way to distinguish between amplifiers that satisfy the criteria you listed.
Secondly, in a later post you gave a list of amplifiers that you felt satisfied those criteria and had "modern levels of distortion" (to paraphrase). These included some solid state amplifiers and the AudioNote Ongaku. Looking at the specifications for that amplifier on AudioNote's web page, they rate it at:
27W + 27W @1kHz, 5% THD
That's not a typo, 5%. Are you saying that you believe 5% THD is not distinguishable from the typically sub-0.1% THD specification of a solid-state amplifier?
Also, the amplifier's distortion components will have a signature that could be used to distinguish between amplifiers. One reason people tend to like the sound of valve amps such as the Ongaku is that they have high levels of even-harmonic distortion.
Leaving that aside, as I understand it, amplifier specifications are usually quoted when running into ideal (resistive) loads with a steady-state sinusoidal input. When the same amplifier is connected to a loudspeaker in the real world to play music, it is likely to behave differently. The loudspeaker is a much more complex load whose characteristics change with frequency. The music programme will have a much higher crest factor than a sinusoid, which probably stresses the amplifier (power supply) much more. Also because it isn't steady state, thermal effects are likely to be more signficant.
So in order to be relevant to music reproduction rather than behaviour in a lab, I think your test criteria should state that the amplifier is playing a music programme into a given set of loudspeakers. My belief is that this would significantly narrow down the list of amplifiers that can fulfil the criteria for comparision. (Sad to say for ErikM I expect the Rotel vs Ongaku shoot-off would be ruled out pretty quickly.)
Originally Posted by Majik
Things have changed: these days building an amp that is, for practical purposes, "transparent" can be done by putting together a handful of off-the-shelf components.
This isn't recent and the amplifier problem was solved by engineers and manufacturers about 25 years ago. Recent real progress has been to drive down the cost of the solution to very low levels.
That's a very sweeping generalisation. What evidence do you have to support it? What happened 25 years ago that made the difference (I am genuinely interested)?
There are still interesting discoveries being made about how audio amplifiers behave and should be designed. For example, going back to the topic of clipping that you mentioned, have you read Roger Sanders' white paper that discusses how much power headroom is required to avoid clipping typical music content? Here is a nice extract:
You will find that conventional, direct-radiator (not horn-loaded), magnetic speaker systems of around 90 dB sensitivity, require around 500 watts/channel to avoid clipping. More power is needed in larger rooms or if you like to play your music more loudly than most.
The key point I'm trying to make is that audiophiles usually are using underpowered amplifiers and are therefore listening to clipping amplifiers most of the time. When an amplifier is clipping, it is behaving (and sounding) grossly differently than its measured performance would suggest. This is because we always measure amplifiers when they are operating within their design parameters -- never when clipping. A clipping amp has horrible performance, so attempting to measure it is a waste of time.
In other words, we usually listen to an amplifier when it is clipping and we measure it when it is not. This is why amplifiers sound so different than their measurements would imply. It is not that measurements are wrong, it is simply that we are listening and measuring different conditions.
I don't own any Sanders products and don't have any affiliation to the company (other than admiration for the ingenuity of their design), but I highlight that extract simply to show how deceptive real-world behaviour of audio amplifiers can be. It was a surprise to me to discover that so much power was needed to avoid clipping under typical listening conditions.
Again, that might be your opinion but I didn't see you put forward any supporting evidence. I suspect many electronic engineers working in the field might disagree with you.
Your opinion again. jgatie appears to disagree since he's taking part in a discussion about cables in this very thread...
Agreed. But completely irrelevant, isn't it? I know you're joking but it's attempting a slight at the same time.
Leaving aside the question of whether this approach is based on a belief/fact/hypothesis, what exactly is the statement of the other side of the debate, never mind what it is called?
To keep it short: the statement is simply that cables may make an audible difference under some circumstances.
To me this seems more plausible than the converse statement, that there are no circumstances under which a cable can possibly make any audible difference.
To me this seems more plausible than the converse statement, that there are no circumstances under which a cable can possibly make any audible difference.
Again, I clarified that statement. I specifically said that digital cables, when operating properly, will show no discernable differences in a properly conducted DBT. By "operating properly" I mean both they and the system being used are exhibiting no errors and are properly grounded/shielded. Of freaking course a bad cable or bad system will sound different than a system/cable operating properly!
I also clarified that I am talking differences between generic, but to standard, cables and high-end boutique brands costing astronomical amounts.
I also clarified that I am talking differences between generic, but to standard, cables and high-end boutique brands costing astronomical amounts.
Yes, that's why I pointed out that I was keeping things short.
The difficulty is with your phrase "when operating properly". I think you are using it as a proxy for "when operating ideally", which turns your statement into a truism of the form "a component of type X, when operating as an ideal X, makes no difference". (I feel Kumar's hypothesis about amplifiers is heading in the same direction.)
If you're not using the phrase in that sense, you must define exactly what you mean by "exhibiting no errors" and "properly shielded/grounded", neither of which is trivial. Your statement then becomes much less general, and much more system-dependent, because you then have to demonstrate that there are in fact no errors (for example) rather than "infrequent errors".
To me this seems more plausible than the converse statement, that there are no circumstances under which a cable can possibly make any audible difference.
I owe you a reply to a longer earlier post, but this reply will help keep the debate on track.
First, let me address what you say is the converse. That isn't what is being said. Use too thin a cable core for a speaker cable run and it will make a difference. Just one example.
Second, to your statement of position, I would only ask two questions - if they appear to audibly do so, will this difference always survive a controlled DBT? What would be your response if it doesn't so survive?
The difficulty is with your phrase "when operating properly". I think you are using it as a proxy for "when operating ideally", which turns your statement into a truism of the form "a component of type X, when operating as an ideal X, makes no difference". (I feel Kumar's hypothesis about amplifiers is heading in the same direction.)
If you're not using the phrase in that sense, you must define exactly what you mean by "exhibiting no errors" and "properly shielded/grounded", neither of which is trivial. Your statement then becomes much less general, and much more system-dependent, because you then have to demonstrate that there are in fact no errors (for example) rather than "infrequent errors".
Why don't you clarify what you mean? Do you believe that digital cables can be "more revealing", cause "greater soundstage", "crisper highs", or cause one to describe the sound with other esoteric adjectives such as "wooden", "fuzzy", "orange peel", etc? Or do the transmission errors you describe affect the music in more deleterious ways? Do you think spending $1000 produces any audible gain over a properly constructed cable costing $10?
A clarification - a controlled DBT being referred to is one based on listening to music through decent speakers - not test tones or instrument measurements, i.e. real world use.
I don't have a strong position either way about this particular topic. The point is we're using it to discuss the validity of your position that disagreeing with your belief flies in the face of science and logic. I do disagree with that, for the reasons I've already outlined.
Whatever I thought about it, your choice of phrases to describe audible differences is irrelevant to me unless you're using them to describe changes you hear.
I really don't know. It's not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, but equally I cannot rule it out from personal experience (which is ultimately what matters to dictate my own spending decisions).
Whatever I thought about it, your choice of phrases to describe audible differences is irrelevant to me unless you're using them to describe changes you hear.
I really don't know. It's not something I spend a lot of time worrying about, but equally I cannot rule it out from personal experience (which is ultimately what matters to dictate my own spending decisions).
Nice dodge. :rolleyes:
Unfortunately, that is the root of most snake oil products: the thought that there is some chance it might work.
I'm sure Mrs Goggins swears by Daffy's Elixir since it cured her of an upset stomach, conveniently ignoring the likelihood it would have cleared up on its own.
Equally, I'm sure there are people who have swapped out a $10 cable for a $100 and noticed a difference, because the original cable was defective, incorrectly inserted, or because the act of swapping the cable cleaned the contacts.
And, of course, if changing from a $10 cable to a $100 cable makes a difference, imagine how much better a $1000 cable would be, because these things are absolute and linear, right?
That is how people think; even sensible, intelligent, mostly rational people. And that is what snake-oil salesmen prey on: that seed of "it might work" which can grow into a weed of conviction that it will work.
It's true that if you operate an equipment out of range, or it is somehow defective, that can have an audible impact. Yes there are circumstances in which things like this can happen, but these are increasingly unusual.
Take toslink, for instance: the tolerance for degradation before you start getting any issues such as bit errors or significant timing problems is very high. Whilst it can happen, it's also highly unlikely to, and when it does it's down to equipment faults, or misuse. I would be surprised if, in practice, it occurred in more than 0.00001% of the population. And then, in those cases, changing the cable out for another $10 would probably fix it just as well as changing it out for a $1000 cable.
Yet many audiophiles will reverse these odds, claiming (without substance) that all $10 optical cables are "crap" and that everyone should be spending at least $100 (or, preferably, $1000) on one. But that's a bit like saying "don't buy a car costing less than $20,000, because the steering wheel will fall off when you are on the freeway" just because you heard it happened to someone, once.
Incidentally, irrespective of audibility issues, the most expensive optical cables in the world cost in the region of $5 per metre or less to manufacture. Add in the wholesale cost of hyper-expensive connectors, and the maximum cost of production of any 2m toslink cable should be around $20. When someone sells a 2m cable for $1000, they are making a mark-up of 5000% or more!
The problem with audiophillia is the assumption that there is always a significant benefit to be gained by buying another expensive bit of kit. That probably was the case back in the 1960s, but that isn't the case now. Despite vendors flowery language, most DACs, cables, amps and transports are, within their operating specifications, pretty much the same and that is about as good a you need.
Regarding your amplifier clipping example: that's certainly a case where audio quality is impacted, but that is, arguably, because the user is operating the kit outside of its optimal range. Maybe the manufacturer is at fault for not being honest about what that is. But, in that case, changing the amp out for a more expensive model with a similar range is unlikely to give an improvement. Conversely, changing it out for a cheaper model with a more appropriate range is likely to yield an improvement.
But audiophiles tend to advocate solutions which are rare, and shiny, and expensive over ones that actually might work. They favour "magic bullets" over Science and Engineering.
The example of hires is key: a well respected authority in digital audio recently produced a paper describing why hires audio might actually sound worse than standard res. No one has come up with a meaningful counter-argument to that paper and, in fact, audio degradations due to hires artefacts have been measured in the real world.
Anyone who really cared about audio quality should be very happy about this, because it means investment in expensive equipment an esoteric file formats isn't required (and, in fact, is counter-productive). A lot of people will have been saved from making an expensive error, and you would expect them to be cheering about that.
But, as I said before, I don't hear much cheering and I can only conclude from that that audiophiles actually don't care about audio quality that much, and care more about buying, owning, and tweaking expensive kit, and lauding it over others.
So, the audiophile community is still advocating for hires. And one of their prime advocates is an aging rock star with no Engineering background who has spent much of the last 4 decades at rock gigs and studios, who now suffers from hearing problems and probably would struggle to ABX a 128k MP3 from a hires FLAC.
That's about as rational as audiophillia gets!
Cheers,
Keith
This discussion has been very interesting.
And I don't doubt that some folks may, in an ABX test, be able to identify what X is.
After all, humans are pretty good at detecting differences in this type of test.
What I would like to see is that same person come back, say, a month later and identify X - no listening to AB first.
That would be meaningful to me.
And I don't doubt that some folks may, in an ABX test, be able to identify what X is.
After all, humans are pretty good at detecting differences in this type of test.
What I would like to see is that same person come back, say, a month later and identify X - no listening to AB first.
That would be meaningful to me.
In what way is it a dodge? You asked me my position, although it's not germane to the actual discussion, and as a matter of courtesy I told you.
And I don't doubt that some folks may, in an ABX test, be able to identify what X is.
On the contrary, I think the point is most of us simply don't believe they would be able to differentiate between A, B, or X with any statistical significance.
In which case, your second test is moot.
Humans are very good at thinking they can differentiate these things, but when tested, they're actually not as good as they thought.
Cheers,
Keith
Majik said it better than I did. And you know what this discussion is about. It is only you who chose to concentrate on a single post which was a mere generalization of comments that came before. So I will end it here: Taken at face value, yes there can be differences between digital cables, that is, a cable can be defective and cause audible errors. This in no way justifies audiophile claims that audio is improved by buying ever more expensive cables, and a $10 cable can perform perfectly if it is made to spec (as 99.999% are). Also, if a cable is defective, the audio will degrade in an obvious manner, with none of the flowery esoteric descriptions put forth by audiophiles. In short, a faulty cable won't subtly "degrade the soundstage", sound "wooden", or "flat"; it will instead cause obvious droputs, clicks, etc.
Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you posted. But you seem to admit no middle ground between full-on audiophilia and hard-line objectivism.
What I've been trying hard to demonstrate, perhaps ineffectively, is that one can take a thoughtful, rational, sceptical, and pragmatic viewpoint about this without sitting at the hard-line objectivist end of the scale.
What I've been trying hard to demonstrate, perhaps ineffectively, is that one can take a thoughtful, rational, sceptical, and pragmatic viewpoint about this without sitting at the hard-line objectivist end of the scale.
But if you don't require any proof, or at least any rational explanation, at what point do you call "bull***"? Who knows where the boundary is between complete snake-oil and a reasonable possibility?
And, with modern electronics, and modern manufacturing, the boundaries have been shifting more and more to the point where the reasonable possibilities are disappearing which tends towards the view that most unsubstantiated claims are snake oil.
When 95% of claims are bogus, what criteria do you use to allow the 5% to be heard?
Cheers,
Keith
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.