External DAC with Connect
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.
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 10 / 11
Well, I must confess a weaknness for shiny knobs and dials. ;)
http://chicksolutions.com/ak/Marantz/2235B/IMG_20141109_084358.jpg
http://chicksolutions.com/ak/Marantz/2235B/IMG_20141109_084358.jpg
Good looking kit - what vintage? How many wpc? If in good working condition, my guess is it sounds as good as a current model.
+8
Interestingly that whenever anyone posts that they hear a difference they inevitably get lambasted with the usual stuff.. did you ABX it DBT it XYZ it and so on.. In other words what they hear simply isn't good enough..
But consider the actual recordings we listen to, consider how they're made.. It's engineered, produced and mixed with someones EARS! there's no DBT or ABX'ing in a studio..Bernie Grundman or Bob Ludwig don't sit there doing blind a-b tests.. they use their ears and listen.. in fact they actually use different speakers and equipment to decide how it should sound, how they or the artists decide it should sound.. So the actual recording that we listen to, the sound quality of those recordings of any recording are determined subjectively....Because there is really no other way to make a record, except to listen, to use ones ears..
A problem is that subjectivists so often won't trust their own ears to hear differences, in a situation where sound is the one and only stimulus. Bereft of the sight or knowledge of their Brilliant Pebbles they're in the dark, so to speak.
But consider the actual recordings we listen to, consider how they're made.. It's engineered, produced and mixed with someones EARS! there's no DBT or ABX'ing in a studio..Bernie Grundman or Bob Ludwig don't sit there doing blind a-b tests.. they use their ears and listen.. in fact they actually use different speakers and equipment to decide how it should sound, how they or the artists decide it should sound.. So the actual recording that we listen to, the sound quality of those recordings of any recording are determined subjectively....Because there is really no other way to make a record, except to listen, to use ones ears..
Entirely valid points, but nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not two sounds really are different, or whether it's merely wishful thinking.
Look, if you're happy to spend pots of money on something just because someone told you it would be better that's fine. Scientific arguments have a hard time countering faith. And let's be under no illusion: faith influences perception. Been there, done that.
Personally I'm now happy to be convinced by blind testing that the latest gizmo does not improve things. I can spend my money on something else.
But consider the actual recordings we listen to, consider how they're made.. It's engineered, produced and mixed with someones EARS! there's no DBT or ABX'ing in a studio..Bernie Grundman or Bob Ludwig don't sit there doing blind a-b tests.. they use their ears and listen..
Err, two things:
a) What would they DBT/ABX against?
b) What on earth does the process of mixing and mastering, which is a creative process, have to do with the technical characteristics of hardware?
Cheers,
Keith
+8
My point is that in the final analysis what we hear is what should decide if something sounds good or not.. If one feels that the only way to determine that is by ABX'ing or DBT more power to them, but to constantly deride folks that base their decisions on just listening when the basis for the recordings we listen to are decided the same way, seems rather narrow minded..I mean if I'm changing the position of my speakers and it sounds better do I really need to go back and forth and DBT that they sound better? I don't think so.. If I change my amp and it sounds better, or worse do I need to DBT what I'm hearing? I can understand that measurements and science matters a lot in designing good gear.. but in the end how it sounds is what matters.. and how it sounds to me is really all that matters because I'm not listening with your ears :-)
I mean if I sit down in your living room and listen to your setup and it sounds crappy to me but you think it sounds great, then that's all that matters .. and that determination on sound quality is subjective, it can't be anything else. nor should it be.. If one goes out and buys a system based on reviews or specs and hooks it all up and it sounds mediocre then how does one go about making it sound better.. I'd say by listening to other gear to decide what does sound good to you..My point is it's ones ear that are the final arbitrator.. How you get there really doesn't matter, as long as it sounds good to you.
I mean if I sit down in your living room and listen to your setup and it sounds crappy to me but you think it sounds great, then that's all that matters .. and that determination on sound quality is subjective, it can't be anything else. nor should it be.. If one goes out and buys a system based on reviews or specs and hooks it all up and it sounds mediocre then how does one go about making it sound better.. I'd say by listening to other gear to decide what does sound good to you..My point is it's ones ear that are the final arbitrator.. How you get there really doesn't matter, as long as it sounds good to you.
I mean if I sit down in your living room and listen to your setup and it sounds crappy to me but you think it sounds great, then that's all that matters .. and that determination on sound quality is subjective, it can't be anything else. nor should it be..
So what you are saying is that when someone claims that a particular component (cable, amplifier, DAC, etc.) sounds better to them, that is a purely subjective view that doesn't apply to anyone else.
In other words, those sort of opinions aren't worth a damn?
I would totally agree with you.
The question then becomes, why are people who hold such opinions so keen to share these worthless views, and are so often so insistent that their own subjective views will apply to others? And why they insist that anyone who doesn't share such views must be defective or delusional?
Cheers,
Keith
Ratty, surely that's a false dichotomy - and, I think, the fundamental reason why this long-running argument continues.
As Erik's excellent post points out, hearing is an entirely subjective experience. Whether or not "two sounds really are different" is completely moot. (I'd go so far as to say it might be meaningless, depending on what you mean by a sound. If you mean what can be measured by a microphone, it's a fair enough statement but still not directly relevant.) What matters is whether the human listener has a different auditory experience. There are plenty of reasons why that might be the case other than the slightly pejorative "wishful thinking".
Probably for the same reason that "objectivists" tend to suppress any discussion of effects that can't be reliably detected by DBT/ABX. That is, everyone likes to put forward their point of view and influence others.
By the way, not all people who believe in audible differences that don't satisfy objective criteria insist that their subjective views must be shared by others, or that others are defective or delusional.
Live and let live, is all I'm saying. Put another way, it would be nice not to have potentially interesting discussion suppressed. Surely everyone can put forward their point of view on the basis that that's exactly what it is, not some absolute notion of "the truth"? Otherwise it will all get very boring very quickly.
I was being colloquial. The formal term would be confirmation bias.
It isn't when people or companies are making claims about equipment sounding different. That is totally relevant.
It's also something which is something which can be scientifically tested.
Cheers,
Keith
+8
"So what you are saying is that when someone claims that a particular component (cable, amplifier, DAC, etc.) sounds better to them, that is a purely subjective view that doesn't apply to anyone else."
Of course.. unless they have also listened to it and come to the same conclusion.. at that point there are two folks who agree..
"In other words, those sort of opinions aren't worth a damn?"
Depends of who's opinion it is and how it's derived..
"The question then becomes, why are people who hold such opinions so keen to share these worthless views, and are so often so insistent that their own subjective views will apply to others? And why they insist that anyone who doesn't share such views must be defective or delusional?"
I don't know. Maybe the same reasons that the hard core Objectivists feel the need to rant that their view is the only right one and that the Subjectivists are all audio-fools..
Seems to me that this accomplishes nothing for anyone..
The Objectivist gets so locked into thinking that the only thing that matters is specs or DBT, or that listening is a flawed way to evaluate a component.
The Subjectivists won't consider that specs do matter, or that sometimes things do sound the same, or that maybe they are fooling themselves into hearing things that aren't there..
No one wins, and everyone is the less for it.
Of course.. unless they have also listened to it and come to the same conclusion.. at that point there are two folks who agree..
"In other words, those sort of opinions aren't worth a damn?"
Depends of who's opinion it is and how it's derived..
"The question then becomes, why are people who hold such opinions so keen to share these worthless views, and are so often so insistent that their own subjective views will apply to others? And why they insist that anyone who doesn't share such views must be defective or delusional?"
I don't know. Maybe the same reasons that the hard core Objectivists feel the need to rant that their view is the only right one and that the Subjectivists are all audio-fools..
Seems to me that this accomplishes nothing for anyone..
The Objectivist gets so locked into thinking that the only thing that matters is specs or DBT, or that listening is a flawed way to evaluate a component.
The Subjectivists won't consider that specs do matter, or that sometimes things do sound the same, or that maybe they are fooling themselves into hearing things that aren't there..
No one wins, and everyone is the less for it.
When people (individual listeners) claim that equipment sounds different surely it must be interpreted as "sounds different [to me]" which is inherently subjective.
When companies make such claims that might be a different matter, I agree, since the implication is that it "sounds different [to anyone]".
The difference is one is based on Science and Engineering, and the other is based on pseudo-science and old-wives tales.
There's an obvious parallel with medicines (hence the "snake oil" phrase often used).
By the way, not all people who believe in audible differences that don't satisfy objective criteria insist that their subjective views must be shared by others, or that others are defective or delusional.
Live and let live, is all I'm saying. Put another way, it would be nice not to have potentially interesting discussion suppressed. Surely everyone can put forward their point of view on the basis that that's exactly what it is, not some absolute notion of "the truth"? Otherwise it will all get very boring very quickly.
But there are very many people who like to make these claims. Words like "night and day" are bandied around for things which could, at best, have a very subtle difference.
And these sort of claims tend to escalate and be amplified and become desired by people who are suggestable and who lack the knowledge or skills to critically assess these claims. This is the essence of how confidence tricks work.
It's really guerilla marketing used by the snake-oil salesmen because there is a risk of being sued for false advertising when they make these claims themselves.
If you want to buy a cable, or component, or whatever and you believe it to be superior in whatever fantastic way you want, that's up to you. But the moment you start propagating such claims, that is the moment I have the right to challenge it.
Live and Let Live works both ways.
Cheers,
Keith
When companies make such claims that might be a different matter, I agree, since the implication is that it "sounds different [to anyone]".
I disagree.
When someone (for instance) extols the benefits of (say) cables, equipment brands, or hires audio, they are acting as an advocate for the companies that are selling such things. They become an extension of that corner of the industry's marketing in a form that is much more potent than anything the company could produce themselves.
"Word of mouth" marketing is a huge deal for companies. It is far more effective than almost anything else because:
a) It leverages the personal trust relationships we have with others
b) It isn't subject to the same regulation and scrutiny that direct marketing is.
In addition, such advocacy is rarely without vested interests. For example, hires supporters have been trying to bolster support for hires for years because, if successful, it benefits them directly in the form of new shiny stuff to buy.
This advocacy seems to be at any cost, even lies of omission: for instance, I have seen several threads about hires audio where some pro-hires participants have grossly misunderstood the nature of hires audio, but none of the advocates corrected them. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that the advocates are happy to allow false information and misunderstandings in order to drive the market in the direction they want. Their focus is on satiating their own desires, not on helping or educating others.
Another example: when an article was produced which, quite scientifically, described why hires audio was actually more likely to degrade audio, instead of applauding it for helping them to avoid a costly mistake, it was widely derided by audiophiles because it was contrary to their "more is better" belief system. The same people will often gladly accept the flimsiest of explanations for something that involves paying more.
If the audiophiles were (in general) prepared to take a more balanced and considered view; if they were prepared, for instance, to recognise that DBT/ABX testing of equipment has a valuable role to play rather than inventing reasons to attack it's efficacy; if they were will to acknowledge that the human brain is poor at remembering and good at inventing sounds (especially when influenced by external factors); if they were prepared to acknowledge that the decades of scientific study and understanding of the human auditory system might, perhaps, trump the glossy marketing brochures from their favourite vendors, perhaps then we could have a more balanced discussion.
Cheers,
Keith
Keith - I completely understand the points you're making and can see the danger of unsupportable claims becoming accepted as fact. I suppose the point where I might disagree with you is what should be allowed or encouraged as a topic of discussion on the forum - which is of course a matter of balance. Since you are a moderator your point of view naturally takes precedence.
For the record, I have a science/engineering background and a natural tendency towards rationalism, reductionism and objectivity. However I also realise that not everything that goes on in my head - for example, when I'm listening to music - is deterministic or repeatable. Speaking for myself, if I describe the results of equipment changes, I try to do so in measured language, making it clear that it's my personal experience and without the intention of convincing others that they would or should hear the same things.
However, if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer not to have any subjective comments in the discussion. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.
For the record, I have a science/engineering background and a natural tendency towards rationalism, reductionism and objectivity. However I also realise that not everything that goes on in my head - for example, when I'm listening to music - is deterministic or repeatable. Speaking for myself, if I describe the results of equipment changes, I try to do so in measured language, making it clear that it's my personal experience and without the intention of convincing others that they would or should hear the same things.
However, if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer not to have any subjective comments in the discussion. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.
Can someone please explain why the advocates of DBTs, which is the purest form of "listening" there is, can be accused of stating that listening is somehow "flawed""? Objectivists are actually begging you to listen! They just want you to listen without any other input affecting your evaluation.
Actually me being a moderator (which is largely an administrative task) should have any bearing on this. What matters is what the community wants.
Of course, opinions will be divided, but the majority of the community (or maybe the most vocal) seems to favour rationality over blind faith (which, at the moment, seems to be the only alternative being offered).
For the record, I have a science/engineering background and a natural tendency towards rationalism, reductionism and objectivity. However I also realise that not everything that goes on in my head - for example, when I'm listening to music - is deterministic or repeatable. Speaking for myself, if I describe the results of equipment changes, I try to do so in measured language, making it clear that it's my personal experience and without the intention of convincing others that they would or should hear the same things.
I would suggest you are unusual.
Most of the time it starts along the lines of "night and day" differences than even a profoundly deaf person could hear and, when challenged, gradually retreat. In one case what started as "night and day" differences gradually eroded to the point where I was told I would need to be training my ears for weeks on end, on equipment and in surroundings I was comfortable with, in order to hear the difference.
And then the implication was that if I couldn't, it was the fault of my ears or that I hadn't spent enough on equipment.
The rational, scientific viewpoint is, in my view, straightforward: if you make whacky, unconventional, or illogical sounding claims, you need to support that with evidence; real evidence.
Anyone who claims that "it sounded great to me" is evidence is inherently untrustworthy, because that is anti-science. Equally anyone who avoids or advises to avoid scientific methods like DBT/ABX when judging the comparative audio quality of equipment cannot be trusted because, in all likelihood, their views are completely false.
Of course a lot goes into the enjoyment of audio, and knowing you spend a lot on kit, or that you are using a trusted brand, or that the cables are sexy looking, can definitely enhance your enjoyment. In fact, it's fairly clear these things enhance many people's enjoyment far more than any real audio differences.
The problem lies when people claim real audio benefits where there are none, or none that can be proven, and where these claims can negatively impact the people they are advertising these claims to.
However, if I understand you correctly, you'd prefer not to have any subjective comments in the discussion. I'll try to bear that in mind in future.
I'm happy to have rational debate on it and, if the community wants it, I'm happy to have irrational debate on it too, as long as people realise it goes both ways: If you make an subjective comment on how good something sounds to you, expect some other member of the community to point out if that observation is contrary to known Science and Engineering, and that a proper assessment isn't complete without a meaningful scientific study.
Such arguments should, ideally, be accepted as the other side of the coin, and without claims of "bullying", or "closed-mindedness" or "science isn't always right", etc. that always accompany such responses.
Alternatively, be open-minded and conduct ABX testing before making such claims. As a student of Science and Engineering, you will know that (contrary to a lot of popular opinion) Science is largely all about being open minded, of coming up with different hypotheses and trying to prove or disprove them.
Of course it's not always easy to do this with full scientific rigour, but a number of people I know who have then done personal tests have been surprised at the results.
I agree that, at the end of the day, what matters most is personal comfort, but I am a strong advocate of the view that one's belief systems should not be foisted on others, and a lot of audiophilia is driven by unsubstantiated belief systems that have been cultivated by the marketing departments of audio equipment vendors.
Cheers,
Keith
Precisely - and listen using your ears, not anyone else's. Why this point gets missed where DBTs are concerned is a puzzle even to me, a non engineer.
What my brain makes of what my ears pass on is coloured by:
1. Expectation/Confirmation Bias
2. Louder - as little as 0.2 dB - sounds better effect
3. Other non auditory inputs
All that a level matched DBT seeks to do is eliminate to the extent possible, the effect of the above on the brain, leaving the input from just my ears to be the guiding criterion.
The idea behind propagating this view is to assist people that are new to this subject, to give them a rational way of assessing things for themselves rather than following a herd instinct.
It is also very possible that I may not hear the same improvement that someone else hears in a properly set up level matched DBT. All ears are not created equal, and some age faster than others.
I haven't however come across any such responses/ discussions here or elsewhere by anyone in response to a level matched DBT finding - if there are, it would be interesting to read them.
All the conversation seems to be about improvements found, assessed to be so on evidence of brain processes involving many inputs outside those from just the ears. And questions from people pointing this out.
SSDD.
I haven't however come across any such responses/ discussions here or elsewhere by anyone in response to a level matched DBT finding - if there are, it would be interesting to read them.
All the conversation seems to be about improvements found, assessed to be so on evidence of brain processes involving many inputs outside those from just the ears. And questions from people pointing this out.
SSDD.
+8
@Majik
"Actually me being a moderator (which is largely an administrative task) should have any bearing on this. What matters is what the community wants.
Of course, opinions will be divided, but the majority of the community (or maybe the most vocal) seems to favour rationality over blind faith (which, at the moment, seems to be the only alternative being offered)."
Here's the problem that I have..for a long time now the Majority, of which you really are a member of, consists of almost exclusively some pretty hard core objectivists (for lack of a better term) We know who it is.. there's jaGatie, and kumar,chicks, ratty, nobob and the other half a dozen or so ..That's the "community" that you're speaking of. The problem is that when anyone else comes on to this forum and mentions they hear a difference.. and it doesn't matter what kind of difference, or what type of product, they just get piled on by your "community".. Oh they'll try for a bit to posit their point of view, and have a reasonable and fun time but after a bit of frequently rude or demeaning bullying they realize it's simply not worth their time or effort and move on.
I remember back in the early days of this forum when Sonos was a new product there was lots of fun discussion of how things sounded, how people felt about different versions of firmware sounded, or coax, vs optical cables or different codec's.. That actual sense of community is long gone.. replaced by what feels like a group that's just waiting to pounce on any unsuspecting newbie who doesn't hold the same opinions as they do.. What a shame..
"Actually me being a moderator (which is largely an administrative task) should have any bearing on this. What matters is what the community wants.
Of course, opinions will be divided, but the majority of the community (or maybe the most vocal) seems to favour rationality over blind faith (which, at the moment, seems to be the only alternative being offered)."
Here's the problem that I have..for a long time now the Majority, of which you really are a member of, consists of almost exclusively some pretty hard core objectivists (for lack of a better term) We know who it is.. there's jaGatie, and kumar,chicks, ratty, nobob and the other half a dozen or so ..That's the "community" that you're speaking of. The problem is that when anyone else comes on to this forum and mentions they hear a difference.. and it doesn't matter what kind of difference, or what type of product, they just get piled on by your "community".. Oh they'll try for a bit to posit their point of view, and have a reasonable and fun time but after a bit of frequently rude or demeaning bullying they realize it's simply not worth their time or effort and move on.
I remember back in the early days of this forum when Sonos was a new product there was lots of fun discussion of how things sounded, how people felt about different versions of firmware sounded, or coax, vs optical cables or different codec's.. That actual sense of community is long gone.. replaced by what feels like a group that's just waiting to pounce on any unsuspecting newbie who doesn't hold the same opinions as they do.. What a shame..
"Rude bullying" like accusations that ears are not trained properly or the system is too cheap to show the differences that the golden eared, wealthy, and more discerning audiophiles hear? Also, the almost automatic accusations of "closed mindedness" and "not listening" that have been debunked a hundred times? Let's face it, the insults flow freely from both sides, neither are innocent. Though one side does have truth and science on their side, in addition to insults, so I understand the frustration when your only defense is to belittle the ears, equipment and attitude of others. :rolleyes:
And please don't make me post links to rudeness from the subjectivists. I'm on a tablet right now, and cutting and pasting hundreds of posts will be a pain.
And please don't make me post links to rudeness from the subjectivists. I'm on a tablet right now, and cutting and pasting hundreds of posts will be a pain.
Let's not go off the rail and start slinging mud at the "opposition".
Of course, opinions will be divided, but the majority of the community (or maybe the most vocal) seems to favour rationality over blind faith (which, at the moment, seems to be the only alternative being offered)."
What other alternative to rationality are you suggesting to the one you have stated?
Page 10 / 11
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.