Tír Na HiFi

So what do you guys think of the findings?

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/show ... 15&page=18

Here's a summation.


OK, so another really enjoyable day in the company of Darren(Yeats), Chris(thebiglebowski) and Andrew(Accuphaseman).

I'll keep this brief-ish.

We started by measuring the room using an XYZ (Darrren will correct me on the name!) analyzer. This showed that the room's resonant freq/issue is indeed 40Hz as calculations suggest. The GIK traps are helping a little on the 40Hz issue, but making a much bigger difference at the 80Hz level, and in general taming the room quite a lot. I think he has plots that he may be able to post later.

[edit] Shouldn't forget - we tried the "Akiko sticks" as an early AB. Applied them to the interconnects between pre and Active 50s. Difference? Nothing. Zilda. Diddly-squat. Zippo.

So, with the room sounding rather better than it did in DBO1 we started our sighted ABing. Most of the ABs were done using Sonos vs. Sonos into Young, but we also used the Tag McLaren CDT and the BlueSound that Chris brought over.

We certainly had some issues volume matching, but with the inverse log scale of the Tom Evans Vibe pre stepped volume we found two points within 0.1 db between the Sonos and Young. We tried both quick switching and whole track at a time ABs.

Results?

Simple. Even sighted we struggled to pin down any differences. There were the odd observations that "x sounds a bit more natural maybe", including once from me. However, a replay of the AB in question consistently came up with a "no, I can't hear the difference now" response from the original person who'd made the observation.

One of the quick ABs switches caused the volume to me "miss-selected" and caused a "hey, that sounds different" excited observation (louder was preferred). Luckily the visual difference on the volume control per each step is easy enough to spot and was subsequently picked up as the cause.

In various other tests where subtle differences were half-thought to exist a check on the volume variation was agreed to be the most likely explanation. Getting the BlueSound level matched to the Young proved harder, and a difference of 0.6db was the best we could manage. In these ABs the Young did sound possibly sound ever so subtly different, but the volume was again identified as "the difference" - though Darren noted that his perception of slightly more forward vocals was likely down to the non-linearity of human perception of volume changes (meaning the vocal range frequencies show the volume change the most). Even so, even given a 0.6db volume advantage the Young didn't really stand as anything other than minusculely (if that's a word) different.

When we wrapped up we did a poll - would you spend money on an expensive DAC?

Four out of four "No's".

Do you think differences exist?

A little more tricky. Possibly in a £50,000 system with perfect room response then perhaps there is still a little room for doubt (maybe, just maybe??), was the collective agreement, but certainly not in a merely "very good" system/room (mine!).

Well, that's it. Over to the criticism. :)

so... some guys on another forum did some tests and you like the results. Is there any reason other than tolling why you'd post that here?

John posted on that thread and I think if you read his advice carefully you will have all the answers you seek.

To give a comparison I was at a dac bake off recently and one CA transport was used on all three dacs.
Differences were clearly heard and the owner decided to buy a new dac based on the results. 3 fairly well regarded dacs but very different in flavour.The transport was fairly hot also.

Done other tests many times on equipment and couldn't identify any noticeable differences. It can happen also.

The world didn't end either time. People here generally don't close their minds one way or the other. No cognitive biases of note just go with the flow.

Ah jasus Ivor give Max a break he is trying to spread his wings and find out if the third secret of fatima advises all dacs sound the same.

Hello everyone, I keep reading these types of posts and wondering why they still occur. It should have been obvious for some time that DACs have so little distortion that it's below audibility. There's been little advance in stereo ones too because the big money is in phones and Tablets or AV.

Headphones are far more revealing than ordinary passive speakers and phones sell in millions so it's they that all the money is spent on developing. Where a stereo hi fi DAC might sell in thousands, one for a phone will be in the millions. Not surprisingly there are measurements and reviews on the Web to prove how good they are. Phones and Tablets now sound as good as the best DACs and Hi fi is becoming irrelevant, particularly source components.

We did proper ABX comparisons of top DACs using their manufacturers evaluation boards about ten years ago and it was obvious then, there was no audible difference and no matter how many people we tested, no one could hear any. Then you could buy an M-Audio Transit for about £50 (USB DAC) or a M-Audio 24/96 for £25 and install it in a PC to make it as good as the best high end CD players. This was why we did the comparison.

Now phones, Sonos, TVs, AV processors are all amazingly good and there really is no point to buying specialist hi fi, which is why the market collapsed in 2003 and hasn't recovered.
They say the headphone market is worth about £200 million in the British Isles and I'm guessing specialist audio is about a tenth of that.

To sum up DACs are designed by chip manufacturers and they're the clever people, not the ones who put them in a box and connect them up. They cost very little and everything is built in including the analogue output stage, so there isn't much scope for DAC makers to spoil their sound. It can happen, but more likely is an older or poorer design of power amp can't cope with the RF that high speed DACs produce. If you're hearing differences between DACs, it possibly because your power amp isn't great. PF are fans of older gear and so one might expect problems there.

I know you'd expect me to say this, but in worrying about and fiddling with DACs, you're missing the elephant in the room. Surely everyone excepts that speakers vary enormously and have the most distortion and that's where you need to be looking for better sound quality. :)

OMG I knew the mods were working on a coup but I never imagined it would be of this magnitude.
The rumour mill had been rife that Paris Hilton was lined up for a Dac expose but the marketing section
of Tirnahifi have hit the jackpot this time.

I knew there was a lot of consternation over PFM securing Daniel Weiss's services and concern would
Tirna be able to compete or have the financial clout but our prayers have been answered.
One of the giants of the audio industry is now a site member. Where are you now PFM?

Kudo's to Ashley for coming out of hiding and taking the personal risk of exposing this information.
With no regard to the risk to his own life from unscrupulous Dac manufacturers and violent attempts
to suppress for 10yrs his ground breaking abx tests that prove once and for all that Dac makers like
JK (You know who you are there is no hiding place now) have been fooling the public.

Really good build up guys, keep it coming ;)



BTW I am in - omg those lovely DACs I have to have them all ! - camp :) almost literary... ;)

Ashley James wrote:Hello everyone, I keep reading these types of posts and wondering why they still occur. It should have been obvious for some time that DACs have so little distortion that it's below audibility. There's been little advance in stereo ones too because the big money is in phones and Tablets or AV.

First of all - welcome, Ashley but I don't know how Max convinced you to post here as his sidekick?

Headphones are far more revealing than ordinary passive speakers and phones sell in millions so it's they that all the money is spent on developing. Where a stereo hi fi DAC might sell in thousands, one for a phone will be in the millions. Not surprisingly there are measurements and reviews on the Web to prove how good they are. Phones and Tablets now sound as good as the best DACs and Hi fi is becoming irrelevant, particularly source components.

Confirmed by Max that his TV's DAC sounds as good as his iPhone so case closed on this - all DACs sound the same - I see you say something similar. Oh, btw, he was using his new AVI speakers (nice sale Ashey convincing him that his new AVIs sound better than his old :)). But then Max is not a great champion for your products, I'm afraid because when asked to confirm his review of his new AVI speakers posted on PFM, he demured & said it was probably all in his head. So congrats for getting that sale.

We did proper ABX comparisons of top DACs using their manufacturers evaluation boards about ten years ago and it was obvious then, there was no audible difference and no matter how many people we tested, no one could hear any. Then you could buy an M-Audio Transit for about £50 (USB DAC) or a M-Audio 24/96 for £25 and install it in a PC to make it as good as the best high end CD players. This was why we did the comparison.

Where to start? Firstly, 10 years ago, FFS - is that the last time you looked into the matter? M-Audio Transit & M-Audio 24/96 - that's nearly as nostalgic as vinyl. Please tell us what source you used for this test & what DACs also.

Now phones, Sonos, TVs, AV processors are all amazingly good and there really is no point to buying specialist hi fi, which is why the market collapsed in 2003 and hasn't recovered.
They say the headphone market is worth about £200 million in the British Isles and I'm guessing specialist audio is about a tenth of that.

You seem to be very concerned about market share - is this your yardstick for sonic quality?

To sum up DACs are designed by chip manufacturers and they're the clever people, not the ones who put them in a box and connect them up. They cost very little and everything is built in including the analogue output stage, so there isn't much scope for DAC makers to spoil their sound.

That's the equivalent of saying speakers are made up of drivers designed by the manufacturers - the clever people. Putting them together, using published speaker box designs, on a piece of wood with some simple electronic crossovers doesn't require much scope for getting it wrong & spoiling the sound

It can happen, but more likely is an older or poorer design of power amp can't cope with the RF that high speed DACs produce. If you're hearing differences between DACs, it possibly because your power amp isn't great. PF are fans of older gear and so one might expect problems there.

Funnily enough, the PFM listening session posted by Max, didn't hear any difference between DACs sighted or unsighted - any differences they did hear, they put down to a volume mismatch. This was mainly using Sonos or Bluesound as source (which really didn't surprise me that they heard no differences) but the one that surprised me was they used a Tag-McLaren CDP & heard no difference between this feeding a M2tech Young DAC & a Sonos feeding the same DAC

I know you'd expect me to say this, but in worrying about and fiddling with DACs, you're missing the elephant in the room. Surely everyone excepts that speakers vary enormously and have the most distortion and that's where you need to be looking for better sound quality. :)

Sure we expect you to be focussed on developing speakers - nothing wrong with that - it's your business.
Interestingly, most DAC manufacturers don't deny that speakers & rooms have a big influence on sound & deserve a substantial portion of the audio budget spend.
So maybe denying that everything but speakers is of significance is somewhat disingenuous but a good marketing stance?
What's your position on room treatments - is this not a bigger elephant?

sebna wrote:...
BTW I am in - omg those lovely DACs I have to have them all ! - camp :) almost literary... ;)

Yea, we had noticed, Sebna:)

stout defence there John but Ashley holds all the aces his arguments are very compelling and those secret blind abx tests seal the deal. At least with my new dac it is a very large box I can find some other storage use going forward. I have just ordered my new pioneer telly with dac.
God help the poor fools who bought the Chord Hugo at best that is now rendered a paper weight by the new startling facts.

Funny thing about Max and his new speakers he no sooner had the glowing subjective review written on PFM then they were up for sale on adverts. Subsequently withdrawn probably on foot of him finding out this new startling evidence about all dacs sound the same.

I expect the dac experimentation thread will grind to halt now. No point in going any further on that route. It is a fools errant.

Thanks for the barbed welcome Mr Keny

I bought an NEC CD in the late eighties to replace my £1000 Sony CDP 555 ES, which was the best of the day and used the Philips TDA1541 Crown S 1 with Sony's digital filter that was significantly better than the Philips offering. This machine managed full 16 Bit linearity. The NEC was a direct import, weighed about 25 kilos and retailed for £2000. It was never sold in this country because there isn't the money for Japanese high End. It used Burr Brown dual co-linear 18 Bit Multi Bit DACs and Their digital filter and it exceeded 16 Bit linearity. It was probably the first machine that would be indistinguishable in an ABX from any competent DAC today, or say an iPhone. This was the late eighties. ;)

Modern DACs are very simple to implement, so any one and his dog can do it, but in those days, it was the job of a properly qualified engineer. In AVI's case an ex defence avionics one and our first machine used the later dual 20 Bit Burr Browns. That was 1991 and it was the best that could be done. It succeeded AVI's first DAC, but Martin had been working with Burr Brown DACs since his military avionics days when he used their first Monolithic 8 Bit job.

Since those days DACs have come down in cost, become more integrated and much easier to implement. They're cheap, they all measure better than 16/44 and sufficiently well to be considered transparent as does an iPhone. They measure better than amplifiers and miles better than speakers.

Therefore if we were to subject you to an ABX between the best of twenty years ago, an iPhone and the best of today, you wouldn't not be able to tell a difference. I wish we could because audio needs rid of all this tiresome BS.

Even if there was a tiny difference, it would be less than any two speaker drivers and hugely less than the difference between passive and active speakers. They have better damping by a factor of 2-300 and much steeper filters, so compare with headphones, which isn't possible with passive speakers. The best are astonishingly more clear than you've ever heard. Think about it.

I guess my point is why spout so much hot air on differences that can easily be shown to be fiction and ignore colossal differences that are blindingly obvious to anyone who bothers to listen.
:(