Hearing difference in Audio Quality

[jpaul]

(don't have one) the apple phone per se, no longer have a dac inside with a headphone socket so their heritage (Nokia had good ones too) of well designed audio circuitry is ended no ?
this cut phone costs and reduced thickness, but you now have to buy an additional BT headphone that offers meh quality in comparision, or a questionable dongle.

people just want phones that will run benchmarks fast as opposed to music.

 

[dowie]

Yes the newer iPhones just use the lightning port, no 3.5mm jack. Doesn't require Bluetooth, can also use either a separate external DAC or headphones that connect via the lightning port.

 

[Psycho Sonny]

Does a DAC really make that much of a difference? I have some Beyerdynamic DT 770 PRO headphones for PC use and own some Westone W40 that I'd use with my phone.

I think I'd love to try a DAC to see if my headphones/earphones really do perform well but then I also wouldn't want to want one incase it's simply a waste of money.

i've tested DAC/AMP's from £10 all the way up to £1000.

the sweet spot is around £150-£300 IMO. after that your spending stupid money for marginal improvements. yes a £600 DAC/AMP sounded better but it takes 2 weeks for you to adjust to the sound to really hear the improvements.

buy something made by schiit and spend £300 max. after that you won't really notice anything unless you buy much better headphones.

if you had hd600's, k702's, hd650's or better than spending £400-£600 would make sense if you were really into music. but even then it's marginally better than £200 equipment when you actually try and calculate how much better it truly is.

an AUNE T1 is probably the best DAC/AMP for under £150. get yourself a rocket tube for £12 off ebay and it sings.

then you start spending more and more on rolling valves.

best just to pony up and buy schiit the enxt level up around £100-£150 on a DAC and then another £100-£150 on an AMP like the Vali 2. paired with a schiit sub £200 amp will be an amazing set up. spending more money will be for marginal improvements and a waste of money.

 

[Spook187]

Go and play a crappy mp3 quality on a Funktion-one then you will realise how rubbish it really is

 

[dowie]

i've tested DAC/AMP's from £10 all the way up to £1000.

the sweet spot is around £150-£300 IMO. after that your spending stupid money for marginal improvements. yes a £600 DAC/AMP sounded better but it takes 2 weeks for you to adjust to the sound to really hear the improvements.

buy something made by schiit and spend £300 max. after that you won't really notice anything unless you buy much better headphones.

When you say "tested" do you mean like a double blind test or you just listened to them all for a bit and you noticed some improvements in the ones you already know to be more expensive?

I'm just a bit skeptical, while I can believe there might be the odd one that is just some dodgy/cheap tat mass produced for next to nothing in general, assuming you've got a "reasonable" product, I find it hard to believe that you'd get a difference unless the device is deliberately modifying (distorting) the sound in some way in an attempt to make it more 'pleasing'. The actual task of amplifying a signal and the task of converting a digital signal to an analogue one has been done for decades, these things can be mass produced easily. It seems very dubious that by paying £600 you're actually getting anything that is really better at doing this (at least in terms of a difference you can actually perceive).

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

When you say "tested" do you mean like a double blind test or you just listened to them all for a bit and you noticed some improvements in the ones you already know to be more expensive?

I'm just a bit skeptical, while I can believe there might be the odd one that is just some dodgy/cheap tat mass produced for next to nothing in general, assuming you've got a "reasonable" product, I find it hard to believe that you'd get a difference unless the device is deliberately modifying (distorting) the sound in some way in an attempt to make it more 'pleasing'. The actual task of amplifying a signal and the task of converting a digital signal to an analogue one has been done for decades, these things can be mass produced easily. It seems very dubious that by paying £600 you're actually getting anything that is really better at doing this (at least in terms of a difference you can actually perceive).

Just so we understand context.
Just what have you listened to above say £300?
Do you DBT what you buy? If so, what was the last component you used that methodology for?

I've seen that comments 100s of times. Still yet to find a single person who's actually stood up, not only saying that they've DBT a purchased item, but then been able to provide the details that will stand up to scrutiny on their methodology.

 

[dowie]

Just so we understand context.
Just what have you listened to above say £300?
Do you DBT what you buy? If so, what was the last component you used that methodology for?

I've seen that comments 100s of times. Still yet to find a single person who's actually stood up, not only saying that they've DBT a purchased item, but then been able to provide the details that will stand up to scrutiny on their methodology.

Nope I don't just as I don't arrange double blind tests of the medicines I buy etc...

The reason you see that comment is because the audio world is full of myths and BS. You have no need to see the product you're testing and sure enough when people are blinded/tests are properly carried out then the supposed differences often dissapear.

Your last bit is exactly my point, these sighted reviews of products often simply don't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[jpaul]

Just so we understand context.
Just what have you listened to above say £300?
Do you DBT what you buy? If so, what was the last component you used that methodology for?

I've seen that comments 100s of times. Still yet to find a single person who's actually stood up, not only saying that they've DBT a purchased item, but then been able to provide the details that will stand up to scrutiny on their methodology.

even if psycho has not DBT tested, do you think the law of diminishing returns applies above the £300 level, and you will need other amp/speakers of significantly greater cost to discern the improvement. (or do you need to spend the money on the source like lp12)

The actual task of amplifying a signal and the task of converting a digital signal to an analogue one has been done for decades, these things can be mass produced easily.

the dac chips themselves maybe but the anciliary circuitry, power supply, component quality(&liefspan) pcb design(respecting good analalog/digital prinicpals) differ, contributing to audible difference -
so I can understand why chromecast audio and a echo audio soundcard I use sound different.
(the market is no different say to the design of a turbo system on a car, or an induction cooker say - basic prinicpals the same, but execution can be very different)

 

[dowie]

the dac chips themselves maybe but the anciliary circuitry, power supply, component quality(&liefspan) pcb design(respecting good analalog/digital prinicpals) differ, contributing to audible difference

That's pretty doubtful, of course that is the game the manufacturers and industry mags play, try to find an area where there might be a theoretical difference (or even just make up an area where they blatantly won't be) and then claim some product solves the non existent problem.

Amplification, for example, can be done well with minimal distortion without requiring someone to pay £600+ to "improve" it... there generally isn't, in reality, an audible improvement to be had. There *might* be an audible difference but that might well come from deliberate distortion of the sound..

For example with hi fi - the fact is if your amp is powerful enough for the speakers you want to drive and you have a flat linear response(obvs anything designed to make the sound more 'pleasing' etc.. by changing this will give a noticeable difference) then (when operating within their intended output range) any competent solid state amp is as good as another. The distortion from a modern amplifier is minimal and you only get differences towards the high end of their range where you might get clipping in a less powerful amp etc...

this guy had a challenge running for a while re: car audio:

http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/

principle is still the same whether we're talking about headphone amps, car amps, hi fi amps in your living room - provided you've got a linear response and the amp is powerful enough for the speakers/whatever it is driving and is operating within its range then one competent amp is as good as another. You just need to spend as much as is needed to get the features you want... you certainly don't need to spend many times more because they've vacuum sealed the purest of gold cables to transport the signal from the ordinary circuit board to the connectors (or whatever "woo" claim is being made).

Re: the DAC itself that is a problem that has been tackled for years... theses things are mass produced by major companies with big R&D budgets, the little cottage industry hi fi companies are relying on pure marketing and gullible golden ears types...

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Law of diminishing returns? Absolutely and IMO they're pretty brutal.
Whenever I've dabbled, my take was that if you genuinely wanted to upgrade something and hear a noticeable difference, then double the cost of what you're trying out was a reasonable starting point.

NOT that money is always the final arbiter of quality, but it can be.

As for DBTs, they're great "in theory", but usually when people try them, get picked to pieces by people on their methodology as they're incredibly time consuming to conduct they way that they're meant to be.
On top of that, some of the ones I've seen have flawed testing scope. e.g. look for changes when comparing a 15 second clip. That simply isn't always reflective of how it might correlate with finding a piece of gear that you actually want to listen to for hours on end.

 

[Rroff]

I'm on the fence on this one - there is a lot of BS and myths often perpetuated by people who've never done any real testing of their own and often people are talking about distortion which isn't always a negative but... but also I can't completely agree with Dowie and those making similar claims based on 100s of hours messing about with DIY DACs and amps.

 

[dowie]

I think the objections to DBT are often a bit of a cop out... "ah but the differences are so subtle you need to have listened for 2 weeks to detect them.."

the fact that the more obvious audiophile claims/myths can be ripped apart very easily with DBT (like speaker cables etc..) just leads to people to try and come up with more spurious reasons and/or claim that the test was flawed... no reason why you can't run a DBT for a few hours on each bit of kit you're comparing, it would still be better than the signed test given how it eliminates the rather obvious and well known biases.

To put it bluntly - we already know that people have biases with regards to kit, quite large ones that disappear when blinded so how can a sighted test in the presence of these large and known biases/distortions that occur in your own mind really pick up some difference that is so subtle you can't detect it unless you've listened for hours? (what is more likely - that it is the biases we already know exist and that you've not controlled for or that it is some tiny improvement in sound that seemingly can't be detected when blinded over a short period)

You can't possibly make a claim like that if you're honest re: the biases already present. I don't doubt that people have spent hours with various bits of kits and believe there are some very subtle differences, but the more likely explanation for that it the inherent biases already present.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I'm on the fence on this one - there is a lot of BS and myths often perpetuated by people who've never done any real testing of their own and often people are talking about distortion which isn't always a negative but... but also I can't completely agree with Dowie and those making similar claims based on 100s of hours messing about with DIY DACs and amps.

You're not wrong about the BS. There's tons of it, but then how is this any different from most other hobbies?

As an example, those who talk about buying something based upon measurements:
- How many of us have the knowledge, equipment and opportunity to really test a component?
- Do we even know what the important measurements are?
- Who is providing those measurements and do they have their own agendas? Most people seem to have, even if it's just to justify why they bought item X
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that measurements are pointless, but again, they need to be taken with a definite pinch of salt

My current thinking is to use available info to possibly shortlist options, but then to always rely on my own ears to make that final decision.
People talk about placebo, but as long as you go into a test with the clear understanding that bigger/more brash/more expensive most certainly doesn't mean better, then I don't understand the issue.
After all, I'd rather spend less and go on holiday with the savings that feel the desire to spend a whole bunch of wonga.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I think the objections to DBT are often a bit of a cop out... "ah but the differences are so subtle you need to have listened for 2 weeks to detect them.."

the fact that the more obvious audiophile claims/myths can be ripped apart very easily with DBT (like speaker cables etc..) just leads to people to try and come up with more spurious reasons and/or claim that the test was flawed... no reason why you can't run a DBT for a few hours on each bit of kit you're comparing, it would still be better than the signed test given how it eliminates the rather obvious and well known biases.

To put it bluntly - we already know that people have biases with regards to kit, quite large ones that disappear when blinded so how can a sighted test in the presence of these large and known biases/distortions that occur in your own mind really pick up some difference that is so subtle you can't detect it unless you've listened for hours? (what is more likely - that it is the biases we already know exist and that you've not controlled for or that it is some tiny improvement in sound that seemingly can't be detected when blinded over a short period)

You can't possibly make a claim like that if you're honest re: the biases already present. I don't doubt that people have spent hours with various bits of kits and believe there are some very subtle differences, but the more likely explanation for that it the inherent biases already present.

Again, I'll repeat my point. I've never yet come across a single person who's claimed to have used DBTs in their decision making.
I've also only come across one person who I believe based his decision purely on measurements, and he was an ex audio engineer.

To me the argument of DBTs is utterly moot. Why preach it when it's never done?
The whole argument appears to exist purely to generate an argument online. Just a total waste of everyone's time.


Ref cables, yep, agreed, mostly BS. Not sure why you need a DBT to try to prove it.
Again, as long as you have an open mind, the logic of placebo is as much of a myth as cables made of unobtanium whilst coated in cryogenic whale sperm adds value.

 

[dowie]

Again, I'll repeat my point. I've never yet come across a single person who's claimed to have used DBTs in their decision making.
I've also only come across one person who I believe based his decision purely on measurements, and he was an ex audio engineer.

To me the argument of DBTs is utterly moot. Why preach it when it's never done?
The whole argument appears to exist purely to generate an argument online. Just a total waste of everyone's time.

Ref cables, yep, agreed, mostly BS. Not sure why you need a DBT to try to prove it.
Again, as long as you have an open mind, the logic of placebo is as much of a myth as cables made of unobtanium whilst coated in cryogenic whale sperm adds value.

I think you're missing the point, the reason why it isn't done by industry magazines etc.. is that they rely on industry sponsorship and stating that actually a rather modestly priced amp and an uber expensive amp have no difference in sound quality would rather annoy their advertisers...

that isn't to say that blind tests have never been done, when they are done they generally show up these myths

the reason to bring them up is because people make claims like the ones being made earlier in the thread about spending silly money on something and supposedly getting an improvement - the simplest explanation for that is that they can see the thing, are aware of the amount spent and are just exposing themselves to the usual biases already present that tend to disappear when blinded

I'm not suggesting that everyone go and conduct blind tests for each bit of equipment they buy, I'm saying that people making claims about subtle differences from their own sighted tests are most likely just misleading themselves.

 

[jpaul]

That's pretty doubtful, of course that is the game the manufacturers and industry mags play, try to find an area where there might be a theoretical difference (or even just make up an area where they blatantly won't be) and then claim some product solves the non existent problem.

Amplification, for example, can be done well with minimal distortion without requiring someone to pay £600+ to "improve" it... there generally isn't, in reality, an audible improvement to be had. There *might* be an audible difference but that might well come from deliberate distortion of the sound..

on the dac front, what is your price cut-off point for reasonable ?
[psycho had acknowledged £600 was dubious and that 150-300(dac or dac+amp i'm not sure) was adequate ]

(subjectively) I would say a chromecast audio(dac) at £30 is noticeably inferior audio quality versus nearer £150 older (echo) sound-card I use, and had pencilled in a schitt uber £150 for a replacement.
the chromecast has a wall wart supply with a meter cable, so questionable it has a low inductance power supply to respond to music pre-amp transients ... it's built to a budget

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I think you're missing the point, the reason why it isn't done by industry magazines etc.. is that they rely on industry sponsorship and stating that actually a rather modestly priced amp and an uber expensive amp have no difference in sound quality would rather annoy their advertisers...

that isn't to say that blind tests have never been done, when they are done they generally show up these myths

the reason to bring them up is because people make claims like the ones being made earlier in the thread about spending silly money on something and supposedly getting an improvement - the simplest explanation for that is that they can see the thing, are aware of the amount spent and are just exposing themselves to the usual biases already present that tend to disappear when blinded

I'm not suggesting that everyone go and conduct blind tests for each bit of equipment they buy, I'm saying that people making claims about subtle differences from their own sighted tests are most likely just misleading themselves.

Nope, not missing the point at all.
We know damn well that the mags have little/no genuine credibility, because it's fairly obvious that their reviews are biased. So even if they did add DBTs, would you believe them?
The sad part is that far too many of the "reviews" are utterly biased, either deliberately on behalf of industry sponsors, or by accident of people simply regurgitating the same pap they've read somewhere else to sound like they know what they're talking about, or often in defense of their own purchasing decision, which are typically limited by the level of their exposure to alternatives.

So back to your point on "claims", I agree. There's far too much of the "latest and greatest" bits of gear. For example, I remember auditioning Beresford and Benchmark DACs when they were the latest "in things". Didn't like either. I wouldn't be surprised if the "Schiit" products are just more of the same.

As for your comments on people misleading themselves. Maybe there are, maybe they're not. The key point is to get across that they should approach things with an open mind and then pay bugger all attention to the hype and counter hype, particularly so when it's being provided by people either with an agenda, or with bugger all experience of kit from which to even form a baseline.

 

[dowie]

on the dac front, what is your price cut-off point for reasonable ?
[psycho had acknowledged £600 was dubious and that 150-300(dac or dac+amp i'm not sure) was adequate ]

(subjectively) I would say a chromecast audio(dac) at £30 is noticeably inferior audio quality versus nearer £150 older (echo) sound-card I use, and had pencilled in a schitt uber £150 for a replacement.
the chromecast has a wall wart supply with a meter cable, so questionable it has a low inductance power supply to respond to music pre-amp transients ... it's built to a budget

I don't think things should be looked at in terms of budget tbh... people get conditioned to believe that more expensive kit = better kit etc.. a separate DAC isn't necessarily needed - good in ear headphones can be absolutely fine

As for your comments on people misleading themselves. Maybe there are, maybe they're not. The key point is to get across that they should approach things with an open mind and then pay bugger all attention to the hype and counter hype, particularly so when it's being provided by people either with an agenda, or with bugger all experience of kit from which to even form a baseline.

Quite likely they are, we already know that the biases exist so why subject yourself to a known flawed test... if we know big biases already exist then the presence of them while you're trying to detect apparently very subtle differences that can only be picked up after hours of listening makes for a very flawed test.

keeping an "open mind" is the go to line for people peddling "woo" in plenty of fields whether it is homeopathy, other forms of alternative medicine, people claiming to talk with the dead, people making claims about the law etc.. it seems like a fairly meaningless statement though is sometimes used to try and persuade people to ignore objective facts and keep an "open mind" with regards to evidence that is fundamentally flawed (in this case a sighted test). Keeping a skeptical mind and questioning what you're told (especially by people with a vested interest - hi fi salespeople, industry reviews etc..) would be a better approach IMHO.

the key point to get across IMO is that amplifiers are generally well made as are DACs, sources are digital these days and beyond CD quality you'll likely not hear any difference... the main things that affect sound quality are simply your speakers and the room you're listening in (or your headphones).

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

the key point to get across IMO is that amplifiers are generally well made as are DACs, sources are digital these days and beyond CD quality you'll likely not hear any difference... the main things that affect sound quality are simply your speakers and the room you're listening in (or your headphones).

You talk about the potential for bias, then make a statement like that.
Is that comment based upon what you've read, or genuine experience of comparing more expensive amps in the context of a good system?

 

[dowie]

You talk about the potential for bias, then make a statement like that.
Is that comment based upon what you've read, or genuine experience of comparing more expensive amps in the context of a good system?

I'm not sure you're following - the statement re: bias is relating to the results of DBT showing quite clearly that when you blind participants the apparent big differences in audio quality and various audiophile myths disappear. Given we know this and given that any sighted test by default carries this bias then they're rather flawed as a measure of some other difference which is claimed to be rather small and picked up only after hours of listening...