I assume that the many contributors to this forum who claim to understand everything there is to know about digital data transmission will dismiss the manufacturer’s claims about timing/re-clocking as nonsense. Also they will assert that the reviewer is at best gullible and at worst in thrall to advertisers.
They may well be right, but how about taking the fight direct to to the parties involved - the manufacturers and the press? The Stereophile website (for instance) allows feedback. I’d love to see the arguments put there (and see responses from the likes of John Atkinson).
If the feedback is moderated then anything that doesn’t fit the party line will be removed. If that’s not the case then a true back and forth exchange will never happen. Remember the high end audio press is an especially important and big part of the whole industry.
I happen to know one of those “experts”, someone with an advanced degree in electronics and who helped in the development of digital audio. This “expert” has always told me that the most important parts of any audio system are the transducers - microphones (aka the original recording) and speakers. Everything in between is just either a digital or an electrical signal. Oversimplification to say the least but the point gets across.
4 Likes
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
3
You only have to look at the price to see it’s a ridiculous product, but there are also a lot of dubious statements in that interview:
“Our servers sound better because we have a better design with better materials that cost more.”
Sorry, it’s digital. Either it sounds, or it doesn’t. No “better” can be had.
“What is surprisingly difficult is to send those ones and zeros with perfect timing to the DAC.”
What he leaves out, of course, is that perfect timing is not required. Digital protocols are designed to tolerate imperfect timing.
“Unfortunately, timing errors in digital audio sources cause an audible error in the signal the DAC produces.”
Half right. The wrong half. Analog timing errors in digital audio sources are inaudible, as the DAC buffers and reclocks the signal anyway. Jenkins even says that previously.
“The last thing you want in digital audio is a slow power supply.”
The voltages involved are so low that it is trivial to supply power at whatever speed you want.
On the other hand, this reviewer is also using a $3200 special audio Ethernet switch, so we know he’s a fool already.
As far as I was able to follow and understand the statements of those “experts”, they state that DACs are the key component and for well engineered DACs with working built-in solutions regarding timing and noise isolation, the influence of transportation/delivery of the digital audio signal to the DAC is negligible. This seems to be in-line with what is written in the linked article:
To that end, timing is paramount. “It is very easy to feed ones and zeroes to your DAC in the right order,” he said. "Any computer can do that. What is surprisingly difficult is to send those ones and zeros with perfect timing to the DAC. We see it as ideally requiring four steps. The first step runs a server app, the second step runs a player app, the third step clocks the signal before it goes to the DAC, and the last step involves reclocking in the DAC.
But the device the article is about isn’t a DAC and the manufacturer’s efforts regarding reclocking/low noise of the signal from its server is nothing more than a concession to DACs which do a much less good job than some customers may desire. But those efforts come at a price – a price better spent on a higher quality DAC if needed IMHO.
All forums, to varying degrees of extremism, have two main factions that can never agree, and those in the middle who can see (and laugh) both sides.
The foo magic, golden eared audiophile brigade, who can hear the difference between a male and female wood pigeon’s fart, and the (how dare you ask questions) digital defender brigade, who will tell you ‘only measurements are relevant’ and who only buy products that are positively reviewed by Audio Science Review (Assisted Suicide Reading) articles. By the way, does that guy ever listen to anything he tests, or is it just test bench measurements? Just curious as he is “reviewing” products that are designed for music replay.
Surely the only way to determine if a product is worthy, at any price level, is by blind listening tests? If you can repeatedly pick it out, and have the funds, then buy it. If not, walk away.
I personally find blind tests to be fun, but it seems few people have ever participated in one.
The truth is not always in the middle of two extreme views. “Earth is round” and “Earth is flat” can be called extreme, but one is the truth, so the truth is not in the middle.
All you need to do is read a few reviews and you’ll get your answer. It’s always a good idea to read what you’re commenting about.
Science is more that “fun”. You can believe whatever you want, but it won’t necessarily be right. People dismiss blind tests because they invalidate their beliefs.
I agree, but I’m not sure why we have to keep putting “experts” in quotes. The OP did it to emphasize their position, along with the idea that those experts are “know-it-alls”. They’re not.
God forbid we should enjoy it enough to be having fun while we’re listening to music. Not very scientific.
Claims of $100 Chinese DAC’s being the same as American Hi end DAC”s(because they measure the same) are no better than claiming a power lead offers night and day difference. Both BS, unless the lead is used to power a lamp! Both camps are guilty.
What would a scientist do if he successfully picked a product out of a blind test that turned out to measure poorly? Imagine the shame!
I’ve read plenty of ASR reviews, but life really is too short for that amount of misery in my free time, so I gave it up. If it floats your boat, go for it.
The original question stands, does he do listening tests?
I said science is more than about fun, not that it’s supposed to be no fun. I am a scientist by education, so science is always fun to me. Even if it contradicts my preconceptions.
I disagree. One claim is based in facts, the other is not. Again, it’s the fallacy of the two extreme - and thus wrong - views.
A true scientist is never ashamed to be wrong. In audio though, the shame most often goes - or should go - to the other side. Remember MoFi?
But you still took the time to comment on it, leaving to others the burden of the research. The question doesn’t stand.
Yes indeed, everyone gets their kicks in different ways. I tend to ridicule myself for self imposed misery when I should be avoiding getting drawn into pointless discussions. As you are playing politician and avoiding the question, the answer is he doesn’t listen to the product he is testing.
The earth is not round by the way, it’s not a perfect sphere.
Everyone in this thread seems to overlook, that the product’s designer has a sonic preference for digital transmission techniques, that slave the DAC to the streamer’s clock, so his efforts seem a little less ridiculous.
Then there’s the product’s benefits using its USB output, which marginalizes it’s jitter improvement to …
… ±1–2ps …
… when measuring DAC’s that …
… have sufficient galvanic isolation/onboard reclocking.
So the proof is in the bizkit, better invest in a less flawed DAC design , and you could just use a cheapo PC to serve the bits.
I could comment on several other statements in that review, but I made my point…
Sometimes he offers a brief line or two to how it sounds, but most he doesn’t especially one that I have read recently. Tbh I don’t take anything he comments about too seriously it’s all generally inaudible and he’s on his own crusade.
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
17
What I don’t understand about the original post is, if you are reading the Stereophile articles for insight from their ad-supported putative experts, who are talking to marketers, why disparage the free (and quite formidable) disinterested digital expertise of the forum members?
What I don’t understand about the original post is, if you are reading the Stereophile articles for insight from their ad-supported putative experts, who are talking to marketers, why disparage the free (and quite formidable) disinterested digital expertise of the forum members?
A reasonable question.
My starting point is that I don’t believe the hi-fi press simply trots out whatever manufacturers or advertisers want it to. Having met some of the journalists involved, I believe that they are generally honest and take their responsibilities seriously. Of course, this doesn’t mean that they can’t be wrong - and I think most (if not all) of them would accept that.
Orthodox opinion in the hi-fi press is that digital sources (and digital interconnects) can have an effect on ultimate sound quality. I think that most of this orthodoxy stems from subjective tests and there may even be an acknowledgement that it flies in the face of theory (in fact I seem to recall that, in a test of USB cables some years ago, Hi-Fi News ventured the opinion that they should all have sounded the same, but concluded that they didn’t).
Opinion on this forum is, of course, mixed. I don’t doubt that the people here who maintain that all (bit-perfect) digital sources sound the same are sincere. I also don’t doubt their credentials. And they may well be right. My own subjective (not blind) testing suggests that digital sources can (and do) sound different, but I know that this subjectivity is suspect for all sorts of reasons. While I’d personally struggle to set up a blind test, the hi-fi press could do it, and the results would reach a wide audience. This is really what I’d like to see.
I may just write to Hi-Fi News (here in the UK) with this suggestion, but I thought I’d test the water here first - to see if the “bits are bits” faction were willing to tackle the hi-fi press head-on.
Several “educational” listening events during Munich HighEnd shows did take place in the more distant past, and were hosted by a Hifi journal.
Proposed blind ABX tests could be made available to a broader public in such a setting, and I’d certainly take part in it!
Bring it on - I succeeded in Archimago’s recent blinded 16/24bit music resolution test, but only via my Sennheiser HD600…
Bill_Janssen
(Wigwam wool socks now on asymmetrical isolation feet!)
20
The problem is in the phrasing here.
Bit-perfect sources don’t “sound” at all. That’s the job of the DAC, amp, and speakers. Given properly engineered DACs, all bit-perfect sources should sound identical, as they will always deliver the same bits to the DAC, whichever it may be. The defects, whichever they may be, will lie in the DAC or downstream equipment. So, sure, depending on the engineering of the DAC, different sources may sound different, as broken or poorly engineered DACs may interpret the same bits differently, or may allow electrical noise to seep through the connection to the source and bollix up the sound.
So it’s not so much that all sources do sound the same, it’s that they should sound the same.
I think every “bits are bits” guy on the forum would agree with this.
This is complicated by the fact that some of us are using expensive but not well-designed DACs, and are understandably reluctant to admit their mistake. Blame the cable, or the source, or the power supply!
I think most would see it as a lost cause. It’s not the audiophile journalists per se, it’s the organizations they work for. The business people who write their paychecks, and control what can appear.
What exactly is your replay gear Bill? Curious since you seemingly know the absolute truth about everything with digital audio and have heard it all.
Mine is fanless NUC ROCK to Cisco 2960 switch to OpticalModule (Teddy Pardo LPS) to OpticalRendu (Sonore LPS) to Naim DAC V1 to Naim NAP160 amp to Audio Physic Classic Compact speakers (and KEF LS50WII’s in another room). Having had the DAC V1 for six years now, I could hear improvements with the digital backend as I improved it. I guess that means the Naim DAC must be poorly designed? Or I’m delusional? Or both? I do love the sound of my hallucinations through my broken gear though…
(and for record, I’m not at all defending the stereophile piece as I regard much of the super high end as ridiculous, or seriously diminishing returns, just as I don’t think all digital gear sounds the same, no matter the DAC design. I’d just rather not deal in absolutes).