Next best exponential DAC quality level?


I recently did a shoot out of three DACs using my Hint6 + routing each of the other DACs to analog input on the Hint6:

(1) Hint6: ESS Sabre32 -- Integrated 

(2) SMSL M500: ES9038PRO D/A   ~$400 

(3) Khadas ToneBoard(v1): ESS ES9038Q2M - ~$99

I played the same song passages on Amazon Music and was able to cycle through each Hint6 input corresponding to each DAC.

The result?  Very small difference in terms of rendering.  Maybe a more open sound stage with better overall balance using the Hint6 DAC.  The Khadas was more bass / midrange pronounced w/ a more narrow soundstage.  However, I wouldn't suggest that any were head-and-shoulders "better" over the others.  In fact, they were all pretty decent with only small nuances (certainly not worth the price differences.   

I decided to keep the Khadas for my small headphone listening area. 

But it got me thinking - how much would one have to spend to realize an exponential difference in quality?  Is the Khadas that good, or is DAC technology differences more nuanced than I originally thought (meaning, we're paying 10x for only 5% better).  

 

128x128martinman

But we have established tests that are quite accurate w.r.t. what a DAC can do w.r.t. THD, noise floor, frequency response, complex waveform IMD (close to real music), etc. and how those will compare to others. So yes, we can change regulators, or anything else you want and show that it does absolutely nothing, or that the change is so minimal that no one will be able to detect the difference.

In my experience, and with my ears.....not true.

You are making an arbitrary decision about our hearing. This is where you step completely over the line.

We are are cross purposes, in the definition of the completeness and correctness of the complex argument.

The longer a question sits unresolved the more fundamental the mistakes in the formation of the question.

From my position, it appears in the form of a blind spot in your data set and associated reasoning.

~~~~~~~~

This is reminding me of the sign at the professors lounge in the Physics building at the local Large university. Students are, emphatically.... not allowed to enter. It matters not the intellect and reasoing power of the given student, they still lack experience, they lack tempering, they lack the lore and the life. A few are correct and beyond the professors, etc. but it is not a constant, not a norm. they lack the reflection and study of said reflection that the professors earn from the students and their compatriots. for the students, maybe in a few years, maybe in a decade, maybe never. Depends on the individual.

This is the why of the desire of having a tweak and cable area that is separated out so that others can’t crash it like an animal seeking to entrap itself in a ball of rage, while cutting itself and others to pieces.....

Perhaps some will get there, on these particular points about hearing vs the idea of purely measurement and intellectually aided number based design. Where human senses are discounted into being the slave of linear based dogmatic thinking. All for the comforts of a few who aren't making it to the next step in complex reasoning, in this particular scenario.

Something (not separated out) which is which is the opposite, or a misstep, a completely wrong headed take of why we have schools for higher thinking.

In my experience, and with my ears.....not true.

You are making an arbitrary decision about our hearing. This is where you step completely over the line.

 

Can you please detail exactly what measurements you have taken on what equipment and using what to measure that led you to this conclusion with your experience with your ears?

 

I am not making any arbitrary decisions I am basing what I stated off significant amounts of work done by people in this field and I mean real researchers who have done well thought out experiments.

 

A claim of audible benefit is only that a claim until shown with some level of certainty to be anything but. Sectors of this industry makes several orders of magnitude more claims of audible improvement than proofs of audible improvement. I can't be proven wrong because the proof does not exist.

Can you please detail exactly what measurements you have taken on what equipment and using what to measure that led you to this conclusion with your experience with your ears?

 

I am not making any arbitrary decisions I am basing what I stated off significant amounts of work done by people in this field and I mean real researchers who have done well thought out experiments.

 

A claim of audible benefit is only that a claim until shown with some level of certainty to be anything but. Sectors of this industry makes several orders of magnitude more claims of audible improvement than proofs of audible improvement. I can’t be proven wrong because the proof does not exist.

Thank you for making my argument for me. This is not a dig. It is business for some of us. And you come in and do harm, via your relentless blind spot. I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, no, not at all. Just not here, in this, is all.

I believe we've done this dance before and the result was the same. You crashed yourself against the given wall in your mind that you failed to understand exists.

Philosophy is the parent of science and we have to return to it when the going gets difficult. It is the parent and origin point for a reason...the most powerful of all: The essence of what moves us forward, the realization of self...

What exactly can DACs do within the audio reproduction and human hearing bandwidth that can't be measured? I'd be interested in knowing.

Thank you for making my argument for me. This is not a dig. It is business for some of us. And you come in and do harm, via your relentless blind spot. I’m not saying I don’t have blind spots, no, not at all. Just not here, in this, is all.

 

If my words cause harm, it is only because they are based on factual information from decades of research by many people.

I have read some very creative interpretations of science in your posts including how you refer to your products. I would hope you would be the first to admit that all the flowery science language is really quite meaningless if you can’t show conclusive evidence that it makes a difference. My words cause no harm. If you are unable to provide conclusive evidence to support whatever claims you make about your product though that could cause you harm.

 

I am continuously amazed by how large a difference we can often measure and yet there are no indications that people detect the change or issue when listening to music. And yet even though that is the case we base our criteria for audibility on what has happened in a lab under controlled conditions with very simple audible stimulus that greatly enhances the ability to detect differences.