I appreciate the skipping timestamp. Shows your respect your audiences time. In an age of clickbait and filler that is very appreciated. Little thing but still. I decided to watch straight though because of that.
Well, if manufacturers were obligated to release atleast a small list of measurements with certain parameters, listening tests of eldctronics wouldn't be needed... Plus, measurements are infinitely more reliable
I would also add the caveat that not everyone has enough listening skills to notice a difference. If we were to talk about wine, I don't think anyone would agree that being discriminating about wine tasting requires training. Same is true in audio.
Great work. After watching this, and seeing that you were surprised to learn that you can hear 20k+ I wanted to see if I can as well. I've always noticed that I hear things other people do not, such as an induction burner on high...I did a little test and found that I can hear 19k+ for sure and I'm 40 years old. I've always had super sensitive hearing and cool to see that that's still true.
I spent a week comparing high-end speaker cables and a few very basic ones and for 5 days I believed I heard differences until a friend helped to ABX and mysteriously the differences went away. I wouldn't believe any individual on such specific claims without proven ABX since I didn't believe to hear anything, thought it's all bs and still a thick heavy cable sounded bassier and a thin silver cable more bright😂
I commend you for accepting that the differences you heard were imagined. I've had similar experiences. But unfortunately, many people won't accept that the differences are imagined, so instead they dismiss the blind tests and insist that there must be an audible difference.
I'm a mastering engineer and listen to audio in a measured room on a Kii Three rig. Many of my peers in the industry cannot reliably differentiate between a 320kbps .MP3 and a 24bit .wav in ABX conditions on a world class monitoring rig... And I'd argue it doesn't matter at all. The content of the music, the ideas, the melodies and lyrics are what moves us, and much of the audiophile scene has more to do with people gaining a status identity which allows them to feel superior. Most equipment made in mid-pricerange is very low distortion and reliable, and even more so in the DAC market. An Audient soundcard for €100 can pass the audio through the converters more than 50 times before the phase inverten sum is audible. This means that it is almost mathematically perfect. When you pay more you might be getting a different EQ profile or "desirable" distortion. The additional harmonics can enhance some records... But this is something that can be achieved using any DAW using stock plugins. To wrap up: don't have fomo, enjoy your favourite audio files with whatever mainstream reputable brand that encourages you to enjoy as much music as possible. Most mastering engineers like me cant hear over 18khz, I certainly cant hear over 16.6k. Content that high is not part of the musical range. Im highly sceptical that this content creator can hear above 20k, but taking his word then he is hearing things that most 5 year olds cannot hear.😊
I'm not at all sceptical that he can hear above 20kHz. When I was 18 I could hear over 21kHz. Granted I was the only one in the class that could but I definitely could and I was surprised to see everyone else's hands had gone down when it went past 20kHz. I agree with you about whether it's particularly relevant though. And he hasn't actually blind tested DACs here.
I wonder since people like you mastering the music cant hear it does that mean he is hearing the noise you haven't filtered out the recording because you didnt know it was there?
Great video about importance of blind testing done well I would love to see more of the reviewers try the test too. It should help account for variations in hearing (like your excellent hearing)
I don't mean this question to be critical, only inquisitive, however you said you believe if you can hear it you can measure it. Therefore, how does one measure things like imaging, layering or sound stage size for example? I have never seen any measurement on a headphone saying it has xx area of sound stage size. The only way you know of that size (outside of listening for yourself) is by reviewers telling you its big but not as big as the Sony Z1R (if it's closed) or not as big as a HD 800 (if it's an open back) My point is, if this is a quantifiable number then why don't manufacturers put specs or numbers alongside the frequency response numbers telling you this is the imaging rating or this is the sound stage size rating?
These aspects of audible sound from audio systems are a fundamental missing link in audio research. As are the relative differences between impedance capacitance and inductance of cables. Which tells us what and how? Which is valuable to understand a component or cable?
Some things are part of psychoacoustics, I guess there is just no way to measure them since it depends on the interaction of the sound + how the brain is interpreting it.
Just because you don't know how to measure something does not mean it cannot be measured. I don't know how to measure frequency response, but I can tell the difference between EQs.
There is a big difference between measuring something and correlating those measurements with specific sonic traits. That second part is what is missing. There is no part of the signal that is impossible to measure, but that doesn't mean we know what we are looking for
@@eskamobob8662 one thing that's measurable tho is that in theory two top spec amp should have an output that's so similar it's essentially impossible to distinguish between them, let alone saying one has more sound stage etc
5 หลายเดือนก่อน +11
Interesting video. Thanks for doing the testing. My practical take away from everything I've read about DACs and amps is that I simply get something that does not measure as broken, has the features I need, that I like the looks of and that is within my budget, and do not worry about any differences in sound. Since I can't hear anything above 13 kHz I will continue to ignore the question of reconstruction filters as somebody else's problem.
Already gave you a thumbs up before even getting to the results because of how thorough and clear your explanation of the whole thing blind ABX testing is.
Erin from Erinsaudiocorner started doing it and although he doesn;t show statistic results he does share often that he couldn't hear a difference during his abx test. So that's something.
I have a few different DACs around the house and I can tell the difference between them but you, my friend, are a while different level completely ! Great video, thanks for sharing 🙂
yeah i didn't get this. The dude says he abxes dacs but then just abxed oversampling and reconstruction filters witch has almost nothing to do with DACs quality or sound reproduction - its just different reconstruction filters. So at best he has proven if you can hear above 20k, the reconstruction filters still almost don't metter xD
That’s what I was hoping for as well. It’s a great idea but perhaps a missed opportunity. Interesting video and test methodology in any case. Hopefully a DAC comparison is coming?
So you can hear 20-21khz… ok that’s fine… but what sounds in recorded music exist in those frequencies? As in I can’t imagine there was anything to hear, unless the DAC’s are generating HF noise at that level.
Thanks for this video. It's fantastic that you approached this topic from a scientific perspective. I'm a former cognitive psychologist and well versed in the methodology used in psychological research studies. A couple of thoughts around running something like a psycho-acoustic study or any kind of scientifically sound research study. The number of trials is dependent on the statistical power that you are trying to achieve with the study. Something like 20 trials that you mentioned may or may not be sufficient since it's highly dependent on the effect size. Effect size represents the magnitude of the experimental effect. If the phenomenon is easy to detect then usually the # of subject and trials in the experiment can be low. When the effect size is small, you have to run substantially more subjects and trials. The # of participants, the # of stimuli, trial order of stimuli and the participants demographics (age, gender, etc) used all play a role in crafting a well designed experiment. Please keep making more of these videos!
I'll be honest, I'm feeling pretty dumb. I thought you were going to be ABX testing two different DACs, but it was just 2 audio files? Do I have that right?
The two files are to test the effect of the oversampling filter in the DAC. By showing that this single factor makes a difference, that shows that DACs make a difference (and oversampling as a standalone factor makes a difference). The reason to do it this way is because there is no way to do a physical ABX test in a remotely verifiable way. Doing a digital test with shared and verifiable inputs and results was a necessary precursor to sharing physical ABX results in future reviews as this establishes a conclusive difference in a way that does not rely on trust.
@@GoldenSound although this explanation is mathematically correct, I also felt disappointed. I got excited about this ABX device and expected you to invite several random listeners over to have a larger sample. And then it went into comparing the oversampling filter of a ~$4k device by reproducing the filters digitally. With the main difference being way beyond average listener's hearing. I understand, that your point was to prove if DACs can possibly make any difference at all. But from an entertainment perspective, the physical ABX would be much more fun to watch, especially if multiple listeners express what exactly they hear and how they tell the difference subjectively. Just an idea for pt. 2 ;-)
I think the result is interesting, but my question would be: if you compare two DACs that in the region 20Hz - 25KHz are flat (flat within say 0.1 dB), can you or not hear a difference? My expectation is frequency response is just one aspect of performance, and a steady-state one at that. There's also IMD, and possibly other aspects of transient performance.
Beautiful test! Well done. This tells me that my 73 year old ears probable won’t know the difference in a high dollar DAC and my current WiiM Pro plus. My hearing stops somewhere between 9 and 10khz but you would be surprised at the difference I can hear from various sources. Or maybe that’s just my dementia kicking in seeing as how our minds play tricks on us.
Great video! Love the incredible effort you’ve put in! I do think the tests is incomplete though. You’ve shown different oversampling filters can make a difference via the filter rolloff (which you are able to hear). But that’s not all there is to a DAC is it? Things like SINAD, jitter, and distortion are all measurable aspects in a DAC. I think you should go back and use the blind ABX testing device. Put a 20k low-pass filter on all the test tracks to simulate losing that hearing range. Then test DACs with measurably different SINAD, etc., and see if you can statistically significantly differentiate them.
It can yes, but not in a consistent manner. Your brain can trick you into thinking one file sounds a certain way, but the point is that if you do enough runs, you can then show whether that difference is consistently attributable to one of the devices/files (ie: there is a genuine audible difference you can reliably pick out), or whether it was random and not likely a genuine difference
It set up just to confuse you in to thinking "there is no difference" completely flawed and ridiculous. This is not some kind of medical effect you are trying to find and separate from the placebo effect.
Fantastic! Such a refreshingly rigorous and highly controlled methodology! Only this standard of testing can produce truely meaningful results . Or - as is the case here - reveal a surprising and otherwise hidden conclusion. This is Gamers Nexus but for the audio world. And your acknowledgement that a level of trust has to be established is just pure class. What a contrast to the usual biased, none disclosure ridden, more often than not just plain wrong, woolly thinking nonsense that so plagues the internet. Bravo!
Impressive testing. For single components such as a capacitor, or a cable, I always found it useful to have one item on the left channel and one on the right channel, and quickly move from one to the other with a balance control. This minimized the time between comparisons. For that everyone can do it without an ABX box.
Fabulous work. Thank you for all your efforts here. I have no doubts in your testing processes but I was wondering how you measured your hearing up to 21khz? The reason I ask is that if one uses online or even offline signal generators or even cd’s with test tones, I have noticed that there is always an abundance of lower harmonics (and vice versa in the lower register). I think a great deal of these harmonics are generated by the playback equipment and perhaps you were hearing a second order lower harmonic of 21k? or other 3rd, 5th. etc? In a strange way this doesn’t change the result because you would have the same phenomenon during your comparisons? ie ‘we’ hear differences due to things happening above 20k because of the weaknesses of our playback equipment producing lower harmonics for some reason
I recently watched a video from another reviewer that was focusing on a new DAC in the market. He suggested that while it sounded good (he may have used a more positive term, but that's not important) it doesn't compare to the flagship models from companies A and B because it didn't have the heft or the number of internal components that those other DACs had so it could not possibly be in the same class. WTF! I thought being in this hobby is all about the sound, right? How can a person possibly make such a statement? I'm not saying that components don't matter. They do. However, I doubt, in most cases, that an individual could consistently pick out the DAC that is the most expensive or has the most internal components just by listening. I think that was a placebo effect run wild. 🤣🤣🤣 BTW, I like your presentation style. I think you are very thorough in your approach and this video is a perfect example of that. And the British accent makes you sound very authoritative. Everyone know that the British know best. 🤣🤣🤣 Seriously though, keep up the great work and keep those videos coming. 👍🏽
hearing above 20kHz sine wave is an amazing ability. Still majority of people can hear way above 20kHz (probably up to 80kHz) just not as a pure sine, but as harmonics (the steepness of signal increase of decay). This way we distinguish between recorded and live music. So even if you get older and your ears will work up to 16kHz sine, you will most probably be able to discriminate between these DACs anyway. Sound is so much more then we can measure today.
2:56 I mean is that bad though? Like how many times to you "taste" food blind folded with you nose pluged and it made to a perfectly smooth and nuratal temp and texure? I get the test though because I do want to know if my $50 M audio interface is no btter then a gucci option or am I missing out so one day I'll need to upgrade?
Long time viewer, but I subscribed to the channel after seeing this video because I liked the rigorous approach! Conducting truly blind (ABX) tests is painstaking work and I appreciate you taking the time to do it right. Also: I'm super jealous of your extraordinary hearing. Enjoy it while you can!
Not that i disagree with what you say in this video but there are a couple things I would point out. (nitpicking) 1. the suggestions that you can "try the test a couple times before you catch on" is quite a slippery slope because you can get into the problem of people cherrypicking runs (confirmation bias) where they score highly under the pretext that they have "improved". Im not claiming that you did but saying it that way can lead to people misinterpreting their own test results. 2. (OPINION) I believe that, when people talk about sonic differences in dacs, they are usually observing differences in the amplification stage. Again I am not claiming there may not also differences in in filters or other variables but rather I think that the differences in the output stage are the most impactful. 3. Just because you could hear sound while a 21khz tone was being played into your headphones does not mean that you can hear said frequencies. Maybe you can, however it is also possible that what you are actually hearing is some other form of resonance (at a lower frequency) either in the headphone or in your ear. Either way this does not in any way invalidate what you are saying, if you can pick up on it, regardless of whether or not you are hearing 21kHz or something caused by 21kHz it remains relevant regardless. It would be interesting to see whether any lower frequency sound appears on a spectrogram when 21kHz is played through those headphones both through a measurement mic and when placed on a B&K (even if yeah obviously this is not representative of your own ears/head). Anyway thanks for the vid and sorry for nitpicking :)
After getting a hearing test and my doc saying everything is normal for a 40 year old I decided to pamper myself with a new amp. So I went to a hifi shop and sat with 4 amps at the same table up to the 2000 dollar range, trying them all with the 800s, a headphone I know well. I knew what I was testing, was expecting to hear a difference and be blown away [and make a purchase]. I didn't hear any difference, really. What? One sounded like it might have a roll off in the treble, big whoop. Not exactly worth the money. For kicks the shop worker told me to try the Questyle CMA15, a 3000 dollar amp. Surely I would hear something. Nope. I tried a few headphones, can still hear a difference between them, and maybe that should be enough in this hobby. I felt bad for the shop, the workers looked pretty annoyed when I left.
It wasn't that long ago that DMS (on his channell, I think) was complaining about having a backlog of DACs he was supposed to review except he couldn't hear any differences between them. Such is the state of the industry in the 2020s, there's sod all room for improvement that humans can detect left.
I had lately after deciding that the DCA Expanse or Stealth did not provide the measurable performance upgrades compared to my Meze Elite that I was looking for became enthused about dishing out on a Holo Audio Bliss KTE as an "upgrade" to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS's internal THX 788+ amp that I was already pretty happy with, whereby I would either experience a revelation about "Class A sound" or be able to "brag" about not being able to hear differences in at-home controlled listening or even when sighted. I before biting the bullet managed to spend quite some time at a shop closely A/Bing under sighted and decently volume-matched conditions a few amps driven by my DAC/amp's line out and concluded that they were through my Meze Elite (which has so far shown the best EQed multi-tone distortion I have ever measured) all, even the albeit technically advertised as neutral McIntosh MHA200, identical in virtually every aspect I could pinpoint from detail to tonality, texture, dynamic impact, transient incisiveness, clarity, bigness, "holography" (which I find can be easily heard with some recordings, even one of Chinese orchestra only published on TH-cam), or the precise imaging location of certain sound sources in a reference track, which is to say that any measurable differences between those amps were probably indeed below audible so as to not matter. I am not so easily fooled into absurd subjective perceptions, but do know what extensive EQ and binaural HRTF rendering DSP can do for me. For more details, see post #9 of "Recommend a high-end DAC and amp stack to a genuinely curious objectivist" on Head-fi (links tend to cause troubles on TH-cam).
@@haelscheirs_haven Thanks for the post I'll check it out. Your experience mirrors somewhat what I experienced. To be honest it was weird because I actually wanted to hear differences but couldn't. Even worse, a lot of amps that people said had a "warm" or smooth signature just sounded the same to me [one of those I demoed was the Wa7 from Woo audio]. edit: Wanted to add that dacs/amps now for me are going to be more about features than anything else.
Two key points need addresses here: (1) Just being able to confirm a difference is audible doesn't confirm which unit is "better", simply a difference exists. You MUST them follow through and explain/discuss what the definition of "better" then is. (2) For statistical testing, you MUST use 25 trials. This has been established by the Audio Engineering Society for 30+ years and the medical field. Note: I was an Electrical Engineer involved in the very first published "sound of amplifiers" study by Stereo Review in the 1980's and have been involved in dozens of tests since. Unless there is true ABX testing I rage at manufacturer scum bag claims and TH-cam charlatans - and I was in manufacturing for 30+ years but now in the high end retail field.
Incredible work. Echos what I've always thought, there might be a difference, somewhere, but the chances are high that you definitely cannot hear it.... Unless you have GoldenEars. I don't know the age demographic of your audience but I'd bet most arent hearing above 15-17 Khz. Also I'd add that even if you could hear it, the fact that you would need to do this kind of ABX test to verify if it was real or not, means that its kind of irrelevant. Awesome video, thanks for putting in the work.
You may retain your high frequency hearing longer than you expect! I can still hear above 20kHz at even relatively low volumes and I'm 30. If that's the range in which DACs are potentially providing an audible difference, then I'd honestly rather not hear it at all - you really aren't missing out on anything interesting or fun up there. There's genuinely no upside to being the person that hears the toaster, or the lights, or whatever.
It will be interesting to record with audacity the output and compare two the files from different dacs. If there is a difference than will come up by reversing the polarity in one sample
Very few DACs can actually run NOS. And the ones that do typically have much larger measured differences in other areas as doing R2R well is pretty difficult
Yes. You can oversample and perform analogue filtering (either active or passive). Digital filtering is quite harmful to the sound in my experience. A standard method is a 'third order' low pass filter on 40khz or so. Modern DAC's are very integrated and sound quite poor to me, They perform many tasks making it easy to build in devices, but that comes to a price. It's a bit technical, but the current to voltage conversion is critical and I like it external to the DAC chip.
I can attest to the fact that DAC difference exist. I wholeheartedly hate Chord products like Mojo and Hugo for using old connectors. I have vowed to never buy a Hugo till they come with a Type C version. But, everytime I listen to songs in Hugo in CanJams or in friend's place, it gives so much happiness to me to listen to details in songs I have never heard before. I fall in love with the Hugo2 for a solid 5 mins and then begin my job of hating them the moment I see the micro usb
A bit of a misleading title, the blind test is not between DACs, it's between two difference audio files where one is an offline uspcale using from what I understand a bit of a computational heavy filter that gives a bit of a shelf at between 20-22khz. Though it's still at -100dB so I'm not sure how easy that is to actually hear. And I'm not sure I wouldn't call this a correct filter either and maybe not something that a normal DAC even can do. Though different filters in can of course give difference in frequency response even down to 10khz sometimes that can give an audible difference, but it doesn't mean it's a correct reconstruction. And then we have the topic of IMD, when stuff above 20khz can give audible errors below 20khz and it can be done by DACs or something else in the audio chain which might fool people into hearing a difference which ain't at all what they think it is, it's just their gear that faulty. But even then if all this wouldn't be a problem the musical energy up there is quite low and the difference is really quite small. Might of course be there, but for 99.9% of audiophiles it's still totally inaudible, especially when they ramble on about "tighter bass", "more open midrange" or whatever they might say which is just clearly subjective biases talking and nothing else. . But yeah, 44.1khz is a pretty tight samplerate to use since some people actually can hear over 20khz, but a samplerate of 48khz would be enough to remedy that which have been my argument for some years now, 16bit/48khz is what we need for full 100% transparency. Though in 99% of the cases Spotifys 44.1khz OGG Vorbis will do more than fine ;)
Cables may affect amp performance, and the effect of this may depend on the specific amp. And the connectors (termination) are a generally overlooked factor.
Over 20k? Man, you have ears from an elf :D i can hear clearly 16,5 kHz, but after that it faint very quickly to "feel", more than a "hear" and anything above 18kHz is silent. Age is a major factor for this condition at 37 i presume. Great great vid guys!
Please do more of these with different types of gear! I would be pretty interested in a test like this for cables for example like the blind test with issues you mentioned. It would also be interesting to do this type of test with different price ranges of gear where you would need to guesstimate the price range. Ofcourse with prerequsites like that the test design starts becoming much more complex but audio coverage has been much to personal and verbose with most of the technical elements being used out of context in reviews and marketing for decades IMO. It is obviously not a scientific research that is being done as that would require much more research, planning, time and money but it is a nice middle ground IMO and can help put things into perspective. It is always hard to jump the gap between saying there is a difference between things and truly describing what this difference is. It is kinda like those videos of people trying different bottled water. They usually get the exact brands wrong. But the conclusion for a lot of people therefore seems to be that they are all the same which is simply not true. There is a difference but in order to know which would be which you need to be intimately familiar with each of the types.
It is literally meaningless to say you can hear things in recorded sound that can't be measured. A sound recording is a measurement of sound Very good test, I'd add one other common flaw. A blind test, should be double blind. You can't have someone in the room who knows what's being tested because we are very good at reading their reactions to what they say. I saw one claiming his wife could hear a difference when he swapped cables
Cool to have some evidence through blind (as blind as you can get at least) testing in support of what I think I’ve been able to hear in my very unscientific sighted A/B listening while fiddling with the DAC filters in my Q5K lol. Bat frequencies aside, don’t some filters affect frequencies even a little under 20kHz? Would that not just be straight up audible to most people?
Can more people test the REW app 20K tones? I used the exact same settings and at 12 o clock volume on the Balanced output of the SPL PhonitorXE using the HE1000SE I hear the tone on both ears but better on my right one. Changed it to 25K and I can still hear from both ears so I am wondering how accurate it is.
Ok, you can hear a difference but does one sound reliably better than the other without knowing which is which? Because isn’t that the important question? Does the expensive dac sound better than the Apple dongle?
Honestly Placcebo is helluva Drug, I went to the HiFi show in Leipzig and the guys at AudioQuest demoed cable risers and silver vs copper cables. I came to their booth with the expectation that cables don't matter and cable risers even less ... I walked out being disturbed how crazy Placebo is
It can be shockingly powerful. One time I was comparing two EQ profiles, had my mouse over the button toggling on/off and trying to decide which I liked more. After a while I looked up....aaand the mouse wasn't even over the button, nothing was changing. It can be quite humbling when you have an experience like that and realise how massively your perception can be influenced by your expectations.
The conclusion is, different DACs use different filters, on some you can change it, on some you can't, and if there is a difference on the same DAC with different filters already, obviously there is a difference between different DACs
Great Video! Where did you get from the testing (switching) device or have you built it yourself? The last months I often thought about blindtesting myself but didn't find a solution for automated switching...
and for audio im definitely skeptical enough to not fail for placebos, again I seems its mostly to protect people's feelings that they did not make a stupid purchase or whatever.
Most people old enough to have the money to worry about this… no longer can hear any difference! Get great speakers and headphones and stop worrying about dacs and codecs.
It makes sense to me. When I was very into coffee, we had a term 'super tasters' for those who professed to taste things others just could not. Of course, it could all just be BS. I suppose if you love a tune or love a cup of coffee, then life is good. As the Buddha says, comparison kills.
This confirms something I wondered for a little while, I noticed myself even with just headphones and iems is that if they roll off at upper treble especially if they roll off hard they seem muffled to their sound, but depending on the device if I boost 18khz-22khz even a little they sound more natural. Which I found I can hear 22khz but it is of course it is quiet, I am 21 so it makes me curious what the difference would have been when I was younger. But that has an impact on headphones possibly even on amps and dacs just because of the extended hearing range which can be for some why they prefer brighter tuned devices not just with hearing damage. Also glad there is someone else confirmed who can hear above 20khz so it doesn't make me sound crazy lol. Edit: I should also note it also makes it easier to tell about recording quality and if it is lossy or how lossy.
Did you find that you can hear a slight static pressure in your ears before a thunderstorm is about to happen? This is something i used to be able to do at 17 years old but have lost the ability to now at 23
@@Jordonater Interesting, I never noticed if I could. I do notice something similar to that with any electronics/electrical wiring especially if there is bad wiring with ceiling fans. CRTs drive me insane with that too. Even LCD/IPS/etc panels I could tell they are on even if it was from a few rooms away, these days I have a much harder time with that, thankfully.
@@gurratell7326 That is always possible too but I have also experienced real world scenarios best examples are in my other reply. But another scenario is there is a parking garage near me that uses speakers to scare off bats and birds and out of a group of people I am the only person who can hear the whole audio snippet to the point where the audio clips and loops, everyone else I know it is dead silent to them after halfway through it.
I can hear upto 18k and I was still able to hear difference in sound when I was doing diy to reduce the vibration on my iem. I tired to immitate the resonance chip(Reducing virbation chip) on my IEM with rubber sticker and double sided foam tape and found a difference in sound on most of the iems. If accoriding to the measurement... there shouldn't had been any diference however, IT'S DIFFERENT!!! So I was wondering,,,, is there's any other reason how we perceive sound...? Rather than eardrum only picking up the sound, our brain may also detects a signal from the virbration on our skin and combines it with the sound signal?? I know it's a super wierd imagination, but with my shallow knowledge, this is only thing I can think of. Tested iems are Variation, Blessing2, Nova, XSL-One, Sound Rhythm SR5, HD600 and Momentum 3. (No difference in HD600 but yes difference on Momentum 3... weird) + One of my partially deaf friend once told me that he used a vibration on the throat to learn how to speak when he was young. We somehow remember the vibration on our skin and sends a signal to our brain...?
Hello, Please tell us which of the two triangles at 16:39 min you prefer!!! Is it the triangle between 21 kHz and 22.05 kHz where there is more energy in the red curve, or is it the aliasing triangle from 22.05 kHz to 23.5 kHz (or sometimes even much higher frequency’s). Preference is for red curve or blue curve???
don’t worry, you still might get the difference because of intermodulation distortion ;) and certain deviations in hearing from the norm might make you especially sensitive to compressed music formats
@@juliangst My expensive headphones sounded noticeably better when I was younger. Which is how I realized I had lost a portion of my hearing in the first place. So no, that's not true at all.
In the US, many years ago traffic light switching involved a JBL type of high frequency bullet driver. And my friend, in his 20's was highly disturbed as he could hear that signal in the approx. 20 KHZ range while in his car. So, GS's hearing can be annoying to him and yet others can't understand why he can be upset hearing a high freq. problem. I remember Sony Trinitron TV's had an easily audible 15KC scanning frequency, always annoying while watching a program. Blessing or Curse?
Video suggestion: When you listen various songs on Tidal (for example) you hear the difference between a good, very good or a bad production with a good headphone (even if all are flac you listen too). What could be the best headphone to cover that up or maybe you can use a dac to hear less the bad or cheap production? Or a combination...
Interesting - I seem to recall that recently @ErinsAudioCorner did a video on the same topic - demo-ing an ABX Tester in the process - forgot the make/model of the device.
Thank you for this highly interesting and original video. I am aware there is a lot of work behind it. I was wondering, how quickly you jump to conclusion when you realize you can hear above 20kHz....and that is the only explanation and justification you give for the AB test results. I doubt there is much going on at 20kHz in any music file....and even if there is something going on, the levels are very far away from the -3 dBFS you shown in the video 15'40'' (probalby many young people can hear 20kHz at -3dBFS, but can they hear something at -20 or -30 dBFS?). Imho....there is no way you heard something at 20kHz in the AB test you pefromed. It is impossible because there is nothing at such high level -3dBFS.
@@mccririck01 I'll happily post some, but as discussed in this video, the problem is that people will just say "Ehh you faked it/you're lying". That's the entire reason why this test was done in a remotely verifiable way
@@GoldenSound It's hard for us to understand how you can hear a difference though since the both measure very well. It would be interesting to see you do the test.
Thank you for this! If DAC designers like Rob Watts at his age can still hear these differences, which I believe he apparently can… then… 😅 maybe it would be worth doing an experiment by having a decent sample size of people to test and see how high they can actually listen to a frequency response at different ages. Maybe those kinds of tests have not been done properly in the past? 🤔
Designing audio gear is fun. A Dac is much more than a chip. Changing over filtering on an output stage makes a big differnce. If you want a dark sound, I can make it sound dark. Bright? No problem. Really good? Yes. High End, absolutely. The difference is so immense.
You should continue to regularly and consciously listen to these high frequencies because this can prevent, to some extent, the neurons that respond to these frequencies from dying.
You don't have to be able to hear up to 20 kHz to have the ability to perceive the difference between digital reconstruction filters. Many begin to attenuate below 20 kHz. My Topping G5 had a default set filter with a roll-off starting from ~5 kHz and would drop by 0,6 dB at 18 kHz, which right around the limits of my hearing. It was changed for a different filter with no roll-off below 20 kHz, but significantly worse attenuation at the Nyquist frequency with 44,1 kHz samplerate signals. I can't make any claims regarding the impact of worse aliasing suppression in this, or any other, case. But that also can be a factor worthy of consideration.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
i trick my brain every day convincing myself that i like people
😂😂 I don't even bother...
The important part is do they pretend to like you back. That is true love.
You dont like me?
Ahahahahahahahahshha
I gave up on that 20 years ago
I appreciate the skipping timestamp. Shows your respect your audiences time. In an age of clickbait and filler that is very appreciated. Little thing but still. I decided to watch straight though because of that.
GoldenHearing
plz comeback metal we miss u
unreal, this guy
How can he afford the Focal speakers in the background at his age?
Comeback plz
@@JordonaterInheritance / trust fund
I am literally amazed. I didn’t know there are serious reviewers like you who uses ABX test device just for regular DAC reviews. I am impressed.
Well it was the first time.....and bout time!
Well, if manufacturers were obligated to release atleast a small list of measurements with certain parameters, listening tests of eldctronics wouldn't be needed...
Plus, measurements are infinitely more reliable
I would also add the caveat that not everyone has enough listening skills to notice a difference. If we were to talk about wine, I don't think anyone would agree that being discriminating about wine tasting requires training. Same is true in audio.
Haven't multiple studied proved that wine tasting is bullshit?
Great work. After watching this, and seeing that you were surprised to learn that you can hear 20k+ I wanted to see if I can as well. I've always noticed that I hear things other people do not, such as an induction burner on high...I did a little test and found that I can hear 19k+ for sure and I'm 40 years old. I've always had super sensitive hearing and cool to see that that's still true.
Your surprise and joy looks so geniune that I'm more happy that you are happy than the test is a success
well... being so happy could be a proof of bias.
@@net_news Which due to the methodology wouldn't be relevant.
@@Uebelkraehe there are camera cuts so who knows...
I spent a week comparing high-end speaker cables and a few very basic ones and for 5 days I believed I heard differences until a friend helped to ABX and mysteriously the differences went away. I wouldn't believe any individual on such specific claims without proven ABX since I didn't believe to hear anything, thought it's all bs and still a thick heavy cable sounded bassier and a thin silver cable more bright😂
I commend you for accepting that the differences you heard were imagined. I've had similar experiences. But unfortunately, many people won't accept that the differences are imagined, so instead they dismiss the blind tests and insist that there must be an audible difference.
I'm a mastering engineer and listen to audio in a measured room on a Kii Three rig. Many of my peers in the industry cannot reliably differentiate between a 320kbps .MP3 and a 24bit .wav in ABX conditions on a world class monitoring rig... And I'd argue it doesn't matter at all. The content of the music, the ideas, the melodies and lyrics are what moves us, and much of the audiophile scene has more to do with people gaining a status identity which allows them to feel superior. Most equipment made in mid-pricerange is very low distortion and reliable, and even more so in the DAC market. An Audient soundcard for €100 can pass the audio through the converters more than 50 times before the phase inverten sum is audible. This means that it is almost mathematically perfect. When you pay more you might be getting a different EQ profile or "desirable" distortion. The additional harmonics can enhance some records... But this is something that can be achieved using any DAW using stock plugins. To wrap up: don't have fomo, enjoy your favourite audio files with whatever mainstream reputable brand that encourages you to enjoy as much music as possible.
Most mastering engineers like me cant hear over 18khz, I certainly cant hear over 16.6k. Content that high is not part of the musical range. Im highly sceptical that this content creator can hear above 20k, but taking his word then he is hearing things that most 5 year olds cannot hear.😊
I'm not at all sceptical that he can hear above 20kHz. When I was 18 I could hear over 21kHz. Granted I was the only one in the class that could but I definitely could and I was surprised to see everyone else's hands had gone down when it went past 20kHz.
I agree with you about whether it's particularly relevant though. And he hasn't actually blind tested DACs here.
I wonder since people like you mastering the music cant hear it does that mean he is hearing the noise you haven't filtered out the recording because you didnt know it was there?
Your kii monitors have DSP so any interface/DAC is irrelevant. The ADC is most important for mastering
@@mccririck01yeah I could also hear ~21k when I was 18. Haven't tested in a while but I think I'm down 19-20k now
@@Jordonater lol
Great video about importance of blind testing done well I would love to see more of the reviewers try the test too. It should help account for variations in hearing (like your excellent hearing)
I don't mean this question to be critical, only inquisitive, however you said you believe if you can hear it you can measure it. Therefore, how does one measure things like imaging, layering or sound stage size for example? I have never seen any measurement on a headphone saying it has xx area of sound stage size. The only way you know of that size (outside of listening for yourself) is by reviewers telling you its big but not as big as the Sony Z1R (if it's closed) or not as big as a HD 800 (if it's an open back) My point is, if this is a quantifiable number then why don't manufacturers put specs or numbers alongside the frequency response numbers telling you this is the imaging rating or this is the sound stage size rating?
These aspects of audible sound from audio systems are a fundamental missing link in audio research.
As are the relative differences between impedance capacitance and inductance of cables. Which tells us what and how? Which is valuable to understand a component or cable?
Some things are part of psychoacoustics, I guess there is just no way to measure them since it depends on the interaction of the sound + how the brain is interpreting it.
Just because you don't know how to measure something does not mean it cannot be measured. I don't know how to measure frequency response, but I can tell the difference between EQs.
There is a big difference between measuring something and correlating those measurements with specific sonic traits. That second part is what is missing. There is no part of the signal that is impossible to measure, but that doesn't mean we know what we are looking for
@@eskamobob8662 one thing that's measurable tho is that in theory two top spec amp should have an output that's so similar it's essentially impossible to distinguish between them, let alone saying one has more sound stage etc
Interesting video. Thanks for doing the testing. My practical take away from everything I've read about DACs and amps is that I simply get something that does not measure as broken, has the features I need, that I like the looks of and that is within my budget, and do not worry about any differences in sound. Since I can't hear anything above 13 kHz I will continue to ignore the question of reconstruction filters as somebody else's problem.
Already gave you a thumbs up before even getting to the results because of how thorough and clear your explanation of the whole thing blind ABX testing is.
Well done! I knew from the first moment I read your work, as a reviewer, the standard that other reviewers will be judged as risen.
Excellent video! These should be standard for all DAC/amp reviews. More of these please!
Erin from Erinsaudiocorner started doing it and although he doesn;t show statistic results he does share often that he couldn't hear a difference during his abx test. So that's something.
The Headphone Show, Wow, this made my day brighter! Thank you!
Sorry to hear your day was full of treble.
I have a few different DACs around the house and I can tell the difference between them but you, my friend, are a while different level completely ! Great video, thanks for sharing 🙂
Excellent presentation!
yeah i didn't get this. The dude says he abxes dacs but then just abxed oversampling and reconstruction filters witch has almost nothing to do with DACs quality or sound reproduction - its just different reconstruction filters. So at best he has proven if you can hear above 20k, the reconstruction filters still almost don't metter xD
That’s what I was hoping for as well. It’s a great idea but perhaps a missed opportunity. Interesting video and test methodology in any case. Hopefully a DAC comparison is coming?
Good video, keep up the good work, we need more in this.
So you can hear 20-21khz… ok that’s fine… but what sounds in recorded music exist in those frequencies? As in I can’t imagine there was anything to hear, unless the DAC’s are generating HF noise at that level.
Simbals, snares and hihats can get into the upper octave
He is in the zone.
Thanks for this video. It's fantastic that you approached this topic from a scientific perspective. I'm a former cognitive psychologist and well versed in the methodology used in psychological research studies. A couple of thoughts around running something like a psycho-acoustic study or any kind of scientifically sound research study. The number of trials is dependent on the statistical power that you are trying to achieve with the study. Something like 20 trials that you mentioned may or may not be sufficient since it's highly dependent on the effect size. Effect size represents the magnitude of the experimental effect. If the phenomenon is easy to detect then usually the # of subject and trials in the experiment can be low. When the effect size is small, you have to run substantially more subjects and trials. The # of participants, the # of stimuli, trial order of stimuli and the participants demographics (age, gender, etc) used all play a role in crafting a well designed experiment. Please keep making more of these videos!
Now I need to test my own hearing range 😅
You did amazing job preparing this test, Mr. Gold ;)
lol, just quick test showed me 10Hz - 21kHz - need to redo it in a quiet environment :D
Cables look like snakes, just saying.
If not snake then why snake-shaped??
That's why they extract oil out of them.
bird brain…
@@nelsonang snake brain?
@@chungang7037 bird oil?
I'll be honest, I'm feeling pretty dumb. I thought you were going to be ABX testing two different DACs, but it was just 2 audio files? Do I have that right?
The two files are to test the effect of the oversampling filter in the DAC. By showing that this single factor makes a difference, that shows that DACs make a difference (and oversampling as a standalone factor makes a difference).
The reason to do it this way is because there is no way to do a physical ABX test in a remotely verifiable way. Doing a digital test with shared and verifiable inputs and results was a necessary precursor to sharing physical ABX results in future reviews as this establishes a conclusive difference in a way that does not rely on trust.
@@GoldenSound although this explanation is mathematically correct, I also felt disappointed. I got excited about this ABX device and expected you to invite several random listeners over to have a larger sample. And then it went into comparing the oversampling filter of a ~$4k device by reproducing the filters digitally. With the main difference being way beyond average listener's hearing.
I understand, that your point was to prove if DACs can possibly make any difference at all. But from an entertainment perspective, the physical ABX would be much more fun to watch, especially if multiple listeners express what exactly they hear and how they tell the difference subjectively. Just an idea for pt. 2 ;-)
@@KodigyTech Surely the whole point to a test of this nature is to eliminate any possibility of subjectivity in the results?
I think the result is interesting, but my question would be: if you compare two DACs that in the region 20Hz - 25KHz are flat (flat within say 0.1 dB), can you or not hear a difference? My expectation is frequency response is just one aspect of performance, and a steady-state one at that. There's also IMD, and possibly other aspects of transient performance.
Beautiful test! Well done. This tells me that my 73 year old ears probable won’t know the difference in a high dollar DAC and my current WiiM Pro plus. My hearing stops somewhere between 9 and 10khz but you would be surprised at the difference I can hear from various sources. Or maybe that’s just my dementia kicking in seeing as how our minds play tricks on us.
My favorite aspect of this video is witnessing the great friendship you have. Headphones are awesome, but friendship is even better.
A massive thanks to Cameron & Blain for this, it is much appreciated.
Big DAC trying to get us to spend $10,000 on metal boxes again. nice try 🙄
Its the capitalists i tell you! 😂
😆
Worked for me! (Jk.... For now)
Go back to Amir
BIG FUSE MUST BE STOPPED
Great video! Love the incredible effort you’ve put in! I do think the tests is incomplete though. You’ve shown different oversampling filters can make a difference via the filter rolloff (which you are able to hear). But that’s not all there is to a DAC is it? Things like SINAD, jitter, and distortion are all measurable aspects in a DAC.
I think you should go back and use the blind ABX testing device. Put a 20k low-pass filter on all the test tracks to simulate losing that hearing range. Then test DACs with measurably different SINAD, etc., and see if you can statistically significantly differentiate them.
Impressive! You do great work! Thank you
Good work to even take a feet like this! Very bold to do so based upon the fan base and that's very apparent based upon the comments
During an ABX test, can't your brain trick you into thinking two things sound the same that otherwise don't?
If you have a bias and are expecting them to sound the same, yes
It can yes, but not in a consistent manner. Your brain can trick you into thinking one file sounds a certain way, but the point is that if you do enough runs, you can then show whether that difference is consistently attributable to one of the devices/files (ie: there is a genuine audible difference you can reliably pick out), or whether it was random and not likely a genuine difference
Yes. That's why blind tests are usually fail.
It set up just to confuse you in to thinking "there is no difference" completely flawed and ridiculous. This is not some kind of medical effect you are trying to find and separate from the placebo effect.
If they are that close in sound, does it really matter?
Fantastic! Such a refreshingly rigorous and highly controlled methodology!
Only this standard of testing can produce truely meaningful results . Or - as is the case here - reveal a surprising and otherwise hidden conclusion.
This is Gamers Nexus but for the audio world.
And your acknowledgement that a level of trust has to be established is just pure class.
What a contrast to the usual biased, none disclosure ridden, more often than not just plain wrong, woolly thinking nonsense that so plagues the internet.
Bravo!
Nice video GoldenSound!
Links to buy the ABX switching hardware, please!!!!
Impressive testing. For single components such as a capacitor, or a cable, I always found it
useful to have one item on the left channel and one on the right channel, and quickly move from one to the other with a balance control. This minimized the time between comparisons. For that everyone can do it without an ABX box.
and that's why testing with multiple people is important
And multiple sessions every different day. Your listening ability pretty inconsistent.
Fabulous work. Thank you for all your efforts here. I have no doubts in your testing processes but I was wondering how you measured your hearing up to 21khz? The reason I ask is that if one uses online or even offline signal generators or even cd’s with test tones, I have noticed that there is always an abundance of lower harmonics (and vice versa in the lower register). I think a great deal of these harmonics are generated by the playback equipment and perhaps you were hearing a second order lower harmonic of 21k? or other 3rd, 5th. etc? In a strange way this doesn’t change the result because you would have the same phenomenon during your comparisons? ie ‘we’ hear differences due to things happening above 20k because of the weaknesses of our playback equipment producing lower harmonics for some reason
Although I don't really decide what to purchase based on measurements, I'm glad you exist in this hobby 😁
I recently watched a video from another reviewer that was focusing on a new DAC in the market. He suggested that while it sounded good (he may have used a more positive term, but that's not important) it doesn't compare to the flagship models from companies A and B because it didn't have the heft or the number of internal components that those other DACs had so it could not possibly be in the same class. WTF! I thought being in this hobby is all about the sound, right? How can a person possibly make such a statement? I'm not saying that components don't matter. They do. However, I doubt, in most cases, that an individual could consistently pick out the DAC that is the most expensive or has the most internal components just by listening. I think that was a placebo effect run wild. 🤣🤣🤣
BTW, I like your presentation style. I think you are very thorough in your approach and this video is a perfect example of that. And the British accent makes you sound very authoritative. Everyone know that the British know best. 🤣🤣🤣 Seriously though, keep up the great work and keep those videos coming. 👍🏽
hearing above 20kHz sine wave is an amazing ability. Still majority of people can hear way above 20kHz (probably up to 80kHz) just not as a pure sine, but as harmonics (the steepness of signal increase of decay). This way we distinguish between recorded and live music. So even if you get older and your ears will work up to 16kHz sine, you will most probably be able to discriminate between these DACs anyway. Sound is so much more then we can measure today.
2:56 I mean is that bad though? Like how many times to you "taste" food blind folded with you nose pluged and it made to a perfectly smooth and nuratal temp and texure? I get the test though because I do want to know if my $50 M audio interface is no btter then a gucci option or am I missing out so one day I'll need to upgrade?
Thank you for doing this.
Long time viewer, but I subscribed to the channel after seeing this video because I liked the rigorous approach! Conducting truly blind (ABX) tests is painstaking work and I appreciate you taking the time to do it right.
Also: I'm super jealous of your extraordinary hearing. Enjoy it while you can!
Not that i disagree with what you say in this video but there are a couple things I would point out. (nitpicking)
1. the suggestions that you can "try the test a couple times before you catch on" is quite a slippery slope because you can get into the problem of people cherrypicking runs (confirmation bias) where they score highly under the pretext that they have "improved". Im not claiming that you did but saying it that way can lead to people misinterpreting their own test results.
2. (OPINION) I believe that, when people talk about sonic differences in dacs, they are usually observing differences in the amplification stage. Again I am not claiming there may not also differences in in filters or other variables but rather I think that the differences in the output stage are the most impactful.
3. Just because you could hear sound while a 21khz tone was being played into your headphones does not mean that you can hear said frequencies. Maybe you can, however it is also possible that what you are actually hearing is some other form of resonance (at a lower frequency) either in the headphone or in your ear. Either way this does not in any way invalidate what you are saying, if you can pick up on it, regardless of whether or not you are hearing 21kHz or something caused by 21kHz it remains relevant regardless. It would be interesting to see whether any lower frequency sound appears on a spectrogram when 21kHz is played through those headphones both through a measurement mic and when placed on a B&K (even if yeah obviously this is not representative of your own ears/head).
Anyway thanks for the vid and sorry for nitpicking :)
No, you are Golden Ears, and thank you for this in depth assessment on this controversial topic.
Can you hear 20k, or can you hear the diaphragm breakup/distortion that results from playing those frequencies that loud?
Exactly my thought. If you have to "turn it up" to be able to hear it, chances are you're just listening to distortion
@@AlessandroBertocz Yep. That's why this test was a joke.
My thought as well
Love it cam. Very interesting xx
After getting a hearing test and my doc saying everything is normal for a 40 year old I decided to pamper myself with a new amp. So I went to a hifi shop and sat with 4 amps at the same table up to the 2000 dollar range, trying them all with the 800s, a headphone I know well. I knew what I was testing, was expecting to hear a difference and be blown away [and make a purchase]. I didn't hear any difference, really. What? One sounded like it might have a roll off in the treble, big whoop. Not exactly worth the money. For kicks the shop worker told me to try the Questyle CMA15, a 3000 dollar amp. Surely I would hear something. Nope. I tried a few headphones, can still hear a difference between them, and maybe that should be enough in this hobby. I felt bad for the shop, the workers looked pretty annoyed when I left.
It wasn't that long ago that DMS (on his channell, I think) was complaining about having a backlog of DACs he was supposed to review except he couldn't hear any differences between them. Such is the state of the industry in the 2020s, there's sod all room for improvement that humans can detect left.
the hd600s would be more source sensitive than the hd800s
@@TheRealPotoroo Wow really, do you remember what video that was?
I had lately after deciding that the DCA Expanse or Stealth did not provide the measurable performance upgrades compared to my Meze Elite that I was looking for became enthused about dishing out on a Holo Audio Bliss KTE as an "upgrade" to my FiiO K9 Pro ESS's internal THX 788+ amp that I was already pretty happy with, whereby I would either experience a revelation about "Class A sound" or be able to "brag" about not being able to hear differences in at-home controlled listening or even when sighted. I before biting the bullet managed to spend quite some time at a shop closely A/Bing under sighted and decently volume-matched conditions a few amps driven by my DAC/amp's line out and concluded that they were through my Meze Elite (which has so far shown the best EQed multi-tone distortion I have ever measured) all, even the albeit technically advertised as neutral McIntosh MHA200, identical in virtually every aspect I could pinpoint from detail to tonality, texture, dynamic impact, transient incisiveness, clarity, bigness, "holography" (which I find can be easily heard with some recordings, even one of Chinese orchestra only published on TH-cam), or the precise imaging location of certain sound sources in a reference track, which is to say that any measurable differences between those amps were probably indeed below audible so as to not matter. I am not so easily fooled into absurd subjective perceptions, but do know what extensive EQ and binaural HRTF rendering DSP can do for me.
For more details, see post #9 of "Recommend a high-end DAC and amp stack to a genuinely curious objectivist" on Head-fi (links tend to cause troubles on TH-cam).
@@haelscheirs_haven Thanks for the post I'll check it out. Your experience mirrors somewhat what I experienced. To be honest it was weird because I actually wanted to hear differences but couldn't. Even worse, a lot of amps that people said had a "warm" or smooth signature just sounded the same to me [one of those I demoed was the Wa7 from Woo audio].
edit: Wanted to add that dacs/amps now for me are going to be more about features than anything else.
Two key points need addresses here:
(1) Just being able to confirm a difference is audible doesn't confirm which unit is "better", simply a difference exists. You MUST them follow through and explain/discuss what the definition of "better" then is.
(2) For statistical testing, you MUST use 25 trials. This has been established by the Audio Engineering Society for 30+ years and the medical field.
Note: I was an Electrical Engineer involved in the very first published "sound of amplifiers" study by Stereo Review in the 1980's and have been involved in dozens of tests since. Unless there is true ABX testing I rage at manufacturer scum bag claims and TH-cam charlatans - and I was in manufacturing for 30+ years but now in the high end retail field.
Incredible work. Echos what I've always thought, there might be a difference, somewhere, but the chances are high that you definitely cannot hear it.... Unless you have GoldenEars. I don't know the age demographic of your audience but I'd bet most arent hearing above 15-17 Khz. Also I'd add that even if you could hear it, the fact that you would need to do this kind of ABX test to verify if it was real or not, means that its kind of irrelevant. Awesome video, thanks for putting in the work.
You may retain your high frequency hearing longer than you expect! I can still hear above 20kHz at even relatively low volumes and I'm 30. If that's the range in which DACs are potentially providing an audible difference, then I'd honestly rather not hear it at all - you really aren't missing out on anything interesting or fun up there. There's genuinely no upside to being the person that hears the toaster, or the lights, or whatever.
It will be interesting to record with audacity the output and compare two the files from different dacs. If there is a difference than will come up by reversing the polarity in one sample
So the takeaway is 1) this guy has better hearing than me and 2) no one else is capable of doing a real test.
But can the differences be heard between DACS when there are **no** oversampling filters in use?
Very few DACs can actually run NOS. And the ones that do typically have much larger measured differences in other areas as doing R2R well is pretty difficult
Yes. You can oversample and perform analogue filtering (either active or passive). Digital filtering is quite harmful to the sound in my experience. A standard method is a 'third order' low pass filter on 40khz or so. Modern DAC's are very integrated and sound quite poor to me, They perform many tasks making it easy to build in devices, but that comes to a price. It's a bit technical, but the current to voltage conversion is critical and I like it external to the DAC chip.
I can attest to the fact that DAC difference exist. I wholeheartedly hate Chord products like Mojo and Hugo for using old connectors. I have vowed to never buy a Hugo till they come with a Type C version. But, everytime I listen to songs in Hugo in CanJams or in friend's place, it gives so much happiness to me to listen to details in songs I have never heard before.
I fall in love with the Hugo2 for a solid 5 mins and then begin my job of hating them the moment I see the micro usb
great video mate. thank you!
Further proof that the headphone/speaker/iem is 99% of the system but that the remaining 1% is still something worth considering
What no affiliate links to snake oil shop?
A bit of a misleading title, the blind test is not between DACs, it's between two difference audio files where one is an offline uspcale using from what I understand a bit of a computational heavy filter that gives a bit of a shelf at between 20-22khz. Though it's still at -100dB so I'm not sure how easy that is to actually hear. And I'm not sure I wouldn't call this a correct filter either and maybe not something that a normal DAC even can do. Though different filters in can of course give difference in frequency response even down to 10khz sometimes that can give an audible difference, but it doesn't mean it's a correct reconstruction.
And then we have the topic of IMD, when stuff above 20khz can give audible errors below 20khz and it can be done by DACs or something else in the audio chain which might fool people into hearing a difference which ain't at all what they think it is, it's just their gear that faulty.
But even then if all this wouldn't be a problem the musical energy up there is quite low and the difference is really quite small. Might of course be there, but for 99.9% of audiophiles it's still totally inaudible, especially when they ramble on about "tighter bass", "more open midrange" or whatever they might say which is just clearly subjective biases talking and nothing else.
.
But yeah, 44.1khz is a pretty tight samplerate to use since some people actually can hear over 20khz, but a samplerate of 48khz would be enough to remedy that which have been my argument for some years now, 16bit/48khz is what we need for full 100% transparency. Though in 99% of the cases Spotifys 44.1khz OGG Vorbis will do more than fine ;)
How about compare apple dongle to high end dac, might be interesting
Cables may affect amp performance, and the effect of this may depend on the specific amp. And the connectors (termination) are a generally overlooked factor.
Over 20k? Man, you have ears from an elf :D i can hear clearly 16,5 kHz, but after that it faint very quickly to "feel", more than a "hear" and anything above 18kHz is silent. Age is a major factor for this condition at 37 i presume.
Great great vid guys!
Please do more of these with different types of gear! I would be pretty interested in a test like this for cables for example like the blind test with issues you mentioned. It would also be interesting to do this type of test with different price ranges of gear where you would need to guesstimate the price range. Ofcourse with prerequsites like that the test design starts becoming much more complex but audio coverage has been much to personal and verbose with most of the technical elements being used out of context in reviews and marketing for decades IMO. It is obviously not a scientific research that is being done as that would require much more research, planning, time and money but it is a nice middle ground IMO and can help put things into perspective. It is always hard to jump the gap between saying there is a difference between things and truly describing what this difference is. It is kinda like those videos of people trying different bottled water. They usually get the exact brands wrong. But the conclusion for a lot of people therefore seems to be that they are all the same which is simply not true. There is a difference but in order to know which would be which you need to be intimately familiar with each of the types.
It is literally meaningless to say you can hear things in recorded sound that can't be measured. A sound recording is a measurement of sound
Very good test, I'd add one other common flaw. A blind test, should be double blind. You can't have someone in the room who knows what's being tested because we are very good at reading their reactions to what they say. I saw one claiming his wife could hear a difference when he swapped cables
hahaha my wife came from the kitchen... did you change something?
Cool to have some evidence through blind (as blind as you can get at least) testing in support of what I think I’ve been able to hear in my very unscientific sighted A/B listening while fiddling with the DAC filters in my Q5K lol. Bat frequencies aside, don’t some filters affect frequencies even a little under 20kHz? Would that not just be straight up audible to most people?
Can more people test the REW app 20K tones? I used the exact same settings and at 12 o clock volume on the Balanced output of the SPL PhonitorXE using the HE1000SE I hear the tone on both ears but better on my right one. Changed it to 25K and I can still hear from both ears so I am wondering how accurate it is.
Could be IMD, ie stuff above 20khz will give sounds under 20khz.
Ok, you can hear a difference but does one sound reliably better than the other without knowing which is which? Because isn’t that the important question? Does the expensive dac sound better than the Apple dongle?
Honestly Placcebo is helluva Drug, I went to the HiFi show in Leipzig and the guys at AudioQuest demoed cable risers and silver vs copper cables. I came to their booth with the expectation that cables don't matter and cable risers even less ... I walked out being disturbed how crazy Placebo is
It can be shockingly powerful. One time I was comparing two EQ profiles, had my mouse over the button toggling on/off and trying to decide which I liked more. After a while I looked up....aaand the mouse wasn't even over the button, nothing was changing.
It can be quite humbling when you have an experience like that and realise how massively your perception can be influenced by your expectations.
That was the test? DAC filters above 20khz? No Apple dongle vs Schiit Modi vs ifi Diablo? No dac vs dac? Just that Goldensound can hear above 20khz?
The conclusion is, different DACs use different filters, on some you can change it, on some you can't, and if there is a difference on the same DAC with different filters already, obviously there is a difference between different DACs
An Apple dongle vs super expensive dac would have been a far more relevant test.
Exactly my thoughts. Hearing difference between filters is not hearing a difference between DAC's.
Great Video! Where did you get from the testing (switching) device or have you built it yourself? The last months I often thought about blindtesting myself but didn't find a solution for automated switching...
What's going on up in the 20khz area anyway?
and for audio im definitely skeptical enough to not fail for placebos, again I seems its mostly to protect people's feelings that they did not make a stupid purchase or whatever.
Most people old enough to have the money to worry about this… no longer can hear any difference!
Get great speakers and headphones and stop worrying about dacs and codecs.
It makes sense to me. When I was very into coffee, we had a term 'super tasters' for those who professed to taste things others just could not. Of course, it could all just be BS. I suppose if you love a tune or love a cup of coffee, then life is good. As the Buddha says, comparison kills.
This confirms something I wondered for a little while, I noticed myself even with just headphones and iems is that if they roll off at upper treble especially if they roll off hard they seem muffled to their sound, but depending on the device if I boost 18khz-22khz even a little they sound more natural. Which I found I can hear 22khz but it is of course it is quiet, I am 21 so it makes me curious what the difference would have been when I was younger. But that has an impact on headphones possibly even on amps and dacs just because of the extended hearing range which can be for some why they prefer brighter tuned devices not just with hearing damage. Also glad there is someone else confirmed who can hear above 20khz so it doesn't make me sound crazy lol.
Edit: I should also note it also makes it easier to tell about recording quality and if it is lossy or how lossy.
Did you find that you can hear a slight static pressure in your ears before a thunderstorm is about to happen? This is something i used to be able to do at 17 years old but have lost the ability to now at 23
It could also be IMD that you're hearing, ie something above 20khz that give audible errors below 20khz.
@@Jordonater Interesting, I never noticed if I could. I do notice something similar to that with any electronics/electrical wiring especially if there is bad wiring with ceiling fans. CRTs drive me insane with that too. Even LCD/IPS/etc panels I could tell they are on even if it was from a few rooms away, these days I have a much harder time with that, thankfully.
@@gurratell7326 That is always possible too but I have also experienced real world scenarios best examples are in my other reply. But another scenario is there is a parking garage near me that uses speakers to scare off bats and birds and out of a group of people I am the only person who can hear the whole audio snippet to the point where the audio clips and loops, everyone else I know it is dead silent to them after halfway through it.
@@zantdoeseverything3523 Thats cool
I can hear upto 18k and I was still able to hear difference in sound when I was doing diy to reduce the vibration on my iem.
I tired to immitate the resonance chip(Reducing virbation chip) on my IEM with rubber sticker and double sided foam tape and found a difference in sound on most of the iems. If accoriding to the measurement... there shouldn't had been any diference however, IT'S DIFFERENT!!!
So I was wondering,,,, is there's any other reason how we perceive sound...? Rather than eardrum only picking up the sound, our brain may also detects a signal from the virbration on our skin and combines it with the sound signal?? I know it's a super wierd imagination, but with my shallow knowledge, this is only thing I can think of.
Tested iems are Variation, Blessing2, Nova, XSL-One, Sound Rhythm SR5, HD600 and Momentum 3. (No difference in HD600 but yes difference on Momentum 3... weird)
+
One of my partially deaf friend once told me that he used a vibration on the throat to learn how to speak when he was young. We somehow remember the vibration on our skin and sends a signal to our brain...?
Hello,
Please tell us which of the two triangles at 16:39 min you prefer!!! Is it the triangle between 21 kHz and 22.05 kHz where there is more energy in the red curve, or is it the aliasing triangle from 22.05 kHz to 23.5 kHz (or sometimes even much higher frequency’s). Preference is for red curve or blue curve???
15:43 Man I'm jealous. I can't hear above 14k
i wonder how does the world look like and hear like to my 96 yo grandpa
For that matter i wonder how dull does the food taste to him
There isn't really any useful information above 14kHz anyway so it's not a big deal if you can't hear that imho
don’t worry, you still might get the difference because of intermodulation distortion ;)
and certain deviations in hearing from the norm might make you especially sensitive to compressed music formats
I understand completely. Once I hit 40 I lost that 15-20Khz range as well.
@@juliangst My expensive headphones sounded noticeably better when I was younger. Which is how I realized I had lost a portion of my hearing in the first place. So no, that's not true at all.
In the US, many years ago traffic light switching involved a JBL type of high frequency bullet driver. And my friend, in his 20's was highly disturbed as he could hear that signal in the approx. 20 KHZ range while in his car. So, GS's hearing can be annoying to him and yet others can't understand why he can be upset hearing a high freq. problem. I remember Sony Trinitron TV's had an easily audible 15KC scanning frequency, always annoying while watching a program. Blessing or Curse?
The issue with better dacs is that you need a better source, amp, and speakers / headphones to fully hear it.
So for those who don’t have the ears of a bat at midnight a Bifrost 2/64 will do just dandy - save your money!
Video suggestion: When you listen various songs on Tidal (for example) you hear the difference between a good, very good or a bad production with a good headphone (even if all are flac you listen too). What could be the best headphone to cover that up or maybe you can use a dac to hear less the bad or cheap production? Or a combination...
Interesting - I seem to recall that recently @ErinsAudioCorner did a video on the same topic - demo-ing an ABX Tester in the process - forgot the make/model of the device.
lol however I do get that Cameron is straight up interested in the truth/ best sound…👍🙏
Thank you for this highly interesting and original video. I am aware there is a lot of work behind it. I was wondering, how quickly you jump to conclusion when you realize you can hear above 20kHz....and that is the only explanation and justification you give for the AB test results. I doubt there is much going on at 20kHz in any music file....and even if there is something going on, the levels are very far away from the -3 dBFS you shown in the video 15'40'' (probalby many young people can hear 20kHz at -3dBFS, but can they hear something at -20 or -30 dBFS?). Imho....there is no way you heard something at 20kHz in the AB test you pefromed. It is impossible because there is nothing at such high level -3dBFS.
Why not compare a topping DAC to your May instead? Both ran with the same upsampling filter.
Yeah that's a good point.
I have done, if they were the same I'd have sold the May and freed up a bunch of cash
@@GoldenSound why not video the abx then?
@@mccririck01 I'll happily post some, but as discussed in this video, the problem is that people will just say "Ehh you faked it/you're lying". That's the entire reason why this test was done in a remotely verifiable way
@@GoldenSound It's hard for us to understand how you can hear a difference though since the both measure very well. It would be interesting to see you do the test.
Thank you for this!
If DAC designers like Rob Watts at his age can still hear these differences, which I believe he apparently can… then… 😅 maybe it would be worth doing an experiment by having a decent sample size of people to test and see how high they can actually listen to a frequency response at different ages.
Maybe those kinds of tests have not been done properly in the past? 🤔
Designing audio gear is fun. A Dac is much more than a chip. Changing over filtering on an output stage makes a big differnce. If you want a dark sound, I can make it sound dark. Bright? No problem. Really good? Yes. High End, absolutely. The difference is so immense.
They think a network switch changes sound quality 😂
Pretty insane as they only send square waves interpreted as 1's and 0's
Who's "they"?
@@andrewgiovannini6613 @3:53
Guys prob hear the difference between different coal brands, the power factory burns.
You should continue to regularly and consciously listen to these high frequencies because this can prevent, to some extent, the neurons that respond to these frequencies from dying.
Great job, great video. So for you hires makes quite the difference I guess :)
Btw, I'm 34 and can still hear 21k as well (according to some app).
You don't have to be able to hear up to 20 kHz to have the ability to perceive the difference between digital reconstruction filters. Many begin to attenuate below 20 kHz. My Topping G5 had a default set filter with a roll-off starting from ~5 kHz and would drop by 0,6 dB at 18 kHz, which right around the limits of my hearing.
It was changed for a different filter with no roll-off below 20 kHz, but significantly worse attenuation at the Nyquist frequency with 44,1 kHz samplerate signals. I can't make any claims regarding the impact of worse aliasing suppression in this, or any other, case. But that also can be a factor worthy of consideration.
couldnt you have done the same test by cutting it the audio off at ~20khz?
the opening with the drum gave me PH vibes
wondering when we would get a video like this
but all cables sound same.... dont they? 😯
th-cam.com/video/xwJMqybtYhk/w-d-xo.htmlsi=uaTWDrg9QqAgV1DG
th-cam.com/video/ZSxaDolPWKQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=EQBKVvynGeRvmVXt
No they sound different.
Pretty fun that this video on itty bitty, very likely inaudible differences in DAC sound has Zu speakers in the background.