Test WIIM pro+ with different power supplies

[cc_rider]

...and the fact that I don't have OCD about how perfected equipment "sounds". I listen to music (jazz, mostly), not gear. DACs are among the least likely things in the modern chain to have any effect on the overall enjoyment; speakers and room interactions are the most likely, so why bother with comparing DACs once your DAC has reached transparency?

 

[D1N0]

...and the fact that I don't have OCD about how perfected equipment "sounds". I listen to music (jazz, mostly), not gear. DACs are among the least likely things in the modern chain to have any effect on the overall enjoyment; speakers and room interactions are the most likely, so why bother with comparing DACs once your DAC has reached transparency?

I doubt very much that any cheap dac has reached transparency. All dacs have characters and transparancy can never be measured anyway. How much of a difference a DAC makes depends mainly on the amplification and speakers. If they are revealing enough a DAC can make a big difference.

 

[onlyoneme]

transparancy can never be measured anyway

Looking for a transparency would be like looking for a non-existence. But I can assure you that if 2 devices indicate being audibly transparent in the measurement with a particular test tone, you will not hear the difference when listening to this test tone.

 

[canard]

Looking for a transparency would be like looking for a non-existence. But I can assure you that if 2 devices indicate being audibly transparent in the measurement with a particular test tone, you will not hear the difference when listening to this test tone.

 

[cc_rider]

All dacs have characters and transparancy can never be measured anyway. How much of a difference a DAC makes depends mainly on the amplification and speakers. If they are revealing enough a DAC can make a big difference.

In a properly matched DBT, not likely.

 

[steadyshot]

In a properly matched DBT, not likely.

Hearing even your own system with the same volume and knowing that you have not changed anything may still sound different from time to time . Only by observing commonalities by focusing on each component every time and then building a memory on the sound characteristics you may be able to draw a conclusion of subtle or not so subtle differences.

Again some care some don’t … Most don’t but audiophiles care

 

[onlyoneme]

but audiophiles care

About properly performed unsighted tests? It's so rare that I do not recognize the last time I've read about it.

 

[steadyshot]

About properly performed unsighted tests? It's so rare that I do not recognize the last time I've read about it.

Funny thing very few if any such test is documented on the net!

 

[BowsAndArrows]

Tried batteries but found the electrochemical noise intolerable. Have you tried solar panels & super capacitors? Unbelievably good!!

Yeh not all batteries are created equal unfortunately, so there might be a lot of noise coming from the electronics. I haven't tried this myself but apparently LiFePo4 batteries with good electronic controllers are the way to go?

 

[D1N0]

Just tried the ifi iPower X on my Argon Solo streamer. Big difference. So ordered another one. I was already using it with the WIIM pro. Should have tried it sooner.

 

[Griff]

Looking for a transparency would be like looking for a non-existence. But I can assure you that if 2 devices indicate being audibly transparent in the measurement with a particular test tone, you will not hear the difference when listening to this test tone.

Hi @onlyoneme just as a matter of interest, and not trying to be funny, what is the level/bar/measurement a dac needs to hit to be regarded as audibly transparent.

 

[onlyoneme]

It's arguable especially when talking about being audibly transparent in general. A bit easier for particular tests but rather in terms of prediction whether the result suggests audibility or not, than setting exact audibility thresholds.

 

[Griff]

It's arguable especially when talking about being audibly transparent in general. A bit easier for particular tests but rather in terms of prediction whether the result suggests audibility or not, than setting exact audibility thresholds.

OK, think I get what you are saying. Is it like taking a 'helicopter' view of a series of test results and from your experience testing knowing roughly what this would translate to in terms of performance in your own system?

 

[BowsAndArrows]

in my opinion the tests can only tell you so much about how a component will sound and usually will only point to glaring abnormalities (if any exist)... a combination of testing and experience actually listening to a product is necessary to ascertain its performance because unfortunately we cannot measure everything that matters to SQ.

for example frequency response curves have many limitations, similarly SINAD measurements or equivalents are also typically not very informative. it's because we don't listen to test tones in practice.. (at least i don't! ) and also because these routine measurements contain very little information about the accuracy of your system's sound reproduction capabilities in the time domain - which is hugely important for creating realistic imaging, wide soundstage etc.

 

[onlyoneme]

we cannot measure everything that matters to SQ

Like what, for example?

for example frequency response curves have many limitations, similarly SINAD measurements or equivalents are also typically not very informative.

They are informative and specialized, but if you mean that they do not make a coffee, then I will agree - they don't.

it's because we don't listen to test tones in practice..

It's not their purpose. They are made to let evaluate device performance under some circumstances.

these routine measurements contain very little information about the accuracy of your system's sound reproduction capabilities in the time domain

A jitter can be analyzed in both time domain and frequency domain when needed.

 

[BowsAndArrows]

Like what, for example?

@onlyoneme well, to be specific: we don't have reliable measurements to apply to things like- macro/microdynamics, soundstage, realism in imaging, "weight" of a sound (the feeling of it being a live performance).

but it's not only that but also how we apply the measurements we do have at our disposal - e.g. it is possible to test off-axis performance of a setup - but this is not done routinely because it is cumbersome. This can much more easily be discerned by listening to the system for a few minutes... i.e. there are inherent limitations to all approaches.

there are obviously limitations to evaluating our subjective experiences too, but people seem to grasp those more easily, hence we don't feel the need to keep repeating them.

in my opinion we have to accept that there are limitations to our understanding of how the auditory system works too, and also trust that there are times when "taking a listen" just makes more sense if you disagree and think it's an open-and-shut case and amir at ASR knows everything there is to know about hearing, then that's cool too i guess

 

[BowsAndArrows]

at the ènd of the day - some components sound different to us. and all we're trying to do here is understand why that is a bit better...

some of us believe that this kind of knowledge should be in the public domain instead of protected by proprietary research at the big audio companies (who admittedly do make products that are better performing than others)...

 

[Fender]

Inside THIS hobby I give a s...t for the "why". The "what" matters!

 

[BowsAndArrows]

Inside THIS hobby I give a s...t for the "why". The "what" matters!

that's a fair point! i can see your line of reasoning and i agree... i wish it were that simple.

but the issue is - we sometimes can't even agree on the "what" because at this current point in time we are unable to apply an objective lens over all of the (replicable) subjective differences we observe...

 

[Fender]

For me it is easy. If I listen to new gear and my reaction is "What?" the what-test is done and the gear did not succeed. If my reaction is "Wow!" its worth a closer look ;-)
Edit: The "Wows" decrease.