My Ultra tests

[slartibartfast]

In

This is an old test .

This is much newer !

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART III: Subjective Descriptions

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Consensus = yes people can hear differences between streamers .

In that test 26 preferred the $10 dongle, 29 preferred the $3000 streamer, 31 preferred the $20000 streamer and 19 had no preference. What does that show?

 

[alpha_zulu]

It shows there was differences in sound. Wether real or only feeled can't be said.

 

[steadyshot]

You cant get a concrete conclusion with listening tests. Results are all over the place . For sure if it was perceived as the same , the majority would respond as “I cannot distinguish “

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

This is an old test .

This is much newer !

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART III: Subjective Descriptions

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

Consensus = yes people can hear differences between streamers .

Completely unverified and unverifiable.

Not to mention that, it of 79 testers, the three systems scored 19/31/29. The split between high end and Apple dongle was 31/29. That’s random.

 

[slartibartfast]

Completely unverified and unverifiable.

Download the files and listen yourself

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Download the files and listen yourself

For a random 50:50 result? What more would one more vote for either ‘side’ add?

The results are closer to what you’d expect if the listeners chose at random than if one was really ‘better’.

 

[Musician]

Three devices with very similar sinad, which means for some people that they measure the same. And still audible differences.

I would guess the audible differences in this test was mainly because of different shielding of RFi , where the most expensive one had the best shielding. Much RFi will give false listening impressions, sounding brighter than the source material. Some even prefer that.

This is why I believe that the Ultra:s internal dac with its metal case will sound slightly better than the pro+, even if they have about the same sinad between 20-20000 Hz.
This is also the conclusion of Rob Watts from chord. RFi is not good for analog electronics.

Steve Woodhouse - this is a good education video :

(Edit : If the inbuilt powersupply of the ultra is of less than perfect quality , it might colour the sound because of RFi coming from it. If this is the case, the metal shield doesnt help.

In such a case, I would expect the ultra to sound slightly brighter than a pro+ with a LPS.)

 

[onlyoneme]

 

[onlyoneme]

I would guess the audible differences in this test was mainly because of different shielding of RFi , where the most expensive one had the best shielding.
This is why I believe that the Ultra:s internal dac with its metal case will sound slightly better than the pro+, even if they have the same sinad between 20-20000 Hz.
This is also the conclusion of Rob Watts from chord. RFi is not good for analog electronics.

Steve Woodhouse - this is a good education video :

I don't think that it will be a real case here. But I can prepare samples to compare the Ultra vs something else if you wish. Under one condition - you have to perform an ABX test in foobar and provide a detailed report here.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

View attachment 9122

And that’s the best $10k+ of equipment can do against a $10 dongle.

Just one more problem.

The Apple dongle doesn’t measure as transparent.



Seriously. You’ve just tried to prove all transparent DACs don’t sound the same by showing a comparison of a non-transparent DAC.

 

[steadyshot]

The most responses for the best are gathered for linn klimax and most responses for the worst are gathered for the apple dongle. That is something that makes sense...

 

[onlyoneme]

And that’s the best $10k+ of equipment can do against a $10 dongle.

Just one more problem.

The Apple dongle doesn’t measure as transparent.



Seriously. You’ve just tried to prove all transparent DACs don’t sound the same by showing a comparison of a non-transparent DAC.

I didn't try to prove anything, especially regarding devices not shown on the graph. But if you really want to continue a discussion with me, answer the open questions first and provide a proof which will make a phrase "transparent device" something more than a meaningless statement.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

The most responses for the best are gathered for linn klimax and most responses for the worst are gathered for the apple dongle. That is something that makes sense...

View attachment 9124

More issues, too.

The dongle isn’t a DAC. It’s a DAC/headphone amp, with only a headphone out, so after the DAC the signal has to go through a very (very, very) cheap headphone amp.

No one even remotely interested in conducting a properly controlled test would ever do that.

 

[Musician]

And that’s the best $10k+ of equipment can do against a $10 dongle.

Just one more problem.

The Apple dongle doesn’t measure as transparent.



Seriously. You’ve just tried to prove all transparent DACs don’t sound the same by showing a comparison of a non-transparent DAC.

How good must the Apple dongle measure to be transparent , then ? Give me a number please.

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART I: Devices Unveiled!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[steadyshot]

More issues, too.

The dongle isn’t a DAC. It’s a DAC/headphone amp, with only a headphone out, so after the DAC the signal has to go through a very (very, very) cheap headphone amp.

No one even remotely interested in conducting a properly controlled test would ever do that.

These are the audibility thresholds suggested by a member on the asr forum on the famous thread. Can we map the measurements to these suggested thresholds? If anyone could find them...

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

How good must the Apple dongle measure to be transparent , then ? Give me a number please.

"High-End" DAC Blind Listening Results - PART I: Devices Unveiled!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

View attachment 9126
View attachment 9127

As already noted, the dongle is als a headphone amp. It performs very well with low impedance phones, but poorly with high impedance.

For the test to mean anything (and measurements) the listeners would all have to specify the volume they set their iPhone/Pad to, and then measure that. Because you’ll get different results (both in listening and measurements) with different volume levels.

 

[Jls]

It shows there was differences in sound. Wether real or only feeled can't be said.

Did you run a p-test on that data?

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

View attachment 9128

These are the audibility thresholds suggested by a member on the asr forum on the famous thread. Can we map the measurements to these suggested thresholds? If anyone could find them...

Yes, THD+N is about 98dB, so just above lenient, way short of strict.

Dynamic range inbetween the two (but lots better) at 113.

Jitter is worse than 120 in some parts - not by a lot, but over a broad range (7kHz to 19kHz).

These are still excellent specs - astonishing for $10, and close to transparency.

But as I say, unless we know what every participant had their volume set, it’s meaningless.

Again, as we have nothing but remote listener’s word for the results, meaningless.

And once again, the results were far from conclusive. Effectively, let’s just call the results ‘right and ‘wrong’ for a moment. Out of 105 tests adding the two high ends together, the participants only picked the ‘right’ answer (most expensive set ups as best) 60 times, with 45 choosing the single or no difference.

That’s 57% vs 43%. No one could possibly thank such a narrow result could prove anything.

 

[Jls]

In

In that test 26 preferred the $10 dongle, 29 preferred the $3000 streamer, 31 preferred the $20000 streamer and 19 had no preference. What does that show?

The two-tailed P value equals 0.9242
By conventional criteria, this difference is considered to be not statistically significant.

Answer:
z score
z = 0.095202121529773
Sample Mean = 26.25
Count
n = 4

 

[onlyoneme]

"Check this out - for the listeners who thought they could hear a difference, let's separate them by whether they used headphones, speakers, or both"
"Excellent! That pattern among the headphone listeners is highly significant with χ2 = 18.9, p-value = .00084; clearly much better than the typical p < .05 significance threshold!"