My Ultra tests

[onlyoneme]

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...

None of the WiiM devices can pass all these strict thresholds. I'm not sure if such a device even exists considering presence of IMD here, although undefined.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

"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!"

Yes I saw that. To be clear, a sample size of 105 is too small for a definitive conclusion, even if the results were clear cut (which they clearly weren’t).

Once you only check headphone listeners, all the more so.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

None of the WiiM devices can pass all these strict thresholds. I'm not sure if such a device even exists considering presence of IMD here, although undefined.

For clarity. At the moment we’re only talking about the Pro Plus (Mini and Pro aren’t transparent, Amp has no line level analogue out from digital).

So, Pro Plus. THD+N c.115dB, so extremely close to ‘strict’. Dynamic range c.117.5dB, again extremely close to strict. Jitter always below 130dB, so beats strict.

So if we take strict as a target, the dongle doesn't beat any, and falls quite short with THD+N, whilst the Pro Plus clears one, and is within a whisker on the other two.

Of course, there are genuine and legitimate debates about the limits, no question.

Just one more thing. Whilst I have no measurements for the more expensive Linn, the Majik scores THD+N 95.5dB. That’s the only measurement I have from the digital out. SNR is abysmal at 69dB.

So it looks like they were comparing DACs which aren’t transparent.

 

[Brantome]

That’s


Yes, I saw that.

Once you


Yes I saw that. To be clear, a sample size of 105 is too small for a definitive conclusion, even if the results were clear cut (which they clearly weren’t).

Once you only check headphone listeners, all the more so.

Why the three quotes?

 

[steadyshot]

For clarity. At the moment we’re only talking about the Pro Plus (Mini and Pro aren’t transparent, Amp has no digital out).

So, Pro Plus. THD+N c.115dB, so extremely close to ‘strict’. Dynamic range c.117.5dB, again extremely close to strict. Jitter always below 130dB, so beats strict.

So if we take strict as a target, the dongle doesn't beat any, and falls quite short with THD+N, whilst the Pro Plus clears one, and is within a whisker on the other two.

Of course, there are genuine and legitimate debates about the limits, no question.

Just one more thing. Whilst I have no measurements for the more expensive Linn, the Majik scores THD+N 95.5dB. That’s the only measurement I have from the digital out. SNR is abysmal at 69dB.

So it looks like they were comparing DACs which aren’t transparent.

Do you know how many dacs pass all the strict thresholds and how much does the cheapest of them passing all strict cost?

 

[Jls]

Just make sure you aren’t one of those who think the difference is absolutely vital, and prefer the $10 DAC.

 

[onlyoneme]

For clarity. At the moment we’re only talking about the Pro Plus (Mini and Pro aren’t transparent, Amp has no digital out).

So, Pro Plus. THD+N c.115dB, so extremely close to ‘strict’. Dynamic range c.117.5dB, again extremely close to strict. Jitter always below 130dB, so beats strict.

So if we take strict as a target, the dongle doesn't beat any, and falls quite short with THD+N, whilst the Pro Plus clears one, and is within a whisker on the other two.

Of course, there are genuine and legitimate debates about the limits, no question.

Just one more thing. Whilst I have no measurements for the more expensive Linn, the Majik scores THD+N 95.5dB. That’s the only measurement I have from the digital out. SNR is abysmal at 69dB.

So it looks like they were comparing DACs which aren’t transparent.

Presence of the digital outputs is irrelevant here.

And for clarity, I specified already criteria to be fulfilled based on the discussion already if you want to continue it with me here. There is no "we" so far, and that's your trolling instead.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Why the three quotes?

Apologies - corrected. It was completely unintentional

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Presence of the digital outputs is irrelevant here.

Look at any amplifier review, and it’ll have measurements for noise and distortion worse than almost every DAC. You can’t measure a DAC fairly by only measuring it after it’s been through an amplification section. If the amp measures worse than the DAC, you’re measuring the amp, not the DAC (unless the DAC is worse than the amp).

I’m sorry, I thought that would be blindingly obvious.

EDIT - for clarity I’ve edited that to read ‘line level analogue out from digital’.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Do you know how many dacs pass all the strict thresholds and how much does the cheapest of them passing all strict cost?

Good question.

Starting at the lower end ,Topping D10 balanced, THD+N 118.5dB (extremely close) SNR 121.5dB (pass), jitter 139dB (pass).

The DX7Pro Plus clears everything. By the way, in relation to onlyoneme’s comments on the WiiM Amp (above), the SNR is 130dB on the balanced out, but only 93dB on the headphone out.

That’s why it’s simply not possible to measure the DAC alone on that model.

 

[onlyoneme]

@Steve Woodhouse
There is a very special kind of the ANALOG outputs built in the DACs, due to the digital to ANALOG conversion function, being used for connections to the amps for example. And also for measurements of the performance of digital to ANALOG conversion.
Well...

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

@Steve Woodhouse
There is a very special kind of the ANALOG outputs built in the DACs, due to the digital to ANALOG conversion function, being used for connections to the amps for example. And also for measurements of the performance of digital to ANALOG conversion.
Well...

You probably need to read my edit.

You cannot measure a DAC accurately from speaker level outputs.

 

[Smartplug]

I’m sure I will get hammered on this especially Steve Woodhouse who like busting chops to other users. I have 7 dacs and all modern devices. 3 uses Ess chip different model and using same opa1612. 3 also uses akm different model and using opa1612. Both chipsets measure extremely good. Now, I could not hear the difference version of ess or akm but I could easily hear if it’s akm or ess chipset. How did I do this? I had one guy cover my eyes and sent me to other room while switching dacs through a switch then guide me to the chair blindfolded and ask me which chipset while playing music. We did this 50 times and I got zero error. I am able to pinpoint which chipset being played between ess and akm. Now, if measure identical should sound same so how did I able to tell the difference? Golden ear!

 

[alpha_zulu]

I’m sure I will get hammered on this especially Steve Woodhouse who like busting chops to other users. I have 7 dacs and all modern devices. 3 uses Ess chip different model and using same opa1612. 3 also uses akm different model and using opa1612. Both chipsets measure extremely good. Now, I could not hear the difference version of ess or akm but I could easily hear if it’s akm or ess chipset. How did I do this? I had one guy cover my eyes and sent me to other room while switching dacs through a switch then guide me to the chair blindfolded and ask me which chipset while playing music. We did this 50 times and I got zero error. I am able to pinpoint which chipset being played between ess and akm. Now, if measure identical should sound same so how did I able to tell the difference? Golden ear!

Very interessting. Did you use always the same track? Or can you do this with any random song? How would you subscribe the main differences between ESS and AKM?

 

[onlyoneme]

I’m sure I will get hammered on this especially Steve Woodhouse who like busting chops to other users. I have 7 dacs and all modern devices. 3 uses Ess chip different model and using same opa1612. 3 also uses akm different model and using opa1612. Both chipsets measure extremely good. Now, I could not hear the difference version of ess or akm but I could easily hear if it’s akm or ess chipset. How did I do this? I had one guy cover my eyes and sent me to other room while switching dacs through a switch then guide me to the chair blindfolded and ask me which chipset while playing music. We did this 50 times and I got zero error. I am able to pinpoint which chipset being played between ess and akm. Now, if measure identical should sound same so how did I able to tell the difference? Golden ear!

There is no such thing as two devices which measure the same in general, and proven "transparent devices" do not exist either. I can bet that you will not hear differences in the controlled conditions using the same test signal as the one used for measurements, if results give a strong evidence of being below the audibility level. And this is all.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

I’m sure I will get hammered on this especially Steve Woodhouse who like busting chops to other users. I have 7 dacs and all modern devices. 3 uses Ess chip different model and using same opa1612. 3 also uses akm different model and using opa1612. Both chipsets measure extremely good. Now, I could not hear the difference version of ess or akm but I could easily hear if it’s akm or ess chipset. How did I do this? I had one guy cover my eyes and sent me to other room while switching dacs through a switch then guide me to the chair blindfolded and ask me which chipset while playing music. We did this 50 times and I got zero error. I am able to pinpoint which chipset being played between ess and akm. Now, if measure identical should sound same so how did I able to tell the difference? Golden ear!

I won’t bust your chops, and no offence to you whatsoever.

But I’m not going to believe any individual posting something unverified (and to be clear, I wouldn’t expect anyone else to do so, including anything I posted).

Just in general, I’d count any 100% result from 50 as looking a tad suspicious.

Again, and for clarity, this is no offence to you. I’d apply the same to anyone, and expect anyone else to apply it to me.

What are the DACs?

 

[canard]

There is no such thing as two devices which measure the same in general, and proven "transparent devices" do not exist either. I can bet that you will not hear differences in the controlled conditions using the same test signal as the one used for measurements, if results give a strong evidence of being below the audibility level. And this is all.

akm claims an assumed "velvet" signature... .. would be interesting to ask them, while these machines will meet the criteria asr "transparent" modes...what are they "playing on" for this ;-)



It’s a shame that you didn’t continue to enrich your feedback on the ultra..,-)

 

[steadyshot]

Good question.

Starting at the lower end ,Topping D10 balanced, THD+N 118.5dB (extremely close) SNR 121.5dB (pass), jitter 139dB (pass).

The DX7Pro Plus clears everything. By the way, in relation to onlyoneme’s comments on the WiiM Amp (above), the SNR is 130dB on the balanced out, but only 93dB on the headphone out.

That’s why it’s simply not possible to measure the DAC alone on that model.

Dx7 pro plus does not clear imd target of -120db. Scroll down the asr review and you will see .

Topping DX7 Pro+ Review (DAC & HP Amp)

This is a review, detailed measurements and listening tests of Topping DX7 Pro+. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $699. As you see, the DX7 Pro+ sports the newer look of some Topping products. I did not care for it much before but it is growing on me. :) Three different headphone...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Dx7 pro plus does not clear imd target of -120db. Scroll down the asr review and you will see .

Topping DX7 Pro+ Review (DAC & HP Amp)

This is a review, detailed measurements and listening tests of Topping DX7 Pro+. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $699. As you see, the DX7 Pro+ sports the newer look of some Topping products. I did not care for it much before but it is growing on me. :) Three different headphone...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Mr.Plug, I’m going to row back ever so slightly on my earlier post. It requires a little detail, more later.

 

[Musician]

It's going to be a long time process, but I will try to add a new content periodically. Everything based on the pre prod device which is PCB ver 2 unit.

Just one thing at the beginning, a comparison of the waveforms over the digital coax output, tested with the oscilloscope and 192 kHz sample rate test signal, and terminated at 75 ohms.

This is for the Ultra:

View attachment 8954

And this is for the Pro/Plus:

View attachment 8955

Ideal and perfect waveforms would show rectangles. In the real world it should be as close as possible to the ideal one.




A rough comparison of the Pro Plus with the Ultra, THD vs frequency, 192 kHz sample rate. It's not a THD+N, so it's not a sinad. And this is over the analog output using full scale sine signals.

View attachment 8971

The "hills" here would require some explanation, but I'll spend some time on that a little later with my personal perspective on other measurements results which I've faced.




Few words on the noise on the analog output. I use 192 kHz sample rate and a dithered silence file to keep the output active.

First result is taken when the Ultra is connected directly to my ADC, screen is off:

View attachment 9045

and with the screen on:

View attachment 9046

10 kHz component (and harmonics) appear.

Now the same test but also with the scaler, so that's the setup I use most of the time, screen off:

View attachment 9047

and the screen on:

View attachment 9048

One of the differences between above setups is the input impedance, 1.2 kOhm vs 100 kOhm. I've made some additional tests with RME UCX II and 5 kOhm and 9 kOhm impedances, and observed results lied between these above, being closer to the ADC alone with its low input impedance. I guess that the noise pollution from the PSU is strong enough to reveal itself when high impedance input is used. And it can affect measurement results.
Personally I prefer to see something as below, the Pro Plus powered by an LPS and with the scaler, so high impedance input is used:

View attachment 9051


As I am still suspicious, I made another test with the LPF (which I use for class D amps measurements) attached. The scaler is used again:

View attachment 9052

Noise pollution is highly attenuated, so maybe it comes from the high frequency noise made by the PSU. I looked at the spectrum of white noise to verify how the DAC filter (there are 7 of them BTW) handles is. Below a comparison with the Pro Plus:

View attachment 9053

It doesn't look good to me.




And something for those sinad addicted, with an LPF:

View attachment 9065

and without it:

View attachment 9066

Onlyoneme, I hope you dont loose the energy to make measurement because of those fundamentalists from ASR polluting this thread.

I would like to see comparisons with Pro+ ( with stock power supply ) and the Ultra ( without LPF ) using the digital volume control at - 20 dB , both from spdif electrical out ( to see the resolution when used as digital preamps ) and from the analog output after the internal dacs.