My Ultra tests

[canard]

The WiiM ultra has a ess hump according to onlyoneme . With a LPF it dissapears, according to onlyoneme.
Question is - If a unit has that ”hump” , is it audible ? It sure is measurable .

no, not that's the subject (for the moment and will be practically nothing compared to the power supply problem)

 

[Musician]

Returning to this I downloaded the test files and extracted the same piece of music from each one and fed them into Deltawave software. I compared C to A and B. The results FWIW suggest C and B are a lot closer to each other than A.
View attachment 9176
View attachment 9177

View attachment 9178
View attachment 9179

How much closer ? How big is the difference ? Is it -60 or -80 dB or -100 dB between A and the others ?
How big is the difference between B and C ?

 

[slartibartfast]

How much closer ? How big is the difference ? Is it -60 or -80 dB or -100 dB between A and the others ?
How big is the difference between B and C ?

I was hoping you wouldn't ask that . According to the software author the PK Metric figure gives an indication of whether the difference is audible. You can see the PK Metric is fairly consistent over the full length of the track when C is compared to B but is all over the place when C is compared to A.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

The WiiM ultra has a ess hump according to onlyoneme . With a LPF it dissapears, according to onlyoneme.
Question is - If a unit has that ”hump” , is it audible ? It sure is measurable .

Once again, if it’s audible it’s measurable, but that doesn’t mean that if it’s measurable it’s audible.

 

[steadyshot]

Once again, if it’s audible it’s measurable, but that doesn’t mean that if it’s measurable it’s audible.

In practice even if we accept that no other thresholds exist besides the ones proposed by a forum member on asr ( highly debatable ) no dac is reaching the suggested certain transparency .

Moreover the less “transparent “ an amplifier the more it needs help from a clean signal feed . Since the more unmolested signal it receives the cleaner its output will be.

So, the state of transparency has not being reached by dacs and amps benefit from the cleanest signal possible

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

1 - In practice even if we accept that no other thresholds exist besides the ones proposed by a forum member on asr ( highly debatable )

That’s a strawman. They’re not ‘proposed by a forum member on ASR. What they are is a list of measurable criteria which have been identified in audio science as having an affect on human perception of sound. They also happen to be the criteria that hi-fi manufacturers have been striving to improve for years.

If you feel there are other criteria, that’s great. Let us know what they are, and they can be tested in properly controlled tests.

no dac is reaching the suggested certain transparency .

That’s not true, and a few examples have already been given.

There is one more thing. We already know that many people struggle to tell DACs apart, even one one is measurably world class, and the other ‘workmanlike’, and not measuring brilliantly.

As I say, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying, if you’re right, take your proof to the audio scientists and engineers.

Who could possibly say I’m being unfair.

 

[Smartplug]

Ok here’s facts about dac from entry level to their top end the sinad, thd are about 3db difference in measurements in sinad 123db vs 120 and frequency response ruler flat and thd is .005 vs .0005. Obviously, the top end will get better paper specs but the price difference could tripled. Will the better specs would yield better sound if those are beyond human hearing? They have excuse to sell them tripled because of better specs but the buyer buying them would think could hear difference other than robbing their hard earn cash. Like most casual listeners could not hear difference let alone sell them top end. These people who claim they could hear difference between akm and ess like reviewers from you tube are not smart?

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Ok here’s facts about dac from entry level to their top end the sinad, thd are about 3db difference in measurements in sinad 123db vs 120 and frequency response ruler flat and thd is .005 vs .0005. Obviously, the top end will get better paper specs but the price difference could tripled. Will the better specs would yield better sound if those are beyond human hearing? They have excuse to sell them tripled because of better specs but the buyer buying them would think could hear difference other than robbing their hard earn cash. Like most casual listeners could not hear difference let alone sell them top end. These people who claim they could hear difference between akm and ess like reviewers from you tube are not smart?

Actually, no. Another strawman, I’m afraid.

Transparent DACs start below £100. The very best measuring DACs cost below £1,000 and are only better in measurement. In other words, if we say transparency is 120dB for a certain criteria, then 130dB measures better, but doesn’t sound any different.

 

[Smartplug]

Actually, no. Another strawman, I’m afraid.

Transparent DACs start below £100. The very best measuring DACs cost below £1,000 and are only better in measurement. In other words, if we say transparency is 120dB for a certain criteria, then 130dB measures better, but doesn’t sound any different.

Indeed, all these modem dac even cheap one are transparent then why company like sml produce dac raging from 100 to 1000 if both transparent and should sound same.

 

[steadyshot]

That’s a strawman. They’re not ‘proposed by a forum member on ASR. What they are is a list of measurable criteria which have been identified in audio science as having an affect on human perception of sound. They also happen to be the criteria that hi-fi manufacturers have been striving to improve for years.

If you feel there are other criteria, that’s great. Let us know what they are, and they can be tested in properly controlled tests.



That’s not true, and a few examples have already been given.

There is one more thing. We already know that many people struggle to tell DACs apart, even one one is measurably world class, and the other ‘workmanlike’, and not measuring brilliantly.

As I say, I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m just saying, if you’re right, take your proof to the audio scientists and engineers.

Who could possibly say I’m being unfair.

It is suggested by a member on a forum not an official organisation.

The dac you said that it passes strict does not pass imd .i have quoted the asr review… So no dac passes strict.

Strict exists because lenient is uncertain.

Do not tell me it is not true. Why you do this? You are constantly twisting the truth.

 

[Smartplug]

In reality buying better specs would think would sound better aside from bragging rights how much you spend that doesn’t yield sound difference. Much like saying driver would not appreciate extra hp if their limit of driving is 40 mph. I know who drive that slow.

 

[steadyshot]

The fact that manufacturers strive to improve certain metrics does not mean that they have set a threshold . Your logic is weak. The threshold set was arbitrary as far as completeness and had some sense in the strict form related to audibility

 

[Smartplug]

Yes that’s true but those don’t yield meaningful that ear can hear it aside from selling the unit more expensive for higher profit.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

Indeed, all these modem dac even cheap one are transparent then why company like sml produce dac raging from 100 to 1000 if both transparent and should sound same.

Well, at last it appears we have some agreement.

For balance, the arguments on the other side are:
1 - The Pride of Ownership (the “I have best” argument)
2 - Engineering Excellence (the “I want the best” argument)

It would appear we agree. But I can’t and won’t criticise the above. If people want to spend their money on something they feel adds something outside of what you and I aim for, then that’s beyond the remit of my argument.

For me, I’m just for the sound quality. But I appreciate others might see things differently.

 

[Musician]

I understand well...

Thread 'My WiiM Pro Plus 2nd sample test' https://forum.wiimhome.com/threads/my-wiim-pro-plus-2nd-sample-test.1580/


and ultra no lpf(-110.7).. et plusx2 (-115.8) , ultra with lpf (-115.1) (in thd/n despite your lpf remaining "dirty")


to gently bring back to the original meaning of this thread...

;-)

(ps also heavily impacts analog inputs?)

For those measurements, Onlyoneme used a S booster LPS for the pro+.

There are reasons to believe that the pro+ is worse measuring with the stock supply.

So, both the ultra and pro+ in original state = the ultra probably wins ?

 

[Musician]

no, not that's the subject (for the moment and will be practically nothing compared to the power supply problem)

Are you suggestivt that a SINAD of 110,7 dB is a serious power supply problem ?

Those numbers where impossible 5 years ago.

 

[Steve Woodhouse]

For those measurements, Onlyoneme used a S booster LPS for the pro+.

There are reasons to believe that the pro+ is worse measuring with the stock supply.

So, both the ultra and pro+ in original state = the ultra probably wins ?

Again, it’s not a question of whether one number is higher/lower than the other.

It’s a question of whether one is audible in normal listening conditions or not.

 

[alpha_zulu]

I have the feeling that things are going round in circles here. New insights are probably not to be expected. Perhaps the thread should be closed. For the sake of world peace.

 

[Smartplug]

I have the feeling that things are going round in circles here. New insights are probably not to be expected. Perhaps the thread should be closed. For the sake of world peace.

Haha, I think you know where this thing would end up with.

 

[Griff]

And this is for the Pro/Plus:

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

Hi @onlyoneme I just wondered what could be the source of the difference from ideal in the test above?