External DAC's cheap?

[RobxMcCarthy]

Ok, I've beeon on a search for an external DAC for over a year. I've had minimal luck finding one for under $200. The main reason I'm interested is. I'd like to use the digital output from my sound card instead of the analog (as it seems that they are more prone to interference/etc etc.) Plus I'd like a high quality DAC anyway.

So, the question is. Does anyone know of any decent DAC's in the sub $200 zone? I've looked into Audio Alchemy and some others, but can't seem to find one cheap. Stereophile/audiogon wanteds were the best I could do.

[stratcatprowlin]

The Cheapest ones I've seen are in the same price range you found.
I'll search a lil though.

[stratcatprowlin]

What are you powering your Athena AS-F2's with?

[RobxMcCarthy]

I have an Onkyo 200 wpc full analog receiver. It's oldschool and has no internal DAC or any digital signal passing at all for that matter, but it's really a nice sounding piece of equipment. For the same price yeah I could have bought a digital receiver, but at the cost of a lot of sound quality =/.

[stratcatprowlin]

For the same price yeah I could have bought a digital receiver, but at the cost of a lot of sound quality =/.

Dont worry,Im the last person that would recommend a digital reciever.

[X86Dude]

http://www.diyclub.biz/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=270

[skitlets]

the piccolo from www.aoselectronics.com is $270 and isnt bad for the price, tho it is $70 over your budget. dacs usually dont come cheap

[RobxMcCarthy]

Yeah I know.. hmm, I was hoping to spend a little less. Well at any rate I'm not buying a new one. Probably get a decent 4-year-ish old one.

The DIY project... I made myself a diy headphone amp / mint tin style. But a DAC may be a little out of my league. Plus, I think that there is too much room for error, and that my results wouldn't be what I was looking for. Mainly I want to 'improve' the sound quality over my SB DAC's... Because I have 2 comps, a main and a multi-media comp. But I want to use my main comp as my mm comp at school. The mm comp is well appreciated at home, so I don't want to take the M-audio card out of that either... Plus I've always wanted an External DAC anyway.. We'll see.

[Randyman...]

What about the M-Audio "Flying Cow"? It is actually a ADC and DAC in one for $400 retail. I'm sure you could find one for less than $300, or less if used! Not quite the Benchmark DAC1, but 1/3 to 1/4 the cost PLUS an A/D, too!

Later :cool:

[RobxMcCarthy]

I don't really have any use for A/D though.

[Randyman...]

It is still a good D/A for the price IMO. If you EVER want to archive Vynil or Cassette to HD, this would be an ideal use for the A/D. It even has AES inputs - if you ever go "Pro".

I see you already have the Delta 410 - you will be hard pressed to make a HUGE difference with any outboard DAC at any price IMO. Spend the money elsewhere - unless you just want to have an "outboard DAC" to post on the audiophile forums... You may gain a few dB's of S/N, but not much, and not worth $500 or so clams.

Unless you find a fantastic deal on a used peice, or build one - you won't find too many in that price range. Sorry... All I got..
:cool:

[Voodoo Rufus]

I've been told the Klipsch DD5.1 is one of the best kept HT secrets for a DAC/processor if that's the kind of device you had in mind.

[Randyman...]

Does that work with standard 2ch SPDIF? I didn't see it stating that it did - but I am not familiar with it...

Later :cool:

[Voodoo Rufus]

I'd think that it should.....

Could ask around the Klipsch support forums.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Well it's not all about the S/N ratio. As I stated in my first post, I have two computers, one is a multi-media rig that I basically built for home. it's nothing special, a low profile case micro ATX with a simple 80 gig maxtor/ old radeon 9600 pro, dvi. It's used to play videos/mp3's. Nothing special, but we use it often and I wouldn't want to take the Delta 410 out of it as it wouldn't really match the rest of the system well.. (marantz). I currently have an audigy 2 zs in my gaming rig and I don't like the sound of it for music (lets not start a debate, it's just my personal taste I guess) Anyway, I would like to use this card as it has great performance for games/etc but I would also like a nice DAC for music.


Now, a little on DAC. Before digital came along vinyl was the standard among the 'audio elite' a new record was said to have the best possible sound, so natural etc. Some people still say this. Now, when digital first came out, the DAC's were pretty bad and the music sounded very... un natural. The analog community was outraged *******izing the music they said. DAC's really give music different sounds, some are better suited for certain types of music etc. The DAC may be the most important part of the new-age system. With amp coming in at a close second. All in all the DAC controls the timber/tonality/soundstage/balancing how natural the music sounds. The good thing about having a decent external DAC is that you have to worry less about the audio out on however many components you have jooked up to it. cd-players computer dvd etc. Not that it doesn't matter at all, but it's less of a hassle, and you are gauranteed the same digital to analog conversion with each device. Also, external Dacs provide far better performance (for the most part) than internal DAC's.

It's hard to describe the difference, it's really something you have to listen to. Obviously it won't matter as much if your pairing a soundcard with cheap speakers or w/e. But the more 'equipment sensitive' the speakers are, the more it will become an obvious problem.

I have two Athena AS-F2's as previously mentioned. The main system in my house has two B&O pentas... $$$ speakers that I don't really like but they were handed down to us through a rich uncle so... we took them. The Athenas REALLY shine on better equipment, sound coming through my computer's CD player through the audigy and into the receiver can't compare to the Marantz transport hooked up to my receiver. It's a completely different sound, and the only real difference is that the marantz has better DAC's, now a $200 external DAC (normally about $400 but second hand) will have similarly good DAC's, therefore I can expect better quality from my computer, which would be great.

[stratcatprowlin]

In these ABX double blind tests,the only time anyone was able to tell the difference was when they used the first ever cdplayer with 14bit DAC's.
When comparing an expensive 18 bit Sony to a 1 bit Panasonic (portable no less) they found no difference.
Do you think you would do better than everyone else? I doubt it. Listening to your home system is way too subjective to count for sound differences in DAC's.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

[RobxMcCarthy]

You're trying to tell me that a portable audio device sounds the same as a powered CD player? Could we please get some stats from another site? That one seems fairly unreliable. I've heard a lot of different DAC's AB tested at a local audio-mart.. They sound VERY much different... Plus, what equipment were they using? You're only as strong as your weakest link... That test doesn't have much info concerning it.

Also, anyone who can't tell the different between a nice marantz / audio alchemy and a portable CD player doesn't deserve to have a nice system anyway... If there were no difference, why the hell wouldn't everyone just go to wallmart and pick up a nice portable CD/MP3 player for their $800 speakers.

Next you'll tell me that you can't tell the difference between a $120 sony digital receiver and a $800 beautiful tube amp.

I'm sorry but the above AB comparison is utterly idiotic... seriously. You can use any ABX comparison + a bunch of idiots that don't really care to prove anything...Some people can't tell the difference between tiny bose cubes and powerfull full range towers... does this mean that the tiny bose cubes are better? (my gf being one of these people... she claims that she can really not tell the difference between her boom box and her parent's Axiom setup.) I actually envy her, lol. But that proves my point...


Finally... I'd like to see an ABX test between the sony and the sony+marantz DAC.

Did I say that an audio alchemy was worse/better than a marantz? no different tastes, I can see how that test would be 50/100

[stratcatprowlin]

That site is the premier ABX source.It is reliable by all means.
This is the site's home page where you can get all the information you need to learn what ABX testing is and what is required to do it properly.

BTW,A/B testing in any store is just as innacurate as doing it yourself at home.
The sound levels on both sources have to be exactly the same to the tune of .1db or else the listener could possibly be decieved that the louder source is better.

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_cd.htm

The ABX double blind test is the only reliable way to realize differences in sound correctly and objectively.

[stratcatprowlin]

I'm sorry here is another site as you requested.
The Boston audio society.

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

[stratcatprowlin]

Here is a link to a person trying to set up a test between to recievers in his house and what would be entailed to do it correctly.You would not beleive how hard that is.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=33259&sessionID=98B723C9EA8340D09866168B671B7F3F

[RobxMcCarthy]

so you're telling me that they do the tests as follows, tune to a certain DB range (obviously) then switch between A and B, telling the listeners which one is A and which one is B, then finally switch to X after switching between A and B a few times and asking the listeners whether it's A or B...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but.. they use what for this? a musical score? and not a full score but a piece of it? and just switch between A and B throughout the piece?

Would this not be completely based on what sections of the music were being played for each A/B. I gaurantee you that the scores would be different if A) they played pink noise or B) played an entire song through on A (a full range piece) then on B, then ABXed it.. How could you tell from short listening sessions? Also it doesn't say what speakers were used. On $20 speakers you really think an ABX test would make ANY difference at all using that equipment? On my sony headphones I can't tell teh difference. They cost me $135 5 years ago and they SUCK in my opinion, but hell i can't tell the difference between my walkman and the marantz with them...

This is a COMPLETELY different story with my athenas. Which are very equipment sensitive.

In any effect, I didn't ask for an ABX test comparing a sony CD player to a panasonic portable on ??? speakers... I asked if anyone knew what a good DAC was under $200. As I have only heard things out of my price range =/.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Btw just as a note, I'm not saying that more expensive equipment sounds better (example, I don't think that the $5,000 speakers in my house sound any better than my $500 speakers.. they just sound different.. more "accurate" perhaps but not better). I'm saying that certain equipment sounds better or worse than other equipment. Just like certain DVD players look better than others (some are grainy/ugly, others are smooth / great looking). If you think that all receivers/DAC's/amps/cables are created equal, head over to AudioReview.com and look at some actual feedback...

I am without a doubt certain that different DACs have completely different sounds. Just listening to instrument placement using different converters should show you how much they vary. And that's completely disregarding audio quality.. just soundstaging.
As far as CD players go, it is a lie to say that it makes no difference... seriously.

If it makes no difference, then why do companies spend millions of dollars researching how to make digital to analog conversions sound more natural? I realize that the above statement is not an ABX test, but it's a matter of fact.

[DaFonz]

so you're telling me that they do the tests as follows, tune to a certain DB range (obviously) then switch between A and B, telling the listeners which one is A and which one is B, then finally switch to X after switching between A and B a few times and asking the listeners whether it's A or B...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but.. they use what for this? a musical score? and not a full score but a piece of it? and just switch between A and B throughout the piece?

Would this not be completely based on what sections of the music were being played for each A/B. I gaurantee you that the scores would be different if A) they played pink noise or B) played an entire song through on A (a full range piece) then on B, then ABXed it.. How could you tell from short listening sessions? Also it doesn't say what speakers were used. On $20 speakers you really think an ABX test would make ANY difference at all using that equipment? On my sony headphones I can't tell teh difference. They cost me $135 5 years ago and they SUCK in my opinion, but hell i can't tell the difference between my walkman and the marantz with them...

This is a COMPLETELY different story with my athenas. Which are very equipment sensitive.


You brought the issue of speakers up last time we posted a link to ABX and it was pointed out that they were using very good speakers. Note the link at the bottom of the page to Tom Nousaine - he's one of the few people in the audio review industry that I would trust the "opinion" of.

If there are indeed differences between two sets of equipment.. wouldn't 5 minutes be enough? Presumable they would play the same sections of music.

[stratcatprowlin]

Ok,You really didnt do your reading or else you wouldnt be asking the many questions you are and Yes they understand the speaker bottleneck dynamic.The test is not idiotic as you said.It is entirely scientifically accurate and is 1,000 times more accurate than you doing totally insignificant A/B tests in you r house or local audio store.
Just really quick i'll answer 2 questions.The rest you will have to read up on.
First,It has been proven that almost anyone can hear the differences between speakers and tube amplifiers.So no i'm not going to tell you there isnt a difference between a $120 sony reciever and an $800 tube amp.
Second,there is no time restraints on the tests or specific passages in the music.
You could essentialy take a month to answer if A or be =X if you wanted to.

[DaFonz]

Btw just as a note, I'm not saying that more expensive equipment sounds better (example, I don't think that the $5,000 speakers in my house sound any better than my $500 speakers.. they just sound different.. more "accurate" perhaps but not better). I'm saying that certain equipment sounds better or worse than other equipment. Just like certain DVD players look better than others (some are grainy/ugly, others are smooth / great looking). If you think that all receivers/DAC's/amps/cables are created equal, head over to AudioReview.com and look at some actual feedback...

I am without a doubt certain that different DACs have completely different sounds. Just listening to instrument placement using different converters should show you how much they vary. And that's completely disregarding audio quality.. just soundstaging.
As far as CD players go, it is a lie to say that it makes no difference... seriously.

If it makes no difference, then why do companies spend millions of dollars researching how to make digital to analog conversions sound more natural? I realize that the above statement is not an ABX test, but it's a matter of fact.

I agree with you on some points, but I disagree with you in that ABX is a very good way to test differences between parts.

I would argue that a decent CD player would sound no different from a very high end one.. why? Once you get to a certain point, there are diminishing returns.

Do you know for a fact that the companies are spending that much on research... or are you just accepting what they say to be true? I admit, I'm playing the devil's advocate here.

[stratcatprowlin]

I sence you are being a touch ignorant of learning something new here.
It seems you would rather live with your own beliefs and block out anything that opposes them without doing some resaerch first.

I admit that it is hard to beleive some of the results but they are fact.
Please read the link with the guy comparing his recievers I gave you.It is absolutely essential for you to understand whats going on in your house.

[stratcatprowlin]

If it makes no difference, then why do companies spend millions of dollars researching how to make digital to analog conversions sound more natural? I realize that the above statement is not an ABX test, but it's a matter of fact.

Rob,I am not telling you that there is no difference between these components.I am telling you that in order for you to objectively compare them ,you must use the ABX test for accurate results.

[stratcatprowlin]

I disagree with you in that ABX is a very good way to test differences between parts.

Dafonz, If the ABX test is not would you please tell us all what would be a good way?

[RobxMcCarthy]

I'm accepting what they say to be true. I think that it would be bad business and bad for PR for highly regarded companies to start lying about their research.

As far as a decent cd player and an EXPENSIVE CD player, of course I agree with you. But that ABX test is comparing a decent cd player to a Portable CD player, you honestly think that you couldn't tell the difference between the two?

As far as anything in that category goes, yes I agree with you. But these tests were done at what volume levels? That isn't mentioned.

And finally, frankly I don't care what this one site claims about three rather random CD players and Two external DAC's... I'm not saying that my test was Scientifically accurate. I'm saying that the AB test I did proved that they did have different musical qualities, not that one sounded amazing and the next sounded horrid. Sure it's a large price to pay for a small increase in my enjoyment, however you seem to be a fairly hypocritical person.

You start off by saying that "Dont worry,Im the last person that would recommend a digital reciever." Then go on to link to posts which say there is no difference between recievers. I don't get you... Obviously if there were no difference in sound quality then I would go with a digital receiver.. It'd be just plain easier than doing it my way..

it's probably the same with overclocking, If you overclock your FSB by 30%, do you think that you'd be able to tell the difference in a blind ABX comparison in windows? No probably not... Probably not at all, lol. But if you went onto the OC section and suggested that people would be at your throat.

In a stress test would you, IE like running far cry, maybe you would maybe you wouldn't. But the same thing applies to these ABX tests. If you put a big stress test on these different setups, I'm CERTAIN that you could tell the difference between a system that clips at 77 DB's and a system that won't clip until 110 dbs.. And I'm not talking about just volume levels, what about Hugely dynamic tracks with giant highs/lows/silences etc played a moderate volume levels....

Like I mentioned before, it all depends on the person, mentioning that OC-ing ABX to someone in the OC forums would probably start a brawl. Same thing as mentioning that there's no difference between a Rotel and a sony discman on an audiophile forum.

You're just preaching to the wrong crowd methinks.

There's WAY too much that goes unaccounted for in these tests.

[DaFonz]

Dafonz, If the ABX test is not would you please tell us all what would be a good way?

if you notice, I said, "I disagree with you", hence saying that ABX is a good way to test things. :)

[RobxMcCarthy]

I sence you are being a touch ignorant of learning something new here.
It seems you would rather live with your own beliefs and block out anything that opposes them without doing some resaerch first.

I admit that it is hard to beleive some of the results but they are fact.
Please read the link with the guy comparing his recievers I gave you.It is absolutely essential for you to understand whats going on in your house.

I'm not being ignorant of the situation, I just believe that the tests which you claim to be 'fact' are based around circumstances that wouldn't at all stress a system to perform in one way or another. Also as much as you want to claim that these ABX tests are 'fact' they are merely a subjective poll of a larger audience... Like giving someone two peaches one with a moldy spot on the side and the other without and having them taste each then tell you what one's better... It's objective because they don't know about the mold... but i'm sure they wouldn't pick that peach up and eat it without the blindfold...

Personally after "READING" through all of those links I can personally say that I don't think that the ABX tests they do are immensely pertinent for the reasons I stated above.

I'm not going to get into a debate on this, but I will say that I have done blind AB tests of some of my equipment in the past using a SPL meter (I know about volume levels causing deception.. it happened to my mother when installing the B&O's) switching the 'sensitivity' on the speakers to high only increased the volume level of the internal amps, but she thought it improved the sound quality... Through listening.

The ABX test I did was between my Onkyo and the Marantz. They are both very decent receivers so I wasn't expecting a huge difference. I didn't do it quite the same way that they have posted though... I think that the marantz sounds better than the onkyo I thought this before doing the test. A blind AB test between the two ( I wasn't blindfolded or anything but I had no idea what one was playing as the cables were identical...) and I just guessed better, when I thought it was the marantz and worse when I thought it was the onkyo. I was right 70% ish of the time...I don't remember the exact number. According to that one site this is statistically 'random' and doesn't account for much. I still believe that the marantz sounds slightly better, but not really worth the money. But also, even though the SPL levels were the same and the equipment was playing at reasonable volume levels I don't think the test was accurate.. You can't tell how good something is by a simple ABX test, you have to listen to it over an extended period of time to learn how one piece of equipment sounds compared to another.

It's like saying a stradivarius sounds like a $100 highschool violin based on a few notes ABXed between the two... I bet there would be little difference, but a violinist would slit your throat if you said that, lol.

[RobxMcCarthy]

And if you don't understand why I want to get an external DAC, perhaps you can understand why people will mod their computer or buy better heatsinks to gain a 50-100 mhz boost in OC... Because it's exactly the same thing, and no ABX test will sway my opinion.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Sorry and one FINAL FINAL remark on my rant, I'm sure a lot of it is mental, but the question is what's wrong with that?

I know this is a touchy subject, but it's the epitome of mental performance measurements.

Is there any ABX comparable tests between an ugly girl and a beautiful girl in bed? Blindfolded it may be the same, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't matter what one you woke up with the next morning :D

[stratcatprowlin]

I'm not saying that my test was Scientifically accurate. I'm saying that the AB test I did proved that they did have different musical qualities, not that one sounded amazing and the next sounded horrid. Sure it's a large price to pay for a small increase in my enjoyment, however you seem to be a fairly hypocritical person.

You start off by saying that "Dont worry,Im the last person that would recommend a digital reciever." Then go on to link to posts which say there is no difference between recievers. I don't get you... Obviously if there were no difference in sound quality then I would go with a digital receiver.. It'd be just plain easier than doing it my way.

Thats precisely my point it was not accurate.As far as your remark about me being hypocritical,I am not.It is true that I would be the last person to recommend a digital reciever because I never had one.I wouldnt know which one to recommend!I have no need for one.

[stratcatprowlin]

No need to continue this because I agree to disagree Rob.

[RobxMcCarthy]

I am interested in your feedback concerning the Computer overclocking ABX possibilities or other mental differences.

Is it not true that you would pay some money to get a 200 mhz overclock, say a 2500 mhz barton to a 2700 mhz barton at similar temperatures? Is it better, yeah, it's a higher mhz, this is easy to see on paper.

Is it not true that people pay hundreds of dollars to get a little more horsepower out of their cars (say 5-10). Is it better? Yes it has more horsies, of course it is.

Same as the stats of a 'better' receiver/amp/dac are easy to see on paper.

is it better subjectively, yeah obviously you think it's faster because technically it is faster, you are happy, your computer is awesome, everything is great.

Believe it or not, it works the same way in the audio world :rolleyes:

now comes the big question, do you really think you could ABX each one in windows? or better yet in quake? or in adobe photoshop, or in any program for that matter... (I'm not saying far cry or some other program where you were pusing 27 fps before and now you get 31 because this is a huge stress test and according the the ABX data you posted above we're not talking about stress tests) It's obviously a VERY similar situation.

Do you think that you could ABX the cars?

Now I would mod my computer to gain better temps or overclocks, do I think I could ABX it? no probably not... but it's very mentally satisfying.

Abx tests can be used to prove a lot of things, but mentally we all love to tweak/tinker..

As far as money goes, I have two different accounts in my life, the playtime account and the business account (bills etc)... Now I work to pay the bills (college etc) and I play to pay for playtime (I'm a CG artist as a hobby / side job) Basically anything I make from CG I give myself rights to use it on my audio/computer. Last month I made $600 for playtime =), and $1,250 for bills. ( I don't work a lot, lol, but I don't need much money atm, scholarships = woot )... So yeah I'm tweaking stuff, audio system, computer etc etc...

Could I ABX every change I made? pff no, lol. Will I make them anyway? Yeah... If there was a miracle audio product I'd buy it. Do I think that I could ABX a $500 setup and a $900 setup? No... Do I think that I could ABX a $500 setup and a 20,000 setup? Yeah, it's night and day.

This is why you don't ABX in small increments, Say you ABX between a $500 setup and a $1000 setup and find the results to be "inconclusive" so they are both equal.. right... Then you ABX the $1000 setup and a $1500 setup, the results are the same, so the $1500 setup is equal to the $500 setup according to these reults.. Go all the way up to $20,000, see what I mean?

[DaFonz]

I am interested in your feedback concerning the Computer overclocking ABX possibilities or other mental differences.

Is it not true that you would pay some money to get a 200 mhz overclock, say a 2500 mhz barton to a 2700 mhz barton at similar temperatures? Is it better, yeah, it's a higher mhz, this is easy to see on paper.

Same as the stats of a 'better' receiver/amp/dac are easy to see on paper.

is it better subjectively, yeah obviously you think it's faster because technically it is faster, you are happy, your computer is awesome, everything is great.

Believe it or not, it works the same way in the audio world :rolleyes:

now comes the big question, do you really think you could ABX each one in windows? or better yet in quake? or in adobe photoshop, or in any program for that matter... (I'm not saying far cry or some other program where you were pusing 27 fps before and now you get 31 because this is a huge stress test and according the the ABX data you posted above we're not talking about stress tests) It's obviously a VERY similar situation.

Now I would mod my computer to gain better temps or overclocks, do I think I could ABX it? no probably not... but it's very mentally satisfying.

That's a really interesting analogy you bring up Rob. It's true that we mod our computers, but for me at least, it seems like computer performance is so much more concrete and just easier for the masses to compare.

I can tell anyone that my computer runs at 3 ghz (for example) and they would at least understand that it means fast (well somewhat). However, if I told them that my speakers have a sensitivity of 91 dB, they'd look at me funny.

I'm of the frame of mind where I'll take an ABX test and look at the results... but I'll still make the decisions for myself (much like you). The reason I was argueing with you was that it appeared that you didn't bother to read it (but you have cleared it up).

[stratcatprowlin]

I am interested in your feedback concerning the Computer overclocking ABX possibilities or other mental differences.

Is it not true that you would pay some money to get a 200 mhz overclock, say a 2500 mhz barton to a 2700 mhz barton at similar temperatures? Is it better, yeah, it's a higher mhz, this is easy to see on paper.

Same as the stats of a 'better' receiver/amp/dac are easy to see on paper.

is it better subjectively, yeah obviously you think it's faster because technically it is faster, you are happy, your computer is awesome, everything is great.

Believe it or not, it works the same way in the audio world :rolleyes:

now comes the big question, do you really think you could ABX each one in windows? or better yet in quake? or in adobe photoshop, or in any program for that matter... (I'm not saying far cry or some other program where you were pusing 27 fps before and now you get 31 because this is a huge stress test and according the the ABX data you posted above we're not talking about stress tests) It's obviously a VERY similar situation.

Now I would mod my computer to gain better temps or overclocks, do I think I could ABX it? no probably not... but it's very mentally satisfying.

Rob, I agree with you totally here unless the overclock really does make the game smoother or more playable.Meaning not studder anymore.

[stratcatprowlin]

You said "beleive it or not,it works the same way in the audio world"
(eyes rolling).Thats what i,ve been telling you since the beginning!

[RobxMcCarthy]

That's a really interesting analogy you bring up Rob. It's true that we mod our computers, but for me at least, it seems like computer performance is so much more concrete and just easier for the masses to compare.

I can tell anyone that my computer runs at 3 ghz (for example) and they would at least understand that it means fast (well somewhat). However, if I told them that my speakers have a sensitivity of 91 dB, they'd look at me funny.

I'm of the frame of mind where I'll take an ABX test and look at the results... but I'll still make the decisions for myself (much like you). The reason I was argueing with you was that it appeared that you didn't bother to read it (but you have cleared it up).


Glad you see what I mean, but perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

if I went on an audiophile forum, and wrote I just overclocked my 1.86 ghz barton to 2.5 ghz (so much faster) for only $30 they'd look at me really funny... However if I said, I just improved my audio performance by installing a jitter corrector and upsampling digital processor for only $100 they'd understand that and be interested/impressed.

As far as being concrete, it's just as subjective. Is amd or intel better? pfft, obviously tehcnical data would say intel, but look at all of the AMD fanboys.

And audio equipment is pretty concrete too, ever read SNR data charts?

It's just two different worlds.

[DaFonz]

if I went on an audiophile forum, and wrote I just overclocked my 1.86 ghz barton to 2.5 ghz (so much faster) for only $30 they'd look at me really funny... However if I said, I just improved my audio performance by installing a jitter corrector and upsampling digital processor for only $100 they'd understand that and be interested/impressed.


I was referring to talking to normal people on the streets. Obviously, going to each specialized forum would have different results.

As for the subjective thing, there are always benchmarks... then again, there are benchmarks in the audio world as well... except for the select few companies that don't...

I have no idea where I'm going with this. I think it's time to call it a day.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Yeah, =), I think that's just because more people have computers than external DAC's.

[stratcatprowlin]

Just for the record now Rob.
It is my opinion that with a properly set up ABX test in your house with your own equipment and your music,tested for whatever length of time you choose that you could not consistantly choose A or B =X while comparing DAC's,solid state amplifiers(as long as they are not forced into clipping) or cd/dvd players.

You disagree and that is fine with me.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Yep, I know.

And it is just for the record that with a properly setup ABX test it is my opinion that you could not compare a 1800 tbred and 3200 barton in windows =). (non stress test)

Doesn't mean that the tbred is just as good.

[stratcatprowlin]

yes,Surfing the web with a 3200 and an 1800 I dont think I would notice a difference,
and No,all that means is the 1800 can do surf the web the same as a 3200 can.

We are not comparing apples to apples here.

Anyhow,just to let you know that I am not a robot programed to defend the ABX test(as it might seem hehe),I will tell you that I do prefer certain components over others in my house but the experience is highly subjective.Its just nice to be aware of that.

[stratcatprowlin]

OMG! I just realized something. Azzkiller wasnt on tonight!

If he was,He would be chewing on both of our azzes!

Hi Azzkiller,sorry you missed it.

[RobxMcCarthy]

yes,Surfing the web with a 3200 and an 1800 I dont think I would notice a difference,
and No,all that means is the 1800 can do surf the web the same as a 3200 can.

We are not comparing apples to apples here.

Why not? You are comparing two of the same objects (the processor) through a direct ABX comparison. Those tests said that they were run at what I would consider to be a relatively low volume, which is not revealing of other qualities, (ever try cranking a PC audio card? sounds completely different when you use that to amplify and turn down your external amplification.) The source material that they used was not very stressing. So yes I'd say that it is a direct comparison.

Why do you say that it's not comparing apples and apples? Comparing 1 processor to another is Apple Vs Apple. If I said comparing a processor to a northbridge chipset then yes, that would be different. And not just the web, let's say an ABX comparison of the two processors playing quake, and don't bottleneck it, give it a nice video card and some nice ram, and set all the visual settings to the max. 6xfsaa 16x AF... And see if you can tell. You might get 75 fps on the 1800 and 90 fps on the other. Yet some people say they think only 85+ is smooth, do you think they could ABX the two? Probably not, it's all subjective.

I do understand this, I use nice wiring/connectors/receivers/speakers and I probably could not abx each one, but pff, why not. It satisfies my mind's eye. But if you are going to link to ABX tests that say a portable panasonic CD player is no different than a static unit and that DAC's don't matter and receivers don't matter, meaning sound cards also shouldn't matter. I don't think that you should ever suggest any equipment to anyone above a cheap wallmart portable CD player, a $75 CC receiver, and an onboard AC97 sound card, because PFF you couldn't ABX the crappy old AC97 and a soundstorm. I don't understand why you posted this here if you're similar to me and still do have nice equipment... Just to get a rise? I'm not trying to prove anything, I just wanted to know if anyone knew where I could get an external DAC cheap.

[RobxMcCarthy]

It is true that I would be the last person to recommend a digital reciever because I never had one.I wouldnt know which one to recommend!I have no need for one.
What do you mean what one to recommend, according to you they're all identical, lol.

[stratcatprowlin]

Why do continue to compose these analogy's that are supposed to somehow take away the Validity of the ABX test when all you keep doing is proving my point over and over.
Now you have even admitted that you probably couldnt tell the difference in an ABX test with wires connecters and recievers!

I am not against buying more than a discman for a cd player.I like quality stuff as much as the next guy.Again I will say for the last time that making decisions on the fidelity of alot of components is objectively impossible without the ABX test in its correct form.

I am not against you and your decision to buy an external D/A converter.
I posed the question simply because It was relavent and something to think about.

[Azzkiller]

Also, anyone who can't tell the different between a nice marantz / audio alchemy and a portable CD player doesn't deserve to have a nice system anyway...

You've got to be kidding me. Did you ever consider some people buy nice audio equipment because it's well made, not because it has magical sonic properties? I couldnt tell the difference between the DAC's in my reciever and the DAC's on my m-audio 2496 audiophile, does that mean I dont deserve to own it?


If there were no difference, why the hell wouldn't everyone just go to wallmart and pick up a nice portable CD/MP3 player for their $800 speakers.
Why do people buy expensive mechanical watches over quartz ones? The quartz ones tell the time much better. I think that shelf cd players have a lot more features than say a discman anyways...

Just because you can measure a difference, doesnt mean you can hear it...


Next you'll tell me that you can't tell the difference between a $120 sony digital receiver and a $800 beautiful tube amp.
Blind tests have been done in which a resistor is placed in series with the output of the solid state amp so that it mimics the "sonic advantage" provided by the tube's high output impedence. Guess what the results were?


I'm sorry but the above AB comparison is utterly idiotic... seriously. You can use any ABX comparison + a bunch of idiots that don't really care to prove anything...
Biased subjective listening tests and then calling the participants of objective tests idiotic is stupid as well.

How do they test lossy audio codecs to see how well they compress? Do they just ask a bunch of people how they like it?


Some people can't tell the difference between tiny bose cubes and powerfull full range towers... does this mean that the tiny bose cubes are better? (my gf being one of these people... she claims that she can really not tell the difference between her boom box and her parent's Axiom setup.) I actually envy her, lol. But that proves my point...
That doesnt prove anything other than some people simply don't care. But what happens when the true 'audiophiles' cant tell a difference either in blind tests?



Did I say that an audio alchemy was worse/better than a marantz? no different tastes, I can see how that test would be 50/100

UHHHH, with a score of 50/100 that means they were guessing!!!!!!!!!! :temper: That doesnt mean they liked one more than another. If you were asked to pick an apple from an orange 100 times, and you only picked right 50 times, does that mean you could tell a difference??? I'd say not. But maybe if you could pick the difference 80 times out of 100.

[Azzkiller]

so you're telling me that they do the tests as follows, tune to a certain DB range (obviously) then switch between A and B, telling the listeners which one is A and which one is B, then finally switch to X after switching between A and B a few times and asking the listeners whether it's A or B...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but.. they use what for this? a musical score? and not a full score but a piece of it? and just switch between A and B throughout the piece?

The objective is to tell if someone can distinguish a difference or not. It doesnt show preference at all, it simply shows if someone can tell a difference....


Would this not be completely based on what sections of the music were being played for each A/B. I gaurantee you that the scores would be different if A) they played pink noise or B) played an entire song through on A (a full range piece) then on B, then ABXed it.. How could you tell from short listening sessions?

Exactly, and thats why they use the exact same music for each setup. And the listening sessions can be as long as you want. You simply flip the switch when you want to hear the other device.


Also it doesn't say what speakers were used. On $20 speakers you really think an ABX test would make ANY difference at all using that equipment? On my sony headphones I can't tell teh difference. They cost me $135 5 years ago and they SUCK in my opinion, but hell i can't tell the difference between my walkman and the marantz with them...
You can use any speakers you want to perform an ABX test.



In any effect, I didn't ask for an ABX test comparing a sony CD player to a panasonic portable on ??? speakers... I asked if anyone knew what a good DAC was under $200. As I have only heard things out of my price range =/.
The reason he posted that was to show how little an effect the dac provides these days. They've had 20 years or more to master the decoding of the pcm data off a cd. Think about how much a chip that cost 200 dollars 20 years ago would cost now.

[RobxMcCarthy]

I understand what 50/100 means.. I mean I couldn't tell the difference either... And I can see how that test would yeild that results. :rolleyes:

You can use any speakers you want to perform an ABX test. Maybe.. but you're only as strong as your weakest link. As I mentioned with very bad speakers how would you be able to tell the subtle differences. People who buy $2,000 receivers and $1,000 Cd players don't have $100 multi-media speakers. From what I can tell, they used yamahas to do the tests with.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Btw, what are you talking about? the link provided doesn't prove much about DAC's except that the DAC's in a sony cd player aren't objectively better than the DAC's in a panasonic walkman. I believe that.

[Azzkiller]

If you think that all receivers/DAC's/amps/cables are created equal, head over to AudioReview.com and look at some actual feedback...
I havent seen anything but subjective reviews on audioreview.com Try visiting the cable forum on audioreview though...


I am without a doubt certain that different DACs have completely different sounds. Just listening to instrument placement using different converters should show you how much they vary. And that's completely disregarding audio quality.. just soundstaging.
As far as CD players go, it is a lie to say that it makes no difference... seriously.
Richard Clark has a 'challenge' in which he will put up 10 thousand dollars if you correctly identify a dac, amp, cables, tweek, etc from each other in 2 12 trial tests. You pick the loudspeakers, you pick the components, you pick the volume level, you pick how long or how short you listen, you pick the music. He matches the output levels between the devices with an audioprecision and adjusts the frequency response (if one actuallly modifies it) You really should go and take it if you are without a doubt certain, as you'd basically be making 10 grand to listen to music, right? You can ask about the test here: http://www.carsound.com/cgi-bin/UBB_CGI/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=1
Note that while the site is car audio, the challenge is for home audio as well.


If it makes no difference, then why do companies spend millions of dollars researching how to make digital to analog conversions sound more natural?
I'd like to know what companies are spending millions of dollars on research right now to make make digital to analog conversions sound more natural?


I realize that the above statement is not an ABX test, but it's a matter of fact.
How ironic. What if the ABX test showed otherwise that you couldnt hear a difference? See, thats why we do these tests, to make sure user biases arent introduced...

Can you hear a difference between a mp3 and the uncompressed pcm? I can set up a test with that online...

[Azzkiller]

RobxMcCarthy, If dac's have such a different sound, why are you even considering the opinions of other people on the way they sound? Don't you think you are going to have to listen to each one yourself in order to hear the difference in sound each makes? How do you know what someone else likes you would like as well?

[Azzkiller]

I understand what 50/100 means.. I mean I couldn't tell the difference either... And I can see how that test would yeild that results. :rolleyes:

"Did I say that an audio alchemy was worse/better than a marantz? no different tastes, I can see how that test would be 50/100"
Uh, yeah, and how would 'different tastes' account for that score then? :rolleyes: Or did you mean something different? You put different tastes in the same sentence as the objective results, and its really quite hard to tell what you are trying to say there.


Maybe.. but you're only as strong as your weakest link. As I mentioned with very bad speakers how would you be able to tell the subtle differences. People who buy $2,000 receivers and $1,000 Cd players don't have $100 multi-media speakers. From what I can tell, they used yamahas to do the tests with.

Where does it say they used Yamaha speakers? I doubt Tom Nousaine or whoever else administered the test would use cheap speakers...

[stratcatprowlin]

The conditions that need to be met in an ABX double blind test seem absolutely logical to me and to test any other way seems useless.

I dont understand how something so simple has turned into this argument.

[Azzkiller]

Btw, what are you talking about? the link provided doesn't prove much about DAC's except that the DAC's in a sony cd player aren't objectively better than the DAC's in a panasonic walkman. I believe that.

"Audio Alchemy DDE Version 3.0 vs. Marantz CD-63 Difference = Same 20 / 40 = 50%"

That shows a very very strong likelyhood that the DDE and CD-63 were audibly indistinguishable between the participants.

Perhaps they just didnt care about the results? Maybe, but why would they bother to take a test between the two if they weren't trying to tell a difference?

Blind tests dont prove that no one can hear the difference, but they do show very strong evidence that there is no audible difference between the participants.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Where does it say what speakers they used then?

"Can you hear a difference between a mp3 and the uncompressed pcm?"

ok, I recently converted my CD collection to MP3 (not that I don't listen to the originals, but the Mp3's are easier for transportation and easy listening), I did a blind test between 128, 192, 256, and 320 compression. I could tell the difference between the 128 and the 192, and also between the 192 and the 320, but not the 192 and the 256. I felt that 192 was the best option for me, even though i could tell a difference between that and the higher quality 320.

As far as MP3's vs CD's.. yeah that's an easy test. I also did the same and while I could easily tell the difference between a 192 mp3 and the CD, the 320 / the CD was a lot harder, although not impossible.

[RobxMcCarthy]

"Audio Alchemy DDE Version 3.0 vs. Marantz CD-63 Difference = Same 20 / 40 = 50%"

That shows a very very strong likelyhood that the DDE and CD-63 were audibly indistinguishable between the participants.

Perhaps they just didnt care about the results? Maybe, but why would they bother to take a test between the two if they weren't trying to tell a difference?

Blind tests dont prove that no one can hear the difference, but they do show very strong evidence that there is no audible difference between the participants.

Um, the Marantz CD-63 has very high quality DAC's... when comparing that to the audio alchemy, why would you expect a huge difference.

What I mean is, they seem set on proving that the DAC's don't matter, but what I don't see on that page is a AB test between the Marantz CD-63 and the panasonic portable CD player...

perhaps then we would see different results.

[Azzkiller]

I'm accepting what they say to be true. I think that it would be bad business and bad for PR for highly regarded companies to start lying about their research.

How about Bose? ;)


As far as a decent cd player and an EXPENSIVE CD player, of course I agree with you. But that ABX test is comparing a decent cd player to a Portable CD player, you honestly think that you couldn't tell the difference between the two?
Depends on the setup I'd say. Thats the good thing about ABX tests. You could set up your own to see if you hear a difference. You dont have to take everyone's word for it.


But these tests were done at what volume levels? That isn't mentioned.
I'd guess that they were used at volume levels needed in order for the participants to feel they could hear the difference. I suppose you could always argue that the volume level wasnt right for discerning a difference.


And finally, frankly I don't care what this one site claims about three rather random CD players and Two external DAC's... I'm not saying that my test was Scientifically accurate. I'm saying that the AB test I did proved that they did have different musical qualities, not that one sounded amazing and the next sounded horrid. Sure it's a large price to pay for a small increase in my enjoyment, however you seem to be a fairly hypocritical person.
How does your test prove anything? Their test doesnt prove anything other than those participants couldnt hear a difference. Do you know what a placebo is?


You start off by saying that "Dont worry,Im the last person that would recommend a digital reciever." Then go on to link to posts which say there is no difference between recievers. I don't get you... Obviously if there were no difference in sound quality then I would go with a digital receiver.. It'd be just plain easier than doing it my way..
Maybe he doesnt want a digital reciever for a reason other than percieved sound quality?


it's probably the same with overclocking, If you overclock your FSB by 30%, do you think that you'd be able to tell the difference in a blind ABX comparison in windows? No probably not... Probably not at all, lol. But if you went onto the OC section and suggested that people would be at your throat.
Then those people are wrong. It depends on the application that you are using and so many other factors, that I wouldnt make a blanket statement like that.


Like I mentioned before, it all depends on the person, mentioning that OC-ing ABX to someone in the OC forums would probably start a brawl. Same thing as mentioning that there's no difference between a Rotel and a sony discman on an audiophile forum.
Why not start a thread up about the overclocking ABX? I don't think a big argument would start unless you claim something like "no one can tell the difference between memory speed". If you say you can't tell a difference, then they are stupid for even arguing with you...


You're just preaching to the wrong crowd methinks.
I disagree. If companies are selling expensive dacs over cheap ones and labling their benifits as an improvement in sound that doesnt exist, why shouldnt consumers be made aware that they are probably not going to hear a difference between the two?


There's WAY too much that goes unaccounted for in these tests.
There is even more unaccounted for in simple AB or other comparisons.

[Azzkiller]

Um, the Marantz CD-63 has very high quality DAC's... when comparing that to the audio alchemy, why would you expect a huge difference.
But I thought earlier you stated that price didnt necessarily correlate with audio performance? Have you heard both DAC's in question?

*I* wouldnt expect any difference. I thought that you would though. Are you saying that the only audible differences are between cheap and expensive dacs? Or the only audible differences are between good and bad dacs? what makes a dac good or bad? Unless you've heard both, how do you know one of those dacs isnt bad?


What I mean is, they seem set on proving that the DAC's don't matter, but what I don't see on that page is a AB test between the Marantz CD-63 and the panasonic portable CD player...

perhaps then we would see different results.

Perhaps we would. I wouldnt claim either way without evidence though.

[Azzkiller]

Where does it say what speakers they used then?

"Can you hear a difference between a mp3 and the uncompressed pcm?"

ok, I recently converted my CD collection to MP3 (not that I don't listen to the originals, but the Mp3's are easier for transportation and easy listening), I did a blind test between 128, 192, 256, and 320 compression. I could tell the difference between the 128 and the 192, and also between the 192 and the 320, but not the 192 and the 256. I felt that 192 was the best option for me, even though i could tell a difference between that and the higher quality 320.

As far as MP3's vs CD's.. yeah that's an easy test. I also did the same and while I could easily tell the difference between a 192 mp3 and the CD, the 320 / the CD was a lot harder, although not impossible.

I've done tests on other forums with a cd encoded to 320kbit mp3 and then posted 5 samples of a song. Some of which were mp3 converted back to wave, and some were just wave. I believe one person correctly identified them, but I believe that was due to the low number of trials I did vs. participants. if you'd like, I can make the same available for you.

[stratcatprowlin]

Rob,You seem like a smart guy,I hope we can finally convert you:)

[Azzkiller]

The conditions that need to be met in an ABX double blind test seem absolutely logical to me and to test any other way seems useless.

I dont understand how something so simple has turned into this argument.

People usually claim the tests were incorrectly set up. Which does happen. However, in most cases this would favor someone being able to tell a difference between the two.

Although I have heard the excuse that goes something like "blind tests dont work because when im trying to hear a difference, I use the analytical part of my brain, and that makes me unable to tell, because of the pressure. But when I listen to music, I use the creative side, and then I can hear a difference." But whatever floats your boat I suppose.

[stratcatprowlin]

Ya know,guys it wasnt long ago that I was on the other side of the fence untill I started to really read into the testing and then finally do some PCABX testing myself.
It was a shock to my belief system but in the end a very nice awakening as to what I thought I could hear and not hear.

[RobxMcCarthy]

I would not expect to hear an ABX comparable difference between the AA and the Marantz. I have heard an audio alchemy DAC before and as I mentioned there is a Marantz CD player at my house. So yeah I have heard both in question.

As far as the 320 kbps mp3 and the CD, as I stated I don't think there is much o f an audible difference. I could tell that they were indeed not the same, however, I probably couldn't ABX them.

If it were a 192 or 256 ABX comparison then yeah, I would bet I could do that.

But please feel free to post the test, I'd be VERY interested in taking it =).

Also, what were most people listening to the test with? I bet much of the crowd doesn't have very good equipment connected to their computer.

[Azzkiller]

I'm not being ignorant of the situation, I just believe that the tests which you claim to be 'fact' are based around circumstances that wouldn't at all stress a system to perform in one way or another. Also as much as you want to claim that these ABX tests are 'fact' they are merely a subjective poll of a larger audience... Like giving someone two peaches one with a moldy spot on the side and the other without and having them taste each then tell you what one's better... It's objective because they don't know about the mold... but i'm sure they wouldn't pick that peach up and eat it without the blindfold...
An ABX test is fact. The person either heard a difference given the circumstances or they didnt.

If you blindfolded someone and gave them 2 peaches, one rotten and one good, and asked for them to taste the difference, what if they couldnt? They thought both tasted the same. But then you took the blindfold off and had them eat both and they now said the rotten peach tasted absolutely terrible and the good peach tasted great. What would you say about this situation? Perhaps the rotten peach doesnt really taste bad? Or, perhaps the person simply just has a terrible sense of taste?


Personally after "READING" through all of those links I can personally say that I don't think that the ABX tests they do are immensely pertinent for the reasons I stated above.
I agree that ABX tests arent good if you want to hear differences that arent there.


I'm not going to get into a debate on this, but I will say that I have done blind AB tests of some of my equipment in the past using a SPL meter (I know about volume levels causing deception.. it happened to my mother when installing the B&O's) switching the 'sensitivity' on the speakers to high only increased the volume level of the internal amps, but she thought it improved the sound quality... Through listening.

You should also know that level matching usually cant be done with a SPL meter if you want to be accurate. Some people can pick out volume level differences of .1dB or less. How do you know that the difference you hear isnt between volume level differences? Thats exactly my point though, with your mother. The volume level simply increased but she thought it sounded better. How can you say if you like something better if you cant account for the volume differences first?

You can't tell how good something is by a simple ABX test, you have to listen to it over an extended period of time to learn how one piece of equipment sounds compared to another.
An abx test can go on for as long as you like. And the human auditory 'memory' is very short, and this is well documented by professionals.


It's like saying a stradivarius sounds like a $100 highschool violin based on a few notes ABXed between the two... I bet there would be little difference, but a violinist would slit your throat if you said that, lol.
Like I said though, an ABX test can go on for as long as you like.

[Azzkiller]

And if you don't understand why I want to get an external DAC, perhaps you can understand why people will mod their computer or buy better heatsinks to gain a 50-100 mhz boost in OC... Because it's exactly the same thing, and no ABX test will sway my opinion.

That's the same reason I buy quality audio equipment. I may not hear a difference, but I know that the stuff I use isnt hurting anything, audible or not. That's why I didnt say anything until the blind tests were brought up.

[Azzkiller]

I am interested in your feedback concerning the Computer overclocking ABX possibilities or other mental differences.

Is it not true that you would pay some money to get a 200 mhz overclock, say a 2500 mhz barton to a 2700 mhz barton at similar temperatures? Is it better, yeah, it's a higher mhz, this is easy to see on paper.

Is it not true that people pay hundreds of dollars to get a little more horsepower out of their cars (say 5-10). Is it better? Yes it has more horsies, of course it is.

Same as the stats of a 'better' receiver/amp/dac are easy to see on paper.

is it better subjectively, yeah obviously you think it's faster because technically it is faster, you are happy, your computer is awesome, everything is great.

Believe it or not, it works the same way in the audio world :rolleyes:
No one in their right mind would argue that, and I agree 100 percent.

However, you are assuming the ABX tells you if you should buy something or not. It doesnt. It simply shows if you can tell a difference between one or more variables. I don't know of anyone that buys any audio equipment based only on the percieved sound.

[RobxMcCarthy]

I would like to say though, that you did say that an ABX test was fact, when it is really an opinion, a very well backed up opinion, but not based on scientific data. If you asked me if I could tell the difference between A and B and I said I could you'd say "that's fine, it's your opinion" however, if you had 6 people do it (like in some of those ABX tests) and they guessed right half of the time you'd say that it was a FACT that the two systems were identical. When in 'fact' it's just the opinion of 6 people. They couldn't tell the difference, maybe 6 other people could.

If technical tests were done on each setup for SNR etc and they were compared in this way I'd say yes that's factual data.

Same way you couldn't say one peach is scientifically identical to another in taste just because people couldn't taste a difference.

However, I do understand exactly what you're saying, they are a way to see if people can indeed sonically tell the difference between a SINGLE variable in a system. And to this extent I agree.

[Azzkiller]

As far as the 320 kbps mp3 and the CD, as I stated I don't think there is much o f an audible difference. I could tell that they were indeed not the same, however, I probably couldn't ABX them.

If it were a 192 or 256 ABX comparison then yeah, I would bet I could do that.

But please feel free to post the test, I'd be VERY interested in taking it =).

Also, what were most people listening to the test with? I bet much of the crowd doesn't have very good equipment connected to their computer.

Some of the people who took my test were using high end headphone setups, but you're right, most probably used inexpensive equipment.

I'd probably do a 192kbit vs. 256kbit comparison.

What portion of what song would you guys like me to do?

[RobxMcCarthy]

why would you do a 192 vs 256 k comparison?

Maybe 192 vs 320, but why 256? Very few people even encode at 256, and as I just recently stated, i couldn't honestly say I could tell the difference between 192 and 256... Perhaps 256 vs CD audio..

As you get higher and higher on the rate the difference audibly changes less and less. Hence why there is a HUGE gap between 128 and 192, but much less of a gap between 192 and 320, despite there being a larger difference in the compression.

[stratcatprowlin]

Azzkiller,I think it would be a nice idea to start a thread about ABX testing.
What it is,what it's for and why it is important in comparing the sound in audio components.It might even get stuck?
I would start it but I dont have enough experience and knowledge with the test to do it right.
Maybe you could do it? It would be cool but its entirely up to you if you would want to or not.

[Azzkiller]

why would you do a 192 vs 256 k comparison?

Maybe 192 vs 320, but why 256? Very few people even encode at 256, and as I just recently stated, i couldn't honestly say I could tell the difference between 192 and 256... Perhaps 256 vs CD audio..

As you get higher and higher on the rate the difference audibly changes less and less. Hence why there is a HUGE gap between 128 and 192, but much less of a gap between 192 and 320, despite there being a larger difference in the compression.

It doesnt matter to me, Id even do a 160 vs 320 comparison. That would make it easier to hear the difference too as compared to 192 or 256 vs 320.

Law of dimenishing returns.

[Azzkiller]

Azzkiller,I think it would be a nice idea to start a thread about ABX testing.
What it is,what it's for and why it is important in comparing the sound in audio components.It might even get stuck?
I would start it but I dont have enough experience and knowledge with the test to do it right.
Maybe you could do it? It would be cool but its entirely up to you if you would want to or not.

Yeah, I'll do it. I probably couldnt do it this week, but perhaps this weekend or next week sometime?

[stratcatprowlin]

sounds good to me.

[RobxMcCarthy]

Would also be interesting to see an ABX test between 48 khz and 44.1. Also what sound card was used, what speakers etc.

[Azzkiller]

I would like to say though, that you did say that an ABX test was fact, when it is really an opinion, a very well backed up opinion, but not based on scientific data.
Good point. You can't ever prove anything with an ABX. However, it is a fact that in say 10 trials a person only distinguished correctly 5 items. I thought you were disputing that, but I may have misinterpreted you.


If you asked me if I could tell the difference between A and B and I said I could you'd say "that's fine, it's your opinion" however, if you had 6 people do it (like in some of those ABX tests) and they guessed right half of the time you'd say that it was a FACT that the two systems were identical. When in 'fact' it's just the opinion of 6 people. They couldn't tell the difference, maybe 6 other people could.
It was a fact that those 6 people were unable to tell a difference in all of the trials. The test stresses only testing the audible differences of the component, rather than the audible differences, plus other biases, such as sight and knowing which is playing at each time.

It is also a fact that you could tell a difference between A and B, but what does that show? Does it show that you could pick each component out by looking at its label? Or does it show that you could actually hear a difference? Unless you only test your ears, you cant make any kind of informed assumption.


If technical tests were done on each setup for SNR etc and they were compared in this way I'd say yes that's factual data.
Absolutely. But as illustrated in other threads, just because something measures better than something else, doesnt mean a person can hear it. Take the THD test thread out for example.


Same way you couldn't say one peach is scientifically identical to another in taste just because people couldn't taste a difference.
Absolutely, and I never meant to imply otherwise.


However, I do understand exactly what you're saying, they are a way to see if people can indeed sonically tell the difference between a SINGLE variable in a system. And to this extent I agree.
Excellent. And I agree 100 percent.

[stratcatprowlin]

Rob,If you dl the "ABX player" or "WinABX" programs,you can also dl the sound card comparisons as well.They are already available.