 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
In the very beginning, they mention that they "don't typically review audio gear" - perhaps, they should've stayed true to their routine.
Strictly scientific, rigorous "Blind testing methodology"? Check! Generic stock desktop with stock Windows 7? Check! Current Foobar? Check! 10-foot Hosa extension cables? Check! Reference to "Monty" Montgomery and xiph.org? Yes, of course!
"Using world-class headphones, a $2 Realtek integrated audio codec could not be reliably distinguished from the $2000 Benchmark DAC2 HGC in a four-device round-up."
Enjoy!
PS: Is it possible that Benchmark DAC2 HGC is really THAT bad?
Follow Ups:
without some actual measured results it's impossible to judge whether their system was even performing to manufacturers spec. Considering how many "audiophiles" apparently can't even accomplish this....computer hardware reviewer opinion who may/may not not experienced in the ails and cures in audio gear land...
The highest end stuff on the planet will sound worse than a well implemented realtek when grossly misapplied.
That's pretty much the problem with AA posters too though. 9G$ system means nothing when you have 50dB spikes at 60Hz + harmonics and hear aliens when the neighbor keys up his am transmitter. Of course you get all the good gear in the hands of skilled operator/installer however...
Without some measurements it's impossible to form valid assessments on most internet "information".
"In the church with the Franz Kafka-Clock,
without hands, only strokes on it's face
a blind man reads Struwwelpeter to a deaf man
behind a triple locked door."
BAP - Kristallnaach
Ciao T
Sometimes I'd like to be the water
sometimes shallow, sometimes wild.
Born high in the mountains,
even the seas would be mine.
(Translated from the song "Aus der ferne" by City)
Mind you, I needed Google translator to comprehend it (only know some words) - but should be easy for you:Du schaust mich an
Erzählst mir von der Liebe
Ein letztes Mal hör ich dir zu
Dann weinst du Blut
Das falsche Fleisch verkrampft
Und zuckt, bis es verstummt
Gibt endlich Ruh’Ich trag ein Herz in meiner Hand
Seit ich es fern der Unschuld fand
Ein falsches Herz, das Liebe schwor
Bis es den Halt im Leib verlor
Ein Herz, dein Herz
Hat nicht verdient zu schlagen
Ich trag dein Herz in meiner Hand
Seit ich es ausgegrabenDie Zeit vergeht
Mit ihr der Brocken Fleisch
Einst kalt und hart
Wird langsam warm und weich
Vergeht im Sonnenschein
Macht die Käfer satt
So wie er mich, als er noch schlug
Ganz wie von selbst verraten hatIch trag ein Herz in meiner Hand
Seit ich es fern der Unschuld fand
Ein falsches Herz, das Liebe schwor
Bis es den Halt im Leib verlor
Ein Herz, dein Herz
Hat nicht verdient zu schlagen
Ich trag dein Herz in meiner Hand
Und werd es weiter tragen
Edits: 02/26/14
Hi,
Ewigheim from Thuringa, right next to my own corner of the Fatherland.
A big bit to dark and zuviel angst.
Also pretty basic lyrics, google-trans will do fine.
Ciao T
Sometimes I'd like to be the water
sometimes shallow, sometimes wild.
Born high in the mountains,
even the seas would be mine.
(Translated from the song "Aus der ferne" by City)
At least not in the sense of "anger".
As someone who is deeply emotionally connected to this music, despite not being able to even understand lyrics (have you given it a listen, BTW?), I would have to go with "contempt", "disdain", or perhaps "hatred".
Does Yantit look angry to you?
Hi,
This style of music is not really that much of my cuppa. If I want dark and hard I'd go for late 90's Dutch/Belgian Elektro. But to each his own.
Angst literally means "fear". In this case the meaning is a little loaded, meaning more a way to sublimate fear, kind of laughing in the face of death (but he is going to get you anyway). Strictly based on the lyrics and my own interpretation.
Ciao T
Sometimes I'd like to be the water
sometimes shallow, sometimes wild.
Born high in the mountains,
even the seas would be mine.
(Translated from the song "Aus der ferne" by City)
I'm more interested in how they set up their tests and the results they got. The "B" guy with a system costing x10 or x20 more than guy "A" seemed to have more difficulty identifying sources. In fact, he mostly contradicted himself. Different hearing ability? Preconception biases?
I'd love to see how I would fare under the exact same test conditions.
Cheers,
Presto
The easiest to identify after any change is the difference in size (depth, width, and especially - for me personally - height) of the soundstage, caused by subtle changes in HF response.
Apparently, that's something that gets nullified by headphones, even by good ones - can't confirm personally though. The best pair I own is $90 Shure closed-back 'phones, used to listen to 192 Kbps MP3 on the train. Not to mention the absence of headphone jack on any of my equipment.
Yeah, good cans for testing resolution and dynamics might be okay, but for power response / off axis response and the resulting imaging ability, you need the in-room setup.
Even then, if we all testing equipment x, y and z with different rooms and speakers and placements, the comparison would be mute anyways, despite the ability to perhaps draw from some commonalities between findings I suppose.
Cheers,
Presto
Some curious comments.....McIntosh MC275 50th Anniversary: A $6500 amplifier with no DAC capabilities
Why should an expensive amp have "DAC capabilities?" .... I guess the concept of "separates" or "component audio" is becoming foreign to the mainstream.....
And besides, why should we be stuck with a particular DAC in an expensive amp..... (Although I can see someone expecting that if he thinks all DACs sound the same.) At those prices the user should be able to control what D/A is feeding the analog electronics.
As long as the content arrives to the DAC in a bit-perfect state, the source really doesn't matter.
This reminds me of someone I once knew who put lofty cartridges on the cheapest turntable he could find.... He thought the cartridge was all that mattered, all a turntable had to do was spin the vinyl .....
The concept of jitter and RFI generation is testament that there is a lot more to a digital source than being bit perfect.
A quality CD-player or a PC playing a bit-perfect stream over USB should sound the same.
If the problem of RFI were ever to get solved in digital and computer audio, only then might the above case be realized.
....and advanced lossless compression schemes like FLAC, ALAC, and AIFF, the latter of which can halve the size of an audio file with no quality loss whatsoever.
(The term "latter" is ambiguous is this sentence....)
I disagree about the "quality loss"... I believe real-time decoding of lossless files introduces correlated jitter, which I find really irritating to listen to.
But I don't know if the blogger has even heard of "jitter", in the context of digitized audio playback.....
And if the quality of more traditional hi-fi equipment can be matched, then a case can be made (given overwhelming convenience) for our PCs becoming the ultimate audio source.
I personally think PC audio isn't even close to matching traditional equipment.....
The remainder of the article uses ABX listening tests in a computer environment...... I think ABX with capable digital sources will rarely yield correlated differences in such evaluation. Too much RFI, the latency in signals, etc. really muddy things.
And finally, with one exception, the evaluation recordings themselves I wouldn't consider ideal for source evaluation.... "Skyrim" is a vocal/orchestral recording, kind of reminds me of the opening for Orff's "Carmina Burana".... The few times I heard it, on less than ideal equipment, I got the impression it was badly compressed. Depeche Mode's "Soothe My Soul" is somewhat compressed during the loud passages, I wouldn't call electronic-centric music ideal for critical audio evaluation. The Dragonforce is speed-metal.... Compressed dynamically yet again. The busy parts of the track reduce to a "puree of sound". (The music is enjoyable, but not evaluation material.) The fourth recording, a neo-disco track by Daft Punk, easily the best recording of the non-classical group. But the bass beat is noticeably limited, dynamically. (Surprised none of the pop/rock recordings had Auto-Tune on the vocals.) Only the final recording, a classical release, Reference Recordings Rachmaninoff, was true evaluation material. But still, one must be familiar with live orchestral music to know what to listen for. (People are often impressed with "bombastic dynamics", until they experience it live.) This is also not close to the best RR recording I've heard. (In spite of the album getting play time at audio shows.)
I personally wouldn't put much stock in this evaluation. The ironic part, is that for how much the author stressed "bit perfect" playback, the "expensive" DAC that was chosen converts the signal asynchronously.... Might be a factor in why he concluded price didn't necessarily correlate to improved performance. (Although I happen to believe that personally.)
I've tried "critical evaluation" of DACs with a PC source.... I ended up realizing the RFI from the PC made everything sound similar.... One would need an optical interface to an outboard DAC to get truly enjoyable results. But I think one can do better than a Benchmark product in that regard.
Edits: 02/25/14
The level of ignorance certainly is.
BTW, I listen to extreme music exclusively - not the crap like Dragonforce, of course, but of the tracks listed, it's the closest. Despite the obvious limitations imposed on dynamic range, never had any trouble picking out minute differences introduced by software/hardware tweaks, cables etc.
"The level of ignorance certainly is."
I guess I'm used to it.......
After encountering people who didn't know what a vinyl LP was..........
Even I don't believe everything sounds the same.
Realtek chipsets sound like shit.
But that does not mean a $2000 DAC sound 1000 times better either.
"Realtek chipsets sound like shit."
Not in my experience.
Probably implementation issues are raising their ugly heads.
Rick
sounds ok on movies and nothing to write home about wrt to hifi audio
Edits: 02/26/14 02/26/14
Or experience with the older ones perhaps?
My lastest audio PC with Win 7 has "second from the top" Realtek onboard sound, and for onboard audio, it's pretty darned good. I don't think it's going to beat my old CDP, but it's not like I'm dragging that out of the closet anytime soon anyways.
Cheers,
Presto
I see that the Benchmark DAC2 still uses ASRC (now up to 211 kHz). So it could possibly be THAT bad.
As others have suggested, it could be the use of headphones, which precludes evaluating imaging (unless they used binaural recordings).
Then there is the point that subtle differences can never be "reliably" detected in any low budget test conducted by skeptics. Such is the nature of subtle differences. Or, more to the point, such is the nature of dogma.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
It is clear that you cannot understand why and how things are done. The Tom's Hardware tests were not low budget; they were built on the wrong premises and test methods for audio quality. This is typical of the IT community's approach to testing, from DVDRoms to SSDs to PCs.
I doubt very much that your mid budget system with all the other processing overheads allow you to hear the changes that Mercman, I, and others here can hear.
"I doubt very much that your mid budget system with all the other processing overheads allow you to hear the changes that Mercman, I, and others here can hear."
I believe you are posting in the wrong thread.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
We are not talking the usual "bits is bits" nonsense here. They are evaluating, among other things, absolutely different ANALOG circuits - and are totally comfortable with the fact that they can't distinguish them.
"What's wrong with my tests" should be the very first question asked, after getting such results. And, in this case, based on the lengthy description - the answer is "pretty much everything".
The Benchmark is actually pretty decent sounding Tony.
but look at the cables and connectors etc
Are you referring to my cables?
Good cables won't make a bad sounding DAC sound good; at least in my experience.
Concerning your log in problems at AudioStream:
The site is being improved very soon and will address your issues. Thanks for letting us know Fred.
in Tom's hardware test
I see. Tom has the review process nailed :)
Or, it may be multiple personality disorder, with this particular one called "Filippo L. Scognamiglio Pasini", the author of these game-changing tests and article.
N/T
I've modded a LOT of benchmark DACs in my time. Don't mod anymore. Sound pretty decent when modded...
Steve N.
I'm not sure even a not so good Benchmark can make an improvement, without the
"Necessary" system adjustments to allow it to convert a more acceptable signal coming into it..
DACs work as PART of a system. They can be part of a solution to make the sound better.
The reviewer was'nt qualified to make definitive claims about something if he did'nt understand the methodology of how getting quality Computer Audio works
After saying "I don't normally do this or that" it may be a better idea to just not do it !
I admit I liked the article overall, but I think they most particularly jumped the gun on the formats.
It looks like they took recordings with a dynamic range that has been artificially compressed at or below the resolution of Redbook and then said, "Look, no difference!"
Well, of course. But the dynamic range on all recordings is not compressed to that degree. So long as the range exceeds Rebook there is a real difference. How important that difference is is a different question, but it objectively exists.
If you are using headphones, it can be really difficult to hear the difference between wav and 64kHz compressed, depending on the compression. I did a science-fair demo for my local high-school using headphones. Some of the variable rate compressions used on iTunes are pretty good.
The difference becomes obvious when using a resolving system with good imaging. This is what headphones cannot do.
Steve N.
Archimago's endless "measures the same, sounds the same" so called tests are done with headphones, too.
No wonder....
Hmmm... It is what it is.Don't forget you were one of the folks who got me to start that blind test last year, Carcass...😆
And you should also know that I would not agree with what Tom's Hardware concluded with based on the objective results from computer motherboards and laptops tested.
The fascinating thing is, these guys are using empirical "testing" but who really knows the conditions of their ears or their gear! Listener "B" supposedly can hear to 20kHz yet is older than "A". I find this suspicious if we're talking an adult male. I won't be surprised if the guy's hearing distortion down at the audio band rather than true 20kHz but doesn't know the difference.
-------
Archimago's Musings: A 'more objective' audiophile blog.
Edits: 03/01/14 03/01/14 03/01/14 03/01/14 03/01/14 03/01/14
"No wonder...."
Not in regards to the article.
But...
You do not think can sound good?
Are you asking me if headphones can sound good?
Yes?
Okay. I have been to head-fi shows and listened to all of the high-end headphones (and headamps), including Audeze, Stax and Senn 800s. Frankly, not impressed. I am still on a quest to find a headphone that sounds as good as my custom ribbon speakers. I have a pair of Hi-Fi Mans, and they are pretty good, but still no cigar.
Steve N.
...and I have been to one of your meet rooms that sounded terrible compared to my DIY T2/009 setup. It is silly to say there are less details heard with headphones when in fact it is usually the exact opposite. Meet conditions for listening to headphones are a terrible place to get an impression.
"Okay. I have been to head-fi shows and listened to all of the high-end headphones (and headamps), including Audeze, Stax and Senn 800s. Frankly, not impressed. I am still on a quest to find a headphone that sounds as good as my custom ribbon speakers. I have a pair of Hi-Fi Mans, and they are pretty good, but still no cigar.
Steve N."
Well the reason I asked is even though I am not a big headphone listener, IMO they do have there place. I use a couple of vintage pairs of Stax and they pretty amazing transducers. I prefer listening to speakers, but within their limitations nothing can reveal more about a recording. I think they are a useful tool for critical listening.
The headphone amp in the DAC2 HGC is the same as the one in the DAC1.
It's a much better DAC but I find the amp is nothing to write home about.
I modded that headphone amp section. It is based on a power opamp from TI. The chip is a piece of crap. No matter what you do , it will never sound stellar.
There's not a single paragraph in the article that makes any sense to me - except to serve an agenda of the person who wrote it.
Predetermined conclusion, then they worked backwards to mold the story to the desired results. It makes much better press.."Ah, those stupid computer audiophiles throwing away their money on gear that makes no difference."
The statement "We normally don't review audio gear" is pretty telling as it was a pretty
silly assumption on their part that given what they were using to conduct the tests that
they could come away with optimal results.
I guess they don't understand the concept of "GI/GO". Only a novice would make the mistake
of thinking placing a $2000 DAC upstream of a system that has basically no chance to bring
a quality signal from the source material all the way to the DAC would help . PCs are capable of playing
music , but to accomplish quality results takes some knowledge of how & where the PC will add or subtract things from the signal path.
Knowing why & where you use things in Computer Audio may be as important as what you
use. "One Box Solutions" are wishful thinking if you are after superior results with most
things.
Have to agree with all you say.
Although the definition of "one box solution" constantly changing.
If they don't review audio gear, you can imagine what their test systems sound like.
I'm too lazy to read the whole article as I see limited or no benefit to it. Do they ever discuss the cabling and what they listen through? What the hell is that big silver colored thing between the 1/4" (Shitty Hosa-looking)cables in the first pic?
ET
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
