Is Soekris dac1321 worth buying?

[amirm]

If exhaustive tests are done then you believe that everything not shown by test is untrue i understood. But how to be sure of the exhaustivity of tests?

We have you run the blind test for starters. If you can't tell the difference blind, then we are done. We don't need more tests.

 

[amirm]

@Frank Dernie That s true if you listen to your 220 v sinus power source from the plug. Fonction of hears and brain is certainly much more complex than what you think

Do you like ice cream? You can answer that, right? Now, can you explain why you like ice cream with respect to how your brain works? You can't.

Same with audio. We don't need to know how the brain "works." We only need to know that it can give you false readings about audio. This, we have proven time and time again with experimentation. This is why in medical science no one does drug testing using sighted testing you use.

What fascinates me is that subjectivists audiophiles who are least technical, somehow with confidence know how complex the brain is. If you don't know how the brain works, you don't know. End of discussion. You can't use your lack of knowledge as proof of anything.

 

[amirm]

The DBT test is meant to show the observation of a "big difference" in two cables with your ear is false. It's really meant to show a defined difference. Or a lack of a positive proof. A DBT test has little relation to subjective impressions like using the word "big difference" or "night and day". These words are too vague to be definable for a DBT test. Not scientifically provable or related to a dbt test. But FWIW, I don't hear differences in cables.

You are confusing yourself with terminology. DBT simply means double blind. It doesn't stipulate anything else about the test. Double blind tests are commonly run where the user gives a 1 to 5 score (called MOS or mean opinion Score). There, you absolutely give measures of how much better something sounds compared to a reference. This is commonly done in lossy compression where we know there is a difference and we want to gauge how much. Here is a random test of MP3 showing this:

Here, a low grade means huge degradation with difference clearly audible.

Now, with respect to cables and such, we can shrink this to whether you actually hear a difference or not. One such type of test is ABX. In this type of test you just have to indicate if X is A or B. It is a better first step to things that likely don't have audible differences like cables.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Not measured by your measurements doesn't mean necessarily other kind of measurements cannot show it. The problem is that no grows up has been done other 30 years. Measurements are made considering to have good numbers for marketing. And not so much research to find how the brain and hear enjoy sound

Music is a fluctuation in air pressure, sometimes complex sometimes, a flute for example, fairly simple.
If one puts a microphone into this area of fluctuating pressure it outputs a fluctuating voltage analogous to the fluctuating pressure.
The recording sold to us music enthusiasts is replayed by taking the fluctuating voltage generated by the recording, amplifying it and feeding it to a transducer, speaker or headphones, which converts the fluctuating voltage back into fluctuating air pressure - music. There IS nothing else. If a piece of equipment has a negligible effect on the fluctuating voltage it HAS NOT and CAN NOT have changed the sound.
There is nothing else. How we hear this fluctuating air pressure is not relevant to how we reproduce it since we listen both to live and reproduced music the same way..
Isn’t that simple enough to understand?

 

[amirm]

I think you are moving the goal posts here. Your first position was different.
And for this I say it is incorrect. It is a null result: the absence of proof of difference, but not the proof of no difference.

Again, you are putting aside common sense and context.

What we ague in these forums is not about a new discovery. It is about people claiming that audio science as a collective is wrong. That lay people with no experience and no knowledge of said research/engineering, know better. That despite the fact that science/measurements/engineering say two things should sound the same, you all hear night and day differences.

To settle such disputes, we simply convert the same test you ran to arrive at the night and day conclusion, blind. That one change will force you to only using your ears and brain and nothing else to judge. Should you fail miserably, mission is accomplished. We have shown conclusively that your point of view in audio wrong and that the insistence that there is an audible difference is just as faulty. This, you have to accept. You cannot tell me, "well, I could not hear any difference so that is not proof." Of course there is proof. You could not replicate your results when you couldn't use other information than sound. We are done.

Now if we were trying to see if some lossy compression is transparent, a single test that shows that would not suffice. We would need to run many tests to build up confidence. Once there, we will state that as the likely scenario even though it is still a "null result." We are not pedantic. We want to move on with our lives with good conclusions. Same thing in medicine. Or building a bridge to carry cars.

 

[amirm]

Well i got nothing to add i cannot proove everything. It's not pleasant here i give up.
Technician claims things without proof and when we consider they might be wrong because lack of proof they say if i don't give proof they are right.
It's totally crazy here. I give up bye. I'll spend my time doing much more pleasant things.

Indeed. Go listen to music instead of taking on the entire force of audio engineering/science. You don't wake up one morning capable of taking on your doctor on medicine and your lawyer on law. Why do you think you have better luck with audio? Can I invalidate whatever you make your living from with some random idea?

 

[solderdude]

@flipflop @solderdude

I had lm4960 vs ne5532 vs muses 8920 vs opa2604 and some dual opa627. I didn't do blind test cause i have to change opa from the socket. I believe from measurements in specs they should sound the same for human right ?
When i tested them I wasn't waiting them to sound different because of the datasheets and the theory but i was surprised. If i was biased my expectations of no differences would have been reached.
But it ended that i heard differences that was to my hears improvements for some of them. I agree it's not huge differences but to my hears it was worth it. I could detect differences on of each opa.
It was on speakers.
I did same tests with headphone amp and found also differences on each opa. The preferences was not the same. I found that the ne5532 was the best in the headphone amp whereas the muse was the best in the dac. If i was biased and placebo i would have preferred the same opa for both.
Stock opa was ne5532 for dac and opa2604 for headphone amp.

Open minded yet blinded.
Thanks for confirming.

 

[JJB70]

My Hi-Fi is for listening to my favourite music on, not something to obsess over or be disappointed by.

A view which should underpin the hobby and be a motto for the site, but one which many audio enthusiasts seem to completely lose sight of.

 

[LTig]

@flipflop @solderdude

I had lm4960 vs ne5532 vs muses 8920 vs opa2604 and some dual opa627. I didn't do blind test cause i have to change opa from the socket. I believe from measurements in specs they should sound the same for human right ?
When i tested them I wasn't waiting them to sound different because of the datasheets and the theory but i was surprised. If i was biased my expectations of no differences would have been reached.

Bias works in both directions - expecting differences or expecting no differences. The result of a sighted test is meaningless, as has been shown many times. I gave you a link to an op-amp rolling test where I failed - did you ever read it? If not you should read it now. If you refuse then it makes no sense to discuss any longer.

I experienced the same as you and was quite shocked to find out that I cannot trust my own senses. But I have a scientific mind ( as engineer you have to trust measuring devices and not just your common sense) and accepted this fact. How could I ignore it?

But it ended that i heard differences that was to my hears improvements for some of them. I agree it's not huge differences but to my hears it was worth it. I could detect differences on of each opa.
It was on speakers.
I did same tests with headphone amp and found also differences on each opa. The preferences was not the same. I found that the ne5532 was the best in the headphone amp whereas the muse was the best in the dac. If i was biased and placebo i would have preferred the same opa for both.
Stock opa was ne5532 for dac and opa2604 for headphone amp.

Regarding op-amp rolling of course there can be differences, especially when an op-amp is used which does not fit into the circuit design. You cannot just put in any op-amp into a well designed circuit and expect it to work without flaws. But you can be lucky and replace an old srtyle op-amp with a newer one which fits the circuit and gives better results.

But as has been told you now numerous times by several people: Claiming differences in sound quality without a blind test is not a proof that these differences really exist, because human hearing is fallable. There is no reason to feel ashamed when you hear differences in sighted tests but fail in a blind test. It just shows that you are human like all of us. You just have to accept that you cannot trust your senses, as I have done.

So when someone claims to hear differences and we ask for a proof this does not mean that we dispute that this person really heard the differences. We just want a proof whether these differences really exist because the limits of the hearing sense are well known, and the only proof is not failing in a DBT. It is not our task to proof that the person did not hear differences - they have been heard.

And regarding technical measurements and hearing differences: Once a proof (passed DPT) for one single person exists that differences exist and known measurements fail to show differences scientists will refine the measurements to gain more knowledge about the human hearing sense.

 

[Calexico]

Bias works in both directions - expecting differences or expecting no differences. The result of a sighted test is meaningless, as has been shown many times. I gave you a link to an op-amp rolling test where I failed - did you ever read it? If not you should read it now. If you refuse then it makes no sense to discuss any longer.

I experienced the same as you and was quite shocked to find out that I cannot trust my own senses. But I have a scientific mind ( as engineer you have to trust measuring devices and not just your common sense) and accepted this fact. How could I ignore it?



Regarding op-amp rolling of course there can be differences, especially when an op-amp is used which does not fit into the circuit design. You cannot just put in any op-amp into a well designed circuit and expect it to work without flaws. But you can be lucky and replace an old srtyle op-amp with a newer one which fits the circuit and gives better results.

But as has been told you now numerous times by several people: Claiming differences in sound quality without a blind test is not a proof that these differences really exist, because human hearing is fallable. There is no reason to feel ashamed when you hear differences in sighted tests but fail in a blind test. It just shows that you are human like all of us. You just have to accept that you cannot trust your senses, as I have done.

So when someone claims to hear differences and we ask for a proof this does not mean that we dispute that this person really heard the differences. We just want a proof whether these differences really exist because the limits of the hearing sense are well known, and the only proof is not failing in a DBT. It is not our task to proof that the person did not hear differences - they have been heard.

And regarding technical measurements and hearing differences: Once a proof (passed DPT) for one single person exists that differences exist and known measurements fail to show differences scientists will refine the measurements to gain more knowledge about the human hearing sense.

I read your post and you scored 8 correct from 10 tries. That means you have detected differencies. And that confirm that test by switching is more difficult than comparing the feel of more long sessions. I don't think brain is adapted for a/b test in audio. That's why the differences where perceived very small comparing your feel of a whole listening day.
What's wrong with thinking this can be possible? That's exactly what i feel. I need listening for long time at low volume so that my hear is in calm state and my brain relaxed and then i can appreciate the small differences. A/B test you re too much concentrated to find something and your brain isn't relaxed.

 

[LTig]

I read your post and you scored 8 correct from 10 tries. That means you have detected differencies.

Yes, but it was very hard and the differences were almost non existent, much smaller than in the sighted test.

And that confirm that test by switching is more difficult than comparing the feel of more long sessions. I don't think brain is adapted for a/b test in audio. That's why the differences where perceived very small comparing your feel of a whole listening day.
What's wrong with thinking this can be possible?

It is wrong because it has been shown that long term listening tests are less reliable than fast ABX tests.

That's exactly what i feel. I need listening for long time at low volume so that my hear is in calm state and my brain relaxed and then i can appreciate the small differences. A/B test you re too much concentrated to find something and your brain isn't relaxed.

This is how we feel, yes, but this is not how the hearing sense works. The limits of the hearing sense regarding short term memory and long term memory are also well known.

 

[Tks]

Perhaps a stickied thread that is available on all forum pages, that explains the logical basis of why scientific testing simply makes sense, and especially why something like double blind testing is used and how it is deductively the best way to test someone's claims (like the numerous never ending and IDENTICAL exclamations from people that seemingly speak as if they've entered the debate yesterday).

I think for sanity's sake, not having to explain the basics of logical thinking to nearly every subjetivist, would be prudent as a basic opening post anyone can read before they continue to make fools of themselves when they make statements (and I shit you not, and paraphrase from an interaction about a month ago), like: "The blind portion doesn't prove anything, and in of itself creates the bias, and limits our minds in some inexplicable way, because of our consciousness, and seeing as how consciousness is unlimited we can never know exactly why, but that doesn't mean it's not true".

These sorts of folks don't actually understand the basic modes of actually thinking properly. It's almost impossible to have any sort of sane or civil discourse with these folks sometimes.

The worst are the people when you tell them: "Everything you experience with music reproduction/playback today was ENTIRELY built on the same scientific rationale, that is always being expanded upon with every person adding their contribution for further understanding". They simply will avoid this truth like the plague, as if to make it seem like, we don't need any of that because "music is emotion, and if you can create sound yourself, you don't need science to create something amazing like music". TOTALLY blindsiding the point that is being made to them. They literally lack the capacity to understand sentences, or stay on topic.

 

[amirm]

Yeh, I am thinking about writing an article so that we can just reference it....

 

[GGroch]

Perhaps a stickied thread that is available on all forum pages, that explains the logical basis of why scientific testing simply makes sense, and especially why something like double blind testing is used and how it is deductively the best way to test someone's (insert) subjective claims...

Absolutely! And well stated. I have suggested the same, and Amir has both the scientific bona fides and communications skills to do it right.

As you point out, it is tiring to repeat the same arguments again and again....but in doing so we sometimes sound tired, and dismissive of the poster's genuine experiences. J.J. Johnston's posts and videos were most helpful in helping me understand how it works.

I think we should also concur that since we all are subjective listeners...that being subjective in our preferences is fine. I like tube amps (and hope Amir will not test the ones I own . Illusions can be fun. But that does not make them real.

 

[Tks]

Absolutely! And well stated. I have suggested the same, and Amir has both the scientific bona fides and communications skills to do it right.

As you point out, it is tiring to repeat the same arguments again and again....but in doing so we sometimes sound tired, and dismissive of the poster's genuine experiences. J.J. Johnston's posts and videos were most helpful in helping me understand how it works.

I think we should also concur that since we all are subjective listeners...that being subjective in our preferences is fine. I like tube amps (and hope Amir will not test the ones I own . Illusions can be fun. But that does not make them real.

Absolutely. I think anyone that isn't a subjective listener, isn't actually human. Like for instance when my RME DAC comes in, I know full well the measurements. But if I am listening to it, and I rationally, or irrationally signal out that it's the cause of my discontent with the sound.. I'm going to return it or sell it even if Amir came back and said "oh sorry actually the RME was better than I measured before, and also this thing could never be beat from this moment onward".

Just because you know that a form of bias exists might exist. Doesn't mean we need to discredit the "experience" of something, and how that experience can shape perceptions EVEN IF you knew you were a mental patient that hallucinates, and you know you hallucinate, but you still hear the voice or see the sight of your hallucination. You knowing they're fake, and irrational, doesn't actually make them cease in every single case.

Also finally, I think every single piece of mathematics (in our case measurements) should always be put to the human test if possible. At the end of the day, you will never listen to something, or perceive something another person would 100% identically. If your told "the two DACs are the same build and model from the same company" and you feel one is better than the other, even if you had tests confirming it. You would still replace it just to satisfy whatever is telling you you don't like the first over the second one even though they're both the same. As you say illusions can be fun, and a quirky thing when you find out you're a part of one in a surprising sense that you can't explain.

But as you say, the issue is when folks ascribe some hidden knowledge only privy to themselves who themselves could barely pass basic high-school mathematics tests, and those same people claiming because no one knows this hidden knowledge completely, that invalidates everything a person who's dedicated a whole career or a their life on attempting to find out.

 

[garbulky]

Absolutely. I think anyone that isn't a subjective listener, isn't actually human. Like for instance when my RME DAC comes in, I know full well the measurements. But if I am listening to it, and I rationally, or irrationally signal out that it's the cause of my discontent with the sound.. I'm going to return it or sell it even if Amir came back and said "oh sorry actually the RME was better than I measured before, and also this thing could never be beat from this moment onward".

Just because you know that a form of bias exists might exist. Doesn't mean we need to discredit the "experience" of something, and how that experience can shape perceptions EVEN IF you knew you were a mental patient that hallucinates, and you know you hallucinate, but you still hear the voice or see the sight of your hallucination. You knowing they're fake, and irrational, doesn't actually make them cease in every single case.

Also finally, I think every single piece of mathematics (in our case measurements) should always be put to the human test if possible. At the end of the day, you will never listen to something, or perceive something another person would 100% identically. If your told "the two DACs are the same build and model from the same company" and you feel one is better than the other, even if you had tests confirming it. You would still replace it just to satisfy whatever is telling you you don't like the first over the second one even though they're both the same. As you say illusions can be fun, and a quirky thing when you find out you're a part of one in a surprising sense that you can't explain.

But as you say, the issue is when folks ascribe some hidden knowledge only privy to themselves who themselves could barely pass basic high-school mathematics tests, and those same people claiming because no one knows this hidden knowledge completely, that invalidates everything a person who's dedicated a whole career or a their life on attempting to find out.

In sighted testing, when I use the gear like I do in real life, I had all sorts of opinions about the differences in sound quality. You know the standard subjective descriptions (yep that's me).

I conducted some (non blind) level matched tests. It was semi-blind because I tried my best not to think of what button I pressed to switch, but I would look after I made my decision. But yeah definitely not what you'd call truly blind. Anyway, I found I couldn't reliably tell the difference between really any piece of electronics. It wasn't even a null result where it was random chance, but some of those correct guesses perhaps I was actually able to differentiate. No, I KNEW that I wasn't able to tell the difference in a level matched somewhat blind test. I was genuinely confused. I thought sometimes I heard slight differences but I was unable to nail down the tone or character of the sound of a piece of gear like I was able to. In regular listening it was much easier for me, and things were much more prominent. So on this I was doing no better than random chance! And I knew that I wasn't doing better than random chance.


I readily accepted that I couldn't tell the difference in the level matched tests of which I failed most of them. I wasn't upset. I didn't kick myself for being fooled. Nor was I shocked. I said, okay, I clearly can't tell a difference in that circumstance. Then I went back to listening. In the back of my mind I was wondering, hey maybe I can be satisfied with this (s h i tty) piece of gear instead and it'll probably sound just as fantastic as this other nice gear.

But the kicker was when I went back to using my gear normally, it didn't actually make my better sounding gear sound worse or my worse sounding gear better. The crappy sound remained crappy. The good sound remained good. Nothing changed.

I didn't stop "worrying" because of the "removal of bias". No, the sound was still bad or good, so how could I? What I did was I don't base my conclusions on negative results on level matched DBT tests because it's predictive value for my everyday experience was poor. But of course I take positive results seriously.

 

[solderdude]

But the kicker was when I went back to using my gear normally, it didn't actually make my better sounding gear sound worse or my worse sounding gear better. The crappy sound remained crappy. The good sound remained good. Nothing changed.

I didn't stop "worrying" because of the "removal of bias". No, the sound was still bad or good, so how could I? What I did was I don't base my conclusions on negative results on level matched DBT tests because it's predictive value for my everyday experience was poor. But of course I take positive results seriously.

That is simply because you KNOW what is playing. About 30 years ago I went through the same 'phase'. Built 2 similar pre-amps. One with crappy opamps (TL071) + loads of electrolytic caps in the signal path and one with expensive opamps (OP27) and no caps in the path and splurged on compound decoupling caps. Same gain, same volpot... just one switch on the back.
I used it to show others (and myself) to hear the difference between 'good' and 'bad' sound.

I always switched it to 'good' when listening and could hear it... I thought.

Till one day I enjoyed the good sound for a while and someone came over. Wanted to demonstrate.. Alas it was in the 'poor sound' position. Forgot to put it in the 'good' position and obviously listened to it for months. Not knowing and being CERTAIN it was in the good sound position because it sounded good...

Then it dawned on me ... it is the KNOWING part. From then on I only tested blind.

 

[LTig]

Perhaps a stickied thread that is available on all forum pages, that explains the logical basis of why scientific testing simply makes sense, and especially why something like double blind testing is used and how it is deductively the best way to test someone's claims (like the numerous never ending and IDENTICAL exclamations from people that seemingly speak as if they've entered the debate yesterday).

I think for sanity's sake, not having to explain the basics of logical thinking to nearly every subjetivist, would be prudent as a basic opening post anyone can read [..]

You just beat me in proposing something similar. My idea is an FAQ which explains for example the reasons for DBT with links to the scientific papers. So each time a subjectivists claim or question comes up he can be directed to the corresponding FAQ entry.

 

[March Audio]

What you think is not necessarily what happened. To me i'm not sure of that. Some differences are audible and no measurements are made to shows it is my hypothesis. Your hypothesis is not more scientist than mine. Well we don't know and should try to have better knownledge keeping mind opened

Keeping your mind open is one thing. Allowing your brain to fall out and roll around the floor is quite another.

I dont have the energy. Hitting ignore, easier not to see this.

 

[Tks]

I readily accepted that I couldn't tell the difference in the level matched tests of which I failed most of them. I wasn't upset. I didn't kick myself for being fooled. Nor was I shocked. I said, okay, I clearly can't tell a difference in that circumstance. Then I went back to listening. In the back of my mind I was wondering, hey maybe I can be satisfied with this (s h i tty) piece of gear instead and it'll probably sound just as fantastic as this other nice gear.

But the kicker was when I went back to using my gear normally, it didn't actually make my better sounding gear sound worse or my worse sounding gear better. The crappy sound remained crappy. The good sound remained good. Nothing changed.

I didn't stop "worrying" because of the "removal of bias". No, the sound was still bad or good, so how could I? What I did was I don't base my conclusions on negative results on level matched DBT tests because it's predictive value for my everyday experience was poor. But of course I take positive results seriously.

Okay I quoted the portion that doesn't make sense to me. I believe everything you say, but there is either a missing piece to the story that links the beginning and the end, or this simply doesn't make sense. The part in question being:

You say you went back to normal gear thinking you would be satisfied perhaps with this ****** piece of gear instead. What does this mean? You said you semi-blind tested them, and couldn't tell the difference. So what was the ****** gear, and what was the normal gear, and which was the good gear?

Second, you then say "it didn't actually make my better sounding gear sound worse, or my worse sounding gear better". What does this mean? How do you have "better" or "worse" sounding gear when the gear you blind tested you precisely said you couldn't tell the difference between each. How did you go from not knowing the difference between each when blind.. to now being able to tell which sounds better or worse when you tried them again (blind or not). I simply cannot comprehend this series of events and how the chronologically follow one or the other.

Those two odd events aside, you conclude in the end, you take "positive results seriously". This doesn't actually mean anything with respect to those "results" having objective truth or validity. Again, I'm not saying "positive results" ought be disregarded, my main point of contention is granting them the status as something that deserves the label equal to objective truth. In my prior post I spoke of for example a person KNOWING he is hallucinating because what he sees and hears is absolutely ridiculous, and he feels some of these hallucinations help him cope with some negative events for instance since these hallucinations can be consoling. But again, that doesn't actually mean those hallucinations objectively exist, and would have an effect on others. But something like a burning fire that is measured at 100's or thousands of degrees... no matter how hard you may feel "oh this fire could never burn me" it will still scorch you as it would everyone else if they walked into it.

So the problem again, isn't knowing what a bias can do to you, the problem is granting that bias equal value, and that others ought to do so equally to your degree when repeatable, objectively true properties are in question.