Matrix Audio X-Sabre Pro MQA

[pkane2001]

25 minutes ago, firedog said:

I’m not sure but I think his site is totally measurements based. He basically measures  distortion, jitter, frequency response (flat or not) and S/N ratio. So he has some $500 DACs rated very highly and some $13000 ones he says are poorly engineered, even though they are praised by reviewers. 

 

I actually asked him if he can hear differences between the DACs that measure extremely well and those that measure almost as well, but not at his pinnacle. 

We will see what he says. I’m guessing he will say in a blind test he can’t reliably tell them apart. 

 

BTW, if it matters to you this seems to be one of those MQA DACs that doesn’t let you turn off the MQA filers. 

 

ASR has objectivist philosophy. Both measurements and controlled tests are OK there. Amir concentrates primarily on measurements, and that’s useful information to have. Sometimes he also adds listening tests, but these are not nearly as interesting to me, personally, since I’m not him and don’t hear the same way as he does.

[pkane2001]

4 hours ago, 57gold said:

Friends of mine who like music but do not have the budget or a desire to spend $2k+ on a DAC have asked how to get good sound.  Some of these $500 area options that seem to come from China (tariffs might make them $600?), seem to be a decent option if they sound as good as they test.   

 

Noticed Amir tested a $15K TotalDac against a $500 one and the cheap one beat the expensive one handily in every parameter he measured...though not sure if the magnitude of the delta means anything to human hearing nor do I know that what he is measuring is all the "important stuff".   

 

Seems like a lot of "trickle down" engineering happening.

 

Probably more of "tickle up" than "down" TotalDac appears to be getting some of the basic things wrong in the design or engineering to measure this poorly. While it may sound good to some, transparent it is not. Even when compared to some $500 and cheaper DACs out there.

[pkane2001]

30 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

It is not...

 

 

What’s missing?

[pkane2001]

16 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

To some extent that was discussed, but then I got fed up and ignored the whole site. They think that as it is now is all that matters, except that nobody can hear it, so it doesn't matter. So I'm not sure what they are trying to achieve.

 

 

Yes, there’s some very strong skepticism on that site to anything that’s not obviously true or can’t be easily demonstrated with a controlled test. Sometimes it’s over the top, just like some sites with the purely subjective approach that go to the extreme in the opposite direction.

 

As I understand it, you’d want to see  much wider bandwidth measurements up to, say, megahertz range. That might be useful and can be interesting, but hardly negates the poor measurement results in the audible range, as is, for example, the case with TotalDac. Would you agree?

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, Miska said:

 

There are lot of possible measurements, but given the welcoming of first ones I talked about I didn't even bother with anything more.

 

When I demonstrated some improvements in audible range, the response was that it didn't matter because they think nobody can hear it. Or at least I would need to prove it with DBT. Yet they make big noise about much smaller differences in their measurements without extensive DBT about those ones. In any case their measurements only skim the "audible range". Reminds me of 70's amplifier measurements where companies were showing great THD figures while people were wondering why they sound so bad. Until the reason was later found out.

 

I don't comment about TotalDac, I have never heard nor measured one.

 

 

Fair enough. I don’t always agree with everything posted on ASR. You can see my own measurements there of interconnects and USB cables both showing some differences, despite the common belief there that these don’t matter. 

 

THD figure by itself is meaningless, but the actual distortion plot over audible range is very useful, IMHO. Just like a single jitter value is meaningless, while a phase error plot over audible frequencies can be very revealing.

[pkane2001]

11 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

For that, just OK/NOK would be enough. Now they have DAC rankings based on THD+N figure. And some people then buy DACs based on that figure.

 

 

That would be a mistake, the ranking chart is probably more for entertainment than for actual purchasing advice. But for those who know a little about measurements and how to interpret them, the site offers a lot of information often not available elsewhere.

[pkane2001]

45 minutes ago, JoshM said:

 

Do you have a link to your measurements? Very interested to see. I was fascinated by some of Atomic Bob's USB cable measurements. 

 

Haven't seen AB's USB measurements. Mine was just to compare a Lush^2 to a generic USB cable. First post here, some follow-ups in the posts below it:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-usb-audio-cables-make-a-difference.1887/post-216835

 

Comparison of a few balanced interconnects:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-interconnect-cables-make-a-difference-a-null-test-result.7738/

 

 

[pkane2001]

45 minutes ago, Miska said:

For me, I don't find much useful information there. But if it is useful for someone, then the site certainly serves it's purpose.

 

What would be a better set of measurements that would be useful to you?

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

 

Similar to what I usually post.

 

In addition, I've now started to measure TIM on DACs too, it's been forgotten for too long.

 

TIM =  Transient IM?

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, 57gold said:

Had to search TIM.

 

TIM = Transient Intermodulation Distortion?  

 

Is that distortion with moving multiple signal frequencies as opposed to a measurement at  fixed frequency?

 

 

 

Usually a sudden change in amplitude. For amps, it has to do with the slew rate not being fast enough to keep up with the signal change, often due to negative feedback. I'm curious to see if this is truly a problem for DACs as I've not seen such measurements performed on DACs before. I see that there is a fairly straightforward way to measure TIM using a signal consisting of a low-pass-filtered square wave and a sine-wave.  May be worth a try.

 

[pkane2001]

30 minutes ago, Miska said:

 

I just don't agree about that...

 

 

THD+N is one, THD+N over frequency, IMD, jitter, SNR, multi-tone, IM over Level, linearity, DR, white noise with different filters, none of these are important? These are what Amir usually reports as part of his testing. 

[pkane2001]

1 hour ago, JoshM said:

 

Cool. Thank you for sharing. Here’s Bob’s post:

https://www.superbestaudiofriends.org/index.php?threads/usb-cable-shield-resistance-technical-measurements.5662/

 

 

Interesting. Not sure how shield resistance translates into sound quality. Variable resistance that seems to change all by itself seems very strange, though

 

[pkane2001]

12 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

If you ask them for a falsifiable definition of 'properly engineered' you'll never get one. Sometimes 'competently' is used instead of 'properly' but the intent is the same. A more nuanced mantra is 'All competently engineered DACs sound identical under level matched, double blind conditions'.

 

I think this is just a counterpoint to 'everything matters to sound quality' that you can find on many other fora. If one can imagine it affecting SQ, then it must be true.

 

Personally, I lean in the direction of 'show me' instead of accepting claims on faith. If you don't lean in this direction, perhaps ASR isn't for you. While I also like the banter and the back-and-forth there, the primary draw for me are the measurements and the discussions about measurements.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

Personally I prefer a slightly more nuanced version - 'everything matters but to differing degrees, including infinitesimally small'. I would agree that many 'subjectivist' mindsets don't seem to have the concept 'low-hanging fruit'.

 

I also prefer 'show' to 'tell' but for me, ASR leans too far in the direction of the latter. The corollary of 'show' to me is observe and observations have quality. Numbers don't.

 

I think that's the point I was making: ASR leans to one extreme, many other places to the other. I like that there is at least some balance in the universe. It would be very boring if one extreme or the other was all there was. There is room for qualitative and quantitative observation, but not in the way most audiophiles do it.

 

[pkane2001]

Just now, emcdade said:

Could you point me to a subjectivist forum that has the same angry vibes as ASR but in reverse?  I've never encountered one, so it would be quite the site to see.  

 

Thanks for any link you could provide.

 

I could find you a good number on this site if you want. But I'd rather not go down this path.

[pkane2001]

Just now, emcdade said:

Not even a single website or link then.  It seems like you're trying to create some kind of false equivalence out of thin air.

 

Like, is there a website that posts threads about how bad Benchmark audio products sound despite state of the art measurements?  I would consider that an "extreme subjectivist" type of view.

 

Google is your friend. Feel free to use it.

[pkane2001]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

Those making assertions should at least be willing to back them up if asked.

 

Just like you backed up your personal allegations against an owner of another forum yesterday? Thanks, leave me out of it. This thread has been dead for months, why resurrect it?

 

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Two wrongs make a right?

 

Mine were based on personal information, about a specific person. Your claims are based on something we have no idea about. You made them up for all we know. You can't even say a single public forum where this behavior takes place?

 

I have personal, first-hand information about forums that are run by extreme subjectivists, where you get banned for mentioning measurements or blind tests. As I said, I'd rather not go down the path of naming them. It was not a pleasant experience but I'm not a vindictive type of person.

[pkane2001]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

 

Nobody is asking you to do that. Here is the ask ->

 

 

I guess you didn't see where I said "I don't want to go down this path"? Are you going to keep insisting that I do something I said I'm not willing to do? 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, JoshM said:

Why can't you specify which forum you're speaking of so that we can debate whether that's the case?

 

Precisely because I don't want to be part of this discussion.

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, JoshM said:

 

But you started the discussion by saying you could point to sites!

 

I didn't start this conversation, and I responded to a question directed at me with the following:

 

Quote

I could find you a good number on this site if you want. But I'd rather not go down this path.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the original message, so I highlighted it for you

 

[pkane2001]

3 minutes ago, emcdade said:

Maybe next time don't bring it up if you aren't willing to even type out the name of a website.

Didn’t realize it was such an important point in the conversation that it was worth all this back and forth. Maybe next time you can just respect when someone tells you that they are unwilling to engage in your questioning.