Differences in sound: DAC vs. DAC + Pre-amplifier

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:06 AM, SoundSparks said:

Dear experts:

 

Guess I'm out

 

On 1/23/2020 at 9:06 AM, SoundSparks said:

Many DACs have volume control function so they could serve as a DAC or as a DAC + Pre-amplifier.

 

Could you please report on the differences in the sound of your systems in both cases?

 

The latter configuration provides shorter signal path, but how does it effect the sound? What variables are in play here? I am planning my setup and would appreciate your expert advice very much indeed.

 

Please chime in!

 

I haven't read the previous posts but IME I always go back to using a pre-amp. Yes, these days Pre-Pros, digital sound attenuation works well. If you are on a budget, or if you feel you may get better bang for your buck dedicating more to the speakers or whatever, then go for it.

The most recent DAC I used with digital volume control was the Bricasti M1. I have massive respect for the guy behind it and its lineage back to My Mark Levinson DAC from years gone by. I was lucky enough to chat to him about his DAC over dinner one night, including the excellent digital volume control. My audiophile friend also had a Bricasti DAC. Both of us ended up adding an analogue preamp.

 

To save money on a $50,000 all up system I put together for a wealthy non audiophile friend I excluded a pre-amp. When I added in my pre-amp he wanted one too. Expectation bias? Maybe. However, he did not want to exceed his budget but did so.Without any coaching or prior discussion of expectation, he volunteered "the sound has more body". This accords with many similar descriptions like "fuller, richer, more body, more life like, less sterile".

 

This is totally subjective assessment by listening. I have no idea whether things like improving impedance mismatching or other mechanism is responsible ( or if its an illusion).YMMV

 

23 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

My experience ,like quite a few other members is very different to yours in this area, where I have been able to directly compare components in systems worth >$100K in well set up rooms using both Digital attenuation and Preamplifiers (Au$50K)

 

Totally agree !

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, barrows said:

 

I have no desire to suggest that your are not hearing what you claim, indeed I entirely believe that your are hearing what you claim.  

While I have not heard the M1 here in my system, I have heard its successor the M21, and both these DACs appear to have nearly, if not entirely, identical output stages.  The output stage of the M21 and M1 are quite potent, and easily meet the needs of driving any ordinary amplifier directly.  So  I would suggest to you that you consider the following possibility:

 

The addition of a preamp is adding new distortion harmonics to your playback which are the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive.  So, the preamp is adding a coloration which is not part of the source recording.  There is nothing "wrong" with this of course.  If you prefer this sound in your system, then get on with listening and be happy with it.  I would only ask that you be aware that what you are preferring is the addition of distortion products which are not part of the actual source recording, and that your system is less accurate (less transparent to the source) than it would be without the preamp in place.

 

I (personally) would not be "happy" with the above approach myself, but that is me.  If I had the same experience as you, that is if I perceived a lack of "body" in my system going amp direct, my solution would not be to add additional distortion harmonics to achieve the body I was looking for.  Instead, I would acknowledge that the system has a problem which needs addressing: "thin" sounding components somewhere in the chain, or bad synergy, etc.

 

I remember years ago several companies sold "tube buffers", which were unity gain buffers, designed to be added to a system, in the line level signal path somewhere, such as between a preamp and an amplifier.  Of course all these things did was add the distortion profile of tubes to the mix, reducing resolution and transparency, but often increasing "body".  To me, this is a "band aid" approach of system building, and not one I would recommend if one is looking for a transparent and revealing system; but again, there is nothing wrong with that as long as one understands they are giving up some transparency for a colored sound.

 

I would suggest that by the same logic of this approach, if one wants to add even more "body", one could put several preamps in series between the source and amplifier.

 

BTW, @Audiophile Neuroscience, have you seen this:

 

Given you forum name I thought you might be interested if you have not watched it.

 

hey

thanks for the youtube video,i will check it out later today (after work).

 

I have no problem with your theory. FWIW I do not like the added distortion of say tube amps etc even though I can hear the "warmth".

 

For your theory that my pre-amp is coloring the sound with distortion and that alone explains my preference one would need to firstly demonstrate the distortion levels of the Gryphon Pandora. One would also need then to correlate and concord this with the perception.

 

The OP asked for listening impressions, that's what I gave. YMMV

 

Cheers

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, barrows said:

I do not think so.  

With respect your thinking does not make it so.

Quote

We can use the process of elimination here.

 

Provided that elimination included a properly conducted scientific experiment. until such time it is theory. That is fact.

 

Quote

 The truth is that there is no actual technical problem with how the Bricasti DAC drives the input stage of the amplifier, that is a fact which is not challengeable.  

 

The truth is you do not think, based on available evidence, that the DAC has no technical problem. The notion that it is not challengeable is anti-scientific, which is I suggest, is why we differ.

 

Quote

Then, given that fact, what are the possibilities for how the "additional body" is produced by the addition of a preamp?  Can anyone reading this suggest a means by which the addition of the preamp, in this example, produces produces "additional body" other than by adding something of its own to the playback?  

 

Again, you are inviting theory for counter-example. What is required is experiment and evidence.

 

Quote

If the preamp is adding something, that addition can only be a coloration,

 

adding coloration is a theory.

Quote

 

as what other possible option is there?  

 

 

Not knowing the answer is not the same as concluding your theory correct.

 

 

Quote

A preamp cannot magically know how a recording is supposed to sound,

 

neither can speakers, or my left shoe 🙂

 

Quote

 

and then add in the needed additional aspects,

 

 

theory

 

Quote

all it can do is add in a color of its own through its imperfections. 

 

Theory

Quote

 

Audio playback systems are not magical devices operating by properties which we do not understand, anyone who takes a position suggesting that they are might re-consider that position.

 

Not understanding a phenomenon doesn't make it's existence "magic". Anyone suggesting they understand everything "might reconsider that position" (using your words)

 

 

Quote

 

As to sound differences, I have described my own experience in specific sound differences in a previous post in this thread where I discussed my process moving from using a preamp in my system, to eliminating it.

 

Now, we agree that you are guided by your listening experience which is fine. You listened, unlike others heard no difference, moved on.

 

As for the rest, it is theory. I require evidence from experiment to test that theory.No conjecture. Not "it must be", not "I don't understand why", not it doesn't accord with your belief system.

“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”

― Richard P. Feynman

I would humbly add ...If you haven't tested the theory, it remains theory, or in the alternative - faith based belief

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 minutes ago, barrows said:

No, it is not.  It is technical fact that the Bricasti M1 can drive most amplifiers input stage without any problems.  There may be an exceptional case with a really weird amplifier or something, but otherwise this is a fact, not a theory.  I have seen the specifications of the DAC.

 

I have no problem accepting the Bricasti is a technically excellent DAC. The non sequitur in logic occurs when you conclude a pre-amp cannot enhance the sound except by adding distortion.That is theory.

So tell me what the level of distortion is for the Pandora DAC and where you have experimented with this distortion causing the alleged audible phenomenon. I'm sorry Barrows,until such time you are pushing your theory.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, barrows said:

I am sorry, but I am lost here, what is the "Pandora DAC" and what is the "alleged audible phenomenon"?

 

typo:  should read Gryphon Pandora Pre-amp

 

so, re-phrasing to clarify:

I have no problem accepting the Bricasti is a technically excellent DAC.The non sequitur in logic occurs when you conclude a pre-amp cannot improve the sound except by adding distortion or coloration.That is theory.

 

Can you tell me what the measured level of distortion is, or what coloration is being added that you have measured for the Pandora Pre-amp; and where are your results from experiment that correlates these measurements to the audible effect ie in your words distortion being "the cause of the additional "body" which you perceive".

 

I'm sorry Barrows,until such time you are pushing theory.

 

Quote

 

 

I am additionally confused as to how one cannot understand what I am saying here?   This seems so simple to me, but apparently either myself, or you, or both of us are experiencing some cognitive dissonance here?

 

I believe I understand what you are saying just not in agreement. It is a plausible theory (to many). It is simply untested. I remain open minded but not convinced just because you have a theory.

 

Quote

I would ask, by what mechanism do you propose that a preamp can "enhance the sonics" which would not qualify as an additive process (which would be by definition a coloration)?  

 

I don't have to advocate a mechanism. I am simply reporting an observation (as asked by the OP). You are asserting this to be an invalid observation based on your untested theory.

 

I did not claim it was an additive process (and therefore coloration). That is something you inferred in accordance with your theory.

 

Quote

The question assumes a desire to have an accurate and revealing system which is as transparent to the source (recording) as possible.

 

What question?

I have no evidence that adding a pre-amp would reduce transparency. I get the *theory* that you are adding more electrical components and wires but it does not automatically follow this causes a perceptible degradation in transparency. IME it improves transparency (I have no idea why but no doubt others may speculate).

 

You must remember that we are being asked what we hear, not what we think we should hear according to belief or theory.

 

Quote

 this preference is one which comes with the understanding that by adding the preamp, one is adding a coloration not present in the recording,

 

Theory

 

Quote

Additionally my other question still stands unanswered: were your listening tests done with rigorous level matching?

 

Yes, on the occasion prior to my friend purchasing a pre-amp he had (at my suggestion) an audio engineer friend come in and level match. This is because the (my) pre-amp was disproportionately expensive for his system as @sandyk might recall. He went on to subsequently upgrade all other components except for the speakers ( I suggested he upgrade speakers and not get the Pandora pre-amp). He bought a different DAC to myself as well, meaning he was not just influenced by my choices or recommendations.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

@Audiophile Neuroscience, I am not understanding why you seem to have a problem following my logic, I will try again:

 

with respect I am not understanding how you feel your theory is fact and somehow scientifically unreproachable.

 

 

9 hours ago, barrows said:

There are a couple of feasible theories which have been floated about which could explain how the addition of a preamp might actually improve the performance of a system:

 

1.  A DAC may not have a stout enough output stage to adequately drive the input stage of an amplifier.  This theory can be true, in some very unusual cases, where the output stage of the DAC might be unusual, relatively high impedance (well over 400 ohms output impedance), and/or where the output stage has very low current capability.  But this is not true for most DACs these days, and it is certainly not true for the Bricasti M1, where the output stage has plenty of current capability and is relatively low in impedance.  The fact here, is that the output stage of most DACs is the exact same design as that of most preamps, as this stage is a line driver designed to drive an interconnect at line level to another component.  The design requirements for a DAC output stage and a preamp output stage are the same, and it is not difficult to design a competent output stage.

 

2.  The other possibility I have heard some suggest, but this has never been demonstrated through any specifications or measurements, but it is still a possibility, so I will list it here.  This is that the preamp is acting as an additional filter to RF content on the DACs output.  While this is certainly possible, for it to actually happen would be a rare circumstance indeed.  First, it would require a very poorly designed DAC, where its own output filter was entirely inadequate, in addition to a very poorly designed amplifier, which has an input stage which is way too sensitive to RF getting into its input.  Amplifier input stages typically have a filter for RF energy at their inputs.  But, it is possible that a combination of a really poorly designed DAC and amplifier could suffer from this problem.  But we are talking about extreme outliers here, really badly designed components.  Again, this would not apply to the Bricasti M1, and given he quality of your preamp, I doubt you have chosen a really poorly designed amplifier for your system.  In the case of balanced connections this would not be a possibility at all as any RF energy woudl be common mode, and cancelled in the amplifiers input stage.

 

Yes, these are feasible theories

 

 

9 hours ago, barrows said:

 

Now, logically, if neither 1 or 2 above is present, I would submit that there is no mechanism by which the addition  of a preamp and another interconnect cable can improve the technical performance (resolution) of a system.  It is just not possible,

 

 

No, incorrect. Just because you do not know the mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist. You have nominated two feasible theories already (which you have discounted) and unless you are all-knowing, you must entertain that there may be other possibilities which you are not aware of.

 

This is where science plays a role in hypothesis testing. Your theory suggests the hypothesis that distortion added by a preamp colors perception of sound and in such a way to explain the audible effects as mentioned above. Until that is tested by experiment it is just your faith.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/23/2020 at 4:00 AM, barrows said:

 I would only ask that you be aware that what you are preferring is the addition of distortion products which are not part of the actual source recording, and that your system is less accurate (less transparent to the source) than it would be without the preamp in place.

I (personally) would not be "happy" with the above approach myself, but that is me.

 

7 hours ago, barrows said:

 If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me.   

 

Statements like these are IMO both condescending and misguided. It might be equally condescending to say, provided you are willing to discard science, sure you can believe whatever theory you want, based on your faith.

 

However strong your theory is, no matter how many measurements you have, the scientific method demands a testable hypothesis. This is the only way forward if any progress is to be made in resolving differences of opinion, to the extent that that matters to someone.

 

As mentioned, you have made predictions and proclamations based on a theory which in turn is supported by various facts. None of this matters one iota unless said predictions and proclamations are subject to experiment and test of the hypothesis. You have not done this but rather argued in support of your theory. Sweeping and  condescending generalisations such as "you are preferring is the addition of distortion products...... If one prefers a colored sound, rather than an accurate one, that is fine with me"  simply turns a blind eye to the scientific method.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

An  important point for me is if the goal is to be transparent to the source it must sound like the original event ie the real actual source, to the extent that one knows what this is. Live acoustic unamplified sound is usually the yardstick with real people in a real space. So when I say faithful to the source it is faithful to the real thing, real people and real instruments in a real space. Of course I cannot be there to verify each recording but the experience must accord with other real-life events that I have physically attended and have physically heard. I have no problem with people defining faithful to the source in terms of comparing two different signals, input and output, provided the final result accords with reality.

 

Hence, the discussion of fidelity is all about whether you are listening to a convincing, realistic and engaging presentation whereby you are able to suspend disbelief that you were not actually at the venue. Anything less than this is not *transparent*. Whatever you do to the signal it must adhere to this goal otherwise in my opinion there is a failing somewhere in the chain .

 

Without a preamp in my experience, transparency suffers if defined in the above terms. By definition it is not coloration if the sound is *closer* to the real event, hence more accurate and transparent. It is the latter that I and interested in not measurements and theories about audio signals.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

12 hours ago, DuckToller said:

When we see so much converging aspects in our hobby, then what is the underlying reason for disregarding the philosophy behind the above system configuration so vehemently, in a forum section where disagreement usually is sourced out to the objective forum?
 

I am very curious to find out about that, because in my personal opinion , these triggers look to me like another core problem to forum civility.

Cheers, Tom

 

It was a little difficult for me to follow the entirety of your post but addressing the above:

 

I have no problem with the Sonore system, hell I have never even heard it. The fact that it does or does not have a pre-amp is totally irrelevant to me.People make their own choice for whatever reasons.

 

What is relevant to me is when a subjective leap of faith conclusion is proffered about preferences for all systems that include pre-amps as being based on distortion. There is nothing new in scratching an objectivist and finding a subjectivist 🤔 IMO. What often surprises me is that when objective scientific evidence is requested that it should be an issue for an objectivist.

 

YMMV

 

Cheers

David

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

But for audiophiles with any kind of budget, the increase in system performance to be achieved by spending a few thousand  dollars more on loudspeakers can be very, very significant, considering that good preamps are rather expensive.

 

Absolutely agree. This was the advice I gave my friend.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, barrows said:

Now for those like @Audiophile Neuroscience, who do not appear to have much in terms of limitations when it comes to how much they are willing to spend on audio gear,

 

You clearly haven't met Mrs @Audiophile Neuroscience  😅

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

Certainly all generalized statements are done so for the purpose of communication,

 

Most certainly they are not (tongue in cheek) 😲 This is one of my better generalizations.😉

 

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

 

 when I, or anyone, generalizes, I accept that there may be a very small percentage of exceptions to that generalization, and I expect that a reader would just assume this,

 

One should never assume.  This is one of my better generalizations.😉

 

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

as without the ability to generalize it is virtually impossible to have a discussion at all (in fact without the ability to generalize we would be forever pointing out the caveats and never actually getting anywhere).

 

 

generally this is not true 😅 (tongue still in cheek0

 

 

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

 

As for tubes, only in the last few years have I come to the perspective that tubes are now completely obsolete in the quest for the absolute best possible playback systems.  

 

 

This is not a generalization and IMO does not attempt to state a categorical truth.

 

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

  And I think that the current fashion of placing audiophiles/music lovers into "camps" like this is destructive, silly, and infantile.

 

.....but apart from being destructive, silly, and infantile people advocating this fashion are good guys, right?

 

</end tongue in cheek>

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 3/26/2020 at 5:50 AM, barrows said:

As for objective/subjective discussions, i am not a believer in "camps" or dichotomies when it comes to audio playback systems.  And I think that the current fashion of placing audiophiles/music lovers into "camps" like this is destructive, silly, and infantile.  Surely listening to music is a subjective experience, so subjective impressions matter.  Similarly, decent audio components cannot be adequately designed without engineering/maths and making many measurements.  Separating these things out, and defining people as one or the other is absurd to me.

 

I agree there should be less tribalism that separates audiophiles IMO. That said, as I see it, there is nothing wrong with both objective and subjective assessments.

 

In the audio forum context, I believe the terms "objectivist" and "subjectivist" are often misnomers. The typical scenario for me is where the line gets all too often blurred would be objective factual data used as premise and then subjective conclusions interpreted.

 

I see myself as neither subjectivist nor objectivist and in this forum I have been admonished for being either one or the other. I like objective data when available and i like strong scientific evidence when available. The problem for me is that the quality of the data (eg innacuracies and irrelevancies relating to sensitivity and specificity of test measurements) and the absence of quality scientific evidence leaves us in doubt. I am left pondering on available evidence and coming to a subjective conclusion that best fits my world.

 

As I have said before, I am okay with doubt. I am uncertain about many things. People who are certain about things tend to frighten me. I'd rather have doubt than believe something that is wrong.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, barrows said:

10 hours ago, PeterG said:

Your use of the phrase "absolute best" is what suggested monoblocks.  I agree that cost is high for tubes and low for Class D, but you kind of get what you pay for.

No one needs to spend 5 figures on amplifiers to get absolute best sound quality.

 

11 hours ago, barrows said:

the current advent of class D amplifiers which outperform almost anything else available

 

I have not heard Mola Mola Class D amps but are you saying they sound better than, or just as good,as, the best Class A amps? The "Absolute best" ?

 

IME absolute best sound quality for my ears has been pure class A SS amps and yes, they are expensive. YMMV. Having said that, I fully accept there is a law of diminishing returns and as said, I have not yet heard Mola Mola up against the best Class A amps.

 

But I have also heard good DIY class A designed amps that sound excellent without costing an arm and a leg.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, barrows said:

@Audiophile Neuroscience, I am not a "believer" in amplifiers being "better" just because they cost more.

 

 

Neither am I. IMO better amps are better because they sound ......better, closer to the real thing (as discussed above in this thread). IME that is pure class A amps, and yes they are expensive.

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

 

 I have heard all the usual suspects at shows, Soulution, Audionet, Vitus Audio, etc, etc,  All of those amps sound good, but I hear nothing in their performance which is not offered (or even bettered by, in some cases) a pair fo Mola Mola Kalugas.  A few of the mega expensive amps have been heard on the same speakers as the Mola Mola as well (Alexia 2 or Giya 2/3).  I hear (sometimes) slight difference with all of these amps, but none of those differences amount to anything which I would term "better".IME, these days, there is no benefit anymore for the best class A amps vs. the best class A/B amps, as the crossover distortion problems have been solved by good engineering.

 

I agree, If you cannot hear any improvement then it would be silly to spend money on a more expensive amp.

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

 Given the insane waste of energy of class A, I consider them bad engineering at this point,

 

Yes but they keep you 'toasty' in winter ! 😁

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

  I do not have a problem with the existence of high 5 and 6 figure amplifiers, as long as the buyers understand that they are paying for exclusivity, and very expensive custom case work, and not better sonics: transistors, resistors, capacitors, transformers, and some wire and PC boards only cost so much!  

 

Well, not SQ that you can hear and that is fine. So your generalization " as long as the buyers understand that they are paying for exclusivity, and very expensive custom case work, and not better sonics" applies to you, not everyone.

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

When I said "absolute best", I believe I was referring to tube vs solid state there.  Of course there is no "absolute best" as how a given amplifier interacts with a loudspeaker differs, especially with some esoteric designs which may not be compatible with all speakers.  

 

With respect you seem to make generalizations and then qualify them later.You explained this earlier by saying you expect people to assume certain things about your generalizations. Would it be more prudent not to make the provocative generalizations in the first place...and as @sandyk pointed out, not paint yourself into a corner?

 

 

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

I feel we are at a point with electronic development where things are getting very close to "perfection" in terms of transparency and any differences which are actually audible are mostly down to slight colorations, rather than more or less transparency to the source.  

 

Yes, we have discussed this theory before and you are certainly entitled to it.

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

 

 

My advice to people building systems these days is to spend the big money on loudspeakers, as the big differences in performance are there, and shop carefully for electronics, do not believe the hype, and do a lot of listening.

 

and presumably they shouldn't listen to any "hype" whether about speakers or electronics. My advice is to listen to the music played by all the components. IME the better the electronics and their implementation, the better the speakers will sound.

 

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

 Class D amps save money because they do not require large enclosures, large transformers, or large heatsinks, this is smart engineering.   

 

No argument, just for me, they do not sound as good or accurate or transparent as top class A amps (YMMV). The caveat,as before, I have not heard Mola Mola or purifi.

 

8 hours ago, barrows said:

As for loudspeakers, well, they are expensive because really good enclosures are necessary for the best sound quality, and largish speakers are necessary if one has a decent sized room, so one cannot get around the fact that really good speakers are going to cost some cash-as mentioned previously, I think Vivid Audio has a leg up here, 

As an owner of Vivid G2's I must agree 😉

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, davide256 said:

Unfortunately class A amps are also "space heaters" 😉

 

They sure are.

 

6 hours ago, davide256 said:

Heard anything you like near 50 watts other than Pass?

 

@sandyk how many watts is your class A amp?

 

I do like the Nelson Pass but for me they have a slightly warm signature overall, unlike for example Gryphon.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, barrows said:

 Class A/B amplifiers have been equalling or outperforming class A for a long time now.  

 

You do seem fond of  generalizations

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

I suppose you do realize that Pass Labs makes both Class A and Class A/B amplifiers, right?

 

Porsche make a range of different models to suit their customers too.

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

Please do not put words in my mouth,

 

With respect, people are not "putting words in your mouth", just responding to the words you put in your mouth

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

I did not call anyone a bad engineer,

 

just "bad engineering"

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

 

I find statements such as the above inflammatory (and maybe emotional?) and not conducive to good discussions in any way, perhaps you might like to re-think your approach.

 

🙄

 

2 hours ago, barrows said:

I used to own a Pass Labs, class A/B amplifier, but after quite a few direct comparisons, over the course of a year, i ended up preferring my DIY Ncore based amplifier, this experience was turning point for me.

 

and i am sure we are all glad you are enjoying your path.Please let others enjoy their path without some sort of condescending subtext or generalizations that imply your path is best (let alone "absolute best").

 

Stay well

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

I want what's best, whether a direct connection from a well isolated pc or indirect connection via an optically isolated endpoint. I have the former but have been exploring usb over optical cables as a means to "experiment". So far no luck in finding a purely optical link (without a copper hybrid design).

 

I think the whole, "goes against the laws of physics" argument grows thin - if not descending into just plain nonsense - what laws exactly are being broken in either approach? Either approach could conceivably yield a better outcome depending on the system tested but I remain open to hearing about which law of thermodynamics or gravity has been violated.

 

Blind listening tests are also not without criticism but those with faith presumably have performed such tests. Has then Sonore demonstrated the superiority of the endpoint approach with both measurements and with blind listening tests?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, Miska said:

It is not just about number of bits, it is about how you use the bits [added italics]

Apologies if you have already addressed this but could you briefly elaborate on the last part of that statement.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

15 hours ago, Foggie said:

 There is no solution to claim "winner", its impossible, which seems to be the motive of many for whatever reason.

 

I am investigating both approaches. A "winner"  would be nice if one could be defined.... or at least clear advantages one way or another. I agree, I suspect it will ultimately depend on my subjective listening, my circumstances and particular implementation of each approach.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/22/2020 at 8:29 PM, Summit said:

 

Can you show me evidence (measurements or listing evaluations) to support that Ethernet Renderer is better than SOTA server like Innuos Zenith se, Innuos Statement or Extreme?

 

1+

 

On 6/22/2020 at 11:04 PM, barrows said:

Specifically, best practice is to use optical fiber Ethernet.  No matter what extremes one goes to trying to make a server as silent as possible, that server will never be as silent as well designed Renderer.  

.......

There is no possible technical explanation for why this would be so....  No matter what extremes one goes to, a server can never have a s low a noise profile as well designed Renderer connected by optical fiber Ethernet.

 

I don't find these types of generalizations helpful, credible or establishes authority that the network endpoint/ fiberoptic approach is superior.

 

Effects of adding extra processing noise at the source (if using DSP), jitter over optical (notwithstanding eye pattern error correction), noise from transceivers, network interference effects, clock phase noise, quantization noise of digital volume (if used), and other possible undiscovered issues must IMO require on an open minded scientific approach.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 6/22/2020 at 11:14 PM, barrows said:

Can you provide any measurements showing how this [ eg Extreme Server] approach could possibly make any DAC perform better?

 

 

OTOH you state that you have measurements, "verified through measurements, and correlated with listening tests." for the endpoint approach and "such measures when done well have proven to improve DAC performance to levels where further efforts in this direction are probably not going to result in any actual audible change" 

 

The last part, "proven to be probably", appears to be speculation of proof.

 

WRT measurements do you have measurements at the output of the DAC that establishes the renderer/fiberoptic approach makes any difference? I do not have a religious zeal for measurements but I gather fans of this approach demand this criterion.

 

have the listening tests been published somewhere?

 

 

On 6/23/2020 at 12:54 AM, barrows said:

If you prefer to believe in "magical" solutions to audio "problems" which are demonstrated to be non-existent, i am fine with that.  But this is not my approach, and I do not share "magical" beliefs with you.

There are not as many "unknowns" as many people seem to like to believe.  Electronics, and audio, are very well understood.  Perhaps not perfectly understood, but very nearly so.  developing audio equipment is a process of engineering, it is science, and it actually adheres to the laws of physics.

 

What are you referring to that is "magical" and how are the laws of physics being not adhered to ?

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

 

On 6/23/2020 at 5:23 AM, barrows said:

What a waste of time that was [Extreme server thread on WBF/AS].  Same old nonsense, with no basis in technical reality and no actual facts, just a listening preference.  I asked for a technical explanation of these claims, and support of measurements, i see none here.

 

The problem as I see it, such comments commencing with sweeping subjective generalizations and then demanding proof, leave you open to the same criticism. When researching this topic for my own needs google directed to me to another site describing Sonore fiberoptic network solutions as:

 

Quote

Most of their line is basically just a bunch of very expensive streaming end-points with a lot of constraints.If one is vaguely familiar with networking issues, one knows that most of what they claim could happen just doesn't happen (unless there is a severe hardware/design issue).In some ways, introducing additional shielded cables, transceivers, power supplies could create issues. If one is concerned by shields carrying or creating ground loops, one can always use Cat 5 UTP. Assuming really bad designs bleeding and carrying all kinds of awful "noise", Cat 5 UTP will be immune (or stop working per spec if overwhelmed).Their product descriptions can be translated as "

some bunch of idiots started tweaking, can we sell them something?"

The bold is theirs.

 

There were many more such as

Quote

I'm just going to be blunt about it: many of us here work in Information Technology professionally, and we wouldn't go near this stuff when configuring networks for multi-million and multi-billion dollar companies, as it's totally unnecessary for accurate, trouble free data transmission. We'd stick to reputable off-the-shelf components from well known network component manufacturers.Digital audio is merely data, and there's nothing extraordinary required to transport it.These so-called audiophile networking products are a rip off. Period.

 

So, whose subjective generalizations should we believe ?