What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[StudioGuy]

But AS was agreeing with you.
I think AS' "perfectly clear" point WAS perfectly clear, that he was talking about that subjective aspect. "Better to my own ears" is just another way of saying "subjectively better for me personally." No need to disagree.

I think you may have missed my point. AS was indeed perfectly clear and I took him to mean "sounds better to my ears" ("subjectively better for me personally"). However, that's exactly the problem, he doesn't appear aware of the fact there is a different aspect (the physics meaning of "sound") and therefore that "the matter" is not perfectly clear. So for him, EVERYTHING is always in terms of "that subjective aspect" regardless of whether that aspect is even applicable. For example, I can say that a Neumann M50 (1950's tube microphone) has objectively poorer "sound" than most modern studio mics but "sounds subjectively better for me personally" for certain tasks, I can say the same about the U47 (but not many other 1950's mics) and I could potentially say the same about 1950's/'60s tape recorders, although I wouldn't because there are no tasks where they "sound subjectively better for me personally". However, AS has never compared 1950's tube tape recorders or mics with more modern tape recorders or mics, he cannot have a "subjectively better for me personally", all he apparently has is an impression derived from audiophile marketing!
Here is an even more clear cut example, because he is specifically stating the "sound of an audio system", as opposed to his personal hearing, perception or subjectivity.

I will merely add that the fact you cannot hear the effect different USB cables have on the overall sound of an audio system does not, by any means, imply that others cannot.

Sure, just because Todd (or someone else) can't hear a difference does not "imply that others cannot". However, what does imply (or rather, prove!) "that others cannot" hear the difference is the demonstrable fact that different USB cables do not affect "the overall sound of an audio system"! Do you have any reliable evidence to the contrary or is this just another false claim?  This doesn't mean that some could not perceive a difference, just that they obviously cannot hear a difference when there is no difference.

[AnotherSpin]

I believe some people have modified the electrical system of their house to be more "audiophile friendly."   

I once replaced the power line in my flat on the part that fed the audio system. In a previous setup, in another place, I had even gone so far as to add not only a dedicated power line but also a special circuit breaker with audiophile fuse inside.

I never claimed the effect was dramatic, but there were improvements, at least to my entirely subjective ears. Back then I also had both the means and the inclination to dabble in such things.

And, to preempt the usual comments, I should note that the wiring and the installation of the bespoke breaker were carried out by a certified electrician .

[AnotherSpin]

I have both sides in me: The subjectivists and the objectivist. I just know which one to listen to when stating facts online.

I don't think I have used that world even once. Perhaps only some of us 'objectivists' are "oddly obsessed with the word"?

I can't speak for others, but I don't run out of proper arguments. I only run out of energy to debate with people who have zero interest in learning anything.

Debates between subjectivists and objectivists are utterly pointless, I wholeheartedly agree. That is why, for instance, I make no attempt to convince those who are afraid to trust their own ears and experience, preferring instead to cling to formulas written by other people. That sort of fear even inspires a touch of sympathy. At most, I share my own experiences and respond to comments. I have no need to prove anything to anyone or accuse anyone of falsehood .

[71 dB]

And, to preempt the usual comments, I should note that the wiring and the installation of the bespoke breaker were carried out by a certified electrician .

Thank God for that. At least you didn't put yourself in danger and only wasted tons of money. Money is just money. Life is precious.

[AnotherSpin]

Thank God for that. At least you didn't put yourself in danger and only wasted tons of money. Money is just money. Life is precious.

Thank you for your concern. Money can be spent in many ways, and this was by no means the worst. Replacing the line and the circuit breaker was not particularly expensive. In the electrical setup, the priciest component was a custom-built linear power supply unit. That, however, produced a clearly audible and, I must say, very pleasing effect.

[StudioGuy]

Unless, of course, the sole purpose here is to pounce on anything I happen to write in this thread.

Falsely accused previously, I clearly stated my purpose here; to provide information of use (according to the thread title) and to refute the falsehoods. So again, if you don't want to be refuted, don't post bunches of falsehoods.

In debates here between the audio 'subjectivists' and 'objectivists,' the latter seem oddly obsessed with the word falsehood. Curious choice, isn't it?

In a sense it might be curious to some people, unless they understand the meaning of the word "falsehood". We could instead just accuse you of "lying" but that word indicates a deliberate intent to mislead and we cannot prove that is the case. You might just be repeating lies invented by others that you erroneously believe to be true, in which case you would not be lying, just misinformed. "Falsehood" however does not imply any intent to deceive, it just means a statement/idea that is factually incorrect. All lies are falsehoods but not all falsehoods are lies. Hence the choice of that particular word.

Additionally, there's no such thing as "subjectivists" vs "objectivists", that is just a misuse of a very old philosophical discussion that was misappropriated back in the 1980's (I believe) when reliable objective evidence/facts disproved more and more of the false audiophile marketing claims. Those subjectivists who understood and therefore accepted the facts were falsely labelled "objectivists" and those suckered by the marketing into dismissing/ignoring the objective facts were called "subjectivists".

[Todd]

While you were away, the matter of cables, USB included, was discussed here in some detail. Which is why I've no intention of repeating myself; you can do your own homework. I will merely add that the fact you cannot hear the effect different USB cables have on the overall sound of an audio system does not, by any means, imply that others cannot.

Incorrect.  Obviously.

[drogulus]

      I transcoded a DSD file of a well recorded track (Sultans of Swing by Dire Straits). That produced a 16/44.1 file. This is a superior comparison to the usual layer comparison where tracks can be fiddled with to sound different. My method has no such weakness, or any other weakness for that matter.

      The result is this. The CD quality track is not as loud. If you equalize the volume they sound the same. If there is any difference at all it's minute.

[drogulus]

     My dongle DAC costs less than $100. The chip is solid 2nd tier according to plusgood tech Amir. It even does the fantastically useless DSD512!

[StudioGuy]

This is a superior comparison to the usual layer comparison where tracks can be fiddled with to sound different. My method has no such weakness, or any other weakness for that matter.

Although only sometimes the case, it was quite common to add a significant amount of audio compression to the CD layer, in order to produce an audible difference and justify the higher purchase price of SACD. This was also true of some well known music download companies, who applied compression to the CD (16/44) version as standard procedure, to again justify the higher price of (so called) higher res versions. 

The result is this. The CD quality track is not as loud. If you equalize the volume they sound the same. If there is any difference at all it's minute.

I'm not sure if you're interested but it is typically the case that the DSD is quieter than CD, for a couple of reasons. The specifications for SACD are defined in a document called the Scarlet Book, one of which dictates that the maximum level should be -6dBFS, which is then (sometimes) compensated for by SACD/DSD players. The specs for CD are defined in the Red Book document but dictates no max level specification (except the obvious limit of 0dBFS) and no compensation. In addition, the level when converting is typically reduced by a small amount (due to inter-sample peaks and/or dither). At least one of these factors typically comes into play and therefore accurate volume matching is always required when comparing DSD to CD.

Incidentally, there were numerous informal and formal double blind tests done between SACD and CD, including by Sony themselves and probably most famously, the year long study by Mayer & Moran in 2007. At reasonable listening levels no one was able to tell them apart.

[Kalevala]

So, @Harry , did you treat yourself to any further tweaks to your system with your birthday money?

K

[drogulus]

I'm not sure if you're interested but it is typically the case that the DSD is quieter than CD, for a couple of reasons.

      I think I have the answer. When DSD is converted to PCM the volume is automatically reduced by 6db to prevent clipping.

      I did another FLAC encode with a 5.6db boost and now the tracks are close enough in volume to be indistinguishable at least on a first listen.

[Todd]

[71 dB]

How many billionaires do we have here on GMG? Do we have even millionaires?

[drogulus]

Do we have even millionaires?

     In the US if you're old and paid off your house you might be a millionaire of sorts. It's rarer to be a millionaire in liquid assets (stocks, bonds, cash).

[Fëanor]

    My dongle DAC costs less than $100. The chip is solid 2nd tier according to plusgood tech Amir. It even does the fantastically useless DSD512!

Stupidly good DACs are available for cheap. Sorry, subjectists, but measurements are the best guide for finding these bargains.  To be sure, I'm assuming you want your sound to be a pure and uncolored presentation of the recording.

For example, there is the superbly measuring, US$ 300 Topping DX5II reviewed HERE by Audio Science Review.  This DAC has balanced XLR outputs;  it is also a headphone amp and can be used as a preamplifier;  it comes with a remote control.

[AnotherSpin]

Stupidly good DACs are available for cheap. Sorry, subjectists, but measurements are the best guide for finding these bargains.  To be sure, I'm assuming you want your sound to be a pure and uncolored presentation of the recording.

For example, there is the superbly measuring, US$ 300 Topping DX5II reviewed HERE by Audio Science Review.  This DAC has balanced XLR outputs;  it is also a headphone amp and can be used as a preamplifier;  it comes with a remote control.

I've read online that Topping's flagship DAC goes for around $1700, can you believe it? Surely it's got to outdo the $300 model in some way, and you'd think the difference must be audible, otherwise why on earth pay such a hefty premium? Personally, I reckon there must be a difference in sound, though with a modest setup, simple speakers or basic headphones it might well go unnoticed.

Well, as they say, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted

[Fëanor]

I've read online that Topping's flagship DAC goes for around $1700, can you believe it? Surely it's got to outdo the $300 model in some way, and you'd think the difference must be audible, otherwise why on earth pay such a hefty premium? Personally, I reckon there must be a difference in sound, though with a modest setup, simple speakers or basic headphones it might well go unnoticed.

Well, as they say, not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted

Topping top DAC is the D900 @ US$1700.  It has additional connectors vs. the DX5II.  It also has some additional features such as the relay-controlled volume selector.  It may have some supposedly upgraded components.  Personally I find the D900 more visually esthetic than the DX5II, and I believe it has metal vs. plastic volume control.  However the former has no headphone amp while the latter does (which also measures very well).

As a DAC will the D900 sound better or different than the DX5II?  Very unlikely.  You make your choice and pay your money.  Clearly both are bargains vs. $5000+ DACs

[AnotherSpin]

Topping top DAC is the D900 @ US$1700.  It has additional connectors vs. the DX5II.  It also has some additional features such as the relay-controlled volume selector.  It may have some supposedly upgraded components.  Personally I find the D900 more visually esthetic than the DX5II, and I believe it has metal vs. plastic volume control.  However the former has no headphone amp while the latter does (which also measures very well).

As a DAC will the D900 sound better or different than the DX5II?  Very unlikely.  You make your choice and pay your money.  Clearly both are bargains vs. $5000+ DACs

A relay-controlled volume selector and a metal volume knob for 1,400 US dollars, without even a headphone amplifier? And not the slightest improvement in sound?

It rather seems that this company, Topping, which you promote here, is engaged in little more than swindling and parting well-heeled buyers from their money...

[StudioGuy]

As a DAC will the D900 sound better or different than the DX5II?  Very unlikely.  You make your choice and pay your money.  Clearly both are bargains vs. $5000+ DACs

Pretty much impossible I'd wager. As you say, "stupidly good DACs are available for cheap" and they really are "stupidly good" because they are so far beyond not only audibly perfect fidelity but even beyond what can exist as sound. DACs achieved audibly perfect fidelity around 35 years ago, even cheap DACs achieved that around 25 years ago and since then their performance has steadily improved more. If we take the jitter of the DX5II for example, it's around -160dB with a peak at -140dB. If we're listening at say 85dBSPL then that peak would be at -55dBSPL, except there's no such thing as a sound at -55dBSPL, absolute silence is around -23dBSPL. So, that's nearly 50 times below the limit at which sound can even exist and roughly 1,000 times below the threshold of adult human hearing, which is indeed fairly "stupid". Even a far cheaper DAC with far worse jitter, say peaks around -110dB, still couldn't even exist as sound. It's a similar story with distortion, even with the 32 tone test the distortion peaks of the DX5II are below -130dB, about a dozen times below the limit at which a sound can exist and over 300 times below audibility.

The D900 would have to perform hundreds of times worse than the DX5II and significantly worse than a $9 Apple dongle in order for there to be an audible difference, which is more than "very unlikely" IMO.

I've read online that Topping's flagship DAC goes for around $1700, can you believe it? Surely it's got to outdo the $300 model in some way, and you'd think the difference must be audible, otherwise why on earth pay such a hefty premium?

If you know the basic facts of sound, human audibility and the measured performance of the DX5II then you'd think [know] the difference cannot be audible, at a reasonable listening level the difference could not even exist as sound, let alone be audible. And "why pay such a hefty premium?" is a very strange question in the audiophile world which is entirely based on paying a hefty premium: More expensive case/materials, possibly better features/functionality or just because it's a hefty premium, as some/many people enjoy using expensive things. A Rolex is roughly 100 times more expensive than far cheaper watches that can actually tell the time more accurately.

A relay-controlled volume selector and a metal volume knob for 1,400 US dollars, without even a headphone amplifier? And not the slightest improvement in sound?
It rather seems that this company, Topping, which you promote here, is engaged in little more than swindling and parting well-heeled buyers from their money...

Yes, "not the slightest improvement in sound", just as there has not been the slightest improvement in audible fidelity between decent DACs for well over two decades. Unless Topping is claiming the D900 actually improves the sound compared to the DX5II then they are NOT swindling anyone. Is Rolex (or other luxury watch brands) swindling their customers because their watches do not tell the time more accurately than far cheaper watches?