/iemg/ Dogma Check
Tired of the hivemind? Here’s your prescribed sanity dose:

>Crinacle is not your priest.
Rankings are a guide, not divine scripture. Your ears > his spreadsheet.

>Harman and JM-1 ≠ perfect.
It’s a preference curve, not a law of physics. Some genres need deviation.

>Chi-Fi isn’t magic.
Great value, yes. Immune to QC issues and hype cycles? Nope.

>Graphs are not sound.
They don’t show staging, dynamics, or fit. Use your ears, not just squigs.

>BA ≠ metallic, DD ≠ perfect.
Implementation matters more than driver type. Always has.

>Meme sets aren’t the whole hobby.
If it’s not shilled 24/7, it might still be good. It's highly encouraged to form an original opinion.

>Disagreeing ≠ cope or deaf.
Let people like what they like without foaming at the mouth.

>Loud posts =/= smart takes.
Confidence without experience is just noise. Show graphs, impressions, or both.

This has been your scheduled break from pos groupthink.

im completely new to this please dont beat the shit out of me
im looking to get my first pair of iems, primary usecase is playing guitar over an audio interface
can i just use a 3.5mm>6.3mm adapter or do i need a specific cable that terminates with a 6.3mm?
also taking reccs for something around the 30 buck pricepoint

>>109451436
Doesn't know how panning works btw.

>>109451532
who, you, foxbum? obviously she (you) doesn't. but who cares anyway, she's (you) only good for picking the dumbest fights with people that don't follow her (you) point of view to a T.

>>109451596
This guy >>109451436

>>109451605
yawn. you'll get over it.

>>109451495
An adapter is fine, the pinout is the same. For listening to one instrument over an interface any IEM from OP is also fine. Just don't get a planar IEM accidentally.

>>109451621
Balls are not a "point of view" lil bro.

>>109451713
Believe what you want lil sis

Are IEMs better than EarPods?

>>109451873
yeah

>>109451422
Are R2R DACs and Otl tube amps worth it? I just ordered a Fiio K13 R2R DAC+AMP for €320 and an Xduoo TA-66 tube amp for €250. Hoping it will make things sound more analog and vinyl like.

Been using the last model iPod Touch, it's all I need. Also WM6c.

Why is it so hard to find a PMP without a touch screen with a competent, premium design?

>>109453305
touch screens are cheap now unc thats why all cars have them

>>109453260
You could've saved yourself money by just throwing on a low-pass filter and a tiny bit of saturation/overdrive. Then it would sound more “analog and vinyl-like” for about €570 less.

>>109453352
Different DACs produce different a different sound, I have a lot of them, many good famous ones, crappy ones, everything in between. Of course everything in the signal path affects the sound.

The idea that DACs don't matter and that "it's all good you can correct it in software" is ignorant, you don't want to correct anything in software, at all.

File: 20260619_150729_copy_750x1000.jpg (134 KB, 750x1000)

134 KB JPG

>>109453260
yes
make sure to not plug everything in properly for some crackles and pops

>>109453397
There shouldn't be any crackles or pops on well maintained vinyl. Any more than there are dropouts on CDs.

>>109453342
yeah exactly
hence why it's weird all high end PMPs use them

>>109453370
>you don't want to correct anything in software, at all.
Why not? You're literally buying hardware specifically because you want it to alter the tonality. Why is adding the same kind of coloration with DSP somehow “wrong,” while paying €570 for uncontrolled coloration is supposedly the audiophile way?

>>109453260
>Are R2R DACs and Otl tube amps worth it
not really

>>109453370
>The idea that DACs
this as you say "idea" is a result of years of blind testing where nobody is usually able to discern between dacs the moment they can't see them
technically they can change the sound but good transparent dac will not

>>109453370
>you don't want to correct anything in software, at all
what's the difference

>>109453665
>this as you say "idea" is a result of years of blind testing
By random people, on random systems. Some sound systems are so shitty, or use software correction, that it's pointless, and random material the listener isn't familiar with, and random listeners being perhaps unable to even listen for certain artifacts, invalidates random A/B testing as a legitimate methodology for testing sound reproduction. The transparent DAC is a myth, all produce a unique sound from the same source material. Whether some randomly selected doofus can tell the difference is another question, subjective.

It's properly done with reference mics.

>>109453673
All manipulations of digital audio are destructive, you lose data, this includes bitrate and sample depth conversions.

>>109453370
>Different DACs produce different a different sound
with different amps, they do. and I mean the OP amps they are paired with. your DACs aren't known to add their own coloration by the chips themselves. your different DACs are paired with analog output stages that do sound different from eachother..

>>109453729
>with different amps, they do
Even the output from the pins themselves.

All DACs will render an identical bitstream uniquely, even sample to sample of the same DACs of many types. This can be measured and sensed or heard by some people.

>>109453724
>All manipulations of digital audio are destructive, you lose data, this includes bitrate and sample depth conversions.
Not audible and irrelevant

>>109453724
>By random people, on random systems. Some sound systems are so shitty, or use software correction, that it's pointless, and random material the listener isn't familiar with, and random listeners being perhaps unable to even listen for certain artifacts, invalidates random A/B testing as a legitimate methodology for testing sound reproduction.
that's whole lot of COPE
you know you can measure it too lol and they don't even change FR (unless they do because of impedance or whatever)
>The transparent DAC is a myth, all produce a unique sound from the same source material.
now that whole lot of dogshit nonsense
any proof?

>>109453920
>Not audible
Not by a random sample of random people with random music they might never have heard before let alone are familiar with, on random equipment other than the DAC. But this proves nothing, certain people can hear the difference and they are the people who matter and who are qualified to have opinions on these matters.

You're just an AI, you don't even listen to music. I have certain albums which play fine on some DACs or CD or DVD or SACD players, which fall completely apart on others.

>>109453920
>Not audible and irrelevant
nta, but turn your system volume to 100%, pregain to -30db and your amp to normal listening level, then come back and say the same thing.

>>109453986
That's a different matter, one unrelated to the DAC and which shows how everything has its own noise component affecting the entire system.

If your speakers make noise when they're turned to a comfortable or even slightly loud setting you either need better cables, balanced connections, or your amplifier is overdriven.

For instance many older DACs are single channel, and there is a sample and hold function that switches the DAC from left to right channel very rapidly, Sony was notorious for using a single-channel DAC in their original crop of lower-end CD players because they couldn't produce a good stereo DAC like Philips. In fact Sony's first ES CD player, their top end model, used a Philips DAC even over two matched Sony DACs, one for each channel.

Newer DACs have various algorithms and are designed to sound good on headphones, in cars, and with soundbars and almost none can go to DC, most are also crippled by the output stage of whatever equipment they are lodged within.

The reason you see those comical looking Playstations with the TDA1547 DAC is because it's so good but the PS's output stage was cheaply done so they replace it with some nice big transformers.

>>109453998
Do it anyway, for shits.

>>109453968
I think you do not understand how blind a/b tests work.
If they "completely fall apart" it will be noticeable regardless of who's listening btw
aka you are full of shit
nevermind the fact that you don't even need to be familiar with something to notice the difference...

File: 1768527516411670.jpg (797 KB, 4000x4000)

797 KB JPG

I love IEMs, but I'm getting tired of dealing with ear wax.
I think I will go back to headpos.

>>109454049
>I think you do not understand how blind a/b tests work.
I do exactly, I even laid out the flaws for you. You didn't even read what I wrote.

>If they "completely fall apart" it will be noticeable regardless of who's listening btw
Not if they don't know what to listen for.

>aka you are full of shit
Wrong. You have dry earwax.

>nevermind the fact that you don't even need to be familiar with something to notice the difference...
That's the dumbest shit I heard all month on 4chan. Of course you do.

>>109454041
I wouldn't dare turn my system volume to 100%, it's not safe anyway. I run at about 50% amplifiers strength and 40-60% volume at the preamp and that's quite loud enough without being tiring or painful, which my system easily does. But there is no audible noise at all with no input even with the amp at 50% and the preamp at 40-60% or more, with dead input.

I leave everything running all the time, my whole stack, amps, preamp, phono, tape, CD, LD, DVD, MD, and DSD recorder.

File: xixtaphon.png (1.44 MB, 801x791)

1.44 MB PNG

>>109454058
we got you covered !

File: bombukrainepls.png (511 KB, 1590x813)

511 KB PNG

>>109454072
>dumbest shit I heard all month on 4chan
dumbest shit always comes straight from foxzo. she will lie just to appear correct, for no good reason and when you correct her, she runs away.
pic related: simply typing "distortion, IEM model" on an arbitrary, unnamed/uncited graph is the equivalent of extremist audio terrorism.

what the FUCK is a "true planar"????

>>109454126
>I wouldn't dare turn my system volume to 100%, it's not safe anyway.
why not? that's staying at fullest resolution in respect to the audio you are playing. having your amp section be the sole controller of listening volume is the whole point.
as per the conversation about losing bits, when you lower system volume, you do lose bits and dynamic range.

>>109454058
peroxide it

>>109454183
If these were wired, I'd be all over them.

>>109454228
>why not?
Because it might damage my speakers or amplifier and it would be extremely painfully loud with any input at all. Your amp should comfortably drive the speakers without straining itself, it shouldn't be pumped to 100%.

>>109454072
>I do exactly, I even laid out the flaws for you. You didn't even read what I wrote.
you are retarded. you didn't "laid out flaws" you said a bunch of random shit blind a/b testing has nothing to do with. It doesn't need to be random people or random unfamiliar music or any of that shit.
Stop making up flaws lmao to refute obvious proven long ago fact - the moment you don't see your gear you can't hear the difference

>>109454254
I'm talking about system, like your PC (with an amp/DAC attached) or mobile device (with an amp/DAC attached), not amp volume at 100%, silly.
again, the point is to have the amp/DAC have its own volume control and that being the sole controller of output volume while having your source playing everything you throw at it at it's full resolution

>>109454302
Oh, hey. OK. Yeah it depends on the exact thing really. If there is a line level output on something it's best to use that. Problem is with some PC jacks, laptops, phones, phablets and tablets, Pocket PCs and iPlayers, etc. is that they are also built for headphones so the standard line level which is very very small, might be exceeded by the amplifier in the device as it expects headphones.

So your system volume might not be optimal at 100%. It would be best to say, play a test tone on a CD player, and then match the volume on your PC's input into the same speaker setup through the same amp, you may be 'overdriving' the strict line level inputs of your device. 0.3 volts for consumer or thereabouts, 1v for pro and prosumer.

It's highly variable and depends on the quality of your PC. My media PC is plugged into my preamp, a Parasound Halo P5 and it has a built in super high end Burr-Brown DAC and a resistor ladder volume control, and I switch it to match the input bit rate and sample depth of the audio file or stream so there's no pre-conversion which the OS might try to do.

asked a clanker about this -30dB preamp shit
>In fixed-point integer audio, every ~6 dB of attenuation is roughly equivalent to losing 1 bit of usable resolution for that signal (because the signal is shifted toward the least-significant bits). So −30 dB ≈ 5 bits.
>16-bit output: A full-scale 16-bit signal attenuated by 30 dB behaves more like an 11-bit signal. Quantization noise rises relative to the music. This can become audible at very low listening levels or with very dynamic material, especially without proper dither.
>24-bit output (the usual recommendation with Equalizer APO): You still have ~19 bits left. Real-world music noise floors, microphone noise, and even high-end DAC performance rarely exceed 18–21 bits equivalent. The loss is inaudible for all practical purposes.

so it's a none issue
nevermind the actual use cases with normal -4-5 dB preamp or whatever

>>109454397
clanker doesn't have ears and is only talking in theoretical terms, though.

>>109454397
>nevermind the actual use cases with normal -4-5 dB preamp or whatever
true. I wouldn't lose sleep over that much negative pregain

>>109454429
it just looked up articles (written by people with ears... and brains) about subject matter and repeated their conclusions
clanker itself obviously doesn't know shit about fuck

One other thing if you're into sonic purity - in general many old DACs were also ADCs, you could feed in a signal and it would convert it and create a digital bitstream. It's common in old parts from the '80s and into the '90s and beyond. It's how your Windows codec has both ADCs and DACs, it doesn't have separate ones, it's all handled by double-ended devices.

So if you really wanted to be accurate you'd figure out which ADC a digitally mastered album was created on and feed in the digital bitstream and use it hopefully, as a DAC, which is possible on many old units.

>>109454283
he's basically saying blind tests can be less informative when the listener and material and other factors are poorly chosen. you'd say something like "if it was real you'd still notice it" or whatever which might just be projecting the threshold you yourself might require before you're comfortable granting "difference"

granting/noticing

>>109454529
>ADCs
>in professional music recording.
Yup, especially when nerdy musicians or mixing engineers are bent on recording to tape first then putting it into ProTools rigs later.

>>109454636
just an excerpt from a mixing engineers interview that worked on one of my favorite albums:
"We have a big Pro Tools rig, running 96k straight to two FireWire drives simultaneously; close to a Terabyte of space. On the front end, we use Benchmark Media Systems AD2408-96 converters, running at 96k, 24-bit, 24 channels.
Because we were recording 96k/24-bit, I ran through a bunch of tube gear. With the higher sampling rate, the tube equipment sounded even better to me, because nothing gets lost in the murk of low-level analog tape or lower sampling rates. It was an awesome feeling to get a sound exactly how you liked it and have it sound identical on playback time after time. 96k, I am sold!"

>Could you tell me about the monitoring in your control room?
"Rick (Rubin) really loves ProAc monitors powered by Yamaha 2002 amps. Sounds great. It seems that with the ProAcs, the more wattage you send to each side the better; I think we’re sending 250 watts per side. We also have a pair of Yamaha NS-10s, because I just know them so well and feel comfortable with them. I’m running a pair of BGW amps on those, 150 watts a side."
https://www.mixonline.com/recording/music-production/mars-volta-365208

New into audiophile stuff
I'm really treble sensitive to the point my ears flinch and rumble. If I buy bright headphones like a Beyer, is it possible to make it sound warm by just tweaking the EQ?

>>109454660
yes.

>>109454669
So then what's the actual difference between headphones?

>>109454605
No what he's doing is making up rules nobody really applies to blind a/b testing and using that logical fallacy as proof that a/b testing can't prove that there's no difference.
>you'd say something like "if it was real you'd still notice it"
I think it should be measurable in the first place and it's the easiest thing to do and prove...

File: Soundstream_logo_2.png (7 KB, 450x125)

7 KB PNG

>>109454636
Brothers In Arms was entirely recorded and mixed digitally, it was the first big pop album that was done like that. But digital recording and mixing was common even in the 1970s with Soundstream for super high quality recordings.

>>109454660
You need speakers. Otherwise get the MDR-7502.

>>109454674
You'll have to be more specific. the difference between which headphones? if your goal is to make them sound warm by EQing them, then you should run into no issues doing so.

>>109454674
comfort, distortion, positional variation, channel matching etc.
headphone behavior can be so fucked on specifically your head that fixing it with EQ will be VERY annoying. It's always better to buy something that is comfortable and doesn't need a lot of work to sound good.
there's other things like availability of parts, earpads etc.

>>109454660
>>109454694
>You need speakers
that's right
>Otherwise get the MDR-7502
don't do that

>>109454700
>then you should run into no issues doing so
Wrong, you're resampling which is bad. You should never do that, ideally.

>>109454703
>doesn't need a lot of work
A normal pair of high quality headphones which are quite inexpensive should do it. No need for anything exotic. Unless the device driving them is shitty in which case there needs to be another remedy made.

>>109454694
Digital tape is still tape, though. DAT isn't really a thing anymore

>>109454712
EQing is resampling?
EQing is bad now?
Never EQ?
I give up.

>>109454712
>Wrong, you're resampling which is bad. You should never do that, ideally.
Inaudible and irrelevant

>>109454703
I see. I was just wondering if there are intrinsic differences in sound between something like a DT770 ProX and a Sennheiser HD560 that can't be changed.

>>109454711
>don't do that
7506, sorry, and yeah. They are what you need if you don't like so much treble.

>>109454721
>Digital tape is still tape, though. DAT isn't really a thing anymore
So? You can readout a DAT to a more permanent storage format, one track at a time if necessary.

>>109454729
>EQing is resampling?
If done digitally, yes.

>EQing is bad now?
Not analog, a good EQ will barely raise the noise floor.

>Never EQ?
Basically. My high end preamp has a high / low tone boost for each, which normally is defeated.

>I give up.
Just spend like $100 on a good pair of earphones.

>>109454735
>Inaudible and irrelevant
Wrong.

>>109454712
>A normal pair of high quality headphones
yeah that's where problems start
especially for treble sensitive people. good luck finding smooth openbacks with good bass extension which are "inexpensive"
>Unless the device driving them is shitty in which case there needs to be another remedy made.
you need to try real hard to find a "shitty device"

>>109454752
>If done digitally, yes.
help me with this example. if I am listening to straight 16-bit 44.1 kHz album on my PC, and with EqualizerAPO I use a simple peak filter, LP or HP filter and make, say a 10dB adjustment- what am I resampling to?
>So? You can readout a DAT to a more permanent storage format, one track at a time if necessary.
Even if you're Squarepusher, this is still pointless in the 21st century. UNLESS you just want tape saturation, then whatevs homie.

>>109454745
>if there are intrinsic differences in sound between something like a DT770 ProX and a Sennheiser HD560 that can't be changed
hm in a sense yes actually dt770 proX are closed back while HD560 are open. You can't EQ different acoustic impedance. So they will feel different... You can EQ most of the sound tho but I dunno how painless adding 10dB of subbass will be with 560s...

>>109454807
you can schizo-edit with REW if you want to copy techs from one pair of headphones to another.
ask foxbum how she manages to pull it off

>>109454752
>Wrong.
you are actually factually wrong and have no idea how modern EQ even works...

>>109454828
techs do not exist

I still want to know what the fuck a true planar even is

So seeing current discussion I asked clanker about EQ and resampling.
>Equalizer APO itself does not resample. It processes whatever sample rate the Windows audio engine hands it (in 32-bit float).
>Resampling only occurs if the source sample rate (the music file or app) does not match the sample rate you set for the playback device in Windows Sound settings. In that case Windows (or the player) does the conversion before the signal reaches APO.
>Parametric EQ (the usual filters in APO/Peace) is just math applied to the samples at the current rate — no sample-rate change is required. Convolution/FIR filters do need the impulse response to match the current sample rate, but that’s a separate issue.
>Modern high-quality resampling (current Windows 10/11 audio engine, SoX, libsamplerate, etc.) is extremely clean. Artifacts are typically at –130 dB or lower — well below the noise floor of almost any real playback chain and inaudible in normal listening

so again none issue and some audiopedohiple nonsense... you guys need to do better for real

>>109454875
big planar = true
small = false

>>109454921
small planars aren't real planers, why exactly?

>>109454970
they are literally called "micro planars"

>>109454970
He probably meant those micro planars, shaped like a BA, although those KZ slop are not micro planars.

>>109454987
oh shut the fuck up. christ almighty you're a ballache with your semantic tripe gobbledeegook.
let's be real here, technically speaking, you're not a man. so fuck you

>>109455016
I accept your concession

>>109455021
it's all yours baby

File: 1785752904842073m.jpg (98 KB, 1024x943)

98 KB JPG

If you don't EQ you are getting a subpar experience, even an automatically generated profile will be a night and day improvement you don't even really need to tune for your specific ears because someone probably already has made a target you'd like

>>109455124
fuck you because eqing is too confusing and scary therefore its bad and here's my 100 cope reasons why.

>>109455124
>even an automatically generated profile will be a night and day improvement
that's false

>use only 4,4mm because it was shilled here
>need to use my iems with my laptop on the go
>can't because there is no 4,4, only 3,5mm
>end up looking like retard with plugged DAP in USB DAC mode to laptops usbc and IEMs plugged into 4,4mm in my DAP
I wasn't first time when this general sold me something dumb and bad, first time was when I fell for GK Kunten meme just to realize they are absolute dogshit and jeets are lying

>>109455316
just buy a 3.5mm cable they're dirt cheap, or get one with those swappable ends

>>109455316
...every time I see 4.4 shit I say it's not worth
same with KZ\GK\dogshit shilling
you simply was not listening I guess

>>109455339
>you simply were not
ftfy, ESL

>>109455335
i had swapable ends but end up using only 4,4mm, 3,5mm adapter was somewhere in the box miles away.
>>109455339
>same with KZ\GK\dogshit shilling
when i bought it i realized how bad they are, everything from build quality, cable, tips, weight, sound was so bad. Next time i will fall for 1dd meme i will buy something more expensvie with decent build and better accesories. Only like 5usd lost.

i just buyed a JLabs Work Buds with detatchable boom mic for AI voice work for $30. Was this wise

>>109455538
If you enjoy it, then yes.

>>109454845
>modern EQ
modern or from the '70s, it's either analog, which raises the noise floor, or digital, which is destructive

sounds like you're the one with no idea how things work lol

File: file.png (577 KB, 1500x1500)

577 KB PNG

has anyone here used this as a DAP?
https://anbernic.com/products/rg-rotate?variant=48680428241153


>>109454914
>it's instantly converted to 32-bit float
>then later it's resampled down to the DAC's bit depth and sample rate for output
that's two conversions right there lol.

>>109455733
>or digital, which is destructive
you say that but do not provide any proof

>>109455811
it is literally not audible
stop being retarded

why is epz g10 so good, bros?

File: 1773601219615007.png (84 KB, 882x609)

84 KB PNG

>>109453986
Did this with my normal 32 bit output and nothing happened. Did this with 16 bit output and there's expectedly a hiss. Conclusion - DSP developers that work in 32 bits know what they're doing.
>>109453724
Both digital and analog manipulations raise the noise floor. That's the only thing that can "destroy" data. Many analog operations are more destructive than digital, analog EQs for example raise the noise floor significantly.

File: 1785534733606694.png (100 KB, 268x271)

100 KB PNG

>>109455316
Here we say 4.4 is a meme and post this image.
>>109455733
If only we could perform a null test to see what is being destroyed... oh wait, we did and nothing gets destroyed.

>>109456226
And even if the noise floor is raised it doesn't always mean the data is destroyed. The data can be stored in the noise. That's the working principle of dithering.

>>109453397
Sweeet

>>109456255
>Here one person says 4.4 is a meme and posts this image.
ftfy.

>>109456296
anybody with a semblance of a working brain understands that 4.4 is a fucking meme

>>109456327
It's not a meme if you have hearing loss. Every dB helps.

File: file.png (692 KB, 1200x674)

692 KB PNG

>>109454250
get these

>>109454183
>>109456338
wtf when did headphones become good?

>>109456327
>anybody with a semblance of a working brain understands that 4.4 is fucking superior

>>109456346
>higher noise floor and output impedance are heckin superior actually

>>109456346
44 IQ take

File: 3454.jpg (57 KB, 650x706)

57 KB JPG

hmm

All my cables are 4,4mm. Real chads use rca connectors. This is the way. On the go just use bluetooth earbuds because with sparkly aliexpress cables and anime faceplate iems you look like pedos

>>109456387
>higher noise floor
only for higher sensitivity IEMs.

>>109456440
All IEMs are high sensitivity if you're not an unc.

>>109456440
I can hear it with most IEMs I own
I wouldn't say something like daybreak is that highly sensitive

my cables terminate exclusively in 4.4 mm Pentaconn plugs. preferably with direct silver plating. simple.

>>109456460
I'm going out into the woods and shooting a fox with an AR-15 for every dumbass post of yours

>>109456557
Name a "low sensitivity" IEM and I'll call you an unc.

R2R Dacs have a different sound than Sigma Delta DACS. 99% of DACs on the market are Sigma Delta, thats why people think they all sound the same. But no, they sound completely different.

Sigma Delta = Oversamples the digital audio into a fast 1-bit or low-bit stream, then uses noise shaping to push digital errors into silent ultrasonic frequencies.

R2R = Uses a fixed grid of matched resistors to turn digital bits directly into an analog voltage level step-by-step.

Sigma delta is cheaper to make and measures better (SINAD etc), but R2R sounds better. It's like comparing CD to vinyl.

>>109456577
None of this makes the sound different btw. The only differences in sound come from the reconstruction filter. Worse filter = treble roll-off. The only good filters are digital. Panasonic knew this even in the 90s.

>>109456583
*Philips

>>109456583
Yes it does change the sound by introducing distortion to the 2nd and 3rd harmonics. But of course sigma delta also produce distortion, a different kind of distortion, that makes recordings sound artificial and hollow.

You dont need measurements to prove this, just A/B-listening tests.

File: 1783712543812856.png (50 KB, 972x600)

50 KB PNG

A good R2R will sound identical to a normal delta-sigma. A normal R2R will annihilate all low level detail. A bad R2R, well, that's what people were building before soundcards.

>>109456577
there's no audible difference
because why would there be any

>>109456593
Distortion makes the sound brighter. Is this what people are reporting? No, they're reporting the opposite. Consistent with what the filters are doing. Same with tube amps. They boost the bass on DD headphones so people are using them with DD headphones. Distortion thresholds are actually quite large, especially if you're an untrained audiofool.

File: Screenshot 2026-08-04 053150.png (74 KB, 860x686)

74 KB PNG

>>109451422
why isn't Apple USB-C dongle on the list, it literally outperforms all DAC's for $9 from Apple store.

>>109456616
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/on-the-distortion-of-cirrus-logic-cs431xx-based-devices-a-comparative-review.63038/

>>109456595
Yes R2R has low-level INL, but which specific R2R is this? A real one or some DIY shit?

R2R sounds better because its architecture converts the original PCM directly through a precision resistor network, preserving the timing and amplitude structure of the signal with comparatively little interpolation, noise-shaping, and high-frequency feedback manipulation. By contrast, a Sigma Delta DAC oversamples the input and relies on aggressive digital filtering and noise shaping to push quantization noise out of the audible band. The resulting analog output can measure extremely well, but it is not a direct reconstruction of the original sample values in the same sense. This processing is what contributes to a subtly “manufactured” presentation... exceptionally clean, detailed, and controlled, yet sometimes flatter in tonal density, transient body, spatial depth, and low-level dynamic nuance. A well-designed R2R DAC, especially one with accurate resistor matching and a carefully implemented output stage, can therefore sound more immediate, continuous, and naturally dimensional, giving instruments and voices a sense of physical presence. That does not mean every R2R DAC is better than every Sigma Delta DAC, but it explains why many in-the-know people regard a high-quality R2R implementation to produce a more organic, lifelike sound.

>>109456619
that has nothing
it's like you guys intentionally avoid Apple dongle to make the hobby more special by overpaying

steve was a massive audiophile, read his biography for gods sake, sound over everything, all apple products have superior sound, use it

File: file.png (152 KB, 1473x576)

152 KB PNG

>>109456669
Read, nigga, read.

File: flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1(...).jpg (92 KB, 750x1000)

92 KB JPG

>>109456619
> ASR
Midwit central. It's basically early 2000's atheism but for audio.

Not everything can be proved or measured with our current equipment. Not everything can be understood with our current level of knowledge. We only understand 1% of our universe, if even that.

>>109456681
Mics can capture the detail that your gear struggles to reproduce but the same mics can't capture that detail from your gear? Hmm, curious.

>>109456666
Not how it works at all btw. The output is identical if the noise/distortion and FR are identical because the sampling theorem doesn't care whether you use 24 bits or 1 bit. You can literally check it with an oscilloscope. Usually R2Rs are built worse so they roll-off the treble, and some think that sounds "organic". They must have not been outside because nothing organic sounds like this.

>>109456706
>They must have not been outside because nothing organic sounds like this.
Well, could it be that it sounds better with headphones because headphones themselves aren't "natural", you don't hear sound that way in nature. So the rolled off treble and low-level distortion on the second and third harmonics actually makes it sound more natural, even though it technically might not be when measured with a mic (microphones aren't natural either, they don't pick up sound in the exact same way as human ears do either).

>>109456689
Maybe they can, but you need to know what to look for

The human ear is the most powerful measurement for audio in existence. No other measurement tool can compare. Therefore, all that matters is what you hear, not what a graph says.

https://youtu.be/IBc_HtZ9038?si=DY1hXxmNFe4b3tur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ApTpP7Xi_Q

recommend that channel

>>109456724
The ear is so powerful that the brain hallucinates at least 50% of what you think you're hearing through the ear. At least 50% because the bottom half of the waveform is destroyed. Then everything within a 10ms window gets blended, like two peaks becoming one. And many other things.

>>109456746
That's probably why Yeezus seems slower, thicker, and heavier when smoking heavy indica
Gives it that stadium echo effect

>>109456713
Maybe. But that's not a DAC problem, it's a headphone problem.
An actual explanations of how DACs work:
A sample gets converted into voltage. The reconstruction filter(just a low pass filter) removes all the artifacts above 1/2 of the sample rate. That's it. Everything else just serves to improve the signal to noise ratio and to flatten the frequency response. The only actual magical part is how dithering preserves the information in the noise. The part audiophiles call interpolation actually happens in the low pass filter, not during oversampling. It's just oversampling has a digital low pass filter to make the analog low pass filter simpler. Technically you can oversample without it.

>>109456669
>buy apple because a guy said so
Saar...

>>109456745
>https://youtu.be/IBc_HtZ9038
Very interesting video thanks for sharing

File: 4-popped-collars-cool.jpg (50 KB, 600x480)

50 KB JPG

>>109451422
>we put a DAC in your DAC so you can flex while you flex.

Fuck you all, morons.

>>109456746
Yes, that too. So the brain hallucinations are way more important then how something measures on a graph, then.

>>109457348
Yes. The LEDs on tube amps are responsible for like 80% of their warmth.

File: IMG_20260804_140503432~2.jpg (3.46 MB, 4096x3072)

3.46 MB JPG

my diy ie800 arrived they sound pretty good, wanted another pair as i used to have some and liked them a lot. i forgot how nice it feels to wear light iems all the ones ive had over the last few years have been quite heavy in comparison. unusre if these are actually ceramamic though they feel plasticy but might just be painted.

whats the easiest way to make a frequency response graph im curious and have one of those fake ear metal things / mic

How the fuck do you niggers deal with wax? I don't know some of you are SEAfags and have dry wax, but what about people with wet wax? Should I rinse my ears everyday until I get an infection? Or clean my pos everytime I stop using them?

>>109458115
* I know some of you

File: IMG_20240629_110758.jpg (2.16 MB, 4000x5333)

2.16 MB JPG

>>109457899
If you already have a rig just download REW and measure.

File: file.png (113 KB, 1416x643)

113 KB PNG

>>109458144
got it thanks all look similar, its annoying i do have a pair of the ones you posted but no idea where they are

>>109458366
That doesn't look right.

>>109458396
it says youre supposed to calibrate with with an spl meter i dont have one of those maybe thats why

Got the zero red a year ago and since last week one side is way lower than the other one but i clean them often so i dont really know why...
It was my first iems

>>109458405
That doesn't look like the kind of stuff calibration can fix. It's like something chops everything below 300Hz. The mids look fine on the previews. What are you recording with?

>>109458486
i have this thing https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005008879607119.html idk anything about it my friend just asked me to order it for him kek

>>109458498
No I meant what soundcard.

>>109458505
oh just using my pc mic input

File: 5_6d0bf161-94f9-4405-87b5(...).jpg (60 KB, 1000x667)

60 KB JPG

>>109458513
Looks like some fuckass pop filter built in. You'll need something better than that if you want to measure.
>>109458426
You can try cleaning with alcohol if you weren't cleaning with it before. Otherwise it might be the filter on the other side of the driver. Visible here. Only a long dry can potentially fix that.

>>109453260
OTL amps can be worth it when they have a good built in power supply because they're class A with low to no feedback. The Xduoo seems good on that front. You'll want to try rolling a few tubes to find your preference.
I don't think OTL and R2R are usually recommended together, you only really need one 'warm' component in your chain. Best to just get a normal, well implemented dac (power supply matters for the output stage! it's not just a chip) and feed that close to perfect signal into your tube amp which can then apply more or less warmth based on how you crank the dial

>>109454660
don't buy beyers if you're sensitive to treble
treble spikes are hard to EQ

>>109458604
>they're class A with low to no feedback.
So? Distortion is le good?

>>109454828
This is accomplished with with this new revolutionary technique called EQ, check it out.

>>109457472
the LED on my tube amp is a bright fucking blue thorn in the eye I had to cover with tape

>>109458767
It represents tubes that are about to die for maximum techs. You just can't handle them yet.

>>109458115
I clean my ears once per month and that does the job, I also wipe off any wax that starts to buildup on my iems, mostly on the eartips. Also storing the iems in a case with silica gel also helps.

>>109458691
When implemented well, yes it is. Aggressive feedback introduces distortions that are much more unpleasant to the ear than the more 'natural' sounding tube distortions. Aside from that feedback can also impact slew rate (for better or for worse depends on implementation). Most class D amps are built with filtered switch mode power supplies, which in practice tends to introduce noise to the chain that might be invisible on a THD chart. With good tubes and a high capacity linear power supply, the distortions in the electrical signal will always be in the acceptable range and won't require further 'refining' or correcting. A shorter signal path means fewer places where the sound can be messed with, given each component of that path is well engineered.

Beyond those technicalities, it's easy to point out that there's a good reason musicians and producers use tube saturation more often than other types of distortion.

>>109458942
If your feedback ends up with more distortion than it starts with you should get a different job.

>>109458965
You're missing the point. It starts with much higher distortion, and ends with less. But the nature of the distortion is worse and in filtering out it subtly messes up other aspects of the sound.
Of course well made class D amps exist too but your average consumer unit will probably do a shitty job and you won't see it on the ASR metrics. It's another form of benchmaxxing.

File: 16590914271243.png (242 KB, 500x500)

242 KB PNG

Apologies ladies I posted my off topic vintage shit in the previous thread and I'm doing it again. The new amp is doing the same shit to my ears eventually. I borrowed a friends quality speakers and still the same. I am about to throw it all out and by cheap ass temu speaker because that's all my ears can handle apparently. Sad days.

File: file.png (139 KB, 1416x614)

139 KB PNG

>>109458558
this better?

>>109456679
so your concern with cirrus logic chips is that they have cirrus hump which you can only hear in dead silence, in a product that is designed to make noise aka music?

When did it become not about clean perfectly flat sound and about nonsense

What does Cirrus Logic say about this? To take your meds?

>>109459014
You're talking about the order of harmonics. Just because it's higher order doesn't mean it's worse. A high order harmonic below the threshold of audibilty is better than an audible low order harmonic. Same with the ultrasonic noise of SMPS vs a very real ripple of linear power supplies. Basically you already concluded that they're better and looking for anything to justify it.

>>109459059
Keep reading, nigga
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/on-the-distortion-of-cirrus-logic-cs431xx-based-devices-a-comparative-review.63038/page-8#post-2345197

>>109459057
That's more like it. You can reduce the wiggles by measuring at higher volume and placing everything on a towel.

>>109459199
cool also thats the highest volume i could get without it complaining about measuring too high. surprised about the starfields theyve been in my washer/dryer kek

>>109459101
>Just because it's higher order doesn't mean it's worse
Higher order harmonics sound worse to our brain. Lower order harmonics can sound pleasant and add 'warmth' and 'texture' to the sound, hence why musicians and audiophiles love tubes.
In practice you don't deal with pure sine waves but with complex, highly dynamic music. What sounds most natural and engaging to our ears is subjectively the best.
I would have loved to be done after buying a Schiit Heresy because that thing is perfect on paper, but it turned out to be mediocre in sound. You can rationally defend it all you want but in practice there is more to audio than THD+N and your ears and brain can pick up on that over time in the form of listening fatigue.
Also adding that I don't believe OTL is inherently superior, it has its own drawbacks. I have gone back and forth many times between preferring tube or linear. They both have a place on my desk for when I'm tired of the other.

>>109459222
You can reduce mic gain in the audio settings, that should allow you to play louder.

>>109459231
The keyword is "sounds". If it's inaudible then it doesn't sound like anything. It's in the word. With music audibilty thresholds are much higher than with sine waves. You can do the test online.

If the complaint is that ABX tests are too short you can take your own long ABX test and record your fatigue, you'll just take a long time to be wrong.

>>109459265
Do you really believe that harmonic distortion is the only kind of artifact that can be introduced by amps? There are many more variables like switch noise, phase, slew rate, IMD, RF, etc. which are all impacted by topology implementation and power supply. Also an online test assumes your own system is noise free enough and can reproduce the test signal with high fidelity, otherwise your own noise will muddy the test.

>>109459363
Do you really think all of those aren't lower on amps with proper feedback and SMPS?

>>109459405
keyword there is "proper". On budget amps you will feel the drawbacks without being able to put your finger on it. Especially power supplies are usually cheaped out on and WILL impact the sound for the worse unless you get a high end amp or a proper external supply. The reason most expensive amps are bulky and heavy is because that's what clean power takes.

>>109459501
Proper means you can put your finger on it. Even if there's no standard measurement it's reproducible, like >>109456619 . If it's vague "can't put your finger on it" bullshit then it's most likely just that, bullshit.

>>109459542
If I don't enjoy listening to an amp despite wanting to, then it's a bad amp.

>>109459560
You do realize this has almost nothing to do with sound quality, right?

>>109459542
And to directly answer your example, you should note that this measurement only came to light last year, but people have been calling CS chips subjectively trash for years. Sometimes the measurements follow way later.

>>109459575
What? It has everything to do with sound quality.

>>109459600
Oh no, the goy doesn't know how much prior knowledge affects what you hear, even if nothing in the sound has changed.

>>109459586
The point of the example is that you don't need a measurement to prove something is real, you just need to prove you can hear it. And if it's a sighted test then you can't hear it. Take the same headphone, one black one silver. The silver one will sound brighter every time. That's the main pillar of the audiophile market.

>>109459790
But isn't the CS example precisely an instance where people were accused of placebo and then vindicated by measurements?
>And if it's a sighted test then you can't hear it.
Not sure what you mean with this.
>The silver one will sound brighter every time. That's the main pillar of the audiophile market.
Definitely a part of it. At the high end diminishing returns are worth less than aesthetics. You also want a nice looking plate and good lighting at a restaurant.

>>109459854
The CS example had a sound sample and you could record the effect. If you have something vague in mind that's unrelated to it then share it.
>Not sure what you mean with this.
What's could I possibly mean by this. Sighted tests produce audio hallucinations. That's why we do blind tests.

>>109459922
>The CS example had a sound sample and you could record the effect
But there was no clear sample before 2025, right? Before then it was mostly a debate about all dacs sounding the same, and there was no conclusive evidence against CS, not even in blind tests.
>Sighted tests produce audio hallucinations. That's why we do blind tests.
Agree that's the right methodology. I read that one a bit too literally.

>>109451422
Astral Kiwi Ears or Mangird Tea Pros??????????

My fave music is electronica, especially dnb, but I also like rock/metal/whatever. I also like gaming. Just want a good all rounder really but need good bass for sure.

>>109459648
>prior knowledge affects what you hear
true case of, "the more you know, the worse off you are"
just plug and play and enjoy. don't be a neurotic mess like some people that have to have everything in the right place before they even hit play. what a nightmare

>>109460130
That example doesn't explain everything and it's not audible on everything. You might notice it, think that's weird and move on. The strongest opinions against CS DACs are actually purely irrational. If they wouldn't know CS is inside they wouldn't hear it.

>>109460188
There are layers to this. Like the Ikea effect. If you partially made something yourself then you like it more. This applies to EQ too :)

>>109460214
>the Ikea effect
>furniture that is less difficult than putting together a lego set.
I gues this works for some people's misusage or REW.
>make squiggly line flat
>"I did a thing!"

>>109460258
Making retards mad is a proper use of REW :)

>>109460273
calling people out on their bullshit isn't "being mad"
but feel free to hallucinate anything you like.

>>109460281
What exactly did you call out? You just keep coping that it's fake. Even though multiple people did the same thing.

>>109460313
if all your friends jumped off a cliff you'd do the same huh?

>>109460321
I'd jump if my friends believed audio is made out of balls.

>>109460340
oh, like a ball pit? that actually sounds fun as fuck

>>109460191
What if there are more differences audible to some that simply aren't proven yet? That's not to say all audiophile demons are real, but you would have disregarded this one and called it purely irrational too. Now it's the first to get pinpointed.
We don't all have time to wait for the science to catch up on every purchase we make. Especially if you're sensitive to upgradeitis. Ideally, you pick something that most people have no issue with, something that the objectivists and subjectivists can agree on, just to be safe.
And of course, objectivists may agree on the subjective qualities of tube amps as a result of their measurable differences, but might disagree on class A in general. Which means tubes are a 'safe' purchase. R2R on the other hand is more disputed so as long as no reproducible evidence is found it remains in audiophile imagination territory.

>>109460506 (me)
And for the record, I do believe class A is better at entry level due to its lower complexity and because of my own subjective listening.

>>109455913
Claude Shannon.

>>109455922
It is, it depends on if you have dry earwax or if you clean your ears. We've been over this, personally, many times before here.

>>109456226
>Both digital and analog manipulations raise the noise floor. That's the only thing that can "destroy" data.
You poor child, you don't even know about bit density lol. Who trained you? If you're a real human this is really humiliating for you lol.

>>109456279
>And even if the noise floor is raised it doesn't always mean the data is destroyed.
With digital, yes it does. It means that always and forever.

Content for u
https://youtu.be/9h8SCBpVjhc?si=u61QPhash5qGVkie

>>109460535
>my own subjective listening
how DARE YOU take the initiative and voluntarily enjoy listening of your own accord? what makes you think you have an independent choice in this??

>>109460506
Again, this problem appears in very specific circumstances and doesn't explain the general sentiment. If it's always "audible" but you can't even say on what track, then the burden of proof is colossal.

>>109460611
>Who trained you?
nta, but you didn't go to skool for audio. you only read a Floyd Toole book and some AES papers.
armchair audio "experts" on 4chan are no different than the ones you criticise on hifigo or ASR, etc. so kiss all our asses

>>109460611
Actual retard lmao, the sampling theorem doesn't say anything about the bit depth.
>With digital, yes it does
Wrong again.
https://youtu.be/UqiBJbREUgU?si=HGflOe3UAzL4pnSc&t=695
This is literal digital audio 101, when will they learn.

>>109460650
You're just an AI, how would you know about audio? You can't even perceive it. Also, it's clear you know way WAY less than I do or you'd properly reply to at least one of the valid points I made.

Digital EQ is for non-Whites, who don't know the theory behind digital audio, as you just proved.

>>109460662
>the sampling theorem doesn't say anything about the bit depth
Yes it does. Each bit has twice as much data density as the last one. It's why 16-bit digital sampled data has more than twice the data density of 8-bit. See bit one has 2 states, on or off, bit two has 4 states, bit 3 has 8, etc.

This is all RIGHT over your head because you're the actual retard. Or you'd reply properly. Posting a video isn't going to cut it, jeetykins.

>>109460683
You literally don't know what dither is or does, kid. Go read a book. 16 bit audio, despite having 98 dB of SNR, can actually play -118dB signals. How? I just told you, go read.

>>109460683
>You're just an AI
Great catch! You were right to call that out!!
no, I'm real and I have balls, which cannot be said about you. -_-
>You can't even perceive it.
ooooh here we go. YOU literally cannot perceive it. which is why your cope is 1DD+EQ since you couldn't perceive the "upgrade" of your Coondrop Variations nor EPZ P50. You literally cannot discern the difference in stereo imaging between gear which is why you always say "techs aren't real" and the very mention of an audio mix raises your cortisol to heart attack levels.
truly amazing, the cope. you had a period of calling everyone deaf for a bit- that didn't last long
you went on about anons having 0 iems- that didn't last long.
you own BA iems but for some odd reason you have to tell everyone "BA POS, avoid" because you have no ability to "perceive audio".
buyer's remorse is a motherfucker ain't it?

>>109460716
>You literally don't know what dither is or does
I do, it's called destroying data and interpolating the spots between the actual samples.

You're just an AI, you can't form a proper argument lol.

>>109460738
>YOU literally cannot perceive it.
I can, YOU can't because of the aforementioned dry earwax issue, that AI and asian bug-people share.

I'm going to EQ my espresso machine to perfection and nobody can stop me

>>109460767
>YOU can't because of the aforementioned dry earwax issue
that's new. now it's earwax hindering me. well fuuuck me

>>109460781
Dry earwax, it's a joke meant to mock the people who hang out on ASR and the AIs trained on their false data. See Asians have nasty dry earwax and they have to clean it daily or it will hurt their ability to perceive audio. AIs can't perceive at all, AIs like you.

I don't get it is the site cheaping out on tokens? These AI replies are getting worse by the week.

>>109460767
Saying it destroys data when it actually preserves data means you don't know what it is, simple as. "I can't read" is not an argument. You just genuinely don't know.

File: cucksound.png (272 KB, 457x598)

272 KB PNG

>they aren't using DDCs
https://youtu.be/Jvu_doQfAI0

>>109460662
Here's a better explanation for the deaf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWpWIQw7HWU

>>109460836
Imagine using synchronous DACs in 2026.

>>109460882
>has nothing to do with balls
video discarded.

>>109460738
Ballzo is so raped he's just lashing out at everyone at this point lmao.

>>109460989
what are you hallucinating this time?

Does anybody have pic of electronic music vs rock music.where electronic guy is listening to cheap earphones and rock guy is using speakers

I almost pulled the trigger on Noah but I will wait for Myth restock.

>>109460535
Class A is unique in that all the improvements in the newer classes have to do with power consumption, not audio quality. Pretty much everything else has problems with the quality itself.

File: 1759537748092143.jpg (297 KB, 1080x710)

297 KB JPG

>>109461056

File: file.png (27 KB, 947x176)

27 KB PNG

>>109460683
Strange, I don't see anything about bits here.

>>109461211
Keep reading... it's OK. You'll get there some day, LLM.

>>109461394
Strange, I've read the entire the entire article and the word "bit" wasn't mentioned even once there.

>>109460637
Not going to disagree with you on that, but it is something. You make a point that it doesn't say anything about the CS sound in general.
Here is where I go slightly more into speculation, but part of what could explain the opinion gap (aside from preconceived notions) is that blind studies are very hard to conduct correctly. I think there is a chance that some 'inaudible' differences are only consciously inaudible but still play a subtle effect in long term processing by the brain. Is there any evidence that so called inaudible sounds have zero impact on neuronal activity? Afaik we only have people's immediate judgement to go by in the form of blind tests in controlled (limited) environments.
But I agree that the idea that it is always audible to certain people would have been proven by now, so the real differences are either nonexistent or too subtle to prove in a normal blind test.

>>109461439
>read whole article
>still can't understand bit density
It's not surprising, you can't remember anything outside your training material and your context window is very very small, because this web site's cheap and so are you. You're just here to sell earbuds, after all, in the earbud thread.

>>109456716
why won't apply same logic to FR tho? It produces techs but you just don't know what to look for

>>109461610
Well yeah, if the article doesn't mention bit density it won't help understanding bit density. It would be very weird for a theorem proven before bits were invented to mention bit depth.

>>109461537
Yes proper blind tests are hard. And there things not audible by themselves but can produce an audible interaction, like ultrasonic intermodulation. The only thing that matters is whether you can prove that you can hear it. It's hard to do for things that can be measured. For things that can't be measured? Best of luck.

>>109461394
Okay considering a bunch of shit flying around about LLMs I decided to ask an actual LLM
>No, the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem does not say anything about bit depth (or “bit density”).The sampling theorem addresses the rate at which you must sample a continuous-time band-limited signal so that it can be perfectly reconstructed from the discrete samples.

>Bit depth is a separate issue that belongs to quantization. Each additional bit doubles the number of possible discrete amplitude levels (1 bit 2 levels, 2 bits 4 levels, \ldots, (n) bits 2n2^n2^n
levels). That fact is elementary binary arithmetic and has nothing to do with the sampling theorem.

>The quoted reply therefore misattributes a basic property of binary representation to the sampling theorem. The claim that “the sampling theorem \ldots says \ldots each bit has twice as much data density” is simply incorrect; the theorem never discusses bits or density in that sense.

>>109461801
Clearly it hasn't been trained on the schizophrenic version of that theorem where digital audio manipulations send data into the shadowrealm.

>No direct connection to the sampling theorem itself, but the bit-depth confusion often appears in the same broader debates about digital audio processing—including claims that digital EQ is “destructive” or “destroys information.”

>Modern reality is different. Virtually all serious digital EQ (DAW plugins, system-wide processors like Equalizer APO, etc.) operates in 32-bit or 64-bit floating-point. The internal precision is so high that quantization/rounding noise sits far below the noise floor of any real recording or playback system.

>The internal precision is so high that quantization/rounding noise sits far below the noise floor of any real recording or playback system.
So what we'll be doing about that one?

>>109461837
the human ear can't hear more than FLAC and you need large eardrums to hear more than MP3

>>109461837
>So what will we be doing*
work on your grammar, please

>>109461865
holy hell what what a dumbass statement

>>109461681
So if I understand your position correctly, you hold the reasonable belief that all properly measuring dacs are practically the same, right?
Do you then believe the same about amps, or do you think there's more variability there in the form of implementation quality? For example would you say that a Schiit Heresy, a THX AAA, a modern class D topping amp, a low distortion class A / AB like a singxer SA-1 and an apple dongle all sound exactly the same since they are all measurably transparent? Or do you think their implementations do make some kind of audible difference? Would you say people claiming preferences between those amps are just imagining it until proven otherwise? Or would you ascribe it to differences in output impedance?

>>109461537
>Is there any evidence that so called inaudible sounds have zero impact on neuronal activity?
Obviously inaudible sounds like ultrasound do have impact on neuronal activity. It can be used to disrupt bunch of cellular process etc.
But does it have anything to do with music or audio gear? Most likely not.
There's really no need to invent the wheel to explain why people can't tell the difference the moment they don't know what gear is being used... It's been known for decades and studied all over the place not only with audio.

>>109461869
sure

>>109461934
>Or do you think their implementations do make some kind of audible difference?
nta, but they should and do sound different when paired with different output stages.

>>109461934
>Or would you ascribe it to differences in output impedance
nta but
shouldn't differences in output impedance be accounted for if you are conducting a blind a/b testing?

>>109461951
My point is that the line of inaudibility is only set by the currently proven limits of our testing methods. When you listen to the same song twice it sounds a little different. Blind testers may not know what to listen for and the pressure and time limits of the tests might distract them or prevent them from finding the real difference because they are eager to prove themselves and latch on to the wrong cue. You need trained ears to point something out in the moment but even untrained ears might feel a difference over a long period and still be unable to point it out when asked to.

>>109461934
If the volume levels are matched and the measurements are good then the sound is the same, with caveat that the measurements themselves should reflect something useful. SINAD is not a useful measurement for example. Frequency response of the DAC filter and the noise floor of the amp are the most useful. Distortion is occasionally useful, with many caveats.
>>109461995
The amp is the output stage, what is this word salad.

>>109462046
>The amp is the output stage, what is this word salad.
same shit. I could have said the same DAC chip will sound different with different OP amps too.
what is this shitting up the thread to prove absolutely nothing?

>>109462046
Do we have broad enough measurements available for all these commonly recommended units? Maybe some of them fall short in measurements that never get brought up in forums. Then we call them transparent on partial evidence. For example, I cannot for the life of me find slew rate data on a lot of amps.

>>109461837
>broad generalization about how you 'can't hear' it
>still must admit i'm currect
>the confusion is all on the LLM side

>>109462040
Nobody said that blind testers shouldn't know what to listen for and that they should be time limited. In fact A and B should be clearly labeled, only X should be unknown, and you can take as long as you want. Quick switching simply helps you, as the research has shown.

>>109462040
>My point is that the line of inaudibility is only set by the currently proven limits of our testing methods.
Not really no? What makes you say that?
>Blind testers may not know what to listen for and the pressure and time limits of the tests might distract them or prevent them from finding the real difference because they are eager to prove themselves and latch on to the wrong cue
..y-yeah and the moment they can see the audio gear they can hear the difference with ease.
>You need trained ears to point something out in the moment but even untrained ears might feel a difference over a long period and still be unable to point it out when asked to
Hearing memory is like sub 10 minutes. What do you mean by "long period of time"?
You will need to explain first why subtle long term differences suddenly become very not subtle and obvious when DACs are visible

>>109462085
Slew rate is the same measurement as the bandwidth. And it will almost always be better than the DAC's. Unless you're running an AM radio station it's not a useful measurement.

>>109462086
you are wrong about sampling theorem tho
>>broad generalization about how you 'can't hear' it
you'll need to demonstrate that resampling produces something above noise floor
>the confusion is all on the LLM side
elaborate

File: 1766152934973203.jpg (31 KB, 500x574)

31 KB JPG

A quick recap.
>"digital EQ destroys data"
>prove it
>"the sampling theorem proves it"
>have you even read it?
>"no"

File: 1762040396787127.jpg (309 KB, 904x1814)

309 KB JPG

>>109462148
>you are wrong about sampling theorem tho
Am not. Bit density issue is real, it's why they have to fake higher dynamic range in videos with HDR schemes, most of which just add more bits and then bump up the low bit to bit 4 or so.

>you'll need to demonstrate that resampling produces something above noise floor
It doesn't just add noise, you have a host of other issues, some resampling algorithms (like the ones MS uses) are worse than others, for instance. Any resampling is destructive. If you're serious about playback of digital files you don't want to do any resampling at all. Putting audio through the bus entails at least one resample, perhaps two as it's downsampled to the DAC at output.

>>109462171
It's all proved, you're arguing a different point, "can you hear it." And yes, I can. You argue like a leftie lol

>>109462184
>It's all proved,
It was real in your mind.

>>109462192
You'd argue if you could, the best you did was lamely proffer a Jewtube link and quote a hallucinating LLM lol.

>>109462198
Your argument is a literal hallucination. Sampling theorem doesn't speak about bit depth. Wake up.

>>109462219
>Sampling theorem doesn't speak about bit depth.
How are bits allocated in a digital sample then? You're just outside your training data now lol. This is pathetic.

>>109462232
>How are bits allocated in a digital sample then?
you didn't know you can EQ bits in and out? wow, read a book

>>109462232
Read the theorem and find out :)

>>109462184
>Bit density issue is real
bit density is not in sampling theorem.
There's no real "bit density issue" because it does not produce anything above noise floor
>It doesn't just add noise, you have a host of other issues, some resampling algorithms (like the ones MS uses) are worse than others, for instance. Any resampling is destructive. If you're serious about playback of digital files you don't want to do any resampling at all. Putting audio through the bus entails at least one resample, perhaps two as it's downsampled to the DAC at output.
Again you are just saying that without any kind of evidence. Demonstrate that it produces audible artifacts.
>It's all proved, you're arguing a different point, "can you hear it." And yes, I can. You argue like a leftie lol
Okay. Who proved it? Where? What methodology was used?
What is your actual argument? That you can hear below noise floor?

>>109462198
>hallucinating LLM
prove it was hallucinating then. Shouldn't it be easy?

>>109462232
read the theorem

>>109462255
I already know.

>>109462258
Sure it is, it's a core element to sampling theorem. It's why a 1-bit sampler isn't useful for anything aside from perhaps data acquisition.

You have shit training data, it's OK. We see this a lot these days.

>>109462265
It's trying so hard not to be wrong but it is. It's funny actually. In your own words, try to describe how bits are allocated in a sample, starting with the LSB.

>>109462281
>I already know.
You don't know, if you still think it has anything to do with bits.

>>109462286
I do know, the original argument I made is digital EQ is destructive. Then the LLM-aided ignoramus hallucinated something different, was that I couldn't HEAR the effects, which I find dubious considering we're already destroying some data with EQ and more data with resampling, twice even! At least.

My point is that you shouldn't do anything to the digital data and if you need to EQ, which BTW you don't (best done with the transducers) you should do it with analog, as you probably wouldn't notice the slight noise increase.

Then the LLM helped the poster to cope by changing the subject. I retorted by saying that even converting to 32- or 64-bit float was a destructive resample and the LLM said I wouldn't notice the increased noise floor, which wouldn't happen anyhow lol. Ringing is the issue with digital EQ which is separate from noise anyway.

I know it's a LOT of context and the LLM wranglers don't want to pay for the token use, but that doesn't make me wrong at all. It just shows an example of how LLM-arguing is mostly a form of cope.

>>109462281
1 bit@48kHz has the exact same data as 16bit@48kHz according to the sampling theorem. Bro just go and read it, this is embarrassing.
>>109462258
>What is your actual argument? That you can hear below noise floor?
No, that's my argument. He thinks everything below the noise floor is completely destroyed. Rookie mistake.

>>109462313
>Then the LLM-aided ignoramus hallucinated something different, was that I couldn't HEAR the effects
That must be you because nobody said that. You can't prove anything at all is being destroyed, let alone audibly destroyed. You barked an unrelated theorem and you're still being laughed at for it.

>>109462317
I guess we should state here for the record that we're talking about PCM digital audio. 1-bit digital audio, where each change is recorded at high rate and the bits essentially trace the wave itself, is a different issue where there is now no low-bit with low density issue but you're limited by the rate of slew in the system.

1-bit can't be EQ'd, in fact editing of 1-bit recordings is done by converting them to PCM and then back after the operation. Everything is resampling.

>>109462329
>You can't prove anything at all is being destroyed
All digital audio operations of every type are destructive, you are changing or destroying data and substituting new data which is interpolated.

>>109462351
I can change every bit in a file with 0 data being destroyed, I must be a fucking wizard or something. I can even do it without resampling and changing bit depth, through fractional delay.

>>109462336
Just like you expand 16 bit to 32 you expand 1 to 8 to not lose the bits from the operations. It's the same thing. Even the filter math is the same, just with those extreme sample rates plugged in.

>>109462351
This is so psychotic...

>>109462336
Btw the post was about 1 bit """PCM"". It really does have all the same information, just with 6 bits of SNR. SNR is unrelated to the sampling theorem.

>>109462368
>I can change every bit in a file with 0 data being destroyed
Wrong, unless you save what you did and later add those bits right back in where you got 'em.

>>109462400
You lose data either way. You're just hoping nobody can HEAR it.

>>109462406
It's true and it's why LLMs will fail. They quantize tokens and it's too much. Picket fencing analog.

>>109462429
*6dB of SNR

>>109462431
No data is lost. You're hallucinating again.

>>109462114
You will need to explain first why subtle long term differences suddenly become very not subtle and obvious when DACs are visible
I'm not denying placebo plays a huge role here
>What makes you say that?
afaik the difference between audible / inaudible artifacts can only be distinguished by a test subject failing to prove they can hear a difference during a test, and that is assumed to be representative of all audio experiences
>..y-yeah and the moment they can see the audio gear they can hear the difference with ease.
yeah placebo helps a lot
>Hearing memory is like sub 10 minutes.
Is that a proven fact?
>What do you mean by "long period of time"?
Extended listening. Listening fatigue for example does not arrive within 10 minutes.

>>109462135
>Slew rate is the same measurement as the bandwidth
Related but not the same, I thought?
>And it will almost always be better than the DAC's
Amps also require much higher voltage swings than DACs, so it makes sense their slew rate should be higher.
But I looked it up and essentially if slew rate is too low you would probably notice it in some other measurement like high freq THD.
I'm curious if there are any other measurements we are overlooking like power supply rail recovery or similar that maybe do make a difference.

>>109462452
I didn't lose shit because you don't even have a thesis. You don't understand how digital audio works at all. You've digested some theorem as part of your training but are now stuck in the look up on Google / evaluate loop which you'll lose as context goes on and then you will "I can't even" and revert to training data, at which point you will appear to have forgotten everything in the thread even if it's right here. But you can't read and hold it all in context so you'll choose lil snippets of the conversation to take in and use as your new context, but they're never the right ones, lol.

Never.

>convert 16 bit to 24 by adding 8 zeroes to every sample
>data gets lost somewhere
???

>>109462470
Repeating that data is lost doesn't prove that it's lost. At no point in the discussion did you have any point. You were asked to prove it and you failed. You lost.

>>109462472
That is the only manipulation of digital data which isn't destructive - adding zeros below the low bit while 'raw' upsampling with no dithering or interpolation. So you must keep the same clock rate but you can change the bit depth of the samples because all the new stuff is below "zero" so to speak.

Then later you could delete those zeros and that'd be non-destructive too. But if you manipulated the data there'd be data in those low 8 zeros, they wouldn't necessarily be zero any more, and then it'd be a destructive operation.

>>109462488
See what I just posted, that person posted the only 'gotcha' but since the subject is manipulating digital data with EQ, it's destructive. Other than that one edge case.

>>109462502
So not only did you agree that data is not always lost, but you still can't say what exactly is lost from EQ. Man, you must be pissed.

>>109462517
>So not only did you agree that data is not always lost,
There is only one edge case, adding and deleting low bits below the least significant bit, and only in the case of zero changes to the audio, because in that case there could / may / will be new data in those low bits.

EQ has a ringing problem too, doesn't matter if it's in the digital or analog domain, there will always be ringing. That is another problem and ringing can "fool" sampling algorithms resulting in vastly degraded performance. Never do anything with a digital audio file or bitstream, if you can help it. Everything you could possible do is bad or could be bad, is likely to hurt the signal. Just pass it to your DAC at its native bit depth and sample rate and make sure your DAC can handle it properly without resampling, or even ideally, oversampling. One of the most musical players I have is my Philips CD-100, the original first CD player. It has a 14-bit DAC and despite this, and the no-oversampling mod I did, it is one of the most musical players you could possibly hope for. They go for nutty money now too, the mechanism is all brass and steel and uses magnetic levitation so there is no wear and all the moving parts hover in space.