None of that measures what I'm hearing. Nor does it show how much space between the intuments there is or how many details I'm hearing. Those are all equipment measurements, not of the sound I'm hearing. How do you measure that?
They don't measure what you are hearing; they measure HOW you are hearing, to what level of purity and detail, WHAT is in the music you are listening to. The instrument separation is dictated by the sound level in the channels, and correct timing (jitter) of the time differences (distance differences) captured by microphones (or artificially created in the mix). The level of detail you hear is dictated by the level (or lack) of noise Note that instrument separation, as well as soundstage perceotion, are also affected by speakers and/or room interaction, but here we assume the only difference in the equation are the DACs. Then there is the human bias, the expectancy of a change in results, just because of an expected change in the setup; this is the reason why we do double-blind tests, to avoid bias. You can have a funny lecture here. if you don't get mad... https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...iles-posting-at-asr-for-the-first-time.17598/ and a more interesting here, about human biases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Yeah, I know that already. You said that you can measure everything that you can hear. But you keep coming back to the equipment and the room. So it sounds like (pun intended) that you can't measure everything that you can hear. Yeah do the double blind tests like I've been telling you to do, you'll hear the difference 10 / 10
Yes, if you measure room-response; that is what room-correction software / DSP does. It measures and applies corrections to timing / level / FR etc. It's more difficult to measure perfectly as an electornic signal is, but can be dome. Note, that in the same room, with the same speakers / amp, and yourself in the same spot, changing the DAC will 99.999% result in only the DAC differences showing up (if any). You may agree that at this point, also the difference in size of the two DACs may impact the result, as indirect interaction with the room...
No, not room response. You said everything we can hear can be measured But you're telling me how all this other stuff is measured. You are not telling me how you are measuring what is heard by the human ears. What measurement tells me how much space i will hear between instruments? Of course if you only change the dac only dac differences will show up. Change only the streamer, do it double blind, you can put it in a different room and just run a cable, you'll hear the difference 10 out of 10 times. Do a null test, only the differences will come through, the difference will be obvious.
You can't go and wage your "war" elsewhere???!!! This is not the place, you are making us extremist audiophiles drunk!!!
He also compares INTERNAL DACs of A6 vs A8, and he says the difference is significative, also for the preamp section
YouTube video just up from Passion For Sound on the new DMP-A8. Detailed comprehensive review comparing to the A6 and other DACs and amps. Best description yet of the routing options and especially the DSP side. He particularly likes the FIR filter possibilities as well as overall timing adjustment. He really likes it as an all-in-one box, streamer DAC, preamp, DSP but thinks the A6 is just fine if you need a streamer feeding an external DAC.
And no big differences using internal DAC of A8 vs A6. The extra cost is not in better sound but in extra features, especially DSP
Another YouTube video review from Tharbamar on the DMP-A8. Generally likes it, especially the DSP and DAC aspects.
Not strictly related to these streamers but years ago a similar argument erupted between a couple of forum members comparing two phono stages. One person argued one phono stage was better than the other (citing a considerably audible difference) whilst the other person said there wasn't any difference between the two. A third person purchased both phono stages and did a teardown of the two and found that inside they were absolutely identical in every respect. The only difference was in the cosmetics of the cases. Furthermore the third person extensively tested the two phono stages and no surprise found no differences in electrical performance measurement between the two either. We are all probably familiar with automotive badge engineering. It happens in the audio industry as well. So if two products have identical circuitry, have the same circuit PCB topography and use exactly the same components it's highly unlikely they will measure or sound any different. Not surprising is the effectiveness of advertising hype, social media (including YouTube) influencers and cash for comment endorsement.
The dac part in the DMP-A8 (AKM) is superior to the DMP-A6 (ESS), good help on the way with the Femto clocks, and probably also better opamps, haven't looked yet but it could well be the TI OPA-1612 But the best analogue part is still sitting away in the Z8 dac I think, here there are 8x TI OPA-1612, which are parallel as 4 in each channel, which are then fed by an ESS Saber 9038Pro, which is an 8-channel dac chip
Femto Clocks, AKM Chips, Analog Volume Control, fully balanced, usable as preamp, volume pass through, etc. I just have this all. Long before this A8 came out. Can`t understand this hype... RME Adi-2 DAC FS fills all your needs - since years.
You are right. But the A8 is also a streamer; the ADI is just a DAC (OK, it has EQ and other amenities, but nevertheless is not a streamer).
As you say. ADI is not a streamer. But a streamer like for example a wiim fills all your needs in combination with this outstanding and absolut high quality RME DAC. For half the price. There is no need for anything else that is hyped as if the world is built new. Just my thougts...
Nice! Thank`s for your reply. May be you have to think over your manner in public? Everyone embarrasses themselves as best they can. You can do it very well!
