Why are digital streaming equipment manufacturers refusing to answer me?

Thyname it’s the select dac with the same interface you describe. Since I am receiving bit perfect signals nothing happening prior to the conversion to fiber matters IMO. If the signal was not bit perfect (msb offers an extensive test) then it could have affected things. 

Audio2design, I couldn’t agree more.

Getting “bit perfect” signal is not a rocket science. You make it sound like people are all naive and streaming music from some noisy desktop computers. It’s extremely easy with all major streaming protocols, including from Roon via a NUC, Nucleus, Innuos, and so forth.

MSB Select DAC starts at $85,000 I believe. Once you add your ProISL / ProUSB module (that alone is $2,000) and perhaps the second power base, and the upgrade clock, then the price becomes ridiculous.

My test say different. I just got into streaming back in the summer and purchased a Bluesound Node2i. While it was a nice a streamer for the money, I was missing something and I also wanted a server to rip disc to replace my old Sony DVP9000ES. I bought an Innuos Zen mkIII. Yes almost 5x the cost of the Node 2i. I received it this past Monday and hooked it up. My daughter who is now 22 and has started appreciating music but is no audiophile like me, she was sitting on the sofa on her phone. I put on a familiar song and her head perked up as did mine. The Innuos was much fuller, richer in sound. Once you sat in the magic spot you could hear the improved soundstage. We let it play a while and then switched back to the Node since I still had it hooked up to the same Qutest DAC, we both looked at each other and smiled. Even my wife heard a difference. My system is pretty simple. Older pair of B&W CDM9NT being fed by a PrimaLuna EVO300 integrated being fed by a Chord Qutest DAC previously being fed by the Node, now the Innuos Zen.

I’ve auditioned Node2i, raspberry pi4, SimAudio, Bel Canto, Innuos, Lumin, Auralic and I haven’t noticed a dimes worth of difference between them when used with Roon. I will say I have noticed improved sound through a couple  when using their APP but I attribute than to differences in the software.

This thread thread was over after the 1st reply 👍

Since I am receiving bit perfect signals nothing happening prior to the conversion to fiber matters IMO.

mihalis, that's the beauty of it.  With my WiFi computer noise, speed, amount of RAM etc. don't matter, but there is hardware prior to fiber and it does matter.  As long as you use the same hardware with different streaming providers result should be the same.

Its incorrect because its wrong. Your whole premise is false................Not only wires, I can tell the difference between lots of things- wire on the floor vs elevated, wire going one way vs another, warmed up vs cold, on springs vs cones, on and on. And on.

LOL.  Thanks for the facts mihalis and welcher.  Great discussion.

One reason might be that the distributor knows nothing, because some company like Foxconn designed and built it, and sells it to them to market.  Have you ever wondered why so many companies' televisions have stick on brand names.
It is not just electronics, either.  The new Supra is said to be made by BMW.  It is not, and neither is that BMW.  An Austrian company that designs and makes about 200,000 cars per year makes both, as well as the Mercedes G series, and others.  Like Foxconn with electronics, they design and make stuff, then sell it to other companies to provide drive trains, and then to market.  You can verify this by entering the VIN into your computer.  Also, the Toyota Sports car, that is the same car as the Subaru, has a VIN beginning with JF, for Subaru's  parent company, FUJI. 
German built cars built by BMW begin with WB.   W is for West, as in West "Germany".   Mercedes is WD (Daimler).  For vehicles made under contract for Mercedes,  ZA and KN are used.  If it starts with a J it is made in Japan, with numbers 1-5 in North America (USA 1-3).  The first letter of number is the country code. Who know who makes what anymore?

The Supra was designed by Toyota, using a bevy of BMW parts from the Z4, and ASSEMBLED by Magna Steyr. This is a contract manufacturing model that probably applies at least at some level, to much of the electronics industry at some level. Even Apple does not see value in setting up their own manufacturing lines.

That is much different from the model you are using with Foxconn where Foxconn sells it for rebadging. This is not contract manufacturing it is ODM (original design manufacturing). It does apply to some televisions, usually lower end models like Magnavox, RCA, etc., and perhaps some low-mid end models in other manufacturers, like Philips, but not to most of what you buy from say Samsung, LG, Panasonic.


I am not aware of any streamers in the audiophile world that would fall into the ODM category. That would be low end offshore DACs.

Jmphotography, in the system you describe there is no fiber optic blocking all noise and as a result I completely understand that there could be improvement with a good streamer. Thank you for that feedback.

Given the light discussion around ab(x) testing, as a scientist with phd training in human data collection and cognitive functioning, I object to the (x) part of the judgment task.

Identification should not be the goal. We listen to equipment to decide which we prefer... which is better.  That should be the decision when doing (blind) ab testing.

If I were designing the test for audio equipment, I'd let people switch back and forth as many times as they like, taking as long as they like for each (level matched) sample.  Eventually they just decide which they like best. Repeat that task over and over throughout the course of listening to music and I guarantee that people will begin to find their true preference and that that preference will be consistent. 

It's very easy for the brain to develop and make decisions based on good/bad/preference and much harder to make the decision based on label identification. They are different processes in the brain and preference is the more basic, a primary system. Newborns know what they like and what they don't and will often show good a/b consistency. The brain doesn't even need to identify a stimulus to make this judgment. That comes later because it's less important. First, figure out if something's good or bad, then if you've got time, figure out what it is.  This is the order of processing for all of us.

The eye doctor uses this ab-preference testing when they're figuring out your prescription. They flip between two possible magnification factors and you just tell them which is better. It works great for letting you find your own way to an optimal solution. They don't care about labels or giving you mystery options and having you say whether it corresponds to a or b because that's irrelevant. It would make the process less effective. 

And finally, I'll just say that if you don't believe in blind testing, you're lying to yourself. There's decades of research demonstrating the impossibility of avoiding the biasing effects of pre-existing knowledge. People have used samples of scientists trained in this area of research and they are just as influenced as you or I. You are not immune.

That said, it's hard as hell to do blind testing and I never do. Fortunately placebo effects are very real and they help your preconceived decisions feel right even if they were wrong.

If you were a PhD with said qualifications, you would know the X has nothing to do with identification, it is to test reliability. If you can't match A or B to X, then you can't tell the two apart and you hence have no preference as you don't as actually prefer either.

Given the light discussion around ab(x) testing, as a scientist with phd training in human data collection and cognitive functioning, I object to the (x) part of the judgment task.

Identification should not be the goal. We listen to equipment to decide which we prefer... which is better. That should be the decision when doing (blind) ab testing.

Please tell me how matching is different than identification.

And please see above for a discussion of why the brain is better at determining preference than identification.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NQGcNPQAAAAJ&hl=en

Again, you obviously don’t understand ABX testing which is NOT about absolute identification, i.e. picking out the 98 Bordeaux from the 96 and the 99, it’s about having 3 bottles, two 98, and one 96 and being able to tell the two 98 are the same. If you can’t tell a 96 and 98 apart then you don’t actually prefer one over the other. ABx increases the statistical reliability of an AB test. ABx testing IS a preference test essentially as it requires no absolute identification.

It's about saying a = x. That is an identification judgment. You don't have to believe me, but the brain is worse at that than at determining preference. 

They have studies with patients who have zero long term memory. Every day they fail an X test by failing to identify people with whom they've interacted with repeatedly.

Nonetheless, they form adaptive preferences for these individuals based on whether those past interactions have been positive or negative.  That is because the area of the brain responsible for preference is different (and more basic & important) than the area responsive for identification.

And just to highlight. With those memory patients, the preference test is highly reliable (defined in testing science as a consistent, repeatable judgment). Their performance on the identification test is completely unreliability (i.e., no different than chance). You do not need to be able to say x = a to make a reliable preference judgment.  I suspect if you instructed people to base their identification judgments in an abx solely on preference they'd do significantly better.

Your example is an absolute identification test. As noted this is not applicable to the discussion. You seem to be missing the point.  If you have AB and X. And have a definite "preference" for A, then when x=A, that preference should replicate.  You try wine A and B side by side. You claim you prefer A to B.  Now I give you wine X. Do you claim you prefer it to wine B? If so, it must be A right? What if it is actually B?  That means your "preference" was random.

They have studies with patients who have zero long term memory. Every day they fail an X test by failing to identify people with whom they've interacted with repeatedly.

  I suspect if you instructed people to base their identification judgments in an abx solely on preference they'd do significantly better.

Actually what results in better ability is training in the characteristics of differences. The natural tendency is to rely on "preference", which is very fickle.

Nonetheless, they form adaptive preferences for these individuals based on whether those past interactions have been positive or negative.

Which would require learned neural patterns. This is not related to directly to ABx and more related to why blind testing is necessary to ensure the learned neural patterns for looks are removed from sonic decisions. However as applied to ABx, those learned neural patterns should trigger the same for A and for A=x, as opposed to B.  It is also why training improves ABx as you develop additional neural pathways for characteristic detection which is what preference is. 

When people get the X test with audio equipment I suspect many are trying to figure out if the treble, bass, image depth, tonality, etc. match A or B, not asking themselves how much they like the presentation and then seeing if that preference is closer to how they felt when they listened to A or B. Of course we’ll never know if that’s true because unfortunately I don’t run an audio testing laboratory.

And yes, there is learning happening in the memory patients, but the area of the brain that makes explicit identification judgments does not have access to it. I’ll also note that when they fail to recognize a previous acquaintance that new/old judgment is even easier than matching to a particular object as required to succeed in ABx. Despite utter failure of explicit identification, the preference system chugs along just fine, leading to adaptive decision making.

This dissociation is why it is incorrect for you to state that, "if you can’t match A or B to X, then you can’t tell the two apart and you hence have no preference as you don’t as actually prefer either."

Anyway, it’s clear you’re going to continue to believe that matching judgments are the appropriate way to do A B testing. And that’s 100% not how I would do it if I were optimizing people’s decision making. It doesn't matter if you can pick your stereo equipment out of a lineup, it matters whether or not you like it. So be it...

And it is quite clear that you will continue to misunderstand and misstate the processes involved in an ABX audio test, even though you admitted you really don't know what happens.  But, nice to state, effectively that "we'll" never know because "you" don't run an audio testing laboratory. I am sure no one who does this style of test has any experience in testing human perception ....

It's rather "interesting" that "memory" or pathways, or whatever, are good enough to "remember" well enough to know if they prefer A or B, but not well enough to remember if they prefer C more than A, or C more than B.  That is what you are stating even if you think you are not. 


You whole argument is based on assuming a process that you admittedly don't know, and then assuming it must not be the one you feel it should be or would be more successful. That is bad science.


As a counterpoint, people who are not "audiophiles" have been shown, several times, to be more adept at detecting minor differences when they are trained, i.e. taught what the differences are likely to be, and given examples. They create the appropriate pathways for detection of differences.  To be clear, more adept than "audiophiles".  Based on communication of audiophiles when they compare cables, certainly on here, I would say that preference is exactly the method they use, or at least claim to.

Here is the thing. When comparing two of anything in audio, like in AB or ABX testing, the descriptors are invariably related to preference. More natural. Improved soundstage. Pinpoint imaging. Tighter bass. Sweet mids. These are comparative descriptors, not unary descriptors. That indicates preference.


Let's not forget that while double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard, there is no more success achieved in AB testing either, which as per the used descriptors, are preference related.

audio2design

... double blind ABX testing is considered the gold standard ...

Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard" for evaluating audio equipment. Not even close. It appears that really upsets you.

That doesn’t mean that ABX is useless, of course. But it’s just a tool - a single, solitary tool.

And there is it folks, can't win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.

Not everyone shares your measurementalist’s belief that ABX is the "gold standard"

Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement. I think that is why it is so threatening, because it is not measurement based. It is based on one thing, and one thing only, human listening. Your ears and brain. No scopes, no meters, no Audio Precision equipment, just some stereo equipment and your ears.


What's funny is in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blind testing. Cake and eat it too?  Do please try to be consistent.

Lot's of people have lots of "beliefs". Lots of people don't have the educational or practical experience either. Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one.

audio2design

And there is it folks, can’t win an argument based on facts, or truth, so must resort to an insult and labelling.

Nope, I offered no insult. There’s no need for you to pretend you’re insulted simply because someone disagrees with you.

Hate to break it to you "cleeds", but ABX has absolutely nothing to do with measurement.

That’s correct, of course. The only function of an ABX test is to determine if the listener - under the test conditions - can reliably distinguish whether "X" is either "A" or "B".

... in another thread, you used as an argument, Wireworld coming up with a "Patented" device to improve their ability to do double blindtesting. Cake and eat it too? Do please try to be consistent.

No, I never, ever said that. Ever. Please try to be accurate when you make claims. It’s bad enough when you use illogic to make an argument, but it’s worse when you fabricate claims made by others.

I have pointed out that Wireworld offers a comparator to use in evaluating cables. It’s a little odd that you seem to insist that others do this experimenting for you, but I understand that if you were to actually conduct such testing you fear the results might conflict with your fundamentalist beliefs.

Lot’s of people have lots of "beliefs" ... Does not change the lack of evidence that ABX works and hence is the "gold standard" or as close as we have to one.

Yes, and your measurementalist "belief" is that ABX is the gold standard for audio testing. As I’ve noted many times previously, it’s a very useful tool, and I’ve been an ABX test subject and found the results v-e-r-y interesting. It absolutely has a place in audio testing.

But ABX testing is just a tool - a single, solitary tool. It is not a path to Absolute Truth. That apparently offends your belief system.

Taken to the extreme, there are those who actually believe  "if you didn't hear it blind, you didn't hear it." Obviously, many sighted people can hear just fine.

@audio2design  Below is a journal article you might find interesting.  It explores a mechanism behind the empirical paradox that people can show a reliable preference between two stimuli but fail to discrimination between them on an ABX discrimination test (here referred to as triangle testing). 

I will note that the reason they identify in this case is actually "the statistical properties of the decision rules followed in different tasks."  I still suspect that raw preference judgments are more sensitive than discrimination judgments but that was not the driving factor for differences in this case.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03205304

Thank you cal3713, I do remember that paper ages ago. I will point directly to the conclusion:

Our main conclusion, however, is that it is not necessary to invoke any advantage for hedonic judgments to explain our earlier results. These, and the new results here, are just particular instances of the advantage in statistical power that Ennis(1990) shows forced-choice methods to have over triangular tests. More consistent judgments are a consequence not of greater sensitivity to hedonic differences but to the statistical properties of the decision rules followed in different tasks.

I believe I noted above that ABX was statistically more robust.

There are a lot of great points made here on both sides of the argument but I think as with anything many people are looking at things too microscopically and need to zoom out and take a macro view at what is actually happening with "streaming" on a network.

One thing no one seems to bring up in these back-and forths is the essential architecture of a network which consists of layers. Sometimes you might hear about these layers in jargon like "stack" "full stack", or other such lingo.

If one happens to be a competent "full stack" software engineer, then the challenges of figuring out whether or not the data are/is good is largely irrelevant.

What audiophiles fail to realize is that vast amounts of opportunity for mishandling/misinterpretation of "1's and 0's" can, and often do happen at the final few stages in the process (presentation, application) of translating the "digital" signal information into meaningful use by your device.

The fact is that not all "streamers", let alone music player software, are created equal, and there are many poor ways of going about it in fact.

From a technical standpoint, the data received by a streamer from a network is the exact same data another streamer can receive on a network.

Where the conversation gets tricky is what you are using to render the data and how it handles the various software processes to de-code the information (1's and 0's).

As an analogy, gamers spend varying amounts of dough on better graphics processors. No computer engineer would argue that the raw game data being received by two different GPUs is different; you can perform a hash/checksum to verify the data is all there.

Equally, no one will argue that two different GPUs will and can produce different results when finally rendered to your monitor (not to mention the monitor has it's own internal processing to deal with to receive the data).

What's so funny to me about "science only" audiophiles is they don't tend to think about the actual science much.

Its audio not rocket science. If you want bit perfect you can have bit perfect and you can do it very inexpensively.

Its audio not rocket science. If you want bit perfect you can have bit perfect and you can do it very inexpensively.

Sure you can. But how is the "bit-perfect" data being translated and rendered?

If I am using a player software with digital EQ and a DAC or interface like the MSB still shows that it's "bit-perfect" data, shouldn't that tell you something?

As a visual analogy, if I switch between color space outputs on my video streaming device to send a different color gamut to a capable display over HDMI, the signal to the display is still "bit perfect". Yet, if the display is capable, it will result in a different color space. If I set the wrong color space for the source material, the image(s) will end up altered.