mike1127

Wow, you are digging in. This thread is about the Gustard R26, not about testing methodologies. Go to Objective-Fi.

This is a thread about the R26. It is audibly different from other DACs, as most DACs are audibly different from each other. No one wants to debate testing methodology on this thread. That's for the Objective-Fi section.

I find, a lot of people report, that initial impressions aren't very important anyway, but that our perception of a component settles in over time. As I said previously, I think this is because after getting used to something we start to listen without expectations (or such moments happen spontaneously). Whereas first listens often have a lot of expectations or imagination attached. I think blind quick switching can also have a lot of conceptualization or imagination attached to it. It depends on what the listener is doing.

Yup, my new R26 sounds different through USB! The display also looks different (has a different font size). The sound is bright, while the other R26 was rolled-off and bassy. I'm wondering if it's the USB driver and firmware versions. I looked on Gustard's site to see how to change firmware, but I don't want to take the risk as only the latest version is listed. I think the R26 I just got from EBay must have older drivers or firmware. It's actually good through USB, so that saves me the expense of the DDC and cable.

I think that trying to discern a difference, or whether there's a difference, throws a wrench into the experiment. Setting up the question that way - "is there a difference here" - can provoke as much imagination, expectation, conceptualizing, etc. as a sighted test of differences. It depends, of course, on how the listener approaches it.. but what I tried to do back when I was doing blind tests, and what people I've talked to tried to do, a comparison under those circumstances is as "noisy" and unreliable as a sighted test. So what's less noisy? When I'm not trying to discern a difference, but just allowing things to come to my attention without expectation. Zen monks talk about this and cultivate the ability to consciously choose to use their awareness this way. I have done a bit of mindfulness and have learned some things about how I choose to use my awareness, but I can't reliably or consciously choose to enter into a state of no expectations, but that kind of state tends to happen spontaneously when I'm living with a component. And, a living with a component, in a "sighted" situation where I know what that component is, seems to an accurate way to judge it and not be influenced by the appearance, at least for me and from what I've read, a number of people. Right now I'm doing a shootout of four DACs. After listening to each one for a few days, the biggest/shiniest/heaviest/most expensive DAC (a Denafrips Terminator 1) is the one I like least. The cheapest one (a Gustard R26) is the one I like best. Many people have reported that there's no clear correlation between expectations and what we feel about a component when living with it.

That's true even when the test is blind, such as imagining what one hears in sample A while listening to sample B. You want a test to be under the least "noisy" conditions. It's not so much being blind or not, but a typical blind test is done under very noisy conditions (i.e., encouraging the listener to use lots of imagination). What is less noisy? Relaxing into the sound of something long term. Note, that thing can be disguised or hidden. This is not a blind vs. non-blind issue, as much as it is an issue of typical blind tests vs. a common means of sighted evaluation.

I'm an audiophile in the sense I hear differences between power cords, digital interconnects, etc. So here's my explanation of why these differences are hard to detect in blind tests, while "living with" a component is a more reliable method of perceiving what a component does and whether I enjoy it. I don't perceive an abstract concept of sound as often as I perceive musical details rendered in a particular way. Reviewers sometimes describe equipment as showing them new details in old favorite songs. That's an example of being able to hear something that was not previously heard. Another example would be hearing a bass line as "groovy," or a violin's tone as "beautiful." Or I might hear problems, like the sizzle on a violin is not integrated with the body of the sound. The list goes on and on. Sometimes I hear the concept of "sound," like a low noise floor or extension on top. Also musical "beauty" is a fairly abstract concept yet something that changes in different equipment. But let's focus on the experience of hearing musical details. Let's say I've been living with device A for hundreds of hours of listening. Then I listen to device B and "hear a detail I've never heard before." The problem that occurs in some A/B comparison is that once I've heard that detail, I can go back to device A and lo and behold there it is! In some cases, once I've heard it, I can't unhear it for a while. And yet there was something about B that brought it to my attention, while hundreds of hours of listening to device A never did. I can generalize this a little bit. People bring their imagination to listening. I think the objectivists are on board with that -- the experience you have with a device is a combination of the sound you're hearing and what your brain brings to it. This is why some musicians have terrible systems and yet love them. They have so much experience with live music that they can superimpose all those experiences on the sound coming from the audio system and hear it as if live. I've experienced this while driving home from an L.A. Philharmonic concert and listening to KUSC on the radio .. the classical music coming out of the stupid car system reminds me of the glorious sound that I just heard. So after hearing the detail on device B, I bring my expectations and imagination back to device A and it alters how I perceive device A, so that maybe I hear the detail on A. In the blind tests I did a long time ago (when I had someone to help), my habit was to focus on specific details and try to confirm which device I'm listening to by confirming that I hear a detail in device A but not device B. Or something I can point to as a hard yes-or-no concept is different in A and B. The problem is that we bring so much of our expectations and imagination to the process. The brain's "hearing process" is very noisy when it tries to pin down and confirm differences. I'm guessing that most listeners are like that, especially untrained listeners. If the body of sound science is based on situations in the which the hearing process is noisy, then it's suspect. So when it is not noisy? When living with a component and letting my guard down. It's the details I hear when I enter a state of not expecting anything (sort of like a Zen monk) that confirm what the equipment is like for me. For me, I'm not reliable at entering this state of mind deliberately. However, I know a technician who can hear fine differences immediately. Why am I sure of this? Because his final designs and modifications have large differences, and he had to navigate his way to that final design by small changes. If he can't hear and remember small changes, then he could never reliably reach a design with large changes.

Before you post advice, consider whether the person already knows it. Yes, I'm aware that the whole system affects the sound. I have 4 headphones, one pair of speakers and amp, two headphone amps, and four DACs here right now. I can drive the DACs from an Aurender N100 either through USB, or using the U18 I can feed it with coax or I2S. My headphones/amps and speakers are very extended on top and resolving. Compared to other DACs in the $2000 price range, the R26 I have, through USB, is rolled off and sleepy. I've also been over this with many other R26 owners on the forums. Not a good solution considering that involves the extra expensive of a DDC and HDMI cable. And they need to be good, so not cheap. Better to get USB to work.

I think I had it playing 24/7 for five or six days. Through USB, the sound was sleepy, and didn't change much over those 125 to 150 hours. I wonder if I got a bad unit. I ordered it from Amazon. I just found a used R26 on Ebay for a good price from a guy who described it in glowing terms (but was moving to home theater and wanted to downsize) and I bought it from him. I'll return this one to Amazon. Maybe the used one will be better through USB.

I got an R26 a few weeks ago. First I fed it through USB from an Aurender N100 (the N100 has sounded very good on multiple DACs I've tried it on). The R26 seemed sleepy and unengaging. It wasn't extended on top. I was surprised as I've heard good things about the R26. I have a very high-end USB cable (custom make by Igor Kuznetsoff of K Works Audio). I got a hold of a Gustard U18 DDC a week ago and ended up using it to feed the R26 through I2S. Totally different experience. Very musical and detailed. I'm using either a Transparent HDMI or an Audioquest Firebird HDMI from the U18 to the R26. They sound different and I'm not sure which one is better. It's unfortunate that using a DDC increases the cost (spending on both the DDC and the extra cable) and requires searching for an affordable HDMI cable. (I got the Firebird used at $700.) I also tried a coax connection from the U18 to the R26, using another super high-end cable by Igor. A very different sound from the HDMI; I don't like it that much due to a rough treble - for example the sizzle of a violin is too loud and not integrated with the body of the instrument.

I've gotten a lot of benefit to my system by using parallel capacitive power conditioning. The product I use isn't made any more, but I thought I would describe it and maybe some others would know about something similar. Power conditioning by parallel capacitance is based on the idea that putting a capacitor between two power lines (called "in parallel" with them) will clamp high-frequency noise. It creates effective a "short circuit" that exists only at high frequency, so the sources of RF noise can't drive a voltage on the line. It doesn't do as much for low-frequency noise, say in the audio range, but in my experience that's not as important as the RFI which causes individual electrical components (like transistors) to saturate and distort. The noise is in the RF range, but the ultimate effect is to cause audio-frequency distortions. The other kind of filtering uses series inductors, which create a kind of high resistance at higher frequencies and reduce it going into your equipment. I don't use anything with series inductors. Some people report that power conditioning, especially on amps, restricts dynamics. While I don't know if that would be the case for every device that uses a series inductor, a series inductive definitely limits sudden surges of current. Most power conditioning components (the ones with multiple outlets) that I've researched contain series inductors on at least some of the outputs. So I have these black boxes with 3-prong plugs that go into wall sockets. Inside is are three capacitors: between neutral and hot, between neutral and ground, and between hot and ground. In each position is a 10 uF capacitor. The guy who designed these, Igor Kuznetsoff, is good at choosing components for synergy and good sound. It's not just any capacitor. Unfortunately I don't know what type it is, but it's fairly large, like wider and a little shorter than an AA battery. It's a white cylinder. Maybe some designer here will know what that is. So there are three of those capacitors in each box. The one between hot and neutral reduces noise, and works similarly to this product: Isoplug. https://upscaleaudio.com/products/isotek-evo3-isoplug But the Isoplug only has two lines. Igor's devices have capacitors between each of those lines and ground, which reduces common mode noise and even cleans up the ground. Another principle I'm using is to plug these boxes into the peripheral circuits in the house, that is, not the circuit my audio system is on (the system circuit). The idea is that all the circuits in your house can have sources of noise, such as plugged-in switching power supplies (found everywhere: computers, chargers, LED lights, appliances, etc.) as well as acting like antennas picking up RF in the air. (I live near a major science university, not to mention a large urban area [Los Angeles] and there seems to be a ton of RF). And the noise in the peripheral circuits can move into the system circuit inside the junction panel. I have 11 of these boxes, with 30 uF capacitance each, on peripheral circuits around the house. I live with two roommates and they are device junkies, with many iPods, iPads, iPhones, Android tablets, power bricks, MacBooks, Windows laptops, TV and consumer stereo, LED lights, etc. We counted once and my roommates have around 60 devices with switching power supplies plugged into peripheral circuits! I count my blessings I found good power conditioning because I'm getting a beautiful sound out of my headphone and speaker systems, with a low noise floor. I have switching devices on my system circuit (my bedroom), like an Echo, chargers, LED lights etc., but they are all on a single socket which I can unplug to power them down for critical listening. On my audio system itself, I have a another power conditioner created by Igor, a large 10-outlet power strip with enough room to cram in capacitors on every pair of outlets. This power strip has smaller capacitors than 10 uF between neutral and ground, much smaller, to avoid hum. The boxes also have ERS fabric in them. This is a product produces by Stillpoints which is a fabric containing randomly-oriented carbon fibers. It absorbs RF. It's actually very similar to the way stealth aircraft work. Igor uses ERS effectively in all his products and custom modifications. Maybe someone here knows of a similar product that is still made. Looking around the web, I found these things by Nordost: Nordost QV2 https://upscaleaudio.com/products/quantum-resonant-technology-qv2-ac-line-harmonizer Something that bothers me about Nordost is that they use a lot of marketing buzzwords when describing their products that don't make any sense. I'm sure their products and cables sound good, otherwise they probably wouldn't be a major audiophile company, but come on. Also the QV2 is three times as expensive as Igor's boxes, which cost around $100 each. (But aren’t available any more.) Also these: Furutech 3-line filters . https://trueaudiophile.com/furutech-ncf-clear-line/ Notice how everything I've described has an engineering reason it works. Parallel capacitance for instance is a simple principle. The ERS fabric has been used by some people as if it were magic... i.e. they place it around with no rhyme or reason and gush about the improvements... but my understanding is that stealth aircraft also use randomly oriented conductive fibers. Igor has developed a technique for using ERS to assist power supplies and other places inside components when he mods them. I discovered these boxes 16 years ago when they were sold by Todd the Vinyl Junkie. I started with just 3 of them... one in the system circuit and two for peripheral circuits.. and I loved the improvement, which didn't seem just to improve the resolution, but do so in a musical way. I've since had Igor mod some of my components such as a headphone amp and DAC, and I like his work. Now that's I'm in a house with switching power supplies, my system sounds better than all previous houses (because I got a lot more of the boxes when I moved here).

Interesting. The connection from the DAC output to the amp should probably still be there so current flows through the output stage of the DAC, even if the amp is off. Haven't tried to figure that out.

I talked to the previous owner and it turns out he replaced the power supply before selling it and it had only a few hours on it. I think I'll need to burn it in before a final judgment.

Thanks for your feedback. I'd like to make this DAC work if I can. I only tried 44.1/16, as that is most of my collection. An important aspect of quality for me is how well the DAC/other device renders the leading edge of piano notes. I use a few audiophile piano recordings to be sure there is no trouble in the recording. With the Denafrips Terminator 1, the piano edges were exaggerated and aggressive. As there is a correlation between frequency response and transient response, it's not surprising that I also heard a ton of energy in some treble region, perhaps the presence or sibilance regions. The extra energy was not harsh but just became monotonous after a while. I now have a Gustard U18 DDC and a Transparent HDMI cable, so I could try the Denafrips with its I2S input. I could also try other decoding formats.

I think we agree on the important stuff. I would just use different words. I have studied classical composition in music school, and I have analyzed compositions. In an analysis we are looking for patterns we can name and point to. But I've never thought my preference was done with cold hard facts. Ultimately it's a mystery why Bach's fugue in C-sharp minor from WTC Book 1 is so appealing to me. There's a LOT of mystery in music and I've never denied that. The other students and musicians never denied that. Some musicians or critics have staked out hard positions about what is good and what sucks. Stravinsky used to mock composers he didn't like. That might be what you're talking about. A person mocking other musicians seems to have a "better than thou" air to them. But I learned how silly this looks. I especially learned that as I got older and saw my preferences change in unexpected ways. The problem with mocking another composer today is that I might like them in 5 years. I think the Objectivists agree people have preferences. What they probably do is omit that from their theories entirely. It's unexplainable by scientific theory, therefore "we will not try to explain anything about it with our theories." While I think preference is ultimately a mystery, it can be investigated from a first person perspective. There is a philosophy called Phenomenalogy. It's the science of the inner experience. This would take a lot to explain so I'll leave it there for now.