Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?

[Miguelón]

Honestly, this sort of thing is why you were suspected of being a troll

Honestly, this sort of thing is why you were suspected of being a troll.

Maybe, I don’t care so much what I consider to be, but I’m sad for making Pablolie to be angry. Was not my intention, I apologized to him on my answer to his reply…

 

[Jim Taylor]

Scientific method is no more than a method. The so called “conclusions” are in fact “hypothesis”. As a hypothesis cannot be verified by the method, just contradicted, it will be always a “belief”.
So science is a set of collective beliefs taken as universal truths.

Not necessarily true:

What is a Hypothesis - Types, Examples and Writing Guide

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires....

researchmethod.net

In a theoretical way, one thing that makes the scientific method very desirable is that no matter the person, one can ever have doubts of what is true or not, and the doubt is healthy for the method.

Theoretically, that is true. Theoretically, if I shot you in one foot with a 12 ga. shotgun and it hurt like hell, that does in no way prove that if I shot you in the other foot with a 12 ga. it would also hurt.

I really doubt that you want me to shoot you in either foot with a 12 ga. to see whether it would hurt ... right?

See? Some things go beyond simple "beliefs".

Jim

 

[Jim Taylor]

Can you prove there is no better method?

Can you prove that a person cannot walk on the surface of the sun?

Jim

p.s. - The tone of this whole discussion reminds me of freshman-year pseudo-intellectualism. (yawn)

 

[Miguelón]

Not necessarily true:

What is a Hypothesis - Types, Examples and Writing Guide

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires....

researchmethod.net

Theoretically, that is true. Theoretically, if I shot you in one foot with a 12 ga. shotgun and it hurt like hell, that does in no way prove that if I shot you in the other foot with a 12 ga. it would also hurt.

I really doubt that you want me to shoot you in either foot with a 12 ga. to see whether it would hurt ... right?

See? Some things go beyond simple "beliefs".

Jim

Please don’t shoot me! As a cure for pseudo-intellectualism it will be a little excessive…

 

[Jim Taylor]

Please don’t shoot me! As a cure for pseudo-intellectualism it will be a little excessive…

Yes ... but only a little.

Jim

 

[BDWoody]

Can you prove there is no better method?

Scientific method is no more than a method. The so called “conclusions” are in fact “hypothesis”. As a hypothesis cannot be verified by the method, just contradicted, it will be always a “belief”.
So science is a set of collective beliefs taken as universal truths.

Is there a point to all this?

Please don’t shoot me! As a cure for pseudo-intellectualism it will be a little excessive…

That's enough. Your act has worn thin.

 

[sam_adams]

Can you prove that a person cannot walk on the surface of the sun?

The Sun does not have a solid surface like the Earth or the other rocky planets in the Solar System.

 

[Blumlein 88]

The Sun does not have a solid surface like the Earth or the other rocky planets in the Solar System.

Oh yeah? Can you prove the surface has to be solid for someone to walk upon it? /s

 

[pkane]

Please don’t shoot me! As a cure for pseudo-intellectualism it will be a little excessive…

Yes ... but only a little.

But likely to be effective, and to a great measure -- satisfying

 

[antcollinet]

This is precisely science… just replace “personal” by “collective” and you get its definition

You are sounding very much like a troll right now.

EDIT : Seems I'm late to the party.

 

[Basic Channel]

Regardless of my biological classification (troll or uneducated idiot), I’m making some philosophical digressions, not mines unfortunately, culturally existed before me… in Descartes “Discourse de la Méthode”

Non cogitas, ergo non es

 

[Miss_Sissy]

Personally I’m not offended, I think it was just a communication error…

You started to participate in a point of a light and slightly comical philosophical debate

Without the benefit of seeing facial expressions or hearing telltale intonations and chuckles, it's often difficult to discern when someone is "kidding" in an online discussion. That's where emojis/smilies come in. Even an occasional "{kidding}" can help immensely.

Did you, perchance, end up here when your browser autocorrected AudioSeanceReview to AudioScienceReview?

 

[MacClintock]

Any truth to this ? Not that it would matter, there is no relevant content above 20kHz, but still?

 

[antcollinet]

Any truth to this ? Not that it would matter, there is no relevant content above 20kHz, but still?

Dunno. In one of the screenshots of the frequency response, one of the files had significanlty higher noise floor above 20kHz, but it was not possible to see the scale.

He did seem to answer all the questions we'd normally ask about controls, and we know that filters can impact FR at 20kHz and above.

If your hearing extends up or beyond that level then perhaps it is audible - and if his test has been correctly carried out as described, he has proven that he can hear it.

However his video contradicts his clickbait title.

1 : Even under the test conditions the result doesn't matter.

especially given how high a frequency it is most people
are probably not going to be able to
hear and those that can are probably
going to find that it's too small a
difference for them to care about anyway

2 : He's not testing a difference between DACs, but between filters. It is often been pointed out that if you use a filter which impacts the FR in the audible range that this will be .... audible. In this case the filters are making changes in (his) audible range - which would not be the case for the vast majority of people. We normally (often unspoken) mean that DACs are indistinguishable when they are using similar performing filters. Most Dacs default filters are of similar performance.

So here he has two edge cases combined. One is a person whose hearing extends above the range of the vast majority of people. Second - he is comparing two filters - one of which is not used in the vast majority of DACS which creates a difference in his higher than normal frequency range.

I'm not sure it is a result that has any significant impact for the premise of this thread.

 

[Chagall]

Any truth to this ? Not that it would matter, there is no relevant content above 20kHz, but still?

IMO he made a great case to go with a transparent low-cost DAC. No matter what people spend on DACs, they won't hear any difference if they don't have perfect hearing. Even if they do the differences will be subtle and potentially not worth it.

Bottom line: He said that the differences are subtle and that spending money on better headphones is the way to go. Completely agree and applaud him for the work he did.

 

[MacClintock]

Dunno. In one of the screenshots of the frequency response, one of the files had significanlty higher noise floor above 20kHz, but it was not possible to see the scale.

He did seem to answer all the questions we'd normally ask about controls, and we know that filters can impact FR at 20kHz and above.

If your hearing extends up or beyond that level then perhaps it is audible - and if his test has been correctly carried out as described, he has proven that he can hear it.

However his video contradicts his clickbait title.

1 : Even under the test conditions the result doesn't matter:specially given


2 : He's not testing a difference between DACs, but between filters. It is often been pointed out that if you use a filter which impacts the FR in the audible range that this will be .... audible. In this case the filters are making changes in (his) audible range - which would not be the case for the vast majority of people. We normally (often unspoken) mean that DACs are indistinguishable when they are using similar performing filters. Most Dacs default filters are of similar performance.

So here he has two edge cases combined. One is a person whose hearing extends above the range of the vast majority of people. Second - he is comparing two filters - one of which is not used in the vast majority of DACS which creates a difference in his higher than normal frequency range.

I'm not sure it is a result that has any significant impact for the premise of this thread.

Totally agree. One could summarize it, are there audible differences between competent measuring DACs? Yes, for bats.

 

[MacClintock]

IMO he made a great case to go with a transparent low-cost DAC. No matter what people spend on DACs, they won't hear any difference if they don't have perfect hearing. Even if they do the differences will be subtle and potentially not worth it.

Bottom line: He said that the differences are subtle and that spending money on better headphones is the way to go. Completely agree and applaud him for the work he did.

Well, yes and no. The video has the clickbait title "proof that DACs matter" and he argues that this extra bit might make it worthwile to spend more if you care, following known audiophool myths.

 

[MaxBuck]

Are there differences? Yes. Are they meaningful? Probably not, for the vast majority of people. Why do they exist? The characteristics of the filter(s) are the predominant influences.

Those are the conclusions I reach from the video. I'm probably oversimplifying, and I may be wrong on a point or two. But I really think that's the takeaway.

 

[antcollinet]

Are there differences? Yes. Are they meaningful? Probably not, for the vast majority of people. Why do they exist? The characteristics of the filter(s) are the predominant influences.

Those are the conclusions I reach from the video. I'm probably oversimplifying, and I may be wrong on a point or two. But I really think that's the takeaway.

I'd mod that slightly.

Are there differences? Not for the vast majority of people. For the tiny minority who can hear a difference between these very different filters, is it meaningful? No.

 

[solderdude]

People that are so worried with content above 20kHz should not be using 44.1kHz files but only use 88.1kHz or higher files.
In those cases even a slow filter would not be audible detectable to Goldenears.

As a lot of content is 44.1kHz with who knows what type of anti-alias filter on the ADC side or downsampler used in the production phase.
Goldenears should just use his 'ideal' upsampling filter in that case while audiophiles (usually over 40 y.o.) would not be bothered anyway.

Indeed ... spend most funds on quality transducers...
That said... there can be little correlation between price and performance of transducers.