They are abut modifiying (or correcting) the in room response, rather than modifying the sound from a DAC. You can’t do that with inaudible - or near inaudible differences between dacs.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?
- Thread starter Willhelm_Scream
- Start date
To be perfectly honest i have no idea where the discussion sidetracked yesterday, propably nowhere that matters.
My point was about market fashion: the user should twiddle with nearly or fully indistinguishable filters while forbidden from making more salient adjustments. I think it’s really a form of ”negging” - get the client to sweat because he can’t tell the difference and keep him uncertain about his status in a status-driven market.
In my last listening sessions I found it so liberating to say things like “Nope, can’t hear a difference” or “they’re both great, it probably doesn’t make a difference”. It tends to stop the chatter for a few seconds.
Many DAC chips have a selection of filters because different applications have different needs.
Any examples?
I can't see where a specific application will particularly need one of the filter curves identified in post 3863 above vs any other one?
Things like live effects boxes that need low latency benefit from minimum phase filters. In other applications, a linear phase response might be important. The magnitude response is usually less critical.
Sure, there are situations on stage and in studios that might require a different approach, but they don't apply to home listening. When is a linear phase response needed?
I see only one reason to change the filters in my RME ADI2 PRO fs: To reproduce a square wave the Super Slow (NOS) filter is better because the slew rate is higher. For music I choose the filter with the best suppression of image signals (Sharp). All other filters are meaningless.
Linear phase is closer to an ideal reconstruction. For this reason alone, it should in my opinion be the default choice unless something else is specifically required.
Is it? How do you define "ideal reconstruction"?
Perfect phase and amplitude reconstruction within the passband.
Does the phase matter (as "is the difference audible")?
With “perfect” a lot of things may not matter audibly.
Fair enough.
Apologies if any of this ground has been covered .. I admit have not read the full thread.
I am interested in the science of measurements to help inform decisions but any scientist should know you can never say " I have a complete set of tests that will show everything you need to know - no new questions now ".
I feel we now need to somehow find a way of measuring differences while decoding actual music for the reasons below (for me at least). Obviously I think the handling of real music can shine a light on differences (and that is all you would get as there can be no true reference)
I compared smsl su-9 to rme a year or so ago and managed to pick the su-9 consistently more than a dozen times over 2 days when my wife (wanting to keep things cheaper) tested me (was on my own 1st generation recorded material mind) . Didn't need level matching it was obvious at reasonable listening levels after only a few bars (high mids had more detail than the rest of the spectrum on the smsl making it sounded strangely unatural).
On the rme you can turn off the ess trickery and drop to 0.1% distortion .. I can't hear any difference here so chasing .0000 bla% distortion not my priority and is probably getting silly.
Some would say digital signals are too similar to detect as well but the same music played from optical out from our TV (android all resampled to 16 | 48 I believe) compared to pc usb with no resampling is also easily discernable to me every time ( > space air and width).
So I feel some of these things do have a sonic signature which maybe only become "visible" while dealing with real complex sets of tones and transients (music).
Do any such tests exist? If not what would they look like?
I am interested in the science of measurements to help inform decisions but any scientist should know you can never say " I have a complete set of tests that will show everything you need to know - no new questions now ".
I feel we now need to somehow find a way of measuring differences while decoding actual music for the reasons below (for me at least). Obviously I think the handling of real music can shine a light on differences (and that is all you would get as there can be no true reference)
I compared smsl su-9 to rme a year or so ago and managed to pick the su-9 consistently more than a dozen times over 2 days when my wife (wanting to keep things cheaper) tested me (was on my own 1st generation recorded material mind) . Didn't need level matching it was obvious at reasonable listening levels after only a few bars (high mids had more detail than the rest of the spectrum on the smsl making it sounded strangely unatural).
On the rme you can turn off the ess trickery and drop to 0.1% distortion .. I can't hear any difference here so chasing .0000 bla% distortion not my priority and is probably getting silly.
Some would say digital signals are too similar to detect as well but the same music played from optical out from our TV (android all resampled to 16 | 48 I believe) compared to pc usb with no resampling is also easily discernable to me every time ( > space air and width).
So I feel some of these things do have a sonic signature which maybe only become "visible" while dealing with real complex sets of tones and transients (music).
Do any such tests exist? If not what would they look like?
I wish I would get $1 for every audiophile that says that.
Yes. Proper, level-matched, double-blind, controlled listening tests, preferably ABX or MUSHRA.
Soria Moria
Senior Member
Not to be rude but I immediately discarded the rest of your message after I read that. Level matching is essential!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,754
- Likes
- 37,593
It has been covered numerous times.
Okay, so we can and will disregard all of your ideas. They are misbegotten.
For any listening comparison, level matching is JOB #1. FULL STOP.
There are tests to see what differences there are in the output of devices using real music. You can also do the old ABX test to see if you can hear those differences. They will need to be level matched.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,754
- Likes
- 37,593
You can try these files from a prior post in this thread. Already level matched. See if you can hear them easily. Click on this link and follow the links in the post that opens.
www.audiosciencereview.com
Serious Question: How can DAC's have a SOUND SIGNATURE if they measure as transparent? Are that many confused?
...that is the best take on the subject I have seen so far... ...it is clear to any thinking person that there are asspects involved we have no way to measure... ...it was just stated there are only three asspects measured at the current state of the art...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Similar threads
- Poll
