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

[fpitas]

This thread is a fascinating exposition of bigotry and bear baiting. Measuring hi-fi is terribly first world, so why is ASR so toxic?

We're just techno-barbarians. Bright, but irascible.

 

[voodooless]

irascible.

Had to look that one up. So we’re Audio Woke then? Who would have known…

 

[Mnyb]

This thread started with a troll title, and then went downhill

I don’t think it’s a troll title , you sort of expect that the kind of persons choosing to be members here gets this implicitly and op vented surprise and frustration that’s it’s actually not the case that most of the membership gets it ?

We have a flood of trolls signing up just to tell everyone here that they are wrong to not believe in cables or whatever.
This tread is great to find members to put on your ignore list

ASR can sometimes seems like an astronomy forum flooded with astrology fans

 

[fpitas]

Had to look that one up. So we’re Audio Woke then? Who would have known…

We're a cranky bunch. I'm always tempted to tell the whipper-snappers to get off my lawn.

 

[fpitas]

This tread is great to find members to put on your ignore list

It does seem to draw a certain type in.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

So, Dr., how come you didn't post links to any of the papers that *did not* find evidence for audibility of hi rez? If you were intending a literature review, I mean.

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but evidence is evidence.

Thor

 

[krabapple]

Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,

A common fallacy. Science accepts a negative result as evidence of 'no effect'.

Moreover, some of the negative result papers are from tests of the 'positive' earlier result.

Absolutely nothing you've been posting is as dispositive as you seem to believe. It's certainly not news to me.

but evidence is evidence.

But all evidence is not equally convincing. Nor are all interpretations of evidence equally convincing.

This is where replication, and consilience of evidence, come in.

 

[IAtaman]

The BIS recording suggested by Hugo9000 in this post linked here is the quietest noise floor I've found in a recording. I have the downloaded 96/24 FLAC of it.

Got a copy of yesterday and was listening to it last night. First 30 seconds or so sound quiet at first, until you crank it all the way up an suddenly the brass, the strings show up gently.. It is amazing, thank you for the suggestion. Noise was indistinguishable from room noise with open back, had to swicth to closed back to have any chance of hearing anything

 

[Blumlein 88]

Got a copy of yesterday and was listening to it last night. First 30 seconds or so sound quiet at first, until you crank it all the way up an suddenly the brass, the strings show up gently.. It is amazing, thank you for the suggestion. Noise was indistinguishable from room noise with open back, had to swicth to closed back to have any chance of hearing anything

@Hugo9000 suggested it to me both as a good recording and good performance. I love this recording for the enjoyment. One of those times a good recording of high quality had a good performance to go with it.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

A common fallacy. Science accepts a negative result as evidence of 'no effect'.

Not in the presence of a positive result giving evidence of 'effect'.

It is however a common fallacy in pseudo science, confidence tricks and cargo cult science to assume that because most results are negative and that is what we expect positive results if fewer must be in error.

Moreover, some of the negative result papers are from tests of the 'positive' earlier result.

Please post the references.

Absolutely nothing you've been posting is as dispositive as you seem to believe. It's certainly not news to me.

I believe nothing. And they are not news to me either.

But all evidence is not equally convincing.

Correct. FOr example, the lack of positive evidence from a test that by design makes the negative outcome highly likely and the positive outcome highly unlikely is utterly unconvincing as evidence of anything, except the degrees of human bigotry.

This is where replication, and consilience of evidence, come in.

Indeed. And Meta Analysis to see if the failure to get a positive output is actually with the test, not the stimula being tested.

Thor

 

[antcollinet]

This thread is a fascinating exposition of bigotry and bear baiting. Measuring hi-fi is terribly first world, so why is ASR so toxic?

Bigotry? - is it possible to be bigotted against misinformation?

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Bigotry? - is it possible to be bigotted against misinformation?

Yes, if the so-called "misinformation" are actually inconvenient truth.

Thor

 

[antcollinet]

It was the very definition of 'good enough'. Rather than 'a best fit for all purposes'.

Exactly - I don't think the phrase 'good enough' has ever implied perfection. If people are having to unreasonably crank the volume and/or listen intently for miniscule differences that are so hard to hear they have to be trained to detect the 'tells', or if unrepresentative edge cases need to be set up so the difference can be detected - then I'm not going to worry about whether redbook is good enough or not. I know it is.

 

[antcollinet]

Yes, if the so-called "misinformation" are actually inconvenient truth.

Thor

That sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

Exactly - I don't think the phrase 'good enough' has ever implied perfection.

Ahhm, how was SeeDee marketed again, let me think? Was it "good enough sound, next to your noisy LP's and K7 tapes!"?

Or was it:

Philips Compact Disc
Pure, Perfect Sound Forever

Answers on a postcard.

Thor

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

That sounds a bit like an oxymoron.

Would you kindly explain why you think an inconvenient truth that others misrepresent as supposed "mis-information" is an oxymoron?

Thor

 

[IAtaman]

Thor

So now we sorted out the 16 bit / 18 bit / noise floor / dither issue, let me ask you another question please. Are all well designed and implemented DACs transparent, or do they have a sound signature or sound different - what do you think?

 

[Thorsten Loesch]

So now we sorted out the 16 bit / 18 bit / noise floor / dither issue, let me ask you another question please. Are all well designed and implemented DACs transparent, or do they have a sound signature or sound different - what do you think?

I carried out fairly large scale (> 10 listeners) on multiple occasions during product design, to for example identify candidate DAC chips for use.

From my experience, different DAC's that all measure sufficiently well to be free from audible noise, audible harmonic distortion, audible levels of jitter etc. have different degrees of preference under blind conditions with consistent descriptions of perceived "sound signature" for specific DAC Chip architectures and/or Brands but also between individual offerings of the same brand.

Note, my tests are never Audio ABX, but blind preference tests, operating on the basic premise that DAC's are permitted to sound different, by the relevant laws of physics, physioacoustics and psychoacoustics.

They do not seek to establish if there is a difference (that would be useless to my purpose), but they seem to evaluate if there is a reliable preference for the sound of one/some items over others.

Thor

 

[IAtaman]

I carried out fairly large scale (> 10 listeners) on multiple occasions during product design, to for example identify candidate DAC chips for use.

From my experience, different DAC's that all measure sufficiently well to be free from audible noise, audible harmonic distortion, audible levels of jitter etc. have different degrees of preference under blind conditions with consistent descriptions of perceived "sound signature" for specific DAC Chip architectures and/or Brands but also between individual offerings of the same brand.

Note, my tests are never Audio ABX, but blind preference tests, operating on the basic premise that DAC's are permitted to sound different, by the relevant laws of physics, physioacoustics and psychoacoustics.

They do not seek to establish if there is a difference (that would be useless to my purpose), but they seem to evaluate if there is a reliable preference for the sound of one/some items over others.

Thor

Interesting. What do you attribute this consistently perceived and described sound signature differences among devices sufficiently free from audible distortion and noise?

BTW, natural numbers is a large set, so I am not sure what >10 is but I am assuming it is not >20 otherwise you'd have mentioned it, and am not sure I'd call 10 to 20 people a large scale test, so I take your word for it and might be good enough for commercial purposes but hope we will not call this a proof?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

I carried out fairly large scale (> 10 listeners) on multiple occasions during product design, to for example identify candidate DAC chips for use.

From my experience, different DAC's that all measure sufficiently well to be free from audible noise, audible harmonic distortion, audible levels of jitter etc. have different degrees of preference under blind conditions with consistent descriptions of perceived "sound signature" for specific DAC Chip architectures and/or Brands but also between individual offerings of the same brand.

Note, my tests are never Audio ABX, but blind preference tests, operating on the basic premise that DAC's are permitted to sound different, by the relevant laws of physics, physioacoustics and psychoacoustics.

They do not seek to establish if there is a difference (that would be useless to my purpose), but they seem to evaluate if there is a reliable preference for the sound of one/some items over others.

Thor

Could we see some data please?

I mean I could claim the opposite and nobody would believe me unless I provide some replicable facts.