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

[Miguelón]

Quoting: There is a huge difference between the Ifi Zen and the Focusrite Scarlett, nothing that one take sometime to perceive.

ifi Zen DAC and Headphone Amp Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the ifi Zen balanced DAC and headphone amplifier. I purchased it from Amazon last week. The Zen DAC costs US $130 including free shipping. I must say, I am not a fan of the look of the Zen DAC. It hearkens back to 1960s furniture style which would...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The measurements of it don't paint SOTA performance, but also do not support a huge difference in sound vs a Scarlett.

My premise was that predicted DAC influence on sound is not completely understood, which is actual state of the art on the topic.

While you might say it isn't completely understood, there are tests of limits of audibility. Beyond that in proper testing people do not hear differences. You are offering up uncontrolled, unlevel matched listening as proof they are different. Or that makers want different sounds (mostly they market the idea of different sounds). That is woefully inadequate on your part. The hand waving objection not everything is known as a refutation is neither convincing nor a good look for someone who says they work in the sciences.

I find the discussion is coming to an end: to me DACs sound differently, I don’t really care so much about it as I appreciate relatively non expensive DACs, like the Scarlett ones or Topping.

And the explanation why sound different even matching volumes maybe there is a deliberate manipulation of some brands, maybe is my placebo effect, or I have a super pair of ears, or another possible explanation.

I’m going to enjoy my Blue Mountian coffee and a toast, recently made a naive test on my job and many people cannot differentiate between the basic coffee despite there are pH and component tests that objectively show its characteristics…

Psychology is quite complicated

 

[olieb]

And the explanation why sound different even matching volumes maybe there is a deliberate manipulation of some brands, maybe is my placebo effect, or I have a super pair of ears, or another possible explanation.

You want to leave it at that?
You are in the medical field, right?
This kind of gives me a headache.

 

[Miss_Sissy]

I would bet dollars to pesos that he's not.

dBFS =/= dBSPL. But often are conflated to make an invalid argument.

I prefer clean crisp bills in bundles.

 

[antcollinet]

I find the discussion is coming to an end: to me DACs sound differently, I don’t really care so much about it as I appreciate relatively non expensive DACs, like the Scarlett ones or Topping.

And the explanation why sound different even matching volumes maybe there is a deliberate manipulation of some brands, maybe is my placebo effect, or I have a super pair of ears, or another possible explanation.

I’m going to enjoy my Blue Mountian coffee and a toast, recently made a naive test on my job and many people cannot differentiate between the basic coffee despite there are pH and component tests that objectively show its characteristics…

Psychology is quite complicated

Lots of systems are complicated. That doesn't mean we can’t make consistent and repeatable observations about the behaviour of those systems.

For example - we don’t really understand gravity works at the ultimately deep level of physics. The vast majority of us (myself included) have close to zero understanding since we haven’t studied theoretical physics for most of our life. However suspend an anvil on a rope, put your leg under it, and you know enough about how it behaves to decide you don’t want to cut the rope.

Similarly Psychology. We can make observations that are repeatable that tell us what we hear is influenced by our subconcious processing. These biases are why blind testing of all types are used - especially BTW in the field of medicine.

Audio on the other hand is pretty simple. It is a single two dimensional waveform varying over time. It is easily measurable, especially in the electrical and digital domain, to accuracies our ears can only dream of.

It is so simple infact that it was the first ever application of electronics around 150 years ago or so. We have been learning about that simple system all that time. It is pretty well 100% understood.

 

[antcollinet]

View attachment 365034

If its any consolation - I’m not getting it either

 

[Miss_Sissy]

Psychology is quite complicated

That's why double-blind testing exists. If you think that you can hear an audible difference not predicted by measurements, then a properly conducted, level-matched, double-blind test will confirm or refute that belief.

 

[Miss_Sissy]

If its any consolation - I’m not getting it either

He accused the other poster of "mixing units." Dollars and pesos are different units of currency. That's why it was funny for me to bet 'dollars to pesos' that the other poster was not "mixing units." It's humorous, intentional irony.

 

[Miguelón]

Lots of systems are complicated. That doesn't mean we can’t make consistent and repeatable observations about the behaviour of those systems.

For example - we don’t really understand gravity works at the ultimately deep level of physics. The vast majority of us (myself included) have close to zero understanding since we haven’t studied theoretical physics for most of our life. However suspend an anvil on a rope, put your leg under it, and you know enough about how it behaves to decide you don’t want to cut the rope.

Similarly Psychology. We can make observations that are repeatable that tell us what we hear is influenced by our subconcious processing. These biases are why blind testing of all types are used - especially BTW in the field of medicine.

Audio on the other hand is pretty simple. It is a single two dimensional waveform varying over time. It is easily measurable, especially in the electrical and digital domain, to accuracies our ears can only dream of.

It is so simple infact that it was the first ever application of electronics around 150 years ago or so. We have been learning about that simple system all that time. It is pretty well 100% understood.

I want to show this affirmation at my ancient math faculty. Physics is about basics laws of universe, probably the most reliable empirical science. You can find Einstein’s corrections on your GPS, otherwise you will be lost in the dessert…

Acoustic waves are three dimensions longitudinal mechanic waves, not two dimensional ones.
Not single at all, the most understood wave field is electromagnetism by far, and even that is under extensive research and far from totally understanding.

Psychology is the worse understood of medical science, individual variations and experience acquired behavior, incomplete knowledge of brain functions and super complexity of neuronal networks make enormous divergencies in medical research about perception, emotions and behavior.

 

[antcollinet]

Acoustic waves are three dimensions longitudinal mechanic waves

Not in a dac they’re not.

 

[Miguelón]

That's why double-blind testing exists. If you think that you can hear an audible difference not predicted by measurements, then a properly conducted, level-matched, double-blind test will confirm or refute that belief.

I think you have to learn a little bit about statistics and its limitations.

Statistical trials are just… statistical: they provide a measure about our ignorance, never prove or refute anything.

I give you an example: a traumatologist stated few days ago “orthotics cannot do anything to your plantar fascitis, they are only placebos”. He was quoting a study made on the topic that showed no significant relief on symptoms.

In the study some people improved symptoms, others remain unchanged and some became even worse by increasing foot pain.

My colleague extracted the wrong personal conclusion that nothing was happened because ON AVERAGE the score remained barely unchanged.

But if you suffer from plantar fascitis you can try orthotics and perhaps be one of the fortunates that get healed from the fascitis, if not you can keep the orthotics in a drawer: only risk your money.

Also there are controversial results on the same topic: some studies show they work, others don’t. We need general agreement on trials to make a bibliographic review and then submit to something we call a “well known fact”

I don’t think blind test are needed in commercial audio because statistics fail to predict individual responses. Maybe useful on large scale, for example if you want to use the DAC in a cinema projection or on a concert as you have many people listening and you want the best average results.

But on the process of buying a DAC, people can try personally their sensorial experience, I think is not bad in science (especially in perception ones) to be humble and recognize we don’t know everything

 

[SIY]

I think you have to learn a little bit about statistics and its limitations.

Statistical trials are just… statistical: they provide a measure about our ignorance, never prove or refute anything.

I give you an example: a traumatologist stated few days ago “orthotics cannot do anything to your plantar fascitis, they are only placebos”. He was quoting a study made on the topic that showed no significant relief on symptoms.

In the study some people improved symptoms, others remain unchanged and some became even worse by increasing foot pain.

My colleague extracted the wrong personal conclusion that nothing was happened because ON AVERAGE the score remained barely unchanged.

But if you suffer from plantar fascitis you can try orthotics and perhaps be one of the fortunates that get healed from the fascitis, if not you can keep the orthotics in a drawer: only risk your money.

Also there are controversial results on the same topic: some studies show they work, others don’t. We need general agreement on trials to make a bibliographic review and then submit to something we call a “well known fact”

I don’t think blind test are needed in commercial audio because statistics fail to predict individual responses. Maybe useful on large scale, for example if you want to use the DAC in a cinema projection or on a concert as you have many people listening and you want the best average results.

But on the process of buying a DAC, people can try personally their sensorial experience, I think is not bad in science (especially in perception ones) to be humble and recognize we don’t know everything

After completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting statistical analysis ("I got a 50% score, so half the time I could hear the difference!"), your last sentence gives it away.

No laws on science, only theories.

And don't know what a theory is, either. I'll be generous and rack it up to unfamiliarity with English.

 

[DavidEdwinAston]

I think you have to learn a little bit about statistics and its limitations.

Statistical trials are just… statistical: they provide a measure about our ignorance, never prove or refute anything.

I give you an example: a traumatologist stated few days ago “orthotics cannot do anything to your plantar fascitis, they are only placebos”. He was quoting a study made on the topic that showed no significant relief on symptoms.

In the study some people improved symptoms, others remain unchanged and some became even worse by increasing foot pain.

My colleague extracted the wrong personal conclusion that nothing was happened because ON AVERAGE the score remained barely unchanged.

But if you suffer from plantar fascitis you can try orthotics and perhaps be one of the fortunates that get healed from the fascitis, if not you can keep the orthotics in a drawer: only risk your money.

Also there are controversial results on the same topic: some studies show they work, others don’t. We need general agreement on trials to make a bibliographic review and then submit to something we call a “well known fact”

I don’t think blind test are needed in commercial audio because statistics fail to predict individual responses. Maybe useful on large scale, for example if you want to use the DAC in a cinema projection or on a concert as you have many people listening and you want the best average results.

But on the process of buying a DAC, people can try personally their sensorial experience, I think is not bad in science (especially in perception ones) to be humble and recognize we don’t know everything

I think that if you believe you can hear a difference between different DAC's, for instance, no problem.
If that perception causes you to purchase various DAC's, for reasons other than product failure, your money, your choice.
However I think that money could more usefully be given to charity.

 

[Miguelón]

I think that if you believe you can hear a difference between different DAC's, for instance, no problem.
If that perception causes you to purchase various DAC's, for reasons other than product failure, your money, your choice.
However I think that money could more usefully be given to charity.

Just by curiosity, which DAC you use to listening?

 

[Basic Channel]

But on the process of buying a DAC, people can try personally their sensorial experience, I think is not bad in science (especially in perception ones) to be humble and recognize we don’t know everything

It's also important to be humble and remember the times all the times your perception of sound was incredibly biased by knowledge. From the McGurk effect, to fiddling an EQ that isn't on.

It's amazing how many people can hear a difference between DACs and yet have no apparent problem moving their head within the room. I suspect most have listened to DACs and very few have listened to sine tones and moved around. The same people must be able to hear the blood running in the veins of friends who come round.

 

[ads_cft222]

is there a study on modern dacs with blind testing with hypothesis testing and a 99% confidence interval ?

 

[Miguelón]

It's also important to be humble and remember the times all the times your perception of sound was incredibly biased by knowledge. From the McGurk effect, to fiddling an EQ that isn't on.

It's amazing how many people can hear a difference between DACs and yet have no apparent problem moving their head within the room. I suspect most have listened to DACs and very few have listened to sine tones and moved around. The same people must be able to hear the blood running in the veins of friends who come round.

Not the perception of my instrument (the piano): I just made a test proposed by Ellebob to differentiate Loseless audio from MP3 (128 and 320 kbps) and it took me less than 5 seconds to identify the good track on a piano recording.

Way more difficult in electric music, and also missed 2 from the 6 tracks proposed.

Take away a carpet on my room and I will noticed immediately when I play. Not superior hearing, I’m 48 years old, but 41 years playing educate the ear on slight dynamic changes or something that I cannot express.

Most of the people cannot differentiate a moderately out of tune piano, I was surprised how people didn’t realize what for us were evident at my conservatory epoch.

I think purely acoustic music is easier to detect small changes, as for example an electric guitar sound partially as its amplifier and speaker do; so no real thing as a reference (unless unplugged of course)

 

[ahofer]

In this case, why are hundreds of DACs on the market instead of only one?

Always excited to re-use the thread I created for this very purpose:

How can bogus claims and inferior audio thrive in a competitive market?

I keep running into the same addlepated thought, here and in other forums. It goes something like this: Market success is the clearest indication of value. Expensive cables must sound better, or people wouldn't pay for them; exotic amplifiers must be better or they wouldn't survive. Even...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[ahofer]

despite there are pH and component tests that objectively show its characteristics…

Exactly. These are determined by measurement, and you can even look at the science of tasting and see how small a difference the human palate can discern. Imagine that! True of wine as well.

 

[ahofer]

Not the perception of my instrument (the piano): I just made a test proposed by Ellebob to differentiate Loseless audio from MP3 (128 and 320 kbps) and it took me less than 5 seconds to identify the good track on a piano recording.

Way more difficult in electric music, and also missed 2 from the 6 tracks proposed.

Take away a carpet on my room and I will noticed immediately when I play. Not superior hearing, I’m 48 years old, but 41 years playing educate the ear on slight dynamic changes or something that I cannot express.

Most of the people cannot differentiate a moderately out of tune piano, I was surprised how people didn’t realize what for us were evident at my conservatory epoch.

I think purely acoustic music is easier to detect small changes, as for example an electric guitar sound partially as its amplifier and speaker do; so no real thing as a reference (unless unplugged of course)

You have repeated a lot of audio canards here, but also stated some basic truisms that are fundamental to the arguments of those you are opposing (on psychology, for instance), which is interesting, to say the least.

What most of us here would say is that you do NOT have the ears to tell the difference between audibly transparent DACs, simply because they are below the scientifically established thresholds of human perception (even if you were to be at the right tail, which at your age you cannot be). These differences are orders of magnitude smaller than removing a carpet and significantly smaller than hi-res MP3 to lossless (which I have also done on orchestral music but not pop). Typically the differences you hear between audibly transparent DACs are in your head, or in the signal levels between the DACs, which are a pain to control.

When you say you can distinguish transparent DACs unsighted, you are claiming you can jump 10 ft in the air from a standing start. We are doubting you, as most would.

 

[ahofer]

Many people on here claim they are aware of, and therefore control their biases*. Linking that old post of mine reminded me of this wonderful transcript from Lichtenstein's "Money Pump" Experiments, wherein she explained exactly how she was fleecing the subject, but they still couldn't stop betting against her.

As Andre Meyer said, "you can explain it for them, but you can't understand it for them".

* in this case valuing the same bet differently based on its framing, and therefore buying it high and selling it low over and over again.