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

[BDWoody]

--time is limited in the human life...

For some reason, your post just made me completely aware of that.

Welcome!

 

[StefaanE]

Of course we are all subject to perceptual biases. But at least my conclusions are never based on a single A-B testing, (blind or otherwise), but on hours of listening. Typically I am very fussy to sound the same perceptual level but, granted, I don't measure the dB level. Furthermore my hours of listening are over several days at deliberately different listening levels.

Sorry, I will never prove to you that my perceptions are correctly. Nor will I prove it to myself either, but 50 years of critical listening make me content that I consistently hear real differences.

How about you? Have you ever thought you're hearing differences? Have you dismissed your perceptions because you haven't proven them by rigorous testing? Beware: you could end up listening to some terrible shit that way.

If you claim that you can hear differences that are not borne out by measurements (e.g. differences between a Topping D90 and an Okto DAC8), and that these are “real” (i.e. that your/human ears are more sensitive than the measuring equipment, and that others should be able to hear them given your experience and approach to listening), you’re seriously deluding yourself. If you hear consistent differences between devices with a SINAD of -90dB or better, it’s not because if the “naked” sound, but because of the circumstances. Others could hear no differences, or other differences based on their experiences and ears. It is totally possible that you, as a trained listener, can hear distortion that is not recognised by a casual listener, but then it will be measurable.

 

[Julf]

IOnly an idiot would want ketchup on the side of the plate at Le Gavroche. It's not idiotic to like a certain kind of sound.

Why is one idiotic and the other isn't?

But I fully respect those who - for example - like tube amp sounds, and I don't consider them to be idiots, or even to be wrong.

Same here - as long as they don't claim their preference is objectively "best".

 

[PenguinMusic]

You asked,

The answer to what you seek--or at least what you posted as an answer--is done by the medical folks. This includes audiologists, psychologists and other "ologists" in the medical field. Very interesting even with people understanding reality, the "western" countries have this odd believe that reality depends more on a vote than what is true reality. Other cultures that are not democratic tend not to understand "western logic" because...reality does not depend on what the law of averages provides.

How to sum up humanity? Well, we are emotional, biased creatures that think we are logical. Why does human bias exist and why it is coded inside all of us? Survival! Makes sense, think back when humans were on the snack food side of the food chain and we could throw rocks or sharpened sticks to defend ourselves against high speed four legged animals with teeth. Say a group of humans were hanging out near the mouth of the cave and they heard a noise in a tree--say 5 of the 6 ran back to the cave while the lone human was curious and went to see what that noise was. How long would the curious human last before he became lunch? Curiosity is what drives humanity forward but in the early days, it caused you to be brunch. Kids are curious by nature, just tell them there are creatures out in the woods that eat them (pick your creature!) If they believed in mystical, magical creatures then they would self-regulate even when you were distracted. This was all done to survive and you still are wired that way. You believe what you see, believe in your senses to stay alive.

To do the experiment correctly, it takes things far greater than double-blind tests yada, yada, yada. Our friendly medical researches wanted to know if a person believed something was "better" would they have a greater sense of happiness? Fire up the brain scanner and time to find out. What they did was have a chef make some form of food but they split it up between two table settings. One table had silk table cloth, fine china, fancy silverware etc. and the subjects were told it was made by a French chef with the finest in ingredients. When they ate the food they were scanned and their pleasure centers really lit up. Try it again but this time on paper plates, basic silverware, no tablecloth and the cook was a teenager using whatever ingredients he found. They ate the food and the brain scans prooved that they did not enjoy it as much as the "fancy" version. It was idenitical food.

Basically, if you BELIEVE it will taste, sound, feel better--it will! Pretty cool! This is why people will think water, wine or whatever tastes better by what they are told, what it costs and other factors even if it is identical. The reason you like Brand X or whatever when you see it VS Brand Y in a sighted test is because you have more pleasure with Brand X. It has nothing to do if X is better than Y, heck... X can be worse than Y but if you personally like X...you will enjoy X better. Congrats, you are a human! If Brand X appeals to your sense of style and Brand Y looks like trash--you will think and believe it will sound better--even if it don't. You will physically enjoy Brand X more and, if you don't mind paying for brain scans SSSS you can prove you get more enjoyment--you can PROVE it!

However, what you just have proven is akin to declaring the world's sexiest women/man/housepet or whatever. You are basically saying your sense of taste is reality--it is not. If you actually care about how frail the human senses are or how crazy our biases are--look up drug testing. They did such things like give people sugar pills and claim it did something---but told them one sugar pill cost 25 cents each while the other sugar pill cost $20.00 each--the third group got nothing. Guess what? The 20 dollar sugar pill created the most improved patient well being, the 25 cent sugar pill came in second and the people that recieved nothing did the poorest. In reality, all three groups received nothing at all but thanks to human biases, they had all sorts of positive results. This also applies to the color of the pills and how much the pill pusher engaged with the patient.

Enough science for you? Yeah, if you go on an audio forum or read magazines expecting medical advice--you are doing it wrong. Read up on human biases, psychology, medical testing and so on to get that answer. I did ONE blind test on amps, CD players and speakers years ago. Blew a weekend to get it right and learned that either my hearing sucked or I could not tell the difference between 0.03 and 0.05% distortion. Yep, could not tell three amps apart or three CD players apart--but I was able to tell the difference between speakers. Woohooo, ego restored! Ever since then, I get actual test results on equipment and go for the amp numbers of that blind test or better. Oddly enough, the medical folks (and my hearing tests) prove that age is not your friend for hearing accuracy so if I could not tell the difference a few decades ago, I won't be able to tell now. If I do somehow end up in an underground bunker that is so quiet I can hear the blood rushing through my ears, then I'll worry about Benchmark level amplifiers--but only then.

In summation, if you like something better and knowingly listen to it--you WILL enjoy it more! This is why double-blind testing chaps audiophile egos so much--you don't get that brain boost from sighting your favorite gadget. This is why the exact same beer tastes better on a nude beach in Greece than it does in my garage in the winter--the joys of being a human. Heck, I'll gladly drink warm generic beer swill on a nude beach in Greece than any beer in my garage--I embrace my bias!

Now that you know, time to set the ego aside and admit you like what you like. I'm sure my tastes in potential mates are drastically different from what get you interested and I don't demand my tastes are better than yours. In audio gear, some people like cables the size of their leg, amps the size of window AC units, a rack of stuff from floor to ceiling and like watching plastic discs rotate. It makes them feel good as that is what they like. This does not mean in any way, shape or form that it is true!

This is why you have testing. The limits of human hearing are known, very well documented and tested for the last century by medical doctors. Now that they can repair hearing in deaf people, you might give them a little credit for understanding human hearing. Take those limits and apply them to actual test specifications of equipment and once the machines exceed the flesh bag human's ability to perceive it--you are good.

So my advice to peole is simply this, once you determine what specifications you need then get that but make sure it has the reliability, features and aesthetics you desire. Sure, it sounds like I'm a mouth breathing inbred fool to mention looks--but it matters in the human experience. I did not say it made it sound "better" I am saying spend the money to make things have a look that you don't mind taking up space in your life for the next 10 to 20 years. I built my own speakers in the garage, they are 3-way vertical line arrays with a total of 24 woofers, 42 midranges and 96 tweeters sitting on subs. My wife refuses to let those things in the house (on subs they are almost 8 feet tall) they are finished to handle heat/cold/beer, flying tools, sawdust and everything that happens in an active garage. They are not furniture grade but can handle any nastiness to stay clean. Why build such a monster? I wanted to play with line arrays and they look cool in the garage. Sure, they have very narrow vertical dispersion to prevent cement floor/ceiling bounce, they are very efficient, have a huge sound and have very even SPL from one foot to 12 feet back---AND they look cool! They are not the best for measurements and are not the best sounding speakers I've ever heard--because they can't in a garage. Spent a bunch of money to get them to work properly (took three tries and 17 months) but are a "fun" speaker--after two beers they sound great!

So there ya go--don't blame "performance" or perceived sound quality improvements as blame to waste staggering amounts of money on what amounts to audio jewelry--that is common. Denial is a horrible human trait--get out of that trap and learn the limits of human hearing, get accurate test results of gear, LEARN what specifications matter to you--and what don't. Only then should you be concerned with the other 20 things that matter be it reliability, serviceability, size, weight, efficiency, upgradability, scalability, cost and looks--you have to look at the thing so looks matter but know that going in.

I do enjoy a bunch of the audiophile gear though--time is limited in the human life so when I see such nonsense, I walk away and avoid those people. I don't have time to explain how digital signal work, why green magic marker on CDs does not work, why records are not better than digital and all the religious audio dogma--read a book! Once you learn how these things work, have a basic understanding of electricity, acoustics and the properties of speakers then it becomes much easier. Don't get in the trap of "specmanship" in that my audio gadget is better because it tests with better numbers. The big thing to learn is "does it matter". Any fool can just jump on better numbers as better just as any idiot with ears can claim to be a golden eared audiophile. The best thing you can do is learn "does it matter" and what matters in your room, your listening distance, your SPL demands and your particualar needs to make up for hearing damage you have. That part demands that YOU know what you want, need or desire--that is on you and why I don't "recommend" things. When asked by actual friends or family members--I reply with at least 3 choices. I NEVER tell them what to purchase specifically, they always have at least 3 choices and if I can.... 5 choices. This way I don't get blamed for any of their biases, aesthetic issues, WAF concerns or if chix dig it. OK, if they ask about speaker cable I throw them a spool of 12 guage--or 14 guage if they like.

Hope that helps--such is the trials and tribulations of being a fleshy human. Good luck!

Hi,

Thanks for the time you took to write all this up.

Makes me feel better.
Makes me feel human.
Makes me think I am not that stupid after all.

So huges thanks for that...

Regards.

 

[Angsty]

It is so easy to get an idea of what you can hear for yourself I am surprised people still want to be told by somebody else.

Frank, with your scientific and engineering training, I think you may overestimate the confidence that people will have in results they see and hear for themselves.

We know that sighted listening conclusions can differ from non-sighted conclusions. We also know that people can be swayed by non-scientific mumbo-jumbo. So, when people hear what they hear, they may lack the confidence to know what they should consider as real and what should be identified as bias.

 

[Chippyboy]

Why is one idiotic and the other isn't?

Simply a question of degree. Tea with a spoonful of sugar is a preference. 37 spoonfuls is IMO idiotic.

 

[mansr]

Frank, with your scientific and engineering training, I think you may overestimate the confidence that people will have in results they see and hear for themselves.

I think you mean underestimate.

 

[Feanor]

If you claim that you can hear differences that are not borne out by measurements (e.g. differences between a Topping D90 and an Okto DAC8), and that these are “real” (i.e. that your/human ears are more sensitive than the measuring equipment, and that others should be able to hear them given your experience and approach to listening), you’re seriously deluding yourself. If you hear consistent differences between devices with a SINAD of -90dB or better, it’s not because if the “naked” sound, but because of the circumstances. Others could hear no differences, or other differences based on their experiences and ears. It is totally possible that you, as a trained listener, can hear distortion that is not recognised by a casual listener, but then it will be measurable.

Hey, fair enough. I'm not saying that differences I hear are typically unmeasurable; probably most are. So for example my Purifi 1ET400A amp doesn't sound like my previous Pass X150.5, nor do they measure anywhere close to the same.

But then I'd say that it isn't about exceptional hearing, it's about careful listening.

 

[SIY]

Hey, fair enough. I'm not saying that differences I hear are typically unmeasurable; probably most are. So for example my Purifi 1ET400A amp doesn't sound like my previous Pass X150.5, nor do they measure anywhere close to the same.

But then I'd say that it isn't about exceptional hearing, it's about careful listening.

You mean “peeking.”

 

[Tim Link]

Simply a question of degree. Tea with a spoonful of sugar is a preference. 37 spoonfuls is IMO idiotic.

Isn't that how they make brown sugar?

 

[raistlin65]

Of course we are all subject to perceptual biases. But at least my conclusions are never based on a single A-B testing, (blind or otherwise), but on hours of listening. Typically I am very fussy to sound the same perceptual level but, granted, I don't measure the dB level. Furthermore my hours of listening are over several days at deliberately different listening levels.

Sorry, I will never prove to you that my perceptions are correctly. Nor will I prove it to myself either, but 50 years of critical listening make me content that I consistently hear real differences.

Definitely. I don't think any of us would doubt that you hear differences. But your lack of acceptance of perceptual bias (or something else) explaining why you are hearing differences is not well explained by what you just said. You seem to say that you trust your own experience, which is what every other subjectivist audiophile says. That is the essence of subjectivism. How are you different from the pebble believers you reject, who believe the same thing?

Also, I noted you did not say that you had done properly volumed-leveled, blind testing in your experience and what the results were. If you detect a difference with that, then you would know to look elsewhere in the signal chain for why two well-measuring DACs sound different. And if you couldn't tell a difference, then perceptual bias is the likely explanation.

 

[scott wurcer]

Only an idiot would want ketchup on the side of the plate at Le Gavroche. It's not idiotic to like a certain kind of sound.

What about special ordering a new Lamborghini with a Chevy engine and automatic transmission?

 

[TomB19]

What about special ordering a new Lamborghini with a Chevy engine and automatic transmission?

Clean up the spare with an "Ozzy Lives!" tattoo and a mullet.

I'm not joking when I write that I'm OK with all of that.

 

[raif71]

Prove us wrong...

no, no... I take it you all are right, only that I

So why not personally interrogate why you are not convinced? It's a scientific fact. There's no scientific dispute about this. The dispute only comes from vendor and marketers who create products that take advantage of this disbelief, and consumers.

After all, I'm assuming that you accept that the Earth is round, as opposed to the Flat Earthers who reject scientific fact. Why is this instance different?

Is it because you don't thoroughly understand the science? People here would help you to do that. For example, the fact that human perception is unreliable is widely accepted in psychology in other ways that just audio.

Is it the audiophile "addiction", if you will, that leads people to always look for that fresh new high of better sound? Many of us here spend too much on audio equipment, always in pursuit of that better sound. It's easy to let that desire takeover.

Is it because you have invested a lot in audio electronics, and so there's a resistance to accepting that money might have gone to waste? It's hard sometimes for us to admit that kind of thing to ourselves.

Or is there a cultural factor that has encouraged you to distrust what scientific experts tell you? That's a more deeply personal thing that one has to discover on their own.

Why I don't bother with tests but I will never say never... (maybe after I retire and have tons of time )
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-e30-listening-tests.17988/post-586478

Yes, I agree that I spent quite a bit on gears (not counting headphones) but currently the most expensive gear that I got was around usd250. Most of my gears are around usd100 plus or so. I buy second hand gears too and that saves me some money. I could have spend on one "expensive" gear if I hadn't bought the others but I'd rather have many gears than having one that is "good".

I don't think it is a cultural factor. Asians, westerners etc. have people on either side of the camps

 

[jaminjames]

Definitely. I don't think any of us would doubt that you hear differences. But your lack of acceptance of perceptual bias (or something else) explaining why you are hearing differences is not well explained by what you just said. You seem to say that you trust your own experience, which is what every other subjectivist audiophile says. That is the essence of subjectivism. How are you different from the pebble believers you reject, who believe the same thing?

I just made an account to come and ask a question regarding DACs in DSP room correction, like MiniDSP products. This was the first thread I saw, and now I'm wondering if my question would even be taken seriously. So I'm just going to comment on the thread topic for now.

I'm an audio engineer. Day in and day out I listen critically. Converters are a huge part of my signal chain. It's a little bit different in my world, because A/D is just as important as D/A. Can I hear a difference in different converters? Absolutely. Without a doubt. I am not familiar with many of the DACs that are being referenced in this thread, so I'm guessing they are Hi Fi products.

In my studio, I run an Apogee Symphony. It has 8 ins and 8 outs, and was about $4k. Recording and playing back one track, maybe I wouldn't hear a difference. But when there are 50+ recorded tracks, you bet that A/D conversion makes a difference. If I were to track a song, lots of tracks stacked on each other, and split off every incoming signal to my Symphony and to a cheapo unit, you'd hear the difference too. Maybe not after one track was recorded, but after 50 tracks were recorded and playing back simultaneously, you absolutely could. There will not be the same depth, the same imaging. It's especially audible at very high end and the very low end. Converting all the information back to analog, leaving Pro Tools and in to my monitors, you'd hear it again.

It could also by pointed out that how you are listening to the converted signal will inform what you hear. I work on Genelec 1032As (two way speakers) with dual subs. I have about $10k in my monitoring. (Well, $10k when it was all new!)

I will say this though. At the end of the day, A/D D/A conversion is the smallest part of the equation. I'd rather work with great musicians, playing amazing instruments, recorded through the best gear, with $100 Behringer converters, than sub par sounds recorded through sub par gear into high end converters.

In the audio engineering world it's about tiny differences, stacking up, to make big changes. The converters will not make or break anything, but to say no one can tell the difference (at least in recording) is a bit silly. Listen to my Apogee Symphony compared to Burls, most discriminating listeners could hear the difference. Whether it's worth the cost for Burls (easily 3 or 4 times more expensive depending on configuration) is up to the engineer. It wasn't for me.

(and if it makes anyone feel better, I use the cheapest cables I can buy!!!)

 

[raistlin65]

Why I don't bother with tests but I will never say never... (maybe after I retire and have tons of time )
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...topping-e30-listening-tests.17988/post-586478

Yes, I agree that I spent quite a bit on gears (not counting headphones) but currently the most expensive gear that I got was around usd250. Most of my gears are around usd100 plus or so. I buy second hand gears too and that saves me some money. I could have spend on one "expensive" gear if I hadn't bought the others but I'd rather have many gears than having one that is "good".

Did you do properly volume leveled, double blind ABX tests when you did ABX tests? Otherwise, it's not a valid way to discover if two devices sound the same.

I don't think it is a cultural factor. Asians, westerners etc. have people on either side of the camps

Cultural influences are not restricted by national borders or geographical regions.

 

[raistlin65]

I just made an account to come and ask a question regarding DACs in DSP room correction, like MiniDSP products. This was the first thread I saw, and now I'm wondering if my question would even be taken seriously. So I'm just going to comment on the thread topic for now.

I'm an audio engineer. Day in and day out I listen critically. Converters are a huge part of my signal chain. It's a little bit different in my world, because A/D is just as important as D/A. Can I hear a difference in different converters? Absolutely. Without a doubt. I am not familiar with many of the DACs that are being referenced in this thread, so I'm guessing they are Hi Fi products.

In my studio, I run an Apogee Symphony. It has 8 ins and 8 outs, and was about $4k. Recording and playing back one track, maybe I wouldn't hear a difference. But when there are 50+ recorded tracks, you bet that A/D conversion makes a difference. If I were to track a song, lots of tracks stacked on each other, and split off every incoming signal to my Symphony and to a cheapo unit, you'd hear the difference too. Maybe not after one track was recorded, but after 50 tracks were recorded and playing back simultaneously, you absolutely could. There will not be the same depth, the same imaging. It's especially audible at very high end and the very low end. Converting all the information back to analog, leaving Pro Tools and in to my monitors, you'd hear it again.

It could also by pointed out that how you are listening to the converted signal will inform what you hear. I work on Genelec 1032As (two way speakers) with dual subs. I have about $10k in my monitoring. (Well, $10k when it was all new!)

I will say this though. At the end of the day, A/D D/A conversion is the smallest part of the equation. I'd rather work with great musicians, playing amazing instruments, recorded through the best gear, with $100 Behringer converters, than sub par sounds recorded through sub par gear into high end converters.

In the audio engineering world it's about tiny differences, stacking up, to make big changes. The converters will not make or break anything, but to say no one can tell the difference (at least in recording) is a bit silly. Listen to my Apogee Symphony compared to Burls, most discriminating listeners could hear the difference. Whether it's worth the cost for Burls (easily 3 or 4 times more expensive depending on configuration) is up to the engineer. It wasn't for me.

(and if it makes anyone feel better, I use the cheapest cables I can buy!!!)

I'm not going to take this post of yours very seriously. You jumped in the middle of a conversation without showing awareness of context by making an argument about recording and making a big appeal to self-authority.

Perhaps you'd like to join in what has been discussed the last few days instead? The notion that when consumers find differences during sighted listening between two well-designed DACS that measure audibly transparent, that perception bias is a likely cause.

 

[raif71]

Did you do properly volume leveled, double blind ABX tests when you did ABX tests? Otherwise, it's not a valid way to discover if two devices sound the same.



Cultural influences are not restricted by national borders or geographical regions.

If you read how I responded to an earlier post, you'd understand it's just too much of a hassle to do the tests. Just let me embrace my enjoyment of doing sighted listening and bask in all its biasness.

 

[raistlin65]

If you read how I responded to an earlier post, you'd understand it's just too much of a hassle to do the tests. Just let me embrace my enjoyment of doing sighted listening and bask in all its biasness.

I did read your linked post. And you mentioned ABX testing. You didn't mention if it was properly volume leveled or blind.

And I previously responded to you because you said you weren't convinced that well-measuring dacs would sound the same.

So I was curious whether you actually completed tests that showed you they do.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If you read how I responded to an earlier post, you'd understand it's just too much of a hassle to do the tests. Just let me embrace my enjoyment of doing sighted listening and bask in all its biasness.

Basically you are refusing to do meaningful tests, and insisting we take your ideas on this seriously. When you've completely undermined your own credibility before hand.

Sighted listening bias and all is fine. Sighted listening tests are another matter.