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

[Jim Taylor]

... my clear intention was to indicate that spotting differences is mostly based on mental capacity as long of course there is healthy hearing ability…

And I believe that the rejoinder indicated that neither mental capacity nor hearing health has anything to do with auditory discrimination. Rigor, discipline and control of procedures in a double-blind test will give an answer that can be trusted. To do that, precise matching of electrical levels is absolutely necessary.

That's why @DonR said ...

Absolutely, which is why it is better to rely on the electrical signal output of the DAC than an acoustical signal as received and processed by each individual.

That part of his post was serious. The second half was sarcasm. Do you understand now?

Jim

 

[DonR]

That sarcasm though was not accurate if it was intended to me, since under no circumstance I supported that ears are reliable for tuning equipment . I know that many audiophiles support this view but my clear intention was to indicate that spotting differences is mostly based on mental capacity as long as of course there is a healthy hearing ability…

I was agreeing with you.

 

[ads_cft222]

And I believe that the rejoinder indicated that neither mental capacity nor hearing health has anything to do with auditory discrimination. Rigor, discipline and control of procedures in a double-blind test will give an answer that can be trusted. To do that, precise matching of electrical levels is absolutely necessary.

That's why @DonR said ...



That part of his post was serious. The second half was sarcasm. Do you understand now?

Jim

Nothing to disagree here

 

[SIY]

Surely in this range, Genelec has a -2 dB treble shelving above 5 kHz and it improves the highs.

Which DAC is this? AFAIK, they don't make DACs.

 

[ads_cft222]

Nothing to disagree here

Well almost … but I agree on the rigor of the test and volume match . The subjects should possess a good working memory which is a mental capacity. In order to discriminate you have to remember and in order to remember you need to be able to comprehend and focus. Glossing over should be a no no…

 

[Blumlein 88]

I’m open to both possibilities: measurements are inadequate or perception is biased.

Not my problem if many members, as technicians or engineers, trend to believe only in one of both explanations.

Audiophiles believe the opposite: their perception is true and the measurement don’t reflect perceptive reality.

Can you show a definitive argument in one or other direction?

This is like trying to give equal time to flat earth believers and scientists as if they are equally worth considering. Even without listening tests we can do null tests. There just isn't a difference in the signal to explain something being audible. We have an abundance of useful measurements that show no difference. Yet, you want to continue to give benefit of the doubt because you perceive something using a method known to be exceptionally unreliable. Yet you apparently consider good level matching too much trouble. I think you might be afraid of the results.

 

[DonR]

Well almost … but I agree on the rigor of the test and volume match . The subjects should possess a good working memory which is a mental capacity. In order to discriminate you have to remember and in order to remember you need to be able to comprehend and focus. Glossing over should be a no no…

Given that echoic memory lasts at most about 4 seconds they had better switch quickly.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Which is more important for golden ears? An unusually good memory of sound that lasts beyond the normal echoic limits for long term listening, or exceptional acuity beyond the limits of measurement gear. I suppose the answer must be both.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Audiophiles believe the opposite: their perception is true ...

Perception (in the conscious, working part of the brain) has been proven so many times and in so many ways to be not only fallible but defiantly (sic) wrong that it's not even funny. Any optical or aural illusion is an example of the fallibility of the human brain in regards to the perception of a stimulus. If the viewer (or hearer) is not aware that the stimulus is an illusion, then they believe the stimulus to be real.

That does NOT mean that it is real.

Epistemology of Perception, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

... and the measurement don’t reflect perceptive reality.

I suppose you mean to say, "... and the measurement doesn't reflect their perception." The reason I say that is that there are not two different realities, one being a perceptive reality and the other being a different reality. There is only one reality, and science is the process by which the human race has been trying to understand it for many centuries, from Galileo to Peter Higgs.

Perception is, as best I can define it, something entirely different; a fluid illusion that we learn to harness for the sake of practical utility. Nothing more ... and sometimes a good bit less.

Jim

 

[Miss_Sissy]

Many people think that doing statistics is same thing about knowing statistics.
But it isn’t.

Don't try to talk down to me. The pseudo-science gibberish you've spouted has undercut any hope you had of passing yourself off as someone with expertise in statistics.

If you know so much about statistics, then where is the statistical evidence that you can hear the differences you claim to hear?

Again, your statistical conclusion can be low correlation between dacs and influence on the sound (which is more focused on the primary question of the post, don’t asking for quality just differences).

You're mistaking probability for statistics. I'm not trying to use correlations to predict whether some sample set of listeners will hear a difference between DACs. I'm challenging you to provide evidence that you, as an individual, can hear the differences that you believe/claim that you can hear.

Once more, a conclusion that no one can distinguish between two dacs is outside the statistics: only you have some probability strength asserting that different dacs don’t change perception on a population.

Stop with this "population" probability BS. You claimed that you had an ability. So prove it.

I can tell by the sound a coin makes when it hits a floor whether it has landed heads-up or tails-up. I just look at the coin, see which side is facing up, and then say "yep, that's what I heard." Don't you dare ask me to prove it by doing it blindfolded.

 

[ahofer]

Very funny, you’re comparing an orbiting imaginary teapot with someone who simply tell you “this DAC sound to me better than this other one”.

On numerous posts, I didn’t find one of those studies published to examine the methods. Can anyone send a couple or more about the transparency of DACs?
I searched a little but don’t know well the audio publications sites, I will be happy to read how were performed and in which conditions

You are asking us to believe something exists for which there is no evidence, and pointing out that we can't prove it doesn't exist. This is exactly equivalent to Russell's teapot, an analogy

to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.

What you think is absurd/funny is what makes the analogy memorable, but also what makes it apply directly to your claim.


-----just in case newcomers hadn't looked at this (gotta follow the links for more links...)-----

Catalogue of blind tests

I thought this thread on Head-Fi was a valiant effort to put together blind tests that have been performed over the years. Given that there have been many more (I'm thinking Archimago's tests, among others), it would be fun to open source a complete list...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here's a current survey you can participate in.

2024 "High-End" DAC Blind Listening Survey!

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

and a search for some old ones:

Archimago's Musings

A blog for audiophiles about more objective topics. Measurements of audio gear. Reasonable, realistic, no snakeoil assessment of sound, and equipment.

archimago.blogspot.com

 

[Mart68]

I am tired of hearing about DACs

Has anyone else noticed that those who are so animated about their supposed differences are rarely in the position to hear them should they actually exist?

Now if it was a youngster with a large, dedicated room and a true full range, calibrated speaker system maybe I'd pay some attention.

But mostly it is an over fifty, using some tube amp which has multiple issues, powering some rinky-dink little designed by ear two way speakers with no subs, jammed into a multi-purpose space wherever they will fit, against the wall, in the corners with furniture (couch, sideboard) stuck right in between.

And yet for them no contest between the multi-thousand pound ladder DAC and the 'unlistenable' Topping. I mean - give us a break!

 

[Lupin]

Hi, I got my DX9 a month ago. Before that, there were different DACs from topping like e50/l50, d90se, from combines 2/1 matrix mini I pro3. After100 hours of burning the sound of the DX9 is excellent, at the level of $1000 DACs. The headphone gain level is also good. Before DX9 there was an D90se/A90d and it is not much inferior in volume margin. It is great for hifimen Arya steals magnets. If you take into account the functionality, convenience of 2/1, beautiful, unusual design, and the already rare ak4499eq + pleasant remote control, then this is a great deal. I didn't have any problems with any device from topping, everything was done well. It doesn't make sense to describe the sound of the dx9, it's better to listen it before buying, but I can add for myself that it's worth the money.

Err no, the sound is at the level of $200 DACs. You pay for the form factor, design and connectivity. More expensive doesn't make it sound better.
There is no such thing as "burning" unless the unit is actually on fire. But amuse me, why 100 hours? why not 50 or 200 hours? Or even better why not 1000 hours to make really sure?

 

[Apolloseylormoon]

I'm listening through the XLR output to the Edifier S3000 MKii. The speakers are on the table, on isoacoustics stands, and work in the near field. This is an active desktop 2.0 system, it has its own DAC and a biamping amplifier. DX9 added quality, detail, bass concentration, no subwoofer needed) it's amazing how good it is.

 

[Miguelón]

What a bizarre discussion: I red some ancient posts that are surrounding the same topics since the creation of the thread.

I use musical gear for enjoying, classical music most of the times.

So perception is all that we have in enjoying music, I’m not concerned about electrical properties of DACs, what I listen is my own reality. If my ears-brain cortex tell me that is good, is good.

At the conservatory we had the same eternal discussion, that lies more on philosophy than on reality: if music is an art, all music is good if someone enjoy it or there’s an external criterion?

Today for me the answer is yes: all music is good since someone enjoy it. I’m more convinced of personal experience than scholastic rules in the field of arts.

At the conservatory we were kind of technicians: dynamics should be controlled, a baroque phrase begins and ends in a concrete way, harmonic rules on impressionism, etc… so for most people the answer was we may have external indicators otherwise we will fail to play “objectively good”.

Most of the participants are technicians also: you use the gear to work, so I can understand the effort you make to create standards reliable on flat response, low distortion and other calibration tools.

Excuse me if I offended someone, I was a little tired and didn’t realize we were speaking different languages.

Special apologies to Miss Sissy, on mathematics we trend to be a little exigent with non theoretical mathematics formed: statistics is a very subjective field when applications. There are tones of examples of conclusions out of the field that lead to paradoxes: the little problem I gave you was the first we had to solve on our second faculty year: its answer maybe 1/2, 1/4, 1/3 or even we can prove that depending on the probability space constructed every answer between 0 and 1 is valid. If we apply to calculate how many drops of rain will fall inside the central circle the answer is probably 1/4, if we calculate angles with an arc and an arrow randomly the answer will be around 1/2, etc.
I don’t want to extend the discussion of the limitations of statistical trials, but when you see a doctor he give you a medication based on probability: he never knows what will be the effect on you, individuals have different responses on chemicals, and precisely because we don’t know how all human bodies behave internally, statistic are used to manage our ignorance. That’s all they do, no matter the discipline where applied. Never give conclusions out of the probability space, nor cause-effect relationships (don’t take “correlation” as “causality”: in statistical theory all happen at the same time, a characteristic that give bizarre results on quantum mechanics discussed intensely between physicists since 1915).

As final conclusion, I just wrote in this thread because I have 2 DACs that sound different and I felt on the topic just by curiosity. I had no doubt about they sound different

In general the original question by the autor was not responded concisely: I let a resume of a few notes are taken to the question “how can DACs measured transparent can sound different?”

-They don’t (majority)
-Filters alters the sound (some members)
-Measurements may fail to predict transparency (my suggestion that caused a lot of reactions, and probably audiophile believes)
-Other unknown variables (again my suggestion, same as measuring incompleteness but differently formulated)

My personal thoughts are not relevant: I have no measurements nor experience on audible transparent DACs. The only comparison I did is between Ifi Zen Dac Signature v2, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2 4th gen regarding to pure DAC section.
I have also compared headphone portable DAC-amps but I don’t know if it’s the same thing: this were Dragonfly Red, Dragonfly Cobalt, Ifi Go Bar and Ifi Go Link and Apple EarPods (that have a minuscule DAC on the USB connection).

If anyone can aport measurements on this devices please share, I didn’t found them

 

[antcollinet]

I use musical gear for enjoying, classical music most of the times.

Fine

what I listen is my own reality. If my ears-brain cortex tell me that is good, is good.

Also fine


The problems come when you describe your perceptions as objective reality, as though they have any meaning for anyone else.

And then go on to question the established scientific and engineering principles used to validate objective reality in audio.

There is literally no point (here) of stating "I can hear a difference" if you haven't implemented the controls to prove you are hearing a real difference in the sound waves reaching your ears, rather than a difference in the response of the wetware between them.

We all know that everyone percieves differeness based on the latter that don't exist in the former. We've all experienced it ourselves, and yet another anecdote of how someone's auditory cortex is playing games with them is of little interest.

Further, significant pushback results when this is presented in a way that perpetuates the myth of objective audible differences where none exist, especially where this is likely to mislead other newcomers here.

 

[Apolloseylormoon]

Err no, the sound is at the level of $200 DACs. You pay for the form factor, design and connectivity. More expensive doesn't make it sound better.
There is no such thing as "burning" unless the unit is actually on fire. But amuse me, why 100 hours? why not 50 or 200 hours? Or even better why not 1000 hours to make really sure?

I know perfectly well what I'm paying for when buying a DX9. Topping's pricing policy implies a price/sound/functionality ratio. On the issue of warming up audio equipment, read for yourself on the Internet. I'm not a fan of wiretapping power cables, etc. but the new duck out of the box didn't play as well as it does now.

 

[Miguelón]

Fine

Also fine


The problems come when you describe your perceptions as objective reality, as though they have any meaning for anyone else.

And then go on to question the established scientific and engineering principles used to validate objective reality in audio.

There is literally no point (here) of stating "I can hear a difference" if you haven't implemented the controls to prove you are hearing a real difference in the sound waves reaching your ears, rather than a difference in the response of the wetware between them.

We all know that everyone percieves differeness based on the latter that don't exist in the former. We've all experienced it ourselves, and yet another anecdote of how someone's auditory cortex is playing games with them is of little interest.

Further, significant pushback results when this is presented in a way that perpetuates the myth of objective audible differences where none exist, especially where this is likely to mislead other newcomers here.

On the thread nobody quoted a single concrete study answering the question posted. Many members talk about “30 years of experience” but not supported by any publications.
Can you give me at least one or even more links to those studies?

 

[MaxwellsEq]

On the thread nobody quoted a single concrete study answering the question posted. Many members talk about “30 years of experience” but not supported by any publications.
Can you give me at least one or even more links to those studies?

You do the work. This thread has the relevant links. Search AES as a starting point.

 

[Geert]

On the thread nobody quoted a single concrete study answering the question posted. Many members talk about “30 years of experience” but not supported by any publications.
Can you give me at least one or even more links to those studies?

With "the question posted" you mean "how can DACs measured transparent can sound different”? If so, you shouldn't expect people who don't believe audible differences exists to come up with publications. That's Russell's teapot whole over again. It's the believers that need to come up with evidence. Until then there's nothing to research.