You weren't told that. No need to exaggerate. It makes you seem petulant.
Could be.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Benefits of using expensive DACs
- Thread starter ciccio1378
- Start date
You weren't told that. No need to exaggerate. It makes you seem petulant.
Could be.
What we really need for things like this, is a Dumpster thread.
Some people are afraid of those
I sort of understand when people feel like our responses are trying to harsh their listening buzz. But I wish visitors would look more closely to see that we contest specific claims and almost entirely avoid crapping on their preferences. In fact, scratch anyone here and you'll find someone who has overpaid because of some non-audible factor, even recently.
Blue VU meters, nice knobs, built like a tank. Brick House Audio.
Blue VU meters, nice knobs, built like a tank. Brick House Audio.
Old_School_Brad
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,756
- Likes
- 2,332
I believe this forum attracts a lot of engineer types and the like, who tend to be straightforward and to the point. This directness can frustrate those who prefer a more nuanced approach. I can relate; I often find myself being overly pragmatic and blunt, so I actively work on softening my communication to better convey my ideas, both here and at work.
However, that doesn’t mean one should be excessively compliant.
Robin L
Master Contributor
Some of these "engineer types" can be downright rude. There are people here asking questions or making responses who do not have a technical background. I recently asked a few questions about problems with streaming Tidal. Got a lot of responses that required the sort of technical knowledge I do not possess. Mind you, for about ten years I was a freelance recording engineer with a number of clients without a technical background. A few looked down on me for a lack of musical knowledge, but most were happy enough to get a decent sounding recording. It wouldn't hurt for those with a lot of technical background here to take into consideration the level of expertise of those they bludgeon with facts. They might be driving away a future ally.
antcollinet
Grand Contributor
100%. But people shouldn't need to be treated with kid gloves. There is no need for rudeness, but people should be able to write clear facts without the recipient taking affront when they hear something that contradicts what they believe.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Important to bear in mind when you post here about hearing things that go against measurements is that psychological effects are a strong possible cause.
Last edited:
antcollinet
Grand Contributor
The owner does not believe what?
That people shouldnt be rude?
That people shouldn't need to be treated with kid gloves?
That people should be able to write clear facts?
Because I've not stated anything else in the post you replied to.
Last edited:
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The first sentence is something I thought I'd deleted. I'm deleting it now as I started typing then changed my mind.
antcollinet
Grand Contributor
OK then I'll answer your second point in your reply to my post with another question.
Have I ever said anything that contradicts that?
If it changes the impulse response, it changes the frequency response (magnitude and/or phase), no?
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
You're getting a bit stroppy tbh.
antcollinet
Grand Contributor
Yes.
antcollinet
Grand Contributor
No, not stroppy at all - just trying to understand why you made the reply you did to my post. Your ad hominem you made here instead of answering the question, though, suggests you're struggling to understand yourself.
VientoB
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Chill. My reply wasn't directly aimed at just you. I was responding to the general point you made.No, not stroppy at all - just trying to understand why you made the reply you did to my post. Your ad hominem you made here instead of answering the question, though, suggests you're struggling to understand yourself.
DSJR
Major Contributor
Examples please, or it didn't happen
The better than good enough ones you may feel 'sound better,' come in nice expensive clothes with a niocer tactile 'feel' to make you feel better about shelling out so much more money. Take the price, sight and feel out of the equation and I strongly suspect what you'd find is no sonic difference. Enough people, many here, have done all this, even if you currently don't believe it and not all of us blindly follow a mantra you know
little-endian
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
- Messages
- 96
- Likes
- 105
The bitter irony being that also your ears for sure are worse now than they used to be back then. If I had kids and they would show interest in high quality audio, I would buy them very decent speakers and headphones at their young age when they can "fully" utilize all that and when it's partly too late.
Rob Watts is greeting.
Such strawman arguments aren't helpful and how much phrases such as "so, you're saying ..." may backfire, we all know by the famous TV interview with Jordan Peterson.
Also, it's polemic in the sense that of course, (borderline) cases can be constructed where differences lie in the audible range between DACs and no one "with any sense" (also some Perterson quote) would question that.
The first part most probably is true, but we don't know and never will know that for sure so hence no, actually it is unproven and will remain so.
Invalid question as the premise is wrong, it hasn't been proven.
If think it's important to point that out as it seem to be often confused by many although any decent criminal law is based on that insight (yet, as the overall ability to think logically seems to be in free fall overall): the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.
In the audio case, the assumption that there are no perceivable differences represents the null hypothesis which by principle cannot be proven. Only the alternative hypothesis might he proven one day or also rather not. Hence the situation is asymmetrical and thus the expectations from the participants on either side.
The scenario is equivalent to the question whether non-ionizing radiation (which visible light is being part of) within certain limits of power is harmful or not. The burden of proof is on the side of the anxious doubters as they have to proof that it is. The expectation that the others shall proof the non-existence of any possible harm makes as much sense as asking a suspect to proof that he is innocent.
Just as study results on the impact on e.g. wireless techniques on amimals and humans is unclear at best when non-thermal effects are included, self-proclaimed audiophile regularily fail when they are supposed differences in proper blind tests.
So the case is simple in the way that one single individual who can distinguish nowdays' DACs with statistical significance would suffice to prove the alternative hypothesis that differences lie in the range of "human possible" detectability. If there are so many alleged ones, the question arises why they don't go public and become famous with their proof.
Here, if you mean it seriously, you would have to go the next step and actually do one instead of remaining in the state of speculation.
If think if anything is annoying about hardcore audiophiles or "voodooists", it's not that they have their experiences and opinions, but that they declare their perceptions, which are as filtered and prone to error as enyone else's, to be facts and then show the certain ignorance of definitely not digging into the details as they are not really interesting in acquiring further knowledge.
I try, not always successfully, to keep my derogatory remarks to the *claims* not the people. It doesn’t seem to help, and some adjectives are taken as ad hominem (for instance “that’s an idiotic claim” sounds a lot to the recipient like “you are an idiot”).
“Unsupported by evidence” and “improbable” are not very exciting phrases, but they are usually on point.
I once had an argument with my brother about his assertion that using a particular legal tax deduction was “theft”. It was a good lesson in how attaching a bunch of *moral* freight to your arguments and word choices can also come across as overtly hostile.**
All of this to say it is possible to avoid ad hominem and still sound like you are calling someone a liar, thief, or moron. Maybe we should re-read our posts on a 5 minute delay when things get heated.
But this goes double for our subjectivist interlocutors
**particularly difficult in an election month when many of us feel there are indeed moral implications to Presidential policies etc. But I say that’s when it is even more important to observe *some* moral detachment in conversation with those who disagree with you. Like suspending disbelief.
“Unsupported by evidence” and “improbable” are not very exciting phrases, but they are usually on point.
I once had an argument with my brother about his assertion that using a particular legal tax deduction was “theft”. It was a good lesson in how attaching a bunch of *moral* freight to your arguments and word choices can also come across as overtly hostile.**
All of this to say it is possible to avoid ad hominem and still sound like you are calling someone a liar, thief, or moron. Maybe we should re-read our posts on a 5 minute delay when things get heated.
But this goes double for our subjectivist interlocutors
**particularly difficult in an election month when many of us feel there are indeed moral implications to Presidential policies etc. But I say that’s when it is even more important to observe *some* moral detachment in conversation with those who disagree with you. Like suspending disbelief.
Last edited:
Sokel
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 9,116
- Likes
- 9,739
The metric for "expensive" is time.Only.
If someone owns a 2000 euro DAC for two years while someone else changes eight (or more as it seems,based on user's posts here) 300-400 euro ones at the same time with absolutely none audible benefit then the cost is exactly the same given that the reselling value of cheap ones is next to nothing,specially at the end of their support or with their burned displays,end of service firmware after very short time,etc.
If someone owns a 2000 euro DAC for two years while someone else changes eight (or more as it seems,based on user's posts here) 300-400 euro ones at the same time with absolutely none audible benefit then the cost is exactly the same given that the reselling value of cheap ones is next to nothing,specially at the end of their support or with their burned displays,end of service firmware after very short time,etc.