Old_School_Brad
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2024
- Messages
- 1,165
- Likes
- 1,373
Or if you had just smoked a cigarette.Or just your mood even.
Etc.
Or if you had just smoked a cigarette.Or just your mood even.
I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.And how do you know that those perceived differences are not due to small level differences and/or purely psychological factors due to you knowing the brand, price, and aesthetic of what you are listening to?
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.Or just your mood even.
How do you know it's more fatiguing? You're unaware of which DAC is playing or is this sighted? If the latter then we can dismiss it until actual evidence emerges.I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
This is exactly the reason why blind testing protocols have been developed.Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
But what it all had in common was peeking. You just can't wave your hands to get around that.Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
Did you read my quote that Beave put in his post? My moods tend to change day over day. What I reported is that these preferences were conservative across days and listening sessions. Listening fatigue was an issue with one of the DACs and not the others.
There may be - but it is vanishingly unlikely. So until you bring actual evidence of your ability to hear actual differences, don't be surprised if the rest of us just assume there is not.I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
well ...Yes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).
In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.
kn
You’re right. It’s everyone else that is wrongYes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).
In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.
kn
Probably worth starting a new thread for this since it always starts with more questions than answers!After reading through the 14 pages can someone recommend me some DAC-s to consider for my first every hifi system?
I got fond of the Goldenear T66 speaker, I listend to it twice, this half active solution is good imho, since I love bass and don't have the ability to fine tune a subwoofer into it.
Thanks!
1)Audibly Transparent - lots of cheap DACs reviewed on this site, and most should have the connections you need (doesn't really matter)After reading through the 14 pages can someone recommend me some DAC-s to consider for my first every hifi system?
I got fond of the Goldenear T66 speaker, I listend to it twice, this half active solution is good imho, since I love bass and don't have the ability to fine tune a subwoofer into it.
Thanks!
https://archimago.blogspot.com/2024/05/high-end-dac-blind-listening-results.htmlYes, I do not argue that blind testing is important and needed to ultimately support such statements. But, I am just wondering, who here have conducted such a blind test of any HiFi equipment with human subjects that you would deem statistically rigorous? The ratio of posts on ASR asserting blind testing of audio gear is the gold standard alternative to bench top measurements to the number of members who have actually conducted such tests, or even the number of those test done by anyone is quite high. This is not a trivial undertaking to do well as described in the link below (and, see links in post #243 by @ahofer in this thread).
In fact, the threshold of effort required to do an effective consumer product test of stereo reproduction equipment with human subjects in a reasonably designed and equipped listening room is so high for the average audio enthusiast that it creates a generally insurmountable barrier to anyone attempting to scale it. An almost perfect defense of the bench measures only standard. And the reason why Amir’s reviews of modern DACs number in the hundreds, and the numbers of published human subject blind tests of modern DACs can be counted on one or two hands. just saying.
kn
Yes, there probably is, but it's going on in you, not the DAC.I don’t. But it turns out the DAC I find more fatiguing has a SINAD of 89 while the other DACs have SINAD measurements of 110 and 114 and both have excellent sharp filters. I understand that a DAC with a SINAD of 89 is supposed to be well below the threshold for human hearing, but there may be more going on here.
Neither do I. It's the rationalizing by inventing Golden Ears that's wrong.I don't think people who have different criteria are wrong.