• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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!

DACS Have they gone about as far as they can go?

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
1. You are trying to convince someone. In this case, you need to rely on accepted audio science/engineering to do so. Saying "I hear it and I have this theory of my own" is NOT acceptable.
2. You are asking questions. In this case you are welcome to bring your subjective experiences, asking if others can shed light on them being valid or not using audio science and engineering.
Okay, Amir, thanks for that clarification - yes, I don't have anything to say on this forum ... the key word there is "accepted" ...

... we're all doomed ... :p

Cheers, gents ...
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,537
Location
Seattle Area
Amir, are topics to be avoided which "accepted audio science/engineering" have nothing to offer? Topics like soundstage depth, timbre just to name two.
Are topics only allowed if measurements "proving" their audibility are available?
I didn't put limits on topics. I said that you can't advocate a point of view without accepted standards of audio science. You can ask questions however.

Has anybody ever analysed "demonstration records" produced by Chesky, etc which have tracks for Naturalness, Holographic imaging, presence, depth, etc? to show what the sound wave characteristics are that give such perceptual impressions or is the "accepted audio science/engineering" that this is all phooey?
I am not aware of those tracks. Create a new thread and ask those questions.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,537
Location
Seattle Area
Okay, Amir, thanks for that clarification - yes, I don't have anything to say on this forum ... the key word there is "accepted" ...

... we're all doomed ... :p

Cheers, gents ...
There is a good chunk of this forum that is about content and I see you posting useful things there. I would continue that.
 

John Kenny

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
568
Likes
18
I didn't put limits on topics. I said that you can't advocate a point of view without accepted standards of audio science. You can ask questions however.
Do you mean I can't state that I find A's soundstage is deeper than B without offering measurements or blind tests? If I say that I believe this may be due to small signal non-linearity do I have to now produce measurements? Can I not state that this is my speculative hypothesis ?

Maybe it would be useful if you listed the "accepted standards of audio science" ?

 

John Kenny

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
568
Likes
18
That's a subjective claim.
It's a perceptual observation


That's an objective claim. Scientifically verifiable via measurements.

No way for you to be cognizant of the difference. The problem in a nutshell.
I stated it was a speculation - you may like to address this in Plonk's thread instead of spreading your multitude of rants & ad homs all over the forum?[/quote]
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,537
Location
Seattle Area
Do you mean I can't state that I find A's soundstage is deeper than B without offering measurements or blind tests?
I did not limit you to those options either. The standard is what gets presented at an engineering/scientific conference such as AES, ASA, IEEE Spectrum, etc. Other types of explanation accepted there are references by other researchers, measurements, psychoacoustics, etc. Just a flat observation with no way to analyze it is not a topic there so won't be a topic here.

If I say that I believe this may be due to small signal non-linearity do I have to now produce measurements? Can I not state that this is my speculative hypothesis ?
I don't know how the word "believe" goes with something being "speculative hypothesis." Putting that aside, I am afraid you still can't say that. Simple reason being that the concept of "small signal non-linearity" and "deep soundstage" is not an accepted concept in audio engineering/science circles. You can talk about small signal non-linearity by itself and that would be fine. But connecting it to an audible observation is not the direction we want to go here. I hope you understand.

Maybe it would be useful if you listed the "accepted standards of audio science" ?
You had to put me on the spot, didn't you? :)

Accepted type of communication are:

1. References to research backing it. Like to see references and quotations.
Example: "side reflections can improve listener enjoyment. See Toole, Olive et. al.

2. Measurements.
Example: "DAC A has lower distortion, noise, jitter than DAC B as shown in this graph." Graph can be your own measurements or third-party.

3. Listening test results.
Example: We did a blind listening test where we matched the levels and my friend and I took turns and both of us could tell 8 out of 10 times which unit was which." Alternatively you can link to references by others.

4. Design and architecture.
Example: "PCM is better than DSD because it has less in-band noise due to required noise shaping in DSD."

5. Engineering excellence.
Example: "Use of an isolated USB interface reduced the opportunity for interference by the source."

Again, I want to be clear that these are the requirements and examples when trying to advocate a point of view. Nothing wrong with saying you swapped your speaker cables and think that the soundstage seems deeper to you. We get in trouble if you say "speaker cables with silver interconnects have better soundstage than copper."
 

John Kenny

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
568
Likes
18
I did not limit you to those options either. The standard is what gets presented at an engineering/scientific conference such as AES, ASA, IEEE Spectrum, etc. Other types of explanation accepted there are references by other researchers, measurements, psychoacoustics, etc. Just a flat observation with no way to analyze it is not a topic there so won't be a topic here.
Ok that's fairly limiting then


I don't know how the word "believe" goes with something being "speculative hypothesis."
To my mind "believe" & "speculative hypothesis" are one & the same thing?
Putting that aside, I am afraid you still can't say that. Simple reason being that the concept of "small signal non-linearity" and "deep soundstage" is not an accepted concept in audio engineering/science circles. You can talk about small signal non-linearity by itself and that would be fine. But connecting it to an audible observation is not the direction we want to go here. I hope you understand.
Up to this point it's clear but you throw a curveball at the end

You had to put me on the spot, didn't you? :)
Ah well, you knew someone was sure to ask so I risked it :)

Accepted type of communication are:

1. References to research backing it. Like to see references and quotations.
Example: "side reflections can improve listener enjoyment. See Toole, Olive et. al.

2. Measurements.
Example: "DAC A has lower distortion, noise, jitter than DAC B as shown in this graph." Graph can be your own measurements or third-party.

3. Listening test results.
Example: We did a blind listening test where we matched the levels and my friend and I took turns and both of us could tell 8 out of 10 times which unit was which." Alternatively you can link to references by others.

4. Design and architecture.
Example: "PCM is better than DSD because it has less in-band noise due to required noise shaping in DSD."

5. Engineering excellence.
Example: "Use of an isolated USB interface reduced the opportunity for interference by the source."
Right, got it so far

Again, I want to be clear that these are the requirements and examples when trying to advocate a point of view. Nothing wrong with saying you swapped your speaker cables and think that the soundstage seems deeper to you. We get in trouble if you say "speaker cables with silver interconnects have better soundstage than copper."
This is the curveball - are you now saying I can mention soundstage differences with a cable swap with blind test or measurments (as long as I don't mention small signal linearity)?
 

AJ Soundfield

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
1,001
Likes
68
Location
Tampa FL
it was a speculation
Of course. Your Modus Operandi.
So do tell us John, if you have not a clue about measurements or stereo soundfield depth, timbre, etc, etc, etc., how do you design and manufacture them into your DACs?
You are a DAC designer and manufacturer with no clue about any of this?
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,376
Likes
234,537
Location
Seattle Area
Of course. Your Modus Operandi.
So do tell us John, if you have not a clue about measurements or stereo soundfield depth, timbre, etc, etc, etc., how do you design and manufacture them into your DACs?
You are a DAC designer and manufacturer with no clue about any of this?
AJ, please be more polite and not so antagonistic.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Oh yes. You can say anything, no matter how improbable, if it is accompanied by measurements and or listening tests. It is the lack of those, combined with improbability that gets us in trouble.
Okay, what qualifies as a valid listening test?
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Blind and level matched.
Okay, what if A is the system with a faulty connection, and B is that same system, with the fault rectified?
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Okay, what if A is the system with a faulty connection, and B is that same system, with the fault rectified?

Same. If you re solder a dry joint you will most likely convince yourself the fresh joint sounds better even if there is no perceptible difference. Human nature.

Has to be blind.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Same. If you re solder a dry joint you will most likely convince yourself the fresh joint sounds better even if there is no perceptible difference. Human nature.

Has to be blind.
Oh dear ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

This is like extracting teeth with a pair of small tweezers ... we want to do a DBT between the A and B situations just mentioned - how ... do ... I ... do ... that ???
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Oh dear ... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:.

This is like extracting teeth with a pair of small tweezers ... we want to do a DBT between the A and B situations just mentioned - how ... do ... I ... do ... that ???

Im sorry Frank that you dont understand the point being made. I dont think I can present it any simpler way. Perhaps someone else may find the energy to try:rolleyes:
 

Opus111

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
666
Likes
38
Location
Zhejiang
Im sorry Frank that you dont understand the point being made.

Looks like once again its you BE who is misunderstanding. Frank is asking how to do an experiment - how to get a double blind comparison when there aren't two DUTs, rather one with/without a mod. Very basic.
 

March Audio

Master Contributor
Audio Company
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,378
Likes
9,317
Location
Albany Western Australia
Looks like once again its you BE who is misunderstanding. Frank is asking how to do an experiment - how to get a double blind comparison when there aren't two DUTs, rather one with/without a mod. Very basic.

Yes and I am still pointing out it has to be blind to obtain valid results. I havent misunderstood at all.

I am sure you can think up ways to do this such as use other subjects who dont know the change you have made.

In any case If the connection is that bad then you are fixing a fault rather than making any kind of improvement. So whats the point of the question?
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Yes and I am still pointing out it has to be blind to obtain valid results. I havent misunderstood at all.

I am sure you can think up ways to do this such as use other subjects who dont know the change you have made.

In any case If the connection is that bad then you are fixing a fault rather than making any kind of improvement. So whats the point of the question?
Hallelujah!!! A single ray of the sun pierces deep within the dark chamber, illuminating the hitherto untouched depths in a glorious burst of brightness ...

Yes, Virginia, we are fixing faults ...
 
Top Bottom